(by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the decision to close the foreign currency markets.

The London foreign exchange market has been formally closed for today. The arrangements on this occasion, however, are quite different from those on previous occasions, in that commercial banks are not being prevented from satisfying the requirements of their customers in foreign exchange, nor are they being prevented from dealing among themselves and with banks abroad. This action is in line with that taken in other markets in the European Community.

The Chancellor will appreciate that the House is concerned primarily with the impact of international currency movements during the last few days which have led to the closing of the exchange market in London. Will he say whether it is still his policy not to sacrifice growth to an unrealistic exchange rate, and, for that reason, will he say that he will resist the mounting pressure to peg the pound in relation to Common Market currencies so that all can float together?

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is the experience of recent years, under both Governments, that the pound needs more flexibility against European currencies than against the dollar, and that if he were to peg the pound against the franc and the deutschemark this would simply divert the overwhelming mass of Eurocurrency speculation against sterling?

Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that business is already disturbed in its investment intentions, which appeared to be picking up, by the very high interest rates and some aspects of his phase 2 prices and incomes policy, and that if he were now to peg the pound this would be the last straw in breaking the back of business confidence?

I dealt with a number of points raised by the right hon. Gentleman in the speech I made about a week ago on the international monetary situation, and I have certainly got nothing to add to what I said then.

Regarding the future and the question of investment, we shall be debating these matters in the Budget debate, which starts on Tuesday. I have noted what the right hon. Gentleman has said. But no decisions have been taken, and we are in close touch with our European partners.

I appreciate very well that some aspects of this problem were dealt with about a week ago and that others may well be dealt with in the Budget, but will the Chancellor accept, at any rate as the Opposition's opinion, that it could be disastrous to many of his intentions in the forthcoming Budget if a decision were to be taken in Bonn this weekend prematurely to peg the pound in relation to European currencies when the balance of payments outlook remains so gloomy?

We shall obviously bear in mind the sort of points that the right hon. Gentleman put forward. May I say to him—I say this in the light of what he has said on a number of occasions about the arrangements for European cooperation—that I realise that he has somewhat ambivalent views on European affairs, but I am somewhat surprised that he should choose this morning, of all mornings, to expose them.

Although the Chancellor says that there is a difference on this occasion in the closing of the foreign exchange markets, is he aware that the ordinary folk of Britain will be the losers, and that whatever the outcome of the decision, whether it be imposed upon us by the EEC or otherwise, the financiers and speculators will be the people who benefit? It is no use his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister lecturing the trade unions about small wage increases, before leaving for Bonn yesterday, when massive profits will be made by this move.

On the hon. Gentleman's first point, it is the case that for all practical purposes there will today, as a result of the action we have taken, be virtually no difference concerning ordinary commercial transactions compared with the position yesterday.

Regarding the other matters raised by the hon. Gentleman, this only stresses the point which has been put forward on many occasions by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and by myself, and on which we are at one; namely, the great importance of getting ahead as fast as we can to produce a better and more sensible international monetary system.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The House will know that there has recently been a great deal of public discussion about the practice and principle of warrant sales in Scotland. In common with the majority of my parliamentary colleagues, I have received many representations on this subject from individuals and, indeed, from interested societies. I have received communications from the Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and from the Scottish branch of the British Association of Social Workers concerning warrant sales as a form of diligence. All of them have made clear to me that in the many cases where goods have been poinded they are essential items of household furniture. In consequence, great distress is caused to families who see their vital possessions disposed of, and then for trifling sums, because of their inevitably low second-hand value. The family are thus deprived of necessities without even a substantial reduction in the debt being achieved.

All these individuals and societies who have written to me point out that warrant sales, with all their attendant local publicity, cause great hardship and distress without being of much value to the creditor.

I must confess, therefore, that my first thought on succeeding in the ballot was to present a much wider Bill than the one I present now. I considered whether the sale should take place in the home of the debtor rather than that it should perhaps take place in a central auction room, thus avoiding the local unpleasantness and perhaps fetching a better price. However, the more I thought about all the difficulties the more I became persuaded that the subject required much more expertise than that of a private Member and that the whole question of warrant sales as a form of diligence should be looked at in depth by the appropriate legal authorities.

It was with much gratification, therefore, that I learned that the Law Commission is currently engaged on a major exercise on diligence in Scotland, and I am sure that I speak for many of my colleagues on both sides when I say that I look forward to seeing in the commission's final report particularly its suggestions for radical reform.

In the meantime, the Bill which I am presenting, modest though it may look, is an important one and goes a long way to alleviate some of the hardships and distress caused to families.

In a nutshell, I am seeking to exempt essential items of household furniture from warrant sales. I will not weary the House with a detailed explanation of why I take this view, since I think it to he self-evident in view of all the cases which we know and understand.

Clause 1(1) defines the test to be applied to the exemption of articles from poinding. I have set out a list of the articles in subsection (2), but they are to be exempted only if subsection(1)(b) applies; that is, they are required to enable the debtor, his family and his dependants to continue to live in their homes without hardship.

Subsection (2) defines the categories of articles which I think to be essential to the continued pursuit of those personal or family activities without which normal family life would be insupportable or, indeed, impossible. I envisage that crockery, cutlery, cooking utensils and electric fires would be covered by this exemption, in the same way as I have listed beds, chairs and other items of household furniture. I think that the list which I have published in this subsection is about right, but it may be that in Committee some argument and discussion could take place on whether I have achieved a proper balance.

Subsection (3) empowers the Secretary of State for Scotland to specify by order any additions, deletions or variations to the categories which I have listed should experience prove this to be necessary.

Subsection (4) provides for the right of appeal to the sheriff by the debtor against the poinding of any particular article or articles. The House will know that under existing law an aggrieved debtor who feels that an essential item, such as tools of the trade, has been unlawfully poinded may seek to prevent any subsequent sale by warrant of that item by means of interdict. Whilst this remedy will still be available, I am sure that there will be debtors who will not be aware of it; and the proposed statutory provision for appeal I believe to be advantageous in terms of simplicity and in the precise definition of the appropriate grounds on which an appeal may properly be made.

Subsection (5) describes the appeal provision which is contained in the earlier subsection and would apply notwithstanding the provision of Section 249 of the Local Government Act 1947.

Subsection (6) modifies very slightly Section 20 of the Small Debt (Scotland) Act 1837—an Act which I am sure that the whole House will be very familiar with—and subsection (7) saves the existing exemptions I have already mentioned, such as workmen's tools.

I think it worth saying just a word about subsection (8), which makes provision for the inclusion of residential caravan dwellers by the application of Section 29(1) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. This is an important provision, because all of us know that at present there are a number of people who choose to live, or who have to live, in caravans, and this sub- section is designed to protect their interest.

In presenting the Bill to the House I have deliberately refrained from giving any dramatic examples such as have been sent to me from time to time. We all know of the dramatic cases mentioned in the newspapers. But I confess that my concern is primarliy for the hundreds of poor families who, because of their inability to manage their affairs, or because of sickness or unemployment, have found themselves in a difficult position. The Bill will, I trust, help them in their time of difficulty.

I would be less than honest if I let it be thought that someone like myself with a very limited knowledge of the law was responsible for drawing up this Bill in its entirety. I am much indebted to many people who have given me advice and guidance on these important matters. I think it is a useful Bill and one which will be welcomed by all who are concerned with social work in Scotland, and trust that the House will see fit to give it a Second Reading and ensure its easy passage through its remaining stages in this House.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) for instituting the Bill. I congratulate him on the way in which he has presented it. He presented it in so clear and lucid a way that there is little I can possibly say by way of explanation of it.

There is only one point which I should like to make. The hon. Member referred to the Scottish Law Commission presently being engaged on a general review of the whole law of diligence. I should explain to those hon. Members who are, perhaps, not entirely familiar with the law of Scotland that diligence is the process by which a moveable property, the personal property, of a debtor can be attached by the creditor in settlement, inter alia, of a judgment debt.

We are dealing here with one branch only of the law of diligence. There are other aspects of the law of diligence, such as arrestment for earnings. We are dealing here with the arrestment of that moveable property which is in his possession. It is the settlement of a judgment debt.

It has long been recognised, so far as attachment of earnings is concerned, that the harsh effect of the law had to be minimised or reduced. For a very long time now under the law of Scotland it has not been possible to attach the whole of a person's earnings, and successive administrations over many years have altered the level of earnings which must be left for the maintenance of the judgment debtor—if I may use an English expression. Once again, the same sort of principle has been applied by the common law of Scotland in the situation with which we are concerned, but it has been very restricted. It has been restricted entirely to tools of trade, on the view that no creditor should be able to attach in settlement of a debt those tools of trade which are necessary for the debtor to earn his livelihood.

What the hon. Member for Rutherglen is doing here, which I and the Government wholly support, is to extend that principle beyond what is necessary to enable the debtor to earn his livelihood to those assets within the home which make it possible for him to remain there with his family and other dependants without undue hardship. As the hon. Member has explained, undue hardship is a new criterion introduced into this area of law, and as a result it is necessary, or has, at least, been considered advisable by the hon. Member—once again I support him on this—to introduce appeal provisions.

The general criteria are laid down in Clause 1(1). The items referred to are detailed in Clause 1(2). If there is any argument about whether the removal of certain items could be achieved only at the price of causing undue hardship, in the last resort that is a matter for the court—namely, the sheriff—to decide. I wholeheartedly approve of that proposal.

I understand that this is a problem which has attracted the attention of English lawyers as well. I would briefly refer to the Payne Committee's Report of 1969, Cmnd. 3909. The Payne Committee was considering the whole question of the enforcement of judgment debts in the same way as the Scottish Law Commission is presently considering that whole problem. The issue was put rather neatly at paragraph 675 of the Payne Committee's Report, where this is said:

"There is, however, one point of exceptional importance and urgency to which we should refer. In relation to the exemption of goods from seizure attention has been brought to the fact that the disruption which sometimes takes place in the family of a debtor when furniture and furnishings are removed and sold under an execution far outweighs any possible advantage that may accrue to the judgment creditor by the removal and sale."

I interject here that this is the human problem to which the hon. Member is directing his attention. One must not, however, wholly overlook the legitimate rights of the creditor. One cannot ignore his legitimate rights simply by having regard to the position of the debtor. But it is a fact that when property of this nature is seized in this way and sold, it very rarely attracts a large sum of money, and on balance there is no doubt that the benefit to the creditor can very easily be far outweighed by the hardship resulting to the debtor.

The Payne's Committee's Report continued by making reference to the recommendations in the evidence of the Under-Sheriffs Association, where the under-sheriffs had expressed concern at the hardship that could be caused to debtors' families by the removal of household goods. I conclude this reference to the Payne Committee's Report by quoting the latter part of the paragraph to which I have referred.

'We agree with the under-sheriffs but we go further and recommend that a list of exempted articles should be prescribed, after consultation with social welfare and other interested organisations, and founded upon the general principle that a tradesman should retain such tools of trade and goods as are necessary to enable him to maintain his earnings, and that such household goods and personal clothing should be exempted as are necessary to provide a clean and decent home for the whole family."

The paragraph concludes with the words:

"The implementation of this recommendation is widely regarded as a matter of urgency."

As I understand it, that is the position in England and Wales. To some extent the problem is already met by the common law of Scotland, concerning tools of trade. It is interesting to note that the hon. Member has followed the course recommended in the paragraph to which I have referred by spelling out the list of exempted articles which should be prescribed. That is a wholly commendable approach. As I have said, the Scottish Law Commission is looking at this position broadly, but it certainly would not want it to be thought that this relatively minor but none the less significant change should be held up merely because the Law Commission is undertaking a wider investigation. I share that view. I have never subscribed to the view that one should never do anything until one is able to do everything. The proposals set out in the Bill should be commended.

Perhaps I should mention that there are a number of statutes which bite on this problem, and certain consequential amendments to certain of those statutes are called for. These are the statutes referred to in Clause 1.

I doubt whether there is much further that I can usefully add to what has already been said. In seeking to strike a balance between the legitimate interests of the creditor, on the one hand, and the humane considerations for the welfare of the debtor, on the other hand, the Bill strikes a very fair balance. I hope that it will receive the support of the House.

The Bill may require amendment in Committee. I should not have thought that its provisions would call for any material amendment. It may be that the list of items specified in Clause 1(2) will provoke discussion, but I have no doubt that the hon. Member very carefully considered the provisions of Clause 1(2), and, as I have said, it seems that a fair balance is struck here and that a workable solution is proposed.

The Bill is a not insignifiant contribution to the reform of the law of Scotland. I have heard from time to time the view, quite legitimately expressed, that in many aspects the law of Scotland lags behind the law of England when it comes to law reform. There are many reasons for that. The hon. Member for Rutherglen can take credit that in this area at least the law of Scotland appears to be leading English law in this important matter of social reform.

I thank the Lord Advocate for that reply and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) on the way in which he has drafted and introduced the Bill. I asked him a minute ago whether he had ever fathered any other legislation in the nine years that he has represented the Royal Burgh of Rutherglen in the House, and he said that he had not had that good fortune until now.

I have had 17 years in the House and only last year did I manage to get a Bill on to the statute book. I have never won a ballot, and at the rate I am going it does not appear that I ever will. I envy my hon. Friend for having this opportunity.

I have some experience of a number of distressing cases under the present law. I am glad that the Bill is being accepted by the Government and that they will help my hon. Friend when it reaches Committee to put it through quickly. My Bill went through in one sitting, and I strongly recommend that sort of action with the present Bill. I know that my hon. Friend and the right hon. and learned Gentleman will work very well together and that those who are fortunate enough to serve on the Committee will make sure that the proceedings are quick.

With his long experience in the Scottish Standing Committee, the hon. Gentleman will realise that to get any Bill through in one sitting is an achievement; but I fully endorse his sentiments.

The Commiteee I referred to sat once, with the Secretary of State as a member, and we managed to get the Bill through in one morning. I realise that the Secretary of State might not sit on the Committee considering this Bill. I am sorry that the Lord Advocate is not with us in the First Scottish Standing Committee dealing with local government. I am sure that he bitterly regrets not being a member. However, he should be commended for what he said.

