HC Deb 29 April 1969 vol 782 cc1251-77

The Post Office may reimburse the Minister the whole or any part of a sum paid by him by way of contribution towards the expenses of an international organisation of which Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is a member, being an organisation concerned with activities which the Post Office has power to carry on.—[Mr. Joseph Slater.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

It may be for the convenience of the House if, with this Amendment, we also discuss Amendment No. 29, in Clause 7, page 8, to leave out lines 5 to 11.

Mr. Joseph Slater

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

As a result of discussion in Committee, we shall be moving Amendments to Clause 7(2) to clarify the relationship between the powers that are set out in Clause 7(1) and (2). The way in which the re-drafting has been done means that the original sub-paragraph (j) no longer fits into Clause 7(2), which will now specifically cover activities ancillary to the main activities in Clause 7(1).

The new Clause is not of the same kind, because it empowers the Post Office to pay part or all of Her Majesty's Government's contribution towards any international organisation concerned with the Post Office's activities. The power is needed as a direct result of the reorganisation.

International organisations for postal and telecommunications purposes are commonly organisations of which the members are Governments. Examples are the Universal Postal Union and the International Telecommunications Union, which are agencies of the United Nations, and the new Commonwealth Telecommunications Council. These bodies deal with matters ranging from issues affecting international policy to detailed technical studies. At present the Post Office, as a Government Department, fulfils the duties of the United Kingdom as a member of these organisations. In future, the Minister will be responsible for fulfilling the United Kingdom's obligations in this respect.

The new Post Office will play a full part in the work of these organisations. It will, for example, be a recognised operating agency for the purpose of the International Telecommunications Union. Representatives of the Post Office will be included in the United Kingdom delegations, and will serve on technical subcommittees. Because the Government is a member of these organisations, the Minister will be responsible for paying the United Kingdom contributions. But, as the Post Office will take a prominent part in their activities, many of which are of direct benefit to the postal and telecommunications services, the Post Office must be able to make a payment towards the United Kingdom contribution.

Amendment No. 29 deletes sub-paragraph (j) of Clause 7(2).

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Mawby

The hon. Gentleman has explained why the new Clause should be in the Bill, and none of us complains about that. Amendment No. 29 deletes Clause 7(2)(j). We are debating the replacement of that paragraph by the new Clause. Paragraph (j) lays upon the Corporation the duty to reimburse the Minister and continues in exactly the same words as the new Clause. The new Clause differs only in the opening words— The Post Office may reimburse the Minister whereas paragraph (j) confers power on the Post Office— to reimburse the Minister. It may be that it is felt that the powers contained in paragraph (j) appear in the wrong place in the Bill and it is merely a case of switching those powers from one part of the Bill to another, but I do not understand why it is necessary to do so, because Clause 7 lays down a list of powers and duties, and I should have thought that this duty should be included with the others.

Is there a basic difference between the new Clause and paragraph (j) to be deleted? The only difference appears to be in the few words at the beginning. Instead of providing that the Post Office has a duty to reimburse, the new Clause provides that the Post Office may reimburse. As I understand it, the words "the Post Office may" are to be construed in the Bill as "the Post Office shall", so I am puzzled about this slight difference in wording.

If there is no basic difference between the two, there is no reason why we should oppose it. If there is a good reason why this provision should no longer be included in the list of duties but should appear in a separate Clause to emphasise that it is a special duty over and above the duties in Clause 7, I should not disagree with that, but I have an inquiring mind and would like the Assistant Postmaster-General to answer this point.

Mr. Stratton Mills

The Assistant Postmaster-General explained fully the work of the international organisations and why that work should be supported, and we are not entering into debate on that. He also told us why the new Post Office should reimburse the Minister, and again that is perfectly reasonable and we are not entering into debate on that. What he did not explain was the real purpose of the new Clause, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) has said. I can see virtually no difference in substance between the new Clause and Clause 7(2)(j). I do not understand why it is necessary to make this alteration.

The Assistant Postmaster-General gave the House some very quick references which seemed to me to be total double-Dutch. I could not understand the point behind what he was saying. I do not wish to be rude or to raise the temperature of the debate, but I feel that the matter should be explained to hon. Members so that we may follow the reasoning. Could the hon. Gentleman also indicate whether there is any real change in substance brought about by the new Clause?

The Minister referred to discussion in the Committee. I have looked up the HANSARD proceedings of the Committee, and it did not seem that the particular point was discussed, though I appreciate that it may well have been referred to on an earlier Amendment. I am sure the House would be obliged if the Minister would refresh our minds on the point and explain a little more fully the reasoning behind the Clause.

Mr. Hay

With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), I do not think that the matter is quite so simple. I should like to know a little more about the reasons for this change. If one looks at Clauses 7, 8 and 9 of the Bill one sees that they appear under a part of the Bill entitled "Powers and Duties of the Post Office." Powers and duties are not necessarily synonymous. It does not follow that because one has a power to do something that one has a duty to do it as well.

