Sitting of 23 January 1973

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

    Income and Taxation
    Mr. Horamasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give total taxes as a percentage of original income plus cash benefits for a two adult/two child family with earnings of £1,500 a year, £2,000 a year and £4,500 a year.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): The most recent family expenditure survey shows that total taxes paid by such a family in 1971 amounted to around 32–33 per cent. of original income plus cash benefits at each of the three levels of earnings. The value of the cash benefits however falls—both absolutely and relatively—as the level of earnings increases.
    Mr. Horam: Does not that show how unprogressive our present system of taxation is? In the light of the Government's appeal for fairness, does not the Chief Secretary think that the onus is on the Government to do something radical about it very soon?
    Mr. Jenkin: The answer shows that in this medium range of incomes the total weight of taxation, both direct and indirect and including all cash benefits, is roughly of the same level. But, of course, it is based on the 1971 family expenditure survey figures and there have been considerable changes since then. Also, the figures encompass a very considerable range of incomes around each average and therefore the figures should be treated with a good deal of caution.

    Economic Growth
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made towards an annual growth rate of 5 per cent.
    Mr. Eadieasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied that his target of 5 per cent. economic growth in the economy is being achieved; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Norman Lamontasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect of the Government's anti-inflation policy on the 5 per cent. per annum growth target.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Anthony Barber): The latest indicators of demand and output and the falling trend in unemployment suggest that the economy is now growing at a rate broadly consistent with the Budget forecast. Success in reducing the rate of inflation will make it easier to sustain a rapid growth rate.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is not the Chancellor aware that some experts take a contrary view and that some of them are very pessimistic about the present position? Will he give a forecast about the balance of payments deficit for the year arising out of the consumer-led boom which we are now experiencing? Will he explain the reluctance of private investors to invest?
    Mr. Barber: There are other Questions on the Paper concerned with the balance of payments. The Questions now before us deal with growth. There is plenty of evidence to show that the economy is now growing at around the rate which I forecast in the Budget. Industrial production, for example, which is a very important indicator, was nearly 6 per cent. higher in the three months to November than a year earlier. Retail sales are 6 per cent. higher than a year ago and new car registrations are more than 15 per cent. higher. Unemployment on a seasonally-adjusted basis has fallen by 173,000 since March.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: in the event of an apparent conflict between the objective of a 5 per cent. growth and the objective of the abatement of inflation, which would have the greater priority?
    Mr. Barber: I do not believe that the policies we are pursuing are producing any inconsistency whatever.
    Mr. Healey: Is it not the case that the welcome increase in growth in recent months has been largely because Government policies last year increased consumption about three times as fast as national wealth, and was not this one reason for the very heavy deterioration in our balance of payments? Is it not also the case that under the Government's proposals for the coming year consumption will increase at only about one-third of the rate at which they hope to increase national growth? What does the Chancellor propose to do to ensure that the welcome growth we can see at the moment is maintained for the next two years, as the Prime Minister promised the other day?
    Mr. Barber: One of the main reasons for introducing the measures announced by my right hon. Friend last Wednesday, which I hope will have the support of the Opposition in the national interest, was to be able to maintain a more rapid growth rate. I am, however, a little surprised that anyone who supported the Labour Government's policies of restriction and economic stagnation should criticise the present Government on anything to do with the growth rate. The previous Government deliberately held back the growth of the economy to an average rate of less than 2 per cent. a year. It was a disastrous policy and, what is more, the Opposition know it.

    Money Supply
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the increase in the money supply (M3), expressed as an annual rate, during the latest period of three months for which figures are available; and if he will now revert to the former practice of publishing targets for the expansion of domestic credit over the period of the financial year in course.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: In the three months to mid-December M3 increased at an annual rate of about 24 per cent. The latest figures emphasise how right we were to take the measures we have taken recently to moderate the growth of money and credit to rates consistent with our
    196
    objectives for the economy. In present circumstances I do not think it would be desirable to give hard and fast numerical targets for the expansion of monetary aggregates.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is my hon. Friend alarmed by this latest reversal of the slight reduction which we previously experienced in the rate of acceleration in the money supply? To what extent does he think it is related to the Government's public spending programmes coming home to roost, and what relationship is there between this and the phase 2 legislation which we are to discuss later in the week?
    Mr. Jenkin: I can only emphasise what I have already told my hon. Friend: that I think that the December figures, which were to the middle of December, indicated that it was right to have taken the earlier action which was taken and the action which was announced before the figures were made public. I would have thought it would be wrong to place too much emphasis on a single month's figures. Although the trend is higher than it was earlier in the autumn it is substantially below what it was in the summer, and it remains the Government's intention to bring the growth of money supply more nearly into line with the money growth of the economy.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: When the Chief Secretary is talking about not placing too much reliance on one month's figures, he might remind the Chancellor of some of the things his right hon. Friend said on the basis of one month's figures. On the whole question of money supply and public expenditure, as the Government have forecast that public expenditure is to grow next year at the rate of 5·3 per cent., will the Chief Secretary tell us what growth rate he is planning for private consumption?
    Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman will know that it has been the custom of successive Chancellors to give forecasts of that nature only at the time of the Budget and I will not anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement. As for the question of the growth of money supply, the hon. Member's point never arose under the previous Administration because they never published monthly figures.
    Mr. Ridley: If the Government are hoping for a rate of growth of 5 per cent. per annum, what is the point of having a rate of growth of money supply which is in excess of that?
    Mr. Jenkin: We have always made it clear that it is Government policy that our stance on money supply should be consistent with the rate of growth my right hon. Friend announced in his Budget Statement. As he told the House last year the rate of growth of money supply was higher than was necessary to achieve that, and we have been running it down. Measures taken recently will reinforce that intention.

    £ Sterling (Value)
    Mr. Ashtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest value of the £ sterling compared with June 1970.
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what, on the basis of the General Index of Retail Prices, is the purchasing power of the £ sterling, taking it as 100p on 18th June 1970.
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the value of the sterling compared with 1st July 1970.
    Mr. Kaufmanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what, on the basis of the General Index of Retail Prices, is the purchasing power of the sterling now, taking it as 100p on 18th June 1970.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): Taking the internal purchasing power of the £ sterling as 100p in June 1970, its value in December 1972, the latest date available, is estimated at 82p. This estimate is based on the movement in the General Index of Retail Prices.
    Mr. Ashton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on the last three occasions he has answered this recurring Question the value of the £ has always gone down by 1p per month? When is the freeze supposed to start working?
    Mr. Higgins: I should emphasise that in the December price index period the retail price index rose by about ½ per cent. and that per cent. of that increase was due to higher food prices, partly
    198
    due to seasonal factors and partly due to the world beef shortage. There was very little increase in non-food prices. It was less than one-quarter of 1 per cent.
    Mr. Skinner: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House why, in the first month after the freeze, prices were higher than in the preceding month? I am astounded that, when the Minister comes to the Box on numerous occasions to answer this Question, he trots out such phrases as "Things are looking up", "We are turning the corner" and "If we take the appropriate measures things will change." Can he give us a guarantee that as a result of phase 1, phase 2, and the prospect of phase 3 the £ will not fall another 5p under the present Administration?
    Mr. Higgins: I am never astonished that the hon. Member is astounded because he has immediately asked a question which I answered a moment or two ago. He must listen to the answers which are given. I must confess that I do not recognise the remarks which he has attributed to me. The essential thing here is that the Government should introduce the proposals which we have made and which we believe will make a significant contribution—as, from the figures I have quoted, it is apparent the standstill has done.
    Sir G. Nabarro: My hon. Friend has twice mentioned food prices. Has he any proposal to hold food prices in check or is the whole of the freeze exempted from food prices, and the other way round? Are food prices to be taken out of the freeze?
    Mr. Higgins: My hon. Friend will appreciate that if food prices rise on a world basis we as a country have to pay more. Since he has asked a specific question about food I am sure that he and hon. Members opposite will welcome the fact that with the abolition of SET on 1st April there will be a reduction in the tax on food distribution and in other taxes which hon. Members opposite introduced. We are thus reducing the tax on food, in contrast to the previous Government's action.
    Mr. Kaufman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the first month of this fraudulent freeze the pay of a worker on

    199
    average rates of pay was cut by 15½p a week and the pension of a married pensioner was cut by 5½p a week? Is he proud of that as an achievement? When will the Chancellor abandon his stubborn arrogance and do something about food prices?
    Mr. Higgins: I do not believe that my right hon. Friend is either stubborn or arrogant. The point is that in the 12 months to December 1972 retail prices rose by 7¾ per cent. whereas average earnings increased at least twice as fast. In real terms pensions in December were 11 per cent. higher than in mid-1970 and there was also the extra £10 paid to pensioners. I believe that this answers the hon. Gentleman clearly.
    Mr. Rost: If the Labour Party is really concerned about the fall in the value of the £, why has it consistently opposed a voluntary agreement on incomes in the national interest?
    Mr. Higgins: I hope that hon. Members opposite will adopt a more responsible attitude towards these matters in the future than they have in the past.
    Mr. Healey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has just admitted that food prices went up 1½ per cent. in the first month of the freeze which means an annual rate of increase in the retail price index of 6 per cent.? How can he expect any ordinary working person to co-operate voluntarily in total control of incomes when the Government absolutely refuse to do anything about the appalling rise in food prices?
    Mr. Higgins: I have already given the figures and I rest on them. I am not quite sure whether the right hon. Gentleman heard them correctly. As for the overall position I should make it clear that if world prices rise, as a nation we necessarily have to pay more. Dealing with the proposals for wages and incomes I have already given the position for the 12 months to December. Whereas retail prices rose by 7¾ per cent. average earnings rose at least twice as fast. The important thing is that we should support the measures which the Government are introducing, which will help to cure inflation, will have a significant impact and will benefit the entire country.
    Mr. Sydney Chapmanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the purchasing power of the £ sterling, based upon the General Index of Retail Prices, assuming it to have been 100p on 6th November 1972; and what it was on 6th December 1972 and 6th January 1973.
    Mr. Higgins: Taking the internal purchasing power of the £ sterling as 100p in November 1972, its value in December 1972, the latest date available, is estimated at 99½p. This estimate is based on the movement in the General Index of Retail Prices.
    Mr. Chapman: I am grateful for that reply. If one makes the assumption that in the last two months there has been an effective fall in the value of the £ of probably 1 per cent., can my hon. Friend tell the House what was the effective fall in the value of the £ in the two months prior to 6th November?
    Mr. Higgins: I am sorry. If my hon. Friend will table a specific Question in those terms I will give a specific answer. The precise position in answer to his question is that the value of the £ on the basis I have described is 99½p.
    Mr. Brian Walden: What I am interested in, and I am sure that the whole House, especially my side, is interested in it, is an answer to a question that has puzzled me for a long time. At the last General Election the Conservative Party promised that the return of my party to power would lead to the "ten bob" £—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this a question?
    Mr. Walden: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Has the Treasury done any calculations about when the "ten bob" £ will become a reality?
    Mr. Higgins: The important point which needs to be emphasised is that we should take measures which will prevent the decline in the value of the £. We are determined to do that.

    Property Tax
    Mr. Meacherasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will propose the reintroduction of Schedule A tax.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: No, Sir.
    Mr. Meacher: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that because there is no Schedule A tax and no capital gains tax on excessive rises in house prices, the average executive earning over £5,000 a year has gained about £14,000 in untaxed housing capital gains under the present Government while during exactly the same period the average tenant has been forced to pay an average of 30p a week more in rents? Is this not a grotesque inequality, as offensive to the Chancellor as the land speculation of which he purports to disapprove? When will he stop this and land speculation?
    Mr. Jenkin: I cannot see how it would conceivably help the tenant to hit at the position of the owner-occupier. To re-impose the old Schedule A—there is a new Schedule A on rents—would hit at the expansion of owner-occupation, something which has been supported on both sides of the House, would impose new burdens on existing owner-occupiers, would impose a much greater burden on those who have paid off their mortgages, many of whom will be elderly retired people, and would require a large number of extra Revenue officials. It would be interesting to know whether that is the policy of the Labour Party.
    Mr. Jay: If the hon. Gentleman will not do as my hon. Friend asks, will he at least set a ceiling for tax relief on mortgage interest since this is becoming a scandal and is one of the main causes of the present high price of houses?
    Mr. Jenkin: The position of tax relief on mortgage interest is exactly as it was left by our predecessors in June 1960.
    Mr. David Stoddart: If the Minister will not agree to either of these proposals will he try to bring some fairness into the system as between owner-occupiers and rent-payers, who do not draw a subsidy from any source, by allowing rent-payers to set a proportion of their rent against tax?
    Mr. Jenkin: That is a wholly different question.

    Value Added Tax
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his discussions with the retailing organisations on the value added tax.
    Mr. Barber: We have had a number of discussions with retailers about the abolition of purchase tax and SET and the introduction of VAT. The retailing organisations have been most co-operative and helpful, and I am grateful to them. I look forward to these discussions continuing.
    Mr. Dalyell: As it is now seven months since a row on both sides of the House led the Government to set up the Munro Committee to deal with the tax on children's shoes, why has no decision yet been arrived at? Surely this is not the most complicated subject in the world.
    Mr. Barber: It may not be a complicated subject but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Mrs. Munro's excellent report is a full and comprehensive one. In these circumstances it is necessary that it should be most carefully considered by my right hon. Friends and myself. We are doing that.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: Will the right hon. Gentleman reverse his outrageous decision to penalise in particular small retailers who have not registered for VAT by 31st March, through no fault of their own but because of the extreme complications of the tax, and thus allow them credit for purchase tax on stocks?
    Mr. Barber: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, in view of his professional qualifications, should say that mere registration is a difficult or complex matter. This is not so. The fact is, and it is as well that those concerned appreciate this, that it is in the interests of people to register as soon as possible because of this rebate of purchase tax.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will my rigor hon. Friend accept that what the public want is the right answer on VAT and children's shoes, and not necessarily a speedy one as the Opposition seem to want?
    Mr. Barber: It was as a result of the responsible attitude adopted by some of my hon. Friends who felt strongly about this matter that the Munro Committee was set up.
    Mr. Duffyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress he has made with explanations to, and registrations of, retailing organisations for value added tax.
    Mr. Higgins: Retailers registered for VAT are being visited and advised by Customs and Excise officers, who have already addressed over 7,200 meetings representing all sectors of trade, including retailers. Explanatory notices have been issued. A special leaflet for small retailers has been issued and another will be issued this month.
    More than one-third of the estimated number of retailers required to register had been registered by 15th January.
    Mr. Duffy: Is the Minister aware that everything points to the vital registration process falling seriously behind schedule because, as he has just reminded the House, only half a million businesses have so far registered whereas it was intended to register 1½ million by the end of next month? How, therefore, will he avoid serious administrative problems?
    Mr. Higgins: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. At the same time I would not wish to be complacent. It is important to remember that there are not only the number which have actually been registered—the figure I quoted a moment ago—but also those applications which are now being processed at the VAT headquarters in Southend and a substantial number of applications in local VAT offices. None the less I emphasise, as my right hon. Friend said a moment ago, that unregistered traders will still be liable for the output tax when it comes into operation and will not be able to claim back input tax or the purchase tax rebate. Therefore, it is in the traders' own interest to register as rapidly as possible.
    Dr. Stuttaford: Does my hon. Friend agree that shoe retailers will not know how they are placed until they know about the application of VAT to children's shoes? Will he confirm or deny that the Munro Report has now been with the Treasury for many weeks?
    Mr. Higgins: My right hon. Friend has dealt with that and, as he has said, he will deal with the question in his I3udget Statement.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the payment of fees by retailers to organisations advising them on the complexities of value added tax are allowed as a tax deductible expense.
    Mr. Higgins: Expenditure on advice on the operation of VAT would normally be allowed as a deduction in computing profits for income tax or corporation tax purposes.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that, since it has become known how complex VAT is, large numbers of individuals and organisations have set themselves up as VAT consultants? Does he agree that this is probably the only growth industry we have seen under the present Government?
    Mr. Higgins: No, I would not agree with that for one moment. I suggest that individual retailers or others with particular problems should consult their local VAT office, which will be pleased to help them.
    Mr. Walter Johnsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now say that he will zero-rate value added tax on children's clothes and footwear.
    Mr. Higgins: I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.
    Mr. Johnson: Does not the Minister realise that the imposition of VAT on essentials such as children's clothing and footwear will bear most heavily on poorer families? How does this line up with the Prime Minister's recent statement on the pay and prices legislation that he wants to protect the lower paid? Come off it! Let us have zero-rating on children's footwear and clothing.
    Mr. Higgins: This matter was debated at considerable length in the Finance Bill debates last year. Again, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Since the exemption of child-size clothes as opposed to children's clothes would give an unfair bonus to small-size adults whereas it would in no way help the parents of large-size children, will my hon. Friend consider instead assisting parents by means of tax or other allowances?
    Mr. Higgins: I have taken note of what my hon. Friend says, as no doubt has my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Dalyell: For how many weeks has the Munro Report been with the Treasury?
    Mr. Higgins: I am afraid I do not have that information.
    Mr. Costainasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated value added tax loss to the Treasury in a full year on the basis that the items listed in the Finance Act 1972, Schedule 5, Group 1 (Exemption from VAT for certain interests in land) were zero-rated instead of exempted.
    Mr. Higgins: Probably over £50 million.
    Mr. Costain: Will my hon. Friend consider how much easier administration would be if the items on this list were zero-rated?
    Mr. Higgins: Be that as it may, the figure I have just quoted is one which we need to consider very carefully.
    Mr. Joel Barnettasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reconsider his decision not to postpone the introduction of value added tax, in view of the number of traders who have failed to register.
    Mr. Higgins: No, Sir.
    Mr. Barnett: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider that answer in view of the fact that so far, only 336,000 traders have registered out of a total of 1,500,000, and bearing in mind the points which have been made about the state of the Civil Service, particularly the Customs and Excise officials, and the certainty—which must flow from those figures and other information available to the Treasury—that traders are not ready to cope with this enormously complicated task? Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that many people believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken leave of his senses in introducing a tax of this kind at a time when he is putting forward totalitarian measures of a kind which have never before been used in this country? Does he not agree that it is outrageous to introduce such a tax at the same time as he seeks to introduce wage controls?
    Mr. Higgins: I do not for a moment accept the hon. Gentleman's remarks. As for the conjuncture of the introduction of
    206
    value added tax and the Government's prices and incomes policy, he will be aware that in the Government's White Paper we propose specific measures for the introduction of VAT. I am a little surprised that the hon. Gentleman has again raised the general question. When we debated the subject very fully before Christmas on a Supply Day, the Opposition had so little enthusiasm for their own motion that they could not muster enough Members to keep the debate going.
    Mr. Ridley: Does my hon. Friend agree that to postpone the introduction of VAT for the simple reason that traders have not bothered to register would give traders a weapon for all time in that they could put off a tax by the simple process of refusing to register? If the rule of law means anything, will my hon. Friend firmly tell the House that he has no intention of postponing the introduction of VAT?
    Mr. Higgins: I have made absolutely clear, as has my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that we have no intention of delaying the introduction of VAT or of delaying the abolition of SET and purchase tax. I do not accept the remarks of the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) about registration, but at the same time we are not complacent about the situation. We believe that it is in everybody's interest that traders should register as soon as possible, given the fact that unregistered traders cannot deduct input tax. They will still be liable for output tax and they will not be able to take advantage of the purchase tax scheme if entitled to it.
    Mr. Gorstasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in every instance in which value added tax is levied, it will be possible for the person providing a product or service to pass on the tax to the consumer; if not, what estimate his Department has made of the proportion of the tax that will be levied in this way; which industries are likely to be so affected; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Higgins: Such information is not available.
    Mr. Gorst: Will my hon. Friend undertake to reconsider the position of traders and those who supply a coin-operated service who are unable to pass on the tax to the consumer? Since this tax is expected to be paid by the consumer, will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that this matter will be reconsidered?
    Mr. Higgins: I am afraid I cannot give an undertaking of that kind. I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's concern on this topic which he has raised on a number of occasions. The difficulty in regard to coin-operated machines arises on the question of discontinuity in terms of the large size of coin unit in which the amount is paid. None the less the introduction of VAT and the abolition of SET and purchase tax is a change in costs, and the industry has coped with similar changes in costs where precisely the same problems have arisen. I believe that it will succeed in coping in this instance.
    Mr. Brian Walden: Has the Treasury now provided an answer to the coin slot problem better than the one we had in Committee concerning launderettes—namely, that people should buy a season ticket?
    Mr. Higgins: That was one of the points raised in Committee and I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's continuing interest in this subject. Whenever there are changes in costs, there are always problems for the operators of coin-operated vending machines and other coin-operated machines. I do not regard this as a unique problem connected with the introduction of VAT and the abolition of SET and purchase tax, and I do not believe that this will necessarily create any more problems than any other changes in costs, which have been experienced by the industry.
    Mr. Gorst: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

    External Debt
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsbergasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present total of medium and short-term official overseas debt; and how this compares with October 1964 and June 1970.
    Mr. Barber: The total of short- and medium-term official external debt, converted at parity rates, was as follows: at end-September 1964, £71 million; end-June 1970, £1,461 million; and at the present time, nil.
    Mr. Finsberg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those are extremely interesting figures? Will he arrange to let the House have similar figures a little more frequently as they show exactly what inimical results the trade union movement is achieving when it tries to sabotage national industry?
    Mr. Barber: One thing which we determined to do when we took office in June 1970 was to rid ourselves of this debt which had been contracted by the previous Government.
    Dr. Gilbert: In view of the galloping deterioration in the balance of payments position over the last few months and the predictions of the London and Cambridge model, which is very close to the model used by the Treasury, will the Chancellor say whether he intends during the next few months to deal with the situation by imposing more exchange control, by borrowing abroad or by facing a haemorrhage of reserves and letting the rate sink even further, with serious results to the cost of living and the payments to be made to the European Community?
    Mr. Barber: In the Budget Statement on 6th March I shall be dealing with the balance of payments. Not only have we repaid all the official debt but, in addition, our reserves are now twice as large as they were when the hon. Gentleman's party left office.
    Mr. Jay: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who no doubt carries all these figures in his head, tell us what was the balance of payments deficit in October 1964, June 1970 and January 1973?
    Mr. Barber: I have a faint suspicion that the right hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that question.

    War Widows' Pensions
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost of removing the tax on the pensions of war widows.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The information on which to base an estimate is not available.
    Mr. Goodhart: Will my hon. Friend remember that Germany and Italy—and this will apply eventually to all our partners in the European Community—do not impose any tax on the pensions of war widows? Will he also remember that in the forthcoming Budget he has the opportunity not only to help these widows but also to strike a blow for European tax harmonisation?
    Mr. Jenkin: It is with great hesitation that I correct my hon. Friend, but Denmark is among several countries, which include the Netherlands and Italy, which impose tax on war widows' pensions. We have always taken the view—because it would give nothing to those below the tax threshold and be of maximum benefit to those with substantial other income—that to exempt these pensions from tax is not the right way to help war widows. Instead we aim to increase the level of war widows' pensions whenever that is possible.
    Mr. Ashley: Is the Minister aware that, while it is difficult to disentangle the problems of war widows from those of widows generally and the problems of widows generally from those of other single-parent families, the Government appear to be incredibly indifferent to the plight of these disadvantaged families? When will some initiative be taken on behalf of these people on the same lines as that which has been taken for surtax payers?
    Mr. Jenkin: I must contradict the hon. Gentleman. I just do not believe that his accusation bears any relation to reality. On the contrary the Government have done more to give specific help to those families which face specific problems than did their predecessors. We can stand proudly on our record on this.

    Car Tax
    Mr. Madelasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for the special 10 per cent. car tax announced in his last Budget; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Higgins: A general guide to car tax procedure was issued in September by the Customs and Excise to car manufacturers and commercial importers and arrangements for the introduction of the tax on 1st April are going steadily ahead.
    Mr. Madel: When the announcement of this tax was made last April the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised chat he would keep it under constant review. As the costs of materials for the motor industry have risen since April, and as the highest level of demand for cars is essential to full employment in the motor industry, does my hon. Friend feel that 10 per cent. is too high?
    Mr. Higgins: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. Lipton: Why not abolish altogether the car tax and simplify the procedure by increasing the price of petrol?
    Mr. Higgins: I have noted the hon. Gentleman's suggestion with some interest, but the car tax was debated at considerable length in the Finance Bill debates and is now incorporated in the Finance Act.

    Nationalised Industries
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will co-ordinate the activities of Ministers responsible for nationalised industries with a view to bringing the industries back to profitability.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I would refer my hon. Friend to Paragraphs 17 and 18 of the White Paper on Controlling Inflation (Cmnd. 5205). Existing arrangements for co-ordination between Ministers are satisfactory and are working well.
    Mr. Ridley: Does not my hon. Friend agree that spending over £500 million a year on subsidising the nationalised industries and those industries not having to pay interest on their capital contributes to the increased money supply which is causing inflation? To curb inflation, would it not therefore be right to begin to get back to the level of profitable charges in this sector of the economy?
    Mr. Jenkin: My right hon. Friend and, indeed, the Government have never concealed from the House or the country

    211
    that there are significant disadvantages in pursuing a policy of price restraint in the nationalised industries. But in our view these are outweighed by the advantage of achieving greater price stability at a time when we are trying to bring the general level of price increases more under control. My hon. Friend will have taken note of the provisions in the White Paper that in stage 2 the nationalised industries will be subject to the same criteria for increasing prices as is private industry.
    Mr. Sheldon: Will the Chief Secretary tell the House what will be the criteria for profitability for the nationalised industries? At present it looks as though they will receive an open-ended subsidy. If so, there will he no criteria of profitability to replace those which we have known for some years.
    Mr. Jenkin: There is no question of an open-ended subsidy for the nationalised industries. The extent to which they will be allowed to increase their prices and charges will be rigorously controlled and, apart from profitability, is on the same basis as that which applies to private industry.

    Customs and Excise Staff
    Mr. John Grantasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about his meeting during the recess with the Customs and Excise Departmental Whitley Council to discuss departmental morale, problems arising from the introduction of value added tax, the effect of the pay freeze and other matters.
    Mr. Barber: I saw representatives of the Staff Side of Customs and Excise Departmental Whitley Council on 10th January and I took note of their views.
    Mr. Grant: Will the Chancellor acknowledge that, contrary to the impression he gave not long ago, morale in the Department of Customs and Excise is very unsatisfactory and that there is gross overworking, mainly because of EEC entry, the implications of VAT and the grossly unfair treatment of the Civil Service in the current freeze? Is he not setting the worst possible example as an employer?
    Mr. Barber: I do not think so. I appreciate the concern of those who came
    212
    to see me about the pay standstill but I hope that they, like the public at large, will recognise the justification for what the Government are doing. We had a very useful discussion covering a variety of matters.
    Mr. Eadie: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the House is not impressed with the so-called fairness with which he claims to have treated the Civil Service? Is he aware that the pensions of civil servants on the eve of retirement will suffer as a consequence of the freeze? Does he think that that is fair?
    Mr. Barber: The problem is an obvious one. When one imposes a standstill one does one's best to make it as fair as possible between one group of employees and another, and this we have done.
    Mr. Ridsdale: I support my right hon. Friend's policy, but I ask him to look closely into this matter because some of the lower-paid civil servants who work alongside people who are making much more money are having to work overtime, and there is justification for the hard feelings that some of them have.
    Mr. Barber: I note what my hon. Friend says, but I cannot support any proposal which would result in different treatment—other than what we have laid down—for those individuals about whom he is speaking during the standstill.

    Exchange Rate
    Mr. Jayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his proposed policy for £ sterling is a fixed exchange rate or a fixed but adjustable rate; and when this will be put into force.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: We intend to return as soon as conditions permit to the maintenance of a fixed parity within agreed margins, against the background of an international monetary system based on a regime of fixed but adjustable parities.
    Mr. Jay: Will the hon. Gentleman make rather clearer than he has done in his answer whether what the Government propose to adopt is a regime of fixed parities or of fixed but adjustable parities?
    Mr. Jenkin: I am well aware that the right hon. Gentleman seeks to find some inconsistency between the use of the phrases "fixed rate" and "fixed but adjustable rate". There is none. What we shall return to is a fixed rate. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to find an implication that membership of the Communities means that parities must be immutably fixed now, he will not be able to do so. In the first stage, and probably in the second stage, of the move to European economic and monetary union—although that is still a good way ahead—changes of parity during those phases will be possible.

    NORTH SEA OIL AND GAS
    Mr. Douglasasked the Prime Minister if he remains satisfied with the co-ordination between the Scottish Office and the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment with regard to the formulation of policy for the development of North Sea oil and gas pending the publication of a White Paper; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Yes, Sir. I am satisfied that there is close co-ordination between Departments on this matter. I do not think a White Paper would be appropriate: a report to Parliament was presented on 16th January and Government measures are announced as the opportunities develop.
    Mr. Douglas: Does not the Prime Minister accept that the response to the IMEG report by the Government has been puerile and timorous in setting up a branch office of the Petroleum Industry Supply Board in Glasgow? How many civil servants or others will that branch office employ? Will not the Prime Minister update the figures of reserves in the North Sea so that we can see the full potential of the finds there?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The Government's response to the report has been to put in Scotland as large a share as possible of the organisations concerned in this important development. It is right that it should be allied to the organisation which exists here in White-
    214
    hall; I am sure that is the best way to produce results. Any estimate of reserves must depend on progress made in drilling in the North Sea. From time to time we give estimates and try to keep them up to date as far as possible.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Will my right lion. Friend say whether the new development committee, which incorporates civil servants from both Departments mentioned in the Question, has any locus in planning matters as well as in development questions?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the planning questions will remain with the normal authorities, but the Scottish Petroleum Office will be part of the Scottish Industrial Development Office in Glasgow. There will also be a branch of the DTI Petroleum Division in Glasgow. This, combined with the North Sea Oil Development Committee as part of the Scottish Economic Planning Board, should cover the ground.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: The Prime Minister should be aware of the fact that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction in Scotland at the lack of power in the Scottish Office to take any initiative on likely oil revenues and environmental control of associated developments. Will he reconsider the establishment of some sort of development corporation, as has been suggested by the Scottish TUC and the Scottish Council, which could have a much more direct control over oil policy in Scotland?
    The Prime Minister: I am fully prepared to consider proposals of this kind but I emphasise that we gave much consideration to this organisation as a result of the report we received. I do not agree that the Scottish Office is inhibited in taking the initiative. Indeed, many people have paid tribute to the speed with which matters have advanced in Scotland. The Scottish Office has stepped in to prevent any undesirable environmental effects.

    TAXATION (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
    Mr. Ashtonasked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to

    215
    the Gimcrack Club on 8th December on taxation matters.
    Mr. Meacherasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech at York on 8th December concerning taxation.
    The Prime Minister: I did so on 11th December, Sir.
    Mr. Ashton: Is the Prime Minister aware that in that speech he said that he may have been a source of gain to the people who backed him at the last election? Was he talking about people on the same salary as himself who are £6·16 a week better off because of the income tax cuts, or was he referring to the price of horse meat which has risen as high as the price of beef?
    The Prime Minister: In that speech I was talking about those who backed me against the public opinion polls. They did rather better at the last election than those who backed the Leader of the Opposition.
    Mr. Meacher: Since the Prime Minister referred in that speech to the fairness of his Government's taxation reforms, especially VAT, why is VAT being introduced to push up prices during a prices freeze at exactly the same time as the abolition of the surcharge on unearned income will give the lion's share of £300 million a year almost wholly to the rich?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has no justification for the first part of his remarks about the impact of VAT. As we explained in the White Paper action is being taken to ensure that in terms of the reflection in prices this is carried out. In any event, we shall be debating this tomorrow.
    As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, two-thirds of the benefits which will follow from unification go to those with incomes below £5,000 a year, and 30 per cent. will go to the 11 per cent. of taxpayers who have retired.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: While my right hon. Friend is considering putting copies of various speeches in the Library, will he also consider placing there a copy of the full text of his recent presidential—
    216
    I mean Prime Ministerial—Press conference so that we can examine it and discover whether representatives of the Press are as good at putting questions to him as we are?
    The Prime Minister: If it is not already in the Library, it can be easily put there.

  OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT
  Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister what progress has been made in consultations on the recommendations of the Franks Report on Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act.
  The Prime Minister: The Government have not yet completed their examination of these important recommendations: we are considering their implications for the whole range of Government business and we will announce our conclusions on them as soon as possible.
  Mr. Hamilton: In view of recent evidence of the Government and the police together trying to muzzle the Press, does not the Prime Minister recognise that it is very important that this House should have the chance to debate the Franks Report before the Government take their decisions? Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a lot of opinion in the country and among members of the Press that the implementation of the Franks recommendations, far from reducing secrecy in government, will tend to increase it?
  The Prime Minister: I am prepared to consider the last part of the hon. Gentleman's observations. This is a very important report and they are complex matters. That is why it is taking time to consider them. The Government said at the beginning that they would wish to have an expression of public opinion on it before making up their minds on the recommendations about whether legislation should be introduced. I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman said in the first part of his supplementary question. There was no attempt to muzzle the Press. The action was taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions on evidence made available to him. The hon. Gentleman must face the fact that I am constantly pressed to safeguard all information in Government Departments.

  217
  If he believes that it is right and justifiable for documents to be stolen from Government Departments, he must say so.
  Mr. English: Rather than use the vague phrase "as soon as possible", does the Prime Minister ever fix targets within which relatively simple decisions should be made? Is "as soon as possible" two weeks, months, years or what? People are beginning to want to know when this decision will be made. I do not necessarily mean today, but we should like some indication of when it will be made.
  The Prime Minister: Yes. The target is "as soon as possible".

  COUNTER-INFLATION PROPOSALS
  Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister what plans he has for further meetings with the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress on the question of the economy.
  Mr. Redmondasked the Prime Minister what plans he has for further consultations with the Confederation of British Industry and Trades Union Congress on economic policies.
  Mr. Strangasked the Prime Minister what plans he now has to have further discussions with both sides of industry about the second phase of the Government's policy on inflation.
  The Prime Minister: Before announcing the second stage of the Government's policies to control inflation, I had a series of meetings with representatives of the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress and the retail trade. We intend to continue these discussions or to exchange views on particular points with any of the parties in the light of the proposals contained in the White Paper (Cmnd. 5205), and of course we will be consulting them on the Price and Pay Code.
  Mr. Skinner: It looks as if the TUC has given the right hon. Gentleman the slip. Is he aware that in the absence of the TUC, which has at last learned some sense about this matter, he ought to invite some of his real friends next time?
  218
  I mean people like Lord Watkinson and Henry Plumb who speak with the real voice of the Prime Minister when they say that cheap food has gone for ever. The right hon. Gentleman might invite the Director-General of the Food Manufacturers' Federation—[An HON. MEMBER: "Ask a question."] This is not a question—
  Mr. Speaker: Did I hear the hon. Member say that this was not a question? If it is not a question it is completely out of order.
  Mr. Skinner: I withdraw that last remark, Mr. Speaker. It is a question. Will the Prime Minister invite the Director-General of the Food Manufacturers' Federation, who said last week that if the sugar grant is abolished, by the end of this month all manufactured foods containing sugar will be subject to increases in price of up to 15 per cent.?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman refers to discussions with representatives. We had discussions with the whole retail trade and obviously that included the food manufacturers. Food manufacturers are subject to the controls. To deal with the hon. Gentleman's general point, he had better await the results of the discussions in Brussels.
  Mr. Redmond: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at least in Bolton there is a large body of trade union opinion solidly behind Tom Jackson in what he says about the TUC attitude? Is it not time that this moderate voice of the silent majority was widely heard in the country?
  The Prime Minister: We have had discussions with the TUC's representatives. There were the tripartite talks in Chequers and there have been the bilateral talks since. I believe that it is right for these talks to continue.
  Mr. Strang: Is the Prime Minister aware that people are not impressed by gimmicks such as the elaborate price monitoring mechanism in the DTI or the Ministry of Agriculture and the recent inquiry into beef prices? Does he not realise that his policy on wages will never be successful as long as food prices continue to escalate? Is it not intolerable that at a time when farmers are making sharply increased profits from

  219
  beef prices the Government take millions of £s out of the pockets of farm workers by freezing a wage increase which ought to have come into operation yesterday?
  The Prime Minister: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is incorrect. We have explained that phase 2 is not a standstill but a wage arrangement which we believe is what the economy can stand. We should have liked a voluntary agreement, but we believe that it is right to ask Parliament to approve it.
  In reply to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, the farmers' position will be taken into account in the Price Review which begins next month.
  Sir Gilbert Longden: Has my right hon. Friend any reason to think that the Sunday Press, apart from its natural desire to spread alarm and despondency, had any good evidence for prophesying that phase 3 would be tougher than phase 2?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. There was no reason whatever for prophesying that and there is no point in the Leader of the Opposition trying to shut his eyes to it. The details of phase 3 will be discussed in the usual way with the CBI and the TUC. The purpose is to achieve an improvement in people's real standard of living without having excessive wage increases which push up prices and make us uncompetitive overseas. That is not a tougher policy. It is a policy to improve the real standards of living of the people.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: Does the Prime Minster accept full responsibility for the ministerial action last Saturday in putting out stories about the likely tightening up under phase 3? Does he accept responsibility for it? Does he even know that it happened?
  The Prime Minister: There was no such ministerial action. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If the right hon. Gentleman will consult paragraph 32 of the White Paper he will find the position set out clearly.
  Mr. Wilson: Since paragraph 32 of the White Paper was available at one o'clock last Wednesday, will the Prime Minister explain why it was not interpreted in this way by a single news-
  220
  paper? Nearly every Sunday newspaper so interpreted it and next day the Daily Telegraph referred to "ministerial briefings" and "devious means" of putting out that story.
  The Prime Minister: I repeat that there was no ministerial briefing that phase 3 was to be a tougher policy. The paragraph in the White Paper sets out clearly the purpose of improving the real incomes of the people. If the right hon. Gentleman still wishes to be reassured about an improvement in real incomes he should look at that paragraph and accept it, as people did at the Press conference at Lancaster House.
  Mr. Wilson: I have read paragraph 32. No one on Thursday, Friday or Saturday so interpreted it until the ministerial conference on Saturday morning.
  The Prime Minister: It was there for everybody to see. It was accepted as such until certain industrial correspondents interpreted it the way the right hon. Gentleman did. [Interruption.] I repeat, there is no justification for what the right hon. Gentleman said.
  Several Hon. Members——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that there is to be a debate on these matters tomorrow.

LIFE SENTENCES
Mr. Edward Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on an answer which I received from the Home Office yesterday, which is reported in col. 24 of the Official Report. The Minister of State, Home Office, declined to give the average number of years served by persons released from prison after serving life sentences on the ground that such information was unrealistic and could be misleading.
On 11th February last year I asked the Home Secretary for the same information, the average figures for each of the years 1961–1971, and was provided with that information in great detail. This astonishing change of attitude will be difficult to explain at any time; but I should point out that, as this figure is one of the key statistics relevant to my Private Member's Bill on Friday, I should

221
like to ask whether you, Mr. Speaker, can protect me and the House against the withholding of information which was supplied last year and could, if disclosed, greatly influence any decision which may be made by the House on Friday.
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for indicating to me beforehand that he proposed to raise this point of order and the nature of it. This is not a matter for me. I have consulted Erskine May, and the answer there is that an answer to a Question cannot be insisted upon if the answer be refused by a Minister. However, I have no doubt that the hon. Member's point has been noted.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to my hon. Friend if the information which we gave in reply to his Question did not wholly answer it. I understand that the arithmetic to divide the figure into an average is not done, but I will make sure that my hon. Friend gets the information today.

BILLS PRESENTED

  COUNTER-INFLATION
  The Prime Minister, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Whitelaw, Mr. James Prior, Mr.
  222
  Secretary Rippon, Mr. Secretary Campbell, Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Secretary Peter Thomas, Mr. Secretary Macmillan, Mr. Joseph Godber, Sir Geoffrey Howe, and Mr. Attorney General presented a Bill to establish a Price Commission and a Pay Board; to authorise the formulation of the principles to be applied by those bodies; to afford powers of control over prices, pay, dividends and rents; to provide for the furnishing of information about rates; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 51.]

  WATER
  Mr. Secretary Rippon, supported by Mr. Secretary Peter Thomas, Mr. Joseph Godber, Mr. R. Graham Page, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, and Mr. Eldon Griffiths presented a Bill to make provision for a national policy for water, for the conferring and discharge of functions as to water (including sewerage and sewage disposal, fisheries and land drainage) and as to recreation and amenity in connection with water, for the making of charges by water authorities and other statutory water undertakers, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 52.]

DIVORCE LAW REFORM (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.34 p.m.
Mr. William Hamilton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law of Scotland relating to divorce, dissolution of marriage and judicial separation, and to the power of the court to award interim aliment; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
The need for such reform is recognised as necessary by the Scottish Law Commission, the Scottish Law Society, the Church of Scotland and the Scottish Office as well as a large body of enlightened opinion. Indeed, the Scottish Office has kindly agreed to help me in the drafting of such a Bill.
The names of the sponsors indicate all-party support, so in that sense it is a non-party, non-controversial measure. It will be generally similar to the contents of a Bill introduced last year by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes), which received an unopposed Second Reading but got into Committee too late to ensure its enactment.
It is now just over two years since the new English law came into operation. That Act recognised that a marriage could break down irretrievably without any matrimonial offence having been committed. Therefore, it provided for divorce after two years' separation if both parties agreed, and after five years' separation if the petition were contested.
The Scottish law is still based on the principle that there can be no divorce unless a matrimonial offence has been proven. I believe it is the general wish that the law on this matter as between Scotland and England should now be harmonised.
The proposed Bill would seek to meet the criticisms made of my hon. Friend's Bill by the Law Society and others. They were criticisms of detail and wording rather than of any fundamental principle: for example, on the question whether a marriage had irretrievably broken down because one of the parties had
"at any time behaved, whether as a result of mental abnormality or not, in such a way that the aggrieved party, that is, the pursuer, cannot reasonably be expected to cohabit with the defender."
224
The Scottish Law Commission has felt, for reasons which I need not expound, that it would be better to retain incurable mental illness as a separate situation evidencing irretrievable breakdown. The commission also proposes to retain the power in the court to refuse a decree where the pursuer has been guilty of such wilful neglect or misconduct as has conduced to the defender's mental illness.
My hon. Friend's Bill also abolished, in effect, the defence of connivance where the situation evidencing breakdown was the defender's adultery. The Scottish Law Commission does not think this is acceptable, and proposes that that defence, which in any case operates only rarely, should be retained.
One further point of difference from my hon. Friend's Bill concerns proof of actual physical separation of the partners over the requisite period. A judgment in the English Court of Appeal, Santos v. Santos-1972 2 Weekly Law Reports, page 889—held that:
"mere physical separation for two years was not sufficient to constitute living apart ', and that a petitioner had to prove not only the factum of separation for two years but that he or she had ceased to recognise the marriage as subsisting and intended never to return to the other spouse, albeit that the petitioner's state of mind need not be communicated to the other spouse."
It is proposed in the Scottish Bill to make it clear that physical separation of the spouses is sufficient to evidence breakdown of the marriage in so far as it is possible to obtain a suitable form of words to deny the construction put upon the wording of the English Act of 1969 by the Court of Appeal, to which I have referred. This is a Committee point of some substance which could, no doubt, be debated if I am given permission to bring in the Bill.
Last year's Bill made no provision for any judicial discretion to refuse a divorce if the five years' separation situation were established. This contrasted with Section 4 of the English Act, which put a duty on the court where the defender opposed on the grounds of grave financial or other hardship in the event of the dissolution of the marriage. The Scottish Law Commission is now of the opinion that there is some need for an overriding discretion to be vested in the court to refuse a decree in a situation where grave financial hardship would be

225
inflicted upon a defender. Certain English reported cases suggest that this power is not likely to be lightly used, and the proposed Bill would in any event be more tightly drawn in this respect than its English counterpart.
The financial provisions are, of course, crucial. They will be similar to those contained in the 1972 Bill. It is thought desirable to add a provision empowering the court to award a capital sum for the children of the marriage. There are various other provisions designed to improve the composition of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend last year.
The Labour Government, as a matter of deliberate policy, provided time for the House to decide matters of social consequence and controversy which cut across party lines. Few will doubt that the legislation so passed has been of immeasurable benefit. The present Government, for good or ill, have adopted another policy and indicated that every Bill of this nature must take its chance. Flow, ever, this Bill could well be made an exception to that general rule on the ground that it is supported by the Government Department most immediately concerned, the Scottish Office; by the Church of Scotland; by the Scottish Law Commission; and by the Scottish Law Society. In that spirit, I beg leave to introduce the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Hamilton, Mr. Ronald King Murray, Mr. Bruce Millan, Mr. J. Grimond, Mr. Hugh D. Brown, Mr. Robert Hughes, Mr. Ian MacArthur, Mr. John Smith, Mr. Dick Douglas, Dr. Gavin Strang and Mr. Tam Dalyell.

DIVORCE LAW REFORM (SCOTLAND)
Bill to amend the law of Scotland relating to divorce, dissolution of marriage and judicial separation, and to the power of the court to award interim aliment; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 9th March and to be printed. [Bill 53.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  FURNISHED LETTINGS (RENT ALLOWANCES) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.41 p.m.
  The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Paul Channon): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland).
  Mr. Channon: As the House will know, the Bill provides for rent allowances to be granted to tenants of furnished accommodation. It fulfils an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the former Minister for Housing and Construction during the Report stage of the Housing Finance Bill in April last year. My right hon. Friend then said that we had reached a position where we could embark on formal consultations with the local authority associations with a view to working out a practical and effective scheme for providing rent allowances for tenants of furnished accommodation. Subsequently, in August, my right hon. Friend announced that with the help of the local authority associations a practical scheme had been devised and the Government would bring forward legislation as soon as possible.
  I believe—I know that there are other views in the House—that we have found a fair and workable way of overcoming the difficulties, which I admit to the House are considerable. Now for the first time, if the House agrees to pass this legislation, tenants who are renting furnished accommodation and have difficulty in affording their rent have the prospect of getting a measure of assistance towards it.
  The House will see that the Bill seeks to widen the scope of the rent allowance schemes which local authorities have been required to operate since 1st January. Largely for that reason, but partly to facilitate the consolidation of housing legislation, the Bill takes the form of a series of amendments to the two principal Acts. The amendments are contained in the two schedules—Schedule 1 for

  227
  England and Wales and Schedule 2 for Scotland. I appreciate that this way of doing things makes the Bill a little difficult to follow, and I apologise for that. To assist the House we have produced in the form of a Cmnd. Paper, Cmnd. 5183. a textual memorandum which shows the relevant provisions of the two principal Acts that would appear if the proposed amendments in the Bill were made. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will find the document helpful in understanding what is proposed in this measure.
  On the best estimate that we can make there are about 600,000 furnished lettings in England and Wales. In Scotland, as the House will know, they form a much less significant part of the housing pattern. There are only some 28,000 in Scotland.
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon Dr. J. Dickson Mabon (Greenock)
  rose——
  Mr. Channon: The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) will be able to make his point if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker.
  Of the 600,000 furnished lettings in England and Wales, some 40 per cent. are in Greater London. There is a particularly heavy concentration in the Inner London boroughs of Camden, Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster. Outside London in the South-East there is a relatively high proportion of furnished lettings. There are probably just over 100,000. The remainder are scattered more or less evenly across the country. Birmingham, for example, has approximately 20,000. There are smaller concentrations in Manchester. Liverpool, Leeds and Bristol.
  The furnished tenant population is extremely varied. It includes both the very rich and the poorest. Furnished tenants in general are younger and more mobile than those who live in unfurnished accommodation. The tenants survey undertaken in the London conurbation in 1970 for the Francis Committee showed that the head of household in furnished tenancies was under 25 in about 43 per cent. of such tenancies, as opposed to 15 per cent. in unfurnished lettings. In a further 35 per cent. of furnished lettings the household head was under 35. Over
  228
  60 per cent. of the furnished tenants interviewed in the survey had moved into their accommodation in the previous 18 months, and only 9 per cent. had rented their home for more than five years.
  In London in particular, and to a lesser degree in other big cities, there are many young single people, typically four or five, sharing a flat, among whom there is a heavy turnover. As well as that, there are many single people of all ages in rooms. Sometimes they are lodgers sharing some of their accommodation with the landlord or other tenants. Some of them are in furnished accommodation because they want a base only for a short time, perhaps to do a seasonal job or for an extended holiday. There are many variations to which attention can be drawn if one looks at single people who have furnished lettings as their accommodation.
  Apart from single people there are also families. We must help these families. Indeed, we must concentrate on helping them with rent allowances. About a quarter of all furnished tenancies are occupied by families. Among these families are some of the poorest in the country. They live in furnished accommodation because that is the only type of housing they can get. Although overall the proportion of households with children tends to be lower in furnished accommodation than unfurnished accommodation, in the stress areas of London, where the great problem largely exists, the tenants survey found that 49 per cent. of furnished lettings were occupied by families. I am only too well aware that all too often these families are living in entirely unsatisfactory conditions. Far more people in the furnished sector are living in a room or rooms than in a flat, and overcrowding is more prevalent.
  I think that the House will agree that the furnished tenant population is very varied. As many hon. Members will know, and there are many hon. Members present representing the London constituencies, the pressure on furnished accommodation is in places very severe. I hope that we can start on the basis that there is general agreement on both sides of the House that in all our policies paramount consideration must be given to avoid doing anything that will make the position of these people any worse. We must do what we can to improve it.

  229
  I turn briefly to the main provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 requires local authorities to vary or replace their existing rent allowance scheme in April so as to take account of the amendments proposed in that scheme by the Bill.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: I take it that the Minister will later return to what is not in the Bill; namely, the implementation of the recommendation of the Francis Committee. I have been misled by Ministers, perhaps not unintentionally, that the recommendation of the Francis Committee would be incorporated in the Bill. Will the Minister explain that matter at some stage? Perhaps he will proceed to argue against the Francis Committee's recommendation.
  Mr. Channon: With great respect, the hon. Member may have confused the position. I shall deal with security of tenure because that is included in the reasoned amendment put forward by the Opposition. I shall deal with that later. The Francis Committee recommended very strongly against security of tenure.
  Dr. Mahon: I did not refer to that.
  Mr. Channon: Then I do not know to what recommendation the hon. Gentleman referred. I will turn to the points raised in the reasoned amendment raised by the Opposition. If I fail to cover the hon. Gentleman's point, no doubt he will interrupt me again.
  Dr. Mabon: Unless I have completely misread the Bill, and it is not an easy Bill to follow, I understand that recommendation 26 on page 226 of the Francis Committee's Report, which was published in March 1971, will not be implemented in the Bill. That recommendation is that furnished tenancies will be brought into the fair rents system. I am not referring to the minority recommendation of Miss Lyndal Evans relating to security of tenure. I want the Minister to tell us why he is not incorporating recommendation No. 26.
  Mr. Channon: What I am doing is meeting a genuine wish on both sides of the House—there may be argument about whether it is being fulfilled—as expressed repeatedly in the debates on the Housing Finance Bill, that we should extend the system of rent allowances from
  230
  unfurnished to furnished tenancies. This is not a Bill to reform the structure of the furnished rented sector. If it were, it would be much bigger, wider and more complicated. It merely extends the provision of rent allowances to the furnished sector, as my predecessor was pressed to do.
  I will deal with security of tenure, because that is raised in the Amendment, but this is a limited Bill, which I do not pretend is the last word in the furnished sector. However, it is well worth supporting for what it contains.
  Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: We are to have amendments to Section 25 of the Housing Finance Act, under which, in effect, the Bill will work on the assumption that the scarcity factor will be 20 per cent. There will be considerable differences and anomalies if we have two separate systems for rent assessment—one under the rent tribunal and the other under the rent officer. I hope that the Minister will deal with the arguments for not accepting the recommendation of Francis—we will come on to the other argument about security later—that the two systems should be assimilated because the resulting anomalies will make the system almost unworkable in high-stress areas where the differentiation between the regulated rate and the furnished rate is much greater than 20 per cent.
  Mr. Channon: I understand the points raised by both hon. Members. The House will recall what my predecessor said about the recommendations of Francis last year and the Government's wish to legislate in due course about Francis. This Bill does not do that, and that may be a point of criticism. It is a limited measure to extend the provisions of rent allowances to the furnished sector. It does not attempt to deal with some of the other recommendations of the Francis Committee with which, no doubt, the House will want to deal on other occasions. I am sure that we shall come in due course to all the recommendations of Francis. This is a rent allowances Bill, not a rent Bill—
  Dr. Mabon: This is perfectly in order.
  Mr. Channon: I am not saying that it is out of order; I am simply saying what

  231
  I am doing. What hon. Gentlemen seek to argue is a matter for them.
  To return to what the Bill does rather than what hon. Gentlemen say it should do, Clause I requires local authorities to vary or replace their existing rent allowance schemes in April to take account of the amendments in the Bill. Local authorities will have to widen the scope of their rent allowance scheme to apply to furnished as well as unfurnished tenancies. April is the earliest by which it would be reasonable to expect them to take on this additional task.
  There will be considerable work for the small number of authorities with a large number of furnished lettings in their area, but if local authorities want to grant allowances earlier than the mandatory date, there is nothing to stop them, if the Bill is enacted, just as a handful did for some unfurnished tenants at the beginning of October rather than at the beginning of January.
  Because the Bill provides for furnished tenants to get rent allowances under an extension of the existing scheme, most of the arrangements in that scheme will apply to furnished tenants in exactly the same way. The rules for the calculation of an allowance will apply. There will be the same needs allowance, for example, and furnished tenants will benefit from the same date as will unfurnished tenants from the increase of £3·50 in the needs allowance which my right hon. Friend announced last week.
  Tenants who already qualify for a rent allowance will be entitled to a larger allowance than previously envisaged. For example, a married couple with two children and a weekly income of £35 and a rent of £4 do not at present qualify for an allowance. Under the new scale they will be entitled to one of 49p. My hon. Friend will be delighted to give many other examples if required, when he winds up.
  The administrative arrangements for applications and grants of rent allowances provided in the earlier legislation will apply, and furnished tenants will have exactly the same rights and safeguards as unfurnished tenants.
  On the point which has worried some local authorities, the provision in Section 8 of the Housing Finance Act for paying rent allowance subsidy will apply to
  232
  allowances paid to furnished tenants on precisely the same basis; that is to say, up to 1975–76 the Government will meet 100 per cent. of the cost and from 1976–77 the rate of subsidy will be at least 80 per cent. or any higher percentage that may be specified.
  Any improvements on the model scheme which a local authority has imported into its allowance scheme will apply equally to furnished tenants and there will be the same scope for the authority, within certain financial limits, to grant somewhat more generous allowances in individual cases of special hardship than its scheme provides for.
  But there are two respects in which the rent allowance scheme will operate rather differently in regard to furnished tenants. These take us to the heart of the Bill, for these are the issues which have been much the most difficult to resolve. They are: which tenants should be eligible to claim an allowance?; and: how much of the rent paid by the tenant should fall to be met by an allowance? As in the case of unfurnished tenants, we have based our definition of furnished tenants on the Rent Act, and the Bill applies to persons who occupy a dwelling under a contract under Part VI of the Act.
  We have also included "boarders". Part VI of the Rent Act does not extend to contracts where the rent includes a payment for board which forms a substantial proportion of the whole rent. But it seemed to us that rent allowances should be extended to persons whose rent includes payment for one or more meals, because there may well be people in this situation who should get help with their rent.
  Now we come to the dilemma, and it is a very real one. I see from the amendment that the Opposition are suggesting that we should give allowances to all furnished tenants who qualify, I suppose on the relevant income grounds—[Interruption.] If I have misunderstood, no doubt this will be made clear, but the amendment refers to the "restricted" provision in the Bill. If that applies only to the amount, there is no dispute between us. But if it means that every tenant who qualifies on income grounds should get an allowance, there is a difference, and it is

  233
  an important point which I should explain to the House.
  We can surely all agree that the problems of the great pressure on the furnished sector are acute—in particular, the problems of the large number of families who live in furnished accommodation—and what I am not prepared to do is anything which will make those problems worse. If we gave rent allowances to every furnished tenant, there would be even greater pressure on the furnished rented market and we could make the task of helping those who need help even more difficult. I hope and believe that that would be the wish of the whole House, and I am sorry to see, if I have understood it correctly, an alternative point of view in the amendment.
  Therefore, we have defined certain categories of qualified persons. A qualified person is defined in paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 either as someone whom the local authority is of the opinion would suffer hardship if the allowance were not granted or as someone falling within a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State. There are two categories. The general category of hardship and those who fall within the regulations.
  We really must start cautiously, because the increases allowed by the Bill are not those that would be necessarily laid down for all time. There is plenty of scope for extension, and the House may express a view on that. What we must not do, by giving grants of rent allowances to all tenants of furnished accommodation, is to create a situation where those families in furnished accommodation find it more difficult. We must be prepared to consider extending the scope of the scheme when we have some experience of its operation. That is why we have provided that anyone who the local authority considers would suffer hardship without an allowance should be eligible. That also explains, partially, why we are seeking power to prescribe in regulations rather than in the Bill—which would otherwise have to be a much larger enactment—those categories of tenants who will be eligible as of right.
  We are here breaking completely new ground in providing rent allowances for tenants of furnished accommodation, and
  234
  if the House wishes, we shall be able to alter or to add to the categories as time goes by. My right hon. Friend proposes to prescribe the categories in regulations, which the House will have the opportunity of praying against if it so wishes. Also, I should like to have the views of the Advisory Committee on Rent Rebates and Rent Allowances, which is to be set up under Section 23 of the Housing Finance Act and which my right hon. Friend hopes to appoint shortly.
  I must give the House some indication of what use, at least at this stage, we intend to make of the powers.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: In dealing with questions of definition, is not the Minister aware that the Francis Committee was at pains to point out that there was great uncertainty at present in defining a furnished tenancy and made a specific recommendation about that? Is not this an appropriate time, therefore, to consider this aspect of the matter at the very least?
  Mr. Channon: That may be the view of hon. Members. The Government have expressed their views on the Francis Committee recommendations on repeated occasions. All I am saying today is that I am trying to introduce a fairly modest measure; I am not trying to transform the whole of the furnished rented sector. That is a task which may well come but it is not one I am asking the House to approve today. If hon. Members wish to deal with that aspect, no doubt they will seek an appropriate occasion.
  Mr. George Cunningham: I think I am right in saying that the Government have not so far found an opportunity of doing anything about the Francis recommendations. In respect of one of the recommendations, the Government said that they would find the first legislative opportunity to give effect to it, and they had to be shown an opportunity to give effect to it. With this Bill coming up, surely some of the more modest recommendations of Francis, which are most relevant to the Bill, could have been fitted in without transforming the Bill from a modest measure into a major housing measure.
  Mr. Channon: I cannot agree about that. Once one started upon the road of

  235
  Francis—a road which, perhaps, we all ought to follow—it would become a very important Rent Act indeed. This would be a quite different Bill and a Rent Act. That might be something worth doing, but that is not what I am doing today.
  It is always easy to criticise Ministers for not producing Bills that they have not produced, but perhaps I may be allowed to deal with the Bill we have produced. Perhaps hon. Members are trying to get off on to Francis. Today I am asking the House to accept that the Bill is a very substantial step forward for furnished tenancies, and I hope that people will not demean it. I pay credit to the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) for his noble efforts in dealing with the problem of harassment and the part he played in that. He will be glad to know that the new penalties can come into force, and we shall debate that on a suitable occasion.
  Our object is to concentrate this new form of help on those tenants who have clearly established that they have settled down in furnished accommodation and are making their home there, and who are most readily identifiable as being in need. With that in mind, our thoughts at present are that these categories of tenants would be entitled to allowances as of right, if they qualified on grounds of rent and income: first, all families with children, including all single-parent families, who have been living in the local authority's area for at least six months; second, all old-age pensioners or tenants whose wife or husband is of pensionable age and who have been living for a similar period in the authority's area; third, all tenants with the same residential qualification who have a pensioner in their household. Fourth, there are the single tenants and the couples who have no children and no older people living with them. That is where the real difficulty comes. For them, I believe that there must be a longer qualifying period of residence in the authority's area and, perhaps, an age limit. But this is something on which I shall value the views of the House and the help of the advisory committee. I believe that this is the right approach, at least to start with. But we will, as we must, consult the advisory committee on our proposals before the regulations specifying the categories are
  236
  made; and naturally I shall listen to the views expressed as the Bill goes through Parliament.
  All those furnished tenants in these specified categories will be eligible to claim an allowance as a right. In addition, local authorities will have a duty to grant a rent allowance to any furnished tenant who in their opinion would suffer hardship if he were not granted an allowance. The Bill provides that local authorities should arrive at their opinion in accordance with such guidance as may be given by the Secretary of State.
  This provision is not an attempt to muzzle local authorities and to remove any effective discretion from them. It is there at the request of the local authority associations, because they realised that otherwise there would inevitably be wide variations between one authority and another, which would be very undesirable. Our guidance will be given by way of circular. Again we shall put our proposals before the advisory committee, and I shall be glad to take account of any suggestion that hon. Members may make But we shall be prepared to amend the guidance as our experience of the scheme increases.
  At present we intend to include among those who should be regarded as likely to suffer hardship any tenants who are registered as chronically sick or disabled or who have someone so registered in their household. We shall also include tenants undergoing psychiatric treatment or who have been recently bereaved or separated. There will be other similar groups. There would be no restriction of residence or age in any of these cases. It is unlikely that our guidance will be able to deal with all the possible cases, and local authorities will have discretion to deal with those not mentioned in the guidance as they think fit in the light of our advice.
  To sum up, local authorities will grant rent allowances to all those in hardship categories as I have described. All pensioners and all those with families will get allowances and there will be some single people who do so as well. We shall keep under permanent review the qualifying categories. But the important point is that all those in hardship will qualify.
  Mr. Michael Meacher: On the question of the categories, will the Minister confirm that cross-reference from paragraph 22 of Schedule 1 would seem to indicate that tenants of rented residential caravans will be excluded? Will he explain why, because these undoubtedly include some of the very poorest people?
  Mr. Channon: To save the time of the House, perhaps my hon. Friend will deal with that when he winds up the debate.
  I must come now to the second main difference that the Bill provides for—which I think hon. Members have been criticising—in the operation of the rent allowance scheme in relation to furnished tenants. That is the calculation of the amount of rent which is eligible to be met by an allowance. The relevant provisions of the Bill are paragraphs 17 and 26 of the First Schedule. I will try to explain the effect of these paragraphs as simply as I can.
  I am sure that there will be no disagreement that a rent allowance should not be paid on that part of the rent which is paid for the furniture, otherwise the tenant of furnished accommodation would be at considerable advantage over the tenant of unfurnished accommodation. It would place an extremely heavy burden on local authorities if they were expected to assess the value of the furniture in a dwelling and to deduct an appropriate amount on that account from the rent being paid. On the other hand, to base the rent allowance on the fair rent that would be fixed for the dwelling if it were let unfurnished would work to the tenant's disadvantage. There is widespread agreement that the rent for furnished accommodation contains an element that is not reflected either in the fair rent that the dwelling would command if it were let unfurnished or in that part of the rent which is paid for furniture. I could detail the reasons why that is so, but I do not think that the House disputes it.
  The problem we had to face was how to allow for this in the rent, and what we have done, with the agreement of the local authority associations, is to assess it at one-quarter of the fair rent that the local authority estimated that the dwelling would command if it were let unfurnished. The amount of rent eligible to be
  238
  met by an allowance is therefore, subject to two provisos, 125 per cent. of the estimated fair rent for that dwelling if it were let unfurnished. That would be the amount eligible for allowance. The two provisos are, first, that that sum-125 per cent. of the fair rent—should not exceed the rent actually being paid by the tenants, and that is obvious; second, that it should not exceed any reasonable rent that may have been fixed for the accommodation as a furnished letting by the rent tribunal.
  If a tenant is paying £6 rent for a furnished letting and no reasonable rent has been set for it and, let us say, the authority estimates the fair rent for the dwelling let unfurnished at £4, the amount towards which rent allowance would be payable is 125 per cent. of £4; that is, £5. On the other hand, if the authority assesses the fair rent at £5, the 125 per cent. figure would be £6·25 but, as it cannot exceed the amount actually paid, the allowance would be payable in that case towards the rent of £6. It is extremely difficult to know that the 125 per cent. figure is right. It is very difficult to obtain evidence on this, and difficult to obtain evidence to the contrary.
  We may find, after experience of the scheme's operation, that a higher or a lower proportion of the estimated fair rent would more properly reflect the facts of the situation. Again we should alter that amount by order, and any such order will be made by Statutory Instrument subject to negative resolution.
  I know that many hon. Members think that the most important part of the Bill is that which deals with the take-up of the allowance for which it provides, and I share their concern about rent rebates. The figures from a cross-section of local authorities are very encouraging. On average, about 35 per cent. are getting rebates compared with our estimate that about 35 per cent. to 40 per cent. would qualify.
  Mr. Reginald Freeson: The Government's figure was 40 per cent.
  Mr. Channon: We said 35 per cent. to 40 per cent. If I am wrong I apologise, but I seem to remember saying that.
  When it comes to rent allowances for private tenants, the picture so far seems

  239
  to be less satisfactory. Initial response has been slow, but the scheme has been operating for only three weeks so far and it is bound to take time to build up. We were always aware that this would be a problem. We are advertising it extensively—we are spending £600,000 on it in the current year—and we shall continue to give publicity to it by every means. If any hon. Members have new ideas for publicising the scheme I shall be glad to hear of them. If, however, one finds that the take-up is unsatisfactory, that is no reason for not proceeding with the scheme. What we must do is to increase the take-up.
  Mr. Julius Silverman: The hon. Gentleman may be interested in the Birmingham take-up because for nearly four years the city has been operating a scheme of providing allowances for furnished tenancies, and it has been operating the new scheme since 1st October. Out of an estimated figure of more than 18,000 furnished tenancies, the take-up is 21 or less than one in a thousand.
  Mr. Channon: If those figures are right they point even more to the need for take-up. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is arguing that we should not have the scheme.
  Mr. Silverman: No.
  Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman is saying that we should be more concerned about take-up, and I shall be glad to hear any suggestions that he has to put forward for ensuring that the take-up is improved. We can all make destructive points. I want to hear constructive points about how we can increase take-up, because that is what we all wish to achieve.
  Mr. Silverman: My contention is that without security of tenure the scheme is nearly meaningless.
  Mr. Channon: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he did not give the take-up for unfurnished tenancies.
  Mr. Silverman: That, too, is very small.
  Mr. Channon: If that figure also is low, it means that security of tenure makes little difference to the hon. Gentle-
  240
  man's calculations. I am sure we all want to ensure the largest take-up we can, and any ideas for bringing that about would be welcome.
  As for furnished tenants, there should be no need for them to hold back from applying through fear that their landlord may get to know and will know of their financial circumstances. An application for a rent allowance is a confidential matter between a tenant and his local authority, and so the landlord can and should be quite unaware of such an application. Even where a fair rent has to be estimated, in the great majority of cases this can be done without the landlord's knowledge. We shall stress this point to local authorities after the Bill is enacted.
  Some hon. Members will say—indeed, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) said it a moment ago—that none of this is of any avail unless furnished tenants are given full security of tenure. I understand that to be the view of the Leader of the Opposition and no doubt it is shared by his colleagues. I have considerable sympathy with those hon. Members on both sides of the House who want to improve the lot of furnished tenants, and I understand the view of those who say that the answer must lie in extending full security to furnished tenants, but I must ask the House to reflect on all experience in this field. The Government are not prepared to contemplate any measure which might, in a short time, seriously prejudice the well-being of hundreds of thousands of tenants. I must therefore ask the House to look at the evidence.
  Who would benefit, and who would lose, if there were full security of tenure for furnished tenants? It is obvious that the beneficiaries would be existing tenants—or, at least, existing tenants who were satisfied with their accommodation. But who would lose? The Government believe—and I shall come to the evidence in a moment—that to give full security for furnished lettings would lead to an immediate and irreversible loss of accommodation. Empty property would be withdrawn from the market, and since the furnished sector includes a high proportion of transient tenants the amount of property which the landlords would take off the rented market would grow very quickly.

  241
  The losers, therefore, are existing tenants who need to move, perhaps because they have changed jobs or because of growing families. But if there is no accommodation to let on the market, they will not find the fact that they have security where they are of any help. Similarly, people arriving in London from other parts of Britain and from abroad, students coming to university, people whose jobs have been temporarily switched to London, and new families—all these people might find that there is no room for them within the private rented sector. It will be more—not less—difficult to find accommodation. The result could well be not reduced homelessness, which we all want, but more homelessness, and no one can accept such a risk lightly.
  I may be right or wrong, but every report on this problem since the war has come to the conclusion that I have advanced to the House. The history of rent control provides little comfort for those who believe that the housing shortage can be solved by regulation. Homelessness in the end arises from a shortage of supply of housing. It is a problem which, thank God, is not local, but it is ghastly and acute in parts of the country, and in particular in London.
  All the evidence is that rent control in itself reduces the supply of rented accommodation. Unfurnished accommodation in the private rented sector has shrunk to under 3 million tenancies. The latest evidence in London, derived from the 1971 census, is that unfurnished accommodation for renting is declining by as much as 50,000 dwellings—or nearly 10 per cent.—a year. On the other hand there has been some growth in the furnished sector, though it does not compensate for the decline of unfurnished accommodation. This reflects a situation which the whole House must recognise. I do not think anyone can pretend that it is an easy issue. Whatever the short-term benefits of giving full security to furnished tenants, the longer-term result will be a significant and severe reduction in the availability of accommodation. All history shows that to be so.
  I agree with those hon. Members who are disturbed by the implications of this
  242
  evidence. This is what the Francis Committee—certain portions of whose recommendations hon. Gentlemen opposite want me to implement—meant when it gave a solemn warning against extending full security to furnished tenants. Whatever we think of the committee and its recommendations, there is no doubt about the importance that it attached to this recommendation and to the solemn warning that it would be a disaster to attach full security to furnished tenancies. This was not a committee which I set up. It was set up by the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) when he was in office.
  The House knows that the previous Administration did not deal with this problem of security of tenure for furnished tenants, and I think that the consequences of extending help to the extent suggested by the Leader of the Opposition—and it may be suggested by the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) this afternoon—must be faced fairly and squarely. I am not prepared to do anything that will make the situation worse rather than better. The right way to do something for furnished tenants—I accept that they need extra help—is to assist them through the Bill by providing rent allowances. We are not abandoning furnished tenants. On the contrary we are helping in a real and practical way and in full awareness of our responsibilities for ensuring an adequate supply of accommodation.
  The Opposition amendment refers to the increasing homelessness in the stress areas of our cities. I am as concerned as anyone in the House that there should still be people in this country who, for whatever reason, find themselves homeless.
  Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and I had a meeting with the London boroughs to discuss with them some of the problems related to homelessness and what could be done to deal with the problem of homeless families. This is in many ways the most worrying aspect of the problem, and therefore the one on which the London working party, set up after the reports on homelessness, concentrated its first report.
  The right answer is easier to state than to achieve. It is to find these people a

  243
  proper and permanent home. In the long run this is indistinguishable from the overall problem of adequate housing in London to meet all the needs for it, and on this problem my Department has been working continuously with the London boroughs and with my hon. Friend with his action group for the last two and a half years. In the short term, however, solutions to family homelessness must be found within the limits set by the existing housing stock. The most urgent immediate action is therefore to probe and to use every means to ensure that all accommodation suitable for family housing and which is or could be made available is brought into use to help with this problem of homelessness.
  Most London boroughs have already adopted many of the recommendations of the London working party on improving their organisation and means of helping the homeless. Yesterday we discussed a wide range of possible ways of bringing every suitable dwelling into use. The London boroughs and the GLC are following up a number of suggestions and we plan to meet again soon to continue, together, our drive on this problem, which is a serious and ghastly one.
  Although we concentrated yesterday on family homelessness, we are all conscious of the major and growing problem of homelessness among single people as a whole. I am making an urgent study of possible solutions to this problem and hope to have an early and full discussion with the London boroughs and the GLC and to put proposals to them at the earliest possible date.
  Mr. Freeson: With regard to the meeting with the London boroughs yesterday, was it not the case that all, or at least most, of the London boroughs represented at the meeting expressed the view that the biggest single cause of homelessness is the insecurity of families in furnished accommodation and that the biggest single immediate step that could be taken to help the authorities as well as the families concerned would be to introduce security of tenure for such families?
  Mr. Channon: That view was expressed by one member at the meeting. It did not represent the unanimous view of
  244
  either political party in the London Boroughs' Association.
  Finally, I must say how sorry I am, although it is for the Opposition to decide, that they are putting forward a reasoned amendment to the Bill. I believe it to be a Bill which will provide limited—and I accept that—but nevertheless extremely valuable help to some of the worst-off members of our society. It is rather hard that we should be criticised as we are in the Opposition's reasoned amendment. When the Opposition were in power they had plenty of opportunity to tackle these problems of rent allowances or security of tenure, but they gave no help whatsoever along these lines to furnished tenants or, indeed, to unfurnished tenants.
  I hope very much that in spite of the reasoned amendment, about which I know hon. Members opposite feel strongly, the House will give a Second Reading to the Bill and that it will be thought right to allow us to have it in reasonable time, because I think we are all agreed at least that it is important that furnished tenants should receive help at the earliest practicable date. I confidently commend the Bill to the House in the belief that it represents a limited but nevertheless a further important advance in housing policy and one which certainly deserves the support of the House of Commons.
  4.22 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Crosland: We shall not vote against the Second Reading of the Bill tonight and we shall not obstruct it in Committee. Nevertheless, we have put down a reasoned amendment on which we shall divide the House tonight because we find a number of aspects of the Bill to be deeply disappointing and inadequate. There has for a long time been a great interest, not confined to one side of the House, in the position of furnished tenants and particularly in the different treatment meted out to them as against unfurnished tenants concerning not only security of tenure, but, when the Housing Finance Bill was introduced, in relation to the private rent allowance and on the last occasion in relation to the freeze, from which furnished tenants were altogether excluded.