I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not willing to hold up a good Bill because it is not the best. That is an exceptional attitude among Ministers. We all know that the Law Commission's recommendations will probably go a great deal farther than the Bill proposes. It is commendable that the Lord Advocate is willing to take a first instalment of reform rather than, as Ministers often do, use the expectation of a report as an argument for delaying it and other small reforms. I congratulate my hon. Friend and thank the Minister again.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I have waited a long time for this moment, and council tenants throughout the country have waited even longer. This is the third successive Session in which I have introduced such a Bill, but it is the first time there has been a possibility of a Second Reading debate.

The Bill comes before the House with a great deal of support. Its sponsors come from all three major political parties; it has the support of all the leading tenants' organisations; and it is also supported by numerous local authorities, both Labour-controlled and Conservative-controlled.

The support which the Bill has received is not just of a verbal kind. When I first introduced such a Bill, under the Ten Minutes Rules, in April 1971, I was able to report that I knew of only four local authorities in the whole country—Liverpool county borough and the London boroughs of Camden, Lambeth and Southwark—which were implementing regular procedures for tenant consultation.

Since then, partly because of the publicity which the Bill attracted on the two earlier occasions on which it was introduced, there has been a considerable increase in the number of local authorities which have introduced schemes of tenant participation. More than half the London boroughs—including, I am happy to say, the London borough of Havering, which includes my own constituency—have introduced regular procedures of one kind or another, and both parties on the Greater London Council, the largest landlords in the country, have accepted in principle the need to introduce a scheme of tenant participation. The city of Sheffield, which has had a strong housing advisory committee since 1969, has recently strengthened its powers.

The developments which have taken place, and which are continuing, have been possible only because of the enthusiastic support of tenants' associations, which have grown rapidly, both in numbers and in organisational strength, over the past two or three years. In particular, the Association of London Housing Estates has been the driving force behind the major developments in the greater London area. Together with the Rowntree Trust, it has recently initiated a two-year research project which will monitor the progress of the schemes already established.

The evidence I have been able to present of solid progress, despite the absence of legislation, may lead some hon. Members who are sympathetic to the objectives of the Bill to question whether its passage is really necessary. It is true that the Bill does not compel any local authority to do anything which it does not already have the power to do. Some councils have, indeed, already gone a good deal further towards increasing tenant participation in housing management than the Bill proposes. But they are few, and the progress which has been made has been extremely patchy, with London councils proving in general more responsive than councils in other parts of the country.

I have received letters from tenants' associations in many different areas indicating a demand for participation which is not being met by the local authorities concerned. Unless participation is made mandatory it will be very many years before certain local authorities face up to their responsibilities in the matter.

As the pattern of local government is about to be changed radically outside the greater London area, this is a particularly apt moment for local authorities to be required to introduce a degree of tenant participation in housing management. The administration of housing is to be greatly altered, with the reduction in the number of housing authorities from about 1,200 to around 300, and there is a great deal to be said for the new authorities having written in, from the outset, a provision for their tenants to play an important rôle in the development of housing policy.

The Bill contains two principal proposals. Clause 1 provides that each local authority with housing powers shall establish a housing advisory committee, at least half of whose members should be council tenants and at least two elected councillors. The advisory committees could deal with such matters as repairs, caretaking, colour schemes for external painting, the layout of open spaces and the siting of children's play areas.

Subcommittees may be appointed at the council's discretion for particular areas and individual estates, and in the case of large estates they shall be appointed if 10 per cent. of the tenants or more submit a written request to the Council to that effect. The size of the committees, their method of appointment and their detailed functions would be left to the discretion of the local authority. This should allow for considerable variations to suit local needs and for later adaptations to the proposed new structure in the light of experience.

Some local authorities, such as Camden and Greenwich, have devolved certain management functions to local committees, and it will be open to authorities to do that under the clause.

Clause 2 provides that at least two council tenants shall be co-opted on to the housing management committee of each local authority. Councils already have the power to co-opt up to one-third of the membership of the committees, but very few appear to use the power. Once again, the method of selection will, under the Bill, be left to the discretion of the local authority.

Under Clause 3 similar provisions are made for the new town development corporations. New town tenants are in a similar position to those of local authorities, except that they have no part in electing their landlords, and it is clearly right that they should enjoy the same rights to be consulted about their home environment.

For too long council tenants have been denied the same rights as owner-occupiers, and even private tenants, and they have had much less say in the development of their home environment. The Bill is an attempt to ensure that they shall have equivalent rights to all other citizens and, in particular, that they shall have a say in the management of their own homes. Although I have consulted a large number of people, representatives of both tenants' organisations and of local authorities, in drawing up this Bill, I do not suggest that it is a perfect measure in its present form. I am very open to suggestions which might be incorporated in amendments during the Committee stage.

But I hope that hon. Members will feel that the case has been made out for a measure of this kind, that they will be impressed by the volume of support behind the Bill, and that they will agree to its Second Reading today.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard) on bringing forward the Bill. He has been a pioneer in the House of tenants' participation in the management of their estates and he will know that his pioneering has met with some success as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition accepted some of his ideas in the important speech which he made in Newcastle-upon-Tyne a short time ago. I very much welcome my hon. Friend's proposals and hope that the Government will see their way to allow the Bill to go forward to Committee.

As I have told the House on many occasions, and I shall not hesitate to tell it on a number of further occasions, my constituency has particularly severe housing problems. It contains a very large number of council tenants. Many hundreds of council houses are being built, and others are planned. Therefore, the question of how the tenants of council houses, flats and maisonettes should have a voice in the management of their homes is of great importance to me because I get, and no doubt will get again tomorrow morning at my advice bureau, enormous numbers of complaints from tenants about the way in which small wants of theirs are disregarded and of suggestions which should be taken into account.

There is a considerable number of tenants' associations in my constituency, as in many other constituencies, which play a worthy and useful part in the life of the community, not only in dealing with questions of council house tenancy but in carrying out voluntary social work in their areas. For example, quite recently one of them organised an outing for old people. Some of them organise parcels for old people at Christmas. They go round the estates, see the problems of the estates and are able to bring to the attention of the authorities, local councillors and myself cases of neglect, illness and hardship which might otherwise slip through the social services net.

However, the reason for their existence is to deal with the problems of tenants. There are problems which local authorities like Manchester, with tens of thousands of council houses and other accommodation in their ownership, cannot always be aware of. Therefore, it is useful that they should be made aware of them. There is, for example, the need for repairs. People rightly feel that if there is something wrong with their houses—and this often happens in a new house where there are teething troubles—something should be done about it. Hon. Members will not be surprised to know that in my constituency and in Manchester as a whole dampness is a particular problem. This is something which the tenants' associations bring to my attention.

Some of the newer accommodation has lifts. In one case it was unwisely planned with exterior lifts. This happened when the authority was under the control of another party, but this is not the occasion to make party points. These exterior lifts are often fouled and they go out of order. Therefore, tenants have a part to play, and they play a part, in bringing matters like this to the attention of caretakers and the authorities.

There is a great need for playgrounds. It is a matter of immense sadness to me that in the less-well-off areas of my constituency young children are all too frequently killed in accidents because of the lack of playing facilities. A very sad accident happened only a short time ago when a young boy from Heywood House was climbing on to a railway line. As a result, housewives from the block of flats marched on the town hall demanding playing facilities for the children. It would be as well if tenants' associations had a more direct way of bringing to the attention of the authorities the crying need for playing facilities in my constituency.

There is the question of the planning of council estates. Often the estates are very good. Certainly those being built in my constituency include some very attractive houses and areas. But the question of the availability of facilities for people who live on the estates is often not thought out as well as it should be. In Coverdale Crescent—or Fort Ardwick as it is known locally because of its resemblance to a French Foreign Legion fort—there is no chemist's shop. Many old-age pensioners live on the estate and a lady in my constituency who acts in a voluntary capacity continually has to get on a bus and go into the centre of Manchester to have prescriptions made up for old people, who are particularly liable to all kinds of ailments.

There is a need for laundry facilities. I am sorry to say that a public house is to be erected behind the Brunswick Street estate, which is a very nice estate in my constituency. There are already far too many public houses in the area. I have no complaint about public houses and I pay occasional pleasant visits to them, but housewives in the area have told me that they would much prefer to have a municipal laundry rather than a public house built behind their estate. This is the sort of thing which could be taken into account if tenants had direct access to the housing committee.

There is the question of parking facilities, not only for the increasing number of tenants who own their cars but for visiting cars and delivery vans, which are a hazard to young people if proper parking facilities and laybys are not provided. I go so far as to say that I see no reason why tenants' representatives should not be consulted about the allocation of houses. In an area of great housing stress such as my constituency the allocation of houses is a matter of immense and strong feeling among those who wish to be rehoused or to get transfers and exchanges. There are sometimes strong feelings, which are quite likely misplaced, that there may be favouritism in the allocation of accommodation. I have never received any evidence of such favouritism, but if tenants knew on what basis allocations were made they would feel much easier about their chances of getting an exchange or transfer.

Above all, there is the feeling—and I am sure that many hon. Members are told about it when they visit housing estates in their constituencies—that people are not being given information. One cry which I hear over and again in clearance areas and housing estates is "We do not know. If only they would tell us. We could bear with the situation a little longer if only we knew what was to happen to us". Along with the cry "We don't know" there is also the cry "We are not listened to". People are becoming increasingly impatient at not being given information to which they feel entitled and at not having their opinions and views, strongly and validly held, heard in areas of authority where they ought to be heard.

I therefore hope that the House will allow my hon. Friend's Bill to go forward and that it will be speedily enacted.

The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard) is well known to be a diligent champion of tenants' rights. I thought that his speech by way of introduction of the Bill was most interesting and revealed a close and sympathetic understanding of the practical difficulties which are faced by tenants, often living on very large housing estates, and particularly those living in the densely populated areas of our large cities.

We heard the hon. Gentleman spell out the aims of his Bill and I shall not hesitate to agree that those aims are good and praiseworthy. It must be right to try to develop the means of ensuring that those who are governed have a greater say in the running of affairs which affect them. In this as in other fields good communications between the two parties to the arrangements are extremely important.

To turn for a moment to the speech by the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), he is also well known to be diligent in raising many matters relating to tenants, and he des- cribed a number of excellent practices which apply in certain parts of his constituency. I was delighted when he referred to arrangements for outings for older people. He went on to describe many of the difficulties which tenants in his part of the world have experienced concerning repairs and rising dampness, difficulties with exterior lifts and various unpleasant practices. I well understand the points he was making. My own constituency in Birmingham includes large council estates, some of them pre-war, some of them of recent construction and including high-rise dwellings. Many of the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman referred can be found in parts of the city of Birmingham. I hope that local authorities will pay regard to many of the points that the hon. Member for Ardwick made. Great sensitivity and great effort are required to arrange for the management of these estates in a satisfactory way. I particularly agreed with the point the hon. Gentleman made in support of the general principles enunciated by his hon. Friend the Member for Romford about the supply of information. It is very important indeed.

However, there are a number of reasons why, in the area of local authority and new town housing management, I have reservations about imposing these aims on those bodies as the Bill would do—imposing a formal requirement to involve their tenants in a specific way. We must remember that the general management, regulation and control of local authority dwellings is vested in the authority under Section 111 of the Housing Act 1957. The provisions of the Bill would not change that, but authorities might justifiably feel that their ability to carry out their duties under that section would be impaired by the very provision which seeks to make a contribution to good management.

I would ask the hon. Member for Rom-ford whether there is not a risk that a statutory obligation on authorities and tenants would defeat the admirable object and aims of his Bill. It seems to me that any kind of consultation arrangement for tenants depends for success on its voluntary nature, certainly the voluntary nature of the adoption of these methods of consultation, because voluntary agreement implies that both sides have shown co-operation and understanding. There is no guarantee that those primary characteristics of good communications would develop if the arrangement were formalised or imposed. Instead—I would emphasise this—of authorities dealing directly with their tenants we might well find that the need to involve the housing advisory committee would bring unnecessary formality, which the hon. Gentleman wants to avoid, into the handling of everyday matters and would very probably have the consequence which he would seek to avoid of causing delay and frustration.

We all know that in many places associations of one sort or another of council tenants exist to make their views known to the landlord and this, I believe, they do effectively. In other places things have gone further and some authorities, as the hon. Member for Romford mentioned, and mainly in London I think, have set up advisory or consultative committees where they and their tenants get together for precisely the purposes proposed in Clause 1 of the Bill.

I was very interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's reference to development in this respect in the borough of Havering where, he said, regular procedures of one kind or another have been introduced. As the hon. Gentleman fairly admitted, there is nothing in law to stop such schemes or to prevent them from spreading to every housing authority area in the country. Indeed, the Government would welcome the spread on a voluntary basis of practices which would lead to better participation and more effective consultation, all within the declared aims of the Bill. Indeed, for many years successive Governments have encouraged housing authorities, in circulars and by other ways, to ensure that they have good arrangements for consultation with any organisations which their tenants choose to establish.

The hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Bill, referred to regular procedures of one kind or another at Havering. It seems to me that there is a considerable range of ways in which the desirable aims of the Bill can be implemented by local authorities, and boroughs with tenant involvement at council level have set up arrangements for tenants to have joint decision-making powers on some issues.

It is interesting to look at examples of systems of participation which are running now in London. In 1971 Camden set up four district management committees which were treated as subcommittees of the housing committee with some executive functions. These committees, based on the areas of the borough's district offices, consist of six councillors and three tenants with various officers and non-voting tenants in attendance. Their executive functions include estate amenities and open space maintenance within a certain allocated budget —large-scale repairs costing £1,000 to £3,000, the encouragement of social activities and meetings with tenants' associations, inspection of properties within the area, and interpretation on a district basis of the council's broad policy on housing management. In addition, these committees can advise on any matters on which tenants feel that their views would be of assistance to the council, including caretaking services, tenancy rules and problems arising from redevelopment.

