Lords Sitting of 23 April 1964

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich
The Viscount Ridley—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

MINEHEAD-TAUNTON RAILWAY AND BUS STOP LINE SERVICE
3.5 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government the circumstances under which permission was given for the "bus stop line service" advertised on stations on the Minehead-Taunton railway, on which there is at present no proposal for the withdrawal of passenger train services; in particular, whether the additional bus service is an experimental one, or whether it is the intention to run both bus and passenger train services.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, the British Railways Board do not require the authority of my right honourable friend for the service to which I understand the noble Lord to refer. The operation of railway services is, as the noble Lord is aware, the responsibility of the British Railways Board. But in order to help the noble Lord, I have ascertained from the Board that they have no plans at present to alter either the simplified ticket-issuing scheme on the rail service, or the arrangement with a bus operator by which one evening train is replaced by a bus. My right honourable friend would be concerned with any changes in this service only if there were a proposal to withdraw passenger services
848
completely from the line or from a station, and the proposal was opposed.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his extremely satisfactory answer. May I now ask him whether he can explain a little more what this bus stop line service is—whether it means a train or a bus? Is the noble Lord aware that, because of the increased freight and passenger traffic due to the development of Butlin's holiday camp at Minehead, this line is now viable?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, of course I cannot answer for the Board's managerial arrangements, but I did inform myself about this subject. If the noble Lord will take it as being merely a factual statement, I would explain that what has happened is that the 9.15 evening train between Taunton and Minehead has been replaced by a bus from Monday to Thursday inclusive, but the train runs on Friday and Saturday. I understand that this has been done as an economy measure, because that train was very lightly used and went back to Taunton empty to "stable", and thus was an expensive train to run. A sensible arrangement, so it seems to me, was made to replace that service, at no cost to the Board, by rearranging the existing bus service with Western National, who were only too glad to do this, and it has been slightly re-scheduled to tie in better with the trains.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I agree that it is a most satisfactory and sensible thing to do, but if there is any considerable extension of such services, will the noble Lord have regard to the fact that the width of the road from Taunton to Minehead is considerably less than the minimum width for a road specified by his Department, and that there can be no major extensions of such services without very great cost of road-widening?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, at the moment I have heard nothing of such extensions and therefore what the noble Lord has asked is a hypothetical question; but I have no doubt that, if there were any such proposals, due regard would be given to this kind of point.

PICCADILLY PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
3.8 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when the traffic-light-controlled pedestrian crossings in Piccadilly, promised in Government statements on June 17, 1963, and again on December 3, 1963, are likely to be operating.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I much regret that I cannot yet say just when the crossings will be in operation. I understand that the equipment for the Sackville Street crossing is to be delivered to the Westminster City Council, who are the highway authority, by the end of this month, and the Council have assured us that it will be installed and put into operation as quickly as possible. There has, I am afraid, been a misunderstanding with the City Council about the crossing for Air Street. The Council have not yet in fact agreed that a crossing here is necessary. They are to consider this again at their next meeting. I will write to the noble Lord as soon as I know the outcome.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, in asking a supplementary question, may I first of all express my sincere sympathy with the noble Lord? He will remember that a Government promise was given on June 17 of last year, almost a year ago, that these crossings had been agreed in principle and that work would be started in all haste; that he explained again on December 3, nearly five months ago, that the equipment was on its way and that, when the traffic-control lights of Piccadilly Circus were completed, the crossings would be started? Does he not think that the action of the Westminster City Council is almost contemptuous of the authority of the Ministry of Transport in this direction, and will he take steps to see that the work is proceeded with in all haste? I feel sorry for the Minister about this: but surely the Minister is the supreme
850
authority, and should he not see that his wishes are carried out?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's sympathy, but I do not think I should go so far as to agree with him that the Westminster City Council were contemptuous. I have no hesitation in saying that there has been a misunderstanding in this matter, which, so far as I can ascertain—and I have done my best to find out—is a genuine one. I agree that it should not have happened. As a result, I suppose that in a sense it might be said that I misled the noble Lord in my reply to the Question he asked in December. If I did so, it was certainly done entirely inadvertently and innocently, because, in fact, it was not until afterwards that I found that there had been this misunderstanding about the order for equipment about which we had been inquiring. The Council had been considering a large number of modifications to the Piccadilly one-way system and had ordered a considerable amount of equipment, all on the same sheet, so to speak, but in different batches. I think that that is possibly where the misunderstanding arose.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I assure the noble Lord that it never entered my mind that he either misled me or intentionally misled the House. May I ask him now to do his best to repair what is quite obviously dilatoriness by the highway authority in carrying out the work that was promised so long ago?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, perhaps it would help if I were to say what is the present position. I have talked about the Sackville Street crossing, which is in hand, with equipment due early. So far as the Air Street crossing is concerned, the Council wish to consider it at the next meeting. They have asked us for further views, which we have supplied to them, strongly in support of it, and I hope that they will go ahead.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, may we take it from the noble Lord's answer to the previous question that it is not yet established that it is lèse majesté for a local authority to disagree with a Minister—even the Minister of Transport? Are we so totali-

851
tarian? I hope the noble Lord takes the view that we are not.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the question of totalitarianism is something that keeps arising only in the noble Lord's mind. I thought I had entirely disposed of the question of—lèse majesté is perhaps going too far—there being any disagreement.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord has taken my intervention in a hostile spirit. I was supporting him, and resisting the noble Lord who wants to lay it down that no local authority dare disagree with the Minister of Transport.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, if it is a matter of principle to which I am asked to agree, I welcome the noble Lord's support. I must remember in future to speak with a bigger grin on my face, in order to avoid appearing hostile. So far as this particular question is concerned, no disagreement has arisen.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the noble Lord will remember that the statement he made to the House twelve months ago was that the Westminster City Council were in complete agreement, as were the police, on the necessity to have these traffic lights.
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, my Lords; I remember the statement. But if the noble Lord cares to look it up (I have it here) it was on a later question that I gave him the assurance that he wanted; but my earlier observation referred to the principle.

COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS ACT AND CANADIAN BROTHERS
3.14 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government the reason why John and Michael Penney were refused permission to land at London Airport on 5th April.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, John and Michael Penney, holding Canadian passports, arrived at London Airport
852
from Montreal on April 5 and told the immigration officer that their purpose was to take employment as metal moulders with a Birmingham company. They had scarcely any money, and had single tickets which had been purchased by relatives in this country. As Commonwealth citizens intending to take employment in the United Kingdom, they needed Ministry of Labour vouchers, but they were not in possession of these. The immigration officer discussed the situation with them, in the presence of their aunt and grandfather who had come to London Airport to meet them. These relatives suggested that the two young men might be admitted for a holiday, but this was not possible as they had come for employment, and neither they nor their relatives appeared to be in a position to pay the return fare at the end of a holiday visit. The immigration officer decided that he must refuse admission under Section 2(1)(a) of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. The reason was explained to the young men and their relatives at the airport.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that full explanation of the circumstances. While in no way condoning the action of anybody who attempts to get into this country in contravention of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, I would ask this question. Would the noble Lord not agree that it would save a great deal of individual and personal hardship if immigration officers at ports of entry were instructed that in cases where there is considerable personal hardship, and where there is apparently no desire to flout the regulations, the act having taken place due to ignorance, at any rate there should be some delaying action, so that opportunity may be given to regularise the position without the expense involved of making the return journey?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's view. I think the lesson to be learned from this is that before people emigrate to another country to take work they should find out what the restrictions are likely to be and what vouchers it is necessary to have. The fact is that if these gentlemen had been allowed in, ostensibly for a holiday, then they

853
would have had to pay their own fares back, which, on their own admission, they were unable to do. If they had been allowed in on the understanding that they would try to find employment, they would then be, as it were, jumping the queue ahead of the many people in Canada who want to come to Great Britain and who have to wait, in some cases, a number of years before they can do so.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord may remember that in the debate we had on the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill the Government undertook to see that information was available in Commonwealth countries. May I ask the noble Earl whether he is satisfied that the regulations which we have recently imposed—and I stress the words "recently imposed"—are widely known in Canada and other Commonwealth countries; and, if this is not the case, whether the Government would look into it to see whether it is possible to prevent young people from coming over here without full knowledge of the consequences?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I shall certainly look into the point which the noble Lord has brought up. There is a very good booklet which tells people exactly what processes have to be gone through before they come to this country. So far as I know, that is in full circulation in Canada. But, without previous notice, I could not answer that point categorically.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, is it not possible for the Government to draw the attention of the airlines to this problem? After all, they sell tickets to these people. One would not have thought it would be a great problem for them to be able to draw the attention of intending passengers to this regulation.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the airlines are aware of the regulations, and it is up to them whether or not they inspect individual passports of passengers.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, in this case they allowed these two boys to come over here, knowing that they had not the necessary work permit when they arrived in this country, and they had to be returned. Who is going to pay the fare both ways?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, in this instance the fare to this country was paid by the relatives of the brothers Penney, who were in fact in England. The return fare was paid for by the airline itself.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, my point is this, if I may pursue it. They should not have been allowed to come on the 'plane if they had not the right certificate. They were wasting their money, although the airlines could have put them right before they started and saved the money.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the airline exists to carry passengers and it is up to them. So far as the airline were concerned, their tickets were paid for. When they were not accepted in England, it was then up to the airline to transport them back again.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, is it quite as simple as that? After all, there was a great disappointment for these young men. It does not help Commonwealth friendship when this happens. Should not the Government take a little more interest in what the airline does in a case like this?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the Government are as sorry as anyone that these boys had to be returned. It is perfectly clearly stated what is necessary for people to do who come to this country to take up employment.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, may I take it a stage further? Surely this is a matter in which there should be co-operation between the British Government and the Canadian Government. While the British Government have no authority over the Canadian airline, surely they should enlist the co-operation of the Canadian Government to inform lads what are the circumstances in which a person can be received at this end when coming for work. Surely it is possible to assist in avoiding these unnecessary troubles.
EARL FERRERS: Of course, I take the noble Lord's point, but I think he is possibly extending the Question a little far. It is perfectly clear what has to be done if people want to come from Canada to take up permanent employment in this country. I should have thought, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord's views, that the first and obvious essential would be for the

855
individuals concerned to find out exactly what processes should be gone through before they purchased an airline ticket. All the experience of the Governments are at their disposal, but if people purchase an airline ticket and come without any vouchers in any form, intending to take work, then I feel that Her Majesty's Government can hardly be held responsible for the action, and Her Majesty's Government are indeed vindicated in the action taken by the chief immigration officer when he decided that this was a contravention of the immigration rules.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, surely we are getting into a bit of a muddle about these things. I do not want the law to be evaded, but it does not make it easier when the Home Secretary blows hot, then blows cold, and then blows hot again. Surely my noble friend Lord Henderson's point is a reasonable one. Presumably the Canadian passport officers examine the passport when the passenger is about to take his place on the aircraft. Could they not be helpful in checking up as to whether the proposed passenger has a right to come here, and that the situation is clear? Is it not at any rate worth inquiring into?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I shall certainly take away the noble Lord's suggestion and look into it. I cannot tell him at the moment what the Canadian Government do at their end, but I will certainly look into it and let him know.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that there is another lesson to be learned from this? He mentioned one lesson in his original reply. As I understand it, these young men have now been offered a job by a firm in the Midlands. Had they known of this beforehand they could have made the necessary arrangements and arrived with the necessary permits. Is it not advisable and desirable, in the interests of good feeling in the Commonwealth, and of minimising the harm done by the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, to ensure that the immigration officers act with some regard to the personal factors in each case, and do not give this country the reputation of being guarded by a set of impersonal bureaucrats who go according to the letter of the law without any regard to the personal factors?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am not in a position to know whether these two men have subsequently been offered employment. There was no application made to the Ministry of Labour for a voucher for these people at the time at which they arrived in this country. I merely say that it would not be practicable to work this scheme of control if some Commonwealth citizens were allowed to come here on the off-chance of getting a job once they had arrived here. If they did that they would, of course, be jumping the queue of people who had been waiting for some time in Canada to obtain jobs here.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, in view of the difficulties to which the scheme gives rise, and the profound sympathy which the noble Earl has expressed with these and other cases of hardship, will the Government now consider repealing the Act?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think the answer to that would be in the negative.