  245
  The Labour Government—and I concede that, no doubt, we should have acted earlier—commissioned two important studies which bore centrally on the position of the furnished tenant. First, in April 1969 my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) commissioned Professor Grieve to conduct his investigation into homelessness in London. That report was completed in June 1970 and, following a rather squalid squabble as to whether the Government were to publish it, was eventually published in January 1971. That report demonstrated, to the surprise of none I imagine, that one of the main reasons for the increased problem of the London homeless was the shift from the more controlled unfurnished sector to the less controlled furnished sector. The Labour Government, as the Minister has mentioned, also set up the Francis Committee in March 1971, and they certainly conducted the most massive discussion of the problem of the unfurnished tenant, although certainly not all their conclusions satisfied us on this side of the House.
  The Minister referred to the background to this Bill, which is really the almost unanimous chorus of protest when the Housing Finance Bill was published at the fact that furnished tenants were excluded from the new private rent allowance. It was almost exactly a year ago, on 20th January, that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) moved an amendment in Committee to include them, and the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) moved a similar amendment, and the Government were saved from defeat, I believe, only by the Minister's telling us that a mysterious Committee was already working at it and that something would arrive in due course. Now something has arrived—namely, this Bill.
  It is important first, as the Minister rightly said, to examine the characteristics of the people we are trying to help. He gave a number of useful figures, and I should like to supplement one or two so that the House may have a fair picture of who the furnished tenants are.
  As the Minister said, there are only 600,000 of them, but they form a par-
  246
  ticularly significant group because they are, broadly speaking, paying the highest rent, out of the lowest incomes, for the worst accommodation. As to the accommodation, according to the Francis Report, it has a number of characteristics. It is expensive, averaging even at the time the Francis Committee was sitting £240 a year, or 33 per cent. of the typical take-home pay of the tenants, compared with only 19 per cent. of income for corresponding tenants of unfurnished private accommodation. Its quality is very low. Most furnished lettings are small; 50 per cent. of them have only one or two rooms—66 per cent. in stress areas. Most of them have shared amenities; 78 per cent. in stress areas share a lavatory compared with only 44 per cent. in unfurnished accommodation. They are overcrowded: in 55 per cent. of rent tribunal cases the tenants are living at a density of 1½ persons or more per room.
  As for the tenants themselves, I am glad the Minister has corrected some misapprehensions about what kind of people they are, because his predecessor was always using phrases such as "birds of passage", "fly-by-nights", and so on, as if they consisted almost entirely of single persons. In fact, they do not. As the Minister pointed out, many families are involved; 49 per cent. of lettings in the stress areas are to families which, far from being mobile and transient, find it extremely hard to escape from the sector; and 55 per cent. of tenants in the stress areas are coloured immigrants whose prospects of better housing are limited by prejudice as well as by low income. The result is that many tenants stay in this sector for years. The recent Shelter report found that 20 per cent. had been in the same accommodation for five years or more.
  The truth is that, as the Francis Committee found, there are really two separate groups of tenants in furnished lettings. There is a group such as the Minister described—typically young, single, mobile people—and there is also a group consisting of poor families forced to rent furnished accommodation in the stress areas because access to anything else is for one reason or another denied to them: they cannot afford a mortgage; they cannot get a council house because the waiting list is too long. I agree with

  247
  the Minister that it is this latter group, the most deprived group in our cities, whose future should properly concern us most.
  The question is whether this Bill will fulfil the objectives that I think all of us have in mind. First, who will it cover and who will be eligible? Here the Bill itself gives us very little idea because this is all to be defined in the provisions referred to by the Minister, in paragraph 10 of Schedule I, one provision depending very much on guidance given by the Secretary of State and the other provision waiting to be filled in by regulations that have not come to the House. He gave us a number of examples of categories he intended to be included. I find it difficult to comment on them at the moment because he has the characteristic of speaking extremely rapidly. That makes his speeches very enjoyable but also makes it difficult to follow a detailed argument, so we shall have to reserve judgment on the categories he intends to include in the Bill, although these may be obvious to some of my right hon. Friends, who reacted quickly to certain omissions.
  It is interesting that Shelter estimated, on the basis of the Government's previous pronouncements, that probably half the furnished tenants would be excluded from the private rent allowance. I hope that the Under-Secretary, when he comes to reply, will give us some estimate of the broad proportion of furnished tenants he thinks will be covered by the Bill.
  To the second question—whether for those who are covered the help will be adequate—the dogmatic answer must be "No". The crux of the matter is that the amount of rent to be taken into account in calculating the new allowance will be unrelated in many cases to the actual rent. This is made clear in paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 and by the Minister's description this afternoon. The rebate will be based on the occupational element of what will normally be the lowest of the three criteria mentioned in paragraph 17, namely, the local authority's estimate of what the fair rent for the dwelling would be plus 25 per cent.—or, as the Minister said, 125 per cent. of the fair rent.
  It is this provision which has given rise to many of the doubts about the
  248
  adequacy of the Bill. My hon. Friends will doubtless have worked out a number of examples of how the provision will operate in practice. I take an example which I have checked and which is a typical Inner London one. It is that of a man earning £25 a week and living with his wife and child in two poor, seedy furnished rooms. At current rent levels he will be paying at least £5·50 a week. If the Government really wanted to help him, his allowance would be based on that figure, the rent which he is actually paying. With the increase in the needs allowance recently announced, he would get more than £2·50 under the new rent allowance scheme. But under this Bill he will not get an allowance which is based on the rent which he is actually paying. He will get an allowance based on the fair rent plus 25 per cent., a rent which will be nearer £2·50 a week. As it is on that rent that his allowance will be calculated, instead of getting an allowance of £2·50 he will get an allowance of well under £1 towards the £5·50 he is actually paying.
  It is this meanness in the calculation on which the allowance is based which explains why the estimated cost of the scheme is so low—only £5 million to £8 million. We do not know what this will mean per person, because we do not know what proportion of furnished tenants will be eligible and, if eligible, will claim. Taking an imaginary and unrealistic calculation, if the whole £8 million were paid out between all the households living in furnished accommodation it would amount to an absolutely trivial sum per household. Even halving that gives a sum which will come as a considerable shock to furnished tenants when they learn it.
  In this context it must be remembered that part of the burden of alleviating poverty is after 1975–76 to be put on to the rates and on to local authorities. This is a point to which we strongly objected in all the discussions on the Housing Finance Bill.
  Considering both the calculations which can be made as to how the scheme will operate and the total figure of £5 million to £8 million, it appears to us that we shall be giving to this sector, which contains many of the poorest citizens, a

  249
  degree of help that is disproportionately low compared with what rightly goes to the council tenant and to the owner-occupier.
  Our third reservation concerns the administration of the scheme which in practice will be very complicated, particularly in those areas with the highest concentrations of furnished tenants. Local authority officers, who are already very hard pressed as a result of the Housing Finance Act, will have to work out individually fair rents as the basis for the new allowances. There will have to be a great deal of guesswork and ad hoc-ery. Then at the end of the day—I do not envy them this part of their task—they will have to explain their calculations to angry tenants who expected to get a rebate based on their actual rent rather than on the hypothetical rent which is much lower. Many people in local government believe that if there were to be a high take-up under the scheme the scheme would be almost unworkable.
  My fourth point relates to the problem of take-up, to which the Minister rightly devoted much attention. I fear, as most commentators have done, that far more likely than a high take-up is a very low one. Rebates for unfurnished tenants and council tenants are obviously much simpler than the new furnished rent allowance. I take one example which I checked a few days ago. In October with a great blaze of publicity Lambeth launched the new post-Housing Finance Act scheme of rebates for council tenants and for private unfurnished tenants, yet Lambeth has still had only 600 applications out of 20,000 who it is estimated are eligible.
  The Birmingham scheme has been referred to today, as it has been referred to on many other occasions. I will not repeat the figures, because I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) will give them in detail. We all remember the disappointment expressed publicly, again almost exactly a year ago, by Mrs. Freda Cocks, Chairman of the Birmingham Housing Committee, about how the scheme has worked out in terms of take-up.
  If, despite fair rents, council tenants are not applying, and if unfurnished tenants
  250
  whose rents are simpler to calculate are not applying, how likely are furnished tenants to apply? We know from the Francis Report that 55 per cent. of furnished tenants do not have a rent book. We know that many landlords of furnished tenants who are in breach of some stautory requirement or other are often terrified of officialdom, and the sight of a local authority officer snooping around in the course of his duty trying to assess a hypothetical fair rent could well be enough to provoke the dreaded and familiar notice to quit.
  I agree with the Minister that all of us, given the scheme, want a high take-up. My fear is that, whether from ignorance, out of fear of the landlords reaction, or out of pride, furnished tenants will not have the take-up to which they are entitled under the Bill.
  The Minister said that it is no good our expressing this fear in a negative way, and it would be unattractive for me to do so. The Minister asked what positive suggestions we had. I have come increasingly to the view that to rely on advertising campaigns, however massive, even using such sophisticated media as the television channels, will have only a limited effect. Where there is a very high geographical concentration of furnished tenants—this eases the whole problem of take-up—I am very attracted by the idea of the Child Poverty Action Group that the Government would get better value for money if they stopped television advertising and paid two or three field officers in certain areas, perhaps people from the Action Group, who could visit tenants who are affected. The employment of extra people might well have far more effect than the huge cost of a vast advertising programme.
  I turn lastly to the fundamental question of security of tenure. The Labour Party's position on this question is unambiguous, though I concede that the Labour Government did not put it into effect. It was made clear in the party's evidence to the Francis Committee and was reaffirmed in the party's programme published last summer. I quote:
  "We believe further that most furnished tenants should be given legal security of tenure. We reaffirm, as our evidence to the France Committee on the Rent Act stated, that furnished tenants should have the same security as is now available to unfurnished tenants."

  251
  Before considering the arguments for and against, it is worth stressing the degree of insecurity that now exists. Nearly one-third of furnished tenants applying for a reduction in rent before getting a notice to quit received less than six months' security from the rent tribunal. More than one in five applying after receiving notice to quit got no security of tenure at all. A recent Shelter report, the one by Mr. Bebb on rent allowances for furnished tenants, showed an average security of 3·8 months at the first application and 1·9 months at the second application. In many of the worst areas of central London tenants know that an application to the rent tribunal is the most certain road to homelessness.
  There are three arguments against security of tenure—or, perhaps more accurately, two—the first being divided into two parts. The first and most obvious is that to which the Minister alluded when he said that greater security of tenure would simply dry up the supply of rented accommodation. This was the majority view of the Francis Committee which stated:
  "For the reasons we have indicated we cannot recommend such extension. On the contrary, we venture to sound a solemn warning against it."
  The Minister referred to the phrase "solemn warning". It is interesting to see what evidence the Francis Committee had for giving that solemn warning. The Committee's view that security of tenure would produce a reduced supply of rented accommodation was based on the stated intention not to rent, if security of tenure were introduced, of a minority of a small sample of landlords, most of them small lettors.
  The Minister used a more powerful argument, although I found it no more convincing, basing himself not on a sample but on various statements about how the decline in the private rented sector has been due fundamentally to security of tenure. Anyone who has examined over the past few years the relative financial advantages of selling as opposed to renting does not need to look anywhere else in order to explain the decline in the private rented sector. The huge financial advantages now to be gained by selling as opposed to continuing to rent are overwhelming, and this in my view has been the decisive factor
  252
  in the decline of the private rented sector. I believe it will be the main reason for the decline which will continue. I hope that it will be hurried along by the next Labour Government, but it will continue anyway.
  So I find myself unconvinced by this argument and I, like most of my hon. Friends, accept on this point the view of Miss Evans in the minority report. She argued that once security of tenure was provided it might be impossible for landlords not to go on letting. What else can be done with the rooms? They are usually quite unsaleable.
  A curious fact about this argument is that the majority, although they gave a solemn warning, had the honesty to say:
  "there is no 'evidence'—in the sense of facts based on actual experience—that such a reform would reduce the supply. But equally, there is no evidence that it would not. It is largely a matter of personal judgment."
  That is the fact of the matter and most of us here, particularly my hon. Friends with experience of areas with a concentration of furnished tenancies, believe that there is no evidence that security of tenure would dry up the supply of cheap rented accommodation.
  There is a much more difficult and serious argument than that. It is that security of tenure might lead to landlords choosing tenants, as they might put it, more carefully, and in particular excluding some already very hard-pressed groups, such as unmarried mothers or immigrants. That is a serious danger, and it means that security of tenure would have to have as its corollary a policy of building up housing associations to cater for precisely such groups, and also much greater flexibility in local authority allocation procedures.
  At any rate, although I accept that there is an argument here, I nevertheless come down for security of tenure on three fundamental grounds. The first is logic. I agree with Miss Evans, and again I quote the minority report:
  "The present distinction with regard to security between the unfurnished tenancy and the furnished tenancy … is wholly illogical as a basis for differentiating between the degrees of security given to residential tenants."
  My second ground is one of equity because under the present system it is the

  253
  least well off who have the least protection, and the result is much of the misery and hardship that exists in central London.
  Thirdly, and this is highly relevant to the Bill, I believe that the rent allowance scheme will not work without security of tenure. The tenant will be better off by £x as a result of the new allowance; the landlord will increase the rent by the same £x and if the tenant is not prepared to pay the landlord will find ways, as he frequently does these days, of getting rid of the tenant and finding a new one who is prepared to pay. So, without security of tenure the new allowance will be a straight subsidy to the landlord and will have the effect of forcing up furnished rents generally.
  I conclude that the Bill is not radical enough to solve the problem of the furnished sector and the private rented sector generally. We need far more urgent measures. We need security of tenure, an increase in the supply of low-rented accommodation and a systematic programme of municipalisation.
  We shall not vote against the Bill tonight because half a loaf is better than no bread, but in our view the Bill does not measure up to the desperately serious situation which exists in the furnished rented sector.
  4.44 p.m.
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend on the speed with which he has solved the problem of extending to furnished accommodation the allowances which are beginning to be paid in the unfurnished sector.
  The Government made a pledge to hon. Members on both sides of the House who wanted the furnished tenants to benefit from the Housing Finance Act. There were experts who thought it could not he done. The two speeches we have heard so far today have dealt with the problems of where we go after the Bill rather than the problems which are likely to arise from its implementation.
  My hon. Friend mentioned that the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has a high concentration of furnished lettings. I believe that my constituency has the highest proportion of people living in
  254
  furnished rooms of any division in the country. I am certain that I speak for those people when I say that they are pleased that the Government have pushed ahead to deal with this complex problem and have come forward with a solution which they intend to implement so quickly.
  The attitude of the Opposition will not be readily understood in South Kensington any more than their attitude to the Housing Finance Act has been understood. The extension to all poor people of the benefits of housing subsidies instead of concentrating them on people living in particular districts or particular local authority properties is obviously right. I am sure, therefore, that the Opposition will find with the passage of time that they have gravely misinterpreted public opinion. I believe that they are basically opposed to the extension of housing subsidies to people living outside the local authority sector.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Sir B. Rhys Williams: I am delighted that they are coming round to the principle—which many of us on the Conservative side have advocated for many years—of subsidising the family, not the house—if that is indeed the conclusion to be drawn from those interjections.
  This is an appropriate occasion on which to remind ourselves of the purpose of housing subsidies. Obviously, they must ensure that all families are able to afford a fair rent and so to provide the only ultimate solution to family homelessness, which is to ensure that families are at least able to afford the rent in all circumstances. The social services have not fully solved the problem of the low-paid man with a family. The national insurance system aims to provide subsistence income—or more—to a man who is out of work because he is sick or injured or retired or for other reasons. But, although attempts have been made for a long time to find ways of subsidising a man who is in work but who still cannot afford to keep and house his family, we have not until now found our way to eliminating family poverty, particularly in areas where rents are high. I most warmly commend the Government's efforts under the Housing Finance

  255
  Act and this Bill to find a solution to the problem.
  The purpose of housing subsidies goes beyond the narrower purpose of ensuring simply that there is enough money in every family to pay the rent. It goes beyond that to the point where it seeks to equalise the spending power of the family and the single person without dependants who has the same income. That is why I would not especially object if the Government were to insist initially that single people without dependants should not be eligible for housing subsidies under the Bill.
  Certainly in Kensington, and I think it is true elsewhere, the upward pressure on rents often comes from groups of single people who are able to put more into rent than family people, particularly when they club together and make a home consisting of perhaps four or five wage-earners without any dependants. It is very often they who are making the running, and I do not think that the Government need to give priority to their interests in considering housing subsidies.
  I want to say a few words about take-up. This is a subject which I have studied in connection with other social benefits. I am convinced that in the long run we have to work our way to an elimination of the means test or perhaps to make the income tax mechanism the means test to end all means tests. The assessment of income by local authorities will probably always be an unpopular process, at any rate to many of the people potentially entitled to benefit through local authority schemes.
  It is certainly inefficient for assessments of income to be made firstly through the Pay As You Earn mechanism or whatever may succeed that in due course on a national basis and then by local authorities as well. There is an element of duplication in local authority assessment which I am certain we will eventually find has to be eliminated. Although I commend my hon. Friend's intention of drawing the attention of all who are eligible to the benefits under the new housing subsidy scheme, either in furnished or unfurnished accommodation, and pressing local authorities to do the maximum—this is naturally the right course in the short run—I hope that we
  256
  can look ahead to a system where the entitlement to subsidies for householders is integrated in the general national system of tax credits.
  Possibly it is worth pressing a point about the householders' allowance which I have made in another connection. The aim has been suggested of treating men and women equally in the eyes of the State for national insurance benefits and tax credits. If we are examining the problem of substituting the personal allowance in the tax system for a positive payment to individuals the need to find a unisex solution becomes all the more obvious. We have to recognise that in the personal allowance in the tax system there is a concealed housing subsidy and there possibly always has been, consciously or unconsciously, from the start.
  Having created a tax system at the end of the 18th century which gave especially large concessions to householders and a further, but not quite so large, concession to a householder with a female dependant, we are recognising that outgoings on housing are a special commitment to the wage earner. The State has recognised the housing element in deciding how much taxation people can bear. The same principle has been applied from the start in national insurance in that a single pensioner receives more in proportion per head than a married couple. There is a single household element included in the pension paid to the single person which is not repeated in calculating the pension of a married couple. The same applies with sickness and unemployment benefit, and so on.
  I would like to see the Government's great step forward in extending housing allowances to such a much larger number of people taken right across the board in the tax credit system so that men and women can be treated singly and the only differentiation that needs to be made is to provide for the single householders in the group. This is an ultimate solution to the problem of take-up. However much my hon. Friend and local authorities may work to draw attention to the benefits available under the Housing Finance Act and under this Bill, take-up will always be somewhat disappointing while people feel that they have to go through the motions of submitting to a means test from their local authorities.

  257
  Apart from that contribution on the question of take-up which has been of a somewhat long nature, although I hope not inappropriately so on Second Reading, I believe that this is a very useful start. Possibly the scale of allowances could be made more generous with the passage of time. This is something which this or other Governments will be able to consider. This Bill is a welcome solution to a serious problem and an honest answer to a popular pledge.
  4.56 p.m.
  Mr. Julius Silverman: In discussing this subject it is well to take advantage of experience which we already have in this country. This is why I shall refer to Birmingham. It is not that I am taking a constituency view. Birmingham has a good deal of experience of private rent allowances. About four years ago it promoted a Private Bill to introduce allowances in the private sector, and I believe that it is the only city which has done so. This scheme catered not only for unfurnished tenancies but for furnished tenants. It is well to see what has happened.
  On 1st October, having such a scheme in operation, Birmingham decided to bring into operation the private rent allowance scheme on the scales contained in the Housing Finance Act—three months before they were supposed to come into operation. Birmingham has therefore had three months' experience of the new allowance, and it has continued to apply the allowance to furnished tenants too. It is interesting to see the results.
  The general take-up in the private sector has been disappointingly low. Before this Act came into operation the total number involved was about 250. It has now rather more than doubled but this is out of an estimated number of 60,000 private tenants. That is a very disappointing take-up. It means a take-up of about 1 in 100. I am not surprised, in view of our experience in Birmingham, that generally speaking the take-up in the private sector throughout the country is low. I do not believe that this scheme will bestow upon people in the private sector the immense benefits which the Government claim.
  258
  There is no doubt that many more tenants will have their rents increased by the provisions of the Housing Finance Act than will receive rebates under the Act or this Bill. Take-up in the private furnished sector is particularly low. After the new scheme had been in operation for almost four months there were 21 furnished tenants using it out of an estimated number—based on the last Census figures—of 18,400 private furnished tenants in Birmingham. That is probably an underestimate because the Census would have had great difficulty in getting round to all private furnished tenancies. This means a take-up of about 1 in 1,000, which is derisory.
  Why is this? Obviously the Government must concern themselves with this because otherwise the scheme will become a meaningless gimmick. There has been a fair amount of publicity of the Birmingham scheme. No doubt there could be more, but that is not the answer. A scheme which has been in operation for four years and publicised on two or three occasions might not result in an enormous take-up but we would expect more than this derisory amount. My view, based to some extent on experience, is that the main factor is the lack of security of tenure.
  Throughout the whole of the privately let sector and especially in the furnished sector there is this basic insecurity of tenure, this fear of the landlord, the idea that people had better say nothing and keep a roof over their heads. I do not think it applies only to the furnished sector, but it applies most of all there.
  Mr. Arthur Jones: Is it a fact that the landlord would get to know that the tenant had applied for a rebate?
  Mr. Silverman: I would say that he would almost certainly get to know. There would have to be an assessment of the furniture. Someone would have to visit the house.
  Mr. Arthur Jones: I was thinking of the unfurnished sector.
  Mr. Silverman: In that case I would say that quite often the answer is "Yes", and in a sense that is quite right. When a tenant goes for a rent allowance he is asked what rent he is paying. If he

  259
  says that he is paying a grossly excessive amount the council tells him to go to the local rent officer. Otherwise he would not get the benefit of the allowance on the full rent that he was paying. The local authority in Birmingham has had the co-operation of the rent officer in deciding what the fair rents of these private dwellings should be. It is almost certain that the landlord would get to know, but even if he does not the tenant fears that he will.
  There is, however, a still greater fear in the furnished sector, where there is practically no security of tenure. If the tenant goes to the local authority the fear is that he may be out on his neck. He will get very little security if he goes to the rent tribunal. I do not say that this is the only factor, but I am certain it is the major one.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) said that under the Bill, as under the Birmingham scheme, the furnished tenant is given an allowance based not upon the rent that he pays but upon a notional rent, upon what would be a fair rent if the value of the furniture were eliminated.
  Let us see what happens. People come to see me sometimes about rent but more often about a council house, and I learn incidentally what rent they pay. A woman in a two-room attic pays £4 10s. a week rent. Upon the present fair rent basis the room might be worth about 25s. If she went to the council and asked for an allowance she would get an allowance based upon the 25s. She would not get perhaps a few shillings and it would not be worth her bother. That has to be balanced against the danger of insecurity, bearing in mind that the landlord can put up the rent next week and bang go the few shillings. This allowance might operate as a subsidy to the landlord, especially the sleaziest landlords who would take advantage of the Bill to put up the rent.
  We could send out people house by house to discover what is happening, but we shall not get a significant take-up unless we solve the problem of security. I reject the recommendation of the Francis Committee upon this point. The conclusion the Committee came to was an astounding one bearing in mind the evidence it received. It is clear that
  260
  unless we can achieve a much greater degree of security for furnished lettings the Bill will be the next thing to a dead letter. I hope the Bill succeeds because we need a mitigation for these people, but so far there is not much evidence that it will succeed unless the basic problem of security is solved.
  5.7 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Jones: The Bill is further evidence of the Government's policy to aid those in need and to do so selectively so as to ensure the best possible use of resources. I recognise it as a tentative move but one which is in the right direction.
  I was interested in what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) told us about the moves which Birmingham made a year or so ago. It has been interesting to see the result, in both the unfurnished and the furnished sectors. We should recognise that this move was introduced when Sir Francis Griffin was the Conservative leader of the Birmingham City Council. The whole country was grateful to that important authority for the initiative it took. In the context of our discussion, the fact that the take-up figure has been such a derisory one is disappointing, and it shows the problems which face the Government in the implementation of the Bill.
  I do not share the view of the hon. Member for Aston that it is insecurity of tenure that lies at the root of the problem. In my intervention I asked whether the landlord would be likely to get to know that an application had been made. The great advantage of the scheme proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) is that under a taxation rebate system there would presumably be much less chance of disclosure to the landlord.
  People are reluctant to apply for aid, not only for housing aid but for social security payments. The right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) spoke about the Child Poverty Action Group, which he suggested might have a rôle in making the facilities provided by the Bill known to tenants. But local authorities with their welfare services and housing departments have a much greater opportunity of contact with their communities as a whole than could be secured by the Child Poverty Action Group or Shelter.

  261
  The effort of those groups is concentrated in small sectors, whereas local authorities have a greater opportunity for publicising information more widely. I agree that there is a problem and that we have not yet found a solution to it.
  I welcome the outline proposals of the Bill and the latitude of its terms in the appointment of an advisory committee on rent rebates and rent allowances which will enable the whole concept to be continually monitored and provide ways and means for its improvement and extension. I also welcome the considerable discretion which is proposed for local authorities. Here there is a much more positive rôle for local housing authorities to play than is generally recognised.
  The Opposition's motion alleges that in not extending the provisions of security of tenure and rent regulation the Government are adding to the problems of homelessness in the stress areas of our cities. I find that wording very strange. On page 135 of the Francis Report two separate groups of furnished tenants are noted. The first comprises those households often of single persons usually without children who wish to remain mobile and independent. The second group consists largely of families, with children, who are too poor to buy houses, cannot find unfurnished accommodation to rent within their means and cannot obtain a council house. The cheapest accommodation available to them is a furnished room in a rundown area. It is essentially those two groups of people which most of us have in our minds.
  The motion alleges that the lack of security of tenure and improved rent regulation for tenants is the biggest cause of homelessness in the stress areas. That statement is open to challenge. Other factors have to be taken into account such as the shortage of accommodation, concentration in urban areas and people's wish to live in cities. We have heard no evidence to substantiate the terms of this unfortunately worded motion. It is at best misleading and, in my opinion, incorrect. It appears to try to blacken a measure which is essentially directed at helping those in need. I was interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, but we need to look to a positive contribution by local authorities in making these proposals effective. The Bill is
  262
  a palliative, but it is a genuine effort to make progress in this desperately difficult sector. The Opposition motion is false both in substance and supposed intention.
  We have had a constructive debate, and I am sure there will be widespread and genuine welcome and support for the Bill.
  5.15 p.m.
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I should like to be as agreeable as I can before coming on to further remarks later. I compliment the Government on the fact that we are debating the Bill with the White Paper, Cmnd 5183, which sets out in a novel way what would be the position of the law if the Bill were to be incorporated in the present housing legislation. I do not know whether the Government intended to be helpful to the House of Commons or whether they wanted to help themselves by anticipating what the position would be under the consolidation which they say they are to carry out soon. Whatever the motive, I welcome the textual memorandum, which enables us to understand what will be the consequences of the Bill.
  I am not distressed about the Bill. I think it is very good as far as it goes. No doubt efforts will be made in Committee to seek to strengthen it. I am concerned that the Minister seemed not to be willing to discuss what was not in the Bill. That is perfectly in order on Second Reading, and it is possible that in Committee we might seek to move new clauses or new parts to make a good Bill better. That is not an unknown parliamentary experience, even under this Government. I suggest that the Minister could have devoted part of his speech to telling us the circumstances in which the Bill is introduced and why certain matters are not included.
  We do not know officially, but we know from the Lancaster House conference that certain consequences will fall on the legislation because of the prices and incomes policy which the Government are pursuing. In putting down a Question I was told by the Table Office that I could not refer to the Lancaster House conference and that I had to refer to statements made by the Prime Minister. Unless these are lodged in the Library I cannot make reference to them. The Minister should have told us the

  263
  effect on tenancies and rent allowances and on the two Acts of Parliament which are mentioned in the Bill of the Lancaster House statements, the White Paper and the Counter-Inflation Bill, which we shall discuss on Monday.
  There has been a postponement of the application of certain sections of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act. On page 10 of the White Paper there is a reference to Clause 16 of that Act, which reads:
  "It shall be the duty of every local authority to bring into operation not later than 1st October 1973 or such earlier date …".
  The original date in the Act was 1st January 1973. I assume that the reason for the amendment is not only to enable allowances for furnished accommodation to be organised but to scoop up some of the Prime Minister's references to the postponement of certain applications of fair rents, and so on, which attract rent allowances in the private sector. The Minister should have told us a little more about this. It is contained in the Bill but is alluded to only by the reference to the changed date.
  The other matter to which I wish to refer is fair rents. The Minister did not properly acquit himself in discussing the recommendation on assimilation.
  Mr. Channon: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not be unfair to me, and no doubt he will come to his less agreeable remarks a little later. The Bill deals with furnished lettings and the payment of rent allowances. It has nothing to do with the local authority sector, the private unfurnished sector or fair rents in the public sector. Had I dealt with all those matters, my speech would have taken not 40 minutes but three hours, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman would have complained at a speech of that length.
  Dr. Mabon: Three hours even of the hon. Gentleman would be too much, but I wish he had taken another half an hour because he did not cover these points adequately. He obviously wants to be a good Minister, but is not doing too well so far.
  Is it or is it not a fact that there are changes in the operation of the fair rent system in respect of certain controlled properties? Is that not being referred to in this Bill, which seeks to amend the
  264
  earlier legislation? Perhaps I should read what was said by the Prime Minister at Lancaster House about the Governments earlier housing legislation to demonstrate that there are to be certain changes in operating the Acts. Should we not have had some reference to this situation, or must we wait until tomorrow's debate?
  Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman may be under a basic misapprehension. The Bill deals only with furnished lettings. It does not deal with anything else. It deals not with the local authority controlled sector or with the regulated sector but with furnished lettings. Surely I was not expected to deal with those other matters in a speech which related entirely to furnished lettings.
  Dr. Mabon: I have been in the House a little longer than the Minister, and I know from previous experience that it is in order in a debate of this nature to deal with the operation of other Acts and to discuss whether amendments on other matters should be made in Committee. The Minister may wish only to discuss furnished lettings, but it does not follow that the House of Commons wants to leave the matter there. It would be arrogant for the Minister to assume that we must discuss only what he wants us to discuss. We might want to add things. The date has been changed as applying to schemes affecting private tenants who occupy houses. The date is no longer 1st January 1973 but can be 1st October 1973
  "or such earlier date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint".
  I was hoping that the Minister would explain the consequences in respect of the two earlier pieces of legislation in the light of the Prime Minister's remarks at Lancaster House. A great deal of misunderstanding has arisen from what was said by the Prime Minister, and there is a genuine need for information. I hope that the Minister will now make amends by asking his ministerial colleague who is to reply to the debate to tell the House what is happening.
  Our criticism of the two earlier Acts of Parliament was that they were inflationary, though we concur in the social good represented by the bringing in of rent allowances and subsidies. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Kensington,

  265
  North (Sir B. Rhys Williams) is no longer present, because I should like him to explain his remark that rent subsidies and allowance have been part of Conservative policy for years. If that is the case, why did they fail to implement that policy in Parliament in earlier years. When the Labour Government introduced a series of substantial housing Bills, including the major Rent Act of 1965, the then Conservative Opposition failed to table any amendments to carry forward the concept of rent allowances and subsidies. I am not taking away from them credit for what they have done in the last year, but I challenge the claim that they have pursued this policy for years. One or two Liberal Members might wish to lay claim to this idea, but certainly the Tory party cannot lay claim to it.
  It must not be said that we are uninterested in the extension of subsidies and allowances, for we welcome the Bill as far as it goes. However, it is not good enough to say that this should be the end of the matter. The Minister tried to argue that he could not consider recommendation 26 of the Francis Committee because it was a complex matter which would involve a very long Bill. I am certain that the Opposition would have facilitated the passage of a Bill which sought to bring in many of the Francis recommendations.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) in an admirable speech said that it was the people in furnished rented accommodation who were paying the highest rents. If they are paying the highest rents, then they will also have the highest rent allowances. We shall be subsidising directly and substantially one of the worst sectors of private housing. The more the State pursues the fair rent system—and it is a system with which I agree—and applies allowances and subsidies in helping tenants within the system, the more the State will have to be concerned with the well-being and upkeep of the properties and ultimately with their ownership.
  Perhaps local authorities should go into the furnished rented sector. I agree that there are bound to be certain consequences if we bring the furnished tenancy sector within the fair rent system, although I feel that they would not be
  266
  as bad as the Minister suggests. I believe that many people who operate furnished tenancies would welcome such a system. The argument that security of tenure would destroy this system is fallacious. There is other evidence to show that this is not the situation.
  I am not campaigning on the question of security of tenure. My complaint is that the Minister has failed to bring in one of the recommendations of the Francis Committee. The Minister rightly said that there are some Francis Committee recommendations which he wants and others he does not want. He also knows that we in our hearts want some of those recommendations rather than others. We are not bound to accept suggestions made by such a Committee.
  The Minister said that he and his predecessors had made clear which of the Francis recommendations were endorsed by the Government. That is news to me. I would love to see set out in HANSARD a list of the recommendations which the Minister accepts on behalf of the Government and those which he rejects. I should like to know when the Minister intends to legislate on those recommendations. Will the Government adopt the excuse that because of the consolidation measure which is due and because the Government have already produced other housing legislation, they cannot bring forward another Bill to implement the Francis recommendations? It is annoying to see the Minister postponing action again and again.
  In an intervention I complained that I had been misled by Ministers, and perhaps it is my fault not theirs. During the passage of the Bill when we all, Conservative and Labour Members, joined in demanding this kind of reform, I understood that the Bill would be more substantial than the present measure. The Under-Secretary of State will not mind my saying that I thought that there might be two separate Bills and, the consequences being more complicated for the English Bill than for our own, that it might be helpful to take the Scottish Bill first. I can assure the hon. Gentleman again that we on this side of the House would have facilitated its passage.
  I am disappointed that the Bill is as restricted as it is. From time to time the Government tell us that it is our fair

  267
  rents system. That is true. But it is our fair rents system in disrepair. The landlords in charge of the system—the Government—have not been able to attend to their fair rents system properties for a good five years. The last time that we debated the fair rents system was in 1968, when we were dealing with what has become the 1969 Act.
  References are made to the 1971 Rent Act. But we know that that Act was simply a consolidation measure. It is a summation of all the Acts preceding that. The fact is that we ought to have an amending Bill dealing with the fair rents system. There are numerous respects in which it is defective. On occasion the Under-Secretary admitted small marginal amendments to our Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill when we debated it in Committee. But he would not pretend that he has dealt with the Francis Committee's Report as it applies to Scotland.
  That is my complaint to the Minister. He may say "I cannot possibly produce a Francis Bill just like that, and this must come first." But he should have taken the consequences of this Bill as it affected furnished properties and applied them to this Bill as well.
  I have had experience in the housing section of the Scottish Office and with my hon. Friends in the old Ministry of Housing. I cannot believe that the draftsmen there have been telling Ministers that the implementation of recommendation No. 26 is so complicated and fraught with Parliamentary pitfalls that it would be unwise to include it in this Bill. The Minister has a reputation for being an honest man. If he thought that I was wrong in that assertion I am sure that by now he would be on his feet telling me so. I take his silence as being contentment rather than contempt, and I urge him seriously to look at this matter again.
  We shall not get very far in the argument about security of tenure. Therefore, I shall vote for the reasoned amendment because I believe profoundly in what my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby said about the need for security of tenure in this sector. But, obviously, we shall not get very far. However, it is not partisan or unreasonable to expect the Minister to make this
  268
  change in the Bill and include that recommendation of the Francis Committee now. We cannot keep postponing implementation of the Francis Committee's Report. It has to be implemented some day—I hope with its minority recommendations as well.
  5.33 p.m.
  Mr. James Allason: The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) challenged my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) about what my hon. Friend said was Tory Party policy—
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: For years.
  Mr. Allason: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it has been Tory Party policy for a great many years that there should be substantial rent rebates for local authority tenants and that rebates should go to those who most need them rather than being spread over the whole mass of local authority tenants. That is rather similar to the views of the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), who complained about the privileged position of local authority tenants. However, when the right hon. Gentleman was Minister of Housing he did not succeed in getting his way, and we have had to wait until the election of this Government for some reform and to see that at last rent rebates go to those most in need.
  Rent allowances to private tenants were thought to be impracticable until Sir Frank Griffin succeeded in making them work in Birmingham. We have heard that they are not working as well as Sir Frank would have liked. But it is a practicable proposition. The Conservative Party has been able to steal Sir Frank's clothing and make it a success. I think that he was a willing ally to that theft.
  I have to declare an interest here as the owner and manager of property which includes the furnished sector. I welcome this short Bill. I am sorry that it could not be included in the original Bill. At the time it appeared that there were considerable difficulties. First, when thinking of furnished tenancies one thinks of short-term and holiday tenancies. One tends to forget the long-term furnished tenancies which exist in considerable numbers Then when one turns to the longer-term

  269
  tenants one thinks of the bachelors of both sexes who share accommodation. There are numerous cases where five or six bachelor girls club together to share a flat, and it would be very difficult to nominate one as the tenant and to say that because of her low income she should be entitled to a rent allowance simply because she happened to be the tenant of furnished property. Where there is clubbing together it has to be recognised There is great difficulty in definition—
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: There are provisions under the Housing Finance Act for a member of a household to be chosen as the representative tenant. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's example can be overcome under the existing provisions of the Housing Finance Act.
  Mr. Allason: The hon. Gentleman is confusing the issue slightly by that statement. He is referring to the case where the nominated tenant is someone with a very low income when there is a dependent member of the family with a substantial income. There are many retirement pensioners who happen to be tenants but have sons or daughters earning substantial incomes living with them. It is ridiculous that the income to be considered should be that of the original tenant.
  The situation is entirely different when five bachelor girls all earning similar salaries club together in a flat, nominating one as the tenant. However, there is a solution. The Minister can make regulations about the categories of persons who should receive help and give permission to local authorities to consider those who are in hardship. By doing that, the initial difficulty which had kept the furnished tenant out of the provisions of the Housing Finance Act has been overcome.
  During the passage of the Housing Finance Act strong views were expressed. As the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) pointed out, in Committee on 20th January last year a number of amendments were moved. It so happened that the only workable amendment was the one that I tabled where I said "Forget about the furnished rent. Think about what the rent would be if the premises were unfurnished and let us work on that." This received the agree-
  270
  ment of the Opposition. I think that had the then Minister been prepared to accept it there and then, it would have been incorporated in the Bill. As it is, instead of the figure of 100 per cent. on the unfurnished basis, we now have a figure of 125 per cent., which costs more, but I welcome that higher figure, and is the result of greater experience of the situation. Obviously the Government had to consult local authority associations. In consequence, there has been this period of slight delay, but we now have an even better scheme than that which I suggested, and I welcome it.
  The right hon. Member for Grimsby suggested that this scheme should be considered a subsidy to the landlord—we have had this nonsense before—as the rent allowance is a subsidy to the landlord. However, it is quite different. The change has been moving the subsidy from the house to the family. Therefore, the landlord does not look for the poorest possible tenants in order that they shall have assistance with their rent and he will receive it. If anything, if he has a choice, he will probably go for the wealthiest tenant who can best afford to pay the rent. Therefore, it is nonsense to suggest that as soon as the tenant receives help with his rent, because he is in poor financial circumstances, thereby the landlord benefits. He does not. It is the tenant who benefits in those circumstances. So let us forget that rather silly slogan that we heard again today.
  Security of tenure is mentioned in the reasoned amendment. Again, the right hon. Member for Grimsby said that it must be a matter of personal judgment whether there would be a loss of accommodation resulting from the introduction of security of tenure. I entirely agree. Let us consider it.
  First, accommodation in people's homes. Can anyone really believe that if security of tenure is granted to a lodger in someone's home the householder will continue letting in those circumstances? One can imagine a householder getting somebody in who appears to be a perfectly charming tenant but who, as soon as he is in and has security of tenure, becomes an absolute fiend. We all know that this happens.
  Mr. Freeson: Does the hon. Gentleman know of any person in authority who

  271
  has considered this subject who has recommended the granting of security of tenure to lodgers?
  Mr. Allason: I use "lodger" in the rather general sense. The Francis Committee dealt with letting in a person's home. Technically, a lodger is somebody who rents a room and has access to common parts of the house, whereas a tenant has accommodation restricted to himself. The hon. Gentleman is just nitpicking. I am glad that he has again buried his nose in his papers. However, he knows that security of tenure within a landlord's own home is totally unacceptable.
  I now turn to the second matter of a renting house where the landlord is not in residence and it is a purely commercial proposition for him. As the right hon. Member for Grimsby said, we know that landlords are getting out of the unfurnished sector because it is no longer profitable. The situation now is that they can do far better by selling their houses and lending the money to building societies. They get a better and safer return than by continuing to rent unfurnished properties.
  This is not yet so with furnished property. That is still a marginally reasonable commercial proposition, but there is no guarantee that it will remain so. My own subjective judgment is that if we give security of tenure a landlord may fear that he will get an unpleasant tenant whom he is unable to get rid of and will feel that the game is no longer worth the candle. He will then follow the habit of the unfurnished property landlord of getting rid of the accommodation as fast as he can.
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: How?
  Mr. Allason: By gaining possession and selling with vacant possession.
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: To whom does the hon. Gentleman suggest these houses will be sold? Is there an unlimited number of people who will buy them? Does he accept that to dispose of property one needs both a market and a willing buyer? Has the hon. Gentleman considered the figures quoted by Miss Lyndal Evans in the minority report on the breakdown of furnished tenancies and their suitability for sale or otherwise?
  Mr. Allason: It is usually necessary to obtain possession of the whole house. We are speaking of renting houses which are let off completely.
  The hon. Gentleman asked from where the unlimited supply of purchasers would come. I remind him that only 1½per cent. of our stock of houses is being replaced every year. To my mind this is inadequate, but it indicates that there is not such a vast supply of houses coming forward that a buyer's market is about to develop. There is a huge demand for vacant housing and there will not be the slightest difficulty in getting rid of it. Indeed, I am alarmed at the way that house prices have risen in London. As the hon. Gentleman knows, this situation reflects the demand for houses.
  The reasoned amendment speaks of improved rent regulations in the furnished dwellings sector. We have not heard much about that today. I do not think that it is anything to do with the Bill. I confidently forecast that at some time or other it will be possible to get the furnished and unfurnished regulations more closely interwoven, but surely not in this Bill. The whole purpose of this Bill is to get something through quickly to help tenants of furnished accommodation.
  The speed with which my hon. Friend has been able to move is noteworthy. The unfurnished tenant's allowances started on 1st January, and in England at any rate the furnished tenant's allowances are due to start on 1st April. This is about as fast as would have happened had they been included in last year's Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend upon both his speed and his humanity.
  5.49 p.m.
  Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I should like to take up two points made by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason). He referred to what he called the "silly slogan" that subsidisation of tenants is of benefit to the landlords. This has been said on many occasions from this side of the House and in other places as well.
  Like my hon. Friends, I welcome the Bill because it corrects a serious anomaly following the passage of the Housing

  273
  Finance Act. Whereas the owner-occupier receives tax relief and the council tenant is eligible for the benefits of housing subsidies, to a greater or lesser extent, the private tenant, until the Housing Finance Act, received no benefit. We objected to the exclusion of furnished tenancies but welcomed the extension of subsidies to private tenants. But it would be wrong for us not to acknowledge that if the demand for any commodity is subsidised without simultaneously increasing the supply, the price will necessarily be driven upwards.
  Mr. Allason Mr. Allason indicated dissent.
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: It is a basic and fundamental element of economics which I am sure the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead does not find so puzzling as his expression suggests. When the amount of money provided to purchase something is increased, unless the supply is also increased the price is likely to rise.
  Mr. Allason: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would suggest that those who are most in need of help are likely to rush about looking for palaces in which to live. All they seek is help with their rent, which they already find pretty hard to meet.
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: They do find it pretty hard to meet. I am not suggesting, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that I am not, that the Bill will result in people rushing about for palaces. It will, however, enable them to pay a higher rent. Instead of a person paying £5 for a squalid room in North Kensington, the landlord may be able to extort £6. That is extremely likely. Nevertheless, if we have a situation in which the demand is such that the tenant is at the mercy of the landlord and then have these subsidies extended to furnished tenancies—we must look at the Bill in the context of the situation as it is—the landlord will be able to obtain a higher rent than he would have been able to otherwise. Although I warmly welcome the Bill, we must look at it in the context of housing supply.
  A conference was organised by Shelter in November and some interesting papers were submitted which analysed the effect of the subsidisation of owner occupation
  274
  since the war. The conclusion of the learned authors of a number of papers, which I expect the Minister has seen, was that the subsidies have had an effect in raising the price of both houses and housing land, and have not had a significant effect—certainly they have had some effect—in increasing the supply.
  In considering any further proposal for the extension of subsidies, we must look for fairness between different groups. The Bill is partially remedying the previous unfairness. However, we must realise that by enabling people to pay higher rents than they would otherwise be able to afford, we are necessarily pushing up the price.
  The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead must have heard the argument in Committee that, given the situation that we have of a certain number of council houses and a certain number of tenants with given incomes between whom the council houses will be distributed, the level of rent will be lower than if the level is set artificially high and then an excess is collected and transferred from one sector of the tenants to enable the others, who could not otherwise afford them, to pay such artificially high rents. In that way the rent is made higher than the market rate. That is what the Housing Finance Act did in relation to both council and unfurnished tenants.
  It is important that we understand what we are doing. We are raising the level of rents in the council and private unfurnished sectors to a higher level than they would have been on the open market. We are doing that by overcharging some people. That can be done with council rents because the Government have created a monopolistic market situation; have raised rents above the market level, and are collecting an excess from those who can pay them and paying it back in subsidies to those who could not possibly have paid such rents if it were not for the subsidy. That is subsidisation of the landlord. Given that situation, and I trust that the hon. Gentleman will not misrepresent what I have been saying, it is essential that we have the Bill. I suggest that the Bill could have been more effective, more generous and more equitable, but a Bill was needed to redress the anomalies created by the Housing Finance Act for furnished tenants.

  275
  The Bill as it stands only partially meets the needs of furnished tenants. We have had already some discussion about the lack of security of tenure and the effect of that lack. The hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) said earlier that the greatest number of furnished tenants were in his constituency. But it is in the borough of which the hon. Gentleman and I represent different parts that the problem of furnished tenancies is one of extreme acuteness. Every week at my surgery I have at least three or four cases of people with notice to quit who are threatened by eviction. That is only a small tip of the iceberg represented by people who are being evicted in North Kensington week after week.
  In North Kensington the local Labour Party has been distributing in large numbers a leaflet which advises people "Do not lose your home". Most people do not realise that when they have furnished rent books they are in most cases unlikely to be classified as furnished if the issue comes before the court.
  The extent and the seriousness of what is happening in the stress areas of London, and the significance of the lack of security of furnished tenants, is alarming. The greater part of the people who come to my surgery are elderly. They are mostly single, widows or widowers. They are mostly approaching retirement age. They have often lived for 11 or 12 years in a furnished room. They are then told by their landlord that he wishes to redevelop the place for luxury flats and given notice to quit. I have two examples which I have culled from today's post. One reads:
  "I find myself, after 11 years of exemplary tenancy with my own furniture and a furnished rent book, in the certain knowledge that the furniture at the beginning of the tenancy was not even worth four months' rent, with a new landlord and imminent eviction. I have now applied for a third term of extension of security, if such it can be called, but do not expect to get it … I might also add that I have tried for 11 months to find myself another home, without success"
  Another tenant, a nurse who is still working at a Middlesex hospital, received a letter from her landlord which said:
  "The rent tribunal which heard your third application today told you that if you applied to them again for an extension of security against the notice to quit which was served on you they would not grant such an extension. I am sure you know that when another tenant
  276
  refused to leave he was taken to court and was ordered to pay costs. I am sure that you will be able to find somewhere else to live."
  That lady, who is living on a nurse's salary and working in a London hospital, will find the prospects remote of finding anywhere else to live where she will be able to continue with her job or have any connection with the people with whom she has worked and lived all her working life.
  On humane terms it is almost indefensible not to grant such security. I know that the Minister is a man of compassion, although I disagree with him on many things, and I am sure that he would wish to grant such security, but he and his Department have been overborne by the views expressed by the Francis Committee. I would ask him to consider these views with care and pay some attention to an analysis of the evidence upon which the majority came to their conclusion and upon which Miss Lyndal Evans came to hers.
  In the first place, Miss Lyndal Evans, in her minority report, goes into the details of the figures of categories of furnished tenancies which exist and the reasons why she does not consider—I think with good reason—that it is likely that those premises could be put on the market. One reason is that 46 per cent. of the premises consist of single rooms, and it is clearly not practicable to dispose of those. The only parts which would be readily saleable are purpose-built flats and whole houses let furnished.
  The evidence before the Francis Committee was that only 5 per cent. of furnished accommodation in Greater London consists of purpose-built flats and maisonettes and that whole houses let furnished accounted for another 6 per cent. So this was 11 per cent. of the furnished market which could be sold. Clearly, the single rooms could not be sold and almost all the remainder was accommodation in conversions which again is very difficult to sell, because it is not acceptable to mortgagees.
  The hon. Member for Hemel Hemstead suggested that that is all right if the landlord can get possession of the whole house. Of course; but if security of tenure is granted this question is not very likely to arise. I am not sure how it is contemplated that, if the 500,000 households who occupy furnished tenancies

  277
  were given a right of security in their homes, any significant proportion of landlords could take those out of the market. For the most part, it would not be possible. One room falls vacant at a time.
  I appreciate that some hon. Members opposite feel that it is hard luck on the landlord that his investment should be tampered with by the law in this way. But surely it is much harder luck on the tenants, who, because they have lived all their lives and have their roots in an area which has suddenly become fashionable or desirable—as is happening in North Kensington—find themselves evicted in large numbers.
  Mr. Allason: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the normal furnished tenant in North Kensington has lived there all his life?
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: Clearly, not all furnished tenants have lived there all their lives, but many have lived there for long periods. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the information in the Francis report, and I think that the Minister said that a significant proportion of furnished tenants have lived in the same accommodation for long periods and, in a large number of cases, in the same area. A substantial proportion of those with whom I have dealings in North Kensington have lived there or in Paddington for a considerable period.
  To revert to the arguments of the Francis Committee, I would refer the Minister to another Shelter report, of a conference held on 13th March 1971, at which Mr. Francis gave information about the reasons for the conclusions that he reached.
  He referred to the evidence given by landlords that, if security were granted to furnished tenants, many landlords would like to get out of the field. That, of course, is nonsense. How, in practice, could they do so? He then went on to make a fallacious assumption:
  "I do not accept that the ordinary landlord will wilfully turn out a furnished tenant for no reason at all. In the vast majority of cases, there is no question at all that most landlords and furnished tenants get on quite well together and that the ordinary landlord will not turn out his tenant wilfully and capriciously, but only because there has been some misconduct on the part of the tenant or because the landlord may have a very good reason for wanting possession."
  278
  The situation that I can see in North Kensington and that can be seen by almost every Central London Member is that the landlord has a good reason for wanting possession because there are now richer tenants who would be willing to occupy premises that have been a former tenant's home.
  If Mr. Francis regards that as a very good reason, perhaps it explains his report. To be fair to him, however, it is more probable that he did not apply his mind to the situation of the changing structure of our central city areas, that we have large areas—indeed, almost all the areas in which furnished tenancies are concentrated—where property values are changing fast and the character of the neighbourhood either is changing or can be changed.
  It is said that there are 500,000 households at risk. Obviously, it is not as high as that, but in London, where the greatest concentration is, a large number of dwellings are at risk, particularly at the hands of the property developers or speculators who have been buying up properties in North Kensington, including parts like Pembridge Square and Ladbroke Square, which have for many years been respectable middle-class areas, with every third house let off in furnished rooms. Tenants are being evicted in large numbers to enable landlords to turn the premises into furnished flats.
  Anywhere in North Kensington one can see quantities of notices saying, "Sold for conversion to luxury flats". These furnished tenants are being evicted to make profits for the landlords. I cannot accept—I do not think that the House will accept—that it is legitimate to treat the homes of people, whether they are single or whether they have young children, in such a way that they can be told "You must go now, because I can make more money by getting someone else in."
  If the argument advanced by the Minister, his hon. Friends and the majority of the Francis Committee is correct, that the only way to keep private landlords in the market is by ensuring that their tenants have no security, that they cannot go home at night or paint a room or buy furniture in the knowledge that they will still be there in a few years' time, such tenants cannot take pride or

  279
  have a sense of home in furnished accommodation. If this is the only way in which the private landlord can be kept in the market, it is high time that we got rid of the private landlord. However, I accept that this is not the time to discuss that proposition.
  Miss Lyndal Evans, at page 45 of the transcript of the conference, said:
  "I gave some figures in my minority report; the majority report gives absolutely no figures at all and just bases the whole thing on a hunch. In fact, they say, 'We are convinced', but they do not justify that conviction. I have tried to do so."
  Miss Lyndal Evans continues by referring to part of the furnished market, and I have dealt with the part which could be sold, only a very small part. She says:
  "I do not think that all that much of the furnished sector is saleable or going to vanish from letting, and that some of it will be switched from furnished lettings to unfurnished. … Some small part of it may be modernised and improved—which will be a good thing—and I cannot see what landlords who own these terrible properties that are at present let furnished will do with them if they do not continue to let them."
  I strongly endorse that view.
  I turn from the general point of security and subsidisation to the more detailed provisions of the Bill.
  As the Bill stands, it will not achieve the object that has been claimed for it. The survey on rent levels commissioned by Francis shows the following:
  "Rent levels in the furnished sector were substantially higher for broadly comparable accommodation than in the unfurnished sector. The average weekly rent for furnished 'rooms' was £4·90 (compared with £2·64 for unfurnished) and for furnished flats in converted houses £9·38 (compared with £3·41)"
  Allowing 125 per cent. on unfurnished rent, the £2·64 plus one-quarter is £3·30; £3·41 plus one quarter is £4·26.
  That means that under the Bill's provisions for this typical furnished flat in a conversion, the occupational element will be treated as £4·26, whereas the rent at the time of Francis was £9·38. Thus less than half of the rent will be eligible for rent allowance. That will lead to the situation in which a local authority may say—I do not see how it could do otherwise under the provisions of the Bill—"Having taken the advice of the rent officer, although these premises are let furnished at £9·38, the unfurnished rent would be £3·41, and therefore the occupa-
  280
  tional element of the rent on which the allowance is to be based is £4·26." How can the local authority make a contribution towards the rent which will be of any significance?
  The only possibility is for the local authority to say to the tenant "Go to the rent tribunal and get your rent reduced." We know from Francis what happens to people who go to the rent tribunal. A year later Francis was able to find only 20 people out of 100 who went to the rent tribunal, and only five of those expected to remain in occupation. Ninety-five per cent. of those who go to rent tribunals are out or on their way out in a year.
  We shall achieve nothing unless, as Francis and my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) have suggested, we assimiliate the two codes so that we ensure that rents in the furnished and unfurnished sectors are assessed on approximately the same bases, but with an increase for the furniture of furnished tenants. In practice we have the provisions of Section 25 of the Housing Finance Act, as amended, and it appears that the Government are working on the assumption that the scarcity factor will be 20 per cent. everywhere, that the difference between the occupational element of a furnished tenancy and the unfurnished rent will be only 20 per cent. Clearly, that is not the difference between the open market rent, which is what a furnished rent is, and a rent officer rent, which in large parts of the country is very much greater. The evidence is that at the time of Francis in my area it was 40 per cent., and in practice the difference is now probably very much greater than that.
  It will not work unless we have assimilation and assessment based on similar bases of rent, and also security for furnished tenants who go to the rent tribunal or rent officer to get a fair rent assessed rather than a profit rent.
  Further, it will not work because far too many categories of people are excluded. I heard the categories only when they were react by the Minister, and my notes of them are that they are families with children, old-age pensioners, tenants with a pensioner living in the family, single people without children only if they have a long residential qualification, and any furnished tenants who

  281
  would suffer hardship in the opinion of the local authority in accordance with the guidance of the Minister, such as the chronic sick and those undergoing psychiatric treatment.
  But what of the hospital porters and nurses? What about the lady I have mentioned, about whom I do not know what to do? Another who recently retired is just about to be evicted and does not know what rent she will have to pay. She has an income from savings of £2 a week and will be eligible for a pension, but she would not have been eligible for rent allowance until about two weeks ago, when she retired from a job in which she was earning only a modest salary.
  The single person family will not be eligible, unless we get guidance from the Minister to the contrary. They will not be covered by the proposals. These categories of people in relatively low-paid occupations in central London—we are anxious on social grounds that they should be able to continue to live in central London—will not be reached by the Bill's provisions.
  Mr. Channon: I thought that the whole point of the hon. Gentleman's case was that the lady had been living there for a very long time. We cannot make too much of the circumstances of a particular case and cannot found an argument upon it, but the sort of case he has mentioned would obviously be covered.
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: I appreciate that the old-age pensioner and the lady who had retired would be covered, coming within the OAP category. But in the period before they retire they would not be covered. I am most encouraged to learn the contrary and look forward to obtaining more detail from the Minister. We have only heard this today, but I trust that the Minister will be interpreting it in such a way as to enable the provisions, limited as they are, to be implemented with reasonable humanity.
  I am glad to see some amendments to Section 24 of the Housing Finance Act which would provide that the landlord would be under a duty to give information to the tenant about the availability of the scheme. Bearing in mind, however, from Francis that the great majority
  282
  of tenants of furnished accommodation were unaware that there was provision to check the registration of rent, and that in Greater London 74 per cent. of all tenants who were paying rent in excess of the registered rents were unaware of that, I am sorry that the Minister has not taken the opportunity, which becomes important when dealing with furnished tenants, to ensure that there are more effective penalties for charging rents in excess of registered rent, and that rent shall not be recoverable if there is no rent book and if the notices required by the Bill are not provided.
  Those are detailed points which can be more appropriately dealt with in Committee, but the major point is that the Bill, with its restrictions and limitations, is a necessity—given the structure of the housing market—that has been created as a result of the Housing Finance Act. It is necessary to correct the inequalities and inequities that have been created by the Government. But the Bill will not alleviate hardship unless and until we have security of tenure for furnished tenants and an assimilation of the two codes, calculated on the same basis, and a system under which every one in need, whether or not they come within a specific defined category, is entitled to apply.
  The difficulties suggested by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead in having a universal scheme would apply equally to unfurnished tenancies, if there were such things in the situation he describes. But the difficulties could be overcome, and I am sure that the parliamentary draftsmen would be able to propose amendments to meet any difficulties that would arise in implementing a fair and just scheme. This is a useful part-measure which we shall support, but it is regrettable that it does not do a great deal more.
  6.21 p.m.
  Mr. S. James A. Hill: It is wrong that every Member who served on the Housing Finance Bill Committee last year is not here this evening to congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on keeping the promise made by our right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) both in Committee and on the Floor of the House. I thought at the time that the promise would be difficult to keep.

  283
  Furnished accommodation is in a state of constant flux and it will be difficult to pinpoint the tenants who will be responsible for the rent. Nevertheless, I must congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing forward the Bill.
  Mr. Arthur Latham Mr. Arthur Latham (Paddington, North) rose—
  Mr. Hill: I shall not take long. We know from past experience that the hon. Gentleman is inclined to think of a three-hour speech as an interval of time. I propose to speak for only five minutes, after which the hon. Gentleman will no doubt regale the House with one of the topics with which we were so enamoured in Committee and which helped to pass away the long night.
  I am perturbed that there is no statement in the Bill to the effect that it is the rent officer who will assess the rents. Local government in its wisdom may have the qualifications and the valuation departments to do the job, and they may set what they consider to be fair rents, but those rents may not be the same as a rent officer would set.
  I see that it is to be the unfurnished accommodation assessment with 25 per cent. added. Does that take in the quality of the furnishings? Does it take in the environmental area and the facilities in the block of flats or whatever it is? I am certain that there are anomalies there and that they will be difficult for local authorities to assess.
  It may be made clear in Committee that all these valuations are to be done by rent officers. I know the immense strain already imposed upon them and their staff, and how hard-pressed they are for accommodation, and it may be that local government should not put any further burdens on them. The rent officer in Southampton is conscious of the fact that he does not have enough staff or enough accommodation. He has to deal with hundreds of applications at a time, and in Committee further provision should be made to provide extra finance and accommodation for rent officers.
  With regard to the argument whether landlords will be vicious to tenants or whether tenants will be vicious to landlords, perhaps I may recall the details of a case that arose in my constituency. A woman living on her own with a small
  284
  child took a tenant into furnished accommodation. Later she came to me because her tenant was selling off the furniture. Even under the present law it took her some months to get vacant possession. By that time the police had been brought into the case, and when my constituent eventually obtained vacant possession—not having received any rent for some time—she found that not only had the furnishings been ill-used but that some were missing. It is not all landlords who are rascals and all tenants who are saints.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: The lady had the right to seek an injunction from the local county court, quite apart from calling in the police. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that these legal remedies have some value? Does not he also agree that this landlady, who appears to be rather poor, would probably have been eligible for legal aid, and possibly even free legal aid? Were not those remedies sought or even investigated?
  Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman is perhaps forgetting that he is a strong, virile, masculine male, whereas this woman was terrified of her formidable tenant. It was only in the last resort that she went to law, because she knew what fury that would arouse. I have mentioned that not as a bone of contention but merely because once in a while somebody from these benches should point out that it is not all landlords who are rascals.
  What the Opposition are going to do about the Housing Finance Act is a matter of conjecture but if, in the event of their returning to power, they rescind the measure, by that time the allowance proposed in the Bill will have made a fine contribution towards maintaining the housing stock. I implore hon. Gentlemen opposite not to destroy for the sake of destroying but to look carefully at this matter. There is a tremendous amount of good in the Housing Finance Act and in each step that has been taken by my hon. Friend, and I congratulate him and his staff on the way in which they have put the Bill together.
  6.27 p.m.
  Mr. Cyril Smith: Perhaps the first thing I should do is advise the Minister that not all the furnished tenancies are in either North Kensington or in greater London. There are other parts

  285
  of the country in which one finds large numbers of furnished tenancies, and therefore many of us are as interested in the Bill as are London Members.
  The Liberals intend to support the Bill.
  Mr. Joseph Harper: Where are they?
  Mr. Smith: They are where 98 per cent. of the Labour Members are.
  Mr. Harper: Where are they?
  Mr. Smith: From your long experience of the House, you would know that better than I would.
  Mr. Speaker: I am not sure that I would.
  Mr. Smith: I should have said that the hon. Member would know that better than I would.
  Although the Liberals will support the Bill, we agree with the official Opposition that it is somewhat inadequate. It is, however, an improvement on the present situation and I repeat that we propose to support the Government in the Lobby this evening.
  The major weakness of the Bill is that touched on in the Opposition's reasoned amendment. It relates principally to the clause dealing with security of tenure. We believe that this is a major weakness because it could allow landlords to cash in on the subsidies that are to be given.
  I do not subscribe to the view that all landlords are unscrupulous, but that does not alter the fact that some of them are. Under the Bill as it stands, if some tenants are able to obtain rebates and their landlords become aware of that—and there are many ways under the Bill by which that can be done—it is possible, if not in some cases highly probable, that rents will be increased as a consequence.
  I regret too that I cannot accept the Minister's opening conclusions in relation to the provisions that we require concerning security of tenure. I cannot accept that the inclusion of security of tenure in the Bill would necessarily result in a reduction of the number of available tenancies. The first point is that it would not result in fewer houses. Therefore,
  286
  if one accepts the argument that it would result in fewer tenancies, what the Minister must be arguing is that the houses in question would be put up for sale as a consequence of security of tenure. If that were the case it might very well have the effect of reducing the selling price of houses, because there would be more houses for sale on the market. For my part, that is a risk I am prepared to take in requesting security of tenure for people in furnished dwellings.
  It is debatable too whether a 25 per cent. allowance on the net rent allowance for furnishings and fittings is sufficient. I am advised that in some parts of the country the figure should certainly be 50 per cent. and that in other parts it may well require to be 100 per cent. I hope that the powers which the Minister has in this matter will be used.
  I cannot understand why there should be two systems of fixing furnished rents—the existing rent tribunal and, now, the new local authority rent officer system. The existence of two systems can only increase the ad hoc nature of the way that furnished rents are set at the present time. I suggest that the Bill is liable to lead to inflationary tendencies in rents and I think that that also is to be regretted.
  The Minister dealt in his speech with the problem of take-up, and certainly it is the wish of all of us that the rate of take-up should be high. Perhaps I might make the point that the Bill puts a further burden on local authorities in connection with their administration of it. A burden has already been placed on them by the Housing Finance Act 1972, and I hope that the Minister and the Government will find it possible to see that local authorities get special grants in order to ensure that the schemes are administered quickly and efficiently. It is all very well to say that local authorities are to receive 100 per cent. grants for the rebates that are allowed, but the fact is that the salaries and wages of staff are a burden on local ratepayers. I hope that the Minister will find it possible, by means of a special type of plan, to ensure that any extra staff who might have to be employed as a consequence of the Bill will not result in an additional burden being placed on the local authorities.
  Mr. Crosland: The subsidy covering the rent allowance will be a 100 per cent.

  287
  Government subsidy for only a limited period. After that, the local authority will have to cover it.
  Mr. Smith: I realise that. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct in making the point. Those who have been actively concerned with local government, as I have for the past 20 years before I was a Member of this House, have seen a growing tendency on the part of all Governments to move the burden of national taxation to local taxation and to leave the local councillor to carry the can at the local elections. I very much hope that this point will be borne in mind.
  What the Liberal Members of the House, including myself, are saying, is that the Bill is inadequate but is none the less an improvement on the present position. It might almost be described as a "pop and squash" Bill in which the fizzy bit is on top, the effervescence is very good and the drink is drinkable, but it would be much better if it were strengthened. That is how we see the Bill. I shall not delay the House any longer. I have said what I need to say and I hope that the Minister will find it possible, particularly concerning security of tenure, to strengthen the Bill in Committee.
  6.25 p.m.
  Mr. Marcus Worsley: The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cyril Smith), when he began, reminded us that furnished tenancies are not peculiar to London, but I think he will have heard the statistic given by my hon. Friend in opening this debate which showed that no less than 40 per cent. of furnished tenancies are in the Greater London area and that the overwhelming concentration of them is in the three boroughs of Central London, many of the hon. Members from which have spoken during this debate. So the greatest concentration of this problem is without doubt in London.
  I think the hon. Gentleman's position was certainly more logical than that of the official Opposition. He said he would have liked to see more in the Bill, which is fair enough, but he did not put himself in the very curious situation of the previous speaker opposite, the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann), who shares with me the honour of representing part of the Royal Borough, who, although he started by
  288
  saying that he much welcomed the Bill, has in fact put his name to the amendment, which starts by saying that the House declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill on certain grounds. This is an extraordinarily illogical position to have taken up. I do not know whether he accepts that the amendment which he and his right hon. and hon. Friends have put down will be defeated. Perhaps he is banking on that. Perhaps he is relying on the efficiency of the Government Whips, as he generally can. Were this amendment put down by himself and others to be accepted, this Bill would not go forward; yet he much welcomes it. So I think that he and his hon. Friends have got themselves into a considerable muddle—a muddle which the Liberal Party has avoided.
  The fact is, of course, that this is a major step forward. The fact that it does not do everything that all of us would like—and I shall say a little about some of the things I would like—does not mean that it is not a really major step forward. The Opposition had the chance for six years of tackling this problem and they did not give, in either the unfurnished or the furnished sector, the kind of rent allowance which is now in operation in the unfurnished sector and soon will be in the furnished sector. I speak with a great deal of feeling about this because in my own constituency and in neighbouring ones it is going to make a a great deal of difference.
  It is an important characteristic of my own constituency that there are a great number of people—and the hon. Gentleman mentioned such people in his speech—who are not very highly paid, who are working perhaps in hospitals or similar institutions in the centre of the city; admirable people, essential people, people who are above the level at which supplementary benefit, and so on, comes in to help them; but nevertheless people who find that housing costs in central London are hitting them very hard indeed. It is these people who are being helped by the Housing Finance Act which was so resolutely opposed by the Opposition, and who will be helped by this Bill which the Opposition intend to divide against.
  What is so important about this form of support is that to keep such people in central London is to keep the community

  289
  in central London alive. If these people leave, they will be replaced by people from abroad or from other parts of England, people who do not feel involved in the community. Many of us are very concerned about the erosion of community life in central London.
  I, therefore, congratulate the Government on tackling the problem by refusing to be alarmed at the real difficulties of extending help to the furnished sector. I commend the Government for their good efforts in Cmnd. 5183. If Governments were always to do some of our homework for us by showing the effect of amendments it would help us.
  I turn to the important question that the Opposition raise in their amendment. It is illogical not to wish to pass the Bill because it does not deal with this question. However, it is something that must be tackled. The root of the problem is that there are two systems of control—one for furnished accommodation and one for unfurnished accommodation—and the line between them is not based on any very logical distinction. It has been based for 50 years on the arbitrary fact of the existence of various pieces of wood, leather and metal in a unit of accommodation. Radical consideration must be given to the question of what kind of property should be protected and what should not.
  The Opposition's simplistic approach does not contribute much. It would not solve the problem simply to bring the furnished sector into the present system of control for the unfurnished sector. Many furnished units of accommodation would go off the market if there were even a serious threat of the type of control that exists in the unfurnished sector. I have in mind rooms, or often the whole floor of a house. A young couple acquires a house on marriage. At that stage the house is too large for them, so they let a whole floor. Then in the natural course of events their family grows, and they need that floor. So they occupy the whole house. If such people were told that if they let the accommodation the tenant would have all the panoply of the protection of the Rent Act they would not let it. That would cause hardship to the young couple, who need the income, and it would cause even greater
  290
  hardship to the speculative tenant who cannot move in.
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that all the evidence submitted to the Francis Committee urging security of tenure for furnished tenants, particularly the Labour Party's evidence, the evidence of the Society of Labour Lawyers, and all the arguments that have been presented from this side, assume that the tenant of an owner-occupier where the tenant occupies less than half the house will be excluded from protection and that holiday lettings should be excluded? The recommendation made from this side is of the kind, though not necessarily in the precise form, put forward by Miss Lyndal Evans in the minority report of the Francis Committee; namely, that security of tenure would not be granted to a tenant where he was occupying less than half of a house occupied by his landlord.
  Mr. Worsley: The hon. Gentleman has come some way towards the case I am making, but I will follow my argument through. I am arguing that there should be a new line of distinction, and the hon. Gentleman may agree with me when I have finished. There are many examples of furnished tenancies where this type of control would be thoroughly undesirable.
  At the other end of the line—this is happening a great deal in my constituency—perfectly ordinary flats, by which I mean flats with all the modern conveniences and with a front door of their own, when they become vacant are being turned into furnished lettings instead of unfurnished lettings, simply to get round the Act. Such cases present a totally different problem, for the effect of this action is twofold. First, security is removed. Secondly, there is a tendency then to get people in such accommodation who contribute little or nothing to the community. They often make life difficult or impossible for the existing tenants of the unfurnished accommodation in the block. They tend to be students or groups of young people who by nature are noisy. These people are sometimes put in with harassment in mind. Sometimes the nature of the typical, furnished tenant is that he makes life very disagreeable for the tenants who are already there.