Clause 7 sets out, in the same way as a commercial company would set out matters in its memorandum, what the Post Office has power to do. That is not the same thing as placing upon the company, or in this case upon the Post Office Corporation, the duty to do something. On the face of it, the new Clause does not place upon it such a duty or obligation. It simply gives the power to the Corporation to reimburse the Minister in respect of these particular expenses.

I am completely baffled. I feel that it would have been in order to leave the Bill as drafted, and then, if at a later stage it were considered necessary to place an obligation on the Post Office to reimburse the Minister, it could appear after Clause 9, since Clause 9 sets out the general duty of the Post Office to carry out the functions conferred upon it by Parliament.

I should be grateful if the Minister could explain the matter more clearly. With all respect, when the Minister began his speech he read out the part of the departmental memorandum which had been submitted to him. I hope now that he will try to clear up the point.

Mr. Joseph Slater

I am indebted to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. I have made further inquiries, and if my remarks were not clear enough

New Clause 3
POWER OF THE MINISTER, PENDING TRANSFER TO THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT FROM COUNTY COUNCILS OF FUNCTIONS CONNECTED WITH ISSUE OF VEHICLE EXCISE LICENCES, TO DIRECT THE POST OFFICE TO ISSUE SUCH LICENCES
5 (1) The Minister may, at the request of a county council and after consultation with the Post Office, give to the Post Office a direction that, during such periods as may be specified in the direction (which shall not begin before the appointed day nor end after the day immediately preceding the transfer date), it shall, in normal business hours, issue on behalf of the council licences under the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962.
(2) Subsections (4), (5) and (6) of section 12 of this Act shall apply for the purposes of the foregoing subsection as if any reference in those subsections to subsection (2) of that section included a reference to the foregoing subsection.

when I was seeking to read the brief which was given to me on Clause 7(1), I should now like to add this. The reason is that new Clause 2 will not fit into Clause 7 when it has been altered by Amendment No. 22. There is no difference between the old Clause 7(2)(i) since the new Clause 7(2)(a) relates to a power. It does not create a duty. That is the advice which I have received, and I hope that it meets the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Hay

If we are seeking to place on the Post Office an obligation, should it not create a duty to reimburse the Minister? Should the Clause not say in line 1 that the Post Office shall reimburse the Minister, not that the Post Office "may" reimburse him? The use of the word "may" simply repeats the fact that the power vested in the Post Office is not a duty.

Mr. Slater

There is something in what the hon. Gentleman says, but personally, as between a power and a duty, I would every time go for a power in an issue of this kind.

Mr. Stratton Mills

The hon. Gentleman has referred to Amendment No. 22, to which we shall come later. I do not follow the reason why the addition of the words in Amendment No. 22 necessitate the removal of this matter to an entirely different part of the Bill. It would appear that a different point of much wider significance arises upon Amendment No. 22.

Mr. Slater

Amendment No. 22 is involved with many other Amendments, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman would raise this issue when we come to deal with it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause rend a Second Time and added to the Bill.

10 (3) In consideration of its complying with a direction given under this section with reference to a county council, the Post Office shall be entitled to receive payment from that council (of an amount to be determined, in the event of a dispute's arising as to the amount thereof, by the Minister).
15 (4) In this section the expression 'county council' shall be construed in like manner as if it were contained in the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962 and 'the transfer date' means the date which, by virtue of subsection (2) of section 1 of the Vehicle and Driving Licences Act 1969, is appointed by the Minister of Transport for the purposes of subsection (1) of that section.—[Mr. Stonehouse]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Stonehouse

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

It may be for the convenience of the Committee if, with this new Clause, we also discuss the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), in line 6, leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Stonehouse

The Clause is related to the Vehicle and Driving Licences Bill, which will transfer to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport the functions in connection with vehicle licensing which are at present the responsibility of the municipal authorities. The work of issuing licences at post offices will be work carried out for the Government and will accordingly be subject to the direction by the Minister of Posts in Clause 12(1) of the Post Office Bill. But the transfer of licensing functions to the Minister of Transport is not likely to occur until some time after the vesting day of the Corporation. In order to safeguard the position of the local authorities during this period, the new Clause will give the Minister of Posts the power to direct the Post Office to issue licences on their behalf during that period. That power is similar to the one in Clause 12 in respect of various other types of licence.

Mr. Peyton

In the grey world which contains such horrors as "a subsidiary of its" I suppose one ought not to be overwhelmed with surprise when one comes across subsection (2) of this Clause, which reads: Subsections (4), (5) and (6) of Section 12 of this Act shall apply for the purposes of the foregoing subsection as if any reference in those subsections to subsection (2) of that section included a reference"— the House will never guess it— to the foregoing subsection. I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman would claim or even admit to parenthood of this very nasty little trifle.

Nevertheless, he stands at the Dispatch Box saddled with the responsibility. I must admit that anyone who is a sufficiently toughened campaigner to come through carrying "a subsidiary of its" with him perhaps has had his sense of shame battered to such a state of uselessness that he can expect to get away with wording such as this without a blush.

