Commons Sitting of 27 May 1970

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  SOMERSET COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
  Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
  HOOKER ESTATES LIMITED (TRANSFER OF REGISTRATIONI BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

  HAMBROS BANK BILL [Lords]
  Considered.
  Question, That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the Third time—[The Chairman of Ways and Means]—put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

  KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time.

  NORWICH CORPORATION BILL Lords
  Considered.
  Question, That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the Third time—[The Chairman of Ways and Means]—put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

PORT OF TYNE BILL
  MONMOUTHSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time.
  WEST END BAPTIST CHURCH, HAMMERSMITH BILL
  Read a Second time and committed.

  BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL
  Ordered.
  That in the case of Birmingham Corporation Bill Standing Order 208 (Notice of Consideration of Lords Amendments) be suspended and that the Lords Amendments be now considered.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

  GOSPORT CORPORATION BILL
  Ordered,
  That in the case of Gosport Corporation Bill Standing Order 208 (Notice of Consideration of Lords Amendments) be suspended and that the Lords Amendments be now considered.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

  HUNTINGDON AND PETERBOROUGH COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
  Ordered,
  That in the case of Huntingdon and Peterborough County Council Bill Standing Order 208 (Notice of Consideration of Lords Amendments) be suspended and that the Lords Amendments be now considered.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

  WEST RIDING COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
  Ordered,
  That in the case of West Riding County Council Bill Standing Order 208 (Notice of

  1777
  Consideration of Lords Amendments) be suspended and that the Lords Amendments be now considered.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

PRIVATE BILLS (SUSPENSION)
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Promoters of every Private Bill which has originated in this House or has been brought from the House of Lords in the present Session of Parliament shall have leave to suspend any further proceeding thereon in order to proceed with that Bill, if they think fit. in the next Session;
(2) the Agent for the Promoters of any such Bill intending to suspend any further proceeding thereon shall give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than 5 o'clock on 28th May of their intention to suspend further proceeding thereon or, if the Bill, having passed this House, is then pending in the House of Lords, of their intention to proceed with the same Bill in this House in the next Session; provided that all fees due upon any such Bill up to that date be paid;
(3) an alphabetical list of all such Bills, with a statement of the stage at which they have been suspended, shall be prepared by the Clerks in the Private Bill Office and printed;
(4) every such Bill which has originated in this House shall be presented to the House not later than the third day on which the House sits after the next meeting of Parliament;
(5) there shall be deposited with every Bill so presented a declaration signed by the Agent for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill with respect to which proceedings have been suspended at the last stage of its proceeding in this House in the present Session;
(6) every Bill so presented shall be laid by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the Table of the House on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the causes of Her Majesty's calling the Parliament have been declared thereunto;
(7) every Bill so laid on the Table shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time (if the Bill has been read a second time before its suspension); and if such Bill has been reported by any Committee in the present Session, it shall be ordered to be read the third time unless it has been reported with Amendments in the present Session and has not been considered as amended, in which case it shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
(8) paragraph (2) of the Standing Order relating to Private Business (First Reading) shall not apply to any Bill brought from the House of Lords in the next Session and
1778
upon which the proceedings have been suspended in this House in the present Session;
(9) when any Bill which has been brought from the House of Lords in the present Session, and upon which the proceedings have been suspended in this House, is brought from the House of Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the House of Lords in the present Session and, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a declaration has been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House—

(i) the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first time and shall be referred to the Examiners unless the Examiner has reported on it in the present Session;

(ii) if the Examiner has reported either that the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable to the Bill have been complied with or that no Standing Order not previously inquired into is applicable thereto, the Bill shall be ordered to be read a second time, or, if it has been read a second time in the present Session, it shall be deemed to have been read a second time;

(iii) if the Bill has been reported by a Committee with Amendments in the present Session it shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make only such Amendments to the Bill as have been made thereto by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill to the House forthwith;

(iv) if the Bill has been reported by a Committee without Amendment in the present Session it shall be ordered to be read the third time;

(10) all Petitions against any Bill presented in the present Session which stood referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the same Bill in the next Session;
(11) no Petition shall be received in the next Session against any Bill which has been presented to this House or has been brought from the House of Lords in the present Session unless such Bill was read the first time within the last ten days of the present Session;
(12) any Petition against any Bill to which paragraph (11) of this Order applies, and which is presented not later than the seventh day after the next meeting of Parliament, being a Petition in which the Petitioner prays to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents, shall stand referred to the Committee on such Bill;
(13) in relation to any Bill to which this Order applies the Standing Order relating to Private Business (Right of audience before Committees on opposed Bills) shall have effect as if the words " under Standing Order 126 (Reference to Committee of Petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
(14) any Standing Orders complied with in respect of any Bill originating in the House of Lords, upon which the proceedings have been suspended in that House, shall be deemed to have been complied with in respect of such Bill if the same is brought from the House of Lords in the next Session, and any notices published or given and any deposits made in respect of such Bill for the present Session shall be held to have been published, given and made, respectively for the Bill so brought from the House of Lords in the next Session;
(15) no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceeding on a Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session.
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
To be communicated to the Lords.

NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR UNOPPOSED RETURNS
Mr. Speaker: All the Motions on the next two pages of the Order Paper in

respecting application of Standing Order No. 31 (Closure of Debate) during Session 1969–70 (1) n the House and in Committee of the whole House, under the following heads:—

1

2

3

4

5

6

Date when Closure claimed, and by whom

Question before House or Committee when claimed

Whether in House or Committee

Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Speaker or Chairman

Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion

Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

and (2) in the Standing Committees under the following heads:—

1

2

3

4

5

Date when Closure claimed, and by whom

Question before Committee when claimed

Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Chairman

Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would, shortly be arrived at without that Motion

Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS
Return ordered,
of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into the House of Commons and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in Session 1969–70:
Of all Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in
1780
the name of the Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means are formal. They are about statistics which are compiled for the benefit of hon. Members of the House. I propose to put them all together.

ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER No. 9
Return ordered,
of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9, showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing the specific and important matter and the result of any Division taken thereon, during Session 1969–70. — [The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER No. 31)
Return ordered,
— [The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Session 1969–70 were reported on by Committees on Opposed Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the Sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills of which the Preambles were reported to have been proved; the Bills of which the Preambles were reported to have been not proved;

1781
and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed:
Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which, in Session 1969–70, were referred by the Committee of Selection to the Committee on Unopposed Bills, together with the names of the Members who served on the Committee; the number of days on which the Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended:
And, of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which were referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee.—[The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

PUBLIC BILLS
Return ordered,
of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during Session 1969–70, showing:
(1) the number which received the Royal Assent;
(2) the number which did not receive the Royal Assent, indicating those which were introduced into but not passed by this House, those passed by this House but not by the House of Lords, those passed by the House of Lords, but not by this House, those passed by both Houses but Amendments not agreed to; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills were dropped, postponed or rejected in either House of Parliament, or the stages which such Bills had reached by the time of the Prorogation or Dissolution.—[The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

PUBLIC PETITIONS
Return ordered,
of the number of Public Petitions presented and printed in Session 1969–70 with the total number of signatures in that Session—[The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

SELECT COMMITTEES
Return ordered,
of the Select Committees appointed in Session 1969–70, with the Sub-Committees appointed by them; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each met, and the number of days each Member attended; the total expenses of the attendances of witnesses at each Select Committee and Sub-Committee; and the total number of Members who served on Select Committees; together with so much of the same information as is relevant to the Chairmens Panel and the Court of Referees. —[The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE AND BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Return ordered,
of (1) the days on which the House sat in Session 1969–70, stating for each day the day of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after the time appointed for the interruption of business; and (2) the days on which Business of Supply was considered.—[The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

STANDING COMMITTEES
Return ordered,
for Session 1969–70, of (1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing Chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more of the Standing Committees showing, with regard to each of such Members, the number of sittings to which he was summoned and at which he was present; (2) the number of Bills, Estimates and Matters considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of sittings of each Committee and the titles of all Bills, Estimates and Matters considered by a Committee distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and showing in the case of each Bill, Estimate and Matter, the particular Committee by whom it was considered, the number of sitting at which it was considered and the number of Members present at each of those sittings.—[The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

SPECIAL PROCEDURE ORDERS
Return ordered,
of the number of Special Procedure Orders presented in Session 1969–70; the number withdrawn; the number against which Petitions or copies of Petitions were deposited; the number of Petitions of General Objection and for Amendment respectively considered by the Chairmen; the number of such Petitions certified by the Chairmen as proper to be received, and the number certified by them as being Petitions of General Objection and for Amendment respectively; the number referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses; the number reported with Amendments by a Joint Committee, and the number in relation to which a Joint Committee reported that the Order be not approved; and the number of Bills introduced for the confirmation of Special Procedure Orders;
Of Special Procedure Orders which, in Session 1969–70, were referred to a Joint Committee, together with the names of the Commons Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the number of days on which each such Member attended.—[The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

DOCTORS AND DENTISTS (REMUNERATION)
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the latest Report from the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration.
The House will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in formed the medical and dental professions on 22nd May that in view of the decision to dissolve Parliament the Government thought it desirable to suspend consideration of this long and important report, the product of much hard work by Lord Kindersley and his colleagues, until after the election; and that it should not be published until the new Government could come to a decision on its recommendations. He foresaw that the new Government would give it very early attention.
The professions have, however, strongly urged publication before the election. I had a discussion yesterday with representatives of the medical profession when I made it clear to them that there could be no question of publication of the report alone, but that the Government were willing to review with them the question of publishing both the report and the Government's decisions on it before the election.
They and representatives of the dental profession have accepted my offer of a meeting tomorrow morning with my right hon. Friend and myself to discuss the situation.
Lord Balniel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the doctors have every reason to be suspicious of the Prime Minister's decision to postpone publication of this report until after the General Election? We thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, but it is not enough just to say that the Government will be willing to review the question of publication. After eight weeks delay the doctors and the country as a whole—[Interruption.] are entitled to a categoric statement—[Interruption.].
Mr. Speaker: Order. Parliament is still in session.
Lord Balniel: After eight weeks delay, the doctors and the country as a whole
1784
are entitled to a categoric statement that the Government will publish the report now and announce their decision at the same time.
Mr. Crossman: I should like to make it clear that I take full personal responsibility for advising the Prime Minister on this issue. The hon. Gentleman should consider this matter seriously as I have tried to do, in terms of the interests of the members of the medical profession. I came to the conclusion that they would be ill-advised to press for the consideration of the report in an election atmosphere and that it could be considered more impartially and detachedly after the election. They disagreed with me and we have agreed to see them tomorrow to discuss the matter. I cannot say more.
Mr. Pavitt: Does my right hon. Friend recall that when the Kindersley Review Body was established, from 1960 until 1964 the delays were very much longer when the Conservative Party was in power in any decision to implement any of the recommendations? Will he recall that the junior hospital doctors are extremely concerned about the report? Will it not be far better not to publish the report in a hurry, but to go thoroughly into it so that the Government may consider it in due course?
Mr. Crossman: I thank my hon. Friend for repeating the argument I made for due consideration of an extremely complicated and important report. As the Minister who sponsors the medical profession, I deeply regret that this delay has occurred. I appreciate that the doctors have a serious grievance and have to balance the advantages. They have decidedly come down on one side and we have told them that we are prepared to meet them to hear their case.
Mr. Maudling: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that if, after the discussions tomorrow, the doctors still want publication, the report will be published?
Mr. Crossman: I have told the doctors that, since they were anxious to put their case anew to the Prime Minister and myself, we were prepared to meet them and consider what they had to say. I also added that I would give them a quick decision.
Mr. Lipton: May I put in a special word for the junior hospital doctors, the drudges of the profession? If necessary, could my right hon. Friend give priority to the recommendations that apply to the junior hospital doctors so that they may be carried out at once?
Mr. Crossman: I cannot discuss the contents of the report with my hon. Friend, but I can say that no doctor or dentist will lose a penny because of the delay.
Mr. Lubbock: If the right hon. Gentleman says that he is willing to consider the question of publishing the Government's decision at the same time as the Kindersley Report, does it mean that these decisions have already been reached internally? Might not many doctors and dentists believe that they are likely to get a better deal before the election than afterwards?
Mr. Crossman: It is not for me to imagine what the doctors and dentists will do. All I told them yesterday was that they should be very careful before drawing such a conclusion, that throwing it in as part of an election competition was not necessarily the best way of getting an impartial verdict on their case. I did not persuade them. I am meeting them again tomorrow with the Prime Minister and we will discuss the matter with them again. My only motive was that this very important report should be considered in a proper atmosphere.
Mr. Ogden: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the medical profession has done very well out of the Labour Government? Would he compare the speed with which the B.M.A. has made representations on this matter with the failure of the B.M.A., condemned by both sides of the House, to discipline its own members about over-prescription of drugs?
Mr. Crossman: I find the comparison a little far-fetched. One cannot blame the doctors. They are not the last in the queue, but many other people have been negotiating or having discussions. The doctors have their own independent body and I do not blame them for objecting to a delay. I ask them seriously to consider objectively whether the reason was not a justifiable one.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there would be no question of this being an electoral issue if he followed the normal procedure. The whole object of setting up the review body was, in the words of the Commission, to guarantee that the standard of living should not be depressed by arbitrary Government action. The ordinary procedure which the Tory Government followed on every occasion was to publish quickly and to follow the award in full. It was only in 1966 that this procedure was broken, again at election time.
Mr. Crossman: The comparison with 1966 is interesting, but the position was not precisely analogous to the present position. The Kindersley Review Body, if the hon. Gentleman will recall, made a suggestion a few days before the election. I do not think that it is quite the same, and the doctors now have a serious grievance because of the length of the delay. This is something we will consider tomorrow. I should not now be pressed to say more than that before discussions take place.
Mr. Faulds: What are hon. Members opposite moaning about? If they expect to win the General Election, would not they rather take the decision in these matters?
Mr. Turton: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to make a statement to the House after his meeting with the doctors tomorrow?
Mr. Crossman: I will certainly consider that.—[Interruption.] Yes, I think that the answer is that I will.
Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Will the Secretary of State recall that the Pilkington Commission, in its original report, was absolutely emphatic that in the interests of preserving confidence and goodwill it was essential that the Government should give a decision on the review body's recommendations very quickly?
Mr. Crossman: I am well aware of that. If it had not been for the very unusual circumstances, this would have happened.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Even if the right hon. Gentleman does not feel able to announce for any reason the Government's decision, what objection is there

1787
to publishing the report of the independent review body so that we can all judge its rightness or otherwise?
Mr. Crossman: I also considered that possibility with the Prime Minister. We decided that, following precedent, it would be much more satisfactory to have the report and the Government decision considered simultaneously.
This is what I explained to the medical profession last night quite firmly, that I was not prepared to publish the report, as was suggested in part of their letter, so that it could become, as they put it, a major election issue between the parties. [HON. MEMBERS: " Oh ".] They asked for it in their demand yesterday. It is wiser either to have the report and the decision before the election or after the election, but not to have one before and the one after.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: When the Secretary of State says that no doctor will lose a penny as the result of the delay, does he mean that the doctors will he exempt from any wage or salary freeze that might be imposed by the Government in the event of their coming back?
Mr. Crossman: I am in some difficulty about interpreting that somewhat delphic remark. If, as I would have assumed, the hon. Gentleman means that a Tory Government would have an automatic wage freeze, this is a hypothetical situation. As for us, it does not apply to us.
Mr. Marten: The right hon. Gentleman referred to " unusual circumstances ". Can he tell us what these are, especially as the Prime Minister apparently decided in 1966 when to have the election?
Mr. Crossman: The unusual circumstances to which I was referring are those associated with the proximity of a General Election.
Mr. Snow: In view of the obvious mental reactions of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), is my right hon. Friend aware that, although Dr. Freud would have been distinctly annoyed, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite still stick to their long-standing fallacies?
Mr. Crossman: I would not care to say which psychological pundit it was.
1788
I am not sure that it was so much a Freudian lapse as an Adlerian lapse.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mrs. Castle. Statement.

EQUAL PAY BILL (PENSION RIGHTS)
The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mrs. Barbara Castle): At present, pension rights are specifically excluded from the scope of the Equal Pay Bill. I said during the Report stage of the Bill that I would consider the possibility of bringing these rights within the scope of the Bill. In making this commitment, I indicated the considerable difficulties in the way of providing for the equal treatment of men and women in regard to pension rights and the complexity of the provisions that would need to be made in the Bill. I drew attention to the fact that this was a very late stage at which to attempt to deal with this difficult subject in the present Bill.
In accordance with my commitment, I considered very carefully the possibility of amending the Bill by means of a Government Amendment in the House of Lords. I have had the advantage of a meeting with the T.U.C. to hear its views. I had reluctantly to come to the conclusion that it was too late to deal with this complex matter in the Bill.
I considered, in particular, the suggestion made on Report that power might be taken in the Bill to make regulations in regard to pension rights later on. However, the extension of pension rights under employers' schemes to women who do not already enjoy them would be a significant and important development. I came, therefore, to the conclusion that it would not be right to make such a major change by means of regulations.
The Bill takes a great step forward in introducing equal pay for men and women. The Government recognise that it is anomalous not to provide safeguards against discrimination between men and women in employers' pension schemes. While it is not considered feasible to do this in the present Bill, the

1789
Government accept that legislation must be introduced in due course to tackle this problem.
We intend, therefore, to introduce such legislation into Parliament before the Equal Pay Bill comes into force at the end of 1975. The legislation will prescribe a suitable date for equalising men's and women's pension rights, taking due account of any inherent differences between men and women in regard to pension needs.
Mr. R. Carr: Is the right hon. Lady aware that, to put it mildly, we still think it a great pity that this very important issue was not dealt with until this very late stage, rather than earlier? Is she further aware that, nevertheless, we are grateful for her statement and for her recognition of the seriousness of this problem? May I assure her that a Conservative Government will give this important issue very serious attention?
Mrs. Castle: It is rather unusual for an Opposition spokesman to condemn himself so effectively out of his own mouth. Indeed, so great was the interest of the right hon. Gentleman in this matter that, during the whole course of the passage of the Equal Pay Bill in Committee, he never put down an Amendment on pension rights. The entire initiative on this matter came from my hon. Friends, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), who moved the Amendment on Report.
It was as a result of his and their representations that the Government undertook to reconsider this matter with a view to seeing whether, even at this late stage, an Amendment might be introduced in the Lords. For the reason that I have given, we have decided that it is better firmly to commit ourselves to legislate in the next Session of Parliament.
Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Lady aware that she will have the full support of the Liberal Party on this matter, if she has the opportunity of introducing this legislation, and that at least it is something of an advantage to hear pleasure expressed from both sides of the House, such as that which we have heard
1790
from the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr), since this means that there is a slightly greater chance of its being implemented?
Mrs. Castle: I am delighted to know that I shall have the hon. Gentleman's support when I introduce this Measure in the next Session.
Mr. Ford: Is my right hon. Friend aware that millions of women will welcome her statement, and that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends look forward to being behind her on this side of the House when these pledges are implemented?
Mrs. Castle: I am grateful to my hon Friend.
Mr. Tom Boardman: As the right hon. Lady was absent from the Committee a great deal, will she refresh her mind and see how often hon. Members on this side raised this very point during the course of the Committee proceedings?
Mrs. Castle: As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, I kept in close touch with the Committee proceedings. He will also be aware that, as I said, in Committee no Amendment was tabled by the Opposition on this matter.
Mr. Holland: Does not the right hon. Lady recall that I urged the inclusion of pensison rights on Second Reading and that, on Report, I supported her hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) on this matter?
Mrs. Castle: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman spoke strongly on the matter, and he will be aware that we had a meeting of minds on a number of points during the passage of the Equal Pay Bill.
Sir T. Beamish: How did it come about that this little matter slipped the right hon. Lady's mind when the Bill was being drafted?
Mrs. Castle: I am sorry to say that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is as inaccurate as usual. I referred to this matter during the Second Reading of the Equal Pay Bill. I said that I had given careful attention to the inclusion of pension rights in the Bill and that I accepted in principle that it was entirely desirable.

1791
My point was that the inclusion of pension rights would have greatly lengthened and complicated the Measure, and that I was anxious to get it on the Statute Book as soon as possible, as I hope to be able to do this afternoon.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Mulley. Statement.

INTER-URBAN ROAD STRATEGY
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Frederick Mulley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the White Paper published today on the new inter-urban road strategy for England. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
The House will recall that tentative proposals for a new approach to interurban road planning were put forward for discussion last year in a Green Paper " Roads for the Future ". Public response showed general support for the concept of the comprhensive development of a national network of trunk routes.
I have also received many detailed comments, mainly suggesting additions to the proposed network, from right hon. and hon. Members, from all the regional economic planning councils, and many other organisations and individuals. I should like to thank all those who gave us their views and suggestions.
I has taken rather longer than originally envisaged to consider all the comments and proposals, but this was because I wanted to be sure that we finished up with the right strategy. We have tested a number of alternatives, and examined every route in the proposed network. Particular attention has been paid to the support that new and improved roads give to the major measures that the Government are taking to ensure a better balance in economic development.
These studies have reinforced the Government's belief in the concept of a network of comprehensively improved trunk roads. But they have also shown the need for a larger network than that proposed in the Green Paper, supported by a complementary programme of improvements on other roads about twice as large as that proposed in the Green Paper.
1792
The White Paper, therefore, now puts forward an extended network of about 2,200 miles of motorways or other dual-carriageway roads which is estimated to cost about £2,000 million at 1970 prices and provides for a further £1,400 million to be spent on improving other trunk roads to the standard necessary to cater for future traffic demands—about another 1,800 miles. This, added to the 2,000 miles of the present programme, will give a total of about 6,000 miles of new and improved roads.
The cost of the new strategy will, therefore, be about £3,400 million—about 40 per cent. higher than the estimated cost of the Green Paper proposals.
The strategy proposed in the Green Paper was to have been completed between 1982 and 1987. The much more extensive strategy now put forward is to be completed in 15 to 20 years from now as future economic circumstances allow. This programme will enable us to plan and provide a primary network serving all main centres of population and industry and, by the end of the period, to eliminate serious congestion on all interurban roads, despite the continuing rapid growth of traffic.
This is a plan for inter-urban road improvement. But the White Paper fully recognises the need to deal with the pressing problem of congestion in our towns and cities, the environmental problems to which it gives rise, and the need to knit together the inter-urban and urban networks. We are, therefore, making provision for the proportion of the total road programme devoted to urban roads to rise progressively from rather less than 40 per cent. as at present to well over half the total by the 1980s.
The new strategy will provide the blueprint for road planning for many years to come. Within this total plan, the priorities of individual schemes need to be reviewed from time to time to take account of major new developments. Individual routes will need to be investigated and determined after taking full account of environment and amenity and regional and local development plans.
About £1,000 million worth of motorway and trunk road schemes are under construction or in the firm programme, and already a further £900 million worth of major schemes are being prepared for transfer to the firm programme to ensure

1793
continuity in the present record level of road construction. Other schemes will be added progressively as the new strategy proceeds.
On the basis of this programme, we can look forward by the end of the 1980s to an inter-urban trunk road system where capacity has doubled—compared with a 70 per cent. increase in traffic—and on which traffic can travel freely, safely and without frustration and congestion.
Mr. Michael Heseltine: The whole House must welcome the last minute repentance of the Government about road building, so conveniently situated two days before the House rises for a General Election.
Does not the Minister find it strange to be announcing this programme as a member of a Government who have three times cut the programme and who have now been revealed as incapable of maintaining existing roads, let alone building new ones?
Mr. Ellis: Whiz kid.
Mr. Heseltine: May I ask the Minister whether he will give the House the cost of the programme which he has just announced calculated at the rate of price increases running at 9 per cent. per annum into the future?
May I also ask what the Minister will do about the substantial problems which will arise from planning blight as a result of his announcement today?
Mr. Mulley: I am not surprised that I can never satisfy the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine). On 28th April, in answer to a Question from the hon. Gentleman, I gave the House an assurance that I would publish the White Paper as soon as possible after Whitsun. I think that I have fully carried out that undertaking.
The White Paper is the result of very hard work over a long period since the Green Paper was published, in conjunction with local authorities, the regional economic planning councils, and so on. So the hon. Gentleman's sly remark about it being on the eve of a General Election is completely misplaced. In making this statement today I am fully accepting responsibility that my colleagues and I
1794
will have to carry out this programme when we come back.
I do not know from where the hon. Gentleman gets the idea of 9 per cent. The fact is that over the last few years the increased cost of road construction has been rather less than the annual construction overage increase of about 4 per cent. I do not know how he projects this into the future. But, as is customary in all planning, we work on the basis of constant prices and I have given the House the full figures.
I do not know of any substantial complaints about maintenance. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a lot of maintenance is outside the trunk road system and is the responsibility of the local authorities concerned. The hon. Gentleman will also know that my predecessor set up the Marshall Committee on maintenance, which will be reporting shortly.
Mr. Bagier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it makes sense to plan road building for a long period ahead in accordance with the time which he has given? Does he also agree that it denotes a note of confidence that he will be here to carry out that programme? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that the development areas particularly, which have been part and parcel of a vast road building programme over the last five years under this Government, are a significant factor in opening out those areas to the same kind of prosperity that other regions have?
Mr. Mulley: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I am sure that he is right in saying how important road developments in the development areas have been and in pointing out the importance of long-term planning. It is ironical that the hon. Member for Tavistock—
Hon. Members: Where is the hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Mulley: — has on previous occasions tried to claim the credit for all our road building because it was planned under a Conservative Government. But everybody knows that a road cannot be built in under seven years. It has to be planned ahead, and that is what we are doing.
Mr. Bessell: May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that, while we shall

1795
obviously need to study the White Paper, his statement today will be broadly welcomed by road users throughout the country?
Secondly, may I ask whether it is possible to speed up the programme as 1990 seems a long way ahead?
Finally, has the Minister considered propositions for raising funds by public loans for building roads similar to those operated in Italy and other countries?
Mr. Mulley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his blessing to the project.
We would like to bring the date forward, but it depends on economic developments over the next few years. I should be happy if it could be completed in 15 years at the earliest rather than 20 years.
Raising funds by public loans was discussed by the Estimates Committee, and we have, naturally, paid attention to its views. But, frankly, I do not know that this will raise a large amount of money, unless it is accompanied by tolls and the rest, which nobody would favour.
Mr. Brooks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while many of us welcome this long-term strategy planning which has been announced, nevertheless, some on Merseyside have been concerned at the apparent lack of priority given to improving road access to what, after all, is Britain's largest exporting port? Will my right hon. Friend tell us broadly what kind of priorities will be indicated in the next three or four years?
Mr. Mulley: I think that my hon. Friend, when he looks at the planned strategy, will find that we have taken fully into account the importance of Liverpool as a port, and that the routes are designed to recognise that. Priority of one route over another is a difficult problem. We have to be guided by special factors, such as the third London airport, regional development and so on. We also have to pay particular attention to trying to deal with the heaviest congestion first. I know that practically everyone thinks that his particular bit of road is the most heavily congested in the country, but we have to deal with it by counting traffic flows and working on a scientific rather than a subjective basis.
Mr. Costain: In assessing the format of the proposals, what account has the Minister taken of the possibility or otherwise of the Channel Tunnel being built? If he has assumed that it is to be built, may we know what year he has assessed for this?
Mr. Mulley: I have not worked on the basis that the Channel Tunnel will or will not be built—[HON. MEMBERS: " Oh."] But, clearly, we have provided for that, because —and I was told this when I was in Dover—there will be need for an improved road in that direction in any event. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a South-East Development Study. One reason for reserving a sum of £1,400 million not committed to the main strategy is precisely to deal with the kind of situations which will develop in the years ahead that we cannot reasonably foresee at the moment.
Mr. Peter Walker: Have the Government any proposals to deal with the planning blight which will be created by such a programme?
Mr. Mulley: I am sorry that I did not deal with that in reply to the Member for Tavistock. No immediate planning blight will be created, because we are not proposing to draw the lines or announce the routes until we reach the point—[Laughter] The hon. Gentleman laughs, but this is a serious matter. There are probably three or four different routes between one city and another. The property affected will not be known until the final detailed and technical discussions take place. As one of my right hon. Friends has said on behalf of the Government, we are examining the general quesion of blight, and new legislation will be needed.
Mr. Ellis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is scarcely a constituency in which the evidence of the Labour Government's activities in road building and improving roads is not there for the general electorate to see? Will he therefore accept our congratulations, particularly on behalf of the South-West, where all the complaints are coming from —I see the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) in his place—that the Labour Government are doing too much and too speedily, making up for years of neglect?
Mr. Mulley: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I am constantly amazed at how some hon. Gentlemen opposite disregard the evidence of their eyes for some propaganda that is pushed out in a party document.
Sir E. Boyle: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake not to neglect the problems here and now of a considerable number of shopkeepers in those city areas where a major linking scheme is under construction? I sent a case to him the other day.
Mr. Mulley: I understand the problem, but this is a programme for inter-urban roads. One of the problems about urban roads is that the initiative for the schemes come from the local authorities concerned.
Mr. Ogden: Will my right hon. Friend use this opportunity to ensure that road tunnels are fully integrated into the road programme, and remove the anomaly whereby it is possible for a motorist to go over the Mersey at Widnes without a charge, and yet have to pay to go under the Mersey at Liverpool?
Mr. Mulley: I do not think that that question arises from my statement. The Government's policy on tunnel and bridge tolls is well known.
Mr. Longden: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether we shall have to wait until the late 'eighties for a decision from him about the route of the north orbital road through my constituency, which has been on the plans for upwards of 40 years?
Mr. Mulley: I cannot off the cuff give an answer about when a particular route will or will not be started, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Nott: As the right hon. Gentleman imposed a vehicle tax for the first time, without notice, would he like to say how much work the Government have done on roads in the Isles of Scilly? He could accompany his right hon. Friend there.
Mr. Mulley: The prospects of accompanying my right hon. Friend and of visiting the Scillies are very agreeable, but I understand that I am likely to be otherwise occupied during the next three weeks.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea of the share of the total visualised expenditure which will be devoted to the improvement of roads in East Anglia, bearing in mind that the Regional Planning Council for East Anglia and the Conservative Party's report on the subject stress the need for better roads in East Anglia?
Mr. Mulley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no regional economic council, or other regional body, which would not endorse that sentiment for its own region. One of the problems is to assess priorities. I have to be guided by the factual situation, the state of congestion, and so on. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the figures broken down as between one region and another. We have to look at this as a national problem, because people are trying to move about in all parts of the country. If we tried to divide the road programme on a percentage basis per region, that would not be the right kind of planning.
Mr. J. H. Osborn: What will be the density of passenger vehicles and heavy vehicles in 1980 and 1990? What will be the additional cost of repairs, and what consideration has been taken of that? Secondly, what will be the priority of the route from Sheffield, where the right hon. Gentleman's constituency is, to Liverpool, across the Pennines?
Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman knows that we have had feasibility studies carried out on a route from Sheffield to Manchester, which would be extended across the Pennines. The hon. Gentleman would need to put his other questions to a soothsayer, not to a Minister.
Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Paragraph 14 of the White Paper refers to five proposed routes, one from Bristol to Southampton, in respect of which further and detailed investigation and study is to be made. Can my right hon. Friend say how long he expects this further investigation and study to take?
Mr. Mulley: I cannot give an exact time, but I do not think that the study of the route will be unduly long, and then a decision will be taken whether it should or should not be put in the general strategy. But that does not mean

1799
that it will necessarily be built immediately the study is concluded.
Mr. Woodnutt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a little thought to the offshore islands, bearing in mind that the Isle of Wight is the only county which has no roads which are 100 per cent. at the cost of the Government? Will he consider extending the A3 trunk road through Ryde to Yarmouth at the other end so that roads on the Isle of Wight are as good as those on the mainland?
Mr. Mulley: I am prepared to look at all proposals but trunk roads are designed for through traffic. It is customary for the principal roads in each local authority area to be the joint responsibility of the Government and the local authority concerned, but the Government's share of such expenditure is 75 per cent.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House. We have a lot of work ahead of us.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  FINANCE BILL
  Considered in Committee [Progress 13th May].
  [Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]
  The Chairman: I think that it will help the Committee if I say that I now propose to leave out new Clause 5 from my provisional selection of Amendments.
  Ordered,
  That after Clause 14 the Bill be considered in the following order, namely, Schedule I after Clause 2, Schedule 2 after Clause 5, Schedule 3 after Clause 18, Schedule 4 after Clause 20, Schedule 5 after Clause 28 and Schedule 6 after Clause 33.—[Mr. Taverne.]

  FINANCE BILL

    Clause 14
    ALTERATIONS OF PERSONAL RELIEFS
    3.18 p.m.
    Mr. Marcus Worsley: I beg to move Amendment No. WH17, in page 12, line 25, at end insert:
    (e) in subsections (2) and (3) of section 9 for the references to £1,000 (maximum income qualifying for full relief) there shall be substituted references to £1,200, and the following words shall be added to subsection (2): except that in the case of a married couple living together the maximum income qualifying for full relief shall be 1,400'.
    The Liberal Amendment not having been moved, I am glad that at least one party in opposition is present on this occasion.
    The Amendment refers to the relief whereby the first slice of the income of a taxpayer, where one of the two partners to a marriage is over 65, can be treated for tax purposes as earned, when, in fact, it is unearned, income. The Committee will recollect that this relief was altered as recently as last year, and I have little doubt that when the Financial Secretary replies to the debate he will try to persuade the Committee that it would be premature to make an alteration once again. The fact is, however, that the rate of inflation during the past year makes an alteration necessary.
    We are not wedded to the precise amount, but, as I shall show, there is a strong case for the figures which we

    1801
    have chosen. The simple fact is that so rapid has been the rise in prices during the last 12 months that a relief which was increased only a year ago needs to be increased once more.
    There is a double implication in the Amendment. The first is the increase it proposes, but it goes rather wider, seeking to alter the characteristic of the relief, in that it suggests that where there are two persons in a household the relief should be higher than where there is only one. Mere common sense suggests that this should be done, and it is already done in the case of similar reliefs in income tax and in our national insurance scheme. Why is there not a differentiation in this relief between a household with two persons in it and a household with one person in it? That half of the argument is self-evident, and, therefore, I put it forward without further supporting evidence.
    We suggest increasing the figure from £1,000 to £1,200, and have reached that figure in the following way. The rise in the Index of Retail Prices in the 12 months ended last April was 5·6 per cent. In a household with an income of £1,000, which is the limit of the relief at present, this would mean an additional burden, purely in terms of rising prices, of about 10s. a week, or about £26 in a year. Altering the treatment of the income from the treatment as for unearned to the treatment as for earned, as the Amendment suggests, would increase the income of the household by £18.
    So, although the increase seems superficially to be very large, if we are seeking to relieve the household in this way it needs to be as much as that to make nearly full recompense for the increased cost of Labour Government. It is for those reasons that we feel that it would be desirable to make the change.
    I do not know the cost of the Amendment, but I do not think that it can be very large. The House was told a year or two ago that the cost of treating all pensioners' income as earned income would be about £30 million, so I do not think that to treat a relatively small section of that income in this way could be very expensive. That is our case. We believe that such has been the pressure of inflation during the past year that the
    1802
    relief given only 12 months ago should be further increased.
    Mr. Michael Shaw: I support the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley). Clearly, there have been great increases in costs during the past year which alone warrant another look at the Clause. I am glad that my hon. Friend has suggested amending the approach a little this year. He his sought not only to increase the allowance, but also to differentiate between that for a single person and that for a married couple. We should work all the time to stop the discrimination against those who choose to remain in married bliss rather than to live together without the authority of a wedding, and this is another case in point.
    If elderly people choose no longer to be wedded together but rather to live in sin, to use the old-fashioned description, they would be entitled to a great advantage from the Clause. Once over 65, each would be entitled to have income up to £1,000 regarded as earned income, but if they were married the benefit would be reduced, because the single allowance would apply to both, instead of each of them enjoying it.
    Therefore, in so far as the Amendment seeks to expand the allowance for married couples it is to be welcomed. I hope that it can be accepted both because of increased costs and because it accepts the need to increase allowances given to married people in general.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Dick Taverne): The hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) put forward the case very simply and briefly, and I hope to reply in the same spirit.
    This is a straightforward issue which divides into two parts. First, there is the question whether the age relief should be increased this year. Secondly, there is the question whether we should differentiate beween the single and the married rate.
    With regard to the first question, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor explained that there was a limit to what could be done in the Budget this year, and he decided that on this occasion he would give help to older persons in the area where it was perhaps most needed. He has certainly not been unmindful of the needs of old people, as his record

    1803
    has shown. Last year, as the hon. Member for Chelsea reminded us, he raised the age relief limits from £900 to £1,000. Coupled with the marginal relief, which depends on how much of a person's income is earned or unearned, that could give some relief up to an income of £1,666.
    But my right hon. Friend decided that this year the area on which he should particularly concentrate was the area of age exemption. The raising of the age exemption limit up to £475 for a single person and £740 for a married couple should give a considerable relief to a section of the population which could certainly do with such relief.
    Mr. John Nott (St. Ives): Surely the concession given by the Chancellor does not anything like compensate those people for the inflation they have suffered over the last few years?
    Mr. Taverne: I do not think that that is right. In many cases the relief will amount to a very useful sum for the people affected. Raising the married relief in particular from £680 to £740 should bring substantial relief to these individuals.
    The cost of the proposal would be about £5 million in a full year. It is not a sum that we could neglact. There is a limited amount available, and my right hon. Friend felt that the best area in which the relief could be given this year, in the light of what happened last year, was in age exemption rather than age relief.
    The second point introduced by the hon. Gentleman was a differential rate for married and single persons. I certainly would not wish to dismiss this idea out of hand. But it is true that in this sector the married couple will have benefited from the substantial raising of the married allowance by about £90.
    While I regard this as an interesting idea, which has never yet been adopted by either this or the previous Conservative Administration, it could best be considered when we are looking at all the personal allowances together. Ever since this relief was introduced, it has been at a constant rate for the single person and the married couple. In the case of the married couple, there is some relief auto-
    1804
    matically given to them which is not given to the single person because of the ordinary personal allowances and the special allowances for the married couple.
    It is not an idea which I should wish to dismiss, but I should wish to look at it with sympathy when we look at the whole question of personal reliefs, as we shall continue to do. I should wish then to bear the question very much in mind.
    Amendment negatived.
    3.30 p.m.
    Mr. Eric Lubbock: I beg to move Amendment No. WH13, in page 12, line 41, at end insert:
    (g) in section 9 (earned income and old age reliefs) for the reference in subsection (1)(a) to two-ninths there shall be substituted reference to one-quarter.
    The practice this afternoon seems to be to make brief speeches, so I shall not go into detail in proposing this Amendment on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends. If the Chancellor could not alter the standard rate of income tax this year, for reasons which have been thoroughly deployed already in the House, some concession is certainly warranted for people living entirely on earned incomes. There is a case for saying that there is a lack of incentive for people whose incomes are entirely earned and that whatever we do in this Finance Bill or in our fiscal policy generally should be designed particularly to encourage such people.
    I had hoped that, with decimal currency in the offing, we might at least have expected a 3d. reduction in income tax this year, making it 8s. in the £, in which case altering the two-ninths fraction which has obtained hitherto to one-quarter would have made the arithmetic a good deal easier. However, that is water under the bridge now, and, in the absence of any reduction in the standard rate of income tax, there is a strong case for looking at the two-ninths fraction again.
    As far as I know, this fraction has ruled for many years. I do not know how the two-ninths was originally calculated. I do not know what the logic of it is, or whether proper consideration has been given by the Treasury over the years to some variation in the amount, a variation which, as I say, would give

    1805
    greater incentive to people living entirely on earned income.
    I do not altogether expect that the Financial Secretary will accept the Amendment, but I should like to know how the Treasury views the two-ninths fraction which has ruled for so long.
    Mr. Nott: It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) move the Amendment, obviously stepping into the shoes of certain of his hon. Friends, but I do not think that he understands his own party's Amendment. He laid considerable stress upon the position of elderly people with earned incomes. Perhaps I shall be corrected by the Minister and be told that I do not understand the Liberal Party's Amendment either, but I believe that the two-ninths age relief applies to all incomes, not purely to earned income.
    To my mind, the argument here applies even more, perhaps, in the case of those who have saved up for the whole of their working careers, accumulating a nest-egg and then, being in receipt of income from their lifetime savings, having that income treated as unearned.
    The distinction between earned and unearned income is one of the most unfair distinctions we have. I say that not because of any capitalist feeling about whether income from inheritance is more or less right or wrong than income from earnings, but simply because the term " unearned income " is thoroughly bad, because, basically, it is applied far more to savings income than to income from inheritance.
    Mr. Lubbock: I agree that the terminology may be, unfortunate. If we spoke of income from employment, on the one hand, and income from property, on the other, we should draw a more accurate distinction between the different cases.
    Mr. Nott: To some extent, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but the point is that an elderly person may have put his life's savings into property. I am unable to see why a person's life's savings should bear a heavier form of taxation than his income during working life. If the Labour Party wishes to impose penal taxes upon inheritances, that is a different matter. It can tackle it through the estate duty or in some other way.
    1806
    Many old people are having a particularly difficult time as a result of inflation. The £ is now worth 15s. 10d. compared with 1964. It is time we looked again at the two-ninths relief and made the improvement which the hon. Member for Orpington suggests. The argument applies to unearned incomes as well, and for that reason, too, since the present system applies particularly harshly to savings income, I support the Amendment.
    Mr. Taverne: I shall ask the Committee to reject the Amendment for three reasons. First, it would leave a mess in the whole earned incomes sector because it would not apply to the two-ninths earned income relief as regards small incomes and age relief.
    Perhaps I might here answer one question raised by the hon. Member for Orpington. The two-ninths fraction was arrived at, in some ways, in rather arbitrary fashion. In 1941, it was one-tenth. In 1946, it was one-eigth. Then it became one-sixth, then one-fifth, and eventually it was brought to two-ninths, the figure which we have now.
    The second reason for asking the Committee to reject the Amendment is, perhaps, slightly more important. In our view, it would mean that the benefits would go to the wrong people, giving no benefit to the lower-paid and concentrating the advantage at the upper income reaches. Here are some examples. On earned income of £720, the amount of relief each year would be £15. On earned income of about £4,000, the relief would be £110 a year. In the present climate, it would be wrong to distribute reliefs in that way.
    The third and conclusive answer which I must regretfully put to the hon. Gentleman is that his Amendment would cost about £320 million.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Are we to understand that it is the philosophy of right hon. and hon. Members opposite that no reduction can ever be made in taxation paid by someone higher up the scale until everyone below has been wholly relieved of tax?
    Mr. Taverne: I am not saying that. I am saying that in this year it has been the Government's policy to concentrate what tax reliefs could be given at the

    1807
    bottom of the scale. That policy could certainly not be followed if the Amendment were carried.
    Mr. Michael Shaw: If the hon. and learned Gentleman has decided that that would not be a proper course to take, will he tell us when the Socialists have ever increased, or would ever increase, reliefs at the higher range?
    Mr. Taverne: The question is where the main reliefs could be given this year, and we decided that they should come at the bottom. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in suggesting that one should never give relief at the top, or that we have never done so. He will recall that this Budget gave substantial marginal relief to a section of surtax payers.
    Lord Balniel: The Financial Secretary is mistaken in thinking that Budget gives help principally to the poorer sections of the community. That is precisely what was not done. The way to help them would have been to increase family allowances.
    Mr. Taverne: I realise that there is a dispute here about the way relief should be given. Some say that it should come at the top of the income scale, and others at the bottom. On the question of tax reliefs, we decided that the help should be given at the bottom of the tax range.
    Mr. Lubbock: Although I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the historical background to the way in which the two-ninths fraction was reached, I still consider that this is a matter which the Treasury should consider in due course. However, in the light of the overall figure of cost which he has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I beg to move Amendment No. WH 14, in page 12, line 41, at end insert:
    (g) section 18 (relief for blind persons) shall also apply to any other chronically disabled person which means a person who is deaf, dumb or otherwise substantially handicapped by loss of physical or mental faculty which is likely to be permanent.
    The Chairman: With this Amendment we can take Amendment No. WH 15, in page 13, line 4, at end insert:
    1808
    (3) Where a claimant proves that he is maintaining or employing a person for the purpose of the care of either a member of his family who is incapacitated by reason of old age or chronic mental or physical disability or of himself being so incapacitated he shall be entitled to a deduction from the amount of income tax which is chargeable equal to tax at the standard rate on £120 in respect of the employment or maintenance of that person. This relief shall be allowed whether or not the person employed or maintained is resident in the same house as the incapacitated member of the family.
    Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Mr. Irving.
    This is a very simple Amendment. My argument need not detain the Committee for very long. Its object is to extend to chronically disabled the relief that is at present available to the registered blind. It is relevant to think of the purpose for which the registered blind are given a special allowance in our tax structure. At the moment, it is £100, and is given in recognition of the difficulty or handicap caused by a permanent but static disability rather than by a progressive illness or other form of trouble. This tax allowance is granted to the registered blind regardless of their capacity to overcome their handicap and to work at a profession Or trade and lead as normal a life as, I am happy to say, so many do.
    The Amendment seeks to extend that recognition to those who suffer from other forms of chronic disability. In form, if not in substance, it has been moved on many previous occasions, and has been rejected by successive Governments. One of the main reasons put forward by Treasury Ministers for refusing an Amendment in these terms has been the difficulty of definition, in terms of deciding who should be covered by the description " chronically disabled "—a difficulty that does not obtain to anything like the same extent in defining the registered blind.
    It is fair to say that this problem of definition is a genuine one, but it has been faced by the Government in defining the conditions for receiving a constant attendance allowance and it is, therefore, right to say that it can and has been overcome in other and similar circumstances. The allowance proposed in the Amendment is designed to help all chronically disabled, whether or not they qualify for a constant attendance allowance. The principle is quite clear. It has been put

    1809
    forward by the Disablement Income Group and other bodies, and has been widely accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee and many different sorts of people engaged in this work.
    The first principle of the Amendment is that any form of allowance, tax relief or similar concession for disability should be applied to individuals taking account of the extent and nature of their handicap but not how it was acquired or in what way it operates. As far as possible disability of every kind should be equated, whether it takes the form of a loss of physical or mental faculty, including deafness, dumbness and blindness. The criterion should be the extent of the disability and the difficulty that the individual has in facing ordinary life. That principle is receiving more and more recognition.
    The second principle underlying the Amendment is that an allowance of this nature should be paid regardless of the success or otherwise of the individual in overcoming his disability, and regardless of how incapacitated he may be in life—that is to say, separating the concept of a constant attendance allowance from other measures designed to help people in their homes, or to help those who cannot cope. This proposal goes beyond that, and says that the disability of those who are facing extra difficulties and handicaps in comparison with the more fortunate members of the community should, in itself, be recognised by the community, and that some attempt, however inadequate, should be made to compensate such people for this.
    The Financial Secretary should reflect on the words and policies put forward by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services in trying to extend the concept of community care, because this proposal is part of that concept. The people that we are seeking to help are, among others, those who are already leading as normal a life as possible—people who are trying to earn their living and play their parts in our community and in doing so are facing extra difficulties and handicaps because their earning capacity will always be lower than that of a comparable normal person.
    1810
    This proposal will be of help to them, and it is in that spirit that I commend it to the Committee.
    3.45 p.m.
    Mr. Tim Fortescue: I wish to address my remarks directly to Amendment No. WH 15, which seeks to provide tax relief for a taxpayer who employs, for the care of a chronically sick, mentally sick or physically sick, person in his household—or someone who suffers from extreme old-age—an allowance of £120 a year to help cover the cost of a person brought into the household to care for that chronically sick person. The last sentence in the Amendment extends that concept to provide relief even if the person employed is not resident in the same house as the incapacitated member of the family.
    We have found it difficult to think of an all-embracing name for such an allowance. I propose to call it a home care allowance a phrase of which I am not very proud, but which will do as shorthand for the moment. The National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill, now deceased, contained a proposal for an attendance allowance of £4 a week for those who attend chronically sick persons. In spite of all the efforts of the Opposition in Committee, that allowance was not to have been brought into force before 1st April, 1972, and in the present course of events it seems unlikely that it will be brought into force even then. We believe that the Amendment will meanwhile at least go some way towards helping those who have to employ people to look after the invalids in their families.
    The Financial Secretary has said that he would consider one of my hon. Friend's other Amendments when he has a chance to consider all personal reliefs together. That has been the cry of Governments of all complexions for many years. Ministers have said, " We cannot do one thing because if we do we shall affect something else. Therefore, we must look at everything together." But they never get around to looking at everything together. Allowances are introduced ad hoc and piecemeal, year after year, by Governments of all complexions. There is no co-ordination of reliefs.
    Among other things we have the blind persons' relief—introduced after years and years of pressure by hon. Members