  291
  In such circumstances there is no case for saying that the existence of pieces of furniture in the flat should make any difference to the nature of the control.
  We should think a little more radically than simply to say that furnished lettings should be brought under the same rules as unfurnished lettings. We should be looking for a new definition, and a new distinction between types of property where control is desirable and those where there should be a less extensive control for fear of putting the property off the market. It is necessary to look not at the furnishing of the flat or house but at the definition of the type of accommodation.
  I shall with a clear mind vote against this ridiculous "reasoned amendment", but I emphasise that I do not believe that the situation can remain where it is. The question of control must be viewed radically and afresh. A system which has lasted for so many years is shown to be less and less satisfactory. Therefore, though I warmly applaud the Government for the Bill, which is a great step forward, I hope that it will be only a precursor of a much more wide-ranging Bill dealing with the question of security of tenure and rent control.
  6.50 p.m.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: The hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) hopes that some of the deficiencies relating to rent control of furnished lettings will be dealt with by the Government, but there was no sign of that in the speech by the Minister for Housing and Construction. The Minister gave no indication that the Government have any further legislation in the pipeline to deal with the problem. Therefore, it becomes abundantly plain that the Government, because they are not going to introduce further legislation, are going to waste this opportunity to introduce very urgently needed reforms.
  The hon. Member for Chelsea said that he did not think that offering security of tenure to furnished lettings on the same basis as unfurnished lettings will solve the problem. I do not think it would solve the problem, because the problem is so immense in London that it will need startling assistance from the Government, something far more radical
  292
  than anything contemplated in this rather puny Bill. The hon. Member, like so many of his hon. Friends, asserts that there would be a drying-up of accommodation if the concept of security were extended to furnished accommodation. It is a mere assertion. It is based on no evidence. The example produced by the hon. Gentleman was not an example in fact but an assumption he made from certain facts that he postulated.
  Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) has pointed out, the evidence before the Francis Committee indicated a contrary view to that which is being taken by the hon. Member for Chelsea. The hon. Gentleman says that he will go into the Division Lobby tonight with a clear mind. A clear mind was not altogether indicated by his speech because, coupled with the congratulations he offered the Government, he perceived, presumably from knowledge gleaned at his surgery and from going round his constituency, that all is not well and that it is not going to be made well by the provisions of the Bill.
  Of course we on this side regard the Bill as an advance. The Government are to be applauded in a limited way for producing rebates to the furnished sector. They had intimated not long ago that it was well nigh impossible to do it, but now they have produced this short Bill indicating that it is possible after all. But the Bill is not really even beginning to grasp the nettle of the problem which faces us, particularly in the stress areas of Inner London. It indicates a misunderstanding of the nature of the problems besetting so many people—people who come along to local authorities when all is lost and ask "Can you help us?"; people who have not taken advantage of the remedies available in law simply because they do not know about them; people who have allowed their notices to quit to expire, who have perhaps hidden their heads in the sand in the hope that the problem will go away. Some of them do not know where to get advice or how to get it. In this section of the community we are dealing in very large measure with people who are most deprived, and maybe for that reason they are sometimes careless of the remedies available in law to give them some modicum of protection.

  293
  We have had a terrifying show of complacency by the Government today. The Minister referred to the London Action Group, which is supposed to be making a survey to ascertain whether land is available in the outer London boroughs for development by the inner London boroughs. It is supposed to be finding land. So far it has not been able to produce a single acre. I am not denigrating its efforts, but the Minister is rather casual in dealing with the problem of homelessness, which is at the root of what we are discussing, when he can allow the London Borough of Barnet to prevent the London Borough of Brent from developing a site for local authority housing.
  Yet Brent had tendered a higher price than the private developers. Barnet, in its miserable complacency and selfishness, decided, however, that it would decline Brent's offer because it did not want to have local authority tenants. Snobbish values insisted that it should have private development there, and the Minister does nothing about it. He sits back complacently talking to a colleague and is not prepared to take any action to deal with this grotesque misuse of local authority powers. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will deal with this matter in his reply, because such a situation happens time and again. It goes to the very root of the problem because so much homelessness stems from furnished tenants who have been deprived of their homes. A similar situation has occurred in Bromley.
  The usual excuse offered in such circumstances is that the borough concerned is taking a number of transfers from the Greater London Council. One knows—my hon. Friends from inner London would certainly agree—that not only do these local authorities in outer London not take up all the transfers but that a minuscule number of people are moved. It is simply camouflage to cover up the appalling misuse of their powers by outer London boroughs.
  In Hackney nearly 40 per cent. of the rented accommodation is furnished—at least that seems to be the latest estimate. What flows from this is a great deal of uncertainty on the part of these furnished tenants about their legal position—and uncertainty leads to acute
  294
  anxiety, depression and distress and all sorts of social and welfare problems that we meet in local authorities and in our surgeries. Thus, 37 per cent. or more of tenants are deprived of the remedies which are available to the more advantageously-placed unfurnished tenants.
  What the Minister has singularly failed to understand is that in the vast majority of these cases the anxiety is related not so much to inability to pay the rent as to inability to ensure that for some time in the foreseeable future they will with certainty have a roof over their heads. There is in my borough a rising incidence of homelessness. In the quarter ending December 1972 there were 164 applications for admission to local authority accommodation, and 30 of these related to tenants whose landlords had obtained legal possession of their furnished accommodation. There were more whose landlords had taken advantage of the situation and had obtained illegal possession.
  My surgery is run in conjunction with my colleagues on the local council, and, probably like those run by other hon. Members, it is a living testimony of the misery and hopelessness of these people. One observes the helplessness in which they find themselves when their notice to quit has expired. One can only advise them that it does not look as though they have a chance but that perhaps they could argue that theirs is not a true furnished tenancy, because that is their last hope. The local authority tells them that they must persist and defend the proceedings even though they do not have a defence because they must do the best they can to help themselves. In that way these people land themselves with additional costs. The local authority must then provide bed-and-breakfast accommodation for these people because in most inner London boroughs there is an insufficiency of accommodation for the homeless these days.
  This is a terrible problem, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby was right when he said that it is likely to be exacerbated when landlords decide to serve notices to quit as soon as the local authority rent officer comes to make his inquiries. But, even if the Minister does not accept our proposition that security of tenure should be

  295
  extended to furnished tenancies, surely it is time for him to apply his mind to defining precisely what is a furnished tenancy. We were told on many occasions that his predecessor was doing so. This problem is dealt with in the Francis Committee's Report, where there is a firm recommendation that the present law should be regarded as grossly inadequate and misleading.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) has had some success in the local county court with cases he has undertaken in persuading the court to adopt a certain basis of valuation of tenancy; but that is applied very much by rule of thumb, with great respect to him. There are cases which indicate how much it is rule of thumb. There are cases which indicate that the proper proportion of the value which should be attached to furniture should be 8⅓ per cent., although some say 6 per cent., and, therefore, we just do not know what the true figure is. It is wrong that the law should be as uncertain as it is, so incapable of being defined, because uncertain law is bad law.
  The uncertainty of the present position is such that I do not believe that it is possible for lawyers to advise adequately about the matter. That means that tenants are left in the air as to their true position. It follows, therefore, that the Government should at least consider the proposition advanced by Francis, that there should be a new definition. They have not done so, not that I think that would solve the problem, but it would at least have shown that the Government were thinking about it. It is because the Government have not said what they think and it is not possible to create a clear definition that we believe the law applied to furnished and unfurnished tenancies should be equated.
  The illogicalities of the present situation are there for everyone to see. So much depends upon the situation which existed at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant who replaces the landlord's worn-out furniture with his own, so that there is nothing left of that provided by the landlord, is still in an uncertain position. He may still be regarded as a furnished tenant and have none of the security of the unfurnished tenant.
  296
  The real reason for the decline in unfurnished accommodation and the increase in furnished accommodation has nothing to do with the arguments adduced by the hon. Members for Chelsea, Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) and others. It is that rents in this sector are higher and security is less. Landlords are not in the business to do other than maximise their profits. We cannot complain because that is the nature of the system in which we live, but we do not condone it and desire to change it. Although what we are proposing undoubtedly would be a most useful advance, far in excess of anything the Government are proposing, the only way to solve the problems of the stress areas is to extend the powers of local authorities to take rented accommodation under their control. Yet that is the very solution which the Government reject. We have not heard about it from the Minister today, so perhaps he does not reject it. Perhaps he is battling against his ministerial colleagues. We do not know because he said nothing on the subject. Unless we begin to accept that private landlordism in areas like Hackney, Islington, and North Kensington has singularly failed and, therefore, must be replaced, we shall be unable to find any sort of solution to our difficulties.
  It will be a difficult task. The depth of the problem is such that it needs a far more radical proposal and solution than anything that this puny Bill has to offer. Therefore, although I believe that the Government have made a little progress, I hope that they will think again and not neglect the opportunities that lie ahead radically to amend the Bill in order to make it much more worth while for the unfortunate people in the furnished sector.
  7.8 p.m.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I had not intended to speak in the debate but I now wish to make a contribution on one or two aspects of the Bill. First, I welcome it because it makes at least some provision for those who are in real need and who are unable to meet their rent. It is, however, a limited Bill and it should remain so. The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) addressed himself to the problems which I am sure exist in Hackney and North Kensington. I

  297
  should like to address myself to the problem of furnished accommodation in other parts of the country.
  The largest amount of furnished accommodation in the Metropolis is provided for the foreigner. It is provided for almost every type of foreigner who comes here to carry out his business. Those who come for only a few days stay in the expensive hotels, but those who come to do real business quickly move out of the hotels and seek furnished flats and rooms.
  The second largest category of those who occupy furnished accommodation in London are our own people from the Midlands, the North and other parts of the country. They come on holiday in the summer when a large number of people have moved out of furnished flats, which they take, or they come from Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and elsewhere and they need a small pied-à-terre or furnished room regularly in London to enable them to meet their needs. I can illustrate this by saying that in Pimlico, in the very area in which we now are, there is one street with no less than 50 houses devoted entirely to that class of business, and several hon. Members live in that area. I am not one of them. There are also hon. Members on both sides of the House who own one or more of those houses. They are developed as furnished accommodation to meet a specific market. The letting seldom exceeds six months. It is often for three or four months and occasionally nine months.
  The turnover is tremendous. For example, there are all those who serve in the Australian High Commission and who come and go, all those who serve in the various offices of the Commonwealth, all those who serve in the embassies and all the Americans who come here. Apart from that there is a wide range of businessmen.
  I often speak in this House on tourism. This is not quite tourism. It is true that a large number of people who want to enjoy England today make their headquarters in London and branch out into the country. They cannot afford the hotels. The hotel industry in recent years has provided 40,000 to 50,000 extra bedrooms for those who can afford to pay
  298
  for them but it has not managed to provide cheap accommodation in London.
  There is nowhere in London that I know of where a person can get bed and breakfast for £2. Consequently people turn to the furnished accommodation. The average price structure varies from about £12 to £20 a week for furnished accommodation in the Pimlico area, providing a bathroom, kitchen and at least two rooms. It is rightly called executive accommodation at the top end and it goes down to family accommodation for people coming from all over the country.
  We have to be careful, if we seek to introduce statutory control, that we do not drive that accommodation off the market. There is not enough of it. Events are closing in. Unfortunately more and more of certain areas has been taken over for offices. Other areas have been taken over by wealthy people and by large companies able to buy large flats or even take over a whole house. As a result of our entry into the Common Market our friends from those other countries will be wanting a place in London, if they can afford it.
  If we introduce any kind of control over what I call the decent class of furnished accommodation, it will be fatal. The question is whether the Government can in due course work out a scheme which will deal with the periphery of this matter and stop the undesirable behaviour of a small section of landlords in areas such as Paddington and Hackney whose main aim is to get the maximum amount of money—let us be blunt—mainly at the expense of coloured people. Perhaps there can be some joint thoughts on this.
  I am sure that the Government would like to take action to prevent anything which smells of Rachmanism, extortion or failure to provide proper facilities. My judgment is that this will not be done by way of statutory control. It must be done along the lines of finding a way to ensure that the services provided are proper and adequate. There is very strict control through public housing to ensure proper sanitary conditions. It is by an extension of such lines that we may be able to get more satisfactory furnished accommodation for those who cannot afford to move into unfurnished accommodation and who are unable to obtain houses.

  299
  Who are those people? First they are the coloured community, particularly in areas such as Paddington and Brixton. The problem there is overcrowding. In one instance of which I heard recently in Thanet, there are no fewer than 30 people in one house. This kind of thing is frequently to be found in certain areas of London. It is still possible to use old provisions more effectively in preventing excessive rent. This worked before and it can work again. The difficulty is supervision. The problem lies in the overworked local authorities in these large areas being called on to perform yet another function in trying to watch over large areas of very cheap furnished accommodation. It is an extremely difficult additional burden.
  I do not think that the right way is to introduce statutory control so that a person cannot be got rid of. I had to speak about this some years ago at the time of the original Act in connection with holiday lettings. In the end it worked out fairly well, but we still have occasional examples of people taking advantage of the situation and moving into a town such as Margate and deliberately remaining after their lease has ended in the knowledge that they will have to pay a higher rent once the high season begins in the summer.
  Most important of all we must recognise that London, Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester and Cardiff are the great cities of the European future. There will be a need for more accommodation. The hotels which are most crowded at the moment are, curiously enough, those recently built with single bedrooms. There is an immense demand. Equally there will be a demand in those areas for furnished accommodation, small flats, company flats and flats for people who may be working there during the week. It is easy nowadays to commute from London to Birmingham. I did it during November. I had to go up every morning and be back here in the House in the afternoon.
  This means that we have to preserve mobility in the furnished accommodation market. I do not want to decry the human approach taken by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central on a different problem, but I do not think that the way out is through statutory controls so that people can never be moved. We
  300
  have to work at trying to make their conditions better and, by assisting with local authority grants, ensuring that standards are improved. By all means let us ensure that the landlord makes adequate and proper provision for all reasonable amenities.
  7.18 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Latham: I am particularly pleased to follow the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) and to link what he has said with the contribution of his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley). It has to be recognised that there can be two problems, two types of furnished accommodation mixed up in this argument. We can come to contrary and conflicting conclusions according to whether we look at it from the point of view of a prosperous area in which furnished accommodation is naturally provided for those who seek temporary accommodation or whether we are linked with an area where ordinary working families are being exploited by landlords who are simply letting accommodation, which would otherwise be unfurnished, as furnished to circumvent the legislation protecting tenants living in unfurnished accommodation.
  The hon. Member for Chelsea drew attention to this and suggested that the Government should be re-examining the problem and trying to find a way of dealing with the different situations. He referred to what in some circumstances he rightly regards as the arbitrary dividing line between what is furnished and what is not. There is this distinction between the type of accommodation to which I have referred and that which is intended as a service, to be let as furnished accommodation by a landlord and where the occupant is the tenant of furnished accommodation by choice, because he specifically wants furnished accommodation rather than to be a tenant who is in furnished accommodation simply because this is his last desperate attempt to find some kind of home, all the other agencies having failed to provide him with unfurnished accommodation.
  What surprises and disappoints me is that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. S. James A. Hill), who was so unwilling to allow an intervention and who has long since left the Chamber, was

  301
  rather forcibly congratulating the Government upon introducing the Bill. He reminded the House that the Bill emanated from an undertaking given in Committee about a year ago. We were told at that time by the then Minister that the Government were concerned that there were great complexities. We had in mind some of those which have been instanced by the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet and the hon. Member for Chelsea.
  I would have hoped and expected that in the intervening 12 months not only the working party, about which we then heard for the first time, but the Government in their subsequent considerations would have set about tackling the complexities. The point I wanted to put to the hon. Member for Test, which I also put to the Government and to the House, is that although the situation is wrapped in complicated procedures which require a separate textual memorandum to assist hon. Members in understanding how this legislation will work, what is proposed is very simple indeed.
  It does not represent anything which could have developed out of 12 months' consideration and deliberation and could not have been incorporated in the Housing Finance Bill when it was first considered. I would have hoped that the Government might at least have said that they recognised these complexities but had failed to find answers to the problems and were therefore bringing forward this inadequate and puny piece of legislation aimed at tackling the problem of the exploitation of ordinary working families.
  I have a lack of enthusiasm for rent rebate schemes and I have even less enthusiasm for rent allowances, whether in the unfurnished or furnished sectors of housing. In the final analysis we are not, as some claim, subsidising the tenant; we are subsidising the landlord. I am unhappy about any extension of means-tested benefits and about a situation in which a substantial proportion of tenants, be it one-third or one-half, become eligible for such benefits.
  Eligibility must not be confused with likely take-up. Whether we are dealing with the local authority sector or the private sector, furnished or unfurnished,
  302
  in a situation in which large proportions becomes eligible for rebate or allowances there must be either something wrong with the rent levels being charged or something wrong with the distribution of wealth and incomes in our society. I conclude that both of these charges are true. The fact that I am unenthusiastic over a situation in which a majority of people become eligible to apply for means-tested benefits, when I believe that it is the landlord who is ultimately being subsidised, does not lead me in the present circumstances, with the present Government, to vote against this puny measure.
  It is wrong that so many old-age pensioners should have to depend on supplementary benefit. It would be better if the basic pension were adequate. To take that view, however, is not to oppose the provision of supplementary benefit in the meantime. Similarly, whilst I would prefer to see this problem resolved by bringing rents down, short of action in that direction I do not oppose the little assistance that might be offered in the Bill to tenants in furnished accommodation.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) thought that giving allowances to furnished tenants might mean that a tenant who claimed an allowance would find that his rent was increased so that the landlord would benefit from the allowance. In that way money paid by the community into the tenant's pocket would go straight into the landlord's pocket.
  The Minister who is in charge of the Bill is usually realistic and lucid, although I do not always agree with his point of view. But he is not being realistic about the practicability of this scheme unless security of tenure is introduced. Whether or not one is in favour of rent allowances for furnished tenants, one must be realistic and see how they are likely to work in practice. At present people continue to pay unfair rents because they fear eviction and because there is a lack of protection. The hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) claimed that a tenant of a furnished dwelling could apply for an allowance without the landlord knowing anything about it and would not be deterred from claiming by the fear of eviction. If the hon. Gentleman refers to the Bill he

  303
  will see that according to Schedule 1 the calculation for rebate purposes cannot be made without knowledge of three figures. One is the actual rent being paid, which the tenant may be able to substantiate without reference to the landlord by the production of a rent book. The second is an assessment of what the fair rent would be without furniture plus the 25 per cent. element referred to by the Minister. The third is the registered rent. The Bill provides that the amount of rent eligible to be met by the allowance shall be whichever is the smallest of those three figures. It is impossible to know which is the smallest without knowing all three figures.
  A large number of properties in my constituency are no more than boxes with bits of sticks called furniture, a large proportion of the rents of which are unregistered. To obtain a rent allowance tenants of those properties will have to take steps to have the rent registered so that the comparison can be made. The choice will remain with them of taking such action—and the landlord knowing of that action—or of opting out of the rent allowance scheme altogether. My fear is that those tenants in my constituency will not want to get involved with officialdom and authority and will not want to go to the rent officer in case the landlord should become aware that they have taken such steps and, as many landlords have done in Paddington, finds reasons for getting them out of the accommodation and offering it to others who clamour for it, unsatisfactory and unhygienic as it is and exorbitant as is the rent.
  If the Under-Secretary of State is able to say anything to allay that fear which my tenants justifiably have, I shall be delighted to hear it. I should like to know how tenants in furnished accommodation where the rent has not been registered may seek a rent allowance without the landlord becoming involved, and so remove the fear which inhibits them from seeking benefit from the scheme.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) said, many tenants are ignorant of their rights. Many of them think of the law as belonging to a different class of person, and it is expensive. For these reasons, coupled with the fear of losing the roof
  304
  over their heads, they are prevented from exercising their rights.
  I emphasise that the majority of those about whom I am concerned in my constituency are not in furnished accommodation through their own choice. They would much prefer unfurnished accommodation which they could furnish to their own liking. The only reason why the property they rent is furnished is that the owner of the property wants to get round the Rent Acts and make as much money as possible as quickly as he can. In the last two or three years there has been much evidence in Paddington that as soon as a property or part of a house which had previously been let unfurnished has become vacant, the landlord has put in a few cheap articles of furniture, divided up the property and let it as furnished accommodation at exorbitant rents. The Bill is disappointing as the Government have produced no solution to that problem. Such help as it gives is marginal and minimal and does not tackle the problem which needs to be solved.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby rightly said that the sale of property had become so profitable that it accounted for the reduction in privately let accommodation at the rate calculated by the Minister of 50,000 dwellings a year. For the reasons I have outlined there has been a reduction in the availability of private unfurnished accommodation and a corresponding increase of furnished accommodation. When it is suggested that control would lead to this property disappearing from the market, I find it hard to envisage the use to which the property could be put. After becoming vacant, good properties which have previously been let unfurnished have been sold. It is the poor properties which have been used to exploit the black and white residents in Paddington. I do not go along with the claim that the majority of the exploited tenants of furnished accommodation in Paddington are coloured people. A high proportion are, but the community as a whole is suffering exploitation.
  It is not unusual to have exceptional legislation to deal with an exceptional problem in a particular part of the country. Recognition has been given to stress areas in the Housing Finance Act by

  305
  many special provisions. One contribution to the problem in the stress areas would be to insist that all tenancies whether furnished or unfurnished, must be registered, and that all rents should be determined through the rent machinery. Only in that way would the scheme before us give any great measure of assistance to a large number of tenants. So long as the initiative rests with the tenant to invite authority to take action, the tenant, either from ignorance or from fear, will be inhibited from initiating the process which can result in financial assistance being given to him.
  The Government have spent a year or more studying the problem. In addition to the little that is in the Bill they should have brought forward proposals for dealing more effectively with bad landlords. There are good as well as bad landlords, but Paddington seems to have an unfair share of bad landlords, the type who will take advantage of a three-storey house with attic and basement to let five floors, often dividing each floor into two and letting one room or two rooms for between £6 and £8 a week for each individual tenant, representing an income of between £1,500 and £3,000 a year for one property with very poor shared facilities.
  If one asked those tenants what action they would like the Government to take, their first priority would be for the Government to get them out of these hovels.
  Their second priority would be for the landlord to put the house in order. Their third priority would be for the landlord to stop charging exorbitant rents. None of the tenants I have in mind would think that the solution is for the Government to give them a sub to help pay the exorbitant rent. They would not regard that as the way to meet their problem.
  A future Government will insist on compulsory registration of all tenancies. Anyone willing to function as a landlord of furnished or unfurnished property should require to be licensed as a fit and proper person to own and manage someone else's home. It is necessary to have a licence to drive a car, to run a betting shop, to sell pets and to sell liquor. All kinds of functions which fall short in importance of managing and providing
  306
  a roof over someone else's head require a licence. Licences could be withdrawn if a person engaged in malpractices, and that might be a way of dealing with bad landlords.
  I should like to deal with one other aspect of the Bill. A good deal of Press publicity has been given to the fact that some months ago the First National Finance Corporation netted a profit of £24 million simply by acquiring from the existing landlords, over the tenants heads, 110 blocks of flats and subsequently within a short time selling off those properties to a new set of private landlords. The number of tenancies involved divided into the total profit made by the corporation represents a sum of £2,333 per tenancy. This trading in people's homes represents a clear profit of over £2,000 per tenancy, since this is the difference between the original purchase price and the price at which the dwellings were subsequently sold. This is not a philanthropic venture, but represents a clear expectation of the future trend of rents in both the local authority and the private sector.
  Against the background of profit from trading in people's homes, we should examine the impact of this puny measure on rent levels charged to people who otherwise would be homeless or living in inadequate accommodation. Some of the properties in the 110 blocks to which I have referred are furnished, and there are other deals and transactions taking place at present in the expectation that still higher rents will be possible. The payment of rent allowances, without any conditions being applied to the maintenance of the property, will result in rent levels rising still further and these profitable property transactions in people's homes will continue.
  The tenants about whom I am concerned do not live in their present accommodation from choice. It may be argued that the Labour Government missed an opportunity to do something about furnished accommodation during their term of office. I make no apology for that but, for the reasons I outlined at the beginning of my speech, it must be said that the number of furnished units of accommodation—and more important, the number of problem furnished units—has been growing over the last two or three years. Furthermore, there has been a noticeable

  307
  increase in the excesses practised by the worst landlords in recent times.
  I conclude by asking the Under-Secretary of State some direct questions. The Minister quoted figures which indicated that one-quarter of furnished accommodation was at present occupied by families. What was the methodology of the survey which produced that figure? How up to date is the Minister's figure of 600,000 dwellings and what is the proportion in London? What definition of the term "furnished accommodation" was adopted? It is difficult to adopt a clear definition in respect of many properties—and this certainly applies to properties in my constituency—and whether those properties can truly be regarded as furnished or unfurnished. If we are expected to base conclusions on the Minister's statistics, we are entitled to know a little more about the authenticity and accuracy of the figures.
  The Bill only scratches at the problem and will have the effect of concealing many of the very real problems that exist. I do not question the motives of the Minister or of the Under-Secretary from the point of view of their own political philosophy, but I regard this exercise as a conscience-saver which may prevent a more comprehensive and thorough tackling of the problem. It may provide an alibi for something else. The question we have to consider is whether rent allowances will be provided for furnished tenancies and, if not, why not. I have given a number of reasons which apply to the majority of furnished tenancies in central London.
  I regret that the Government have spent a whole year in looking at ways in which to tackle the problem and have come up with only a limited solution. They could have tackled the housing problem with much more comprehensive proposals which go much further than those contained in the Bill to help those in furnished accommodation who are exploited by had landlords.
  7.48 p.m.
  Mr. David Stoddart: I have listened to the debate with great interest and I must confess that I had not intended to take part. However, having heard interesting speeches from both sides of the House, I feel that I should take
  308
  this opportunity to say a few words about the Bill and about the housing problem generally, particularly relating to furnished tenancies.
  I had hoped that in the period which has elapsed since the long dreary hours spent discussing the Housing Finance Bill—
  Mr. Allason: Who made them dreary?
  Mr. Stoddart: The hon. Gentleman asks who made those hours dreary. It was the Members of his own party who made the proceedings so dreary because they would not accept the Opposition's reasonable amendments. They would have saved themselves a great deal of time if they had listened to reason and heeded the warnings of the Opposition about increasing the costs of housing and if they had not brought forward the Bill at all. In my view the long dreary hours that we spent in Committee were the fault of the Government and their total inability to understand the true housing position.
  Although I appreciate that a little will be done to help the tenants of furnished accommodation, I should have much preferred to see the Government taking the opportunity in recent months to reexamine their housing policy. I should have preferred the Minister, instead of talking about this Bill, to talk about ways and means of cheapening houses. I should have liked a reply from the hon. Gentleman to a letter I wrote him during the recess about a speculative housing firm in my constituency which within a year doubled the cost of houses built on land which bad been sold to it very cheaply by the local authority. I should have preferred that to this puny little Bill.
  If we are to solve the problems of the tenants of furnished accommodation as well as those of other tenants and of owner-occupiers, we need more than a little Bill of this kind. We need a general shake-up of our housing situation. We do not want merely to put out £8 million to assist the tenants of furnished accommodation. We need to re-examine the whole basis of our housing policy because it is a policy which is based solely on profit, not only in the private furnished and unfurnished sector but, as a result of the Housing Finance Act, in the local authority sector as well.

  309
  If we are to provide better conditions for those living in furnished accommodation it is necessary to take the profit out of land and housing. The Minister ought to be giving a great deal of attention to that aspect bearing in mind the measures being brought forward by his right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with the inflation which they have caused and which is largely taking place in housing.
  I represent a provincial constituency where 62 per cent. of the population own their houses and 33 per cent. rent houses from the local authority. That leaves 5 per cent. who are in furnished or unfurnished private accommodation. The problem in Swindon is not all that serious. I appreciate, however, that the problem in London for the tenant of furnished accommodation is extremely grave. But I hope that I am not as parochial as the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cyril Smith), who appeared to resent the fact that many London Members intervened in the debate to highlight the special problem facing the Metropolis. I know that it is a very serious one.
  I should not want to live in London, but recently I took the trouble to visit some furnished accommodation in Kensington. What I saw made me realise the almost insoluble problem that London has in its housing difficulties. Swindon is an expanding town, and we are doing our utmost to assist. We are building houses which I hope many Londoners will occupy if we can find jobs for them. We are trying to help solve London's problem by expanding our town and making good accommodation available to Londoners, especially to those living in deplorable circumstances in furnished accommodation.
  I was surprised to hear of some of the rents that these people were paying. Very high rents are demanded for single rooms with facilities which ought not to exist in 1973. This is why I made a plea earlier in my remarks that we should be dealing with the housing problem on a very much wider and more radical basis. But the problem exists in the main in the Metropolis and I sympathise greatly with those who have to deal with it.
  310
  The question is whether the Bill will assist those whom it is meant to assist. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) related the experience that he and his local authority had been having in Birmingham. He outlined some of the difficulties that the city council had encountered in trying, through its powers under a Private Act, to put into operation housing rebates for both furnished and unfurnished tenancies.
  There is no doubt that the administrative problems are very real and that the strain on local authorities and their officers will be very great. The Bill says for example that the amount of rebate will be based on 125 per cent. of a fair rent. But let us consider the situation of a local authority examining furnished accommodation and inevitably comparing it with its own accommodation and the rents paid for that accommodation. The Francis Report showed that the average price for a furnished room was £3·51½. Many of the local authorities in administering this legislation will find that the fair rent for a house built to Parker Morris standards is perhaps £5 or £6. What kind of fair rent will they apportion to a single furnished room or to other furnished accommodation which certainly will not have been built to Parker Morris standards?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aston had a very real point when he said that the amount of rebate that the tenants of furnished premises would be able to obtain under this scheme was very small. As a result many will not go to the trouble of applying to their local authorities for any rebate to which they may be entitled. People resent applying for means-tested benefits. Anyone who read the article in the Sunday Times last week about a poor family will understand that working people are proud. They believe that means-tested benefits put them in an inferior position. They do not want to do it; they have their pride. There is a real problem in trying to convince people of their right, perhaps their duty to their families, to apply for benefits which have been voted by this House.
  When I talked to my local authority in Swindon about the Housing Finance Act before its operation, I was told that on the basis of its assumptions it expected

  311
  that between 60 and 70 per cent. of people in Swindon would qualify for a rent rebate. I said that the Minister did not agree; his figure was in the region of 35 to 40 per cent. The local authority said "As far as we are concerned, the Minister can say just what he likes. On the basis of our knowledge, between 60 and 70 per cent. of people in the Swindon borough area will qualify for a rent rebate."
  Indeed, the local authority was so confident that when the time came to make estimates, because it applied the scheme in April—I did not quite agree with that—it based its rate contribution estimate on the basis of a 60 to 70 per cent. take-up of rent rebates. As matters turned out, the Minister was more accurate in his estimate than the local authority and the take-up, although estimated at 60 to 70 per cent., has been between only 35 and 40 per cent.
  If in the sector of council housing—the council is in constant touch with the tenants week by week by rent collection and other means—the take-up is only 50 per cent., what will be the take-up by private furnished tenants, particularly bearing in mind that the rebate which will accrue to a tenant will be so small?
  The views put forward by my right hon. and hon. Friends need to be taken into account by the Minister. He must have further thoughts about security of tenure. Without security of tenure the tenant of furnished accommodation, who is insecure enough in any event and probably at the poorest end, will simply be frightened to apply for his rights. Many tenants are already frightened to go to the rent tribunals because they know that if the landlord gets to know, they may have only a few months more to occupy the property. I therefore urge the Minister to heed the minority report of the Francis Committee by Miss Evans who put forward very cogent reasons why there should be security of tenure and, indeed, showed how this problem can be dealt with administratively. The Minister must take this point into account and give it a good deal of consideration.
  The Opposition's reasoned amendment had to be put down because, without security of tenure, even the small amount which has been made available to furnished tenants will not be taken up
  312
  as a result of their fear of what their landlords can do if they find local authority officials floating around their properties and perhaps finding that they are charging rents which are far too high for inferior properties.
  I hope that the Minster will understand what we are getting at. The Opposition are trying to assist him in this particularly difficult matter of being fair to a section of the community which has been hard done by for some time. I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Government side will see the sense of the reasoned amendment and will support it.
  8.5 p.m.
  Mr. George Cunningham: A reason often advanced for not proceeding with legislation on important matters as rapidly as some hon. Members have pressed for it is that there is always a shortage of parliamentary time. In the light of the nature of the debate tonight on this subject, that argument cannot be sustained. That relates to the reasoning advanced earlier by the Minister for this Bill, with its rather meagre provisions, not taking account of some of the recommendations in the Francis Report which it was suggested might have been included. It is possible that in the 18 months to two years since the Francis Report came out the Department has not had time to work out what it wants to do as a result of it. However, I do not believe that is so.
  The only reason that could be advanced for not having fulfilled more of the proposals in the report is the shortage of parliamentary time. Surely it is clear from this performance tonight that there is no shortage of parliamentary Second Reading time. Whether we needed it or not, we have had probably twice as much time as was desired for debate on the Bill as it stood. This is becoming a not unusual occurrence. The idea that there is a shortage of parliamentary time is baloney. There is no shortage of time. If we organise it properly, we can get through twice as much legislation if it is brought forward.
  I have a small number of points to make on the provisions of the Bill. It has been said that when a tenant of furnished accommodation appeals to the rent tribunal it is frequently the first step

  313
  to his ultimately being put out on the street. My experience in Islington is that it is not only the first step to being put out on the street, but it is a provocation to harassment. Frequently when a tenant has gone to the tribunal and got what for him is quite a satisfactory solution—either a period of security of tenure or, more important, a reduction in rent—he finds that is when the harassment begins.
  The legislation on harassment, even with the increased fines which the Department co-operated in getting last year, is not effective. We cannot discuss this subject without realising that harassment continues. I will not say that it continues as strong as ever, because the devices used in Rachman's day do not continue. They have been sublimated into more legal, but no less effective, methods of getting people out of their homes.
  Worse, the courts, due to some judges being too little aware of the social consequences of what they are doing, frequently co-operate by taking a view on what constitutes suitable alternative accommodation which certainly does not fit my view of particular cases and results in tenants being ousted from houses when the landlord's only intention is to sell the house for an enormous profit. I have witnessed cases where that motivation was openly acknowledged in court. Nevertheless, the tenant was required to leave the property.
  The principle that we should subsidise private rents—and the principle is quite different in the case of municipal accommodation—is inherently wrong. I am not saying that the Bill is, therefore, unfortunate. I support the Bill as far as it goes. But there is an inherent difficulty about subsidising or providing an allowance towards meeting a private landlord's rent. We cannot take sufficient account of the fact that there will be deals between landlords and tenants. Landlords will say to tenants "We are going to put up the rent. But that is all right. You will not have to pay. We will come to a cosy arrangement between ourselves. We can both make a profit at the expense of the Government".
  No one can tell how common that situation will be. However, it will hap-
  314
  pen. There are close connections between some landlords and tenants. If we were starting from scratch and building a paradise, we would not create a situation which would allow the landlord to charge a high rent and then give the tenant an allowance from public funds to help him meet that rent.
  If we find that going rents and incomes are such that we are not prepared for social reasons to allow the tenant to find the rent from his income, we will in the long term have to look for a more radical solution. That means the phasing out or the dying out naturally of the private landlord and the substitution of various forms of publicly owned accommodation. I stress "various forms" because God forbid that the country or my part of London should be entirely in the ownership of one council or one council and the GLC, and that the only type of accommodation available should be the type which borough councils tend to build.
  We experiment too little with other forms of communal ownership. The co-operative movement does far too little in that respect. There are co-operative housing developments, and many places are owned by tenants who form a cooperative. However, we do not have the kind of thing which is to be found in Scandinavia and France, where the national co-operative movement operates with the local authority and provides some variation in the methods used by a local authority. I should like to see housing associations directed either at the population in general or at particular professions—for example, students. I should like to see larger associations than are common now which would provide another part of the market. With those variations it would be possible to provide for the entire requirement without the private landlord, with all the disadvantages which he increasingly presents. I should like to see such provision in city centres to meet part of the demand.
  The principle that the subsidies that will be paid to private tenants and others should be made in part, and an increasing part, out of rate money as against Exchequer money should be totally unacceptable. Of course, that is not a new point. In many respects we are asking local authorities to undertake redistributive

  315
  functions by taking on social welfare functions, which they can execute far better than a central Government agency. But the cost of that kind of operation properly belongs to the Exchequer and not to local authority rates.
  The Government are increasingly asking rates to bear the significant part of that kind of burden. I hope on the grounds of general equity, and because we all know that rates are a kind of taxation which no one would dream of introducing if we had not inherited it from the 16th century, that the engines are reversed and that we revert to meeting more of that kind of expense from general taxation.
  I now refer to the proposed devices to establish effective rents for furnished tenancies after making the reduction for the deemed cost of the procedure. I am at a loss to understand why that responsibility is placed directly upon the local authority. The Bill provides that rents are to be estimated by the authority for the purpose of estimating a fair rent. The authority is in a position to consult any rent officer.
  Therefore, the local authorities will have the responsibility for that decision after, if they wish, consultation. That consultation with the rent officer is not mandatory. It seems that we are creating a situation in which there are about three dogs all chasing each other's tail in a circle. It is already difficult, and it was difficult before the Housing Finance Act, for those who are trying to establish fair rents in the private sector to do so without reference to the public sector. Now we are trying to establish fair rents in both sectors. They are each chasing each other's tails. We are saying that the local authority must make a guess about what the rent officer would decide if he were considering a hypothetical situation. They have to try to imagine what the rent officer would decide if that situation existed. That is enough to try to drive any local authority official stark raving mad. It will mean that different local authorities will operate on a different basis.
  First, I understand that the reference to the rent officer and consultation with him is designed to detract from that and to bring some consistency into the operation. However, I cannot see why con-
  316
  sultation with the rent officer should not be made mandatory. Surely that is desirable. Secondly, I cannot see why the responsibility is not given to the rent officer. His office is where the expertise lies. The expertise does not lie with the local authority, which is a political body. No one would have dreamt of giving local authorities the responsibility for deciding fair rents. As we have two growing industries for the establishment of fair rents which operate on different administrative procedures, it is a bit daft to set up a third which will be made up of the officials of a local authority and supervised by the political heads of a local authority.
  I hope that that matter can be looked at closely in Committee. I can see no administrative objection if it puts more work on to the rent officers' staff. It will take more work away from the local authorities' staff, and they will have their hands full enough with all the consequences of the Housing Finance Act, without giving them that extra and different function.
  8.19 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Marsden: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart), who has unfortunately left the Chamber, I had not intended to speak, and the circumstances in which I have to speak are deplorable. I have had a busy day and have not listened to the debate. I have been in and out of the Chamber. The Mother of Parliaments is debating a matter which will affect, on a conservative estimate, 500,000 people; yet there are exactly eight members present.
  The Grieve Report on homelessness in London, published in 1971, said that private furnished accommodation was by far the most common type of tenure prior to homelessness. Like most hon. Members, I interview my constituents every Saturday, and I know that if that is true of London, it is certainly true of Liverpool.
  In Standing Committee E, on which I served for a short time, as early as the second sitting on 20th January 1972 we pressed the then Minister to include furnished tenants in the Housing Finance Bill. He gave his reasons for not doing so, one of which was administrative difficulty. I was not convinced then, and I

  317
  am not convinced now, and I have never fully understood the argument.
  The Housing Finance Act is very complicated, but why it could not have included all tenants—council, private furnished and unfurnished—with everyone treated the same I shall never know. The Bill is designed to take care of the furnished tenant. The only conclusion to which I can come is that the Government do not wish the furnished tenant to have security of tenure because of the landlord-tenant relationship in that field. They want the landlord to be able to get rid of the tenant whenever he wants.
  Party policy is normally stated from Front Benches, but I see no reason why a humble back bencher should not state what his party believes in. We in the Labour Party believe that most furnished tenants should have the same security as unfurnished tenants. It is as well to state yet again that, although the number of furnished tenants does not exceed 500,000, they are often the lowest paid, the least secure and pay the highest rents for the worst accommodation.
  I cannot support the Bill because this provision could have been made quite easily in the Housing Finance Act; there is no need for the Bill.
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Deakins: Like some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I have a constituency interest in the subject of furnished rented accommodation and in allowances which may be payable to tenants of it. In my constituency in North-East London about a third of the accommodation is provided by private landlords. Much of it is admittedly unfurnished—this is a diminishing quantity of accommodation in London—but there is also a fair amount of furnished accommodation.
  Like many other hon. Members who represent large urban areas, I find that most of the requests for help that I get over rents, and especially evictions, come from people in private rented furnished accommodation.
  The Bill will do something good, but our major criticism is that it does not go far enough. One might almost say that it is merely playing with the problem. Allowances should go right through
  318
  the private rented sector, and there is no logical reason—although there may be financial reasons—for excluding particular categories of furnished tenants who cannot prove hardship.
  Admittedly, in a schedule there is provision for the Secretary of State to designate other categories, but if he intended to make vast extensions to the Bill they would be in the Bill because there would be a great deal of political capital to be made from such a generous move. So we can expect these reserve powers to be used very sparingly, if at all.
  In considering whether allowances should be extended to all furnished tenants, one has to bear in mind the great disparities between the rents that they pay and those that others pay, particularly council tenants. In the Greater London area, the average rent, including rates, for a self-contained three-bedroomed council flat with lounge, kitchen, bathroom, lavatory and central heating is probably not more than £10 a week. For early post-war flats, with many of the same facilities, it would be considerably less—perhaps £5 or £6 a week.
  If such council tenants are to be allowed rent rebates, it is surely even more important that tenants of private furnished accommodation, who are paying much bigger rents, in many cases for much worse accommodation, should also be eligible right across the board for these allowances. That is not what the Government suggest.
  It may be said that I am exaggerating the disparity in rents. I want to give a few examples from one of today's evening newspapers, so that I am up to date with my information, of what private furnished tenants have to pay in parts of London. I discount districts such as Marble Arch and Maida Vale, where three-bedroomed flats with central heating, and so on, are going from anything from £40 a week to £60 or £70 a week. Neither side of the House would necessarily worry about the sort of people who can afford rents of that sort. Indeed, it is not the purpose of the Bill to take into account the interests of those tenants. But there is a great deal of other private furnished accommodation in the Greater London area in places where diplomats and top executives do not particularly want to live but where ordinary people

  319
  live and must find accommodation, especially if they live in areas such as mine, where there are long council waiting lists and there is little or no chance of them obtaining council accommodation in the foreseeable future.
  I want to look at some of the less fashionable districts of London to make my point that wherever one turns in London one cannot find a district, geographical or otherwise, where private rents are not very much higher than they are in the council sector. In S.E.17, for example, which is becoming fashionable—although, as I used to live there, I can assure the House that parts of the district are extremely unfashionable—a fully furnished flatlet, with linen, is going at £30 per month. That is £7·50 a week. That is hardly suitable for a married couple, or certainly a small family. That compares very unfavourably with the rent I have quoted for council accommodation. Across London in Bayswater, which is very much a mixture, a modern furnished flat, of two rooms plus kitchen and bathroom, which would suit a couple, is going for 18 guineas. The figures I am giving are not untypical, as any hon. Member who has had opportunity or need to look for furnished accommodation will bear out.
  Coming back to central London, W.C.1, again not a fashionable area, and where one might expect a rather more reasonable standard of rent, a flat of two rooms, kitchen and bathroom, said to be "luxury", although the advertisement does not say whether it has central heating, and "suiting two persons", is offered at £22 a week. That compares very unfavourably with the standard of accommodation and rents of the local authority sector.
  Some districts in the advertisements are merely listed by their postal numbers, such as W.3, W.4, W.6, W.10 and W.12. I am sure that they are very nice districts, but the advertisers do not bother to give names. In S.W.16 and 17 there are self-contained modern "mansion" flats. That means that they will not be very modern. These flats are of two, three, four or five rooms, with kitchen and bathroom, for a minimum of two people sharing, at £5·25 per person. So even for the smallest mansion flat in those districts the rent is £10·50 a week. That
  320
  is above the Greater London average for a modern three-bedroomed unfurnished flat with central heating.
  I know that one has to add a little element for furniture but, with the cost of land and housing in central London, I believe that is a very small element in the gross rent difference between furnished and unfurnished accommodation.
  Perhaps a more unfashionable district is Kentish Town, where a double room and kitchen are advertised at £9 a week. In Hornsey a double room and kitchen cost £10 a week. In Cricklewood two rooms and a kitchen cost £11 a week. In Stamford Hill two rooms and a kitchen cost £12 a week. In Kentish Town two rooms, kitchen and a bathroom costs £14 a week. And so on.
  Every day the newspapers are full of such offers of accommodation to let. But where are constituents of mine and, I suspect, of other hon. Members who represent urban conurbations to find accommodation in the columns of evening newspapers which advertise such accommodation for renting? They just cannot possibly afford such rents. I suspect that if they could afford them they could almost certainly afford the mortgage repayments on a house, provided that they could afford the deposit for a house.
  The allowances, such as they will be, for furnished rented accommodation are likely to be completely inadequate, in view of the rents being charged for such accommodation throughout the London area. What is more, whatever the allowances are initially, they are bound to be overtaken by rising rents. One of the dreadful features of the Housing Finance Act, which we pointed out, is that it will drive more and more people into the private rented accommodation market, putting pressure on the dwindling amount of accommodation, furnished and unfurnished, in London and other large towns. There is bound to be more competition for furnished accommodation in particular, because if one does not have accommodation to start with one cannot build a home in terms of buying furniture and having it stored; one must start in furnished accommodation. Therefore, there will be more and more competition, particularly from young married couples, for this sort of accommodation as the

  321
  Housing Finance Act begins to bite and as fair rents are reviewed regularly and spiral upwards because of this process of competition in the private rented accommodation market. Therefore, although this is a first step, it is such a pathetic and inadequate first step in providing rent allowances to private furnished tenants that I almost believe it is not worth bothering about. But it is a first step, and it would be grudging of us not to thank the Minister for having taken it.
  Let us hope that the Minister will be convinced, if not by hon. Members on this side of the House then by his hon. Friends, that such rent allowances, if they are to serve a useful social purpose, must not be the exact equivalent of those for tenants in local authority accommodation, where rents are lower and facilities are much better, but should be based on the need of the tenant, on the standard of the accommodation, and on the rent that he has to pay—not on the rent which, under the Housing Finance Act, is considered to be suitable to be paid by working-class people living in working-class districts.
  It has been said by many hon. Members that this system of allowances introduces means tests, and the point has been made, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart), that when there are means tests it is rare for more than half or three-quarters of those eligible for benefits to apply for and get them. There is bound to be a residual number of tenants in furnished accommodation who will either not hear about the rent rebates or, if they do, will suspect them of being a ruse eventually to get them out because, as we know, it is the private furnished tenants who have the least security of all, and they are the ones who, when they are evicted, form the growing band of homeless in London and elsewhere.
  High private rents for furnished accommodation could be justified if private landlords and those renting out private accommodation were investing the capital that they receive by way of rents into putting up more property for renting at reasonable prices, but we know that the tremendous rise in land prices in the last couple of years has virtually made
  322
  that prospect one that is just a mirage on the horizon.
  There is nowhere in London—except, perhaps, through housing associations and co-ownership associations—where private landlords are putting up blocks of flats or houses for renting on a furnished basis at reasonable rents. Indeed, it would probably not be economic for them to do so. What is happening, particularly in my area, is that more and more landlords, tempted by the high property prices of recent years in London and other conurbations, are beginning to sell with vacant possession or to sitting tenants their existing stocks of rented accommodation.
  The property boom in house and land prices during the last two years will indirectly make the shortage of rented accommodation even worse than it is now, and this, if it does nothing else, will on the pure law of supply and demand drive up rents even further in the private furnished and unfurnished sector. That in turn, under the Housing Finance Act, will influence the determination of fair rents whenever they are determined in a district, which in turn will force up proportionately the rents paid for council flats and housing, and we shall be on a merry-go-round of rising rents in the furnished and unfurnished parts of the private sector and in the local authority sector. This can have only one effect; namely, to harm the interests of those who wish to live in rented accommodation.
  There are other factors in the decline of rented accommodation, particularly in the London area. A large amount of this accommodation consists of rooms with shared kitchen and bathroom in the landlord's own house. A rise in property values is leading to a growing realisation on the part of such private landlords that if they can get rid of their tenants—which is very easy to do after someone has been to the rent tribunal and obtained six months' security of tenure, which means that he is then at the mercy of the local authorities, most of whom in this respect do a good job—they are then able to sell their houses with vacant possession and take advantage of the situation.
  The person who buys such a house will do so not in order to let off one or two

  323
  rooms but because it is the only accommodation that he can afford. We all believe in home ownership. Such a house will probably be bought by a young married couple with a family, and the last thing they want to do is to let the spare bedroom to a couple of old-age pensioners at £4 a week or something like that. So again this is going to increase the shortage of rented accommodation in the London area.
  I would suggest, therefore, that in these circumstances what private tenants, particularly in furnished accommodation, need—and I am merely reiterating now, because it is very difficult to avoid reiterating these few simple points—is security of tenure above all and reasonable accommodation at rents which are related to the quality of the accommodation. I often wish that the large number of council tenants who sometimes complain about the facilities and the rents in council flats could see the housing cases that many of us have to see, where people who are very badly off are paying very high rents in private furnished accommodation. They might then realise that there is another section of the community which is much worse off than they are.
  I think that only local authority control, certainly in the large conurbations, will be able to solve this problem of the supply of rented accommodation. I do not believe that the Bill at present before us will be more than a palliative. I do not believe that the Bill will lead to an increase in the supply of rented accommodation. Indeed, by virtue of giving rent allowances to people who otherwise might not be able to afford the accommodation it will have the effect of increasing rents. I think that this Bill will make the ultimate municipalisation of the rented housing market much easier, and for that reason I welcome it. I think there should be an eventual takeover of rented accommodation by local authorities, and this would end the stupid competition between local authorities and the private rental market whereby rises in rents in one sector where there is a great scarcity influence rents in the other sector, which is happening under the fair rent review and the Housing Finance Act, with the consequent vicious spiral of constantly rising rents in both sectors.
  324
  I believe that housing should be a social service, and we on this side of the House, if not some hon. Members on the other side, should have the courage to recognise this and treat it as such, and recognise also that ultimately subsidised rents, whether in the local authority sector or in the private rented sector as long as it exists, which I hope will not be for very much longer, are much cheaper than the social cost of homelessness, juvenile delinquency, and the other features of our urban society which in many cases stem from a bad home environment, the social consequences of the present free market in housing, from which we are beginning to depart. If this Bill is nothing more, it is a sign that this Government are now recognising that, in addition to interfering in the private unfurnished sector, they must start interfering, through rent allowances, in the private furnished sector. I welcome this and hope it will be the prelude to an ultimate takeover by local authorities generally throughout the country.
  8.47 p.m.
  Mr. Reginald Freeson: Perhaps I should first formally move the amendment as by a technical oversight this was not done earlier in the debate.
  I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which makes only a restricted provision for furnished rent allowances and does nothing to provide security of tenure and improved rent regulation for tenants of furnished dwellings, the lack of which is the biggest cause of increasing homelessness in the stress areas of our cities."
  So far as I have been informed the form of words of our amendment, which was subjected to some lighthearted criticism earlier in the debate by, I believe, the Minister and one or two of his hon. Friends, represented the only way open to us technically to table a reasoned amendment to say that in our view this measure is quite inadequate. It would not have been in order for us to object to the limited move being made by the Government in this sector, and this was the only way we could put our view on record. If there is criticism it must be directed once again to the procedures of the House rather than to the views of the Opposition.

  325
  The Minister and some of his hon. Friends have described the Bill as a substantial advance. One hon. Member said that it was a major step forward in housing policy. That was more than gilding the lily. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I believe that the Bill is a sop to pressures that built up from both sides of the House and outside it when the Housing Finance Bill was published last year. It was forcibly borne in upon the Government that a large section of tenants who received the worst treatment received no consideration. To the extent that the Government have finally yielded to pressures and representations made to them from different quarters they have produced a Bill which, although welcome within its small ambit, is misleading. It does not deal with the problems of which the question of allowances for furnished tenants is one aspect.
  In bringing the Bill forward in place of the more comprehensive measure which could and should have been introduced, the Government have shown once more their incoherence in housing policy. This is a puny measure which some hon. Members opposite hope will lull the public and interested groups and organisations into believing that action has been taken to protect furnished tenants and that thereafter we can all rest satisfied politically and socially that something has been done and nothing much further needs to be done.
  I hope it will be clearly understood by the public and by organisations and pressure groups which interest themselves particularly in housing and related social problems that little is being done by the introduction of the Bill. The Government's smallness of mind is made all the more marked by the political context within which the Bill is introduced. It is not for us to discuss today the draconian measures which are being introduced following the Government's failures in prices and incomes. The Bill, welcome within its small ambit, does not go to the heart of the problems facing the 600,000 to 700,000 furnished tenants.
  The main problems facing the inner areas of most of our cities, of which London has the biggest complex of problems, are the growing and not decreasing
  326
  problems of homelessness, exorbitant rents and the increasing shortage of good accommodation at reasonable rents. The personal and social stress which such conditions are creating increasingly for the families living in them is very largely induced by the constant insecurity of these families. Reports from our social workers who are involved closely in inner-city problems constantly point to this basic insecurity as being one of the causes of many other social and personal problems with which they have to contend.
  Finally, in listing these main problems which should be identified and tackled, we have the problem of decay and obsolescence to be found mainly in private tenanted property and which, notwithstanding the expansion of improvement grants under the Housing Act 1969, continues almost on the same scale as before the Act, since only a minute proportion of the improvements taking place with the support of the Act are in properties which are tenanted by the sort of people we have been speaking about.
  I want to go through these problems because they inter-relate and because to introduce a puny measure like the Bill without relating it to a number of policy aspects, some of which have been discussed in the debate, is to demonstrate the poverty of thought and action by the Government.
  The Minister referred to a meeting with the London Boroughs' Association yesterday at which the problems of homelessness were discussed arising, I take it, from the two working party reports which have been circulated and considered by local authorities throughout London. First it must be said that the reports do not deal with housing as such. They are essentially if not wholly reports dealing with how local authorities should administer their welfare powers to deal with the problems of homelessness coming their way and leave to the Department of the Environment rent and housing policies relating to homelessness.
  I was interested to hear the reply of the Minister to a question I put during his speech, when he said that only one person at yesterday's meeting had suggested that the biggest single immediate measure which could be taken to help

  327
  local authorities and the families concerned in the growing problems of homelessness would be to grant security of tenure. I do not know whether the person concerned was representative of others. But I was both surprised and interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman had to say because it does not reflect the views which I and my hon. Friends have been hearing from local authorities concerned in this question. I will certainly make it my business to get in touch with representatives of the LBA and local authorities in London and sound out their views, if need be bringing them back to the House.
  Mr. Channon: This shows how unwise I was to answer a question about what was, I suppose, a private meeting. The fact that only one person mentioned the point does not mean that others did not share his view. Indeed, I believe that they did.
  Mr. Freeson: I am glad to have that further explanation. I hesitate to pursue the point too far because I do not want to take up too much time from other aspects I wish to discuss. But in these two brief exchanges much lies. I take it from what the hon. Gentleman has just said that the majority view, if not the unanimous view, of the London boroughs is that security of tenure would be the biggest and most important immediate step which could be taken by the Government to help local authorities combat the problems of homelessness from which so many families suffer in London. That is the only interpretation that can be put on his further explanation. It is in line with the general impression—I put it no more strongly—that I have garnered from my conversations with local authority members throughout London, in particular throughout inner London.
  More and more housing managers, housing chairmen and members of local authorities are saying, when their views are sought on the problem of homelessness, that the biggest single immediate cause is lack of security in furnished accommodation. I trust that although the Government have refused to act so far they will take note of these views and consider them further and that they will not regard the Bill as their last word. If they do not, when we return to power we
  328
  shall take note of those views and act upon them.
  Before I proceed further to discuss the Bill in detail I must express my concern at the nature of a reply to a Question which I put to the Government on 20th December last year. It was in no way rhetorical or based upon a debating point, but was intended to seek information. It was tabled to the Secretary of State for the Environment but it was transferred quite correctly to the Secretary of State for Social Services and it asked what was his estimate of the number of families in homeless families hostels or rehoused by local authorities in 1971–72 whose previous accommodation had been in furnished dwellings. The reply I received from the Under-Secretary was:
  "I have consulted my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment but regret that there is no information available on which to base an estimate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December 1972; Vol. 848 c. 371.]
  That answer deliberately misled myself and the House because that information is available. There is plenty of information available in the Grieve Report, in the returns made by local authorities about the homeless families with which they deal, in the returns made to the Department of Health and Social Security and in all the other surveys and probings which I know the Department of the Environment has undertaken into the problem of homelessness. This is yet another example of the kind of treatment to which we are becoming more and more accustomed from the Government. That was a non-answer which was totally misleading. If I wanted to take up the time of the House I could give the information from the many statistics which are available in print and which flow into the Government regularly on special forms which the Government require the local authorities to send them. I shall pursue this matter on another occasion when it is more appropriate to do so.
  I hope I shall be forgiven if, although speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, I illustrate my argument with a constituency point. I represent part of what is technically an outer London borough but one which is recognised as having a large degree of inner London borough characteristics. I am referring to the London Borough of Brent. I contacted my housing manager to ask for a

  329
  small sample to illustrate the position in our borough. Its problems are not untypical of those faced by all the other inner London boroughs and, at a lower level, by other big cities. I asked the housing manager to tell me how many homeless families had been rehoused by the local authority during the last 12 months who had previously lived in furnished accommodation and who had come to the local authority as a result of landlords taking action to get them out, whether it be notice to quit, court order proceedings or whatever else.
  This is by no means a measure of what is going on in the district; it is a measure only of the families who have been rehoused. I will not weary the House with all the figures that I have with me. I simply say that according to the housing manager six out of every seven cases related to furnished accommodation. That goes well above the high figures published by the Grieve Report, which is presumably still the subject of Government consideration.
  The Grieve Report published figures showing that something like 52 per cent. of applications came from people whose last homes had been privately rented furnished accommodation. That is well below the figure I have quoted for my own borough. I do not believe that my borough is worse than other inner London boroughs. In some ways it is better off as its northern half is not typical of inner London. It is the southern Willesden area which is typical. Other London boroughs wholly within the inner London area have much worse problems.
  Other surveys have been undertaken. Shelter conducted a survey of 160 hearings at inner London rent tribunals. It found that 84 per cent. of cases involved notices to quit and that rent fixing was incidental to the problems. That is from a report prepared by David Bebb, "Rent rebates for the furnished tenant." The report went on to urge security of tenure for furnished tenants
  "to keep them one step away from homelessness."
  The Grieve Report, Shelter, the Labour Party, the minority report of the Francis Committee, the Child Poverty Action
  330
  Group and others have recommended and argued in detail from case material the need for security of tenure to slow down the rate of homelessness in inner London and elsewhere.
  There is no question about the social and personal need for this scheme. All that we have had quoted in evidence against such a proposal is the weakest part of the Francis Report, the majority report. It was the worst argued section in the report; it produced no evidence. It expressed its view based upon a hunch, a feeling that to introduce such a scheme would reduce the level of furnished accommodation available. Without quoting all the reports and surveys and the recommendations which have been made by a variety of bodies I urge the Government to rethink what they are omitting today. It is the biggest single thing they can do immediately to tackle homelessness, apart from the medium to longer-term solutions of dealing with the basic provision of housing in the greater London area and other areas.
  The second problem I listed was exorbitant rents. Just as the Bill does not deal with security of tenure and homelessness, so it does not deal with exorbitant rents. What is the position? In London, and I speak only of rents, excluding rates, according to the figures produced by the family expenditure survey—a Government survey—the latest figures show average net rents in greater London of £4·75 per week for furnished accommodation and £2·61 a week for unfurnished accommodation. In Great Britain as a whole the figures are £3·91 a week for furnished accommodation as compared with £1·55 a week for unfurnished accommodation.
  As has been pointed out several times, families in furnished accommodation are generally those with the lowest incomes, living in the worst kind of housing conditions and paying the greatest sums. Will the allowances really tackle this?
  Mr. Clinton Davis: Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps the majority of furnished rents are not available in the statistics because they are not referred to rent tribunals? Will he further agree that the incidence of rents is considerably higher in almost every inner London borough than the figures he has quoted?
  Mr. Freeson: I accept that. I would not necessarily accept that the figures produced by the family expenditure survey are based solely on the rents referred to rent tribunals which are only a minority—about 100,000 out of a total of something approaching 700,000. I certainly accept that all the samples and surveys so far conducted do not marry up with personal experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) quoted a number of cases which are typical, not exceptional.
  During the Committee proceedings on the Housing Finance Bill we had occasion to query the kind of so-called typical rent figures which the Government thought were accurate. In my experience the average rents in my area which appear in official documents do not marry up with the facts. If there is some way of more accurately recording the realities of the situation, we should all welcome it and it should be looked at by the Government. In quoting these figures I was being moderate, not wishing to overstate the case, but I accept that they must be handled with reservation because they do not tie up with personal experience.
  Will the allowances help? I do not know whether the Government have done any exercises on this. They should at least have given to the House provisional illustrations of the impact of the Bill on typical cases. I have gone to an independent source for my figures without any preconceived idea of what they would produce. I went to our excellent House of Commons Library statistical division and asked for a calculation of the impact of the Bill on a person who applied for a rent rebate according to its procedures. The example that was taken was of a family in greater London, with the husband earning an average industrial wage of £32 a week, the wife not in employment and two children of school age, living in furnished accommodation at a reasonable rent of £4·75 a week net of rates.
  Following the Prime Minister's grand announcement about the increase in the needs allowance under the White Paper proposals still to be debated, I find that the rent allowance for that family would be 56p and the net rent £4·19. According to the official figures of the family expenditure survey the net rent for an
  332
  unfurnished dwelling would be £2·61. For a family outside greater London where the earnings would be an average of £29·70 with the wife not in employment and with two children at school, paying a net rent of £3·91, the rent allowance would be nil—rent payable £3·91. That is after the introduction of the increased needs allowance.
  I am prepared to make these tables available to the Minister because no doubt they will need to be examined to make sure that there is no error in calculation. The tables have been produced by a statistician who did not know the political use to which they would be put. If the figures are correct, they show that once more we are being conned into believing that grand assistance is being given to the people in greatest need, whereas at the end of the day they will still be paying highly excessive rents. If the people live in greater London they will receive marginal help but in other parts of the country they will receive a nil rent allowance. The Government should come clean and give typical examples of the help which they calculate will be given to the people in greatest need.
  Even 56p in greater London is worth having if it helps a family in need. Prior to the Prime Minister's announcement about the White Paper and the prices and incomes policy, this grand assistance to furnished tenants would have produced a nil rent allowance in greater London for the family I have instanced. The upshot of the Prime Minister's announcement is that that family will get an allowance of 56p to produce a net rent, ignoring rates, of £4·19.
  If a tenant gets a fair rent assessed by a local authority as the basis for a rent allowance, what is to stop the landlord putting up his rent? The Minister says that there will be confidentiality, but will there? That view does not accord with the experience of many of us in local government and in dealing with case work. When a local authority assesses as a basis for the rent allowance a much lower fair rent than that which is being charged, should it not also be the duty of the local authority and of any public representative or social worker to encourage the tenant to go to the rent tribunal to get his rent reduced? That is

  333
  what the rent tribunal is for. Under the law as it stands, however, and as it will remain when the Bill becomes law, if the tenant does that he will get notice to quit.
  Should not the local authority use its powers—powers which are rarely used—to refer cases direct to the rent tribunal when it discovers that the assessment of a fair rent shows that present rent is excessive? Do the Government agree that a local authority should use the powers which it possesses? These are specific points to which I should like the Under-Secretary of State to reply. These powers are granted by Parliament. Do the Government believe that a local authority should make direct reference to the rent tribunal to bring rents down to a reasonable level?
  Furthermore, if the powers are used, would not a notice to quit be issued by a landlord? As long as there is no security of tenure, it is inevitable that there will be a low take-up since tenants will be aware of what they are risking. Certainly local authorities, Members of Parliament and councillors who advise tenants will be fully aware of the risks they are creating for tenants. Many of us had experience of these problems years ago in trying to advise people to bring in public health inspectors under the provision of the 1957 Rent Act. Many health inspectors brought in resulted in notices to quit and that position will obtain as long as there is no security of tenure. It is no use our burking this issue. There must be security of tenure if a rent allowance scheme is to operate properly. The Government have a duty to explain why these powers are not being used and to give their view on the use of those powers in reasonable circumstances.
  I turn to the question of the contraction of the rental market, which is a subject directly relevant to furnished accommodation. This was a major argument in the majority report of the Francis Committee and was used as a basis of objection to the principle of security of tenure being adopted in this area of legislation. The Minister began by saying that he would give evidence on this topic, but he ended by giving only assertions that there would be a contraction of the market. The Francis Committee said that there was no evidence one way or the other.
  334
  Perhaps it is relevant to quote the figures which apply to the present situation. Between 1966 and 1971 rented accommodation fell by just under 68,000 tenancies. In the unfurnished sector the fall was 122,000-plus and in the furnished sector there was a growth of 54,500 tenancies. What is interesting to note is the fact that in the Census returns the figure where the type of tenure was not stated rose from 73,000 in 1966 to 171,000 in 1971. I believe that that figure is made up wholly of furnished tenancies. I believe that the number of furnished tenancies in greater London is much higher than the figure of 250,000 quoted by the Minister. I believe that the figure of furnished tenancies in greater London is in the region of 400,000.
  If I am correct, in the five years that we are discussing the number of furnished tenancies has increased by more than 152,000. In such circumstances we shall be talking about a figure approaching 400,000 tenancies concentrated in the main in inner London. There are about 900,000 dwellings in inner London. It means therefore that we are discussing 40 to 45 per cent. of all the households in inner London. That is no small problem.
  A broad assessment of the position in my constituency reveals that about one-third of the families living in that part of the borough are in furnished accommodation. What good is the Housing Finance Act to them? What benefit will rent allowances bring to them? In view of what I have said about insecurity, what good are the rent allowance proposals in this Bill to them? If my assessment of the position in my constituency is correct—and I made it for other purposes long before the introduction of the Bill—the sort of figure that it reveals is applicable to every inner London borough as well as to certain pockets in our other major cities where similar problems arise.
  That is the situation. We see a total reduction in the amount of tenanted accommodation that is available and in that sector an increase in the availability of furnished accommodation, most of which is substandard, for which exorbitant prices are being charged and in which there is no security of tenure. The Government propose to do nothing about these problems in this or in any other legislation.

