I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if, before I call the first Amendment, selected for debate, I were to say that after careful consideration of the Bill it has been decided to include Amendment No. 21 in the list of Amendments selected for debate.

I am most grateful, Miss Harvie Anderson.

Miss Harvie Anderson, we are grateful for what you have just announced, but may I seek your advice about the non-selection of at least two of the Amendments on the Notice Paper? Would it be in order to do that now?

Yes.

I refer to Amendment No. 3 and new Clause 2. I have been in close consultation with the Public Bill Office on these Amendments. I do not wish to pursue the matter in detail now, but I am clear in my mind—and I think there is some doubt, if I may put it that way, in the Public Bill Office about it—that it would be correct to say that Amendment No. 3 is within the terms of the Money Resolution, and the same comment applies to new Clause 2. Whatever the Committee may decide to do in respect of either of these Amendments, I would argue that the new Clause is within the terms of the Money Resolution if we are to accept that Amendment No. 17 is within its terms.

I believe that further consideration is being given to this matter, and before pursuing it any further I should like to ask for your advice on how you think it would be best to deal with these issues, which are substantially within the general debate on the Bill.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising the matter. I am aware of the consultations which the hon. Gentleman has had, and of the advice which he has sought elsewhere. It is very difficult to change the selection in respect of Amendment No. 3 and I do not feel able to do so.

As regards new Clause 2, if the hon. Member agrees, I should be happy to consider the matter at a later stage, in he hope that we might come to some reconciliation of view.

I am obliged. May I pursue with you the point regarding Amendment No. 3, which has not been selected? The Money Resolution contains the phrase in the penultimate line of the first paragraph:

"… expenditure in such local government areas completed or incurred within the period of two years beginning with 23rd June, 1971."

"Incurred" does not necessarily mean actual expenditure on works completed. There must be a reason for the either-or phraseology. I would submit that the Amendment which would substitute "approved" for "completed" is covered by the reference to expenditure "incurred".

I think that the hon. Member will realise from what I have already said about the new Clause that I should very much like to help him, but I cannot do so in the case of Amendment No. 3. I am very sorry, but I cannot alter the selection.

Further to that point of order. I am sorry to persist in this matter, Miss Harvie Anderson, but we raised on the Money Resolution a specific question which we realise that the Minister cannot answer. But we wanted his encouragement that he was not seeking to interpret the Money Resolution as definitely debarring a debate on the word "approved".

This is not a party point. This suggestion was made on both sides of the House—that we should debate at a later stage the insertion of "approved" instead of "completed". That was specifically acknowledged by the Under-Secretary when he said that it was a matter for the Chair and that, if it were allowed, it would be discussed.

Is it then the case that we can discuss this on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"? Are we debarred on that question from debating this alternative wording, and is the argument for that that the Money Resolution is drawn so tightly? If it is, there has been some very sharp practice here by the Government.

We are grateful to you for your decision about new Clause 2. Is it a fact that, since the Government have made a mistake and sought to amend Clause 2, and you are willing to call that Amendment, we in turn on Report can seek to make further Amendments on the same matter since we were debarred from seeking to do so at this stage?

It would not be for me to comment at this stage on the latter point, as the hon. Member will appreciate. As for the previous point, it is well known that the Money Resolution is very tightly drawn, so the Chair is in this difficulty. While I leaned over backwards to try to help the hon. Member, and while I have no wish to sever an old friendship, I cannot alter the decision in the case of Amendment No. 3. That is my decision.

Further to that point of order. May I ask you, Miss Harvie Anderson, to take into account on Amendment No. 3 that, had the local government associations been consulted about the Bill by the Government, their attention would have been drawn to the fact that the word "approved" was needed instead of "completed"? Having regard to the fact that the Government have failed to consult——

Order. The hon. Member will realise that that is not a matter for the Chair.

May I strengthen a fairly new friendship? I do not want to labour the point, Miss Harvie Anderson, although we have strong feelings about the matter. Would it be acceptable if a manuscript Amendment within the terms of the Money Resolution were handed to you to meet the same point which we are after here?

I would certainly look at any manuscript Amendment which was handed to me. I do not know whether the hon. Member means now or on Report. Either way, I would certainly be prepared to consider it.

I am obliged; we will proceed along those lines.

I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 16, leave out 'If'.

I think that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 19, leave out from 'area' to 'this' in line 20.

This is a simple but important point. The Bill gives the Minister a discretionary power as to whether areas classified as development or intermediate areas within the time span of the Bill should benefit from these improved grants. We do not suggest that the Bill would be deliberately prevented from applying where it was needed, but we wonder why it should be necessary, if the intention is to help, to qualify intentions over development and intermediate areas established within the two-year period.

The Bill is concerned with a very short period. I realise that a number of local authorities' areas are certain to be classified as intermediate. I do not know of any application at the moment for development reclassification, but some areas are seeking intermediate status. Edinburgh, for example, may wish to pursue its pressures to be included in the Scottish development area. If the Government were to accede to such requests, which would be considered by Departments other than the Department of the Environment, it seems illogical even to consider excluding from the benefits of the Bill other areas if they were so classified.

This is why we are seeking to establish a virtually automatic right for any area, like Edinburgh and other areas—Manchester was mentioned on Second Reading—which may seek development or intermediate status to benefit from the improved grant.

The point is particularly valid when one bears in mind those areas which have been putting forward their case to the Government. Manchester has made representations recently by way of personal deputation. I do not know whether Edinburgh has made any recent representations, but there has been some in the past. Both Manchester and Edinburgh have major problems of housing and obsolescence. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) told us on Second Reading about the detailed position in Manchester. We did not hear about Edinburgh, but those of us who are concerned about housing are aware that there are bad housing conditions and serious problems of obsolescence there.

The same will apply to other areas which may become prospective candidates as development and intermediate areas. So it seems logical to have an automatic right of benefit, should the Government, on broader grounds, consider the extention of development and intermediate status. These are the broad reasons for these two Amendments and I hope that, in the spirit of wanting to make the Bill effective, the Government will accept our purpose.

Considerable distress has been expressed about the Government not consulting the local government associations on this matter. The Association of Municipal Corporations, of which I am a vice-president, has asked me to voice its regret that the Government chose to ignore its help and advice in pursuing the Bill, the aims and objectives of which are broadly acceptable to most people.

Distress has also been expressed at the failure of the Government to understand that precisely the same problem of housing decay exists in areas other than the two which are covered by the Bill. It seems illogical for the Government to have drawn the line in the way the Measure discriminates between the two areas mentioned in the Bill and other areas which are suffering from the same problem. Why have the Government chosen to restrict these provisions to development and intermediate areas?

Hon. Members, who like myself, represent London constituencies, will agree that the help which the Bill will provide should be available to London, which every Government since the war, and before, have accepted is an area of great housing stress and should be given the maximum help.

The Secretary of State visited the Islington part of my constituency in May, before the local government elections, and spoke of the "dynamic" work that the Government intended to do to solve the housing problem. London is undoubtedly one of the hardest hit areas from the housing stress point of view. I have no doubt that the areas covered by the Bill are under stress, but it is totally illogical to exclude London.

I appreciate that the Government must allocate their resources on a priority basis and that only a limited sum is available. However, the Amendment merely seeks to give the Minister discretion to extend the help which is available under the Bill to areas outside the two mentioned, so enabling him to use that discretion in determining whether a priority situation exists. Acceptance of our proposal would not cost the right hon. Gentleman anything. It would merely give him an additional discretionary power which he could find extremely useful in future.

I entirely support what the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) said about the inclusion of London in the Bill. It seems unjust that the £50 million that will be available should be distributed in a geographically discriminatory way and not on a basis of need.

I have been repeatedly thwarted and frustrated in my attempts to solve this problem in my constituency, where we have identified areas of need. Such areas have been identified throughout London but, as in my constituency, we cannot get the money to enable those with limited means to improve their properties, even when they are extremely anxious to do so.

Belper town is made up of a lot of old stone buildings which are extremely attractive and should be preserved. I appreciate that the central Government are doing their best to get the necessary money to the people concerned to put these properties into good repair, and in the debate last Friday it was made clear that although grants for this purpose are valuable, the purchasing power of the standard grant is dropping because of inflation.

Belper Urban District Council has refused to consider the making of discretionary grants. The council regards them as a waste of the ratepayers' money and open to abuse by property owners and landlords. It is not for me at this time to give a verdict on the judgment of the council in this matter, but I feel that its attitude is extremely unhelpful and high-handed.

The Minister will be aware of this problem. If the Amendment is accepted, the money that will be available under the Bill could be made available outside the intermediate and development areas mentioned in the Measure; and if the money is available, local authorities such as mine could have no possible objection to providing the sort of help that is now badly required.

There is much talk today of cost effectiveness, but the best return on money spent on housing is that spent on improving old houses. I therefore strongly associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury and with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. James Hill) last Friday.

I hope that after the two-year period has elapsed the Government will introduce a comprehensive housing Bill which will cease to discriminate on geographical grounds and will concentrate on need. I hope that the Minister will give us some cause for comfort on this score.

I, too, fully share the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown), for it seems extremely odd that the Government should seek to deny to themselves power to apply to London the funds which the Bill will make available.

After all, it is in London that housing needs are as great as, if not greater than, in any other part of the country. We are seeking not to restrict but to reinforce, widen and strengthen the powers of the Secretary of State in this matter.

Nor do I want the Minister to think that the Amendment is limited to the needs of London north of the river. The needs of London south of the Thames are just as great, if not greater. I hope the Government will not resist this sincere attempt to give them more power. They must be aware of the urgent and distressing problem in London. People in housing stress should be given prior consideration wherever they live, and terminology should not come into this matter. In other words, help should be given on a need and not a geographical basis.

I echo what has been said about the need to include London in the Bill. I do not understand why, at a time when London's housing needs are tremendous, this part of the country has been excluded.

Let us consider the way in which the Clause is drafted and the way in which the Amendment would apply. The provision states:

"If … a local government area comes wholly or partly within a development area or an intermediate area, the Secretary of State"

shall do certain things. The Amendment would delete the word "if" from the beginning of that provision, which would result in the subsection reading:

"In a case where … a local government area comes wholly or partly within a development area or an intermediate area … this Act shall apply."

Is there anything illogical about our suggestion? It seems to be in line with the object of the Government in this part of the Bill. The Amendment is so logical and important that it should be accepted immediately.

I say that in addition to what has been said about London. I feel strongly that the Minister is greatly at fault in not trying to help London's crying needs, which are greater than those in any other part of the country.

The conception of development areas and intermediate areas that might have been valid a few years ago is not as valid today. A few years ago Birmingham was a prosperous city, but the amount of employment now existing there makes it very doubtful whether in a short time it may not come within the definition of a grey area or an intermediate area. Among the unemployed in Birmingham there are, for the first time since the war, a very substantial number of building and construction workers.

Acceptance of the Amendment by the Minister would lead not only to an improvement of the older houses of Birmingham but also to work for Birmingham's unemployed building and construction workers. That being so, I hope the Minister will be able to accept the Amendment. A house is a house, whether it is in the North-East, or in Scotland or in Birmingham. The case for preserving the country's assets and improving old houses is as valid in Birmingham or London as it is anywhere else in the country.

I should like to get some clarification about the position in Edinburgh, and then relate the position to other parts of the United Kingdom. In the Second Reading debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office, said:

"The scope of the application of the Bill is the same in Scotland, covering the two year period. … But, since all districts in Scotland had development area or intermediate area status at 23rd June, the Bill will apply throughout Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1971; Vol. 820, c. 819.]

I take that statement to mean that since Leith, a very ancient burgh but part of the city of Edinburgh, has intermediate status, Edinburgh is included in that status. I should like confirmation of that view.

If any part of a local government area is a development area or intermediate area the whole of the area qualifies and not just that part. What is a local government area? Is a district council a local government area? In Scotland it certainly is not a rating authority. The rating authorities there are the burghs, the counties and the counties of cities. A local government authority can be a rating authority, and no more. It can also be an authority which is not a rating authority.

My knowledge of English local government is very unclear at times, but I understand that in England the parishes, though not rating authorities, exist as local government entities. Are they local government areas? Could part of a parish bring within the definition the whole local government unit? If so, what is the local government unit that is brought in? Leith brings in the entire city of Edinburgh, but would a scheduled district council bring in the whole county, with all its small and large burghs?

I realise that this is not the kind of argument that we should have without the appropriate Minister being present, or the Secretary of State for Scotland as representing local government there, but we need clarification, because if we do not have a precise definition of a local government area in the legislation we shall have many rows.

The wish on both sides of the Committee is obviously to see the legislation extended to cover as wide an area as possible. The Minister, who has visited many London constituencies, must know that there is a very acute housing problem throughout the inner London boroughs. We ought therefore to do everything we can to provide legislation for the improvement of these properties. The Minister must have read the Greve Report, which tells us of the thousands of homeless families in London. In Wandsworth earlier this year there were over 800 homeless families. The Amendment would provide an opportunity to tackle that problem.

One hopes that the Minister will try to impress upon authorities that they themselves should engage in the work or encourage responsible housing associations to do so, and so provide an opportunity to help overcome London's housing problems. Hon. Members on both sides know that throughout London there are hundreds of empty properties, many of which have remained empty for months, and even for years. Properly amended, the Bill could give an opportunity to start bringing those properties into habitation, and thus tackle the appalling housing and homelessness problems of London.

In addressing themselves to these Amendments, hon. Members on both sides have raised substantial points, and it might be more convenient were I to deal with them when we debate the Clause. I propose now just to try to answer the Amendments, and show, as I hope, that there is very little difference between us.

The effect of the Amendments would be, as the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) said, to make the application of the Bill automatic to areas subsequently designated development areas or intermediate areas rather than do it by Order of the Secretary of State. We considered this view very carefully at the time, but decided, for reasons which I think will probably command the support of the hon. Member, that the Bill contained the better formula.

Though it may or may not command the approval of the hon. Gentleman, an essential feature of the Bill is that its operation is limited to two years. We have taken the view that the work has to be completed within that time, though the hon. Gentleman would like to use the word "approved" instead of "completed". We believe that if it were a question of approval, false hopes could be raised. If, let us say, in the last few days or weeks of the two-year period some new area was designated a development area or an intermediate area, that could lead to the raising of false hopes, so we thought that, on the whole, it was wiser not to do it in that way.

I can, however, give complete assurance that it is our intention wherever reasonably practicable to apply the provisions of the Bill to any development or intermediate areas subsequently created and that it would be for practical purposes our intention that the Secretary of State's Order to do so would be made at the same time as the Order conferring development or intermediate status. It will be made in every case where there is reasonable time for advantage to be taken of the higher grant, always allowing for the need for the work to be completed by 23rd June, 1973.

My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) has raised what we regard as a substantial point. The Minister's answer did not clarify the situation. When we discussed this matter last week, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office—not the Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office—made a point about the inclusion of Edinburgh on which we are not clear. This is of more general application in relation to local government boundaries in England and parishes coming within the area of a county council for rating purposes. It would help the Committee and shorten our deliberations if the Minister would clear up this point.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie). I have consulted my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office. There is no problem as regards Scotland, because the whole of Scotland is either a development area or an intermediate area and the whole of Edinburgh is an intermediate area. Therefore, the Bill will apply everywhere north of the Border.

The Minister has said that it is the Government's intention to apply the provisions of the Bill where

"a local government area comes wholly or partly within a development area or an intermediate area".

Why not say so in the Bill? If that is the intention, why not delete "If" and make the intention perfectly clear?

The intention is perfectly clear. It is only that it is to be done by order of the Secretary of State and not automatically. As I explained earlier, our view is that, if it were automatic, a situation might arise in which in the last few days of the operation of the Bill, when enacted, false hopes could be raised and the provisions of the Bill could be brought into disrepute.