I am not being flippant, but I believe that the House of Commons has a duty to protest against drafting when it becomes unnecessarily unpleasant and does violence to what is still a rather splendid language, despite the constant desecrations of Whitehall upon it. In blaming Whitehall for its assaults on the English language, it is only fair to admit that Westminster perpetrates a few of its own from time to time. But I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give the House some encouragement to believe that there languishes in the ranks of Government some respect for the English language, elemental and residual though it may be, and some remnant of life out of which new hope may burgeon in the future.

The right hon. Gentleman is responsible for a nauseating piece of drafting, and I am sorry for him. I hope that he will tell us that it is his intention to take an early opportunity to remedy it.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Dobson

I rise on one point which causes me some concern. In line 4, the Clause says that the Post Office … shall, in normal business hours, issue on behalf of the council licences under the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1962. I hope that my right hon. Friend will say what he means by "normal business hours". I suspect that what he has in mind is the normal hours of business, which are now 8.30 or 9 until 5.30 or 6, depending on the location of the post office.

There is a difficulty in this connection, and it is that there is an agreement between the Post Office and the unions concerned with the transaction of vehicle excise licence business to the effect that such transactions shall take place on Saturdays only when the county council office is open. As it stands, the Clause suggests that a wider sale of vehicle excise licences will be possible in future, and I shall feel extremely distressed if the Clause means that post office counters will be supplying vehicle licences when the county council offices are closed. That would be contrary to the existing agreements and would cause consternation to post office staff.

The agreement was reached after a long period of discussion. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reassure me on this point because if the Clause went through without qualification it would cause a great deal of controversey.

Mr. Hay

No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will listen to what the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) has said. In the other scale, however, I want to place the convenience of the public. It is all very well to work out a series of agreements relating to the hours during which post offices shall transact this kind of business, making sure that they coincide with times when council offices are open. However, I hope that the convenience of the public will be taken into account.

I want to deal with two other matters because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), I am an admirer of the English language and I am horrified to see so many blemishes in the Bill. My hon. Friend draws attention in his Amendment to a jaw-cracking subsection which I will not repeat. I have found another gem.

In line 11 of the new Clause, in the middle of a subsection dealing with the possibility of a dispute arising, for some extraordinary reason the draftsman has used the words … in the event of a dispute's arising … That is novel. One sees the same horror perpetrated in line 36 of Clause 12. At the beginning of subsection (5), the draftsmen say: In the event of a dispute's arising …". Here, again, is a horror. Indeed, there is yet another on page 8, line 23, which is even worse because there is a reference to the prosecution of research and the advantages which may accrue to the Post Office … as a consequence of research's being prosecuted into them", "research's" being spelt "research" with an apostrophe "s". I think that the draftsman is genitive mad. This is another example of the double genitive that we had earlier.

I cannot understand why this not only inelegant but downright ugly language is being used. It would have been perfectly simple, good English, absolutely comprehensible to everybody, if line 11 of new Clause 3 simply said, (of an amount to be determined, in the event of a dispute arising as to the amount thereof, by the Minister). I ask the Postmaster-General to have a look at some of this drafting. We are not raising silly, niggling little points. It behoves this House to try to keep some kind of control over the use of language, not just because it happens to offend the susceptibilities, but because—and this is the point—these horrors, when they creep in, are repeated in later Acts because they are taken as precedents.

Another point on which I am not clear from the Postmaster-General's explanation is why it is necessary to take power in subsection (1) of the new Clause to give the Post Office a direction. This is the customary way that the Minister would exercise a reserve power, but I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the power to give a direction is usually kept very much in reserve; it is a sledge hammer. Although I cannot speak from memory on the context of this very long and involved Bill, I think that there is a provision that the Minister has to report to Parliament the occasions on which he has given a direction. This is well precedented in a number of the other nationalisation statutes. But I wonder why, in the context of the matter that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in moving the new Clause, it is necessary for the Minister to take the power to give the Post Office a diretction to do this comparatively minor and unimportant piece of business. It would be equally easy for it to read, The Minister may, at the request of a county council and after consultation with the Post Office, request the Post Office, during such period as may be specified … in normal business hours, to issue, on behalf of the council, licences under the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962. Why not simply make it a request?

I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would look at it again. If he cannot answer now why he must have the power to give a direction, I ask him to look at it again in another place to see whether it is really necessary.

Mr. Stratton Mills

The principle behind the new Clause seems entirely unexceptional, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has done us a service by reminding us of what he rightly referred to as this "nauseating piece of drafting". My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) also pinpointed another piece of rather bad drafting in the phrase "dispute's arising". I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will note these things and perhaps at some later stage will be able to tidy them up.

Mr. Peyton

I hope that when my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) repeats what my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) said just now about "dispute's raising", he will spell it out so that those who hear it without a copy of the Bill before them will get the full horror of the apostrophe "s". Otherwise it will be interpreted as something quite different. I hope my hon. Friend will take the point.

Mr. Stratton Mills

I understand my hon. Friend's point, and I remind the House that an apostrophe has been used before the "s" here and in other parts of the Bill. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will be able to give us some encouragement about this.