  335
  The Minister has argued that presumably even if what I say is correct about the present contraction, if security of tenure were introduced for the furnished sector the situation would be exacerbated and would become disastrous overnight since there would be a considerable further contraction. The logic of that is that the very limited control over the market which exists at present means that there will not be a contraction, and the further logic of that is that the same principle should be applied in the unfurnished sector. But we had such logic in 1957, and I do not say that to make an old, hoary political point. At the time of the 1957 Rent Act which decontrolled rented accommodation it was argued by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) who was then Parliamentary Secretary to the old Ministry of Housing and Local Government, that in order to provide the necessary incentive to get more building to rent that Act was essential—to stop the contraction in tenanted accommodation and that Act was essential if we were to solve the country's housing problems. It did not solve our housing problems. They are still with us. It did not stop the contraction in the availability of tenanted accommodation. Between 1957 and 1965 there was a reduction of 1 million dwellings throughout the country which previously had been tenanted.
  The Minister said that all the evidence of history shows that if security is given the result is the loss of a proportion of rented accommodation. The evidence points the other way. When there was decontrol there was massive selling out of the rented property market, and it will continue along this road unless other steps are taken which I shall list.
  As my hon. Friends have argued, supported by Miss Lyndal Evans in the minority report of the Francis Committee where some figures were quoted and proper logic was used in the argument on this score compared with the majority of the committee, there is no reason to believe, on the facts so far available, to put it no stronger, that most furnished dwellings will be sold into owner-occupation should security of tenure be introduced. Most of the property concerned is of a kind which is not in prospect to be sold into owner-occupation
  336
  as is happening, largely in stress areas, regarding unfurnished accommodation. Contraction is taking place now and the Government are doing nothing to stop it. Indeed, without pursuing it too far, by constantly pressing local authorities to sell off rented properties indiscriminately, they are deliberately encouraging a contraction of the rented property market when they know that there is a need to expand it, at least in stress areas.
  There is no evidence to support the idea that if we introduced security of tenure we shall have a disastrous cut-back in the rented accommodation that is available. On the contrary, if anything, the evidence points the other way. There is plenty of evidence, to which I and others have pointed, which shows the need for action to help people living in rented accommodation.
  I close my remarks on this score by listing the points that we wish to see taken up as policy by the Government, and which we will pursue when we are returned to power, in dealing with housing stress in our big cities. First, it is clear from what I have argued that we would introduce security of tenure for all tenants in furnished accommodation, other than those sharing owner-occupiers' homes and certain other categories which have been discussed in detail by certain hon. Members. Second, we would introduce rent regulations for such tenants. Third, we would ensure action by local authorities to hold the rental market, particularly in the stress areas of our cities, by buying privately rented dwellings directly or by registered housing associations being used in co-operation with the local authorities concerned.
  Fourth, we would introduce what we describe as tenants' enfranchisement to put a stop to the buying and selling of rented accommodation over the heads of tenants, with constantly spiralling prices and pressures being put upon them, so that they could register as co-operative housing associations and, with the help of local authorities, buy they own homes instead of being bandied about by property speculators. Fifth, we would encourage public authorities by action, not just by talk, to buy land in outer city areas to meet the property needs of families in the congested areas of our

  337
  cities whether by municipal lettings, by housing associations or by co-operatives, as well as owner-occupation which already takes place in these areas.
  These five points which I have listed should be seen in their totality. They must be inter-linked. To treat this problem as if we are giving major assistance to furnished tenants by this paltry Bill is to mislead the public and to deny political responsibility for any sensible housing policy in tackling the problems of stress areas in our cities.
  9.29 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): We have had a useful debate, perhaps a longer debate than some hon. Members expected. I shall endeavour to reply to the points of principle which have been raised. Before doing so I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams), who has a considerable knowledge of the housing problems in his constituency, for the welcome that he gave to the Bill on behalf of his constituents who will benefit under the Bill's provisions.
  Security for furnished tenants has played an important part in the debate. I wish to make it clear that the Government are not prepared to contemplate any measure which might have the result that tenants ended up not better off but worse off. That does not mean that we are insensitive to the problems of families who are forced to make their homes in furnished accommodation. On the contrary, we want to help, as the measure shows. However, I must ask the House to look realistically at the risks of further intervention.
  First, what would be the effect of giving security to tenants on the availability of accommodation? We already know that in many areas, particularly in inner London and the centres of the other great conurbations, rented accommodation is in desperately short supply. In the light of experience in the unfurnished sector, and with the solemn warning of the Francis Committee before us, the Government believe that a lot of furnished accommodation would rapidly go off the market.
  In the light of experience of recent matters which were partly dealt with by the Francis Committee—
  Mr. Crosland: What experience?
  Mr. Eyre: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will let me continue and make my speech. I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's speech with great interest. He will understand that existing tenants would have greater protection. However, as tenants moved out, and furnished tenants include a high proportion of migrant workers, transients, and young couples who spend a few months in rented accommodation as a stepping stone to their own house, so will property cease to be let. In a short time we could be faced with a widespread dearth of such accommodation to let. The Government believe that that might lead to a critical situation.
  I should like to emphasise that the Government are concerned to tackle at their roots the considerable problems which exist in the stress areas. That means increasing the supply of accommodation generally within the critical areas through local authority building and the work of the housing associations. I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman emphasised during the course of his speech the importance of the contribution which the housing associations can make in that respect. The Government want to take the stress off stress areas. Regulatory intervention alone will not solve the supply problem. In fact, it could make it worse, and it might be widely unenforceable. These are the realities of the situation, which the House should keep clearly in view.
  The Bill is a measure to help furnished tenants. It is not a vehicle through which the law—
  Mr. Crosland: The Under-Secretary of State is courteous in giving way. However, the hon. Gentleman, as did the Minister, has referred to evidence and experience without advancing the proposition that security of tenure would diminish the supply of rented accommodation. References are made to evidence and experience, and we long to hear either of the evidence or of the experience, but we get neither. We get nothing but assertions.
  Mr. Eyre: If the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a few moments, I shall try to return to the more specific items that he quoted and the main theme.

  339
  I was saying that these are the realities of the situation which the House should keep clearly in view. The Bill is a measure to help furnished tenants. It is not a Bill through which the law on security should or could be changed. Of course the Government are aware of the strength of the sort of arguments which we have heard today, but I repeat that we are not prepared to do anything in the furnished field which might leave the tenants worse off.
  It seemed to me as I listened to his speech that the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) recognised the difficulties of the situation in the matter of security of tenure. He fairly conceded that security had not been put into effect by the Labour Administration. If one considers the 1966 Census and the situation up to 1970, one wonders why, had it been such an easy solution as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to imply, the Labour Government should not have gripped this matter.
  The right hon. Gentleman then referred to the "huge financial advantages" of selling rather than of continuing to let. I believe that what he said was right. The words that he used qualified any support that he expressed for the minority report by Miss Lyndal Evans, which rested upon the proposition that landlords are unable to sell their property. It interested me that, having reviewed the balance of evidence on either side, as he did extremely well, the right hon. Gentleman should have concluded that a decision on security was a matter of judgment.
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to mention a further factor against the introduction of security. It was the danger that landlords, having to accept that furnished tenants would get security, would become much more selective in their choice of tenants and would tend to avoid so far as possible those with obvious disabilities, such as coloured tenants or single mothers, and would tend to choose others. I was very impressed by his argument in that respect, because it adds up to my own knowledge and experience of these matters in Birmingham.
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: Would the Minister at least undertake to consider the detailed figures, which show that there
  340
  has been a steady decline in rented accommodation ever since the war but that there have been two bumps in that decline? One was an acceleration of the decline immediately after the 1957 Rent Act and the other was a slowing down in the decline after the 1965 Rent Act? If my interpretation of these figures is correct, do they not show that increased security reduces the decline and that reduced security increases it?
  Mr. Eyre: With respect, the introduction of further measures of security temporarily interrupts the rate of decline, but if the hon. Gentleman looks at the record of protection and security against the historical background of tenancies, he will have to concede that during this time the imposition of security, the requirement that rents shall not match the cost of repair or a reasonable return upon the capital value and other factors, added together, have caused landlords to move out of rented properties as rapidly as possible. That is what has happened over the last 50 years, and it has been only temporarily interrupted by attempts by the Legislature, for understandable social reasons, to deal with the situation.
  Mr. George Cunningham: In that case, do the Government intend to abolish security for unfurnished accommodation in order to enlarge the market for it?
  Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman will understand that the Government are aware of the extreme importance of protection of the kind we have now in present circumstances affecting the security of the home of families who are resident in protected tenancies.
  Mr. George Cunningham: What is the difference between the two?
  Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman should not dismiss this argument, because it is a serious one. One looks at Sweden, where there was evidence, too, of a similar decline and housing problems, even in the rich city of Stockholm, again acknowledged by many experts to have been brought about by a persistent and unreasonable form of control. In trying to make an honest analysis of the cause of the decline in the rented sector, the fact is that if the mass of properties providing rented accommodation cannot produce an income which matches the needs

  341
  for proper care and maintenance and for a reasonable return on capital, inevitably there will be a movement out of that kind of property.
  The hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann), in a speech which showed great awareness of tenants' difficulties in London, referred to Miss Lyndal Evans and the report which claimed that 46 per cent. of furnished premises consisted of single rooms which were not saleable. The hon. Gentleman has considerable experience of property matters and I am not presuming to say that I know his part of London nearly as well as he does. But just over a year ago, before I came to my present job, I was taken to visit a house on the fringe of the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It was a substantial older-type house that had been converted some time ago into five flats. The five flats were subdivided and let as single rooms. I therefore assumed that they would have been single rooms which appeared in the statistics that the hon. Gentleman quoted. I must tell him that the flats—from his experience he will know of hundreds of similar properties—of which the single rooms were part were eminently saleable. The owner at that time, whom I did not know well—it was not my special concern—expressed the intention of selling those flats if protection in the form of security was imposed upon the situation he had with these furnished lets.
  Mr. George Cunningham: What did the hon. Gentleman expect him to say?
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: Surely the landlord could sell the flats in question only if he got possession of all of them. If the furnished tenant had security, he would not be able to do so.
  Mr. Eyre: With respect, the hon. Gentleman's argument was that 46 per cent. of furnished accommodation consisted of single rooms that were not saleable by themselves. I am merely saying that here was a concrete example of a situation, which I believe is repeated many times in his part of London, where the single rooms are often saleable units. I am trying to take the most serious notice of the arguments of right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition. There is a considerable danger that many of these
  342
  properties would be sold off. As the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) said, that balance of argument and evidence and so on, is a matter of judgment in deciding this important matter. I am bound to feel cautious in the interests of many tenants in these circumstances.
  It has been suggested during the debate that the only effect of the Bill will be to line the pockets of landlords, who will simply raise rents when their tenants are in receipt of a rent allowance. I was very glad that this argument was firmly rejected by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) in his excellent speech. The first point to be emphasised is that there is no reason why a landlord should know that his tenant is receiving an allowance in the normal course of events. However, I grant that this will not always be so; for example, in a case where there is an out-of-date rent on the register, which might need to be brought up-to-date for a full allowance to be paid. But wherever possible we want the whole question of allowances to be a matter between the tenant and his local authority alone.
  Mr. Freeson: What is the register to which the hon. Gentleman is referring?
  Mr. Eyre: The register of furnished rents. We want the whole question of the allowance to be a matter between the tenant and his local authority, and we shall be asking local authorities to respect this confidentiality. I hope that that will help the constituents of the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Latham) in the circumstances that he described.
  Mr. Latham: The point I was making was that the rents of many of the tenants in my constituency are not registered. If the amount has to be determined for registration, how can that be done without involving the landlord?
  Mr. Eyre: Where there are no registered rents a local authority will be entitled to ask for the advice of the rent officer. I stress again that the same confidentiality will apply, and there will be no need for the landlord to know that the rent officer has been consulted informally in this respect.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing (Acton): Many of my constituents will be in this situation.

  343
  Does the hon. Gentleman mean that the registered rent will not be registered in the statutory sense in which it is now, but will be a notional registration by which the rent officer will give his opinion as to what the rent might be if there were a proper registered rent?
  Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman knows that many furnished tenancies do not have registered rents. It is often at the wish of the parties to the agreement that they are not so registered. In those circumstances, the rent officer can advise the local authority informally about the rent payable in the terms of the Bill, upon which will be based the rent allowance. That can be done on a basis of confidentiality, and I hope that that will help the constituents of London Members.
  Mr. T. L. Iremonger: Surely Part VI contracts are referable to the tribunal, and not to the rent officer?
  Mr. Eyre: We are talking about cases where no reference has been made to the tribunal. I was discussing the administrative system upon which the rent allowance would be based.
  Secondly, it will be easier for a tenant in receipt of an allowance to get a rent registered by the tribunal. Non-payment of rent is one of the main reasons why a landlord gives his tenant notice to quit, and, of course, the allowance scheme is intended to help tenants who have difficulty finding the rent. An otherwise good tenant, therefore, who might have faced eviction for non-payment of rent will now be able to ask the rent tribunal for a registered rent in the knowledge that the tribunal is unlikely to be presented with convincing evidence from the landlord that the tenant should not enjoy six months' security and full extension of that security for further periods. I certainly hope that the tribunals will recognise the important rôle which they will have to play in this respect.
  The Government thus acknowledge that there is a risk that in the minority of cases some landlords may seek further to increase their rents in the hope of getting the benefit for themselves. But the Government believe that confidentiality between tenant and local authority and the rent tribunals will go a long way towards preventing such abuse.
  344
  The Government do not subscribe to the view, implicit in the allegation, that the allowances will turn out to be a landlords' bonanza, that landlords generally are interested only in exploiting their tenants. As the Francis Committee showed, the majority of landlords and tenants are on good or reasonable terms with each other, and it would be strange indeed if the availability of an allowance for a tenant itself destroyed a good relationship where one already existed. We hope very much, therefore, that there will be no scaremongering on this issue, for such scaremongering could do nothing but harm, especially to those most vulnerable in terms of tenure.
  The hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) posed a series of what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition used to call hypothetical questions about local authorities. I will reply to him on the general principle, and, as he knows, I should be only too glad to help him later on if he wanted further details.
  The power of a local authority to refer the rent of a furnished letting to the rent tribunal is discretionary. There is no obligation on it to do so, and in a stress area it will know whether this would be a reasonable course. Where it is not, the power will not be used.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby asked whether the help was adequate, and mentioned, on the basis of the new allowances, a particular case. The example he quoted was one in which the tenant would receive 82p as an allowance—not 22½p, which was printed earlier before there was the change, as the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged. The right hon. Member based his argument on one case. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Willesden, East also asked me to give further examples. I will certainly look in detail at the special case he quoted.
  The first example I want to give is of a married couple with three children, with an income of £30 and a gross rent of £8 for five rooms. The estimated fair rent plus 25 per cent. would be £5·50; therefore the allowance would be £2·7l—a very useful allowance. The next case is that of a married couple with one child, an income of £25 and a gross rent of £8 for four rooms. The estimated fair

  345
  rent plus 25 per cent. would be £5, and in those circumstances the allowance would be £2·32. The third case is that of the mother of one child with an income of £20 and a gross rent of £7 for two rooms. The estimated fair rent plus 25 per cent. would be £4·50, and the allowance in those circumstances would be £2·95. Then I would quote the case of a married couple with no children, an income of £18 and a gross rent of £8 for three rooms. The estimated fair rent plus 25 per cent. would be £4, and the allowance in those circumstances would be £2·34. I think it will be acknowledged that those allowances would be of substantial benefit to tenants in the circumstances I have described.
  Several hon. Members thought that the estimated fair rent plus one-quarter would fall too far short of the actual rent to be fair to the tenant and to give him effective help. I accept that this is a difficult matter and it is not easy to get hard evidence, but those with whom we discussed the matter—local authority officers and members of rent tribunals—were agreed that this was the best and fairest way of proceeding, at least to start with and until any evidence for a different formula emerges from experience. I am trying to be perfectly honest about this situation. We are making a good start in dealing with a difficult social problem, and I maintain that this is a reasonable starting point. We have taken power to amend the formula either for all local authorities or for a group of authorities if experience suggests that it should be different, and this should help to meet in some degree the reservations raised by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cyril Smith), who made a most attractive speech in this debate and indicated his support for the Bill subject to reservations, with the most substantial of which I have just dealt.
  A number of hon. Members have raised important questions about the take-up of rent rebates and allowances. Based on information from the family expenditure survey, an estimate was given to the Standing Committee that about 35 per cent. of all council and new town tenants—about 1¾ million—would be eligible for rent rebates in 1972–73. From preliminary reports received from every region about the number of rebates
  346
  granted, it appears that this estimate has proved remarkably accurate and that there is a very high take-up of those eligible.
  A high take-up of council tenants was expected, because authorities are in close contact with their tenants and are required to furnish details of rent rebate schemes at least once a year and also when they vary their schemes or increase their allowances.
  Some examples of the take-up of rebate in different authorities are: the County Borough of Dudley, 40 per cent. of tenants; Warrington, 33 per cent.; the London Boroughs of Brent and Bromley, 36 per cent.; Altrincham, 25 per cent.; Reigate, 31 per cent.; Northfleet, 32 per cent.; Sandbach, 30 per cent.; Sevenoaks Rural District Council, 26 per cent.; and Stroud, 37 per cent.
  Authorities were required to introduce their rent allowance schemes for unfurnished tenants only by 1st January 1973, so the schemes have only just started. Initial reports indicate that the number of applications have been fewer than expected, but it is hoped that the take-up rate will increase as the scheme becomes more widely known through publicity by the Department and by authorities. This will continue until satisfactory take-up figures are achieved. The estimated number of private unfurnished tenants eligible for allowances is between 700,000 and 800,000 in 1972–73. Of these about 260,000 already receive help with their rent from supplementary benefit.
  The right hon. Member for Grimsby asked what proportion of tenants will he eligible under the Bill and will claim. There are about 600,000 furnished tenants. Approximately 120,000 of them already have the benefit of supplementary benefit. This leaves 480,000 tenants of furnished premises, of whom it is estimated that about one-quarter or 120,000 will be eligible.
  If we assume a good rate of take-up—say, 100,000, though I admit that we have to go some way to reach that level—and have about £8 million available, that would work out at approximately £80 a head, which is not a trivial sum. If we succeed in this policy we shall be glad to go on and give further help, and we would not mind if the total cost rose in

  347
  those justifiable circumstances where we knew that help was going to those who deserved it.
  This is the first Bill in this field, and this is the first time that any Government have attempted to provide help of this kind to furnished tenants. We are not seeking in the Bill to provide a complete new charter for furnished tenants. We recognise the realities of the situation in the furnished rented sector. Our purpose in bringing the Bill forward is more
  limited. Our aim is to give help quickly to furnished tenants who need help. The Bill will provide furnished tenants with a very substantial measure of help. This is a novel, compassionate and important measure to which I hope the House will give its full support.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 163, Noes 193.

  Division No. 35.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Gourlay, Harry

  Orbach, Maurica

  Albu, Austen

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Orme, Stanley

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Ashton, Joe

  Hamling, William

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Pendry, Tom

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Hardy, Peter

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Bishop, E. S.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hattersley, Roy

  Prescott, John

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Booth, Albert

  Horam, John

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Buchan, Norman

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

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

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

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Janner, Greville

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Roderick, CaerwynE.(Brc'n & R'dnor)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Roper, John

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Clark, David (Coins Valley)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Rowlands, Ted

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Kerr, Russell

  Sandelson, Neville

  Concannon, J. D.

  Kinnock Neil

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Lambie David

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

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Lamborn, Harry

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Lamond, James

  Sillars, James

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

  Latham, Arthur

  Silverman, Julius

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Lawson, George

  Skinner, Dennis

  Davidson, Arthur

  Leonard, Dick

  Spearing, Nigel

  Davis, Ifor (Gower)

  Leonard, Dick

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Deakins, Eric

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  McBride, Neil

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Dempsey, James

  McCartney, Hugh

  Strang, Gavin

  McElhone, Frank

  Doig, Peter

  McGuire, Michael

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Dormand, J. D.

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Tinn, James

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Torney, Tom

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Dunn, James A.

  Marks, Kenneth

  Urwin, T. W.

  Dunnett, Jack

  Marsden, F.

  Varley, Eric G.

  Eadie, Alex

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Wallace, George

  Edelman, Maurice

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Watkins, David

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Meacher, Michael

  Weitzman, David

  Ellis, Tom

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Wellbeloved, James

  Evans, Fred

  Mendelson, John

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Millan, Bruce

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Milne, Edward

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Ford, Ben

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

  Woof, Robert

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Galpern, Sir Meyer

  Murray, Ronald King

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Oakes, Gordon.

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Golding, John

  O'Halloran, Michael

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Benyon, W.

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

  Biffen, John

  Astor, John

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Boscawen, Hn. Robert

  Hastings, Stephen

  Pardoe, John

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Hawkins, Faul

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Bowden, Andrew

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Percival, Ian

  Brewis, John

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Pounder, Rafton

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

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

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hordern, Peter

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

  Buck, Antony

  Hornby, Richard

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Raison, Timothy

  Burden, F. A.

  Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Redmond, Robert

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

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Channon, Paul

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Chapman, Sydney

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  James, David

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Rost, Peter

  Clegg, Walter

  Jopling, Michael

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Cooke, Robert

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Scott, Nicholas

  Cooper, A. E.

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

  Kershaw, Anthony

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

  Cormack, Patrick

  Kimball, Marcus

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Costain, A. P.

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Shersby, Michael

  Crouch, David

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Skeet, T. H. H.

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

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Dean, Paul

  Knox, David

  Soref, Harold

  Dixon, Piers

  Lamont, Norman

  Speed, Keith

  Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

  Lane, David

  Spence, John

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Sproat, Iain

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

  Steel, David

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Loveridge, John

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

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

  Luce, R. N.

  Stokes, John

  Eyre, Reginald

  MacArthur, Ian

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Fell, Anthony

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Tapsell, Peter

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  McLaren, Martin

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

  Fidler, Michael

  McMaster, Stanley

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Maddan, Martin

  Tope, Graham

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Maginnis, John E.

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Mather, Carol

  Trew, Peter

  Fortescue, Tim

  Maude, Angus

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Fowler, Norman

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Fox, Marcus

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Fry, Peter

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Waddington, David

  Gardner, Edward

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

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Moate, Roger

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Goodhart, Philip

  Molyneaux, James

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Gower, Raymond

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Monro, Hector

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Gray, Hamish

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Green, Alan

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Wilkinson, John

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Mudd, David

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Murton, Oscar

  Worsley, Marcus

  Grylls, Michael

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Younger, Hn. George

  Gummer, J. Selwyn

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Gurden, Harold

  Normanton, Tom

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke and

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Mr. Victor Goodhew.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 39 (Amendment on second or third reading) and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Fire Precautions (Loans) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[The Prime Minister.]

  FURNISHED LETTINGS (RENT ALLOWANCES) [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the provisions of
  352
  the Housing Finance Act 1972 and the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972 relating to payment of rent allowances to tenants of dwellings, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums so payable under any other Act which is attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session which amends either of the said Acts of 1972 to provide rent allowances for persons occupying dwellings under contracts to which Part VI of the Rent Act 1968 applies or would apply but for section 70(3)(a) or (b) thereof, or contracts to which Part VII of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 applies or would apply but for section 85(3)(a) or (b) thereof, and for tenants under furnished lettings of housing authority dwellings; and to authorise any payment into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Eyre.]

  FIRE PRECAUTIONS (LOANS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  10.10 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Our debate is taking place against the shadow of the tragic fire last weekend at Exmouth. I would like to express the sympathy of the Government with the families of those who died and our admiration for the efforts of everyone concerned in fighting the fire and in the rescue work.
  This is a small Bill with a strictly limited scope but it is a necessary part of our whole programme for improving fire precautions. The Bill will enable local authorities to make loans at their discretion—I emphasise that—to persons who need to incur expenditure on certain specified premises to satisfy the requirements of the fire authority under the Fire Precautions Act 1971. Section 36 of that Act already provides for a loans scheme but it is limited to certain kinds of dwellings which come within Section 3 of the Act.
  This Bill empowers the Secretary of State to extend the loans scheme by order to other kinds of premises which are required to have fire certificates under the Act. The Bill is fulfilling the undertaking given to the House by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 10th July last that legislation would be introduced in this Session under which local authorities could act as lenders of last resort for those in a small way of business who, having to incur expenditure on fire precautions, could not find the money from their own resources or could not readily borrow it from other sources such as banks, building societies or similar institutions. We particularly have in mind the proprietors of smaller hotels and boarding houses who, like the owners of larger establishments, were affected by the first designating order made under the 1971 Act.
  I would like to remind the House, and those following our proceedings outside,
  354
  of the background to this Bill. The purpose of the 1971 Act is to strengthen and rationalise the law relating to means of escape and related fire precautions in a wide range of premises, including places of public entertainment and resort, and certain kinds of residential premises, including hotels. The overriding consideration must be the safety of the public, and the Act is designed to ensure so far as we can that in the event of a fire everyone present will be able to escape even before the arrival of the fire brigade.
  I am certain that no one doubts the need to ensure that premises where the public may be present in any numbers are provided with these essential fire precautions. We are implementing the Act by stages and dealing first with premises offering the highest risks. On the advice of the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Councils for England and Wales and for Scotland the Act has first been applied to hotels and boarding houses.
  This decision was taken against the background of a series of tragic fires in hotels, and the considered view of those with special knowledge of the problems was that it was urgently necessary to bring the standard of fire precautions in many hotels and boarding houses to a minimum acceptable level. An order applying the Act to all but the smallest of these premises was brought into effect on 1st June last, and at the same time we published a non-statutory guide explaining the principles on which the Act would be applied. The immediate practical effect was to require the owners or occupiers of these hotels and boarding houses to apply to the local fire authority for a fire certificate.
  Having done so, the proprietor can continue his business until the application is settled. In due course the fire authority has to inspect the individual premises, and if it is satisfied that means of escape and other related precautions are such as may be reasonably required—and that is an important phrase in ensuring the fair application of the Act—the authority must issue a fire certificate. If it is not satisfied it serves notice on the proprietor informing him of what he

  355
  has to do before the certificate can be issued.
  Naturally, any necessary improvements required by the fire authority will cost money. It is a long standing principle that where members of the public are invited into premises in connection with a commercial undertaking it is for that undertaking to meet the cost of any statutory measures designed to ensure the safety and health of the members of the public there. It is the fact of this expenditure which understandably gave rise to so much concern last year, particularly to the owners of smaller hotels and boarding houses.
  Even so, there may have been a considerable misunderstanding. To get rid of any remaining misunderstanding, let me make it clear that the fire authority may require only what is reasonable in the circumstances of each case. Safety must be the main consideration, but there is no question of the guide I have mentioned being applied rigidly regardless of individual circumstances. The requirements in the fire certificate have to be designed for the premises concerned, and there are ample rights of appeal to the courts against the fire authority's requirements. The fire service is well aware of the need to take all circumstances into account including financial circumstances, and I want to dispel any notion, if such remains, that its approach will be rigid and inflexible.
  In view of the concern we arranged for special guidance to be issued from the Home Office to all fire authorities encouraging them to hold conferences locally and to explain and discuss the way in which the Act would be applied. Whenever possible, I have talked to chief fire officers with the same object in view. Recently I took two opportunities to visit boarding houses and hotels in Blackpool and Brighton to see how the requirements are being met in the various types of premises. As a result of all this I am satisfied that there is a much clearer understanding of the position. The good response which we have had from proprietors of hotels and boarding houses owes a lot to the efforts which the fire authorities have made in explaining the arrangements. It will take time to complete all the inspections and certifications,
  356
  but the fire authorities are concentrating on the highest risk premises.
  A point which I stress particularly for many of my hon. Friends is that as we are dealing with a predominantly holiday industry the fire authorities want to phase their programme so that any work will fall to be done out of the season, where this is possible without undue risk to the public. For many of the proprietors of the smaller premises the chances are that it will be some time before they are faced with any expense.
  We have to keep in view the primary need to ensure the safety of the public, and I am, therefore, anxious that the present programme should be completed as soon as possible. We do not have precise figures to give us an arithmetical idea of progress, but all the indications we have show that the fire authorities have made an encouraging start.
  However, given this reasonable approach, we still realise that some owners of smaller premises may not have had time to plan for the extra expenditure which they may be faced, and that is why we decided that we must make some provision for the special cases. The Bill enables local authorities to make loans towards the cost of fire precautions in certain specified premises; that is, premises described in any order made under the Bill. The primary intention of the scheme is to help those owners of the smaller hotels and boarding houses who cannot meet the cost of the necessary fire precautions from their own resources or cannot easily get loans from the customary sources, but the scheme can later be extended, if we think it justified, to other types of premises. Before it is extended to any other premises, voluntary organisations engaged in social work or whatever it might be, there would again have to be first a designating order under the main Act and we should then have to consider on its merits an extension of the loan scheme to these new premises.
  Turning to the Bill in more detail, Clause 1 contains the main provisions relating to the loans scheme. Subsection (1) limits the application to persons who need to incur expenditure on premises for which a fire certificate has been applied for or is already held under the provisions of Section 1 of the main Act, and these premises have to be described

  357
  in an order made under the Bill. In other words, the premises must first have been subject to a designation order under the main Act and a fire certificate must already have been obtained or applied for.
  At present, only hotels and boarding houses have been designated under the 1971 Act, and the loan applied for must be to meet the cost of the requirements of the fire authority as detailed in the notice which has to be served on the occupier under Section 5 of the 1971 Act; that is to say, the work that must be done before a fire certificate can be issued. The new loans scheme will also apply in cases where the fire authority requires work to be done on premises that are already covered by a fire certificate to bring them into conformity with any regulations made by the Secretary of State under Section 12 of the main Act.
  Subsection (2) empowers the local authority to make loans at its discretion in accordance with the provisions of subsections (2) to (9) of Section 36 of the 1971 Act, with the exception that the local authority must charge a rate of interest ¼ per cent. above the Public Works Loan Board rate provided for under Section 36.
  To clear up that rather complicated point, Section 36 of the Act is not yet in force, because it relates to loans covered by Section 3 of the Act which also is not yet in force. We have so drafted subsection (2) of the Bill as to make it possible for the provisions of subsections (2) to (9) of Section 36 to apply to loans under this Bill even though Section 36 is not yet in force. It is much simpler than I have made it sound.
  There are precedents for the special provision in this part of the Bill for a local authority to charge a rate of interest ¼per cent. above the PWLB rate. The precedents are the Small Dwellings Acts of 1899 to 1923 and the Local Authorities (Land) Act of 1963. This provision was included after consultation with the local authority associations, whose view was that the scheme would involve local authorities not only in additional work but also in dealing with commercial undertakings rather than housing to which they have been more accustomed. This would mean establishing different
  358
  criteria for judging the merits of applications for loans under the Bill.
  Subsection (3) empowers the Secretary of State, for the purposes of an order under the Bill, to describe premises by reference to rateable value, the purpose for which they are used, the number of persons accommodated, their size, or whatever it may be. That is not an exhaustive list. It is intended to provide as flexible a basis as possible—and that is how we have designed the whole Bill—for tailoring the loans scheme to particular needs. We intend that the scheme should be limited to persons in a small way of business and to those who are responsible for small non-profit-making enterprises. That has been our intention from the start, and it is the intention in the Bill.
  Mr. A. P. Costain: Small boarding houses are often on leaseholds. Could my hon. Friend say what will be the situation in regard to loans to leaseholders operating on a short lease?
  Mr. Lane: Subject to checking on the point, I think that proprietors can apply for loans if they are entitled to them. I will make doubly sure of that point and try to give the information to the House, if I am permitted to reply to the debate.
  Mr. Robert Adley: My hon. Friend has referred to non-profit-making premises. Presumably he is referring not to premises which may no longer make a profit as a result of the fire precautions legislation but premises which do not intend to make a profit.
  Mr. Lane: I am referring to premises which are not covered by the Bill but which may be covered as the provisions are extended at a later stage. We are trying to define the premises not only in physical terms but also in terms of the applicant's personal circumstances. We took the view that it was better to leave it to local authorities to decide on the eligibility of a particular applicant for a loan, subject to the administrative guidance which we shall be circulating from the Home Office. In practice, the local authority will have to be satisfied that the premises for which an applicant seeks a loan comes within the terms of the order, and the order will deal with such matters as the size of premises and the

  359
  purpose for which they are used. A local authority also must satisfy itself about the credit-worthiness of an applicant.
  Among the administrative points which I envisage our guidance to local authorities will include is advice to the effect that applications should be considered only from somebody in a small way of business—not, for example, from the manager of a small establishment which may be part of a far larger one. I underline the fact that any order made under the subsection will be subject to a negative resolution in either House and may subsequently be varied or revoked.
  I should like to say a word about subsection (5) of Clause 1. This provision is included in the Bill in case at some future date a small charitable organisation which may be brought within the provisions of the 1971 Act should merit help. The subsection provides that Section 29 of the Charities Act 1960 shall not apply and will enable a charity to mortgage its property for the purposes of a loan under the scheme without having to seek express consent of the Charity Commissioners. The commissioners requested that some such provision should be included in the Bill.
  I have already explained that we have been able to consult the local authority associations and the Greater London Council in preparing the Bill. The Association of Municipal Corporations has expressed some reservations and is concerned about the additional burden which the Bill could place on local authorities. It is impossible to estimate accurately the extent to which the new loans scheme is likely to be used, but, given that it will be some time before fire authorities will be able to complete the present programme, and also given the fact that premises must be dealt with on an individual basis, I should be surprised if the local authorities, which will he consulted in advance by the fire authorities, found themselves immediately overwhelmed with applications for loans. I should also imagine that where hotels and hoarding houses are a major activity in a particular area the local authority concerned might see advantages in any scheme, however limited, designed to help those concerned. Nevertheless, if there should be any unforeseen difficulties experienced by local authorities, I can
  360
  assure them that we shall do our best to help. After all, it is on them that we depend for the success of the scheme. We want to co-operate with them to the full, and we shall be grateful for their help.
  This is a modest Bill, but it is important if we are to ensure steady progress in carrying out the Fire Precautions Act. Therefore, I commend it to the House, and, if it makes good progress, I expect that the first order relating to small hotels and boarding houses will be laid before the House and brought into force during the coming summer.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. John Fraser: I begin by associating the Opposition with the sympathy expressed by the Under-Secretary for the relatives and victims of the tragic fire at the Imperial Hotel, Exmouth, and the hon. Gentleman's further tribute to the gallant action of the fire brigade there.
  I was glad that the hon. Gentleman said that the fire brigades would always have to be reasonable about their requirements, and I hope that no hotel or boarding house proprietor will he frightened at the cost of implementing the Fire Precautions Act and that people will not be deterred from applying for fire certificates for their premises because of any unwarrantable fear about the cost.
  When the Fire Precautions Bill was presented in 1970, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) promised it a speedy passage and assistance from the Opposition. I can make the same promise in respect of this Bill, which provides for resources to finance fire precautions by enabling local authorities to lend money to owners at the rates of interest which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The loans will be available to all classes of dwellings which may be affected by the Fire Precautions Act when it is applied to different classes. There is the subsection about charities. That apart, that is about all that the Bill says.
  I hope that we shall be told what rateable bands the Bill will be applied to in the early stages, the type of building to which it will be applied initially—whether, for example, it will be a small boarding house—and whether items of equipment like smoke and fire detectors

  361
  will qualify for loan facilities. Many commentators, especially in the technical Press, have pointed out that the Home Office guide to precautions does not mention smoke or fire detection equipment at all, and many commentators feel that this is the most useful fire precautions equipment to have in a boarding house or hotel and, therefore, that it should qualify for a loan under the Bill.
  The reasons why the Bill has been produced are well known. On 1st June 1972 the Fire Precautions Act was applied to every hotel, guest house and boarding house which slept more than six persons, including staff, and it caused near panic among thousands of small establishment owners, who feared the cost which would be imposed on them. At the same time, deficiences in fire precautions became increasingly apparent. We have also the problem of what might be called the "creeping" hotel; that is, the establishment without planning permission for use as a hotel. We have problems of businesses which have never been rated as hotels. No doubt we have the problem of the small hotel proprietor who has never declared his income for tax, and there is apprehension felt by that kind of proprietor about making application for a fire certificate.
  At the same time, we have had too many tragic and cruel reminders of the need for adequate fire precautions. Only a few days before the Act was applied to hotels there was the tragic fire at the Ambassador Hotel in Bayswater. More recently there has been the deadly outbreak in the Imperial Hotel, Exmouth. That hotel was well equipped with detector equipment. There are two lessons that one can learn from that. The first is that no amount of equipment can ever supplant the need for care and vigilance in guarding against fire. The second is that the tragedy would have been much worse if equipment to detect and prevent fire had not already been installed in the hotel. In addition, there have been tragic fires in factories and mental hospitals, all of which have brought the matter to the public eye. In the light of these events there has been concern about the cost of implementing the Act, and the Government have acted.
  362
  There is some apprehension among hotel proprietors about the cost not only of this Act but of value added tax, rates, and the increased prices of food. I think there should be a co-ordinated view about the future of the hotel industry, but that is not a matter for debate tonight.
  I turn now to what the Bill does not state and that which the Explanatory Memorandum omits but which is germane to the purposes of the Bill.
  How widely and quickly is the 1971 Act to be implemented and what are the resources for doing so? I believe that there is cause for a good deal of anxiety about fire risks and the Government's strategy for dealing with them.
  I will mention some of the anxieties. First, we all know that the fire hazard remains very great. The latest figures for 1972 show that there were over 650 deaths, 3,900 people injured, 227 firemen seriously injured, two firemen dead and over £130 million of fire damage. Therefore, fire remains the great destroyer.
  Secondly, on what one might call the non-implementation of the Fire Precautions Act, one estimate that I have seen is that about 250,000 hotels, boarding houses, and so on, are already affected by the Act. Therefore, one is bound to ask what strategy the Government have for dealing with all these premises.
  In December 1972 more than half of these premises—about 125,000 establishments—had not even bothered to apply for fire certificates. In June 1972 16,000 establishments in the counties of Devon and Cornwall had not made applications. I checked the figures for the London area today, and found that 50 per cent. of eligible premises, about 2,000, have not made application. Some of these places will be absolute death traps, particularly those in the seedier London areas. London Fire Brigade spokesmen have already said that they are seriously concerned.
  Thirdly, the time element. Most commentators on the Fire Precautions Act say that it will be between five and 10 years before applications under the Act can be dealt with. The Fire Precautions Act 1971 was first contemplated and planned in 1964, so there will be a great time lag before it is implemented.

  363
  Finally, there is concern about the Government's assessment. During the proceedings in Committee on the 1971 Bill the then Minister of State said:
  "the numbers of owners…who are unable to finance simple fire precautions from their own resources will be very few."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A; 15th December, 1970, c. 161.]
  If that were so we would not have this Bill tonight.
  I conclude with some suggestions and questions. First, what estimate can we now be given of the number of establishments which have not applied for fire certificates? The information ought to be available. I speak with some knowledge, because my father was a station officer for many years. Most station officers know their ground, as they call it, extremely well. They know where the hotels and boarding houses are and can probably make a fairly accurate assessment of how many establishments have not bothered to apply for certificates.
  Secondly, how quickly will.411 applications be dealt with? In my opinion, six to 10 years seems more appropriate for an application in the old High Court of Chancery under the reign of Lord Eldon than for a matter involving life and death. I understand that there have been only seven certificates in draft in the Greater London Council area. That is obviously far too slow a pace to deal with the applications.
  Thirdly, I welcome the guidance which has been given that fire officers should deal with premises which have the greatest risk. Will that guidance be extended to premises which have not yet made applications for certificates? Again, many station officers will know those premises which are at risk and have not made application. I hope that they will be advised to take the initiative, even though the proprietor has not made an application.
  Fourthly, will consideration be given to the suggestion put to me that owners might submit plans for fire precautions for their premises without having to wait for an inspection by the fire brigade or the architect's department? When a new building is to be constructed or where a building is to be converted the surveyor or architect will draw up plans for fire precautions and those plans will be approved by the local authority. This takes
  364
  a lot of work off the local authority. It enables the owner to take the initiative. Somebody selling a hotel or boarding house may then be able to assure a prospective purchaser that plans have been put in and approved and the premises are up to standard.
  Finally, what changes are proposed in the use of the fire brigade manpower so that it is used more productively and so that fire precaution is a major part of the fireman's task? I have visited fire stations for many years and I have seen firemen spending far too much of their time cleaning brass, windows, fire engines, hoses and floors and doing many other household tasks whilst on duty in the station. We must use firemen more productively on fire prevention duties—for example, the inspection of premises.
  I understand that discussions are under way at present to use the fire service manpower more productively. Can the Under-Secretary of State tell us how far the discussions have gone, and whether we shall be able to use a lot more manpower, especially now that firemen are equipped with bleepers and other means of communication, on the inspection of premises?
  If we are to make any useful judgment on the scope and effect of the Bill and the scope and effect of the 1971 Act, that question must be answered to the satisfaction of the house and the public who remain at risk.
  10.42 p.m.
  Mr. Martin Maddan: I welcome the Bill, and I agree with what the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) has said about the need for the public to receive the protection which is implied in the 1971 Act, which the Bill helps to implement. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that the 1971 Act was first mooted in 1964 and did not reach the Statute Book until 1971. As six of the intervening years were years when the hon. Gentleman's party was in office, I thought he might have given us a little explanation of the difficulties or the reasons for the delay, but he has kept them veiled.
  Mr. John Fraser: I did not want to waste the time of the House. The reasons are set out at great length in the Second Reading debate on the 1971 Act.
  Mr. Maddan: I have not re-read that tonight. However, the fact remains that six years passed. If it was an urgent matter I am certain that it could have been dealt with during that time.
  I received by chance a letter from one of my constituents on Friday last. I shall read a few sentences from it because it underlines the wisdom of my hon. Friend in bringing forward this measure. It is a letter not from a hotelier or boarding house keeper but from a member of the general public. It says:
  "Would it be possible for you to look into the position regarding fires in hotels…"
  Later it says:
  "…s commonsense would surely suggest that serious consideration be given to compulsory provision of fire escapes. It is small inefficient establishments that are presumably unable to bear the cost of such facilities that the fire risk is greatest."
  I question what the writer says about inefficiency, but what is said about "small" is true. The letter concludes:
  "I realise that it may be that the present machinery is adequate, but it does appear that some pressure in the appropriate quarters would greatly reduce the risk even if some expenditure is necessary."
  That constituent will be delighted that the Bill, in contrast to what happened when the hon. Gentleman's party was in office, has been brought forward in four days in response to his plea. But seriously, we know that my hon. Friend has devoted a lot of attention to this difficult matter over recent months.
  I am still concerned about the discretionary element in the local authority's power to make a grant. The 1971 Act makes it clear that the local authority must satisfy itself that the person receiving the grant is credit-worthy. My hon. Friend said that he wanted to see that bodies that were parts of large commercial enterprises and could afford the money did not take advantage of the scheme. Yet he wants to charge ¼ per cent. above the Public Works Loan Board rate. I do not understand how he balances these things. With all the conditions which will go with the local authority loan, that does not seem a very attractive rate.
  If I am right, those who apply for a grant should do so in the knowledge that, if they are credit-worthy they will get it. If my hon. Friend does not think that
  366
  that is a good line of argument, at least we should consider at a later stage writing into the Bill that an applicant, if refused, can appeal to the Secretary of State, who can, if he thinks fit, order the local authority to give the grant. There is a wide fear—I understand the reason for this—that some local authorities may refuse grants and put certain hotels or boarding houses out of business. There should be a reserve protection.
  My final point I touched on when I talked about the cost of loans. Will it be permissible, in the present period of freeze, to charge more per room per night for premises that have been made safe than was charged when they were unsafe? If not, and the interest charge nevertheless has to be borne, that will be equivalent to putting many hoteliers or boarding house keepers out of business.
  So, although I welcome the Bill and the speed with which, since last summer, when this matter came to a head, my hon. Friend has acted, there are those points which will need further attention. No doubt in Committee we shall return to them.
  10.48 p.m.
  Mr. John Pardoe: I should like to associate myself with the remarks from the two Front Benches about those who suffered bereavement in the fire at Exmouth. This has emphasised, as do all hotel fires, the tremendous and urgent need for these fire precautions.
  However, if the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) thinks that this Bill will get any fire precautions made, will get any fire escapes built, he is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. It is essential to get the Fire Precautions Act implemented as quickly and as painlessly as possible. This is what the Government are refusing to do, and have refused to do ever since the Act was passed.
  When trying to reply to the question "How soon will it all be done?" the Minister says "As soon as possible". I must ask the same question as the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser)—when is "as soon as possible"? Speed is of the essence. At no time have the Government brought forward specific rewards for quick action. There is undoubtedly a great temptation, which all of us representing seaside constituencies

  367
  realise only too well, to put off the evil day as long as possible.
  The history of the Bill is fairly simple. The Fire Precautions Act was passed but, unfortunately, in a kind of economic vacuum. No one really thought about how the costs would be borne. They were presumed to be somehow spirited out of thin air. Then we came to the debate on the Finance Bill on 10th July 1972. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury was then in a quandary. We had a great debate, and he had had many requests from his side of the House for some concession. He got to the end of his speech and realised that he was running out of time and desperately needed something to produce, like a white rabbit out of a hat. We did not get a white rabbit. We got a mouse. When he produced it many of his hon. Friends said what a marvellous measure it was and what a tremendous benefit it would be to the hotel industry. They are not feeling quite so optimistic now.
  The Minister seems to have described the Bill this evening with a large number of diminishing comments, such as, "a modest Bill", "a small Bill". He also said that it was unlikely that local authorities would be overwhelmed by requests for loans. He can say that again.
  On 10th July 1972 the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said:
  "Nevertheless, I go on to make it clear that I recognise that there is a problem which has to be met. It is a problem mainly affecting small hotels and business houses, and a number of my hon. Friends have emphasised that this afternoon."
  He went on to say:
  "What seems to me to be necessary is to provide such people with access to loan finance so that they can have the work carried out as and when required by the fire authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, Vol. 840, c. 1262–63.]
  The Chief Secretary then announced this particular scheme, which was effusively welcomed on the benches behind him, in spite of the advice from the industry, both small and large hotels alike, and all the organisations representing the industry, that what they wanted was not loans or grants but tax concessions and that this would have been perfectly sufficient to do the job.
  The Minister was right to say that it is unlikely that local authorities would
  368
  receive a very large number of requests for this money. Who will apply? In a letter to me on 19th July the Minister said:
  "This help is primarily intended for those who cannot meet the cost of fire precautions from their own resources and who have been unable to obtain help from banks, building societies or similar institutions."
  On 19th July the Chief Secretary to the Treasury also said to me:
  "I am bound to say I disagree with the suggestion in your second paragraph that the loan provision will be virtually useless. I made it clear to the House that the scheme would enable local authorities to act as lender of last resort for a small hotel or boarding house keeper who found it difficult to borrow the money he needed from other sources."
  I am still unable to find the exact section of the industry which will have to depend on this measure. The number of establishments which will use this facility will be very small indeed, not only small establishments but small in number.
  Mr. Adley: Has the hon. Gentleman consulted the British Hotels, Restaurants and Caterers Association about the Bill?
  Mr. Pardoe: Yes, and my local organisation, the Newquay Hotel and Caterers Association. Newquay has a very large number of these hotels and guest houses which it is the aim of the Bill to help. But it is almost impossible to find people who are likely to be helped by it. After all, there are already lenders of last resort. The Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas is a lender of last resort and able to lend for this purpose if necessary.
  It is not the lack of credit. That is the extraordinary thing. The Government must get it into their heads that what is stopping progress on fire precautions is the cost of credit.
  So what could have been done? I believe that the most obvious way to get the thing going fast was to amend and extent—
  Sir Hamar Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas as one source from which money could be obtained. What rate of interest would it charge, compared with that in the Bill?
  Mr. Pardoe: It charges a similar rate of interest—¼ per cent. above the public loan rate. I am fairly sure that that is

  369
  the rate, but the hon. Gentleman can check it.
  The easiest thing that the Government could have done was to extend temporarily the Development of Tourism Act to enable the tourist board to make grants towards the cost of fire precautions. I should have limited that to, say, work begun by April 1974, or perhaps to work completed by April 1975, and I should have made it clear that there would be no grants for fire precaution purposes beyond those dates. That would have caused hoteliers to rush their plans forward.
  Secondly, the Government should have announced that all expenditure on fire precautions was tax-deductible. It is extraordinary, as we said during the debate on 10th July, that so far that has not been done by any Government. Thirdly, and much more importantly, all hotels ought to count for depreciation for tax purposes. The only thing that the Government are able to say when we argue this is that sane men cannot tell the difference between hotels and office blocks. The Government act in strange ways. A Government who cannot tell the difference between an hotel and an office block are suffering from a curious kind of visual disease.
  The Minister is right to describe this as a modest Bill, as a very small Bill. It is a very small Government gimmick. It is totally useless to the industry, and it is a waste of time introducing it into the House.
  10.57 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Shaw: I welcome the Bill. It is a modest measure, but it will bring some help. I do not want to speak for long, but I want to speak about one aspect of the Bill which I hope will receive consideration in Committee.
  I accept that the Bill is aimed primarily at helping the small family business. I accept, too—as indeed was inherent in the 1971 Bill—that there must be considerable cost to many of these small hotels and boarding houses. But, though there may be considerable cost, there is considerable need, and I think that that, too, has to be accepted.
  Listening to my hon. Friend it was not immediately apparent—although it
  370
  is from a perusal of the Bill—that not only has a certificate to be applied for but that a notice has to be served on the proprietor saying that certain expenditure is required. It is only at that stage, as I understand the Bill, that the proprietor can apply to the local authority for a loan.
  We have heard tonight that no great speed is envisaged in all this. If I heard my hon. Friend aright, it will be some time before proprietors will be called upon to incur this expense. If I may say so in the friendliest possible manner to my hon. Friend, that was not the impression when all this started. There seemed then to be great urgency about this matter. Indeed, the Bill started because of the urgent representations that many of us made to Ministers concerned about the difficulties in which these small businesses would find themselves.
  So we should try, in discussing this Bill, to cast our minds back to its origins and to the urgency which was then apparent, rather than follow the more leisurely approach which seems to have followed.
  I know of cases in my constituency where proprietors acknowledged the need to carry out this work, knew that at a later stage they would have to apply for these certificates, and that sooner or later their premises would be inspected and they might be called upon at any time—they did not know when—to make their premises fit the proper conditions.
  Some of them said that they had been told that this work was necessary and that, if need be, a facility would be given to borrow money from local authorities. They feared that they might be asked to do the necessary work during the holiday season and felt that, having made the application, they should get on with the work, particularly as it became more expensive with every month that passed.
  There is, therefore, strong ground in this case for the Bill to be amended so that local authorities are empowered to make loans to those who have already started or even to those who have completed work before a notice under Section 5 (4) of the 1971 Act has been served on them.
  This was a matter of some urgency in the early stages when people were

  371
  encouraged to get on with the work as quickly as possible. I know of cases where the people concerned got on with the work and are now in difficulty.
  I know also, because I have examined one case, that these are sound businesses, but that carrying out all the necessary work has been expensive. There have been cases where proprietors have had to make very temporary arrangements for credit to carry out the work and they are now facing the problem of how to rationalise their loan requirements. It would be of great assistance to these people if they knew that they could make an application, when the Bill has gone through, to the local authority for a loan.
  I urge my hon. Friend, in view of the history of the Bill, to look again at the necessity for first having to lodge an application for the certificate and then having to await inspection, which, by everybody's admission, may take a long time. During that time the persons are not getting on with the job and are putting their guests at risk. Facilities should be given to those who have got on with the job, even though it turns out that they have jumped the gun.
  11.4 p.m.
  Dame Irene Ward: I am delighted to participate briefly in this debate. I listened to the charming way in which the Under-Secretary introduced the Bill. He did so as if it were something wonderful which the Government had thought up: something to help small boarding houses and hotels.
  I cannot remember when my hon. Friend became Under-Secretary. I know the present Home Secretary was not there then. It is humorous to hear a Bill with these provisions being brought forward in this way when a large number of us with constituencies containing small hotels and boarding houses went en masse not to the Home Office but to the Treasury. My party has a lot of brains now, and it knows that one cannot have anything, even such a good Bill as this, if one has not got Treasury agreement. We very cleverly decided to descend on the Treasury. The then Treasury Minister, who is very able, attractive and—as a rule—on-coming, did not receive us all that graciously to begin with. However, we had a good go at him and retired.
  372
  Now my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary introduces the Bill as if it were a wonderful contribution from the Home Office. He might have said how pleased he was that we made that foray on the Treasury and that the Treasury had yielded to us—I wish that the Treasury always had to yield to good ideas—and had allowed the Home Office to introduce this modest Bill. It is a pity the Home Secretary does not admit that this is a modest Bill and say that he will have a go at the Treasury and then introduce a Bill which could not be described as modest.
  Most hon. Members want to help the small hotel or boarding house keeper who wants to earn his living and provide safety for his guests. In the efforts to counter inflation we hear much about the problems of the lower-paid and of the pensioners. I support all efforts to help those people, but I also believe in helping those who want to help themselves. I thought that was Conservative philosophy. It is amusing to learn that something different stems from the Conservative Party.
  I am sure that all the representations will be to the same effect and that the Bill should not be so modest. What fun it will be when the Selection Committee has to put all those hon. Members who speak tonight on to the Standing Committee. I do not see how the Government will get a majority in Standing Committee, because in our constituencies we are keen supporters of the small hotel and boarding house keeper.
  I had hoped and believed that the Home Secretary, to whom I am devoted, thought that I had a brain. However, he has sent me a letter today plastered all over with a great pink label saying "Very important" and "Very urgent". When the attendant came and told me that there was an important letter for me I thought that I would not have my dinner because the letter was so important. But the letter merely tells me that I have not quite as many brains as I had hoped the Home Secretary thought that I had.
  The Government say that they are to help the lower-paid and under-privileged. I had asked in my letter that the local authorities should be told that they must

  373
  have a loan scheme. The Home Secretary says:
  "This would deny to the local authorities the ordinary discretion which any lender would be expected to exercise, and would put the ratepayers' money at undue risk: difficulties can sometimes arise when a mortgagor fails to meet his repayments even if security for the debt has been taken."
  I knew that myself. I know that I have not much in the way of a financial brain, but even I knew that. So our delightful and co-operative Home Secretary need not really have bothered to tell me it, because even I knew it.
  The whole exercise is really explaining, in advance of the Committee stage, why we who are here tonight saying what we would like for our small hotel and boarding house keepers cannot have it. That is a pity, for we did so well with the Treasury. But my right hon. Friend was not Home Secretary at the time we made the arrangement with the Treasury, so he really did not know; otherwise he would, I am sure, have agreed with my letters and the letters of my hon. Friends explaining how very strongly we feel about this matter.
  It is no use merely saying "We must help the lower-paid." It is a question not only of the low paid but of people who cannot make a very big income from hotel and boarding house keeping because they have not the premises to do so. If, rightly, we are to help the lower-paid, we must also help the people who can make only a little profit, because, thank goodness, we have a lot of very good, hard-working hotel and boarding house keepers who want to make a profit. We think that it is up to us to help them.
  Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was not in his present position when we made our great foray to the Treasury. But we think that we should have our way. That would, I am sure, thrill the media and the whole House, and we want such co-operation between Socialists, Liberals and Conservatives. We know exactly what we want, and here is an opportunity for the Government to give it to us.
  I say "Good luck" to the Standing Committee because it will be a wonderful opportunity for the Government, without running great risks of losing elections and so on, to give us what we
  374
  want. If they do, we shall be able to say to our small hotel and boarding house keepers "We think you are doing a very good job, and all parties in the House of Commons are united in being prepared to help you." My right hon. Friend will do far better if he gives us our way. If he gets into trouble with the Treasury we can all go back to it and say "The House of Commons has asserted its views. and it is up to the Treasury and the Government to let us have our way in the interests of our constituents."
  11.13 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Adley: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) on saying many of the things which I and many of my hon. Friends would not dare to say. She is right in everything she has said, and all power to her for having the courage to say it. This is what the House of Commons is for, as she has said, and she has been renowned over the years for standing up for her beliefs and for the little people.
  I declare an interest in the hotel industry, although not in any of the premises this Bill is designed to assist. I also confirm once again, although it should not be necessary, that all of us in this House fully support the Fire Precautions Act. There is no question of any one of us thinking that the Act is wrong or should not be implemented. As the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) has said, we want to see it implemented quickly and effectively and the Government doing all they can to bring that about.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth has exposed in lurid detail the origin of the Bill. It is not, and was not, initiated by the Home Office.
  One of the problems of the hotel industry is illustrated very well by the Act. It was brought to the House as a Bill by the Home Office; yet tourism is the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry. Our representations had to be made to the Treasury during the debates on the Financial Bill last year. This is the nub of the problem. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) made a good point when he said that the industry should find a way of making itself heard and of having its problems dealt with by the Government

  375
  on a co-ordinated basis. Most of us here tonight would entirely agree with him. It is inconceivable to me how over the years the industry has allowed itself to be bullied and pushed about, unrepresented in the House. That has been mainly because of its failure to present a united front.
  I am glad to see that the amalgamation of the Caterers Association and the British Hotels and Restaurant Association into the new BHRCA has changed all that. There is now an effective and powerful voice speaking on behalf of the industry. Although it has made one or two comments on the Bill, I believe it would reject some of the less friendly criticisms by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North. At least perhaps he will join us in starting up a movement which will enable the hotel and catering industry to acquire a voice and a lobby in the House. Tourism, the largest dollar-earning industry in this country, has long been neglected. We spend much time in the House discussing the problems of the coal industry and the steel industry, which appear to have permanent problems. Yet the tourist industry, which is a success story, does not get discussed anything like as much as it should. Parts of the industry, particularly the small hotel keepers, who are its backbone, have until recently not had a voice which could be heard here to speak effectively for it.
  The hon. Member for Cornwall, North referred to the debate on the Finance Bill last year. My hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury accused me last year of exaggerating the problems of the small hotel keepers. He said in reply to a Question from me:
  "I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said and have read the letter he wrote earlier this month on the matter. He may be exaggerating the problom."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th April 1972; Vol. 835, c. 1265.]
  I should like to think that as a result of the experience of many of my hon. Friends in recent months it could be seen that we were not exaggerating the problem, either then or now, and I hope that it will be appreciated that a great deal of help is needed by the small hotel keeper. The trouble is that the problem is still unknown. The Fire Precautions Act was introduced by the Home Office without
  376
  consultation with either the industry or the Department of Trade and Industry. Every hotel and boarding house should have registered under the Act on 1st June 1972, and we now know that a large percentage of them not only had not done so by that date but still have not done so. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, in reply to a Question I asked on 7th December 1972 about how many hotels and boarding houses required to register under the Act had done so, simply said that the information was not available.
  Many of us feel that the problems of the industry are still neglected and that the Bill needs a deal of beefing up, and I should like to support proposals put forward by my hon. Friends this evening. It should be mandatory upon local authorities to provide loans for small hotels and boarding houses should they be required. There should be a lower rate of interest than the ¼ per cent. above the Public Works Loan Board rate. I should like to suggest 2 per cent. below that rate. Many of these hotels are in the major towns and cities where there are terraced buildings, places like Bristol and Bath. They are small hotels which would not qualify for the assistance mentioned by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North. Under the legislation such assistance is available only to properties in rural areas.
  Facts about the effectiveness of the Fire Precautions Act are hard to come by. There are too few fire officers, and registration is incomplete. I want to quote four current cases which are causing concern, which illustrate well the problems which small hotel-keepers are facing, and which show that we are not exaggerating. A hotel in Berkshire with 22 rooms has been given 190 days to carry out work costing £12,000 under the Act.
  I must say to the hon. Member for Norwood that I thought his remarks about fire officers interpreting this Act leniently—remarks echoed by the Minister—
  Mr. John Fraser: Reasonably.
  Mr. Adley: Very well. I thought that the remarks showed a total lack of realisation of what is going on in and around the country. If I were a fire officer faced with a piece of legislation produced by the Home Office I would rightly consider it my duty to implement it to the

  377
  letter. I would not like to be held responsible for a fire in my area and subsequently use as my excuse "The Home Office told me I should interpret the law tolerantly." Any fire officer worth his salt will do his job thoroughly. This large sum of money for this hotel will bring in no extra profit.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) said, the freeze is preventing higher charges being introduced. This is a classic example of a proprietor in real difficulty. In a letter to the Chief Executive of the British Hotels, Restaurants and Caterers Association the proprietor says:
  "The rate of interest is likely to be commercial and the loan will have to be repaid so that the Government aid of this kind that is proposed in the next Session of Parliament is, in my view, unrealistic."
  That is why I and many of my hon. Friends feel it is absolutely necessary for the Government to provide a really attractive and low rate of interest.
  I come to the second case which I mention on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt), who apologises for being unable to be here tonight. He has asked me to raise this case. It is a typical one of a small hotel run by two partners who are slaving away day and night in the season to try to eke out a meagre living from the hotel into which they have both put their life savings. As a result of the Act and the assessment made by the officer I have a letter here which tells me that one of the partners, in addition to having to work all day in the hotel, is now having to work five nights a week in a factory to make ends meet and somehow scrape together enough money to carry out this work. I do not believe that this case is in any way an exception. The cost to this hotel of £7,000 is the result of the burden imposed on the proprietors by the fire officer carrying out the will of Parliament.
  Case No. three concerns a small hotel in Dorset which has to pay £650 for materials alone. It is a very small property which showed a surplus of only £1,000 at the end of the last trading year. The letter says:
  "The total of £650 is purely for materials. No element of labour is included at all. According to our accounts for last year we
  378
  had approximately £1,000 left after running expenses, to be divided between us as our wages and to meet any improvements. I think you will see that an outlay of £650, which will in no way improve our profit performance without sizeable price increases, will result in some difficulty. At the same time we are having to improve standards as the public demands change."
  That is not an untypical case.
  Case No. four is a small hotel in Christchurch, Hampshire. The proprietor tells me:
  "under the new Act I am being forced to spend what I estimate may cost me between £500 and £700."
  This letter is dated within the last few days. It goes on to say of the freeze:
  "With the freeze as it is at the moment I read that I shall not be allowed to put my prices up to cover either this or the increased cost of food, facilities, rates, etc. This will personally hit me very hard. I am also affected by VAT which in my case is discriminatory as most of my opposition are cheap rate bed and breakfast amateurs who unfortunately appeal to the majority when money is scarce."
  This is the problem of the small man trying to run a legitimate business which is his only source of livelihood.
  Mr. Michael Shaw: Can my hon. Friend tell me whether in these cases any of the money has already been spent, because this Bill applies only to those who are still intending to spend, not to those who have started to spend?
  Mr. Adley: He has not so far had to spend the money, although he was originally told in 1969 a different story from the one he is now being told. There has been a continuing change in legislation and he has not yet had to expend any of this money.
  Those are just four examples. The need is real for assistance for these people, and the rate of interest is vital. I am sure my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will agree that it is absolutely crazy to put a financial penalty on safety. That is what motivates us all in our request for the lowest possible rate of interest. We are interested in having the work done without making it financially prohibitive to the owners of the premises.
  The chief executive of the British Hotels, Restaurants and Caterers Association writes as follows:
  "Clause 1(2) of the Bill provides that any loan made shall bear interest at a rate

  379
  higher by one-quarter per cent. than the rate provided for under Section 36(4) and (5) of the Fire Precautions Act 1971. At a meeting of our National Council yesterday this provision was the subject of considerable concern as it was felt that the whole object of the exercise could be jeopardised, at least so far as hotels are concerned, if the rate of interest was higher than that normally payable in respect of local loans. In fact, the view was expressed that loans for this very special purpose should be at a rate of interest lower than the rate normally charged. If you can help on this we shall be most grateful."
  My hon. Friend said that he had discussions with the Association of Municipal Corporations, the fire officers and the local authorities. What discussions has he had with the British Hotels, Restaurants and Caterers Association, which is the main representative body of the hotel and catering industry? Secondly, will the work he has mentioned be authorised by the county authority or the new district authority?
  After all that, I end by thanking my hon. Friend for his continuing concern and assistance. I apologise for being a bit mean and tough, and for badgering him. I pay a personal tribute to him for the trouble he takes to understand an industry for which his Department is not responsible. I thank him for his courtesy and assistance, and I hope that in Committee the arguments we have put forward will be persuasive, not just by numbers but by their common sense.
  11.27 p.m.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: I support everything that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley), who has played a key part in getting this less-than-fully-satisfactory measure. I am reluctant to look a gift horse in the mouth, even if it is a broken-winded, three-legged, walleyed nag with no teeth.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who has been most helpful and courteous and has gone out of his way to help us. This is a Treasury Bill, and it was to the Treasury that we made most of our representations. The Bill reflects our relative success in getting our point of view across to the Treasury.
  None of us would for a moment dispute the necessity for the Fire Precautions Act. What has emerged from the debate is the feeling that, on the contrary, the Act should be applied with more speed
  380
  and vigour. What has also emerged is that the impact of the Act on hotels should have been part of a coherent policy directed towards the promotion of the tourist and hotel industry. Such a coherent policy is sadly lacking, and we shall pay for it, because the day of reckoning that is coming when the Act is fully applied will have terrible consequences for a large number of small hotel keepers. We do not want the day of reckoning to be put off. We want it to be advanced so that there may be no risk of life-losing fires occurring. Therefore, it is necessary that there should be a coherent policy of support for the hotel industry. I am bound to say that the present measure is a less than satisfactory part of any such policy.
  In regard to the figure of ¼ per cent about the Public Works Loan Board rate, I agree that there should be an element of subsidy, although I feel that the sooner we get on to a system of tax allowances to meet costs the better.
  The only really fresh point in this discussion relates to the discretion of local authorities to make loans. What is likely to occur under the local government reorganisation proposals is that in the new areas where tourism bulks large tourist industry representation may well be very much less than representation on other matters. Such local authorities may feel under much less obligation to make the loans which are provided for in this measure than do existing local authorities which fully reflect the needs and anxieties of the tourist industry. I hope that the Bill will be amended in Committee to make this activity mandatory rather than discretionary.
  11.30 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Percival: In a brief speech I wish only to emphasise the feelings of dissatisfaction expressed by many of my hon. Friends in this debate. None of us wants to be ungracious or to look a gift horse in the mouth, but I hope that this debate will have made it clear to Ministers, whether they be in the Treasury or in the Home Office, that, while we are glad that the Government are doing something to facilitate the speedier implementation of these important provisions, we hope—and indeed expect—to see improvements at the next stage of the Bill.
  I wish to mention two matters. One relates to the observation made by my

  381
  hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) that in this Bill we are dealing with people who are in a small way of business, who are working for themselves and supporting themselves and who, by their own efforts, are making a real contribution to the life of towns whose inhabitants most of us taking part in this debate represent. I hope that that alone will be considered to be a good reason for giving them rather special consideration.
  It must be said that the group of people with whom we are dealing in this debate have been left out of account compared with the treatment which has been afforded to many other groups in the amount of attention which they receive from the House and from the Government. Many of us who represent these people feel that they have been left fairly far behind in the thinking and actions of successive Governments.
  I wish to mention the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Michael Shaw). The Bill as it stands could assist only those who have not yet spent any money. A person may already have expended money and may find himself in even more difficulty than a person to whom the Bill in its present terms applies. If such a person has had to raise money quickly, he may find himself paying a very high rate of interest. It could not in any sense be described as fair if he were left to go on paying a higher rate simply because he had been obliged to and had carried out work at an earlier date, whereas if he had not been obliged to and had not carried it out until after the Bill came into force, he would be assisted and would be called upon to pay a lower rate.
  While expressing those views, I end as I began by endorsing in general terms what my hon. Friends have said. I hope that we have all made it clear that we mean it when we say that we are glad that our Government are taking this action, but we hope that they will not spoil it by being niggardly about it, and that they will do what is necessary to ensure that this step will be useful.
  11.36 p.m.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: I echo my hon. Friend's commendations of the Minister and express the hope that we
  382
  shall see some improvements in the Bill as it goes through the House.
  The Minister referred to similar loans for housing. That legislation authorises loans at a rate of up to ¼ per cent. above the Consolidated Loan Fund or other borrowing rate as opposed to the proposal in the Bill of a fixed and immutable rate of ¼ per cent. over the Public Works Loan Board rate. The Government must justify rather more than so far the fixing of the rate in this instance while allowing discretion in the other instance.
  We are all anxious that hoteliers and boarding house keepers should proceed as quickly as possible to the implementation of the Fire Precautions Act, but there must be some significant stimulus to them to go ahead with that implementation. I support the plea for cheaper loans on that account.
  I should not go so far as to say that the cheaper loans should be fixed at 2 per cent. less than the rate specified in the Bill, but I urge the Government to consider a provision for loans such as already exists in similar housing legislation.
  The one point which may be urged against the Bill is why the ratepayers of any local authority area should support the hoteliers and boarding house keepers in their midst. The answer is very simple. It is basically that most of these holiday local authority areas rely extensively for their prosperity on the hotel and tourist trade.
  I welcome the Bill. But I ask my hon. Friend to give full consideration to the point that I have made.
  11.40 p.m.
  Mr. A. P. Costain: In an earlier intervention I made a point which I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to answer. In a constituency like Folkestone a number of hotels and boarding houses are nearing the end of rather long leases. Some of them have only four or five years to run. I am pressing ground landlords to extend leases of this kind, but I am not sure that it will be possible. I shall do my utmost to persuade them. But in such cases it will be difficult for a local authority to grant loans under the Bill. How can the authority decide

  383
  whether the security is good enough? If it is decided not to be, what is the unfortunate proprietor to do? Many of them have retired early to go into the hotel business. They want as much as anyone to make their hotels safe. Generally speaking, the hotels are safe, though they may not be up to modern standards.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) referred to the fact that we had made a foray on the Treasury. In fact, it was more like a posse. But, having drawn gunsmoke, only today I have received a letter from my agent saying that this Bill should be got through quickly. I hope that every pressure possible will be brought to bear on the Treasury to get the Bill through quickly.
  11.42 p.m.
  Mr. Lane: With the leave of the House, I wish to reply to some of the points which have been raised in the debate. If I do not cover them all, I can assure hon. Members that all that they have said will be considered carefully before we begin the Committee stage. Many of these points are matters which can be gone into further in Committee, and we all hope that the Bill will emerge from its Committee stage an even better one than it is at present.
  First, let me put one matter straight. Unwittingly, I may have caused some misunderstanding. There is great urgency in carrying out the Fire Precautions Act in the interests of public safety. There is no question of going slow on it. The purpose of this Bill is to keep up the momentum that we all want to see by removing possible financial obstacles. When I said that I did not expect that authorities would be flooded with applications, I meant that we envisaged the Bill being applied with urgency but also steadily in other words, not all at once and in a rush in every individual locality. As this is only a means of lending of last resort and we expect in most cases any necessary loans will be readily available from banks, I should be surprised if the local authorities were flooded with applications all at once in any area. But it is very important to get on with this work urgently.
  Mr. Adley: But small hoteliers find the greatest difficulty in borrowing money from banks. This is one of the reasons why we started all this.
  Mr. Lane: I am aware of that. We envisage a varied apparatus of lending money of which this local authority provision may be a very important part for the smaller people about whom my hon. Friends are concerned.
  I come, then, to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) about leaseholders. If my hon. Friend looks at Section 36(3) of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 he will see a definition which means that the local authority has to be satisfield that the person applying for a loan in the premises concerned is either someone owning the freehold or someone who has a lease for a period which must not expire before the final date for repaying the loan. That is the best answer that I can give at the moment, but I hope that it will enable a large number of leaseholders to be covered.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) for his general welcome to the Bill. He raised many matters, not all of which I can adequately reply to now. One point concerned smoke detectors. We do not expect that smoke detectors can be required directly under the 1971 Act, because their purpose is to protect property, whereas the Act is more concerned with the provision of means of escape. If smoke detectors are installed as an additional safeguard to property it may be that the fire authority could accept a lower standard of certain means of escape requirements under the Act. So there would be a kind of compensating effect to a proprietor who had installed smoke detector equipment.
  The hon. Gentleman's main concern was the speed with which we are getting on with this matter. I accept all that he said about anxieties over the effects of fires. We had the reminder of Exmouth. My London home is in Bayswater, so I am well conscious of this point. Without going much further into detail, I should point out that, according to our information, some of the figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman about the total number of premises involved and the degree to which hotel keepers have not yet applied for certificates were exaggerated. My information is that progress has been good. At one large resort over half the hotels and boarding houses applied for certificates some time ago,

  385
  and progress is being maintained. It will certainly take a few years to get the Act fully carried through. I do not want to put a precise time on it. My feeling about the situation, having discussed it with fire authorities and visited two or three areas, is that there is plenty of urgency and that those concerned have this point very much in mind.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the guidance for fire authorities in going to high risk premises which might not yet have applied for certificates and whether they could forestall the applications. All competent fire authorities know where their high risk premises are situated, and they will not wait for an application for a certificate.
  The last point which I should like to try to meet directly related to using fire brigade manpower more productively. This is being done throughout the fire service. There is a move away from using firemen for duties which can be carried out by unskilled staff, particularly since the Cunningham Report. A special committee of the advisory council is at present considering ways of providing for the better use of operational firemen's time in all respects. Again, if I may amplify this point from my experience of visits to different areas, the fire authorities are certainly redeploying their manpower to apply this Act as urgently as they possibly can, given their present establishments.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) referred to two or three points. One concerned the discretion of local authorities. We can no doubt go into this matter in Committee. We believe that there would be very strong resistance by local authorities to any proposal that they should be compelled to make loans to anybody who applied for them. I am not aware of any public body that is required by statute to provide loans to the public as of right without regard to various circumstances, such as creditworthiness or the merits of the scheme for which the loan is required. If we were to compel local authorities to provide loans in the way that some hon. Members seem to want, we should be putting the ratepayers' money at risk, because difficulties can obviously arise if a mort-
  386
  gagor fails to meet his repayments, even if security for the debt has been taken. I cannot see why we should be more generous to commercial enterprise in this Bill than the House wanted to be to the owners of dwellings covered by Section 36 of the main 1971 Act. This is on a discretionary basis——
  Mr. Adley Mr. Adley rose——
  Mr. Lane: I suspect there is not much between us in practice. Possibly my hon. Friend is reading too much into "discretion". I have no doubt that there will be no serious difficulties given the clear will of the House that local authorities should help in that way. I do not see serious difficulties by local authorities hanging back.
  Mr. Adley: Regarding failure to repay loans, I do not think that any hon. Member has suggested that the two points raised in Section 36(2)(a) and (b) should be waived, so that point is not germane to the argument.
  Mr. Lane: We will go into that further in Committee.
  My hon. Friend and other hon. Members raised the matter of whether prices could be put up during phase 2 or phase 3 or whenever. That is something which I should not like to answer off the cuff. I will consult my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs. No doubt we will discuss the matter further at a later stage. I realise how important it is to a number of businesses concerned.
  May I say to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), who brushed the Bill rather contemptuously aside, that I described the Bill as modest because I want to put it in perspective. It will have an important part in maintaining the progress which we all want to see in getting the main Act implemented. I reject the suggestion that it is either a useless gimmick or a waste of time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Michael Shaw) raised a matter of understandable concern; namely, the uncertainty of businesses which have already started work in anticipation of being required to do it. My hon. Friend wanted to know how