EGGS (GUARANTEED PRICES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1964
3.27 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, I do not think it necessary, nor do I intend, to weary your Lordships with a long speech on the Eggs (Guaranteed Prices) (Amendment) Order. Its effect is simply to extend to duck eggs the subsidy arrangements which were introduced for hen eggs at the 1963 Annual Review. Your Lordships may remember that the hen egg arrangements involved the introduction of a system based on the guaranteed price and what has been named an "indicator" price—the price which, in the Government's view, the Egg Marketing Board ought to be able to get in the market if production and demand are in reasonable balance.
Price deficiencies below the indicator price do not attract subsidy in full, but only a proportionate subsidy, with a diminishing proportion each year. The arrangements were introduced with the agreement of the Farmers' Unions, but it was not possible at the 1963 Review

857
to complete the job by considering duck eggs as well. So we left duck eggs over to the 1964 Review. In the upshot, we have decided, again with the agreement of the Unions, to extend the hen egg arrangements to cover duck eggs as well, with an indicator price in the latter case of 2s. 2d. per dozen. I might add that the duck egg subsidy is a very small one, amounting only to about £300 last year. The new arrangements are not likely to make much difference. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Eggs (Guaranteed Prices) (Amendment) Order, 1964, be approved.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FATSTOCK (GUARANTEE PAYMENTS) ORDER, 1964
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I beg to move, that the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) Order, 1964, dated March 24, a copy of which was laid before this House on March 26, be approved. The purpose of this Order is to provide authority for guarantee payments on fatstock from the begining of the fatstock guarantee year on March 30. It supersedes the existing Order which, subject to some amendment in 1961, has been the authority for the guarantee payments since March, 1960.
The main difference from the existing Order is concerned with the changes in the guarantee arrangements for cattle and sheep anounced in the White Paper, the Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees for 1964. The guarantee payments for these classes of fatstock will now be in the form of graduated deficiency payments. The rate of payment in any week will be the difference between the average market price and the standard price for that week, and this difference will be adjusted according to scales of supplements and abatements, which will have the effect of increasing producers' returns if they sell on a strong market, and of reducing them if they sell on a weak market.
In addition, after the end of the fat-stock year, the total of the weekly payments will be compared with the amount due to the industry to implement the guarantee for the year as a whole, and any under-payment will be paid at flat rates to the producers of all cattle and
858
sheep which have been certified for guarantee payments during the year.
The only other change of any substance is in the feed formula arrangements for pigs, under which the guaranteed price is related to the cost of a standard feed ration and is varied in accordance with changes in the cost of the ration. A change in the basis of this adjustment was announced in the White Paper and the rewording of the relative Article—that is, Article 11—in the Order enabled the change to be put into effect. In commending this Order to your Lordships, there is only one other thing I would add and that is to say that the changes involved here have been discussed with producers' representatives and are generally acceptable to them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) Order, 1964, be approved.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
3.31 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, the Minister, with his customary clarity, has made this simple little Order even more clear than it was to those of us who had taken the trouble to read it beforehand. I can only hope that it will have the desired effect of encouraging home producers to produce more cattle more quickly and market them at the time when they are needed, because one cannot get away from the fact that to-day there is a very genuine shortage of meat in this country and that the housewife, as always in these cases, is the eventual sufferer. The reason for this shortage is none other than the Government's policy over the past years, which this Order does not go any way to changing fundamentally.
Not only was there the discouragement of the home producer three or four years ago, which has naturally resulted in fewer cattle being available from British farms at the present time, but there was also at approximately the same time a very strong discouragement to our overseas suppliers, in particular to our Commonwealth suppliers in New Zealand and Australia, to send their meat here, and an actual request to them to look for markets elsewhere. Of course, they paid attention to that request and, in their desire to help us, looked for other markets. It is a fact now that the Australian and New Zealand producers

859
have so far succeeded in finding other markets that they are to-day finding it more profitable to send their meat to Japan and other countries rather than to send it to this country. This coincides with a very grave shortage of supplies coming from the Argentine. The amount, I believe, is now something like 25 per cent. of what it was last year, partly because they are consuming more themselves and partly because they are exporting to other places.
This is something which, as I say, eventually comes back upon the housewife herself, and if we take a look at some of the wholesale prices, it is not surprising that the prices in the butchers' shops have risen as much as they have. For the week ending April 21, in Smithfield Market the prices of four different grades of meat were as follows: Scotch sides, 2s. 3½d. to 2s. 6½d. a 1b.; English sides, 2s. 4½sd. to 2s. 6d.—and it is gratifying to an English farmer to know that English beef commands just as high a price as Scotch beef on an English market; Argentine chilled hindquarters, 2s. 7d. to 2s. 8d.—perhaps it is interesting to note in this connection that the cost of Argentine meat is slightly higher than for English; Argentine forequarters, 2s. to 2s. 1d. If we compare these prices with the prices twelve months ago we find that the Scotch sides, now approximately 2s. 6d. a pound, then cost 1s. 7d. to 1s. 11½d.; English—a similar kind of difference—1s. 7d. to 1s. 9½d. instead of 2s. 6d.; whereas Argentine chilled forequarters, instead of costing 2s. to 2s. 1d., as they do to-day, were selling for 11d. to 1s. 1d. In other words, the prices are very nearly double.
This is a pretty serious situation for which the Government must take a very large amount of the blame, because while they are very keen, and have been in the past, when they are getting into some difficulty over too much meat coming into this country, to ask our traditional suppliers to send less—as the noble Lord himself told us a little while ago, they have succeeded with cereals and hope to succeed with meat, and if they have not asked our suppliers to send less, they have at any rate asked them to charge us more for it—they have taken no precautions whatso-
860
ever (and now we are beginning to suffer for it) to ensure that when there are shortages the British consumer is safeguarded by having supplies of meat assured in reasonable quantities. If the present situation were not serious enough, we have only to turn to today's Times and read what has been said by Sir John Hammond, an acknowledged expert on the livestock industry and on meat supplies not only in this country but throughout the world: that this shortage of meat is something which, in his opinion, and in the opinion of many others too, is going to be with us for a very long time.
The reason for this is not very far to seek. It is something which many of us have expected for a long time. As the standards of living throughout the rest of the world rise, people who in the old days were not meat eaters become meat eaters. You will find now that Italians, instead of subsisting on their diet of macaroni and spaghetti, enjoy much larger quantities of meat. They are even importing meat, albeit in small quantities, from this country, as well as from Yugoslavia, who otherwise would be sending it here. France, always having had a high standard of living and of eating, imported in January and February of this year something like 5,500 tons of meat from this country, compared with 500 tons of meat in the corresponding period last year. This is something which is going on throughout the whole world, and which I am convinced is going to go on, with some ups and downs, over the next ten or twenty years.
This Order, a small one admittedly, and not one which is going to change the whole policy, unfortunately, does nothing whatever to redress the balance. I do hope that the Government are really waking up to the fact that, if the British consumer is to be provided with sufficient meat at a reasonable price, it is no good just thinking that we are always going to enjoy this position of being the one buyer in a world who is saturated with primary products, whether they be meat or anything else, the producers of which are only too anxious to send them to our shores, and are realising that we are now finding ourselves in a position of being one buyer among very many. The only way to get over the position, besides,