    1811
    from both sides of the House. That is limited to blind persons only, although we seek to extend it this afternoon. There is the old-age relief. There is the housekeeper allowance for elderly widowers and the personal allowance for wives and children.
    We also have—and this has recently caused some comment in political circles, as well as throughout the country—a system whereby students who are living with people who are not their spouses and who have children by them are given a grant by the Government. That has not been universally welcomed either here or in the other place, but it is a recognition of the fact that when there is a stable union, as it is called, society may wish to provide support for more partners in that union than simply the wageearner—if there is such a person in the family—or the man concerned.
    These extensions having been made, there seems to me to be no reason why the concept of allowing tax relief to a member of a household who is not part of the family in that household should not be considered. Where a person or two people in a family are unable to look after a spouse or another member of that family living in the household, we ask that it should be recognised that society can, and should, take the obligation to help the head of the family in that case in paying towards the cost of bringing an individual into the household, either full-time or part-time, in order to look after the invalid whose care is beyond the ability of the family itself to provide.
    Mr. Donald Chapman: I am sympathetic to the point being made by the hon. Gentleman, partly because there is provision for repayment of selective employment tax where a household employs someone to help look after someone aged over 70. This is a similar point. But surely the Amendment is defective unless it more narrowly defines what old age means. Surely we could not have inspectors all over the country defining in differing ways what is incapacity.
    Mr. Forteseue: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his sympathetic welcome to the Amendment, but I do not think that it is defective. If it is defective, however, then the Government suffer from exactly the same defect.
    1812
    In Committee on the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill, where the same sort of provision was made for the old, chronically sick and disabled through an attendance allowance, there was the same lack of definition. When we pointed it out in Committee, we were told that it would be taken care of by regulations. If this provision were included in the Finance Act, the point could also be taken care of by regulations. If it could not be so taken care of, then the Government themselves are wrong in what they said in Committee on the attendance allowance.
    If this allowance is provided for in the Finance Act, and people are enabled more easily to pay for home care for invalids in their families, it is likely, if not probable, that a considerable amount of public money will be saved. Obviously, if private persons are not able to employ others to look after their chronic sick within the family, the probability is, as I am sure the Committee agrees, that sooner or later the invalid will find his way into hospital or an old people's home, or into care of some kind, because the family itself will not indefinitely be able to look after him.
    Mr. Taverne: The arguments on these two Amendments are to some extent familiar. They have been gone over year after year and the unattractive task of resisting what on the face of it appear to be attractive proposals normally falls to the Treasury Ministers. But although they are old arguments, they are nevertheless on a very important subject.
    The first objection, which has always had merit, is that the most effective way of dealing with the problem is not through tax reliefs. Such reliefs could only benefit those who are better off, those who are paying tax. They could do nothing for those who are not paying tax at all, for example, the disabled, people who are unemployed and who are unable to find employment and earnings.
    No one appreciates this point more clearly than the hon. Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), particularly in the light of the interjection he made on a previous Amendment. Obviously, the most satisfactory answer is cash allowances. Whereas in the past there has been no concrete proposal for a cash allowance, we now have the proposal for a constant attendance allowance and I

    1813
    suggest that this is the right kind of solution.
    Amendment No. WH14 deals with a general disablement allowance, if I may call it such. It is fairly close to the suggestion which at least commended itself to the Royal Commission, but the Commission's proposal, which it thought feasible, related only to an allowance for 100 per cent. disability. It suggested that there should be a choice between this allowance and other benefits and it made a number of other suggestions which would not apply here. But the difficulty which applied to some extent to the Royal Commission's recommendation, and particularly applies to Amendment No. WH14, is that any such allowance would need an elaborate system of medical assessments which the Revenue simply could not carry through.
    If an industrial injuries benefit or a war pension is payable, to some extent provision has already been made. But when it comes to chronic illness there are problems of assessment and definition which the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) referred, but did not deal with. He did not face up to that problem and it is still there. It would mean a tremendous number of claims being made with a great and deep sense of disappointment being felt among those who did not have their claims accepted because they fell on the borderline of whatever arbitrary percentage was laid down as constituting substantial disablement. It would mean that the test would be loss of functional ability and not earning power. We believe that the constant attendance allowance shows the correct way to deal with the problem.
    The suggestion embodied in Amendment No. WH15 is the kind of suggestion which was specifically rejected by the Royal Commission, which felt that it would not be feasible. Indeed, the Royal Commission felt that such a suggestion had a particular quality of unfairness because it would not help people who incurred different kinds of expenditure, such as payment to nursing homes. One kind of expenditure would be liable for tax deduction while another kind would not. Because neither Amendment would deal with the problem in the way we think it should be dealt with, and because there are substantial objections
    1814
    in any event to these proposals I cannot recommend the Committee to accept either Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Lord Balniel: The Clause is basically concerned with personal reliefs, but, in discussing it, we should also consider the relationship of those personal reliefs with the cash allowance, because, as the Financial Secretary has quite rightly said, there is a close relationship, and as a means of alleviating poverty this is the most effective means.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) put down an Amendment which was designed to enable us to discuss this relationship. It was an ingenious product. His written work on social contract and his contributions to our debate on the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill were of great value to the House of Commons and would have been of greater value if some of the advice had been heeded by the Government. I always regard him as being one of the perennial optimists of the House, but I must disillusion him. There is little chance of the Government accepting his advice. It is too late.
    The Government have not yet fully understood the relationship between tax allowance and cash allowance. In an Amendment which was out of order, we made it plain that we thought that it would be wise to publish the figures so that at least a more reforming Government, who will take office in due course, will have the basic statistical information on which to consider how best to alleviate poverty.
    4.0 p.m.
    Many of us are now involved in drafting our election addresses. The election address is the most carefully worded personal statement which any Member of Parliament ever addresses to his constituents. In discussing the Clause, it is right at least to refer to the Prime Minister's own election address in which he promised:
    " Labour will abolish poverty in Britain "
    I should regard the abolition of poverty as the greatest secular objective of any

    1815
    political party of any political complexion. It is also one the hardest objectives to achieve.
    Far from poverty being abolished, every evidence appears to suggest that it is growing. Until we have the figures, which we were hoping would be produced during the debate, it will be extremely difficult to assess how best to bring help to those in greatest need, whether through tax allowances, or through cash allowances. We want the information to be tabulated.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) said, the tax reliefs have gone up haphazardly over the years, ad hoc and piecemeal. Sometimes old-age relief went up; sometimes the blind persons' relief; sometimes the housekeepers' allowances; sometimes the child allowance. Those allowances affect different families differently, and their overall effect is extremely difficult to assess.
    In his Budget statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer asserted that he was giving limited help to where it was " most socially necessary ". That is blatantly not the fact. Help has not gone to those groups which I should regard as being in the greatest need. It is by no means certain that those most in need are obtaining the greatest help. It is quite possible—I cannot prove this—that the higher income groups are obtaining more in cash or in kind out of the Welfare State than are those in the greatest need.
    We want to discuss this the more particularly because this year the volume of evidence, whether from the Child Poverty Action Group, or the social workers, or the welfare correspondents, points almost conclusively to growing poverty among the lower income groups. There are five groups in which there is the greatest concentration of poverty. They are: first, the elderly, particularly those who receive no pension; secondly, the long-term unemployed; thirdly, the disabled, whom my hon. Friend tried to assist by his Amendment; fourthly, the fatherless families; fifthly, probably the most difficult to assist, namely, those who, in full-time employment and with families, have wages so low that their children are living below the poverty line.
    The report of the Family Expenditure Survey of 1964 showed that the average wage of the lowest paid 10 per cent. of
    1816
    men at work in 1960 was 70 per cent. of the average wage, but by 1968 the lowest paid had slipped to only 67 per cent. of the average wage. The wage gap between those in the lowest income groups and the average wage earner increased from the 1950s and early 1960s.
    I suspect, although I cannot prove this, that the devaluation package, whereby family allowances were increased in order to compensate for the rising cost of living following devaluation, has not solved the problems of those families, particularly not at a time when prices are rising very rapidly. The impact of failure to assist these families is felt most deeply by the children. In 1966, there were half a million children living in families below the poverty line; today there are three-quarters of a million children below the poverty line.
    Until we establish a tax system which automatically brings help to those in need, the medium for helping these families is the family allowances. In the Budget, the Government did absolutely nothing to help these families. I echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield. West (Mr. Iain Macleod):
    " I think that if we operate in this matter we should do so on the family allowances with the claw-back. The cost of a 10s. increase with claw-back would be £30 million net. It is, of course, much more gross. This is a very strong claimant indeed upon the amount of money the Chancellor thought was available "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1970: Vol. 799, c. 1400.]
    The Financial Secretary said that the Budget helped those in greatest need, but that is precisely what it did not do. It did nothing for the poorest section of the community. The slogan of this Budget could well have been, " Under Labour, the poor get poorer."
    Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: May I crave your indulgence, Mr. Irving, and ask for your ruling on a point of order? I notice that in your wisdom you have not selected Amendment No. WH16. In case there is any danger of establishing an unfortunate precedent, I should be glad if you would be so kind as to enlighten hon. Members who are interested in precisely your reasons. I should not like it to be thought that it was not selected because it was out of order.
    The Chairman: It would be setting a precedent if the Chair gave reasons for the selection of Amendments. I am sorry that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, we have now passed that stage and are now discussing the Question, " That the Clause stand part of the Bill ".
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Further to that point of order. Of course, I defer to your Ruling, Mr. Irving. I should be happy to hear from you, however, that it was not selected because you thought that it would not lead to a profitable debate on this occassion, rather than that it was out of order.
    The Chairman: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that it was not selected. I cannot go further than that, not even as far as the limited point which the hon. Member wants me to reach.
    Mr. Taverne: The noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) was somewhat dogmatic when he suggested that the poor were getting poorer. He himself said that he only suspected that that was the case and was not in a position to prove it. The basic figures show that that is not a correct view of the pattern over the last few years. Looking at the most important of all the changes, in spending ability, one finds that the social security benefits, which provide for the poorest section of the community, excluding low wage earners, have increased in real terms by 20 per cent. The increase in consumption over the last five years has been 10 per cent. That conclusively proves that those who qualify for social security benefits have increased their relative share of total consumption at the expense of the rest of the community.
    I should be the first to agree that one is disappointed by the small amount of redistribution which has taken place, but the statement that there has been no redistribution and that the poor have got poorer is contradicted by the figures and is totally untrue.
    On the question of low wage-earners, which in some ways is the most worrying, I refer to an Answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security, in which he said:
    " If we make a comparison between 1964 and 1969, we find that the low-wage earners
    1818
    have done substantially better than other sections of the population. Taking account of the Budget a married couple with two children have 11½ per cent. more money in their pockets than in 1964, a couple with three children have 14½ per cent. more, and a family with four children are 16½ per cent. better off. These are genuine increases in spending power after allowing for all price increases."
    [OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May. 1970; Vol. 801. c. 814.]
    It is just not true to say, as the hon. Member and his hon. Friends say, that the poor have become poorer. That is not so. They are relatively speaking better off.
    Mr. Neil Marten: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman recall an interview given by the Secretary of State for Social Services about five weeks ago in which he said that the gap between the poor and the rest of the community has not narrowed under Labour? What does the Financial Secretary say about that?
    Mr. Taverne: In the first place, I do not recall it. Secondly, on remarks made by my right hon. Friend, for whom I have the greatest respect, I should always like to see the full context in which they were made. These figures certainly do not bear out any such statement.
    Coming back to the specific proposal made by the noble Lord, that family allowances should be increased with claw-back, I certainly do not dissent from the proposition that perhaps that is the best way at present of relieving certain sections of poverty. It is a fact, however, that when we introduced such a measure we met with the unanimous opposition of hon. Members opposite.
    I do not remember the noble Lord coming into the Lobby with us on that occasion. The Tories were bitterly opposed to the 1968 Budget and in Committee on that Finance Bill they gave us no support whatever. Now, on this occasion, when we do not put forward the same principle hon. Members opposite say that we should increase family allowances plus claw-back.
    Mr. William Molloy: Is my hon. and learned Friend being fair to the Opposition? The country knows that the basic elements of the Welfare State were created by the Labour Government from 1945 to 1951 and have been enhanced by this Government.

    1819
    When, for once in a while, the Tories show an interest in the poor as an election draws near, should not my hon. and learned Friend allow them to show that compassion, if only for a few weeks?
    Mr. Taverne: I am sure that the Committee will have noted the observations made by my hon. Friend. I am grateful for his remarks.
    To turn back to the serious question of family allowances plus clawback which suddenly the Opposition now embrace—
    Lord Balniel: The hon. and learned Gentleman was extremely courteous in not interrupting my speech, but the increase in family allowances to which he referred concerned two increases which took place almost coincidentally. Total confusion was caused by an April increase in family allowances and a claw-back in the October.
    Mr. Taverne: The noble Lord must study the remarks made by his right hon. Friend in which he referred to the principle of claw-back as a thoroughly bad principle. The whole claw-back principle was roundly condemned by hon. Members opposite.
    Of course, there are difficulties, but the reason we have not increased family allowance plus claw-back is that it would bring people back into taxation. Roughly, 300,000 would come back into taxation. Secondly, there is a serious omission in this proposal for dealing with poverty, in that it does not take into account the difficult question of the cost of housing. I do not say that the idea of increasing family allowances plus claw-back may not be the best weapon we have, but let us look at the results of the Family Expenditure Survey, which is the best way of dealing with the subject rather than going straight for this principle in a year when one of the main improvements is to take people out of taxation rather than to put them hack into taxation.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

  GAMING LICENCE DUTY
  Question proposed, That this be the First Schedule to the Bill.
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. A. H. Macdonald: I want to object to the proposals set out in this Schedule. In different circumstances, I might have taken a little longer over this protest. I should not like the Schedule to be passed without making a small protest about the figures given at the beginning. When we first proposed taxation of gaming—a process with which I am wholly in agreement—we did so on the basis of rateable value. I always understood that to be a purely temporary measure until a more equitable basis was worked out.
  I am all in favour of taxing gaming, but we should seek to be fair. If we are not manifestly fair there is real risk of driving gaming underground, with all the undesirable consequences which would follow. Before the introduction of this Bill, taxation of gaming was on a rateable value basis, but now we are to have a curious hybrid linked in large part to the rateable value basis and also bringing in the principle of leverage so that the taxation is higher if the rateable value is higher. This produces some curious anomalies. A difference of only £1 in rateable value can produce a difference of £27,500 in the basic tax, plus a difference in tax on tables of £6,000 per table if the number of tables exceeds five.
  I do not wish to defend casinos, or that way of life, but it is important that we should go out of our way to see that taxation of them is fair. I do not understand why we did not get away from this basis of tax on rateable value and give consideration to the perfectly reasonable proposals of tax on turnover or the maximum stake and not on the curious basis which means that by a difference of £1 enormous variations are produced in the incidence of tax. There is a real danger not of driving casinos out of business, but driving them underground and producing a kind of bootleg casino and other undesirable practices which, by other legislation, we seek to prevent.
  In other circumstances, I would have proposed an Amendment. In the present

  1821
  circumstances, I should not like this matter to go by without a protest.
  Mr. John Smith: This Schedule illustrates the great disadvantage of pushing the Finance Bill through in such a short time. I wish to mention four aspects in which I think that this Schedule would have greatly benefited from a proper discussion.
  First, there is the point made by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald). In addition to the disadvantages he described, the Schedule will put a great strain on the valuers of the Inland Revenue. I do not mean a strain in terms of the amount of work they have to do, but a strain on their probity. There will be a great deal of money to be made by having an establishment in one category rather than in another. That will depend entirely on the valuers of the Inland Revenue.
  Secondly, the Schedule illustrates the absurdities to which we are reduced. In certain circumstances, a table is to count as two tables. It will have to be decided when a table is two tables. This decision is based not only on the size of the table. The Schedule says that the regulations prescribing the size of the table may take account not only of its area, but also of its characteristics. What characteristics of a table will make it count as two tables? Is it perhaps if it has skirts on its legs?
  Thirdly, and very important, in company law directors are responsible for the action of companies, yet in line 12 of page 39 we see that not only the directors but the general managers and secretaries or other similar officers of bodies corporate will be responsible for offences committed unless they can prove that they are not responsible. That is something that the House should debate.
  I come, finally, to the sort of detail that doubtless would have been corrected if we had had proper consideration of the Bill. Line 26, on page 39, states:
  " Any officer may (without payment) enter any premises…"
  That is the first mention of officers. I should have thought it essential to know whether it refers to police officers, or officers of the Customs and Excise, or of the Army, Navy, or Air Force.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: My Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith), whom we shall be extremely sorry to miss after the General Election, has raised a number of valid points, as did the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald), whom equally, no doubt, we shall miss.
  There really is a point on the desirability of pushing legislation through with the minimum of debate when it is complex and perhaps introduces new principles, as the Clause and the Schedule do. However, I am sure that all members of the Committee recognise that, faced with the alternative of refusing to have an election there is no doubt where the advantage lies, at any rate for this side of the Committee, and we are prepared to pay the price of immediate debate to get rid of the Government.
  Will the Financial Secretary give consideration not only to the points made by the hon. Members for Cities of London and Westminster and Chislehurst, both of which have a good deal of substance, but to whether the table is likely to give rise to considerable unfairness because of the substantial jump which will take place when a gaming establishment moves from one rateable value to the next? We must remember that when the Home Secretary made his statement about his policy of restricting gaming to certain defined areas he said that the purpose was to provide a facility at holiday and tourist centres, to facilitate supervision, and to ensure that gaming was carried on only in decent surroundings.
  The fear of a number of hon. Members is that even after the change introduced in the Bill the tendency will be to militate against the provision of decent surroundings because of the financial penalty of the duty chargeable as a result of improved facilities. There is bound to be a tendency to restrict space and the availability of such facilities as toilets, rest rooms, restaurants, reception areas, and so on, all of which will be cut down to try to make the premises qualify for a lower rate of duty based on the rateable value. It is very difficult to see how any system based on rateable value could avoid this unless there were many stages, with such a small gradation at each stage that the advantage of improved facilities was not offset by the

  1823
  disadvantage of substantial additional duty.
  We have here only three categories—premises of a rateable value not exceeding £1,000, those with a rateable value from £1,000 to £2,500, and premises exceeding £2,500. The second category is a very big slice. If it were divided into two, with a slice of £1,000 to £1,500 bearing a minimum rateable value charge of £1,500 instead of the £6,250 for six months, we should have a much more even gradation. Had there been time, an Amendment to that effect would undoubtedly have been moved.
  On the Chancellor's present proposals a club with a rateable value of £1,500 would be required to pay in gaming licence duty on the basis of, say, seven tables an annual amount of £29,500. If the casino operator reduced the rateable value to one not exceeding £1,000, which takes it into the first category, the duty on the Chancellor's proposed rates would be only £4,500. A jump from £4,500 to £29,500, merely by a change in the rateable value of £500, seems incredible. That is why I think that the gradations in the table in Part I of the Schedule are too abrupt.
  Whilst not necessarily going the whole way with the hon. Member for Chislehurst, I feel that this will require most careful consideration before next year by a new Government. It may well be right to move away altogether from the concept of rateable value, but I make it perfectly clear that I am giving no undertaking on this. We should consider carefully whether the table in the Bill does not give rise to considerable unfairness because of the very steep increase in duty arising when the rateable value exceeds £1,000.
  The practical argument put by the Home Secretary is that it is desirable that these establishments should be run in decent surroundings. Our fear is that this will not happen even under the modifications in the Bill. I hope that the Financial Secretary can give an undertaking that in the unhappy event of his having anything to do with this next year he would be prepared to consider the matter.
  Mr. Taverne:I can assure the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) that we shall most
  1824
  carefully weigh what he said. I appreciate that we are labouring under some disadvantage in discussing very briefly a Clause and Schedule as wide-ranging as these, which institute an entirely new system of taxing casinos. It is not only the Committee that is under some disadvantage. I must confess that I am also at a disadvantage in that I am not sure that I have found out all the answers to the questions put to me by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith).
  I shall deal, first, with the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald). Different methods of taxing casinos had to be considered. Consideration was given to whether the duty should be geared to turnover or staking limits, which were the two other main alternatives. The difficulty of relating excise duty to turnover on gaming is that unless there is a cagnotte there is no reliable means of establishing what turnover is. That idea proved very unpopular with the operators, and was rejected by the Gaming Board.
  The cagnotte is a system used in continental countries in some games in which a percentage of the winnings is retained to meet expenses and profits of the house. It is a system which is used in Belgium. The idea of a tax on turnover was considered by the Gaming Board. It is unpopular because it slows down the pace of the game, it would be difficult to enforce and would require constant vigilance and extra staff. It would not suffice to establish a precise turnover on some games, such as craps, because of the rapid speed at which the game is played and the complicated rules to which the game is subject.
  When it comes to a stake limit, there is a difficulty that the duty related to minimum stakes might be widely avoided by the simple device of an artificial minimum, while a duty related to maximum stakes could easily be evaded unless there was a high degree of control, with high staff costs, and so on. On balance, it was concluded that the best way of taxing casinos was a combination between rateable value and a tax on tables, as we propose.
  As regards the number of tables and how one table is to be treated as two

  1825
  tables, the word " table " had to be defined because of difficulties, such as craps being played on the floor. The Commissioners will be empowered to prescribe by regulation the maximum areas of table by measurements or other characteristics. In this field there is a premium on evasion and there must be ways of countering it. Therefore, it was necessary to have the definition of " table " as set out in the Bill.
  I cannot give the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster the answer he deserves as to the " proper officer ". I can tell him who the proper officer is. It is the officer for Customs and Excise in the area. I looked quickly through the Bill to find out whether " officer " was defined and could not see it, nor could I find any cross-reference to other Acts. I will write to the hon. Member to see where the definition is to be found.
  Mr. Chapman: Is there not something at the top of page 41?
  Mr. Taverne: It may be that the key is to be found in Schedule 10 to the Gaming Act, 1968, which refers to an " officer of customs and excise ". I could not offhand find the place in the Bill where " officer " was defined.
  Mr. Peter Bessell: I accept that the Committee is operating in difficult circumstances—indeed, I found myself in difficulties earlier this afternoon on behalf of my own party—but I feel confident that the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) will not be satisfied with the reply given to him by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman raised two points which are very important indeed. The words on page 39 from line 10 onwards appear to mean that virtually any employee of the company will be responsible. In any ordinary company, under company law this would be the responsibility of the director or company secretary. It is inequitable to suggest that a general manager or similar officer should take the responsibility. This sets a wholly unfair precedent.
  On the question of the phrase " any officer ", in line 26, surely even at this late stage there is no reason why the hon.
  1826
  and learned Gentleman could not undertake to insert " officer of customs and excise " which I understand to be his interpretation of the meaning. Presumably we are to have a Report stage and this could still be done. These matters will cause considerable confusion at a later stage. Surely there is no reason that this should not be rectified now.
  There is still time. Parliament is still sitting and we have a responsibility to discharge our duties in a proper manner. I feel certain that the Committee, and indeed, the whole country will read the hon. and learned Gentleman's reply with some astonishment and a great deal of concern.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell). Even if we are to hurry through the Bill so that Parliament can be dissolved, the hon. and learned Gentleman should be able to answer questions about offences and enforcement officers. I hope that he will be able to do so.
  Mr. Taverne: I will deal with these two points. There is one answer to be found in the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, which has to be read together with the Bill. In that Act the definition of " proper " is as follows:
  " in relation to the person by, with or to whom, or the place at which, anything is to be done, means the person or place appointed or authorised in that behalf by the Commissioners."
  It is not as if there is not a definition of the word " officer ". It was simply that I could not find it.
  As regards the point about liability, which was raised by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) in gaming the considerations to be applied are entirely different from those which apply to company law. In gaming, arbitrary powers are imposed by an arbitrary body—powers which received the encouragement of the Opposition—to deal with a problem of evasion, which is different from the problems which apply to companies. The liability imposed by the Schedule is to deal with a special field.
  Mr. Bessell: In paragraph 11 of Schedule 1, we see:
  " Where an offence under paragraph 9 or paragraph 10 above has been committed by a body corporate, every person who at the time

  1827
  of the commission of the offence was a director…"
  is liable. It seems to me that the intention of the paragraph is to indicate that company law applies in the sense of a body corporate. It is difficult to see why the hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to make a distinction.
  Mr. Taverne: I do not understand that. It refers to liability for an offence which has been committed and includes similar officers to those of secretary or general manager. It then states that they may prove that the offence was committed without their consent or connivance, in which case they would not be liable. But it has nothing to do with company law as such.
  Mr. John Smith: I do not want to labour the point. I raised these four matters to illustrate that it is a mistake to push through the Finance Bill in this way. In an age when the State takes away £20,000 million of peoples' money, the country at large regards the Finance Bill as the most important legislation considered by Parliament in the year. Time was when we recognised that fact and discussed the whole of the contents of the Finance Bill in Committee on the Floor of the House. Then the Committee stage was taken upstairs and was discussed by a small number of hon. Members. Finally, this year, it is proposed that we should dispose in one afternoon of the Finance Bill and seven other Bills.
  The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Has the hon. Member completed his speech?
  Mr. Smith: Yes. Mr. Gourlay. But I shall be saying more later.
  The Deputy Chairman: I was about to stop the hon. Member for being out of order.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Schedule I agreed to.
  Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

  TOBACCO SUBSTITUTES
  Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  Sir Douglas Glover: On a point of order, Mr. Gourlay. Why was my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) out of order? We are in Committee. Surely he can speak twice if he wishes and catches your eye?
  The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): I did not give any indication as to why the hon. Member was out of order, but I cannot at this stage go back to that point on that Schedule.
  Mr. Laurence Pavitt: We have just started on a decade in which one million men and women will die prematurely through cigarette smoking. That figure is not mine; it appeared in the national Press and in most of the newspapers on Monday this week and it was given by Sir George Godber, Chief Medical Officer at the Department of Health and Social Security.
  Clause 4 has a direct bearing on an attempt to deal with this very grave problem which faces the country as a whole and faces the Treasury, which ought to face up to some responsibility in this matter. In 1959, when I became a Member of the House, there were about 57 deaths every day from lung cancer. In those days that was only three times as many as the deaths there were from road accidents. Today the daily number of deaths from lung cancer is 84 and there are nearly five times as many deaths from lung cancer as from road accidents In 1959, with some of my hon. Friends, I was very busy discussing another Clause 4. Today I would not want this Clause 4 to pass without calling attention to the very serious problems which the Treasury's proposals raise.
  At first, I used the right we all have to put down Amendments, and I put down Amendments to this Clause, but the times are out of joint and the only way I can secure the attention of the Treasury—I hope I have the attention of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench—is gracefully not to pursue my Amendments which, in other circumstances, I would

  1829
  have been pressing, and to proceed to discuss the point I want to make on the question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  The Clause affects substitutes which can be found as a means of smoking without the tremendous liability and risk of sickness and death which at present smoking entails. I cannot stress this too much to my hon. Friends, who are mainly preoccupied with Treasury matters. Suppose that a coach were involved in an accident now in Parliament Square and 84 people were killed. Every newspaper would headline it tomorrow, but day after day 84 people are dying through smoking. Therefore when I saw that, at a time when less harmful smoking may be possible, in this Clause there is the proposal to tax the tobacco substitutes which might be a solution to the ill consequences of smoking tobacco, my first reaction was one of shock.
  Concern in this matter is not only shared by those in the health field; it is not felt only amongst doctors and those of us who take a deep interest in the health services. Tobacco manufacturers themselves have been expressing concern, and they are expressing concern at the moment to the extent of £2 million a year which they are spending on research because they recognise the hazards to health which arise from the manufacture, distribution, and smoking of cigarettes.
  There are two main lines of research being pursued. One is a kind of detective story, to discover, isolate and nail down the killer in tobacco. What is the carcinogenic agent? What is it that causes and aggravates emphysema and chronic bronchitis? If it is possible to find a carcinogen-free cigarette most of us, who do not want to be killjoys, would look upon smoking as a good thing, being then free, as it would be, from the risk of sickness and death. For the first time we have started on a second line of research to find some measure of possibility—I put it no higher than that at the moment—of a tobacco substitute in order to make a satisfying and safe cigarette, and in this Clause, in subsection (2), duties of excise are to be imposed on the substitutes which may emerge at exactly the same rate as that for real tobacco. The Bill goes further in sub-
  1830
  section (4)(c) under which regulations may be laid afterwards which " contain provisions for the protection of the revenue ".
  In other words, the Treasury seems to be saying—I hope they are not—that the revenue is paramount and that the one thing we must not touch is the revenue, irrespective of all other considerations. It is these two parts of the Clause which in particular I would have sought to amend.
  4.45 p.m.
  I have seen something of the work of research by the Tobacco Research Council at Harrogate. A number of us were very kindly taken to see that work, and I would also pay a tribute to the firm of Gallaher's who, independently of the Tobacco Research Council, are spending money on research which they took me to see at the Batelle Institute in Geneva.
  In the first line of the attempt to save lives which may be lost through smoking there has been a breakthrough in the task of finding the killer, strangely enough because a breed of bald mice has been discovered. On these cancers can be grown more effectively as a consequence of research which has been done. I was rather surprised to find that mice are likely to have such a great impact on research in this matter. I have myself seen six cancers grown on one mouse in consequence of the tar extract from a smoking machine being put on the skin.
  Hamsters are able to smoke and are being used for obtaining lung tissue after smoking. The Committee will know that I am interested in this for I am a member of the Medical Research Council. Dogs are being taught to smoke so that we can get tissue from them. Apes and monkeys are also being taught to smoke for research purposes.
  The greatest break-through, in my view, is the revolution which has gone on in the production of man-made fibres being used for tobacco substitute. These may well be a safer smoking medium, and the Treasury ought to take account of these considerations as well as the revenue alone. The research which has gone on at Porton Down shows that in some of the substances now being tested, as compared with ordinary tobacco, the first benefit from the synthetic material is that the weight of a cigarette is significantly less than that made with

  1831
  natural material, and partly as a result of this, and partly from the smoking characteristics, the yields of smoke condensate from a standard-sized cigarette comes down from 31 milligrams, the weight of a natural material cigarette, to half of that.
  I shall not weary the Committee with the whole of the research statistics, but there are two possibilities here. Firstly, if the Chancellor were able to see his way to be a bit more lenient these cigarettes could be manufactured consisting partly of tobacco and partly of synthetic material and one could have a phased process of weaning people from the ordinary cigarette to the other, part of a cigarette being taxable and part, if I had my way, not.
  Alternatively, there is the possibility of encouraging people to smoke synthetic cigarettes, and I would hope that the tax situation would encourage people to smoke them, especially if the synthetic cigarette were shown to be much safer, with the advantage of freedom from the risk of lung cancer, and costing less. I think hon. Members on both sides who smoke now would get used to changing from the one to the other by this phased process, but I have no doubt that if substitutes cost the same as tobacco few will switch.
  I would invite the Treasury to look at the economic consequences as well as the health consequences. Last year, in total for sickness, we paid £262 million in sickness benefit and the estimate of loss of production was £1,200 million through sickness. Respiratory diseases contributed 22 per cent. of this illness. Hon. Members on both sides are very concerned about production lost through strikes, but from sickness we are losing 60 days for every one day of strike, and seven days' production for every one lost through strikes, entirely from respiratory diseases. We are losing another eight from heart diseases, and it may be recalled that Dr. Charles Fletcher estimates we have at least 10,000 deaths a year from coronary thrombosis caused by smoking.
  Sir George Godber in an excellent speech which has been reported nationally recently estimated that 190,000 years of work are lost each year through the premature loss of life caused by cigarette smoking. The Treasury should
  1832
  be concerned with this economic fact, and with the number of chest physicians, chest consultants and chest wards and the whole cost to the National Health Service of dealing with this problem.
  The Treasury has an open mind to some extent but feels that, until there is some guarantee that the tobacco substitute is definitely less harmful to health than tobacco, any attempt to introduce a differential tax might lead people into thinking that the Government were giving the green light to the tobacco substitute and that it was O.K. Unfortunately this is a form of negative research and it is impossible to say that a cigarette made with tobacco substitute is completely harmless. There may well be another twenty years and another generation of smokers before we know the result. All one can say is that on all the evidence it is less likely to be harmful.
  There is to be a special meeting convened by the Medical Research Council on 26th June when more evidence may come to light. I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to say that, in the event of more evidence coming to light, it will be possible to lay regulations to alter the incidence of tax. I ask my hon. Friend to give an assurance that this will be seriously considered, even though there can be no guarantee of the absolute safety of the tobacco substitute. If there is a marginal hope that use of the tobacco substitute will mean that fewer people will suffer from emphysema, lung cancer or chronic bronchitis, I hope that my hon. Friend will lay regulations to encourage the use of the substitute.
  I do not know who the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be after the General Election, except that he will be from this side of the House, but I ask him to receive a deputation from me accompanied by scientists and medical people to discuss the way in which tobacco and tobacco substitutes are affected by tax and the whole question of taxation, smoking and health. In economic terms, the value of the import of tobacco in 1967 was £89·3 million; in 1968, £114·6 million and in 1969, £116·6 million. There are strong economic considerations in addition to the health factors in favour of a substance manufactured in Britain taking the place of imported tobacco which is so expensive in terms of foreign exchange.

  1833
  This is an extremely important issue. I apologise for delaying the Committee, and I ask my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to consider seriously not only the fiscal and economic angles, but also the health hazards to thousands of young men and women. In the last five years the number of women who have died from lung cancer has increased by 33¼ per cent. For the sake of all these people I ask the Treasury to get away from the arithmetic and consider the humanity angle and be prepared to use fiscal measures to improve the health of the nation.
  Mr. A. P. Costain: I do not think that the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) need apologise for delaying the Committee on this important subject. He has dealt with it very extensively and I do not propose to repeat what he has said. I hope that the Treasury Bench will agree to a radical breakthrough, to encourage those who are doing the experimental work and desperately trying to overcome this serious medical problem. I hope that the Minister will say that even during the trial period a tax reduction will be allowed.
  The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. William Rodgers): I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) has taken this opportunity of raising a grave social and personal problem, and I am sure that he will discover that we are all in a sense on his side. I can certainly say that there are no narrow Treasury objections to the development of the sort of cigarette which we hope to see. It may not offer a complete answer to the problem of cancer, but, as my hon. Friend says, it will at least make cigarette smoking less dangerous than it is at present.
  As my hon. Friend acknowledged, the Clause is a major step forward. Our wish in putting it into the Finance Bill is to ensure that research goes forward as quickly as possible in the hope that the time will come, sooner rather than later, when it will be possible to consider marketing a cigarette which will fulfil the health requirements.
  I can give this undertaking to my hon. Friend, that there is nothing in the Clause which, when the time comes, will be an
  1834
  impediment to the successful marketing of such cigarettes if they can be produced. I know that there is nothing between my hon. Friend and myself on this. It would be misleading and cruel if any remark made today by myself or by any other hon. Member should lead the public at large into believing that the solution had yet been found.
  Had the Bill provided for the remission of duty on synthetic cigarettes which are marketed, people might have been led to believe that we were round the corner, but this is not so. When the time comes and the question of placing such a cigarette on the market is before us, I am absolutely certain that revenue considerations will not present an obstacle to doing what is right from a health point of view.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the possibility of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer receiving a deputation. I know that he would be prepared to receive one on the lines which my hon. Friend has suggested, and I do not believe that any successor would fail to acknowledge the need to discuss this and to examine all the considerations which my hon. Friend might put before him.
  This is a matter of great social importance. The proposals in the Clause are a considerable advance, and I hope that they will facilitate and bring closer the day when the scourge of cancer is removed or at least substantially reduced.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 6

  ANGOSTURA BITTERS
  Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Chapman: I take this opportunity to thank the Treasury Ministers—and particularly my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary—for the concession contained in the Clause. The justification for the Clause and the main point

  1835
  of it may not be so widely understood as they should be, and perhaps I may therefore be allowed to spend a few moments in expressing my thanks and explaining why some of us have pressed so hard for the inclusion of this concession.
  I began leading deputations to the Treasury on this issue about two years ago. Although it has been a long struggle to convince the various Ministers of the merit of this concession, they have now handsomely repaid us by a straightforward admission of our case. I therefore thank my hon. and learned Friend most warmly.
  In a sense, the problem is a double one. First, the Clause is concerned with a product peculiar to the small island of Trinidad. The subject of the Clause is not a palatable spirituous beverage—something that can be drunk on its own —because if a person tried to drink more than a drop or two with his gin, or with whatever else he might like, he would probably be physically sick. It cannot be called a spirituous liquor or beverage in the usual terms. It is simply a flavouring; but because of its high vegetable content it has to have in it the kind of alcohol, as a base, that makes it attract tax as a spirituous beverage.
  That was the dilemma; it was one thing under one definition—in ordinary use it is a flavouring—but by Treasury and Customs rules it became a spirituous beverage, and has, therefore, been bearing a fantastic amount of tax.
  This product could not be made in any other way. It is a peculiar one-island, one-product issue. Angostura had to face the difficulty that there was no way round the problem without a straightforward recognition of its peculiarity and of the need for a concession. The first reason for the concession is that it will be of some small help to the Island of Trinidad. That island has been much in the news in recent weeks. It is in the news because of the enormous social problems that arise in a growing island of the West Indies. It has a population of 1 million in which about 25 per cent. of the young people are unemployed.
  The first effect of the concession, which will cost only a small amount, will be to help exports from Trinidad and, there-
  1836
  fore, to help solve its unemployment problem in a small way. For that, the whole of the West Indies is grateful. The Prime Minister of Trinidad has spoken to me frequently about the problem and he and the rest of the West Indies thank my hon. and learned Friend for recognising it—and the symbolism of the concession in the circumstances that now exist in the West Indies.
  The second reason why the concession is appropriate is that at present we are practically the only advanced country that has not already made it. Australia, Canada and the United States have already exempted angostura bitters and after 1972 all the E.E.C. countries will do likewise. If we had not done it now we should have been the only advanced country that had not recognised the problem and made the concession.
  The concession will mean a considerable reduction in the price of this product in this country: the cost might fall from as much as 31s. 9d. to 15s. a bottle. That might make it more widely used, as it is in other parts of the world, as a general flavouring in cooking of all kinds. It is not only useful in alcoholic drinks. The reduction in price may help to boost the sales of this product beyond the immediate prospect in the first year by encouraging its more general use for culinary purposes.
  I therefore repeat how grateful are those of us who keep an eye on West Indies matters that our small lobby, on this small issue—which, nevertheless, will have an immense impact on a small island where the product is made—has received sympathetic consideration. The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) has been waiting all day to join me in thanking the Treasury Ministers, but he has had to slip away; he has asked me to say that he joins me in thanking the Treasury for this concession and saying that when we drink our pink gins, or whatever it may be, in the future, we shall be raising a glass to the Treasury for at least once in our lifetime.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) is another hon. Member we shall very much miss after the next election—retiring as I believe he is, to Trinidad, or perhaps Jamaica.

  1837
  We may regard this concession as an epitaph to the Government. At the end of six years it is one tax reduction that the Government have been able to offer. No doubt every hon. Member opposite will emblazen it in his election address —" At least we reduced the price of angostura bitters."
  Mr. Taverne: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I, also, want to say how sorry I shall be not to see him here in the future. My hon. Friend has expressed far more eloquently than I could do the reason for this concession.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

  AMENDMENTS RELATING TO VEHICLES EXCISE DUTY ETC.
  Mr. Marten: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 9, line 23, at end insert:
  (2) A mechanically propelled vehicle fitted with controls enabling it to be driven by persons having a particular disability or a vehicle specifically and extensively adapted for use by persons having a particular disability that so incapacitates them in the use of their limbs that they have to be driven and cared for by a full-time constant attendant and registered in the name of such a disabled person under the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962 shall not be chargeable with any duty under that Act by reason of its use by or for the purposes of that disabled person or by reason of its being kept for such use where—

  (a) he caused the controls to be fitted to the vehicle and obtained in respect of the cost thereby incurred a grant paid by the Minister of Health and Social Security or (in Scotland) the Secretary of State out of moneys provided by Parliament; or

  (b) whether or not he caused the controls to be fitted to the vehicle his disability is of a kind in the case of which grants in respect of the fitting of such controls are so paid;

  (c) conspicuous and permanent adaptations have been carried out on the vehicle to make it suitable for the transport of the disabled person by his or her constant attendant as driver and where the disabled person is sufficiently disable to be eligible under the National Health Service Act 1946 and the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 for an invalid tricycle but too disabled to drive it,
  1838
  and where regulations under section 16(3) of that Act requires a person to furnish particulars as to a vehicle exempted from duty by this section, they may require him to furnish in addition such evidence of the facts giving rise to the exemption as it is prescribed by the regulations.

  The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): With this Amendment it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 3, in page 9, line 31, at end insert:
  (3) Registered disabled persons who use their own private vehicles shall be exempted from vehicle excise duty provided that this exemption shall apply only in respect of one vehicle for each registered disabled person.
  and new Clause 3—
  Exemption from vehicle excise duty of vehicle used by husband or wife or disabled person.
  Mr. Marten: Yes, Mr. Gourlay.
  In replying earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) the Minister said that it was his unhappy job always to be rejecting on behalf of the Treasury, some attractive Amendments that clearly appealed to his heart. This is another attractive Amendment. I hope that he will not resist it as he has in the past. I am sorry that he is leaving the Chamber. We want to provide precisely the sort of thing he was advocating to my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham, namely, a cash allowance.
  We have taken the drafting of the Amendment straight from the Finance Act, 1964, adding one or two words to it. There should not be much complaint about the drafting; it came from a very good vintage Budget. There is a lot of verbiage in the Amendment but it has a clear object, which is to provide for a disabled passenger the same relief from vehicle excise duty as is now given to a disabled driver. For the benefit of those who may not be familiar with the term " disabled passenger ", let me point out that he is a person who is so disabled that he cannot drive, and must have a driver. Usually he also has a constant attendant.
  Why should disabled passengers be treated any less well than persons who are less disabled and who can drive? Those who can drive three-wheeled Ministry vehicles obtain the relief that I am seeking on behalf of disabled passengers.

  1839
  Such people cannot normally be transferred from their wheelchairs into their vehicles without mechanical and, very often, human aid. It is nearly always obvious that a vehicle is for the use of a disabled person because it has adaptations and hoists on the top, so that the disabled passenger can be hoisted from his wheelchair into the car. There is no difficulty about identification.
  There may be an anology with the blind person. Blind people cannot drive cars but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham said, they receive a tax allowance of £100 for their disability. The disabled passenger receives nothing by way of tax relief or allowance in respect of his disability, whereas a blind person does. The whole situation requires regularising.
  The usual Treasury argument is that this so-called concession will be abused. However, I do not think that the Treasury should continue using that argument, because it will not stand up to examination. The disabled driver, who is not so badly disabled as the disabled passenger and who has his three-wheeled car, is able to get this concession on two vehicles if he happens to own two. That is not being abused in any way, and I do not think people in the disabled passenger category would abuse the concession if it were given to them. I understand that those who get the concession under the War Disabled Scheme do not abuse it, though I believe that it was abused immediately after the war when people coming out of the Services were running their vehicles as taxis, and so on. However, those days are finished.
  The disabled passenger has to be hoisted into his car and, because of that, is nearly always in need of a constant attendant. It is unlikely that the constant attendant will drive the car for pleasure, or go off in it on his own, say, to the pictures, because he must be constantly in attendance on the disabled person whom we are discussing. I suggest that these are a lot of non-arguments which are traditionally advanced by the Treasury. I hope that we shall not hear them again today.
  Disabled passengers pay by way of taxation £25 road tax and about £66 in petrol tax, on the basis of 8,000 miles a year at 27 miles to the gallon and 4s. 6d. per gallon. The purchase tax on the car
  1840
  depreciated over eight years is £19. That comes to a total of about £110 a year in taxation. I do not think that those figures are questioned, because the Automobile Association and the British Road Federation have come up with figures somewhere between £106 and £112.
  These are taxes on mobility and, as the Chief Secretary told the House on 1st April, 1969, they have risen by £38·7 per person per year since 1964. That is a tremendous extra burden, and it takes no account of the purchase tax that such a person must pay on the hoist which has to be placed on the top of his car so that he can be hoisted into the vehicle. An electric hoist for this purpose carries purchase tax of 36 per cent.
  The disabled passenger is taxed very heavily, and he has to bear this burden because he is more disabled than the disabled person who can drive himself. He cannot use public transport. He is entirely dependent on his own vehicle for mobility.
  Disabled passengers are the only group remaining in this category not exempt from road tax. This is a severe tax on their mobility. The best calculation that I can make is that the maximum number of people who would be affected by the concession for which I ask is 2,500. Such a concession would encourage them to be more mobile and, in my view, could contribute to the general economy of the country.
  We do not ask the Government for any assistance. We are merely asking that the amount taken by the Government from disabled passengers be reduced in order to help them to become more mobile. They have great burdens to bear. I hope that the Government will help them to bear those burdens.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move new Clause 3—
  The Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman may discuss new Clause 3. He does not require to move it.
  Mr. Morris: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Gourlay. My speech will be very much concerned with the provisions which I seek to make in new Clause 3.