We would prefer, and we ask the Committee to support this preference, that we should proceed by an Order of the Secretary of State. I am glad to give the assurance that in every case where there seems reasonable time for advantage to be taken of the higher grants an Order will be made by the Secretary of State at the same time as the Order conferring development or intermediate status on the area concerned.

Will the Statutory Instrument have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament?

I will deal with that question in the debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".

Is it necessary to go through all this procedure to bring into operation what is already the Government's intention?

On balance, we think it is. We have carefully weighed the two alternatives. We do not want to raise false hopes or bring any of the provisions of the Bill into disrepute and we think that this is the best way of proceeding. There is no procedural requirement: it is an automatic order.

The explanation we have received from the Minister is not clear or satisfactory in terms of the Bill as it stands. I have carefully re-read the subsection. My understanding of it is that it contradicts what the Minister has just told us is the only reason for not accepting the Amendments.

The Minister has said that the reason the automatic provision which we seek to have inserted was not accepted, after close consideration inside the Department, was that it could raise a situation where an area could be declared a development or intermediate area on other broader grounds within the last few days or few weeks of the operation of the Bill, thus raising false hopes. Unless I have badly misread the subsection, my understanding of the wording is that the two-year period for intermediate areas or development areas declared from now on, even within the discretionary procedure laid down, operates from the date of the statutory instrument.

indicated dissent.

That is how it reads. I will go through the wording carefully so that there can be no misunderstanding. Subsection (2) says that

"where, after the relevant date"

which I take to be 23rd June, 1971

"within the period of two years … a local government area"

is declared as a development or an intermediate area the Secretary of State for the Environment,

"by order in a statutory instrument"

may direct that

"this Act shall apply to works eligible for financial assistance"

if they are carried out in that area and if the application for assistance is

"made on or after the date when the order comes into force"—

that is, the Order referred to in the fourth line of the subsection, and

"the works are completed before the expiration of the said period of two years",

which I take to mean two years from the coming into force of the Order.

That is what the Bill says. The phrase

"the said period of two years"

relates to the two years following the making of the Order by the Secretary of State, if he decides to make it. This means in practice that the Order would run beyond the two years immediately following from 23rd June, 1971, because the starting date for such two-year period will be such date as any subsequent local government areas have been declared as intermediate areas or development areas.

Therefore, there may well be a run-over of the present two-year period for areas which may be declared as development and intermediate areas at any date from now onwards. If this is so, the reason which the Minister has given cannot arise. If it is not so, the Minister has raised an even more serious point.

If my understanding of the subsection is incorrect, must we take it that an area which is declared a development or an intermediate area in, say, one year from now would have only one year in which the local residents and the local authority could benefit from the provisions of the Bill when enacted; or that, if an area was declared a development area or an intermediate area 18 months from now, there would be only a six month period in which a local authority and the residents concerned would benefit from the provisions of the Bill when enacted?

If this is the reality of the Bill, it will make a nonsense for such areas. The benefits of the Bill cannot be operated in six months. It is not a question of a few days or a few weeks before 31st March, 1973. It is a question of what is a reasonable period within which local authorities, residents, builders, and so on, can make applications for work to be done and have the work completed within the two years laid down in the Bill for existing development and intermediate areas.

If the Minister is correct and my interpretation of the Bill is incorrect, for any areas so declared in the future there will be a nonsense situation. As I read paragraphs (a) and (b), the two-year period runs from the date of the Order made by the Secretary of State.

I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify these points, because they are very important for any areas which may be declared development or intermediate areas in future.

The "said period of two years" refers to the two-year period covered by subsection (1)(b) at line 15 on page 1. I have to ask the hon. Gentleman the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson), therefore, to accept what he regards as the less favourable interpretation, that is, that we are talking about the two years from 23rd June, 1971, and expiring on 23rd June, 1973. It is not our intention that an area subsequently designated, say, next year, as a development or intermediate area should have the two-year run. It is simply that it would benefit from the provisions up to 23rd June, 1973, but not subsequently.

Why does the Bill extend to the end of the financial year 1974? Is the right hon. Gentleman arguing that work may be actually finished on 23rd June, 1973, and that is the reason why the payments are allowed within that financial year?

Has the right hon. Gentleman got it right? Surely, he does not mean that. Does he not mean that work could be carried out within the period of the financial year? It cannot literally be 23rd June, 1973, or, if it be so, the thing is getting a bit absurd. The Bill allows its provisions to run during the financial year up to 31st March. Why cannot it be allowed within that time?

It is perfectly clear and categoric. The provisions run till 23rd June, 1973, but not beyond.

The Bill offers certain local authorities a two-year period, but, in effect, that two-year period does not mean what it says. During six or eight months of that two-year period, it will be difficult for any local authority to take proper advantage of any of the arrangements made possible by the Bill.

In effect, therefore, the Government are giving to local authorities 12 or 15 months at the outset, and the last six or nine months of the two-year period will be valueless for many of them.

The point is well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton). The Minister's insistence that work must be completed, not approved, within the two-year period will cause a great deal of confusion and disappointment to many people, irrespective of the area in which they live. In spite of the improvement here proposed in Government grants, it still means that many people will be unable to take advantage of what is offered. They will have to save a considerable sum of money to meet their part of the overall cost of improvement as such, and this may well take them some time. Eighteen months or so of the two-year period may have passed. People then start to obtain estimates and secure the approval of the local authority. This takes a good deal of time. The point was made by hon. Members opposite last week that there are some local authorities which do excellent work in this respect, but there are others which leave a great deal to be desired.

If the Minister insists on rigidly keeping to his two-year period, what discussions will he have with the local authorities to try to impress upon them that, when approval is sought for improvement grants, the procedure should be speeded up? Some local authorities have a very lackadaisical attitude towards improvement grants.

I must take the argument a little further. One assumes that the Minister really wishes to get improvement work going quickly and he wants general improvement areas to be associated with that improvement work. I believe that that is his intention. But two points then arise. First, an impetus will be given to the amount of improvement work needed to be done immediately. Second, within a general improvement area, the local authority will immediately have to set substantial procedures in train to come within its two-year period.

The definition of the two-year period by reference to completion of the work makes it almost certain that there will be a flood of work to be done in order to prepare applications. The amount of time available to carry out such improvement work will of necessity be reduced by that factor, and it is a factor which the Minister, though for the best possible reasons, is deliberately creating.

It seems to the local authority associations that this state of affairs, if he sticks rigidly to his two-year period, will be disadvantageous to the aims which the Minister has in mind. It will be impossible to do it. It is being said—I do not know whether the Minister has any views on this—that he can evaluate virtually exactly how many improvements will be done and how much money he will give to the work because there is such a limited group in a position to be able to carry out the work. This is contrary to the intention embodied in the Bill as one reads it and as one understands what the Minister is attempting to do by it. If he sticks to his point about completion in two years, I do not know how the objective of the Bill can be attained.

I urge the Minister to bear this in mind. If he sticks to his two-year period related to completion, it will be suggested that he does not really want to do very much and this is really a gimmick. That would be very bad. All of us on both sides are satisfied that everyone must try to do his best to provide help and money to areas of housing stress. It would be disastrous if the Minister were to be accused of producing a Bill which could be described—as it was to me, and I put it in inverted commas—as "piddling". If his Bill were regarded as a political gimmick, it would be a disaster for the people who are really interested in housing, all the local authorities, housing associations, and a wide variety of interested persons trying to do their best. I beg him to consider whether he is, by standing firm to the commitment as he has now put it, going in the opposite direction from what he should be trying to achieve.

I urge the right hon. Gentleman to discuss this matter with the local authority associations. They are the bodies upon whom, at the end of the day, he will have to rely to make the achievement of the Bill's objectives possible. I urge him to withdraw his firm stand at this stage, look at the matter again, and bring something better before the House on Report, even if that entails a few days delay. I want him to have the benefit of the advice of the people who really understand the problems created by his definition of the two-year period.

The hon. Members for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) and for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) have raised a substantial point, namely, the question whether the two-year period in certain future development areas should extend beyond 23rd June, 1973. In the same way, other hon. Members earlier raised the question whether the Bill should apply to other areas of housing stress not themselves development or intermediate areas. I shall seek to deal with those points in the debate on the question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".

I ask the Committee to accept as logical that, if we proceed as we are proposing to proceed, on the basis that the Bill applies only until 23rd June, 1973 with reference to development and intermediate areas, the case for the two Amendments does not hold water. I have given an assurance that in all reasonable cases the Secretary of State will make an Order applying the provisions of the Bill to new development or intermediate areas at the same time as the Order is issued creating these new areas. Within the narrow ambit of the Bill, this, I suggest, gives hon. Members opposite the substance of what they seek to obtain.

We are told that the Minister will act reasonably in certain cases, but does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, if the work cannot be completed within two years, the intentions of the Bill cannot legally be carried out within the scope envisaged?

I do not think that that is the subject of the two Amendments. I will discuss that broader issue on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". I am simply asking the Committee to resist the Amendment because I do not think that it gives anything which our assurances and the Secretary of State's order cannot do.

I apologise for not being present at the start of the debate, but I had important business elsewhere.

I am fascinated by the arguments of Labour hon. Members, but when my right hon. Friend considers the matter—and he knows my view about the two years—will he bear in mind the wider implications, remembering that the Bill is additional to existing legislation? Whilst a powerful argument is made by hon. Members opposite about the short period left to complete the work from a practical point of view, if there is any whisper that an area might become an intermediate or development area there will be the great disadvantage, unless the Bill is fixed in time, that ordinary alterations and improvements will not go ahead. People will say, "Until the two years are up let us not carry out the alterations and improvements, because if we wait long enough we may get an extra subsidy". We must be very careful that we do not stop the ordinary alterations and improvements that we all want to see. I do not think that hon. Members opposite fully took cognisance of that point when arguing on the narrow issue.

The point made by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) is very valid in general terms but it is not an argument against the two Amendments, because they seek not to extend the scope in time of the Bill, much as I should like to see that, but to establish an automatic right of any future development and intermediate areas within the time span of the Bill to obtain the benefits of the Bill and not to rely on the discretion of the Minister. I realise that there can be difficulties with regard to designations of such areas within a few days or a few weeks of the expiry of the Bill at the end of the two-year period, but I repeat that there will be difficulties for areas which are declared even six or eight months ahead of the expiry of the Bill. That is why I object to the narrow drawing of the subsection, which the Minister has now clearly explained.

I urge the Minister to give further thought to the matter, if not here then in another place, because if local authorities are not to have the automatic right when they are declared development or intermediate areas, there will be sharply undue discrimination within the positive discrimination about which we are concerned in the Bill.

We all support the Bill, whatever the strong arguments which we shall have to pursue later on extending the scope of such positive discrimination to areas of the country which are suffering housing stress. We are all concerned to get the Bill through and to see those areas receiving the benefits arising from it. But there should be no question of any development or intermediate area so designated within the next two years being excluded from the provisions, notwithstanding the general assurances we have had from the Minister.

As I understand it, his sole argument against the Amendments is that undue expectations could be raised if an area were designated within a few days of the expiry of the Bill. But we all know that before such designations are made there is pretty close consultation between Government Departments, and this will be even more the case under the new structure of Government, with the Department of the Environment. Such designations, should they arise, will not be made without consultations on timing and the nature of the case being considered by Government as a whole with the fullest consultation with the right hon. Gentleman's Department.

If the Amendments were accepted and an application had been before the Government for an area to be designated a development or intermediate area, and if it was seen that such a declaration within a few days or a week or two of the expiry of the Bill could create serious inconvenience locally and to the Government Departments concerned, it would be a simple matter so to fix the date that the designation was made on the expiry of the Bill, should that be a serious point at issue.

I do not see the strength of the Minister's point in defence of the discretionary power. If the Government wish to see the Bill operate in intermediate and development areas whenever they may be declared within the time span of the

While the Government are considering whether or not they should resign after that humiliation, and while their Chief Whip, for whom I have great sympathy, is also considering his position, I want to make some few introductory remarks about Clause I before my hon. Friends develop the argument further. I seek clarification on a question which the right hon. Gentleman kindly said he would answer at this stage.

We can well understand the Government's dilemma over Clause 1 about where and how work shall be carried out. They have specifically referred in the Clause to development areas and intermediate areas under the Local Employment Acts. The dilemma is that the Government are unsure whether this is a housing Bill or an unemployment Bill. It is no coincidence that areas of high unemployment are also areas of bad housing. A visit to an area with a low economic growth prospect—and this applies to many parts of Britain and particularly to Scotland—will show that there are very bad housing prospects and particularly bad housing conditions. From that point of view, I welcome the opportunity given by the Bill to produce some improvement in these areas.

I wish to draw the Minister's attention to an opportunity which has been missed by the Government in drawing up Clause 1. They have missed the opportunity to do something for people who are living in very bad housing conditions. I am concerned that the Government have not taken this opportunity to refer specifically to elderly people, the chronically sick and the disabled.

The Minister showed some insight and some anxiety about this problem of housing when he spoke on Second Reading. After discussing the economic reasons for the Bill he went on to say:

"But even more important than the economic are the human considerations. We are dealing, after all, not with units of accommodation but with homes and people. Where a dwelling is clearly unfit, those who live in it have to be decanted, to use the jargon, and rehoused elsewhere. At the end of the day they will, of course, get better homes, but the process can be a very painful one. They are uprooted from the surroundings they know; separated from their neighbours; taken away from the shops, pubs and clubs which have formed the background of their daily lives. Objectively looked at by sociologists the end result may be better, but, in my experience, it has often meant frustration and loneliness for the people especially for the older ones."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1971; Vol. 820, c. 790.]

I do not think that the difficulties of elderly people seeking to cope with bad housing could have been more concisely expressed.

These words are even more apposite to people who have some physical handicap or suffer from consistent chronic illness. Those of us who have to deal with the problems faced by people in bad housing realise the tragedy of elderly, sick and disabled people who live in old houses with extremely poor amenities. It never fails to amaze me how in these social circumstances tragedy simply piles on social tragedy.

The sad truth is that so little is being done about this great problem and the Government have not taken the opportunity to take any steps in this Bill. The reason why modernisation of older property is not being undertaken is the scarcity of resources. Those of us who before coming to this House served on local authorities know in a more intimate way than others how difficult it is to draw a balance of priorities. I am satisfied that in the battle of priorities in housing modernisation it is the elderly, the chronic sick and disabled who almost always lose out because they are in the most difficult circumstances.

Local authorities with a scarcity of resources wish to use the money that is available in the best possible way. They would like to see a modern comprehensive development programme rather than simply taking one house in a street out of turn and bringing that up to standard. They tend to think of a general overall pattern and think about housing improvements rather than social improvements which will benefit the people in the houses. To use an "in" phrase, cost-effectiveness in taking a house out of turn is more expensive than a comprehensive programme and is not necessarily the most efficient use of money. I, like many other hon. Members with large numbers of constituents with housing problems who need urgent improvements in their conditions, want those people to be given a tolerable life.

To give one example, some months ago I saw in my constituency a blind and handicapped woman who lives in a municipal house, which is a reasonable house when one thinks of the normal slum area. She has lived in that house for 17 years. With the kitchen equipment she has she must climb on a stool to get at her pots and pans. As time passes her infirmities become more difficult to handle and she finds the day-today chores of cooking and keeping house much more difficult. But the local authority says it can do nothing. The bathroom furniture in the house is such that in terms of personal cleanliness she is unable to use the bath because of fear of injury. Again the local authority says it can do nothing. The local social work committee says that it has no resources to deal with this kind of programme and that that particular problem is going from bad to worse and the particular case is far from the worst in the area. The housing committee says that it is not its problem because with so many needs in the area its resources are scarce.