861
I hope, making long-term agreements with the overseas producers which will safeguard them against temporary gluts and safeguard ourselves against the more long-term slumps, is to encourage our own home production, and to face the fact that, if we are going to have the meat and the other foodstuffs that we require, our own farms are going to have to play a larger part in the future than they have done in the past, and Government policy will have to be adapted accordingly.
As I say, this Order does not do anything to set that right, but for all that we accept it as being an essential part of the general agricultural price structure as it is at present. We hope for better things in the future, when perhaps the Government, or at least, the Party opposite, will be able still to go on burying their head in the sand and disregard the movement of world events; but they will no longer be the Government and will be able to keep their head in the sand for as long as they like.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I wonder whether I might answer the noble Lord's speech straight away. I do not, in fact, intend to answer the noble Lord, Lord Walston, at quite the same eloquent length, but I should first like to say, of course, that I am grateful to him.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, on a point of order, as there are to be other speakers, would it not be more convenient if the noble Lord heard them before replying?
3.40 p.m.
LORD SAINSBURY: My Lords, after first declaring an interest, may I lend support to what my noble friend Lord Walston has said. As your Lordships remember, a year ago many of us were considerably disturbed about the phasing of imports and the very high cost to the Treasury of the deficiency payments. I would ask the Government whether they are equally concerned about the present shortage and high price of meat, and whether they consider the existing deficiency payments and arrangements are satisfactory, in the light of this completely changed supply position.
The current prices of meat—all meat—are running some 20 per cent. higher
862
than a year ago. I can quote different, but supporting, figures from those given by my noble friend Lord Walston. For example, with Argentine chilled beef, on the basis of Smithfield Market quotations for the four weeks ended April 17, hindquarters are 8d. per 1b. dearer, an increase of just over 30 per cent., and forequarters are 1s. per 1b. dearer, or nearly double the price of a year ago.
My noble friend has referred to that renowned expert, Sir John Hammond, and he has given a clear warning that in his opinion these high prices are likely to last for the next eighteen months. There are many causes, but there are surely some which could have been foreseen. There is the shortage of beef in the world outside North America. There is the shortage of Argentine beef, due to an earlier drought. There is the growing demand in Europe, owing to rising standards of living. There is the export of beef and veal from this country. Although it is comparatively small, in relation to the current total production, it is running, in tonnage equivalent, at more than three times the figure of a year ago. Also, as Sir John Hammond pointed out only yesterday, 80 per cent. of our beef production in Britain comes from the dairy herd, and the decline of the herd and the fall in milk production mean that calves available for beef are getting fewer. I think the situation is serious. It calls for foresight and the same desire to serve the interests of the housewife as has been shown to serve the interests of the producer.
LORD WISE: My Lords, before this Order is passed there is a point that I wish to make to the noble Lord. I do not want to deal with the practical matters, to which my noble friends have already referred, but I do want to make a plea to the Government for simpler Orders. I do not know how many noble Lords have read this Order, or seen it. This particular Order is very complex; it is not drafted in simple language, and it is very long for the purposes for which it has been promoted. There are nine pages; there are seventeen articles, some short and some long, and four Parts in the Schedule.
The Order starts off, in Article 2, with 21 definitions, which cover a page and

863
a half, and the word "guarantee" or "guarantees" appears in the Order 70 or more times. It is highly complex. I think that it will not be understoood by the farming community or by many people outside that particular area. The Minister will be kept extremely busy. He is mentioned no fewer than 44 times in the Order. He has to ascertain, to determine, to specify, to estimate, to approve, to require and to consider relevant matters. In addition to that he has to make payments—and that, I am certain, will please the farm community more than the rest of the Order. The Order was laid on March 24, and the 40 days are nearly up; and as it has already, apparently, come into operation, we on this side of the House, as my noble friends have said, do not wish to hold it up. But we hope that as a result of the Order, some benefits may accrue to the farming industry.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I would beg to point out that the situation confronting us over meat is that there is an increasing world demand for meat, largely because nations which formerly were non-meat-eating are now taking to the habit of eating meat and there has been no corresponding increase of supply. It is not a Party matter. It is not a matter which can possibly be affected by the transition of power from one Party to another. It is a world situation, and it is a very serious one. It is not purely a matter of shifting the emphasis of British production from beef to other forms of product. There is no certainty that we shall not also, in the long run, have a milk shortage as well.
The real answer, as I ventured to point out in a speech which I made on the South-East Report, is to adopt a wholly new attitude towards taking agricultural land for urban purposes, and the sooner all three Parties recognise the seriousness of that question the better chance we shall have of being able to continue to consume a moderate, and probably decreasing, amount of meat per head.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, has, I think, put his finger on the spot in saying it is an increase in world consumption of meat which is causing the present shortage. It has increased at a somewhat
864
greater rate than was anticipated. But I think the noble Lord, Lord Walston, is unduly pessimistic regarding future shortages of beef in the world. At the present moment there is a tremendous over-production of beef in the United States of America, and the farmers there are most gravely concerned about the price of beef, which has dropped to the lowest price it has been for many years. They are bringing considerable pressure to bear upon their Government in Washington. I have just come back from the corn belt, and one would think that this was one of the major agricultural crises of the century. Certainly there are some farmers who are having to tighten their belts very considerably.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us, as he has just come back from the United States, what the price of beef is in that country?
LORD BALERNO: Twenty cents a 1b. and under. It was selling at Fort Worth at 19·5 cents. The point one might remember is that the United States is at present importing as much as 5 per cent., and it was extraordinary to hear United States farmers and agricultural economists expressing great alarm at this, to us, comparatively small proportion of meat importation. When you take 5 per cent. of the total production of meat in the United States, however, it is quite a sizeable quantity. Much of the beef comes from Australia in a form in which we do not take it—namely, ground meat as distinct from carcase meat. I understand that in America they feel they would have no difficulty in meeting the demand of the home market if an embargo were put on the imported supply.
There is one other point I should like to make, in the form of a question to the Minister—namely, whether it is not the fact that the retail prices of beef in this country are still, as they have been for some years past, considerably lower to the housewife than in other parts of Europe or in the United States of America.
3.52 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, I wonder, when he does so, whether he would say a word about the considerable concern that exists in the minds of many people