  1841
  The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) has moved his Amendment most felicitously. The Committee knows of his deep personal concern to improve the mobility of the severely disabled. Many of us on both sides feel strongly that new steps are needed to improve the lot of those whose mobility is restricted.
  My proposition, like that of the hon. Gentleman, is designed to help the disabled passenger. The hon. Gentleman has reminded the Committee that the Finance Act, 1964, relieves the disabled driver from payment of excise duty. It is surely an anomaly that those who are too grievously disabled to drive themselves are not entitled to the relief allowed by the Finance Act, 1964.
  Perhaps I might mention two cases which have been drawn to my attention by the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled. I do so because I feel that it is necessary for the Committee to consider the proposition put forward by the hon. Member for Banbury against particular cases.
  The first case to which I would refer is that of a man who is paralysed in all four limbs and who requires to be washed, dressed and helped with the toilet. He types using a mouthstick. Two years ago he began work, his first job, in the office of a wholesaler, using an electric typewriter and POSSUM apparatus to operate the telephone and dictaphone. Soon after beginning work, he found that it would only be possible to continue if he acquired his own transport. He and his fiancee, now his wife, were forced to purchase a car. His wife takes him to work and brings him back, as well as working full-time herself. She is able-bodied. If his wife was not working, it is obvious that they could hardly meet the loan charges, repayments and costs of running the car. Without the car, this disabled man could not work. The couple receive no help of any kind and pay both National Insurance contributions and income tax. Without a job, this disabled man would be dependent on the State.
  The second case also helps to make an important point which I wish to emphasise to the Committee. The case concerns a man who is disabled by polio. He was married with two children. Polio left him paralysed in both legs,
  1842
  with very limited use of his arms, and incapable of driving even an invalid tricycle. At the time, he and his wife owned a small car, and his wife was able to drive her husband and the children. Shortage of money forced them to give up the car, and this was a major factor in the break-up of their marriage. He is now living at public expense in a home for the disabled.
  There are those who would say of these Amendments that they may be too costly. Everyone will be interested to know how much would be involved in operating the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Banbury and how much would be involved in operating my new Clause.
  Another question is: how much can be saved by operating these Amendments? I take the view that much of our expenditure on the disabled is neither cheap nor efficient. It does not make sense not to help people to improve their mobility if they want to become workers instead of depending on State support. Some of the most severely incapacitated people want to stop being supplementary pensioners and to start being taxpayers.
  The Minister of State's concern in this matter is well known to me—he has been a personal friend of mine since we were at Oxford together over 20 years ago—but I put to him the argument that we should be asking ourselves this question: how much we shall save by improving the mobility of the disabled who merely want the dignity of being able to work with the increased status of being able to move about more easily than they can now.
  I will not speak at length, although I feel extremely strongly about the matter. I will, however, mention one other point. It is argued that abuse of the type of scheme that we are suggesting is the reason why it should not be accepted. This is a classical defence of those who do not really want to do anything. I think that people would regard it as deeply shameful to abuse a scheme of this kind introduced to help the disabled who want to be more mobile and to work. I am satisfied that the argument about abuse does not in any way cancel the case that we are making. I know that my hon. Friend will be as sympathetic as possible, but

  1843
  I strongly urge him to confer with his colleagues in the Treasury to ensure that before long we do something to help some of the most deserving people in this country.
  Mr. Paul Dean: We are discussing three possible ways in which assistance can be given to some of the most severely disabled in this country.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) have worked long and hard for the cause of the disabled. I, too, have had the privilege on many occasions of speaking on the same subject from this Box. I hope very much that this is the occasion on which the Government will be able to tell the Committee that progress is now possible.
  The only argument that we have had in the past on this matter has been the difficulty of policing. I have always regarded this as a weak argument. Surely there are ways whereby this difficulty can be overcome. We are dealing here with some of the most severely disabled. After all, war disabled or civilian disabled who get an invalid car are, almost by definition, less disabled than the people about whom we are now speaking, those who are so disabled that they cannot drive a vehicle. Had they been able to drive a vehicle, in the vast majority of cases they would have been eligible not only for a vehicle, but also for all the advantages, tax and expense-wise on the running of the vehicle, which flow from possession of it. The category of people that we are considering are not only not getting exemption from the road fund tax, but they also have to bear the full cost of the vehicle's running expenses. Therefore, they are being penalised all the way round.
  I do not want to introduce political controvery, but when we take into account the steep increase in the running costs of vehicles which has taken place over recent years, we can see that the case is even more powerful than previously. When we take into account the purchase tax on vehicles, the tax on petrol, and the increase in the road fund tax, it is easy to see that it has become more difficult for these people to be mobile.
  1844
  As has been said time and again—we are realising this as we know more about disability—the psychological effect on the disabled of being able to go out and earn their living so that, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe said, they can become taxpayers, is considerable. Here is one way in which we can assist them.
  I do not believe that it is impossible, either through one of these suggestions or through another, to ensure that an exemption of this kind is not abused. In many cases the people that we are considering require constant attendance. We are learning a great deal more about that. Indeed, we hope that a cash allowance for constant attendance will be introduced fairly soon. We are learning a great deal more about possible ways of ensuring that there is no abuse. Equally, in many cases the type of vehicle and its adaptation makes it fairly easy to recognise.
  I hope that we will have from the Government today some real hope for the severely disabled. Above all, I hope that we will not have the excuse that we have had in the past that it will be too difficult to help some of these most deserving people.
  Mr. Pavitt: On the eve of what may well be one of the most hard-hitting election campaigns of the century, it is typical that a Committee can reach so much accord on a question like this. As a Member of Parliament, I find a delight in such matters. I am sure that when the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) has spoken, we will have had the assent of all three political parties for the Amendment.
  I should like to reinforce what has been said in two regards.
  First, in matters of this kind, from time to time the attitude of the Treasury and of other Government Departments, whilst having sympathy with the aim, is not to do it in the particular way suggested. I ask my hon. Friend to consider reversing the idea that everything must be done through direct benefit and to look at the matter in the light of what has become common trade union practice elsewhere—namely, having got certain basic points, to look for fringe benefits. If there is an area where fringe benefits

  1845
  could be useful, it is not only in the Amendment, but also in a whole series of ways. If we are having a more affluent society, if we are all to be better off, it should be to this kind of matter that the Treasury should be looking in order that those most hard-pressed sections of the community should get the fringe benefits and help of the kind being put forward.
  Secondly, I should like to reinforce the argument, from a medical point of view, on the mobility of persons coping with disability. I speak from experience, because I cope with a disability. The one thing that a disabled person has to do is to make sure that he never gives up. He must never accept that he cannot do something. To him everything is a challenge.
  5.30 p.m.
  The Amendment would help particularly those who suffer from disseminated or multiple sclerosis. The tide of the disease must be pushed back by the courage of the person suffering. He must say to himself, " I can do it. I will do it ". By the Amendment we can say to people suffering from disseminated or multiple sclerosis, " We shall encourage you to keep the fight going to push back the tide of the disease which is challenging you. We shall help you to meet that challenge ".
  I therefore commend to the Treasury bench—I hope that I shall not have to commend it to any other Front Bench in the future—the acceptance of the Amendment. This is the kind of thing which the Committee ought to be doing. There is 100 per cent. agreement about it. If the Treasury Bench cannot accept the Amendment they ought to take it away and think about it with a view to doing a good deal more homework before we come to another Finance Bill.
  Mr. Bessell: As has been said, this is an all-party Amendment, and I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) say that this is one of those occasions on which, in spite of party differences, the Committee can speak with one voice. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) moved the Amendment in his usual able manner, and gave all the arguments in favour of it. He told the Committee why he believes this
  1846
  to be an essential aid to disabled persons, and I agreed with every thing that he said. Likewise, I agreed with what the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) said about New Clause 3.
  I should like to refer briefly to Amendment No. 3, but before doing so perhaps I may say in parenthesis that although I said the week before last that I expected that I was then making my last speech to the Committee, this interjection this afternoon is not to be regarded as a speech. Nor is it to be thought that I am behaving like Dame Nellie Melba, who constantly made comebacks. I felt that it was important to say a few words on the Amendment because of a case which has caused me anxiety for about three or four years in my constituency. I think that it illustrates the need for the kind of exemption envisaged in Amendment No. 3, rather than those envisaged in the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Banbury.
  Some disabled people are capable of driving an ordinary motor car. They are registered as disabled, with all the benefits that accrue to them under that registration system. Nevertheless, they do not get the benefits afforded under the terms of the 1964 Act to disabled persons who use vehicles specifically designed for use by disabled people. My constituent, who is a woman in middle life, lives on the moors of Bodmin. Some years ago she received an injury to her back which makes it impossible for her to be mobile except by means of a motor vehicle, but she does not need a disabled person's vehicle. She can use her arms and legs quite freely, and she can drive an ordinary motor car.
  For some years she has been trying to keep on the road a vehicle which is now elderly. It is quite safe, but it is very far from comfortable. She wants to replace this vehicle, and she could perhaps just about manage to do that within the limit of her resources, but she has found it an intolerable burden to pay the inevitable additional costs of running the car—the excise duty, the petrol tax, and so on, to which reference has been made —and she would have to pay purchase tax if she bought a new vehicle.
  I feel that as this lady is doing a useful job of work—she is fully occupied—and as it is essential for her to have a vehicle

  1847
  to reach her employment from her remote cottage on Bodmin Moor, it would be far wiser for the Government to make the kind of concession envisaged in Amendment No. 3 which seeks to exempt disabled persons from paying the vehicle excise duty. The exemption is limited to one car. There is no question of the exemption being abused. It is a simple straightforward matter. The person concerned would take his disabled person's registration card with him when he applied for exemption from excise duty. He would be registered, not only in the normal way, but also with the local taxation office for exemption in respect of one vehicle. There would be no administrative difficulty. The cost to the Treasury would be very slight. In fact, it is possible that there would be no cost, because most people take advantage of the 1964 Act when they need not do so.
  The woman I have mentioned—and in others like her—is capable of driving an ordinary vehicle, and yet she is unable to obtain the benefits afforded to disabled people under the 1964 Act. I hope, therefore, that in considering all these Amendments the Treasury will give careful consideration to Amendment No. 3, which I believe has merit at least equal to that of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Banbury and the new Clause proposed by the hon. Member for Wythenshawe.
  Mr. William Rodgers: Treasury Ministers perhaps more than others occasionally find themselves in impossible positions, and I think that this is one of them because, listening to all that has been said today, and applying one's own criteria and measures to the nature of the problems we are discussing, it is impossible not to be persuaded by the argument that we should do more than we do for those who are physically disabled.
  I think that the case was well put on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), when he referred to those who were physically disabled as being socially disabled as well. This is precisely the case, and perhaps the greatest deprivation is not the loss of limbs or faculties, if that was not enough, but the loss of human contacts and of mobility; those things which matter to those who arc fortunate enough not to be disabled.
  1848
  I should like to be able to say that the heart takes over, not out of sentiment, but because we believe this to be a right and just, and therefore the objections which have been raised in the past to the kind of proposals set out and very well put by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), by my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe, and by others who have contributed to the debate, have all been overcome, and that the Amendment and the new Clause are not defective or contradictory and therefore we can, in a sense, let them go by on the nod. That is what my instincts tell me I ought to do, but, whereas I think that my instincts in relation to the issue are right, my instincts in relation to legislation which fulfils the purpose required are probably wrong.
  I am not saying that the argument about abuse is overwhelming. It may well be that in this, as in some other matters, one has to balance the right course against the possibility that some may abuse it. The hon. Member for Banbury was very fair when he said that after the war, in rather different circumstances, there may have been some abuse. Equally, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe, when he says that it is difficult to believe that there will be much abuse when we are dealing with a section of a community which is deprived in the real sense of the word. It may be that our judgment should fall slightly differently from what it did in the past, and that if there is abuse, or the possibility of it, this should be discounted because of the advantage to be gained by concessions of this kind. Judging from what I have heard today, that is how the Committee feels. Nor shall I say that there are administrative obstacles which cannot be overcome. There are administrative obstacles to doing virtually anything, but unless we set out to overcome them there would be no reforms and no changes in policy and attitudes in the community which had changed; and would not be represented by what was on the Statute Book.
  Although I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendments or the new Clause, I believe that we must try very hard to overcome the obstacles. I do not say that that cannot be done or that the obstacles are overwhelming. Should I be in a position to play a part in the consideration of these matters in the months

  1849
  to come, I should regard it as a priority to discuss with my colleagues in the Treasury and my hon. Friends at the Department of Health and Social Security whether we can make an advance in this respect and set aside the obstacles which, although real, we should endeavour to overcome.
  Mr. Marten: The Minister of State referred to there being obstacles to accepting Amendment No. 4. But he could readily accept it because it has been taken from the Finance Act, 1964, which had the approval of the House. There is nothing wrong with the Amendment if the Government are prepared not to take so much taxation from disabled passengers.
  Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: I find the Minister of States' reply very disappointing. I am not without sympathy with a Treasury Minister in what the Minister of State described as an impossible position. Some of us know what that feels like. But the hon. Gentleman was less helpful than he could have been. He did not argue, and for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) could not argue, that the Amendment was imperfectly drafted and therefore could not be accepted. He did not argue that the administrative problems, though real, were insuperable. He asked us to reject the Amendment in return for his undertaking to look into the matter in future months.
  What could the Minister of State do then which the Committee cannot do now? I am glad that what appears in the 1964 Act has been accepted because I had some responsibility for that Measure and spoke on the Clause dealing with this matter. The Minister, rightly, has not said that the great Department which he represents and the Customs and Excise could not handle the matter if the Amendment were accepted. What will the hon. Gentleman spend the next few months doing which is not done by my hon. Friend in his Amendment?
  The Minister has put the Committee in an extremely awkward position. There is all party support for what is proposed, and, although the Minister did not answer the question about what the cost would be, he accepted, by implica-
  1850
  tion, that it would be so trivial as to be unimportant. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to advise the Committee to accept the Amendment, which is correctly drafted, as he admits, and administrable, as he admits. Perhaps the answer is—and one would understand it if it were—that as a junior Minister he is not entitled to commit the Government. But the Chief Secretary, who is a member of the Cabinet, is present and has heard the debate. If the Minister of State does not feel able to advise the Committee to accept the proposal, I am sure that the authority of the Chief Secretary would run to that Therefore, one cannot have the sympathy which one might otherwise have had with a junior Minister left, like Casabianca, on the Treasury Bench without authority to make a concession. The Chief Secretary, who has full authority to make it, is sitting on the Front Bench, consulting his brief.
  5.45 p.m.
  I press the Minister of State to accept the Amendment. I should have hoped that he would feel that that would be a particularly good thing to do on this occasion. For reasons which we all understand, this important Finance Bill is being rushed through without proper opportunity being given to make the corrections in it which hon. Members normally like to make. Despite that, this is a proposal, for which time has been found owing to the enterprise of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, which has been properly debated. Why cannot the Minister accept it? If he cannot, I do not know what my hon. Friend will do, but, if I were in his place, I would not withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. William Rodgers: This is obviously a case of virtue unrewarded. Casabianca notwithstanding, it seems to me a case of Morton's fork, if I may mix the analogies.
  I could have set before the Committee the administrative difficulties of enforcement and classification and told a dismal tale, which would have been unpopular, but a hard Treasury line. I could have gone away not expressing my feelings but carrying out the obligations in my brief. Instead, I said that I thought that this on the virtues of the case made in the was an important matter and dwelt more Committee than the difficulties. If the

  1851
  Committee had wished me to explain the administrative difficulties at length, I could have done so.
  It would be wrong to legislate, which we would be doing by accepting what has been proposed, before being aware that administrative difficulties could be overcome. I have given the Committee an undertaking that we should do our best to ensure that the administrative problems were overcome. Therefore, an Amendment of this sort may be possible in future.
  Mr. Marten: I think that what the Minister of State means by saying that the matter will be looked at is that a junior Minister at the Department of Health and Social Security is considering this question. But that is entirely different. That concerns the question of vehicles for the disabled, whether three-wheelers or four-wheelers. We are here concerned with excise duty, which lies outside the remit given to the junior Minister at the Department of Health and Social Security to go into the question of vehicles for disabled drivers.
  Mr. Rodgers: I was not referring to that. There are differences of emphasis between the Amendments and the new Clause which must be considered in the spirit which I have suggested.
  Sir D. Glover: The Minister of State's reply was most unsatisfactory. The Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) has been taken from the Finance Act, 1964. The difference is that the 1964 Act proposal dealt with disabled drivers whereas this Amendment deals with disabled passengers. It was possible to overcome the administrative difficulties about disabled drivers in 1964. The Minister has made no case for not overcoming the administrative difficulties in this Amendment. The two cases deal with virtually the same people: one in 1964 who sat in the driving seat, and one in 1970 sitting in the passenger seat. The Department and the Customs and Excise were able to overcome the difficulties in 1964.
  I am completely unconvinced by the Minister's reply. Even though it might not be usual on a special day in our affairs such as this, if I were my hon. Friend I should not withdraw the Amendment; I should divide the Committee.
  Mr. Bessell: Like the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), I am disturbed by the answer from the Treasury Bench. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) that, if we can have no firmer undertaking from the Minister of State or the Chief Secretary, we may well have to divide, and I should be sorry to see that happen. I should he sorry because there is accord on the question. Even the Minister of State recognises that this is a genuine cause which we are seeking to fight and one which has his sympathy.
  The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, who is far more expert than I and many other right hon. and hon. Members on Treasury matters, has assured the Committee that the administrative difficulties could be overcome. We have his authority for that, and I think that few hon. Members would care to challenge that authority. In the circumstances, and because we are speaking not on party lines—the Amendment is an all-party Amendment—I hope that, if the Government are unable to accept the Amendment now, we shall at least have an unequivocal undertaking from the Minister of State that, if his party is re-elected as the Government, it will be a first priority that this proposal, in one form or other but with the same meaning, will be put into effect. It could be done simply. It would require only a short Bill to do it.
  Better than that, I hope that the Amendment can be accepted now. There is no reason in logic why it should not be. I am sorry that we have had this answer. As others have said, this would be a particularly happy occasion to make the concession instead of forcing the Committee into a position in which it does not wish to be, when it may have to divide.
  Mr. Pavitt: Could I seek your advice, Mr. Gourlay? The Committee is in some difficulty on procedure. We accepted the proposal of the Chairman of Ways and Means for the order in which Amendments should be taken. Is there any way by which we can find time for further thought? Obviously, my hon. Friend the Minister of State is in a difficult position; he cannot, off the cuff, move from the decision which has already been taken. On the other hand, I am certain

  1853
  that if he, other Treasury Ministers and we ourselves had a little more time, we might reach a more satisfactory resolution of the problem.
  Even at this late stage, is there any way by which the Committee could have a little more time to enable the Minister of State to consult the Chief Secretary and others, perhaps, in the hope that the

  Division No. 132]

  AYES

  [5.55 p.m.

  Bessell, Peter

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Jopling, Michael

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Buck, Antony (Corchester)

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Costain, A. P.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Scott, Nicholas

  Crouch, David

  Lubbock, Eric

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Mar pies, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Emery, Peter

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Wall, Patrick

  Fortescue, Tim

  Neave, Airey

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Onslow, Cranley

  Worsley, Marcus

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Goodhart, Philip

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Gower, Raymond

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Mr. Neil Marten and

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Mr. Richard Sharpies.

  NOES

  Albu, Austen

  Gregory, Arnold

  Mapp, Charles

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mendelson, John

  Barnett, Joel

  Hamilton, Jamss (Bothwell)

  Millan, Bruce

  Beaney, Alan

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Bence, Cyril

  Hamling, William

  Molloy, William

  Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

  Harper, Joseph

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hazell, Bert

  Neal, Harold

  Bishop, E. S.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Newens, Stan

  Blendinson, Arthur

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Norwood, Christopher

  Booth, Albert

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Bradley, Tom

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Ogden, Eric

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Orme, Stanley

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

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Hunter, Adam

  Page, Derek (Kind's Lynn)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Chapman, Donald

  Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Coleman, Donald

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Concanncn, J. D.

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Pentland, Norman

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

  Randall, Harry

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rankin, John

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Kelley, Richard

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Dickens, James

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Doig, Peter

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Driberg, Tom

  Ledger, Ron

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Cwyneth (Exeter)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

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

  Dun woody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Short, Mrs. Renée(Whampton,N.E.)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lipton, Marcus

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  English, Michael

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Enners, David

  Loughlin, Charles

  Sillars, J.

  Ensor, David

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Slater, Joseph

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  McBride, Neil

  Small, William

  Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

  McCann, John

  Snow, Julian

  Fernrhough, E.

  MacCann, James

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Finch, Harold

  McElhone, Frank

  Swain, Thomas

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McGuire, Michael

  Symonds, J. B.

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Taverne, Dick

  Ford, Ben

  Mackie, John

  Thornton, Ernest

  Forrester, John

  McMillan, Tom (Glaogow, C.)

  Tinn, James

  Freeson, Reginald

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Urwin, T. W.

  Ginsburg, David

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Varley, Eric G.

  concession which the Committee seeks could be granted?
  The Deputy Chairman: I am sorry, but nothing can be done at this stage to accommodate the hon. Gentleman.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 44, Noes 146.

  Wainwright, Edwin (Deame Valley)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Wallace, George

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Weitzman, David

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Mr. R. F. H. Dobson and

  Whitaker, Ben

  Woof, Robert

  Mr. Walter Harrison.

  Clauses 9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 15
  BENEFITS AND CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER NATIONAL SUPERANNUATION AND SOCIAL INSURANCE LEGISLATION
  Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: On a point of order. I understand that the Government have tabled an Amendment to leave out the Clause. I should be most unhappy if I thought that the Clause would go through without our having discussed and agreed the Government Amendment.
  Question put and negatived.

Clause 16

  INCREASE IN INITIAL ALLOWANCES FOR INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS
  Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Michael Alison: I understand that the background to the Clause is the Chancellor's recognition in his Budget speech that
  " there is some unused capacity in the construction industry, particularly in the less prosperous parts of the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April, 1970; Vol. 799, c. 1245.]
  That strikes us on this side of the Committee increasingly as the understatement of the year, if not of the decade. When we learn from the housing figures published yesterday by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government that the April, 1970 starts are as much as 7,000 down on the April, 1964 starts and reflect that the Government will leave office on Prorogation with 20,000 fewer houses under construction than when the Tories left office in 1964, the Chancellor's statement seems a pearl of understatement.
  We might well wonder why the Chancellor did not lay more emphasis in his Budget speech on this aspect of the
  1856
  economy, the slack in the construction industry. However, we at least welcome the recognition implied by the Clause that there is a need to try to do something about what really amounts to a recession in the construction industry. I question the effectiveness of the Government's measures to try to deal with the evident setback in the industry.
  Will the Minister of State confirm with complete confidence that it is the Government's view that the Clause will be quick-acting? I think that that was the expression the Chancellor used on 14th April. Will industrialists move more quickly in initiating industrial building as a result of the Clause? I instinctively ask this question because we are told that the Revenue cost in the current year is likely to be nil, but that means that the cash flow effect for industry will correspondingly be nil. As far as I can see the whole stimulus for the construction industry now must turn first on an adequate cash flow position in the present financial year and especially in the immediately following months, and in addition it must rest on an assurance about the pattern of future profits.
  Cash flow and profits are the underlying reality of any real stimulus to industrial investment outlays by manufacturers. Are the cash flow prospects for the immediate future and profit prospects really so favourable as to permit industrialists to move quickly, as the Chancellor hopes? Are they sufficient to breathe life into the dry bones of the Clause? It is rather difficult to tie up the prospects for business investment against the background of some of the economic circumstances that now seem to prevail. We have had some sort of public confirmation that earnings in industry, which are a basic industrial cost, are likely to go up by 12 per cent. in the current year. Unless prices are to be allowed to increase at least as much, it is hard to see how there will be any very stimulating profit prospects for businessmen, let alone sound cash flow positions to encourage them to turn towards investment. This would be particularly the case in the construction industry. The prospect of higher wage costs might

  1857
  normally encourage businessmen to invest in plant and machinery, because capital can be substituted for labour in that way. But where it is a question of new industrial buildings the prospect of higher labour costs is the one factor that will deter investment in plant of that sort.
  We must add to this the fact that the profit position in industry has been extremely lean since 1964. Looking, for example, at the figure of retained profits, which corporation tax was meant to boost and assist, we find that the trend has been steadily downwards in the volume of retained profits since 1964 even at current prices, and gross profits at current prices have barely moved.
  So the profits prospects for the forthcoming year are not good, particularly if the Government do what they did after the 1966 election. We had a similar boom in earnings and wages just before the election and they imposed a squeeze and freeze immediately after it. If that happens again the environment and atmosphere for business investment is about as bleak as it could be. Does he really believe that the Clause on its own will compensate for the difficulties in the cash flow position and in the uncertainty about the future profits which is inherent in our present economic situation, particularly the prospect of high levels of increased labour costs in the coming years?
  Secondly, I turn to the narrow application of the Clause. The C.B.I. is anxious to know whether the Government have considered or would further consider the possibility of extending the initial allowance increase to commercial buildings, particularly in development areas. It is right to point out that there is no reason in logic why commercial buildings should be excluded from the whole environment of capital allowances. The old, although respectable, argument is that to extend initial allowances or any sort of capital allowances to them would mean severe cost to the Revenue.
  The Treasury estimated an extra £275 million as being the likely cost of extending this sort of concession to commercial buildings. I know that the Minister of State has helpfully and carefully
  1858
  costed the likely impact of this change on industrial buildings in development areas and perhaps he can tell us whether any estimate has been made of the cost of extending the provisions of Clause 16 to commercial buildings in development areas for these two years.
  I believe that the impact of the scheme in development areas for industrial buildings is likely to be nothing this financial year and about £9 million in the next. It would be helpful to know whether the Treasury even considered what the cost would have been of extending the change to commercial buildings in development areas.
  This is a reasonable query because many people regard the development of the commercial side of our economic life, which brings in the whole range of commercial buildings such as offices, shops and distributive and servicing facilities, as particularly helpful to the needful development areas. The characteristic of an advanced economy and its growth is the development of this side. It would have been sensible and rational at least to have considered the extension of the initial allowance provisions to commercial buildings in development areas and I cannot believe that the cost would have been very substantial. The whole rationale of the Government at present is deliberately to carve a bit off the Revenue for the sake of the stimulus this would give. We believe that a similar stimulus for commercial building in development areas should be considered in the narrow context of the Clause for the limited period of two years.
  Commercial buildings are not only vital for a developing economy and social life of the needful areas but the rate of depreciation in these areas for such buildings is particularly acute and far more hazardous than in the ordinary areas. We want confirmation that the cash flow position in the current financial year will offer something in the way of a stimulus and not just of future prospects of allowances against profits, because there is no certainty that these profits will be to hand. We want an assurance that the Government have looked at the possibility of extending the application of the Clause to commercial buildings, particularly in development areas.
  [Sir BERESFORD CRADDOCK in the Chair]
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. John Smith: This Clause is intended to encourage the erection of industrial buildings and as such it is to be welcomed. But it will fail in its objectives unless the period it covers is extended. As drawn, the initial allowances on such buildings will only be increased if the expenditure is actually incurred by 5th April, 1972. If it is to be an incentive to the erection of new buildings, clearly the decision to erect the building must have been taken after the Chancellor made his Budget speech or after the introduction of the Bill. But the period between then and 5th April, 1972, is shorter than the length of time which often elapses between the conceiving of a project for a new industrial building and getting it up. There are two principal reasons for this.
  The first reason is the increasing complexity of the planning legislation—indeed it would be a good idea if the authorities were to consider the effect of planning delays on the earning power of companies and hence on the earning power of the country. In my view, a great deal of money is lost to the country by planning delays. I could in ordinary circumstances give some most dramatic examples, including money lost to the Government on their own projects. However, planning delay is the first cause of delay in getting a project going.
  The second cause is the increasing complexity of tender documents. It often takes six or more months to get a set of such documents out and a period after that to get the tenders in.
  Therefore, while welcoming the Clause, I feel that, whichever Government are returned to power on 18th June—and both parties wish to have this provision—will have to lengthen the period which the Clause covers if they want to make it effective.
  Mr. Costain: I want to emphasise a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith). It was also made during the Budget debate. The House should realise that to get a building planned often needs 40 different signatures on the plans before it even starts,
  1860
  while up to eight months can be taken up waiting for planning permissions to be completed. This means that the Clause will have little value unless the period it covers is extended.
  Perhaps the Minister of State will make clear what will happen in the case of buildings uncompleted at the end of the two years. Is the initial allowance to be allowed on the amount of expenditure up to that time, or on the basis that the building has been completed? If the building is not completed, is it the case that no allowance will be made? There is some confusion on this matter.
  Mr. William Rodgers: The expenditure will qualify if it is incurred within the two-year period. It may be on a building which is started during the period or is already in process of erection which will continue after the end of the period. I agree that a balance has to be struck here between determining a length of period which is a real incentive because, obviously, the incentive effects of the proposal would be defeated if it were possible for the increase to be extended for a longer period, and a period which is nevertheless sufficient to induce new building to take place. We take the view that the incentive value of this provision is real and that there will be consequences in new industrial building.
  The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) raised the question of extending the allowance to commercial buildings. He asked whether we had considered this. He may take it for granted that we did. I take the point and largely share it that the healthy development of commercial premises in development areas is something to which we are all looking. It may well be that the growth of service industries in so far as this is relevant will add to the long-term strength and improved industrial structure of the development areas.
  Successive Governments have considered this matter and all have concluded that it would not be desirable to extend the allowance to commercial buildings. The cost would be very high, rising to a figure of £275 million over a period of years. In these circumstances, as we felt that there was an objection of principle and as the revenue consideration was overwhelming, we did not make the calculation, for which the hon. Member

  1861
  asked, about the precise effect of extending the allowance to commercial buildings in development areas.
  We believe that this is a useful provision. I would not take so gloomy a view as the hon. Member for Barkston Ash of the prospects in development areas, or for the construction industry generally, although one must recognise, as the Chancellor did in his Budget Statement, that the construction industry has been going through a difficult period. I am sure that in the next year, despite some possible problems with cash flow, and even if profit prospects are not as favourable as we should like, profit prospects will be favourable enough to encourage those who wish to go forward with building to do so, in the knowledge that this incentive is available.
  Only time will show. I would not make an extravagant claim for this provisison, but it is useful and it will be a spur to industrial building, which is precisely our objective, within present overall circumstances.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Cause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 17
  TAX DEDUCTIONS FROM PAYMENTS TO UN REGISTERED SUB-CONTRACTORS IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
  Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Costain: As the Clause formed part of the Budget statement, surely we are to have an explanation of why the Government now propose to delete it. In his Budget Statement, the Chancellor made a point of saying that labour-only sub-contracting was to be stopped, but we now find that the Clause is to be deleted.
  Those of us who considered the Construction Industry Contracts Bill were told that this provision was part of the pattern. Are we to assume that the deletion of the Clause means that another Bill cannot be introduced to deal with labour-only sub—contracting until another Finance Bill has been introduced?
  1862
  Are we to assume from that that, as happened after the last General Election, we are to have a quick Finance Bill after this election and that an appropriate Clause will then be introduced? We are entitled to some information about the Government's intentions.
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): I am at the service of the Committee and ready to answer any question about any Clause. However, until the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) rose, I did not know whether there was a question to be answered. I am happy to answer him. It is only right and proper that he should ask me what is to happen under the next Government. I accept that responsibility which he has put on me.
  As the hon. Member appreciates, the Clause supports a Bill which, in the circumstances, will not go through Parliament. There is no need for a Finance Bill Resolution and the new Bill, which will be introduced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works to replace the existing Bill, will include the necessary provision of its own. The question of a new early or late Finance Bill does not arise.
  Mr. Costain: I am grateful for that explanation. The right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. I asked him what would happen if a Labour Government were by misfortune returned to power, because I wanted him to commit himself so that we could know that when we are in power we will have his support.
  Question put and negatived.
  Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedule 3 agreed to.

  Clause 19
  INTEREST RELIEF: LOANS FOR PURCHASE OR IMPROVEMENT OF LAND
  Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Terence L. Higgins: The exact meaning of the Clause is not immediately apparent and I should be grateful if the Chief Secretary would make it clear. It may be an academic

  1863
  provision, because, as was clearly said in our debates last year, the Conservative Party will repeal the changes which the Government made in the tax allowance for interest on loans.
  Last year, we pressed many Amendments on the Chief Secretary, and we were grateful to him for being able to undertake that he would do something to improve the Government's proposals. The breaking point, if I may describe it as that, was an Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), when he asked for particular consideration to be given to relief on interest on money borrowed for the improvement of agricultural land.
  As I understand it, this Clause implements all my right hon. Friend's proposals. If I understand it correctly, it will have retrospective effect. Therefore, regardless of what changes may take place in future, this provision will go back to the original date of the change to the restriction of three years for tax relief on interest on money borrowed on overdraft for improving agricultural land and the provision will go back to running indefinitely, so long as the person paying the interest continues to own the land. We should be grateful for confirmation of that understanding.
  Mr. Diamond: There seems to be a difference of opinion between the two sides of the Committee as to what may happen after the next General Election, but there is no difference between the two sides about what I am about to say on behalf of the whole Committee.
  It is, Sir Beresford, to offer the thanks of the whole House of Commons for the gracious way in which you have occupied the Chair during these many years. As I fear that this may be the last occasion on which you will be so honouring us, on behalf of the whole House of Commons, I should like to offer our appreciation.
  With gratitude to you, Sir Beresford, for not pulling me up for that slight irrelevancy, I should like to turn to the immediate issue and confirm the understanding of the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). The Clause arises out of my undertaking a year ago to consider the problem posed by the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) with regard to the length of the
  1864
  period taken to pay off a loan relating to the improvement of agricultural land.
  There was previously a limitation of the benefit of the loan interest for three years and that was thought to be adequate. However, we have had further consultations. The representations were soundly based and we take the view that the three years ought no longer to apply. I confirm that the Clause will have retrospective effect, as I indicated when I undertook to reconsider the matter that is would have.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me to confirm that it covered everything which his right hon. Friend mentioned. I do not have the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech before me; and other hon. Members took part in that discussion. So that there is no misunderstanding, I want to make it clear that this deals with interest on a loan for the improvement and not for the maintenance of land. I made it absolutely clear last time that I could not possibly consider a request for loan interest on maintenance, because there was no distinction which could readily be drawn between maintaining an agricultural estate and an urban estate.
  We should immediately have the situation in which every householder would be able to claim loan interest for repairs to his house. There would be no means of distinguishing whether a loan had been incurred for repairs to a house, and we would be back to the situation in which everybody could claim loan interest and the whole of the proposals would be utterly torpedoed, to use the word I used last year.
  In fairness to the hon. Member and the Committee I make clear that this carries out the undertaking I gave to omit the time limitation of three years for loan interest on a loan incurred to improve land.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Higgins: I thank the Chief Secretary for what he has said. We have the intention as we had last year of torpedoing this and to add to the limit.
  The Temporary Chairman (Sir Beres-ford Craddock): The Chief Secretary was somewhat out of order, so I shall go out of order myself so that I may thank him for his gracious remarks and thank other

  1865
  hon. and right hon. Members, also, for what they have said. It has been a great pleasure to preside over Committees in this House and upstairs and I am grateful for the consideration that has always been extended to me.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 20
  MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS OF INCOME TAX AND CORPORATION TAX LAW
  Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: This Clause and Schedule 4 are par excellence the sort of provisions to which, if this were an ordinary Finance Bill, one would like to devote some time in discussion.
  I have a purely drafting comment of which the Government might like to take note with the possibility of dealing with it when we reach the Report stage. Clause 20 refers in brackets to
  " amendments of the Taxes Act and of the Capital Allowances Act "
  but it does not refer to the Taxes Management Act. Yet in Part I of Schedule 4 there are quite a number of amendments of the Taxes Management Act, 1970.
  I appreciate that, compared to the Income Tax Act and the Corporation Tax Act 1970 the Taxes Management Act, 1970 is very much smaller and it may have escaped the notice of the draftsmen, but if Clause 20 with reference to Schedule 4 refers to the Taxes Act and the Capital Allowances Act it seems that it should equally refer to the Taxes Management Act.
  This is purely a matter of drafting. There is no substance in it, but no doubt the Government would like to give consideration to this point. I do not know whether a manuscript Amendment would be acceptable on Report, but if one were moved by the Government it would be acceptable to us.
  Mr. Diamond: I will consider this. The phrase I was given was de minimus, but I do not wish the hon. Member for
  1866
  Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) to think that I am not paying attention to his valuable comments. If necessary, we will seek to move a manuscript Amendment, but I doubt whether that will be necessary.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Schedule 4
  AMENDMENTS OF INCOME TAX ACTS AND CORPORATION TAX ACTS
  Question proposed, That this be the Fourth Schedule to the Bill.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: As I have said, in other circumstances, we would have made a number of points about this. It is a matter for regret in all parts of the Committee that technical legislation of this sort has to be passed in such great haste because of the circumstances in which we find ourselves, but there seems no other way out of the difficulty.
  I wish to ask the Chief Secretary one or two questions on which I feel sure his brief will enable him to give some sort of answer. When we consider paragraph 6 of the Schedule the right hon. Gentleman will recognise, as I recognised, an old friend. We found this in the Eleventh Schedule of the 1965 Finance Act. It has been amended in this paragraph to meet some of the points which we have put to Ministers in earlier years. There is, however, one figure which puzzles us and for which I think an explanation is required.
  The Chief Secretary will recollect that this is a problem of treating certain interest payments overseas as if they were distributions for the purpose of Schedule F tax and corporation tax. Hitherto, we have always regarded a company as part of a group if there was a 75 per cent. shareholding. In this Schedule 75 per cent. is repeated in three or four places but in subparagraph (cc) there is a requirement that
  " where 90 per cent. or more of the share capital of the company which issued the securities is directly owned by a company resident in the United Kingdom, both the company which issued the securities and the company not resident in the United Kingdom are 75 per cent. subsidiaries of a third company which is resident in the United Kingdom ".

  1867
  Why, in that one case, is it necessary to insist on a 90 per cent. shareholding whereas in every other case it appears that a 75 per cent. shareholding is adequate to entitle the company to the benefits of this provision?
  There seems to have been some doubt about the drafting of paragraph 9(5). The Chief Secretary will recognise that this inserts a new Section into the Taxes Act to provide for cases covered by Section 54 of the Companies Act where financial assistance is given for company employees and salaried directors acquiring shares in the company. The paragraph says:
  " Where under a scheme … trustees receive interest from such employees or directors then, if and so far as the scheme requires "—
  these are the key words to which I draw attention—
  " an equivalent amount to be paid by way of interest by the trustees to the company,…"
  certain exemptions follow.
  That wording seems to suggest that the amount must be exactly equivalent in all the circumstances. I wonder whether that is intended and whether it would not be right to say that it requires the amount to be paid by way of interest, and so on, and in the last line to leave out the word " that " and finish with the words
  " up to an equivalent amount."
  Then the amount of interest would not have to be the same, but there could be relief to the extent that the tax was, in fact, paid. If it is intended that the amount should be exactly equivalent, that seems a very limiting factor. I seriously question whether that is intended, but that is what it provides as drafted on the best advice that I can take.
  I apologise to the Chief Secretary for raising these two rather technical points which are difficult to deal with in our current procedure, but people outside who have to operate these rather complex provisions would like to know why in one case the share capital has to be 90 per cent., whereas in all others 75 per cent. is adequate, and whether it is intended that the interest should be equivalent or that relief should be up to the amount actually paid.
  Mr. Diamond: I agree with the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) about the difficulty of discussing complex Clauses of this kind shortly and that it would be to
  1868
  everybody's advantage if more time could be spent on them. However, these are all relieving Clauses, with the exception of two drafting Amendments. That does not mean that they could not be well discussed, but it is less objectionable if they are not well discussed if they are relieving Clauses than if they are Clauses introducing taxation.
  I should like to deal with the hon. Gentleman's second question first. Take a scheme under which money is advanced for the purchase of shares in a company and perhaps for the purchase of shares by directors and, therefore, a trustee has to be interposed in between. There would be interest paid on such a loan which would be paid to the trustees and they in turn would pay interest. As the law stands, in one case the interest would not be relieved for tax purposes, and in the other case it would. Therefore, we are envisaging circumstances in which this anomaly should be removed where exactly the same amount of interest is going through two pairs of hands.
  That is all that is happening. It is right that it should be the same amount of interest. One is envisaging circumstances in which it could only be the same amount. In practice, we have come across this difficulty, but we have not come across the difficulty in which there would be a lesser payment. We are deliberately catering for the circumstance about which the hon. Gentleman asked.
  On the hon. Gentleman's first question, 90 per cent. is more appropriate than 75 per cent. in this case because the maximum possible holding of the nonresident co-subsidiary—which is the circumstance we are considering in which there is a co-subsidiary which ceases to be a co-subsidiary by virtue of a merger —in the resident company subsidiary is that much less and the case for treating the interest as a disguised dividend is that much weaker. I think that the hon. Member will wish to study that.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he is absolutely right. Those who advise me on these matters and I will want to study most carefully what he has said. No doubt they will wish to make representations to my right hon. Friend in due course.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 21

  CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL OF SCHEMES
  Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Iain Macleod: We come to the most difficult decision which we have to take. A number of problems were outlined earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) arising out of the inevitable timetable—and I do not use the word in its technical sense —that the General Election, which we all desire, imposes on the Finance Bill.
  The reality of Chapter II—that is, Clauses 21 to 28 and the Fifth Schedule —is that, even if we sat until dawn, it is virtually impossible effectively to move Amendments, nor would it be possible for the Government to accept them. Therefore, we must decide as a Committee whether we accept Chapter II, with its imperfections, as a basis or, because of its imperfections, reject it as a basis. The arguments for both courses are strong, and I will state them briefly before I give some advice to the Committee on the general question and on the special question of the F.S.S.U., about which no doubt hon. Members have had representations made to them.
  The case for keeping these Clauses in the Bill is best put by quoting two short extracts from letters from the Chairman of the Life Offices' Association. Neither letter was written to me, but both were meant to be passed on to me. The first says:
  " You will be aware that this Association and the Associated Scottish Life Offices have been consulted throughout on the provisions of these Clauses and that their negotiations with the Board of Inland Revenue have reached a stage where it would be unreasonable to postpone the legislation."
  The second quotation, from a different letter, reads:
  "Needless to say any persuasion you can apply yourself in the direction of keeping the provisions on which we have spent so many weary months would be helpful!"
  6.45 p.m.
  The argument against is put in a number of Amendments, for example, by the C.B.I., but perhaps was most cogently put in a short leader yesterday in the
  1870
  Financial Times headed " Don't rush over pensions ". I read the last sentence of it:
  "It would be very much better to drop Clauses 21–28 from the Bill and leave them to be dealt with more leisurely and in a more constructive atmosphere by the next Government."
  There are undoubtedly flaws in Clauses 21 to 28. First, the retrospective provisions will certainly hurt the F.S.S.U. scheme. There is the reduction in the death in service benefit, and there is the omission of any reference to self-employed schemes under the 1956 Act.
  Those are most serious flaws, but I am fortified in my advice that, on the whole, we should, after discussion, approve these policies by reading a report of the Council of the Association of University Teachers on the question of superannuation. It says:
  " In fairness, it must be said that for a lot of schemes these new tax regulations are a big improvement and offer considerable tax benefits to both employers and employees who operate terminal salary schemes, but it practically means the death knell of the F.S.S.U. scheme ".
  In my view, unsatisfactory though the situation is, it would be right, after discussion, to leave these Clauses in the Bill so that the life offices may have, as they most earnestly press on us, some basis on which they can plan in the weeks and months ahead. I have put this view to the C.B.I. and the A.B.C.C. I do not say that they both accept what they say, but they certainly understand the logic which lies behind it.
  I come to my second point, which relates more directly to the matter about which hon. Members have been circulated during the last few hours—the problems of the F.S.S.U. The trouble arises from the fact that during the past year there have been negotiations to change the university superannuation scheme, which is insurance based, to a terminal salary scheme. As recently as January, the Government Actuary's Department had agreed a costing for the new scheme. But the February proposals of the Board of Inland Revenue would, unless the F.S.S.U. is either exempt or its points are met, destroy the scheme. The Inland Revenue has opposed the suggestion that such exemption should be given in the Bill.

  1871
  It does not necessarily follow that all members of the F.S.S.U. scheme would have the same attitude about the changes. I think that it depends very much on their age and at what point in their service they may be. The attitude of someone who has just come into university service may be very different from that of someone who has virtually completed his service and has planned his last few years on certain assumptions which may be vitiated if the Clauses go through un-amended. But there is no reason why such points should not be met in due course.
  We shall face a General Election in a short time. I do not want to put this in any partisan way, but either there will be the present Government or there will be the alternative Government under my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I consulted my right hon. Friend on this point this morning. It is known that our attitude towards occupational pension schemes is different from, and I think considerably more favourable than, that of the present Government. The Secretary of State for Social Services believes that many of the schemes can adjust to the proposals the Government have put forward. I think that he uses the word " adjust " in the procrustean sense of either mutilating the limbs or stretching the body to fit the bed he has designed for them.
  Our attitude is quite clear. We believe in occupational pension schemes. We recognise the advantages of the Clause, which is why I am offering this advice to the Committee, but we think that there are some flaws in it. Therefore, if we are returned as the Government we shall be anxious to consult urgently. We believe that amending legislation might well be necessary in the first Session of the new Parliament, and, if so, I give the undertaking from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that that would be done, if, as I think is likely, those discussions show that Clauses 21 to 28 should not form a permanent basis for the future of occupational schemes.
  If I understand the position rightly, the Board of the Inland Revenue has rejected the suggestion from the Chairman of the F.S.S.U. Council. I think that it would be wrong in advance of the discussions that will take place, in the eventuality I have
  1872
  indicated, to give a firm undertaking on the matter, but I view the case that the F.S.S.U. has put forward with sympathy and we would discuss its objections sympathetically in the light of what I have said.
  I think that that is a clear statement of our position. I recognise the difficulties, but my advice, on balance, to my right hon. and hon. Friends is that with all the imperfections we should allow the Clauses to stand for the reasons the life offices put forward. I give the undertaking that we will carry out the discussions, and if necessary the amendments along the lines of my speech, as soon as we become the Government.
  Mr. Lubbock: I listened very carefully to the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod) to ascertain whether he would give any firm undertaking that in the event of a Tory Government being returned to power the F.S.S.U. would be granted the exemption which the chairman sought. I think that university teachers will have noted that the right hon. Gentleman gave no such undertaking, but said only that he would do as the Government are already doing, which is to review the position with great sympathy.
  Mr. lain Macleod: The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member. The Government, unless I am wrong, have rejected the application of the Chairman of the F.S.S.U. Council. I have not. The words " look at sympathetically are a well-known parliamentary phrase which the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well. It does mean precisely what it says. I recognise the force of the requests, and am prepared to look at them sympathetically.
  Mr. Lubbock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification of his earlier remarks.
  I have no doubt that the university teachers, who are not so well skilled in the phraseology we use here, will still have some difficulty in deciding exactly what he meant. But the important thing is that we should try to deal with this unfortunate situation in such a way that the university teachers whose scheme is to be affected by the Clauses are not left in a state of serious anxiety, particularly those who have nearly reached the

  1873
  end of their careers and depend upon the income they will receive from their existing pension scheme to finance their retirement.
  We have all had letters about the matter from constituents who are university teachers. I should like to make one or two points drawn to my attention by a constituent which are additional to those referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. First, the F.S.S.U. would be a dying scheme if the exemption had been granted. I understand that the new entrants to university teaching would have had the alternative scheme which had been on the point of agreement when the new proposals were brought forward by the Board of Inland Revenue in February. One was concerned only with the 45,000 university teachers at present employed and covered by the F.S.S.U. scheme, and not teachers who entered universities after the date of any agreements that might have been made.
  My constituent makes the very valid point that his contract of service will be overridden if the Clauses go through as they stand. We are entitled to assurances by the Government that if agreement could not be reached on the lines suggested by the chairman of the F.S.S.U. an alternative will be proposed. I hope that we shall hear about it this afternoon.
  My constituent also tells me that if an alternative scheme is set up other than the one already negotiated the cost to the taxpayer would be extremely high. He points out that the 45,000 members of the existing F.S.S.U. scheme have over 500,000 policies. It is rather an odd sort of pension scheme. It means that on average any individual covered by it has over 10 policies. If I have understood the position correctly, as a university teacher moves up the salary scale he takes out a new policy every time instead of modifying the existing one.
  Mr. John Smith: Very sensible.
  Mr. Lubbock: I do not think that it is very sensible, because whenever the scheme is altered ten times as many policies need to be modified as there are employees. My constituent points out that when 5,000 Civil Service employees were given the opportunity to transfer to the Civil Service scheme in 1953 it took six
  1874
  years to evaluate the financial state of their previous policies. When we are concerned with a hundred times the number, it will obviously be an enormous undertaking.
  I made some inquiries through the Financial Secretary's office the other day. It was good enough to draw my attention to the fact that the provisions of the Clauses come into effect only after the State scheme is introduced in 1972. Therefore, we are not at the last opportunity for considering the matter. I rather agree with the right hon. Member for Enfield, West that on that basis we can allow the Clauses to go through, knowing that we shall have another two Finance Bills in which to rectify the matter. But I do not think that it is at all a bad idea for it to be raised here this afternoon.
  I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to give some reassurance to those 45,000 people who have hitherto been in the F.S.S.U. scheme that their future pension rights will not be seriously jeopardised—quite unintentionally—by a wider scheme provided for in Chapter II and Schedule with which it is associated.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Taverne: It may assist the Committee if I intervene at this stage, although I do not wish to conclude the debate now, and, certainly, there may be points which hon. Members may raise to which I may have to reply later.
  First, I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod) for the advice which he offered to the Committee and for the attitude which he has taken. I would like to echo the general trend of his remarks, though there are certain respects in which I might approach the matter slightly differently. We certainly agree that these proposals are of great importance and merit full discussion which, in the normal course of events, they would have had in Committee, but we decided that it was right to continue with the Clauses very much for the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman gave.
  In the first place, there are a few points which it may be well to keep in mind. Generally, the new code will give more generous tax reliefs and greater flexibility to pension schemes, and for that reason

  1875
  they have been widely welcomed. There are many schemes, for example, in the process of reorganisation which want to take advantage of the new extended reliefs immediately, and by passing the Clauses into law now those schemes will be able to get ahead. I do not think that anyone wants a period of uncertainty in such matters if it can be avoided.
  While any scheme which wants to do so will be able to take advantage of the new code, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) pointed out, no one will be compelled to conform to it till the introduction of the National Superannuation Scheme—if this Government continue in power after the election; or at whatever date may be decided upon by the Opposition if they form the Government. We have put forward our proposals thus early in order to give the maximum amount of warning, and that means that we have a breathing space for further discussions and negotiations and any modifications which the Committee may, in due course, think appropriate.
  By continuing with these Clauses now we hope to allow schemes to take advantage of the new reliefs, but without prejudice to further discussions on those individual aspects of the new code on which there may be mixed views.
  I come to the very important question of the F.S.S.U. schemes. I hope that it will be realised from what I have said that we do not intend the passing of the Finance Bill in its present form in any way to prejudice the further discussion of their special difficulties—and there are special difficulties. We for our part intend to resume consideration of these special problems immediately on our return. It is not correct, I would say to the right hon. Gentleman, to say that we have finally rejected the F.S.S.U.'s particular request. The correct position is that so far the Board of Inland Revenue has not accepted it, but negotiations on this will continue.
  Certain things should be made quite clear. Some of them have already been referred to by the hon. Member for Orpington. As the Bill stands, as I have said, no one can possibly be affected till the pension schemes come into operation. Suppose that the F.S.S.U. case is not met at the end of the negotiations, even then
  1876
  the existing rights to commute, earned up to the date of operation of the new pensions scheme, would not be affected; though the F.S.S.U. would presumably then wish to adapt its scheme, to ensure that there would be no tax penalty on employees after the operative date, but negotiations, as I have said, will continue, and there will be ample time—as the hon. Member for Orpington said, two further Finance Bills—to make whatever amendments the Committee might consider desirable after the negotiations have been completed.
  There is one other point of criticism which the right hon. Member did not refer to, but which has led to some misconception and which I should perhaps also mention. One other criticism which has been made of the Bill is that it is more restrictive than the statement of practice issued by the Revenue on 26th February. But this is a misconception.
  We have not tried to write out the full range of benefits which might be approved under the discretion conferred by Clause 22. It would not be practicable to do so. Clause 21 and Part I of the Schedule set out a simple minimum scheme which could be approved without any inquiry by the Revenue. It is not intended as a model scheme, but, I understand, there are employers who might be deterred from setting up pension schemes by the prospect of inquiries and negotiations, and they may be glad to have the opportunity to take a scheme which can be approved and operated automatically, and the Schedule attempts to meet their needs. Most employers will certainly want to have more elaborate schemes which will be approved under the discretion which is given in Clause 22.
  There is a great deal left to discretion. This has been another point of criticism, but ever since 1921 the system has been to give a wide discretion to the Revenue. I think that it has been felt on all sides that it has worked extremely well, because it has given unique opportunity for flexibility. The present proposals are, in fact, broadly in line with the recommendations of the Tucker Committee. What that committee said was that while there should be perhaps a widening of the area where automatic approval should be given, discretion should certainly continue in the hands of the Board of Inland Revenue.