I hope that the Clause will be used by the Government to take some action and to encourage local authorities to look at this problem. The Minister in reply may well say that the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970, and the Social Work (Scotland) Act, 1968, are not his responsibility, and that would be an easy way out for the right hon. Gentleman. But in spite of the growth of super Ministries, whose purpose was supposed to be co-ordination of Government action, all that has happened is an exacerbation of what I regard as one of the prevailing diseases of our parliamentary system; namely, government by watertight compartment.

12.30 p.m.

As a result of this, as is so often the case, hardship continues. With the kind of people about whom I am speaking the hardship increases with the passage of time. Much has been said about the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act and the Social Work (Scotland) Act. Lip service is paid to these Measures but now is the time for urgent action. All is not lost, although because of the tight manner in which the Money Resolution has been drawn amendments have been ruled out of order. Despite that, it is possible for the Government to draw the attention of local authorities to their responsibilities.

Where there are priority cases combining housing need and bad personal circumstances, there ought to be specific guidance and help for such people. I hope that the Government will take an opportunity here to exercise compassion and issue a circular advising local authorities that under Clause 1 it is possible for them to do more for those who so far have been badly neglected.

I am sure that the entire Committee is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) for making one of the most moving speeches on this subject that I have heard for a long time. He hit the nail on the head when he spoke of our concern for those in poor housing conditions and the chronic sick. We in Scotland have taken action to deal with this in some way. Glasgow university has set up a Department of Gerontology, and the professor of gerontology has said very much the same as my hon. Friend, that the care of the elderly and chronic sick in their own homes, within the environment which they know and understand, is best.

This was one of the crucial issues that we debated in the Scottish Grand Committee some years ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), the then Minister of State, Scottish Office, said that there were a number of elderly people who did not want to move out of the older areas into newer areas because they would not feel comfortable or happy. It is our business to ensure that they are comfortable and happy in the community.

I was concerned about this question of the two-year or four-year period and whether we should have "completions" or "approvals". When the Secretary of State for Scotland issued his circular, he said that this was a Bill meant not only to improve the lot of those living in uncomfortable houses but to provide employment. That was not just a phrase used last week on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and others. In view of that I am at a loss to understand why there should only be the two-year period. The problem of unemployment in the building industry is not likely to be solved within the next two years. I may be doing the Government an injustice here, but we would much appreciate an extension.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shore-ditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) said he was sorry that the Association of Municipal Corporations and the local authority associations in Scotland had not been consulted. Many of them welcomed the Bill and its intentions but I think that they would have wanted to be consulted about some of the difficulties that can arise in the next two years. I would like to see "approved" instead of "completed".

For most of my life before I came here I served on a local authority. I mean no disrespect to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock or his predecessors at the Scottish Office when I tell him that we did not always find the Development Department of the Scottish Office the quickest Department of Government. We sometimes found that it took rather a long time in the initial stages to get any form of approval at all. When we tried to improve houses not on an individual basis but on a street or small area basis—not C.D.A.—we found that it took more time than building a completely new housing scheme.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office, is present today, and I hope he will refer his hon. Friend (he Under-Secretary of State for Development to an important study carried out by the Department a few years ago about house improvement in Rutherglen. It is a substantial document detailing some of the difficulties the local authority had. We had difficulties because we could not find the contractors to do the work. They were more than willing to build a large new housing estate but we did not get much of a smile from them when we asked them to undertake this work. While it is true that this Bill is about employment, finding work for our bricklayers and plasterers, if the rate of bankruptcies among small building firms in Scotland continues at its present rate there will not be the organisation to harness these building workers.

Will my hon. Friend pursue that point a little further? He will be aware that when we put work out to tender it is found that the price quoted is inordinately high because it is a "one-off" job for the builder.

That is very true. Having got over the difficulties of obtaining approval and finding a contractor who would work for us, we found that other problems arose. When we took down parts of the wall we found dry rot. Buildings which looked substantial were not all what they seemed. This presented formidable problems for the contractors and the local authorities. We feel genuine concern about this matter and we hope that the Minister will look again at this question of completions and work instead on the basis of approvals.

I wish to make three points. First, when we were discussing the Amendment, the Minister very rightly said that he would deal with the question of London on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." As a London Member I feel outraged that London has been excluded in this way. The housing situation in London is dreadful. I need not go into the figures, since hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have already referred to the dreadful position in the capital. Yet here we have a Bill which makes no reference whatever to London and its glaring housing needs. I make a very strong protest about that. I do not know why London is excluded. The Minister said that he would deal with the matter when we debate the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". I hope that he will give a satisfactory explanation. Surely the time has arrived when special steps should be taken in this matter at the earliest possible moment. It will be disgraceful if the Government procrastinate.

Secondly, I turn to the eloquent and moving speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes). When the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill was going through the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson), who was then the Parliamentary Under Secretary, leaned over backwards to try to draft the housing provisions in order to assist the chronically sick and disabled. Certain provisions were inserted in the Bill to help the chronically sick and disabled. Special attention was to be paid to their needs. What council has done so? Where has any effort been made? This Clause provided an opportunity to do something for the chronically sick and disabled and to take steps to deal with their crying needs. I need not harrow the feelings of hon. Members by referring to the dreadful cases about which we know and the need for assistance in housing for these people.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North said, the Minister may shrug it off by saying, "This is not the responsibility of my Department. What have I got to do with it?" We hear that sort of excuse too often. We heard it yesterday in connection with another matter when a Minister was talking about priorities. If ever there was a priority, it is the needs of the chronically sick and disabled. Here was an opportunity to deal with them, and it has been neglected.

My third point concerns the very narrow way in which the Clause is drawn. Financial assistance is limited to instances in which

"the works are completed"

—and the important word is "completed"—

"before the expiration of a period of two years beginning with the relevant date".

If that means anything, it means that, whatever order is made, financial assistance cannot be given unless the work is completed by 23rd June, 1973. The Minister must realise what a difficult task this imposes. For example, work started at the beginning of 1973 which cannot be completed by 23rd June, 1973, will not qualify for financial assistance. This makes nonsense of the answer which the Minister gave to me when he said, "We do not want to hold out hope to people. We will make orders in reasonable circumstances and in reasonable cases". He cannot do it under the Bill.

An Amendment was tabled, which was not selected—I think that I am entitled to refer to it in this discussion—concerning the words "or approved". It would be very simple to cure the difficulty by adding "or approved" after the words "the works are completed". I respectfully suggest to the Minister that, with this limitation of time, he is imposing an impossible task in many cases and is preventing financial assistance from being given where it should be given. I suggest that on Report or in another place he cures the problem by inserting the words "or approved" in the Bill.

I wish to deal first with the point about the time taken by private owners to save their share of the money needed to undertake the improvements for which the Bill provides. The National Federation of Building Trades Employers has recently made known the arrangements which it has been able to agree with finance houses in order to cope with the problem of advancing money from the beginning and throughout the period that improvement takes place. They will cope very well with the problem.

I turn to the general point about people who might be considering improvements now but who have not applied for a grant. Many of them still think that it will be too expensive for them to go through with improvements, and a large number of them will be helped by the provisions of the Bill. I do not know how many hon. Members have had experience of this matter. In my case, it took about nine months from the time that I decided to go ahead to the time when the works were completed. I accept that the Bill is very narrow in its effect and that the Money Resolution has been drawn very tightly—and what an apt expression that is of anything that the Treasury does. To substitute "approved" for "completed" would be a change of wording which would widen the provisions too much. After all, an approval can drag on for a very long time.

I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to indicate what will happen in cases in which genuine unforeseen delay occurs and somebody who thought that he would receive the larger grant finds, towards 23rd June, 1973, that it looks as though he will receive only the smaller grant. I hope that my right hon. Friend will at least be able to say that he has in mind some way by which he can guide local authorities on how they might manage to avoid the letter of his Bill but obey the spirit of it.

Genuine problems may well arise towards the end of the two-year period. However, the ending of the two-year period does not mean the ending of improvement grants. They may revert to their present level, but one would have imagined from what has been said that they were coming to an end. I ask my right hon. Friend to see what he can do, with his friends at the Treasury and in the local town halls, to make the provisions of the Clause as reasonable as possible.

This discussion has indicated that the Clause is not only tightly drawn, but that it will be even more tightly restrictive in its application. Earlier I said that the last six or nine months of the two-year period would be more or less meaningless from the point of view of the improvements envisaged by the Bill. Now I am inclined to think that it will be during the last 12 months of the two-year period during which it will not be worth while making an application under the terms of the Clause as it stands.

Reference has been made to delays that occur. A number of hurdles often have to be overcome, such as getting planning consent, putting out the contract, and so on. Builders do not like these small jobs. They are a pain in the neck to builders, and local authorities sometimes have to bring pressure to bear to get contractors to undertake this kind of work.

We are faced with the situation that the Clause will be effective for perhaps the first 12 months of its application. After that I should not recommend anybody to gamble on the possibility of the job being completed by the time the two years are up. I cannot understand why a period of two years has been selected. What magic is there in the two years from 23rd June, 1971, to 22nd June, 1973? I am convinced that by the end of the period the housing problems in London will be as bad as they are now, if not worse.

It is no use telling someone in desperate need of housing accommodation that he is not living in a development area or an intermediate area. I can imagine what kind of reply I should receive from a constituent of mine who came to me with his housing problem and I said. "You are not in a development or an intermediate area, and therefore I cannot do anything for you within the terms of the Bill". A housing need is a housing need wherever a person lives. It does not matter a damn whether he lives in a development area, in an intermediate area, or in a grey, blue, pink, red, or whatever colour area it is. The need is there, and it ought to be met.

After all these years during which I have had the honour to represent Brixton I find that I spend more time now on housing cases than I did when I first became a Member. The bulk of my correspondence and work, and the overwhelming proportion of the hardships with which I am expected to deal, arise from housing cases. The numbers are not decreasing, they are increasing all the time, and it is a tragic comment on the whole of our social spectrum, if one likes to so call it that, that in this year of grace, in a capital city like London—and the situation is repeated in our large provincial cities such as Glasgow, Liverpool and Birmingham—there is a growing need for housing, which it seems will never be met.

I understand that we are not going to divide against the Clause, on the principle, I suppose, that anything is better than nothing. Some people may be able to benefit for perhaps up to 12 months after the Clause gets on to the Statute Book, but it is a miserable concession in the face of a growing and ever-increasing need.

I am disappointed that the Minister has chosen to remain seated during this part of the debate. It would have been helpful if he had answered the many useful points raised on the Amendment, but he chose not to. On the contrary, he said that he would reply to them at the conclusion of this debate. It would have been helpful if, at the start of this debate, he had made clear his intentions.

In the absence of a reply from the Minister, we must rehearse all the arguments that have been put forward, in the hope that he will accept them. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) when he expresses concern over the fact that London has been excluded from the Bill. I was hoping that the Minister would tell us why he had decided on that course, because the object of the Bill is to increase aid from public funds for housing and area improvements, and under both those headings London must be at the top of the list. There may be other places sharing the top position, but certainly London ought not to be excluded. The Secretary of State, the Minister, and the Under-Secretary of State, are all on record as having made vast contributions, in words at least, to dealing with London's problems, and it seems extraordinary that they should bring in a Bill whose purpose is to assist housing and area improvement, and exclude London from its provisions.

Since the publication of the Bill I have been approached by people and asked whether I thought that the object of excluding London was to enable London to be dealt with in a special Bill of its own. As London covers one-sixth of the country, and has about 8½ million people living in it, I observed that it jolly well deserved to be treated separately, but I thought that that was unlikely.

It seemed that perhaps the Minister had made an error of judgment in referring to development areas, because he thought that London was a development area. I concluded that in Committee he would confess that he had made an error, having spoken of it for so many months as though it were one and put the matter right. I hope that the Minister will address himself to the reasons why he has decided to exclude London. It has one-sixth of the population, and is represented by one-sixth of the Members in this House, yet it is excluded. London probably has more of the problems concentrated in its area than are to be found in any other conurbation.

1.0 p.m.

I agree with my hon. Friends who have said that the Clause is tightly drawn. I do not complain about that. One cannot have an open-ended commitment. It would be foolish to argue for open-ended legislation. There must be some parameters, financial and otherwise. But the trouble here is that it will be impossible for people to exploit the provisions of the Bill, which is what the Minister desires them to do. The Bill should help people to exploit its provisions as soon as possible in the best interests of housing and area improvements. By conjoining the phrase "two years" with the word "completion" the Minister is making certain that a vast range of people will be unable to do that. It is regrettable that the local authority associations were not asked for their comments. It takes a long time to "assemble" property for an area improvement. Applications for grants cannot be made until after lengthy improvements, which can mean a delay of 12 to 14 months.

A month has already been lost before local authorities can take advantage of the Bill, and one month out of 24 is a large proportion, especially during the holiday period.

I was coming to that. The Minister might say that, on the expectation that the House would approve the Bill in toto, the authorities could have prepared themselves. But since the application will depend on these lengthy procedures, it will be 12 to 14 months before they get the grant. Then work has to be put out to tender, which means a further waiting period. Those of us who have been involved in improvement work know only too well the difficulties involved in accepting the lowest tender, because, half-way through, a builder may go broke. One can place much more reliance on direct labour departments.

When I was involved in this type of exercise, I set my authority a time limit of eight weeks for a conversion. That was what we regarded as the value of a conversion as against pulling down and rebuilding, since people were rehoused more quickly and rent was paid more quickly. But we never made it. We were lucky to get it done in three or four months.

Exactly what does the Minister mean by the word "completed"? Does this apply to the original specification of the surveyor or the specification undertaken by the builder? In 99 cases out of 100, extra work is discovered after commencement. No one ever goes for a full survey first, because it is too expensive. It is not always convenient to take up floor boards and so on. It is not until the work is actually under way that extra work is discovered.

The Minister could have discovered from local authorities the average overspending on conversions and improvements of this type—overspending not because they were badly assessed but because extra work emerged. If this happens after commencement of a contract for two years, if a far greater bill is incurred and the deadline cannot be met, will the Minister make special provision for this? My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) says that he has no discretion. In that case, he will not achieve the effect that he claims.

The moratorium of two years may mean that builders will be harassed by applications to get the work done quickly. If the job is skimped, the applicant may have even more trouble. So the increase of the grant from 50 per cent. to 90 per cent. will be offset by greater maintenance costs. Although the Minister gives an applicant £200 or £300, it may cost him £800 in the end. There is a dearth of builders to do this work. Unless he can be guaranteed a long run, a builder cannot assemble all the trades he wants, except at great cost.

Local authorities have been 10th to implement penalty clauses. Now that the Minister has settled on a period of two years, penalty clauses will be necessary for this kind of work. Otherwise, a builder will be vastly out of pocket or will build a safeguard into his price. So the cost to the Minister will be much higher. I hope that he will advise those who do work under the Bill to include a penalty clause in any contract so as to protect themselves.

For an area improvement, local authorities must "assemble" the land, survey it, approve requirements and send out the tender. All this takes a long time. The Minister is not doing the best, in his own interests, to improve older houses.

I pay tribute to any Government who provide more money to improve homes and so add to the housing stock. However, if the Minister refuses to consider our views on this matter we shall have to conclude that he is engaged on a public relations exercise and that the Bill is not designed to do what we imagine he wants it to do. It would be regrettable if local authorities and others were obliged to come to that conclusion, and I therefore beg the right hon. Gentleman to think again.

Most of the points with which I had intended to deal have already been covered by my hon. Friends. I will not delay the House, therefore, except to mention some glaring anomalies with which the Minister must deal.