865
at the fact that, in a short period of two months, we have exported 5,500 tons of meat, on all of which, of course, the taxpayer has had to pay subsidy before it was exported; yet the foreign importer has paid to import it and sell it again. May I ask him also, when he comes to reply to the points which have been made by my noble friend, to have regard to the fact that the Government cannot possibly put the whole of the blame for the present situation on to either increased demand for meat in various countries of the world or shortage of supply, because if they had had sufficient foresight not to discard the whole machinery which was built up by a Labour Government for long-term contracts for meat from abroad, then, whatever the increased shortage in supply, there would not have been the same shortage in this country. Therefore, the Government cannot escape the blame for a great deal of the trouble which now exists.
3.53 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for hoping that these measures would be effective. I hope we shall satisfy him in the course of time that they are. However, as I know that he always searches for truth, I should like in a small way to guide him back on to the beam of truth, even though he departed, as he later graciously conceded, far from the subject of this Order, exuberantly followed by others of his noble friends who also spoke, and most exuberantly of all by his noble friend Lord Stonham who spoke last.
I am sure he is not right in attributing the present temporary shortage of beef in this country to Government measures. He will remember, as I remember well, that at about this time last year—the time of the Price Review of 1963—his noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh twitted me merrily on the fact that the mark et was overloaded (as I think Lord Sainsbury himself has reminded us again) with Argentine beef. I can remember that the subsidy paid by the Exchequer reached a record sum: at one time it was 70s. per cwt. and amounted to a very large sum at the end of the subsidy year.
I think the reasons can be put down quite fairly—here, I am afraid, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and
866
I consider the facts disagree with him—to shortages in supply and to the rate of take-up in certain countries, neither of which need continue at the same rate. Certainly, we expect the shortages to be purely temporary. There has been a severe drought in the Argentine, and this has made a great deal of difference to the amount of beef they have been able to send us this year. In slightly greater detail I can say that what has happened is that in normal years they send us bull beef. This year, because the cow beef has been so short, the Argentinians themselves have been eating bull meat, and that has taken off a considerable amount of what would normally be sent to our market. The noble Lord said—and I was glad to hear him say it—that he looked forward to long-term agreements for stabilising the markets, not only in our own country but in others. This certainly we are striving after. We all regret—I am sure he regrets it as much as we do—that the agreement on beef was not reached as was the agreement on cereals.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord just to get that point clear? I understood that the long-term agreement on cereals is not for any specified quantity, nor is there any ceiling in the price. Therefore, if there were a shortage of cereals there would be nothing to guarantee that the British housewife would get cereals either at a low price or in adequate quantities. If that is so, would he tell us whether the agreement on meat is to be the same—if so, there will be no protection at all—or is he envisaging a different form of long-term agreement?
LORD ST. OSWALD: Naturally, I cannot foresee what form the agreement on meat will take when it is reached—"when" is the right word. As I say, we hope it will be reached, but I think it will be unlikely to take the same form as the cereal agreement. His noble friend Lord Sainsbury asked whether we were equally concerned with the shortage as we had been with the abundance last year, and whether we were satisfied that the present system of deficiency payments is adequate. The answer to the first question is a relative "No", in that I do not think we are concerned at the moment. Naturally, we do not regard it with the same anxiety that he does, because he

867
thinks it is a longer-term shortage than we do. To that extent only is our concern less. We do think that the present deficiency payments system is satisfactory.
He mentioned the growing demand in Europe. This is, of course, true. A certain amount of Yugoslav beef has been sent to Italy. It is doubtful to what extent that enlarged take-up will continue. He took it that this was a direct result of our pleas to the beef suppliers to find other markets. Here, again, I return to the little exchange I had last year with his noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh, who referred to "a series of love letters" sent to the Argentine Government asking them not to send us too much beef. I replied to him at that time that these were not "love letters" but business letters, and as business letters they were effective, and as business letters they were able to be short term in contrast, of course, to "love letters." Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
4.0 p.m.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, when I referred to these "love letters", I was, of course, implying that for twelve years the Government and their predecessors had done nothing about the law of supply and demand in relation to agricultural produce. In the meantime, there has been a slump in prices because of over-supplies at any given time, with increased deficiency payments, and with all the Press of the country condemning somebody—they did not quite know whom—for doing nothing about these ups and downs. Of course, the villains of the piece were the Government, and time and again in another place, and three or four times in your Lordships' House, I have pleaded with the Government to try to get some order into the imports of various agricultural commodities so as to avoid these surpluses and slumps, the chaotic situation in regard to meat, wheat, cereals and indeed other commodities.
These "love letters" have achieved something, which seems to have satisfied the noble Lord. He is not at all unhappy that there is a shortage of meat and that the prices have gone up, because the housewife is now paying a higher price and the Treasury are paying less. That has been the policy of the
868
Conservative Government from the beginning, and that was why they wanted to get into the European Common Market. The noble Lord almost invited me to get on my feet, when I did not really want to get up.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I must say that since the first time I ever confronted the noble Lord in public, at a meeting of the Barnsley N.F.U., he has not changed—he is now as mischievous as he was then; and he is prepared to depart as far from the truth as he was then, and with as great charm as ever. What he says is entirely consonant with what his noble friends have been saying in the course of this small debate. If they were in power and a shortage were to appear, they would assume it was a permanent shortage and would take permanent measures on which it would be very difficult to go back. This is what I read into the noble Lord's remarks.
The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, both expressed anxieties as to what we were doing about the supply of fatstock. I would remind them that the guaranteed price for fat cattle was increased by 3s. a cwt. during the 1964 Review, and also the calf subsidy has been increased by 10s. a head. Slaughterings in home-produced cattle are at present running at higher levels than usual, and in fact prices have eased lately. At the moment the market price is falling. My noble friend Lord Balerno asked me whether I could confirm that the resale prices of beef even to-day—when they are temporarily, as we believe, higher than usual—are in fact very much lower than in other European countries. That is very much the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, had done infinite research into the numerical repetitions of phrases in this particular Order. He addressed a request to me, which won my heart, that these Orders should be simplified. I probably have to do more work on them than he does, and I should be delighted to see them made simpler. The trouble is that both fairness and precision insist on this sort of formula. There is in fact a booklet setting out the scheme at greater length, but in simpler language, called The Fat Stock Guarantees Scheme, which is sold by Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

869
I have done my best to answer the questions of all noble Lords who have spoken. I should like to end by saying again that we believe that the present shortages are of a temporary nature, that the measures taken in this Price Review will be adequate for this agricultural year, and that if the outlook is different in another agricultural year we shall have time to look at them again.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord one thing before he sits down, for I did not wish to interrupt him during the end of his speech. He gave an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, in the affirmative concerning the comparative price of meat in this country and in other countries. Would the noble Lord be good enough, either now or later on, to give the actual figures on which he bases that answer?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the answer is: at a later date and as quickly as possible.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BURGH POLICE (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.6 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (RIGHT OF REPLY) BILL
Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have it in Command from Her Majesty to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been notified of the purport of the Criminal Procedure (Right of Reply) Bill, consents to place her interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Bill.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

FILMS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).