  1877
  So, in summary, what I would like to say at this stage is that all we are doing in these Clauses is to enable those who want to to go ahead to take advantage of the scheme, and for those reasons I think that, for the benefit of those concerned, the Clauses should become law.
  Mr. John H. Osborn: I intervene only briefly because my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod) has argued very persuasively why we should accept the Clauses dealing with occupational pension schemes. There is only one major point which I would make, and that is to ask why the Bill should go ahead when the other Bill which contained such proposals has been dropped. Why should not these Clauses be dropped as well? Why should we not consider the position more soberly and calmly? These are very important Clauses indeed, affecting the whole of occupational pension schemes. I have been at committee meetings with those a great deal more expert than I am in the operation of such schemes, and those people are very disturbed that Parliament should push through these Clauses, particularly when they are riddled with errors.
  My right hon. Friend has informed the Committee that there will be amending legislation, if necessary, after discussion, and the Government have put forward the point that there is discretion and that the Revenue will continue to exercise discretion. I would feel very much easier if I could have an assurance that, after discussion, the present Government, if they are re-elected, or the present Opposition, as is more likely when they have won it, will bring forward amending legislation soon after the election; and many other people would feel a great deal easier too.
  Mrs. Lena Jeger: I am sure that the whole Committee will have welcomed the statement made by the Minister on this difficult subject of university pensions. As I understood him, it means that the passing of this Finance Bill does not affect the N.F.S.S.U. negotiations, and that these will continue without prejudice. I am sure he will tell me if I have mis-
  1878
  represented the position, but that is my understanding of it. I think that it would have relieved the anxieties of many of our university constituents if they had understood that that was the position.
  Pensions, especially contributory pensions, are a very personal and sensitive matter, and it is very important that nobody should have any sense of grievance or misunderstanding about his or her pension prospects under a contributory scheme. People feel that, to a large extent, the money is their own, and they do not want to lose the right to have some say about how it is disposed of, about the right to a lump sum, the right to choose investments for annuities, and so on.
  I hope very much that there will be the least possible delay in taking up these negotiations immediately after the election, because there has been a great deal of anxiety, which I can quite understand; and I am sure, from the sympathetic remarks which have been made on both sides of the Committee, that other hon. Members appreciate this concern, too. It does not matter how actuarially perfect these schemes are; they somehow fail if people feel that they are not fair and are out of their own personal control.
  When these negotiations are taken up again, will my hon. and learned Friend sympathetically consider the restrictions in the Schedule on the right to take a lump sum? This is an element of free choice for the people who are getting towards the end of their earning life which should be extended as far as possible.
  The Minister suggested that those who had been in the scheme for a long time should have more rights than those who came in later, and I hope that such a provision will be built into any revision of the scheme.
  Mr. Lubbock: The Financial Secretary gave us an assurance that all benefits which had been acquired up until the date of the Finance Bill—
  Mr. Taverne: Up until the operative date.
  Mr. Lubbock: —all benefits which had been acquired up until the operative date, which is 1972, could be continued in their present form, and it is only thereafter that any disadvantage could accrue to the university teachers. This is a very

  1879
  important point which perhaps our constituents would like to know about.
  Mrs. Jeger: I thank the hon. Gentleman for spelling this out in more detail. If we cannot get agreement on the lump sum problem and the scheme thereby ceases to fail within the mantle of what can be approved, university staff will be exposed to the serious problem of having to pay income tax on the contributions to the fund of their employers. This is an unfair and difficult choice to put before the university staff.
  The employers contribute about 10 per cent. of the fund, and to pay tax on that will, I am told—and I am the last person in the Committee to know anything about income tax—cost a university teacher earning £1,500 an extra £48, in the £2,500 range an extra £80, and in the £3,500 range an extra £112.
  I know that the whole policy of the Government is directed towards a reduction of income tax and taking the maximum number of people altogether out of liability for income tax. It is no part of our policy to increase income tax, and I should be sorry if, in an accidental way, because of failure to agree on commuting rights, university staffs found themselves outside the approval of the scheme and, therefore, subject to a most unfair and unfortunate reduction in their real incomes. I am confident that the next Government, like the present Government, will take every care to see that this does not happen.
  The Treasury and the Board of Inland Revenue would save themselves a tremendous amount of trouble if these policies did not have to be rewritten. This is a complicated and lengthy business and it will occupy the time of civil servants which could be better devoted to much more important matters.
  This has been a useful debate which should allay a great deal of anxiety felt by the universities. Our universities have enough problems to face without the added problem of anxious staff who are worried about their old age and their pension rights. I thank the Minister for what he has said this afternoon to allay those anxieties.
  Mr. Frank Hooley: Before coming to the House of Commons I was on the staff of a university for 16
  1880
  years, and several of my former colleagues have written to me in very pressing terms outlining their anxieties about these Clauses.
  I welcome what has been said by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, which perhaps I may summarise in the following way. First, discussions on the question of the F.S.S.U. are still proceeding and will proceed. Secondly, even if the outcome of these discussions were not all that the members of the F.S.S.U. wished, nothing would take effect until 1972, at the earliest, when the national superannuation scheme would become effective. Thirdly, all existing rights up to that time, or whenever the operative date may be, would continue to be valid. Fourthly, he said that there would he at least two more Finance Bills—I am not quite sure how he makes two—during which amendments, discussions or further legislation on this matter could take place. We are not up, therefore, against the deadline of this week, and the situation is a great deal more fluid in many respects than some university teachers have been led to believe.
  Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman said that he could not quite see why there would be two Finance Bills. The State superannuation scheme is not now to come into operation until late 1972, so that we are not only considering the Finance Bill of next year but also the one in the spring of 1972.
  Mr. Hooley: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, but my impression was that the State superannuation scheme would come into effect on 1st April, 1972, and would, presumably, be effective before the 1972 Finance Bill, but this is a small matter—
  Mr. John Smith: It may well be that the Minister was referring to the Finance Bill of this autumn which either Parliament will have to introduce to cope with the mess the Government have got us into.
  Mr. Hooley: With respect, I was trying hard to avoid that sort of stupid and irrelevant debating point. This is a matter of great personal concern to my constituents and the constituents of many hon. Members. This is a matter which is causing great anxiety to individuals, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has made that comment.

  1881
  Would it be feasible for the Treasury, either through the Department for Education and Science or the University Grants Committee, to set out formally what has been said this afternoon? I know that members of the F.S.S.U. and university teachers can read HANSARD, but if a brief statement showing broadly what my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has said were sent to members of the A.U.T. and to universities this might allay some quite unnecessary anxieties. That is merely an administrative suggestion, which may be useful.
  I am in no way an expert on superannuation matters, and it would be inappropriate for me to go into details, but a point has been made to me in correspondence which it may be worth mentioning in addition to the points which have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger). As the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) said, the F.S.S.U. scheme is peculiar in that there is no pension fund. The pension rights depend on policies which are taken out on the life of the individual person. Part of the premium is paid by that person and part by the employer, but the pension accrues through the maturity of the individual policies. A great many university teachers will also take out life policies for other purposes; for example, as collateral on a mortgage, or as an ordinary life insurance.
  The fear has been expressed to me by one correspondent that if the F.S.S.U. policies are aggregated the policies which he has taken out for other purposes may exceed certain tax liabilities and he may innocently find that because of the changes in the superannuation system the policies which he has taken out for the mortgage on his house are exposed to heavy tax liabilities. This is a highly technical matter which I do not fully understand, but this point should be ventilated because of the special and peculiar nature of this superannuation scheme.
  The hon. Member for Orpington mentioned the number of policies, and he is absolutely right. When I left the universities, after a quite moderate spell of 16 years, I had 22 policies in my own name. He understated the situation when he spoke of an average of 10. It will
  1882
  be a difficult business to convert this scheme. I welcome the assurance by the Financial Secretary that further negotiations will take place and that the matter will be carefully considered.
  Sir Eric Fletcher: I, too, have had a number of letters from university teachers living in my constituency, and there is no doubt that there is wide concern on this matter. Some of the fears may be misconceived, but the concern is deeply felt.
  I am grateful for the assurances which have been given that none of the existing rights to which members of the F.S.S.U. are entitled will be prejudiced. They are particularly sore about the fact that as they understand it they would be liable to pay tax on their employers' contribution and would lose the existing rights to the lump sum payable on death or retirement. The matter is highly complicated. I very much hope that the anxieties felt by my constituents and university teachers generally will be alleviated and that there will be the fullest possible negotiations.
  Mr. Dean: I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to clarify a few points which are not yet clear. He said that these Clauses represent changes which are both more generous and more flexible for occupational pension schemes. In so far as they do that we welcome them, but there are still a number of uncertainties which I hope he will be able to clarify.
  All hon. Members who have spoken have mentioned the F.S.S.U. scheme, about which there is considerable concern in the universities. The financial Secretary said, and I took down his words, " So far we have not accepted their case." I do not think he was prepared to go further than that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) made it clear that we want to meet the case, but I hope that the Financial Secretary will go further than he has gone since it would be intolerable if no solution were found to this problem. It would put the university staff in a situation in which their contracts would be broken and this is a very serious matter. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will he able to say that a solution to this difficulty will be found. He has mentioned that there is time for this to be done and that

  1883
  it is not the intention that these Clauses should come fully into operation until a new pensions scheme is introduced. That gives a certain amount of time. Indeed it takes us beyond April 1972 since it is highly unlikely that a new pension scheme could be introduced before April 1973 at the earliest.
  The Financial Secretary also said that the Inland Revenue over many years has had discretion in regard to approval of the scheme for tax purposes and that this will be retained. We welcome this statement and I hope that he will be able to clarify the matter a little more. It appears from the Bill that it is a good deal less favourable than the original White Paper of February, 1970 issued by the Inland Revenue on the authority of the Treasury.
  Mr. Taverne Mr. Taverne indicated dissent.
  Mr. Dean: The Financial Secretary shakes his head, but that appears to be the case. This is the impression gained by many pension experts outside who ought to know.
  To give one example, in the case of death or retirement the White Paper stated that the widow's pension could be two-thirds of the maximum of the husband's whereas the Bill appears to state clearly that it can be only half. I am advised that if Schedule 5 of the Bill were to be strictly applied most good schemes would have to cut back the arrangements which now exist. May we have a clear assurance that the Inland Revenue will have discretion as in the past to allow it to approve schemes at least up to the terms and conditions laid down in the White Paper in February, 1970.
  I should like to mention two other brief points which come within the terms of the discretion. The first relates to early retirement. The Bill and the Schedule appear to prevent early retirement other than through incapacity and long term illness, whereas the present practice is that early retirement is normally approved within ten years of the specified retirement age. It is important that this provision should be continued, particularly in these days when redundancy occurs at a comparatively
  1884
  early age but when it is difficult for people to get other employment. Therefore, the provision for earlier retirement is valuable and should be retained.
  Another point relates to death in service, where it appears that the maximum lump sum will be equal to twice the annual salary. Again, I hope that there will be discretion with the Inland Revenue. This would not only appear to be restrictive but even more so than obtains at present. I have in mind the case of a widow who may want to repay a house mortgage. She may have estate duty to pay and may want a lump sum for the education of children. Surely sympathetic treatment should be given in such cases and the restrictions in regard to twice the annual salary would create unnecessary difficulties for widows.
  One can also foresee a situation in a company in which existing employees are offered more than twice annual salary whereas new employees who come along can be offered only twice annual salary. There are obvious difficulties and anomalies which would arise between the two types of employee depending upon when he joined the firm. Furthermore, this could work against mobility. Here, too, I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to say a little more.
  The final point mentioned by my right hon. Friend is one which we regard as extremely important. One of the great omissions in bringing these Inland Revenue rules up to date is that the opportunity has not been taken at the same time to revise the rules for the self-employed which are very much out of date. I refer to the limit of £750 which was laid down a good many years ago, and the fact that there is no provision for commutation. It is much to be regretted that an opportunity has not been taken to make the same sort of up-dated arrangements for the self-employed as has been done for employees.
  To sum up, for the sake of clarity and for the sake of the minimum amount of uncertainty, I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to go a little further than he did in his first speech, especially on the F.S.S.U. problem and also on the other points which have been raised in the debate.
  [Mr. HARRY GOURLAY in the Chair]
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Taverne: Perhaps I might deal, first, with some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean).
  I ought to make it clear that the discretion which would be given to the Revenue would go wider than the provisions of the Bill. The discretion will be up to what is provided in the White Paper. The limits in Part I are for an automatic approval only, and the discretionary approval will be exercised on the lines set out in the White Paper. This includes both death benefits and the age of retirement. Early retirement with immediate pension will be allowed under the discretion within 10 years of normal retirement age.
  On the other point which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, about the death in service restrictions and the lump sum, the White Paper states clearly that the lump sum which will be possible under an approved scheme will be restricted to twice the yearly salary, and the balance must be pension. That was also set out in the White Paper, and the White Paper guidance is intended to be the code under which the discretion will be exercised.
  If I might now mention the self-employed, it was intended that the question of self-employed pensions should be dealt with at the same time as employee-employer pensions. In fact, the proposals by the body concerned with self-employment came in so late that it was not possible to finalise them in time for the Finance Bill. It is unfortunate that these proposals could not be dealt with at the same time, but they came in at a late stage.
  I turn now to the questions relating to the F.S.S.U. and to one or two other points raised by hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) was correct in his very clear summary of the four main points which he understood me to be making. Certainly, I will take note of his suggestion that we might set out formally what has been said today, though I do not feel at first sight that it will be necessary. I hope that what has been said will receive proper publicity, and cer-
  1886
  tainly those concerned with the negotiations are well aware of the position.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) asked for a clear assurance that there would be amending legislation as a result of the discussions. I cannot give him that assurance, of course. I have made it clear that there is an opportunity for amending legislation. Discussions are going on, but I cannot see what the end will be.
  As for the code as a whole, we feel that what is set out in the White Paper is right. It has been welcomed, and it would undo the good work now to say that everything is at large and that we intend to change the main proposals at a later stage. We intend to abide by the main proposals set out in the White Paper.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) asked whether we could not consider relaxing the restrictions on the lump sums payable in approved schemes. The restrictions on the lump sums under paragraph 3 of the Fifth Schedule are an essential part of the scheme. It is a generous provision. The Royal Commission recommended that there should be a severe ceiling on the amount of lump sums which could be payable. The Tucker Commission recommended a higher ceiling. After discussion with the C.B.I. representatives, I came to the conclusion that it was right that a more generous provision should be made, and that is what is provided in paragraph 3.
  One cannot say that there should be no limit, because what is happening is that a concession is being made now which did not exist before. Not only is there tax relief on the contributions. There is tax relief on the build-up of the funds which did not exist before, and then there will be a tax-free lump sum. There must be a limit, and this is contained in paragraph 3.
  Mrs. Lena Jeger: What is the present limit, if any, on the lump sum rights of F.S.S.U. contributors?
  Mr. Taverne: I am not discussing the F.S.S.U. at the moment. I am dealing with the general question. I do not want to mislead the Committee. The point on lump sums which is under discussion at present is the special position of the

  1887
  F.S.S.U. and similar schemes. I cannot give any undertaking about the outcome of the negotiations. The discussions are in process, and I do not know what the outcome will be.
  However, certain matters are clear. There will not be any retrospective removal of rights. Whatever lump sum rights or commutation rights have been earned by the operative date, they will be observed regardless of the outcome of the negotiations.
  A number of fears have been expressed, but again I cannot comment on what the F.S.S.U. would do if the negotiations did not come out as it wished. However, I find it inconceivable that the employees would be under a tax penalty. What might happen is that the F.S.S.U. would have to adapt its scheme so that they avoided the penalty. Anyway, these are matters for negotiations.
  I hope that I have clarified the points which were worrying hon. Members and that, in general, the decision to go ahead will commend itself not only to the Front Bench opposite but to the Committee at large.
  Mr. Gilbert Longden: May I ask three questions about the F.S.S.U.? If the F.S.S.U. is not exempted, is it true that the 10 per cent. employer's contributions will be taxed as additional salary? Secondly, will the death in service benefit be cut by less than half of the present possible rate? Thirdly, will the lump sum payable on retirement be cut to a maximum of 1½ year's final remuneration? I am not quite clear about those three points.
  Mr. Taverne: First, he retains his present rights. Secondly, he will not have to pay any penalty after the operative date if the scheme is adapted. On the question of death in service benefits, if there was no adaptation, again existing rights would not be affected. If there was an adaptation, it would be in line with the White Paper proposals which, generally speaking, improve the position of widows. Again, I must emphasise that existing rights will not be affected in any event. What happens apart from that is a matter for negotiation.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  The Deputy Chairman: If it suits the convenience of the Committee, I suggest that I put the Question on Clauses 22 to 28 together.
  Question, That Clauses 22 to 28 stand part of the Bill, put and agreed to.
  Clauses 22 to 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5

  OCCUPATIONAL PENSION SCHEMES
  Mr. Taverne: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 50, leave out lines 25 to 33 and insert:
  `two-thirds of his final remuneration '.
  Perhaps I might explain that the Amendment is necessary to take out the reference to the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill, which has now been dropped.
  Mr. Dean: I thought that the Financial Secretary was being a little modest for the moment not to " come clean " to the Committee and explain that the effect of the Amendment is to drop the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill. That is something which we on this side warmly welcome.
  Mr. Taverne: This is not a permanent dropping. It is because of temporary exigencies and the requirements of an election.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: No. 26 in page 50, line 39, leave out sub-paragraph (3).—[Mr. Taverne.]
  The following Amendment stood upon the Notice Paper: No. 18, in page 51, line 1, leave out paragraph 3.
  Mrs. Lena Jeger: In view of the generous and welcome assurances which have been given by the Minister, I do not propose to move my Amendment. No. 18.
  Question proposed, That this Schedule, as amended, be the Fifth Schedule to the Bill.
  Mr. Macdonald: I think that it was a little mean of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) not to move her Amendment, although I understand the reasons, because I had hoped to speak to it.

  1889
  I was minded to intervene earlier in the general debate initiated by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod), but I thought I had better not because the point that I want to make does not have any necessary connection with the F.S.S.U. Although my hon. and learned Friend referred to commuting and the limit to the lump sum that could be paid, I decided not to intervene when we were considering particularly the F.S.S.U.
  This Schedule, and, in particular, paragraph 3, setting a limit on the employee's lump sum benefits, is a subject of some anxiety to those in occupational schemes. If my hon. and learned Friend could find time to write to me afterwards to explain the necessity for paragraph 3 in this form, I should be grateful.
  Members of the National Union of Bank Employees have pointed out to me that this paragraph will impose a serious restriction on the amount of lump sum benefits that they can enjoy. An example was quoted to me of a man retiring on a terminal salary of £2,100, which I suggest is neither striking nor extraordinary. Under the provisions prevailing in most banks now he would be entitled to claim a lump sum upon retirement of £3,500, whereas it is calculated, under the provisions of paragraph 3, that the maximum lump sum that he would be able to get is £3,150. This is quite an appreciable reduction.
  A new limit is being set reducing the lump sum payment that people in this position may receive. I should he glad to know the reason for imposing a restriction where no restriction now exists. I understand the argument that there must be a limit—I do not dissent from that—but I should like to know why existing limits have to be reduced apparently so that they may receive a much less attractive lump sum payment on retirement than they can now.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: I should like to take the opportunity of asking the Financial Secretary to say something on a somewhat technical but important point about which I wrote to the Chancellor when I anticipated that we would have greater opportunities to debate these parts of
  1890
  the Finance Bill. I made clear to the Chancellor that I was in some ways an interested party to the case that I was putting, but that so were many others and that it had wider implications for them than for myself.
  The first indications given by the Inland Revenue in a particular instance which I brought to the Chancellor's notice were to the effect that where an employer decided to consolidate a number of pension schemes operated within a single group of companies, that consolidation would be regarded as the establishment of a new scheme and the right to preserve the death in service benefit in excess of double salary could not be carried forward in respect of the individuals concerned. I believe that this is contrary to the spirit of the Inland Revenue publication of February and that it is a substantial obstruction to a more orderly and sensible administration of pension schemes.
  I can spell the matter out in a few sentences. The situation arises where there is a merger of a number of companies under a single company and it is in everybody's interests, in the interests of equity and administration, that the existing schemes operating in the individual segments of the new enlarged group should be brought into a single consolidated scheme. In those cases it is reasonable that the discretion should be exercised so that the consolidated scheme, which is a scheme in which people are still in the employment of the same employer as previously, should not have the effect of depriving them of the continuation of the same level, or the same formula, of provision of lump sum death benefit as they would have been able to retain had a number of separate schemes been continued in operation by the same employer.
  The indications brought to my notice were that this would not be the case. If this is not allowed, it will mean that employers will not wind up and consolidate individual schemes, because they would be doing so to the grave embarrassment of their employees—the very employees to which the Revenue's statement shows clearly it understood there was a case for giving consideration, namely, the more highly paid employees in the higher age groups.
  Before leaving the Schedule, I hope that the Financial Secretary will tell us,

  1891
  first, that there is scope under the proposed legislation for discretion to be exercised in these cases. Secondly, it would be even more welcome if he could indicate that that discretion would be exercised in these cases. I am sure that what I am asking for is entirely within the spirit of the paper published in February. I am also sure that it is highly desirable in the interests of efficient and economic operation of pension schemes and in order that there shall not be an obstruction of the process of industrial merging and regrouping of industry, to which the Government are always drawing our attention as a favourable aspect of economic development under their own policies.
  But in this case, for some reason which no doubt has a technical foundation, they seem to be extremely reluctant to allow what is in effect the continuation of a contract between the same employer and the same employee, the employer merely wanting to put a number of pension schemes operating alongside each other into a single pension scheme without depriving his employee of rights he would be able to retain if that change were not made.
  Mr. Taverne: First, may I refer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald). It is true that some of the bank schemes have special commutation factors which turn the one-and-a-quarter lump-sum which is now allowed into nearly two years' lump-sum instead of one-and-a-half-years lump-sum which is now proposed. I have to say to my hon. Friend that, certainly in the future, it looks as though bank employee schemes will have to come into line with the schemes which are being proposed by the Inland Revenue, but again there is no question of retrospective effect. There is no question of taking away rights which have been earned, or which will have been earned at the operative date. Past rights will be allowed on the two-year basis, but for the future they will have to fit into the one-and-a-half-year pattern.
  My hon. Friend asked what justification there is for the one-and-a-half-year limitation. Perhaps I should explain the
  1892
  matter more fully than I did the last time I mentioned this. The Royal Commission said in effect that there is no justification whatsoever for allowing any tax-free lump-sums at all. It said that there has been a build-up of a sum from contributions which have had tax relief, and a person cannot have tax relief on the lump-sum as well, because he has already had his tax relief. The Royal Commission said, however, that since the practice has been established of giving these lump-sums we cannot abolish it altogether, and therefore let us put a limitation on it. That was the argument advanced by the Royal Commission, and it was also very much the argument advanced by the Tucker Commission.
  In principle, the case is irresistible that there should not be any tax-free lump sums at all, but in practice, as they have been allowed for a long time, it would be extremely harsh to say that we shall abolish them. It becomes very difficult to draw a line at any specific sum. That is why we have said that there should be a limit—there must be a limit—to which other taxpayers can subsidise tax-free benefits for some. If there must be a limit, let it be one-and-a-half-times final salary.
  On the point made by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) it is true—and I say this quite frankly—that the Inland Revenue has had some difficulty in deciding the limits of the protection for death benefits enjoyed on 26th February, and the example which the hon. Gentleman has given, and about which he wrote to the Chancellor, is typical of the difficulties which arise. The Inland Revenue hoped to be able to meet the hon. Gentleman's request—this is a matter for the exercise of the discretion—but it has not quite seen a way through the complications as yet. It has not quite seen what conditions must be met, but the hon. Gentleman should get a reply very soon, and I hope that it will be possible to meet his case.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 29 to 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32

  MINOR AMENDMENTS AS TO DISCRETIONARY TRUSTS
  Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I cannot resist the temptation to say a few words about subsection (4). We have come to estate duty and the Financial Secretary will remember that last year we spent many happy hours struggling to get this right. The hon. and learned Gentleman and I were on our own on this duty hour after hour trying to get it right.
  The Financial Secretary will remember that in Committee upstairs over my loud and vocal protests, he moved the inclusion in what is now paragraph 7 of the Seventeenth Schedule to last year's Finance Act the famous words, " subsisting at the date of the earlier death ". On Report I continue to protest loudly and even more vocally, and I called in aid the fact that I had had consultations with many members of the Chancery Bar who said that I was right and the hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong. However, the Financial Secretary was very wise because at that point he said:
  " I would not like to rule out on first impression something that he says he has not only carefully considered himself—he is no mean expert on estate duty—but has discussed with members of the Chancery Bar. In the circumstances, I would like to look at that point to see whether a change must be made subsequently."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th July, 1969; Vol. 787, c. 996–97.]
  I am glad that wisdom has prevailed. The words ought never to have been there. They are now being taken out by subsection (4), and I should like to express my warm and heartfelt thanks and hope that nobody has been seriously prejudiced in the intervening year. This is a narrow point, but I am glad to know that right is on this side of the Committee.
  Mr. Taverne: I offer my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 33
  ABOLITION OF CERTAIN STAMP DUTIES, AND AMENDMENTS AS TO RATES AND OTHER MATTERS
  Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. John Smith: I must apologise for making rather a footling electioneering point during the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), and I should like to make amends now by being fair and saying that far the greatest achievement of the Labour Government has been the abolition of the 2d. stamp duty on cheques. I go further and say that it is the most important achievement of any Labour Government since the abolition of the 1d. stamp duty on proxies by Sir Stafford Cripps in 1948.
  I have made many speeches in this House—I am surprised on looking them up to find both how many there are and how good they are—on the subject of stamp duty. I hope that I may have played some part in getting rid of this ridiculous tax collected in the shape of 2d. on cheques. Having dipped this cautious toe into the icy waters of stamp duty reform, may I encourage the Government to plunge in and abolish some of the 6d. stamp duties as well.
  I shall not weary the Committee by going through the arguments about stamp duty—they are all recorded in HANSARD —but it is a most obsolete and damaging tax. As we know, it is even older than the Inland Revenue, and it exists only because the levying of taxes then was not a very refined business and we did not have the Inland Revenue to do it. It is extremely uneven in its incidence. It is extremely complicated. There are 171 different cases of stamp duty, 350 separate relevant law cases, and there has been no consolidation of the duty for 78 years.
  I know that in debates on Finance Bills Treasury spokesmen are very fond of producing reasons, drawn from other countries, why what they propose to do is sensible. They say that such-and-such a tax is much more onerous in Yugoslavia. I very much dislike this argument, but it so happens on this Clause that argument can be adduced from

  1895
  foreign countries. There is no stamp duty in good old Sweden, which is so much admired by the Labour Party. There is no stamp duty in China, but, on the other hand, there is stamp duty in South Africa.
  I hope that having embarked on this course the Government will now look carefully at the question of stamp duty, and especially the cost of collection. It costs more to collect than any other tax. From that we can build up an argument that it is a counter-productive tax—that the costs in which it involves the community reduce the yield to the revenue of other taxes. I hope that whichever Government are returned on 18th June will, next year, take another bite at this obsolete and damaging tax, which is suited only to primitive communities.
  Mr. William Rodgers: I take the hon. Gentleman's words to be more kindly than barbed, and I appreciate what he has said. I am only sorry that he will not be here over the years to urge the course that he has recommended. We shall take into account what he has said.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6

  STAMP DUTIES
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. William Rodgers: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 59, line 14, leave out from " from " to end of line 15, and insert " 1st February, 1971 ".
  The purpose of the Amendment is to bring forward from 15th February, 1971 —Decimalisation Day—to 1st February, 1970, the date of the abolition of bill of exchange duty and receipt duty. The main purpose is to help the banks, because they have made representations to us to the effect that abolition on 15th February, as the Bill at present provides, would add to the heavy administrative burdens involved in decimalisation.
  The duty brings in about £11 million a year, which is approximately £200,000 a week, which we should be reluctant to lose, but because of this and another Amendment it is likely that the loss of revenue will be counterbalanced. For that reason I hope that the Committee
  1896
  will feel that the Amendment is acceptable.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. William Rodgers: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 59, line 22, at end insert:
  (3) No application for relief in respect of the duty referred to in sub-paragraph (2)(a) above may be made under any of sections 9 to 12 of the Stamp Duties Management Act 1891 (spoiled, misused and unwanted stamps); and no repayment shall be made under any agreement entered into under section 39 of the Finance Act 1956 (composition for the said duty by bankers) in respect of any form supplied by a banker to a customer and returned to the banker unused or spoiled on or after the said 1st February.
  The purpose of the Amendment follows from what I have just said. We feel that this is a reasonable Amendment that will, on the whole, be administratively acceptable and, at the same time, preserve the revenue.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 34, 36 and 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 9

  TAXATION OF MINERAL ROYALTIES
  (1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, a person resident or ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom who in any year of assessment or accounting period is entitled to receive mineral royalties under a mineral lease or agreement shall be treated—

  (a) for purposes of income tax (including surtax), or as the case may be for purposes of corporation tax on profits exclusive of chargeable gains, as if the total of the mineral royalties receivable by him under that lease or agreement in that year or period and any management expenses available for set-off against those royalties in that year or period were each reduced by one half; and

  (b) for purposes of Part III of the Finance Act 1965, or as the case may be for purposes of corporation tax on chargeable gains, as if there accrued to him in that year or period a chargeable gain equal to the relevant fraction of the total of the mineral royalties receivable by him under that lease or agreement in that year or period;

  and this section shall have effect notwithstanding any provision of section 156(1) of the Taxes Act (rent etc. payable in connection with mines, quarries and similar concerns) making the whole of certain kinds of mineral royalties chargeable to tax under Schedule D, but without prejudice to any provision of that section

  1897
  providing for any such royalties to be subject to deduction of income tax under Part II of the Taxes Act.
  (2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) above, " management expenses available for set-off " against royalties means—

  (a) where section 158 of the Taxes Act (expenses of owners of mineral rights) applies in respect of the royalties, any sums brought into account under subsection (1) of that section in determining the amount of the repayment of income tax in respect of those royalties or, as the case may be, deductible from those royalties under subsection (2) of that section in computing the income of a company for purposes of corporation tax; and

  (b) if the royalties are chargeable to tax under Schedule A, any sums deductible under Part III of the Taxes Act as payments made in respect of management of the property concerned, including amounts of betterment levy treated as such payments under paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 to that Act;

  and if neither paragraph (a) nor paragraph (b) above applies, the reference in subsection (1)(a) above to management expenses available for set-off shall be disregarded.
  (3) The relevant fraction referred to in subsection (1)(b) above in relation to the mineral royalties receivable under a mineral lease or agreement—

  (a) shall be one half if betterment levy was not chargeable in respect of the grant of that lease or agreement and has not subsequently become chargeable on any renewal, extension or variation of the mineral lease or agreement;

  (b) shall be determined in accordance with Part I of Schedule (Taxation of capital element in mineral royalties) to this Act if, on the last disposition affecting the lease or agreement and giving rise to an assessment to betterment levy, betterment levy was chargeable under Case B within the meaning of Part III of the Land Commission Act 1967; and

  (c) in any other case shall be determined in accordance with regulations made by the Board by statutory instrument, and any such regulations shall secure, so far as practicable, that account is taken of any betterment levy chargeable in respect of a disposition affecting the mineral lease or agreement on a basis comparable with that in the said Part I;

  and notwithstanding anything in the enactments relating to the computation of chargeable gains, the amount of the chargeable gain treated as accruing to any person by virtue of subsection (1)(b) above shall be the whole amount calculated in accordance with that subsection, and accordingly no reduction shall be made on account of expenditure incurred by that person or of any other matter whatsoever.
  (4) Where subsection (1) above applies in relation to mineral royalties receivable under a mineral lease or agreement by a person not chargeable to corporation tax in respect of those royalties, then in so far as the amount of income tax paid, by deduction or otherwise,
  1898
  by him in respect of those mineral royalties in any year of assessment exceeds the amount of income tax, exclusive of surtax for which he is liable in respect of those royalties by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above,—

  (a) the amount of the excess shall in the first instance be set against the tax for which he is chargeable by virtue of subsection (1)(b) above; and

  (b) on the making of a claim in that behalf, he shall be entitled to repayment of tax in respect of the balance of that excess.

  (5) The provisions of Part II of Schedule (Taxation of capital element in mineral royalties) to this Act shall have effect in relation to capital losses which accrue during the currency of a mineral lease or agreement.
  (6) In this section and in Schedule (Taxation of capital element in mineral royalties) to this Act, references to mineral royalties refer only to royalties receivable on or after 6th April 1970, and the expression " mineral royalties " means so much of any rents, tolls, royalties and other periodical payments in the nature of rent payable under a mineral lease or agreement as relates to the winning and working of minerals; and the Board may by regulations made by statutory instrument—

  (a) provide whether, and to what extent, payments made under a mineral lease or agreement and relating both to the winning and working of minerals and to other matters are to be treated as mineral royalties; and

  (b) provide for treating the whole of such payments as mineral royalties in cases where the extent to which they relate to matters other than the winning and working of minerals is small.

  (7) In this section and in Schedule (Taxation of capital element in mineral royalties) to this Act—
  " minerals " means all minerals and substances in or under land which are ordinarily worked for removal by underground or surface working, but excluding water, peat, top-soil and vegetation; and
  " mineral lease or agreement " means—

  (a) a lease, profit a prendre, licence or other agreement conferring a right to win and work minerals in the United Kingdom;

  (b) a contract for the sale, or a conveyance, of minerals in or under land in the United Kingdom; and

  (c) a grant of a right under section 1 of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966, other than an ancillary right within the meaning of that Act.

  (8) A statutory instrument made in the exercise of any power conferred on the Board by this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament.
  (9) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland—

  (a) paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (3) above shall not apply but the relevant fraction referred to in subsection (1)(b) above shall be one half;

  1899

  b) references to mineral royalties include references—

  (i) to periodical payments of compensation under section 29 or section 35 of the Mineral Development Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 or under section 4 of the Petroleum (Production) Act (Northern Ireland) 1964; and

  (ii) to periodical payments made as mentioned in section 37 of the said Act of 1969 or under section 55(4)(b) of that Act or under section 11 of the said Act of 1964 (payments in respect of minerals to persons entitled to a share of royalties under section 13(3) of the Irish Land Act 1903); and

  (c) in the application of this section to any such payments as are referred to in paragraph (b) above, subsection (5) above shall be omitted, and references in any other provision of this section to the mineral lease or agreement under which mineral royalties are payable shall be construed as references to the enactment under which the payments are made.—[Mr. William Rodgers.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Rodgers: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  The Deputy Chairman: It will be convenient for the Committee to discuss, at the same time, Amendment No. 17—the new Schedule.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkins: It would be churlish if my hon. Friends and I did not express our gratitude to the Government for having, at a comparatively late stage in these proceedings, made what is by any standards an important change of the law, in enacting an important relieving provision.
  The new Clause and the Schedule that goes with it will significantly relieve the tax burden on landowners who become entitled to mining royalties. As I understand, the case has been put forward solely on the ground—there may be peripheral arguments—that the burden of taxation, due to the rapid receipt of royalties over a short period, constitutes such a disincentive that certain commercially valuable mining deposits are left unmined and certain economic activities that are useful both for the nation and for our balance of payments do not take place.
  This is a case where high taxation was undoubtedly providing a severe and totally inhibiting disincentive to important and valuable commercial activity. The only distinguishing factor about the case was that the injured parties were
  1900
  able to produce the body and point to the wounds. In this case it could be proved that something was not happening which, if taxation were lower, might happen. The question that we are inevitably forced to ask ourselves is: how many other cases are there of desirable commercial activity not being carried out because of the penal rates of taxation that can affect people at the margin?
  That is the real message of the Clause. It is valuable, and we welcome it, but it is merely one example where the Government have found it necessary to move in and relieve from tax citizens who otherwise would face such a high burden that the game would simply not be worth the candle, and mining activities would not take place. That fact lies at the heart of the tax philosophy of the party that I represent. We believe that high taxation is a severe disincentive. The Government have always denied this, but in this case they have admitted it and acted on it. How many other cases are there on which they ought to act?
  Mr. Carol Johnson: I am reluctant to introduce a somewhat critical element into this mutually congratulatory atmosphere, but the fact that the new Clause was not included in the original Budget statement or in the Finance Bill means that outside the House it has not received the attention that it merits. Although in outlining the proposal in the Second Reading debate the Chief Secretary stated that it had been discussed with the interests concerned, I suspect that he was thinking solely of those likely to benefit from the tax concession.
  I want to refer to some of the other interests that have not been consulted, but that have some apprehensions about the possible effect of the proposal upon some parts of the countryside. I should have thought that it was at least agreed that there was a broad national interest to be taken into account, especially in Conservation Year, and when we are on the eve of an election during which I feel certain that members of all three political parties will be pledging themselves to the urgent necessity of protecting our environment.
  We are already faced with a specifically difficult problem in respect of derelict land. It is commonly thought of as a legacy of the Industrial Resolution, and

  1901
  it is certainly an appalling one. The latest authoritative figures I have been able to find show that in England and Wales in 1954 there were no fewer than 14,187 sites covering over 126,000 acres. Although some of this land has been reclaimed since then, the process of reclamation is very slow.
  It is not generally realised that the scale of continuing dereliction remains significant. About 3,000 acres of land are being used each year for surface mineral workings alone, and half of these are left derelict. Thus, we already have a state of affairs in which no fewer than 1,500 acres of dereliction are being created each year for mineral workings alone.
  Because of this situation, and the problems it creates, the control of mineral workings is dealt with in several Acts of Parliament and innumerable Regulations and Circulars. Now, the Chancellor makes a proposal which will inevitably add to the problem. A responsible spokesman for the Country Landowners' Association has claimed, according to The Times, that this action by the Government opens up the path to a major development of mineral resources, while one of the possible developers has said, again according to The Times, that it is a substantial step towards encouraging major groups to exploit and develop mineral deposits in the United Kingdom, a purpose which, I understand, the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) strongly approves.
  No doubt, I shall be told by the Financial Secretary that these are matters for the planning authorities and that we can leave it to them to deal with any conflict which may arise in regard to change of land use. It is true that planning authorities in general are concerned with competing pressures on land and with the resolution of conflicting demands. But—it is an important " but " —proposals for mineral working invariably raise issues of more than local importance and often involve technical considerations which require expert opinion of a character more easily available to a Government Department, and in practice many of these applications are called in by the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
  1902
  Can the Financial Secretary tell me what consultations his Department has had with his right hon. Friend about the implications of the new policy, particularly in those sensitive areas of the countryside in which the giving of priority to the extraction of minerals over amenity and other forms of land use might have grave results?
  I am not arguing that amenity considerations should be paramount. They are only one of the factors to be taken into account. But I should like an assurance that the considerable extension of mineral workings which is now likely to take place will not be allowed in any way to override, restrict or limit the present policy followed by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, namely, that they shall be carried out with proper regard for the appearance and other amenities of the area and that, when the working is finished, the land should, wherever practicable, not be left derelict, as it has been in the past, but be restored or otherwise treated with a view to bringing it back into some form of beneficial use.
  I can quite see that in the older industrial areas which have already been ravaged by past development further mineral working will not in some cases materially change the appearance of the area, and I understand that it is in development areas where the new tax concession is intended as a direct incentive. But in other parts of the country—
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I think it right to say that there is no specific provision confining this to development areas. It could apply to a mine in Lewisham or in Woodford, as to one on the Yorkshire Moors or in Cornwall.
  Mr. Johnson: Exactly. In other parts of the country different considerations apply, and any new working for minerals ought. I suggest, to be more strictly controlled than in the past. There must be many hon. Members who have been disturbed, as I have, by reading the article in The Times today about the possible effects of mining activity, in that case open pit working in the Snowdonia National Park. This raises relevant questions about how much further mining can be allowed in such areas without wrecking the very environment the status

  1903
  of which as a National Park is meant to be preserved. I am thinking here of farming activities and forestry as well as mere amenity.
  I feel that I need not apologise to the Committee for having dealt with this aspect of the matter. Hon. Members may think that some of the points which I have raised are extraneous, but I should like to feel that the implications of the policy are fully appreciated before the Committee passes the Clause. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will be able to assure me that all the interests concerned, not only those of the land owners and developers, will be taken into account, and that, should any new administrative arrangements become necessary to guard against the dangers to which I have referred, they will be made.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Taverne: First, I thank the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) for his welcome to the new Clause. Second, I greatly admire his ingenuity in seeking to extract a political point out of it. What he says about incentives is wholly inappropriate. There is no parallel to this situation, which, as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary fully explained on Second Reading, is a special situation arising out of the very high royalties obtainable for a short time through the recent technological developments in deep mining.
  I come now to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson). I agree entirely that these proposals have not received the attention which they deserve, first, because they open the way to an enormous saving on the balance of payments—that was not the point which my hon. Friend had in mind—and second, because they mean that there will be a lot of useful work in development areas.
  My hon. Friend's special concern is with the planning aspects and the possible danger to the environment. The new Clause does not come into play—to some extent my hon. Friend recognised this—until planning permission has been given. There may be some extra exploration which takes place, but no question of working and winning minerals and paying tax on them arises until
  1904
  after planning permission has been given. The planning authorities are in on the question from the very first, and all the considerations to which my hon. Friend referred, to which, obviously, the greatest attention must be paid, will be very much in mind at the planning stage.
  My hon. Friend asked whether we had consulted the Ministry of Housing and Local Government on the matter as environment might well be affected. We did not consult the Ministry of Housing and Local Government at that stage. This was a piece of technical tax legislation on which one would not normally consult other departments, particularly when the planning aspects were in any event matters over which that Ministry would retain full control. However, when the Clause was tabled, we did, naturally, consult the Ministry of Housing about the effects. Our discussions showed that the Ministry thinks that, far from hampering protection of the environment and conservation, the Clause may actually be of help, the reason being—I am sure that my hon. Friend will be glad to hear this —that it covers payments for the right to extract mineral from waste material in spoil heaps.
  The Ministry of Housing and Local Government thinks that the improved tax treatment of these payments should help in the efforts being made to have old tips cleared away from derelict land. This is an important matter in the environment, and part of a policy which should be enhanced and furthered by this tax concession. I hope, therefore, that these proposals will be welcomed on all sides.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

Schedule 7

  REPEALS
  Mr. William Rodgers: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 67, line 27, leave out ' 15TH FEBRUARY 1971 ' and insert 1st FEBRUARY 1971 '.
  The Amendment is consequential to the Amendments which the Committee has already agreed to in Schedule 6.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Rodgers: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 67, line 28, at end insert:

  7 Geo. 4, c. 6.

  The Bank Notes Act 1826.

  Section 7.

  This and the following two Amendments are essentially tidying up Amendments.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: No. 15, in page 67, line 43, at end insert:

  45 & 46 Vict., c. 61.

  The Bills of Exchange Act 1882.

  In section 20(1) th word " stamped ". and the words " the stamp will cover ".

  No. 16, in page 68, line 26, at end insert—

  61 & 62 Vict., c. 46.

  The Revenue Act 1898.

  Section 8.

  No. 22, in Schedule 7, page 69, line 43, leave out 15th February 1971 ' and insert 1st February 1971 '.—[Mr. William Rodgers.]
  Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.

  New Schedule
    TAXATION OF CAPITAL ELEMENT IN MINERAL ROYALTIES
      PART I

        CALCULATION OF CAPITAL ELEMENT
        1. In a case falling within paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of section (Taxation of mineral royalties) of this Act, that is to say in a case where betterment levy was chargeable under Case B on the last disposition affecting the mineral lease or agreement concerned and giving rise to an assessment to betterment levy, the relevant fraction referred to in subsection (1)(b) of that section is:—
        B/2C
        where—
        B is the base value realised by that disposition, and
        C is the amount of the consideration for the disposition.
        2. Expressions used in paragraph 1 above have the same meanings in that paragraph as they have for the purposes of assessing betterment levy under Case B within the meaning of Part III of the Land Commission Act 1967.