  387
  they will stand under the scheme. We have that problem in introducing any new scheme of this kind in any area of national life. There are always transitional situations. However, we would like to look further into the matter. Undoubtedly, we shall have an opportunity to explore it in Committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) was a little unkind. She accused my Department of taking all the credit for the Bill. Far be it from that. I remind my hon. Friend that I said in my first speech that a decision was arrived at among the Departments concerned—the Department of Trade and Industry, the Home Office and the Treasury. It was announced by my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in July. We are doing in the Bill precisely what my hon. Friend said the Government would do. That is the position, neither more nor less. There is no discrepancy or lack of cohesion between the Home Office, the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry. It is the purpose of the Bill to help people in a small way of business. If we find that we can, within the limit which we have set, improve the Bill from that point of view in Committee, we shall seriously consider doing so.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) was a little unfair when he said that the original Act was drafted without consultation. That was not the case. There was considerable consultation. Up to a point, I have answered his question about making it mandatory on local authorities, and we shall go into it further in Committee.
  Several hon. Members have talked about the rate of interest. I should like to think about this in view of what has been said. To keep it in perspective, we should remember that the interest to be charged under the Bill—I per cent above the PWLB rate—is likely always to be appreciably lower than the borrower would have to pay on a loan from a bank or a financier. I have explained why we felt it right, after discussion with the local authorities, so as to ensure that the Bill got a fair wind from them after its passage through the House, to set the rate ¼ per cent above.
  My hon. Friend mentioned four cases of worry in which, apparently, fire authorities were demanding too much of
  388
  particular hotels. I would remind him that the basis of the Act is that only work can be required which is reasonable in all circumstances. If this has not been argued fully with the fire authorities in these cases, then it certainly should be.
  My hon. Friend asked whether we had had discussions with the hotel trade before drawing up the Bill. We did not do so, because this was a Bill designed to give particular help to them, and consultation, we felt, was not required. However, we will naturally take into account the views and reactions of the trade during the debates ahead. In answer to his other question, it is the district councils which will administer the scheme, because they are the building authorities.
  I think that I have covered, at least in brief, the main points raised. Others we shall consider very carefully before the Committee stage. In the spirit of welcome, although critical welcome, which has been expressed, I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  NORTHERN IRELAND (BORDER POLL)
  11.57 p.m.
  The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Howell): I beg to move,
  That the Northern Ireland (Border Poll) Order, 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 14th December, be approved.
  The Northern Ireland (Border Poll) Act was approved by Parliament in order to fulfil a pledge to the people of Northern Ireland that they would be able to vote on the question of the border. The Act provides that a poll shall be held in Northern Ireland to enable voters to say whether they want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom, or whether they want their Province to be joined with the Republic of Ireland outside the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has informed this House that he has designated Thursday 8th March as polling day. This was the earliest practicable date on which

  389
  the poll could have been held, particularly bearing in mind that the date of 8th March will make it possible to hold a poll on the new electoral register which comes into force on 16th February 1973.
  The Act provides that the poll shall be conducted along the lines of an election to this Parliament—that is, under the Westminster Rules. The order has, therefore, been designed to spell out in detail those parts of the existing law which are to be applied or modified for the purpose of the poll. The statutes concerned are the Representation of the People Act 1949 and the Representation of the People Act 1969, together with the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 1969.
  Schedules 1 and 2 of the order, about which I shall have more to say later, list applications and modifications. I am sorry that this has resulted in a rather technical-looking document, but the alternative would have been a self-contained order, which would have been very much longer. Moreover, those concerned with running the poll can see much more clearly from an order in the form now before the House which parts of the existing law are to be applied and modified for the purposes of the border poll.
  The main substance of the order begins with Article 4. Article 4, after setting out the date of the poll, provides for the hours of polling to be from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. This compares with 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. for a General Election. The reduced hours for polling will enable the majority of voters to vote in daylight—lighting-up time in Belfast will be at about 6.45 p.m. on polling day—and will ease the recruitment of staff for the manning of polling stations.
  I think that these arrangements, which have been made, of course, with the agreement of the returning officers, will be generally well received. It is not expected that the reduction in hours will affect the number of votes cast, particularly in view of the provisions for postal voting, which I shall mention in more detail in a moment.
  The under-sheriffs for Northern Ireland are the returning officers for the poll. All of them, and there are six, will be carry-
  390
  ing out this role. Article 5 is purely precautionary. It simply provides for the Secretary of State to employ substitute returning officers if, for example, an existing holder of the post was prevented from acting by illness.
  Postal voting is dealt with in article 6, which I have mentioned. I hope that hon. Members will appreciate the arrangements we are making for the extension of postal voting facilities. The order provides that any elector may apply to vote by post if he gives an address in the United Kingdom to which a ballot paper may be sent. I emphasise that this is a very considerable extension of the normal provisions for postal voting and could result in a high proportion of the electorate voting by post. Applications to vote by post should in normal cases reach the registration officer not later than 9th February. The form of application is shown in Schedule 3 to the order, and forms will be available tomorrow at local authority offices and post offices or by postal application to the appropriate registration office.
  The House will also note that in Schedule 2, on page 11 of the order, there is a modification to regulation 16 in order to provide additional safeguards against personation, particularly where postal votes are concerned; where the address of a postal voter is different from the qualifying address, notifications that the application has been allowed will be sent to the applicant at both addresses. Over and above this, we will be having spot checks on application forms to check their authenticity.
  Article 7 enables the Secretary of State to appoint observers to attend at the issue of postal ballot papers, polling stations, the opening and verification of returned ballot papers and at the central count. Since there are no candidates for this Doll, there can be no polling or counting agents in the ordinary sense in this whole operation. However, it is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to invite hon. Members elected for Northern Ireland constituencies, those hon. Members at Westminster and in the Northern Ireland Parliament, to nominate observers who will have broadly similar functions.
  In addition, my right hon. Friend has accepted an offer from the Department of

  391
  Political Science at the Queen's University, Belfast, to conduct a research project into the border poll, having in mind the undertaking given by the Government during the debate on the Bill
  "to report to the House and to keep the House informed about the outcome of the Poll."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1972; Vol. 846, c. 1641]
  It is intended that members of the project team will visit polling stations all over Northern Ireland, and be present at the central count, and later report to my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: The Minister has just made a most strange statement about the function of the team from Queen's University. Does he not think that he ought to elaborate on this matter. What exactly is the project to do? What is the team to report on? Is it the conduct of the poll, the way people vote, or the voting in particular areas? It is a most dangerous suggestion.
  Mr. Howell: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks it is dangerous. I shall be happy to elaborate in considerable detail on the nature of the project team. I shall come back to some of the specific points raised by the hon. Gentleman, and perhaps give him the full details in correspondence.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: At a General Election, anyone going into a polling station takes a form of oath that he will not reveal any matter that he sees or any matter that may be relevant to the voting. How can this project team visit Northern Ireland and afterwards reveal to the general public how the vote went? I shall have to protest in the strongest possible manner if that is what the Minister has in mind.
  Mr. Howell: All appointed observers and authorised members of the project team would be required to take this oath and they would operate under those conditions. It would be unacceptable to have within the polling stations people who were not bound by those requirements of secrecy.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us, not in detail but in general, what is the purpose of the Queen's University team? It would help if we could be clear about that.
  392
  The Minister spoke about Stormont Members and Stormont Members who would be allowed to send observers. I wonder whether, on behalf of the Secretary of State, the hon. Gentleman would arrange for an all-party delegation of Members of the House of Commons to go over at the same time to act as observers.
  Mr. Howell: On the first point, I should like to come in much more detail to the nature of the project team because, clearly, there is considerable interest in how it will work. Broadly, the purpose is to observe and report objectively on the conduct of the poll. This is to reinforce the functions that will be fulfilled by the appointed observers. I am sure that all hon. Members recognise the importance of seeing that the poll is conducted in a way which allows observers to ensure that there is the minimum of personation and other abuse.
  My right hon. Friend is favourable towards the idea of an all-party delegation and will be glad to pursue the matter with the hon. Gentleman through the usual channels.
  Now I come to Articles 8 and 9, which deal with the counting of votes and the declaration of the result. The votes are to be counted at one central point, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has appointed the Under-Sheriff of Belfast and Antrim to be in charge of the central count. As the House knows, the result of the poll will be declared for Northern Ireland as a whole and not by constituencies or other geographical areas. My right hon. Friend will publish the result as soon as possible after polling day.
  One important feature of Schedule 1 is that it applies and modifies the parliamentary elections rules made under the Representation of the People Act 1949, as amended. Rule 26, which is on page 8 of the order, is very important because it enables a returning officer to provide a sufficient number of polling stations and allot electors to them. As a result of an examination carried out with the help of the security forces, returning officers have decided to use about 380 polling places, and a polling place may include a number of polling stations.
  This is a considerable reduction from the 900 or so used in the last General

  393
  Election. Although the number of polling places has been reduced, every attempt has been made, taking security into account, to limit the distances that electors will have to travel to reach their polling places. The extended facilities for postal voting should ensure that electors will not be inconvenienced or deterred if their normal polling place is not being used—as may be the case in some instances—and the smaller number will greatly ease the problem of security.
  Rules 33, 34, and 37 contain important modifications bearing on the question of security and the role of the security forces. The House may recall that my right hon. Friend undertook that we shall do everything we can to provide appropriate security for the poll. At polling stations law and order will, as is normally the case, be the responsibility of the presiding officer, assisted by the police.
  However, we have felt it right to provide in the order for a situation where the Army might be needed in aid of the civil power. Hon. Members will of course, hope, as I do, that the Army will not be required to act in this way during the poll, but this provision has to be made.
  Finally, I should like to mention some matters under the heading of publicity. Rule 6 of the parliamentary elections rules applied in Schedule 1 on page 7 of the order provides for the returning officer to publicise the date and hours of the poll, the polling stations to be used, the latest date for the receipt of applications for postal voting, and the addresses of registration and returning officers. Publication will begin as soon as possible after this order has been approved by the House.
  Also in Schedule 1, rule 29 on page 8 provides that official poll cards will be issued to each elector. Hon. Members will find the design of the poll card indicated in Schedule 2 on page 13, which shows modifications to the normal poll card. The questions which will appear on the ballot paper will be set out on the poll card, and arrangements are being made for a certain amount of additional publicity of a purely factual nature about the poll to be given in the Press and on television. Hon. Members will find that the form of ballot paper is specified in the modification to rule 19 in Schedule 1
  394
  on page 8 of the order and in the appendix to Schedule I on page 10.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: If I may again intervene to save time, the hon. Member explained, with the aid of the schedule, the form of the poll card, and we have known for some time—since the debate in the House—that there will be poll cards. Can he tell us where, in the main body of the Act or in the order, it is stated that poll cards shall be issued in the election?
  Mr. Howell: The matter is covered mainly in the schedule, but I shall check in detail and answer the hon. Member's question later. However, as I understand it, the matter is covered in the schedules rather than being specified in the Act, but I am open to question.
  Mr. A. W. Stallard: Before the Minister leaves the postal vote, will he say whether efforts will be made to contact people who have left Northern Ireland in the last 12 months for a number of reasons?
  Mr. Howell: There will be considerable publicity in Northern Ireland, and those who wish to participate and vote and are on the electoral register, or are on after 15th February, will be entitled to a postal vote. If the hon. Member has in mind members of the Armed Forces, applications for postal votes are being distributed to various units so that those overseas can vote.
  Mr. Stallard: I have in mind ordinary civilians who have left, and many have come to inner London, for a number of reasons: Protestants married to Catholics or those whose homes have been destroyed. They hope to go back. What efforts will be made to contact them?
  Mr. Howell: They will be entitled to vote, if they wish, and to apply for a postal vote. But there will, of course, be no specific effort to contact each one; that would not be proper. But friends may contact them if they wish, and there will be an opportunity for people to have a postal vote.
  I have touched on some details, and many more hon. Members will wish to raise points which I shall do my best to answer.

  395
  This poll will give the people of Northern Ireland their first opportunity for a number of years to record their views through the ballot box. It will be regarded by many people in Britain and abroad as setting a standard for democratic behaviour in Northern Ireland. It will be seen as of particular importance as the precursor of the local government elections which have been announced. I should emphasise that we are also taking unprecedented measures to minimise abuse. I hope, therefore, that all hon. Members will join me in expressing the hope that this poll can be conducted as a peaceful and orderly expression of opinion. In the light of that hope I commend the order to the House.
  12.15 a.m.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: Over the last nine months since direct rule we have had a problem of procedure which still exists. The one and a half hours allowed for debate are proper for an order and proper following a Second Reading. However, even on this order, not because in essence it is as important as a Second Reading, there are many questions which we could, and should, ask, and we could do with more time, and at a different time of the day.
  We made our points of principle on Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Border Poll) Bill. They were embodied in a reasoned Amendment. We have not changed our minds. Our view is that the plebiscite on the border will tell us what we know, that the questions are too narrow, and that the White Paper should precede the Border Poll Bill.
  The order gives us in legislative form the date which the Minister reminded us we had known for some weeks. This was determined by the logic of events, and, as we suggested in early debates, the main premise in this logical process was the date of issue of the new register on 15th February which would give the chance to vote to the greatest number of people.
  Nevertheless, the plebiscite will tell us only what we already know, and I could only wish that we were discussing the rules for a proper election in Northern Ireland, because increasingly as we move in this period of direct rule we shall have to determine what the people of Northern Ireland really think. Many of those who
  396
  say that they represent the people of Northern Ireland were elected a long time ago and a lot of political water has passed under the bridge since then.
  As to Article 7, we have observers under the Westminster Rules. All hon. Members know of the arrangements whereby observers are allowed into the polling booth as our representatives but by permission of the returning officer. Because there are no political parties it is clear that there have to be different rules.
  Are the changes in the observer rules laid down in legislation going back to the 1949 Act and culminating in the 1969 Act made under Section 1(2) of the Border Poll Act which provided that the Secretary of State could
  "make such further provision as to the conduct of the poll …as may appear to him to be expedient"?
  The Minister told us about observers from political parties in Northern Ireland and on behalf of the Secretary of State. He has assured us that arrangements can be made through the usual channels for hon. Members to go as well. Will there be any control on the type of person whom Members of Parliament from Stormont or here choose as their representatives?
  Perhaps I can ignore the fact that we are going from here. But, as the hon. Gentleman has explained it, is it the case that any Westminster Member from Northern Ireland can nominate people to represent him at the polls? That is as I understand it. Does it mean that he can do so only in his own constituency? Or can he nominate persons to go to other constituencies in Northern Ireland? I am not asking that there should be control, but can anyone be nominated as an observer? This is germane to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) about the investigators from the Queen's University. Can a Stormont Member of Parliament nominate anyone he wishes to represent him in the polling booth?
  Who will sign the observer's form? We here call the observer "polling agent". An observer will have to get a form signed, and it must be countersigned by the returning officer. He has to sign that he will not interfere, and so on. If there is complete freedom of

  397
  action for Members of Parliament to choose whom they like to go into polling booths, this may not in certain circumstances be so easy to perform. Who, therefore, will sign the observer's form giving him or his nominee the power to go into polling booths?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Northern Ireland elections a polling agent has to take his form of declaration before a justice of the peace before he can be nominated, and then it must be certified by the election agent that he is appearing for a particular candidate?
  Mr. Rees: It is the same under the Westminster Rules. The hon. Gentleman has asked my question in a much clearer form. It leads me on to the question of the Department of Political Science at the Queen's University. I will read a letter sent to me this morning by the Secretary of State. He said:
  "In addition, I am accepting the offer from the Department of Political Science at Queens University, Belfast, to conduct a research project into the Border Poll; this is against the background that during the debate on the Bill the Government undertook 'to report to the House and to keep the House informed about the outcome of the poll'. Members of the project team will visit polling stations all over Northern Ireland, and be present at the central count, and will later render a report to me."
  In principle, and bearing in mind what the right hon. Gentleman promised us, I have no objection to this, but we must be clear about the purpose of the research project and that the Secretary of State will report to the House. If the project's purpose is to inform the Secretary of State about the way the poll was run, that is different from a research project to be published in learned journals and fussed and talked about over a period of years. It then comes into the question of the secrecy of the poll, which is something we have always been very careful to protect.
  Postal voting provisions are contained in paragraph 6 of the order. As I understand it, postal voting is now divided into two under the powers we gave the Secretary of State in the Act. There is a new type of postal voting which is different from the postal voting under the ordinary Westminster Rules. Then there
  398
  are the existing Westminster Rules on postal voting, which have grown up since the war years.
  It is important to clarify our minds on this because postal voting on a very large scale in the context of the problems and lawlessness in Northern Ireland could cause very important problems. Is it the case that the rules that apply to Westminster elections for postal votes will apply here? There is Representation of the People Form 7 which applies to employment for the blind and for the physically incapacitated. There is the RPF 7(a) for journeys by air and sea, which might well be relevant in parts of Northern Ireland. There are RPF 8 for removals, RPF 9 for religious observance for the reserve and auxiliary forces, for the returning officer and his staff and constables, RPF 10 for civilian electors abroad and at sea, and RPF 11 for the elector's proxy. I presume that all these are available on the same terms here as for a Westminster election.
  Proxy voting will be allowed, but will it be allowed for the new type of postal voting which the Government are organising for this plebiscite, or will it only be under the Westminster Rules in the way to which we have become accustomed over the years? Will there be proxy voting for the new general postal votes which the Government will permit.
  Mr. David Howell: There will, of course, be proxy voting, and it is a little extended by the order. There will be the extended form of postal voting. The hon. Member is now asking whether proxy voting will be involved with postal voting, which is the point I cannot grasp.
  Mr. Rees: I am making the point that if the Government had not decided to extend postal voting and all we had were the existing rules there could be proxy voting for the existing postal votes. It would be possible to have voting by proxy, even though the votes are postal votes. Will the same arrangements apply for the more general type of postal votes?
  I welcome postal votes at elections, but I found when I was a Minister at the Home Office that they are open to great abuse. There was a particular case in the East Midlands, the details of which I have forgotten, but I am sure that such abuse is not unusual.

  399
  I have argued in this House on other occasions that in our parliamentary elections if there are to be extended postal votes the extension to individuals should not be at the whim of party organisations. Over the last 100 years we have given the vote to an increasing number of people, and the giving of the vote is organised by the registration officer in the parliamentary borough concerned. It is his job to seek our people to ensure that they get the vote. Unlike in the United States, there is the annual collection of voters lists. It is not a function of the political parties. The only thing in this country which is similar to the United States is the getting of postal votes. I know to my cost that in certain parts of the United Kingdom it is easier for one political party to get postal votes than for others. I do not refer to my present constituency. One has to know one's way about. One has to know one's way into doctors' surgeries. There is a certain amount of suspicion about it. But getting people to take a postal vote for parliamentary elections is a function of the political parties. The registration officer does not go running about except for the occasional advertisement advising people to take a postal vote. This is up to the political parties. What about getting people to use postal votes in Northern Ireland when there are no political parties playing a part in the plebiscite? I am reinforcing the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard).
  Mr. Stallard: Will my hon. Friend include in his survey the postal votes of those who have been interned or detained but not convicted? Will they be entitled to a postal vote?
  Mr. Rees: That is another most interesting point. I am sure that the Minister will be able to inform us of this either now or at the appropriate moment.
  Mr. David Howell: The answer is "yes".
  Mr. Rees: People who are interned will be able to vote. There could be abuse at the time of getting the form signed. It has been put to me, and it is as well to consider these problems rather than sweep them under the carpet, that there could he abuse of postal votes in those areas where there has been a large removal of the population, particularly in
  400
  parts of Belfast. There are areas in Belfast from which populations have moved since the last registration took place in September-November last.
  The question is how to make sure that there is not abuse. The Minister said that the Secretary of State had looked at the security aspect of the polling booths. I hope there will be liaison between the Housing Executive, the electoral authority and the postal authorities in these cases.
  Within those areas where there has not been mass removal, where postal votes forms are to be delivered, the postman needs protecting.
  Mr. John E. Maginnis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in many areas of Belfast the occupants of the houses are there as squatters? There are 5,000 of them. How will that work out?
  Mr. Rees: What we are trying to do, now that the Government have decided to have a plebiscite, is to make sure that it is run in the best possible way. We are bringing these problems to the attention of the Government.
  What about the penalties for abuse? I took a look at "The Conduct of Parliamentary Elections" which is a publication of Labour Party headquarters and is based entirely on the legislation to which the Minister referred. I find that there are two types of illegal practice in the Westminster Rules, and I presume that they will apply to this plebiscite. One is corrupt practice, which goes hack to the early legislation in the 1880s. The other is illegal practice.
  These have to be taken into account in Northern Ireland. It will be a corrupt practice to vote as some other person, whether by voting in person or by post or as proxy. Bribery, treating and undue influence are corrupt practices. Making use of or threatening physical force or violence or restraint, temporal or spiritual injury, fraudulent devices or contrivances impeding or preventing the free exercise of the franchise of an elector, false declaration, incurring expenditure without authority—they are all corrupt.
  There are a lot of things that are illegal. It is illegal to broadcast from outside the United Kingdom except by arrangement with the BBC or ITA. It strikes me that there could be a situation where people may be broadcasting from outside

  401
  the United Kingdom, given the Northern Ireland question, when according to the rules it will be corrupt. The penalties for these offences are great. I hope that the Government will clearly publicise the penalties for illegal and corrupt practices.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that a Northern Ireland politician who made a broadcast about the poll from RTE in Dublin would be guilty of corrupt practice because the broadcast emanated from a place outside the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Rees: I am not a lawyer, so I cannot comment on that.
  Can postal votes be refused in the way they can be refused under the Westminster Rules? Article 6 refers to a time limit which is different from that under the existing rules. The article specifies that applications for postal votes must be received at least 23 days before the holding of the poll. The time limit for postal votes in England for local government elections is 14 days and for parliamentary elections 12 days. Why is there this difference?
  For a normal Westminster election copies of the absent voters list are available and can be used for political purposes. I presume that there is an absent voters list already in existence in Northern Ireland under the old rules—
  Mr. Rafton Pounder: No.
  Mr. Rees: Then I put it in the interrogative. Is there an absent voters list already in existence, and, if so, is it to be ignored? Will there be two absent voters lists, one under the Westminster Rules and one under the Whitelaw rules? Will the absent voters list be open to public examination, or is it to be for the benefit only of the registration officer?
  The Minister has explained the verification procedure for postal voting and has said that a model form can be seen in Schedule 3. The form mentions ministers of religion and Members of Parliament, but I have been asked to point out that it does not mention Christian Science practitioners.
  Mr. David Howell: If the hon. Gentleman will look at footnote 1(a) to Schedule
  402
  3 he will find that a Christian Science practitioner is included.
  Mr. Rees: I am sorry to have wasted the Minister's time on that.
  How will the result of the poll be notified? Will the procedure be similar to that which is used for the declaration of the result of an election?
  I am still worried about the location of polling booths and so are hon. Members with much greater experience of this matter than I have. I hope we shall have firmer information to the effect that it will not be necessary, even for postal voting, for a person in a sectarian area to have to go through a sectarian area of the opposite view. That applies particularly in parts of Belfast.
  As for the publication of results, I can understand why the Secretary of State intends to give a mass result rather than broken-down results. Once we begin to think of altering the border and of hiving off parts of Northern Ireland, it will be regarded as a sign of the failure of the Government's political initiative which we have supported over the past year. We know that a large number of people in Fermanagh, Armagh and Derry do not wish to be part of the United Kingdom, and if the results were broken up it would tell us how foolishly the border was drawn 40 years ago.
  We regard the border poll procedure as foolish. It is not that we want to ignore the views of the Protestants, but that we believe the results will only tell us what we already know. I regard the Bill as administrative practice for the real election that is to come.
  It would be idle to pretend that there is not some fear that there will be violence on polling day. We regard the Northern Ireland (Border Poll) Act as a hangover from last March, but we regard anybody who uses this occasion as an excuse for a day of violence as extremely foolish in terms of the long-term needs of Northern Ireland. It would be easy for somebody to use that day to "show off" by indulging in violence. Therefore, whatever view is taken about the poll, we hope that it will not be regarded as the occasion for violence.
  I am reminded of an ancient clause which now stands as the first enactment

  403
  on the roll of our electoral law. It dates back to 1275. The spirit behind it is that elections should be free. It reads:
  "…the King commandeth upon great forfeiture that no man by force of arms, nor by malice or menacing, shall disturb any to make free election."
  We on this side of the House have grave doubts about the border poll, but we hope that there will be no violence on that day. Those who want to express their view about the poll should be allowed to go about their business. We hope that it will be the beginning of a step towards a proper election in Northern Ireland.
  12.43 a.m.
  Mr. Stratton Mills: I wish to echo the view put forward by the Minister of State and by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) that the poll should take place in a peaceful, dignified atmosphere to enable the people of Northern Ireland to express their view at the ballot box, and I hope that the poll will not be interfered with by any kind of trouble. I firmly endorse their view and join in their hope.
  Nevertheless, I wish to seek an assurance that a sufficient number of the security forces will be used to ensure that the poll is made a reality. Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell us the Government's intentions about the number of troops, and so on. I hope the poll will be free from intimidation. We have been told that there are to be only 380 polling booths against the normal total of 900. I regard that as a wise move because one strongly hopes that people will be able to express their views free from intimidation.
  In normal parliamentary elections there is a restriction on the spending of money by the candidates in a poll. It would appear that there is no such restriction on the spending of money in the border poll. There are a number of parties and political groups on this side of the House which support the right of Northern Ireland to remain inside the United Kingdom, but there might be one group which had more money than the others and might be able to put itself in a rather exaggerated position by giving the impression that it was the sole guardian of the Northern Ireland constitution. However, I leave it to my hon. Friend to give us some information about that.
  404
  The date of 8th March has been given for the poll. I assume, as does the first editorial in The Times today, that it is not intended to link the publication of the White Paper with the poll and that whether the White Paper comes before or after the poll will be an issue to be decided in isolation. Nevertheless, the experience of the border poll and giving people the right to self-determination might be linked to other ideas.
  A number of people feel, for instance, that it is not enough to produce a White Paper and hope that it is sufficient, and that without in any way questioning the judgment or the right or the authority of the House so to do. However, if one has experience of a border poll and its mechanism, there is surely much wisdom—this is the point that I made in a letter to The Times the week before last—in giving the people of Northern Ireland an opportunity in a second poll to express their attitude to the forthcoming White Paper, for only if it has the support and involvement—which is doubly important—of the people of Northern Ireland has it a chance of sticking. If I develop that further, I shall be out of order, but I feel that experience of this poll may be of assistance in this respect.
  I fully appreciate that holes may be picked in the concept of having a second referendum in Northern Ireland. One could equally pick holes in any of the other methods by which to proceed, and, therefore, the principle of involving the people in a second poll has much merit.
  12.47 a.m.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: As many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate and time is limited, I shall not take long. I should like to deal briefly with a number of matters mentioned by the Minister.
  He mentioned a reduction in the number of polling stations. A reduction of two thirds is not insignificant. A reduction from about 900 to about 300 is considerable, and that, I understand, is a reduction in the number of physical stations as such, and so the problems of conducting the poll will be considerable. I repeat the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees)—what will be the problems of people who have to cross rival areas in order to vote?

  405
  The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) mentioned money and one party appearing to be "holier than thou" in its desire to create a united Ireland, or in its desire to retain the link with the United Kingdom. Sitting Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies in Stormont or in Westminster have the right to nominate observers. But in the past it has been not only the victorious candidates who have been able to nominate observers but people who have been representative of different points of view. Therefore, we are giving a right to what is already a vested interest and not to organisations which have not had representation in Stormont or in this House but which may, under the terms of the argument advanced by the hon. Gentleman and by my hon. Friend, be more representative of opinion in Northern Ireland at the moment than Members of this House or of the former Stormont. The Minister of State should look again at the right of people who are not members of political parties represented here or in Stormont but who are members of political parties to attend as observers at these counts. This is very important.
  The next matter to which I wish to refer concerns the procedure for the count. It has been said that the count will be done purely and simply for the whole of Northern Ireland. That may be the case, but the count may be conducted in such a manner that the information which the Secretary of State is at present seeking to conceal from us in the sense that he wants a result for the whole of Ireland and not for a constituency or area may be available to the Secretary of State but not available to the remainder of the country.
  In any constituency election, a box containing votes may be brought in to be counted. All the votes may be tipped together and mixed up and then examined for the way that people have voted and have spoiled papers before being counted. An individual box may be tipped out and examined for the way that people have voted and have spoiled papers. In that way there is a record of the way that people in a specific polling area have voted. Will that information be available to the Secretary of State, or will it, along with all the other votes, be
  406
  thrown together into one huge table which will then have various facts extracted from it? This is important in recognising the bona fides of the way in which the count is to be held.
  Then there are the terms of the rather surprising announcement which the Minister of State made tonight and which he revealed to my hon. Friend in a letter this morning about the Queen's University research project. What exactly is entailed in this research project? What will be reported to the Secretary of State, and what part of the report will in turn be presented to this House and to the people of the United Kingdom and of Northern Ireland? If it is just a matter of saying that 70 per cent. of the people voted in the Falls, that 100 per cent. in the Shanklin voted or that 200 per cent. in the Bogside voted, statistical information of that kind can be gained in any event. We can discover how many voted in the first hour, whether there was a big or a small turnout, what effect the weather had and what was on television earlier that night. If we are to have a research project, it must be into other matters—not just into the methods by which people voted or how they voted, but into what were their attitudes to the poll, how they voted in specific areas, and what was the relevance of issues which they regarded as being important in the vote. If we have a research project on these lines, we must have an undertaking that no part of the results of the project will be held back by the Secretary of State. It must all be made available to this House and to the people of Northern Ireland.
  Secondly, and more important, we have to consider the position of the individual voter and the secrecy of his vote. It is all very well for people to say that this person or that signs a form and gives an undertaking not to reveal what he has seen inside a polling booth or anything that he has discovered. Conclusions can be drawn from reports about what a person has or has not seen. The secrecy of the vote can be affected in that way.
  There are many ways in which it is possible, when the votes have been cast, for the information which the rest of us are not to get to be kept by the Secretary of State. I think that we ought to have certain undertakings from the Minister of State on this matter.

  407
  I am not necessarily against a research project. I think that the rôle of psephologists can be very important. But why on this occasion and for what particular reasons against a background where we have had no promise of a White Paper? Therefore, we do not know what the Government's intentions are. The people of Northern Ireland will be voting, and there will be a research project based upon that voting which might, after publication of the White Paper, be completely irrelevant.
  Those are some of the points that wished to cover. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South, I know the answers. The questions are wrong. We are trying yet again to save the Prime Minister's face. He has stood on his head so often, but we might as well try to save him again. However, I suggest that there is no point in having the poll.
  12.57 a.m.
  Mr. John E. Maginnis: I shall be only a few minutes in making my remarks at this time of the morning.
  First, will the Minister give us an assurance on when the new register will be available? This is the first time in the history of Northern Ireland that there has been a delay in the publication of a register. Most people are anxious to know when the new register will be available.
  Secondly, will the hon. Gentleman make absolutely clear the position on postal voting? Most people feel that they cannot apply for a postal vote until the new register is available. I understand—I may be wrong—that one applies for a postal vote on the existing register and then the authority checks to see whether one's name appears on the new register. This is a matter which most people do not appreciate.
  Following the question of postal voting comes the question of abuse. We all know that an address in the United Kingdom must be given. What precautions is the Minister taking to see that accommodation addresses will not be used extensively for postal votes? This can happen. Is he aware that 50 per cent. of the electorate may apply for postal voting? If so, are the postal authorities equipped to deal with that number of applications? During the last election
  408
  large numbers of poll cards sent out to postal voters went astray.
  Regarding security in rural areas, the Minister has stated that the numbers of polling stations have been greatly reduced. That means that people in rural areas will have to travel greater distances. This matter will have to be looked at very seriously, because security will be the main problem in the border poll.
  I have always supported the holding of a border poll for Northern Ireland. We have heard stated tonight that the result will be a foregone conclusion. It is not the result which is the main question on the border poll; it is the right of the people of Northern Ireland to express their own views, because they can no longer express them through their elected representatives at Stormont. The border poll is a must because it will give the people of Northern Ireland the right to express their views on the border one way or the other because they have no representatives to do it for them. That is a point which must be forced home on every occasion. I hope, as the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) and the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) have stated, that we shall have a border poll free from intimidation and free from violence of any description. It is the first opportunity the people of Northern Ireland have had for a long time of going to the polls. Sensible people will want to ensure that the poll is conducted in an orderly manner. I hope that most people in Northern Ireland will realise that the world is watching and that an orderly poll conducted with due dignity and decorum will go a long way in restoring Northern Ireland's position throughout not only the United Kingdom but the rest of the world.
  1.1 a.m.
  Mr. Gerard Fitt: I protest in the strongest possible way at the way this debate has been carried out and the short time that has been given to a matter of such importance. There are almost nine columns of modifications to existing electoral law, and I am certain that the hon. Members who are taking part in the debate have not had time to correlate the modifications with the existing electoral law. We have been given one and a half hours to discuss an

  409
  issue of great importance to all the people of the United Kingdom. In making this protest I am certain that I speak for the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who I hope will be fortunate in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, before the end of the debate.
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster Mr. Stanley R. McMaster (Belfast, East) rose——
  Mr. Fitt: I will not give way. In the order there are some minor and some major modifications which necessitate a full day's debate. The most major modification on Article 6 relates to postal voting. The last date for the receipt of the application for a postal vote is to be 9th February 1973. That is 22 or 23 days before the polling date. Why did there have to be such a long lapse? Is it because of the sad experience that we had with the postal facilities over the Christmas period? If that is the reason, one can readily understand it. But it means that people will be limited to a great extent by having to adhere to that date. The register comes into operation on 15th February, and consequently people will have to apply for a postal vote on the number contained in the old register.
  Mr. David Howell Mr. David Howell rose——
  Mr. Fitt: Many people have had to change their address since September 1972, since the qualifying date, because of political disturbance. Both Catholics and Protestants have been affected, particularly the Catholic minority in Belfast.
  Mr. Howell: There is a danger of confusion arising where there is really no confusion. All electors who believe themselves to be qualified to be on the electoral register will be entitled to apply for a postal vote if they wish. It does not matter as long as they apply before 9th February. If they turn out to be on the new electoral register they will qualify; if they are not, they will not.
  Mr. Fitt: Many people have been forced to shift their residence, particularly in Belfast, and even at the time of the compilation of the register it was not possible for those who were preparing the register to go into certain streets and areas. What was done in those circumstances was to compare the register they were preparing with the existing register.
  410
  Many people who prepared the new register were not admitted to the riot-torn areas of Belfast. There will be thousands of people in Belfast whose names will not be on the register.
  If a person has to apply on the 9th February, when will the poll card be sent? Will it be sent out a week or a fortnight later? I suggest that the poll card should be sent out earlier so that people who are not sure whether their names are on the register will at least have the benefit of knowing that the poll card has been sent out. But if they wait until after they have made the claim, they do not know whether or not they are on the register.
  The Minister has said that the Secretary of State will take powers to appoint observers, and that he intends to extend this facility to Members of Parliament, both here and in Northern Ireland. But many parts of Northern Ireland do not have MPs. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), two Northern Ireland constituencies, Shankill and Woodfield, do not have Members of Parliament because they resigned when direct rule took place. Who will be the accepted voice of the people in those areas? What will be the criteria in appointing observers? There are many questions which one would demand to ask; because of the time limitation, this debate will be completely unsatisfactory.
  There were nearly 1,000 polling stations, but now there will be only 380. This means that people will have to travel further if they want to record their votes, if they do not wish to use the postal facilities. Many people, particularly in the rural areas, have been used to voting at their local polling station, which was erected on the creation of the State 50 years ago. They will be unwilling to travel. It seems to me that the Secretary of State has taken this attitude for the administrative convenience of himself and his officers.
  With my knowledge of Northern Ireland—the hon. Member for Antrim, North could probably elaborate at greater length—I know that some people will be deeply confused by the order. They have never had a postal vote in their lives; they are unsure whom to approach for the application, whether their names

  411
  are on the register in Belfast or whether they are on the old or the new register. All this will make the poll completely invalid.
  I have always thought that this poll will cause mischief and great danger in Northern Ireland, and I still adhere to that view. We all know the result. Carried out under this order, the poll will cause a great deal of inconvenience and possibly danger. Opposed to the poll as I am—I speak for my party—I know that many moderate people in Northern Ireland will have to boycott it and advise those whom they represent to do the same, because we already know the result. But I associate myself with the plea of the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) that, if and when the poll takes place, no one should engage in any way in violence with the intention of bringing about his own result.
  1.9 a.m.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: As a representative from Northern Ireland, I must again register, in the strongest possible manner, my utter disgust at the way in which this matter has been presented in the House. It was the bounden duty of the Secretary of State to be present himself for this most important debate. The Act which the House passed gave us no information whatever. Now, in a draft order, we have been given other information, some of which has come as a bombshell to the House.
  Over 900 polling stations are to be reduced to fewer than 400. That means that people in my area, North Antrim, will have to travel through areas which they never travel through. Parts of my area are strongly nationalist and other parts are equally strongly Protestant. It has always been the custom that in those areas with a particular political outlook the polling stations are located near where the residents live, so that they can use them at their convenience.
  I am for the border poll. I was for it, and I suggested it before direct rule took place. But I do not want it to go out to the world that there was anything about the poll that could not be subjected to the closest possible scrutiny. At the polling stations in Northern Ireland I do not want to see vast numbers of Her
  412
  Majesty's troops. The soldiers must certainly be there, because of security, but I do not want to see them with armoured cars. If that is what has been suggested by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), that there should be such a saturation of troops on the day that it would be evident that the troops were there in abundance, it would give the world an impression entirely contrary to the proper situation.
  The majority of people in Northern Ireland want to remain part and parcel of the United Kingdom. Even those opposing that desire admit that. I do not want it to go out to the world that because of the presence of British troops on that day the people of Northern Ireland voted to remain a part of the United Kingdom. I understand that there is a security problem. I freely admit that. But I want to ask the Minister some questions of vital importance.
  I take up a question referred to by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). At the last election in my constituency five parties fought for the seat. Those parties have as much right as I have to have observers at this poll. They are just as much entitled to have a representative at the ballot boxes on that day as I am. Why should it be limited to the person who happens on the day to hold the seat? I make a plea to the Minister to look into this and see whether it would be possible for those parties which fought for the various seats at the last election to nominate observers. Otherwise what will people say? They will say "Oh, it was only the Member of Parliament who had the right to go in and see whether the poll was in order." I should like it to be done in such a way that no one afterwards could say "Only those who happened to be Members of Parliament saw what was going on."
  We must have the opportunity across the board for those who have also fought for the various seats, at least at the last election. We must limit it in some way in that they should have an opportunity to nominate agents to go in and see that the voting is done properly and an opportunity to question the presiding officer and to lodge any complaint. Who will lodge a complaint if they do not have

  413
  access to the presiding officer? One cannot say to a presiding officer "Come outside." Everyone knows that he has to stay inside at the boxes. If someone has a complaint, how can he make it if there is no representative of his political group inside the station to make representations?
  This is a very important matter. I am not at all happy about this, and I believe that I speak for a vast number of people in Northern Ireland who think that we shall be made guinea pigs for this Queen's University project. The electors in this country would resent such a project taking place at a General Election. This will not be acceptable in Northern Ireland.
  Are these people to be allowed into the stations when legitimate political parties' representatives are to be denied access? Are people who have fought these seats for the past 50 years to be denied the right to have an observer in the boxes, whereas this team can enter and make investigations? What is the team to investigate, and what will be the result of the investigation? I think that this matter needs to be considered carefully. I plead with the Minister to make the strongest possible representations to his right hon. Friend to reconsider the whole matter because, as far as I know, no political party in Northern Ireland or no shade of political grouping there has ever been consulted about this provision, yet it is to be foisted upon us.
  I want the border poll to take place. 1 advocated it before direct rule came about. It should have taken place a long time ago. I want it carried out in such a way that there can be no objections from any side after it is over. I want the poll to be conducted in such a way that everyone can see that it has been carried out in accordance with the best British traditions.
  We have not had time to ventilate the strong feelings of this side of the House on this matter. The Minister must think carefully about some of the regulations that have been proposed, and especially those relating to the register, because if I apply under one register and then discover that I am not on the other that will lead to great difficulties.
  1.16 a.m.
  Mr. David Howell: I am the first to recognise the inadequacy of the opportunities that we have in this House to debate Northern Ireland matters under the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act. Indeed, it is precisely because my right hon. Friend and I recognise the inadequacy of the opportunities for debate that we are seeking to move towards a constitutional settlement in Northern Ireland that will allow for a happier and fuller discussion of this and other important issues. Let it not be thought that there is any complacency about the present position or about the desire and the need to improve the situation and move on to a better constitutional settlement.
  Mr. McMaster: Is my hon. Friend aware that although some of us have been to great trouble to collect views on this order throughout Northern Ireland we have had no opportunity of putting those views to the House? In addition, we have been given no opportunity to amend the order. There are many details about which a number of people in Northern Ireland are not satisfied. They would like these matters to be considered by the Minister and amendments made to the order. There is no possibility of doing that, and I protest strongly.
  Mr. Howell: I know that, and I shall try to answer some of the questions that have been asked and deal with some of the confusion that has arisen.
  The first matter is that of the observers. The proposition is that any Member of the Northern Ireland Parliament at Stormont or of the Westminster Parliament can nominate any number of observers for any polling stations that he or she wishes. There is no limit. This is obviously a matter to be worked out in the light of common sense so that my right hon. Friend can appoint those observers who have been nominated, but there is no question, as I said in opening the debate, of nominations being limited to the one nominee whom a Member of Parliament may place within his own constituency. The opportunity is there, within these rules, for observers from all parties involved in and campaigning in the poll to be appointed to the polling stations. There is in theory no limit to the number, but one hopes that common

  415
  sense and a sense of responsibility by Members of Stormont and the House of Commons will ensure that there is a sensible limitation on the numbers appointed.
  My right hon. Friend must reserve the right to apply some overall restraint should people deliberately try to abuse the system, though I am sure that they will not. The main point is that observers from all parties will be allowed to enter all polling stations, having taken the necessary oath of secrecy, to ensure that abuses are not allowed and that the poll proceeds in the way that they would wish.
  There has been some misapprehension about the research project. The latter is, of course, confined to the method by which the poll takes place. It is not a project which would in any sense go into the motivations or reasons or into any other part of the voting process or into the private and secret way in which individuals vote or why they vote.
  This project will be carried out with the object of describing and analysing the border poll, the arrangements for conducting it, its result, and any relevant events. We envisage that research will be done and published by Professor Lawrence, Dr. Elliott and Mr. Laver, all of the Department of Political Science of the Queen's University, Belfast.
  I note the doubts expressed by hon. Members, but it is a sensible project which can greatly help to ensure that impartial observers are involved in the process of the ballot by ensuring that a report is available afterwards showing the impartiality and drawing important lessons from the poll. It will be a valuable and useful exercise.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) asked me several questions, and I have not the time to answer all. He asked about those entitled to a proxy vote. The rules are the same as for Westminster with the addition for members of the reserve forces and the UDR who need one because they are on duty and so on. They will be entitled to a postal vote.
  The hon. Member asked whether anybody can be refused a postal vote. No, provided that it is not a fraudulent application and that it is certified by those who certify postal votes.
  416
  The hon. Member asked whether their was a time limit for receiving postal votes. Applications must be in by 9th February. All those who believe themselves to be on the electoral register may take an application form from a post office, but if they are not on the register they are not entitled to vote. If they have not applied for a postal vote they will get a polling card entitling them to vote in person.
  A number of points were made about the need to ensure that there was no intimidation, and that is recognised and accepted in the desire to see a considerable extension of the postal vote.
  We have to look on the poll as one which will mean a great extension of the postal vote and which will thereby ensure that many people who might be intimidated or worried about going through hostile areas or worried about having to travel rather further than they normally do will be able to exercise their democratic right by a postal vote.
  We accept that there will be a substantial postal vote and have made preparation for one. That was the valuable point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis).
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) also asked about the reduction in the number of polling stations. That point has, I believe, been met by the considerable extension of facilities for postal votes.
  The hon. Member, too, mentioned the point about Members of Parliament nominating observers. This is important, and I have made the point that a Member of Parliament can nominate as many as he may wish so that members of all parties can be at the polling stations.
  A number of provisions have been made on forgery and fraudulence. Applications for postal votes must be made in person, and an acknowledgment will be sent to the address of the person making it and to his address in the electoral register to ensure that no application is being made for a vote without that person's knowledge. This provision will help. In addition there will be a number of spot checks to ensure that people who have signed applications are genuine and have made that certification which it is claimed they have made. That, too, will enable abuse to be minimised.
  Mr. McNamara: Can the hon. Gentleman deal with the method of counting before he leaves the points I made?
  Mr. Howell: I do not wish to elaborate on the method of counting, except to say that there will be central counting and that this will be done in the way described. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the dangers of a particular incident where a ballot box might be upset. I hope that he will be reassured that, if there are, as it is intended that there should be, a large number of observers at the count as well as at the polling stations, there will be safeguards. The hon. Gentleman may not be reassured, but the Government believe that with observers and the security provisions provided there is an adequate opportunity to ensure that these dangers are minimised.
  There are a number of other issues, about which I will write to hon. Members. A great deal of publicity will follow to ensure that there is wide understanding of the considerable opportunities for almost everyone in Northern Ireland who wishes to do so to vote, either by post or in person, and I believe that this will enable a large poll to be registered and to be carried out in a helpful and democratic manner.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: There is concern about the Queen's University research project. To allay all the fears about it, will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that the report shall be to the Secretary of State and that there will be no publication, other than through the Secretary of State and to the House, before any decision is made about what happens to the material afterwards?
  Mr. Howell: That worry has been expressed tonight. I assure the hon. Gentleman that any report made will be through my right hon. Friend.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Northern Ireland (Border Poll) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 14th December, be approved.

  PRIVILEGES
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Duncan Sandys be discharged from the Committee of Privileges and that Mr. Edward du Cann be added.—[Mr. Weatherill.]

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

  ANGEL INTERSECTION, ISLINGTON
  1.26 a.m.
  Mr. George Cunningham: For some months the Secretary of State for the Environment has had before him proposals for the construction of a new traffic circle at the Angel in Islington, and his approval to those proposals from the Greater London Council is required. I understand that his decision will be given one way or the other in the near future. I have been trying for some time to have a short debate like this on the proposals because they are causing deep concern amongst a large number of individuals and organisations in my constituency. Tonight I shall press upon the Minister a number of considerations some of which the Department may have heard before and some of which it will not have heard before. I hope that these proposals will be seriously considered before the Minister reaches his decision.
  It will be an important decision because the Department will be providing 75 per cent. of the capital costs of the operation, and that is likely to come to a very high figure. Therefore, the Department cannot be content to leave it that the GLC is satisfied with the proposal and that it ought to be all right. The Minister must go into it properly and satisfy himself that the proposal makes sense.
  There is great confusion about many points in relation to the proposed roundabout. I hope that the Minister can make clear just where things stand within the Department. I have stated what I understand to be the position about ministerial approval, but there is doubt about it. Representatives of the Greater London Council have let it be known that in their opinion the Department has got the cost of this proposal into its firm financial programme for 1977. I want to know what that means. Is there any commitment at this moment

  419
  on the part of the Department to approve the scheme? That is typical of a number of confusions which there have been about the scheme.
  I hope that the Minister will bear with me while I refer to a rather technical point. It relates to new ideas on the shape and size of roundabouts which emerged from the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, which is a direct responsibility of the Department.
  The proposal at the Angel is for an enormous roundabout, the central island of which will be an acre or perhaps 1.1 acres in area. It will be surrounded by a relatively narrow carriageway of 20 yards—relatively narrow, that is, in relation to the central island. In late 1970, the Transport and Road Research Laboratory brought out a valuable report—No. 356—by F. C. Blackmore on the capacity of single-level intersections. Briefly, the conclusion reached was that several traffic experiments had shown that the capacity of roundabouts of conventional design—that is, with a fairly large central island and a relatively narrow circulating road around it—could be improved by reducing the diameter of the central island by about one-third while maintaining the diameter of the border perimeter. By this means, the capacity of any roundabout could be improved.
  That conclusion was based not just on a few traffic experiments but also on the study of a number of road conditions. It was a firm conclusion of the report that the old idea of a huge central island was bad. It got a good deal of publicity at the time and as a result a number of changes have been made in London roundabouts.
  The roundabout at the Angel is a fine example of the shape of a scheme which pre-dates the ideas put forward by the TRRL. When the TRRL studied a roundabout at Hillingdon—it happened to be one with four carriageways running into it, like the Angel—it found that it got the best results with an island of 15 metres in diameter within a larger circle of 46 metres in diameter. That is, the central island bore a relationship of one to three to the outer circle. The TRRL said that the ratio could have been smaller if it had been able to design the entrances and exits to the roundabout, as it could do with a totally fresh plan, as proposed at the Angel.
  420
  I want to know first whether the GLC referred its plan, which was certainly dreamed up before the TRRL came out with its ideas, to the TRRL at any stage. Secondly, has the Department referred the plan to the TRRL? Here, the Department has its own research establishment exactly for such a purpose. The TRRL is not there just to dream up general plans and reach general conclusions. It is invited to comment on specific plans by some local authorities, and, therefore, the Department is free to refer a specific case to it if it wishes. Has it done so in this case? If not, why not, in the light of the clear conflict between the proposal at the Angel and the conclusions of its own subordinate body, the TRRL?
  I am not suggesting that we should reduce the size of the central island at the Angel and increase the capacity of the roundabout. What I am suggesting is that we should keep the proposed capacity static, if it has to be at that level at all, reduce the size of the central island and reduce the size of the outer circle. That would save, I calculate, an acre or more of the area from the devastation which will otherwise strike it.
  What is the cost of the scheme? Figures are bandied about of £7 million, £7½ million, £9 million. What will be the cost of stage A—that is, without the proposed underpass, which is to follow in 20 years' time? What will be the cost of stage B, including the underpass? Therefore, what will be a 75 per cent. share of that which will fall upon Exchequer funds?
  A number of other questions have been raised about the rationalisation of this proposal. First, is it designed to take the expected expansion in traffic flows which was predicted nearly a decade ago by the London Transport survey? Certainly that was shadowed out a few years ago. But the current explanation and rationale appears to be that it will not do that. It will apparently now merely take the traffic which comes through the Angel and also traffic from the rat-runs which surround the Angel and which should go through it. There is confusion on that point. I hope that the Department will clear it up before reaching a decision.
  How much of that traffic is divertable to the Angel anyway? It is no good simply putting a man on the street and

  421
  taking a count of the vehicles passing. Not all of those vehicles can be diverted to the Angel even if there is a traffic management scheme which will create an incentive to achieve it, and even if the capacity of the Angel is improved. Will the Minister say whether there have been studies by the GLC, the Department or anyone else to see how much of that rat-run traffic can in practice be diverted into an improved Angel intersection?
  I have heard it said by the chairman of the appropriate GLC committee that if the scheme at the Angel was made less ambitious the Department of the Environment would turn miserly and not provide the 75 per cent. grant. I cannot believe that there is any truth in that, but will the Under-Secretary confirm or deny it? The Department is now looking at the scheme, as I understand it, and if it gives its approval to it, surely the 75 per cent. grant would automatically become available.
  It is completely unknown at this stage whether the southern junction of Liverpool Road will be closed. That junction is only about 100 yards from the proposed roundabout, even in its present location, and a good deal less than that from where the entrance will later be situated. Here again is an important point which has not yet been dealt with, and the Department should not take its decision before it is resolved.
  There are, of course, difficulties if the Angel is developed in this way. There will be consequences for Kings Cross, Euston Road and Highbury Corner and for other linkways east and west across the York Way. Experience in London and elsewhere in recent years is that all that happens when the capacity of an important junction is improved is that six traffic jams are created on the surrounding roads. Unless the authorities are prepared to impose restraints upon traffic, that is what will happen at the Angel.
  I have mentioned but a few points to illustrate the confusion that exists not only among my constituents but in the minds of those who are responsible for putting the scheme forward. My constituents have approached the matter in a very workmanlike way. They have set up committees and used bodies like the Islington Society, which is opposed to the scheme. They have had discussions with the appropriate
  422
  officials and the elected representatives on the GLC. The confusion which exists on the points I have mentioned results from these discussions and was not removed by them.
  The important considerations to be taken into account are those deriving from the changing attitudes in this House and in most authorities, and, I hope, in the Department of the Environment, towards the question of urban transport. Last week we had the Expenditure Committee's report on urban transport. I was happy to be a member of the sub-committee which produced that report. We had the Prime Minister's little walk to 10 Downing Street, and earlier last year we had the GLC document "Traffic and the Environment" which was obviously produced by a totally different set of people from those who produced the design for the Angel.
  We have had the occasional comments of Sir Richard Way, Chairman of London Transport, who feels strongly that some considerable reduction—about 40 per cent.—should be made in car usage if we are to have a decent bus service in London. There is developing—fully developed even—what might be called a new orthodoxy in urban transport philosophy, which is that we have to have restraints on the commuter travel at peak hours in city centres combined with improvements in public transport—and we cannot have one without the other. It is part of that new orthodoxy that the improvement of urban roadways in itself will create far more problems than it will solve.
  I remind the Minister of the degree of urgency which the Expenditure Committee attached to these fundamental matters. We said in paragraph 11:
  "There is a growing feeling that unless positive policy decisions are taken in the near future we may be faced with irreparable social and environmental damage and the breakdown of public transport facilities."
  We were pleading not only that this should be accepted in theory but that something should be done and done quickly. Otherwise London will become even more of an asphalt jungle than it is now.
  A more apposite recommendation is contained in paragraph 107, where we said:
  "we … recommend that, as an urgent priority, all trunk and principal road schemes

  423
  of urban road building which have not reached the exchange of contract stage should be re-examined ab initio."
  Road proposals take an awful long time in gestation. If we adopt a new road policy and apply that policy only to the plans which are but a twinkle in someone's eye, it will be half a century before we get any concrete on the ground in accordance with the new ideas. What has to be done now is to re-assess the plans which are not yet confirmed and started and try to moderate those in line with that new policy. That policy will provide for better public transport, more bus lanes and a restraint upon the use of the motor car by commuters at peak hours in city centres.
  If we do that, it is highly questionable whether we need an increase in the capacity at the Angel of the order intended. I stress that I am saying not only that we do not need that increased capacity but that, even if we want it, there is a way of doing it by a smaller scheme, which will use less land than the one proposed.
  We would be very disappointed in Islington—certainly this is the case with the Islington Borough Council—if there were to be a further prolonged period of delay in settling these matters. There is no need for that. I would like the Minister to say that this scheme is too ambitious, that he wants a more modest scheme, and that he wants to get it buttoned up this year. The GLC claims it would take five years to work out something new. That is nonsense. I hope that the Minister can say, when he takes his decision, that he will not approve this but will approve a more modest scheme, and that he wants it to go ahead rapidly so that the land freed from planning blight can be used for important housing purposes in Islington.
  1.45 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): I thank the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) for introducing this debate at this late hour. I will do my best, but I cannot answer all his questions. I reaffirm that no formal decision has yet been taken. I will certainly look at the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and I have no doubt that the Greater London Council will also do so.
  424
  I will first outline the topography so that we are all clear exactly what we are talking about. The routes converging on the Angel intersection are the Al—Goswell Road, Islington High Street, Upper Street—and the A501—City Road, Pentonville Road. Traffic also reaches the intersection from the A401—Rosebery Avenue—and the A104—Essex Road. These are metropolitan routes for which the GLC is the highway and traffic authority.
  The Al is a radial route and is a main road to the north connecting directly to the Ml. In the past, this route has been improved in the Holloway Road, and is currently being improved in the southern part of Archway Road. Draft orders are about to be published for the improvement of the remaining length of Archway Road.
  The A501 which crosses the Al at the Angel is part of the inner ring road around the West End and the City, terminating at its western end with the Western Avenue Extension, the A40 radial route. The hon. Gentleman referred to the effects this will have way beyond the Angel. At its eastern end it feeds into the A13. One can see how the Angel is thus a major interchange and the traffic movements at this point are extremely complex. There is no difference between us on that.
  In view of the current measures proposed by the GLC for controlling the passage of long vehicles through six square miles of central London, use of this major east-west distributor road for the central area is likely to increase.
  Delays and congestions both in and out of peak hours have been the feature of the Angel intersection for many years. In a study of delay times taken in 1969, delays of over seven minutes were recorded. A more recent study taken in July 1971 for a proposed southbound bus lane in Upper Street gave an average delay to buses in the morning peak of four minutes, with the longest recorded on the day of the study of nine minutes. Also in July 1971 in Upper Street a peak hour queue length of 2,400 ft and off-peak length of 1,400 ft were recorded. This affects peak-hour traffic and buses.
  As a result of this congestion, many drivers avoid the junction and take diversionary routes through adjoining residential areas, including three conservation

  425
  areas around the Angel. Traffic flows have resulted along such roads as White Lion Street, Duncan Street, St. Peter's Street, and Colebrook Row. Other major flows bypass the area altogether; for example, the flow of traffic using Liverpool Road was estimated by the GLC to be as much as the parallel metropolitan road, Upper Street.
  These considerable subsidiary flows which have built up penetrate the adjacent residential areas whose quality has been recognised by their designation as conservation areas. Their design includes provision for directing these flows on major routes to bypass the Angel. The proposals do not envisage a reduction of traffic on roads such as Amwell Street and Liverpool Road, which carry heavy flows through residential areas.
  What the hon. Gentleman did not refer to is the accident record in the neighbourhood of the Angel intersection which gives cause for concern. Over the three years between 1969 and 1971, 87 accidents were recorded involving personal injury. Over the same period five people were killed and 50 sustained serious injuries. One cannot ignore these figures.
  In view of the difficulties being encountered at this intersection, the former London County Council in 1959 approved in principle the provision of a roundabout to improve the situation at this point. Pending agreement on the precise form of the improvement, traffic management measures have been progressively introduced since that time both to alleviate congestion and to improve the safety of the intersection. Waiting restrictions were introduced in 1960, a one-way scheme in 1963 and further banned turns and signal improvements in 1968. The number of turning movements at the intersection requires lengthy cycles at the traffic signals which control the flows. In spite of what has been accomplished, congestion persists and there are road safety problems.
  Mr. Cunningham: While the Angel is one of the 100 intersections in London where there can be delays for buses of more than five minutes, will the hon. Gentleman not agree that those counts were taken before the introduction of bus lanes and that the Angel is by no means
  426
  in the top range of the worst intersections?
  Mr. Speed: I would not say that it was in the top range of the worst intersections, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not argue that it is a satisfactory situation. I shall say something about bus lanes in a moment, because the GLC is making considerable strides in that respect.
  Concurrently with the introduction of traffic management measures and stemming from proposals mooted by the LCC in 1959 for improvement works at this junction, more than 20 alternative schemes or variations have been considered by the GLC. The realignments involved were, however, extremely costly or intrusive on amenity or conservation areas. The larger gyratory systems considered were also expensive and presented problems of integration with the likely redevelopment.
  The present proposals have resulted from a decision by the GLC in 1968 to set up a working party with the Islington Borough Council. From its discussions has emerged a scheme comprising a large roundabout at the main intersection with pedestrian subways connecting from all sides to a central sunken area within the roundabout. A further pedestrian subway is proposed at the improved intersection of Islington High Street and Liverpool Road. This intersection will be bypassed by a southbound "bus only" lane from Upper Street into Islington High Street. Bus lay-bys have been provided in the proposals to obtain maximum advantage from the traffic capacity of the roundabout.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about cost. The cost of this scheme has been estimated by the GLC to be about f6¾ million, of which our share, if the scheme went ahead, would be about £5 million. I hope that will give the hon. Gentleman and his constituents some information to work on.
  The improvement includes widening to deal with the Liverpool Road junction and the St. John Street/Rosebery Avenue junction. Goswell Road will be made into a cul-de-sac south-east of the main intersection, and traffic will be diverted to St. John Street. The east end of Myddelton Street will be closed at St.

  427
  John Street, and a signalled intersection provided at St. John Street/Spencer Street junction to encourage use of Goswell Road. The existing zebra crossing opposite Owen's School will be made safer by the provision of traffic signal control. The GLC proposals for the roundabout are designed to take the capacity of the existing roads as a constraint on the traffic growth. Provision will be made at the roundabout for an east-west underpass at a later stage should this be necessary. The design would also permit a north-south underpass at a later date if needed, but this is very much in the future.
  Although the road engineering of the improvement has been designed to be independent of redevelopment proposals, considerable traffic and environmental advantage could be gained in the future as the adjacent property redevelopment schemes mature. I understand that the London Borough of Islington is considering the diversion of Liverpool Road as part of major redevelopment, while London Transport is investigating ways of improving the Angel Underground Station. Over the years planning blight has occurred throughout the area likely to be affected by the scheme and many properties are boarded up. The implementation of this or something like it should bring considerable improvement to the environment of the whole area.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that consideration of these proposals should be deferred pending reconsideration of London's traffic problems in the light of the report of the Expenditure Committee on urban transport planning. We are taking the report very seriously, but it has only just come out and needs careful reading and a lot of thought. However, I do not think we can freeze everything on the basis of that report at this point in time, because one wants this year to come to some sort of conclusion. There is considerable concern among the hon. Gentleman's constituents and many others concerned with the area that after more than a decade of indecision we must try to take some decision in the very near future.
  Mr. Cunningham: Is the hon. Gentleman going to say anything about the Transport and Road Research Laboratory?
  Mr. Speed: I will come to the two particular points which the hon. Member raised.
  The first, which is very important, is that no formal decision has yet been taken by my right hon. Friend. Entry of this scheme to the programme, if my right hon. Friend said that the scheme could not go into the firm programme, would not of itself guarantee that the improvements will be carried out even in part. It would simply give sufficient assurance to the GLC that it has the Government's support in principle for proceeding with detailed design of the scheme to the point where steps will have to be taken to acquire the necessary land—a process which almost inevitably would require a public inquiry. If the decision on a firm programme were taken, I guess that the public inquiry would take place next year, and there would be no question of any construction until 1977. I cannot see a public inquiry being held before next year if the decision were taken to go ahead. A public inquiry would provide the opportunity for further public comment, as regards both the actual appearance and the effect of the proposed works on the neighbourhood.
  The hon. Gentleman made some interesting points about the TRRL report. I cannot give him an answer now. I will let him know whether the scheme was referred to in that report. My officers and experts in evaluating the scheme will give advice to my right hon. Friend on whether it should appear in the programme, and will take very much into account——
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at four minutes to Two o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  National Savings
  National Savings
  Consumer Expenditure
  Consumer Expenditure
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Economic Growth
  Economic Growth
  Nationalised Industries (Financial Results)
  Nationalised Industries (Financial Results)
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  Treasury (Administrative Office Transfer)
  Treasury (Administrative Office Transfer)
  Economic Policy
  Economic Policy
  Rhodesian Government Stock
  Rhodesian Government Stock
  Motor Cars (Imports by Service Personnel)
  Motor Cars (Imports by Service Personnel)
  Sixpenny Piece
  Sixpenny Piece
  Corporation Tax
  Corporation Tax
  Standard of Living
  Standard of Living
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Mortgages (Tax Relief)
  Mortgages (Tax Relief)
  Inland Revenue Offices (Public Access)
  Inland Revenue Offices (Public Access)
  £ Sterling
  £ Sterling
  Overseas Investment
  Overseas Investment
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
EMPLOYMENT
  Industrial Training
  Industrial Training
  Youth Employment Service
  Youth Employment Service
  Public Holidays
  Public Holidays
  Community Industry Scheme
  Community Industry Scheme
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Wages
  Wages
  Stoppages of Work
  Stoppages of Work
  Employment Agencies
  Employment Agencies
  Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers (Disputes)
  Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers (Disputes)
  Handicapped School Leavers
  Handicapped School Leavers
  Pay Increases
  Pay Increases
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Speech Therapists
  Speech Therapists
  Health Service Reorganisation (London)
  Health Service Reorganisation (London)
  Royal Northern Hospital
  Royal Northern Hospital
  Industrial Death Appeal Tribunals
  Industrial Death Appeal Tribunals
  Regional Health Authorities
  Regional Health Authorities
  Mentally Handicapped Patients
  Mentally Handicapped Patients
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Pre-School Children (Hearing Ability)
  Pre-School Children (Hearing Ability)
  Telephone Charges (Supplementary Benefits)
  Telephone Charges (Supplementary Benefits)
  National Insurance Applications (Procedure)
  National Insurance Applications (Procedure)
  NHS Hospitals (Commercial Companies' Activities)
  NHS Hospitals (Commercial Companies' Activities)
  Psycho-geriatric Persons
  Psycho-geriatric Persons
  Western Hospital, Doncaster
  Western Hospital, Doncaster
  Agoraphobia
  Agoraphobia
  Sickness Benefit (Claimants' Examination)
  Sickness Benefit (Claimants' Examination)
  Four-Week Rule
  Four-Week Rule
  School Milk
  School Milk
  Health Education
  Health Education
  Benefits and Pensions (Value)
  Benefits and Pensions (Value)
  Local Office (Rugby)
  Local Office (Rugby)
  Rent Arrears (Supplementary Benefit)
  Rent Arrears (Supplementary Benefit)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Deep Sea Fishing Industry
  Deep Sea Fishing Industry
  Beer
  Beer
  Beef
  Beef
  Swine Vesicular Disease
  Swine Vesicular Disease
  Sheep Scab
  Sheep Scab
  Fruit Trees (Grubbing-up Payments)
  Fruit Trees (Grubbing-up Payments)
  Apples (Imports)
  Apples (Imports)
  Agricultural Support
  Agricultural Support
  Animal Feeds
  Animal Feeds
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
ENVIRONMENT
  Council Housing (Cost)
  Council Housing (Cost)
  Railways
  Railways
  River Pollution
  River Pollution
  Rates
  Rates
  Radioactive Waste (Disposal)
  Radioactive Waste (Disposal)
  Land Values
  Land Values
  West Cross Route
  West Cross Route
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  A38 (Derby)
  A38 (Derby)
  Community Councils
  Community Councils
  House Prices and Transport Costs
  House Prices and Transport Costs
  A12 (Post Office Works)
  A12 (Post Office Works)
  A3 (Speed Limit)
  A3 (Speed Limit)
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Housing
  Housing
  Box Girder Bridges
  Box Girder Bridges
  War Disability Pensioners (Rent Rebates)
  War Disability Pensioners (Rent Rebates)
  Mortgagors (Incomes)
  Mortgagors (Incomes)
  Professional Footballers Association
  Professional Footballers Association
  Lorries
  Lorries
  High Intensity Rear Lights
  High Intensity Rear Lights
  Railway Passenger Services (Grants)
  Railway Passenger Services (Grants)
  SERVICES WITHIN PTAs ELIGIBLE FOR SECTION 20 GRANTS
  SERVICES WITHIN PTAs ELIGIBLE FOR SECTION 20 GRANTS
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Badgers
  Badgers
  Domestic Labour
  Domestic Labour
  Remands in Custody
  Remands in Custody
  Armed Police Guards
  Armed Police Guards
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Dangerous Substances (Transportation)
  Dangerous Substances (Transportation)
  Sea Bathing (Lifesaving Facilities)
  Sea Bathing (Lifesaving Facilities)
  Mental Patients
  Mental Patients
  Sex Discrimination
  Sex Discrimination
SCOTLAND
  Housing
  Housing
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Estate Agents (Commission)
  Estate Agents (Commission)
  Scrap Metal
  Scrap Metal
  Industrial Investment
  Industrial Investment
  Motor Cars (Export to Switzerland)
  Motor Cars (Export to Switzerland)
  Commonwealth Preference
  Commonwealth Preference
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  United States Aerospace Industries
  United States Aerospace Industries
  Belfast (Deck and Engine-Room Certificates)
  Belfast (Deck and Engine-Room Certificates)
  Manufacturing Concerns, London (Closures)
  Manufacturing Concerns, London (Closures)
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Livestock (Export for Slaughter)
  Livestock (Export for Slaughter)
  British Steel Corporation
  British Steel Corporation
  Imports (Volume)
  Imports (Volume)
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Finance Companies (Rates of Interest)
  Finance Companies (Rates of Interest)
  Aluminium
  Aluminium
  Nationalised Industries (Transport Policies)
  Nationalised Industries (Transport Policies)
  Nominee Shareholdings
  Nominee Shareholdings
  Small Firms
  Small Firms
  British Airways Board
  British Airways Board
  North East Development Council
  North East Development Council
  NORTH SEA OIL
  NORTH SEA OIL
  CBI AND TUC (MEETING)
  CBI AND TUC (MEETING)
  OFFICIAL ENGAGEMENTS
  OFFICIAL ENGAGEMENTS
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
  LORD COOPER (CORRESPONDENCE)
  LORD COOPER (CORRESPONDENCE)
  TRAFFIC CONGESTION (CENTRAL LONDON)
  TRAFFIC CONGESTION (CENTRAL LONDON)
  THALIDOMIDE CHILDREN
  THALIDOMIDE CHILDREN
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  PRESIDENT NIXON (MEETING)
  PRESIDENT NIXON (MEETING)
  NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT (FINES)
  NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT (FINES)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Stationery Office, High Holborn
  Stationery Office, High Holborn
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Information Services
  Information Services
DEFENCE
  Army Reserves
  Army Reserves
  IRA (Arms and Equipment)
  IRA (Arms and Equipment)
  Armed Forces (Discharges)
  Armed Forces (Discharges)
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Knightsbridge Barracks
  Knightsbridge Barracks
  Naval Personnel (Separation from Families)
  Naval Personnel (Separation from Families)
  Married Quarters, Gibraltar
  Married Quarters, Gibraltar
  Frigates
  Frigates
  Submarine Surface-to-Surface Missiles
  Submarine Surface-to-Surface Missiles
  Far East (Royal Navy Commitment)
  Far East (Royal Navy Commitment)
  Army Units (Status)
  Army Units (Status)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Fanfare for Europe
  Fanfare for Europe
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Primary Schools
  Primary Schools
  Urban Programme
  Urban Programme
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Uganda (British Citizens)
  Uganda (British Citizens)
  Vietnam
  Vietnam
  Overseas Aid
  Overseas Aid
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Turkey
  Turkey
  Ambassador to the United States
  Ambassador to the United States
  C and D Passports
  C and D Passports
  Thailand (Police Forces)
  Thailand (Police Forces)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Rights of Way and Access
  Rights of Way and Access
  Assurance Cover
  Assurance Cover
WALES
  Disused Railway Line (Risca)
  Disused Railway Line (Risca)
  Land Reclamation
  Land Reclamation
  Colcon Expressway
  Colcon Expressway
  Schools
  Schools
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Local Government Reorganisation

Preamble
Reassembling after the Christmas Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock, The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry.