INCOME TAX MANAGEMENT BILL
4.8 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, your Lordships may perhaps think it somewhat surprising that it should fall to my lot to move the Second Reading of this important measure. I hasten to assure your Lordships that for a Lord Chancellor to support a Bill of this kind there is an excellent but ancient precedent. When income tax was first introduced—which, as your Lordships will remember, was as a temporary measure to finance the Napoleonic wars—my predecessor, Lord Chancellor Loughborough, was so enamoured of the Bill that he concluded his speech in its support by saying that why any noble Lord should object to the Bill being immediately read a second time he could not imagine. Tempted as I am to follow this precedent, and to say no more, whatever may have been the affection felt for income tax in 1799, there is, I fear, little or none now. None the less, I commend this Bill to your Lordships, for it contains some valuable improvements in administrative procedure in relation to income tax and profits tax.
Clause 1 relates to General Commissioners. Since the passing of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1958, the appointment of General Commissioners has been almost entirely the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor. After 1958, twelve cities were left with power to appoint Commissioners themselves. In some cases this power dated from 1799. This ancient right is taken away by this Bill as, on its enactment, the Lord Chancellor will he responsible for the appointment of all General Commissioners.
The clause also provides that the office of Commissioner should be held during the pleasure of the Lord Chancellor. It was recommended by the Royal Commission that there should be a power

871
of dismissal and this provision secures that. I hope, however, that little use will have to be made of it. The clause also gives power to alter the boundaries of Commissioners' divisions. This is very important as these boundaries, like local government boundaries, require revision from time to time.
My Lords, it was not so very long ago that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, thought fit to attack me, alleging that the Lord Chancellor and his Office were engaged in a piece of "empire-building" at the expense of the Home Office. On that occasion he appeared in the rôle of a self-appointed champion of the Home Office. I gather that there is not much likelihood of his appearing on this occasion as champion of the Inland Revenue. This measure, during its period of gestation, has come to he referred to—in view of its initials when enacted— as "the I.T.M.A. Bill". If, of course, the noble Lord had intervened in this debate, I should have been inclined to say, in sorrow rather than in anger, something about "That man again".
In any event, my Lords, I would say just two things. The first is that this transfer of responsibility to the Lord Chancellor was recommended by the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income, and so there can be no accusation of "empire-building" which could be in the least degree justified; and, secondly, that Mr. Speaker has certified this to be a Money Bill. That means, of course, that your Lordships cannot prevent this Bill from being enacted in its present form. Your Lordships will remember that under the Parliament Act a Bill can be certified as a Money Bill if it contains only provisions dealing with the matters mentioned in Section 1 of the Parliament Act.
While I must say that I never anticipated that the giving to the Lord Chancellor of power to appoint Commissioners, power to dismiss them and power to fix the boundaries within which they worked would be regarded as a provision coming within that Act, it is of course the responsibility, and the sole responsibility, of Mr. Speaker to decide whether or not to certify a Bill as a Money Bill; and should not wish to be thought to ques-
872
tion, nor would it be right for me to question, his decision. But the fact remains that this Bill has been certified as a Money Bill, and so any effort to prevent the transfer of responsibility by Clause 1 of the Bill would be fruitless.
Clause 2 makes provision for the appointment of a Clerk to the General Commissioners, and Clause 3 deals with the appointment by the Board of Inland Revenue of inspectors and collectors of taxes. Clause 5 makes an important change in procedure. At the present time assessments to income tax are signed by the Commissioners. In fact, all the work leading to the assessments is done by the inspector of taxes, and in the general run of cases the signing of the assessment by the Commissioners is little more than a formality. Under the Bill the inspector will usually be responsible for making the assessments, but the Bill contains one important safeguard for the taxpayer in the exceptional case of assessments made outside the normal six-year time limit on the grounds of fraud, wilful default or neglect. In such cases the inspector is required under the Bill to obtain the leave of a Commissioner before he can make an assessment. That is provided for by Clause 6.
Clause 7 makes provision with regard to the main annual returns of income. Clause 8 gives the Inland Revenue power to recover income tax by proceedings in the inferior courts. Clause 9 deals with the procedure for claiming and determining the various income tax reliefs and allowances which may arise, and Clause 10 provides that inspectors of taxes can also make assessments for profits tax. Clauses 11 and 12 deal with procedure. Clause 13 makes it possible, in a case where an appeal is pending, to collect tax which it is agreed is not in dispute.
My Lords, I do not think I need say more about the contents of this Bill. I should like only to add that when it was considered in another place—and I am sure it was most fully considered—this Bill was welcomed by all political Parties. It has been examined in detail by the main professional bodies concerned, and has been discussed between them and the Board of Inland Revenue. As a result, I understand that the Bill in its present form is generally acceptable. It re-states in modern terms the