The tenants are elected by the local tenants' associations in a general meeting The councillors—all ward representatives in the area—include members of the housing committee and the building works and services committee. The officers attending include representatives from the town clerk's department, the central housing department and the local housing district office. The committees meet every two months and are open to the Press and general public by decision of the committee. Two of the committees have co-opted representatives of voluntary bodies in the area.

I am informed that a similar arrangement is just getting under way in Hammersmith. There are four area housing boards seen, in effect, as subcommittees of the housing committee. Each board is to have eight or nine councillors, including ex officio, the chairman and vice-chairman of the housing committee, and four tenants. The boards may authorise expenditure within a certain set sum—I am not sure that the amount has yet been decided—for improvement and maintenance and the general amenity of housing estates. The boards may also consider matters of management and maintenance relating to the dwellings and welfare of tenants, except—this is a major proviso—with regard to rent policy and tenancy allocation. I mention particularly the difficulty about tenants and allocation because the hon. Member for Ardwick stressed the problems which arise in that respect.

Greenwich has just set up a joint management committee which applies to only one estate, recently acquired from the Greater London Council, which is considered to have many special physical and social problems. The committee, which is seen as a subcommittee of the housing committee, consists of six councillors, members of the housing committee, three tenants representing the estate tenant association, and three additional tenants who may attend meetings but not vote. The committee may discuss all matters of estate management but has no executive powers at present, and no finances have yet been allocated to it. That is a different basis from Hammersmith. However, the Committee may make recommendations to the housing committee, and this plan may be extended to other estates.

In contrast to these schemes, two boroughs last year introduced plans for tenants to sit on housing committee meetings as observers but with no voting powers. In Wandsworth two tenants chosen by a borough-wide advisory committee may attend meetings of the full housing committee and the management and development subcommittees to keep a watching brief on the outcome of matters raised at the district and borough housing panel meetings. In Hillingdon—where the scheme began in September 1971—three tenants will sit on the housing committee to advise on all matters of council housing management and development plans. It has not yet been decided how the tenants will be chosen. The arrangement is seen as complementary to an advisory committee for management issues which already exists.

The second type of participation mechanism is the advisory committee, which may be on a district level or borough-wide, or both. Two boroughs have two-tier systems. Wandsworth has four district housing panels and one borough housing panel set up early in 1972. Bexley has seven or eight local committees and one central committee still in the planning stage. In both boroughs the local committees are expected to advise on strictly local management problems, while the central committee may discuss more general issues pertaining to the borough as a whole.

The local committees are composed of councillors who are either housing committee members or representatives for that local area, and tenants chosen by the local tenant association. In Bexley the central committee will consist of housing committee members and one representative from each local committee. In Wandsworth it consists of one representative of each tenant association in the borough, the chairman and the vice-chairman of the housing committee, the chairmen of the four district panels—all councillors—and minority party representatives to make equal representation.

Two boroughs last year set up plans for district committees only. I am informed that in Lambeth there are five area panels and in Newham there will be six district tenant liaison groups. These consist of members of the housing committee—which is called the Town Planning and Housing Committee in Newham —ward councillors and tenants. In Lambeth there are four tenants to represent each area, whereas in Newham each tenant association in the area may send three tenants to the committee meetings.

The Lambeth panels differ in conception from all other advisory committees, in that they are expected to recommend specific projects, including capital improvements for their area, and to suggest priorities between them. It will be seen that this is an important participatory responsibility. The recommendations are subject to the council's approval—and we understand that must be so—but there is some expectation that the advice will be followed if possible. Such projects include central heating, modernisation, garages and landscaping, and the sums involved are not small. For 1972–73, £250,000 was set aside by the council for these purposes. It has not yet been decided how the total sum allocated by the council will be apportioned between the areas, as their needs are seen as varying—a difficulty which seems to be inevitable as soon as problems and resources are considered on an area basis.

That difficulty emphasises the management responsibilities of the duly elected council and its housing committee. Conflicts of interest can arise in these important matters between areas within the total area represented by the local authority.

The single, borough-wide, advisory committee is the most common arrangement for district participation in management and occurs in seven boroughs, all in outer London. I give the type and date of commencement of the committees: Hillingdon, a joint consultative committee, 1965; Lewisham, a joint consultative committee, 1965; Harrow, a joint consultative committee, 1968; Sutton, a joint consultative committee, 1970; Bromley, a tenant liaison committee, 1971; Haringey, a tenant advisory and consultative committee, 1972; and Hounslow, a municipal housing advisory committee, 1972. The committees tend to meet quarterly. In Sutton they meet twice yearly and in Haringey every six weeks on the committee cycle. They are composed of councillors, generally members of the housing committee, and tenants. In most cases the tenants are chosen by individual tenants' associations.

In three boroughs—Hillingdon, Lewisham and Sutton—they are chosen by borough-wide federations of tenant associations in the area. Officers of the housing department generally attend these meetings, and officers from related departments—for example, the borough engineer's and treasurer's departments—may on occasion be called in.

In Hounslow the committee is composed, in addition to tenants and councillors, of two representatives from the staff of the housing department—one manual and one lower-grade officer—and representatives of various voluntary organisations in the borough: each Council of Churches, the Community Relations Council, the Hounslow Trade Union Council, the Action Committee for Hounslow, the Housing Federation of the Royal British Legion and the local liaison group of Shelter.

The terms of reference of these committees tend to be fairly vague, namely "to consider matters of common interest", although some tend to stress their rôle of facilitating smooth and efficient housing management. In Sutton, for example, the terms of reference include

"the consideration of all circumstances calculated to promote the efficiency of the housing management services of the council and circumstances tending to reduce efficiency or in any way to interfere with the satisfactory working of these services."

As for the type of issues raised at such meetings, it is interesting to consider the minutes of one advisory committee meeting in Sutton. Discussion was held on the following matters: methods of choosing tenant representatives to the committee; expression of disappointment by tenants at a council decision on a matter raised earlier; a report by a housing officer on plans to improve dwellings on one estate; rent assessments under the proposed fair rent legislation; parking of lorries; transfer of GLC housing to the borough; allocation of rate income between the council's various services; methods of rent payments; review of the conditions of tenancy; concern by tenants at the need for a proposed playground, a matter raised by the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick; problems of public transport for a particular area—that can give rise to strong feelings—and fencing between a school and adjacent houses.

This list shows the range of problems likely to be discussed from overall policy issues like fair rents to specific local practical problems like lorry parking and fencing. It also shows how tenants might point out local problems which are likely to arise, for example about a playground and its proposed location, as well as the extent to which non-housing issues can be brought up. There may be reference to the allocation of rates, problems of public transport services, and so on.

Three boroughs have informal arrangements for regular meetings with tenants to discuss general problems. These may, in effect, be similar to the advisory committees which I have described, but there is no formal advisory function and the discussion groups are less institutionally formalised.

In Waltham Forest representatives of the Confederation of Council Tenants' Associations meet regularly with councillors and officers to discuss specific issues. In Barnet biannual meetings are held involving three or four representatives from each tenants' association, various officers and the chairman and vice-chairman and occasionally other members of the housing committee. In Southwark similar meetings are held with similar representation, except that the tenants may be from both Southwark and the Greater London Council properties situated in the borough.

The borough council—this is a complication in the London area—cannot help GLC tenants with specific housing problems—this aspect of participation is under careful consideration—but it can refer such problems to the appropriate GLC officers.

In this brief survey of activities in the London area there are two matters to which I should like to refer related to arrangements for regular discussions between tenants' representatives and housing department officials. In Merton the housing manager meets regularly on the committee cycle—that is to say, every six weeks—with the chairman, vice-chairman of the tenants' co-ordinating committee which represents the borough's tenants associations. If on later consideration it is found that particular problems require wider discussion, a meeting is set up with members of the housing committee. Similarly in Barking representatives of individual tenants' associations meet regularly with housing officers, again on the committee cycle, to discuss problems which may then be taken to housing committee members.

In all boroughs with no formal or informal means of tenant participation officers and councillors tend to meet tenants both individually and at association meetings, as need arises, to discuss specific grievances. Hon. Members from their constituency experience well know that this can be a valuable function of the local elected councillor.

A few boroughs appoint officers whose sole task is liaison with tenant associations, although these tend to be difficult posts for the individuals concerned since the officer may have divided loyalties between the tenants and management when there is conflict between them. Other boroughs have suggested that local estate officers are more effective in dealing with tenant association problems and requests because of their familiarity with local issues.

I have tried to review some of the means of participatory consultation which have developed in recent times in the London area. Before proceeding to examine in more detail some of the points made by the hon. Member for Romford in introducing the Bill, I shall refer briefly to the more general background of this matter.

I remind the House that as far back as 1952 a subcommittee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee said in "Living in Flats" that tenant associations could provide a link between tenants and management, with the association as a meeting ground between tenants' representatives and the chairman of the housing committee and management staff. It believed that the authorities should encourage the formation of representative organisations through which tenants could play a responsible part in the development of the life and well-being of an estate. The departmental circular issued then No. 10/52, sending "Living in Flats" to the authorities, said that the Minister concurred in its views and recommendations.

The second relevant report, "Councils and Their Houses", was published in 1959. This effectively endorsed the 1952 report and said that where a local authority had accepted the principle of joint consultation with tenants' associations or community groups a better understanding of the points of view of each side had resulted. The practice of periodic meetings to discuss matters of general policy and matters affecting the well-being of an estate was cited with approval. The committee recognised that the attitudes of local authorities to their tenants' associations tended to vary according to the circumstances which gave rise to their formation. I stress that point because it is extremely relevant to the purpose of the Bill——

Between the 1952 report and the 1959 report, how many councils acted on the recommendations of the Minister contained in the 1952 report? Is the Minister in a position to give the House the comparable references to the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee?

It is difficult for me to reply immediately and with complete accuracy to that request for information. I shall see whether detailed information can be supplied to the hon. Gentleman because I want to be as helpful as possible.

Arising from those circulars there is no doubt that there was a growing recognition of the need to develop participatory functions. Throughout the country a number of councils became increasingly aware of the importance of this matter. I cannot speak from experience of what happened in Scotland—the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) will know that far better than I do—but I imagine that a similar process began to develop north of the border.

I was saying that the committee recognised that the attitudes of local authorities to their tenants' associations tended to vary according to the circumstances which gave rise to their formation, and the approach of the associations might differ widely, as we have seen from the report I have just given of developing circumstances of consultation in the various London boroughs. However, the committee recommended that, whatever the starting position, the authorities should treat associations as responsible bodies and seek to secure their confidence and co-operation. Circular 24/59 sending this report to the local authorities commended the report to them for consideration.

The most recent advice to local authorities was given in a 1968 circular on increases in rents. The hon. Member for Greenock will remember that circular, I have no doubt. It said that local authorities should improve their arrangements for dealing with complaints from tenants and for consultation with tenant organisations on rent matters and housing management generally.

I remember the circular intimately. The hon. Gentleman has been speaking now for 35 minutes, but I am sure he will come to this point quite soon. I have no doubt that he intends to accept the Bill. Will he include the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard) embracing Scotland as well as England and Wales?

The hon. Gentleman must allow me to make my speech. I do not think I have been speaking for quite as long as he suggests.

Some authorities had good arrangements of this kind and all authorities were urged strongly to consider what more they could do to ensure that tenants were able to make their views known to their councils in those ways and to have their suggestions or complaints heard and dealt with in a sympathetic way. That sets out the main principles of approach with which we are all agreed.

In Clause 2, however, the hon. Member for Romford seeks to require each housing authority to co-opt to its housing committee at least two tenants of council-owned houses. As he fairly conceded, this course is already open to any local authority wishing to take advantage of it. I think that all hon. Members present have considerable experience of local authority matters in their constituencies and we all know the extent to which the local authorities operating in our areas have complied with this suggestion and have used this power to co-opt the tenants of council-owned houses to their housing committees.

Section 102 of the Local Government Act 1972, which replaces Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1933, provides for any local authority committee other than a finance committee' to include people who are not council members.

I do not think that the case has yet been proved for making the co-option of tenants on to housing committees mandatory any more than it has in respect of any other committes dealing with special services. This is a matter for individual judgment but it is also a matter in which a council's own judgment must prevail. It is an important matter.

The Bill refers to new towns, and the hon. Member for Romford also made reference to them in his speech. We have a somewhat different situation in the new towns. Essentially, however, there is provision for tenant co-operation in management, including housing management, in two ways. It starts at an early stage when the Secretary of State is expected to draw on local knowledge and experience when appointing members of a new town corporation, and great care is taken by means of consultation to try to get the most suitable people appointed to new town corporations.

Schedule 2 to the New Towns Act 1965 says that the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of securing the services of one or more persons resident in or having special knowledge of the locality in which a new town will be situated. In established new towns this may include people who are corporation tenants.

Secondly, when a new development corporation is appointed it is advised to take the earliest opportunity to appoint a social development officer, which is a very important post. One of the main duties of this officer is to encourage the growth of voluntary associations and to establish lines of communication between the residents and the development corporation and generally to ensure that conditions making for the maximum satisfaction of the tenants are achieved. The effect on new towns, however, would be a minor feature of the overall effect of the Bill and these new towns are in any event in a rather special situation. It is the principle of the Bill as it bears on the large number of local housing authorities and their tenants that we must be concerned with.

We have always held the view that the central Government should not unnecessarily interfere with local government in the day-to-day running of its affairs. I know that on occasion hon. Members on the Opposition side have charged us with acting otherwise, and I know that they have often asserted the wrongness of Government interference with the conduct of local government affairs. The view that the central Government should not unnecessarily interfere with local government in the day-to-day running of its affairs is one of the principles which form the basis of the relationship between central and local government in this country.

In that case will the hon. Gentleman withdraw the Housing Finance Act?

The hon. Gentleman makes that plea a little too late because, as he knows, the Act is in implementation in almost every area throughout the country. As he also knows, it is becoming increasingly recognised by local authorities with very serious housing problems that they benefit under the terms of the Act because it enables them to deal realistically with their problems.