Subsection (3) says that the Post Office shall be entitled to receive payments from that council (of an amount to be determined, in the event of a dispute's arising as to the amount thereof, by the Minister). By what yardstick will the council pay the Post Office? Is there to be a return on capital, or is it to be a percentage of turnover? What kinds of overheads, if any, are to be included? We ought to have some details about this, because the Minister may have to adjudicate in the event of a dispute between the local authority and the Post Office.

My hon. Friend the Member for Henley rightly referred to the extraordinary way in which the requirement of a direction is included. Surely this is taking things too far? Surely a direction would be much more appropriate as a reserve power to be used in the event of a dispute? I think that the Minister ought to tell us why he has seen fit to provide for a direction in all these cases.

Mr. Stonehouse

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) raised a question about normal business hours. I should like to make it clear to the House that this does not necessarily imply that these transactions will be carried out throughout normal business hours. They will be carried out within the period of the normal business, and the existing agreements with the staff will be continued because these meet the convenience of the Post Office in the organisation of its business.

The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) referred to the convenience of the public. The public are also interested in the other services which the Post Office provides, and if they find that they cannot get access to those services because the Post Office is doing this work, they could well raise objections. I believe that the present arrangement is reasonable and fair, and that is why we are proposing that it should continue.

Mr. Stratton Mills

Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he will restrict the hours during which people can tax motor vehicles at Post Offices? Surely to do that would be very much against the general convenience of the public?

Mr. Stonehouse

No. That has always applied, because if a local authority is closed for this purpose on a Saturday, and particularly in the afternoon, it is appropriate that the Post Office should not transact this business at that time, and I am glad to note that he hon. Member for Henley agrees with me about that.

During our last debate I was very much influenced by the points put forward by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) who has an incisive and attractive mind, and brings many useful ideas to the Floor of the House, but on this occasion I entirely disagree with him. If we were to accept his Amendment, which I appreciate is a probing Amendment, we would put the Post Office in a relationship with the Minister which I think the House would agree would be inappropriate. The Post Office would not be under any specific obligation to comply with a direction, and there would be no way of settling that argument, and there would be no obligation on the Minister to take account of the practical capabilities of the Post Office before the direction was made.

Where subsection (2) refers to: Subsections (4), (5) and (6) of section 12 of this Act", anybody with an atom of intelligence can see what that means. By using this shorthand that is the usual form in Parliamentary drafting, a lot of unnecessary words have been avoided; and I should have thought the hon. Member for Yeovil would applaud economy in words, because subsection (4) sets out and makes clear that the Post Office is complying with the directions set out in subsections 1, 2 and 3 of Clause 12. If we did not use the shorthand in subsection (2) of new Clause 3 all that would have to be spelled out again. The hon. Gentleman, who has sufficient intelligence to look up Clause 12 and see what it means, must give other people similar credit for being able to look it up.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Peyton

I have read Clause 12 and I believe that quality and clarity are sometimes to be preferred to economy. When those who never hesitate to use 100 words where one will do plead economy as an excuse for ugliness I am absolutely askance.

Mr. Stonehouse

I do not think that this is particularly ugly. I think it is poetry. I think it is delightful.

Mr. Hay

Would the hon. Gentleman care to set it to music?

Mr. Stonehouse

If we go on long enough tonight I will do my best, but I believe it would be a waste of space to attempt to spell out again all the provisions of subsections (1), (2) and (3) of Clause 12; and the wording is perfectly appropriate. The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) raised the question of what is to be the yardstick of the payment made to the Post Office. It will be to ensure not only that overhead expenses are met but that there should be a fair contribution to the financial objective of the postal side of the business which is now expressed as 2 per cent. of expenditure. I hope that with those explanations the House will see fit to accept the Clause.

Mr. Hay

I raised two points, one about "dispute's" and the other about why direction is necessary.

Mr. Stonehouse

I did not want to delay the House longer, but this direction is a reserve power. Naturally, the Post Office would be expected to agree with the Minister, after discussion in an amicable way. But if we are to have reserve power we have to spell it out in this way. It is suggested that we should have a series of consultations and that that will be that; but it does not settle the point. In the event of a dispute who makes at decision? If we were to accept the wording suggested by the hon. Member for Henley the matter would be in considerable doubt. No one would know whether the Post Office or the Minister was to make the final decision in the event of dispute. This wording has the virtue of clarity and therefore I should think the hon. Member for Yeovil would give it his 100 per cent. support, the clarity being that the Minister may make a direction. I believe the House would applaud that.

Mr. Stratton Mills

Of course, subsection (3), regarding the arrangement for payment is activated only in the event of the Minister giving a direction. Surely, it is meant to apply to all circumstances where the Post Office is doing this work on behalf of a local authority.