873
main administrative provisions and repeals a host of provisions which are spent or obsolete. I should perhaps add that in Scotland the power to alter the divisional boundaries for the Commissioners will rest with the Secretary of State, while the appointment of the Commissioners will remain the function of the local authorities.
It is, of course, necessary that the General Commissioners should do their work in secrecy: only by so doing can the confidentiality of individual taxpayers' affairs be preserved. One therefore does not see in the Press reports of the cases that they consider, and I think it is right now to pay a tribute to the Commissioners, to the thousands of them up and down the country, who do invaluable work in determining the liability of members of the public and companies to the taxes imposed by Acts of Parliament. The general public probably do not appreciate fully the importance of the work done by the Commissioners and the amount of time they devote to it. I should like to express my thanks to them for the services they render.
I would also pay tribute to the Advisory Committees which assist me in making appointments. There are Advisory Committees in each county and county borough, similar to the Committees which advise me on the appointment of justices of the peace. This system is, I think, working well, and I am grateful to the members of the Advisory Committees for the great help they give me. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
4.16 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I am sure we are all indebted to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, for his lucid explanation of this complicated measure—inexplicably complicated, I think, because, as the Lord Chancellor said, it deals with the administrative procedures relative to assessment to income tax and profits tax. As the short title indicates, the word "management" is perhaps not inapt, for, as taxpayers, we feel, sometimes,
874
that we make the income and the Inland Revenue manages it. This Bill, however, has the merit that it casts no additional tax upon the people, nor does it deal with any questions of relief. The Bill repeals more than it enacts. It is a useful Bill. It is harmless, if anything can be said to be harmless which is connected with income tax or profits tax. It does, however, have the merit that it sweeps away a number of procedures which are no longer appropriate to the conditions of business or of incomes. It clears away a measure of the cluttered confusion of procedures of well-nigh a century ago.
We often say that a Bill is long overdue. As regards this Bill, that is a bottomless understatement. The Lord Chancellor went into some minor incident of history with regard to income tax and administative procedures, but it is the case that this Bill is 43 years late, which, I think, is perhaps an unequalled achievement in procrastination. The Royal Commission on Taxation in 1920 recommended most of the main provisions of this Bill. The Government of the day accepted those recommendations and introduced a Bill in April, 1921. The Bill, however, was not proceeded with. It was incontinently withdrawn by the Government, and it was stated at the time that that was largely owing to the pressure of a well-known newspaper, owned then by an equally well-known newspaper proprietor; and the objections were supported by the Commissioners of Taxes for the City of London.
Nothing positive was done until 1952, when the income tax provisions were consolidated and thus were preserved the old laws and the old anachronisms and archaic nonsenses qualifying the ensemble to be regarded as a museum piece. The procedures were perpetuated, although some of them, in action, were not actually applicable; and, thanks to the ingenuity and adaptability of the Inland Revenue, things worked reasonably smoothly. I should like to associate my friends on this side and myself with the tribute which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor paid to the Inland Revenue for their work in connection with their rather onerous tasks.

875
The next point in the long march of standing still in connection with this matter was the Royal Commission on Taxation of Profits and Income of 1951, to which the Lord Chancellor has already referred. That Commission, known as the Radcliffe Commission, recommended in 1955 the proposals which are now the main purposes and proposals of this Bill; but, despite that impressive recommendation, nothing was done. It is the case that, by the provisions of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1958, the power of the Lord Chancellor to appoint and remove General Commissioners was, if I may use the term, formalised—almost fortuitously, I think. Clearly, such a provision was out of place in that Act, and this Bill brings it back into the family of income tax management legislation, where it properly belongs.
The next stage of this slow march was the consideration by the Seventh Select Committee on Estimates in 1961. That Committee strongly endorsed the main recommendations of the Radcliffe Commission (which are, as I have said, the main proposals in this Bill) after the Select Committee had taken evidence from organisations representing professional accountants, business and industry, and from representatives of taxpayers and of the staff; and, as a result of the powerful influence of the Select Committee, this Bill emerges after, as I have said, 43 years.
Schedule 6 is, I should think, probably unique in legislative measures, for it cuts away an enormous amount of dead wood. But, my Lords, much remains. It is a pity that the Bill does not go further. Many of the procedures need rationalising, modernising and clarifying. Indeed, the whole structure of management of income tax and profits tax needs to be reviewed with a view to securing its adaptation and simplification, both in the interests of the taxpayer and in the interests of the Inland Revenue and the functioning of its staff. That the machinery works as smoothly as it does, with this cumbersome body of proscriptions and prescriptions, is a credit to the resourcefulness of the Inland Revenue staff. This Bill is a useful and a necessary Bill. It is a Bill, as I have said, very much overdue. We welcome the
876
Bill, and we will do what we can to aid it on its passage to the Statute Book.
4.25 p.m.
LORD MILNE: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for taking us through the clauses of this Bill with his usual care and clarity. The observations which I intend to make will be more of a general nature. With the noble Lord, Lord Latham, I welcome the Bill for several reasons. It simplifies procedure. It has, in the words of the noble Lord, cleared away a great deal of that which is very archaic. It rewrites practically all of Part II of the Income Tax Act, 1952; and so it paves the way, we hope and trust, for a further consolidation in the not too far distant future. Lastly, it is an example of a procedure which has been advocated for some time, which is that the annual Finance Bill should be relieved of amendments to past law, and that these should be put into a special Bill, to be introduced at a time which is convenient and as often as necessary, the sole purpose of which would be to enact amendments to income tax legislation.
But, having said that, my Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Latham: the recommendations on which these alterations are being brought forward vary in age from 5 to 45 years. Nothing they are doing is novel. As the noble and learned Lord said, the assessments, except for the special items assessment, are in fact carried out, in practice, by the inspectors of taxes now. The man in the street will not really notice the difference. This is an example of special legislation, and, even though not law, it is nevertheless difficult for the uninitiated. To a certain extent, the passing of this is an act of faith. It is said that income tax law is so complicated, and the wording so involved, that the real effect is not known until it is tested in the courts. Quite definitely, the wording of the income tax law is not the language that Shakespeare spake.
My Lords, on particular matters, there was some comment that the Clerk to the Commissioners was not to be qualified. That, I think, one can understand; but it means that the appointment is laid open to ex-inspectors, and to that extent you might get an inspector who had recently been in the division concerned.