      PART II

        TERMINAL LOSS RELIEF
        3.—(1) The provisions of this Part of this Schedule apply in a case where, at the time
        1906
        of the occurrence of a relevant event in relation to a mineral lease or agreement, the person who immediately before that event occurred was entitled to receive mineral royalties under the lease or agreement, (in this Part of this Schedule referred to as " the taxpayer ") has an interest in the land to which the mineral lease or agreement relates (in this Part of this Schedule referred to, in relation to the lease or agreement, as " the relevant interest ").
        (2) For the purposes of this Part of this Schedule a relevant event occurs in relation to a mineral lease or agreement —

        (a) on the expiry or termination of the mineral lease or agreement;

        (b) if the relevant interest is disposed of, or is treated as having been disposed of by virtue of any provision of Part III of the Finance Act 1965 (capital gains).

        4.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, on the expiry or termination of a mineral lease or agreement the taxpayer shall, if he makes a claim in that behalf, be treated for purposes of capital gains tax, or as the case may be corporation tax on chargeable gains, as if he had disposed of and immediately re-acquired the relevant interest for a consideration equal to its market value, but without prejudice to the operation of section 33 of the Finance Act 1967 (amount of chargeable gain calculated by reference to current use value unless the taxpayer elects to the contrary).
        (2) A claim may not he made under this paragraph —

        (a) if the expiry or termination of the mineral lease or agreement is also a relevant event falling within paragraph 3(2)(b) above; nor

        (b) unless, on the notional disposal referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above, an allowable loss would accrue to the taxpayer.

        (3) In the following provisions of this Part of this Schedule " the terminal loss ". in relation to a relevant event in respect of which a claim is made under this paragraph, means the allowable loss which accrues to the taxpayer by virtue of the notional disposal occurring on that relevant event by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above.
        5.—(1) On making a claim under paragraph 4 above, the taxpayer shall specify whether he requires the terminal loss to be dealt with in accordance with this paragraph or with paragraph 7 below.
        (2) Where the taxpayer requires the loss to be dealt with in accordance with this paragraph it shall be treated as an allowable loss accruing to him in the year of assessment or accounting period in which the mineral lease or agreement expires.
        6.—(1) If on the occurrence of a relevant event falling within paragraph 3(2)(b) above, an allowable loss accrues to the taxpayer on the disposal or notional disposal which constitutes that relevant event, the taxpayer may make a claim under this paragraph requiring the loss to be dealt with in accordance with paragraph 7 below and not in any other way.
        (2) In the following provisions of this part of this Schedule " the terminal loss " in relation to a relevant event in respect of which a claim

        1907
        is made under this paragraph means the allowable loss which accrues to the taxpayer as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above.
        7.—(1) Where, as a result of a claim under paragraph 4 or paragraph 6 above, the terminal loss is to be dealt with in accordance with this paragraph, then, subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, it shall be deducted from or set off against the amount on which the taxpayer was chargeable to capital gains tax, or as the case may be corporation tax, for years of assessment or accounting periods preceding the year of assessment or accounting period in which occurred the relevant event giving rise to the terminal loss and falling wholly or partly within the period of fifteen years ending with the date of that event.
        (2) The amount of the terminal loss which, by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above, is to be deducted from or set off against the amount on which the taxpayer was chargeable to capital gains tax, or as the case may be corporation tax, for any year of assessment or accounting period shall not exceed the amount of the gain which in that year or period was treated, by virtue of subsection (1)(b) of section (Taxation of mineral royalties) of this Act, as accruing to the taxpayer in respect of mineral royalties under the mineral lease or agreement in question: and subject to this limit any relief given to the taxpayer by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above shall be given as far as possible for a later rather than an earlier year of assessment or accounting period.
        (3) If in any case where relief has been given to the taxpayer in accordance with sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) above there remains an unexpended balance of the terminal loss which cannot be applied in accordance with those sub-paragraphs, there shall be treated as accruing to the taxpayer in the year of assessment or accounting period in which the relevant event occurs an allowable loss equal to that unexpended balance.
        8.—(1) No claim under paragraph 4 or paragraph 6 above shall be allowed unless it is made within six years from the date of the relevant event by virtue of which the taxpayer is entitled to make the claim.
        (2) All such repayments of tax shall be made as may be necessary to give effect to any such claim.
        9. This Part of this Schedule shall be construed as one with Part III of the Finance Act 1965.—[Mr. Taverne.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
        Bill reported, with Amendments: as amended, considered forthwith, pursuant to the Order of the House yesterday.

  Clause 35

    SAVINGS BANKS INTEREST RATES
    Amendment proposed: No. 19, in page 32, line 21, at end insert:
    (2) An order under subsection (1)(a) above, so far as it relates to interest for a period
    1908
    before 1st January 1972, may be made so as to apply only as respects deposits in accounts not closed before that date, or so as to make different provision for such deposits, and other deposits.—[Mr. Taverne.]
    Mr. Higgins: We should have some explanation of the Amendment from the Financial Secretary. I understand it to be permissive. It does not bind the Government, but simply enables them to make an upward change in the interest rate if they wish to do so. There is perhaps a point which should be made clear. It would appear that what the Government will do under the Amendment is to make a change, but with the higher rate applying only to all those who have deposits in their account during 1971 under certain circumstances. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman make it clear whether that is the case, because there is one question that I would like to ask him if that is so?
    Mr. Taverne: The reason for the Amendment is the computerisation programme taking place in the National Savings Bank. It is in the middle of an operation that will eventually lead to all accounts being handled by computer. The operation will not be complete until about 1974. Meanwhile, all new accounts opened in the recent past are handled by computer, but the rest are dealt with manually. About one-tenth of the 23 million accounts will be on the computer by 1971. If the interest rate is changed the computer will have to be re-programmed to pay a higher rate of interest. If a change in the rate were announced this autumn, the reprogramming operation would take most of the time between the date of the announcement and the end of 1971. A further complication Is that the programming timetable is already heavily committed with preparations for decimalisation. It would therefore not be possible for the computer to pay a higher rate of interest during the year on those accounts closed during the year.
    Nor would it be feasible to take such accounts off the computer when they are closed and make the necessary adjustment by hand. It would require the recruitment of 200 extra staff. Recruitment is difficult, and the difficulties that would follow recruitment specially for this would be intolerable. This is in many ways unfortunate, because the effect

    1909
    is that if the interest rate is raised the increased rate would be payable only, in the case of a National Savings Bank account, on those accounts which remain open the whole financial year. Even if there had been withdrawals during the year, one could still pay an increased rate of interest at the end of the year on the sums in an account during the course of the year, but it would not be possible, because of these complications, to pay the increased rate of interest if accounts had been closed before the end of the year.
    This position will be made absolutely clear by the National Savings Department to account holders. They will be told that if they leave something—even a nominal sum—in the account until the end of the year they will be able to receive the increased rate of interest if there is a rise in the rate, but in other circumstances the only sum payable will be 2½ per cent.
    For example, if someone withdrew after 11 months of 1971 £90 out of an account which held £100, but left in £10 until the end of the year, he would receive the new rate of interest not only on the £10 for 12 months, but on the £90 for 11 months. But if he withdrew the entire amount and closed the account at any period before the end of the 12 months in 1971, only the previous lower interest rates would be payable.
    Mr. Higgins: I am most grateful to the Financial Secretary for making it clear. We seem to have changed from the normal argument when the Government reject an Amendment saying that something is administratively not possible to an argument which says that something must be administratively convenient. It raises a point which, while the sums involved are not enormous, is of some principle.
    If I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman correctly, anyone can obtain the interest on the amount he has deposited during 1971 on a month-to-month basis as he normally would, provided he leaves a small sum in the account —even if it is a penny, presumably. Therefore, I can see that the hardship would not be very great, because anyone in that position, provided he happened to see the publicity, would leave in the
    1910
    penny, so that at the end of the year he receives the whole of his interest. But presumably a tremendous number of accounts will end up with pennies in them, which is not a very tidy arrangement.
    What worries me about the principle concerned is that it means that anyone who happens inadvertently or deliberately to close his account actually loses the interest which he would otherwise receive whereas someone in the same position who happens to leave ld. in the account gets it. This seems an arbitrary procedure. We can see the administrative arguments the hon. and learned Gentleman has put but we urge him to ensure that publicity is as thorough as possible. We have great reservations about the principle which, in the light of his explanation, gives cause for concern.
    Mr. Taverne: The hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) is right to feel concerned. So did I. We explored carefully whether it would not be possible to get round this very unsatisfactory state of affairs but the administrative complications would have been enormous if we had not taken this power, assuming that there would be alterations in the interest rates. It would not have been defensible to have employed 200 extra staff for this one purpose for one year, as I am sure he would agree. In the circumstances, we have no alternative but he is right in saying that it is very important that the holders of National Savings Bank accounts should be aware of this position and we will ensure through publicity that they are.
    I should add that this provision does not of course apply to trustee savings banks.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. Higgins: This is perhaps not so much a Third Reading as a funeral oration. Indeed, it looks as though the number of mourners is diminishing rapidly. But there are one or two points in conclusion which should be made on Third Reading.
    The Bill has been put through in most exceptional circumstances and it is a matter of great regret that we have not

    1911
    had the opportunity to debate as we would have wished a number of the proposals embodied in it. Usually on a Finance Bill, we discuss the details of each Clause line by line with the catalystic effect of actually having Amendments before us which concentrate our minds on the detailed points to which we should give attention. There is probably no half-way house between the normal situation of discussing a Finance Bill line by line and this situation in which we have given the Bill virtually no serious consideration. The kind of debate we have had today is not a satisfactory arrangement.
    For this, of course, the Government must take the responsibility and the Prime Minister most of all. If it is true, as he told the nation on television, that the date of the election was originally decided by himself immediately after the last general election—namely, on 1st April, 1966—one might have thought that he would make provision for an arrangement whereby we could debate the Clauses of the Bill in detail and with adequate time.
    It is said that, in today's discussions, the Financial Secretary should have to say things like, " Perhaps the top of the paragraph on page 11 holds the key to the question put to me by the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster ", or that he was sorry but he did not think that he had found all the answers. I feel bound to add, on the other hand, that we have not found all the questions because we have not had time adequately to consult the various interests affected by the Bill.
    I want to say a special word to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury because presumably this is the last economic debate of this Parliament. He above all others has carried the burden of economic debates throughout this Parliament. He alone has continued in his high office throughout. I would say to him a personal word of thanks for the courteous way he invariably has dealt with matters of great complexity and controversy. But again, when we return to today's discussions, the best argument he could put —and he always finds the best arguments available to him—was that he was sorry that there had not been adequate time to discuss one of the Clauses but that it was at least a relieving clause. But not all the Clauses in the Bill are relieving.
    1912
    Many of them have a profound and serious effect on many people.
    I thought that it was worth looking up the precedents for this, because a somewhat similar situation arose in 1955. The Third Reading on that occasion was moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, whom hon. Members on both sides of the House will greatly miss in future debates and whom we wish every success in his new vocation. That Bill had only one Clause and three Schedules and was, therefore, a much simpler matter which one could debate reasonably in the short time available. It is interesting to note that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer at column 957 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 27th April, 1955, stressed that the important thing was that the standard rate of income tax ought to be abolished. It is not something which we have found the present Government introducing.
    Grave concern has been expressed today about the way in which we have not been able to debate in great detail the controversy about occupational pension schemes, although we were able to debate the Clause dealing with them. There has been a change since the Budget debates. We have had the recent announcement of improved rates of supplementary benefit, which we welcome. This is a change since the Budget and I am not entirely clear whether it appears anywhere in the " red book ", or whether the situation in the " red book " is altered, or whether there is an item which will have to be changed in the coming financial year.
    Our debates today have not been very partisan. The general atmosphere has been that of getting on with the detailed consideration of the Bill. But there has been reason to be concerned about the way in which during the debates on the Budget and on the Finance Bill the Chancellor has not answered questions about the serious misgivings about the present price explosion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod) described the Budget as a " one-month Budget " when the Chancellor introduced it. As has been rightly pointed out, in a sense it became only a two-week Budget, because inflation eroded the so-called concessions which

    1913
    the Chancellor made almost immediately. Although the Chief Secretary tried gallantly, as he always does, to refute my right hon. Friend's argument, I pointed out on Second Reading that he had not succeeded in doing so, and this has been a Finance Bill embodying what has become something less than a one-month Budget.
    Certainly there has been no attempt by the Government at the end of this Parliament to explain how it is that the Prime Minister's statement that his programme could be carried out without any general increase in taxation over the life of the Parliament has not been fulfilled. This Finance Bill does not make any move in that direction, and there has been an increase in taxation over the Parliament of about £3,000 million.
    It is a Finance Bill which would give us cause for concern in many ways if it were passed into law with what we regard as all its imperfections on its head. What is worrying is that because there has been so little time for discussion, it may be going to its end, not so much with all its imperfections on its head, as with many imperfections unknown to the House and perhaps only to be discovered later.
    This is a regrettable state of affairs, and it marks an approach to our economic affairs, in raising a record amount of taxation and with the Clauses on direct taxation still unamended as we should like, which the Opposition totally oppose. Of this Finance Bill it is probably true that in a few moments the rest will be silence, but also in a short time the cannonades will echo forth from the ramparts, and I do not wish to anticipate them.
    8.40 p.m.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: I am glad to support my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) in his criticism of the procedure adopted for considering this Finance Bill. Yesterday, Parliament in its wisdom decided that the Committee and remaining stages of the Bill should be truncated for obvious reasons. That was a perfectly right decision, because the government of the country must continue. What was wrong was that the Government insisted on proceeding with the whole Bill. They should have entered
    1914
    into the spirit of Parliament's concession and simply passed those Clauses which were needed for the government of the country.
    The Bill in the form in which it has emerged from Committee contains highly technical Clauses, particularly Clauses 21 to 28 and Schedule 5, which ought to have had very much more detailed consideration than we were able to give thorn this afternoon. Although in the light of experience hon. and right hon. Members opposite may say they are willing to make changes, unfortunately there is nothing more permanent than the temporary.
    I can only express the hope that Clauses 21 to 28 and Schedule 5 will very soon come before the House again for revision, but in the nature of things that might not be the case. Although I understand why the Chief Secretary was anxious to press forward with those Clauses which contain good as well as bad, I am sure that his decision will be seen in retrospect as a wrong one and that more concern will be caused by what has been done than in fact will be saved.
    I said to him earlier today that if the right hon. Gentleman pushed through those Clauses he would regret it. That was not intended as a personal remark to him; and I did not say it just because I imagined that the House would have to go over the whole ground again in due course. I certainly did not say it because I am against the amalgamation of Sections 388 and 379, which will be a tremendous boon to trustees of occupational pensions schemes. But it is a bad day when the House of Commons resigns its function as controller of the Executive in matters of taxation, and that is what we have done today. I hope that we shall not again have a situation in which we discuss £7,000 million of people's private savings and deal with legislation affecting 12½ million people in a few hours without proper preparation or proper consideration of Amendments, in an almost empty House.
    If the Bill becomes an Act large parts of it will be just a kite—an experiment for further consideration. I hope that our work today will not become a precedent, because that would be deeply regrettable. I hope that when Parliament looks back at what it has done it will see that this procedure should never be repeated.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: What has commended the Bill to the country is the fact that it is so unlike other Finance Bills in election years. I am satisfied that it has been well received because it has much more to do with national needs than with pre-election tactics.
    The hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) skirted the rules of order by referring to the imperfections of the Bill. I thought that he was about to say that this proposition or that should have been in the Bill. I have a feeling that he thinks that one of the main imperfections is that there is no value-added tax in the Bill. The Conservative Party should have " come clean " and told us what has happened to the Wheatcroft Report. There is a great deal of curiosity about what the hon. Gentleman meant by " imperfections ".
    I must not speak about matters which are not covered by the Bill, but I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to solve one of the great mysteries of contemporary Britain, namely, what has happened to the Wheatcroft Report which was promised by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) on 9th October last year?
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. Diamond: I thank the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) very sincerely for his courteous reference to me. May I, in warm response, say to him that if I had a majority of 19,000 I should not have talked about funeral orations, or been as gloomy as the hon. Gentleman. I did not think that the position was as black as that, but I might not be thoroughly up-to-date.
    I wish to thank the Committee and the House and—I hope that this does not embarrass them—the Opposition for the way in which they have co-operated in a very difficult exercise in an unusual situation. This once more demonstrates something in which I have never failed to have confidence and faith—the capacity of the House of Commons to deal with any problem as it arises, its flexibility, good sense and feeling of responsibility. We shall have shown to future Members of Parliament how we can cope with what is admittedly a long and difficult Finance Bill with many technical and not all that straightforward
    1916
    Clauses—all of them important, all of them needed and all of them pressed very hard by one section or another of the community.
    I am very grateful to the Opposition, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will be good enough to convey my thanks and appreciation to the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), who has sat throughout our debates and has helped enormously in this difficult exercise. An extraordinary thing which people should note is that today, one of the last days of this Parliament, the speeches have been short, objective and entirely non-partisan when one might have felt that thoughts of the election might enter people's minds.
    I realise that it is a responsibility to suggest to the House that we should deal with a Bill as quickly as we have dealt with this Bill. However, to say that it has been dealt with in one day is not the full story. We had a full day on Second Reading, two full days in Committee of the whole House, and a full day today, making four full days on a Bill which is mainly a relieving Measure. I repeat that that does not mean that it should not be discussed fully. But it is less difficult and onerous to suggest a short passage for a relieving clause than for a taxing clause. I can only repeat my gratitude to the House for having accepted the situation.
    The hon. Member for Worthing asked whether the new supplementary benefit rates have had their effect in the Red Book. The answer is that they have not. As he knows, they are not taxable in any event.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: It was not so much a question whether the tax revenue was in the Red Book, but whether the expenditure was provided for on the relevant side of the table.
    Mr. Diamond: I do not believe that it was, but the wisest course is to check up and let the hon. Member know.
    I was criticised by the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) because the Government had decided to go ahead with Clauses 21 to 28. He is on that score not exactly the odd man out, but is dissenting from the view taken by his own Front Bench. I thought the position was fully explained

    1917
    by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), whose view I share. He understood the reasons why we thought it right to press on with these Clauses. We would have been doing a disservice to the community at large if we had not pressed on with those Clauses, as was accepted by the House and indeed by the official Opposition.
    The hon. Gentleman then asked whether we ought not to have shown a concessionary spirit in only putting forward those things which are necessary. In my view we have done both. We have put forward the Finance Bill Clauses because they are necessary. We have shown the concessionary spirit outside the Finance Bill. If he will think of the Bills which are not now going to be pushed forward in the time available, he will accept what I am saying. Therefore, we have played our part in a joint co-operative effort to clear up important matters before the House dissolves.
    I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) what has happened to the Wheatcroft Report. I do not know what has happened to it, because I do not see it referred to either in the Bill or anywhere else. It remains a mystery to me, and no doubt in the weeks ahead my hon. Friend and I will try to unravel that mystery for the benefit of the electorate at large.
    I should like to say one or two words about poverty, as to which many of these Clauses are closely related and which figured very much in our earlier debate today. It is not accurate or true to say that as a Government we have moved away from equality towards greater inequality as a result of our budgetary proposals in the period 1964 onwards. The contrary is the case. It is the established fact by the only known method of establishing it, that is to say by establishing the total impact of proposals in each Budget on a wide selection of families in this country. We have done this and have applied what everybody is now familiar with, the Gini coefficient. This is an exercise that we undertake in every single Budget.
    I can only repeat what was said by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the last three Budgets, that
    1918
    notwithstanding increases in taxes, and indeed the substantial increases in taxes in the 1968 Budget, we have managed to move towards equality and away from inequality both in those years and overall. I want that to be clearly understood. Therefore, it would be totally wrong for any hon. Gentleman, particularly on the Front Bench opposite, to repeat such statements as were made today to the effect that as a result of the Labour Government the poor have got poorer. The reverse is not only correct, but is established in the only statistical way one can establish it.
    What is also relevant is the effect of taxation on the lower income groups. It is the fact that what we call the break-even point, the point at which an individual family receives as much in benefits and subsidies as it pays in direct taxation, has been rising all the time. It rose from about £750 in 1965 to about £1,000 in 1968.
    We are talking in money terms, making whatever conversion ratio in real terms hon. Members care to make. It is still a very substantial increase. It means that more and more of those at the bottom of the scale are getting more out of the State than they are contributing to the State. This is the effect of the impact of taxation and it has been continuing ever since 1968. I cannot give exact figures today: one has to look at them over a period of months—indeed years—to be absolutely accurate about the figures. However, I can certainly say that the move is continuing in that direction and that the break-even point is rising.
    So for these reasons it is undoubtedly the case that we have made a real impact on poverty as a result of the totality of our budgetary proposals, in this Bill and over the whole period of our Government.
    I am attracted by the new approach of the Opposition to family allowances. We have already established that it is an official change of view. I do not know what has induced the change of view. We all recollect how the approach of a General Election clarifies—concentrates —the mind enormously. I do not know whether it is that, but I am bound to remind the House that the proposal to increase family allowances by 10s. and then add the clawback would mean an

    1919
    additional £30 million cost a year in public expenditure—something which one has always to bear in mind, something which the Opposition always invite us to bear in mind.
    I express my gratitude to all those who have contributed to this careful but not over-lengthy debate on our Finance Bill and to its pleasant and happy conclusion. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Third Reading.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    AGRICULTURE BILL
    Lords Amendments considered.
    Clause 13

      PROVISION FOR LEVY
      Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 11, line 37, at end insert:
      " () Before determining any amount under subsection (2)(a) or (3)(a) of this section as one to be raised for an accounting period the levy for which is, by virtue of section 14 of this Act, to be imposed in accordance with section 16(7) of this Act, the Ministers shall consult with such organisations appearing to them to represent the interests of producers as the Ministers consider appropriate, and, if the levy will or may be imposed on persons other than producers, with such other organisations as the Ministers consider appropriate having regard to that fact."
      8.58 p.m.
      The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      The purpose of the Amendment is to require Ministers to consult organisations representing the interests of producers, and such other organisations as they consider appropriate if the levy is to be imposed on persons other than producers, before determining the amount to be raised by the levy for the industry to meet the Authority's requirements.
      Mr. Anthony Stodart: This is an extremely useful Amendment, one which escaped us despite what I thought the pretty good going over which we gave to the Bill in Committee. I think that in only one Clause of the Bill was there written in consultation with producers—if I recollect aright, in research and development. None of us, I freely admit, spotted that there was not provision for consultation on important matters of this kind. Therefore, I would say that this is an example of the value of having a new, fresh set of minds in another place to look at a Bill after we have passed it, no matter how conscientiously we think we have treated it here. Accordingly, I welcome the Amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to

      Clause 32
      AMENDMENTS AS TO GRANTS IN CONNECTION WITH ALTERATIONS OF FARM STRUCTURE
      Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 31, line 20, at end insert:
      "and in section 35(f) (under which a scheme may contain such incidental and supplemental provisions as appear to the appropriate Minister expedient for the purposes of the scheme) for the words `for the purposes of the scheme' there shall be substituted 'including transitional provisions treating as having been done under or in pursuance of the scheme anything done under or in pursuance of a previous scheme '."
      Mr. Mackie: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      The purpose and effect of the Amendment is to avoid possible difficulty in paying grant under the Farm Amalgamations and Boundary Adjustments Scheme at the increased rate of 60 per cent. in accordance with the Annual Review announcement. The effect of the Amendment is to make it possible for approval of amalgamation proposals given under the existing amalgamation scheme to be treated as an approval of an amalgamation under the new scheme, which it is proposed should contain provisions for the additional rate of grant.
      Question put and agreed to.

      Clause 34
      NEW PROVISION AS TO STANDARD COSTS, ETC. FOR CERTAIN GRANTS
      Lords Amendment: No. 4, in page 34, line 29, at end insert:
      "(3) Section 1(4)(c) of the Agricultural Improvement Grants Act 1959 (which authorises standard cost regulations for the purposes of section 3 of the Pests Act 1954) shall cease to have effect."
      Mr. Mackie: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): With this Amendment we can take also Lords Amendments Nos. 18, 19, 20 and 21.
      Mr. Mackie: This is a minor tidying-up operation which will enable us to repeal the whole of the Agricultural Im-
      1922
      provement Grants Act 1959. Section 1(4)(c) of that Act authorises the making of standard costs regulations for the purposes of Section 3 of the Pests Act 1954, which gives Ministers powers to assist the cost of the destruction of pests or the taking of preventive measures, for example, the clearance of scrub. No use has been made in the past of these provisions and there is no intention of doing so in future. Standard costs for the clearance of scrub and destruction of harbourage for pests can be made available under Clause 29.
      Question put and agreed to

      Clause 52
      CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER PREVIOUS ENACTMENTS
      Lords Amendment: No. 5, in page 49, line 11, leave out from " 1947 " to end of line 13 and insert:
      "in a case where the land sold, exchanged, appropriated or let is land which has been or formed part of—

      (i) land in respect of which payments have been made under section 27 of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act 1919; or

      (ii) land in the case of which contributions have been made or undertaken to be made under the said section 2 or the said section 58 in connection with proposals and estimates relating to that land."

      Mr. Mackie: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call the attention of the House to the fact that the question of privilege is involved in this Amendment.
      Mr. Mackie: The purpose and effect of the Amendment is to ensure that the Minister may adjust his contribution to smallholding charges on the disposal of land only when the land itself or part of it has been the subject of ministerial contributions under previous smallholdings legislation.
      Mr. Stodart: If my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) had been here he might have wished to say a word about this, since it touches upon a matter which was raised by him in Committee and which, with the greatest respect to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, was not answered

      1923
      upstairs to the 100 per cent. satisfaction that we expect of him. My hon. Friend questioned the propriety and fairness of the Ministry in trying to reduce its contributions, and I recall the hon. Gentleman in his reply going so far as to say that he would not even comment on whether my hon. Friend's suspicions were justified or unjustified. Quite clearly they were justified, and further probing in another place has brought about a result of which my hon. Friend would have approved.
      Question put and agreed to
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the House is willing to waive its privileges I will see that an entry is made in the Journal.

      Clause 66

        INTERPRETATION OF PART IV
        Lords Amendment: No. 6, in page 60, line 14, after " this " insert " Part of this ".
        The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
        This is simply a drafting Amendment, its purpose being to limit the application of Clause 66(5) to Part IV, it having no relevance to other Parts of the Bill.
        Question put and agreed to

        Clause 77
        DIVISION OF SAMPLES AND ANALYSIS BY AGRICULTURAL ANALYST
        Lords Amendment No:. 7, in page 70, line 39, leave out from " name " to " before " in line 40, and insert:
        ", or any address of the manufacturer in the United Kingdom, and is unable after making reasonable inquiries to ascertain that name, or, as the case may be. any such address ".
        Mr. Hoy: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
        The Amendment will avoid placing an unnecessary requirement upon enforcement authorities. It effects this by removing from inspectors any obligation to send a part of the sample to overseas
        1924
        manufacturers—who have no need of a sample since they cannot be the subject of proceedings under the " by-passing" provisions of Clause 81.
        Mr. Michael Jopling: I should like to know what will be the position of an overseas manufacturer who has a sales office in, say, London. Will the sample have to be sent to that sales office or, because the manufacturer manufactures abroad, will the local inspector not have to send it to anybody at all?
        Mr. Hoy: I think that I can reassure the House on this point. It is impossible to prosecute overseas companies for offences under United Kingdom legislation. If anybody commits an act in this country for which he can be held liable for prosecution, that will automatically follow.
        Question put and agreed to

        Clause 91
        SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISION AND INTERPRETATION AND EXTENT OF PART V
        Lords Amendment: No. 8, in page 82. line 34, at end insert:
        ": and nothing in the said section 88 shall authorise any infringement of the exclusive privilege conferred on the Post Office by section 24(1) of the Post Office Act 1969 (telecommunication systems)."
        Mr. Mackie: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): With this Amendment it will be convenient to take Lords Amendment No. 9, in Clause 92, page 83, line 38, leave out paragraph (ii) and insert:
        " (ii) nothing in this subsection shall authorise any infringement of the exclusive privilege conferred on the Post Office by section 24(1) of the Post Office Act 1969 (telecommunication systems)."
        Mr. Mackie: The purpose is to preserve the monopoly of the Post Office with regard to running telephone and radio communications systems when used as a flood warning system, as provided in the Bill. Lords Amendment No. 9 does the same for Scotland.
        Question put and agreed to
        Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to

        Clause 92
        PROVISION OF FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS
        Lords Amendment: No. 10, in page 84, line 20, leave out " the same meanings respectively as in " and insert:
        " (subject to section 93(3) of this Act) the meanings assigned to them by section 1 of '.
        Mr. Mackie: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Lords Amendment we can take Lords Amendment No. 11, in Clause 93, page 84, line 28, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
        " (2) Subsections (2) to (4) of section 119 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947 (which relates to voluntary combinations of local authorities) shall apply in relation to any such combination as is mentioned in the foregoing subsection as they apply in relation to the combinations mentioned in subsection (1) of the said section 119, and in the said subsections (2) to (4) as so applying any reference to a function of a local authority shall be construed as including a reference to any power or duty of the local authority so far as relating to the flood warning system with which the combination is concerned.
        (3) In relation to a case where local authorities have combined under this section, any reference in this Part of this Act to a local authority shall (unless the context otherwise requires) be construed as including a reference to the combination of local authorities, and " area " shall be construed accordingly."
        Mr. Mackie: The Clause provides generally that local authorities may combine to provide and operate a flood warning system as referred to in Part VI of the Bill, when a local authority shall be construed as including a reference to a combination of local authorities.
        Mr. Stodart: I am particularly delighted that this Amendment is being made because I put it down on Report,but Mr. Speaker was unable to select it.
        Question put and agreed to
        Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to

        Clause 99

          AGRICULTURAL TIED COTTAGES
          Lords Amendment: No. 12, in page 87, line 14, leave out head (ii) and insert:
          " (ii) that the efficient management of any agricultural land or the efficient carrying on
          1926
          of any agricultural operations would be seriously prejudiced unless the premises are available for occupation by a person employed or to be employed by the owner; or ".
          Mr. Mackie: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
          The House will recognise that the Amendment will weaken the protection that the Clause was intended to give to occupants of agricultural tied cottages. On 13th May, my right hon. Friend, in a written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Tudor Watkins) said that we would restore the protection originally provided by the Clause. Since then, however, the Dissolution of Parliament has been announced, and in view of the time factor and the importance of getting the Bill on to the Statute Book we have reluctantly agreed not to divide the House by resisting the Amendment—but we must leave the House in no doubt that we deeply deplore this necessity.
          Hon. Members opposite have argued that efficiency should be the criterion of need for possession of a tied cottage. We agree that efficiency is a good thing and is necessary. What we do not accept is that the consideration of efficiency should override the consideration of humanity. We think it wrong that one man's loss of efficiency—often loosely argued—should be another man's loss of a home, without his having time to find alternative accommodation. Evictions are not numerous, but the threat of them is always present, and the anxiety and distress hanging over many families on this account is not to be compared with temporary and/or marginal loss of efficiency, and the short-term effect on the efficiency of the individual farm is not to be compared with the long—term effect on efficiency generally of bad industrial relations.
          Hon. Members opposite have pointed out that good employers will go to some expense and trouble to see that their people do not go homeless if they can help it. I agree. All that we proposed was that all employers, good and bad, should have that obligation for a limited period if, but only if, it was reasonably practicable for them to bear it.
          There is a difference between the test of efficiency as it now appears in the Bill and that same test in its original place in

          1927
          the 1965 Act. In that Act the effect on efficiency is only one of the considerations that a court must bear in mind. It must weigh it along with the question of other accommodation and the balance of hardship.
          Clause 99 is quite different in that it provides four alternative grounds for breaking the six months' security, and this could be done by demonstrating an adverse effect on efficiency. Since this is also one of the considerations under the 1965 Act, the occupant's position under that Act could be weakened. It is most unfortunate, having raised expectations of greater security, that we are now forced not only to disappoint them but also to leave the position less certain than it was before.
          Although hon. Gentlemen opposite voted against the Clause in Committee, I cannot believe that it was ever their intention to make the position less certain than it was before in the 1965 Act. The responsibility undoubtedly lies with their colleagues in another place. We offered to provide an opportunity to remedy the matter, but hon. Gentlemen opposite have chosen to insist on the Amendment, and they must now bear the responsibility for it.
          I do not believe that any responsible organisation in the industry wishes to see the clock put back in this way. The effect can only be to aggravate the feelings of bitterness which have bedevilled this question for far too long and which we sought to remove. Accordingly, we shall feel bound at the first opportunity, in just over a month's time, to promote further legislation to restore the Clause to its original form.
          Meanwhile, if the protection of the law is weakened and workers suffer for it, it will be clear that the responsibility lies with hon. Gentlemen opposite and their colleagues in another place who have chosen to override the majority opinion in this House.
          Mr. Stodart: I do not wish to argue the merits of this Amendment tonight. It is a highly controversial one. I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I regret that he has said that the responsibility lies on this side of the House.
          Despite what the hon. Gentleman has said about the weakening of the situation,
          1928
          I cannot but recall what the right hon. and learned Attorney-General said about the wording put into the Clause by another place relating to efficient management. The learned Attorney said that they were adequate for all practical purposes and that they had been thought out after the most careful consideration. Those views are contained in the Report of Standing Committee F dated 3rd June, 1965. On the same day, when he was pressed on the matter, he said that he had had no suggestion that the construction of this wording presented any difficulty. In the course of what I thought was a very good debate in Committee, there was considerable discussion as to the effects or ill effects which resulted from the wording which was praised by the Attorney-General.
          We are not now discussing the merits of the issue. The Government have done the right thing because of the understanding which was come to with regard to controversial material in legislation coming before the House prior to dissolution. However, I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite will realise that, with the best will in the world, we could not regard this as other than a controversial matter. People on both sides feel very deeply about it. After my remarks on this subject in Committee, it must be clear that, rightly or wrongly, I feel strongly that the Clause, as it was originally and as it has now been virtually restored by another place, is the best practical compromise in a very difficult situation.
          The Government have done the right thing in honouring the agreement made between both sides on this matter, and I will say no more.
          9.15 p.m.
          Mr. Bert Hazell: I am extremely disappointed that my right hon. Friend has accepted the Lords Amendment in this instance. Most hon. Members know my views—they have been expressed often—on the system of the tied cottage in the agricultural industry.
          I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) that upstairs we had an interesting and full debate on a matter that vitally concerns the farm workers whom I am privileged to represent.

          1929
          A fortnight ago my union, at its annual conference, expressed its views on this system. The views expressed were extremely bitter. When we knew of the decision of the other place regarding the Clause, I was concerned about the situation and so were the members that I represent. Then we had an assurance from my right hon. Friend that the Clause would be reinserted at this stage of the Bill. It is extremely unfortunate that the forthcoming election has prevented the Clause being reinserted.
          I welcome the reassurance that the Parliamentary Secretary has given tonight in this Chamber. But let there be no mistake that the situation will be worse than before the Clause was introduced. I have no doubt that farm workers will, like me, feel intensely sorry that the Government have chosen to accept the decision of Whips in this matter and not sought to reinstate the Clause.
          It is difficult, in the limited scope of the debate—
          The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): I hope that my hon. Friend has not misinterpreted the clear speech which has just been made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. It is not that I have chosen to accept the Lords Amendment in this matter. I thought that my hon. Friend made this clear enough for my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) to have understood what has happened.
          Mr. Hazell: I was saying that it is difficult, within the limited sphere of the debate tonight, to proceed in any depth on this issue. I said that I accepted my hon. Friend's assurance. I recognise that it is not my right hon. Friend's wish that the Government's decision on the matter should have been taken. But I have to recognise that I shall be meeting my people tomorrow and henceforth until an amending Clause is ultimately placed on the Statute Book. During that period I know the extreme dissatisfaction and bitterness that will be engendered throughout the farming industry from the workers' point of view. I can only hope that the time is not too far distant when we might have complete fulfilment of the promise given many years ago by the Labour Party.
          1930
          I am bitterly disappointed about the decision of the Government. I can do no more than convey what I know are the feelings of those I represent.
          Mr. Jopling: I remember the debate on this Clause in Committee. It was one of the best debates that we had during the whole of the Committee stage. It seemed to be a fair and reasonable debate, and one which I thought reflected great credit on the good sense of the House.
          I do not want to play up, or whip up, any controversy, but I was somewhat concerned when I heard the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's speech, because I thought that he was seeking to blame us for the situation in which the Government find themselves. I thought I saw the hon. Gentleman nod, and then he shook his head. I am not sure what he means, but from his speech I inferred that he was suggesting that we on this side of the House were to blame for the fact that although the Government object to something, it is, nevertheless, to become law.
          I strongly resent that suggestion, because the Labour Party is still in power. The Government are the Government until polling day. If we are to have proper government, it is up to the Government of the day to do what they think is right, and it is no good them coming down to the House and saying that because of some agreement or other —of which I know nothing—they have to accept the Lords Amendment. They are still the Government. If they do not like the Amendment proposed by their Lordships, it is up to them to delete it. If that is what they had in mind, it was up to them not to make an agreement about not having Divisions this week. The matter is in the Government's court.
          The Government must have known that this was a controversial issue. They know that there was a division in another place on the Amendment. They know that we on this side voted against the Clause. The Government cannot get away with it by pretending that this is a non-controversial matter. They know that it is controversial, in spite of what I said about us having a reasonable and humane debate on this subject in Committee.

          1931
          My only reason for taking part in the debate is to refute the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the situation in which the Government find themselves is in some way the fault of my party. It is not. The Government know that we have reasonable grounds for objecting to what they proposed in the original Bill. The present situation is their doing, right or wrong, and they must accept it. It is no good the Government trying to fob the blame off on to my party, because if they did not like the Lords Amendment, the remedy lay in their hands.
          Mr. Derek Page: I rise to support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) who expressed disappointment at the deletion of this provision from the Bill. My hon. Friend is right in saying that this is a matter of great concern to every farm worker. I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said, that the lack of security militates against efficiency in the industry because of its effect on industrial relations.
          I regret, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North, that the Government did not take the opportunity, even this week, to reinsert this extra protection. I can understand the difficulties which the Government are up against, and it is only right that the main anger of farm workers, which will certainly rise now, should be vented against the undemocratic process which has been taken by the other place.
          I hope that it will be absolutely clear to them where their interests lie. Although we are disappointed at not having the Clause reinserted today, I am certain that we can rely on the assurance of my hon. Friend that at the earliest possible opportunity the protection will be reinserted. We rely on him to do this, and I am sure that the farm workers will realise that they have only one possible way to react to the sheer obstructionism of the party opposite.
          Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: I do not intend to delay the House for more than a few minutes, nor to redeploy all the arguments which I have heard many times over the years in the House on a subject which arouses violent controversy.
          1932
          I want to say just this to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend the Minister, for whom I have a high regard, and to the hon. Members for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazen) and King's Lynn (Mr. Derek Page). It does them and their argument no good when they try to overstate their case. They know perfectly well that the original pledge, made by, I think, the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown), to get rid of the agricultural tied cottage could not be honoured within the compass of the present Government's housing programme.
          Why try to make the case sound much worse than it is? There are about 100,000 agricultural tied cottages out of a total of 700,000 tied cottages. Of these 100,000, over the past two years there have been about 10 evictions, of which two were hardship cases. In every case the outgoing tenant was in occupation for more than three months; and the only two hardship cases were where alternative accommodation was not found right away. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North can stump the country during the election and make all these wild statements, but we all know that they are not true.
          Mr. Hazell: While it may be true that, as the hon. Gentleman has said, the annual number of evictions is comparatively small, almost 500 cases have to be defended in the courts every year by my union. This is no small matter. The actual evictions are but the tip of the iceberg. It is a much bigger problem, a tremendous psychological problem that is deep in the hearts of farm workers throughout the country—
          Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make a second speech but just an intervention.
          Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I suspected that if I gave way to the hon. Gentleman that was what he would say. I beg him not to overstate a case continually by blowing up figures. He never tells us or his constituents how many months occupants of agricultural tied cottages are left there before an eviction order is sought. He must state the case fairly. If he does not, he must take the consequences.
          Question put and agreed to

          New Clause " A "
          FURTHER PROVISIONS AS TO RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF REDUNDANT FARMHOUSES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
          Lords Amendment: No. 13, in page 88, line 18, at end insert new Clause " A "—
          " A. Part II of Schedule 3 to the Rent Act 1968 (cases in which a court in England or Wales must order possession of a dwelling-house subject to a regulated tenancy) shall be amended by adding at the end—
          CASE 14
          Where—

          (a) the last occupier of the dwelling-house before the relevant date was a person, or the widow of a person, who was at some time during his occupation responsible (whether as owner, tenant, or servant or agent of another) for the control of the farming of land which formed, together with the dwelling-house, an agricultural unit within the meaning of the Agriculture Act 1947, and

          (b) the tenant is neither—

          (i)a person, or the widow of a person, who is or has at any time been responsible for the control of the farming of any part of the said land, nor

          (ii)a person, or the widow of a person, who is or at any time was employed by the landlord in agriculture, and

          (c) the creation of the tenancy was not preceded by the carrying out in connection with any of the said land of an amalgamation approved for the purposes of a scheme under section 26 of the Agriculture Act 1967, and

          (d) not later than the relevant date, the the tenant was given notice in writing that possession might be recovered under this Case, and

          (e) the court is satisfied that the dwelling-house is required for occupation either by a person responsible or to be responsible (whether as owner, tenant, or servant or agent of another) for the control of the farming of any part of the said land or by a person employed or to be employed by the landlord in agriculture, and

          (f) the proceedings for possession are commenced by the landlord before the expiry of five years from the date on which the occupier referred to in paragraph (a) above went out of occupation;

          and for the purposes of this Case ' employed ' and ' agriculture ' have the same meanings as in the Agricultural Wages Act 1948 and ' amalgamation ' has the same meaning as in Part II of the Agriculture Act 1967."
          Mr. Speaker: I suggest that we take with this Amendment Lords Amendment No. 14, new Clause " B "—" Further pro-
          1934
          visions as to recovery of possession of redundant farm—houses in Scotland "—in page 88, line 18, after the words last inserted, insert new Clause " B "—
          " B.—(1) This section shall have effect where a dwelling-house in Scotland is let on a regulated tenancy and the last occupier of the dwelling-house before the commencement of the regulated tenancy was a person, or the widow of a person, who was at some time during his occupation responsible (whether as owner, tenant, or servant or agent of another) for the control of the farming of land which formed, together with the dwelling-house, an agricultural unit within the meaning of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948.
          (2) If—

          (a) the conditions mentioned in subsection

          (3) of this section are satisfied, and

          (b) apart from the Rent Acts the landlord would be entitled to recover possession of the dwelling-house, and

          (c) the sheriff is satisfied that the dwelling-house is required for occupation either by a person responsible or to be responsible (whether as owner, tenant, or servant or agent of another) for the control of the farming of any part of the said land or by a person employed or to be employed by the landlord in agriculture,

          the sheriff shall make an order for the possession of the dwelling-house whether or not he would have power to do so under section 3 of the Act of 1933, and section 5(2) of the Act of 1920 shall not apply in relation to the order.
          (3) The said conditions are—

          (a) that the tenant of the dwelling—house is neither—

          (i) a person, or the widow of a person, who is or has at any time been responsible for the control of the farming of any part of the said land, nor

          (ii) a person, or the widow of a person, who is or at any time was employed by the landlord in agriculture; and

          (b) that the creation of the tenancy was not preceded by the carrying out in connection with any of the said land of an amalgamation approved for the purposes of a scheme under section 26 of the Agriculture Act 1967; and

          (c) that not later than the date of commencement of the regulated tenancy, the tenant was given notice in writing that possession might be recovered under this section; and

          (d) that the proceedings for possession are commenced by the landlord before the expiry of five years from the date on which the occupier referred to in subsection (1) of this section ceased to occupy the dwelling-house.