I therefore put it on record that the city of Manchester has some of the greatest housing problems in the country but does not acknowledge that it gets any benefit at all from that iniquitous piece of legislation.

I know that the hon. Gentleman stoutly asserts that view and it may be that Manchester does not acknowledge the benefits of the Act. But I think that time will prove that Manchester—which, like my own city of Birmingham, I know has serious housing problems—will be better able to solve them within a reasonable time as a result of using the resources available under the Act.

Local authorities derive strength from the kind of independence to which I have referred in the running of their day-to-day affairs—an independence which would be to some extent penetrated by the terms of the Bill. The local authorities derive strength from this kind of independence, which will itself be strengthened as reorganisation takes effect. In the matter of management, regulation and control of council housing, the law makes it clear where responsibility is placed. I would be reluctant in the present state of knowledge to tell the local authorities how exactly they should carry out that responsibility. I would be even more reluctant to do it by statutory means.

I now want to refer again to the list of descriptions I gave of the circumstances of developments in the consultative process in certain boroughs in and around London. They vary enormously, and I again stress that after careful thought I would be reluctant in the present state of knowledge to tell local authorities how exactly they should carry out the responsibility that the hon. Member for Romford seeks to impose upon them. I would be even more reluctant to impose the obligation upon them since it is not yet fully matured and defined. I would be even more reluctant to impose it upon them by statutory means. It is fair to say that there is a belief that additional participation by tenants in the management of the estates on which they live automatically leads either to improved management by the council or to greater satisfaction on the part of the tenants, but this has yet to be proved by experience.

All the really significant steps towards tenant participation in the fullest sense have been taken comparatively recently —in fact, largely during the last two years, as I have tried to make clear in some detail. We in the Department of the Environment are taking a great interest in these schemes as they develop. We believe them to be very important. We believe it to be very important that we should find the right means of developing effective consultation so that genuine progress and improvement in standards should ensue.

As we heard earlier, the pioneers have mainly been London authorities. It is interesting to note that by spring last year 19 boroughs had set up schemes—I have not referred to all of them—and that since then others have followed suit. But there are signs that the movement towards a greater participation by tenants in management is gathering momentum in other parts of the country, particularly in our larger cities and especially, I believe, in Liverpool.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Romford and other hon. Members generally welcome that process. The great thing about these schemes is that while their aims may be broadly similar, the ways in which the people concerned seek to achieve those aims, their methods of working and the degrees of co-operation which have been achieved vary from place to place. With all humility, I think it should be recognised that we do not have a complete answer about the best form of consultation.

There are many different thoughts and opinions. I believe that as this experience develops momentum a lot of ideas will change. Probably many of the better systems will develop, and I think we shall learn a great deal from what is now going on. The Government believe that this kind of experimentation is of great value in these early stages—because we are at the early stages of developing an effective consultative system. The indications are that many of the schemes which have been tried so far are proving their worth, but I do not think we can yet go so far as to say that they deserve to be models for the rest of the country.

The people who are experiencing real participation at first hand say, for ex- ample, that the traditional antagonism between landlord and tenant is being lessened, that the council's work is being made easier and that tenants are no longer angry and dissatisfied. All this may be true, and I hope it is, as I am sure the hon. Member does. But I feel that a proper evaluation of the situation needs to follow a considerably longer period of trial and will then require a great deal more research than has taken place so far.

I ask the hon. Member to accept that this is a very carefully considered opinion, developed after a lot of sympathetic thought about the proposals in the Bill. So I urge the House to allow much more testing and examination of the whole idea before we say that this is what needs to be done and that this is the right way to do it.

I summarise the Government's attitude. We are naturally concerned to ensure that local authority housing management is effective and that landlord and tenant relations on council estates are good. We would like authorities actively to encourage their tenants to take an interest in how their estates are run and to discuss matters of general policy and matters affecting the well-being of an estate. Above all, authorities should ensure that tenants are able to make their views known to the council and that suggestions and complaints are dealt with in a sympathetic way. But we feel also that local authorities should be left to work out with their tenants what sort of arrangements are best suited to the needs of their own areas, because circumstances vary greatly throughout the country. Only by this method can we expect to see emerging effective and sensible practices which have been tried and proved and, most important of all, have the support of all concerned.

As time goes on we shall learn more about the various experiments that are being tried and we shall see how they are working out in practice. In this connection I welcome the fact that the Rowntree Trust has recently provided the money for a two-year research project to be carried out by the Association of London Housing Estates into the whole future of tenant participation. The hon. Member for Romford referred to this work, and I think he agrees that it is important that this study should be carried out in order to try to develop the right system which we can then extend throughout the country.

After another year or so, with this accumulated knowledge coming to hand and with reports from local authorities in London and elsewhere which are making practical attempts to develop a better system of consultation, the Government will be ready to review the position reached in consultation with the local authority associations—I think that all hon. Members, knowing the importance of taking account of the feelings of local authorities in this matter, will readily agree that we should have full consultations with them before deciding the methods of consultation to be developed, and certainly before imposing upon them any precise method or means of consultation such as the Bill proposes—if, after proper consideration of all these matters, the evidence suggests that the effort would be worth while.

I believe that the evidence will show that to be so, and I urge the hon. Member for Romford and all hon. Members to consider the necessity of good procedures and of having necessary consultations with local authorities about how the best ideas are to be implemented, having regard to the varying circumstances of local authorities in different parts of the country.

For the present, however, the Government do not accept that it would be right for Parliament to impose upon councils and their tenants a uniform pattern of consultation, a pattern which, as the considerable evidence from London shows, does not as yet command widespread support but which can nevertheless, as the law stands, be adopted on a voluntary basis by all local authorities which desire it. If local authorities wish to implement these schemes, they are able to do so under the existing law.

If Parliament were to impose an obligation in this respect upon local authorities, I honestly believe that there would be a danger of defeating the objective of creating better landlord and tenant relationships between councils and their tenants. I therefore say to the hon. Gentleman that although I agree with the aim behind his Bill, I believe that it is premature in the nature of its proposals. I ask him to consider withdrawing the Bill, because I believe that if he takes account of the points I have made he will agree that the system of consultation is not well enough formed to cause the House to say that a method could effectively and properly be imposed upon local authorities.

I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider withdrawing the Bill upon the basis I have described, namely, that there will be a further review of this matter after the evidence from the Rowntree Trust study and the development of practical experience is forthcoming. If the hon. Gentleman is not able to withdraw the Bill, I shall have to advise the House to reject it.

I ask for the leave of the House to speak again.

I appreciate the great trouble which the Minister has taken in coming to the House this afternoon and speaking at such length. I appreciate, too, his sympathy for and great knowledge of tenant participation in management, and I am glad that he has put on record in much greater detail than I was able to do what the various London boroughs have done to provide methods of consultation with their tenants. It is, however, fair to say that tenants in London boroughs are not uniformly happy about the arrangements that have been made and that, on the whole, the more far-reaching the arrangements for consultation that have been provided, the more satisfied the tenants have been.

I think that a fairly basic difference has emerged between the Minister and myself. The hon. Gentleman has indicated a strong preference that the adoption of procedures of consultation should, at least for the time being, be left entirely on a voluntary basis. Bitter experience in a variety of matters has shown that where that happens the lively, progressive, responsive authorities provide facilities for their tenants, while others which are less imaginative and less progressive do not. The situation is fine for people who happen to live under a progressive local authority; too bad for those who do not.

The normal process in legislation affecting local government is that for a number of years services are provided on a permissive basis and are then made mandatory in the interests of those who live in the less enterprising authority areas. If the Government find the voluntary principle so excellent, I join my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) in wishing that they had followed it with regard to council house rents.

The Minister expressed the fear that local authorities would be forced into too narrow a mould in their provision of consultative procedures if the Bill were adopted, but the Bill bends over backwards to be flexible and in moving its Second Reading I said that I would be prepared in Committee to be extremely forthcominig in considering amendments.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick gave strong support for the principle of the Bill based upon his wide experience of the problems facing tenants in the city of Manchester. I particularly appreciated his view of the support which our right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in a recent speech gave to the general principles of the Bill. Everything said by my hon. Friend reinforces the need for a Bill of this nature, not in two years' time, but now.

I have it in command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place Her Prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the Home Department for his courtesy in obtaining the Queen's consent for the Bill to be debated this afternoon and to the Lord Advocate for attending the House to signify that consent.

When I introduced the Bill just over a month ago on 31st January, I set out the case for it in what I hope was a clear and lucid manner. I do not think it is necessary for me to go over the same ground again.

The Bill as now printed is an extremely straightforward and simple measure. It has only two clauses, the second being the Short Title of the Bill. Clause 1(1) provides that

"Persons upon whom life peerages are conferred shall not be entitled to rank as barons or to use the style of baron …"

In plain words, that means that they will be known as Mr., Mrs. or Miss and that their spouses will not be entitled to any special designation. In the same way as hon. Members distinguish themselves by using the letters MP after their names, it will be open to life peers to use the letters LP.

Clause 1(2) provides that existing life peers shall cease to rank as barons from 1st January 1974. That should provide for a short transitional period during which existing life peers and their spouses can inform their friends and associates of their impending reversal to the status of commoners.

Clause 1(3) of the Bill declares

"that nothing in this Act shall prejudice the right of life peers to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords and and sit and vote therein."

I hope that the House will agree to give the Bill a Second Reading.

It may be convenient if I intervene briefly at this point because, in fairness to the House, I should first explain the circumstances in which the Government thought it right to tender advice to Her Majesty to place her Prerogative, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Bill, and the significance of Her Majesty's consent.

When a Bill is introduced in the House which affects the Royal Prerogative, the Queen's consent must be signified; and this would be done at a very early stage —at the beginning of the Second Reading —where the Bill was mainly concerned, as is the present one, with matters affecting the Royal Prerogative, otherwise—I am sure that this would not have been the wish of the House—the Bill cannot be debated.

Therefore, the Government advised Her Majesty to place her Prerogative, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament so as to allow the debate on Second Reading to take place. I stress now that this in no way implies that the Crown, through its advisers, approves of the provisions of the Bill. It means that the Crown simply does not intend that lack of consent should debar Parliament from debating the Bill's provisions. Nor does it mean that Ministers accept the purport of the Bill, or that there is any inconsistency in Ministers advising the House, as I am bound to advise the House this afternoon, not to give the Bill a Second Reading.

The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard) was commendably brief in advocating the Bill to the House. I heard his speech on 31st January, when he sought leave to introduce the Bill and spoke at greater length, as he acknowledged today.

We should not proceed further in discussing the admittedly narrow purpose of the Bill without placing on record—I am a little disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not do this—our appreciation of what the life peers have already contributed, if we may say so without presumption, in another place. I have been looking back at the debate in the House almost exactly 15 years ago, on 12th February 1958, when the then Home Secretary, now Lord Butler, moved the Second Reading of the Life Peerages Bill. He said:

"… we all know that in another place—whether we criticise it or not, and whether we are against its existence or not—the debates are very often of an exceptionally high quality and are contributed to by experts from a great many sections of our public life."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February 1958; Vol. 582, c. 411.]

That was Lord Butler's tribute to the House of Lords as it then was on its hereditary basis.

I hope that all of us in the House will agree how much truer it is today. Those of us who have listened to any debates there or who have read reports of debates in the House of Lords realise fully the great and growing contribution that has been made already in a relatively short period by the life peers, raising still further the quality of the debates and the value they have in our total parliamentary activities. I hope that it will not be thought to be presumptuous if I say that at the beginning of what I have to say.

However, returning to the narrow subject that we are now considering, the Bill—the "Call me Mr." Bill, or whatever label the hon. Member chooses to give it—provides that persons on whom life peerages are conferred shall cease to be entitled to the rank and style of barons, as from 1st January next year. Under the Bill, people who already enjoy that rank and style shall cease to enjoy it as from the same day, notwithstanding the letters patent by which it has been conferred. As the hon. Gentleman stressed, it is declared in the Bill that

"nothing in this Act shall prejudice the right of life peers to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords and sit and vote therein."

On 31st January, when the hon. Gentleman sought leave to introduce his Bill, he said:

"… the purpose of creating life peers … is not to elevate certain individuals above their fellows. … It …"

is

"to recruit men and women … who would serve Parliament and in another place, in a similar fashion though with a more restricted role, to the way in which hon. Members of this House seek to serve those we represent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January 1973; Vol. 849, c. 1362.]

I do not think that that is an absolutely full and accurate statement of the intentions of the Life Peerages Act 1958, but I will not go further into that broader territory now.

The Government see two important kinds of objections to what the hon. Gentleman proposes in the Bill. The first sets of objection I can perhaps call legal constitutional objections and the second objections of policy.

In other countries which possess a second chamber in their legislature but which do not base membership of that second chamber on a system of peerage as we do—all of us can think of examples of this—it is possible to avoid the use of titles to describe the members of that second chamber other than some generic description such as "senator".

In this country the position is different, because the House of Lords consists of the lords spiritual and temporal and it is important to comply with the customs of Parliament and with the constitutional, historical and legal assumptions on which membership of the House of Lords is based. Any attempt, as it were, to dabble by legislation in the very complex web of those underlying assumptions I have mentioned is not something we should undertake lightly in a House which is not exactly packed to capacity this afternoon.

Hitherto, the object of legislation on the subject of life peers has been to slot life peers into the appropriate rank of the peerage. To deprive them of any rank, as the Bill purports to do, is a novel idea which could lead to complications and oddities. As the Queen's Prerogative as the fountain of honour is still retained despite the Bill, the Bill, as I understand it, would not prohibit the Queen by letters patent from conferring another rank and style on an existing life peer.

This is a very complicated area of our constitutional life—not without doubt—and again I do not want to go more widely into it this afternoon, except to assure the House that on the best advice I have been able to get the whole position would be thrown into considerable uncertainty if we were to pass the Bill.