877
The declaration made by the three levels in the Inland Revenue offices has now been extended, but I think there is a certain amount of concern at the wording of the declaration which is to be made by the inspector and the collector. This, of course, will affect inspectors only after the date of this Act. As the noble and learned Lord said, Clauses 9 to 12 and Schedules 2 and 3 lay down a code of new procedures for claims and appeals. I think these will generally be approved.
My Lords, I said that the passing of this Bill is somewhat of an act of faith. As the noble Lord, Lord Latham, said, the Bill, particularly Schedule 6, is a mass of detail, which I confess I have not checked. In such a Bill one must rely on the draftsmen, on the Departments concerned and on the years it has been in the pipe-line. Many interested and learned bodies have submitted evidence and memoranda, and those who are interested in the Bill will have no doubt read the highly-informed debates which took place in another place and at their Committee stage. In conclusion, my Lords, I should like to associate myself with the tributes which have been paid to the officers of the Inland Revenue, and say that we, as professionals, welcome this Bill.
4.30 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful for what your Lordships have said in relation to this Bill. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Latham, that it is a useful and necessary Bill. He said that it might have been enacted some forty years ago. Changes of procedure in relation to income tax, as he knows, usually take quite a time to accomplish, and I think it is a matter rather for pride than regret that it has been possible to introduce this Bill and to make such progress with it this Session. It has already been through another place and I hope that here, too, its passage will not be long delayed. I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said in his interesting speech in relation to this measure.
In regard to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Milne, it is, of course, the fact that Parliamentary counsel would have to spend a very great deal of time checking and rechecking Schedule 6 and, indeed, in the preparation of the Bill. I do not know on what grounds he said
878
that really the passage of this Bill will be an "act of faith" or that it has been in the pipe-line a very long time. I am not asking for this Bill to be read a second time as an act of faith; I am putting it before your Lordships and recommending it to you because in my belief it will make a significant improvement in the machinery in relation to the assessment and collection of income tax. It was not so very long ago that in the Finance Bill we reviewed all the penalty procedures and provisions and modernised those. This is another step on the same road.
The noble Lord, Lord Milne, thought that in future we should always make amendments to past income tax law in a Bill other than the Finance Bill. I cannot go with him on that because so often amendments to past law are, in fact, amendments which make changes in the rate of taxation or its incidence under past Statutes. But I think it is useful, when we are revising a complete part of the income tax code, that we should have time to consider it as we have had to-day and, as at this time, in a separate Bill of this kind. I am grateful for the reception that the House has given to this not unimportant Bill.
On Question Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

EDUCATION BILL [H.L.]
4.33 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD STRANG in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Provisions relating to England and Wales
New county schools with special age-limits
1.—(1) Where a local education authority intend to establish a new county school, and submit proposals for that purpose to the Secretary of State under section 13 of the Education Act 1944, the proposals may, if the local education authority think fit,—
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD NEWTON)THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD NEWTON) moved in subsection (1), to leave out "and" where that word first occurs and to insert:
"or persons other than a local education authority propose that a new school proposed to be established by them, or by persons whom they represent, should be maintained by a local education authority as a voluntary school, and the authority or persons in question".
The noble Lord said: It may be convenient to the Committee if I discuss the first three Amendments together as they are all related. They have a common purpose, which is to honour the undertaking I gave on Second Reading to extend the scope of Clause 1 to cover proposals to establish new voluntary schools submitted by promoters from voluntary bodies, as well as those from local education authorities to establish new county schools. I made it clear on Second Reading that I was recommending the extension in response to requests from the denominations and that, for example, in certain circumstances which I explained, it might be necessary to depart from the normal practice and pay less grant than the maximum permitted by law to the promoters of new voluntary schools. Other comparable cases might arise. There is no need for the Bill to spell out in detail the grant consequences in every possible combination of circumstances under which promoters might submit proposals.
A new voluntary school established under the Bill amended in the manner I am proposing will be eligible for grant if, but only if, the particular circumstances bring it within existing legislation. No new principle is being introduced and these Amendments are consistent with the settlement of 1944. I am grateful for the reception which my undertaking had on Second Reading from your Lordships, and I am encouraged to hope that these Amendments will be generally acceptable.
The third Amendment is largely formal. The Bill as it stands unamended covers only county schools, the cost of which would, of course, be met by local education authorities. On bringing in voluntary schools it is necessary to allow for the possibility, where the circumstances are appropriate, of the promoters of such schools becoming eligible to apply for grants and loans towards the capital cost
880
under existing legislation. This is what the third Amendment does. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("and") and insert the said words.—(Lord Newton.)
LORD LATHAM: I understand that the Amendments give effect to an undertaking given by the Minister on Second Reading, and otherwise they are consequential on the implementation of that undertaking. In those circumstances, I should like to express appreciation of the action of the Minister and say that we support the Amendment.
LORD NEWTON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: May I also add a word of appreciation, on behalf of the Church of England—and I think I can speak for the Catholic authorities here—that the Government have been prepared to accept, and themselves to propose, this Amendment? We all recognise, widely and without discussion, that this is a relatively small beginning, but it is touching upon a most important educational point. In the present fluid position, it is most desirable that we should establish some flexibility so that we do not too rigidly confine education between certain years without discrimination in the terms of ability of particular pupils. Within that framework, with which we all agree, we have felt it is most important that the voluntary bodies should be able to take such a share as will be available to them. This is, of course, as the Minister has said, for only a limited number of examples; and I am sure we all recognise they should be so limited, since we do not want to anticipate further developments in education too far at this stage.
However limited they are, we value the opportunity of sharing in them, if we are so able to do, because we believe that this is an important and valuable step. It might be, for instance, that the voluntary bodies would wish to put forward some scheme of their own; it might be that some proposal brought forward by a local authority would be likely to embrace some of the schools held under voluntary ownership or affected by its own proximity. We cannot see how it would happen; but I am

881
sure it is quite right that this question should not be settled and the door closed at this point by the exclusion of this particular Amendment.
I would thereby add that our concern in this (and I am sure the Committee will bear with me here) is not only because we have a very big stake and belief in the specific religious education which voluntary schools can apply, and for which they are putting down so much money, but also because we believe it to be very desirable that there should be no wedge driven in the whole scheme of national education between the local authority or statutory schools and the voluntary schools. We are all in the national scheme together, and it is most important that the principle of inclusion should be retained. I support the Amendment with great gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, for being so ready to propose it himself.
LORD NEWTON: I would just express my gratitude also to the right reverend Prelate for making it so clear that the Church of England approves of extending the scope of this Bill in the way I am now proposing.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTON: I beg to move the second Amendment on the Marshalled List.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("local education authority") and insert ("authority or persons submitting the proposals").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Financial Provisions]:
LORD NEWTON: I beg to move the third Amendment on the Marshalled List.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 8, at end insert—
("(c) any increase attributable to this Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under section 107 of the Education
882
Act 1944 or under section 1(2) of the Education Act 1959").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
LORD NEWTON: I beg to move the last Amendment on the Marshalled List. This Amendment is consequential on the three which your Lordships have already approved.
Amendment moved—
In the Title, line 1, leave out ("local education authorities to establish schools") and insert ("county schools and voluntary schools to be established").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

WELSH SHIPPING AGENCY BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.