Londoners are suffering from some tremendous housing difficulties, including the problem of multi-occupation. This is particularly so in Wandsworth and my part of London. It is grossly unfair, therefore, that good houses in development and intermediate areas should be given 75 per cent. grants to be converted into flats while very poor property in London should receive only 50 per cent. grants. Owner-occupiers and private landlords in the London area are bound to stop applying for improvement grants at 50 per cent. when they realise that, by delaying, they may obtain 75 per cent. in later legislation.

When I refer to multi-occupation in London I am talking of houses which may have one outside toilet shared by 10 or 20 people. Such houses are probably privately owned by an absentee landlord. In many instances of this kind no improvement grant applications are made. Once a landlord knows that a 75 per cent. grant exists in other parts of the country, he will be bound to delay, if he applies at all, in the hope of the same precentage grant being available in London.

It is regrettable that this legislation is still permissive. I am certain that at a future date it will be necessary for the Government, Conservative or Labour, to make provisions of this kind mandatory to ensure that improvements are carried out by owner-occupiers and landlords.

It is staggering to think that 12 million men, women and children in this country will be going home tonight to houses without baths, hot water or inside lavatories. This is an intolerable state of affairs.

In this day and age millions of industrial workers are having to go home in the evening, after completing a day's dirty work, and ask their wives to heat a saucepan of water so that they can wash their feet. The enamel bowl is still having to come out of the cupboard for washing purposes in far too many homes. In many of these houses old people have to go out to the back yard on cold wet nights to visit the lavatory.

It is with pictures like this in our minds that we should be considering the Bill. Many of us have been deeply concerned with these problems for a long time and we are anxious to impress on the Government the urgency of the matter, because Clause 1 is the guts of the Measure. I understand that when Bloody Mary died the word "Calais" was inscribed in her heart. When they dig me up they will probably find the words "Bathrooms, hot water and inside lavatories" inscribed deeply on mine.

1.15 p.m.

I doubt whether the Bill in general and this Clause in particular are the way to solve this problem. Indeed, I am not sure that driving landlords to make improvements is the answer, particularly if it means creating resentment among tenants because of the trebling of rents once improvements are made; but I will not anticipate my remarks on this subject because I shall have something to say about this later.

Everybody is extremely proud to spend more money on improvements grants, but I am not sure that the ordinary families living in the sort of conditions I have described are having these improvements done. I fear that the bulk of the money is going on luxury housing.

According to Government figures, in 1970–after the 1969 Act had been in operation for some time—£11·9 million was spent on discretionary grants and only £7·2 million on standard grants, despite the lavish 50 per cent. grant available under the 1969 Act. It is the standard grant work that we must consider in particular because that provides the necessities of life like bathrooms, hot water and inside lavatories.

What conclusion can we draw from these figures? There is no guarantee that the additional 25 per cent. made available under this Bill will mean private landlords doing this work. The figures show that owner-occupiers are sensibly taking advantage of the availability of grants, but that most private landlords—I accept that there are some honourable exceptions—will just not be bothered. The problem remains and I fear that it will continue to remain. How many decades must pass before, at the present rate of progress, we have dealt with the 4 million homes that are without these necessities of life?

In my view, landlords are not the best people to do this job. Local authorities should have the task, and we have seen in Leeds how vast numbers of ordinary houses which previously lacked bathrooms, hot water and inside lavatories have been brought to a high standard as a result of the efforts of local authorities.

I also object to the restrictive nature of the Clause and particularly to its restriction on geographical grounds. Why is it confined to the development and intermediate areas? It has been suggested that the Government are not sure whether this is a housing or an employment Measure. I suggest that on either count its provisions are inadequate.

A house is a house wherever it is and bad housing conditions are bad whether they are in London or Birmingham or in a development or intermediate area. The problems for the tenants are the same. The provisions of the 1969 Act and earlier legislation were intended to get improvements done at public expense throughout the country, not simply for the benefit of the residents and tenants of those properties but to preserve a valuable asset for the nation. An asset is an asset for the nation whether it is in Scotland or in London or in Birmingham. It is the same asset, and the case for preserving it is precisely the same.

Birmingham is not yet a development area or an intermediate area but if Government policies are persisted in it may get that way. Unemployment among buildings workers in Birmingham is as bad as it is anywhere in the country or in any of the development areas. We have more than 2,000 building workers unemployed. From the employment point of view, there is precisely the same case for applying the provision to Birmingham as to any development area.

The Bill is supposed to continue for two years but that period began to run down on 23rd June last. By the time this Measure becomes law, a few more weeks will have elapsed. Another period will elapse before the benefits of the Bill are made known to the ordinary man in the street who qualifies for grant in the private sector. I hope that the Government intend to publicise the scheme, otherwise the Bill will not do any good. Then there will be further delays due to planning, consultation, and the like. Time is so short that I doubt whether the expenditure of the additional £46 million in the time stated by the Government can be achieved.

Why is the Bill limited to two years? Is it suggested that the back of the problem, even in the development areas or intermediate areas, will be broken in that time? The need will be just as great after that time has elapsed, which means that this provision is quite irrational. It is not surprising that the local authorities—and not only the local authorities—regard the Bill as completely unrealistic. We should like the Minister to reconsider the matter, or at any rate explain the two-year time limit.

I apologise to the House and to the Minister for rushing in and out of the Chamber, and not sitting throughout the debate. Unfortunately, I have had other matters to attend to.

As my area is a development area it will benefit from the Bill. Liverpool has a high level of unemployment, and the level of unemployment amongst building operatives is much higher on Merseyside than in Birmingham.

We also have a very serious longstanding housing problem. We have in the twilight areas old types of houses which, unless something is quickly done, will get beyond repair. In the postal district of Liverpool 8 there are good, solid, fine houses which, if they were in the Pimlico area of London, would have been rehabilitated, but that could not be done in Liverpool because the money was not there. They have now gone beyond rehabilitation and are being pulled down, and will, I hope, be replaced by new houses for the workers there.

There is no doubt that the Bill will marginally help my area, but a number of very important points need to be mentioned. The Liverpool City Council has in the last six months decided not to go ahead with a whole series of plans for rebuilding. It has decided that schemes which were in the pipeline should in some cases be deferred and in others abandoned altogether. There is a tendency amongst local authorities like mine to believe that because they are going ahead with home improvements they should hold up the development of new housing, but in places like Liverpool we need not only home improvement but a continuous housing programme.

I hope we shall not get into the position where local authorities will use this scheme, as they are tending to use the home improvement plans in the Labour Government's Act, of which this Measure is a continuation, as an excuse for not going ahead with new building. One of the problems is that the Act is permissive and not mandatory, and we find that many landlords, despite applications made by occupiers, are refusing to go ahead with home improvements. That is a very serious state of affairs. The Government must face the fact that sooner or later action will have to be taken to compel landlords to carry out required improvements.

I hope that we on this side would provide a different solution. We used to think that there were other ways of doing the job—by municipalisation, and so on—and I hope that we shall in future do as we once said we would. Meantime, action needs to be taken to ensure that landlords carry out the work.

The Bill will help. I never look a gift horse in the mouth, but am generally thankful for small mercies. The Measure does not give us all we want, but it is better than nothing at all. I appreciate, as some of my hon. Friends have said, that some areas that are not development areas have problems equally as bad as those existing on Merseyside. London has an acute housing problem, and so has Birmingham: all our large cities have. We need a national campaign nationally directed and controlled to direct help to the areas of greatest housing need irrespective of whether they are development areas. Nevertheless, the Bill will help considerably, and it will also help considerably in taking up some of the slack of unemployment.

To suggest that we can solve the problem in two years, or get anywhere near to doing so, is unrealistic. The Minister must look at that time limit again, as he must look again at the problem of the disabled. We had an excellent debate the other day which brought out the simple things that can be done to give immediate help to the disabled, and provision for these people should be in the Bill.

The Bill is a minimal step forward for the development areas, but it is not enough. It will not solve the problem. We need more time than two years, and we need 100 per cent. Government grant, not 90 per cent. We should welcome the Bill as far as it goes, but we must hope to get much further in the future.

The Committee will understand that other parliamentary commitments have made it impossible for me to be here throughout the debate. I apologise to my colleagues for not having heard the opening speeches.

On Second Reading my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufmann) presented a compelling case for including the City of Manchester within the scope of the provisions of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) has informed the Committee of the very daunting housing problems in our neighbouring City of Salford. I hope that the Minister will reflect carefully and sympathetically on the strong arguments that have been advanced by my hon. Friend.

This is a discriminatory Bill. I am not in favour of discrimination. However, if there is to be discrimination, the chronically sick and disabled should benefit. Wherever there is discrimination, it should be based on need. None of us doubts that the homes of many severely disabled people are painful places of detention: the houses are not adapted to the needs of the severely disabled occupants.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) has argued this point at length. He talks from a close and sympathetic interest in all the problems of the chronically sick and disabled. He has also referred to the special problems of the elderly. The Minister will accept that the Government's recent survey into the housing and other problems of the severely disabled makes a strong case for discriminating in their favour. It may be that further guidance should be given to local authorities. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides want to solve the housing problems of the severely disabled. On behalf of all the organisations working to help the chronically sick and disabled, I appeal for further consideration to be given to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North and by myself in this brief intervention.

There have been three main themes running through the debate—first, why is the Bill limited to development areas and why does it not extend to other areas of stress or categories of people in need; second, why are the provisions limited to two years; and, third, which goes with the second point, there is the question about compulsion or approval.

I want first to deal with some separate points which have arisen. The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) asked what constituted a local authority. A definition is contained on page 2, line 23. To amplify that, county councils are not housing authorities with statutory powers to make improvement grants, so county councils do not come into it.

I accept what the Minister has said about county councils, but the Bill does not refer to county boroughs as being one of the defined local authority areas. County boroughs have housing authority powers.

The definition is as follows:

"'local government area' means a borough, urban district or rural district, and in Scotland means the district of a local authority."

Does that specifically include county boroughs?

County boroughs, but not county councils.

In Scotland county councils, of which there are 33, are housing authorities, but district councils are not. County councils may devolve their functions to districts. My point was that in most cases they do not.

The point does not arise, as the whole of Scotland is either a development or an intermediate area and, therefore, all the authorities are embraced within the definition in the Bill.

I was asked by the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) about consultations with the local authority associations. The only local authority association that has made any representations to us is the A.M.C. The association wrote to us shortly after the meeting of its Housing Committee only the other day. It raised no major point of substance but sought clarification of one or two minor points.

The association assured me that it had not been consulted. Is the Minister telling me that the association's information is correct and that it was regretting that it had not been consulted about the Bill?

There was no prior consultation before the drafting of the Bill. On the other hand, we have been in touch with the A.M.C, because it was the only one of the local authority associations which wrote to us. It made no complaint and expressed no major objection. It sought clarification on one or two points. The other associations have not even made representations, so I must assume that to that extent they are not dissatisfied.

I welcomed the intervention by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). He has been the only representative of an English development or intermediate area to intervene. The fact that others have not intervened presumably means that they at least are not dissatisfied with the Bill.

I agree with the hon. Member for Walton that the building industry in Liverpool, particularly small and medium builders, will benefit from the decision we have taken and from the Bill. I agree with the hon. Gentleman also that the unemployment position in the building industry is even more serious in Liverpool than it is in Birmingham. I am not under-rating the importance of the Birmingham situation, though when I was there recently the employers and the trade unions told me that there was a considerable shortage of skilled building operators in the Birmingham area.

The hon. Gentleman went on, in the context of discussing the Liverpool housing situation, to talk about the need for new building. Here I heartily agree with the hon. Gentleman. Improvement can never be a substitute for new building; it is a complement to it. I hope that when our proposals for the reform of housing finance come forward these will give a new boost to slum clearance and, following from that, to new building.

The hon. Member questioned whether landlords could be relied on to do the job and whether a measure of compulsion was necessary. I have not got the exact provision in my head, though I will write to the hon. Gentleman about it, but I understand that local authorities have powers under the Housing Act, 1964, on representations made to them by tenants, to require landlords to provide standard amenities. I hope that full use will be made of these powers.

Under the 1969 Act, the local authorities also have powers of compulsion in the case of improvement areas.

Yes, that is right. The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) expressed anxiety that the bulk of the grant money was being spent on what he described as luxuries, and he cited in support of that view the £7·2 million devoted to standard grants but more on discretionary grants. In very many cases, the installation of standard amenities requires some additional conversion. From my experience, such as it is, of the work which has been going on throughout the country—I have seen a good deal myself, and I have talked to many people who have seen a great deal more than I have—I judge that the bulk of the expenditure is on a combination of standard amenities and discretionary grant conversions carried out together.

I put it to the hon. Member for Shore-ditch and Finsbury that, whatever reservations he has about the Bill, which he expressed clearly and at some length, it has been welcomed by the development area authorities and by the builders in the development areas, as I have found for myself, and as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has found on his visits to Liverpool and elsewhere, and it has been welcomed by the organs of public opinion, the local Press and the other mass media in those areas.

A few moments ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) asked the right hon. Gentleman about the position of local authorities in Scotland. May we have this clear? We do not have the system of urban and rural district councils; we act through burghs or through county councils operating as housing authorities. I do not expect a reply immediately, but will the right hon. Gentleman take this question into account? If someone in the landward area of a county council wishes to have his house improved, do we take it that the only means he can follow to have it done is through the county council, that being the only relevant authority in that place? The county councils are the only bodies who can do it. Is that right?

I understood that the anxiety of the hon. Member for Greenock was on the question of demarcation, the question of which authorities could be responsible. The point is really academic to start with because all the areas are covered; the whole of Scotland is covered by the Bill. A local authority need be only partly within a development or intermediate area to bring the whole of its area, burgh or county, within the Bill.

I am sorry to intervene again, but the right hon. Gentleman is missing the point. If someone in the landward area of a county council wants his house improved, to which agency does he apply? Is it the county council? That is the only body to which he can apply, is it?

He would apply to the local authority which, I understand, would be the county council. Perhaps I am not as familiar as I should be with the situation in Scotland.

The right hon. Gentleman is right when he says that the matter is academic, so long as the Bill is not extended and areas are not descheduled, but what we are asking is that he look at this question again because the point might be misinterpreted. My hon. Friend has raised that doubt. Will the Minister consider whether the description should, perhaps, be enlarged a little to make sure that the point is covered? That is all.

I shall look at it, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office could say a word about it when he speaks on Clause 3, which is specifically a Scottish interest.

I come now to the three main themes of the debate. Why is the Bill limited to the development and intermediate areas? Why is it not applied to London or Manchester, for example? Why does it not make special provision for categories of people in need like the chronically sick?

1.45 p.m.

I fully understand that hon. Members representing certain parts of the country or interested in certain categories of people should take the opportunity to press their needs. Those needs are great. No one who has been Minister for Housing for even a few days could be under any illusion about the terribly serious housing situation in London, the worst in the country. I am not saying that the situation is not pretty bad on Merseyside or in other parts; indeed, the great conurbations are in the grip of a serious housing problem. Equally, none of us can fail to be deeply impressed, particularly after the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes), by the plea made on behalf of the chronically sick. But this Bill is about the development areas. There may be opportunities on another occasion when other measures are brought before Parliament in due course to consider these other problems.

The reform of housing finance will do more to combat housing stress, speed up the process of slum clearance and do a good deal to speed up the process of improvement than anything else. But this Bill is limited to the development areas, because we have observed the phenomenon in the English development areas that the rate of take-up of improvement grants, partly for material and partly for psychological reasons, has not been as good as we thought it ought to be and could be. I do not deny, also, particularly as Minister for Construction, that we are glad of the opportunity to help the building industry in those parts of the country.

The Bill may not cover every problem which could be covered. It is a Bill about the development areas, and to that extent, I suggest, it deserves the congratulation of the Committee rather than its censure.