          (4) In this section—
          " the Rent Acts " means the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Acts 1920 to 1939, or any of those Acts;
          " the Act of 1920 " and " the Act of 1933 " mean respectively the Increase of

          1935
          Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1920 and the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act 1933;
          " employed " and " agriculture " have the same meanings as in the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949;
          " landlord ", " tenant " and " tenancy " have the same measnings as in the Act of 1920;
          " regulated tenancy " has the same meaning as in section 1(4) of the Rent Act 1965; and
          " order for possession " means decree of removing or warrant of ejection or other like order."
          Mr. Mackie: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
          The problem of surplus farmhouses was discussed in earlier stages of the Bill. It was pointed out that we had provided in the Agriculture Act, 1967, for the recovery of possession of farmhouses rendered surplus by amalgamation, and it was suggested that similar provision might be made for other surplus farmhouses. However, the suggestions made for giving effect to this proposal were so sweeping that we felt that they would create greater problems than they would solve.
          The case was again pressed strongly in another place, and it became apparent that the difficulties were technical rather than substantial. Accordingly, informal discussions were held, and these Clauses are the result. Despite their apparent complexity and length, the purpose is straightforward and will, I believe, be acceptable to the House.
          Briefly, the new Clauses provide for the recovery of possession of surplus farmhouses other than those rendered surplus by approved amalgamations, for which provision already exists. There will be occasions when it is sensible for the owner of a spare formhouse to let it on a temporary basis rather than leave it empty. The intention is to give the owners of such farmhouses rights similar to those already given to owners in amalgamation cases.
          Allowing for the slight difference in circumstances, the conditions and safeguards are similar. There is protection for the farmer who is already in the house, or his widow, and for his employees, ex-employees and their widows, and there is a time limit on the exercise of the right.
          9.30 p.m.
          Mr. Stodart: This is the end of a somewhat lengthy saga. I believe that it started in another place on an Amendment to the Rent Bill in 1965. That is the first point at which I stumbled upon it. It was debated again on the Agriculture Bill in 1967 on a new Clause in Committee. The subject is one in which my hon. Friends the Members for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) and Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) have taken a particular interest. The present Amendments represent the fruits of the third discussion of the subject in another place on the present Bill.
          As the Parliamentary Secretary said, we are concerned here with the situation in which one has a farmhouse as generally understood, that is, as opposed to a farm cottage, which is not needed temporarily and is let. The case which I have often come across, which I mentioned in Committee, is instanced by, say, an uncle dying and leaving the farm to a nephew, the young man being only 16 or so and living with his family on another farm. Under the present law, the farmhouse, if let at other than a peppercorn rent, is not recoverable when the young man needs it, and lack of a farmhouse on a farm, of course, greatly detracts from the usefulness, value and efficiency of the farm.
          This is a fairly practical step forward. The protections to which the hon. Gentleman referred are rightly there. The application for recovery must be made within five years of the farmhouse having been used as such, and the only slight reservation I have is about this time limit. I can still see possible difficulties here. Nevertheless, I do not wish to be ungracious, and I am sure that my hon. Friend do not. Let us give this a fair wind and see how it works.
          Question put and agreed to
          Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to

          New Clause C
          NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY SERVICE
          Lords Amendment: No. 15, in page 88, line 36, at end insert new Clause " C "—
          "C. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food may, instead of maintaining the

          1937
          National Agricultural Advisory Service provided for by section 1(1) of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944, give effect to the purposes for which that Service was established (which relate to the provision of advice and instruction on agricultural matters) through such other organisation as he may consider appropriate and accordingly, the said section 1(l) shall be amended by substituting, for the words shall, as from the appointed day, establish and maintain a National Agricultural Advisory Service ', the words ' shall make provision through such organisation as he considers appropriate '."
          Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
          The new Clause is designed to facilitate the proposals which I announced on 9th April for the unification for the Ministry's professional, scientific and technical services. The proposal is, subject to consultations with those concerned, to unify the technical services, and if this takes place the names of the separate services will need to be replaced by a new name for the service as a whole. The name of the N.A.A.S. is, however, enshrined in Section 1 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1944, and there is no comparable legislative provision involving the names of the other services affected by the proposals for unification.
          The purpose of the Clause is simply to remove the name of the National Advisory Agricultural Service without in any way changing the obligation upon the Minister to continue to provide an agricultural advisory service, and to provide an impartial service. This is the sole purpose, and I stress again that it will continue to be the duty of officers engaged in advisory work to give impartial advice.
          Mr. Stodart: As a Scot and a Scottish farmer who is serviced by an entirely different system which some of us venture to think is perhaps a better system, although there is great disagreement about that, may I say that the N.A.S.S. has won itself a tremendous reputation. Although it has not been of assistance to me, I have observed its workings from across the Border. It has done a tremendously good job for the industry as a whole, and I for one will be very sad to see the name go.
          Mr. Jopling: On Second Reading, I asked, with reference to Part II, how
          1938
          the Minister intended to deploy his advisory services. With the various capital grants involved in Part II, some of the advisory services deal with grants and some deal with other matters.
          Will the Minister tell us the effect of this amalgamation? Will there be a saving in manpower and, as I would hope, in money? I should have thought that, as a result of amalgamating the advisory services and having them all under one roof, there would be considerable savings in manpower and money. If there are to be no savings in manpower and money, we should have an explanation.
          Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: With leave, I should like to reply briefly to the points which have been made. This matter was not debated on Second Reading, but some important questions have been asked to which I shall try to reply.
          There are two main reasons for unification. First, with farming becoming increasingly capital-intensive, neither farmers nor the Ministry can afford to consider problems in isolation. No aspect of the work of the Ministry's professional and technical services in the advisory or grant sectors can satisfactorily be tackled except in the context of the development policy of the farm as a whole. That is the philosophy behind the proposed change. Only through a unified service can we ensure that individual problems, whether of drainage, building or husbandry, are examined from the whole farm point of view or that the full range of expertise in the Department can be placed quickly and economically at the disposal of the farmer.
          Secondly, after their survey of our regional organisation, the management consultants who advised me recommended unification as a more efficient and economic method of organising the services.
          I should not like to say precisely at this stage what savings might be made. I should not wish to see any redundancies, but if there is a reduction in staff it can be accounted for by natural wastage over a period.
          I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) for the tribute which he paid to the N.A.A.S. On behalf of my two colleagues at the Ministry and myself, I reinforce what he said. The N.A.A.S. has given exemplary

          1939
          service to the farmers—a service which is unexampled anywhere else in the world. The field officers of the Service can feel very proud of the work which they have accomplished since the organisation was set up over 20 years ago.
          The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West became patriotic about his native country. As a Welshman who is quarter Englishman, may I say that we in England and Wales think that the N.A.A.S. has served us well. Comparisons between Scotland and the rest of Great Britain are, in these circumstances odious. Nevertheless, I take the point he made.
          I regard the impartiality of the advice which the N.A.A.S. gives as vital. At the moment, things are in a tentative stage in that the consultations I have referred to have to be carried out properly. I want all the professional services to understand clearly that these consultations are not a facade. They are genuine. If the proposals materialise, my belief is that the unified service will serve the industry better than the present fragmented services and that the N.A.A.S. will continue, under the new name, to give the same high standard of service, perhaps even an improved service.
          Question put and agreed to

      Clause 103

        RADICATION OF BRUCELLOSIS
        Lords Amendment: No. 16, in page 92, line 33, at end insert:
        " () Any person who offers for sale, otherwise than for slaughter, any animal known to be a reactor to brucella abortus shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400, or, if the offence is committed with respect to more than ten animals, to a fine not exceeding £50 for each animal.
        Mr. Mackie: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
        This further amendment to the brucellosis Clause brings in a subject which was touched upon on Report when hon. Members expressed anxiety about the sale of reactors, and the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) referred to the question of forbidding their sale except for slaughter. The Amendment would have this general effect and it stems
        1940
        from widespread concern in another place to see an end to the deliberate sale of animals capable of spreading this insidious disease.
        That is an objective to which the House would surely subscribe. Nevertheless, in accepting the proposal, the Government have been concerned that its implications and problems should not be overlooked. For example, no offence is committed unless the owner knows that his animal is a reactor, so that it could apply only to those relatively few animals which at present have had a reliable test. This carries with it a risk of deterring owners not so much from selling reactors as from recourse to recognised tests, and that would not be conducive to effective disease control.
        There is also the problem, with which the House will be familiar, of distinguishing between diseased animals and vaccinal reactors, and the latter will still be with us in significant numbers for at least two years. Another point is that, if a reactor is sold for slaughter in good faith, it is the buyer rather than the seller who determines whether and when it goes to the abattoir. It is for reasons of this kind that mere creation of this offence will not immediately end the problem. We should need to study its effects upon farming policies and practices over a fair period before forming any firm judgments. I believe it could help to check abuse and to prevent our livestock markets from being brought into disrepute.
        At present, three courses of action are open to the owner of a reactor. He can cull it for slaughter—and many already do this. He can keep it and take precautions until a veterinary specialist can deal with his whole herd systematically—and here the owner can count on Government help and encouragement, either with early voluntary accreditation or, in due course, compulsory eradication. The third alternative is to off-load the reactor into someone else's herd. The Government are in agreement with the objective of the Amendment. In spite of the difficulties which I have thought it right to bring to the notice of the House, we are prepared to give it a run.
        Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I welcome the Lords Amendment. In Committee on the Bill, we put

        1941
        down a new Clause to deal with the brucellosis situation as we saw it. To a very considerable degree it has now been coped with by the addition of the brucel-losis scheme to the Bill by the Government. There was, however, a glaring deficiency remaining in that it was still possible for a farmer to dispose of a reactor on the market and thus spread the disease ever further around the countryside. Indeed, many members of the veterinary profession were deeply concerned that there being no penalty for selling reactors in the market would lead to a widening of the disease rather than the opposite. The National Farmers' Union particularly emphasised that the Clause was desirable and necessary.
        There is a point which I have raised previously concerning the Epizootic Abortion Order, 1922, which met the same difficulty. It lays down that any animal which has aborted should not be sold on a public market within two months of abortion. I hope that when applying this provision the Ministry will remember that Order, too.
        Question put and agreed to
        Lords Amendment: No. 17, in page 92, line 36, at end insert:
        "() Section 13(5) of the Agriculture Act 1967 (under which a levy scheme relating to the expenses of the Meat and Livestock Commission may not impose charges in respect of livestock slaughtered under the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 or any order or arrangements made thereunder) shall be amended by inserting at the end ' or in accordance with any scheme under section 103 of the Agriculture Act 1970 '.
        () Any person who knowingly or recklessly makes any false statement for the purpose of obtaining for himself or any other person any payment under a scheme under subsection (1) or (2) of this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or both.
        () Any of the following officers—

        (a) in England and Wales, any officer of the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food authorised in writing by that Minister to exercise the powers conferred by this subsection;

        (b) in Scotland, any officer of the Secretary of State or of the said Minister having the like authority of that Secretary of State, and

        (c) in Northern Ireland, any officer within paragraph (a) above, and any officer of the Ministry of Agriculture for Northern Ireland having the like authority of that Ministry;
        1942
        may, for the purpose of obtaining any information which he may consider necessary in connection with a scheme under subsection (1) or (2) of this section, enter upon any land or premises and there inspect any animal, apply any test or take any sample, and examine and take copies of or extracts from any document.

        The right of entry under this subsection may be exercised at any reasonable time, but only after production of the officer's authority if so required; and any person who obstructs or impedes an officer acting in the exercise of his powers under this subsection shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20 in the case of a first offence, and, in the case of a second or subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding £50 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or both."
        9.45 p.m.
        Mr. Mackie: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
        The Amendment is to provide, in relation to schemes made under Clause 103, for normal inspection facilities and for standard penalties to apply for obstruction or the making of false statements. It is also to exempt those participating in such schemes from payment of the Meat and Livestock Levy on animals slaughtered under the scheme.
        Question put and agreed to
        Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to

        EQUAL PAY (No. 2) BILL
        Lords Amendments considered
      Clause 9

        COMMENCEMENT
        Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 9, line 10, after " below " insert " the foregoing provisions of ".
        9.50 p.m.
        The Minister of State, Department of Employment and Productivity (Mr. Edmund Dell): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
        Mr. Speaker: It has been suggested that with this we may take the remaining two Lords Amendments. As I hear no sounds of dissent, so be it.
        Mr. Dell: These Amendments were moved by the Government in the Lords.

        1943
        They discharge an undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on Report in this House on 23rd April—column 729 of the OFFICIAL REPORT.
        Mr. Dudley Smith: These Amendments seem to be a reasonable addition which was pressed in Committee. This provision is permissive, it will certainly aid the proper implementation and working of the Bill, and we therefore give it a general welcome.
        Question put and agreed to
        Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to

        MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS AND PROPERTY BILL [Lords]
        Considered in Committee
        [Mr. GEORGE ROGERS in the Chair]

        Clause 5
        MATTERS TO WHICH COURT IS TO HAVE REGARD IN DECIDING WHAT ORDERS TO MAKE UNDER SECTIONS 2, 3 AND 4
        9.52 p.m.
        The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): I beg to move Amendment No. 71, in page 5, line 27, at end insert:
        () any physical or mental disability of the child:.
        The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Rogers): With this Amendment we are to take Amendment No. 11, in page 5, line 32, at end insert:
        (e) any physical or mental disability suffered by the child.
        The Solicitor-General: I am glad to move this Amendment, because we are taking account of representations by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), who expressed the view that it was desirable that there should be explicit reference to the case of physical or mental disability of the child as one of the matters to which the court should have regard in exercising its powers under Clause 2 or Clause 4 by virtue of Clause 5(1).
        I earlier expressed the view that this important matter might already in the original wording of the Clause have been sufficiently covered by the matters re-
        1944
        ferred to and the factors mentioned in the original language of Clause 5, but I have come to the conclusion that it is desirable and right that there should be specific reference to the case of a child suffering from physical or mental disability and I have pleasure in recommending this Amendment to the Committee.
        Sir David Renton: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his acceptance of this Amendment, which appeared to be right in the minds of hon. Members on both sides in the Standing Committee. In these days when so much is done by Parliament in an attempt to help those who are physically or mentally handicapped, it seemed to us that it would be wrong to be legislating in the context of this Bill dealing with the position of the children and parties to a marriage when, alas, that marriage breaks up if the courts were not asked to have special regard to the needs of physically or mentally handicapped children.
        One point has arisen which I must confess occurred to me only just before this debate started and it gives rise to some anxiety. It would rather appear from at least a superficial reading of Clause 5 in the light of Clauses 2 and 4, and especially Clause 8, that any provision made by the courts in favour of a physically or mentally handicapped child —I use that word advisedly—that in the case of mental handicap of course the word " child " is a very flexible word. There can be a mentally handicapped person of advanced years who may have the mental age of a very young child. It would therefore be a tragedy if a provision made by the court by a court order were to come to an end when that child reaches the age in actual years of life of 18, which prima facie might be the position on a strict reading of Clause 8.
        I therefore ask the Solicitor-General if he can assure us that any such provision made by the court would not automatically come to an end at the age of 18 and if he can explain that the provision could extend beyond that age.
        The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for having a word with me before this

        1945
        Committee stage. I think I can satisfy the Committee that the position under the Bill is that a provision of the court, bearing in mind the matters referred to in this Amendment, does not come to an end when the child reaches the age of 18. That is because on a consideration of the language of Clause 8, and particularly subsection (3), one finds that a considerable discretion is granted to the court which, as I interpret it, makes it possible for the court, where the circumstances are regarded as justifying it, to make a provision which will continue to be available after the child has reached the age of 18.
        Sir D. Renton: That is indeed good news. I only hope that the courts will take the same view of the Clause as that which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has expressed.
        Amendment agreed to
        Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill

        Clause 6
        NEGLECT BY PARTY TO MARRIAGE TO MAINTAIN OTHER PARTY OR CHILD OF THE FAMILY
        Sir D. Renton: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 6, line 14, leave out ' (a) being the husband '.
        I suggest, Mr. Rogers, that with this Amendment we take Amendment No. 13, in page 6, line 20, leave out paragraph (b).
        The Temporary Chairman: If that be the wish of the Committee, so be it.
        Sir D. Renton: This is a small but important point, which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) had in mind in putting down the Amendment. No doubt it is only in rare cases that a rich wife who was, perhaps, a guilty party in a divorce, had a crock of a husband —perhaps a husband who was badly mutilated in the war—and might well be capable of making provision for him. Under the Clause as it stands she would seem to have no obligation to do so. The
        1946
        Amendment would provide that husband and wife should be put on exactly the same footing in respect of the obligation to maintain where there had been a neglect by either party of the marriage to maintain the other party or a child of the family.
        The two very simple though sweeping Amendments put down by my hon. and learned Friend would achieve just the object that I have mentioned, and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can tell us why—
        Mr. David Weitzman: Surely subsection (1)(b)(i) provides exactly for those circumstances. It provides for the wife's contributing towards maintenance
        in a case where, by reason of the impairment of the applicant's earning capacity through age, illness or disability of mind or body, and having regard to any resources of the applicant… which are, or should properly be made, available for the purpose…."
        Sir D. Renton: That may be so. The Solicitor-General may give that answer. But the mischief that my hon. and learned Friend was trying to cure is contained in paragraph (a), which starts with the phrase
        "being the husband, has wilfully neglected "
        I should have thought that the selection of the husband as the only party to be caught by that paragraph was wrong, and that as a matter of simple legislative provision it would be far better for that paragraph to apply to both husband and wife. Paragraph (b) would then be unnecessary.
        Mr. Weitzman: The provision in Clause 6 is a very suitable and reasonable one. We all know that where a husband neglects his wife he has a duty to provide for his wife and family, and it would be a very hard circumstance for a wife to have to provide for her husband. But the very circumstances where such a case might arise are amply provided for in sub-paragraph (b), as I pointed out in my interjection, and I think the Amendment should be rejected—
        It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again
        Committee report Progress

        BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
        Ordered,
        That the Proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill, the Local Authority (Social Services) Bill and the Trees Bill, and on the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Bill [Lords] and the Radiological Protection Bill [Lords] may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry]

        MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS AND PROPERTY BILL [Lords]
        Again considered in Committee
        Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made
        The Solicitor-General: The object of the Amendment is to place the husband and the wife on a basis of equality. The Clause as drafted clearly draws a distinction between the spouses in that a husband can apply only in the limited circumstance in which he can apply in the magistrates' court under the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960, Sections 1(1)(i) and 2(1)(c). At common law, a husband has a duty to maintain his wife, but there is no corresponding duty for a wife to maintain her husband. Parliament, by enacting the 1960 Act, has, in effect, placed a duty on the wife to maintain her husband in the limited circumstances there set out, and it is these which are repeated in Clause 6(1)(b).
        Merely to provide, as the Amendment would do, that an order can be made if a wife is guilty of wilful neglect to maintain her husband, would not work unless it were made clear when the wife is under a duty to maintain. This seems to us to be the obstacle to this Amendment, which I ask the Committee to reject.
        Sir D. Renton: In view of the explanation given by the Solicitor-General, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
        Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill
        Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill

        Clause 8
        PROVISIONS AS TO POWERS OF COURT TO MAKE ORDERS IN FAVOUR OF CHILDREN AND DURATION OF SUCH ORDERS
        Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
        Sir D. Renton: I rise only to draw attention to the fact that this is a very important Clause. It governs the ages at which various provisions of the Bill apply to children of the marriage. If in the normal course of events consideration of the Bill had continued as it started in Standing Committee, we would have had a very full discussion on the Clause and, indeed, on many other Clauses, and we would have had a particularly full discussion on the new Clauses which have been put down by the Government and which will be moved at a later stage by the Solicitor-General.
        I think that I should place it on record that, by mutual consent of both sides—I say that quite deliberately—the normal, thorough procedure of House of Commons scrutiny of legislation is not being carried out. It is always to be regretted when that happens, but I mention the fact that it is not happening because, in my opinion, the courts will detect imperfections in this Clause and in other parts of the Bll, and, no doubt, in new Clauses, imperfections which, if we had carried out the usual thorough scrutiny of the Bill, might not have remained in the Bill.
        I venture to predict, I hope not too speculatively, that after a year or two of attempting to interpret this Bill when it has become an Act of Parliament the courts will find in it flaws which we might have detected, and therefore it is quite possible—more than likely—that an amending Bill will be required in perhaps the next Session but one of Parliament, the second Session of the next Parliament, or, at the latest, the third Session.
        I mention this in the interests of both sides of the Committee, because I think, bearing in mind the unusual circumstances in which we are hastening this legislation, by mutual consent, we should not be ashamed, when the right time comes to consider an amending Bill, to confess the mistakes we may have made in the Bill, and to amend this Measure

        1949
        in the light of the experience which may have been obtained of it by the courts.
        I hope that I have not stretched your patience too far, Mr. Rogers, by saying this on this Clause, but having said it, and having got it on the record, I give you an undertaking that I shall not say it again during these proceedings.
        The Solicitor-General: I think it well that I should say that for my part I raise no objection and feel no objection to the point of view which has been expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It is a fact that we are considering this matter in a fashion which is not that which we would have pursued if outside events had not taken the shape which they have. I acknowledge that. I think there may be some loss flowing from that circumstance. I do not, if I may express a view about this, feel that the loss will be in any way proportionate to the gain which is achieved by the agreement between the two sides of the Committee that, on the whole and in the public interest, it is very desirable that a provision of the kind we are proposing here should be made.
        Question put and agreed to
        Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill

        Clause 9
        VARIATION, DISCHARGE, ETC., OF ORDERS FOR FINANCIAL PROVISION
        Sir D. Renton: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 10, line 28, after '(b>)', insert 'or '.
        This seems an almost ludicrously trivial drafting Amendment, but, strangely enough, it appears to be necessary in order to cure a grammatical defect in the Clause.
        The Solicitor-General: I have pleasure in accepting this Amendment. I think that the motivation which led to its appearance upon the Paper is different from the consideration which encourages me to accept it, but that does not take away from the merit of what is proposed. The change does improve the grammar of the Clause and its language, and I am grateful for it.
        Amendment agreed to
        The Temporary Chairman: The next Amendment is Amendment No. 21, with which I suggest we discuss Government Amendment No. 32.
        The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 11, line 19, leave out subsection (10).
        I want to preface what I have to say with a personal reference to your presence in the Chair, Mr. Rogers, which I understand may be the last occasion on which you will perform that duty. Your friends have the highest regard for you as a person and the work you have done. We wish you well in the years ahead. [HON. MEMBERS: " Hear, hear."]
        The Amendment, which is linked with Government Amendment No. 32, has the effect of deleting the reference in the relevant Clauses to Section 162 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925. This is done because it is thought to be unnecessary to spell out the applicant for a variation order is a person interested in the estate. I understand that the applicant is entitled to secured periodical payments and therefore plainly is a person so interested. That being so, in the view we take of this matter, the language that the Amendment deletes is superfluous.
        I think that the original language was open to objection not only on that ground but also because it carried with it the danger that applicants for variations of orders might be confused into thinking that they should seek a grant of representation to achieve the purposes they had in mind. In fact, if someone wants to vary the order it will often be the case that a grant of representation will be an obstacle and a disadvantage in that process. The confusion to which I have just referred, and which I think was a possibility, is another ground for proposing this change, which I recommend to the Committee.
        Sir D. Renton,Mr. Rogers, I should like, first, to join the Solicitor-General in the tribute he has paid to your work as a parliamentarian. I do so in the knowledge that you and I entered this House at the same time, nearly a quarter of a century ago. We often opposed each other in the more distant past, especially on transport matters of distant memory. But you have always had the greatest regard of Members on both sides. We have

        1951
        admired your work not only as a parliamentarian, but also as an artist, and it is a joyful thought that you will now be able to devote more time to the talent in which you have shown such immense prowess. We wish you many years of felicity to enjoy your art.
        When I first studied the Bill I was puzzled by the fact that subsection (10) of the Clause was in it at all. I turned to the Report of the Law Commission to find an explanation. There was no explanation, although it was included in the draft of the Bill. It is not only an unnecessary provision, but it is misleading. I am happy to join with the Solicitor-General in the suggestion that we should now take it out of the Bill.
        10.15 p.m.
        The Temporary Chairman: Perhaps on this occasion, as this is my swan song, I may be permitted to acknowledge the
        1952
        kind words paid to me by both right hon. and learned Gentlemen on the Front Benches. In fact, if I could have chosen two hon. Members to say nice things about me, I could not have picked two who are better qualified.
        In the large section of man's allotted span that I have spent in this House I have had the honour to claim both as my friends. Therefore it is fortunate that on the last occasion on which I shall take the Chair they are present. I am grateful for what they have said. It is not easy for any man to leave this place after having spent so much of his life here.
        Amendment agreed to
        Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill
        Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill

        Clause 11
        POWER OF COURT TO ORDER SUMS PAID UNDER CERTAIN ORDERS TO BE REPAID IN CERTAIN CASES
        The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 11, line 42, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
        (1) Where on an application made under this section in relation to an order to which this section applies it appears to the court that by reason of—

        (a) a change in the circumstances of the person entitled to, or liable to make, payments under the order since the order was made, or

        (b) the changed circumstances resulting from the death of the person so liable,

        the amount received by the person entitled to payments under the order in respect of a period after those circumstances changed or after the death of the person liable to make payments under the order, as the case may be, exceeds the amount which the person so liable or his or her personal representatives should have been required to pay, the court may order the respondent to the application to pay to the applicant such sum, not exceeding the amount of the excess, as the court thinks just.
        This section applies to an order made by virtue of section 1, 2(1)(a) or (b). 3(2)(a) or (b). 6(5) or 6(6)(a), (b), (d) or (e) of this Act.
        The Temporary Chairman: With this Amendment, it will be convenient to discuss Amendment Nos. 23 and 56 and new Clauses 1 and 3.
        The Solicitor-General: These linked Amendments have a dual effect. In the first place, they confine Clause 11 to the recovery of excess payments made under an order which ought previously to have been reduced by reason of a change of circumstances. In the second place, they enable an application for this purpose to be made notwithstanding that the order in question has already ceased to have effect.
        As drafted, the Clause deals with two situations. First, it permits a recovery of excess payments where a change of circumstances which would have justified the reduction of the order has taken place in the past. Secondly, it enables a payer to recover payments made after the order has ceased to have effect because of the remarriage of the payee.
        1954
        It is thought that the Clause, so far as it operates on the variation of an order in the light of changed circumstances and enables the payer to recover excess payments, does not meet the situation where the change of circumstances has come to light only after the order has ceased to have effect. This is the origin of the Amendment.
        The Clause as originally drafted was open to the criticism that it keeps alive the old common law remedy which would enable the payer to recover post-remarriage payments on the grounds that they had been made under a mistake of fact, while at the same time giving to the court a discretionary remedy to order the repayment of only part of those payments. This matter had been given further thought and it is now agreed that the proper course, if the court is to be given any discretionary power such as is conferred by Clause 11(2), is to make this supersede the common law remedy altogether.
        It was also drawn to our attention that, in its original language, Clause 11 applied only to orders made by the divorce court. Yet, in many cases, a magistrates court's order made while the parties are still married is allowed to continue in force after their divorce and may therefore be the order which is relevant when the wife remarries. If the right to recover subsequent payments made in ignorance of that remarriage is to be subject to the discretionary powers of the court, those discretionary powers ought to cover every type of order and not merely orders of the divorce court.
        It would be anomalous for the husband to have an absolute right at common law to recover excess payments made under a magistrates court's order which had survived until the wife remarried but, if the order happened to have been made by the divorce court, for his only redress to be to ask for the court to exercise its discretion to order the repayment of the whole or part of the money.
        These are the grounds which have led to the Amendments which I now recommend to the Committee and which, in my view, improve the Bill.
        Sir D. Renton: This is legislation by an unaccustomed mass-production process. Taking these Amendments together, we are adding at one go something like six pages to the Statute Book. We are doing so with the minimum of explanation, necessarily with the minimum of consideration, and we have no option but to hope that we are making laws which will not be bad.
        As it stood, the Clause was not satisfactory, for the reasons which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given. But let us bear in mind that what he has proposed is very far reaching. I want to summarise the position as I understand it, and I greatly appreciate the right hon. and learned Gentleman's courtesy in giving me some advance notice of the complicated position which arises on these Amendments and new Clauses and on which he touched only briefly when moving them.
        If I understand the matter correctly, the net effect is that we shall be confining Clause 11 to the repayment, on an application made to vary an order, of excessive payments which are excessive because of a previous change of circumstances. Secondly, we shall be enabling an application for repayment to be made notwithstanding that an order has ceased to have effect. Thirdly, we are dealing with the very important matter of divorce court orders which cease to have effect because of the remarriage of the payee.
        I hope that I shall not be in breach of my earlier undertaking if I point out that we had put down for the Committee stage a number of Amendments dealing with this very difficult question of what is to happen on the remarriage of a spouse in whose favour the court has made an order, whether it is an innocent or a guilty spouse. If I understand the position correctly, it would seem to be that, when remarriage takes place, the net results of the Amendments and new Clauses will be that the court will have a discretion to make a fresh order. I hope that it will be an unfettered discretion.
        I confess that in view of this immense mass of Amendments and new Clauses on the Notice Paper it is not easy to sort them all out. However, I hope that it will be an unfettered discretion to do whatever appears to be right. In any
        1956
        event, we know that the common law right to recover any money which has been paid before the remarriage will have been superseded by the provisions which the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes should be added to the Bill.
        Lastly, I understand that these Amendments and new Clauses will make the same kind of provision for magistrates' courts orders which survive a divorce and which would cease to have effect on remarriage of the payee.
        It seems that those, in the broadest terms, are the effect of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is proposing. But, as I say, this is a matter which we are skimping in the necessary circumstances of tonight.
        I have little doubt that the courts will pick holes in it. Therefore, to use a phrase so familiar to lawyers, I support the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but entirely without prejudice; that is, without prejudice to the fact that we are rushing the legislation and that what we are doing may have its imperfections. In any event, I should be grateful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would say whether I am right or wrong in my understanding of the discretion which the divorce court will have on the remarriage of the payee.
        The Solicitor-General: In response to that inquiry by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, it is broadly true that the matters to which the Amendments and new Clauses refer are left to the discretion of the court. There is an extension of the discretion which the court can exercise. I do not want to commit myself to an expression like " unfettered discretion ", because discretion will have to be exercised bearing in mind the kind of factors to which the Bill refers and draws attention to as being of relative importance. Subject to that precautionary observation, I do not disagree with the opinion that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has formed about the effect of the proposals.
        Sir D. Renton: I should like to add that when I speak of an unfettered discretion, I do not mean a discretion which is exercised other than judicially. I mean necessarily a judicially exercised discretion. However, I take the point that there may be provisions to which the court must have regard when exercising

        1957
        the discretion that it is given in the event of remarriage
        Amendment agreed to
        Further Amendment made: No. 23, in page 12, line 15, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
        (2) An application under this section may be made by the person liable to make payments under an order to which this section applies or his or her personal representatives and may be made against the person entitled to payments under the order or her or his personal representatives.
        (3) An application under this section may be made in proceedings in the High Court or a county court for—

        (a)the variation or discharge of the order to which this section applies, or

        (b)leave to enforce, or the enforcement of,the payment of arrears under that order;

        but except as aforesaid such an application shall be made to a county court and accordingly references in this section to the court are references to the High Court or a county court, as the circumstances require.
        (4) An order under this section for the payment of any sum may provide for the payment of that sum by instalments of such amount as may be specified in the order.—[The Solicitor-General]
        Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill
        Clauses 12 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill

        Clause 15
        ALTERATION OF AGREEMENTS BY COURT AFTER DEATH OF ONE PARTY
        10.30 p.m.
        The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 15, line 26, leave out ' subsection (2) ' and insert ' subsections (2) and (2A) '.
        The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Rogers): I think that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if, with this Amendment, we take Government Amendments Nos. 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 together.
        The Solicitor-General: Mr. Rogers, it would, indeed, be convenient if these Amendments were considered together. What they do, in effect, is to give to the county courts jurisdiction to vary a maintenance agreement after the death of one of the parties where the estate of the deceased does not exceed £5,000 in value.
        1958
        The object of the Amendments is to bring the Clause into line with the corresponding provisions in the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act, 1938, and Section 26 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1965, which permit an application for maintenance out of the estate of a deceased person to be made by his widow and children, or his former wife, as the case may be.
        In its original form, the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1938 conferred jurisdiction exclusively on the High Court. This was done on purpose, because it was thought at the time that experience should be gained of this novel form of jurisdiction, which for the first time enabled a court to override the effect of a testator's will, before the jurisdiction was entrusted to the county courts.
        Accordingly, when it was also decided to give to the courts power to order maintenance out of the estate of a deceased former spouse, jurisdiction was in the first place conferred only on the High Court—which, at that time, had exclusive jurisdiction in divorce. The Family Provision Act. 1966, altered this position. It was decided that it would be appropriate for a county court to have jurisdiction under the County Court Act in the case of a small estate, and the dividing line was set at £5,000.
        Jurisdiction to vary a maintenance agreement after the death of one of the parties has hitherto been vested solely in the High Court. Such jurisdiction was not transferred to the county courts when they were given the jurisdiction to deal with undefended divorces, but there is a strong argument for saying that the balance of convenience lies in giving them jurisdiction to the same extent as they have jurisdiction under the 1938 Act and Section 26 of the 1965 Act.
        The point here is that, first, it is anomalous that the right to apply for the variation of a maintenance agreement should not be subject to the same jurisdiction as the right to apply for the variation of a maintenance order, which is exercisable by the county court in the case of an undefended divorce, and one effect of the Bill would be to make this anomaly more apparent.
        For the first time, the Bill confers upon the personal representatives of the

        1959
        deceased party the right to apply after his death for a variation of the agreement, and in the nature of things it is far more likely that the effect of death will be to justify a variation downwards than a variation upwards, so that one may expect many more applications to be made.
        The first three Amendments are paving Amendments, giving jurisdiction under the Clause to the High Court or a county court.
        Sir D. Renton: I warmly endorse the proposals put forward by the Solicitor-General in this group of Amendments. These are much more plain sailing than the last group of Amendments and new Clauses, and what is proposed is quite obviously right.
        I have only one query. The Family Provision Act, 1966, set a limit of £5,000 to the size of the estate which would invoke the county court jurisdiction. Four years have passed since then, and I rather wondered why we should be bound by the same limit. Under this Government the value of money—I am not making too much of a party point, but it is right to draw attention to the fact—has changed at a most alarming rate during the past year or two. The limit of £5,000 in 1966 should be more like £7,000 today, and if the provision is to stand the test of time I should have thought that it could even have been made higher than £5,000, because that is not a very large estate in these days. It is well within the competence of our able county court judges.
        If the Government feel that £5,000 is exactly the right dividing line between the High Court and the county court perhaps we can be given one reason why they feel so. Apart from that, I warmly endorse what the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes.
        Amendment agreed to
        Further Amendments made: No. 27, in page 15, line 26, after ' Court ', insert ' or a county court '.
        No. 28, in line 29, after first the ', insert ' High Court or a county '.
        No. 29, in line 31, at end insert:
        (2A) A county court shall not entertain an application under this section, or an application for permission to make an application under
        1960
        this section, unless it would have jurisdiction by virtue of section 7 of the Family Provision Act 1966 (which confers jurisdiction on county courts in proceedings under the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1938 or section 26 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965 if the value of the deceased's net estate does not exceed £5,000 or such larger sum as may be fixed by order of the Lord Chancellor) to hear and determine proceedings for an order under the said section 26 (application for maintenance out of deceased's estate by former spouse) in relation to the deceased's estate.
        No. 30, in line 32, leave out the ' and insert a '.
        No. 31, in line 41, leave out second the ' and insert a '.
        No. 32, in page 16, line 3, leave out from ' 9 ' to end of line 9.
        No. 33, in line 9, at end insert:
        () Subsection (3) of section 7 of the Family Provision Act 1966 (transfer to county court of proceedings commenced in the High Court) and paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (5) thereof (provisions relating to proceedings commenced in county court before coming into force of order of the Lord Chancellor under that section) shall apply in relation to proceedings consisting of any such application as is referred to in subsection (2A) above as they apply in relation to any such proceedings as are referred to in subsection (1) of the said section 7.—[The Solicitor-General.]
        Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill

        Clause 16
        AVOIDANCE OF TRANSACTIONS INTENDED TO DEFEAT CERTAIN CLAIMS
        The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 16, line 14, leave out from applicant ") ' to against ' in line 15.
        The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Rogers): I suggest that we discuss, at the same time, Amendment No. 36, in page 17, line 32, after child ', insert of the family '.
        The Solicitor-General: Yes, Mr. Rogers.
        These are linked, drafting Amendments, which are intended to clarify the wording of subsection (1) and (4). In its present form subsection (1) applies where certain proceedings are brought by a person either on his own behalf or on behalf of a child against any other person. The first of the Amendments would omit the words
        " either on his own behalf or on behalf of a child "

        1961
        because they are capable of being misinterpreted.
        Subsections (1) and (4) are the only places in the Bill which refer to a child without any qualification, such as " child of the family ". It might therefore not be clear at first sight just what is meant by " child " here; nor does the definition of " child " in Clause 26(1) help. It has been suggested that the words that the first Amendment would omit could be construed as being a reference to a situation in which one of the parties was not of full age and somebody was having to bring or defend proceedings on his or her behalf as next friend or guardian ad litem
        That is not what is intended. Subsection (1) is meant to apply in a situation where there is an attempt to defeat an application for financial provision for a child of the family just as it does where there is an attempt to defeat an application for financial provision for one of the spouses.
        Amendment agreed to
        Further Amendment made: No. 36, in page 17, line 32, after ' child ', insert ' of the family '—[The Solicitor—General]
        Clause 16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill
        Clauses 17 to 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill

    Clause 26

      INTERPRETATION
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 22, line 27, after ` court ' insert:
      ' (except where the context otherwise requires) '.
      The Amendment excludes the definition of the court as meaning the High Court or a divorce county court in those cases where the context otherwise requires. The need for the Amendment arises from the fact that in a number of the new provisions inserted by other Amendments which we are making, the word " court ", where it refers to a county court, will mean any county court and not merely a divorce county court.
      The Amendment deals with the point raised by the circumstances to which I have just referred.
      Sir D. Renton: I am puzzled, and I think that we deserve rather more explanation that we have had. We had the matter fairly clear in the Bill as it stood before this Amendment was suggested. Where we found that the court was given various powers—important and far-reaching powers, and many of them new—we understood that it would be the High Court which would exercise those powers, or a county court which had jurisdiction under the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1967. We are familiar with that: it means a county court having divorce jurisdiction, and not all county courts have such jurisdiction.
      A county court having divorce jurisdiction must, obviously, have power to make the various orders which may be made under the Bill, far reaching though they are. According to the Amendment, as I understand it, any county court, not merely a divorce county court, will in various circumstances have authority to exercise the powers given by the Bill. I confess that, in the complicated context of the Bill, I am not sure what those circumstances are. The words
      " except where the context otherwise requires "
      involve a tremendous amount of research not only in the Bill itself, but in the lengthy Amendments and new Clauses being moved tonight by the Solicitor-General.
      I hope that I am not asking too much, but I think that it would be helpful to the House and to practitioners to have on record exactly or in broad terms where it is that the context would enable a county court which is a divorce county court to exercise these important powers under the Bill. I have not given warning to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I would raise this point, but to the extent that he can help us and get this on to the record it would be greatly appreciated.
      10.45 p.m.
      The Solicitor-General: I want to be helpful. It would certainly not be courteous to leave the question where it is. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not give me notice of this matter, but if he turns to the language of Clauses like Clauses 8 and 9 he will find examples there, and, it may well be, elsewhere, of the context permitting the reference to the court to be a reference to a

      1963
      court other than the High Court and other than a divorce county court. It seems on the whole a convenient way of dealing with this to make the provision, subject to the exceptions where the context otherwise requires.
      Sir D. Renton: That is as helpful as far as it goes, but it makes me wonder why the Clause 26(1) could not have read, for instance, " The court means the High Court or a county court ", because that surely will be the effect. I think that it should be clearly understood that the county court is going to be able to exercise the powers given under this Bill. That is what it comes to, however much it may be hidden by the words, cryptic as they stand,
      " except where the context otherwise requires ".
      I realise that it is too late to have this dealt with in any better way, unless a manuscript Amendment were to be accepted on Report, which, of course, would be within the discretion of Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it seems to me that the county court—and here I am not quarrelling with the right hon. and learned Gentleman—has got judges able and learned enough to deal with these matters, which are essentially the administration of the family law with which the county court is becoming increasingly concerned.
      I am happy with the substance of this matter, even though I am not happy with the drafting or, indeed, totally happy with the presentation. However, I think that we have to leave it at that now.
      The Solicitor-General: If one looks at Clause 26, concerning the treatment of the expression " the court ", it would seem, bearing in mind the considerations I have offered the Committee, that the language in the Bill without the Amendment would be to restrict that expression.
      Amendment agreed to
      Clause 26, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill

      Clause 27
      TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 39, in page 22, line 44, leave out ' be ' and insert ' have been
      1964
      This is a drafting Amendment which substitutes for the expression " deemed to be made " the words " deemed to have been made ". The object is to achieve consistency. Similar Amendments are suggested to Schedule 1.
      Amendment agreed to
      Clause 27, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill

      Schedule 1
      TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS
      Amendments made: No. 49, in page 26, line 39, leave out ' be ' and insert ' have been '.
      No. 50, in page 27, line 8, leave out ' be ' and insert ' have been '.
      No. 51, in line 17, leave out ' be ' and insert have been '.
      No. 52, in line 25, leave out be ' and insert have been '.
      No. 53, in line 32, leave out ' be ' and insert ' have been '.
      No. 54, in page 28, line 6, leave out ' be ' and insert ' have been '.
      No. 55, in line 15, leave out ' be ' and insert ' have been '.
      No. 56, in line 23, leave out paragraph 5 and insert:
      5. An application may be made under this paragraph in relation to an order to which this paragraph applies in the like circumstances as those in which an application may be made under section 11 of this Act, and the provisions of that section shall apply to such an application and to an order made on such an application as they apply to an application made under that section and to an order made on the last mentioned application.
      This paragraph applies to an order made, or deemed to have been made, under any of the following provisions of the Act of 1965, that is to say, sections 15, 16(1)(a) and (b), 20(1), 21 and 22, section 16(1)(a) and (b) as applied by section 16(3) and by section 19, section 34(1), in so far as it applies to maintenance, and section 34(3).
      No. 57, in line 45, leave out be ' and insert ' have been '.
      No. 58, in line 47, leave out ' be ' and insert ' have been '.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to

      Clause 28
      CONTRIBUTIONS BY SPOUSE IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF PROPERTY
      Mr. E. S. Bishop: I beg to move Amendment No. 40, in page 23, line 5, after ' the ', insert ' maintenance or '.
      I make no apology for speaking for a few minutes, because as those who were in Committee will know, we spent three sittings of the Committee, covering 7½ hours, discussing five Clauses, whereas tonight we have dealt with more than 27 Clauses in about an hour. This is one of the most important Clauses, because, with Clause 5, it lays down the matters to which the court shall have regard when at a time of divorce the estate is to be distributed between the two parties to the marriage.
      The Amendment seeks to amend the Clause so that if a husband and wife contribute in money or money's worth to the improvement of real or personal property, they may acquire an interest even though it is to the maintenance as well as to the improvement of the property.
      Many will consider the limitation of the word " improvement " to be too great. Either party to a marriage may add considerably to the value of an asset through maintenance, as well as by improvement. I recognise that contributions in money or money's worth is a novel concept for legislation—this is probably the first time it has been put into legislation—but the contribution by maintenance may be considerable, even though, in the strict sense of the term, it may not be an improvement of the property within the meaning of the Finance Acts and other legislation.
      How does one define " improvement " and how " maintenance "? What kind of weight would the court give to the considerations set out in the Clause? What about the wife who not only has children and runs a home, but keeps the garden tidy and makes it a thing of beauty? What about the wife who, instead of neglecting the home, industriously spends her time in do-it-yourself, adding to the attractiveness of the house by papering and decorating and modern-
      1966
      ising it? She has no recompense for her labours, but this work may be a considerable contribution in money's worth, and yet it is not deemed to be an improvement and would come under the heading of maintenance.
      What about the farmer's wife who not only looks after the children, but works in the dairy, not improving it in the strictest sense but maintaining it in efficiency as well as milking the cows and keeping the accounts? Is she merely maintaining the property? Is she to be properly rewarded? Proverbs, Chapter 31, speaks of the virtuous woman whose price is " above rubies ":
      " She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household. She considereth a field and buyeth it. With the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard."
      Is this improvement of property or maintenance of property?
      " She maketh fine linen " garments. Is this maintenance of the estate or improvement? It certainly means substantial effort in the contribution by the wife in money's worth if not in money.
      Proverbs also says:
      " She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands."
      Can she reasonably hope that the courts will interpret her work as improvement of the matrimonial estate and reward her if the marriage fails? I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to pay heed to verse 31, which demands, as my hon. Friends and I do:
      " Give here the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates."
      These may seem long-distance things to bring in on discussion at the conclusion of debates on this Measure, but many will want to know how they are to differentiate between improvement and maintenance of the estate. When Clause 28 is considered with Clause 5, which lays down various aspects relating to the marriage circumstances and the contribution of each in money and money's worth, what kind of weight is to be given to considerations in Clause 28? This is the dilemma which faces us in this Bill.
      One recognises the haste with which we are trying to get the Bill through, but Clause 28 deserves a few minutes' discussion because it is one of the most important Clauses. I should like to see a situation in which the courts would

      1967
      prima facie assess the family assets as being jointly held by both parties. That is not to be, but, clearly, the courts, when they discuss the apportionment of the matrimonial estate must chalk up what is the contribution in money and money's worth in improving the estate before the wife can get any consideration.
      One can think of many circumstances in a marriage when a wife, having looked at Clause 28 will say, " I will not do that because it will be reckoned as maintenance and I shall get no recompense ". She will need advice as to whether, in the end, she will get a return for all the effort she has put in. I move this Amendment in the hope that we can probe more deeply into the thinking of my right hon. and learned Friend on this aspect.
      11.0 p.m.
      The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend has moved this Amendment in evocative and perhaps emotive terms, which I greatly appreciated and the Committee will have done. I feel rather sorry to respond to them in expressions which are comparatively legalistic, but I am bound to remind him and the Committee that the wording of this Clause is declaratory of the law. We have had discussions about this in other connections. It is very important, in considering this Clause, to recognise what I have just said, that this is a declaratory Clause and is so expressed.
      The law does not cover maintenance of property. The effect of the Amendment would, therefore, be to extend the provisions of the law so as to cover substantial sums of money spent on maintaining property. Such an innovation, in our view, and I would rather hope that the Committee would agree, is out of place in a declaratory provision of the kind which with this Clause is dealing. The whole Clause would have to be redrafted if the Amendment were accepted. That, if I may so put it, is my view of the drafting of my hon. Friend's Amendment.
      I am not all persuaded with great respect to him, that the Amendment is right in substance, because the Clause is covering disputes as to the ownership of property in all cases, not just in the case of divorce. It affects the rights of other parties and not just the spouses.
      1968
      It would be impracticable, I think, to make ownership of a house dependent on how it was maintained. For instance, if one has in mind the sort of situation where difficulty would be created, if the husband spent on it a large number of small sums in maintaining the house during the 20 or 30 years of his ownership he would be able to oust any claim made by the wife as to her contribution to its maintenance. In practice, it would work harshly for the majority of wives.
      It is also difficult to know where to draw the line as regards current expenditure on a house, if one includes maintenance, and to know whether that includes, for example, rates. It is felt better, therefore, to stick to the law, which is clear-cut although there may be some hardship in cases where substantial, large sums have been spent on maintenance. It is difficult to distinguish between a lump sum and a large number of small payments over the years. One asks the question: why should one be taken into account and not the other.
      I take the view, with great respect to my hon. Friend, that his Amendment is at fault in not taking into account the basic character of this Clause, which is declaratory of the existing law; that is a serious fault, in my judgment, of his Amendment. I hope that I have said enough to indicate that even if one could get over that difficulty, and were to introduce into the Clause a provision not declaratory of the law, that would introduce changes, and there may be, and, in my opinion, there are, serious objections to be taken to the course of the Amendment, and I must recommend the Committee that the Amendment be rejected.
      Sir D. Renton: I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop). Indeed, I think that if this had been the subject of discussion in Committee, as some of his other Amendments were, he might well have carried the day in Committee. I for one would have been inclined to support him. May I say why? And give a simple example?
      I think that the distinction between the maintenance and the improvement of a house, for example, is a very fine distinction, and a somewhat artificial one. The putting of a new roof on a house might be regarded—in fact, would be regarded, I think— as maintenance of the

      1969
      house, and would cost, perhaps, £500. The putting in of a new window, where one is need in an old house, would be regarded as an improvement of the property, and might cost only £50.
      It therefore seems quite illogical and artificial that maintenance and improvement should be considered differently in the context of the Clause. The Government would have lost nothing by accepting this simple Amendment, which is impeccably drafted. It is one of the sadnesses of the Bill having to be dealt with in this peremptory way that we cannot have a full discussion and vote upon the Amendment, but I at least assure the hon. Gentleman that I personally—I do not know whether I speak for all my hon. Friends—have a lot of sympathy with what he has said.
      Mr. Bishop: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
      Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill

      Clause 29
      RIGHTS OF OCCUPATION UNDER MATRI MONIAL HOMES ACT 1967 OF SPOUSE WITH EQUITABLE INTEREST IN HOME, ETC.
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 42, in page 23, line 24, after thereof ' insert:
      ' not being a spouse in whom is vested (whether solely or as a joint tenant) a legal estate in fee simple or a legal term of years absolute in the dwelling house '.
      The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Rogers): With this Amendment we can take also Amendments Nos. 43 and 44.
      The Solicitor-General: These are linked drafting Amendments designed to ensure that Clause 29 carries out the recommendation in paragraph 59 of the Law Commission's Report more clearly than it does in its current form.
      Sir D. Renton: I rise only to draw attention to the rather strange fact that the draft Bill of the Law Commission does not appear, according to the Solicitor General, to have carried out the intentions of its own report.
      Amendment agreed to
      Further Amendments made: No. 43, in page 23, line 24, leave out purposes of ' and insert:
      ' purpose only of determining whether he or she has rights of occupation under '.
      No. 44, in page 23, line 26, leave out from ' interest ' to end of line 28.—[The Solicitor-General]
      Clause 29, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill
      Clauses 30 and 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill

      Clause 32
      ORDER FOR MAINTENANCE OF PARTY TO MARRIAGE MADE BY MAGISTRATES'COURT TO CEASE TO HAVE EFFECT ON REMARRIAGE OF THAT PARTY
      Mr. Ian Percival: I beg to move Amendment No. 45, in page 25, line 7, at end add:
      (3) After the proviso to subsection (1) of section 7 of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act, 1960, there shall be added the following further proviso:—
      ` Provided further that where the cause of the complaint is that specified in either paragraph (h) or paragraph (i) of subsection (1) of section I of this Act (which relate to wilful neglect to provide reasonable maintenance) if the Court in making the order so directs this subsection shall not apply to so much of any order as requires the payment of a weekly sum under paragraphs (b), (c) or (h) of subsection (1) of section 2 of this Act '.
      I may perhaps be forgiven for wishing that one of the last speeches I shall make in this Parliament might have been upon a more exciting and less complicated subject than that encompassed by the Amendment. My difficulties are not lessened by the fact that the Solicitor General has indicated, albeit courteously, that the Amendment does not find favour with him.
      Despite those difficulties, I wish to have a shot at persuading him of the merits of the Amendment, and I hope that I may perhaps succeed in diverting the attention of the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security, from that excellent publication he is reading entitled, " A Better Tomorrow ".
      It is necessary to divide what I have to say into two parts: first, to explain briefly what the Amendment is intended to do, and secondly, why it is suggested that that should be done.