Mr. Stonehouse

Of course, there will be an arrangement for payment. This is put in to make it clear that though there is a direction, nevertheless, the Post Office shall be entitled to receive the payment on the lines I have been describing. I take the observation that the drafting point is something we can look at and I see no particular objection to the apostrophe; but I will consider it with my advisers.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4
REMUNERATION OF POST OFFICE FOR ISSUING DOG AND GAME LICENCES IN ENLAND AND WALES
(1) Any sums falling to be paid by the Minister of Housing and Local Government to the Post Office in pursuance of any agreement to which he, it and a council in England or Wales are parties, being
5 (a) an agreement providing for the issue by the Post Office, on behalf of the council, of licences of all or any of the following kinds, namely, licences for dogs, licences for dealing in game and licences for killing game, and the payment by that Minister to the Post Office of sums in consideration of its issuing the licences; or
10 (b) an agreement providing for the payment by that Minister to the Post Office of sums in consideration of its issuing, on behalf of the council, licences of all or any of those kinds in compliance with a direction under section 12 of this Act;
shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.
15 (2) Where licences of any such kinds as aforesaid are, in compliance with a direction under section 12 of this Act, issued by the Post Office on behalf of a council in England or Wales during a period during which an agreement is in force between the council and the Minister of Housing and Local Government providing for the payment to the Post Office by that Minister of sums in consideration of its issuing the licences (not being an agreement to which the Post Office is a party), the Post Office shall be entitled, in consideration of its issuing the licences, to receive payment from that Minister (of an amount to be determined, in the event of a dispute's arising as to the amount thereof, by the Minister); and any sums falling to be paid by that Minister in pursuance of this subsection shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.
20
25 (3) Where licences of any such kinds as aforesaid are, in compliance with a direction under section 12 of this Act, issued by the Post Office on behalf of a council in England or Wales during a period during which no agreement is in force between the council and the Minister of Housing and Local Government providing for the payment to the Post Office by that Minister of sums in consideration of its issuing the licences, the Post Office shall be entitled, in consideration of its issuing the licences, to receive payment from the council (of an amount to be determined, in the event of a dispute's arising as to the amount thereof, by the Minister).—[Mr. Stonehouse]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Stonehouse

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

With this new Clause the House will discuss the three sub-Amendments (a), in line 5, leave out 'licences for dogs'; (b) in line 19, leave out 'Minister' and insert 'Treasury'; and (c) in line 29, leave out 'Minister' and insert 'Treasury', and Amendment No. 59, in page 13, line 17, at end insert 'in Scotland'.

Mr. Stonehouse

We now arrive at a very interesting and emotional part of the Bill. The main purpose of the Clause is to allow the continuation of the present arrangements under Section 19(5) of the Post Office Act, 1961, by which the Post Office is paid for issuing dog and game licences in England and Wales by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, otherwise the local authorities which receive the revenue and which under Clause 132 will become responsible after vesting day for paying the cost of collection would be out of pocket through the change of status of the Post Office. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that that would be unfair and will generally approve the Clause.

Mr. Peyton

As the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) just now to say that he would look at the significance of always equipping "dispute" with an apostrophe "s", I will not weary him by repeating the point here. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will allow me to say to you, with profound respect—I of course have great respect for the Chair—that I was particularly gratified that sub-Amendment (a) should have been selected and that I should in no way have been suspected of irony in wishing to talk on this.

Sub-Amendment (a) seeks to leave out "licences for dogs", a question which concerns the Prime Minister and his followers in at least a metaphorical sense with which we are all familiar. It would be very unkind and unfair if I were to trespass upon the kindness of the Chair in selecting the Amendment. I can only say that I hope that it will be accepted that in tabling the Amendment I had in my mind thoughts of great kindness towards hon. Members opposite some of whose relationships with the authorities of their party have, I understand, been damaged by recent events. I thought that if the dog licensing system were to be abolished it would be greatly to their benefit. Even if it were prejudicial to the interests of the Prime Minister, I thought that this was a misfortune which I personally could stomach.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I think that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has had more latitude than the Chair ordinarily allows on these occasions.

Mr. Peyton

I am deeply grateful to you, as always, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I assure you that I shall not press the point further.

A serious question which I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman is how much it costs to collect a dog licence fee. I strongly suspect that this is a very unprofitable exercise and that a good deal of time, money and labour is spent on collecting the 7s. 6d. per dog per year and that the exercise shows no benefit to anyone.

In the good old days—they seem awfully long ago now—when there was a Tory Government I once inquired of the Treasury what the cost was. My right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber), who was then Financial Secretary, was answering a Question about the amount of revenue collected in the form of dog licences.

Mr. Ridley

It was my Question.

Mr. Peyton

I believe that it was. I asked a supplementary question the exact form of which I do not remember. My right hon. Friend's answer was interesting. He told us that dog licences had been thrust upon us by the need to finance the French war. I assume that to be the war against Napoleon. It has been a singular misfortune under which we have languished ever since that nobody has seen fit to tell the Treasury that the war against France was over and that Napoleon was dead. It would be useful if the Treasury could be persuaded to digest this information, because it might then be brought to examine the advisability of dog licences. I cannot help but adhere to an old-fashioned prejudice, that if we are to have dog licences it might as well be worth the trouble and expense of collecting the fee, otherwise we should abolish them. But to collect a sum which shows no profit whatever must be foolish even in the ranks of those where foolish propositions grow in fertile ground.