The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the appalling problems which London constituencies face. Obviously, from his many travels, he is fully aware of them. But his comments today will give but slight comfort to London Members and the constituents whom they represent. We have heard repeatedly that the Government are to bring forward a special policy to improve conditions. When may we expect to hear about the Government's policy to improve London's housing?

We shall, I believe, be discussing certain aspects of the London housing problem next week, and when the reform of housing finance comes forward there will be other opportunities. I have myself called a conference, which, I hope, will meet in the early autumn, of London boroughs and the G.L.C. to discuss all these matters and try to hammer out a strategy to deal with the London problem.

What I am pointing out is the present Bill is not an attempt to tackle that problem. I recognise that it may be disappointing to hon. Members not representing development areas to see the development areas given priority in time at this stage, but I hope that, on reflection, they will regard this as a positive contribution, even if it falls short in certain respects of their ideal. Moreover—I hope that I shall not be thought to spoil the atmosphere by making a partisan point—at least, we are doing something for the development areas which might, perhaps, have been done earlier had further and greater thought been given to the matter in time.

The next great theme is, why a time limit, why the two years? To paraphrase Dr. Johnson in a rather different context, a time limit concentrates the mind wonderfully. It is our view that, if we doubled the period, the effect would be halved. There must be a time limit if we are to get a move on with improvement grants in the development areas. I must tell the Committee that I came away from my visit to Newcastle with this conclusion very much reinforced by conversations with both builders and local authorities.

That may be a sound point, but what about "approved" instead of "completed". That would cover the difficulty.

I said that I should come to the question of "completed" and "approved" in due course. At present, I am discussing the question of a time limit. I am sure that we need a time limit. Have we chosen the right one? It is a matter for argument and judgment. We think that on the whole two years is about right.

My hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) presented some strong arguments on the need for interpreting it a little differently, giving a little more latitude. I was impressed by what he said, but I feel pretty sure that if we do not have a strict time limit we shall not get the work moving.

I have been asked how long the grants take to process on average. We reckon that certainly for the first 18 months in which the Bill is in operation it will have a clear and positive effect, and in some cases long after that where the things to be installed are smaller items.

We shall be advising the local authorities to ensure that all applicants, particularly the later-comers are warned of the consequences of not getting the work done by 23rd June. I do not think that there will be cases of hardship as a result of all this. The 50 per cent. grant will always be available at the end of the day for any work which has not been completed.

Why completion and not approval? Our anxiety has been that if we limited ourselves to approval the work might not be started or get done. We have had quite a bit of experience of local authorities approving grants but the work not being done, even today, months after the grants have been approved. Therefore, it has been our view that if we are to get the work done it is not enough to put the ignition key into the car. We must get the car started and put our foot down on the accelerator.

Hon. Members have expressed their reservations about the Bill and their criticisms. It is right that they should, and this is the proper forum. But I hope that having made their representations and criticisms they will join the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) in saying that it is a positive Bill, that it does help, and that in their constituencies and the country at large they will help to give support to the Bill and encourage people to make use of its provisions and take up the grants, to take the opportunity afforded to them.

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that long before the present Government came into power, long before the Bill was introduced—indeed, long before I entered the House a few years ago—I had been pressing in local government circles for the kind of policy implicit in the 1969 Act and the Bill. I spent much of my time in local government over a number of years pressing the previous Conservative Administration to adopt precisely the policies that were eventually legislated for in the 1969 Act. I say that not unkindly, but to suggest that on that point most of us with experience in these matters do not need even the most gentle of lectures or moralising. We have been at it for a long time.

I find most of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments unsatisfactory. I shall deal first with the question of the two-year period and the points argued about changing from "completion" to "approval". Whilst the original Amendment has not been selected for debate, a manuscript alternative has been put forward which I understand the Chair finds acceptable and within order, and I understand that it will largely meet the kind of points that have been worrying my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite, as well as myself, on the question of the time limit within the two-year time limit of the Bill—the time limit implicit in the word "completion".

We have a two-year period laid down in which a take-up of an additional £46 million is involved over and above the existing level of expenditure. On Second Reading we sought without satisfaction to get information on the current level of expenditure projected forward into 1972 and 1973, so that we could relate the figure of £46 million to the existing estimates for the three-year period. I have serious doubts whether, under the Clause as it stands, the £46 million which the Government have said they wish to make available can be taken up. I have had to seek this information because it was not forthcoming from the Minister; he can correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the 1971 expenditure on improvements policy is expected to be about £22 million before the Bill comes into operation. That is well below the £40 million which was forecast in the Financial Memorandum to the original substantive Act, the 1969 Act. Presumably there will be a further increase in 1972, of a percentage that I do not know, and in addition to the £22 million now, there must be about £10 million to £15 million expected by the Government to come from the £46 million allocation spread over.

We do not expect the largest take-up to occur in the first year. It will be a cumulative build-up, no doubt. But let us assume that it is expected to be about £10 million, building up to about £18 million to £20 million extra that will be taken up in the next year. Is the Minister seriously telling us that within the strict ambit of the Clause we shall get a 33½ per cent. increase on the 1971 expenditure on improvement grants? Is he also telling us that if the figure of improvement grants expenditure in 1972–73 is about £30 million to £33 million—a considerable increase on the current expenditure—we may expect a further £15 million to £20 million to be taken up in addition to the £30 million next year within the strict ambit of the Bill?

What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is, in effect, that he expects the Bill will have such a tremendous impact in the intermediate and development areas, to quote what the Under-Secretary said on Second Reading, that we can expect to see about a £45 million total take-up of expenditure on improvement grants in 1972–73, and an even bigger take-up in the following year before the Act expires. I cannot argue on the basis of fact that that will not be so. We cannot know at this stage. But on the basis of experience we cannot expect that to result from a Bill which, as the Minister agrees, is narrowly drawn in terms of time as well as in other respects.

2.0 p.m.

I must express grave doubts as to whether the Bill, because of its very nature and drafting, will enable the money which the Government have provided for to be actually taken up by the local authorities. If I am wrong in this, I will happily join the right hon. Gentleman—if necessary, against the advice of my parliamentary colleagues—in a tour to congratulate the local authorities concerned, although I should like that tour to have included the London area as well as other housing distress areas which are omitted from the Bill.

I do not believe that the Bill will allow this £46 million to be spent. Indeed, I do not believe that the Government themselves are fully confident that, within the narrow terminology of the Clause, such a sum can be taken up. I repeat that it is not sufficient to introduce a Bill and declare that £46 million is available unless we can have the disposal of the money monitored and reported on to the House and the public. We are entitled to know what the take-up of the £46 million is when the Bill is in operation. We are entitled to an undertaking that, whatever means he chooses to use, the right hon. Gentleman will keep us informed of the take-up. After all, this is public money that we are authorising for the Government, and we are entitled to know how it is to be spent.

At least six-monthly reports should be provided showing how the take-up is proceeding.

I would not stipulate six-monthly reports from the very beginning of the operation, but purely for practical reasons. One could not for the first six months get very worth-while information, but certainly within the first year or so—perhaps within nine to 12 months from the date of operation—we should certainly be entitled to have six-monthly or quarterly information, which could be included in the quarterly statistics for housing which are published by the Government.

I hope that my hon. Friend will be wary in asking about the take-up of this money. We must not forget that the cost of improvements will be heavily inflated. During the two-year period, there will probably be far greater cost in carrying out this work. The result may be that, while the take-up will be adequate, fewer improvements will be done because the cost of each improvement will have been inflated. Thus, even if the take-up of the money is at a high level, it does not necessarily follow that the range of work being done is as great as it might have been.

I appreciate that point. but in the quarterly housing statistics there are figures on a regional breakdown basis of take-up of improvement grants, which would balance up my point. It might be possible to include in the statistics a column of figures showing not just the regional breakdown but a breakdown for the development and intermediate areas for which the money is being authorised. I hoped the right hon. Gentleman will consider that suggestion. We are entitled to this information. We want to know how the policy is working.

It could be said, I suppose, that it is easy enough to say this now that we are in Opposition, but the sophistication of the statistics of housing was an aspect in which I was particularly interested during my short spell at the old Ministry of Housing and Local Government. For example, statistics on improvement grants now appear. That, however, was only the first move. I hope that we can have a much greater breakdown of information on how the policy under the Bill is working. I hope that that information will be equivalent in detail to other information about housing. I make this point seriously and not just as a debating point. I have indicated broadly the way in which such information could be made available to the House and the public.

The other major point to cause so much concern, not only on this side of the Committee but on the other side, is the exclusion from the Bill of housing priority and housing stress areas. The question of the representations by the Association of Municipal Corporations about the Bill has been raised. The right hon. Gentleman said that no complaint or any point of substance had been made about the Bill to the Department. I do not know the basis of that statement, but I have here a letter from the A.M.C. which has been sent to a number of hon. Members. There is no doubt about the language used. The letter says:

"The Association's Housing Committee are strongly of the opinion that, in addition to authorities in the development areas or intermediate areas, there are other authorities with housing needs which would welcome the increased assistance now provided for improvement of older but still substantially sound housing stock."

The letter makes a number of other interesting points which the A.M.C. hoped that we would put and would be accepted by the Government. I shall not go into more detail about these representations because some of my hon. Friends have already dealt with them, but it should go on record that the Minister has understated the position with regard to the association's view of the Bill. It does have points of substance to make about it and it has stated them in correspondence with hon. Members. I should be surprised to learn that similar points of substance were not directed to the Department. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us. If the A.M.C. has not contacted the Ministry in similar terms, that is not my responsibility, but there is no doubt about the terms of its letter to hon. Members. It refers to the fact that the association was not consulted on the Bill before it was presented to the House.

I want to clear this up. I would not want there to be any impression that I misled the Committee. The only regret expressed by the A.M.C. which I am aware of was that expressed about the drafting of Circular 46/71, which was related to the 1969 Act. Whether this has been confused with the drafting of the Bill I do not know. To the best of my knowledge and that of my senior officials, we have had no representations on the Bill. Equally, the other criticisms have not reached me.

I can only place on record what has reached me and other hon. Members about consultation. The letter from the association says:

"It is, however, a matter of regret to the Association that it was not consulted on the Government's proposals, and that no opportunity was given for discussion on the inclusion of other local authorities within the scope of the Bill."

That is quite specific. However, the correspondence between the association and the Department is a matter for the right hon. Gentleman and the association and not for me.

I turn now to the major point of the exclusion of housing priority and housing stress areas from the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has not replied to this matter. He has merely restated the position. He has said that the Bill is concerned with development and intermediate areas. That we already knew. Indeed, that is what we are querying—not that it applies to development and intermediate areas but that it does not apply in equivalent terms to other areas with equal housing difficulty or, in most cases, of greater housing difficulties. To answer by merely stating what we already know is neither an argument nor an explanation.

The Minister says that we must await further legislation and proposals on the London position which will arise from the review of housing finance which is under way in the Department. This again is no answer. In the first instance, the review and the White Paper which will be presented to the House prior to legislation will deal not only with London, but with the housing situation in the country as a whole. So far as it deals with stress areas, it will deal with a variety of such areas in order to assist the large conurbations with the worst housing problem. Therefore, it is no argument to say that, because there is to be general housing legislation to deal with certain major policy matters which are related to what is before us, we should leave it at that and that the matter of stress areas does not arise in connection with this Bill.

I argue the opposite way, as I did on Second Reading. If we are now to accept, as I accept, that it is right to try to shift the emphasis of help to those areas with the gravest problems, then it is wrong that this Bill should run in the opposite direction. Figures were quoted on Second Reading last Friday—and they are correct because I have checked them—which showed that the majority of areas which will benefit from this Bill are not in areas of the worst housing stress. A breakdown of the figures was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), and they were very interesting figures indeed. They give an explanation as to why in these particular areas the percentage of increase in take-up of improvement grants in the general system has not been as great in some instances as in areas like London, Birmingham and others.

I feel that the Ministers are playing with percentages and their argument factually is weak. The points covered by the Bill undoubtedly include areas of serious housing stress. However, when one examines the list of areas which was attached to the Press release issued when the Bill was announced and checks the housing situation in those areas against information available in the Ministry, it can be seen that the majority are not the areas of greatest need, whereas areas outside the scope of the Bill have the worst housing problems in the country.

There has been no argument either on Second Reading or in Committee today to justify this view on housing grounds. The only argument which can be used, and which has been suggested by one or two of my hon. Friends, is that basically this is an unemployment Bill; that it is not concerned with areas of high housing priority so much as with areas of depression—largely, though not entirely, due to the dismantling of the previous Administration's policies in the development and intermediate areas. If one looks at the facts, it cannot be refuted that there is a case for including within the Bill areas of housing stress. I hope that between now and the time when the Bill is dealt with in another place the Government may yet have further thoughts on this matter.

2.15 p.m.

I should like to give some important basic facts and I shall concentrate on the area of most serious housing difficulty, the Greater London area. According to the latest available Ministry information, contained in studies made in 1967 on the London conurbation—and the situation will not have changed markedly since that time—some 46 per cent. of dwellings in Greater London were built before 1919. This compares with 39 per cent. for England and Wales as a whole. A further 36 per cent. of houses in London were built between 1919 and 1944, compared with 29 per cent. for the country as a whole. So that, although 31 per cent. of dwellings in England and Wales were built in or after 1945, in the last generation or so, in the Greater London area the figure is only 18 per cent. That paints the broad situation in London in terms of the age of property.

If we look at some other basic information which is directly relevant to this Bill, we find that in Greater London as a whole over a third of all households lack the exclusive use of the basic amenities of a hot water system; namely, bath, handbasin, inside toilet and a kitchen sink. In regard to the other areas which lie around the Inner London areas, excluding Greenwich which has somewhat suburban housing conditions compared with the rest of Inner London, one sees that in places like Brent and Haringey, which should be classified as Inner London boroughs although officially they are classified as Outer London, 46 per cent. of houses lack bathrooms, inside toilet, a hot water system and the like.

The figure in Islington—I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. O'Halloran) is present, and he will know all about this figure—rises to 67 per cent. But that area is excluded from the provisions of the Bill. There is no area in the country with a figure that high. There is a gradation from a figure of 40 per cent. to 53 or 54 per cent., and then one goes through the central London area and finds in Islington this appalling situation. Since I am sure we all agree that this is an appalling figure, why have the Government brought forward this Bill, which is good so far as it goes but deliberately excludes from the Bill's benefits those areas with the worst housing problems? Why does the Bill include the local authority areas which are at the top of the 50 or so areas with good housing conditions?

This is not good enough. We do not expect the Minister today to say that he will change the nature of the Bill, but I hope that something can be done when the Bill goes to another place. Although I realise that we have not been able to debate an Amendment on this matter, I would make one plea to the Minister. This refers to what I would describe as the Minister's false argument in saying that we should await the statement of Government policy about future legislation on housing finance which, among other things, will it is hoped deal with areas of stress. If that is the situation, then the sooner it happens the better. We must presume that conclusions have been drawn in the Department relating to problems of slum clearance and new building. If the Minister is saying that consideration of housing priority areas in the big conurbations cannot be included in the scope of the Bill but that we shall have an alternative later in the year, I urge him seriously to consider including in the White Paper provisions such as are contained in Clause 1 on the development and intermediate areas to enable subsequent legislation to deal with areas of stress and greatest housing need.

If we are to confine ourselves in this future legislation to slum clearance and new building it will in no way be relevant to this Bill which does not deal with new building or slum clearance but with giving certain help in certain areas for the improvement of properties which are basically sound, but in need of modernisation. The problem in London is that there are about 250,000 such dwellings in the Inner London area—a very high percentage. If legislation is to be announced shortly dealing with the problems of stress areas that is when we can take up the question of London again. I hope that the Minister will give an undertaking that the proposals in a future White Paper will deal also with additional help to the stress areas for housing improvements, broadly on the lines before us today.