I did not have the advantage of hearing what the hon. Gentleman said on 31st January, and his speech today was brief. Therefore, I am not too sure about his arguments. Would not the Bill introduce a kind of discrimination, in that the life peers would be designated "Mr." and yet the hereditary peers would keep their peerages? This would create a discrimination in the other place. We should not approve of this.

That is an interesting aspect. It could be called a kind of discrimination. That certainly would be the effect of the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman put it both on 31st January and earlier today. It is a point that my hon. Friend will, if he catches the eye of the Chair, no doubt wish to develop.

Is not the House of Lords, above all legislative bodies, one in which there is a vast amount of discrimination already in that it is composed of various ranks of the peerage? Therefore, it is not an argument against the Bill that it will introduce discrimination into another place.

It will add to the discrimination.

Reverting to the Bill, we must consider in deciding whether to give it a Second Reading, whether it is permissible to create a life peer without incidents that relate to the dignity, or rank and style of the life peer. There is a long history behind the question of life peers. Much of it stems from a famous case of the 1850s known as the Wensleydale case.

At that time the Queen had conferred a life peerage on a judicial officer of high standing to strengthen the judicial powers in the House of Lords, but she was not prepared to confer a hereditary peerage on him. When the writ was presented, the House of Lords took exception to this and set up a Select Committee to consider whether the Crown had power to create life peers.

The debates then ranged around four main questions: first, the "locus" of the House to question Baron Parke's patent; second, the legality of the patent and the effect of the writ; third, whether the issue of such a patent, even if legal, was in accordance with constitutional prin- ciples; and, fourth, the general expediency of creating life peers.

I do not need to go further into the detail over this. I just summarise for the House that the question of the legality of the patent was not finally settled at that time. It was admitted that life peers had been created, but the precedents were not conclusive. Some life peerages had been given to aliens, who could not, for that reason, sit in the House. Some had been given to peers who already had seats. Some had been created in Parliament, and in the case of some others there was no evidence whether they had or had not taken their seats—a position of even greater uncertainty, I put to the House, that we could find ourselves in if we pass the Bill today. But it was also admitted that no life peerage had been conferred on a male person for 400 years and it was on the argument of desuetude that the question whether this particular use of the Prerogative was or was not constitutional was discussed.

The result of all those debates on these issues and the finding that

"neither the Letters Patent nor the said Letters Patent with the usual Writ of Summons issued in pursuance thereof can entitle the grantee therein named to sit and vote in Parliament"

have led to the position that, whether the decision was right or wrong, life peerages with a seat in the House could be created only by legislation.

That was the established position soon after the middle of the last century. The next development was the passage of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876. Section 6 of that Act provided for the appointment of lords of appeal in ordinary by the Queen. It provided that

"every Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, unless he is otherwise entitled to sit as a member of the House of Lords, shall by virtue and according to the date of his appointment, be entitled during his life to rank as a baron by such style as Her Majesty may be pleased to appoint, and shall … be entitled to a writ of summons to attend, and to sit and vote in the House of Lords; his dignity as a Lord of Parliament shall not descend to his heirs".

In that Act the decision was taken to equate, apart from the question of hereditability—the passing on of the title—the lords of appeal in ordinary to the rank of baron, that being one of the ranks of peers known to the law and mentioned in the House of Lords Precedence Act 1539. It was the lowest of those ranks.

The House will be relieved that I do not propose to go into detail on the precedence in the House of Lords Act 1539, but I have the Act here and I draw the attention of the House to Section 7, dealing with the ranks of seniority of the nobility, from dukes onwards. It is Section 7 which is relevant to the argument I am putting to the House.

Before leaving this interesting aspect, will my hon. Friend discuss the position of bishops? That would be very helpful to the House in fully understanding the position of a bishop sitting in the House of Lords.

I do not want to get drawn into the territory of bishops this afternoon. That is something for those more expert than me, and I do not wish to be led astray that far.

Coming back to nearer the present time and to the start of this debate today, the passage of the Life Peerages Act 1958 followed the precedent of the 1876 Act in conferring the rank and style of baron on life peers. That was deliberately done so that life peers—again, apart from the question of hereditability —equated with one of the existing ranks of peers. An attempt to remove from life peerages any references to style and rank must create doubts as to what the precedence of life peers is. That is why I have reminded the House of the 16th century Act and of the question whether there has been full compliance with the customs of Parliament about the persons entitled to be summoned as Lords of Parliament.

I go to the 19th century Act as well as the more recent one. There was a deliberate effort made when the question of life peerages came up in 1876 and in 1958 to avoid touching on wider issues of peerage law, which is an exceedingly complicated subject. A further aspect has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) about bishops. As to equating the life peer to one existing dignity of the peerage, my point is that if one tries partially to unscramble or to disturb this very complicated position, as the Bill does, one is left in considerable uncertainty as to what remains. That is the difference in the complex com- position of the other place in this country compared with second chambers in other countries, which makes it unwise to give the Bill a Second Reading today.

So much for the legal, constitutional aspects, as I see them. I should like to go from there on to more political ground and matters of policy, reminding the House again that the policy of the 1958 Act was, in the absence of agreement between the parties on a more radical reform of another place, to strengthen the House of Lords by creating life peers who would be able to attend that House regularly and take part in debates.

As was recognised then—it may be still more true today—many people are reluctant, for a variety of reasons, to accept hereditary peerages. The aim was to enlarge the field of choice and make it possible to offer life peerages to people of distinction in the public service and to people who could represent some aspect or other of the nation's life with authority, or people who could assist the parties in the conduct of parliamentary business.

I mentioned variety in the wider composition of the House of Lords, the different ranks of nobility, the bishops and others, who are already members of it. But there is also the increasing variety we recognise within the ranks of the life peers who have brought their experience and special knowledge to the House of Lords from a great many other areas of our national life.

But the proposal in 1958 was that the life peerages and the incidents attaching to them should be on exactly the same footing as hereditary peerages with the exception of hereditability. An amendment was rejected during the passage of the Bill through Parliament in 1958. That amendment would have deleted Clause 1(ii)(a) of the Bill and was intended to secure that life peers should not have the style of baron. That simple sentence in the 1958 Act entitled someone when created as a life peer

"to rank as a baron under such style as may be appointed by Letters Patent."

It was the deletion of those words which was suggested in Committee in the 1958 debates and which the House rejected at that time, I believe rightly.

The philosophy of the 1958 Act was, frankly, to achieve its purpose of strengthening the second Chamber with the minimum of change. As I have said, there had not been at that time all-party agreement on the lines of change. In other words, it was evolutionary and not revolutionary. Life peers were placed on the same footing as hereditary barons, except for the hereditability. We believe that this equality of treatment as between members of the second Chamber is more desirable, and leads to a better relationship in practice, than what many people would regard as the inverted snobbery of the hon. Member's proposals in the Bill. As a practical matter, that is quite separate from the legal and constitutional difficulties that I have tried to state.

By long-established custom, the responsibility for advising the sovereign on the creation of peerages rests with the Prime Minister. The Home Office has no knowledge of the principles on which his advice is given either generally or in a particular case. Nearly 200 distinguished men and women who have been created life peers and peeresses are serving in the other place. There is no reason to think that on the whole persons on whom a life peerage is conferred do not receive the honour with a degree of pride, and that their families are not pleased to share in it, if for no other reason than as an acknowledgement of the contribution the life peer has made and is continuing to make to public life.

There is considerable value, particularly in the way in which we develop and improve our parliamentary institutions, in tradition and continuity. We continue our traditions, but at the same time we are continually changing them.

There is a value, too, in sharing in the growth and development of an institution with a long history and with an important role to play in the modern world, as we have recognised this afternoon.

If we accept honours at all, if we accept that there should be a distinctive second chamber, with its own distinctive method of recruitment, there is much to be said for not disturbing arrangements that are generally understood and accepted and on the whole work well.

For all those reasons, I advise the House not to give the Bill a Second Reading.

The Minister's greatest achievement in the course of that mini-filibuster was to keep a straight face. We have never seen a Friday like this. We had a speech of 54 minutes from the Minister who spoke on the previous Bill and now we have had a 22-minute speech from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. I wonder what the Government are trying to stop.

About half an hour ago I saw the Minister going through his brief in the Tea Room, getting ready for an hour's speech. I should very much like a copy of his full brief. I hope he will be good enough to send me a copy, especially of the bits he missed out. That would save me a great deal of trouble, because I am doing a little homework on the matter.

I was very interested to hear that the Queen had placed her Prerogative at the Government's disposal. I wonder what would have happened if she had not.

Some years ago the late Emrys Hughes introduced a Bill to abolish the honours system, and I think it received a Second Reading. I have reason to believe that the present Monarch indicated that she wished to have it defeated, and it went no further, not for that reason but because of the procedural difficulties of which my hon. Friend the Member for Rom-ford (Mr. Leonard) has had some display today. He has heard of the tremendous constitutional difficulties in calling a plain life peer "Mr.".

The sooner we get round to abolishing the other place the better. That is the answer to my hon. Friend's problem, and it is my target. It has been my target since I came here, though I have had a singular lack of success so far because—the Minister is right—there are so many people whose vanity is such that they like to be called Lord this, Lord Muck or Lady whatever. It would be a great shame in some ways to deprive them of that innocent pleasure. But it is part of the fabric of snobbery, vanity, humbug and class that we are bedevilled with.

If we are to have titles and honours, there is much to be said for what Lloyd George did, for selling the damned things. Let us make an export market of it. It would be a major growth industry.

To help us weigh up his arguments, will the hon. Gentleman tell us how many times in the past few weeks he has listened to debates in the other place? I think, for example, of the debates on the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill and debates that I have heard about the immigration rules, which have been exceedingly helpful in raising or underlining a number of points that were not made here. What are the hon. Gentleman's credentials for arguing for abolition as he has done?

The hon. Gentleman's questions do not constitute an argument against the Bill. If the second chamber continued with those in it called plain Mr. and Mrs., the quality of the debates would not be altered. [Interruption.] That was the point the Minister was arguing; part of his argument was linked to it, and not to the proposition that I put.

It is commonly asserted that the quality of the debates along the corridor is invariably better than the quality of debate here. But that is not the case. It may be true in certain instances, but in others I have witnessed pretty desultory debates there.

We are the only legislature with a second chamber that is hereditary and non-elected. It is time we got rid of it.

The hon. Gentleman has put forward a sweeping proposition about the other chamber. Will he bear in mind that it has been able to initiate debates on some of the subjects that we have been anxious to debate on Fridays and have been prevented from debating because the other day the hon. Gentleman decided pell-mell to object to every Bill? I say that as one who is, I think, as regular a Friday attendant as is the hon. Gentleman.

That was at four o'clock, when in any case the Bills could not be debated. There could have been more debates today if the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment had not spoken for 54 minutes on the previous Bill, deliberately to prevent certain other Bills on the Order Paper from being reached.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the logic of interruptions by Conservative Members is that debates in this chamber would be infinitely more effective if we all saddled ourselves with ludicrous mediæval appendages to our names?

I cite to the hon. Gentleman particularly the Football Betting Levy Board Bill, to which he objected not because he had any inherent objection to it, I understand, but because he was in a mood to object to every other Bill. There have been debates on that subject in the other place but not here, because the hon. Gentleman used his power to object to it.

The hon. Gentleman must understand the procedures of this House. If we have rules so absurd as to allow any Member, very often unidentified, to block a Bill at four o'clock, I shall use them. It will happen again today. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment undertook that task a short time ago. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) knows very well that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment spoke for 54 minutes deliberately to prevent us from reaching certain other very important Bills because at that point there was not one Tory backbench Member to support him.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has made very heavy weather of this Bill. He talked about constitutional matters. It was a lot of balderdash. If we made people members of the other place and called them Mr. or Mrs. it would make no difference to their quality. It would get rid of some of the snobbery about which my hon. Friend the Member for Romford spoke when he sought leave to introduce the Bill. Many of our colleagues in the other place feel embarrassed by this kind of flummery. They come into the Tea Room and invariably say, especially if they have been members of this House, "Call me Joe" or "Call me Bill. For goodness' sake do not call me Lord". That is the penalty which they pay for going along to the other place, sitting and snoozing and drawing £8 or £10 a day. That is the sacrifice which they make.

I should much prefer it if we were to get rid of the other place, but we shall not achieve that. Therefore, I sponsored this Bill because I thought that it was a teeny weeny step in the right direction. It does not matter a hoot what those along The Mall say. If the Government want to do it, they will do it.

The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and I have been on certainly one delegation together. I appreciate his views on certain aspects of life in this country. I think that they are wrong, but I do not object to his speaking about them and propagating them. However, his argument was a little odd when he referred to the Minister preparing an hour's speech and then complained that he had spoken for only 22 minutes.

We know that the wish of the hon. Gentleman—he has expressed it many times—is to see a republic in this country. I object to that very strongly. The object of this Bill is to put one small nail—no more—into what the hon. Gentleman thinks is the coffin of heredity and, ultimately, of the monarchy in this country. That is why he supports this Bill.

If the hon. Gentleman is so solicitous about the maintenance of the monarchy, will he bear in mind that those European countries which ceased to dish out ludicrous titles to the nobility in the last century are largely monarchies today but those countries which continued to manufacture mediaeval titles have done away with the institution of the monarchy? If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the monarchy, he should welcome and not oppose the Bill.

I think that the position and duty of those in the other place who serve the Crown are more important than the question of what they are called. But I do not accept the views of the hon. Members for Fife, West and Romford (Mr. Leonard) in wishing to do away with the history and background of Britain.

The hon. Member for Fife, West referred to the snobbery and vanity existing in this country. Does he want to change human nature? In every century and in every age there have been and will be snobbish and vain people. It is part of the human set-up. It does not much matter whether people are called life peers, senators or what the hon. Gentleman wants to call them. He wishes to abolish the other place, and he has said so, and that despite all the evidence that the other place is a most valuable amending piece of our constitution in the way of legislation, and also a valuable means of bringing into being new ideas.