WESTMINSTER ABBEY
LORD GLADWYN: 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 when the exterior of Westminster Abbey is likely to be cleaned; and whether they are prepared to take any steps to assist its cleaning.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, since the cleaning of Westminster Abbey is a matter for the Dean and Chapter, it is not for me to say when it will be carried out, but I know that they are deeply concerned not only in regard to the cleaning but also about repairs to the stonework of the Abbey. They hope to be able to start this year what is sure to be a long-term programme. We are at present considering whether the Government can and
2
should make a contribution towards the cost of this work.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that moderately encouraging reply, may I ask him whether he does not agree that the present condition of the exterior of our greatest national monument is something in the nature of a national disgrace? Do not the Government think it is possible to proceed with at any rate some of the cleaning, without embarking on a long and costly process of repair work?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord and the House that this is a matter with which my right honourable friend and I, and the Dean and Chapter, have been concerned for some months. We have looked into it thoroughly.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that visitors would regard it as strange irony that the Treasury should be cleaned up by taxpayers' money while the great fabric of Westminster Abbey, which is an important tourist attraction, remains not only uncleaned but obviously with the structure of the stonework breaking away? Is it not true to say that it would be better to spend the money now than to wait for another twenty or thirty years when the cost will be infinitely greater?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that very useful point.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that we do these things better in York?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am certainly aware of the great things that have been done in York.

PHOTOGRAPHIC ARCHIVES
2.37 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider the establishment of a National Photographic Archive.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (VISCOUNT ECCLES): No, my Lords. Photographs are best collected in a number of archives with special objectives. I am, however, considering whether it would be practicable to set up some form of guide to collections.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, while thanking the noble Viscount for that reply, may I ask him whether the Government would consider providing funds to erect a central register of existing photographic archives, with a comprehensive catalogue?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, we are considering where such a register—of course it could not be complete because there are far too many photographs; but a comprehensive guide—could best be established. It may be that the British Library is the place to take charge of this project.
LORD HALE: My Lords, has the noble Viscount seen the letter in The Times from the Director of the Oldham Museum, which incidentally, was opened by me just three months ago as a special museum of local interest with a substantial collection of photographic material? Will he bear in mind what an ideal centre this would be in the North? And will he also visit it? Indeed, now that the Government have turned Socialist, he might, while he is there, look in the Labour Party offices for a cup of coffee.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, it is a pure accident that we have been thinking about the amenities in Oldham; and I am glad to hear about the new museum.

PARLIAMENT: BUILDING WORK AND PEERS' AMENITIES
LORD INGLEWOOD: 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 estimated cost of the building works now being undertaken, or that are in an advanced state of planning, above and below ground, on both sides of Bridge Street, in order to improve the facilities and amenities of Parliament; and whether they will state which of these works will be for the benefit of the House of Lords.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the estimated cost of building works now being undertaken or in an advanced state of planning is approximately £4·43 million. Of this sum, £1·2 million is for the benefit of your Lordships' House. This includes the extension to the Peers' Dining Room; additional accommodation to be provided by infilling; improvements in the Moses Room; and a closed circuit television annunciator system for this House. This estimate does not include the proposed new Parliamentary building in Bridge Street.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply (and also paying tribute to our improved telephone system, which was not mentioned by the noble Lord), may I ask whether Members of the House of Lords are likely to get any benefit from the large and expensive underground car park or the building on the other side of Bridge Street.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, that will be a matter for discussion between the appropriate committees of each House.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, does the noble Lord mean that this money was spent before any such discussion took place?
LORD SANDFORD: No, my Lords, What I mean is that it is up to the

5
appropriate authorities of each House to decide matters of this kind.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, can the noble Lord hold out any hope that as a result of the development on the other side of Bridge Street noble Lords in this House may have access to some reasonable office accommodation, and thus set aside the thought, commonly widespread, that we are second-class Members of Parliament?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the original Question relates to works in hand or in an advanced stage of planning. The proposed new Parliamentary building is in an early stage of planning, and I do not think that at the moment that question arises.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, since it is in its early stages, perhaps the noble Lord can give us some encouragement.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I should like to ask what are possibly two helpful questions. Can the Minister give us a clear guarantee that, as a result of the works being carried out in New Palace Yard, Big Ben will not one of these days come tottering down? Secondly, does he not think that the Government have already done enough in undermining Parliament politically to do away with the task of undermining it physically as well?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, all these trends are being carefully monitored. As to Big Ben, it has been about eight to nine inches out of true for most of its life, and the movements have not been a result of the work that is going on at the moment.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, bearing in mind the Leaning Tower of Pisa, would not the noble Lord agree that this would be a great tourist attraction?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, it already is.

MENTAL HEALTH: RESEARCH EXPENDITURE
2.42 p.m.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: 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 was the total expenditure of the Medical Research Council in the year 1971–72; and out of this total how much was spent on research into all types of mental disorder.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, the Medical Research Council's total expenditure for the year 1971–72 amounted to £23·469 million, of which £2·079 million was devoted to research into all forms of mental illness. The Council's expenditure in this field has risen steadily over the years, having increased nearly six-fold since 1961–62; the proportion of the Council's total budget so allocated has risen from 6½ per cent. to nearly 9 per cent. over the same period. Special efforts are being made to expand the Council's programme on mental illness, in particular by encouraging biochemical studies in psychiatry. During the past year two new research establishments concerned with the biochemical aspects of the problem have been set up and the Council have awarded four long-term programme grants and some 35 project grants in this field.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that encouraging report on development in the forms of moneys made available for research, may I ask him what amount was spent by the Medical Research Council in the year 1971–72 on research directly aimed at finding the causes of schizophrenia and what amount was spent on general research with relevance to that objective?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am told that the difficulty is that biochemical studies in progress in the field of mental illness may relate to the knowledge both

7
of schizophrenia and also of mental disorder in general; and that the same applies to the neuro-biological studies on the functions of the nervous system. It is for this reason that I do not think I can give the noble Baroness a figure relating only to schizophrenia beyond what I said in my original Answer.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of the fact that 50 per cent. of the hospital beds in this country are occupied by patients suffering from some degree of mental disability, does the Minister think that the small proportion which he mentioned as being allocated to research is adequate?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the figures rose from £368,000 of M.R.C. expenditure on mental health in 1961–62 to £2,079,000, and those are out of total budgets of £5,572,000 in 1961–62 and £23,469,000 in 1971–72. The respective percentages are 6·0 per cent. and 8·86 per cent. As the noble Baroness will know very much better than I do, there is other research which goes on in this field as well.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the voluntary bodies who care for spastics, autistic children and spina bifida children are keenly interested in research into the causes, the treatment and—some day, please God!—the cure for these handicapped children? Is there a link between the work which his own Department is doing and the work done by the voluntary bodies?—because the voluntary bodies are hampered above all by lack of money.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, when I referred the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, to other research which is going on in this field I was thinking particularly, among other things, of the Mental Health Research Fund, the National Association for Mentally Handicapped Children and the National Association for Mental Health. I think the link which the noble Lord is asking about is really between the Department of my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Social Services, and those bodies. I know there is a link certainly between the Government and the second of the three organisations I mentioned.
8
Perhaps the noble Lord would allow me to look at this point a little more closely and get in touch with him.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I wonder whether I might refer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord MaybrayKing, and take it a little further. He asked the question specifically in relation to the voluntary organisations who are concerned with various forms of handicap. May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, whether the figures he has just given to the House on research into mental disorder include research into mental handicap, or whether this is money found from an entirely different Vote?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, no; as I understand it, this refers to mental handicap as well but does not necessarily include the cost of work done by any of the voluntary bodies. If I am wrong on that point I will certainly write immediately to the noble Baroness. But, as I understand it, what I said to her is the case.

BUSINESS: DELEGATED LEGISLATION
2.47 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, your Lordships will have noticed that the Business for tomorrow includes a Motion on delegated legislation in the name of my noble friend the Leader of the House. A number of your Lordships have indicated that they would like to speak on this subject, and therefore it has been agreed through the usual channels that the debate should be postponed until Tuesday, January 30, when it will take place after the debate on the Robens Report standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.

INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY BILL [H.L.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who I am sorry to say is indisposed, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Television and Sound Broadcasting Acts 1964 and 1972.

9
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL [H.L.]
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, again I rise on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It, too, is a Consolidation Bill but it gives effect in addition to the recommendations of the Law Commission in their Report (Cmnd. 5167) that was laid before Parliament last month.
The Bill consolidates most of the surviving provisions of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1965, the whole of the Divorce Reform Act, 1969, the greater part of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act, 1970, the whole of the Nullity of Marriage Act, 1971, together with certain other provisions relating to matrimonial proceedings. The Law Commission's more important proposals—and there are quite a number of them—are designed to improve the rule-making powers, particularly relating to parties to a matrimonial cause, to clarify a respondent spouse's right to have her financial position considered before being divorced and to remove a possible doubt about the right to remarry after decree absolute. With the permission of the House, I will not go into the details of these changes at this stage, because they will go to the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills; and I would also remind the House that the Law Commission's recommendations can be debated and discussed in this House after the Bill comes back from the Joint Select Committee. Therefore perhaps I may leave the matter there to-day. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE REORGANISATION BILL [H.L.]
2.50 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Schedule 1 [Additional provisions relating to new authorities]:
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 49, line 9, leave out ("appointed by him as he thinks fit") and insert ("being not less than fifteen and not more than twenty-five of whom one-third shall be appointed jointly by local authorities for each county and each district and by the Area Health Authorities wholly or partly within the region of the Regional Health Authority or in the case of Greater London jointly by the London Boroughs and the Area Health Authorities wholly or partly within the area of the Authority and by the Inner London Education Authority, one-third to be jointly appointed by persons representative of the following categories, namely

(a) the medical practitioners of the region

(b) the dental practitioners of the region

(c) the nurses and midwives of the region

(d) the registered pharmacists of the region, and

(e) the ophthalmic and dispensing opticians of the region, and

one-third by the Secretary of State.")
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 45, standing in the names of myself, my noble friend Lady White and my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy. The Committee may recall that during the consideration of Clause 5 of the Bill on the second day of the Committee Stage I indicated some of our basic objections to the proposed nature and functions of the Regional Health Authorities. Now we come to consider their proposed membership, as set out in bare outline in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1. As at present drafted, this gives the Secretary of State the ultimate decision as to numbers and choice in the appointment of all the members of the

11
proposed Regional Health Authorities as he thinks fit, after consultations with the interests specified in paragraph 1(2) of the Schedule—in fact just as he does now in the case of the 14 Regional Hospital Boards.
I am sure that members of this Committee, above all, recognise the great contribution, both past and present, that members of the existing Regional Hospital Boards have given through their time and energy to the development of the Hospital Service in the past 25 years. Many of your Lordships have served on these Boards and are familiar with the responsibilities involved. It is equally fair to say that the most frequent criticism that has been made of the Boards is that they are far too remote from the people that they serve. This Bill, unfortunately, utterly fails to meet this criticism by taking the opportunity of reorganisation to make the new Regional Health Authorities more representative, both of the professional and of the public interests that are directly involved. We see this as a particularly retrograde step at a time when we are removing from democratic local government the whole range of community health services which have been locally administered ever since the beginnings of local government itself.
Judging from certain Amendments to the Schedule which follow on the Marshalled List, it seems that other noble Lords share some of these views in principle, although we may differ a little about the numerical balance of interests that should be included in the Regional Health Authorities as of right, rather than leaving their numbers and composition entirely to the absolute discretion and choice of the Secretary of State after the consultation specified in the Schedule. I am therefore glad that we are to have a general debate on this group of Amendments as a whole on the understanding that this will not preclude further consideration of the individual Amendments themselves, or prevent us from putting questions to the Minister on any or each of them as we proceed.
Broadly, the effect of the Amendment that I am moving will be to limit direct ministerial appointments to the new authorities to one-third of their total membership
12
after consultation with the interests specified in paragraph 1(2). In Amendment No. 49B we are seeking to amend sub-paragraph (2)(d) to include specific reference to the trade unions and voluntary organisations instead of the present vague reference to "other bodies". The Amendment would provide that the local authorities, jointly with the Area Health Authorities within each health region, would have the right to nominate up to one-third of the membership of the new Authority; and the main health professions, as specified in our Amendment, would be responsible for providing and nominating the remaining one-third.
The Amendment is put forward in the belief that the contribution and participation of all these groups is essential to the development of co-ordinated health service policies which are truly sensitive and adaptable to consumer and professional needs and interests in the localities that they serve. The case for reflecting Area Health Authority knowledge and experience in the membership of the new Regional Health Authorities was to be the subject of a separate Amendment which was formerly down on the Marshalled List in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Reigate. Unfortunately, I understand that he cannot be with us to-day. According to the Grey Paper on management arrangements in the National Health Service (with which most noble Lords are now familiar), the areas are to have full planning and operational responsibilities for providing comprehensive health services in their areas, and it is difficult to see how they can be completely excluded from the regional planning process at member level and only allowed access to the Regional Authority through the bureaucratic chain of command. Nor do I believe that there can be any question of the direct concern of the relevant local authorities within each health region in the overall planning provision and coordination of health services with the great range of social services that they themselves provide directly for the public living in their areas, since Clause 10 of the Bill places a clear statutory duty on local authorities of every kind, and Health Authorities generally, which presumably includes Regional Authorities as well as Area Authorities, to co-operate in the exercise of their respective functions to secure reciprocal and complementary

13
health and social services that are required to advance the health and welfare of the people of England and Wales.
Although Clause 10, subsection (2), of the Bill provides for statutory consultative committees of members for this specific purpose at area level, there is no comparable recognition in the Bill of the need for some form of joint planning at regional level where strategic planning decisions are to be taken. The only recognition that I can trace in the many documents that have been issued on the reorganisation of the Health Service is a reference in the first report of the Working Party on collaboration suggesting that the region is to be represented at area level at joint consultative committee meetings. Can the Minister confirm this? If this is the intention, can he say who is to fulfil this particular function? Is it to be an appointed member of the Regional Authority, or is it to be an official? I find it difficult to see how the Area Health Authorities or the local authorities can effectively fulfil the general statutory duty under Clause 10 if they are not included in the regional planning process through members of the Regional Authorities as of right. If this is not acceptable to the Government I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us in the course of this debate how they see this essential relationship working in practice.
With regard to the proposals in our Amendment that the health professions should be directly involved in the work of the region by providing one-third of the membership, I already explained on Second Reading that we on this side of the Committee have no great love for Clause 8 which groups and isolates the health professions in parallel but separate advisory committees which then have to be recognised by the Regional Health Authorities. We believe that they too should pay their full part, contributing their skills, their knowledge and their experience to the planning of services, which after all they so largely provide, by participating directly in the policy decision-making process of the Regional Health Authority itself. The separate professional advisory machinery which the Bill provides, and was foreshadowed in paragraph 100 of the White Paper, envisaged building into the new structure, to ensure that the health professions exercise
14
an effective voice in the planning and operation of the Health Service at all levels. We do not see the advisory committees as any real substitute for this; and I was interested to see in subsequent Amendments on the Marshalled List that we shall shortly discuss that the medical profession in particular is not fully satisfied that the proposals as at present designed will really achieve this. Presumably the nursing profession, which is so vital to the Health Service, would be among the "other professions", as they are described in the Bill, that would appear to the Secretary of State to be concerned in the terms of paragraph 2. They are not even mentioned, and I hope the Minister will be able to confirm to-day that it is the intention of the Secretary of State to include them, too, as of right in the health professions other than the medical profession that he intends to consult.
The Committee will see from the Amendment that we are also concerned about the proposed size of the Regional Health Authorities; and a subsequent Amendment on the Marshalled List, No. 59, relates to the one I am now moving in that it provides a device for, if necessary, joint appointments between the relevant authorities to the Regional Health Authorities. We are anxious that the Bill should provide for greater flexibility than is apparently intended at the moment in the size of the regional authorities up to a limit of, say, 25 members and beyond the figure of 15 suggested as the likely norm in the White Paper to cater for those situations where, for example, in Region 14 (the Lancashire and Greater Manchester local Government regions) and Region 12, which includes the counties of Hereford, Worcester, Shropshire and the seven Metropolitan Districts that will make up the West Midlands Region, there will be as many as 11 Area Health Authorities and 11 matching local authorities operating within the boundaries of the health region. While fully appreciating the desire of the Secretary of State to keep the new Regional Health Authorities relatively compact, there must be, surely, some recognition of the range of interests and different kinds of areas they are catering for, quite apart from the very important question of seeking to lighten the heavy burdens that will fall on this small group of 15 members who, apart

15
from their chairman, will be giving voluntary, unpaid service to the Health Service without even, apparently, the kind of attendance allowances which their colleagues in local government will be receiving under the provisions of the new Local Government Act.
Perhaps I might also take this opportunity, as we are having a general debate, and to save time later on, to make specific reference to our Amendment No. 49B, which refers to the inclusion of trade unions and voluntary organisations in the lists of organisations in paragraph 12 that the Secretary of State must consult before he appoints the Regional Health Authorities. The case for this is so self-evident that I feel I need scarcely take up the time of the Committee to make it. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether it is intended to include them and, if so, whether the Government are prepared to accept an Amendment which I think should commend itself in all parts of the Committee, remembering as we do the contribution of both the voluntary organisations and the trade union movement to the National Health Service.
Throughout all the previous lengthy debates on the reorganisation of the Health Service and on the proposed membership of the new health authorities the Government have until now refused to listen to those both inside and outside Parliament and from all parts of the political spectrum, and to those even within the Service, who are opposed to the rigid distinction which appeared first in the Consultative Document, then in the White Paper and the Grey Paper, and now apparently in the Bill—or, rather, in the order-making powers in the Bill, which seek to establish a rigid division between the management functions of the new Health Service authorities which are to be exercised by members entirely appointed by and accountable to the Secretary of State and any form of democratically elected consumer or direct professional participation in the policy-making processes in the Health Service, except of course for the proposed inclusion of four local authority members at area level suggested in the White Paper. I, for one, still cannot accept that any element of democratic participation and efficiency are by definition incompatible in a public social service such
16
as the National Health Service which, above all, must be publicly acceptable and especially flexible and sensitive to consumer need and to public reactions to the services provided. Nor can I understand how the Government can speak with two such different voices on the same subject almost at the same time. This House and the other place spent a long time last Session in considering in great depth, and indeed at great length, how to improve and strengthen democratic local government which provides almost all our other major social services: education, housing, environmental planning and the personal social services. Now we are being told that the representative function and efficient management are incompatible in one body and that it is inappropriate, if not dangerous, to allow any form of representative interests in the administration of the unified Service.
These Amendments are submitted to the Committee in the firm belief that the local authorities, Area Health Authorities, the health professions and trade unions and voluntary organisations should be included as of right in the new regional authorities, which we would still prefer to see as regional councils for the reasons I have already given in our debates on Clause 5. Since other noble Lords have further Amendments to this Schedule, and the same part of the Schedule, I would only conclude with the hope that the Government really will be prepared to listen to-day and to take heed of the general debate we are now to have on the composition and on the methods of appointing the regional authorities. I beg to move.
3.8 p.m.
LORD BROWN: In discussing the Amendments before us we are very much concerned with matters of principle. I start with the suggestion that it is a proven fact that if one is appointed to a role, then one is accountable to those who appointed one. That means to say, in contradiction to my noble friend on the Front Bench, that if you do not keep separate the management structure and what one might call the representative structure, then you have on one and the same body people who are diversely accountable to different bodies. One of the principles which we are debating is

17
the principle that you must keep management, on the one hand, and representation of those affected, quite separate. Amendment 45 would bring about a mixture of persons on the Regional Health Councils: people responsible to local authorities and others, on the one hand, and people responsible to the Secretary of State, and eventually to the Government, on the other. This would be to the grave detriment of the efficiency of the Health Service, and as a result patients would suffer, money would be wasted and the services would not be as complete as they would otherwise be.
There are many who continue to think that by excluding representatives of employees or representatives of patients, and so on, from management functions you are being undemocratic. My own experience convinces me that it is only by keeping them separate that you really get a fair share of what we regard as democracy. It is the individious position in which representatives are placed when they are given accountability to higher authority, apparently, as a result of their being put upon a management body, and are also held simultaneously responsible to those who have appointed them—perhaps the consumer or the employee—that really loses the essence of the democracy which people seek to achieve by this process. So I have certain criticisms to make. I suggest that Amendment No. 45 is not sound, for the reasons I have given, because it produces on the Regional Heath Authority a mixture of people accountable to the Secretary of State for the management of the Health Service and other people accountable to local authorities for representing the views of the community as a whole.
Turning to the Area Health Authority, I criticise the Bill because in Schedule 1, paragraph 2(1)(d), referring to those who shall be members of the Area Health Authority, it calls attention to the fact that it shall be:
"the specified number of members appointed by the specified local authority or local authorities."
So if the Government resist Amendment No. 45 they can scarcely support the maintenance in the Bill of paragraph 2(1)(d) in Schedule 1 to which I have just referred, because in principle they are both moving in the same direction.
18
Personally, I should prefer to see paragraph 2(1)(d) removed and the whole of the Area Health Authorities appointed by the Regional Health Authorities or by the Secretary of State, always, of course, after taking soundings among the various bodies as to who would be suitable appointees.
In this Bill the interests of the patients and the community at large and the local health authorities are looked after, first, by Parliament itself and its servant, the Secretary of State, second, by the Commissioner (a most important innovation), and third, and perhaps most important of all, by the community health councils in each district. The powers of these councils are extensive. They can call for reports, they can insist on visiting hospitals, and so on. The powers are set out quite clearly. But the extraordinary thing is that if one looks at the way in which these community health councils are to be formed one is left with the impression that instead of being elected by local authorities, or even by elections in the towns and districts, they are apparently to be appointed. So one has the extraordinary situation in this Bill that here is my noble friend on the Front Bench moving in a direction which would put upon the Regional Health Authorities a mixture of representatives and managerial personnel, which no doubt the Government will resist. There are clauses in the Bill which, as they stand, insist that this mixture shall obtain on the Area Health Authorities, and when one comes to the community health councils one finds that whereas one would expect to follow through the principle that they are to look after the interests of local authorities and of the patients, apparently they are to be appointed by the Area Health Authority.
LORD ABERDARE: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but we shall soon come to the subject of the community health councils. I think he has it slightly wrong; at least half the community health councils will be nominated by the local authorities.
LORD BROWN: I note what the Minister has said, but the word "nominate" does not satisfy me. It is true that the local authorities can nominate, but who decides whether these people shall become a part of the community health councils?

19
I am deploying my comments on the community health councils not because I particularly want to start a debate about them at the moment but in order to draw attention to the inconsistencies that arise in this Bill and the inconsistencies in some of the Amendments which we are discussing. I will close my remarks by suggesting that it is essential to keep representative persons and bodies quite separate from managerial bodies and that by so doing one will get more efficient management and more efficient representatives of local authorities, of patients and all the rest of it. Immediately one mixes these things one puts everybody on these mixed bodies in an extremely difficult position. I believe it is true to say, although I have no personal experience, that the hospital management committees have sometimes been confused because some of them have construed their role as being to represent the interests of the community in which their group of hospitals exists and some of them have presumed that they are there to represent the Health Service itself. I believe there is no question but that they are there for the latter function rather than the former. But this is a confusing situation and personally I have little doubt that it has led to some unfortunate situations in the Hospital Service which were probably attributed to personalities. So I have risen merely to draw attention to what I think is an extremely important principle which should be represented in every clause throughout this Bill which deals with management personnel or, on the other hand, with representative personnel.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I could hardly disagree more with the noble Lord who has just spoken. It seems to me to be an extraordinary doctrine that on an executive body one should never have any representatives of the general public or the consuming interests, and that if you do have them there they will have divided loyalties and therefore will become ineffective. We must surely grant that there are people who are capable of rising above these difficulties and doing their duty as they see it. I simply cannot accept the idea that representatives of the public should be excluded from executive bodies which have to provide a service. This may be so in the
20
provision of gas or electricity, but the subject we are discussing now is far more sensitive than either of those, and far less uniform. I cannot accept the idea of having the National Health Service run by a body of managerial technocrats with no dilution whatever.
I warmly welcome the idea that we should have a general debate on the composition of the Regional Health Authorities and then of the Area Health Authorities, because I believe—and I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, will agree with me—that what we want to do most of all is to elicit from the Government what their own ideas are for the membership of both these types of bodies. My principal anxiety in putting down my Amendments was to give the Government an opportunity to make clear what sort of composition of Regional Health Authorities in the first instance they were aiming to produce by this Schedule, because the Government would be the first to agree that it is not absolutely clear simply from reading the Schedule. Then we shall be in a position to discover whether there is a fundamental difference between the Government, on the one hand and those who are seeking to amend this Schedule. Frankly, I do not know.
The Government appear to me to visualise a Regional Health Authority as a small group of experts in management who, somewhat mysteriously, can be relied on to know what the public want, or ought to want. On the contrary, I visualise a Regional Health Authority as being ideally a rather larger body of people—rather larger than fifteen members—with a lot of practical and financial good sense, wider understanding and (if I may venture to put it this way) more compassion than experts sometimes have, and with a built-in channel of communication between itself and the public that it exists to serve. The main purpose of my Amendment is to keep that channel open.
The Regional Health Authorities will have responsibility for some health services which are now administered by elected local authorities. The Government will no doubt have noted that there is nothing in the Bill which ensures that there should be any local authority representatives at all on the Regional Health Authorities. If my Amendment were acceptable, that would be put right. I

21
am not yearning to move my Amendment or to press it to a Division; indeed, I have no intention of doing that to-day. I hope that between now and later stages of the Bill the Government will take into consideration the points that are being made from both sides and will produce their own plan in more explicit form; it may be better than the original Bill and any of these Amendments. I am not asking, as is the noble Baroness, that one-third, one-quarter or any other particular fraction of a Regional Health Authority shall be local authority representatives. I am merely seeking that at least five shall be, whereas in the Bill as it stands there is no guarantee that there will be any.
I repeat in passing that the suggested figure of 15 members on the Regional Health Authority is surely too small. The principal criticism of the Regional Hospital Boards has been their remoteness, and they were larger than 15. I do not see how the members of the Regional Health Authority can do their job unless they are able to make themselves reasonably familiar with what is going on in the National Health Service throughout the region. They will certainly have some social functions to perform. That is inevitable. They will certainly have some problems of local difficulties, tensions and conflicts to resolve. I should have thought therefore that a body of 15, even with a salaried chairman, would not be large enough to enable the members to know enough personally about the hospitals or other local health services throughout their region and to do all the other duties which will inevitably fall upon them. That is why I fear that these Health Authorities, while I agree with the Government in giving them executive rather than advisory powers, may be regarded as even more remote than the present Hospital Boards.
It may be that in the view of the Government that will not matter so long as they are successful management technocrats. But supplying the National Health Service is not on a par with supplying ordinary commodities. It is necessary that they should be sensitive to public opinion, and I would say that it was essential, if they are sufficiently to commend themselves to the population of the area for which they have responsibility, for them to include a material
22
number of elected local authority representatives.
I have no desire to bind the hands of the Government in these matters. I realise that an all-wise Minister might very well produce a Regional Hospital Authority better than any of us could contemplate, even though he had to carry out a certain amount of consultation. But it seems to me that we are leaving a great deal to the Secretary of State, and I should be most grateful if my noble friend would indicate whether he and the Secretary of State really are contemplating management expertise as being the first requirement of every member of the Regional Health Authority. If so, then although they may satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Brown, I do not think they will satisfy the general public; and it is because the general public is always anxious to ensure that there is somebody on the executive body who has the qualifications to understand local problems that I press these matters.
LORD BROWN: It is quite clear that before these appointments can be made by the Secretary of State he will, and rightly so, consult all kinds of local authorities, trade unions I hope, and the rest. There is absolutely no reason why people who have some knowledge of;management—who are competent and mature managers—should not also be familiar with local problems. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has suggested by inference that either one has people with knowledge of management or people with knowledge of local problems. He has suggested that it is not possible to combine both in the same person. With great respect, he is not right.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I was not seeking to establish anything of that kind. I have been worried about statements emanating from the Government that managerial expertise will be the primary qualification for these people. I spent more than twenty years in local government and I met many people there whose managerial expertise was high but was equalled, if not surpassed, by their sensitivity to local public opinion. I shall be only too happy if the Government will make it clear that they want a substantial number of people on these Regional Health Authorities who will

23
amply fit in with the definition that the noble Lord, Lord Brown, has just given.
May I ask my noble friend Lord Aberdare to say what will be the likely attitude of the Secretary of State towards those who are at present serving on Regional Hospital Boards and hospital management committees. Is it likely to be the desire of the Government to get rid of all of those people unless they have medical or managerial qualifications? Or, after all the consultations that are laid down by Statute have taken place, is their attitude likely to be that they will seek to retain in the service of the National Health Service those who have fully justified themselves by the work they have done on Regional Hospital Boards and management committees? I am aware that the new responsibilities will go much wider than has previously been the case with these bodies. But I would have thought that there exist a considerable number of those people who are not professional people but who nevertheless would be of great value in the new régime.
My Amendment speaks of local authority members, but my main purpose is to ensure that there will be a sufficient number of people on these Regional Health Authorities who are not there simply because of their professional qualifications. I believe that these bodies should be a well judged mixture between the amateur and the professional. I should be fearful indeed if these Regional Health Authorities were to consist wholly of untried amateurs, but I should be even more frantic if I thought that they would consist entirely of medical or other professionals.
LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND: I rise to speak in support of something said by the noble Baroness, Lady Scrota, and repeated by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor. The noble Baroness spoke of "voluntary people" in the National Health Service. I think that by that both she and my noble friend had in mind those who have served on Regional Hospital Boards and hospital management committees. In my view, their knowledge of the Health Service is very great indeed and it would be the greatest pity if they were excluded from membership of the new Regional Health Authorities simply because they did not
24
have the technical qualifications that appear in the Bill. If they have given a number of years' good service to the consumer, the patient, they should not be forgotten when the constitution of the regions and areas is arranged.
3.30 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I should like to say a word in support of the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Serota. I believe that on the whole this is a very good Bill. It is undeniable that the Health Service, having run for so many years, is in need of some kind of overhaul, but we must be careful to ensure that the overhaul is conducted on the proper lines. It may well be that every word in my noble friend's Amendment is not beyond question or dispute, but if the Government could come forward with an undertaking that something in the nature of the spirit of that Amendment will be incorporated in the Bill then I should be quite content. I have a nasty feeling, which has been growing in recent months, that this country is tending more and more towards the corporative state of Italy. Democracy is being squeezed out and bureaucracy is being injected at various levels of our administration and government, and if there are Services that ought not to be run by a bureaucratic machine, surely they are the Hospital and Health services.
As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, with his long experience of local government has said, the representatives of the people in local government are very much closer in touch with the feelings and the aspirations of the ordinary people than are the people who are closeted in their offices administering the machinery of any particular piece of legislation. I sincerely hope that local government representatives will be brought in at all stages of this new Bill. I know that they are in at some stages already, but also it is essential that they should have a voice in the Regional Authority.
My noble friend Lord Brown is a recognised national and international expert on management science. I take off my hat to him in that respect. The thesis that he has put forward this afternoon would be admirable if we were planning to set up a factory. But we are not discussing nuts and bolts and pipes and tubes: we are discussing

25
people; we are discussing patients; we are discussing their families; and we are discussing the facilities that are available to all those people should their health break down. My noble friend rather criticised the idea of there being a mixture of people, a mixture of views and a mixture of attitudes on these authorities. Surely a mixture is desirable; it leads to argument; it leads to proposals being hammered out on the anvil; and it leads ultimately to a respectable and proper decision being arrived at.
LORD BROWN: Would the noble Lord mind if I interrupted him?
LORD LEATHERLAND: Of course not.
LORD BROWN: The noble Lord is misquoting me. I have no objection to a mixture of attitudes, views or anything else, and I have never said anything that could possibly be inferred to suggest that I object to it. I simply suggested that to have a mixture of people on one body, differently accountable to different other bodies, is unsound. I am not even suggesting that they all should have managerial expertise or should all be managers or should all be all so sufficient, but to have a body accountable to the Secretary of State for running the Health Service and to have that body composed of people separately accountable in both directions is to put them in a very difficult position.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I am glad of my noble friend's brief interruption. He objects to mixtures! We have a mixture here, and it works. One side says one thing and another side says another thing; sometimes the two sides become a mixture in themselves, but ultimately we try to arrive at a consensus which may be right or wrong. Decisions are not always right in this world. I am quite sure that a mixture on this Regional Health Authority would be very healthy indeed. I am afraid that my noble friend, with his great expertise in matters of management, has come unstuck in one particular—a board of directors does not manage, a board of directors gives directions which are then handed down to professional managers who manage. The same kind of thing happens in local government. Aldermen and councillors sitting around a table do not profess to be managers (they are fools if they do,
26
and they do occasionally); they indicate the direction in which the policy of their particular council is to move and then they instruct their officials, who are the technical, professional, expert managers, to get on with the management and the implementation of that particular policy.
I know it is suggested in Clause 10 that at certain stages there shall be some kind of co-operation between local authorities and these professional, bureaucratic boards. But it is only a consultative committee that is being suggested, even at that level. I shall not call it an executive committee because that rather tends to get into the management level, but it is not a committee which will be able to give directions as to the line and the general attitude which is to be taken by that Health Authority. What is wrong with the principle of having elected people directing our public affairs? We have them in the Cabinet. That is one of the very foundations of our democratic system of government in this country. I dislike the particular complexion of this Bill which seems to have a mania for professional management and which seems to squeeze out the democratic attitude of mind. When all is said and done, during the last two and a half years I have not been especially enamoured of the management ability of Her Majesty's present Government. In this Amendment and those other Amendments touching on this same question which are to come later this afternoon, let us see that we do not say to the ordinary democratically elected people of the country: "The time when you can serve the community is gone. You have to make way for bureaucrats."
VISCOUNT AMORY: I should like to say how strongly I agree with everything that my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor has said and with almost everything that the noble Lord, Lord Leather-land, has said, including perhaps his remarks on the Italian corporate State. One thing I would say is that perhaps his analogy with this House was a little strange, because looking round, to my knowledge, I cannot see any of your Lordships who have been locally elected. But my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor at the beginning of his speech administered the stick rather sharply to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, for expressing the doctrine that there was no place for

27
locally elected representatives on a managerial, executive, directorial body. I have become so accustomed to acclaiming all the utterances of the noble Lord, Lord Brown, that I own I was shocked at the necessity for this reproof. But there are some occasions when the stick is justified—particularly when wielded with such a humane hand as that of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor—and this was one of them.
The case advanced in these Amendments is a powerful one. The fact that the principle behind them is supported by all four of the main local authority bodies I hope will lead my noble friend to attach appropriate weight to them. There is apt to be a danger inherent in this kind of authority and council, and that is the remoteness from the people they serve. The noble Baroness, Lady Serota, made this point and said that there is criticism of this remoteness even in the existing circumstances. Here I must own that I myself am not familiar in detail with the National Health Service having never sat on any of the bodies concerned, except on the county council side of the picture. Because of that danger of remoteness, every possible method must be adopted when passing legislation to make sure that the danger of this remoteness is reduced to the minimum. In the case of the proposals in the Bill, this danger seems to me particularly conspicuous. For reasons which no doubt the Government feel are good ones the organisation they are proposing is really a very hierarchical bureaucratic one. Power and authority are imposed from the top downwards. The Minister appoints almost everyone and approves almost everything. That in practice means that he does so on the advice of his officials. It will be an organisation run from the top and from the centre. Those of us who served in another place will remember the invariable reaction of Ministers on these occasions: "You need not worry; Ministers will exercise their power reasonably, after consultation." I think the noble Lord, Lord Brown, mentioned the point about consultation, but we know that when we are passing legislation we must not have our fears calmed down by that assurance.
Up to a point I think it is not unreasonable, when one remembers that the money is to come from central funds and
28
that a great deal of public money is involved, that the Secretary of State should keep reasonably tight hold on the purse strings and take an active interest in his responsibilities for accountability. But this is not a unique constitutional problem. The central difficulty confronting legislators in a Bill such as this is how to reconcile the responsibility of the Minister to control the public funds which have been allocated to the Service with the vital contribution which can and ought to be made to the administration by the democratically expressed voice of the users of the Service. It is the considered view of the local authority bodies —all four of them, I think—that in the proposals put forward in the Bill there is not enough democratic participation to be effective.
The noble Baroness, Lady Serota, made the point about the sharp distinction which the Government appear to draw between managerial responsibility and local representation, and if that distinction really were as sharp as they appear to think, it would be a very poor look-out for local government as a whole; I think it would be a very sad situation indeed. We believe that the arguments that have been adduced (and they will also, I am sure, come from other sources) do call for an amendment to the proposals in the Bill in respect of the Regional Authorities, the Area Authorities and the community councils—though at the moment we are debating only the Regional Authorities. That these Regional Authorities should be entirely composed of Government appointees I cannot believe is right or necessary.
It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Brown, said, that appointments will be made by the Minister after consultation, but the choice of the members remains that of the Secretary of State. As regards the representation of the democratically elected members, the views of many of us in local government rather differ from that of Ministers, as we understand it. I think Ministers probably accept that the work of the Regional Authorities in certain particular matters, such as planning, will be of interest to local authorities, and therefore certain links are required, in particular perhaps between the Regional Authorities and comparable local authority services, so far as some aspects overlap. But many of us

29
look at it rather more widely than that. We believe that elected members of local authorities could bring to bear on the work of the Regional Authorities most useful knowledge and experience of what people want in general ways. That is to say, it will not be purely a technical view of one committee of the local authority about one matter, but will cover a very broad front. That seems to me rather a difference of outlook. I would urge the Ministers to try to check whether their view is not a rather narrow one in this respect. We feel that some local authority members will be a valuable element on all these decision-making bodies in the work of their decision making. We believe, therefore, there should be some minimum representation of local government on all these Authorities. Surely a sensible apportionment of the representation could be worked out. I strongly support the principle that runs through these Amendments, and I would urge my noble friend to look at them very carefully. If he finds something which will alleviate the anxieties we feel and give effect to that principle in a better way than any of these Amendments do, I am sure we shall be very grateful to him and shall be willing not to press our particular Amendments.
LORD INGLEWOOD: I should like to make only one point, which I believe has not yet been made in this interesting debate. In the arguments in favour of ensuring that there is full and proper local authority representation on all these bodies there is one point which I believe is very important. It is from these local authority members that originality is likely to flow. My experience of appointments made by Ministers is that they are very sound and capable men but all too often are safe men, because no official is going to recommend to his Minister that he should appoint someone who is going to be a nuisance. If anyone wants to make a career of Ministers' appointments on these and other bodies he must prove that he is competent and that he is safe. That sort of situation is not going to produce the originality of thought that an organisation like this must have at all levels. It can of course be said that some local authorities may send their awkward squad on to a body like this. But it is a risk that I think the Minister
30
must take, that there should be occasional local authority members who do not understand what it is about and who will perhaps press their own King Charles's heads. None the less, it is from the local authority members that this very important originality of thought is likely to come.
LORD VIVIAN: Before the Minister replies, may I say that I feel that the Amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, would be of help in improving the Bill. All noble Lords in this House know of, and are deeply grateful to the noble Baroness for, the tremendous amount of work which she herself performed for the National Health Service when in office as a Minister in this House. During that time I approached the noble Baroness on several occasions with regard to the position and standing of medical practitioners; and I received the greatest courtesy and encouragement from her on this and on several other matters concerning national health. I shall certainly listen to what the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has to say, but I hope that when he replies on behalf of the Government he will very carefully weigh up the reasoning of the noble Baroness. I believe that if the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and the noble Baroness got together they could work out some measure that would be acceptable to both sides of the House and of benefit to this Bill. It is therefore my hope that the Minister will not turn down this Amendment but will take it away and look at it again to see whether he can meet the noble Baroness.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I apologise to the Minister for having come in late, but due to the fog I could not make it earlier. Consequently I will be brief but shall try to be cogent. I should like to support the request of the noble Lord who has just sat down. I sincerely hope that the Minister will take this back and look at it. I was reading with interest of the World Health Organisation symposium which was held in Stockholm in April, 1970. The title of the symposium, and the papers from medical experts and others, was Stress and Disease in Society; and it dealt with The Psychosocial Environment and Psychosomatic Diseases in man. We know that

31
90 per cent. of all National Health Service patients first of all come to the base of the pyramid, the "P.B.I." of the Health Service, the general practitioner. He is down at the base. I think that it was Gould who wrote an article in the New Statesman a few months ago saying that we should get rid of the concept of "cottage medicine". We still have the general practitioner working in medicine like those in the old cottage industries before we had the Industrial Revolution in Britain.
I think he should have his place, and in view of the fact that 90 per cent. of the National Health Service depends on that pyramid I believe that he should have his say in the set-up of the Health Service. When using the phrase "cottage medicine", we must think of more and better health centres. May I appeal for a more democratic approach? God forbid this apotheosis of management! There is more in life than efficiency; there is living for the love of life. Nature is not just efficient; nature is erratic, with its abundance when it is producing. It is only man, through his ideas of efficiency and management, who thinks that he is making a better world. He is mismanaging his environment, so much so that probably 70 per cent. of the diseases we have today are psychosomatic: diseases of the mind and neuroses.
May I now quote from an article headed "The Human Factor—And The Inhuman", and say first, anent the symposium in Stockholm, that this kind of organisation is building up the inhuman side of it:
"When man becomes maladjusted to his physical, social and psychological environment, the blame is usually placed on 'the human factor'. Implicit in such criticism is the idea that the human organism, evolved more than 500,000 years ago, is now outmoded. Much of today's medical activity is concerned with the diseases induced by man's present environment and by his unsuccessful adaptation to it. Much less attention is paid to 'the inhuman factor', by which is meant environmental conditions, often arising from modern civilisation, that induce disturbances of a medical and/or social nature even in a perfectly normal biological organism."
I will finish there because I do not want to trespass on the time of the Committee after having made my apology for coming in late for this important debate. I finish with this remark, without going into
32
it in depth because there is so much knowledge in this Chamber: this Part of the Bill is where all the power is concentrated. Even if a man were a genius and had the finest soul on earth, it would be too much power in one focal point. Therefore, I hope that after this debate —and I have heard quite a fair amount of it—the Minister, having heard from both sides of the House, will be good enough to reconsider this clause as it now stands.
3.54 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: I have listened with great interest to this debate, and we have had some notable speeches in the course of it. If there is one thing that has got slightly under my skin it is the complete misrepresentation of the sort of people that we hope to see on the Regional Health Authorities. I must say to my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor that when he referred to "managerial technocrats" and to a "small group of experts in management" it was the most unkind cut of all. I felt like howling out, "Et tu, Brookie!". That is not our intention in any degree at all. Perhaps the simplest thing to do would be to read out, for those of your Lordships who may have failed to read the passage, paragraph 96 of our White Paper.
"The work to be done by the members calls for general ability and personality. They will need to be interested in the NHS; to have an unbiased, questioning yet constructive approach and good judgment; to set high standards and provide vigorous leadership. A diversity and a proper balance of relevant ability and experience are also called for. These needs can best be met if, in the main, members are chosen for their personal qualities after appropriate consultations, not elected as representatives reflecting the views of particular interests."
There is nothing in that paragraph that mentions management, or managerial technocrats, or anything of that sort.
BARONESS SEROTA: Would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt for one moment? It is not really for me to defend the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, but I must point out to the Minister a sentence that appeared in the Consultative Document, when it said quite categorically:
"The authorities will be kept small and management ability will be the main criterion for the selection of members."
LORD ABERDARE: It is no good quoting the Consultative Document, because that is what we were consulting about. We have now put down in the White Paper what we are going to do, and that is much more relevant to what we are discussing now.
May I turn to the Amendment itself? I dislike the Amendment, and I am sorry to say that I could not possibly advise your Lordships to accept it, first of all on the grounds of principle and secondly because I do not believe that it is practicable. Schedule 1 proposes that appointments to Regional Health Authorities should be made by the Secretary of State after consultation with interested bodies. The Amendment would have the effect of making the Regional Health Authorities bodies representative, in the main, of local authorities and of some of the health care professions. I would ask your Lordships which approach is the more likely to enable these Regional Authorities to carry out effectively the important functions that they will have entrusted to them.
They will be responsible for the expenditure of many millions of pounds; some of it for allocation to the Area Health Authorities in their region, and some of it on the provision of regional services and specialties. What we are looking for is a good mix of people from various walks of life, but all united in the one aim of providing a comprehensive Health Service and putting the available resources to the best possible use. We believe that this will be best achieved if the Secretary of State is free to make the appointments to the Regional Health Authorities, just as he does now to the Regional Hospital Boards—and they are bodies that represent all sorts of different interests. They are all appointed by the Secretary of State and I know of no serious criticisms of what they do at the moment, although there has been mention by the noble Baroness, and I think my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, of their remoteness. But under the set-up that is proposed in the Bill, the Area Health Authorities will be much closer to the people who are using the Service, and these authorities will come between the Regional Health Authority and the hospitals and health centres themselves. Therefore, that remoteness, I suggest, will be of slightly less importance.
34
I found a good deal of sense was spoken in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Brown. I certainly do not think that one wants only people of managerial capacity. I think that one wants to have a body at regional level who have one aim in mind. There were at one time two alternatives for the new Health Service. It could have been organised under the local authorities, but that was not the solution accepted by the last Government, nor is it the solution accepted by this Government. But those who criticise the proposed organisation on the grounds that it pays insufficient heed to the needs of the patient would be the first to accuse the Secretary of State if those needs were not being met. He is responsible under this Bill for the provision of the Service. How can we hold him responsible, unless he has at least the necessary powers to run the Service for which he is responsible?
The Amendment which we are considering would allow him to appoint only one-third of the members of the Authority which is his principal agent. I do not see how he could be held responsible for the Service if he appointed only one-third of the members at the Regional Health Authority level. I can see the dilemma in which members might be placed if disputes arose at some point between their appointing bodies and the Secretary of State, and it seems to me wrong to build tensions of this sort into the Regional Health Authorities. I believe that the Secretary of State must be able to determine the choice of people who are to be his direct agents in the National Health Service for which he is responsible, although I agree that he must consult wisely before making his choice. He will certainly appoint members of Regional Health Authorities from the local authorities and from the professions, but the Amendment would weaken the Authorities' accountability since no single appointing source could make changes in membership sufficient to remedy weaknesses in performance. Each group would be a distinct entity and, in effect, it would be a collection of minorities rather than a team and no one could be held responsible.
As for the practicalities, I very much doubt whether what is proposed in the Amendment could work. It would require

35
one-third of a total membership of between fifteen and twenty-five to be appointed jointly by the local authorities and the Health Authorities wholly or partly within the regional boundaries. What would this mean in one of the larger regions, such as the present Sheffield region? Between five and eight members would have to be chosen by all the Area Health Authorities, provincial counties, metropolitan counties, metropolitan districts and non-metropolitan districts. In Sheffield, that would be a total of some fifty separate authorities competing for from five to eight places. How would they make the choice? How would a balance be struck between members from the Area Health Authorities and members from local government? How would the separate categories of local authority determine their total and separate shares? I know that later the noble Baroness has down Amendment No. 59, to provide a means for resolving disagreements, but I really cannot see it working and I can only think that under Amendment No. 59 we should come back to the Secretary of State making all the appointments because the others could not agree.
Then the Amendment calls for one-third of the members to be appointed jointly by six of the health care professions—doctors, dentists, nurses, midwives, pharmacists and opticians. If we take the Sheffield region again, there are about 25,000 people from those professions: and how are they to select their five, six, seven or eight representatives? Further than that, would each profession choose a specified number of candidates? If there were only five places, this would seem to mean just one place per profession, if one put the nurses and midwives together. And would the doctors be satisfied with only one place on the Authority? There are also other professions providing health care which may not feel happy about the set-up. So I really feel that the Amendment as it stands at the moment is muddled and impractical.
But on general grounds of principle, I do not feel it to be right that for the Regional Health Authority, which is the main agent of the Secretary of State for the running of the Health Service with which he has been charged, the majority of the members should be
36
appointed by interests other than himself. I fully recognise the tremendous contribution that can be made by local authorities and, as I have said, there will be members of local authorities appointed to the Regional Health Authorities by the Secretary of State after consultation with them. But we have built into this Bill the closest possible relationship with local authorities at the Area level. It is there that we have the most intimate working arrangements with local authorities, and deliberately so. One of the main reasons for having Area Health Authorities was to link in as closely as possible with local authorities.
But there are certain aspects of the composition of the Regional Health Authority which have been mentioned this afternoon, which I certainly wish to look at and think about again. My noble friend Lord Brooke was on to an important point when he mentioned its size and I shall certainly look at that aspect, because we want to keep it small and manageable. We do not want large committees which are very often unwieldy but there is nothing rigid about the figure of 15. I am equally convinced, as is my noble friend Lord Amory, that there is a great contribution to be made by local authority members and we see this coming at Area level. Again, I have no reason for not thinking very carefully about this aspect in relation to the Regional Health Authority.
May I make one point in answer to the question which the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, asked me about participation and collaboration arrangements between local authorities and the Health Service? First of all, the joint consultative committee of the Area Health Authority and the local authority will consist of members, although it will be supported by a group of the appropriate chief officers of the authorities. The proposal is that the Regional Health Authority should be represented in the Area Health Authority's membership of the joint consultative committee, so that they would partake with the appropriate Area Health Authority in consultation with the matching local authority. I think I have given the reasons why I am afraid that I find this Amendment unacceptable, both in principle and in practice. But I have said that there are certain points with regard to the composition

37
of the Regional Health Authority that I will look at, if I may, and in those circumstances I would ask the noble Baroness whether she is prepared to withdraw this Amendment.
4.10 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: I must first apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, if I have been both muddled and impractical this afternoon. I have been seeking only to ventilate some of the issues of principle which I think all Members of the Committee are anxious to consider, before we come to any final conclusions on what we regard as a very important part of the Bill.
May I say straight away that I welcome the offer of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, to look again at the size of the Regional Health Authorities; and I was also glad to hear his, I thought, somewhat qualified undertaking that he might possibly consider including some element of local authority membership. That part of his reply was not quite clear, and I should like to have something rather more categoric from him before we come to a decision on some of the issues involved. Until now the Government have not been able to accept any element of this kind in the membership of the authorities, and before coming to a decision I think we should be a little clearer in our minds as to what is intended here now.
I should also like to make it quite clear—and I think I can say this on behalf of all noble Lords who have spoken in the Committee to-day and who believe that the representative function and the directional management function are not incompatible—that we all of us, on all sides of the Committee, are just as concerned with the good management of the Health Service as those who take the other point of view. Indeed, on the contrary, our anxiety to see efficient management and the most effective use of resources in so vital and expensive a Service as the Health Service is such that it inclines us even more to the kind of proposals we have been putting forward as regards membership than to the proposals put forward by those who have been determining the policy of the Government.
It is strange that the only ally that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has found to-day is in the powerful support of my
38
noble friend Lord Brown. So far, in three days of Committee stage, my noble friend is the only person who has supported the Government positively in this definition and delineation of the role of the manager and the role of the consumer, of the professional and the public service interest in the policy-making processes of the Health Service. Like my noble friend Lord Leatherland, I too fully recognise the long experience of my noble friend Lord Brown as a practising manager in the engineering industry; his great concern with the social organisations through which the manager works; and, above all, the value of the action research studies which he has undertaken in co-operation with Professor Elliot Jaques. But that does not mean that one must agree with all the experts in the field of organisational theory. Indeed, they very much differ as between themselves; and I take the view—and I think those noble Lords who have spoken to-day hold a similar view—that the major factors which affect the management of the engineering industry (such as development, production and sales) are not quite the same as those with which we are concerned in a social service like the Health Service.
There is, I think, a growing concern that lies behind much of our thinking—and I tried to make this point on Second Reading—that as organisations increase in size and complexity the needs of society and of individuals within it should not become subservient to the needs of the organisation, and that loyalties to organisational goals—and I felt this particularly while reading through the Grey Paper—should not supersede loyalties to social goals; again, above all in a service like the National Health Service. What we are trying to say to the Government to-day, I think, is that social services and their organisational structure must react to information that feeds through from the environment, from the consumer and from the public if they are to provide truly sensitive social services.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, was quite right: there are very deep differences between us on this matter. There are deep differences of principle and there are deep differences of approach, although I welcome the offer that he has made in relation to the size of the authorities and to the possible inclusion of

39
local authorities. But these differences exist, and I think it would be unwise in a Committee stage debate to attempt to paper them over. Indeed, I hope the Committee will be prepared to express its views on this particular Amendment in the light of all the cogent arguments that have been advanced. I am not going to pretend for one moment that the wording is perfect. I take some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, made, although I am not sure that I quite agree with the numbers that he gave the Committee. This is Committee stage, and if your Lordships were to accept the principle I would be more than willing to come together with other noble Lords, and indeed with the Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, has suggested, in order to produce a better, a more practical and a less muddled answer. But the principle is important, and I very much hope that the Committee will support it.
LORD BROWN: Perhaps I may make a comment to my noble friend Lady Serota. I am very much obliged to her for the generous references she made to me, but I wonder whether the Committee fully realises the implications of this Amendment. There are very many Government services, and I do not know of one which adopts the principle that is involved in this Amendment; because all these Government services are in the last analysis responsible to some Minister who is indeed accountable to Parliament itself. If this Committee were to put on a Regional Health Authority a majority of people who are not appointed by the Secretary of State, and if that majority of people were to decide to do something with the resources which did not meet with the approval of the Secretary of State, then the Secretary of State would cease to be accountable to Parliament. So that in effect this Amendment could interfere with the accountability of Ministers to Parliament. This is not a question of opinion: this is a question of fact. I think the Committee ought to be fully aware of what they are doing before they move in this direction if they are going to vote on this Amendment, because it is a very serious principle indeed.
Great emphasis has been laid on the democratic results which would flow from this Amendment. Perhaps I may point
40
out that Parliament itself is a democratic assembly, and that Members of Parliament can raise issues about the Health Service quite freely, that members of the public can raise them with the Commissioner and that they can raise them with the community health councils. They can do all these things. I really think it would be a great mistake in principle to put a Regional Health Authority in a situation the result of which would be that the Secretary of State himself could not be held accountable by Parliament.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: Before your Lordships come to a decision on this matter, may I be allowed to say two things? I could not support the Amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Serota. I do not think that this tripartite method of appointment is the right one. I prefer, in general, what the Government have proposed, though I do not think that that is ideal, either. But I certainly hope that the Amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, will not be carried. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Aberdare for what he said in reply to me. He very aptly quoted paragraph 96 with an implicit suggestion that I had not properly studied that paragraph. I think I had, but I had been influenced, I confess, also by paragraph 106 of the White Paper, and I hope he will give further consideration to that between now and the next stage of the Bill, because in that paragraph it says:
"The expression of local public opinion can be catered for in one of two ways. It can be done indirectly by including in the membership of the health authorities local people serving in a representative capacity. Or it can be done more directly through bodies specially set up for this purpose, with direct links to the authorities. The Government prefer the second course. It allows each of the interests—management and the community—to concentrate on its own special function".
et cetera. From that I certainly gained the impression that those who are members of a Regional Hospital Authority are to concentrate on management and are to await the reactions of the community health councils, the local authorities, and so forth, to represent to them the interests of the public. I think the interests of the public must be represented from the very start on the executive body. That is what I am seeking to establish. I hope that the Government will withdraw from the somewhat rigid position that they have taken up in paragraph 106.
4.20 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: Before we leave this point, I should like the Government to consider the strategic planning functions of these Regional Health Authorities because it is extremely important that anyone undertaking this particular function of theirs (and I know they have others) should be very well aware of what is in the minds particularly of the major local authorities. Elected regional authorities may possibly come about, but we do not know, out of the Kilbracken deliberations. When we are going to receive their report, Heaven knows! But in default of that, surely the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, is right, that there should be some correlation between the great local authorities who are responsible for all the other social planning in their areas and the Regional Health Authorities. If one does not have some provision for that there will be difficulties in having common thoughts on these matters which affect the totality of social planning in the areas of which health planning is one part.
On the point made by my noble friend Lord Brown which, from what he has said, I am quite sure is much in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and certainly is in the minds of the Treasury—this business of the accountability of the Minister to Parliament if persons appointed to these bodies are not all appointed by him or are even necessarily predominantly appointed by him—if the Minister through the Treasury is the source of supplies, of course he has one very simple sanction. If he thinks they are acting improperly he can withhold the supplies. It is unlikely that such a situation will be reached; but as a matter of political theory one ought at least to keep in mind that the Minister does have the whip hand in so far as ultimately he is the person who finances the service concerned.
Therefore no matter what such an authority might wish to do, they know that ultimately the Minister has this overriding sanction of finance. I do not feel that we should be unduly frightened by that in the way suggested by my noble friend Lord Brown. Had the Government decided that this was a completely reprehensible doctrine, I assume that they would not have included paragraph 106
42
in their White Paper; because they put it in as a reputable alternative, but one which on balance was less desirable than the one they proposed. I do not think the Committee should be frightened by the figure of a Minister who will be completely helpless at the hands of a body that he has not entirely appointed himself.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: Before the Minister replies, may I say that I have listened to the debate and have been impressed by the fact that with one exception there appears to be unanimity on the part of those who have spoken. I have the feeling that they have considerable support in the Committee that the Bill is not right and that the Government are showing too little inclination to give consideration in depth to the views that have been expressed here this afternoon. The Minister in his reply indicated that he would give some further thought to what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, had to say. I wonder whether he could go further. I am sure that we on this side do not want to divide if that can be avoided; on the other hand, if we are forced, we may have to consider that course. Would the Minister indicate that he would have consultations with those who can speak in representative authority? The noble Viscount, Lord Amory, for instance, knows very well the views of the county council associations; the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, knows the views of the A.M.C., and my noble friend Lady Serota is recognised by everybody as an expert in this field, not only as a consequence of Ministerial office but from a lifetime of service in the public field. Would the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, go so far as to say that he would be willing to have a meeting before Report stage, to see whether it is possible to reach some compromise which would give some satisfaction to those who have spoken so strongly and who feel as deeply as they have indicated?
VISCOUNT AMORY: My noble friend may be able to respond to Lord Garnsworthy's suggestion in some way because it will be a pity if we have to divide on this Amendment about which I think many of us have some worries—worries about the wording and about some of the proposals, though not about the most important part.
LORD ABERDARE: I am quite ready to go ahead to try to help the Committee if I can. I am completely convinced that the Amendment is wrong. I cannot accept that the Secretary of State should appoint only a minority of the main agents in a service which is necessarily centrally organised. I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady White, that the financial sanction is really a valid one because the Secretary of State will be giving them a large budget and you cannot expect him to fine them because they have done something he does not approve of. It is more normal where a Minister is responsible for a service for him to have a majority on the agency which is responsible to him.
So far as the strategic planning functions go, the difficulty is that there is no corresponding local authority that embraces the same area as the Regional Health Authority. I have no doubt that the Regional Health Authority will wish to be in the closest possible touch with the strategic planning of the local authorities within its region. But there is no reason thereby to say that of right those local authorities should have their members on the Regional Health Authority. Two bodies can co-operate satisfactorily, I should have thought. But I am impressed, and always have been impressed, by what my noble friends Lord Amory and Lord Brooke say. I will certainly see whether I can help in any way to satisfy them and to satisfy noble Lords opposite who have expressed the need for closer co-operation at regional level with the local authorities. If we could have conversations on that point I will certainly see what I can do. But I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment as it is.
BARONESS SEROTA: The Committee has given a considerable amount of time to this issue which I only opened up on Amendment 45. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for the way in which he has received the comments made on what I realise is his "baby" which we have been, so to speak, tearing to pieces in public in front of his eyes. I know that for Ministers this can be a painful process. I hope that he will appreciate that we believe we are doing this in the most constructive way possible. In view of what he has said, and subject
44
to the agreement of my noble friends who have also put their names to this Amendment, I should be inclined to withdraw it at this stage on the basis that we can talk between now and Report stage and come back with other proposals. I, myself, do not move one inch from the general principles that I have enunciated. I accept that there are drafting difficulties with this Amendment and that from some of the views put forward it would be helpful to come together for talks. On that basis I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment. I hope that my noble friends who have put their names to it will agree that I should do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
LORD BROCK LORD BROCK moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 49, line 9, at end insert ("and not less than one-quarter of these other members shall be medical practitioners").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 47 which is in my name and the names of my noble colleagues. With the permission of the Committee, I should like to take with it Amendment No. 50, as the two Amendments are essentially similar. They are concerned with ensuring that there is adequate medical representation on governing and advisory committees of the new Administrative authorities. There is nothing in the Bill to limit the number of doctors even to a quarter, but the White Paper suggests that the number of doctors could be quite small. For example, on page 23, paragraph 99, it is stated that the professional members will not be prescribed and may indeed differ from area to area, but it implies that the format could be, or need be, only two doctors in a committee of 15. The Amendment prescribes that such a committee should have double that number.
The medical representation should be at least as strong as it is on the present authorities of the National Health Service. The present practice is that on the board of governors of a teaching hospital a quarter are medical, and on a Regional Hospital Board one-fifth are medical. This, therefore, is a good and acceptable precedent; but it is not in the Bill. The proportion of medical members dates from the Guillebaud Report of 1950 which recommended it then, and has been

45
adhered to since. I hope the Minister will be willing to insert some prescription of the proportion of medical members on governing and ordinary committees.
LORD PLATT: My noble friend Lord Brock has made the purpose of this Amendment perfectly clear and there is nothing difficult to understand, so I will not elaborate it. I should like to point out one thing, though I am sure that it will not have escaped the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. It is that this Amendment does not dispute the principle of the appointment by the Secretary of State, which Amendment No. 5 would have replaced by another mechanism, because its place, if accepted, would be after the words which give the Secretary of State the appointment of such other members as he thinks fit.
LORD ABERDARE: I appreciate the reasons that actuated the noble Lords to move this Amendment but it does not appeal to me very much because I would reiterate that what we want at the Regional Health Authority level is a number of people of different backgrounds, different interests, different talents. Although these will certainly include medical practitioners we feel that it would be wrong to tie the hands of the Secretary of State to appointing a specific proportion of the Regional Health Authorities from medical practitioners. It is not true that in the case of the present health authorities there is a requirement that there shall be a minimum of 25 per cent. medical practitioner membership. The present position is that in 1956, in Hospital Memorandum 111, it was announced that the Minister would not normally appoint more than 25 per cent. doctors on to a Regional Hospital Board, and he asked the Boards to follow this same practice in appointing their hospital management committees.
The boards of governors have one-fifth (I think the noble Lord said a quarter) of their members appointed after consultation with the senior medical and dental teaching staff. Executive councils with a membership of 30 have eight members appointed by the local medical committee, and this will continue to be the practice with family practitioner committees; and of course, local health authorities do not necessarily have any medical members on their boards,
46
although doctors may be elected as councillors in the normal way. But the Regional and Area Health Authorities will not be the same as the present hospital authorities. They will have wider responsibilities and functions and will be composed on a different basis. We believe that it would be wrong to specify a particular number of medical practitioners on either the Regional Health Authority or the Health Authority, although we give the assurance that there will be doctors on both bodies.
I should like to make clear that in this Bill we are bringing the doctors even closer into the management, into partnership, with the Service than has ever been the case before. I have said that there will be doctors at both Regional and Area Health Authority level. At all levels, regional, area and district, there will be strong medical advisory committees. I am sure the noble Lord will know that we are in close consultation now with the medical profession and discussing just how those medical advisory committees can best be set up to ensure that essential medical advice is available at all levels.
Under the management study proposals the regional and the area medical officers will be members of the regional and area teams of officers. At district level, the district management team is to contain two elected members from the district medical committee, one being a consultant and one being a G.P., as well as the district community physician; so that will be three doctors out of a total of six on that team. We are also confident that doctors will play a full part in the proposed health care planning teams studying various aspects of the Health Service within a district. I do not think that anyone can accuse us of not having taken due account of the need for doctors to be an integral part of the proposed management structure. But, just as I have been trying to defend the position that we do not want to allocate specific numbers of places on the Regional Health Authority to the, local authorities, I equally hope that it will not be thought wise to specify a certain number of places on the Regional Health Authority for the medical profession. I would ask your Lordships to leave it in the hands of the Secretary of State to make sensible decisions on how the Regional Health Authorities should be constituted, taking

47
into account the fact that there will be medical members after consultation with the profession.
LORD BROCK: I thank the Minister for his reply. I do not wish to divide the Committee on a matter such as this. I must trust to the good sense of the Secretary of State, and that he will pay attention to the inevitable value of the medical profession in the various committees and consultations. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendment No. 49B, if only to ask the Minister to reply to the question that I put to him on this part of the Schedule when I spoke earlier. I realise that he was then concerned with the wider issues of a major Amendment but I hope that this will give him an opportunity to tell the Committee that the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 25, after ("bodies") insert ("including trade unions, and voluntary organisations").—(Baroness Serota.)
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, I am sorry; I meant to answer that matter earlier, but perhaps it will be more convenient to do so now. It is certainly our intention that the Secretary of State shall consult the Trades Union Congress rather than trade unions as referred to in the Amendment. It has been the practice hitherto that Regional Hospital Boards consult the T.U.C. (and I hope that the noble Baroness would think that the right thing to do in the future) and voluntary organisations before making appointments to Regional Health Authorities. The reason why these bodies are not specified in the Schedule is simply that they are one of a number of organisations which will be consulted, such as the C.B.I. for example. It seemed invidious to mention some but not all bodies, yet to attempt to mention all would import a certain rigidity. The Scottish Act certainly makes no such provision. However, I agree with the substance of the Amendment. I should not like to accept it as it stands, because I would rather see "T.U.C." than "trade unions". If the noble Baroness will allow me to consider it, I will see whether before the next stage
48
of the Bill I can find some wording that will satisfy what she has in mind.
BARONESS SEROTA: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his offer, and without taking up any more time I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, looking forward to hearing further from the noble Lord at Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.41 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 49, line 43, leave out from beginning of line 43 to end of line 8 on page 50, and insert—
"(b) the Chairman or a member of the Family Practitioner Committee for the area of the Area Health Authority;
(c) a specified number of members, which shall be not less than one third of the total number of members, to be jointly appointed by all the local authorities for the area of the Area Health Authority;
(d) a specified number of members, which shall be not less than one third of the total number of members to be jointly appointed by persons representative of the following categories, namely:

(i) the medical practitioners of the area of the Area Health Authority;

(ii) the dental practitioners of the said area;

(iii) the nurses and midwives of the said area;

(iv) the registered pharmacists of the said area, and

(v) the ophthalmic and dispensing opticians of the said area;

(e) as to a specified number, members appointed by the Secretary of State, after taking into account recommendations made to him by the relevant Regional Health Authority after consultation by that Authority, except in prescribed cases, with the bodies mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph; and
(f) a specified number of members to be appointed by the Secretary of State on the nomination of the university or universities specified as being associated with the provision of health services in the said area.")
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 51 standing in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Garnsworthy and Lady White. I know that my noble friend Lady White is most anxious to speak to this Amendment, particularly because of the views that she holds about the proposed composition of the Area Health Authorities. As she appears to be elsewhere at the moment, I wonder whether I might begin

49
the debate, which of course affects a number of other Amendments that appear on the Marshalled List, by making special mention of the proposal in the Amendment which refers to the inclusion of the chairman or a member of the family practitioner committee as a member of the Area Health Authority as of right. That is a matter that we touched on at Second Reading. I hope, having put the Amendment down early, that the Minister, when he comes to reply, will be able to say something about this proposal.
As the noble Lord knows, there has been criticism of the appearance that we are creating not an integrated Service out of our present tripartite Service, but one that will integrate the hospital and the local authority services, leaving the vital contribution of the community-based general practitioner services separate from the other two parts. We are fully aware of the thinking behind the Government's proposals to establish through the Bill the special statutory family practitioner committee to preserve the independent contractor status of the general practitioner; but we believe that there would be a danger of their working in isolation if they were too rigidly segregated in that committee, and we are most anxious that they should participate in the wider policy planning and the day-to-day provision of service considerations of the Area Health Authority. That was the reason behind the inclusion of the chairman or a member of the family practitioner committee on the committee of each Area Health Authority. As I have said, I hope that when the noble Lord comes to reply he will let us know the Government's reaction to this suggestion. As I said at the outset in moving this Amendment, I know my noble friend Lady White wishes to speak to it in Committee, and therefore I will sit down to enable her to put forward her views. I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: I think my noble friend Lady Serota has put clearly the kind of considerations which we had in mind. We are concerned to some degree with the same sort of considerations as arose on the previous Amendments in relation to the Regional Health Authority. We recognise that the Area Health Authorities have more specific local functions, and we are anxious, as the Amendment plainly indicates, that the
50
other parts of the local health services, namely, those which will come under the family practitioner committee and those which are now being taken over from the elected authorities, should all be drawn together and that those working in the services and in similar capacities professionally should have some say in the working of the services. We are also much concerned, as we were previously, as to the kind of consultation which may take place, including consultation with trade unions and voluntary organisations. I have another Amendment down later on which applies only to Wales, but I think that we should take it as a separate Amendment and I will not elaborate on it now.
Before we press this Amendment further, I think it would be desirable to hear what the reaction of the Government is to these propositions. Not a great deal is said in the documentation that we have in the White Paper and so on about the principles on which the Government propose to order the membership of the Area Health Authorities. We in Wales, again, are in a particularly sensitive situation, because we shall not have a Regional Health Authority to carry out the function of appointing the Area Health Authorities: we shall be directly dependent upon the Secretary of State for Wales. Therefore, for us, I think there is a particular interest in the composition of the Area Health Authorities. We want to be doubly certain that the various elements at area level are adequately included in the proposed membership. If, in making his comments, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, is able to say something further about our particular Welsh concerns, in addition to the important but minor one in Amendment No. 57, I and others who have Welsh interests shall be particularly obliged.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: If it is acceptable to the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, and to my noble friend Lord Aberdare, I think it might save the time of the Committee if I were to speak to my Amendments Nos. 54 and 55, thus widening the debate on this Amendment into a general debate on the composition of the Area Health Authorities, rather than to move those Amendments separately, because there is a certain amount of overlap. There are two