My hon. Friend is whistling in the wind. From information already well-known and well-founded there is no such element. This is purely a financial Bill which is to come before the House and which is an attempt to push up council house rents and to reduce the Government commitment as far as possible.

It is precisely because until now we have understood that the White Paper being drafted is confined to council estates, rent policies, subsidies, slum clearance and new building that I put it to the Minister that if he is raising the prospect of a White Paper to help the stress areas as an answer to the arguments being advanced today dealing with the exclusion of such areas in this Bill, it follows logically that he should have another look and include this extra help on improvement policy in such legislation.

I would have argued this even if we had not had the Bill today. It is not sufficient to provide this additional help only to limited slum clearance and new building. We need a special effort for those much larger areas of housing improvement, for properties which will be with us for many years to come. I hope that the Minister can give an indication, if not an undertaking, that he is prepared to look seriously at the possibility of bringing the treatment of housing stress areas into line with the general objectives of the Bill, which we all support.

Before calling the next Amendment I wish to say that new Clause 2 and the Amendments which have been submitted have now been selected. It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to read the Amendments to the new Clause which is on the Notice Paper. They are:

In new Clause 2, line 2, delete the words "and subsection (3)".

In line 3, delete the words "and subsection (4)" and the last word "and" of that line and

In line 4, delete "section 18, respectively,".

It will be possible to read them when we come to the new Clause, but I thought it would be for the convenience of the Committee to have the details now.

I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 2, line 35, leave out '75' and insert '90'.

With this we can also discuss Amendment No. 24:

Clause 3, page 4, line 15, leave out '75' and insert '90'.

The Minister of Housing and Construction, in a rare moment of partisan displeasure, said that if only we had improved the figures of grants while we were in office things would not have been as bad as they are. I am paraphrasing here, of course. It was said almost sotto voce. It was meant to be a mild criticism of us. I have read through the Housing (Scotland) Bill minutes and, as I thought, there is not a single case of the then Opposition suggesting higher rates.

That may be proof of their public responsibility but it does not mean that the Opposition then were keenly aware of what the Minister now knows; namely, that these figures should be higher. I begin my argument with the proposition, on which we are all agreed, that the present levels should be higher. We are grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Chairman, that we are taking these Amendments seriatim because no doubt each has arguments peculiar one to another.

I am disappointed that the Minister, in acknowledging what my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) argued and what I have tried to argue about the experience of both his Department and the Scottish Office in relation to what has gone on since August, 1969, did not answer the point. He satisfied himself with Dr. Johnson. I like Dr. Johnson, but that is not good enough as an argument. We are saying that the rate of preparing to apply is very important. The Minister gave us no indication how this would influence the amount of money spent.

I cannot talk in absolute terms for England because of Clause 1. I have the English, Welsh and Scottish figures for current expenditure. I cannot give the English position because it is too difficult to break up as a result of Clause 1. I will take Scotland, which is entirely within the Bill and the old Acts which we seek to amend. At the moment planned expenditure for improvements and conversions in Scotland, according to the estimates of the Exchequer, in the current financial year stand at £1,644,000.

I include in that a small item for the improvement of environment of residential areas. According to the Under-Secretary of State for Development, speaking in the Scottish Estimates debate in Committee on 24th June, 1971, the amount of money to be taken up by the Bill within that category spread over the three financial years of 1971 to 1974 was £15 million. That was his estimate of the Scottish position. He qualified it by saying that it depended upon the extent to which local authorities and home owners took advantage of the increased grants and how attractive it all seemed.

I return to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment during last week's debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) asked him if this money was in addition to the money currently available. The answer was loud and clear. The hon. Gentleman said:

"Yes, I can give that assurance. That is the position. My understanding is that that is exactly the situation. It is an increase of £46 million …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1971; Vol. 820, c. 842.]

In short, there will be an increase from £1,644,000 in the present year to £6,644,000. We do not propose these Amendments in a light-hearted way [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary may have been tempted in Opposition to do so but I never would do so. Our contention is that it is doubtful whether the Government can spend all this money in time. As a Minister I used to resent it bitterly if my budget was under-spent. The thought of money going back to the Treasury after all the bitter fights we had in Cabinet Committees to get it used to nauseate me. Therefore, I did my damnedest to make sure that we spent it, because it was much-needed money. I want this £15 million to be spent, and I believe that if we raise the figure in a short, sharp exercise like this there will be the greatest possible uptake.

2.30 p.m.

I asked the Minister whether he had any information about how long it took for proposals to become real applications. He has not given the information, and I regret that. It must be available in the Department. Can he give us the number of applications in the pipeline? That figure, too, must be available. In the seven days since Second Reading I have contacted the local authorities in Scotland, but they are unable to give me any information about their intentions. The Bill has taken them completely by surprise. I admit that it is not an unwelcome surprise, but they cannot give estimates.

If we are to achieve anything by the Bill, we should raise the rates substantially The attractiveness of the Bill would then be even greater than it was when the Minister proposed it. On what basis of investigation and inquiry in the Department has the fiure of 75 per cent. been arrived at? Was this one of the judgments of Solomon? Was it a guess? Is it just a hope? If so, it is not good enough. Both the English and the Scottish Departments have had a year in which to make a judgment. This is a brave Bill in that it hopes to achieve something in two years. It must therefore be brave enough and courageous enough in the money sense to succeed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sal-ford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) will later be talking about Amendment No. 21. I do not wish to impinge on that discussion, but I make a reservation about it. I accept that money can be abused. I should not like the Minister to turn that argument against me. I should like him to confine himself to the point of judgment about whether 75 per cent. is right or whether it should be more than 75 per cent., given that it will be impossible to spend all this money in such a short time. It will be impossible to get in the applications in time to make the Bill work. I should like to know what information there is in the Department to substantiate the Minister's claim.

I am in some difficulty about supporting the Amendment. Our main purpose is to seek to improve housing generally for the people most in need.

We are concerned with two distinct groups of people. There is first the owner-occupier, and I am all in favour of the largest grants being made available to him. I have in my constituency people who have sunk all their savings into buying property and have sought to improve it over the years. It is often their only asset. As they improve their house, the whole tone of the area improves. We should encourage this development.

I am particularly concerned about the second group of people. The Bill does not include London, but it is possible to get 50 per cent. grants in London. This has been done in the London Borough of Hammersmith, in which I lived until very recently and which is represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart). Properties have been bought by people who had no great housing need. They obtained a housing improvement grant and in a matter of months the properties were sold for a very handsome profit or were let at a very substantial rent. This is no way helped to solve the appalling housing problem which existed in Hammersmith and in many other parts of London.

The danger of the Amendment is this. People will take the opportunity of buying very dilapidated property, obtaining a 90 per cent. grant and, in a short time, making a very handsome profit by selling it or by charging very substantial rents. This will not solve the housing problems which so many people face, and this should be our principal consideration.

I hope that the Bill will encourage local authorities to enter into the property market and buy and improve properties and let them to people living in their area. I should warmly welcome a 90 per cent. grant made available to them. There are many responsible housing associations. I should welcome it if they were allowed 90 per cent. grants because whatever properties they are able to improve are invariably let to people in housing need, and this will help the people I see each week who ask for my help in their housing problems.

I should therefore be opposed to the introduction of a 90 per cent. grant if, as is my fear, it were abused by what I term speculators in property. I hope that the Minister will give us a clearer indication of the kind of use to which he would wish to see the grant put, assuming that he is prepared to support the introduction of a 90 per cent. grant. I hope he would ensure that it was used for the benefit of people in genuine housing need.

There is no housing problem in London or anywhere else if a person has sufficient money, if not to buy a property, then to afford the rent being asked. If a person can afford to pay £8 or £10 a week in rent, he can go into any estate agent's office in London and obtain a property virtually overnight. We should seek to help the people who are in the majority and who are hard pressed to pay rents of £5 or £6 a week.

I have come in to the discussions on the Bill at a very late stage, but, having listened to part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), I am inclined to agree more with my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) than I am with him, although I think that their intentions are the same; namely, to improve the quality of what we have chosen to invest in a national social service—and that is what it amounts to.

I was not allowed by the Chair, quite rightly, to develop the argument on Amendment No. 21, although I referred to it. I acknowledged that the later Amendment dealt with the question of standard grants. We are not saying that we are in favour of Amendment without any qualification. The present Act is defective in that sense.

That comforts me a little.

The Government were elected partly on the proposition that people must stand on their own feet. For them to say, "You are not going to stand on your own two feet. We are going to help you as to 75 per cent. In other words, you will stand on one-and-a-half of your own two feet with the help of the Government", is a strange contradiction of the principles on which they operate. But we understand the contradiction.

In this matter some people cannot or will not stand on their own two feet, and the Government must step in. Nevertheless, the abuses referred to by my hon. Friend are very real ones. They are not less real in Scotland than they are in London; indeed, they may well be worse in Glasgow, in proportion to the population, than in London. We have rapacious landlords, waiting to take over dilapidated properties, obtaining these generous grants and then selling the properties off at extortionate prices or letting them at exorbitant rents. Unless the kind of suggestion mentioned by my right hon. Friend is adopted, offering some protection against abuses, I shall have great hesitation in supporting a proposition of this kind.

Far too little housing is provided by non-profit making organisations—whether local authorities, housing associations or co-operative enterprises. I speak with a little family experience of co-operative enterprise. My daughter obtained a house from a co-operative enterprise in South-East London not many years ago. Its houses were newly built. There was no question of a large deposit or of buying the houses, but for tax purposes the rent paid was treated as if it were interest on a mortgage. That kind of co-operative endeavour should be given far more publicity by the Government and other responsible bodies than has been the case hitherto.

In Scandinavia this kind of enterprise is helping to solve the housing problem far more successfully than we have been able to solve it, precisely because there is this co-operative, non-profit-making endeavour. The Government, tied by their own dogma, are seeking to solve the problem by pouring public money into private pockets with far too little protection against the kind of abuses to which my hon. Friend has referred.

I therefore hope that the Minister will tell us exactly what his views are and how, exactly, he will protect the public purse from the abuses of existing legislation which will undoubtedly be indulged in by private speculators.

Everybody in the House has heard of the Mason-Dixon line in America. Not everybody approves of it; some progressive people object to it. We are not speaking of the Mason-Dixon line today; we have the Dickson Mabon line. Not all progressive people will be bursting with enthusiasm for that either. To be fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), I must admit that he stressed the fact that he would advocate an increase in grant only if certain reservations were provided—notably, some protection for tenants.

Let us take this to its logical conclusion. The landlord's contribution used to be 12½ per cent. I can take the Minister to some fine improvements carried out on that basis in my constituency. Under the 1969 Act the grant was raised to 50 per cent. The proposal that we are considering would raise it to 75 per cent. My hon. Friend would like to see a 90 per cent. grant. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) suggested a 100 per cent. grant. Why not a 190 per cent. grant? Where would it stop.

In questions of supplementary benefits there is the keenest, closest and sometimes cruellist examination of the need of the applicant. There is no suggestion of any such examination for landlords. The landlords of whom we are speaking are not usually needy landlords; they are big property companies. They will receive a hand-out of £1,500. I suggest that we should go easy in this matter. There are other ways of tackling the housing problem without unlimited handouts to landlords.

The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) began by taking me to task for having suggested, earlier, that we were doing something whereas when he and his colleagues had the opportunity they did nothing. He said, "Ah, but when you were in Opposition you did nothing". That is true. We waited until we had power to act. It is only when the right hon. Gentleman is in Opposition that he comes along with the offer of a majestic hand-out.

The effect of the Amendments would be to increase the maximum proportion of standard grants made by local authorities to private owners, owner-occupiers and landlords in England, Wales and Scotland to 90 per cent. of the approved cost of the works undertaken. The Bill already provides for an increase from 50 per cent. to 75 per cent. That is quite a generous increase, which will leave the owner-occupier or landlord to find only 25 per cent. of the cost of improving his house. The landlord or owner-occupier would no doubt be pleased if he had to find only 10 per cent., as proposed in the Amendment. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman should have discovered this new solicitude for landlords. Is this a bid for the landlords' vote in the development areas?

I am glad that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) took time off from writing the article that we are all looking forward to reading on Sunday to join the debate to help unmask the plot into which the right hon. Gentleman has been leading us. Bearing in mind that the owner-occupier or landlord is having his property improved it would seem reasonable that he should contribute 25 per cent. To go as far as the right hon. Gentleman proposes and increase the grant to 90 per cent. would accentuate still further the disparity of treatment between development and intermediate areas on the one hand and other areas on the other, which has been criticised by some hon. Members.

Before the Palladium closes down—since the Minister has laid much stress on the point about the suggested additional aid to landlords will he indicate the current level of take-up of grants by landlords? I believe that prior to the 1969 Act coming into effect the estimate was that only 22 per cent. of all improvement grants annually were taken up by landlords. Have we any information about the current take-up for tenanted properties, as distinct from owner-occupier and local authority properties?

I cannot give the hon. Member that information off the cuff. I am now advised that the proportion is about one-third. If the hand-out suggested by the party opposite to landlords were followed I am sure that they would be very grateful.

It may be argued that the Amendment simply brings the grant to private owners into line with the Government contribution of 90 per cent. of the loan charges incurred by the local authority in paying the grant. That is a false argument. The object of raising the Government contribution towards expenditure by local authorities from 75 per cent. to 90 per cent. is to enable them to give the higher level of grant without putting on them a higher burden than at present—and. indeed, enabling them to reduce it.

For those reasons I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will feel that he need not press the Amendment.

I enjoy listening to the Minister, not only publicly, but privately, when he entertains us with his political ripostes, but that was a completely irresponsible reply.

We are all concerned that landlorded properties should be improved. The Tory Party may believe—although it did not do very much when in office before—that it should improve landlorded properties without conditions. Reference was made in an earlier debate to the scheme which we introduced in August, 1969. One of the first duties of a Minister on taking office is to look at schemes for which he is responsible to see whether they ought to be improved. The Minister's only comment about that scheme was that one or two administrative details were wrong, but nothing born of Statute was wrong. It means that the Minister is content with the proposition about grants to landlorded properties.

From a seated position—I do not criticise him for that—the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture at the Scottish Office said that one-third of landlorded properties in Scotland were improved.

I did not say that that was in Scotland.

If those properties were not in Scotland, the hon. Gentleman should make that clear, because he is here as the responsible Scottish Minister. The figure quoted by my hon. Friend was 22 per cent. in relation to England and Wales. He does not presume to speak for Great Britain in this context. I warn the hon. Gentleman that I have the figures for Scotland.

In that case, why does the hon. Gentleman not give them to the Committee? The question was asked about England and Wales. If the question were asked about Scotland, I should be delighted to answer it. I understand that the take-up for Scotland is about four-fifths by owner-occupiers, and one-fifth by landlords.

That is not quite right, unless the Under-Secretary of State for Development at the Scottish Office is wrong, because, in the Scottish Estimates Committee on 24th June, he said that the figure for private tenemental homes in 1964 was 900, and in 1970 it was 1,100. Everyone in Scotland knows that the vast majority of landlorded homes are in tenemental properties, and that they are the most difficult to improve. They cause all the trouble. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Cullingworth Report, and at the survey for Glasgow, he will see that the figure is devastatingly bad.

I think that we must deal seriously with this issue of giving money to landlords to improve properties. I do not mind the Minister's banter. In fact, I enjoy it. He is good fun at times, and for the kind of Conservative that he is, he can be very enjoyable. But it is not good enough to answer a serious debate in the lighthearted way that he did. He answered the debate on Clause 1 by saying nothing. The strong case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) was completely ignored. The Minister cavalierly dismissed my hon. Friend's argument.