Now I refer to what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Romford first said in his very brief speech. He urged that new life peers should be called Mr. or Mrs. or Miss. Again, he entirely forgets the history of this country, and human nature. I happen to believe that the British people are fiercely conservative, and, indeed, the result of yesterday's by-elections to some extent, I think, shows that. They dislike extremes in every way.

What is extreme about calling someone "Mr."?

I quite accept that we are a nation of snobs, but that is part of our make-up, and I do not think we are any the worse for it.

Now I would like to comment on what the Minister said about the quality of the debates in the House of Lords and the value of having a second Chamber. It happens to be a tradition of this country that there are titles. In Canada and America, people are elected as senators. Senators have a position of power. Do not let us change the whole feeling of the British race for what we have inherited from the past. It may be said that many of the lords temporal are endowed with spirit and that lords spiritual are only temporary. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page), who was in the Chamber a short time ago, asked a question about the bishops, who are, of course, peers for only a limited space of time.

I want to refer to that shortly, but before doing so I would say that the Minister is right in referring to what has happened to legislation in the last century—the Wensleydale case, letters patent only by legislation in the middle of the last century, and the legislation and history of lords of appeal in ordinary—by an Act of as long ago as 1539. It may seem absurd that we go back to those distant centuries. Nobody wishes more to be modern than I, but we had a debate earlier today about the conservation and protection of wrecks. I see the hon. Member for Romford laughs, but nobody can say that those in the other place are wrecks in any way. The range and quality of their debates is just as high as that of those in this House. The Minister was right in believing that the way we do things is evolutionary and not revolutionary and in referring to this Bill as inverted snobbery.

Would my hon. Friend deal with one matter? There is frequent complaint in this Chamber that the legal affairs of Scotland are not given sufficient emphasis or are not dealt with as often or as much as are the legal affairs of this part of the Kingdom. I wonder if my hon. Friend would agree that one of the reasons for that might be that, whereas a very large number of the English judges sit automatically in the other place as a result of being lords of appeal in ordinary, the senators of the College of Justice in Scotland do not enter in the same way.

This is an interesting intervention by my hon. Friend. Unfortunately, I know almost nothing about Scottish law and I am not qualified to comment on it.

I have one or two suggestions about what should be done in any future reform of the House of Lords——

On a point of order. I should like your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on the relevance of some of the speeches we have heard on the contents of the Bill. In introducing the Bill I restricted myself entirely to its contents, which concern the rank and style of life peers and have nothing to do with the powers of the other place.

It is customary to allow a fairly wide range on a Bill of this nature.

Thank you for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The Minister referred to the history of the award of honours. I remind the House that man does not live by bread alone. He likes honours of many kinds. If the British Commonwealth is not to go the way of the Holy Roman Empire, as I fear it may, I am in favour of a Commonwealth medal or Commonwealth honours given on the advice of the Presidents and Prime Ministers of the Com- monwealth by the Head of the Commonwealth. There is no doubt that people like honours.

I regret that the Labour Party in introducing in the last Parliament a Bill to reform the House of Lords ran away from the combined attack of the extreme Left and the extreme Right. Many of the ideas contained in the Bill were right.

The Minister said that there are nearly 200 life peers. If we are to have more and more life peers the danger is that they will become a collection of senior citizens and that there will be fewer young men, whose vigour is of so much help to the other place, although I admit that they are not elected.

I hope that the idea of temporary peers will be considered. Bishops have been mentioned—they are temporary peers. I should like the head of the TUC, the head of the CBI and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, and the head of the free churches, to be peers of Parliament. I should also like the heads of all the nationalised industries to be temporary peers. This would allow them to be quizzed occasionally about their particular industry. I regret that the Post Office has become a corporation. It was more efficient in the days when we could ask detailed questions about it in this House. If noble Lords were able to ask the men in charge of nationalised industries about questions of detail the efficiency of those industries might be improved.

Children of life peers are entitled to be called "honourable". Some of them may not be honourable in their behaviour, but I believe that most of them are. They carry that title with pride in the actions and the service performed by their parents, whoever they may be. It would be a pity to do away with this evolution of British history.

Life peers are always barons. In the tradition of British history, I do not see why a Prime Minister should not become a life earl or why a senior minister should not be made a life viscount, as in the past they have become permanent earls and viscounts. I am fundamentally against an increased permanent hereditary peerage, although I believe there is something to be said for a younger generation coming along that possesses vigour. I hope that the House will reject the Bill.

I must apologise to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard) because I did not hear the entirety of his speech, although I heard the whole of the speech he made when arguing the motion for leave to introduce this Bill. Part of the trouble today was that his speech did not go on for very long. I was in the Chamber very soon after he rose to his feet but he obviously thought it best to sit down very quickly. I believe that it would have been better had he decided to abandon this silly little Bill altogether.

Somebody, I cannot remember who, once said "No bishops, no king". I was not surprised to hear the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), who has now abandoned us, intervene in this debate. Indeed, he is one of the Bill's sponsors. He said that he had a target, and his target was the House of Lords. I felt that that was his target for today and that he has another target—namely, the Throne.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) said that the hon. Member for Fife, West was a republican, and the hon. Gentleman did not deny it. On the other hand, he never says it very openly, frankly or honestly to this House, to his constituents or to the country. It would be much healthier for our politics if those who are republicans said so. We have had republicans in this House before.

In Queen Victoria's reign it was often said that Queen Victoria would be the last monarch to sit on an English throne. It did not happen like that, but there were honest republicans in those days who were also respected politicians. There was Sir Charles Dilke. I very much respect his politics, particularly his Liberal imperialism, if not his personal morality. There was also Joseph Chamberlain, whom I respect very much. They were both republicans and they made no secret of it as Members of the House of Commons—although Joseph Chamberlain learned much better later and obviously saw the value of the monarchy in the Imperial and Commonwealth system.

If the Bill is a snide attack on the treasured institutions of our land, including the monarchy, it is a Bill which we must oppose, and I hope that we shall deal with it faithfully in the Division Lobby.

The hon. Member for Fife, West, who has now returned to us, spoke of flummery and underlined his objection to it. I consider that this is a flummery Bill because it deals with unimportant details, constitutional minutiae. There is something obsessive about it. The hon Gentleman is a great believer in non-discrimination and he is connected with an anti-discrimination Bill. I must tell the House that this is a discrimination Bill which apparently wants to discriminate by title between different sections of the other place.

If the Bill reaches Committee and the hon Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) wishes to move an amendment to take away titles from all peers. I assure him that I would look very favourably upon it.

I might tell the hon. Member for Romford that I would have no intention of doing anything like that and that this House ought to be dealing with more important matters at this grave time in our history.

Reference was made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to the proposed "radical reform" of the House of Lords. I took part in those debates. I was one who opposed that Bill. It is one of the glories of the back benches of this House that we were able to defeat the consensus of the two Front Benches which put forward this so-called radical reform of the House of Lords.

I made suggestions somewhat in keeping with those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree which were perhaps more radical. I wished the House of Lords to provide a more rational representation of the interests of the country. But I stipulated in my argument that there should be an hereditary element in the House of Lords. It is good, wise and sensible, especially having regard to the record of hereditary peers, to keep an hereditary element in the other place and to maintain constitutional continuity.

That does not mean that I want any distinction made in respect of those in the other place who are not hereditary peers. I want the hereditary principle to be maintained. I see no reason why recommendations for hereditary peerages should not be made. At the same time, the life peers do an honourable job of great importance and many of them are thoroughly congenial to Opposition Members. I see no reason why life peers should be singled out without, I imagine, consulting their wishes. Do they wish to be addressed differently?

We heard an extraordinary argument from the hon. Member for Fife, West about the way that life peers come down to the Tea Room from another place and say "Call me Bill"—or Willie. I never knew that I was supposed only to address Members of another place by their titles. I must do better in future and say "My Lord" and not address any of them by their Christian names. I have never heard such a ridiculous, trivial point made.

That is the burden of my objection to the Bill. I object very strongly and sincerely to the time of this House being taken up by this miserable little measure. Its unimportance is illustrated by the lack of interest shown by those great radical reformers who sponsor it. They are a pretty Lib-Lab lot. Where are they? They are not interested. It is unimportant.

It is utterly regrettable that at this time the House should be making itself ridiculous by having to deal with this absurd, trivial and frivolous Bill. There are great problems before the country. We heard criticism about the length of the brief supplied to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I should have thought that at this time a Home Office Minister ought to be more concerned with the security of the Realm than with nonsense of this kind.

What is more, there are other issues—perhaps not such great ones as inflation or the security of the State—which are of considerable concern to our constituents. Hon. Members can read the Order Paper. They can see that we have still to consider the Dangerous Drugs and Disabled Children Bill and the Elderly and Disabled Persons (Warning Devices) Bill. I should have thought that those were measures which our constituents would rather have us debate than this proposed legislation. I hope that we shall hear no more of this silly little Bill.

This is an entirely unnecessary Bill. I know of no public desire for the changes it proposes. It seeks to destroy part of the fabric of our heritage and I therefore oppose it. I shall briefly mention the reasons why I believe the House should decline to give the Bill a Second Reading.

In my view, Members of this House and those of another place are clearly distinguished by their style or title. Both are Members of Parliament but it is important to distinguish between them. This is achieved by using the rank, style, title or dignity of barony in another place, whilst in this House we continue proudly to be known as Mr., Mrs. or Miss. It is also important for us to realise that during the past 10 years virtually no hereditary peerages have been created. This means that most if not all new Members of the House of Lords are now life peers. However, there is no evidence that I know of which demonstrates that life peers are in any way inferior to hereditary peers. Why, then, should they not have their rank, style, title and dignity of barony in the same way as their colleagues? I can think of no reason at all.

Then there is the historical and traditional rôle of the peerage itself, which is much admired throughout the world. It would, I believe, be threatened if the dignity of peerage were in any way reduced by depriving the life peers of the style of "baron". I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) that the House of Lords should be strengthened and should continue to thrive and that new peers should he created who can bring knowledge and expertise to its proceedings.

The acceptance of a life peerage involves a considerable commitment on the part of those concerned. It calls for considerable sacrifices in terms of time and effort. I cannot, therefore, see why such peers should be expected to serve their country whilst at the same time being known by some lesser style than that of the lowest rank of the peerage.

Then, of course, there is the position of life peeresses, who would be placed in a somewhat delicate position. Would they be known as Mrs. or Miss in another place if this peculiar Bill were enacted? I say this because surely it would create a position in which we would have just the kind of stupid discrimination which we are trying to eliminate by means of another Bill which is before the House.

Last week I listened with considerable interest to the debate in another place on education. I was struck by the tremendously high standard of the debate and by the contributions made by a number of life peers. Equally, I have shown many visitors the House of Lords. Most of them have expressed a keen interest in its traditions and in the part it plays in the life of Parliament. Part of that tradition is the rank or style of baron, which goes with life membership of the House of Lords. I think that this style or title should continue to be conferred on life peers and that they should continue to be known as barons. I therefore wish to oppose the Bill and get on with the more important business that is before us.

Like my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), I think that this is a thoroughly bad Bill. It is unnecessary, humourless, pompous, bossy and also rather sinister. I will come in a moment to the underlying constitutional motives which were present, not so much in the very brief opening speech by the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard)—which unfortunately I, too, did not hear in full, although I have heard him on an earlier occasion—but when the cat jumped out of the hag during the remarks of the hon. Member who represents part of the Kingdom of Fife—the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree, I think that the present system of peerages, either hereditary or life, does no sort of harm and gives a good deal of pleasure both to the recipients of honours and also to the British public as a whole, who have always dearly loved a lord. But I think it goes further than that. A very important point was involved in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department about the way in which our bicameral system works.

What has not been suggested by the hon. Member for Romford is what alternative method of summons will be available to bring life Members into the other place if this piddling little Bill goes through. From the point of view of sheer common sense I suggest that the system which has been evolved under the Life Peerages Act 1958 is a sensible way of dealing with the practical difficulty of getting a number of people who have distinguished themselves in public life to give service in the other place.

It seems to me that its very simplicity is its strength, and that rather than having to go through some form of complicated electoral system, rather than having to go through some form of temporary appointment or selection, rather than having to go through some form of selection the embarrassment of which we have seen recently with regard to the representation of this House at Strasbourg when people start playing politics with important constitutional matters of this kind, we should adhere to the simple process of the issue of Letters Patent, thereby making it possible, on the basis of those Letters Patent and the Writ of Summons, for someone to sit in the other place. That is the sane way to deal with the matter.

Coupled with that there is the difficulty of the basis on which a Member of the other part of the legislature is to be there. We are here, and we are proud to be here, because we are elected by our constituents. That is why it is common to refer to us not by our surnames or Christian names but as the Members for certain constituencies.

If the system envisaged in the Bill were introduced there would be two classes of persons in the other place: one, so long as the hon. Member for Fife, West does not get his way, could be the hereditary peers, and the other would be those who have been summoned to sit in the chamber. The system would not only represent discrimination of the kind that is invidious, silly and rather tiresome but would also create difficulty over just how or why those persons are there.

They would no longer be there on the basis of a Writ of Summons. They would no longer be there on the basis of their position under the 1958 Act, on the summons of Her Majesty. Instead, they would arrive there in some mysterious and neuter way and would not be referred to as Lord or Lady whatever it may be, on the basis of the Writ of Summons, but as Mr., Mrs. or Miss, which is something that is not done in this place.

From a constitutional point of view, where the system is working well and is doing no harm to anybody, except possibly to the rather soap-box attitude of one or two sponsors of the Bill, it is pointless to create a situation which will add to the complexities of our legislature, add to the difficulties of our constitution and create an entirely needless sort of mini-complexity.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Fife, West has left the Chamber because I should like now to deal with one other matter which arises out of the debate this afternoon, and that is the whole question of the way in which so often in debates of this nature we are told that by raising any point at all we are in some way acting in a hostile manner to other legislation which might be considered during the afternoon. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Romford, who immediately interjected when my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree was speaking, made no interjection of the same sort when his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West departed from the immediate aspects of the Bill and turned to the whole principle of the existence of the other place.