51
separate points made in my Amendments. The first is that there should be not less than five local authority members appointed by the local authorities to the Area Health Authority. Even on the Government's plan, I think that at least five will be needed, because the Government look on these people as making links with the local authority services. In paragraph 98 of the White Paper the Government say:
"Because of the need for close decision-making links with the local authority services, local authority members who are active in the management of the personal social services, education and other relevant services, should have places on the Area Health Authorities and four members of it will therefore be appointed by the corresponding local authority."
I do not quite follow that word "therefore", because if in fact these people are to be active in the management of the personal social services, education and other relevant services, at least five will be required: there are at least three other relevant services. In addition to the personal social services and education, which are mentioned here, there are planning, housing, and environmental health; and you could not gamble on the possibility that any one of the local authority people would be adequate as links with more than one of those services. So it seems to me, on the Government's own argument, that there should be at least five local authority people on the Area Health Authority. I would say again, if I may, that the number of 15 will prove to be too small in the normal case for the membership of one of these authorities. I know that the Area Health Authority can co-opt to committees and so forth, but it will be the members themselves who will need to be seen visiting hospitals and other units, as described in paragraph 95. That in itself will be a considerable burden on the small number of members of the Area Health Authority. I cannot see any reason why one should not have an efficiently-composed membership and yet go somewhat beyond the figure of 15. I am not pleading for a particular percentage to be local authority nominees; I am anxious that there should be more than four, which it seems is the figure chosen by the Government.
My second Amendment raises a different point. It does not accept the
52
argument in the Government White Paper that the need for having local authority people on the Area Health Authority is not because they will be representative of the public but because they will establish links with the relevant social services of the local authorities. I do not think one can have local authority nominees confined to this sort of function. If you are elected to a local authority, you may become interested in a particular service and become highly knowledgeable about it, but you cannot put away from you the fact that you have been elected and that you are a representative of the view of the public.
I do not want to repeat the speech that I made on the previous Amendment, but really find it very hard to accept that representation of the views of the public should be kept away from these health authorities. I appreciate the Government's argument that there will be quite enough of them in the community health council and that the Area Health Authority will do its work more quickly, sensibly and effectively if it does not have representatives of the public on it. That is a view that I cannot accept and that is the purpose of my second Amendment. If my second Amendment were accepted by the Government, it would mean that these local authority representatives on Regional Health Authorities would not be confined in their work there to one particular function; that is, acting as links with the relevant local authority services. They would do that, but in addition they would be an extra channel of communication of local opinion to the Area Health Authority. I cannot help thinking, despite the rigid views of the noble Lord, Lord Brown, that the Area Health Authority would be the better for it, provided that the representatives are sensibly chosen—and I think one must assume that in general, though there may be mistakes, the individuals will be sensibly chosen.
The purpose of my two Amendments—and, as I say, I will not take up the time of the Committee by moving them separately—is, first, that there should be at least five local authority representatives on the Area Health Authority; and, secondly, that they should be there in their own right as people representing the views of the public and not simply in the more technical sense as links with the services

53
of the local authority with which they are particularly familiar.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD CHAMPION): In putting Amendment No. 51 I ought to have indicated that in the event of that Amendment being carried I would not be in a position to call Amendments Nos. 54 and 55.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I am sorry that I missed the beginning of my noble friend's speech. I feel, as my noble friend does, that there are two reasons why local authority representatives should be on these area committees. I do not pose as an expert on this matter, but I should like to give the experience I have had with a small hospital which I know well. It is well equipped for minor operations, though not for major ones. These small hospitals are, I know, a bane of the hospital administration; they have been trying to close this particular one for some years. But public opinion is very much roused on this matter, not only among the lay public but also among the local doctors. Local doctors have formed a society of friends of this particular hospital and have collected something over £12,000 so that this hospital may be properly equipped and maintained. This may be the sort of story that has nothing unusual about it, but it seems to me somewhat extraordinary that the hospital administration should want to close a hospital without, apparently, any reference to local opinion, and that only when local opinion develops and there is a row do they withdraw and change their policy.
My noble friend Lord Aberdare said he did not think it so important that the area committees should be liaising, as it were, with those committees of ordinary local government that were not concerned with medical services. But I think it is important that they should so liaise Take the question of the old I have always understood that the health of the old depends a good deal on the sort of accommodation they have. If they live in purpose-built accommodation with their own belongings round them, they live very much longer in much happier circumstances than if they are herded together in geriatric wards, or even in Part III homes. The position under this Bill is somewhat different, but hitherto
54
in rural areas these old people have come under three different authorities, according to their condition. If they were fit they would come under the district council as the housing authority; if they needed care and attention they would come under the county council, and if they were in need of medical services they would come under the hospital board. The system has worked in a sense, but only because, fortunately, we have a number of very sensible people in this country—sensible representatives, sensible doctors, and sometimes a sensible civil servant. But the system itself is not one which leads to proper liaison. It will be somewhat different under the present dispensation, because the people in need of care and attention and of medical care will come under the same authority. I am not saying that this whole question can be solved just by having on the area committee some representatives of the local authority, but I think it will go some way to helping with that liaison. I am quite certain that without it there will be a number of people who will suffer from being, as it were, nobody's child. I hope that this idea may appeal to my noble friend Lord Brooke.
LORD HYLTON: I should like very briefly to support my noble friends Lord Brooke and Lord Gage. It has been notorious for many years that because of the very great shortage of purpose-built accommodation for the very elderly it is difficult to discharge elderly patients from hospital when they have recovered. I feel that if there are local representatives on these Area Health Authorities they themselves will be brought face to face with their own responsibilities, and this will be most helpful.
LORD GRENFELL: Before my noble friend replies, may I say that I feel, as with the last Amendment, that we need to be rather careful of being too specific about the different people who will have powers of appointment. In all different areas you will probably find that the medical practitioners will be carefully chosen. But if we are going to give a power of appointment to the dental practitioners, the nurses and midwives, the registered pharmacists, and the opthalmic and dispensing opticians, we shall get into rather deep waters, because in smaller areas this will be difficult, and in larger

55
areas they will be fighting each other as to whom is to represent them. Let us keep it as open as we can. We have discussed the question in principle; my noble friend has said that he will watch to see whether he can find sonic way round the principle of these Amendments. Let us be careful not to be too rigid with those who will have the power of appointment.
VISCOUNT AMORY: The case my noble friend dealt with in his Amendment is to a large extent in line with the discussion we held on the Regional Authorities. I should like to add one or two words. Looking closely at this organisation, one feels that the area level is perhaps the most important of all inasmuch as the decisions reached there will most strongly reflect on the local users of the Service. So that seems to be the level where it is most important that there should be locally elected members of local government authorities, and where they will have most to contribute. Therefore, whether the provision for representation in the Bill is adequate or not is important.
In discussions that I have had with people who are very knowledgeable about the Health Service one of the fears that is felt is that under the organisation proposed there will be proportionately too much emphasis placed on the clinical and remedial treatment as against preventive and safeguarding measures—that is, on treatment of illness as against the safeguarding of health. Under the new organisation there will be no one who is quite as independent as are the existing medical officers of health. The School Medical Service is an aspect which is of vital interest to local authorities. The joint consultative committees may be effective and useful—and we hope that they will be—but they will be only consultative and advisory. Several speakers, including myself, when discussing Regional Authorities, mentioned that the considered view of all the local authority bodies is that a sufficiently strong representation of elected local representatives on the area committees is absolutely essential, and they should participate fully in the policy decisions that are reached. I should like to support the Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor.
5.4 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: I am grateful to your Lordships who have spoken in this debate, and to my noble friend Lord Brooke for having included his Amendment in it. It has made the matter much tidier and more comprehensible. Many of my objections to the main Amendment that we are discussing, Amendment No. 51, are similar to my objections on the previous Amendment with regard to the setting up of the Regional Health Authority. In my view it would be wrong at this second level for the Regional Health Authority, in turn, not to appoint a majority of its agents on the Area Health Authority. On the other hand, so far as concerns the Amendments of my noble friend Lord Brooke and those who have supported him, we are much nearer together, because we have made specific provision for the appointment by the local authority of members of the Area Health Authority. I will justify that to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, in the course of my remarks.
The Area Health Authority will be the major operational tier of the new Service. We see it, like the Regional Health Authority, as a relatively small body of about 15 members. This is not a magic figure; we want a small body which will not be too unwieldy to take decisions. But in the case of Area Health Authorities we recognise that there may well be particular areas where we shall have to have more than 15 people. This will arise, for example, where there is a teaching hospital, because we have already undertaken to put extra people on the Area Health Authority in that case. It will arise in London in areas where there is more than one London borough in the area. We have suggested that there should be more local authority representatives on those Area Authorities so that each borough has a member of the Area Health Authority as a representative.
At the same time we hope that none of the 15 or so members will feel themselves to be representative of particular interests, because we wish them to take a comprehensive and unbiased view of the total health requirements of the area. That would be the way in which we should hope to meet some of the points which have been put by my noble friend Lord Amory regarding the need for total

57
health care for preventive medicine, and community care, which my noble friend Lord Hylton mentioned. That does not mean that its members will not include people from the local authorities, or from the main health care professions or relevant universities. On the contrary, we suggest there should be four members directly appointed by the matching local authority; that is, the authority administering the services complementary to the health services provided by the Area Health Authority, particularly personal social services and education. We think it is this link with the matching local authority which needs particularly to be reflected on the Area Health Authority, and not the less intimate link which there will be with other local authorities in the area.
As to the professions, we suggest there will be doctors and at least one nurse or midwife on each Area Health Authority. In addition there may be other members, drawn from other of the health care professions. As I said regarding the last Amendment, the particular strength of the role of the professions in the new structure will lie in the advisory machinery which we are anxious to be sure is strong, and which will be in a position to bring their views forcefully to the Area Health Authority, just as we see it right for the community health councils to bring the views of the users of the services to the Area Health Authority.
BARONESS WHITE: Before the noble Lord leaves that point, could he, in order to clarify the position, say whether it is still the intention of the Government that those persons from the health professions should not be active within the area of the authority?
LORD ABERDARE: I know what the noble Baroness is getting at.
BARONESS WHITE: There are two quite different conceptions between our proposals and what we think are the Government's proposals. We should like to be quite clear about this matter.
LORD ABERDARE: Our view is that it would be wrong for members of the Area Health Authority to be in the employment of that Authority. The noble Baroness said "active". There is no reason why they should not be active
58
in the area. We think it would be wrong, if they are in the employment of the Authority, to be, at the same time, members of it. So far as sub-paragraph (f) is concerned, we have provided in the Bill for a university member, or members, to be appointed by the Regional Health Authority on the nomination of the university.
The noble Baroness, Lady Serota, asked me about the family practitioner committee. We have met, I think, her basic point in requiring the Area Health Authority to appoint at least one of its members to the family practitioner committee. It is not quite the same as having the chairman of the family practitioner committee necessarily on the Area Health Authority, but it is the fact that there will be one member of the Area Health Authority on the family practitioner committee. However, we do not feel it would be right if two-thirds of the members of the Area Health Authority were appointed by local authorities and some of the health professions. These are very important bodies. They will be handling budgets of some £14 million and upwards per annum, and they will be accountable to the Regional Health Authority. We do not believe that the accountability could be effective unless the majority of the Area Health Authority members were appointed by the Regional Health Authority.
The noble Baroness will perhaps not wish me to go into all the practical problems set by this Amendment, just as they were by her Amendment on the Regional Health Authorities. They are less serious and less daunting, but there still would be grave difficulties in rationing out the shares of the various local government members and various professional members as proposed in the Amendment. Our plans are based on an ideal. We want to inspire the Service with enthusiasm for a new approach. We see great hopes for better results in an integrated National Health Service, but as well as unification there must be leadership. I am sure we are all agreed on the need for integration, and we are agreed that there must be a more conscious choice between health in the community and in health institutions. We believe that a new impetus is required from smaller, more positive management bodies at the A.H.A. level, properly advised by professional committees,

59
properly advised by the representatives of the local community, yet still free to take positive decisions for the better health care of the citizen. That is why we see the Area Health Authority being established as we have suggested with the chairman nominated by the Secretary of State and the members appointed by the Regional Health Authority.
If I may turn for a moment to the Amendments of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, I think we are pretty close together, except that we have suggested four local authority members on the Area Health Authority—4 out of 15, which is just over 25 per cent.—and my noble friend is suggesting 5, which is a little more. I do not say that there is any great significance in one more or less, but I would emphasise (this is what I was going to say to the noble Lord, Lord Brown) that our proposal is not altogether illogical. Naturally, we want to find bodies that will be effective and give a lead, and take the right decisions on priorities. But above all it was borne in upon us that, so far as we were able, we must not allow there to be any lack of liaison and co-operation between the Area Health Authority and the matching local authority. It was for that reason that we have established innumerable bodies. We have had Working Parties. We have laid it down statutorily that these two Authorities must co-operate; we have laid it down statutorily that there shall be a joint consultative committee, and we have gone so far as to concede, in this case only, that the local authority should nominate at least four members of the Area Health Authority. It may not meet my noble friend's pure management doctrine, but I think that in practice it really is an essential if we are to get the right sort of co-operation between the two bodies.
I found myself in some difficulty when my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor was talking about the functions of these four or five members. It certainly would not be our idea that they should be in any sense confined to the function of being the links with the social services or the other particular services of the local authority. We would think it right that, of the four (or, as he suggests, five),
60
there should be those who have experience in the very relevant opposite matching services—the social services, and maybe education. But what our wording tries to establish is that they are there as members of local authorities—as my noble friend Lord Brooke says, as elected members—who will give that link with the relevant other services who will also, I am sure, speak as representative of the people who have elected them. But what we want to avoid, if we can, is anybody on the Area Health Authority actually representing a specific interest. We hope that the doctors will not represent just the views of the doctors; we hope that they will be people with medical experience looking at the problems of the health position in the area. Equally, we hope that members who are drawn from the local authority will not just be putting the view of the local authority but will be people with experience of local authority work, who have been elected by their constituents and who will contribute to the overall solving of health problems that present themselves in the area.
There is only one other point that I would briefly mention to my noble friend. There are many pressures upon us, of course, for the right to appoint members of Area Health Authorities. The noble Baroness's own Amendment is one example where other bodies—the medical profession, for example—are brought in and given the right of appointment. Obviously, we must find the right balance of membership. We believe that there is a very special exception to be made in the case of the local authorities, but if one is going to raise their representation from just over 25 per cent. to what might be 33⅓ per cent.—or, at any rate, 5 out of whatever the number may be—it may mean that other bodies will feel they should equally have strong representation. Then we should move away from what we want, a single-minded Area Health Authority applying its mind to the problems of the area, and we should find it again made up of a number of different representative members.
So I very much hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her Amendment. I hope that I have satisfied her to some degree. I hope my noble friend will

61
withdraw his Amendments. I am certainly prepared to think further about the matter; although here again my difficulty is my fear of upsetting the balance of membership and my own belief that four members actually nominated—and they are the only ones to be nominated—on the Area Health Authority probably ought to be able to bring the necessary skills and experience to the work of the Authority.
5.18 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: If I may speak before the noble Baroness, I am grateful to my noble friend for what he has said, and assure him that I am not going to press my Amendments; indeed, I shall not move them. I am quite certain that it is more effective if we can have a general debate of this kind on a group of Amendments and give the Government something to think about between now and later stages of the Bill. I still hope that my noble friend will reach the conclusion that four is too small a number of local authority persons (I avoid the word "representatives") on the Area Health Authority. I am glad to have his assurance that these persons will not be confined in the work of the Area Health Authority to representing the linkage between the Health Authority and the relevant local government services. I am sure that everybody who has served on a local authority and is trained in that hard school will realise that in public affairs he is not speaking just for a local authority, but is speaking for the public in general whose views may or may not be channelled through a particular local authority.
My real difficulty, and the point that led me to table my second Amendment, was the troublesome sentence in paragraph 106 of the White Paper which I have already quoted. The Government wish to avoid
"a confusion between the direction of services and representation of those receiving them…"
I do not really see how local authority people appointed by local authorities to an Area Health Authority can stop short of making representations for those who are receiving the services. If those words are allowed to stand in the White Paper and that is to be taken as the principle, then what my noble friend has said cannot stand because it is contradicted by
62
those words. The more I think about the whole subject of the composition of these bodies the more I believe that the trouble—and, it may be, the misunderstanding of the Government—have flowed from that sentence in paragraph 106. I know that that sentence gives pleasure to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, but it gives very little satisfaction to anybody else on either side of this House and I hope my noble friend and the Secretary of State will consider matters from that point of view when they are reviewing all that has been said from two different quarters in these two debates.
BARONESS WHITE: We have great sympathy with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. I must confess that when we first saw his Amendment No. 55 we were a little dubious about "representatives" because it could have meant "delegates" who might be mandated, and I am sure that none of us wanted that sort of relationship. But as the noble Lord properly pointed out, there is of course an inconsistency in the phrase in paragraph 106 of the White Paper compared with what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has stated to be the philosophy of the Government in relation both to the area and to the regional bodies.
In all the circumstances, I think the sensible thing for us to do would be not to press our Amendment at this stage but to hope that in the discussions which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, promised on the Regional Health Authorities, any points we have to raise on the Area Health Authorities might be subsumed in those discussions. On that understanding, with which I gather the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, is in agreement, on behalf of my noble friend I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I think the mover of the Amendment must seek permission to withdraw the Amendment herself.
BARONESS SEROTA: On the basis of the conditions which my noble friend Lady White has just stated to the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.23 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 50, line 19, at end insert ("but including, in Wales, the Health Committee of the Welsh Council.")
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move this Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Watkins and myself. As the Committee will appreciate, in Wales, because there is to be no Regional Authority, the appointments to the Area Health Authorities will be made directly by the Secretary of State for Wales. Plainly, he will wish to consult a number of bodies in the Principality but in Wales we have the Welsh Council, which is different from any body that exists in England, and this Council has a health committee, or health panel as I believe it is more normally called.
LORD ABERDARE: It is in fact the Health and Social Services Panel.
BARONESS WHITE: That makes it all the better, because one has there a body of persons in Wales who are closely interested in and concerned with policy in the field of health and social services, and we feel that it would be entirely appropriate in our conditions in Wales that the Secretary of State should be under some obligation to consult. He would not necessarily have to take their advice, but we hope that normally he would do so. In any case, we feel it only right that people who are asked to serve on this all-Wales body in relation to health and social services should have some say in making suggestions, at any rate, as to persons who might well be appointed to the Area Health Authorities in Wales. This seems to us to be entirely reasonable.
The Welsh Council itself, as at present constituted, is of course appointed by the Secretary of State for Wales. Many of us hope that the time will come when it will be an elected body. We cannot foresee exactly what will happen because, as I said at an earlier point, we still do net know what the recommendations of the Crowther-Kilbrandon Committee may he and we do not know what developments may ensue. But, whether or not the Council remains, as it is at the moment, an appointed body or, desirably, an elected one, we still feel that in Wales
64
it is a body of some consequence and ought quite specifically to be brought into the consultations which will be held under the provisions of the Bill by the Secretary of State before he makes his appointments to the Area Authorities. Accordingly, I beg leave to move this Amendment.
LORD ABERDARE: The noble Baroness will know with what sympathy I look upon a Welsh Amendment, but I am afraid I am not able to accept this one. I believe it would be invidious to single out the Welsh Council for mention in a provision under which other important bodies will be consulted. For example, the T.U.C.'s regional advisory committees for North and South Wales; the Council for Social Services for Wales and Monmouthshire, the Welsh Council of the C.B.I., and a number of Welsh bodies representing the major voluntary organisations—for example, the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children. Obviously, it would not be practicable to list them all in the Bill and it would be invidious to single out the Welsh Council alone. There is also the point that the noble Baroness herself made: that whatever the future may be, the present situation is that the Welsh Council is a non-statutory body set up administratively by the Secretary of State for Wales and it would be most unusual in legislation to require consultation with a non-statutory body by name, as opposed to generically. But it would be even more odd to require statutorily that the Secretary of State should consult a body which he had himself appointed at his own discretion.
However, I can give to the noble Baroness the absolutely firm assurance that the Secretary of State for Wales will consult the Welsh Council, among other bodies, some of which I have mentioned, before making appointments to the Welsh Area Health Authorities. I think the noble Baroness will probably agree that it would be more appropriate to consult the Welsh Council and then to leave it to that Council to refer to the Health and Social Services Panel. I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw this Amendment.
BARONESS WHITE: We have the assurance on the Record, which is the object of the exercise. I appreciate the

65
point about the Welsh Council not being at the moment a statutory body: we hope that it will become so. In any case, I think the Council is in a different position from the more sectional organisations referred to by the Secretary of State, important as they may be. It is an all-embracing body, on an all-Wales basis, and does not represent sectional interests. However, as we have had the assurance from the noble Lord, which I am sure will be observed by his right honourable friend and his successors, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 53, line 27, after ("including") insert ("attendance allowance or")
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this Amendment is to make it possible for the Secretary of State to pay attendance allowances as well as travelling expenses or compensation for loss of remunerative time—for "loss of earnings" as it is more usually expressed. We feel that this is a very important Amendment because it is not long since we had in this House a Bill regarding local government. As we know, the basis of allowances for members of local authorities was changed in that Bill from what it had previously been. In earlier days the basis for payment to members of local authorities was the same as is now proposed in this Schedule for members of the new Area Health Authorities, but it appears to us that the same considerations which apply to allowances as of right to members of local authorities when they attend for official duties apply to the new Area Health Authorities which we are setting up under this Bill.
It is not always the loss of remunerative time involved in service on bodies of this kind that is important. Service is likely to be extremely onerous, not so much at the regional level, although the work there will be of great importance because it will include the allocation of resources—a task which, if conscientiously done, will involve a great deal of work—but at Area Authority level. It is plain, from the work which will fall to be done at the Area Health Authorities level, more particularly if the members of those
66
bodies are restricted in number to the 15 or so proposed by the Government, that the members of those authorities will have a very heavy task to perform.
Included on the Area Health Authorities, as we have been discussing, will be at least four persons—some of us hope more—who are themselves members of local authorities. When they are doing their work on local authority committees they will be remunerated in one way. If, on the other hand, they are performing their duties as members of Area Health Authorities they will be remunerated on a different basis because, presumably, they will be remunerated as members of Area Health Authorities and not as members of the local authorities by whom they are nominated. I feel that there is bound to be dissatisfaction among people who, having moved under the Local Government Act to a new basis of remuneration, find that although they are nominated by their local authorities for public duties on Area Health Authorities they do not have the same sort of right to an attendance allowance; and this seems to me in itself to be unsatisfactory.
There is another matter which I have raised before in your Lordships' House, and that is the position of women. Women who serve on these Authorities can often not legitimately claim compensation for loss of remunerative time for the simple reason that many of them are not remunerated for all the work they do.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: Not even by their husbands.
BARONESS WHITE: My noble friend is absolutely right. Thus, if they are not in full-time paid employment (I believe I am correct in saying that one has to be in full-time paid employment before one can claim loss of remunerative time) and are only in part-time employment, or are working in the home, then according to these arrangements they may not get adequate compensation for the indirect expenditure which may fall on them and for which it is almost impossible to account.
Women in public life know very well —I see the noble Baroness, Lady Young, smiling in an understanding way—that we are put to all sorts of expenses in our domestic lives for which one cannot possibly account. After spending a very

67
long day at an Area Health Authority meeting—and when I think of the distances one will have to travel in Wales it will be a very long day indeed—one usually comes home to a husband and family who expect to be looked after; and we know that it is very much quicker to cook the more expensive meats and fish than the cheaper varieties. It is quicker to use the so-called convenience foods, and these are much more expensive. This is something for which one can never account in any acceptable way, but we all know how important an aspect it is.
Similarly, if arrangements are made to pay for domestic help—for example, to look after children if the mother is not certain whether she will be home in time to meet them from school—if it happens to be on that direct day, then I believe that there are arrangements whereby she can claim something. If, however, she rearranges her domestic life in such a way that she does not have domestic help at the actual moment when she is engaged on the work of the Area Health Authority or regional body, she will not be in a position to claim because the accountants in the Department will say, "You cannot prove that the fact that you had domestic help on Monday had a direct connection with the meeting you were attending on Wednesday." Nevertheless, one knows from experience that there is in fact a direct connection, and therefore it was of tremendous advantage to women members of local authorities when the Government decided to change the basis of remuneration for attendance at local authorities and to give an attendance allowance by right and not simply payment in terms of loss of remunerative time. We are anxious that if the fullest range of people is to be available for service on these bodies, what has been accepted as right and proper for service on local authorities should also be accepted as right and proper for service on Area Health Authorities.
I am aware that there are some differences, so far as local authorities are concerned, between elected members and people who are co-opted on to certain committees. However, I do not believe that that difference is in the least relevant where service on these Area Health
68
Authorities is concerned. As I say, they are major bodies in the National Health Service structure and are taking very great responsibility—quite as great within their own fields as any in local authorities—and we therefore wish to press our belief that there should be the possibility included in the Bill of paying attendance allowance and not only, as we understand it, compensation for loss of remunerative time. I beg to move.
5.40 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: The Government have given very careful attention to this important point about allowances and the present system of reimbursing members in the National Health Service, but feel that they cannot accept this Amendment. It is the intention of the Government to continue the present practice, which is that members attending Area and Regional Boards should receive travelling expenses, subsistence allowances and the financial and other loss allowances. The precedent was set over the National Health Service (Scotland) Act when it went through your Lordships' House last year, and the Government consider that this principle is right. A special exception has been made in the Local Government Act to pay allowances to the newly elected members of the new local authorities, and their position will be much more nearly comparable to that of Members of Parliament. The new allowances, as Lady White has said, will not apply to non-elected members of local authorities. They do not apply now to non-elected members of Development Boards and Councils, and this distinction between elected members of local authorities and non-elected members of Boards has been drawn.
The noble Baroness raised a number of quite specific points about women members, and as I felt that this matter might well arise on this Amendment, I re-read what was said at the time of the Scottish Bill. I think it is fair to say that the question of financial loss allowances for women members, which is a very real point, has been quite generously drawn, and the Department have agreed that the allowances should be paid where, for example, expenditure has been incurred on, say, baby-sitters while a woman is at a meeting; in special circumstances for home helps. In this way some of the very basic and necessary expenses that

69
many women members will have to meet when attending these area board meetings are covered. It is for these reasons that the Government feel unable to accept this Amendment.
BARONESS WHITE: I can only say that that is a very unsatisfactory and—particularly coming from the noble Baroness —extremely disappointing reply. On the Scottish Health Bill the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, was the spokesman for the Government, and we now have the noble Baroness, Lady Young. If I may say so, I think both are traitors to their sex, because they both know perfectly well that the kind of allowances which are given do not fully cover the situation. In any case I have always thought that service on the Health Authorities as they now exist is grossly unfair. We have the Regional Hospital Boards, for example; some of the chairmen put in a tremendous amount of work and receive no remuneration at all. It is true that in this Bill some remuneration is now to be offered to chairmen. But one can be a part-time member of a new town corporation, for example, and one can be a member of an advisory body on gas, electricity, or what-have-you, and it is taken for granted that some payment will be made, because it is said: "We could not get businessmen unless we did". But when it comes to something really important, like the Health Service, the labourer is not considered worthy of his hire.
Coupled with this Amendment is my feeling that the social services have been exploited in this way by comparison with any public service which is even remotely connected with industry and matters of that kind. I watched this very particularly when I was the Minister responsible for some of the health administration in Wales, and I felt that it was grossly unfair that someone who served part-time on our mini new town corporation, for example, had remuneration. There are various other people I could mention. For example, the Chairman of the Welsh Committee of the Countryside Commission gets paid. But when it comes to somebody who is going to serve on a Health Authority compensation for loss of remunerative time is all that is considered necessary for service of this kind.
70
This is an important principle. As I say, the Goverment took a great step forward so far as the local authority members were concerned in their own Local Government Act. Some of us were extremely dissatisfied with the response we had on the Scottish Health Service Bill. We are equally dissatisfied with the response we have had so far from the Government on this point, and I would ask my noble friends at least—and I would hope also for some sympathy and support from Members on the other side of the House and on the Cross Benches—to support us. What is good enough for the new local authorities should be good enough also for the new health authorities.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: I feel that I must support the noble Baroness on the Opposition Bench. I do not think that this matter has been sufficiently thought out from the male point of view so far as women members are concerned. There is a very real case here for re-considering the matter.
LORD AUCKLAND: May I also say a word supporting the opposite sex. It seems to me essential that we should get women of high calibre on these committees. After all, women are very closely involved with the National Health Service. In any case, the Schedule is rather vaguely drafted and I was not quite certain from my noble friend's reply who would get the allowance for baby-sitters, and so on, and who would not. It seems that the whole matter is rather vague and I am quite sure that the Treasury could afford to pay proper compensation for this very vital work.
LADY RUTHVEN or FREELAND: I should also like to support this Amendment because having served on a Regional Board and on a number of hospital management committees I have seen the amount of time given up by people, particularly, as my noble friend Lord Auckland said, the women who serve on those committees. It is true that they were coming from their homes and therefore had no claims to make, except for travelling, but it is most unfair that other organisations set up by the Government should be allowed to get this attendance allowance yet not the Health Service. I entirely support the Amendment.
LORD ABERDARE: Before the noble Baroness decides what to do on this Amendment, may I point out one or two difficulties that have not emerged in the debate. There would be repercussions. If you pay an attendance allowance to members of these authorities, there may well be voluntary members of other authorities who equally feel that they should also be entitled to the same treatment. There is also a very real tax difficulty. I daresay the noble Baroness is aware of this. It is frightfully complicated, as are all income tax matters, but if an attendance allowance is paid to a member of a Health Authority that would mean that his or her travelling expenses were taxable, whereas at the moment he or she gets his or her travelling expenses free of tax. It is not as easy as it appears on paper.
BARONESS WHITE: May I interrupt the noble Lord to ask what happens to the expenses of the local authority members?
LORD ABERDARE: The local authority members are looked on differently because they are said to have not only a place of work in the local council offices, but also a constituency place of
work where they live. Therefore their travelling expenses are free of tax for that reason, just as an M.P.'s are. This is a real difficulty. We have studied this matter extremely carefully because all of us are very conscious of the amount of work put in by our members of Health Authorities. It is a very tricky subject. If the noble Baroness likes, we could look at it again, particularly from the point of view of the woman member but for the reasons I have tried to explain it is not easy. Also, we should be out of line with Scotland.
BARONESS WHITE: Scotland could catch up with us, but that does not worry me! I recognise that there may be some difficulties about tax, but I do not believe that they could not be overcome somehow. I should like to get on the record that in principle we believe that something of this sort should be done, and therefore, on this occasion—we have been very cooperative so far—I must ask for an expression of opinion.
5.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 60) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 61.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Hayter, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Amulree, L.

Henderson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Archibald, L.

Hereford, L. Bp.

Serota, B.

Ardwick, L.

Hoy, L.

Shackleton, L.

Arwyn, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Shinwell, L.

Auckland, L.

Hylton, L.

Slater, L.

Avebury, L.

Inglewood, L.

Somers, L.

Bacon, B.

Jacques, L.

Stocks, B.

Beswick, L.

Janner, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Blyton, L.

Kennet, L.

Strang, L.

Brock, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strange, L.

Brockway, L.

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

Summerskill, B.

Champion, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Chorley, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Vivian, L.

Clancarty, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Walston, L.

Davidson, V.

Maelor, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

White, B.

Diamond, L.

Milford, L.

Williamson, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Northchurch, B.

Willis, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Peddie, L.

Wise, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Platt, L.

Woolley, L.

Foot, L.

Popplewell, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Rhodes, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Gardiner, L.

Roberthall, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Berkeley, B.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Albemarle, E.

Bessborough, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Amory, V.

Bethell, L.

Coleraine, L.

Balerno, L.

Bradford, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Belstead, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Conesford, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Gowrie, E.

Monck, V.

Courtown, E.

Grenfell, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Hailes, L.

Pender, L.

Daventry, V.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Rankeillour, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Killearn, L.

Redesdale, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Rowallan, L.

Dudley, E.

Limerick, E.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Dundonald, E.

Lloyd, L.

Sandford, L.

Eccles, V.

Lothian, M.

Sudeley, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mansfield, E.

Swansea, L.

Fortescue, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Templemore, L.

Gage, V.

Merrivale, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Gainford, L.

Mersey, V.

Windlesham, L.

Gisborough, L.

Milverton, L.

Young. B.

Goschen, V.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.58 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 53, line 39, after first ("regulations") insert ("(after consultation with the staff representative body)").
The noble Lord said: Paragraph 10(1) of Part III of Schedule 1 enables a Regional Health Authority, an Area Health Authority and a special health Authority to employ officers "on such terms as it may determine in accordance with regulations". Amendment 61 would require those authorities to consult with the staff representative bodies. If one is asked what is a staff representative body, I have endeavoured to set that out in Amendment 124 to Clause 54, which we shall be coming to somewhat later. It surely is desirable that this consultation should take place before these authorities exercise their powers.
I think that at this stage I need not take very much of your Lordships' time, because it seems to me that this is a very sensible Amendment and one that ought to commend itself to the Government. I appreciate that these authorities are anxious to do what they can to meet the staff organisations and see that the role they play in the National Health Service is recognised in the Bill. I very much hope that the Minister, when he replies, will say that he is able to accept this Amendment, which does not seem to me fundamentally to alter anything in the Bill.
6.0 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: The principle behind this Amendment is one that we touched on before Christmas when we
74
were discussing Amendment No. 42. It was then that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, suggested, in effect, that the Statute should make it plain that the Government attach great importance to their relations with the staff interests, and recognise the necessity of consulting them fully. Since then, as I undertook to do, I have taken a second look at this matter, and I should like to make it clear once again that the principle of consulting staff interests on all appropriate matters is fully accepted by the Secretary of State. Certainly in the circumstances of Amendment No. 42, as in the circumstances of this Amendment, staff interests would most certainly have been consulted.
Although the inclusion of a statutory duty is not necessary from a practical point of view, we have concluded that in order to make our intentions perfectly clear we should accept the principle of this and various other Amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord. As I said when we were considering Amendment No. 42, we are not particularly happy about the phrase "staff representative body" and its definition in a later Amendment, and in the Government Amendment which I will put down at a later stage concerned with consultation we shall be proposing a rather different approach. This definition of the body to be consulted would allow the Secretary of State, if necessary, to sound out staff interests generally on the question of what would be the most appropriate channel of consultation in any particular case. This would accord with the practice that has been successfully followed in the past, and I hope therefore that the noble Lord will be prepared to accept my undertaking. In its present form the Amendment, as drafted, is ambiguous on the question of which

75
activity should be the subject of consultations, and I am afraid that I cannot accept it exactly as it stands. However, I give the noble Lord an assurance that I will introduce a Government Amendment at a later stage to cover this most important point.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am most grateful to the Minister. I moved the Amendment with brevity because we have had an earlier discussion, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has said. May I thank him for the full reply that he has given and say that I fully, and indeed gladly, accept the assurance that he has given. With your Lordships' permission, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.5 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 53, line 45, after ("experience") insert ("and in the case of an authority, being an Area Health Authority, to employ, after consultation with the relevant Local Education Authority, a medical practitioner, a dental practitioner and a person engaged in the nursing service, being in each case of senior status and having experience in the provision of school health services, who shall serve as whole or part-time officers of the authority and be available to advise the relevant Local Education Authority and to undertake such executive and administrative functions for the purposes of the school health services in the area of the authority as they may be reasonably called upon to undertake.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 62. This Amendment is of a somewhat different nature, and would write into the Bill firm guarantees that Area Health Authorities would not only employ particular categories of officer but would ensure consultation with local education authorities with a view to securing people of the calibre and quality likely to fit in with the service of education.
The noble Viscount, Lord Amory, touched on the extremely important consideration of the continuance of the school health services. I think that it may be helpful if we remind ourselves of the role that the medical service plays in the field of education. First of all I mention the assessment and management of handicapped children. This covers a very wide range, and it is extremely important that local education authorities,
76
in dealing with and providing for the needs of handicapped children, have at their disposal all the expert advice and assistance that they may require. There is the issue of subnormality. Assessing an educationally subnormal child is not a purely educational matter. The medical man needs to come in, and local education authorities are accustomed to having the advice of senior medical officers in this field, as they are in regard to maladjusted and handicapped children. The medical officer is of assistance not only in regard to the advice and help that he gives to the local education authority regarding the educational needs of the child or children, but is of tremendous service in helping to counsel parents. Without question, the doctor is an essential member of the staff of a local education authority. May I make the point that the early assessment of a child's needs is not the only matter of concern. Assessment is a continuing process, and the local education authority needs to have continuing consultation and to receive continuing advice from the medical officers who are needed if the work is to be properly undertaken.
I could go on instancing where the medical officer comes into the area of the education service, but I hope that I have said enough to persuade your Lordships that this really is a vital role and that adequate provision ought to be made for it in the Bill. The Amendment lays it down that these officers would be available not only to give advice and fulfil executive functions and administrative duties for the running of the school health services such as may be reasonable to expect, but that they would be there constantly, readily available as and when the need for consultation arose. It seems to me that the Amendment is in line with paragraph 60 of the White Paper, and I trust that the Minister will be able to indicate in his reply that the Government take a sympathetic view with regard to it. The Amendment may not be too well drafted, but that is a difficulty that the Government, if they accept the principle, could quite easily put right. I beg to move.
LORD BELSTEAD: May I say, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, that it was only to be expected that noble Lords opposite would put down an Amendment to this effect.

77
In fact, I welcome it, because it presents an opportunity for the noble Lord to point out to the Committee the importance of the medical advice and the medical administration which local education authorities will continue to expect to receive, so that the good work of the school health service shall in essence continue. Paragraph 21 of the Report of the Working Party on Collaboration stated that it did not envisage an exact replica of the current usual pattern, whereby the principal school medical officer is also the M.O.H. with a full-time deputy or senior medical colleague responsible for school health. That Working Party recommended that a senior doctor with appropriate experience and training should be appointed, with advisory and executive responsibility for the transferred school health service.
The Report went on to describe the Working Party's expectations of the coordinating role of an area chief dental officer and an area chief nursing officer, but I think it is fair to say that that Working Party on Collaboration did not recommend that such arrangements ought to be put into legislation, and, clearly, sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 provide ample scope for administrative guidance to be given by regulations. There is a genuine difficulty over this Amendment. If the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, sought to press it, I should have to point out that there are other fields—for instance, social services and environmental health—where the Working Party on Collaboration regarded it of the utmost importance that there should also be arrangements for seeing that the health skills and staffs of the Area Health Authority were available to the local authority, and I understand that these recommendations are still the subject of consultations.
May I outline the intentions of the Government which lie behind sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph 10 of Schedule 1? Under sub-paragraph (1)(b) of paragraph 10, an Area Health Authority could by regulation be required to appoint officers having prescribed qualifications or experience to perform prescribed functions. Obviously, these functions could be to advise a local education authority and to undertake other specified tasks on its behalf. Incidentally, I can give a specific assurance to the
78
noble Lord that it most certainly is intended either to make new regulations or to carry over the existing regulations, which prescribe qualifications for those medical practitioners who examine children for the purpose of deciding whether special education is required. Then, in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 10 of Schedule 1, professional officers now employed by local education authorities for the purpose of the school health service will be transferred and available to the Area Health Authorities. As stated in another place on July 13 by the Secretaries of State for Social Services and for Education and Science, staff in the school health service will continue with their present work after reorganisation, and it is intended that each Area Health Authority will have on its staff a senior doctor and a senior dentist advising the local education authority as the principal school medical and dental officers do now, and similar arrangements will be made for nursing staff.
The Government recognise, as does the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, the importance of the school health service and the essential need to ensure its continuity and further development. They also recognise the important part to be played by professional officers, doctors, dentists and nurses experienced in that service. I assure the Committee that guidance on the professional staff arrangements for child health and the school health service will cover this. Consideration will be given to the need for prescribing relevant qualifications and experience. Although I am resisting the noble Lord's Amendment, I hope that what I have said gives him the assurance which he is seeking.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for his lengthy reply to the case which I put very briefly and, perhaps, inadequately. I hope he will not be too surprised if I tell him that he is encouraging me to think of putting down Amendments about social services generally, since he has drawn attention to the fact that they might as easily have been tabled as this Amendment about the school health service. However, that is something for further thought. I am indeed grateful for what the noble Lord has said about this

79
Amendment, but both he and the Committee will appreciate that since he has spoken at some length there is need to study very carefully what he has said. I have no wish to press this Amendment for the sake of having a Division. I am much more concerned with getting recognition of the need at all times to have full-time specialists in all the fields where a doctor is essential, if the service is to provide for the needs of all children, particularly those who suffer from any form of handicap. Again may I say that I appreciate what the noble Lord has said and, while reserving the right to come back at Report stage if it is thought that the position is not satisfactory, I do not wish to press this Amendment. But I hope the Committee will feel that, having got the noble Lord's statement on the record, at least some service has been rendered by the discussion on this Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.17 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 54, line 29, at end insert—
("(6) No officer shall be transferred and no employee placed at the disposal of another authority, under or by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this section, except with his consent")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is concerned with paragraph 10(2) in Part III of Schedule 1, which would permit the making of regulations for the transfer of officers from one authority to another, and for the secondment of officers. It is intended to ensure that no such arrangements would be implemented without the consent of the officer concerned. When the Local Government Bill was going through this House, we spent some time discussing Amendments which were somewhat similar to this one in their intention. I was present yesterday at a meeting where there were a number of representatives of people in the service of local government. Many of them are at present working in health departments, and I wish I could convey to the Committee the anxiety which some of them feel. It may well be said, again and again, that nothing unreasonable will
80
be done; but these men and women are in a situation which they themselves have not brought about, and they feel threatened in a way which they never anticipated. I should like to feel that we shall at least get something on the record indicating that they will receive a degree of consideration sufficient to allay their anxieties. That my Amendment would do. I doubt whether it will be acceptable to the Government, but I hope that when he replies the Minister will go as far as he possibly can to accept the principle.
May I say that I have been talking to some representatives of a very small group in the Health Service who are worried about being transferred from the hospital service to local government. They drew attention to subsection (5) of Clause 18 of the Bill, and it is interesting to see how that reads. If the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, is going to tell me that it applies equally in reverse, again I think it will be useful to have this statement. The subsection reads:
"A person transferred by virtue of the preceding subsection to the employment of such a body as is mentioned in that subsection shall not be required in the course of that employment to perform duties otherwise than at or in connection with a hospital unless he has consented to perform such duties."
It would give a great deal of satisfaction to many people who have anxieties if that could be put in reverse. Personally, I do not see how it can be put in quite that form in reverse, but I may be wrong about that. However, may I say that the people who have drawn my attention to this safeguard, as it were, are not satisfied that it goes as far as they would like it to go because they do not want to be transferred. But in regard to people who are being transferred from local government to the hospital service, I feel that at the moment nothing has been said that indicates that they will have quite the degree of consideration that Clause 18(5) seems to indicate will be meted out to those who are being transferred the other way. If I am wrong, I shall be very pleased indeed; I have no wish to be proved right on this one. But I hope that if in reply the Minister says that he cannot accept the Amendment, he will, as I say, be able to go sufficiently far to allay some of the anxieties of those who undoubtedly are extremely disquieted at the present time. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: Again, I can well appreciate the noble Lord's interest in staff matters, and I share them with him. The Secretary of State would certainly wish to consult fully with staff and other interests about the arrangements for staff transfers or secondments envisaged in this subsection, and procedures would be fully discussed with staff interests. But I have to say that the service to the patient is paramount, and one cannot exclude the possibility of occasional situations in which there might be difficulty in securing the full consent of an officer whose services in a particular post were of importance to the public interest. The arrangements for consultation have, however, been looked at again since we discussed this matter in December last, and again I propose to put down an Amendment at Report stage to the effect that no regulations or directions would be made under this subsection without suitable prior consultation. In the case of arrangements concerning the movement of individual members of staff, we feel that we should follow the precedent, which the noble Lord himself has mentioned, of Section 113(1) of the Local Government Act, on which we both spoke not so very long ago. This does not go quite as far in obtaining individual consent as the noble Lord himself would wish, but I hope that what I have said and the Amendment which I propose to put down at the next stage of the Bill will, as he asks, allay most of the anxiety that is understandably felt by certain members of staff.
The noble Lord made reference to subsection (5) of Clause 18. I am sure that we shall have a debate on that when we reach it. He is quite right, of course, in saying that this is a very special case; and it refers to the transfer to local authorities exercising functions under the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 of staff of prescribed descriptions employed wholly or mainly for the purposes and functions which stand referred to social services committees by Section 2 of that Act. The noble Lord will appreciate that this is a very special case. It is one with which we are all deeply concerned, and it is one where we hope that at least this concession will help on this difficult problem that we have to resolve. But I do not think this special pleading should determine the general rule. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will
82
feel that I have gone some way to meet him, and will see his way to withdrawing the Amendment.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. I think he made a very fair point with regard to the use that I made of subsection (5) of Clause 18. But I used it to try to lend emphasis to the case I was endeavouring to make. I am grateful to him for what he has had to say, and perhaps I may say that I have the feeling that it will give satisfaction to those who speak for the people who are most concerned in the subject matter of this clause and of this Amendment. What he said will be studied with interest. I am pleased to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ABERDARE: Amendment No. 64 is a small drafting Amendment. The word "so" in this context can be construed only as referring to the opening words of paragraph 11, which refer to regulations, and it is not desired that the bodies to be approved should have to be specified in these regulations. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 45, leave out ("so").—(Lord Aberdare.)
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
6.28 p.m.
Clause 8 [Local advisory committees]:
LORD BROCK LORD BROCK moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 7, line 28, leave out ("a Regional Health Authority") and insert ("the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with local advisory committees, and I should like the Committee to take with it the consequential Amendments, Nos. 67 to 70 and No. 72. Section 32 of the 1946 Act says:
"Where the Minister is satisfied…"
The recognition is the function of the Minister. Section 16 of the Scottish Act says:
"…the Secretary of State is satisfied…",
and the recognition of local consultative committees lies with the Secretary of

83
State. The English Act should say the same. Yet again we have this unexplained differentiation, to which I referred on an earlier occasion in this Committee, between England and Scotland. If the medical representation on the new Health Authorities is to be less than hitherto, as appears probable, it becomes all the more important to have a strong medical element on the advisory committees. A Regional Health Authority or Area Health Authority might well be influenced by some non-medical factor; for example, a purely political factor. It is suggested that the Secretary of State should be the one in whom the ultimate authority rests, and not the Regional Health Authorities or Area Health Authorities. Unless there is some satisfactory explanation for the differentiation between the mode of recognition in England and Scotland, the same mechanism should be followed and the ultimate authority should rest with the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: We have great sympathy with the noble Lord's intentions in his Amendment, but we feel that to accept it as it is at the moment would result in a very unnecessary centralisation of work which would lay an impossible task on the Secretary of State. Moreover, if the advisory machinery is to be fully effective there must be confidence between the Authority and its committees. It would provide a poor basis for such mutual trust if the Authorities, which have such wide responsibilities, cannot be entrusted with the functions under this clause. Certainly, the local bodies (the Regional Health Authorities and the Area Health Authorities) are in a much better position to assess whether a committee is fully representative than is the central Department. However, if I correctly understand the noble Lord's intentions, he wishes to give the Secretary of State ultimate control of recognition arrangements. We think that there are merits in this proposal.
As subsections (1) to (4) of Clause 8 are drafted the Secretary of State is given no standing in the matter of dealing with this matter and could not issue a directive to an authority about it; he could not intervene directly if there were disagreement between the Authority and the profession. We should expect that if the
84
proposal were accepted the Secretary of State would very rarely use the power of direction in this sort of way, and then only in the most exceptional circumstances. But it may be that such a power would, nevertheless, provide a safeguard for the profession against the possibility of arbitrary action by a Health Authority, however unlikely that may be. However, we cannot accept the Amendments as they stand; they have certain technical defects. If I may, I shall be pleased to consider this point further on the lines that I have indicated.
LORD BROCK: I thank the Minister for those encouraging words. Perhaps he will find a way of improving the situation. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.32 p.m.
LORD PLATT LORD PLATT moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 8, line 42, at end insert ("and it shall be the duty of the Authority to consult with the committee on such occasions and to such extent as may be prescribed;").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 71. It might be thought that the wording of the Amendment is unnecessary, but even if it is proved to be unnecessary it seems to me to be desirable, which is a slightly different thing. I propose it with a certain amount of assurance because these words are incorporated in the original Act, and the very wording used here occurs in Section 16(7) of the Scottish National Health Service Act. I beg to move.
BARONESS SEROTA: I should like to support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Platt. Earlier in our deliberations the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, was concerned lest we should be ahead of Scotland. In this particular situation Scotland is ahead of us. I hope that he will agree that we should put the matter right.
LORD ABERDARE: I never like to be behind Scotland and I certainly hope that I can assure the Committee that we will try to help with the point put by the noble Lord, Lord Platt. As I have said previously, we attach the greatest importance to strong professional advisory machinery. That is why Clause 8 provides for

85
the statutory recognition of advisory committees. It is essential that the Authority should develop a close working relationship with their advisory committees if this new machinery is to work properly. We do not think that such a relationship can or should be controlled by legislation. We think it would be wrong, therefore, to list in detail all the matters on which the advisory committees should be consulted. This would not only be wrong in principle but in practice it might lead to argument and delay where urgent action was required, and could lead to doubts about the vires of an Authority's action.
With regard to the imposition on the Authority of a general obligation to consult the advisory committees, these objections do not apply. I am aware that the medical profession attaches great importance to provisions of this kind and, as the noble Lord has said, there is a precedent in Section 16(7) of the Scottish Act. Therefore, if the noble Lord will withdraw this Amendment I will undertake to move an Amendment on Report stage which will put a general duty of consultation on the Authority.
LORD PLATT: I thank the Minister for his reply and I feel sure that those of my colleagues who have subscribed their names to the Amendment will allow me to propose that it now be withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: Perhaps at this moment, since we have made excellent progress, as we are about to embark on Clause 9 and as there is other business for the House to tackle, it might be convenient for me to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Aberdare.)
House resumed accordingly.

NATIONAL THEATRE AND MUSEUM OF LONDON BILL
Message from the Commons that, in pursuance of the Parliament Act 1911, they have directed that Section 1(1) of that Act shall not apply to the Bill.
SEA FISH INDUSTRY BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read 1ª, and to be printed.

NORTHERN IRELAND (BORDER POLL) ORDER 1972
6.38 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR NORTHERN IRELAND (LORD WINDLESHAM)THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR NORTHERN IRELAND (LORD WINDLESHAM) rose to move, That the Draft Northern Ireland (Border Poll) Order 1972, laid before the House on December 14 be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the draft Order standing in my name on the Order Paper. Noble Lords who took part in the debates before Christmas will remember that the Northern Ireland (Border Poll) Act 1972 provides for the holding of a poll to enable voters to say whether they want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom or whether they want it to be joined with the Republic of Ireland outside the United Kingdom. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland subsequently decided that the most appropriate day for the poll would be Thursday, March 8. This date was selected following the advice of the electoral advisory committee and the under-sheriffs, who in Northern Ireland act as returning officers in Westminster elections. March 8 was the earliest practicable date for the poll, bearing in mind the necessary administrative arrangements and particularly the introduction of the new electoral register which comes into force on February 16. The object of this Order is to seek the authority of Parliament for this date and also for the rules on which the poll will be conducted.
The Border Poll Act itself provided that the poll should be conducted so far as possible along the lines of an election to the Westminster Parliament, and the Order has therefore been designed to spell out in detail those parts of the existing electoral law which are to be applied or modified for the purpose of the poll. The

87
form of the questions to be put was also contained in the Border Poll Act and is not therefore part of this Order. I am afraid that this has resulted in a rather technical document, but the alternative would have been to have a self-contained Order, and we were advised that this would necessarily have been considerably greater in length and would not have served its purpose so well.
It is of course important that those who have the responsibility for organising the poll should be quite clear which parts of the existing law are to be applied and modified. Article 4 of the Order provides for the hours of polling to be from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. This compares with 7 a.m. until 10 p.m. for a General Election. The slight reduction in the number of hours for polling is adopted with the agreement of the returning officers; it will enable the majority of voters to vote in the hours of daylight (lighting-up time in Belfast is expected to be about 6.45 p.m. on polling day), and will also make it easier to recruit staff for the manning of the polling stations. We do not expect the reduction in hours to affect the number of votes cast, particularly in view of the provisions for postal voting which I shall explain in a moment.
My Lords, I have mentioned that the under-sheriffs for Northern Ireland are the returning officers for the poll. There are six in all, one for each county, and they are already engaged in preparatory work. Article 5 of the draft Order is precautionary. It provides for the Secretary of State to employ substitute returning officers if for example an existing holder of the post was prevented from acting by illness.
Postal voting is dealt with in Article 6. Any elector may apply to vote by post if he gives an address in the United Kingdom to which the ballot paper may be sent. This is an extension of the normal provisions for postal voting and could result in a considerable proportion of the electorate voting by post. The form of application is shown in Schedule 3 to the Order. These forms will be available shortly at local authority offices and post offices in Northern Ireland or by postal application to the appropriate registration office.
Article 7 enables the Secretary of State to appoint observers to attend at the issue of postal ballot papers at polling stations, at the opening and verification of returned ballot papers and at the central count. Since there are, of course, no candidates for the Border Poll there can be no counting agents, or polling agents, in the ordinary sense of the word, in this instance. However, it is the intention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to invite members elected for Northern Ireland constituencies at Westminster and in the Northern Ireland Parliament to nominate observers who will have broadly similar functions. In addition, my right honourable friend has accepted an offer from the Department of Political Science at the Queen's University, Belfast, to conduct a research project into the Border Poll. It is intended that members of the project team will visit polling stations all over Northern Ireland and also that they will be present at the central count. They will later report to my right honourable friend, and I am sure that this will be a most useful exercise.
Article 8 deals with the arrangement for the central count. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has appointed the Under-Sheriff for Belfast and Antrim to be in charge of the central count. As I explained in the debate on the Border Poll Bill, the result of the poll will be declared for Northern Ireland as a whole and not by constituencies or any other geographical area.
My Lords, the remainder of the Order is taken up with the Schedules setting out those provisions for electoral law which are applicable and any modification which needs to be made to them for the purposes of the Border Poll. That, I think, is all I need say by way of introduction to this Order. We have of course already debated the principle of it when the Bill was before your Lordships' House and before it became an Act of Parliament before Christmas. But if there are any points which have caught the eye of any noble Lord I will do my best to provide a fuller explanation. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Northern Ireland (Border Poll) Order 1972, laid before the House on 14th December, be approved.—(Lord Windlesham.)
6.46 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has said, we have already debated the principle of this poll and my views on the subject have not changed. I suspect that, privately, the views of the Government may not have changed; namely, that they are committed to the poll but that it will contribute nothing to peace in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the situation now is rather more worrying than it was a few months ago. The result of this exercise is foregone. It is inevitable that there will be a majority for remaining with the United Kingdom; and we know all this already. The Government have decided that the votes will be counted centrally. There will be no possibility of deriving useful information about the feeling in counties like Fermanagh and Tyrone where, just conceivably, the result might be not entirely as expected; where it is possible that, in a secret ballot, some of those who might otherwise be expected to be nationalists might vote to remain with the United Kingdom. But this we shall never know.
I was interested in what the noble Lord had to say about the research team from the Queen's University. I take it that the team will not themselves be in a position to investigate the make-up of the various voting boxes. The fact is that the Government have got a commitment and I appreciate that, in the light of some rather dangerous news in the last day or two, they feel that it would be more dangerous to cancel the poll than to go on with it. At this point I would not wish to say that the Government have any choice other than to go on with it, much as I regret that we are having it.
I should like to ask the noble Lord one or two questions. First, I take it that in this very sensitive situation he is still not in a position to announce when the White Paper with the proposals for Northern Ireland is to be published. Many of us have argued that it would be desirable that it should be published before the poll. I realise that this is an exceedingly difficult judgment and, as the noble Lord knows, he and the Secretary of State have my full sympathy. Therefore I am very reluctant to be critical. But I would say from outside Northern Ireland—and this is a fact we all have to remember: that we are outside that
90
troubled part of the world—my inclination would still be to publish the Government's proposals before the Border Poll.
The noble Lord explained, rather briefly (I have no complaint about that because he made clear that it was an introductory speech), the arrangements for the conduct of the poll. If I understood this correctly, it is being conducted under what I believe are sometimes called the Westminster Rules, based on the 1969 Act and the 1949 Act, but with such modifications as are considered to be appropriate in Northern Ireland, and particularly for what is a most unusual and indeed almost unprecedented event, namely, a plebiscite. This has led to certain consequences which have meant that the Government have rightly tried to take steps to replace some of the machinery of an ordinary election. As I understand it, the nominated observers will take the place of what we sometimes call polling agents.
Here I would ask the noble Lord, who is going to authorise these polling agents? The noble Lord may have had the good fortune or misfortune of having to fight an Election, but in any event he will know that those who are appointed as candidates by polling agents have to give certain undertakings, and certain people have to find some sort of identification. Will this be done by those who are entitled to appoint them? When one looks at the Order here, there seems to be quite a wide choice. I can imagine some rather dangerous situations in which people might well be appointed who could seek by their mere presence to influence the poll in a way that is unknown in this country: that could happen from either side. I appreciate the Government's dilemma in this matter. They want to be as fair as possible, but polling agents could be appointed who are members of the Provisional I.R.A. or the Ulster Volunteer Force, who could by their mere presence produce some intimidating factor. That is all part of the difficulties with which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is far more familiar than I am. Is there any restriction as to who can be a polling agent or an observer? Must he be a citizen of the United Kingdom? I do not think this is spelt out in the Order. But then the Order inevitably draws on a large number of other provisions in sections of the

91
relevant Acts, and it may be that this matter is taken care of there.
The noble Lord then went on to the subject of postal voting. Any noble Lord who knows the Irish situation (and nobody knows it better than my noble friend Lord Longford, who was here, but obviously dislikes the Order so much that he has disappeared) will know that voting in Ireland has an historical significance of a kind that is not known in this country. That is about as anodyne a phrase as I could find. It appears that there may be quite a lot of postal voting. Here again there is a real danger—and this is part of the security aspect—that some of these postal votes may be purloined or stolen, or the carrier may be menaced. I wonder whether the noble Lord can say anything on that subject. I appreciate that here again the Government have been seeking to pursue liberal policies and it is difficult to sustain them in the face of some of the threats of violence. I mention this only to show an awareness of the difficulties and the possibility that there may be some real arguments, and indeed scandal, in relation to postal voting.
I notice that those citizens of Northern Ireland whose address is now in the United Kingdom will be able to apply for a postal vote. This again suggests that the postal voting provisions are rather wide. They are not confined simply to people who are away on business, as I understand it, and if people have transferred in ordinary circumstances (my recollection is uncertain on this) their vote can be transferred. I should like to ask what is the position of people who are not living in Northern Ireland—people who are registered, but who are living, say, in the Republic. It may well be that the Government feel that it is not possible to recognise postal voters in the Republic; or maybe they can be provided for in other ways, or they can vote by proxy. That brings me to another point. I take it that there will be a number of former Servicemen who were in Northern Ireland at the date when the last registration took place in September and who may be eligible to vote. One would not wish to suggest that the results could be affected—I am sure they will not be—by United Kingdom troops Service votes, but I take it that they will be able to vote by proxy.
92
If I may make one other point, my Lords, I should like to know whether the Government can say anything about the procedures in relation both to canvassing and to the use of cars. In an ordinary Parliamentary Election it is the Parties and the candidates who organise their cars and their canvassing. I take it that cars can be used. In a Parliamentary Election there are certain restrictions. If I remember rightly, you cannot just hire cars—but it may be that I am out of date. I remember the time when one was severely rationed as to the number of cars one could use; but that has gone. Meanwhile, I take it that the political Parties will be able to canvass for votes, but whether they will have committee rooms and seek to bring the voters out as in a Parliamentary Election, I find it difficult to say.
I do not want to make difficulties for the Government, but this is the sort of question that people in Northern Ireland will be asking. It is not possible for the Government to spell out everything. They are undertaking a difficult operation in which, since they are committed, they deserve the support and help of us all; but I think there will need to be a great deal of explanation to the political Parties. We do not need to explain to political Parties in this country, or for that matter in Northern Ireland, how to run an Election, but when it comes to running this unfamiliar animal, a referendum, then some further guidance will be needed. It may well be that the sort of questions I have asked will be asked by others. I can only repeat the support and sympathy that I have for Her Majesty's Ministers who carry this responsibility, and for the troops, probably in large numbers, who will have the unenviable task of keeping the peace during this poll.
6.59 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I do not need to go back over what I said in the debates we had in December about the reasons why the Government believe it is absolutely essential to hold this Border Poll. It is a prerequisite to the possibility of obtaining a settlement. It is as important as that on the Protestant side. Those of your Lordships who read the leading article in The Times this morning will have seen this point clearly stated.

93
The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has asked me a number of detailed questions about the way in which the Border Poll will be organised. I did indeed fight a Westminster election some years ago. Both of us are probably a little rusty on our electoral law, but I can reply to some of the points which the noble Lord put. If I do not answer all his questions it is because I want to study them more carefully in Hansard, and I will write to him fully covering any points that I have not been able to deal with. The noble Lord asked whether the Queen's University research team would be able to analyse the votes by the areas in which they were cast. The answer is that they will not have access to votes for that purpose. I might add, in parenthesis, that I personally believe that this will be a very useful piece of political research by a team under the leadership of Professor Lawrence, of Queen's University, Belfast. Professor Lawrence has been good enough to act as chairman of the Electoral Advisory Committee which was set up to advise the Secretary of State on the Border Poll and also on other electoral matters in Northern Ireland. There is a shortage of hard facts, although many assertions are made, about how elections have been conducted in the past in Northern Ireland. What we need is more information, and I am sure we shall be able to obtain considerable benefit from the findings of the University research team when they have completed their work.
The noble Lord also asked whether persons who are on the new register—that is the one coming into effect in February—hut who at the date of the poll are living in the Republic would be able to vote. In those circumstances they would be entitled to vote by proxy, since they are outside the United Kingdom and cannot vote by post. The postal voting facilities are very much wider than is normally the case in United Kingdom Parliamentary elections. As the noble Lord will remember, there are a small number of defined categories in the Representation of the People Acts which give entitlement to a postal vote. But they are narrowly defined: physical incapacity; unavailability because of the nature of service or occupation; the necessity of making a journey by air or sea; or religious observance. What
94
we are saying is that anyone who is on the register, and who can satisfy the returning officer that he is the person he says he is, and has an address in the United Kingdom is entitled to a postal vote. Therefore if people are apprehensive about voting, for whatever reason—perhaps intimidation—or are not happy about going to a particular polling station, they can get a postal vote.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, this is going to take a great deal of organising. As the noble Lord will recall, postal voting tends to be organised by the political Parties. The Conservative Party in this connection, with their greater resources, usually get their postal votes all lined up before the election and the Labour Party hurry to get theirs lined up in the course of the election. Who is going to tell people about this? I do not believe that without the political Party system and in the absence of candidates with a deep vested interest things Will happen in the same way in this instance. Will steps be taken to inform every voter how this is to be done? I rather gathered that the noble Lord was saying something like that.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I do not have the details before me, but we are absolutely at one with the noble Lord in agreeing on the need for the maximum publicity, by way of explanation and guidance, to be given to voters as to their rights under this Order. The Order has first to be approved by Parliament, but we will certainly endeavour to make sure that the facilities for postal voting are widely known.
The noble Lord also asked who would authorise the polling agents. The agents will be appointed by the Secretary of State and will be sworn to secrecy by the returning officer in the normal way. The Secretary of State will rely on the sense of responsibility of those nominating them—that is, the Members of Parliament at Westminster and Stormont. I understand that the Secretary of State wrote to the noble Lord yesterday to give him details of the scheme my right honourable friend has decided upon. It is clearly desirable to try to find some way of enabling the political Parties to provide observers; but since this is the first time there has been a plebiscite of this kind in Northern Ireland, or indeed in

95
the United Kingdom, we have to devise appropriate measures to meet the circumstances. Members of Parliament who represent Northern Ireland constituencies at Westminster, or who were Members of the prorogued Parliament of Northern Ireland at Stormont, cover a very wide range of political Parties. What will probably happen is that the political Parties will provide lists of observers in the normal way and a Member of Parliament will then ask for them to be appointed as observers. There should be a reasonably wide range of observers from Parties who are willing to support the poll. We hope that as many political Parties as possible will encourage their adherents to vote in this particular Border Poll, although it is not of course a matter for the political Parties as such.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I say that I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for having written to me. I did not refer to this point because the noble Lord more or less covered it in his opening speech. I am not in disagreement. Quite clearly, the Government are doing the best they can and are using their brains on this. I would only say that if people are going to be sworn in, if I remember rightly, this can be done by any justice of the peace locally. He says that they have to be sworn in before him by the returning officer and I believe there is a senior returning officer and a limited number. I mention this point only because one of the fears one has is that there will be some awful trip-up of the "nuts and bolts" organisation, and I just offer that as a further complication.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing my attention to these points. I hope that I have answered most of them; hut. as I said earlier, I will check back in Hansard and write to the noble Lord later. It is useful to have this opportunity to debate the provisions contained in these regulations, because it is the first time a poll of this sort has been carried out, and we are determined that it shall be conducted in an orderly and efficient way. The security forces will make sure that polling can take place at the polling stations, and at the same time the Administration must ensure that it is all properly and efficiently organised.
96
I have already paid tribute to the assistance we have had from the Electoral Advisory Committee, the members of which are people experienced in this field, and this also applies to the returning officers who are the under-sheriffs. In this respect there is a slightly different procedure for Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. These officials have been working in a most admirable way, closely together with the Northern Ireland Ministry of Home Affairs. We are greatly in their debt. My colleague, Mr. Howell, will be introducing this same Order in another place later this evening. Since there are a number of Northern Ireland Westminster Members who will have a direct interest in appointing observers and so on, we shall have the benefit of their comments, which we can then pursue in discussion with the returning officers in the weeks remaining before the poll takes place.
[The Sitting was suspended at 7.9 p.m. and resumed at 7.40 p.m.]