We are told that the figure of 75 per cent. has been chosen in order to stimulate people to act more responsibly. When I ask why we should not make it 90 per cent., the Minister seeks to summon my hon. Friends to his support against the landlords. My heavens—and I am tempted to go further—that is irresponsible.

I am prepared to say that the grant should be given under stricter conditions. If the Minister were to propose a more responsible Bill, we should be able to add various provisos to it. We shall seek to debate this issue shortly when we come to Amendment No. 21. The Minister has not told us why he has chosen 75 per cent. When we ask the reason for its selection, he should not merely sneer at the landlords and say that they do not deserve any more.

The Minister proposes to allow this increase for two years. In Scotland he will have to spend three times as much as he is spending this year. He must, therefore, receive applications three times as fast as they are coming in now, and they must come in very quickly—almost literally immediately—if we are to get this work done.

I cannot believe that the Minister thinks we are content with the simple answer that he has given. I hope that he will not treat us in this way when we debate the other Amendments, particularly when we debate standard grants for local authorities, and we ask to be told the basis on which they are decided.

I cannot believe that, with the army of officials that he has behind him, and with the advisers that he has, no homework has been done on this issue. I cannot believe that there is not a sample survey in the Scottish Office. The civil servants at the Scottish Office are first-class, and I cannot believe that they have not done a sample survey. Nor can I believe that the Department of the Environment has no information whatsoever to guide it in deciding what to do. I find it breathtaking that we are not given any of the relevant evidence. The Minister is hinting that it does not exist, but I just cannot believe that.

I am sure that there must be evidence for the Government's view. I should like the Minister to tell us why this figure has been chosen, and why they are not in favour of a short sharp measure to improve the situation. I am not saying that this figure of 90 per cent. should be permanent. That is purely arbitrary. It could be 85 per cent., 80 per cent., 95 per cent., or almost any other figure. I do not go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) suggests, or as far as saying that it should be 190 per cent., but that is not the point. What we want to know is why the figure in the Bill has been chosen.

The Minister may say that it is an entirely arbitrary figure, that he had a dream one night that it was 75 per cent., but I can hardly believe that even this Government govern themselves by imagination, nightmares and dreams. I cannot believe that.

I can.

I ask the Minister to entertain us on some other occasion, and on this to give serious answers to the questions that have been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury and myself. Why has the figure of 75 per cent. been chosen? Where is the evidence to substantiate its selection?

I do not believe that the Department dreamed up £46 million. Nor do I believe that it dreamed up the development and intermediate areas. It clearly had a strategy which led it to think that this limitation was right in terms of development and intermediate areas, and that £46 million was the right sum of money. Furthermore, it would have had to take the argument further. Having decided on £46 million, it would have to consider how long that would last. Having done that, it has chosen a period of two years. Presumably, work in the pipeline would be cut off if it was not completed within two years. Presumably it does not matter if people cannot start until August or September. What is the information on what the Minister bases his conviction that this will satisfy a particular need and that must be 75 per cent.?

People will be inundating us soon with queries about other matters, such as the price of kangaroo meat. Surely we are entitled to know the answers to these questions. Surely the Minister wants the highest possible amount if his object is to encourage improvements. If we took the average cost of conversion of £3,000 the £46 million would stretch to about 15,000 properties. Have the Minister's advisers shown him that an absolute maximum of 15,000 properties will solve the problem? Or does he expect that it will cost half of £3,000–or twice that amount—per unit?

He cannot argue that he does not have to tell us. This is the House of Commons. He chose to bring forward this Bill with the maximum publicity and he cannot now say, "I am very sorry, but I will not tell you anything. I have laid down the figure at £46 million and I will not tell you who will get it. I have told you that the rate will be 75 per cent. and you must make your own arrangements to find out more." That is not the way to treat the House. We are entitled to know why he decided against 100 per cent. and for two years. Did he just flip a coin? Is this the way to rush through an urgent Bill with restrictions on areas and timespan? Does the Minister believe that another 15 per cent. would take him over the £46 billion so much more quickly?

The more I listen to the Minister the more I am driven to think that I should not support the Bill, because there is more behind it than the Minister has said. If he wants our co-operation, he should give us more facts so that we can decide whether he has been prudent.

Are we not to receive a reply from the Minister to the valid points of policy that have been put to him? Are we, not for the first time, to be treated in this fashion? Some specific requests have been made about points that should be taken into account before the Bill completes its passage through Parliament. They must be considered and replied to by the right hon. Gentleman.

I remind the Minister that we are in Committee. We are not indulging in banter. I trust that if this debate were going on in a small Committee room up- stairs a different atmosphere would prevail. I urge the Government to adopt a more serious attitude and to deal adequately with points put to them.

What estimate of grant take-up gave rise to the figure of £46 million spread over three years in terms of expenditure and only two years in terms of grant applications? These are important matters to which my hon. Friends have referred on many occasions. Such an estimate must have been made, even in broad terms. If not, it is an appalling indictment of the way in which the Government are handling the Bill.

On Second Reading the Under-Secretary said that any Bill of this kind would inevitably be "rough and ready". That was an odd phrase for a Minister to use about his legislation. We demand an answer to the questions we have asked because the matter cannot be left like this.

The Committee has before it an Amendment designed to increase the proportion of grant from 75 per cent. to 90 per cent. I assume when I look at Amendments tabled by the Front Bench opposite that they are serious proposals made in a serious attempt to improve the Bill. I believe that this one is entirely frivolous—[Interruption.]—that it was not tabled with the aim of improving the Bill and that no attempt has been made to produce calculations to substantiate why the figure should be 90 per cent.

It was fair for the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) to question how I had arrived at my calculations and he deserves, and will receive, a serious reply. But when hon. Gentlemen opposite table frivolous Amendments and make no attempt to substantiate the figures contained in them, they must not complain if they receive an answer which, compared with this Amendment and the way it was moved, was charitable.

The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury has had more experience of local government than I and knows a great deal of the workings of the central government machine. In a matter of this kind a proposal is made and we consider whether it will or will not increase the take-up of improvement grants, and officials are asked to study whether an increase in the number of applications would result from the proposal. They arrived at their calculations by making comparisons of figures. The 1969 Act has not been in force for very long, but they gave the best advice they could, and on that advice, not always united, we tried to form a judgment.

Much the best answer I can give to the series of questions put by the hon. Gentleman, and to the question to which I should have replied earlier put by the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson), is that we will gladly, at stated periods, produce figures of take-up between now and June, 1973. I should not like to commit myself to six-monthly, yearly or other intervals. Whatever the period, the House will be able to see whether or not our calculations have been soundly based. This is much the most honourable way of proceeding in the matter, so that we can be judged by our achievement.

I should like to leave the matter there. I hope that the hon. Member for Willesden, East will not proceed with an Amendment, the need for which he has produced no shred of proof and which he has made very little attempt to justify.

I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman decides that this is the way to conduct himself in a parliamentary debate. I have been in Parliament for perhaps a shorter time than he, only 15 years, and I have been a Minister for six years, but we all know that Front Bench Amendments can always be divided into two categories. The purpose of back bench Amendments from either side depends on back benchers' own capacities, inclinations, and the like. Amendments tabled by the Front Bench are meant to be voted on as being very sincerely put forward or they are what are called probing Amendments. I had to deal with a series of probing Amendments to the 1969 Measure, and those were withdrawn only after long debate and after I had elicited the facts for the hon. Member concerned. That is all I am asking the Minister to do.

If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this Amendment is frivolous, meriting a frivolous answer, and intends to behave in this way on the later Amendments, he really is asking for it. This is an agreed Measure. It is a Bill that we all want, though there are items in it that we should like to improve. This is not the way for the Minister to conduct affairs if he wants to get the Bill through the House of Commons.

I have asked for facts that we do not have. The right hon. Gentleman forgets that we are not the Government, although we ought to be. It is the Minister who has the facts. If he does not have them in his head, and his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary does not have them, they can be obtained elsewhere. We ask for the facts. Were samples taken or not? If they were, may we have the evidence? We want to know. If the Minister will not tell us the facts, I will tell him some of the facts that we have. Although they are not complete, it is on that basis that we are arguing the Amendment.

Are the Minister's figures correct? We are not just debating the 90 per cent. or 75 per cent. grant to landlords, but a series of Amendments dealing with local authorities and with owner-occupiers. If the Minister treats us so cavalierly on this Amendment, what will our succeeding debates be like?

The situation in Scotland is very bad, although we are the best of the areas affected by the Bill. In 1964 3,900 private owners got grants. In 1970 the number had risen to 5,800. Everyone will agree that the increase should have been greater than that. Does the Minister intend to treat us frivolously on the later Amendment on this point?

3.15 p.m.

Can we have the facts and figures for England and Wales? In the case of private landlord dwellings in Scotland, it is staggering that there was an increase of only 200 in six years. The figure for Scottish local authorities was 890 in 1964 and 17,508 in 1970. These are figures that we have elicited from the Scottish Minister, who is much more responsible when it comes to giving facts. I ask the Minister for Housing Construction to behave in a similarly responsible fashion and give us facts and figures.

When it comes to making a monetary breakdown, the trouble is that the Bill does affects, not the whole of England, but only parts of England. Any figures that I give are those I have obtained from the Library and other sources and are not necessarily accurate in this context. In a Written Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) the Minister said this:

"In the 12 months ended 31st March, 1971, standard grants amounting to £7·5 million were paid to private owners. Discretionary grants amounting to £2·6 million were paid for conversions generally. Comparable figures are not available for work done by local authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1971; Vol. 820, c. 376.]

I have obtained from the Library a figure relating to England, but I am not sure if the figure relates to England and Wales. This is why it is so difficult for us. That Written Answer was given on 7th July. We were given from 2nd July to 9th July to prepare for this debate. The Library has given me a figure of a total of £19,150,000, which includes money for environmental and residential areas of £150,000. We must go through the exercise of deducting the two latter items from the first item to get at the figure.

This is not good enough. I thought that the Minister would at least tell us, "These are the facts about landlorded grants. This is what is happening. This is the general disincentive. Accordingly, we think—we have done a sample in the development areas—that we should raise it, not to 60 per cent., but to 75 per cent. and there is no case for going higher than 75 per cent." That is the argument which I believe would have appealed to us. I may be wrong and that argument might not have gone down well. However, we shall want that answer when it comes to local authorities and owner-occupiers.

The Minister has run into a major snag in getting this Bill through because of his contemptuous and cavalier attitude. We will not have it. In the interests of the House of Commons I insist that the Minister should seek to reply with facts and figures It is not in my nature to go on in this way, but I do not like the Minister's handling of the Bill.

I am concerned to discover whether this increase to 75 per cent. is an incentive which the Minister believes is necessary to persuade those interested to improve their houses. There has always been a feeling in local government that the £100 grant per house for improving the amenities—the environmental grant—is insufficient. In an area improvement scheme it becomes a much greater problem for local government.

Local authorities are to get only 75 per cent. They must provide car parking, open spaces and a whole range of amenities which go well beyond £100 a unit. Local government wishes to know, therefore, whether the improvement from 50 to 75 per cent. represents just an incentive value or a real attempt by the Minister to look at the environmental grant, as he has been asked to do over many months by the local government associations, in order to make a better deal, as it were, for house improvement. Any housing improvement policy depends upon a successful area improvement policy. One is a precursor of the other. He must address himself more clearly to this issue.

Although I am grateful to the Minister for having been generous in trying to discuss the matter in some detail, we must press him for more information. The figures must be available; they must be part of his thinking. Does the increase from 50 to 75 per cent. represent a straightforward financial incentive? Does it take into account rising costs over the two years, and what sort of projection has been made of rising costs of improvement over the two years? What element of the extra 25 per cent. is sheer financial reward, and how much of it is for providing better environmental services which are an integral part of any housing improvement or area improvement scheme?

The Minister said that he would take seriously—I thank him for it—the suggestion that there should be publication of the figures broken down broadly on the lines which I suggested, but I was a little disturbed to hear him say—perhaps it was just an off-the-cuff reaction—that he would consider it on a six-monthly, yearly or some other basis. The Bill operates for only two years in terms of work take-up and for three years in terms of expenditure. In these circumstances, it will not be sufficient to provide this sort of information on the basis of six-monthly or yearly returns.

It should be perfectly feasible to use the quarterly housing statistics for this purpose. The only qualification here—I made it earlier—is that in the very early stages, that is, for the rest of the year and perhaps early next year, it might be found not possible to give quarterly figures because of the need to build up experience. It should certainly be possible, however, to give a set of figures early next year, say, in the February, 1972, housing statistics, and thereafter on the usual quarterly basis one has for other figures.

If that is not done, there will be inadequate monitoring of an important aspect of policy, although the Ministry has the facilities for doing it. There are the regional offices and there is the collation of information at the centre. I urge that this point be taken seriously along those lines.

Before coming to the debate today, I had asked that the statistics for the development areas should be shown separately, but the hon. Gentleman will realise that there is a built-in statistical difficulty in establishing exactly the effect of the Bill, in that one has to make a theoretical subtraction of the amount of development grant which would have been taken up anyway. So the figures will not prove absolutely the effect of the Bill. We shall try to show as best we can through the percentage increases and so on how far the figures reflect the effect of the Bill. We are still working on that and considering how best to proceed.

I can well accept that, and the point I was coming to—it is a variation of the point which I made earlier, and it may be helpful to the Minister—is that one might produce the breakdown not just in financial terms but in the number of improvement grants taken up. Although one has to allow for the problem of subtracting different proportions from totals, if one sees in specific areas a marked rise above the 25 per cent. to which the Under-Secretary of State referred on Second Reading a week ago, then, even if one cannot be exact in one's statistics, one can see an effect which could be attributed at least partly, if not wholly, to the impact of the Bill. To the extent that the margins vary, if they are very narrow we can say that the Bill has been of no effect. If there is a tremendous take-up, as the Under-Secretary suggested will be the case, we shall be able to see that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) specific- ally referred to Scotland, which is totally affected by the Bill. Therefore, it is relatively simple to identify the figures there. He has pointed out that current expenditure on improvement grants in Scotland is approaching £2 million, according to figures given in the Scottish Grand Committee. As a result of the Bill we may expect additional expenditure of about £5 milion out of the £46 million. Are we seriouly being told that within a period of less than a year there will be a jump from expenditure approaching £2 million to expenditure of about £6 million, a trebling within the space of a year?

If the figures I quoted earlier are correct—that the expenditure in 1971 for the whole country is about £22 million—and we expect to have an average of more than £15 million extra, according to the Bill, is the Minister seriously suggesting that within one year there will be a rise from £22 million to £37 million, and more? If so, we are entitled to know the broad assessment that has been made in the Department of the increased number of improvement grants as a result of the Bill. I do not expect the assessment to be exact, because it cannot be. But some calculations must have been made by the Department and in the negotiations with the Treasury before that figure of additional expenditure was approved.

A number of important points of fact and interpretation are involved. They are important not for the purposes of our probing Amendment, and not solely to understand the impact of the Bill, but for all of us, of every political party and none, who are interested in the effectiveness of housing improvements policy in total. I again urge that the House should be given specific information on those points.

I do not know whether such additional information as I can give is all that helpful, because by its nature it is provisional. Whilst we have made an estimate of £46 million, the most important, and to me the most attractive, feature of the house improvement grants is that they are by their very nature open-ended. They do not stop because they happen to reach a ceiling, because there is no ceiling.

What does that mean?

If the take-up were to be more than £46 million no stopper would be put on the improvement grants being taken up in the two-year period. They are open-ended in the sense that within the individual limitations there is no limitation on the extent of the take-up. Therefore, the figures are bound to be provisional.