The matter goes much further than that because Friday legislation is something which the House has every reason to guard jealously to itself. It is one of the great bulwarks that the back-bencher has. I hope that we will not reach a situation when on whatever matter is being debated —and we are of course subject, as the hon. Member for Fife, West said with great relish, to the luck of the draw and the one system, so that the hon. Gentleman can, if he feels disposed, use the system to keep out all kinds of useful legislation if he is upset by one particular matter—the proposers will say "We have brought in a Bill. It may be a thoroughly bad Bill. It may be a Bill that needs to be inspected and which shows up a shabby bit of nonsense for what it is, but no one should get up and criticise it and seek to look at its object because there may be other matters waiting in the queue."

On a point of order. I respectfully sug- gest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that these are matters which would be better raised on Business Questions to the Leader of the House than in a debate on the substance of the Bill.

What has been said is not out of order. These things can be mentioned.

The matter was raised by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), so it is open to my hon. Friend to mention it. Is it not curious that the hon. Member for Fife, West says with great gusto and glee that he will use the system against Bills that he dislikes and is sanctimonious and self-righteous when he can use the system for the Bills that he happens to favour?

I am grateful for the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell. I regret that the hon. Member for part of the Kingdom of Fife, —the hon. Member for Fife, West—is not present. I should have liked to make my comments when he was in the Chamber rather than in his absence.

He is in and out like a yo-yo.

Indeed, the hon. Gentleman is in and out like a yo-yo. It may be that he is preparing his list of Bills to which to object. The unfortunate thing is that what the hon. Gentleman said went far further than objecting to Bills that he disliked. He said that he would object to any Bill if he was in the mood to object to it.

We are discussing a matter which is of fundamental importance to the House. If we are to protect the system it behoves back-benchers on both sides of the House to urge Front-Benchers on both sides to maintain the rights of hon. Members to introduce legislation. The Government have a large representation on the Front Bench in comparison with the present nil representation on the Opposition Front Bench. Friday legislation and Friday debating must be maintained. It seems that some hon. Members want to be able to introduce a Bill of this sort with the briefest sort of discussion so that they can go out into a wider forum and discuss it on television or in the Sunday Press. The proper place in which to discuss a Bill, whether it is good or bad, is this House.

I had not expected to speak in this debate——

Where has the hon. Gentleman been?

If the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) had been here earlier he would have known that I spoke twice in a previous debate. He would be on a better wicket if he were to ask me why I was speaking again. However, it is not for me to put arguments into his mouth. I returned to the Chamber and, to my surprise, saw that this Bill was being debated. I had not expected us to get this far. Owing to the succinctness with which my hon. Friends and I presented our case on the Protection of Wrecks Bill, and owing to the even more succinct manner in which the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) propounded his very estimable Bill, the House has time to debate this Bill. I am glad that I am lucky enough to be in London to participate in this debate.

I do not share all the strictures that have been heaped upon the head of the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard). The hon. Member used to appear on television as a distinguished academic and advance all sorts of interesting ideas as a psephologist in debates on election results. I was interested to hear his comments in those days, just as I was interested to hear about what he had to say earlier on the question of the House of Lords. I heard the hon. Gentleman's speech when he introduced the Bill under the Ten-Minutes Rule procedure on 31st January.

It is right that the type of intellectual discussion which the hon. Gentleman no doubt had at university—theoretical discussion on the question of the constitution—should be debated in the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) said, this is the place where these matters should be debated. Debates on these matters should not be confined to academic high tables, to television discussions, or even to the Sunday newspapers.

This has been described as a petty matter. It is not altogether petty. It is important that it be discussed, and it is not petty in itself, because the House of Lords is not a petty subject. Anything which is so substantial a part of the British constitution cannot be described as petty. Whether this is the right time to raise the matter is another question. Interesting and important though the subject is, many hon. Members will doubtless feel that we should be discussing more important matters.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there can be a petty Bill on an important matter?

That is a semantic distinction which is of great value. Possibly my hon. Friend's description is exactly right.

Many people believe that such subjects as rising prices, extremism in trade unions, and the great matters which will arise on the Budget next week, could be more fruitfully discussed, apart altogether from the other matters listed on the Order Paper for today which would have been reached had it not been for this petty Bill. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman chose to raise this interesting subject at this time.

I am very sorry to see that the hon. Member for what my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich so correctly called part of the Kingdom of Fife—Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton)—is not present. I know that it is customary here to give notice of intention to mention an hon. Member, but I believe that this applies more to the intention to refer to him in a derogatory rather than in a friendly manner. I therefore hope that the hon. Member will not mind my mentioning him as I intend to do so in a friendly way.

We all know that the hon. Member is a staunch republican. We all know his views on this matter. I was very sorry not to hear them today because he usually puts them forward with some humour, even though occasionally we on this side feel that he oversteps the line. I look forward to reading in HANSARD what he said, though I am sure that anyone who cares to buy a copy of the Sunday Record will find his remarks in the weekly column he writes in that paper, in which no doubt he gets rid in print of all the things he could not say in the House of Commons. At the same time, his is a very fair column.

One reason for my objecting very strongly to this Bill is that it would so substantially alter the character of the House of Lords. Once we start referring to members there as "Mr.", or "Miss", or even, perhaps, as knights or baronets, would the hon. Gentleman allow that?

If the hon. Gentleman had done the House the courtesy of reading the Bill before speaking on it he would not have found it necessary to ask that question.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not know that yesterday the Public Accounts Committee published its findings on North Sea oil, and I am sure that my constituents would agree with me that my time has been better spent in trying to master the contents of that document than in reading such piffling rubbish as this Bill is.

My hon. Friend is on a valid point because part of the matters the Bill proposes to deal with is Section 6 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876. What could be more invidious among the hereditary peers than the position of "Mr. Justice" as, presumably, from then onwards, whoever the judges might be, they would be known. It would really be an impossible situation where one had someone appointed not on the basis of second chamber membership, because he has been made a life peer, but on the basis of "Mr. Justice Smith" or "Mr. Justice Brown"? That would create a totally false sort of embarrassment that does not exist there now.

My hon. Friend very shrewdly points to a matter that had escaped my attention and which I hope the Front Benches will consider. I would also suggest that we will get into very grave difficulties in regard to law. My hon. Friend quotes English law, and I should like to know the position in Scottish law. I see my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate sitting there; possibly he himself might find that a rather tricky question to answer from the top of his head. This shows the sort of incongruities into which the hon. Member will lead us.

My hon. Friend has asked about Scottish law, but it is not very clear whether the Bill would apply to Scotland, or even to Northern Ireland.

That is not a point for me to clarify but, again, I hope that the Front Benches will have noted it.

I would not mind the House of Lords being altered in many ways, but not in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Romford. I consider that one of the factors which makes the House of Lords so valuable is that its members are not, as we are, beholden to constituents. We are all very glad to have the value of the coming and going between the grass roots in our constituencies, the flow of information and the exchange of ideas. We are privileged to represent 70,000 or 80,000 people.

More.

More in some cases. It is very valuable that somewhere in the British constitution there should be a serious debating chamber where men and women can say what they like without giving a cuss about what people in the place where they live think about what they say.

The topicality of that was revealed last night, at 12.20 a.m., when the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) was re-elected after having said that he refused to be beholden to a group of constituents who thought that they could tell him what to say. Although I was sorry that the gallant efforts of the Conservative candidate came to nought, I was very glad about the reelection of the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln and I think that everyone in the House who believes in freedom of speech was very pleased that the hon. and learned Member had his principles vindicated.

Does not my hon. Friend consider also that in the other place our remaining colonial Commonwealth should be represented?

That is a very good point. I am not quite sure of the present situation in Australia, as the new Labour Prime Minister——

The colonial Commonwealth.

Perhaps I could come to that matter in a moment, if time allows.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No. I have been rather generous in giving way so far and I have one or two important things to say.

A further extremely important point is that we have a system whereby men and women who have served the State well are rewarded not by grants of money but by being created peers. That is a method of saying to the rest of the country "Here are people who have served the State. They have achieved a peerage, and other people ought to honour these people for what they have done." I am talking about life peers and not about hereditary peers. It is absolutely right that people who have served the State well ought to be rewarded and ought to have the satisfaction of knowing that others know they have been rewarded.

If one then, however, accepts the point made by the hon. Member for Romford and all the peers who have served the State so well and earned the right to be called Lord or Lady suddenly find themselves being called Mr. or Mrs., they will feel that their reward is no reward at all in a situation in which they are heaped with more work for no reward and have to attend the other place and take part in what are sometimes, no doubt, very onerous and tedious debates.

It would be a very sad day when we failed to reward men and women of distinction and failed to show the rest of the community that we were rewarding them and when they could no longer say with honour and pride "I have been created a Lord because I have served the State so well". It would be a great shame if we were ever to subtract that from the British constitution.

Napoleon once said that men are won with baubles. I would not say that a peerage is necessarily a bauble. But it is a form of reward which, for very good reasons, people like to have. It is an honourable award and one quite different from the systems which obtain in other countries. In certain countries—it might be invidious to mention them—the rewards of success are not to be put into the equivalent of the House of Lords to play an honourable part in the constitutional working of the country but to he given a certain job where those concerned have a certain amount of patronage and can make themselves a great deal of money. They can sail very close to the wind in matters not exactly of corruption but of what perhaps by the tighter standards of this country we should call corruption and bribery.

A distinguished servant in the United States, Judge Otto Kerner, has recently been on a charge of bribery and corruption. That sort of thing has never happened here, but it tends to happen in the United States, where the system is open for corruption, financial manipulation and speculation of one sort or another.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is the first time in the history of the United States that a judge of that level has been on a corruption charge, and that it has happened only once in this country, when the person concerned was a member of the House of Lords?

In 1939, a judge occupying a position similar to that of the Master of the Rolls was convicted of selling justice.

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's advice.

There was the case of Sir Jonah Barrington under the quamdiu se bene gesserit rule in the eighteenth century.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend as well. I do not wish to stray into the realms of British justice. I was pointing out that other countries are less fortunate than we in that the means by which they reward those who serve the State are possibly more open to corruption, though the opportunities are not necessarily always taken advantage of. In this country we have a pillar of the constitution in the House of Lords where people can be rewarded for honourable service to the State in a manner that gives them pride. If people like to take pride in being Lord So-and-so after 40 years in this House, that is excellent. To call them just "Mr." when they went there would remove half the glory, if not for them for their wives.

It is exactly the opposite.

I am sorry that there are no hon. Ladies present who could perhaps give us first-hand evidence on the matter.

I can give the hon. Gentleman first-hand evidence. My wife says that she will divorce me if I accept a peerage.

Far be it from me to come between an hon. Gentleman and his wife.

If we diminished the value of the House of Lords we should also be diminishing the value of this House. I could give many examples. Because the Bill is sponsored by Opposition Members, I shall give them the example of a Scottish Select Committee which we found very difficult to man. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House suggested that peers should help to make up the numbers. That was a very interesting idea. We all know, certainly on this side, how busy we are, particularly with Standing Committees. Hardly a week has passed when I have not had at least two or three Standing Committees to serve on. I know that that is exceptional for a Scottish back bencher, but it is a fact. To have been able to spread the load through the use of peers would have been very helpful, but the Opposition turned the idea down, and I am sorry that they did.

Another example is Strasbourg. One of the saddest things in the present Session has been the Opposition's refusal to take part in the proceedings of the European Parliament. If the House of Lords——

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put; but Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER with-held his assent and declined then to put that Question.

I am glad that you turned down the hon. Member's request, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I have a number of further points to make.

Object.

Object.

Second Reading what day?

I still live in hopes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Friday 16th March.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Second Reading what day?

In hope—next Friday.

The growing crisis among homeless single people is perhaps the most telling indictment of the indifference and unconcern bred by affluence in a market system, and in response I believe that both the central Government and local gov- ernment have either connived or reacted too feebly and too late.

The crisis springs from the combined effect of two more or less similar trends: one the continually increasing number of homeless single people, and the other the continually decreasing amount of cheap lodging-house accommodation. The crisis is all the more serious because homeless single people are known to be among the most psychologically damaged members of society and least able to tolerate the extra strains put on them by homelessness. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the situation is the manner in which the State has increasingly withdrawn from its social responsibilities in this field, while local authorities all too often fail to rehouse those who are displaced and robbed of shelter by city centre redevelopment.

Estimates of the number of homeless single people in Britain range between 30,000 and 50,000, but there is no certainty because, regrettably, the Government have not carried out any further national survey beyond that which was undertaken by the last Government in December 1965. That survey showed that there were then 985 people sleeping rough, 1,850 people resident in Government reception centres and nearly 29,000 people in common lodging houses, a total of about 31,500 people.

All relevant organisations concerned with this problem agree that the numbers are much larger now. The St. Mungo's Community estimates that the number of people sleeping rough in greater London doubled in the two years to September 1971. A further survey which was carried out at the end of October 1972 found that there were nearly 1,500 people sleeping rough in inner London alone. Undoubtedly this understates the true position because advance publicity enabled a number of dossers to avoid the count, and even the Government admit that the situation is worsening.

In the debate on 19th June 1971 the Under-Secretary of State, after noting that the 1965 report showed there were between 13,000 and 14,000 men and women who sometimes slept rough or were in Government reception centres, said:

"These numbers have probably increased to some extent since then—there is little doubt about that. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1971; Vol. 820, c. 361.]

In circular 32/72, sent out to local authorities six months ago, the Government stated:

"Since 1970 both the numbers of men using Camberwell reception centre and the numbers sleeping rough in London have increased."

The reasons behind this considerable increase are, of course, many but in part it stems from the earlier discharge procedures under the Mental Health Act 1959, in part from the increasing prison turnover and the known high rate of homelessness among ex-prisoners, in part from the growing dimensions of drug addiction and the fact that many victims of that are known to be particularly rootless, but above all from city centre development and the rapid eroding of cheap rented accommodation in most major cities throughout Britain.