      1971
      The Amendment would add a new proviso to Section 7 of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act, 1960, subsection (1) of which provides that a matrimonial or interim order shall not have effect so long as the parties continue to cohabit together, save in the particular circumstances specified in the subsection. The Amendment would give to the court a discretion which it does not possess at present. The Amendment would apply only in the case of an order made where the cause of complaint is that specified in paragraphs (h) to (i) of Section 1(1) of the 1960 Act.
      Those provisions relate to the ground of complaint that a husband has wilfully neglected to provide reasonable maintenance for the wife or for any child. or where a wife has wilfully neglected to provide for or make a proper contribution towards reasonable maintenance of the husband or any child of the family. The further proviso would apply only where the cause of complaint was one of those two.
      In those cases, if the court in making the order so directs, the Amendment would mean that the provisions of Section 7(1) of the 1960 Act would not apply to so much of any order as requires the payment of a weekly sum under paragraphs (b), (c) or (h) of Section 2(1) of the Act. I will not trouble the Committee by referring to those provisions. The words chosen are words of limitation.
      The effect is that the court could make a money order, say, for the husband to pay a weekly sum to the wife on the grounds that the husband had wilfully neglected to provide reasonable maintenance for his wife, and could provide that that order should take effect notwithstanding the fact the husband and wife were still living and cohabiting together. At present, the court has no discretion to make such an order, however desirable it may feel it to be.
      Why should this additional power be given to the court? The reason is simple and short.
      By Clause 33, we shall abolish the agency of necessity. It will mean that a wife can no longer go to a tradesman and pledge her husband's credit because she has no money with which to buy what she requires. A wife who is receiving no money from her husband, and
      1972
      who is unable to obtain any necessities because she is no longer allowed to pledge his credit, is unable to obtain an effective order for payment.
      Although she could go to the court and establish that her husband was wilfully neglecting to provide her with maintenance, that order would not be effective so long as she continued to cohabit with him. It would not be effective during that period because the provisions of Section 7(1) prevent it from being effective. It would follow that the order could become effective only if she ceased to cohabit with her husband.
      11.15 p.m.
      We want to give the court discretion to deal with that sort, of situation, if and when it arises. All that is desired is to give the court power to make what is referred to in certain circles as " a housekeeping order ", enabling the court to say that, even though the wife is still living with her husband, an effective order may be made against the husband to pay her maintenance on the ground that he is wilfully neglecting to provide reasonable maintenance for her.
      This is a practical point which has been raised by the clerk to a very busy panel of justices. He has suggested it as being a practical step for widening the discretion of the court to deal with a situation which may arise and in which, as the law now stands, the court may be powerless to make the one order which it would be useful for it to make. Unless I have the technicalities of it wrong, all that this Amendment does is to make good that deficiency.
      Late as it is in the passage of the Bill, and despite the fact that the Solicitor-General has indicated that his first impression was that the Amendment did not find favour with him, I hope that he may yet take the view that it would be a practical and useful addition to the Bill.
      The Solicitor-General: The effect of the Amendment would be that, if the court so directed, a magistrates' court's maintenance order made on the ground of wilful neglect to maintain a spouse or child would no longer be unenforceable if the parties continued to cohabit and would not cease to have effect if

      1973
      they cohabited for a period of three months.
      The position is that Section 7(1) of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act, 1960, provides that, as a general rule, no order made by a magistrates' court is to be enforceable while the parties continue to cohabit. It goes on to provide that, if they continue to cohabit for a period of three months after the making of the order, the order ceases to have effect at the end of that period. To this general rule three exceptions are included in the proviso to Section 7(1) of the 1960 Act. The Amendment would, in effect, add a further exception.
      The matter, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware, has had consideration in the courts, from the Morton Commission and in other connections. The case of Evans v. Evans, which was reported in 1948 1 King's Bench Division, page 175, is a relevant authority which has been borne in mind in determining our approach to this proposal. But I must recommend that the Amendment be rejected mainly on the following grounds.
      First, one result of accepting the Amendment, or any Amendment on similar lines, would be that a wife could get an order from a magistrates' court on the ground of her husband's wilful neglect to maintain and then, while still cohabiting with him, enforce it by, in the last resort, imprisonment. This does not seem a very desirable way of determining what is, in essence, the proper level of housekeeping money which the husband should give to the wife while they are preserving a common household. There is no reason to suppose that the decision taken in 1960 to resist Amendments on these lines was mistaken, and the Government have not received representations from individuals or from organised groups suggesting that the decision should now be reversed.
      There is a further reason for not accepting the Amendment. The Bill deals almost exclusively with the power of the divorce court to give financial relief in divorce and related proceedings. The Bill admittedly deals in certain cases with orders made by magistrates' courts, but it does so only in so far as those orders
      1974
      are affected by the circumstances of divorce or are being enforced by the high court or a county court. The Bill does not give any new powers to magistrates' courts. As the Report of the Law Commission observed on this point, the Bill does not deal with powers in matrimonial proceedings outside the high court or the county courts. The Amendment, therefore, although it may be technically within the scope of the Bill, is concerned with a subject that is some distance from its central theme.
      I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the consideration that he has given to the Amendment. I hope that he will accept that I appreciate that there is some force in it and that it has been helpful to listen to his observations upon it. But, bearing in mind the factors to which I have just referred, my recommendation to the Committee is that the Amendment should not be accepted because it is open to certain objections in substance and it is in the wrong place.
      Mr. Percival: Unless, during the next few minutes, I manage to persuade the Solicitor-General to change his mind, I propose to take a certain course. Before doing so, I want to add that, courteous as was the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his reply, I should not like him to think that the course I may take, if he does not change his mind, means that I am satisfied with his answer.
      I thought in the first part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply, in which he described what the Amendment would do, he made the case for it more succinctly and better than I have been able to do. The right hon. and learned Gentleman then proceeded to give reasons why he could not accept it. It is just possible that a ludicrous situation might arise—namely, that if the Amendment were accepted, we could get a case where a wife who had an order and was still cohabiting with her husband might, in the last resort, try to get him sent to prison by enforcement of the order.
      It is just possible, but the courts have sufficient discretion to deal with extreme cases like that, and what the Solicitor-General has done here is to pray in aid a wholly unrealistic example for the purpose of meeting the contrary argument, and I do not think that there is much force in that. When one considers with

      1975
      that the fact that the only reason given by the Solicitor-General for rejecting the Amendment is that though this comes technically within the terms of the Bill it is not really as one with the other provisions, I should have thought that that was an irrelevant consideration.
      I had hoped that the test would be the simple one: would this provide a useful further power, or would it not? For the reasons that I have given I suggest that the answer is in the affirmative, and that the Solicitor-General's opening paragraph supports that. I have received no indication from the Solicitor-General that I have managed to persuade him to change his mind, but, having made it clear that I am not wholly satisfied with his reasons, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
      Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move,
      That Clause 32 be transferred to the end of line 2 on page 23.
      This is, in effect, a drafting Amendment which, we think, improves the layout of the Bill, and I recommend it to the Committee.
      Amendment agreed to
      Clauses 33 and 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill

      Clause 35
      CITATION, CONSTRUCTION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
      Sir D. Renton: I beg to move Amendment No. 47, in page 25, line 28, leave out subsection (2).
      Even at this late hour we now come to the most important Amendment that we have to consider this evening, but it need not take very long, because I understand that the Solicitor-General is prepared to accept it.
      The effect of the Amendment would be to exclude a subsection which provides that in ascertaining the meaning of any provision of the Act regard may be had to two reports of the Law Commission. When we had this before us on Second Reading it was said that this was without
      1976
      precedent in our legislation. We had a very full discussion on the principles, and I do not propose to repeat the arguments which were advanced for and against the provision.
      I said then that although I had serious doubts about the setting up of the Law Commission, it did a very good job of work on the Bill. I think that I was perhaps a little too generous with my praise of the Commission, because the more we went into the Bill, and the more we heard the Solicitor-General move Amendments to improve the Bill, the greater were our doubts about whether the Commission had really got the matter right.
      The Commission did some valuable studies before producing a draft Bill, but, whatever may be the merits of such a provision, we have to face the fact that the Bill has now been so fully amended in both Houses that it is scarcely identifiable with the Bill which the Commission put forward originally. Indeed, I go so far as to say that when the Bill is passed into law not much more than half of it will be recognisable as having been the work of the Commission.
      In those circumstances, it would be palpably absurd to invite the courts to have regard to the Law Commission's report in order to ascertain the meaning of the provisions of the Bill. It would in any event be a most fantastically complicated task in the case of many of the Clauses, in view of the various Amendments either moved or accepted by the Government.
      11.30 p.m.
      I am glad that the Government propose to accept the Amendment. I believe that there will be rejoicing on both sides of the Committee. I know that there will be rejoicing both at the Bar and among solicitors, as represented by the Bar Council and the Law Society respectively, and I have a shrewd suspicion that there will also be general rejoicing among the judiciary, except, perhaps, among one or two Law Lords who were originally wedded to the idea in another Bill—the Animals Bill—and put this forward as a tentative proposal that was eventually accepted.
      In various quarters there have been second thoughts on the question whether this is a wise provision. However, we

      1977
      need not discuss the principles tonight. We can rejoice that the Government propose to accept the Amendment and in so doing draw attention to the fact that whether the principles are right or wrong it would not be appropriate to allow this subsection to remain in the Bill.
      The Solicitor-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right in this, at least—that I propose to recommend to the Committee that it should accept the Amendment. The matter to which the Amendment refers has undoubtedly given rise to a good deal of controversy and discussion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's account of the scale of rejoicing over the acceptance of the Amendment was possibly somewhat overpainted. I have always felt that the mare reflection expended upon what was proposed in the Bill's original provision in this connection the more its merit tended to be found worthy of recognition.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman will bear in mind that it was from his own side of the House that some support, at least, was given to the concept as it appeared in the original subsection—
      Sir D. Renton: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is presumably referring to the support given from the Opposition benches in another place and not in this place.
      The Solicitor-General: It is my recollection that support was also given in this place. I have in mind the attitude taken towards it—I hope that I do him justice when I mention this— by the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster). That is my recollection.
      Be that as it may, it is undoubtedly the case that our consideration of this controversial matter has been overtaken by events, and it is that that has made it desirable, in the view of the Government, that the proposal contained in the original subsection (2) should not be proceeded with. I make no admission about the criticism directed to the provision as it formerly appeared, but I am the first to acknowledge that in the present situation it would be wrong to pursue a matter that has, beyond question, taken on a very controversial character. It is
      1978
      a matter for debate and great interest to lawyers, and in future years there will no doubt be plenty of opportunities for it to be further pursued.
      Mr. Weitzman: Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell me, as a matter of interest, whether there is any other statute in which a similar provision occurs?
      The Solicitor-General: There is not, as far as I know, a statute with a specific reference to a Law Commission Report. My hon. and learned Friend will know that a parallel provision appeared in the Animals Bill, and I am sure that he will be the first to agree that novelty is not necessarily a disqualification for any provision in a Bill.
      Mr. Bishop: I welcome the Solicitor-General's acceptance of the Amendment. Several of us expressed misgivings about the subsection on Second Reading. It certainly seemed to be novel. After the way in which the Bill has been drastically altered by my right hon. and learned Friend himself, after his initial pleas that we should not mess about with a Law Commission Bill, it is only logical to accept the Amendment.
      To do justice to the thinking of the House as well as of the Law Commission. when considering the Bill after it became law the courts ought also to have regard to the Second Reading debates here and in the other place, and also to the Committee stages. They might well be confused by the fact that, at the first sitting of the Standing Committee, an Amendment was passed, against the wishes of the Government. giving the courts power to grant more than one lump sum, or at least not just a once-for-all lump sum, an Amendment which is not in the Bill now but which was none the less supported by a majority of the Committee.
      Also, at our third sitting, a majority of the Committee were in favour of certain other principles being embodied in Clause 5. Thus, it would have been most confusing for the courts to have a clear idea of what was intended by all those who have made some contribution on these matters, whether on the Law Commission or in Parliament.
      Amendment agreed to.
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 48, in page 25, line 35, after ' 31 ' insert:
      (Minor corrections of Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960, s. 7(3)), (Construction of references to remarriage in Matrimonial Causes Act 1965, s. 26)'.
      This is a drafting Amendment consequential upon new Clauses 5 and 8.
      Amendment agreed to.

      New Clause 1
      ORDERS FOR REPAYMENT IN CERTAIN CASES OF SUMS PAID AFTER CESSA-TION OF ORDER BY REASON OF REMARRIAGE
      (1) Where—

      (a) an order to which this section applies has ceased to have effect by reason of the remarriage of the person entitled to payments under the order, and

      (b) the person liable to make payments under the order or his or her personal representatives made payments in accordance with it in respect of a period after the date of such remarriage in the mistaken belief that the order was still subsisting,

      no proceedings in respect of a cause of action arising out of the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) above shall be maintainable by the person so liable or his or her personal representatives against the person so entitled or her or his personal representatives; but on an application made under this section the court may exercise the powers conferred on it by subsection (2) below.
      This section applies to an order made by virtue of section 2(1)(a) or (b) or 6(6)(a) or (b) of this Act and to any such order as is referred to in subsection (1) or (2) of section 21 thereof.
      (2) The court may order the respondent to an application made under this section to pay to the applicant a sum equal to the amount of the payments made in respect of the period mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above or, if it appears to the court that it would be unjust to make that order, it may either order the respondent to pay to the applicant such lesser sum as it thinks fit or dismiss the application.
      (3) Subsections (2) to (4) of section 11 of this Act shall apply to an application made under this section and to an order made on such an application as they apply to an application made under that section and to an order made on the last mentioned application, and the references to the court in this section shall be construed in accordance with subsection (3) of that section as applied by this subsection.
      (4) The clerk of a magistrates' court to whom any payments under an order to which this section applies are required to be made, and the collecting officer under an attachment of earnings order made to secure payments
      1980
      under the first mentioned order, shall not be liable—

      (a) in the case of that clerk, for any act done by him in pursuance of the first mentioned order after the date on which that order ceased to have effect by reason of the remarriage of the person entitled to payments under it, and

      (b) in the case of the collecting officer, for any act done by him after that date in accordance with any enactment or rule of court specifying how payments made to him in compliance with the attachment of earnings order are to be dealt with,

      if, but only if. the act was one which he would have been under a duty to do had the first mentioned order not ceased to have effect as aforesaid and the act was done before notice in writing of the fact that the person so entitled had remarried was given to him by or on behalf of that person, the person liable to make payments under the first mentioned order or the personal representatives of either of those persons.
      (5) In this section `collecting officer ', in relation to an attachment of earnings order, means the officer of the High Court, the registrar of a county court or the clerk of a magistrates' court to whom a person makes payments in compliance with the order.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 2
      VALIDATION OF CERTAIN VOID OR VOIDABLE DECREES
      Any decree of divorce, nullity of marriage or judicial separation which, apart from this section, would be void or voidable on the ground only that the provisions of section 33 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965 (which restricts the making of decrees of dissolution or separation where children are affected) or of section 2 of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Children) Act 1958 (corresponding provision replaced by the said section 33) had not been complied with when the decree was made absolute or granted, as the case may be, shall be deemed always to have been valid unless—

      (a) before the commencement of this Act the court declared the decree to be void; or

      (b) in proceedings for the annulment of the decree pending at the said commencement the court declares the decree to be void.—[The Solicitor-General.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      Our earlier debates have referred from time to time to the possibility that it might be necessary and desirable to validate retrospectively decrees made absolute notwithstanding the fact that there had

      1981
      been a failure to comply with Section 35 of the 1965 Act. The new Clause deals with the problem of decrees which might be challenged as being void or voidable for failure to comply with that Section. As a result of the Clause, such decrees will be treated as having been valid unless already annulled before the commencement of the Bill or subsequently annulled in proceedings then pending.
      One of the difficulties in doing what the new Clause sets out to do is that it is possible, although unlikely, that persons will have already, without there having been any formal proceedings to annul such a decree, acted on the assumption that the decree was void. It is theoretically possible, for example, that the executors of a deceased man, who had previously been married but whose marriage had terminated in divorce, might take the view that the decree absolute of divorce was void through failure to comply with Section 33.
      For these reasons there is an objection to validating or invalidating retrospectively a decree affecting the status of any person. On the other hand, it is felt that it is not really likely that anyone has done this and it is virtually certain that nobody will have done so since the reporting of the President's judgment in F. v. F., in which he held that the effect of failure to comply with Section 33 was to make the decree voidable and not void.
      The courses open to Parliament have been varied, and they have received careful consideration. The treatment of the matter set out in new Clause 2 is the one which the Government recommend to the Committee.
      Sir D. Renton: In our haste to get the Bill on to the Statute Book, we should not overlook the fact that here we are engaging in retrospective legislation. We console ourselves with the fact that it is not retrospection as against the subject and in favour of the Government, for such retrospective legislation is always objectionable. This is being made retrospective as against some subjects on behalf of other subjects who are deserving, and I think that this is a right and proper example of our legislating retrospectively in order that justice may be done. I gladly support the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who has been
      1982
      candid about the retrospective character of the new Clause.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a second time and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 3
      SUMS PAID AFTER CESSATION OF ORDER OF MAGISTRATES' COURT BY REASON OF REMARRIAGE MAY BE ORDERED TO BE REPAID IN CERTAIN CASES
      After section 13 of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960 there shall be inserted the following section—
      Orders for repay ment in certain cases of sums paid after cessation of order by reason of re-marriage.
      13A.—(1) Where—

      (a) an order to which this section applies or a provision thereof has ceased to have effect by reason of the remarriage of the person entitled to payments under the order, and

      (b) the person liable to make payments under the order made payments in accordance with it in respect of a period after the date of such marriage in the mistaken belief that the order or provision was still subsisting,

      no proceedings in respect of a cause of action arising out of the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) above shall be maintainable by the person so liable or his or her personal representatives against the person so entitled or her or his personal representatives, but on an application made against this section the court may exercise the powers conferred on it by the following subsection.
      This section applies to an order in relation to which subsection (4) of section 7 of this Act, as amended by the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970, applies.
      (2) The court may order the respondent to an application made under this section to pay to the applicant a sum equal to the amount of the payments made in respect of the period mentioned in subsection (1)(b) of this section or, if it appears to the court that it would be unjust to make that order, it may either order the respondent to pay to the applicant such lesser sum as it thinks fit or dismiss the application.
      (3) An application under this section may be made by the person liable to make payments under an order to which this section applies or his or her personal representatives and may be made against the person entitled to payments under the order or her or his personal representatives.
      (4) An application under this section may be made in proceedings in the High Court or a county court for leave to enforce, or the enforcement of, the payment of arrears under an order to which this section applies, but except as aforesaid such an application shall be made to a county court and accordingly references in this section to the court are references to the High Court or a county court, as the circumstances require.
      (5) An order under this section for the payment of any sum may provide for the payment of that sum by instalments of such amount as may be specified in the order.
      (6) The jurisdiction conferred on a county court by this section shall be exercisable by a county court notwithstanding that by reason of the amount claimed in an application under this section the jurisdiction would not but for this subsection be exercisable by a county court.
      (7) Section 13(l) and (2) of this Act shall not apply to an order under this section.
      (8) The clerk of a magistrates' court to whom any payments under an order to which this section applies are required to be made, and the collecting officer under an attachment of earnings order made to secure payments under the first mentioned order shall not be liable—

      (a) in the case of that clerk, for any act done by him in pursuance of the first mentioned order after the date on which that order or a provision thereof ceased to have effect by reason of the remarriage of the person entitled to payments under it, and

      (b) in the case of the collecting officer, for any act done by him after that date in accordance with any enactment or rule of court specifying how payments made to him in compliance with the attachment of earnings order are to be dealt with,

      if, but only if, the act was one which he would have been under a duty to do had the first mentioned order or a provision thereof not ceased to have effect as aforesaid and the act was done before notice in writing of the fact that the person so entitled had remarried was given to him by or on behalf of that person, the person liable to make payments under the first mentioned order or the personal representatives of either of those persons.
      (9) In this section " collecting officer " in relation to an attachment of earnings order, means the officer of the High Court, the registrar of a county court or the clerk of a magistrates' court to whom a person makes payments in compliance with the order.'—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 4
      RESTRICTION ON ENFORCEMENT IN HIGH COURT OR COUNTY COURT OF CERTAIN ORDERS OF MAGISTRATES' COURTS
      At the end of section 13 of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960 there shall be added the following subsections:—
      ' (5) A person shall not be entitled to enforce through the High Court or any county court the payment of any arrears due under an order made by virtue of this Act without the leave of that court if those arrears became due more than twelve months before proceedings to enforce the payment of them are begun.
      (6) The court hearing an application for the grant of leave under subsection (5) of this section may refuse leave, or may grant leave subject to such restrictions and conditions (including conditions as to the allowing of time for payment or the making of payment by instalments) as that court thinks proper, or may remit the payment of such arrears or any part thereof.
      (7) An application for the grant of leave under the said subsection (5) shall be made in such manner as may be prescribed by rules of court '.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      The Clause extends to maintenance orders made by a magistrates' court, and sought to be enforced through the High Court or a county court, the same restriction on the recovery of stale arrears as is imposed by Clause 10 on the recovery of stale arrears under an order made by the Divorce Court.
      Clause 10 applies only to the enforcement of orders made by the Divorce Court. But a magistrates' court's maintenance order may be enforced through the High Court or a county court and, if it is, there is no justification for distinguishing, for the purpose of imposing restrictions on the recovery of stale arrears, between, on the one hand, orders made by the High Court or a county court and, on the other, orders made by a magistrates' court.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 5
      MINOR CORRECTIONS OF MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS (MAGISTRATES'COURTS) ACT 1960, S. 7(3)
      Section 7(3) of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960 (which provides that where after the making by a magistrates' court of a matrimonial or interim order proceedings between, and relating to the marriage of. the parties to the proceedings in which the order was made have been begun in the High Court, the High Court may direct that the order shall cease to have effect on a date specified by that court) shall be amended as follows:—

      (a) after the words ' the High Court ', where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words ' or a county court ';

      (b) for the words ' the High Court ', where next occurring, there shall be substituted the

      1985
      words ' the court in which the proceedings or any application made therein are or is pending '; and

      (c) for the words ' the High Court may specify' there shall be substituted the words ' may be specified in the direction.—[The Solicitor-General.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      11.45 p.m.
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      The Clause remedies an oversight which occurred when the Act of 1967 transferred jurisdiction in undefended divorce to the county court. Section 7(3) of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act, 1960, enables the divorce court to discharge, if it thinks fit, an existing magistrates' court's maintenance order. However, Section 7(3) operates only when the subsequent proceedings relating to the parties' marriage are commenced in the High Court.
      This was right so long as divorce jurisdiction was vested exclusively in the High Court, but one of the effects of the 1967 Act was to require all divorce proceedings to be commenced in a divorce county court, and the result is that Section 7(3) no longer operates on any divorce proceedings commenced since the 1967 Act came into force. This is manifestly inconvenient and anomalous, and the new Clause disposes of the anomaly.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 6
      JURISDICTION OF, AND APPEAL ON QUES-TION OF FACT FROM, COUNTY COURTS
      (1) The jurisdiction conferred on a county court by section 11 or section (Orders for repayment in certain cases of sums paid after cessation of order by reason of remarriage) of this Act or paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 thereto shall be exercisable by a county court notwithstanding that by reason of the amount claimed in an application made under either of those sections or the said paragraph 5, as the case may be, the jurisdiction would not but for this subsection be exercisable by a county court.
      (2) At the end of subsection (2) of section 109 of the County Courts Act 1959 (appeals on questions of fact) there shall be inserted the following paragraph:—
      ' (g) any proceedings on an application for an order under section 13A of the Matri-
      1986
      monial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960, section 11 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970, section 15 of that Act, section (Orders for repayment in certain cases of sums paid after cessation of order by reason of remarriage) thereof or paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 thereto.'—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      The new Clause confers on a county court jurisdiction irrespective of the amount involved in the case of an application for the repayment of excess payments under a maintenance order. It also confers a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal on a question of fact from an order of a county court made on such an application, or on any other application specified in the new Clause.
      Subsection (1) deals with the jurisdiction of a county court. Normally, county court jurisdiction is limited by the amount involved, but in matrimonial causes this is not the case. In undefended divorce generally and the ancillary applications arising therefrom, a county court has no limit on its jurisdiction dependent upon the amount of money claimed or at stake. The repayment of excess payments involves proceedings similar in many ways to ancillary proceedings in divorce, and where a county court is given jurisdiction, it is reasonable that that jurisdiction should not depend upon the amount involved.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 7
      AMENDMENT OF REFERENCE TO CHILD IN MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACT, 1965, S. 2
      In section 2(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965 (which provides that in determining an application to allow the presentation of a petition for divorce within three years from the date of the marriage the judge shall have regard to the interests of any relevant child) for the words `relevant child ' there shall be substituted the words child of the family within the meaning of Part I of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970 '.— [The Solicitor-General.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      This new Clause substitutes in Section 2 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1965, a reference to the child of the family for the existing reference to the relevant child.
      Section 2 of the 1965 Act embodies the rule, first introduced in divorce law by the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937, that no petition for divorce may be presented within three years of the marriage unless the judge gives leave, and such leave may be given only in the most exceptional hardship to the petitioner or exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent. This rule is in no way affected by the Divorce Reform Act, 1969, and will remain the law when the Act comes into force.
      The new Clause makes the necessary Amendment in Section 2 of the 1965 Act which flows from the changes in other provisions which have occurred.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 8
      CONSTRUCTION OF REFERENCES TO RE-MARRIAGE IN MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACT 1965, s. 26
      Section 26 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965 (which authorises the making of orders for maintenance out of a deceased's estate for a former spouse who has not remarried and provides that maintenance by way of periodical payments out of the estate shall terminate not later than his or her death or remarriage) shall have effect, and be deemed always to have had effect, as if after subsection (5) there were inserted the following subsection:—
      ' (5A) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that references in this section to remarriage include references to a marriage which is by law void or voidable '. —[The Solicitor-General.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      This Clause removes a doubt about the circumstances in which remarriage may debar a former spouse from applying for maintenance out of the estate of the other former spouse after the latter's death. The right to apply for such maintenance is conferred by Section 26 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1965. It
      1988
      extends only to the person who has " not remarried ", which is the phrase in the statute, after the divorce. If an application succeeds, the court may make an order for periodical payments out of the estate of the deceased former spouse. Section 26(3) requires the order to provide for periodical payments to cease if the survivor remarries. The doubt has arisen as to what is meant by " remarriage ", and the new Clause is designed to clarify and be rid of that doubt.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

      Schedule 2
      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): The next Amendment is No. 59, with which it may be convenient to discuss Amendments Nos. 60 to 65.
      Mr. Percival: On a point of order, Mr. Gourlay. Am I correct in thinking that new Clause 9—Apportionment of pension, etc., amongst surviving wife and former wives—was selected for debate?
      The Deputy Chairman: It was selected for debate, but the hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell), whose name is attached to the new Clause, is not in his place and it cannot, therefore, be moved.
      Mr. Percival: I should like to move it.
      The Deputy Chairman: Standing Orders do not permit of hon. Members whose names are not attached to new Clauses to move them.
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 59, in page 30, line 31, leave out ' under ' and insert ' Part I of '
      This Amendment, and Amendments Nos. 60 and 61, are linked, drafting and consequential Amendments to paragraph 2(1)(a) which makes consequential amendments to Section 2(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, which provides that a divorce county court is to have jurisdiction in connection with divorce proceedings and also proceedings for variation of maintenance orders and maintenance agreements.
      Sir D. Renton: I do not wish to resist this Amendment. I suggest that we could save time by taking all the remaining Government Amendments together, unless the Solicitor-General has any point in mind by which he thinks because of a principle involved an explanation by him is necessary.
      The Solicitor-General: I am greatly obliged by that suggestion which I think is helpful to the Committee. If we may act on it, I think it would be of considerable advantage.
      The Deputy Chairman: We can take all the Amendments to Schedule 2 together if that is desired.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendments made: No. 60, in page 30, line 33, leave out that Act " ' and insert ' from " section 22 " onwards '.
      No. 61: In line 34, leave out
      ' the said Act of 1965 or under '.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      No. 62: In line 36, leave out from beginning to ' and ' in line 39 and insert:
      (b) for subsection (3) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
      (3) A divorce county court shall not by virtue of this section have jurisdiction to exercise any power under—

      (a) section 26 or 27 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965; or

      (b) section 10, 11, 15 or (Orders for repayment in certain cases of sums paid after cessation of order by reason of remarriage) of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970 or paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 thereto;

      but without prejudice to the exercise by virtue of section 7 of the Family Provision Act 1966 of any power exercisable by a county court under the said section 26 or 27 or to the exercise by virtue of any such provision of the said Act of 1970 as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection of any power exercisable by a county court under that provision; '—[The Solicitor-General.]
      No. 63: In line 40, leave out from beginning to second ' the ' and insert:
      (c) in subsection (4), for the words from `section 24' onwards there shall be substituted.
      No. 64: In line 41, leave out ' or '.
      No. 65: In line 43, leave out subparagraph (2) and insert:
      (2) In section 7(1) of the said Act of 1967 (which specifies the authority having power to make rules of court for the purposes of certain enactments) the word or' at the end of
      1990
      paragraph (b) shall be omitted and after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the words 'or
      (d) without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (c) of this subsection, Part I of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970, and Schedule 1 thereto, except proceedings in the county court under section 10, 11, 15 or (Orders for repayment in certain cases of sums paid after cessation of order by reason of remarriage) or paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 '.
      No. 72: In page 31, line 21, at end insert:
      5. At the end of Schedule 8 to the Adminstration of Justice Act 1970 (maintenance orders to which Part II of that Act applies) there shall be inserted the following paragraph:—
      10. An order for periodical or other payments made under Part I of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970.'. —[The Solicitor-General.]
      Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

  Schedule 3

    REPEALS
    Amendments made: No. 66: in page 31, line 33, at end insert:
    `except section 25(4) and (5) as applied by section 28(2) of that Act '.
    No. 67: In line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 37 and insert:
    Section 46(2) except so far as it applies for the interpretation of section 41(3) of that Act '.—[The Solicitor-General.]
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

    Title
    Amendment made: No. 68, in line 9, leave out from ' make ' to ' to ' in line 17 and insert:
    ' other amendments of the law relating to matrimonial proceedings '.—[The Solicitor-General.]
    Bill, as amended in Committee, considered forthwith, pursuant to the Order yesterday.

    Clause 4
    ORDERS FOR TRANSFER AND SETTLEMENT OF PROPERTY AND FOR VARIATION OF SETTLEMENTS IN CASES OF DIVORCE,ETC.
    Mr. Percival: I beg to move Amendment No. 73, in page 4, line 27, at end insert:
    and the children of the family or either or any of them '.
    The Amendment arises out of a discussion which we had in Standing Committee when we were discussing that part of Clause 4 which gives the court power to vary settlements; that is subsection (4)(c), which provides for
    " an order varying for the benefit of the parties to the marriage and of the children of the family or either or any of them "
    any of the settlements of the kind there referred to.
    So it is perfectly clear that what we have in mind here is the giving of the power to vary not only for the benefit of the parties to the marriage, but for the benefit of the children of the family as well, or for the benefit of the parties and the children.
    It is to the second part of this provision that the Amendment relates. In the second part of the subsection one finds set out the settlements which may be so varied, and those are restricted to settlements made on " the parties to the marriage ". So it would appear, as this subsection stands at the moment, that it is only settlements made on the parties to the marriage which may be varied, although they may be varied either for the benefit of those parties or for the benefit of the children or for the benefit of the parties and the children.
    The purpose of the Amendment is purely and simply to remove any doubt which might thereby be created or which may already exist as to the power of the court to vary settlements which are made on the parties and the children of the family or settlements which are made on the children of the family.
    When we discussed this matter in Committee I confessed to the Committee my personal ignorance of the subject, but said that I understood, from friends and colleagues who practised in this field, that there was here a point of doubt which the House could usefully resolve, and the undertaking which I gave was to consult further with them and to ascertain whether I had correctly understood what they had said, and, if so, what were the reasons for that. That I have done, and I have provided the Solicitor-General with the information which has been supplied to me, and that enables me to make very briefly now the point of principle in support of the Amendment.
    I am told by those friends and colleagues who practise in this field that there is doubt felt in the courts whether settlements made on children may be varied. I am also told that there may be cases where it is necessary and desirable that such settlements should be varied.
    12 midnight
    Where a settlement is made by a husband on his present and future children by any marriage, such children to take on attaining 21, the children of the first marriage would have fixed interests. They could never be deprived of all their interest. Their interest would vary accordingly only to the number of children. If the husband had three children of the first marriage, those three children would take under the settlement and until the husband remarried and had further children they would be the only children entitled under the settlement. If he remarried and had another three children, they would each take one-sixth instead of one-third, but at least they would still retain an interest.
    The problem arises under discretionary settlements. Although the number of discretionary settlements will, as a result of the Finance Act, 1969, probably be fewer in future, there are still a large number of settlements to be worked out. Under those settlements there is no obligation on the trustees to give anything to any particular child. In the case I have postulated, of a man with three children by his first marriage and three children by the second marriage, the trustees could exercise their discretionary powers so as to cut out the three children of the first marriage and give the whole of the beneficial interest under the settlement to the children of the second marriage. One hopes that it would not be a regular or frequent occurrence, but it would be folly to ignore the possibility that it might happen.
    Although, as a matter of strict law, under discretionary settlements the trustees have a free hand, one knows full well that they habitually pay great attention to the wishes of the settlor, and if a settlor desired to act in this way the trustees nominated by him might comply with his request. There is, therefore, a strong case for saying that the divorce court should have jurisdiction to vary a settlement made on the children, and in particular a discretionary settlement, so as

    1993
    to prevent the children of the first marriage being excluded by the trustees in the exercise of their discretionary powers, and to provide that a specified fraction of the trust funds should be allotted to the children of the first marriage. Only in this way can security for the children of the first marriage be secured.
    We are back to the origins of the Bill. In many respects we have made substantial changes to the Bill all of which are within the Long Title, but many of which bear little relationship to the origins. The Bill's origins link up with the Divorce Reform Bill which we discussed last year and the desire of the House to ensure that if divorce were made easier, as it was by that Bill, the court should have wider powers in providing for the wife and children of the first family.
    This Amendment is linked to that origin and object. Its whole purpose is to make quite sure the court has the power which I have been describing. Some people say it is there already, but I am informed by the practitioners in this branch of the law that there is some doubt. Although in at least one case the court has accepted such jurisdiction, where the parties were agreed, those who practise in this field say that in the absence of such agreement there is doubt whether the court would come to the conclusion that it had or had not such jurisdiction.
    The purpose of the Amendment is to remove the possibility of such an argument arising. If the outcome of an argument were that a court had no such jurisdiction, then the Amendment would have been proved to be necessary. But to go a stage further, by accepting the Amendment we would cut out the possibility of such an argument arising and having to be decided. Therefore, this is a useful and practical provision.
    If there were any technical defect in the wording I realise that it is too late to put it right. I will not take up time on that matter because I submit that the wording of the Amendment is simple and clear. It follows the same formula adopted in paragraph (b) and I hope it will be just as appropriate and effective in this respect. For the moment I assume there is no technical objection to the wording, and I hope that it can be accepted.
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman was good enough to discuss with me the effect and content of the Amendment. If I may say so, it is very desirable that matters of this kind should be dealt with in that way between members of the profession. One of the documents that he was good enough to show me was a distinguished opinion by counsel dealing with the point.
    I have given careful thought to what is here proposed. It is true that it has not arisen as a novelty, because an Amendment of a similar kind was moved by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) in Committee, and I undertook to give further consideration to the point.
    The Amendment is designed to give the courts jurisdiction to vary settlements on the children of the family where the settlement does not make provision for the spouses. If the object of the Amendment is to vary trusts in favour of children regardless of the existence of interests in favour of parents, the matter ought to be considered in the wider context of the variation of trusts for children generally.
    It is at this point that, rightly or wrongly, I come to what I regard as the substance of the argument in favour of the rejection of the Amendment. One asks the question: why should children whose parents are divorced be treated differently from children who lose one of their parents? That is a question which constantly arises and creates a real difficulty for us. It arose on the important issues, which have been raised throughout our consideration of the Bill, concerning the mutuality of property.
    Why should the principle of mutuality, for which there was much to be said, be introduced to deal with the peculiar situation of a marriage which has broken down? If one was to deal with that matter and make changes in the law affecting it, there was much to be said in favour of doing it compendiously and not in a financial Measure dealing with the case of divorce and the marriage which has broken down.
    If the Amendment were accepted, the courts could only exercise their discretion at the expense of the children of the first marriage. The courts have set their face against acting to the prejudice of

    1995
    the children of a broken marriage. After all, they are innocent parties. It is felt that the Amendment would go some way to reverse this desirable trend.
    The Clause covers settlements by third parties as well as settlements by the spouses. Thus it would cover a settlement by a wife's father. If the Amendment were accepted, the courts would be able to make an order benefiting the second wife's children at the expense of the settlor's grandchildren—that is, the first wife's children. Finally, the Amendment is not adapted to the Clause, which speaks of post and ante-nuptial settlements. A settlement on children alone is not really such a settlement, and there might be some confusion.
    If the parties want to settle property on children so that they can take account of the children of all their future marriages, it is open to them to do so already, albeit with some embarrassment.
    Those are the considerations which lead me to recommend that the Amendment should be rejected.
    Mr. Percival Mr. Percival rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman has exhausted his right to speak. He may speak by leave of the House, which is not usually granted on Report.
    12.15 a.m.
    Mr. Percival: If 1 have the leave of the House, I should like to draw attention to one matter.
    I understood the Solicitor-General to say that if the Amendment were accepted the court could exercise the power only at the expense of the children of the first marriage. If that is the reason for rejecting the Amendment, I think that I should point out that the object of the Amendment is precisely the opposite, so that the court will have a discretion which it may exercise not at the expense of the children of the first marriage, but to safeguard them.
    As this matter arises at such a late stage and obliged as I am to the House
    1996
    for granting the courtesy of allowing me to make the point, I should like to reciprocate that courtesy by asking for leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 5
    MATTERS TO WHICH COURT IS TO HAVE REGARD IN DECIDING WHAT ORDERS TO MAKE UNDER SECTIONS 2, 3 AND 4
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 70, in page 5, line 4, at end insert:
    () any physical or mental disability of either of the parties to the marriage;.
    In Committee, we gave consideration to a change which we were invited to make by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), who expressed the desire that there should be explicit reference in Clause 5 to the case of children suffering from physical or mental disability. We are really concerned with applying the logic of that concession in the Amendment, because we are drawing attention in the same fashion and in the same sense to
    " any physical or mental disability of either of the parties to the marriage ".
    I recommend the Amendment to the House.
    Sir D. Renton: I rise only to thank the Solicitor-General for meeting this further point which I, too, had put forward in Committee.
    While I am on my feet I should like, in conclusion, to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his patience and courtesy throughout the rather complicated and unusual proceedings on this very difficult Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading) and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

    SOCIAL SECURITY (SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS)
    12.18 a.m.
    The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. David Ennals): I beg to move,
    That the Supplementary Benefit (Determination of Requirements) Regulations 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 15th May, be approved.
    The draft Regulations provide for increases to be made in the scales of supplementary benefit laid down in paragraphs 9 and 10, as amended, of the Ministry of Social Security Act. These scales, as hon. Members know, cover basic requirements and are exclusive of rent, an allowance for which is added to the scale rates. This allowance is normally, in the case of the householder, the actual net rent and rates, paid. For the non-householder, a standard rent addition is given; and this is also being increased by these draft Regulations.
    This Government, as hon. Members are aware, has brought forward proposals to increase supplementary benefits each year from 1965 onwards. We have been determined to protect the interests of the elderly, the sick, the fatherless families who rely on supplementary benefits.
    Turning to the details of the increases, it is proposed that the rate for a single householder should be increased by 8s. a week and that for a married couple by 13s. a week, bringing the single rate up to £5 4s. and the married rate up to £8 10s. Over and above these amounts there will be allowances for rent and, as appropriate, the long-term addition of 10s. which is added automatically to the basic level of supplementary benefit to all over pension age and to those, apart from the unemployed, who have drawn benefit for over two years. There will also be appropriate increases in the rates for other adults, young people, and children.
    The beneficiary who is not a householder receives a fixed addition for rent which is the equivalent of the rent allowance. This addition is also being increased by these Regulations so that the amount will go up From lls. to 12s. The effect of this increase is that all non-householders over 21 will be 7s. better off as a result of the changes made by these Regulations.
    1998
    When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services announced that the draft Regulations had been laid, he made it clear that the increases would
    " more than restore the real value of the scales brought in last November ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1970; Vol. 801, c. 1667.]
    Nonetheless, it was suggested that the Government had failed to make sufficient provision for the possible increases in prices between now and November.
    Clearly it is difficult to forecast with absolute precision how prices will have moved by a particular date. For example, price fluctuations can often be caused by seasonal and climatic factors.
    In their speeches the Opposition have been making wild and irresponsible predictions about future price rises—as if the pattern of the period from November to April is likely to continue for the remaining months of the year. The Tories, under their present leader, are noted for gloomy prophecies. They tried to mislead the country over the trends in our balance of payments, about our industrial growth, and about the rate of investments.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Even the Minister must keep to the Regulations he is moving.
    Mr. Ennals: The Index of Retail Prices for April, 1970, was published on 21st May. This shows that over the period since November, 1969, when benefits were last raised, prices, excluding housing, have risen by 4·0 per cent. But experience shows that over the years prices rise more rapidly over the period November-April than over the year as a whole, and it is usual for the index to stabilise or fall slightly in the summer months before rising in the autumn again. For example, in the year November, 1968, to November, 1969, the index less housing rose by about 5·5 per cent. But just over 4 per cent. of this rise occurred in the months November to April—almost exactly the same percentage as in the present year. Thereafter the index fell marginally in May, rose somewhat in June—July, fell in August, and rose somewhat thereafter. But by far the greater part of the year's increase occurred in the first five months. This was greatly influenced by the seasonal movement of food prices. A broadly similar picture occurred in 1967–68 and in earlier years.

    1999
    The Government stand by their statement that the increases now proposed will more than restore the value of the scale rates which started last November. And I ask the House to recall that, as I have indicated, supplementary benefit rates have been raised each year from 1965 onwards. On none of these occasions have the Government failed to take sufficient account of price rises, and I am sure that this occasion will prove no exception. In fact, of course, the real value of supplementary benefits rose by about 23 per cent. between October, 1964, and November, 1969—even leaving out of account the long-term addition introduced in 1966.
    How have the improvements in supplementary benefits compared with the movement in earnings? Taking October, 1964, as the base, supplementary benefit in November, 1969, had gone up 51·2 per cent, compared with 37·1 per cent. average industrial earnings. The equivalent figures for supplementary benefit in November, 1970, will be an increase of 63·8 per cent., though of course I can give no figure for the movement of industrial earnings by November, 1970.
    I have dealt so far with the provisions for help laid down in the Regulations. I should like to refer, briefly, to two changes consequential on the Regulations, which the Supplementary Benefits Commission proposes to make under its discretionary powers. First, it can settle the requirements of persons paying an inclusive charge for board and lodging. Second, it can increase benefit to meet special expenses that arise in an individual case to the extent that these are not already covered by the long-term addition or by other resources which the person may have. If the proposed Regulations are approved, the Commission intends from 2nd November to make appropriate increases in relation to the personal expense allowance for boarders and the additions for extra dietary needs.
    As regards increases in benefit to meet special expenses, the amounts of these additions are usually self-regulating, because they are linked to the cost actually incurred, for example, for domestic assistance. In the case of extra heating they are linked to the price of coal. But for special diets amounts are laid down based on medical advice. These are currently 13s. 6d. a week for the cost of a diet in
    2000
    certain specified conditions and 6s. in other cases. The Commission proposes to increase these rates, which were last altered at the time of the 1968 regulations, by 2s. and ls. respectively, so that they will become 15s. 6d. and 7s.
    The proposed increases will benefit about 2,700,000 current recipients, making, with their dependants, who include over 750,000 children, a total of over 4 million people in all. All these will therefore benefit from the real increase in the value of supplementary benefits which has been achieved during the period this Government have been in power.
    The cost of these proposals will be just over £70 million in a full year, while the cost in the current financial year1970–71—is expected to be about £30 million. This will be on top of the estimated net cost of supplementary benefits for the current year of £485 million. This is more than twice as much as was spent by the Opposition on National Assistance in 1963–64.
    Let me say a word about the over-80s who will benefit from the effect of these regulations. In one of the more misleading sections of its manifesto the party opposite talk about pensions for
    " the over-80s who now get no retirement pension at all ".
    Any reader not used to this technique of double-talk would assume that those over the age of 80 were denied pensions.
    Mr. Martin Maddan: Non-sense!
    Mr. Ennals: As the hon. Member says, it is absolute nonsense. That is what we call being honest with the people.
    What are the facts. There are about 1 million people over 80 who draw contributory pensions—that is about 90 per cent. of that age group. Half of the remaining 10 per cent. are in receipt of regular supplementary pensions—bringing them to a level of course above the level of national insurance benefits. So that is 95 per cent. The remaining 5 per cent. are all entitled to non-contributory pensions unless they already have resources above the level laid down by the supplementary benefits scheme. Every one of them has a right to apply for a supplementary pension—and to the long-term addition. If there are any in need who

    2001
    have not applied it is up to all of us—including Members of this House and the Opposition—to see that they benefit from the provisions made available by our compassionate society. They should be reminded that under a Labour Government we have pushed into the past the days of the old poor law and national assistance. The uprating of supplementary benefits will of course help those who do not qualify for a contributory pension both by increasing supplementary pensions and by bringing within the scope of the scheme those whose resources are marginally above the present scale rates.
    I have one last question before I complete this presentation. This concerns family allowances—and family poverty is very relevant—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are debating a proposal that increases supplementary benefits. The Minister must confine himself to that.
    Mr. Ennals: I respect your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. It is with pleasure that I move that the House accepts the Regulations.
    Mr. Paul Dean: Hon. Members on this side of the House welcome these increases in supplementary benefits which the Government propose should take place in November—which has become the normal time for increases of this kind. In introducing the Regulations, the Minister of State tried to make light of the price increases that have taken place in recent months and which, on the present trend, are likely to take place in future. How much these increases in benefit are needed now, and how much more they will be needed by November, in view of the price increases which are taking place!
    The hon. Gentleman gave the figure—an increase in the cost of living of 4 per cent. already since last November when increases were last made. It is a rate of rise faster than at any time in the last 20 years, and it means that the £ in the pocket, especially of the poorest sections of the community whom we are now considering, is being devalued at a very serious rate. Clearly, these increases are needed. Since last November, the poorest sections of the community
    2002
    have found that about half the increase in benefits then provided has been eaten away by rapidly rising prices.
    The Minister of State has claimed that the increases now proposed will more than restore the value of the benefits. He has failed—as did the Secretary of State on 15th May—to say on what basis of price increase that is calculated. Unless we know, how can we possibly judge whether his claim is likely to be substantiated? The hon. Gentleman has totally failed to tell the House the basis of calculation. I shall have a shot at it myself.
    I take the point which the Minister made that there tends to be a higher rise at this time of year than later, but what is clear, taking the fairest possible estimate, is that if price rises go on at a broadly similar rate it is probable that by November next a married couple will find themselves 12s. worse off than at last November. I base that on a rise in the cost of living of about 8 per cent. over the 12 months, which is a reasonable figure to take, in view of the 4 per cent. which the Minister of State has given.
    Mr. Ennals Mr. Ennals rose—
    Mr. Dean: If he wishes to assert that 8 per cent. is a miscalculation, will the Minister of State say on what figure the Government have calculated so that the House may judge whether his claim that the benefits will be restored is correct?
    Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman's assumption is absurd. It is not borne out by experience in previous years under this Government or under the Tory Administration. The increase during the period from November to April is almost always much more than during the next six months. I pointed this out with facts and figures. The hon. Gentleman's assumption of 8 per cent. does not wash. He is electioneering.
    Mr. Dean: I asked the Minister what the Government's figure was, and we have still not had an answer. I am entitled to say that, with 4 per cent. for five months, it is a reasonable assumption to take 8 per cent. for the year as a whole, and certainly so under a Labour Government who have totally failed to manage the economy. By next November, the poorest sections of the community, those living on

    2003
    supplementary benefits, will have felt the effects of it, and, as I say, a married couple will have lost about 12s. in the value of their supplementary benefit.
    What will happen in the meantime? Every week, people are suffering because of the steep increases in prices. It is not good enough in these circumstances for the Minister to boast of what the Government are doing to help the poorest. They are doing no more than in a small way trying to repair a little of the damage they have done and the hardship they are causing to these people through the rapid price increases now taking place.
    I have two brief questions to put to the hon. Gentleman. The first is with regard to the wage stop. He did not mention those who will not get the full increase owing to the wage stop. I am thinking here in particular of the disabled wage stopped. We all recognise that there is a problem here, but the Government undertook in 1967 to review the difficult question of the wage stop on the disabled. We have had no announcement yet, however, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to say more than he has done. Here is a case of disabled people who make the effort to go out of work and suffer under the present arrangements as a result of the wage stop when they are away from work sick. These are the sort of people we want to encourage.
    My second question concerns cost. The hon. Gentleman said the cost in a full year would be £70 million. Is this additional outlay of supplementary benefits provided for in the Estimates of Government expenditure previously announced, or is it over and above what has been announced already?
    I end as I began by welcoming these improvements. They are certainly needed, and because of the quite unusual price increases which are taking place, by November, when they come into operation, they will have been substantially eroded and there will be considerable additional hardship for the poorer sections of our community as a result of the mismanagement of the economy by the Government.
    12.37 a.m.
    Mr. Martin Maddan: I had not intended to intervene but the Minister of State gratuitously took up a very good point in the Tory Manifesto about
    2004
    the over-80s, and since I have in my constituency more over-80s than perhaps any other hon. Member, I feel called upon to comment on what he said and more particularly on the spirit in which he said it.
    At the end of a Parliament before a General Election the conventicn is to discharge business which is in the interest of the country as a whole as quickly as we can and not in a partisan spirit, and it is for this reason that I regret the tone employed by the Minister. He talked about the " compassionate " Labour Government, but throughout his speech there were the signs of an understandably bad conscience about the Government's performance towards many people, including the over-80s. It is a pity that he made such a political point. It was a very bad point, and it is sad that he sought to make it in a debate of this sort at this time. He could have spoiled a good Measure by such a dose of sanctimonious humbug.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That the Supplementary Benefit (Determination of Requirements) Regulations 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 15th May, be approved.

    CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS BILL
    Lords Amendments considered.
    Clause 1

      INFORMATION AS TO NEED FOR AND EXISTENCE OF WELFARE SERVICES
      Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 8, leave out
      " to take such steps as are reasonably practicable "
      12.38 a.m.
      Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      It has been put to me that the difference between the debates earlier tonight on the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Bill and the debates we are about to have on this Bill is that our impending debates will not be so disabling. There are hon. Members on

      2005
      both sides who feel that the debates on the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Bill were a mildly disabling experience.
      The object of the Amendment is to ensure that we shall soon know for certain the full facts about the incidence of disablement in contemporary Britain. They may well prove unpleasant and even shocking, but we must know them, for that is the first precondition for improving the lives of disabled people. This and the subsequent Lords Amendments are extremely important. They fortify and improve the Bill whose provisions are awaited by well over 1 million longterm sick and disabled people and their families.
      May I briefly and inadequately acknowledge the constructive help of my noble Friend Lord Longford who sponsored my Bill in another place? In promoting this and other Amendments he has done major service to the sick and disabled. The House knows of his deep and abiding concern for disadvantaged people and especially for severely handicapped people. By this and other Amendments he and his colleagues in another place have strengthened the Bill. Numerous of his colleagues in another place deserve our appreciation, including particularly my noble Friend Baroness Serota and her Ministerial colleagues. Many organisations and individuals outside the House have given help as valuable as it has been selfless, and I warmly thank them all. There are some who criticise our civil servants, but no one who knows the history of the Bill would share that criticism. In the matters covered by this and other Amendments, we have been met with unfailing help and co-operation from civil servants and many have done a great deal of overtime because of the Bill. They have contributed both humanity and practical idealism to the making of the Bill. They have proved once again that this House is served by the finest Civil Service in the world..
      Mr. Giles Ecclestone of the Public Bill Office did great service in making the Bill possible. He is a distinguished servant of the House and I warmly acknowledge the help he gave me and hon. Members on both sides of the House in drafting the Bill in its original form. I should like also briefly to mention the
      2006
      late Mr. Julian Elliston, Parliamentary Counsel, who died tragically just before Report in this House. He did great work. We started last November with what was virtually a blank piece of paper but with one determined intention—to extend the welfare, improve the status and enhance the dignity of chronically sick and disabled people. In commending this the first of the Lords Amendments, I trust that it will be felt that we have not failed in our purpose.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 2

      PROVISION OF WELFARE SERVICES
      Lords Amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 13, at end insert:
      " or assistance to that person in taking advantage of educational facilities available to him; "
      Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we may take the next three Lords Amendments.
      Mr. Morris: The Clause is concerned with improving local services. The Lords Amendments will be of considerable service to disabled people in every locality.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to—[Several with Special Entry].

    Clause 4

      ACCESS TO, AND FACILITIES AT PREMISES OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
      Lords Amendment: No. 6, in page 3, line 29, after " building " insert " or premises ".
      12.45 a.m.
      Mr. John Astor: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      I understood that Amendments Nos. 7 and 13 were to be taken with this.
      Mr. Speaker: That is not on my note, but I have no objection to this Amendment being considered with Amendments Nos. 7 and 13 if that is the wish of the House. So be it.
      Mr. Astor: All the Amendments to this group of Clauses help to strengthen the Bill. The new Clause B—Access to, and facilities at, university and school buildings—in Amendment No. 13, extends the access provisions to universities, colleges and schools. Many of us were concerned that these educational establishments were not included. I hope that the House will welcome these important Amendments.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 5

      PROVISION OF PUBLIC SANITARY CONVENIENCES
      Lords Amendment: No. 8, in page 3, line 34, leave out from " Where " to " authority " in line 42 and insert " any local ".
      Mr. Astor: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment we can consider Lords Amendments Nos. 9 and 10.
      Mr. Astor: Amendment No. 9 introduces signposting to certain public buildings which will have special facilities provided. I think the House will agree that this is a useful measure.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    New Clause " C "

      CO-OPTION OF CHRONICALLY SICK OR DISABLED PERSONS TO LOCAL AUTHORITY COMMITTEES
      Lords Amendment: No. 23, in page 5, line 10, after the words last inserted, insert new Clause " C ":
      " C. Where a local authority within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1933 or the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947 appoint a committee of the authority under any enactment, and the members of the committee include or may include persons who are not members of the authority, then in considering the appointment to the committee of such persons regard shall be had, if the committee is concerned with matters in which
      2008
      the chronically sick or disabled have special needs, to the desirability of appointing to the committee persons with experience of work among and of the needs of the chronically sick and disabled, and to the person or persons with that experience being or including a chronically sick or disabled person or persons."
      Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      The intention of this Clause is to extend the concept of representation for disabled people to local authority committees on health, welfare, housing and education. I commend it to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 14

      SEPARATION OF YOUNGER FROM OLDER PATIENTS
      Lords Amendment: No. 24, in page 5 line 25, leave out " under the age of 50 ".
      Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      This Clause will be a great service to the young chronically sick. I am sure that the House will rejoice that these Amendments have now been agreed.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    New Clause " D "

      BADGES FOR DISPLAY ON MOTOR VEHICLES USED BY DISABLED PERSONS
      Lords Amendment: No. 31, after Clause 17, line page 7, line 27, at end insert new Clause " D ":
      " D.—(1) There shall be a badge of a prescribed form to be issued by local authorities for motor vehicles driven by, or used for the carriage of, disabled persons; and—

      (a) subject to the provisions of this section, the badge so issued for any vehicle or vehicles may be displayed on it or on any of them either inside or outside the area of the issuing authority; and

      (b) any power under section 84C of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 (which was inserted by the Transport Act 1968) to make regulations requiring that orders under the Act shall include exemptions shall be taken to extend to requiring that an exemption given with reference to badges issued by

      2009
      one authority shall be given also with reference to badges issued by other authorities.

      (2) A badge may be issued to a disabled person of any prescribed description resident in the area of the issuing authority for one or more vehicles which he drives and, if so issued, may be displayed on it or any of them at times when he is the driver.
      (3) In such cases as may be prescribed, a badge may be issued to a disabled person of any prescribed description so resident for one or more vehicles used by him as a passenger and, if so issued, may be displayed on it or any of them at times when the vehicle is being used to carry him.
      A badge may be issued to the same person both under this subsection and under subsection (2) above.
      (4) A badge may be issued to an institution concerned with the care of the disabled for any motor vehicle or, as the case may be, for each motor vehicle kept in the area of the issuing authority and used by or on behalf of the institution to carry disabled persons of any prescribed description; and any badge so issued may be displayed on the vehicle for which it is issued at times when the vehicle is being so used.
      (5) A local authority shall maintain a register showing the holders of badges issued by the authority under this section, and the vehicle or vehicles for which each of the badges is held; and in the case of badges issued to disabled persons the register shall show whether they were, for any motor vehicle, isued under subsection (2) or under subsection (3) or both.
      (6) A badge issued under this section shall remain the property of the issuing authority, shall be issued for such period as may be prescribed, and shall be returned to the issuing authority in such circumstances as may be prescribed.
      (7) Anything which is under this section to be prescribed shall be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister of Transport and Secretary of State by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and regulations so made may make provision—

      (a) as to the cases in which authorities may refuse to issue badges, and as to the fee (if any) which an authority may charge for the issue or re-issue of a badge; and

      (b) as to the continuing validity or effect of badges issued before the coming into force of this section in pursuance of any scheme having effect under section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 or any similar scheme having effect in Scotland: and

      (c) as to any transitional matters, and in particular the application to badges issued under this section of orders made before it comes into force and operating with reference to any such badges as are referred to in paragraph (b) above (being orders made, or having effect as if made, under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967).

      (8) The local authorities for purposes of this section shall be the common council of the City of London, the council of a county or county borough in England or Wales or of a
      2010
      London borough and the council of a county or large burgh in Scotland; and in this section 'motor vehicle' has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967.
      (9) This section shall come into operation on such date as the Minister of Transport and Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint."
      Mr. Speaker: I call the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in this Amendment.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mr. Alfred Morris.]
      Mr. Neil Marten: While I think the draftsmen have made heavy weather of this Clause I hope the House will agree with it. I would like to make two small points. One is a purely drafting one. Subsection (2) says:
      " A badge may be issued to a disabled person of any prescribed description…"
      I assume that that means a " badge of any prescribed description may be issued to a disabled person, and that the Clause does not intend prescribing a disabled person. It might be as well to have that explained.
      Secondly, can we know whether, should there be a disagreement about whether a badge should be issued or not to a disabled person, there is any right of appeal?
      Mr. David Weitzman: I am glad that the Government have seen fit to support this Lords Amendment. When the Bill was passing through this House we had difficulty in persuading the Government in this direction. I am glad that they have agreed to this Amendment. It will make a crucial contribution to assisting chronically disabled persons. To a disabled person using an invalid carriage traffic problems are always serious, and particularly are the problems of parking and waiting. I particularly like the fact that regulations will be made in such a way that what is decided by one authority will be followed by another authority. Today great difficulty arises because so often when one authority agrees to certain things being done another authority does not also agree to their being done. I hope that the regulations made under this provision will ensure full co-operation.
      The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Dr. John Dunwoody): Very briefly to take the point about the badges, it is intended that it is the badges which will be of the prescribed description.
      I do not think there is any need to write into the legislation appeal machinery. I hope that there will not be any disputes, because this new Clause introduces a scheme involving the benefit of disabled persons to whom badges may be issued by local authorities on proof of their disablement, and as to that, provision is made for regulations to be made by the Minister of Transport. The new Clause also provides that badges may be issued to institutions concerned with the care of the disabled, for use on their vehicles when they are used to convey disabled people about.
      Question put and agreed to—[Special Entry.]

    Clause 18

      ANNUAL REPORT ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT WORK
      Lords Amendment: No. 32, in page 7, line 31, leave out from " equipment " to " and in line 32 and insert:
      " that might increase the range of activities and independence or well-being of disabled persons ".
      Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: We can also take Amendments Nos. 33 and 34.
      Mr. Morris: As did the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Astor) on the access Clauses, my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) has taken a very distinguished part in the discussions on this Clause, and I hope it may be possible for him briefly to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not impossible for any hon. Gentleman to appeal to the Speaker that someone else should catch his eye. An hon. Member can catch my eye if he rises and nobody else is rising and if he speaks to the Amendment.
      Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I thank you for your indulgence. I shall not speak for long. We have had experience of people wasting time tonight—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to the Amendment.
      Mr. Carter-Jones: We all owe a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) and to the hon. Members for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and Newbury (Mr. Astor). This will be an all-party Bill.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe said that this was a charter for the disabled. So it is, but it is also a beginning. Mr. Duncan Guthrie said on the radio today that this was the largest single step forward ever achieved for the disabled, but it is only a start.
      The hon. Member for Banbury and I, who have been interested in the use of technology for the disabled, are delighted that this Clause has been moved in the other place. It recognises that disability can come at any age in a person's life, and will enable the elderly to have all the advantages of the new technology. If there is no cure for old age, at least people should be allowed to grow old gracefully, to control their environment, to have mobility and to communicate with other people. I strongly commend the Amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 22

      SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL TREATMENT FOR CHILDREN SUFFERING FROM AUTISM, &C.
      Lords Amendment: No. 35, in page 9, line 39, at end insert:
      "() In the application of this section to Scotland for any reference to a local education authority there shall be substituted a reference to an education authority within the meaning of section 145 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962."
      Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment we take also Amendment No. 36.
      Mr. Morris: The Amendment extends to Scotland the application of the Bill. I agree with what my hon. Friend said. We must accept that potentially each of us is a disabled person, and this subject affects us all personally.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 25

      SHORT TITLE AND EXTENT'
      Lords Amendment: No. 38, in page 10, line 23, at end insert:
      " () This Act shall come into force as follows:

      (a) sections 1 and (badges for display on motor vehicles used by disabled persons) shall come into force on the day appointed thereunder;

      (b) sections 4, 5, 6 (signs at buildings complying with sections 4–6), and (access to, and facilities at, university and school buildings) shall come into force at the expiration of six months beginning with the date this Act is passed;

      (c) the remainder shall come into force at the expiration of three months beginning with that date."

      10 a.m.
      Mr. Jack Ashley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      The Amendment provides that Clause 1 as amended shall come into force on a day appointed by the Secretary of State. Since the Clause deals with the vitally important question of how many disabled people there are, the kind of provision to be made for them and the responsibility of local authorities to inform disabled people of these provisions, I think both sides of the House would express the hope that the Secretary of State will come to a fairly rapid decision. Many of us regard the Amendment as a fuse which may lead to the explosion of apathy on the part of many local authorities.
      The Amendment also provides that Clauses 4, 5 and 6 of the Bill as amended shall come into force within six months of the Bill being enacted. Because these Clauses are concerned with access and
      2014
      facilities, this gives the organisations concerned time to make their preparations in good time. I am sure the House will agree that these preparations should now be made. The Amendment further provides that the remaining clauses shall come into force within three months of the passing of the Act.
      The Amendment serves notice that both Houses of Parliament are no longer content with fine words and noble sentiments about the disabled. It is a call to action —a clarion call that will be heard throughout the nation and certainly by the disabled who so far have been offered tears and sympathy. It tells the people of Britain that there will be no further fudging and fumbling over this matter.
      The Bill, which has been so superbly handled by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) lays down a clear and specific time-table for local authorities. The Amendment tells local authorities that apathy towards the disabled ended in the 1960s and action must begin in the 1970s.
      Finally, the Amendment tells the nation that a firm strong base has now been laid in the Bill by Parliament in which those who care about the disabled can build in the future. If we all make the effort, we can play a constructive rôle in ensuring that the disabled people of Britain are given the care, consideration and, above all, the opportunity to play their role in society.
      Mr. Speaker: It is appropriate that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) who has triumphed so magnificently over his disability, should speak on this Amendment which is the last in the Bill. We are very proud of him.
      Dr. John Dunwoody: I would commend this Amendment to the House, which was moved in another place as a Government Amendment. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) that it is the Government's intention that the Bill when passed will be an effective weapon to achieve the aims which have been shared by all supporters on both sides of the House. I wish at this late stage to pay tribute to all hon. Members who have worked so hard on the Bill, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for

      2015
      Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris).
      The Bill represents a significant step forward. It is a compassionate and civilised charter for the chronic sick and disabled in our community. They are a group who in the past perhaps have not always been treated as well as they should by Parliament. I think this Parliament has done its best and we have in this legislation a base on which a great deal more can be built in the future.
      Question put and agreed to

    LOCAL AUTHORITY SOCIAL SERVICES BILL
    Lords A tnendments considered.
    Clause 7

      LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO EXERCISE SOCIAL SERVICES FUNCTIONS UNDER GUIDANCE OF SECRETARY OF STATE
      Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 6. line 18, at end insert:
      " The foregoing provision is without prejudice to subsection (2) of section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (which excludes arrangements made in pursuance of subsection (1) of the said section 2 and certain other arrangements from the requirement that arrangements made by a local authority under section 29 of the said Act of 1948 shall be carried into effect in accordance with a scheme made thereunder)."
      1.4 a.m.
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Shirley Williams): I beg to move that this House doth agree with Lords Amendment No. 1.
      Mr. Speaker: I suggest it would be convenient to take also Lords Amendment No. 6.
      Mrs. Williams: The purpose of this Amendment is to bring the Bill into line with the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill which the House has just been considering.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 9

      PROTECTION OF INTERESTS, ETC. OF LOCAL AUTHORITY STAFFS
      Lords Amendment: No. 2, In page 7, line 27, at end insert:
      " () Regulations made by virtue of subsection (2) above may be so framed as to have effect from a date earlier than that on which they are made, so however that so much of any regulations as provides that any provision thereof is to have effect from a date earlier than that on which they are made shall not place any person (other than the person required by the regulations to pay compensation) in a worse position than he would have been in if the regulations had been so framed as to have effect only as from the date on which they are made."
      Mrs. Shirley Williams: I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      The purpose of the Amendment is to make provision for compensation for any member of staff in a situation in which a loss may occur after the Bill becomes law but before the regulations themselves have been promulgated.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Schedule 1

      ENACTMENTS CONFERRING FUNCTIONS ASSIGNED TO SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
      Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 13. line 42, column 1, leave out " Part I ".
      Mrs. Shirley Williams: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: I suggest that it will be convenient to discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 together.
      Mrs. Williams: Yes, they are purely drafting.
      The purpose is to make clear that all functions of local authorities under the Children Act, 1958, and the Adoption Act, 1958, become the responsibility of the social services committee of the local authority.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Schedule 2

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS
      Lords Amendment: No. 7, page 17, line 2, leave out "Part I of ".
      Mrs. Shirley Williams: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: I suggest that we group Lords Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 together, and I have to inform the House that privilege is involved in them.
      Mrs. Williams: These are consequential on the earlier Amendments which concern the Children Act, 1948.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to. [Several with Special Entry]
      Lords Amendment: No. 10. page 18, line 26, leave out from beginning to (" section ") in line 27 and insert:
      " (h) section 2(1)(f) of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960;
      (i) the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 except Part II and ".
      Mrs. Shirley Williams: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      This Amendment relates to the functions in Section 39 of the Children Act, 1948.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 11. page 18, line 35, at end insert:
      " The Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (c. 54)
      .—(1) In subsection (1)(a) of section 63 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (which requires every local authority to make returns to the Secretary of State with respect to the performance by the authority of the functions specified in section 39(1) of the Children Act 1948) for the words from " the functions " to " committees)" there shall be substituted the words " their functions under the enactments mentioned in subsection (6) of this section ".
      (2) In subsection (5) of the said section 63 (which requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament reports with respect to certain matters, including the exercise by local authorities of the functions specified in the said section 39(1)) for the words from " the functions " to " 1948" there shall be substituted the words " their functions under the enactments mentioned in subsection (6) of this section ".
      (3) At the end of the said section 63 there shall be added the following subsection:—
      " (6) The enactments referred to in subsections (1) and (5) of this section are—

      (a) Parts III and IV of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933;

      (b) the Children Act 1948;

      (c) the Children Act 1958;

      (d) the Adoption Act 1958;

      (e) section 9 of the Mental Health Act 1959 and section 10 of that Act so far as it relates to children and young persons in respect of whom the rights and powers of a parent are vested in a local authority as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) of that section;

      (f) section 10 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960 so far as it relates to children and young persons in respect of whom the rights and powers of a parent are vested in a local authority as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) of that section;

      2019

      (g) section 2(1)(f) of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960, section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965 and section 7(4) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969;

      (h) the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 except Part 11 and section 56;

      (i) this Act."

      The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (c.)
      .—(I) In section 2(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (which imposes a duty on local authorities to make arrangements for certain matters in exercise of their functions under section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948) the words " under the general guidance of the Secretary of State and " shall be omitted, and after the words " the purpose)" there shall be inserted the words " and to the provisions of section 7(1) of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (which requires local authorities in the exercise of certain functions, including functions under the said section 29, to act under the general guidance of the Secretary of State) ".
      (2) In section 2(2) of the said Act of 1970 (which makes provision in connection with the carrying into effect of the said arrangements) after the words " section 35(21" there shall be inserted the words " and to the said section 7(1)"."
      Mrs. Shirley Williams: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      The first part is concerned with the repeal of Section 39 of the Children Act. 1948, and is technical. The second part simply brings the Bill into line with the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970.
      Question put and agreed to.

    RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION BILL [Lords]
    Considered in Committee, pursuant to the Order of the House yesterday.
    [Mr. HARRY GOURLAY in the Chair]

    Clause 1

      THE NATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION BOARD AND ITS FUNCTIONS
      1.8 a.m.
      Captain Walter Elliot: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 45, at end add:
      Provided that in circumstances where the Atomic Energy Authority or the Medical Research Council could be held liable for
      2020
      having created a radiation hazard, the Secretary of State and the Health Ministers shall not consult the body concerned before conferring functions on, or issuing directions to the Board.
      The purpose of Clause 1 is to define the National Radiological Protection Board and its functions. On Second Reading, attention was called to the Veale Report, which refers to the radiological protection service and says that the proposed service should be independent of departments having regulating or other direct responsibilities in radiological health and safety. It went on to say that it should he independent of the Atomic Energy Authority, since it may be called upon to advise in matters in which the Authority is concerned, and that, to be most effective, the service must be the servant of all but the agent of none. That is a strong plea for independence, especially independence from the Atomic Energy Authority, yet we find in the Bill that the new board includes the Atomic Energy Authority.
      The reason why there was this plea for independence was that the Atomic Energy Authority or the Medical Research Council might be the creators of a radioactive hazard. At least, the Authority is a potential creator. On Second Reading, a case was quoted of a man claiming to have suffered injury due to exposure while working for the Atomic Energy Authority, although the authority denied liability.
      Clause 1(7) reads:
      " In carrying out their functions the Board shall comply with any directions given to them by the Health Ministers; but those Ministers shall not give any direction to the Board except after consultation with the Atomic Energy Authority and the Medical Research Council."
      As the Clause stands, the Health Ministers might well give directions to the Board to investigate, say, the creation of a radioactive hazard which had been created by the Atomic Energy Authority or by the Medical Research Council. Yet those bodies are to be consulted before directions are given. That seems wrong, and it is certainly contrary to the Veale Committee's recommendations. The Amendment ig drafted to avoid this anomaly.
      Mr. Airey Neave: I rise briefly to support the Amendment.
      I have discussed this point with the staff side of the Medical Research Unit

      2021
      at Harwell. The view has been held for a considerable time that the new Board should be independent of the Authority. If there is to be an inquiry into a radiation hazard such as my hon. Friend has mentioned, it is clear that, as far as possible, it should be an independent body. Therefore, consultation with the Authority before directions are given seems unsatisfactory. I know that the staff side is concerned about it.
      The Joint Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Dr. John Dunwoody): I have listened with interest to the point raised by hon. Mem hrs opposite in support of the Amendment, but I find myself in difficulty. The implication of the Amendment is that consultation with these parties, in the circumstances envisaged, carries with it a power of veto. I assure the Committee that this is not so. It is exceedingly unlikely, in the circumstances envisaged by the Amendment, that Ministers would wish to issue directions or confer new functions on the board. The board will already have the function of advising the Ministers concerned on radiation hazards. If unwilling to investigate a potential hazard when asked to do so, the board might give the direction. But in these circumstances it would be proper for the Medical Research Council and the Atomic Energy Authority to have the opportunity of at least expressing its view on that course of action.
      I hope that, with this reassurance, the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment negatived.
      Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 2

      GENERAL PROVISIONS ABOUT THE BOARD
      1.15 a.m.
      Captain W. Elliot: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 13, at end insert:
      ' but no more than one member from any one organisation shall be appointed to the Board '.
      The Deputy Chairman: With this Amendment we might conveniently dis-
      2022
      cuss Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 13, at end insert:
      ' and at least one of the members shall be a person engaged in the organisation of workers in industry '.
      Captain W. Elliot: As I said in moving Amendment No. 1, the Veale Committee's recommendations stated that the Radiological Protection Service should
      " be independent of the Authority, since it may be called upon to advise in matters in which the Authority are concerned."
      Information was given to me and, I believe, to other hon. Members which suggested that the Atomic Energy Authority was to be strongly represented on the National Radiological Protection Board. If that were to be the case, the independence of the board might well be prejudiced, and that is why I have tabled the Amendment.
      Mr. Neave: I should like to draw attention to Amendment No. 3. The board is to consist of 10 members, and there is to be an advisory committee, but there is no provision for anyone with management experience or the organisation of workers to be on the board. In the early part of 1969, as a result of complaints from the Medical Research Council unions at Harwell, I went to see the Minister about this consultative machinery, which was rather unsatisfactory, and there has been a reference to the Commission on Industrial Relations.
      In the circumstances, I think that it is a matter of some concern that no member of the board is specified as being a person engaged in the organisation of workers in industry. I support the Amendment, and I hope the Minister will tell us that he will put it to those who will be on this board that there should always be on the board someone with that type of experience.
      Dr. John Dunwoody: To take the first Amendment, I must deny the suggestion which has been made from time to time that any one body or another will dominate the new board. I do not envisage that that will happen. It might help hon. Members if I say that the present intention is to appoint two members recommended by the Atomic Energy Authority, and two members recommended by the Medical Research Council respectively. The substantial interest which these two bodies have in the board's

      2023
      operation is felt to merit and justify the appointment of two members from each.
      Between them those two bodies will be meeting half the cost of the new board, and the total membership envisaged is a chairman plus seven to nine members. The A.E.A. and the M.R.C. in particular are able to put forward persons with suitable experience of the work to be undertaken by the board, and it is particularly important in the early days that there should be a degree of expertise and experience available to the board.
      On the second Amendment, the present wording of the Clause would not rule out board membership of a person actively involved in trade union organisation. I think that this is the matter about which the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) is concerned. The fact is that such a person is specifically mentioned in Clause 4(3) as being suitable for inclusion on the advisory committee, a larger body, but this does not imply anything to the contrary with regard to the board itself.
      The qualities required in board members will be largely scientific and managerial, but I think that all possible candidates should be considered on their merits, and I should not be prepared to exclude any particular group. It is perhaps unusual for a trade unionist as such to be appointed to a small management board, but it could well be that there will be people with the kind of experience required for membership of the board who are active in the trade union movement, rather than being necessarily representative.
      The health Ministers have the power to give directions to the board if it is felt that it is not having sufficient regard to problems relating to the protection of workers in industry from radiation hazards, and I hope that with those assurances hon. Gentlemen opposite will feel able not to press the Amendments.
      Amendment negatived.
      Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Neave: I should like to know where the headquarters of the board will be and whether the chairman has already been designated. We have heard many rumours about this, and it is said that there is a shadow board in existence. What is it doing at the moment, if it exists?
      Dr. Dunwoody: As I understand it, the site of the headquarters has not been decided. At this late stage the House has not even passed this legislation, and any discussion about the chairman or the membership would be premature.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 3 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 7

      CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND REPEAL
      Dr. John Dunwoody: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 7, line 26, leave out subsection (4).
      Because the Bill was introduced in another place subsection (4) had to be added to avoid any question of privilege. The removal of that subsection is simply a formality. It is apparent on the face of the Bill as printed by the House of Commons on 8th December last year, that this Amendment has to be made.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
      Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered.
      Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading) and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with an Amendment.

      TREES BILL
      Lords Amendments considered.
      Clause 1

        MODIFICATION OF RESTRICTION ON POWER TO MAKE TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS
        Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 1. line 19, at end insert:
        " () Where a tree preservation order is made in respect of land to which this section applies, the order shall not have effect so as to prohibit, or to require any consent for, the cutting down of a tree in accordance with a plan of operations or other working plan approved by the Forestry Commissioners, and for the time being in force, under such a covenant or agreement or under a woodlands scheme made under the powers contained in the Forestry Act 1967."
        1.23 a.m.
        Mr. Sandys: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
        Mr. Speaker: I suggest that the House should also discuss Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 1, leave out " subsection (1) above " and insert " this section ".
        The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Reginald Freeson): I should like to express the appreciation of the House and the congratulations of the Ministry to the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) for introducing and getting this Bill to this stage and passed tonight. It is a worth-while and commendable small Measure. Although I was not involved in the earlier stages, and am only standing in for a colleague, I have a personal interest in trees and welcome this Measure personally, as well as in my capacity as a Minister.
        Mr. Sandys: I want to express my thanks to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and, in particular, to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), who has taken such a great interest in the Bill and has done so much to help in its drafting and to help me to overcome certain technical difficulties that arose.
        Mr. Speaker: On this happy note, the Question is, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Remaining Lords Amendment agreed to.

      CAR PARK, COLCHESTER (PLANNING DECISION)
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. loan L. Evans.]
      1.25 a.m.
      Mr. Antony Buck: On 18th October, 1966, the House debated the Second Reading of the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill, and in presenting that Measure the then Leader of the House, the right hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary of State for Social Services, said:
      "The Office of Parliamentary Commissioner…is designed to protect the individual citizen against bureaucratic maladministration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th October, 1966; Vol. 734, c. 42.]
      It was made clear that this office was being created in order to enhance the armoury of weapons available to a Member of Parliament to enable him to protect his constituents.
      The Parliamentary Commissioner has been given power to delve deep into the workings of Whitehall and to report whether there be maladministration relative to any individual case referred to him by a Member of Parliament. The Parliamentary Commissioner then reports to the Member of Parliament on the individual case, and from time to time presents his report to a Select Committee of the House. The purpose of all this is to detect cases of maladministration which have resulted in hardship so that the maladministration or inefficiency may be cured and the injustice righted so far as that may be possible.
      I regard the creation of the office of Parliamentary Commissioner as an important constitutional step taken by the House. The first appointment to the office, Sir Edmund Compton, was, and is, admirable. It was a constitutional mistake of some importance that his appointment was announced before the actual creation of the office, but we shall not go into that now.
      During the Second Reading debate, with that modesty which so endears him to the House, the Secretary of State for Social Services said:
      "…there will be general agreement that the Government can be congratulated upon choosing the right man to do this job. We have here someone who has been a distinguished

      2027
      servant both of this House and of the Executive. As a servant of this Houe during the eight years that he was Comptroller and Auditor General, he learned not to spare the Executive when there were fair grounds for criticism."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th October, 1966; Vol. 734, c. 53.]
      Hon. Members on both sides fully agreed with what the right hon. Gentleman said on that occasion; he was right to congratulate himself on a very fine appointment. Having had the privilege of working on the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner, I can say that every meeting with Sir Edmund increases my admiration for the work which he does.
      There are problems relating to his office, and I come now to something which has a direct bearing on the subject of this Adjournment debate. One problem relates to publicity. This was pointed out by Mr. George Clark, in an article in The Times on 7th May this year. He said that the activities of the Parliamentary Commissioner should be properly publicised, and that where a case of maladministration is found
      " he cannot tell the story save to the individual Member of Parliament."
      But the individual Member of Parliament can, and should, tell the story publicly when a case of maladministration emerges. It is partly for this reason that I bring before the House the proven failure of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to deal with proper efficiency with a planning application of importance to the future development of Colchester.
      The facts are as follows. On 22nd February, 1968, application was made for planning permission for the erection by Colchester Borough Council of a multistorey car park on an important site near the town centre in Colchester. A shop and office block, which is now virtually finished, was designed to allow for the construction of an elevated pedestrian way to connect with that multistorey car park. Final completion of this block cannot be achieved until there is a decision on whether or not there should be the multi-storey car park. The new building is thus sterilised, although it is virtually finished, until a decision is made on the multi-storey car park
      So, as I said, on 22nd February, 1968, application was made for planning permission for the erection of the car park.
      2028
      On 25th July, 1968, the Minister issued a direction that the application be referred to him. I do not quarrel with that, although it is perhaps a little surprising that it took five months for him to take the decision that it was an appropriate case to be " called in ". He was, however, probably right because as I have emphasised throughout planning matters relevant to a town like Colchester are of special complexity and it is even more than ordinarily important to get the decision right in order to keep the balance between preserving the unique and historic character of the town and seeing that there is proper scope for the borough to prosper and expand in a way beneficial to all its citizens.
      On 25th September, 1968, a local inquiry was held. It was thorough and the objections to the proposal were fully heard. Both proponents and opponents of the plan agreed, and think that the inquiry was admirably conducted. I understand that the Minister received the report of his inspector on 10th January, 1969. The inspector recommended that the appeal be allowed. On 27th January, 1969, the Minister informed the borough that the report was being considered and that it was hoped to issue a decision within a few weeks.
      The weeks drew out into months and eventually, on 3rd July, 1969, following a meeting about another matter, I raised the issue personally with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. He gave me his personal assurance, in the presence of Colchester councillors and officials, that a decision could be expected within about 10 days. This I confirmed by writing and it has never been challenged by the Ministry. Despite repeated representations by letter and telephone, the days lengthened into weeks and the weeks into months until, in October, 1969, I telephoned the Ministry and informed it that, in view of the inordinate delay and the failure to give any explanation of the delay, I intended to refer the matter to the Parliamentary Commissioner.
      That caused the silence to end, at least in one sense, because on 24th October, 1969, the Minister stated, through the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, that a decision had been arrived at—namely, to set up again the whole inquiry. In other

      2029
      words, it was a decision to make no decision. That was nine months after the borough had been assured that it could expect the result within a few weeks and three-and-a-half months after I had been told that it would be given within about ten days.
      I then referred the matter to the Parliamentary Commissioner and received his report on 28th April. I published it a few days later. In his report, the Parliamentary Commissioner said that his main concern was to consider whether it was reasonable for the Ministry to reopen the inquiry to seek further information. Having examined in detail the inspector's report and the ensuing Departmental correspondence, he considered that it was not essential to seek further information. He said that it was his opinion that the case might well have been decided on the evidence given at the lengthy inquiry held in September, 1968. when both the planning and the amenity arguments had been considered in detail.
      In the final paragraph of his report, the Parliamentary Commissioner said that the time taken to reach a decision on the application was unreasonably long and that there was no reason why Ministers should not have decided on the basis of the evidence presented at the inquiry. The developers had complained of inconvenience caused by the lack of any decision, and the complaint was considered to be justified. This office building has been sterilised over a long period.
      More than inconvenience is involved —and there is still no decision. It has been estimated by the borough authorities that if the car park is allowed, the increased cost because of the inordinate delay will be about £30,000, and that will have to be borne by the ratepayers of Colchester, unless the Minister decides to assist them in some way. There is also the increased cost caused by the second public inquiry, and the developers have been put to more than inconvenience because they have had a valuable building—valued at about £140,000—not being able to be utilised for a considerable period. That has cost them thousands of pounds.
      There is also the planning aspect. How can the planning of a beautiful and historic town like Colchester be carried
      2030
      on sensibly if there are to be delays of such a fantastic character? The application was made in February, 1968, and now, on 28th May, 1970, there is still no decision. In the meantime, an independent authority of the highest integrity has found that there has been maladministration. I appreciate the courtesy of the Minister of State in coming here this evening to reply to the debate. Perhaps it would be appropriate to say that we have had a referee of the highest integrity, appointed by the Government and approved by the House and respected by all of us, finding that there has been maladministration.
      I hope that the Government will not take the serious step of seeking to question the referee's decision. That would come ill from the Minister of State. There has been this finding and we are entitled to an explanation and, I think, to an apology. I hope that the Minister of State will say that he intends to try to mitigate the loss to Colchester ratepayers if the planning application is eventually allowed, and perhaps that he will seek to compensate the developers. I hope that he will not seek to go against the " referee's " decision. If the Government do not accept the finding of the Parliamentary Commissioner, their whole attitude to the institution which they set up will be suspect.
      We look forward to hearing from the Minister and to hearing his response to this sad and sorry saga.
      1.38 a.m.
      The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Denis Howell): The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) very properly began by going back to the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner, the ombudsman, and said that this was exactly the sort of case which the House had in mind. Representing the Government which produced the legislation which created the ombudsman, I certainly agree with the hon. Member that this is essentially the sort of case with which we expected him to deal, and I have no complaint about the way in which he investigated the complaint.
      As a referee myself, I have always believed in the philosophy that the referee can never be wrong and must be right. Therefore, we largely accept what the

      2031
      Parliamentary Commissioner has said. I want to explain why we still think that we were right to take the further step of having a second inspector's report, but I do not do that in any spirit of criticising the Parliamentary Commissioner, but simply to state how the situation developed from the Government's point of view.
      First, I will go over the history of this matter. I entirely agree with the hon. Member that there is a special need to get the decision right in this case. That criterion has led us into difficulty because if we got the decision wrong in an historic town such as Colchester it would be wrong for all time; it could never be put right. The delays which have occurred over this and which have been the subject of criticism have all stemmed from that objective by the Government.
      Colchester town is one of the 51 historic towns and cities regarded as particularly precious by the Council for British Archeology. Though development has spread far beyond the ridge it occupied in the times of the Romans, the walled town remains the core of present-day Colchester. During the centuries it has acquired many buildings of note and over 320 of them are listed as being of architectural or historic importance. Because there are so many treasures to be preserved, all the central area has been designated a conservation area. Once this has been done the Civic Amenities Act of 1967 lays a duty on everyone—including my right hon. Friend—to do his best not only to preserve but also, where possible, to enhance the quality of the environment.
      Were Colchester a backwater the tasks of the local planning authority, the borough council and my right hon. Friend would be much easier. However, Colchester is a sub-regional centre with many pressures for growth. In their review of the county development plan, Essex County Council has forecast that the population of Colchester would grow from 65,100 in 1961 to 101,000 in 1981. The University of Essex has been established near its borders.
      A fast train service to Liverpool Street attracts commuters whose work is in London, but who prefer to live beyond the outer metropolitan area. And, finally,
      2032
      three main routes converge on Colchester —the Al2 London to Ipswich road; the Al20/ A604 from Cambridge and Bishop's Stortford to Harwich; and the A133 to Clacton.
      Both outer and inner by-passes are planned to cope with this traffic and their construction should start within the next year or so. It is the growth of the town and the large volume of traffic that make the conservation of the central area such a difficult problem to solve.
      Now I come to the burden of the hon. Member's complaint, that the Minister has taken an unreasonably long time in reaching a decision on the application by Colchester Corporation to erect a multistorey car park over the existing open bus station in Queen Street, Colchester. The hon. Member will understand that I cannot comment on the merits of the case as it is still before the Minister for consideration, but I shall deal as fully as possible with the procedure and the delay.
      There is no dispute about the dates of the various events. The original application for planning permission was submitted by Colchester Corporation to Essex County Council in February, 1968, and referred by the county council to my right hon. Friend in July, 1968, when he decided to call in the application for his own decision. The first public inquiry was held in September, 1968, and the inspector's report was submitted to the Minister by the middle of January, 1969. It is the period of 16 months from January, 1969, that is the subject of the Parliamentary Commissioner's report.
      Let me refer briefly to the planning background and its complications. Colchester Corporation wished to erect a total of seven multistorey car parks—two within the Roman walls and five outside them, near the proposed inner relief road. These car parks were estimated to be the minimum required to cater for local parking needs up to 1981. There was considerable opposition from civic and amenity societies to the Queen Street car park proposal. As the car park was to be erected over the bus station, it would be approximately 56 ft. high. Apart from the water tower and town hall clock tower which dominate the Colchester skyline, 56 ft. is about the maximum roof height of any building in Colchester.

      2033
      In addition, the back of the car park would be near the top of the Roman wall and so easily visible from places outside the wall. As the car park is intended ultimately to house 1,000 cars it would extend over the entire bus station and also displace cars from the adjacent surface car parks. There was concern about the impact of the building on its environment, and also about the volume of traffic likely to remain in the central area if the car park were built, even after new traffic management schemes had been put into operation.
      My right hon. Friend and his colleagues accordingly had to give serious and prolonged consideration to the report of the September, 1968 inquiry and to the possible courses of action. As the hon. Member will know from the Parliamentary Commissioner's report, the Royal Fine Art Commission was asked for its opinion on the design and likely impact of the car park building. The Commission, however, declined to comment on the specific proposal for Colchester, but reminded the Minister of their general view that the building of multistoreyed car parks within the walled area of historic towns should be prohibited. This was one of the matters taken into account when the decision was taken, in October, 1969, to reopen the inquiry.
      The points set out for further consideration were whether either the car park or the bus station could be sited elsewhere; and if not, whether the building could be reduced in size or made less obtrusive in some other way. The reopened inquiry was held in the middle of December, 1969, and the inspector's report was received just over a months ago —on 23rd April.
      The hon. Member has referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner's report. The Commissioner's investigations were the result of a complaint by Mr. Tomkins, of Frincon Holdings Limited, a development company, about the delay in issuing a decision on the car park. Mr. Tomkins' interest in the outcome derived from an arrangement that the company had made with Colchester Corporation to join the multi-storey car park at first-floor level to adjacent shops by means of an elevated pedestrian walkway. This would extend first of all to
      2034
      St. James House, a newly constructed five-storey block, and then bridge over Queen Street to the shopping development on the opposite side. Mr. Tomkins did not think that the delay on the Minister's part was justified in what he considered to be " a comparatively simple matter ".
      The Parliamentary Commissioner did not accept Mr. Tomkins' view of the matter as a comparatively simple one, but stated that the isssues appeared to him to be important and not to be lightly decided in any circumstances. This, of course, was also the view of my right hon. Friend. Nevertheless, the Commissioner's conclusion was that the Minister had sufficient evidence from the 1968 inquiry on which to give a decision, and that the absence of a decision had caused inconvenience to Mr. Tomkins. Delay in reaching planning decisions must, of course, be expected to cause inconvenience and this is to be avoided wherever possible, but Mr. Tomkins did not suggest that the absence of a decision was causing any hardship, nor did the Parliamentary Commissioner come to such a conclusion.
      The only point at issue is whether the inquiry should have been reopened or whether a decision should have been taken on the material of the first report. The Parliamentary Commissioner takes the latter view. My right hon. Friend considered, and, with the greatest respect to the Parliamentary Commissioner, still considers, that it was right to err, if at all, on the side of caution. This must be so. This is what the hon. Member said himself. The essence of the thing was to get the decision right. It may be that in the end we made a mistake. I am not seeking to say we have not made a mistake, but it was a mistake born of the right consideration—to get the decision right, as the hon. Gentleman generously said.
      Mr. Buck: I accept that there was well meaning, but the difficulties were known from the beginning. Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the borough was told in January it was a matter of weeks and why I was told I would receive an answer in 10 days?
      Mr. Howell: I am seeking to say this, if I may go on with my prepared speech.
      I am not saying that we were right. but that if we were to err it was right to err on the side of caution, because we

      2035
      all agree, and the hon. Gentleman and I agree, that the important thing was to get the decision right, because if it were to be wrong it would be wrong for all time: it could not be put right. A mutlistorey car park, once constructed, would have a permanent effect on the environment of a historic town.
      In these circumstances, I submit that it was not unreasonable to seek additional evidence on the possibility of new sites for the bus station or the car park; or to try to find ways of mitigating the impact of this large building on the centre of Colchester. Nor could the general view expressed by the Royal Fine Art Commission be ignored. We would have been severely sensured and criticised if we had ignored it.
      To bring the story up to date I should mention a related matter. When the car park application first came to my right hon. Friend's attention it was the only application affecting the town centre. Since then Colchester Corporation has submitted applications for the eastern, southern and western sections of its proposed inner relief road. These were heard at a public inquiry which lasted three weeks in October and November, 1969. The inspector's report on this inquiry was also received on 23rd April and it is the intention to consider this report in conjunction with the one on the multi-storey cra park. The Parliamentary Commissioner has said that he does not criticise that course of action, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman does.
      Mr. Buck: I should be grateful if the Minister would say when we shall have the result of this inquiry.
      Mr. Howell: Having heard this complicated story, I am sure the House will agree that my right hon. Friend and the Ministry have been actuated by the need to give the closest possible consideration to any proposal for large-scale development in an environment so susceptible to permanent injury.
      The Parliamentary Commissioner has been assured that every possible effort will be made to reach an early decision on both the car park and the inner relief road. A decision has been taken on the car park issue. I cannot disclose tonight what that decision is because, in
      2036
      accordance with our procedures, it has to be sent to all the parties involved, and they are also entitled to a complete copy of the inspector's report. These matters were put in hand yesterday, and all the parties can expect to receive a decision on the car park in a matter of days.
      To sum up, there have been delays, which, on behalf of the Ministry and my right hon. Friend, I very much regret. The delays were caused with the best of intentions-to get the actual decision right and to take no action which might be wrong and irreversible. With hindsight I believe that some of these delays could have been reduced, and to that extent I think the Parliamentary Commissioner's viewpoint and the hon. Gentleman's actions in raising the matter have helped to ensure that in future cases of this character the timetable will be watched very much more carefully by the Ministry than perhaps it was on this occasion.
      If that happens, I think that the hon. Gentleman and the House will agree that the Parliamentary Commissioner procedure was not only appropriate but extremely beneficial.
      1.52 a.m.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The Minister has approached this matter with a reasonable degree of contrition having regard to the severe stricture to which my hon. Friend very properly drew the House's attention.
      It is not good enough. There have been cases before where the Government have scouted the decision of the Ombudsman, particularly one remembers the Sachsenhausen case. But on this occasion the hon. Gentleman—and I say this having studied some of the papers and listened to the debate—has gone some way to recognise that the criticisms were justified. His closing words, that he and his colleagues and officials will take this to heart and make sure there are not similar inordinate delays in the future, well justify my hon. Friend detaining the House at this late hour to put these matters before the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Two o'clock, a.m.