3.30 p.m.

I can give a very rough estimate as to how the £46 million will fall out. I will try to give such breakdown as I can. We think that more of the £46 million is likely to fall within 1972–73 than in either of the years before and after—say, £25 million in 1972–73 with perhaps £10 million in each of the preceding and following years. I do not think that that adds very much to the knowledge of the Committee on the subject. The figures are very provisional. We think that the target will be reached. We are prepared to report to the House at regular intervals so that it can judge as time goes on whether the Bill is having the desired effect.

I remind the hon. Member for Shore-ditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) that this is largely an incentive grant. It is not payment to an exact plan either of houses or of the areas which will benefit. The administration of area improvement depends on the local authority itself. We can only encourage, through our regional offices, as and when the opportunity arises. The take-up of individual grants is partly a matter for individual owners and landlords and partly a matter for the local authorities. But any attempt to calculate this in cash terms is more likely to be misleading than not.

If this is a rough and ready figure and an open-ended commitment, as opposed to what was suggested earlier today by hon. Members opposite, why is the right hon. Gentleman being so difficult in face of the request by local authorities to make this scheme on approvals rather than on completions, and sticking to the rigid 24-month period rather than using a 48-month period?

I tried to explain our reasons. We chose a two-year period and preferred to do this on improvements rather than completions because we think that this is a better way of getting a head of steam behind the scheme.

The right hon. Gentleman has answered one question in a very helpful way but he has not answered the question specifically asked by this Amendment. He has said that we were spending in Great Britain on these works £22 million in 1970–71. The Bill will add a further £10 million in this financial year. Thus, if this scheme is successful, the Government will be spend-£32 million this year. He admits that this is open ended, as it should be. So it is only an estimate. But next year they will be spending not £32 million but £25 million or so from what is allowed in this Bill; in the second year they will be spending £25 million; and no doubt in the tapering year, when the guillotine comes down—in June, 1973–the balance of approximately £9 million will be taken up.

The Minister says that because of the open-ended nature of the provision the figures might be bigger. That would be splendid. As Oscar Wilde said, nothing succeeds like excess. No doubt the hon. Gentleman's remarks have been noted by the Treasury, but I am glad of them. But that was not what we were asking about. We asked not about the general picture of working year by year, which he has told us about, or even about his high hopes of doing even better—he has told us that too. What we asked was whether the programme was in balance between one category of grant and another and between one type of person and another.

We want to know whether local authorities are doing well enough and whether they need additional help, we also want to know whether owner-occupiers are doing well enough. We want to know the situation in regard to private landlord tenement properties and other properties and what will happen to the people who live in those properties.

Assuming the Minister is correct and he can pay more than £46 million, it is unlikely that the Treasury would agree to supplement that money. Therefore, does it not follow that anything in excess of £46 million will come from some other fund in the Department, and will this not mean that money which could have been given to our areas, to be excluded from the Bill, will be taken away to fund such other expenditure in these defined areas?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and would remind the House that this matter was raised on Second Reading. We were worried that the Amendment would mean that the money which was to be added to would be taken out of the projected five-year expenditure exercise.

indicated dissent.

The Minister shakes his head. We know that he is a powerful man in the Government, with tremendous influence over the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it may well be that my hon. Friend's fears are groundless. If this is a bonanza and an addition to the projected figures, we have not had the situation made clear. No doubt this will be referred to again on Third Reading. The Minister has said that this is an open-ended commitment larger than £46 million. I thank the Minister for that.

The Minister said it could be.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) says, the Minister said it could be more than £46 million. We must be fair to the Minister, even though at times he is unfair to us. The figure could be more and we are glad about that, but that is not the purpose of this debate. And, incidentally, the Minister seems to have lost sight of Amendment No. 16, which is a poor little lamb that has gone astray. It will have to be rescued and brought back into the Bill, and we will discuss that matter too. We want to know the balance of the grant and how the grant is to work on the basis of present performance.

Perhaps the Minister might have time to look at these matters in the interval between this sitting of the Committee and the next, because it is clear we are not going to get the Bill as fast as we wanted. The Under Secretary of State must accept from me that we want the Bill, but we wish it to be properly discussed. We are not going to be treated with the contempt that seems to be in order today.

The Minister will have time to go to the Department and to the Scottish Office and to get a breakdown of the facts and figures. It is surely not impossible for the Scottish Office to examine the records of local authorities and others and to give a breakdown of the experience of all the campaigns which have taken place over the last 15 months. We have heard Minister after Minister say that it is his immediate concern to launch a campaign and to stump the country to increase the figures of these improvement grants. I believe that they genuinely want to do this. If they are conducting a publicity campaign about raising the grants why not have a unit in the Department monitoring the rate at which these applications come in?

Does my hon. Friend recall a Parliamentary Answer recently to the effect that the cost of building a house has risen in the last 12 months by £1,180? If that is true it must follow that that sort of increase must be added to these grants. Prices have risen inordinately under the current inflation. We need something written into the Bill to ensure that this is a genuine £46 million.

I agree. My hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) made this point on Second Reading. This information is available in the Ministry and the Scottish Office. I know this because the right hon. Gentleman encourages his hon. Friends—and I do not blame him, it is a natural part of original sin in any Minister—to table Questions asking how many improvement grants were agreed in the first four months of this year as compared with the first four months of 1970. Then the right hon. Gentleman gets a supplementary question, congratulating him upon having increased the rate by 8 per cent. in the four comparable months.

The Minister should be able to look at the figures from October, 1969, to the latest convenient date. He should be able to divide them into different sections and see which of the three sections is not doing well. He should then be able to give additional incentives to that section as opposed to the others. What he has asserted in the Bill is that all sections are the same. If they are will he please define them? Will he give us a breakdown of the figures showing that they are all the same? What more simple answer could there be?

I do not believe that they are the same. The figures that I was given in the debate on Scottish housing did not suggest that. They are disproportionate. The local authorities are doing more than the owner occupiers and the owner occupiers are doing far more than those who are obliged to live in slums. If that is so there is surely a case for doing something more for one category as opposed to another. The Minister must give us this information. He may be right. My hon. Friends and I are not suggesting that our Amendment is correct, we are asking for information. We are probing the situation just as the Under-Secretary has done many times, to his credit, in the Scottish Grand Committee and elsewhere.

He received answers in the past from the Department, if not at once then by letter. The Minister may not have the answers today but we would like to have them on succeeding Amendments. We would like him to justify these figures. It is an extraordinary doctrine for a Minister of the Crown to get up and say that the only reason why he should accept an Amendment is that the Opposition can prove the need for it. It is for the Minister to assert that it is right, or to agree that his Bill might be wrong and to take it back or to agree on the spot that the Bill is wrong because the case made against it is so overwhelming. It is not for the Opposition to write the Government's Bills. The Minister is quite wrong to treat us in this way. I ask him to respond to us in this way. If he cannot do it now, because he has not got the facts, then on succeeding Amendments dealing with the 75/90 argument will he give us a breakdown for the whole of Great Britain?

The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) has asserted a very intresting constitutional doctrine—that no Opposition Amendments should be regarded seriously.

I did not say that.

Probing Amendments are all right, but they should be presented with a certain gravitas in an attempt to show that there is something serious about them. I have tried to give as much information as I could. Clearly, we shall not complete the Bill today. If there is any additional information which I can give when we meet again, it will be given.

I regret that we have not made more progress. The people in the development areas will know exactly where the responsibility for it lies. I shall take every opportunity to make it clear that the Labour Party is deliberately holding up the passage of a Bill which could be of great help and bring great encouragement to many people. I do not think that we have fallen down in our duty to give the Committee as much information as possible.

On a point of order, Capt. Elliot. Is it in order for the Minister to make such an imputation as he has just made? I have tried to represent the views of local government organisations. They wrote to me because the Government refused to discuss the matter with them. I have checked, and that is what I have been told. I tried to represent the views of a vast number of local government organisations. I have attempted to probe the Government in a helpful manner. It is a little much if the right hon. Gentleman is allowed to say that I have deliberately thwarted the passage of the Bill. That is a disgraceful suggestion.

That is not a point of order for the Chair.

I ask the Minister to reconsider what he has just said. He has not made a helpful contribution to our dscussions. Statements of the kind he has just made do not contribute to the housing improvements campaign, which was initiated not by his party but by the Labour Government. I say that not as a matter of debate but as a matter of historical fact. We have constantly said—and we mean it—that we accept the Bill as far as it goes. But we do not expect to be threatened by that kind of smear remark.

The Minister has said that he will make it clear wherever he goes that the Opposition have attempted to thwart the progress of the Bill and any attempt through the Bill to assist the development and intermediate areas in dealing with the housing improvements policy. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not pursue that line and that he will reconsider his view, because we have tried in Committee and on Second Reading, to seek information in a constructive way. If he has not come prepared to give the detailed answers, which cannot be given on Second Reading but which we are entitled to expect during the Committee stage, the responsibility lies with him.

No one on this side of the Committee has attempted to suggest that the Minister is misleading the country or the House about his intentions or that he is treating the development and intermediate areas dishonestly or thwarting the policy implicit in the Labour Government's Housing Act, 1969, to which this is a marginally amending piece of legislation. The right hon. Gentleman's remarks were most regrettable and are in line with the failure to provide the information which was requested. I hope that we shall get a different approach from him in future.

Let me make one objective fact clear. Whatever the time taken during the proceedings on the Bill, the date of benefit is fixed, and nothing we do to probe the Government's intentions or to change the Bill makes any difference to the situation in the development and intermediate areas. I hope that the Minister will not be so taken with his own anger about being probed on these matters as to make that kind of mistake. The people living in the development and intermediate areas who are following the progress of the Bill, particularly the local authorities, will know the position. Nobody loses by our very careful probing of the legislation, because the Government have, rightly, inserted a date in the Bill. We welcome that. Nobody has queried that we welcome it. Therefore, nobody will suffer as a result of the probing that has taken place in Committee.

I did not intend to take any further part in the proceedings until I heard the last and very unfortunate remarks of the Minister about the alleged attempt of hon. Members on this side of the House to thwart the passage of the Bill. We all know that the Minister has a reputation for an arrogance and a contempt of the democratic processes stretching over a long family history. For him to talk to us about thwarting the will of Parliament is a bit much.

If we had thought to do that I could have brought along a team of a dozen of my hon. Friends who could have thwarted the Bill until Kingdom come. We need no lessons on ways of thwarting legislation in this House; nor do we need any lectures by that Minister about the needs of development areas, in respect of housing, welfare milk, prescription charges or anything else. We know our problems. We think we know how to solve them. We think that the right hon. Gentleman has no idea how to solve them. So do not let him come here again with that kind of arrogant remark during the passage of the Bill. We know what our people think about the Government. The people of Greenwich have told the Government what they think about them, and other people will get their opportunity in due course.

Meanwhile, whatever we say this afternoon about the Bill will have nothing whatever to do with delaying its passage. As my hon. Friend has said, the dates are fixed in the Bill. It will be operative from those dates, no matter what we do. All the time that I have listened this afternoon my hon. Friends have simply sought to elicit facts which are known to be in the Department. We had this kind of debate on another major Bill when the Labour Government were in power. We were discussing House of Lords reform. We extracted information which Labour Ministers denied existed in the Department. It is only by the kind of persistence now being shown by hon. Members on this side of the House that that information was finally extracted from the Department.

That is what my hon. Friends have been doing this afternoon—and it is a perfectly genuine, perfectly good and perfectly acceptable democratic process. For the Minister to make the kind of remark that he made in his last few sentences is simply to invite trouble.

Few Bills have started off with quite so much good will as the Bill presented by the right hon. Gentleman. I can only assume from listening to him this afternoon, and from some of the offensive things that he said in his last few sentences, that he simply thought to himself, "I will take this Bill on Friday. One or two people will dander in, listen for a few minutes, and then dander out again "—as we say in Scotland. But many of us who are concerned about housing are concerned not just to come here to listen for a few seconds and clear off.

I can speak only for myself, but I think that the points that my hon. Friends have put to the Minister were put courteously. My hon. Friends spoke briefly. I spoke for about six or seven minutes. I made a point that is very much in the mind of my local authority. It has been concerned about it for some time. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) put similar points. I hope that the Minister will withdraw a remark which was offensive not only to hon. Members but to local authorities and local authority associations which have asked us to make these important points to the Minister.

I apologise for having had to leave the Chamber, but it was necessary to do so because I had to make a telephone call in connection with some important constituency matters.

I am disturbed, on returning to the Chamber, to be told that the Minister has suggested that hon. Members on this side of the Committee are trying to delay the Bill. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that had I wished to delay the Measure I could have spoken for three times as long as I did. I deliberately kept my speech short because it was our intention to see whether the Minister could get the Bill this afternoon.

The fact that the Minister has not got the Bill through today is due largely to his own obduracy. I hope he will recognise that, and that when we return to the Bill on a future occasion we shall get the kind of answers that will enable the Bill to go through speedily because, despite its defects, it is a necessary Measure, and we should welcome its becoming law.

The secretary of the Association of Municipal Corporations has written to say:

"… but I understand that the remaining stages of the Bill in the House of Commons will be taken on Friday 9th July and that there may still be an opportunity of persuading the Government to consider the introduction of amendments to the Bill during its passage. …"

I have attempted to raise substantial arguments on behalf of the A.M.C. Local government will not take it kindly that the Government are saying, in effect, that if arguments put forward by local government are raised when the Bill is being considered in committee—and this is necessary because the Government have refused to consult local authorities—that is thwarting the passage of the Bill.

I do not mind what the Minister says when he goes round the country, because the facts will be known. I shall take steps to make sure that the A.M.C. understands what the Minister has said. The implication of the Minister's statement is that local authorities are going to get short shrift from this Government, and that if they want to raise matters in the House they must consult hon. Members on these benches because, if they seek to get hon. Gentlemen opposite to raise matters for them, the Minister will stop his hon. Friends from asking questions. The only recourse open to those concerned is to consult my hon. Friends, because we are not going to be intimidated by the Minister telling us about the power that he has, or by his telling us that we have thwarted the passage of the Bill. The dates in the Bill are fixed, and whatever we say can make no difference.

I hope that in the last few minutes available to him the Minister will think it right and proper to rise and withdraw the remarks which I am sure he made in the heat of the moment.

The Amendment is in my name, and my choice at this stage is to persist with it and seek to get the answers for which I have asked on four occasions. I have been promised some answers at a later stage. There are other Amendments relating to other matters about which we shall require similar information. I cannot withdraw the Amendment until I know the balance of the figures.

The Committee will note that Amendment No. 16 is yet another Amendment of a similar kind, put down at the last minute, and I cannot amend it now. It will have to be amended on Report, if that is allowed. I cannot decide what to do, nor can my hon. Friends, until we know the figures involved.

I thought that Amendment No. 15 would be regarded as a paving Amendment to enable the Minister to give an answer that would deal with these four Amendments. I have no doubt that had I received the figures for which I had asked I should have been able to withdraw the Amendment and advise my hon. Friends not to persist with the other two, nor seek to alter the Amendment in the name of the Secretary of State. But, in the absence of the figures, I could not possibly advise my hon. Friends to adopt that course. It will be absurd for me to withdraw the Amendment unless the Minister says categorically that the figures for the balance mean that his judgment is right. That is my predicament.

The Minister has sat there quietly while a succession of hon. Members have chastised him for his concluding remarks, which I am sure he now regrets. He has had five gruelling hours. We all get tired, and no doubt that is why he is in a bad temper, but I suggest that he should now rise and apologise for his intimidating and bullying remarks. He should say that he will make every effort to provide the figures and to deal with the succeeding Amendments, and allow us to table other Amendments at a later stage. That is what I am inviting the Minister to do——