The extent of that decline has been accelerating in the last few years. The classic symptom of this trend was the demolition in 1972 of Butterwick House by Hammersmith borough, since it housed 750 men nightly and it was replaced by office blocks and a luxury hotel in conjunction with the West London Air Terminal, with, be it noted, a £1,000-a-bed subsidy provided by taxpayers. Help was given for building that hotel but apparently it is not forthcoming either to save or to rehouse single men thus deprived of basic shelter.

The same trends have been apparent elsewhere in the country. The Elephant and Castle Rowton House was lost two years ago when its 880 places at 45p a night for the homeless were replaced by yet another two-guinea a night hotel. Lodging-houses have been closed recently, for example, in Glasgow, Southampton, Colnbrook, Edinburgh and Liverpool.

The decline in the number of beds has also been steep. Christian Action, which has made the most recent estimates, has indicated that the number of common lodging house beds in London has gone down over the last decade by more than 25 per cent. from some 6,400 to 4,700, and the number of Rowton beds in London has declined even more steeply, from more than 4,500 to fewer than 2,200. In Birmingham over the same period the drop has been even greater—by 40 per cent. from over 800 to 485. Nor, indeed, are there any signs of any halt to this process. In Southwark, for example, there are proposals for the gigantic redevelopment of the Hay's Wharf complex which would drastically reduce the amount of cheap lodging accommodation for the homeless in this part of London.

All this growing problem is compounded by the gradual but decisive ebb of State responsibility in this area of need. In 1948 there were some 250 reception centres in Britain. Now there are only 17 or 18. Statutory bodies, it would seem, have withdrawn from this work, because the work is very untidy, often extremely demanding, the customers often ungrateful and even violent; but the social rehabilitation work which is done in reception centres, which is entirely lacking from private lodging houses, is particularly crucial. The Under-Secretary of State has said that of 8,000 persons passing through Camberwell centre in 1970, 1,400 suffered from mental illness, 1,500 from personality disorder and 2,000 from alcoholism. That shows the importance of keeping up the numbers of these centres. It is all very well to quote the excellent work done in one centre by Dr. Tidmarsh's very good social psychiatry unit. The important issue is that there are far more persons suffering from alcoholism, mental depression, epilepsy, schizophrenia, tuberculosis and drug and meths addiction who are either living rough or in lodging houses, and nothing by way of rehabilitation is being done for them.

The problem is further aggravated by the reprehensible reluctance of local authorities to rehouse those who are deprived of shelter. Hammersmith made plans for only about 20 per cent. of those who lost shelter when Butterwick House was destroyed. Local authorities have chosen to restrict their responsibilities under Section 21 of the 1948 Act to the rehousing of homeless families, although the Act speaks specifically of homeless persons. Without justification, local authorities have tended to accept only single persons who are either aged or infirm and to neglect the discharged mental patients, ex-prisoners and drifters without families who are not aged or infirm but who equally need help.

One further twist to the situation is Section 195 and Schedule 23 of the Local Government Act 1972, which have been interpreted by local authorities as effectively weakening their duties under Sections 21 and 24 of the National Assistance Act 1948. Previously, according to that Act, local authorities had a duty to the homeless. Now they are merely empowered to take the necessary measures, although, correspondingly, central Government obligations have been increased, in that local authorities are empowered to take action to such an extent as the Secretary of State shall direct. We shall look with interest to see how those powers are used.

I am well aware that the Government have taken certain action. For example, the Supplementary Benefits Commission asked in the autumn of last year for an OPCS survey of lodging houses and other places frequented by homeless single persons. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will give us the results of that survey so that we may know how far the position has worsened and where the pressures are greatest.

In paragraph 5 of circular 32/72 the Government told local authorities:

"As a first step it is suggested that authorities should consider in whatever depths seems appropriate what needs there may exist in adults with personality disorders in their area and, in the light of their findings, what action they should take to discover for themselves how best to meet those needs."

What has been the result of that circular, and how have local authorities responded? This is a crucial point, as the Under-Secretary of State himself said:

"… the Housing Act 1967 gives authorities all the powers which they need to provide whatever housing is needed, including lodging-houses and hostels in their area."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August 1972; Vol. 842, c. 691.]

The circular I have mentioned states:

"The Secretary of State is inviting local authorities at this stage to promote modest experimental schemes to determine which methods of rehabilitation are most successful, how many people are in need of this type of help, what proportion can be helped to return to a normal life in the community and to establish some criteria of success."

What tangible results have been achieved by local authorities, according to the information that the Under-Secretary of State has?

My main point is that, given the urgency of this siuation, such mild, exhortatory advice as is contained in that circular is scarcely enough.

I wish to make several policy proposals. The first is the obvious but essential one that the Government should request local authorities to prevent, or at least discourage, any further reduction in cheap lodging house accommodation in their areas. I recognise that this may require the compensating of local authorities in specified circumstances for any rating loss that might be involved in forgoing commercial redevelopment of dosshouse areas. That is merely to reassert a human need against the immediate requirements of commercial exploitation. That is the least that the Government should do.

Having left too much responsibility for too long with voluntary organisations, the Government should much more vigorously promote statutory action, not merely one or two model research projects.

Circular 32/72 states:

"It may be that some of these people can at a later stage become residents of small specialised hostels but meanwhile it is important that their existing social work needs be recognised and assessed and arrangements made to provide whatever help is available directly or in association with voluntary organisations."

But I believe that the provision of small community psychiatric hostels, plus small units for groups such as alcoholics, should not be so easily put off for the future. On the basis of a careful survey of local need, all major towns in Britain should be required to make fully adequate provision of this kind within their current 10-year health and welfare plans.

Thirdly, collaboration with voluntary bodies should be more far-reaching and effective. I quote once again from circular 32/72:

"Local authorities might consider approaching suitable voluntary bodies and encouraging them to set up homes to provide long-term care with appropriate financial help from the local authority under the 1968 Act or by accepting financial liability for the care of individuals."

How far has that proposal been actively used?

The important point is that once the extent of need has been identified and located by a new national survey, local authorities should be required within an acceptable period either to make provision for this need through full and effective support of voluntary bodies or to provide the necessary accommodation themselves. This surely is the least to be expected. The Department, however, has said that it will consider giving loan approval for projects of this kind undertaken directly by an authority or by way of capital grant to a voluntary organisation.

Fourthly, the overriding requirement must be to ensure that local authorities use such powers as they possess for this purpose. Since under the 1948 Act they are required to guarantee temporary accommodation for homeless persons in accordance with the recommendation of the two Department of Health and Social Service working parties which reported last July, single people and childless couples should not be excluded from temporary accommodation for the homeless provided by local authorities. Furthermore, where a local authority is clearly still failing in its responsibility towards the homeless, the Secretary of State should use his powers under the National Assistance Act 1948, as reinforced by the Local Government Act 1972, to order a council to act and, where still necessary, he should override the local authority's housing powers to guarantee the right to a home. If the Government are prepared to use such powers to force up rents under the Housing Finance Act, they should at least do as much to give minimum protection to the homeless.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) for raising this important subject. This topic has been discussed in the House a number of times recently, and this shows the growing interest and concern in this problem. It is an unhappy manifestation of the modern, mobile, restless society in which we live. It reflects the strains on family life and on moral standards, and the backlash of permissiveness. It is not a new problem. It is as old as human nature and as varied. It is a growing problem with disturbing new features.

The availability of accommodation, as the hon. Gentleman said, is shrinking, particularly lodging houses and hostels, and the impact of redevelopment and rising costs tend to aggravate the situation.

The Government are concerned about both aspects of this problem, and we are acting directly and with local authorities and voluntary organisations. Our approach is on the lines that single homeless people first need compassion and understanding and then, as appropriate, a home, care and treatment—I say "as appropriate" because conditions and needs vary. At one end of the scale is the man who is single or living away from his family who is fit in mind and body and has a job but needs lodgings—a landlady or Rowton House. Then there are those who need not only a roof but sympathetic support in coping with the ordinary pressures of life. There are those with mental or drink problems who need care and specialist treatment. Some have sunk to the bottom and given up the battle. One stage in the downward cycle can easily slide into the next and the next. But there are many encouraging examples where this downward cycle has been prevented from setting in or has been arrested after it has started. Prevention is the aim. Cure comes in when this fails.

I have had the opportunity of seeing at first hand a little of the work done with the homeless, and I pay warm tribute to voluntary bodies, local authorities and reception centres for the dedication and enthusiasm that they bring to their mission. For a century or more, voluntary bodies with a strong religious motivation, such as the Salvation Army and the Church Army, have been working effectively among the homeless. In recent years new organisations, in which young people are prominent, have joined them. We believe that the volunteers will continue to have a major rôle, and the Government are eager to help in every way possible.

What is the scale of the problem? As the hon. Member for Oldham, West said, there are sparse figures available and any which are available must be taken with a large pinch of salt. Often when figures are available there is no clear definition of what is regarded as the homeless category. Some of the figures have included people living in lodging houses even though they do so from choice and remain there for many years. Some include people in prison who have no fixed address at the time even though many may obtain accommodation when they are discharged. Others include people in hospitals. Inflating the size of the problem does not help solve it. What is more, it is not possible to count the exact numbers sleeping rough. No figure can be accepted as exact. Some people hide themselves away and may be missed. Others move about in the night and may be counted twice. There is no way of counting those dossing in private "crash pads".

For these reasons it seemed better for the Department to concentrate efforts on finding both temporary and long-term ways of helping rather than to expend staff time and energy on a repetition of the count undertaken by the National Assistance Board in 1965 which found fewer than 1,000 people sleeping rough in Great Britain, a figure challenged even by the organisations which helped to make the count.

The hon. Member for Oldham, West referred to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, which carried out a survey of the lodging house accommodation. We hope later in the year to have its report on both the quantity of beds and the amenities offered in this kind of accommodation. Preliminary results show that a great many lodging houses and hostels have closed during the past eight years but that a substantial number have opened and that there has been a net loss of about one bed in six in that period.

What is being done to deal with the problem? First, better understanding and co-ordination between those involved is very important—the Home Office with its responsibility for discharged prisoners, the Department of the Environment with its responsibility for housing along with the local authorities, the Department of Health and Social Security with its responsibilities for health and welfare, local authorities and the voluntary organisations. Substantial progress has been made in recent times in getting these different groups round the same table to discuss common problems and a joint approach.

Undoubtedly, more research is needed, and the growing interest in the problems of homeless single people exemplified in the recent study of men in Camberwell by David Tidmarsh is welcome.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the circular sent to local authorities and voluntary organisations last year. Before sending that circular we reviewed, in con- sultation with them, the ways in which more help could be given to single adults without permanent homes who because of personality disorders were in need of long-term accommodation and support. Such persons without a settled way of life circulate through reception centres, lodging houses, prisons, hospitals and sleeping rough, and organised objective information about them is only slowly accumulating, so that it is not possible to recommend any precise pattern of service to meet the need.

In the circular issued to local authorities last September, it was suggested that they should consider what need existed among adults with personality disorders in their area and decide, in the light of what they found, the best action to take to meet that need. It suggested ways in which support and rehabilitation might be provided for this group, and authorities were invited to promote experimental schemes to determine which methods of rehabilitation are most successful, how many people are in need of this type of help, and what proportion can be helped to return to a normal life in the community, and to establish some criteria of success.

The Department is prepared to consider giving loan approval for projects undertaken directly by an authority or by way of capital grant to a voluntary organisation in this work. The Government have found an encouraging response, despite the many other claims on the resources of local authorities, both for housing and for social services, but it is still too early to be able to give the hon. Gentleman any specific information.

Then there are the working parties on homelessness, which have been operating in London and in the South-West. They have now reported, and their reports are being considered. As far as the London end is concerned, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction met representatives of the London Boroughs Association and of the Greater London Council in January to discuss implementation of the recommendations of the first report of the working party which concentrated on homeless families. The London boroughs are still considering the recommendations contained in the final report, which dealt with, among other things, homeless single people, but they have been assured that Ministers are prepared to discuss these recommendations with them as soon as they are ready to do so.

These, then, are some of the main examples of research and joint planning to improve the services.

I turn now to the question of reception centres. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said about them, we now have a £2 million four-year programme to improve them. For example, we have just opened a new reception centre in Leeds. Two new reception centres are being constructed in former drill halls in Willesden and Notting Hill and will open later this spring and summer. Another centre, in Sittingbourne, will open in the autumn. We have plans for centres in South London, Southampton and Leicester. Several others, notably those in Newbury, South Wales, Derby and Sheffield, are being extended. It is interesting to note that throughout the winter there have been spare beds in the reception centres in London. There has been more accommodation this winter but less demand for it. For example, at no time during the winter has the Camberwell centre been full.

I turn now to the question of the voluntry bodies, which the hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned. We are making considerable use of the powers available whereby the central Government can aid voluntary bodies. I am considering here both my Department and the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I will give the hon. Gentleman figures to illustrate the increase in support which has been given.

Grants have doubled recently. In 1971–72 they totalled about £60,000; in 1972–73 the figure is up to £150,000. A number of the smaller voluntary bodies concerned have decided to come together to pool their knowledge and combine their talents in an organisation called "CHAR"—the Campaign for the Homeless and Rootless. The Department recently agreed to grant aid to this new venture for an experimental period. In addition to this, local authorities and growing numbers of people are providing assistance through their own funds for voluntary schemes in their own areas. These figures show clearly the substantial additional support which is being given for housing, but a great deal more remains to be done.

The Furnished Lettings (Rent Allowances) Bill will provide rent allowances for the first time for some vulnerable single people in furnished accommodation. Another useful contribution is an increase from £15 to £30 to be made in the rate of hostel subsidy under the provisions of the Housing Finance Act.

However, the Government are keenly aware that much more will have to be done to meet the needs of those single people who are most vulnerable to the pressures on accommodation of the cheaper sort. We recognise that more adequate arrangements must be made, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services are looking urgently at this problem.

I hope that in the short time that has been available to me I have been able to convey to the House that, while we recognise there is a growing problem here, equally a great deal more has been done in recent times to help meet it.