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE REORGANISATION BILL [H.L.]
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Aberdare.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The VISCOUNT HOOD in the Chair.]
Clause 9 [Community Health Councils]:
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 10, line 5, leave out ("each Area Health Authority") and insert ("the Secretary of State").
The noble Baroness said: We now reach what will be generally agreed is one of the most important and controversial clauses in this Bill, because it deals with the community health councils, on which we had considerable discussion at Second Reading. It would be

97
fair to say that on that occasion the Government did not have a friend in the House. There are different views as to the ways in which these councils might be constituted, and different views as to the scope of their functions. What is plain to all the world except, so far as one can understand, those at Alexander Fleming House, is that if one is to have a body whose business it is to act as a watchdog on the operations of the Health Service, then it simply passes comprehension how one can suppose that it can be an effective watchdog if it is to be appointed by, staffed by, possibly housed by, and its expenses met by the body which it is its business to watch. This is the simple proposition. If the Government are in earnest in this matter, and are sincere in their protestations that they genuinely wish community interests in the operation of the Health Service to have an effective voice, it appears to noble Lords in every part of the Committee that the propositions in the Bill as it now stands simply could not bring about that desired state. Therefore some Amendments to this particular clause of the Bill are imperative if we are to have effective community participation in the Health Service.
In our earlier discussions to-night on the managerial structure of the Health Service the point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that the Government were standing by the philosophy of keeping management and representation separate, except for the anomaly (if one might suppose it to be that) at the Area Health Authority level of having at least four persons nominated by local authorities. The corollary to having the hierarchical and self-contained managerial structure which is proposed in the White Paper and in the Bill is that public participation, if it is not to be brought in at management level, must have an effective vehicle alongside or out-with the management structure. It is for that reason that we have literally pages of Amendments proposed to this clause. It is going too far to follow The Times, which made a very good start to the year on January 1 by referring to the proposed structure as a "bureaucratic monster". That was going a little too far. When the article, which no doubt the Minister has read, went on to say that arrangements for giving the public an effective voice were hopelessly inadequate
98
there we have reached common ground.
I find it difficult to suggest precisely how we can proceed with this debate because, in the nature of things, the three main groups of Amendments are scattered throughout the clause, yet they each have a consistency within themselves. The Amendment I am proposing, which is the opening Amendment, would substitute the Secretary of State as the appointing person for the Area Health Authority. A number of otherwise rather obscure Amendments which follow are consequential on this proposition, and try to express in the later parts of the clause what would have to be written in were one to accept this particular principle.
For the assistance of noble Lords, may I say that, in addition to the Amendment I am now moving, one might fairly suppose that Nos. 74 to 80 and Nos. 83 and 84 all hang together with this initial Amendment. Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 are separate, and so are Amendments Nos. 85, 86, 89 and 91 which stand in the names of my noble friends and myself. I will come back to the substance of the Amendments in a moment. The other two main groups of Amendments, as is plain from the Marshalled List, are those standing in the names of the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and my noble friend Lord Pargiter, on the one hand. Those Amendments, broadly speaking, represent the views of the local authority associations. The other Amendments, standing in the names of the noble Lady, Lady Ruthven of Freeland, and the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, which are not so numerous, deal with one or two very important matters. The Amendments standing in the names of my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy and others are separate issues of great importance to the functioning of the community health councils, but do not go into the root matter of who is to appoint, who is to pay for and who is to staff these bodies.
I should make it plain that we are not necessarily wedded to our own proposition that it should be the Secretary of State throughout. When we considered this matter and began our consultations, which we have been pursuing during the Recess, with various interested organisations outside the House, and particularly those concerned with consumer matters,

99
we reached the conclusion that everybody wanted to delete the Area Health Authority—there seems to be no dubiety at all about that in this context—as the body responsible for appointing the community health council. We did not find a single person who was in favour of the Area Health Authority appointing the community health council, financing it or staffing it. Those who have considered the matter were also generally of the opinion that, so far as practicable, such a body should be housed separately from the health authority that it was meant to be supervising—not in the managerial sense of supervising, but supervising in the interests of the general public.
There is far less agreement as to what should take its place. It is for that reason that I hope that in this long series of Amendments we may have a broad discussion of the possibilities which are open to us if we accept as a guiding principle that we do not want the Area Health Authority to be responsible, as is provided for in the Bill. I shall listen with particular interest to the propositions put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, and his friends because, while we may not go all the way with them, we feel there is substance in their proposals. The more one thinks about the functions of the community health councils the more one wants to be certain that they are linked with the community and are not just appendages of the Health Service.
Our own Amendments start, as I say, by substituting the Secretary of State as the appointing authority; and from that would flow that he should also meet the expenses of the body concerned. It is open to argument whether he would attempt to do this directly or by using the Regional Health Authorities, but certainly not the Area Health Authorities—that, I think, would be clear to most of us. The other Amendments which we have put down are in some respects germane to those of the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, in so far as we believe, as I said on Second Reading, that if the real purpose of the community health councils is to express public opinion, there is much to be said for trying to adjust their areas to coincide with those of local authority organisation under the revised scheme. I believe (and one of our Amendments is addressed to this point,
100
and I have found a good deal of support for this view in the discussions we have been having) that it should at least be possible under the Bill for there to be direct elections. I gathered from the comment that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, made on Second Reading that this procedure does not necessarily commend itself to the Government, but the way in which we have worded this Amendment would, as I say, make it possible rather than mandatory. I think one cannot solve some of these problems (this is the one point on which I agree with my noble friend Lord Brown) on this side of the Health Service without an element of direct responsibility to people, if one is going to presume to speak for the people. But all these matters will be taken in due course as we reach them. I thought it was proper to point out the elements in our policy.
I expect the Government to say that they are not necessarily much enamoured with the idea of making the Secretary of State responsible for the appointments to what we grant will be a pretty large number of community health councils—I think, in round figures, about 200 is the order of magnitude so far as England is concerned. One fully recognises that this might be a difficulty. One of the problems which have arisen in our discussions is that, whereas in the Bill it is proposed that half the membership of the community health councils shall be from the local authorities and the other half from the voluntary organisations, the voluntary organisations themselves are not certain just how they wish to proceed. I do not know whether there are other noble Lords in the Committee who can give some further guidance on this matter, but we have done what we could in the time available to consult with, for example, the National Council of Social Service, National Organisations Division, and other groups who have been meeting to discuss this particular matter. Their strong wish, as I understand it, is that the voluntary organisations should be able to select from among themselves their own representatives on the community health councils. But when one puts to them precisely by what mechanism they think this would be brought about, there is a good deal of uncertainty.
I have before me a letter from the National Council of Social Service, dated

101
January 12, in which they say that they would very much wish to be able to select the membership representing the voluntary organisations, but
"the mechanics of this would not be entirely straightforward and would take some while to work out".
They go on to suggest that for an initial period of three years the appointments should be in the hands of the Secretary of State and that that time should be used so that not later than the end of the first two of those three years schemes might be put forward for dealing with the representation of voluntary organisations on the community health councils. I have no doubt the Government will be making their own contacts with the people concerned and I shall he very much interested to know what is their view on this matter.
I think there has been a general feeling that a 50/50 division is not entirely satisfactory. Again, we feel that one-third/one-third/one-third is a better proportion: in other words, one-third from local authorities, one-third from voluntary organisations, and we should like the other third by direct election, but there are alternative Amendments in the names of other noble Lords which suggest that the community health councils might co-opt persons whom they thought desirable. There are other propositions that the Secretary of State might himself nominate names from persons who were not put forward by the voluntary organisations which have a direct concern with the Health Service but might nevertheless be persons active in other walks of life who would make valuable members of such bodies. We ought to discuss all these proposals because what we are trying to do in what is a departure front the existing pattern in the Health Service is to try to lay down guidelines, at least, as to the most effective way of giving real voice to public concern with the way in which the Health Service is run at the community level in the localities.
I repeat that if the Government are taking the attitude which in general they are taking on the managerial structure, then it really behoves them to make certain that this particular vehicle of expression for public interest and public concern shall be as effective as it possibly can be. No one looking at the Marshalled
102
List could suppose that it is satisfactory as it is now, because if it were we certainly should not have this very large number of Amendments. The earlier Amendments deal mainly with the composition, method of appointment and financing of the community health councils. There are one or two later Amendments, including that in the name of my noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, No. 90A, and several others, which are more concerned with functions. But if we could get the appointing authority and the method of financing these councils clear in our minds first, then we might be in a better position to consider functions. Accordingly I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of myself and my noble friend so that we may open the discussion on this extremely important clause.
LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND: The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and I did not move Amendment No. 58 as it appeared to be more appropriate for discussion when we came to Clause 9, where there are many Amendments on the setting up of community health councils, but I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that there is nothing in the Bill about the composition of the community health councils. If they are to play an important part in the new National Health Service in representing the consumer (in other words, the patient) this omission ought to be rectified. That was what I had intended to try to put over in moving our Amendment No. 58, and the Minister has kindly allowed me to intervene in order to say what I had then intended to say.
Our Amendment No. 58, accepted the suggestion in the White Paper that there should be not less than twenty or more than thirty persons on each council and that the councils should appoint their own chairmen, but we think that the local authorities can provide sufficient expertise with fewer than half the members. Therefore we propose that they should make do with one third of the members. We suggest that three members might be co-opted by the councils themselves or appointed without consultation by the Secretary of State, the remainder to be appointed by the Secretary of State and not by the area (as the White Paper says) after consultation

103
with bodies interested in health matters. In the last line of our Amendment we indicated the sort of people these nominees should be. We thought that really it was the voluntary organisations that had actually worked in the hospitals—speaking for my own association, the League of Hospital Friends, and there is also the W.R.V.S., the British Red Cross and the St. John Ambulance and many others who actually have worked in the Hospital Service with the patients and with the staff—who should make nominations. We are particularly anxious that those people should be considered, and we thought appointment should be by the Secretary of State.
We did not agree with some of the Amendments on how the people should be appointed. We think the councils ought to correspond with the health districts and not with the local authority districts, which are different. We do not see that the councils will be any more independent as the creatures of the local authorities than they would be if they were the creatures of the Area Authorities. We feel most strongly that the councils should be set up by the Secretary of State with only a few nominations from the local authorities. That is what I meant to say if we had moved Amendment No. 58 and I am glad to have had the opportunity of saying it now.
LORD AMULREE: I should like to say a few words in support of the noble Lady, Lady Ruthven of Freeland. I am sure it is important that the community councils should not be thought to be in any way dependent upon or really connected with the Area Health Authority, and I should like to support what the noble Lady has just said. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to give us not only a friendly answer but also an understandable answer that we shall be able to accept.
8.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I think we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Aberdare for welcoming the idea of a general discussion on the various proposals covered by the Amendments dealing with the community health councils. I am afraid he may feel a little impatient with us for continuing to plug this one
104
aspect of local democratic participation, but the reason we are doing it is really because of the structure of the Bill as it is at present drafted.
If I may, I should like to speak to the Amendment standing on the Marshalled List in the name of myself and my noble friend Lord Bridgeman and the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, No. 73A. There are many other consequential Amendments: Nos. 77A and 78A, 80A, 81A, 81B, 82A, 82B, 86A, 89A and 91A. In fact, the Amendments set down in our names seem to proliferate over the next two pages of the Marshalled List. It looks as though we have tabled every Amendment that has not already been pre-empted by the noble Baroness, Lady White, and my noble friend Lady Ruthven of Freeland. The aim of all these Amendments stems from the same basic cause. We think it important that the proposed community health councils should be given and should have, and should appear to have, a clearer independence than they have under the Bill at present. The proposals in these Amendments are supported, once again, by all four local government associations who have given great thought to this matter and I hope that this fact will lead my noble friend to think carefully about this matter.
We recognise that the intention behind the proposals for these community health councils is a worthy one: to afford an opportunity for advice from local users to the Area Authority, and criticism of them when the need is felt. But the proposal that half of the council members should be appointed by the Area Authorities, that the staff should be appointed and paid by the Authorities, and that accommodation should be provided by the Authorities—those same Authorities whose work will be subject to the council's criticism—surely cannot be right. The importance of these bodies being at arm's leneth from the organisation whose operations they are ready to scrutinise has been recognised in the Report of the Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries and also in the White Paper on the nationalised industries' relations with the public. It seems astonishing that this principle does not seem to be given effect to in this case. Local authority members, because of their own responsibilities for personal social

105
services, and because of the knowledge they have of local needs and wishes, will have a deep interest in the work of these councils. The principle behind all these Amendments is the same: to ensure that the council shall be seen to be as separate as possible from the Area Committees whose operations they are going to scrutinise.
The Amendment standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady White, provided, as I understand it, for the councils to be set up by the Secretary of State rather than by the Area Authorities, and for the expenses to be paid by the Secretary of State, the local government members being elected by local government. The Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Bridgeman, the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, and myself proposes that the members should be appointed by the local authorities and that the staff should be appointed and paid by local authorities. We believe, again, that the voluntary organisation members should not be chosen by the Area Authorities, but should be chosen in some other way by the voluntary bodies concerned. One thinks particularly of those voluntary organisations such as my noble friend Lady Ruthven, who knows so much about these things, has mentioned to us. I believe that these Amendments would render the councils entirely independent. It is this principle of independence that seems to be so essential, and I hope that if my noble friend does not like the precise proposals put forward in our Amendment he will agree that the principle of independence, and clear independence, seen to be there, requires to be enshrined and to be safeguarded in the Bill, and that he will make some proposals of his own to that effect.
Clause 9(4) says that membership shall be prescribed by regulations, whereas it seems to us that the Bill should itself provide specifically that district councils should appoint members, as is provided in the case of Area Authorities. It also seems to us that it should be laid down that every district in an area that is covered should have a representative. While we agree that the majority of the members should certainly be appointed by districts, we see possible advantage in one or two of them perhaps being members of county councils; apart from the value to the community council, it
106
would be of value to a county council to have one or two of its members able to speak from first-hand knowledge of the working of the Health Service.
As regards districts, it seems to us that there is probably some difficulty in ensuring that these districts for this purpose should coincide with the local government districts; so that we feel that the Health Service districts might be the best guiding factory, provided that every local government district has a member on the council which covers any part of its area. Here we are a little out of agreement with the Amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady White.
We know from our experience of other legislation that these sort of consultative bodies and bodies for channelling complaints can fail and be ineffective. They represent in a way a second best alternative to the principle of direct participation in executive decision-making. But if the Government are as determined as they seem to be to keep to a minimum direct participation by elected local government members on executive bodies, we really must press them to adopt some means of stressing the absolute independence of these community councils. I suggest to my noble friend that any reluctance to do so must be interpreted as confirming still further the fears that some of us mentioned at an earlier stage in the discussion to-day—the fairly widely held fears that the proposed set-up will be hierarchical, bureaucratic and insulated against the democratic expression of local opinion and need. The appointment of members and staff by anyone else seems to be preferable to their appointment by Area Authorities.
I trust that my noble friend will look favourably on the principle behind these Amendments and will accept, as I am sure he will, that we are not out to wreck the efficiency of this Service in any way but are anxious to make it still better. If he accepts that principle and looks favourably on it, I hope that he will choose some way of giving effect to the principle.
LORD ABERDARE: I do not wish in any way to curtail the debate or to prevent any noble Lord who wishes to speak from doing so. I feel from what I have heard so far that it might be useful if I

107
were to say something now about how our thoughts have moved since we discussed this matter on Second Reading. It seems that the Committee is being a little difficult over this.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD ABERDARE: Where it is appropriate that the Secretary of State should make the appointments to management bodies we are being told and advised that other arrangements are preferable. Now, when we are talking about appointments to community representative bodies, the noble Baroness's Amendment seems to indicate that the Secretary of State should make these appointments. I should have thought that that was the very last thing he should do. There would be grave difficulties if that were to happen. The noble Baroness made a most realistic and entirely helpful speech about this. We are all trying to tackle this problem in the same spirit, namely, that of finding independent community health councils. However, as she said, there will be some 200 of them, and it would be an impossible burden to lay even on Alexander Fleming House to have to appoint these 200 local representative bodies which must, one would have thought, be appointed with the utmost local considerations in mind.
BARONESS WHITE: I hope that the Minister will forgive my interrupting him at this point. He will appreciate that in the course of my remarks I tried to indicate that if our suggestions were accepted one-third would in fact be local authority nominees, and therefore the Secretary of State would not have to worry unduly about them; and we should like one-third to be directly elected, so that he would not have to worry about them either. The voluntary bodies would like to choose their own but they are not sure how to do so. They regard the Secretary of State, as it were, as an interim person, one holding the line until they have worked out their own mechanism for doing this job, which means that in the end the Secretary of State would not have to worry about any of them. Nevertheless, we appreciated that something about this matter needed to be put in the Bill.
LORD ABERDARE: That would be on the assumption that we accepted all
108
the other proposals of the noble Baroness about direct elections. The important matter on which we are all agreed is that the community health councils should be representative of local opinion; and it has been our thought hitherto that it would be easiest and more effective if the appointments were actually made by the Area Health Authority—although we are open to suggestions about this—simply because within the Health Service, which is the body in which these community health councils will be engaged, this is the most local body we can find who will know the local conditions.
Having said that, may I put on record some of the thoughts we have had since Second Reading because it is clear to me, as it has been to others, that these proposals are not universally approved of. To begin with, we accept the proposal of my noble friend Lady Ruthven of Freeland, that provision about the composition of community health councils should be in the Bill rather than in regulations. That point was also made by my noble friend Lord Amory. We will put forward Amendments on Report in the light of the further discussions we may have to-day on what the composition should be.
Secondly—and I am including in this Amendment No. 58, which my noble friend Lady Ruthven of Freeland and my noble friend Lord Amory did not move—we would prefer to leave the number of members of the community health council flexible rather than lay down a figure in the Bill. This would allow for local circumstances.
So far as the composition is concerned, we intend that not less than one-half of the members should be appointed directly by the district councils or by the London borough councils. We also intend—this will meet the point made by my noble friend Lord Amory—that each district and each London borough council concerned should be represented on the community health council. This immediately means that the Area Health Authority cannot have a majority of members on the community health council—because of this 50 per cent. minimum representation by the district councils, and we chose the district councils because they were the nearest to the ground in relation to the local authority council.
LORD INGLEWOOD: Did I hear the Minister aright? Did he say that 50 per cent. of the members would be appointed or elected by district councils and not by Area Authorities?
LORD ABERDARE: That is correct. That is why I would ask the Committee to consider carefully whether they really mean that the Area Health Authority should not be responsible for making these appointments, because the appointments, as I shall go on to explain, will all be nominees of other bodies: 50 per cent. of them by the district councils.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: Did the noble Lord use the words "a minimum of 50 per cent. by local authorities"? Could he enlarge on that? Does he really mean that it will be a minimum, and that there is a possibility that there will be a majority who are not appointed by the Area Health Authority?
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, that is what I am saying. If the noble Lord will listen for a little longer, that is what I am trying to explain. I have already said that 50 per cent. will be appointed on the nomination of the district council. We go further and propose that of the remaining 50 per cent., two-thirds should be those nominated by the voluntary bodies. I appreciate, as does the noble Baroness, the difficulty of the voluntary bodies doing this themselves, so what we were suggesting was that the Area Health Authority, which knows its area and knows which voluntary bodies are most active in its area, should obtain from them the names of people they would like to see serving on the community health councils. A further two-thirds of the remainder would be those people who would be nominated by the local voluntary bodies. That means that one-third of the total would be drawn from people on the nomination of local voluntary bodies. Taking the whole of the community health council, that leaves a further one-sixth, and we were proposing that these again should be appointed by the Area Health Authority, which knows its locality, after consultation with other local bodies—for example, the churches, and perhaps former members of present hospital management committees. What we have in mind—and I am only covering for the moment the composition of these bodies—is that the Area Health
110
Authority should make the appointments, because it is the nearest to the ground that we can get on the health side and because these bodies will be operating directly to the Area Health Authority, but that the composition will be such that the Area Health Authority itself will really have very little say in who the members are because 50 per cent. will be local district members, two-thirds of the remaining 50 per cent. will be voluntary body nominees, that is one-third, and one-sixth will be other local people from various organisations with interests in the Health Service. I thought I ought to put that on record.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I realise that the noble Lord has a difficult task. This is a long job of work he has in hand. When I rose earlier he asked that I should be patient. I have listened very carefully to what he has had to say and as I understand it—and it is important that we should get the picture clearer—what he has said since my earlier intervention is that 50 per cent. are to be appointed by the Area Health Authority. That a proportion is to be nominated by voluntary bodies is neither here nor there at the moment; they will be appointed from a list of nominees put up by voluntary organisations. That is the only possible meaning to be given to what he has to say. So when he referred to a minimum of 50 per cent. representing local authorities and appointed by them, the word "minimum" has no significance whatsoever because it would appear to me to be a maximum. If I am incorrect I hope the noble Lord will put me right.
LORD ABERDARE: The point I am trying to get over is that the Area Health Authority itself will not be putting on its nominees. It will have 50 per cent. of the names from people put on from the local district. The difficulty is, who else is going to appoint from the voluntary organisations? I do not think it is right that the Secretary of State should make appointments at district level to a community health council. It makes nonsense of it. If your Lordships' Committee can find some other suitable way of finding one-third of community health councils from among the voluntary bodies, I shall be the first to listen to it. We do not look at the Area Health Authorities as quite such an ogre as some noble

111
Lords opposite do. We think that they will be perfectly responsible. They will go to the voluntary organisations such as those which the noble Lady, Lady Ruthven of Freeland, represents and others, and say, "There are so many places on our community health council, will you please suggest names for them?" And they will accept those names.
BARONESS SEROTA: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, whether the Government have had consultations with the voluntary organisations on these proposals? It seems to me, and particularly the bodies which the noble Lady, Lady Ruthven of Freeland, has mentioned, that they are quite adult, mature and grown-up. Some would almost say that they are too stable for this kind of activity—and I am sure the noble Lady, Lady Ruthven of Freeland, will understand me when I say that. Have there been consultations? If so, has it been put to the voluntary organisations that they themselves are mature and stable enough to elect their own representatives. I should not have thought it was beyond their ability to come together and elect as from among themselves.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I agree very much with what the noble Baroness has said. It occurs to me that there is more machinery available for this purpose than anybody has said so far in this debate. What is the National Council of Social Services for; or the community councils in every county? I know the disadvantage: that they are sponsored by the Department of the Environment. That, of course, would be a very serious disadvantage in the eyes of a civil servant. But having said that (and no doubt my noble friend will come back to that in a moment), while I am on my feet I wonder whether I can say more about what my noble friend has said in reply to the various suggestions. Nobody who has listened to this debate can have failed to notice that there have been three different methods of approach, three different ideas of what should be done to get this right. But, unless I am wrong, there is complete unanimity about what should not be done; that is, that the Area Health Authorities should have the ultimate control of the community councils and should have the servicing of them.
112
That is a point which I thought was very clearly made not only by other noble Lords and Ladies, but by my noble friend Lord Amory. That is a point which, so far, my noble friend Lord Aberdare has not met in any way, because my noble friends and I in putting down this group of Amendments felt very strongly that the community councils should be, by constitution, entirely independent of the health councils and that in order to achieve that they should not have the nomination nor should they be responsible for the servicing, because the damage that can be done to the effectiveness of a council by secretaries who send things out too late has to be seen to be believed. If my noble friend could include that aspect, rather more positively than he has done up to now, in the points which he is prepared to listen to and talk about between now and Report, I think that noble Lords who are associated with me in this group of Amendments would be very pleased. But unless we can feel that, I do not think we shall feel satisfied that our point has been mot; and we feel it as strongly as ever.
LORD INGLEWOOD: I do not want to take up much time but I was very pleased when I heard my noble friend say that a large proportion—I believe it was 50 per cent.—of the members were to be nominated by members of local councils. May I follow that up by asking him whether the provision to be made in regulations will say that they "shall be" so appointed or that they "may be" so appointed, because that is important. We are here dealing only with the first stage. Its actual implementation comes when the regulations are laid before Parliament.
My second point, which I think is worth considering between now and Report stage, is that when it comes to overcoming some of the difficulties of finding appropriate members from the hierarchy of the voluntary societies my noble friend should consider the social services committees of the county councils or their successors, who are in fact in touch with all these bodies and have very close contact with the work which we all have in mind. I do not recall having heard him refer to the social services committees of the county councils during the whole course of this debate. As they

113
are, as it were, in the middle of the road, their help may very well be valuable to him when he is thinking how he can modify these proposals before Report stage.
LORD HYLTON: May I support my noble friend who has just spoken? During Second Reading debate the noble Lord, with his great experience of the borderland between health and welfare, explored this subject at some length very fruitfully, and I feel it is really most important that the county councils, as the social service and welfare authorities, should be represented on the community health councils.
BARONESS HYLTON-FOSTER: There seems to be some confusion about the voluntary organisations. I would suggest that the people who really know what the voluntary organisations do in the appropriate locality are, first of all, the director of social services, for the community work, and the organisers of volunteers in hospitals. As obviously from district to district—and I mean from district to district—the work of the various voluntary organisations will vary, they are the people who would be most capable, in my view, of recommending to whoever they are to recommend to which voluntary organisations could give the best service on the community councils.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: The noble Viscount, Lord Amory, said that these councils should be seen to have greater independence. I think that what is wanted is that they should be seen to have complete independence of the A.H.A.s and the R.H.A.s That is the point that needs putting across and that the Government needs to grasp. A situation should at no point be seen to exist where the A.H.A.s could be suspected of choosing who served. The councils ought to be independent in the manner in which they are appointed. They ought to be quite independent in regard to finance and the appointment of officers serving them. If community health councils are not going to be so independent then they might as well be forgotten, because the public will have no confidence in them. If the Government would give a little of their time to thinking out how these councils might be appointed, taking into account the views that have been
114
expressed here this evening, I think they would be spending their time more wisely and to better purpose than in thinking out why they cannot meet the points of view expressed here to-night.
The pity of it is that those who have put Amendments down on this matter have not had a meeting and consultation before this debate took place, because there is an underlying unity of purpose so far as the movers of the various Amendments are concerned. I should have thought that the Government would appreciate that they are coming up with an answer that is completely unacceptable to this Committee and I believe unacceptable to public opinion—certainly unacceptable to the local authority associations. I should have thought that they would have welcomed the opportunity to call together those who have concerned themselves with these Amendments this evening, so that the way forward might be found to ensure that these community health councils were in fact, and were seen to be, completely independent. If they are not so independent, then the Government are wasting everybody's time in proceeding with their appointment.
LORD GRENFELL: I have had some experience of this subject and I am deeply worried about one situation. I think one can put these community health councils in the category of a hospital management committee without teeth; in other words, they have no monetary teeth; they have to get through everything by the charm of their hearts. They have the right of entry, and the right of entry can be a very dangerous thing. You call it a right of entry, but that immediately labels you as a snooper. We want to avoid that to the best of our ability They must work as a team. If they are nominated by the local authority or by the Secretary of State, they then get further and further away from the hospital, or whatever it is; they are more aloof, and they have to find their way in to the chairman of the Area Authority. Having regard to what my noble friend has said, that 50 per cent, of them will come from the local authorities, would it not be wise for at least the chairman or some of the members to be nominated by the Area Authority, who will know them and who will know the district? I cannot help feeling that the more remote we make these

115
people the more difficult their job is going to be. These are not people who can go in and say, "You will do this and do that". They can only come in and say, "Please, we have noticed so-and-so", and the Area Authority under the Bill must take notice of what they say. But please do not let us make them too remote. Otherwise, I fear they will be out on an island of their own and find it very difficult to get in with the team.
LORD HAYTER: I was taken to task at Second Reading for doubts I expressed about the whole of the administration of this new Bill. I think it is true to say that some of those doubts have been expressed by others, particularly in relation to these community health councils. Before we come to a decision, if indeed we can do so at this stage, it is good to ask ourselves what we expect the community health councils to be doing. Some light is shed on this in the White Paper. It is said:
"The council's basic job will be to represent to the A.H.A. the interests of the public…".
One asks how are they going to do that.
"Councils will have the right to visit hospitals…and will have access to the area authority and…its senior officers."
How are they going to do that—a body of 20 or 25 people? Conversely the Area Health Authority is expected to consult the community health councils on plans and variations of plans, new services, the closure of hospitals and the closure of departments. How is an Area Health Authority going to do that in relation to this community health council? There is a delightful phrase: that they are going to meet once a year, all together. I like that. The White Paper goes on to say that this is in addition to the regular less formal meetings between the Area Health Authority and its officers on the one side and the community health councils on the other. How is that going to be organised?
The point I should like to make is that we must devise, in addition to the constitution of the councils, a method of communication between the Hospital Service and the community health council. For my own part I should feel much happier if I knew that one member of the community health council—it may well
116
be the chairman—would sit on that Area Health Authority. At least he would be privy to some of their thoughts, and they would know what the community health councils thought about the Area Health Authority's affairs.
My second point is one that has been running right through this debate: that the community health council must not in any circumstances be appointed by the Area Health Authority. I have written down a note, "If anything, rather the other way round". My business instincts prompt me to think that the shareholders should elect the directors rather than the directors elect the shareholders. My last point on the finance side is that, as I understand the Department's views at this moment, there seems to be an impression that, in addition to the finance which naturally has to be provided to these community health councils, the best person to be the staff representative would be somebody from the Department itself or from the National Health Service. This strikes me as being absolute nonsense. Again, when it comes to the question of the offices which these community health councils are to occupy there seems to be a suggestion that these would be in the Area Health Authority's offices. This, too, would be nonsense. For anybody who had a grouse or a grumble to complain to the community health council about some element of the hospital service and then to find that the very telephone number he rings up is that of the Area Health Authority would make him extremely doubtful of what was going on.
My last point—and I imagine that here I shall be on common ground with the Minister—is that I do not think that there should be any direct responsibility at the community health council for complaints. Once such a position got under way in a serious context we should feel that these community health councils were nothing but grousers. I feel that the community health councils are, in effect, a citizens' advice bureau, but to be a good and efficient citizens' advice bureau they must know what is going on in the hospital world. The difficulty at this moment in this Committee stage is that it is very easy to turn to each of the individual thoughts that have been expressed here and say, "Since it is difficult to put into effect what noble Lords

117
are trying to achieve, why not leave it as it is in the Bill?" I am sure that that attitude is wrong. There has not so far been one person who has spoken in favour of the Area Health Authorities' making these appointments. We must find another way. We must ensure the independence of the community health councils; and, at any rate to start with, we must leave a flexible situation that can be improved on as time goes by. Personally, I shall not be content until I hear the Minister say that the Area Health Authorities have nothing whatever to do with the election of the members of the community health councils.
8.43 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: It has been interesting to hear your Lordships' views on these matters. I can certainly undertake to do what the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, seemed to think I had not already undertaken to do; that is to listen to this debate and see what comes out of it. I think I said that at the beginning, and I was rather surprised that he turned such a hostile face towards me and thumped the table.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I do not want the noble Lord to misunderstand me. I said that it was a pity that we had not had conversations before those Amendments were tabled. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, is one of the last people towards whom I should want to adopt a hostile attitude, because he is always as conciliatory as he possibly can be and unfailingly courteous. I should have thought that it was clear that I was suggesting that the Government might invite all those interested to come together to find a positive answer to a very difficult problem, and a problem to which the Government themselves do not have a satisfactory solution.
VISCOUNT AMORY: May I say that I was sitting immediately behind my noble friend and I was looking full at the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, and I could not see any hostility in his face at all. It looked to me extremely benign.
LORD ABERDARE: I am very glad to hear that. I am sorry if I imputed the wrong motives to the noble Lord, but he was rather banging the box and I thought that that was an indication of his wrath. I am certainly open to any
118
sort of persuasion. Although I have been plugging the Area Health Authority as the appointer, it has been only within the restriction that they would be appointing people nominated by others, so that they would not be able to appoint a majority of people on to the community health council. If there should be another suggestion that we can seriously look at and that makes sense, I am all for considering it.
I do not think it has emerged from this debate as to who is going to make these appointments. I can assure the Committee that we have been in touch with several voluntary bodies but have not yet come up with an answer. The Director of Social Services was mentioned: well, we could think about that. The noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, mentioned the organisers of volunteers in hospital, but I dare say that it would be thought to be too prejudicial if they were given a say in what people should be put on the community health council. If the local authority were to do it I think there is a danger that they would be dominating this body to too great an extent, just as the other objection is that the Area Health Authority would be dominating, although I do not think that that case has been fully made out. However, I shall certainly think very hard about this matter. We have our own stages to go through, and the Bill has still to go to another place, and I am sure that in the end we shall emerge with a solution that is sensible and that meets your Lordships' wishes.
VISCOUNT AMORY: Could my noble friend say a word about finance?
LORD ABERDARE: I was rather sticking to the composition at the moment. May I say one more word about the composition to my noble friend Lord Inglewood. The question of the appointment by the district council will now form part of the Bill. The constitution will come in a new clause in the Bill, so it will definitely be written into the Bill.
Finance, premises and staff are again matters which we wish to look at. I think we have not got those quite right at the moment. I certainly cannot accept that the Secretary of State should pay the expenses of the community health council. Again we are putting him into a

119
difficult position in dealing with local bodies, and we again would have thought on the lines of the Area Health Authority as being the local body best charged with this responsibility. We foresee a fruitful partnership between the community health council and the Area Health Authority.
When we come to the matters of staff and expenses in general, I am not sure that the Bill is flexible enough at present with staffing and premises, which all need consideration in the light of local circumstances in each district. I will undertake to ensure that the regulation-making power is in wide enough terms to enable a variety of arrangements to be made both on staffing and premises according to local wishes and circumstances. If an Amendment is needed to secure this flexibility I will move it at Report stage. So far as accommodation and staff go, I think that it would be a pity to forbid the use of Area Health Authority staff, because that would be very inflexible. The staffing and accommodation of individual councils needs consideration in the light of local circumstances in each district. Again I will undertake to ensure that the regulation-making power is in wide enough terms to enable a variety of arrangements to be made according to local wishes and circumstances. I feel that it is best if we think about what has been said in the course of the debate today, and see whether we can meet some of the points that have been made by your Lordships. Perhaps as we go through the Amendments there may be more detailed points that will arise on them.
BARONESS WHITE: All I can do is to extend my deepest sympathy to the noble Lord, because it is clear to all of us that he is batting on a fairly sticky wicket. He has made one or two promises, that there shall be more specific provision in the Bill and that we shall not leave everything to regulations: but, on the other hand, towards the end of his speech he said that matters should be left flexible so that a variety of arrangements could be made according to local wishes. And by "local wishes", I presume he means the wishes of the community health council.
LORD ABERDARE: Yes.
BARONESS WHITE: I am sorry to have to press the noble Lord on this point, but if we do not get at least some sort of declaration of principle at this stage, we shall be in difficulties when we reach Report stage because, while we are all entirely in sympathy with the view that we are not in a position to reach finality on details—I would not for one moment deny that— I feel that we ought to attempt to go through the intellectual exercise of getting our minds a litttle clearer on what seems to be the best possible way of dealing with at least the major points.
We have been having a little private consultation on our Bench while the debate has been proceeding, because we were considering very carefully the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that, according to his doctrine, the Area Health Authority would not really be doing anything in the way of effective interference, because its choice as to two-thirds of 50 per cent.—if I have his statistics correctly—would be limited to nominations made by voluntary organisations connected with the Health Service, and it would have consultations with other bodies unspecified, except so far as the churches are concerned, about the remainder. If the Area Health Authority is not to be a deciding body and is only to take nominations, that is something one can contemplate with greater equanimity. But surely there will be more nominations than places, and therefore the choice will be made by the Area Health Authority. I find it very difficult to envisage any other situation. Thus, the Area Health Authority will be doing what we are all objecting to, and choosing its own watchdog. It will have a limited pack from which to choose its watchdog, because it will be depending on nominations by various bodies but it will nevertheless be making the effective choice of individual persons. So I am very much afraid that the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord really does not meet the objections which have been voiced from all quarters of the Committee.
We have been trying to transfer this situation, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, to Amendment No. 73A

121
in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, and his friends, in which they suggest that a specified local authority (this might be one of the new county councils; obviously, the district councils already have very much say and would need to take a somewhat broader view if they were dealing with voluntary organisation nominations) might have the responsibility of choice. On the principle put forward by the Minister, that the choice would be limited to a selection from the nominations of groups of organisations, would it not be desirable to put this responsibility on to a specified local authority? The noble Lord spoke of the possible domination of the local authority; but the local authority is not the institution that is being criticised. This was the whole gravamen of the criticism of the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, and of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, that we cannot have people setting up their own jury to try their own cause. But if this responsibility is circumscribed in the way outlined by the Minister, so that they would not have a completely random choice but would be as much or as little confined as the Area Health Authority in the area from which they would choose individual persons, then it seems to me that a democratically elected body, which, after all, is responsible for the welfare of the community in its area, would not be inappropriate for this purpose. Such a body would have just as great a local knowledge as, and possibly somewhat wider than, the Area Health Authority of people who should represent public opinion, which is, after all, the function of the community health council.
In the light of all this, and after consultation with my noble friends, we are prepared to withdraw our Amendment No. 73 in favour of Amendment No. 73A. It was not our original intention to do this, and we have been persuaded by the weight of argument in this debate. We ourselves proposed the Secretary of State partly, as I tried to explain, as a sort of holding operation, because we felt that the voluntary organisations were not fully ready to come forward with the sort of scheme for self-selection which I think they would, on balance, prefer. But there is no reason why they should not work out some self-selection scheme and put forward their nominations
122
to the local authority, if they are able to do so. On balance, I think that, of the possible ways of dealing with what is admittedly a difficult matter, Amendment No. 73A is the most satisfactory, because it contains a genuine democratic principle and is also circumscribed, in the way described by the Minister, as to the area of choice that would be open to the local authority.
In those circumstances, if the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, is prepared formally to move his Amendment (which he has not yet done because we have been discussing the earlier Amendment), I shall be happy to beg leave to withdraw our Amendment. But until I have heard from him about what his intentions might be, we must reserve our position.
LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND: May I ask a very stupid question? I do not know what is meant by the term "local authorities". I have read everything on this subject, but I cannot find out who they really are. Who are they and where do they come into the National Health Service?
VISCOUNT AMORY: May I refer my noble friend to Amendment No. 91A for the answer to her question?
8.58 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: I am attracted by what the noble Baroness, Lady White, has just said. It offers possibility of finding another body which might appoint those drawn from voluntary bodies, and it meets the objection that they should not even be appointed mechanically by the Area Health Authority. So I should very much like to think about it. I hope that my noble friend Lord Amory will not press his group of Amendments from No. 73A onwards this evening, because there are various bits and pieces which we ought to think further about. We must think very carefully about which of the various local authorities should be charged with this duty. It seems to me that there might be difficulties with the district, which is already nominating 50 per cent. of the community health council, but we might have found the answer in leaving it to the county authority to deal with the other 50 per cent. of nominations from local voluntary bodies, or in adopting some such way as that. I am extremely grateful to the

123
noble Baroness, Lady White, for putting forward that constructive proposal, and to my noble friend Lord Amory. I hope, however, that he will not press his Amendment, because I shall look very sympathetically at the position in the light of what has been said.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My noble friend has been very patient with us, and he has had to play a very lone hand indeed. I think that not one single speech which has been made has come out other than strongly against the Area Health Authority having anything to do with this matter at all. I think my noble friend will feel it is probably significant that not only my noble friends and I but the noble Baroness, Lady White, and her noble friends think, on consideration, that there may well be weight in the method which has been suggested here.
BARONESS WHITE: May I interrupt the noble Viscount for one moment—and I must apologise to the Committee; I should have made this clear. It is the definition of a local authority which is contained in Amendment No. 91A with which we are concerned—at that level. That is what we are really working towards. The districts put up their own people, but the others should be selected by the authorities mentioned in No. 91A, which are the non-metropolitan counties, the metropolitan districts, the London boroughs, the Common Council and so on. It is that group of authorities.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I accept that that is the noble Baroness's point. I am quite sure that my noble friend will not fail to point out to his right honourable friend the views which have been expressed, if only the negative one we have expressed, which is that the Area Health Authority really must keep its fingers out of this matter altogether and have nothing to do with it. I am sure my noble friend will look at this broadly to meet the view which has been expressed by everybody who has spoken in this Committee; and while I do not want to introduce any element of threat at this stage, (though really, I suppose, that is what I do want to do) I would leave my noble friend in no doubt that if he is unable to find a way of taking the Area Health Authorities out, then those of us who have been
124
responsible for these Amendments would have to set up a kind of ad hoc, temporary consultative council together, with a view to producing an absolutely terrifying Amendment, so formidable that it will unquestionably receive the approbation of the Committee or, if it is at the Report stage, of the House. But if, as I think is the case, my noble friend is going to set out to try to find some way of meeting our main point in this matter, then I should be willing not to move at this stage the Amendments which stand in my name and those of my noble friends.
BARONESS WHITE: We are in a great difficulty, because we are very much worried at having to wait until Report stage before getting any declaration of opinion as to something on which I think the vast majority of us are agreed. Naturally we take in absolute good faith what the Minister has said to us, but I must confess that we should be much happier if the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, would move his Amendment. After all, if something better turns up we can drop his Amendment on Report and adopt the better proposition. We can have our consultative council, by all means; we should be most happy to join the noble Viscount. But it seems to us rather a pity to leave this Committee stage without having any firm declaration of the view of your Lordships. I wonder whether the noble Viscount would reconsider this matter, on the full understanding that if, on further consideration, the Government come up with anything which appears to both of us preferable, he would then not object if this particular Amendment, if we adopted it now, were then eliminated in favour of the something better. Could the noble Viscount not consider that?
VISCOUNT AMORY: The course of action which the noble Baroness proposes is very tempting, but I feel in this case that my noble friend has gone as far as he probably can go this evening in giving us the assurances we want, and that he has taken on board our views. I believe he will come forward with the answer, but if that does not happen then I think the course is clear before us. But I personally should like to give him the chance now to produce the answer which he thinks would meet the views which

125
have been put forcibly in so many parts of the Committee.
BARONESS WHITE: May we perhaps have a further assurance from the Minister? I know it may not be easy for him to give this, but we are in a difficulty. We shall have a reasonable time—and I am not in any way complaining—between Committee and Report, but if an Amendment by the Government is not put down until nearly the end of that period it gives us little chance to consult either with other Members of your Lordships' House or with organisations outside with whom we are in contact. We have put pretty clearly to the Government a possible way out here. We have thought about it carefully, and we have been persuaded, in a way rather against our earlier thoughts, that in all the circumstances this is probably the best thing. I am wondering whether the Minister could assure us—it obviously cannot be any kind of binding agreement, but a gentleman's agreement—that he will make this an urgent priority in his own Departmental consultations and with his Ministerial colleagues, so that we have fair play on this one, which is really a very important thing. We should like to have a reasonable period before we actually reach the Report stage, which I understand is likely to be on February 12 or so, so that we shall not be, not by evil intent but just by effluxion of time, caught short on an Amendment of such importance.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I should like strongly to support what the noble Baroness has said there. I am sure my noble friend will not run this up too tight, but will enable us to take what action we think fit if it becomes clear that my noble friend has failed in what I am sure he will try to do, which is to produce something which is acceptable. If that does not happen, it is quite clear we shall want time to consider what action we take.
LORD ABERDARE: Of course I will do my best with what urgency I can. But these are very difficult subjects, and certainly none of the Amendments on the Order Paper is perfect. Therefore I have gone as far as I can in saying that I will look at it, and I hope that your Lordships will accept that. I really will go and look
126
at it. I do not think I can do very much more.
BARONESS WHITE: In all the circumstances, I think the only course open to us is to ask leave to withdraw Amendment No. 73, but I hope that from the exchange which has taken place all the occupants of the Government Front Bench appreciate that this subject is something of real seriousness, and that we must have a genuine alternative put before us in reasonable time. With that understanding, to which we have witnesses all round, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.8 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 10, line 14, leave out from ("includes") to ("parts") in line 15.
The noble Baroness said: Without prejudice to what may happen later, I think that on Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 we ought to draw attention to a point which, though perhaps not of major importance, occurred to us in studying the Government proposals. As we understand the Bill as drafted, if it were left without these Amendments it would be possible for a community health council to cover not only the area of one area authority but part of another area authority. What I want to ask for clarification upon is whether this is what the Government really mean: because if these community health councils are to be the grass roots organisations surely it should not be possible under the terms of the Bill for a community health council to cover the area of the Area Health Authority plus some extra territory. This is our reading of it—though we may be mistaken. But if it is so, I am sure the Minister will appreciate that this would not he our conception of a community health council if it covered such a large territory. I wonder whether the Minister may care to comment on this.
LORD ABERDARE: I had some doubts as to what the noble Baroness had in mind; but the position is as she says. The idea is to make provision where there is an overlap situation between two Area Health Authorities. It could happen in certain cases that an Area Health Authority was made up of one health district only, with one district

127
general hospital. May I say that it does not even have to have a district area hospital? I am thinking of Solihull, an area of Birmingham, which does not have a district general hospital and depends on another district general hospital for its health provision. Therefore there will possibly be an overlap arrangement which links the district general hospital in Birmingham with the area of Solihull. In that case, if there is to be a community health council which matched that district it would cover not only Solihull but part of Birmingham as well. In other words, where you get a health district which is, as we have defined it, coterminous with a health district, it may overlap two A.H.As, and in certain cases may include the area of one A.H.A.
LORD INGLEWOOD: I should like to support my noble friend. It is a good provision that there should be some recognition of this overlap. It may be that people living in one area are more likely to go to hospital in the next area than in their own. In those cases it is important that the community health council of the area where they go to hospital should include representatives of the area from which they are drawn, provided that the number likely to come from this area is significant. There is one area in the north of England where that happens; and I am told (though I have not checked it) that there is an area either in or near Somerset where that could happen in a big way.
Taking the matter further, I imagine that as the Bill is drawn if there is an overlap between England and Wales there would be no difficulty in appointing a member from one side of the Border to sit on a community health council which lies on the other side of the Border. But the England/Wales Border is not the only line; there is another between England and Scotland. Scotland is not mentioned very frequently in this Bill. Germs might find it no more difficult to cross the Border between England and Scotland than to do so between England and Wales. I hope that, before leaving this clause, my noble friend will tell us how he proposes to deal with this particular problem as regards the overlap in an area between England and Scotland.
LORD ABERDARE: I think my noble friend is anticipating his Amendment No. 93A; but if I may, I would rather leave this until we reach his Amendment. As I think was made clear when the Scottish Act was passing, there are good liaison arrangements which crossed the EnglishFrench—I mean the English-Scottish boundary, and these will certainly continue.
BARONESS WHITE: That was a nice "Freudian slip". We have not got that far yet—thank goodness! These Amendments were really probing Amendments. The point we wanted to make was that in one's anxiety to fit these councils to suitable district hospital responsibilities one should not make the areas so large that they lose the real "grass roots" character. I do not want to press the Amendment. We felt that it was a point which ought to be made. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 81 and I do not propose to move Amendment No. 82.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 10, line 28, after regulations") insert ("separately for England and Wales").
The noble Baroness said: Here we come to a point where I hope that, for once, the Minister may be ready and prepared to meet us. We are asking here that if so much of the provisions in this Bill are to be dealt with ultimately by regulation—I think that this will still apply even if, as the Minister has indicated, we do have something rather more specific in this clause—we should have a possibility of separate regulations for the Principality. After all, the administration of the Health Service in Wales is separate. The Secretary of State for Wales is responsible for its administration in Wales. The people concerned are answerable to him for administration and not to the Secretary of State in London. And there are certain different conditions not the least of which is that we have no regional tier in Wales. The Secretary of State for Wales and the Welsh Office under him will have a far greater part to play, relatively, in Wales in the administration of the Health Service than the Department of Health and Social Security will have in

129
the direct administration of the English system. Therefore regulations which might seem appropriate in the English context may not be entirely satisfactory in the Welsh context. In addition to that, in the other place there are only 36 Welsh Members out of a total of more than 600, and as we know very well regulations cannot be amended; they can be accepted or rejected.
In those circumstances, we do not think it would meet the very natural democratic desires of the Welsh people that if there is something that concerns them particularly it should be so completely decided by a majority of people who are not concerned with the affairs of the Principality. I hope I need say no more to convince the Committee that this concession in the Bill would be much appreciated in Wales. I cannot see that it could cause any serious difficulties for the Government, in the light of the fact that the administration of the Health Service in the two countries is different in certain important respects and is carried on separately. So I hope very much that this Amendment will be accepted.
LORD ABERDARE: Under Clause 55(4) any power to make regulations or orders or schemes may be exercised so as to make the same provision for all cases, or different provisions for different cases or different classes of cases. I am advised that there is no doubt that the provisions of Clause 55(4) would permit regulations under Clause 9(4), which we are now considering, which made separate provisions, in whole or in part, for community health councils in England and Wales. So I think that the point the noble Baroness is making is already met under the present provisions in the Bill. But, of course, community health councils are intended to serve the same purposes in England and Wales, and in most, if not all, respects the provisions for them should be the same in the two countries. There might be differences if they were to take account of different circumstances, and any particular differences could usually be dealt with satisfactorily in a joint instrument for England and Wales. I suggest that it would be somewhat cumbersome to be obliged always to make altogether separate regulations. Nevertheless the power is there.
130
The noble Baroness made some very interesting suggestions about community councils in Wales during the Second Reading of the Bill. At the moment we have not found any way through this aspect. There are 1,000 community councils in Wales and we have not found a way satisfactorily to associate them with membership of the community health councils. But in a case like that, were there to be a separate provision for Wales, one could have separate regulations.
9.20 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: I am aware that it is possible under the Bill, but what we are suggesting is that in this particular area, which is a sensitive area from the point of view of public opinion and public representation, a gesture might be made to Wales. The Minister is well aware that there were considerable complaints that Wales did not have a separate Bill. That, I agree, certainly in your Lordships' House, would have been a cumbersome procedure, and we have not made a great point of it. But there has been considerable feeling about this. Circumstances in Wales, as the Minister has recognised, are not in every respect the same as they are in England. I should have thought that it was well worth while making a gesture in this particular area. We are not asking for regulations throughout the Bill to be subject to this procedure. This Amendment deals only with community health councils and, as we have already decided to-night, this is a particular area of the Bill in which public feelings are engaged.
I am not now an elected Member in the Principality, as I was for many years, but I know enough of public opinion in the Principality to realise that the Government would do themselves nothing but good (I offer them some free advice on this) if they showed in this respect, which I do not think would be cumbersome, that they were taking account of the fact that the Secretary of State for Wales does have particular responsibility for the Health Service in Wales. I should have thought that they might give way on this.
Again, I do not like putting everything off to the Report stage, and it seems to me that this is something that might easily be accepted without great difficulty. If it were to apply to the entire

131
Bill, then I should have some sympathy with the noble Lord's point of view, because there could be circumstances in which it might be cumbersome all the time to have separate regulations. That I think would be against common sense. But where you are dealing with community health councils and with the expression of opinion of the people, and with nothing else—because they do not have executive functions of any kind—then I do not see what harm would be done; and, as I say, it would be a welcome gesture in the Principality if the Minister could agree that under this clause we should have an opportunity of discussing our own regulations. I think this would be a sound thing to do and, as I have said, it would do the Government no harm politically.
LORD ABERDARE: If I thought there was anything very important in this I would certainly look at it again, but there are so many regulations that are made jointly for England and Wales on matters which concern them both that to make an exception in this case, where one is dealing with regulations that might be entirely similar, seems rather an empty gesture. I would rather make more handsome gestures where they are important.
BARONESS WHITE: I would not reject any handsome gesture that comes this way. The Committee may wish to negative this Amendment, but I am not prepared to withdraw it, because I know what the feeling is and what the response will be in the Principality. On this I must stick to my guns.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
9.25 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 10, line 29, after second ("the") insert ("election by local government elections for the related district or the").
The noble Baroness said: I really had hoped for a concession on the last Amendment. I should very much like to suppose that there might be one on this, but I recognise that the Minister has made it fairly clear that the Government are not prepared, at this moment of time at any rate, to come out in favour of direct election. Nevertheless
132
I very much hope they will look carefully at this Amendment, because it is permissive only. If it were mandatory it would be in line with Government policy to resist it, but it is very carefully drawn in such a way as to make it possible at some future stage to have direct elections for the community health councils. If a Government at that stage did not approve of this provision then they would not have to exercise their permissive power. But we all know that a measure of this nature is apt to remain substantially unaltered for many years. It is very difficult to get amending legislation of this kind, except by regulation—and this would not be a suitable matter for regulation without some authority in the main Bill. Therefore what we are really asking is: let us not tie our successors. Even if the present Government do not see eye to eye with us on the desirability of some proportion of the community health council members being directly elected, let us not make it impossible for future Parliaments or Administrations to provide for direct election if they think fit, without going through the full process of amending legislation.
We hear a great deal of talk about public participation in one way or another. I believe that direct election is the most satisfactory form of public participation for many purposes. I think it is very salutary if members have to report back and to answer to the people whose interests they are representing. If they are not directly elected it is very easy to coast along and perhaps carry their responsibilities a little lightly. I have always found it a very healthy experience to have to go back to my constituency and explain what I have been doing, or not doing, as the case may be. Similarly, I still believe there is a great deal to be said for having some members of the council—not necessarily all of them—in a situation where it is their duty to explain to the public what they are trying to do to improve the Health Service, what the genuine difficulties may be in the way of such improvements and how they have been dealing with any complaints from the public as to the way in which the Service was being conducted.
In addition to that, of course, the great advantage of election is that the person

133
concerned becomes known as someone to whom people may go with problems. One of the difficulties one has had sometimes with various consultative bodies—for example, those concerning the nationalised industries—is that people simply do not know whom to approach. If they go to the local post office or the local council office and ask, they can usually find out; but the relationship with an elected councillor is quite different because the councillor elect has to circularise his or her constituents and say. "I am putting myself forward for election: these are my qualifications and my aims." Therefore he or she becomes known in the locality. I believe that we should be taking a very serious step if we did not make it possible under this Bill for such a process to take place.
If the present Government do not feel this is desirable, that is for them to decide. But do not let us tie posterity. That is what this Amendment is really about. The last big National Health Service Bill that we had was many years ago, and it will probably be many years before we have another one. A subject of this kind is not one which Governments normally bring forward as amending legislation on a minor scale, so one might have to wait many years, if it were not made possible in this Bill, if and when the time came that it seemed desirable to be able to carry these things out. I repeat, there is nothing to force the present Government to adopt this policy if they do not want to do so; but it would make it possible for future Governments or Parliaments, if they wished, to make regulations which could embody this principle. Though I fully understand that the noble Lord, the Minister, does not agree with this, and that his colleagues do not agree with it as a matter for action now, I am pleading with him to leave the field open for our successors in case they came to the conclusion that this was a sensible wav of dealing with matters. I should have thought that on that basis this Amendment might well be accepted.
LORD ABERDARE: The noble Baroness said, I think, that we should be taking a very serious step if we did not make it possible for our successors to have recourse to direct election to the community health councils. I take the view that we should be taking a very
134
serious step if we did, because there are two points of some importance. The first is that direct popular elections are limited at present in the United Kingdom to Members of Parliament and local government representatives. The proposal represents an important departure from this rule and would require very careful consideration of its possible constitutional implications. It might mean the introduction of Party politics into a field which most of us would agree should not be connected with Party politics.
Secondly, a matter of this kind, affecting local government election machinery, is not suitable to be dealt with by regulations under a Health Service Act. It is for these two principal reasons that I cannot advise your Lordships to accept this Amendment which was so persuasively moved by the noble Baroness. It would require very careful study before an innovation of this sort was introduced, and we should have to consult with a great many interested organisations. I am not sure about the merits of the scheme. It has certain attractions in the way mentioned by the noble Baroness, of enabling people to find their local representative and making sure that everybody knows who he is. But just how much enthusiasm there would be locally for these elections in view of the fact that local elections are sometimes not well patronised, I am not sure. I could not advise the Committee to accept the Amendment on the principal grounds that it has considerable implications which it would be wrong to accept lightly.
BARONESS SEROTA: I am not surprised, in some ways, that the Government should react rather cautiously to this Amendment. I must confess that when the noble Baroness discussed this matter with me when she was considering putting the Amendment down I, too, found this a very novel idea. Nevertheless, it is very difficult for the Government to plead that it would be an innovation and that at the moment the only direct elections that we have are for local government and Parliament. The Government have created a totally new kind of authority or council in the form of the community health council to represent public opinion to the National Health Service. This has prompted the thoughts that my noble friend has put forward and which I myself now, after fairly

135
long consideration, have found to be not quite so revolutionary as they might sound at first consideration. I should like the Government to think about this matter. It is clear, from what the noble Lord. Lord Aberdare, said, that they have brushed it aside and are not prepared themselves to accept what might be a possible consequence of their own actions. By taking the representative function out of the administration of the Health Service and isolating it in the community health council they themselves have made it necessary to think of ways of creating truly independent councils which every member of this Committee finds essential to the workings of the new system. This is not quite such a "way out" idea as it might have seemed at first glance, and it is something to which serious consideration should be given for the future, in the permissive sense in which my noble friend put it forward and not necessarily for implementation to-day.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I think, as my noble friend has said, that the proposal has some attractions in itself, and the noble Baroness in her vigil way has put it forward with great moderation. But I find myself persuaded by what my noble friend has said. At this particular moment, at any rate, when local government is being reformed and it is all important that the electorate should be clear about the elections they are being asked to take part in—it is of great importance for parish councils, district councils, county councils, et cetera—it would be a serious mistake to introduce this innovation. It would take people's eye off the ball a little and encourage people who are inclined already to say: "I get so confused about all these elections. I don't really know who I'm voting for, or why." I do not think the case is strong enough for putting such a proposal in the Bill, as it were, to be kept in stock against some future use. So personally I find myself persuaded by the reasons my noble friend has advanced against the acceptance of this Amendment.
BARONESS WHITE: My democratic spirit does not allow me to withdraw this Amendment because I feel passionately, having been an elected member, that there are certain essential values in it. I
136
still think this is an area to which those values should be extended. So I am not going to ask your Lordships for leave to withdraw my Amendment, because I believe in it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
9.39 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 10, line 32, at end insert ("such regulations shall make provision for the appointment to the Council of representatives of the Education Service, including teachers").
The noble Lord said: We have been discussing matters of considerable importance. The Amendment has some bearing on them, but I should not want to exaggerate its importance as compared with the larger issues with which we have been concerned. Nevertheless, we have on a number of occasions during the Committee stage of this Bill recognised the importance of the school health service. The noble Viscount, Lord Amory, himself said earlier to-day something to the effect that we must get that right; and a number of other noble Lords have indicated agreement with that view. The position of teachers in regard to the Health Service may very properly be limited in terms of statutory function. I had hoped at an earlier stage in the proceedings that the Committee might have agreed to define that function, to show its limitation, but the Government were not minded to accept that. There can be few who would question that community health councils would be the more representative and the better equipped to perform their function if there were on them representatives of the education service, including teachers; and because of the vital role of the School Medical Service I think there is indeed a strong reason for asking for special representation here.
The teachers, members of the education service, become aware very quickly when there is a breakdown or a failure at home. They acquire tremendous knowledge of local situations for they are indeed the recipients of many confidences and complaints, if only by way of reading the occasional diaries kept by pupils in the primary schools. I am told by friends in the teaching profession that it is quite amazing how much information teachers glean from these entries. As I

137
have said before, teachers give service far beyond the limits of their professional obligations.
I hope the Committee will agree that their experience and their knowledge qualify teachers to bring understanding and a sense of public duty to this particular field. I have tabled the Amendment in the knowledge that its acceptance would be appreciated by those most concerned. I am not a teacher and I have no obligation to teachers, except that as a layman I have been concerned with education for a great many years; but I have considerable contact with them and with some of their professional organisations and I can say that it would be very much appreciated by those who speak for teachers if the Government were minded to accept this Amendment—or at least, if they do not like the wording of the Amendment, to accept it in principle and to bring forward something that would meet the situation. I should like to feel that if the Government were difficult about it the Committee might say that they really ought to do this. I take the view that if the Amendment were carried it would also encourage close co-operation (and we cannot have too much of that) between the services of education and health—if I may put it this way—at "grass roots" level, and if co-operation is going to be worthwhile, if it is going to be really fruitful, we ought to get this "grass roots" level of co-operation in this particular field of the Service.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, will appreciate that I am trying to be constructive and that I am putting the Amendment forward in the friendliest way, with no degree of hostility whatsoever. I trust that in the circumstances he will have no difficulty in accepting it, at least in spirit. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: The noble Lord will know well the importance that we attach to the School Health Service and the efforts that we have been making, in conjunction with the local authority bodies, to ensure that we have the best method of co-operation in future. The noble Lord's Amendment would require the community health councils to include representatives of the education service, including teachers, and it seems to me that as the councils are intended to
138
represent the public as consumers of the Health Service, it would not be right to add to them specifically representatives of any other interests.
I fear that if one were to give this right to teachers in this matter, there might well be other people who would feel that they, too, had something to give to the community health council. Certainly there is no reason why members of the public who are teachers should not become members of this body. I would have thought that they could well be among those to be nominated one way or another, but I do not think they should be there as representatives of the education service. If they are worried on the School Health Service side, there are plenty of other channels open to them for bringing their complaints to the notice of the Health Service; direct from the teacher to the doctor, from the local education authority to the Area Health Authority or through the joint consultative committees which there will be for that purpose.
So far as the community health council itself is concerned, I believe that we should stick to the proposals which I am hoping to bring forward on Report and which will be limited to the district council representatives and to people from local voluntary bodies and other organisations. However, if in our future consideration of who should be nominating the other 50 per cent. it were the county council dealing with this matter, maybe they would wish to include a teacher among those nominations; but I should not like to see it written into the Bill that teachers must be members.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the Minister for those comments and I will not take up too much of your Lordships' time at this hour. It is somewhat difficult at the moment to appreciate what the Government will come up with on Report. The Amendment was of course tabled against the background of the Bill as drafted. If the proposals of the Government on Report—I took the Minister to give a definite indication that we shall be getting Amendments covering the points that have been made—seem to meet the situation reasonably well, I am sure that everybody concerned will be content. It would, however, be foolish to overlook the fact that many local education authorities are concerned

139
at what is happening in that the School Health Service is being transferred or taken from them. I am sure that they will give as much co-operation as they can possibly give in this instance.
It would go some way to meet the position if at this level there were provision ensuring a link making it clear that teachers will be able to play a valuable part. Perhaps the proposals of the Government on Report will completely meet this point; I hope they will. I stress that teachers are in a somewhat peculiar position as members of the community. I would not for a moment suggest that they should be there to represent teachers. I am suggesting that they have good service to give in that they have an understanding of what is happening in the community. They become more quickly aware of it than do many others and it would be a good thing to take advantage of this ability. I will not press the Amendment at this stage. Remembering that it is a matter to which we may have to refer on Report, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (VISCOUNT HOOD): Amendment No. 88.
LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND: The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and I do not propose to move this Amendment or Amendment No. 90, because my noble friend the Minister spoke on these points earlier in the debate and said that they would be considered when we came to the full consideration of how the community councils are to be set up.
9.50 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 10, line 34, leave out from ("Councils") to end of line 36.
The noble Baroness said: Again, in view of our earlier discussions, I do not propose to press this Amendment, but perhaps I might take advantage of this occasion to say just a word or two about the question of staff, because one is disturbed at the thought of the Government which is being communicated in this House, and also to certain organisations outside the House, that the most satisfactory staff to service the community
140
health councils would be persons from within the Health Service. I do ask the Minister to think again about this, because it goes back to the philosophy of the independence of the community health councils.
A number of noble Lords pointed out on Second Reading that if someone had to depend for his career prospects and his future promotion on his superiors within the Health Service, he was not at all likely to be over-critical of any defects or maladministrations falling within the interest of the community health councils. That is one of the reasons why I was interested in some of the local authority proposals. With the reorganisation of local government, for example, there may well be persons who know their localities extremely well, who could be effective officers servicing community health councils and who, incidentally, if they have been in one of the local authorities which at the moment provide an element of health service, probably know a great deal about it.
Therefore, without pressing the Amendment itself, I wish to stress the point that many of us are extremely apprehensive of what we take to be the Government's attitude on this matter: that the community health councils should be staffed from within the Health Service. We believe that they ought to be free to appoint their own staff but that there should be suitable arrangements—because of the limited opportunities offered by the community health councils from the point of view of career prospects and advancement—as there could easily be, for interchange with either Health Service or the local authority services, with a preservation of pension rights and so on. But the councils should be free to choose their own staff, and there should be adequate budgetary provision so that they can have at least one—probably not more than one—really experienced and sufficiently senior person on their staff as their main official in order to make their work effective.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I am sure that there is force in what the noble Baroness has just said. My noble friend has said that he will look into all these matters and I am sure that he will look at this one among them. I take comfort from

141
the fact that he said just now that he did not feel that the Government have got the present proposals in respect of staff quite right.
LORD ABERDARE: I accept that. What we must find is some flexible arrangement. There may well be places where, as the noble Baroness said, there is a perfectly acceptable person who is not part of the National Health Service but is able to take on the work of being secretary of the community health council. In another area, however, as she says, it may be difficult to find somebody because there is no career structure there; and in that case it may be better to second somebody from within the Health Service. I must say it has not been my experience that people seconded from one organisation to another have been any less keen in the way in which they perform their job. I do not think this problem would necessarily arise. However, I have said that I should like to look at it, and I think perhaps all of us feel that what we really want is a flexible system which allows the community health council to have the sort of services it is seeking.
BARONESS WHITE: In view of the Minister's remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.56 p.m.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE moved Amendment No. 90A:
Page 11, line 8, at end insert ("in particular, arrangements for advice to be made available to patients in the health service to enable them effectively to suggest improvements in or to pursue complaints regarding the operation of the service and for the council itself to pursue the suggestion or complaint if it thinks fit.")
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name and the names of my noble friends. Although the hour is getting late, I think it is rather important that I explain to the Committee what we mean by this Amendment. We have had a very remarkable debate, and there can be no doubt at all that the feeling of the Committee is that the community health councils should be a really positive part of the National Health Service. There is no doubt that in all parts of the House there is this belief that it is vital that they should play a positive part. What we have asked for is that arrangements should be made for
142
advice to be available to patients in the National Health Service who would like to suggest improvements. I should like the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, especially to notice that we have put "suggest improvements" first, because we feel that this is just as important as complaints. Many people are too inexperienced and lacking in detailed knowledge to be able to suggest improvements themselves without advice. We believe that a lot of valuable suggestions for the Health Service—and I do not mean simply the hospitals but the whole Health Service—might well be lost without some form of expert advice. Although the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, did not care for the idea about complaints, in fact where complaints are concerned it is probably even more important, because it is often those people who most need help in this direction who find it most difficult to formulate for themselves just what the particular difficulty has been and are therefore unable to suggest things which will help patients who come after them.
What we want to ensure by this Amendment is that the responsibility for dealing with individual suggestions and complaints lies fully within the community health councils. The noble Lord, Lord Hayter, referred to citizens' advice bureaux. Noble Lords in all parts of the House know that there has been a tremendous multiplication of local authority advice services. Indeed, the right honourable gentleman—whose exact title I have forgotten; I think it is the Minister for Consumer Services—Sir Geoffrey Howe, has himself referred to this and to the necessity for some kind of rationalisation. If our Amendment is accepted, there should be people who would be capable of having a proper liaison with citizens' advice bureaux and organisations of that kind. Indeed, if necessary, they should have some form of training, perhaps even some minor form of honorarium, so that they would be available to maintain a two-way flow of information and assistance between those advice services which exist already and the new and quite vital ones which will need to be established when the community health councils come about.
It is always very difficult to discuss community health services without in some way getting into the sphere of the Ombudsman. I have heard it said that

143
this kind of thing might conflict with his functions. We believe that this particular Amendment would in fact assist the Commissioner, because it would in a way divert from him to the community health councils matters which individuals could not always handle by themselves; and with the expert help of the community health councils a better result might well be achieved.
What we want to establish by this Amendment, and what we hope that the Government will accept, is the principle that if an individual made a suggestion which the councils thought had great substance, they might themselves have the right to pursue the idea, or the complaint, in a general sense with the expert advice that they would have at their disposal. We not only think this important in principle, but we think it important for a different reason: we must, and indeed do, believe that the Government really want these community health councils to succeed; but they will only succeed if they are composed of really first-class people. You are not going to have people coming on to these councils, sitting once a year, as the noble Lord said, unless they have adequate, vital and important jobs to do. It is no use thinking that someone who has served on an active hospital management board, or a board of governors, is going to look at this kind of work unless there is some substance in it. I am sure that the Government would like to have that, and we feel that this Amendment, which is not very complicated, will go a long way towards achieving what the Government themselves are after.
10.2 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: If I may say so, I very much welcome the constructive view of the functions of the community health councils which the noble Baroness has expressed. She made one point just now when she said that the community health councils should be ready to take up ideas that might be mentioned by individual patients, or indeed complaints of a general nature that also emerge from their contact with patients; and we fully accept this. This is one of the functions that the community health councils will have. However, these are all matters that will be covered within the regulation-
144
making powers provided in Clause 9(4)(g), which are quite wide enough to cover arrangements of the kind that she envisages. We propose to issue guidance in due course in the form of a sort of check list of the matters to which councils should pay particular attention. I think that this is the sort of matter which that sort of guidance should certainly cover. In fact, in the White Paper we specifically proposed that community health councils should, on request, provide information about complaints procedures to patients in hospital, and that members should act as a patient's friend where one is needed.
Of course, it is an important function of community health councils to seek ways of making the Service run more smoothly and efficiently, and they will certainly be able to take into account suggestions made to them by patients, and follow up general complaints with the health authorities. We feel that the community health councils themselves should be allowed to decide in the light of local circumstances exactly how they carry out the general duty imposed on them in the Bill, and we do not feel that we should write this particular Amendment into the Bill, although I will certainly take it into account when we come to the guidance to be issued to the community health councils.
We are talking here primarily of hospital patients; the situation is rather different for users of the Health Service in the community, who have access to various sources of information and help. The Davies Committee on Hospital Complaints Procedure is expected to report later this year and will make recommendations about the handling of hospital patients' suggestions and complaints; and this report may well carry implications for the role of community health councils. That is another reason why it would not be desirable at this stage to write into the Bill too rigid a provision which could possibly conflict with that Committee's views when they are made known. I think it would be wiser to wait and see what the Committee say, and then see what should be done to ensure that what they recommend fits in with the role of the community health council The Bill does not have to be amended to achieve the noble Baroness's objectives. As the clause stands, it already

145
provides powers for regulations to be made covering the points referred to in the Amendment. I hope, therefore, that she will agree to withdraw this Amendment, on the understanding that her approach to the matter is fully shared by the Government.
BARONESS WHITE: Before my noble friend speaks again, may I ask the Minister for clarification? In paragraph 110 of the English Blue-White Paper, there is a reference to a "patient's friend", but for some peculiar reason there is no such reference in the Welsh Red-White Paper, and this has caused some comment. It is probably inadvertent, but it is a little odd that the English community health councils are expected to provide patients' friends where required in pursuit of difficulties or complaints, whereas the Welsh, apparently, are to get on without one. I wonder whether the noble Lord can comment on that.
LORD ABERDARE: I am afraid that the noble Baroness has caught me out on that point. I know that the Welsh are very competent and hardly need the assistance of a friend, but may I please be given a little time? I will certainly let the noble Baroness know the answer.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: Between the Red Queen and the White Queen, I feel rather inadequate. The noble Lord is, as always, very disarming and I should like to thank him for the way in which he has looked at—I cannot say accepted—our Amendment. But it is precisely because we did not think that paragraph (g) gave the powers which we wanted community health councils to have—and I took the very best legal advice from behind me—that we put down this Amendment. We all know that if you have two lawyers you have four opinions, so we could not be too sure about that. But if the noble Lord feels that we are so right in spirit, he might have gone a little further and accepted the Amendment. We are disquieted that he should say that he would not wish to have an obligation on all community health councils because some of them would not wish to exercise the powers. It is precisely for that reason that we wish to have this written into the Bill. As the noble Lord has accepted the principle that it is the function of the community health councils themselves
146
to pursue these matters, we think it is essential that they should know from the Government themselves that this is so. So I should like to plead with the noble Lord. I cannot see any reason why he should not accept our Amendment, since he accepts the spirit of it. If we have to wait any longer for Davis, we shall never get this Bill through. Can we beg the noble Lord just this once to give in?
LORD ABERDARE: I am sorry, but I have made my position as clear as I can. I can give the noble Baroness the assurance that what she wants can be covered in the regulations. Whatever her legal advice is, my legal advice is the opposite and I hope she will accept that.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: As my legal advice seems to be sitting silently, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.9 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 11, line 17, after ("Authorities;") insert ("districts in relation to a Council shall be coterminous with one or more districts in a non-metropolitan county, or ward or ward; in a metropolitan district or London Borough;").
The noble Baroness said: I recognize that this is a difficult point, because the Government's plan under this Bill is that there should be Health Service districts centred as far as possible upon district general hospitals; in other words, to meet solely the needs of the Health Service. However, in dealing with the community health councils we are not dealing simply with the Health Service but, as I said on an earlier Amendment, with an expression of public opinion, and with the connections between the Health Service and the other community services, where there is, as we all recognise, a considerable overlap of interest.
Had the Health Service been organised under elected authorities, the situation would have been different; but it is not, and therefore one is particularly concerned with other local authority functions on the social welfare side—the housing side, education and so on, which have all been touched upon in the course of our discussions. It was for these reasons that it seemed to us that for this function,

147
that of the community health councils as opposed to the administrative function within the Health Service itself, we would be well advised, for this purpose only, to adopt the districts or the wards, as the case might be, which are the pattern for local government functions. We think it would be a very much tidier way of doing things in this particular field, and of course might also fit in better with the propositions, which have been put into cold storage for the time being, of the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, and his noble friends.
I realise that this is not an easy matter. I took counsel with the local authority associations, and I think that they themselves are in a rather indeterminate state about it. The Area Authorities, as we know, are coterminous with local authorities: it is only at the district level that one gets into this difficult situation. I still believe that it will be more satisfactory for this purpose to be able to fit in the work of the community health council with that of the local government organisation. As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, mentioned, in Wales, for instance, we shall be having, among other things, the community health councils, and so on, which will be within the context of our reformed local government. The English pattern may not be quite the same, but I think that some of the same reasons for this Amendment might apply there.
I am not proposing at this late hour and at this stage of the Bill to press this Amendment, but I would ask noble Lords who are interested, and particularly those who are concerned with the local authority associations' point of view on all this, to give it perhaps a little further thought to see whether we are not right in our instinct; namely, that for this purpose the local government boundaries are more appropriate than boundaries which are legitimate for the administrative functions of the Health Service itself but are not necessarily, in our view, the best for the functions which we understand are ascribed to the community health councils. I beg to move.
10.14 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: Of course it would be ideal if the two districts, the health district and the local authority district, were to coincide. Unfortunately,
148
they do not, and we have to face this problem. We certainly long ago looked very carefully at what the noble Baroness is now putting forward as a possibility, when we were thinking first about the constitution of community health councils; but we came to the very definite conclusion that it would be wrong, and that the community health councils would be much more effectively organised on the boundaries of the health districts. After all, the health district is the lowest unit of the Health Service which is capable of providing most of the health services, including the hospital service; and the important thing is that at that level the health services should be integrated, both community and hospital services. Therefore, to have a community health council at that level is very important because they will be able to watch over from the community point of view and see that there is proper provision in all types of health provision, both hospital and community. This sort of one-for-one relationship between community health council and the district management team will be of immense importance; because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Llewellyn Davies, was saying when talking about ideas from patients, the community health council should be responsive to ideas from the patient and should then talk about them with the authority. The authority in that first instance will be the district management team and then they could report back to the area. The first point of contact would be the district management team and the one-to-one relationship is right.
While the solution that the noble Baroness put forward would avoid having community health council boundaries cutting across local government districts, it would often result in several community health councils relating to one health district. This would bring grave difficulties. There are instances where you might have five or six local government districts relating to one health district. I do not think this would be a satisfactory way of operating if all had access to the hospital—five or six different community health councils. I think there would be grave difficulties. Of the two choices, we believe there would be difficulties in the way of the suggestion by the noble Baroness and that there are positive advantages in relating community health councils to

149
health districts. I hope I have persuaded the noble Baroness, and I think my noble friend Lord Amory agrees with me on this occasion.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I think that on balance I agree. But the local government bodies had, to start with, the hope that it might be possible to work out a scheme where the boundaries would be coterminous with local government districts. At first sight that had attraction. We became conscious of the difficulties of doing it, and I think that our deliberations finished pretty well in agreement with the views that my noble friend has just expressed. We will give the matter further thought to see if there is any reason why the point of view of the noble Baroness may not be the right one. But, rather regretfully, we feel that at present the difficulties would be too great.
BARONESS WHITE: As I said at the outset, this is not an Amendment that I proposed to press. The converse of what the noble Lord has said can occasionally be true. I am thinking of the local authority of Powis, in which I shall be residing. The difficulty is that there is there no hospital in sight, so to speak, and therefore that local authority will have to deal with the whole ring of surrounding health authorities—which will also be very confusing. In view of what the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, has said, as well as what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: I beg to move the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

ASHDOWN FOREST BILL [H.L.]
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
DERBY FRIAR GATE CHAPEL BILL [H.L.]
FORWARD TRUST BILL [H.L.]
HARWICH HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
KING'S LYNN CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
MEDWAY PORTS AUTHORITY BILL [H.L.]
MERCANTILE CREDIT BILL [H.L.]
METALS SOCIETY BILL [H.L.]
QUEEN MARY COLLEGE BILL [H.L.]
RHONDDA CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
SALFORD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
SLOUGH ESTATES (UTILITY SERVICES) LIMITED BILL [H.L.]
UPPER MERSEY NAVIGATION BILL [H.L.]
Presented, and read 1ª.

  TYNEHAM VALLEY
  TYNEHAM VALLEY