There are a couple of other points to which I attach no great importance. As it is accustomed to the rôle of referee, it would perhaps be right for the Treasury to be responsible for entering into the matter as referee in the event of disputes arising as opposed to the Minister. I would not wish to press that point very hard, but I should be grateful if the Minister could give us some up-to-date information which I am sure it would be difficult to extract from the Treasury, because it would be profoundly shocked to be asked about the cost of dog licences. It would feel that the next suggestion would be that the licence should be abolished and that the abolition of a licence costing 7s. 6d. per dog per year would imperil our war effort against Napoleon. That fearful news would shake the old-fashioned loyalties and confidence of the Treasury to a great extent I hope that perhaps the Treasury will be persuaded gradually—Ministers must not do this quickly with the Treasury—to let the light dawn on it and be told that the war against France is over, Napoleon is dead and therefore we do not need dog licences which, I strongly suspect, do not justify the trouble involved in collecting the fee.

9.0 p.m.

Sir Frank Pearson (Clitheroe)

My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) referred to his Amendment with too much diffidence. He depreciated its importance. After his speech, I felt that the point justified a certain amount of debate, though possibly not a long debate. We are lucky that we have been given the opportunity to talk about a matter which might not arise in the normal course of the business of the House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil mentioned that dog licences originated out of the need to raise finance for the Napoleonic wars. Many great anomalies in our tax system have arisen through strange circumstances. Mr. Gladstone had a reason for introducing Income Tax. He introduced it purely as a temporary measure, but it has continued and it plagues us to this day. Who can say that the relatively minor imposition involved in dog licences will not become a social evil? Therefore, I welcome the Amendment. Are dog licences a reasonable method of raising what is a minimal revenue? When I consider all the provisions in the new Clause for avoiding anomalies, I wonder whether this can be a good tax.

Apart from the administrative anomalies, what are the merits of the tax? There are many breeds and types of dog which should not be subject to it, like dogs for the blind. Are they a proper subject for a tax, however small? It is always said that if a tax is to be fair it must be capable of reasonably efficient collection. Every hon. Member knows that hundreds of dogs are not the subject of licence fees. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) will know many shepherds with dogs for which they pay no licence fee. A tax like this, which can be evaded, must be thoroughly bad. I hope that the Minister will try to justify the basis of dog licences.

Whether they should be collected through the Post Office is another matter. The Post Office is to become purely commercial, so many of its old functions should no longer be given to it. Other licences, such as those for dealing in game and killing game, might not be considered the functions of a commercial organisation like the modern Post Office in the modern technological age. Motor licences are issued through local authorities, and perhaps they should issue these licences.

We know how difficult it is at many sub-post offices to do all the Post Office paper work and to run a small shop as well and issue licences may be a considerable additional burden. Why has the issue of licences been left with a commercially-operated Post Office? Has the Minister considered allowing this function to be performed by local authorities in the same way as they issue motor licences?

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Is it not a fact that car road fund licences are issued both by local authorities and the Post Office?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

Order. I do not think that the question of road fund licences comes within the ambit of the Clause. I have been questioning in my mind the inclusion of the whole principle of the issue of licences for dogs. Hon. Members are concerned with the principle of licences being issued by the Post Office rather than with the question of licensing as a whole.

Sir Frank Pearson

On a point of order. Would it be in order to debate the question of leaving the matter in the hands of the Post Office or having this function performed by local authorities, setting aside the question of licensing as such?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is in order. The question whether dogs should be licensed is a different matter entirely.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

On a point of order. With respect to the Chair, both the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) have spoken about the substantive issue. Is it not in order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I appreciate the point the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but he must not question the ruling of the Chair. It is difficult for the Chair to decide what the issue of principle is here. It is clear to me now, and I have ruled accordingly.

Mr. Lewis

Further to the point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I have disposed of the point of order. The hon. Gentleman should not pursue the matter further.

Mr. Lewis

But you have not yet heard my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman began by saying that he wished to speak further to a point on which I had ruled. If he has a new point of order to raise, I will, of course, hear it.

Mr. Lewis

Two speeches have been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite dealing with an aspect of licensing. Presumably their remarks were in order, or they would have been ruled out of order. Are not hon. Members on this side entitled to debate what they said and what must have been in order because it was not ruled out of order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman is seeking to question a Ruling of the Chair. I cannot allow him to do that.

Mr. Lewis

Are we in the position that certain things can be said by hon. Gentleman opposite and we cannot reply to them?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the difficulties that face the Chair. This has been an obscure and difficult matter to decide. Perhaps the Chair was slow in giving its Ruling; but a Ruling has been given and the hon. Gentleman must not question it.

Sir Frank Pearson

While we are not in order in debating the question of the issue of licences by local authorities, presumably we are in order in debating the relevance of the issue of licences by the Post Office.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is perfectly in order.

Sir Frank Pearson

I have no doubt that the hon. Member for West Ham, North will be entitled to debate that aspect if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I trust that the Minister will reply to the points I have made.

Mr. Ridley

My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) raised an important point which was not adduced in Committee. It is appropriate that the House should spend some time analysing whether or not this is a good provision.

When my hon. Friend referred to a Question having been put to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer many years ago—at that time my hon. Friend and I were novices in the House—about dog licences, my hon. Friend was mistaken in thinking that the Answer given on that occasion resulted from a supplementary question asked by him. I must remind him that it was I who put a Question all those years ago. The Answer was given to my Question, not to his supplementary question. My Question sought to elicit what was the cost of collecting a dog licence. I speak from memory, but I think the Answer was, considerably more than 7s. 6d. In the preamble to the Answer the Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave the House the information that the dog licence was collected to pay for the Napoleonic wars with France.

I think I am right in saying that in those days the licence came in at the rate of 2s. 6d. a dog and it was increased to 7s. 6d. some time during the nineteenth century. I think that students of economics will agree that a charge of 7s. 6d. in the nineteenth century has become worth a lot more now in view of the depreciation of the value of our currency. This would be a very suitable day on which to drop the dog licence altogether. As my hon. Friend pointed out, we are no longer at war with France.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am afraid the hon. Member is transgressing on the point which I ruled out of order. He may submit that the Post Office may drop the administrative issue of licences, but he may not discuss the principle of licensing generally.

Mr. Ridley

I submit that the Post Office should cease to issue dog licences. Rather than anyone else issuing them, they should not be necessary because of the desire of hon. Members in all parts of the House for better Franco-British relations in view of the news this week. This is a most appropriate moment for this Amendment to be moved. It would suggest that the war with our nearest neighbour over the Channel, symbolised by the dog licence, has been brought to an end.

It seems crazy that this facility should be carried out by the Post Office. There is a real difficulty, because the Clause contains a provision that the Post Office shall be reimbursed by the Minister for the cost of issuing all licences, in particular dog licences, and the administrative cost of collection. We know from previous debates that the administrative cost of collection will include the appropriate share of overheads, interest charges and other expenses, which are properly attributable to the particular function of collecting dog licence fees.

My hon. Friend made another good point when he said that it should not be left to the Minister to arbitrate on what is the cost of collecting dog licence fees in the case of a dispute between the Minister and the Post Office. He suggested that the Treasury should do this. I have not frequently known my hon. Friend to be an advocate of the Treasury to do anything in any situation. Indeed, he is noted in circles wider than this House for his endemic distrust of the Treasury, which I find admirable. I am sorry therefore to find him slipping on this occasion and trying to insert the Treasury as a referee between the Minister and the Post Office in the event of a dispute.

It would seem that the Treasury is biased in this matter, as is the Minister, because, if the cost of collection of this tax is more than the yield of the tax, as I believe to be the case, and the Treasury were being obstinate and biased about it and sticking to this ridiculous eighteenth century tax, it would not arbitrate in at all a fair and unbiased manner between the Minister and the Post Office in the event of a dispute as to the cost of collection. Suppose that the tax costs ten bob a dog to collect and that is what the Post Office applies for. Does anyone seriously imagine that the Treasury would agree that it costs ten bob to collect a dog licence when it produced only 7s. 6d. a dog, and therefore there was a clear loss of 2s. 6d. from the start? The Treasury cannot be relied upon to be independent about such a matter.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Peyton

I thank my hon. Friend for having shed light on the errors of my proposal. My only excuse is that I feel that the Treasury would be better doing only a little mischief, as it would here, than those big mischiefs which are its habit.

Mr. Ridley

My hon. Friend is obviously trying to give the Treasury a sweetener in view of those things of which he has tried to deprive it over his long and distinguished Parliamentary career.

It is ridiculous that taxes of this sort should still be levied—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are discussing not whether certain taxes should be levied but whether the Post Office should claim remuneration for collecting them.

Mr. Ridley

I was about to press the Postmaster-General to tell us the cost of collecting dog licences. As soon as the Bill comes into force the first thing the new Post Office will do is to ask the Minister for a sum of money to cover the cost of the collection of this tax, so the figure will be known within a year or so, and we might as well know now. This is an excellent opportunity to smoke out the Government as to whether they are really continuing to charge a tax which probably costs more to administer than it brings in.

The whole provision is very unsatisfactory. Dog licences should be abolished, but if they are to be retained they should not be collected by the Post Office.

Mr. Speaker

Order. If they are to be abolished, they will not be abolished by this Amendment.

Mr. John Farr (Harborough)

I cannot agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) in this matter. I feel that the collection by the Post Office of the various licences referred to in the new Clause is useful and effective. If dog licences are not to be issued by the Post Office, how are members of the public to obtain them? Post Offices in country areas rely to a certain extent on the little commission they draw from the issue of dog licences, game licences, and even licences to deal in game. It may be a small matter to many hon. Members, but to many village postmasters and postmistresses with very little income it is quite an occasion when somebody comes in to buy a dog licence.

If the House accepts the Amendment and licences for dogs are omitted, there will be, to put it mildly, a superfluity of dogs around the country. I was impressed by what my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) said. He recommended that guide dogs for the blind should not be licensed, and I think that all hon. Members would agree. But if the Amendment is accepted and the machinery for the issue of those licences is destroyed, there will be a tremendous increase in the number of dogs in the country. One example of the tragic consequences of a large number of superfluous dogs is that on occasions when I have driven along the M1 I have seen people who want to dispose of dogs stop by the motorway for a second or two, release a dog from a bag and drive off. No hon. Member would like to see that sort of treatment of animals exaggerated, as I am sure it would be if the Amendment were accepted.

Dogs should be licensed, the existing machinery for collection should be continued, and I should also like to see cats licensed.

Mr. Ian Gilmour (Norfolk, Central)

When the Postmaster-General made his rather brief introductory speech, he said we were entering upon an interesting and emotional part of the Bill, but until I heard my hon. Friend speak I did not realise how interesting and emotional this new Clause was.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not get too interesting and too emotional or lie will be out of order.

Mr. Gilmour

I hope I shall become interesting, Mr. Speaker. but certainly not too emotional. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) pointed out that, according to evidence given by the Treasury for the inclusion of the dog licence in this new Clause, the licence was originally due to the disbelief—according to my hon. Friend—that Napoleon had ever died. He thinks that the Treasury still believes that Napoleon is still living, which, in truth, gives an entirely new slant to the Napoleonic legend.

Mr. Peyton

All my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said is that we were jointly informed by a Treasury spokesman—none other than my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury some years ago—that dog licences had been introduced to finance the war against the French. The omission I was commenting on is that no one has told the Treasury that it is not necessary to keep the beastly licences on because the war against the French is over.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I must rule Napoleon out of order and remind the House that we are discussing not whether there should be dog licences but whether the Post Office should issue them and receive remuneration for doing so.

Mr. Gilmour

I am sure that it will be in order if I wonder whether there will be any net remuneration from this tax, because if the tax is a loss I imagine that the Treasury will have a strong case for saying that it will not remunerate the Post Office for making a loss on the tax while, equally, the Post Office might say that it is bad luck on the Post Office because it does not want to collect the tax anyway. I do not know how such a conflict would be resolved.

Mr. Ridley

I can tell my hon. Friend how the conflict would be resolved. Licences would be imposed on cats, budgerigars, hedgehogs, hamsters and all sorts of pets in order to collect more revenue.

Mr. Gilmour

That would be a very emotional subject, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil hinted—I thought regretfully—that it might be necessary to raise the dog licence fee, I hoped that he was not speaking seriously because those of us who have had experience of the animal lobby would not relish such a proceeding.

The main point here is whether or not the Post Office will be spending its time and money usefully in collecting this tax; so I hope the right hon. Gentleman will favour us with a rather longer speech in reply and tell us whether or not the Post Office makes a loss on dog licences.

Mr. Stonehouse

I hope to remain in order and not incur your displeasure, Mr. Speaker, and so I will be unable to follow up the various points made about the principle of the tax. I want to give some information in response to the other questions raised, however.

The gross yield of this licence fee is £1 million a year and the cost of issue is just over £260,000 a year, so there is not a loss. There is, indeed, a surplus. The question the House is considering is who shall pay the Post Office for the expenses it incurs in doing this business.

I was grateful to the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) for his useful contribution. As he rightly said, sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses value this part of their work. It is tremendous convenience to members of the public to be able to go into their post office to pay these rather minor fees. It would be unfortunate if we were to accept the suggestion that the Post Office should not carry out this business. As for the Post Office, this is commercial business, because the Post Office, under recent dispensations is being paid not only the cost, but also a contribution to the financial objective, which is expressed as 2 per cent. of expenditure. It is good business for the Post Office and the Post Office Corporation will wish to continue to do this, providing it is reimbursed in the way I have described.

The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) suggested that the Treasury should be the Ministry deciding questions of dispute about the amount of payment to be made to the Post Office. I beg to disagree, and I hope that the House will not accept his advice. The Ministry of Posts is the Ministry which is aware of the exacting costing and responsibilities of the Post Office, and it would be most appropriate for the Minister with overall responsibility to have this responsibility. The issue here is clear. If we were to accept the Amendment the effect would be that the local authorities, rather than the Minister of Housing, would have to pay the Post Office for the expenses it incurs, and I believe that the House would not wish that. It would be most unfair to local authorities.

Mr. A. P. Costain (Folkestone and Hythe)

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that someone from his Department gave evidence to the Estimates Committee that the cost of issuing a wireless licence was ls? Could not some sort of figure feature permanently in the Bill? Why does it cost more to write out a dog licence than a wireless licence?

Mr. Stonehouse

The information which the hon. Gentleman has quoted, and I am speaking off the cuff, is incorrect. I believe that the cost is not 1s. but 7s. In any case, we should want to look at this a little more closely before we attempt to make these comparisons. The figures that I have given about the cost in this case are quite accurate and they show the proportion of costs as being just over 25 per cent.

Mr. Tom Boardman

If the cost. of issuing a T.V. licence is 7s. how does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that with the figures quoted for dog licences, since it surely involves no greater work? He said that only 25 per cent. of the cost is involved in the issue of dog licences. It seems to be a peculiar ratio.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

Forward to