Lords Sitting of 10 December 1964

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

LOANING OF PICTURES TO MINISTRIES
3.7 p.m.
LORD BOSSOM: 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 what regulations control the loan of pictures from the Tate and National Galleries for the offices of the new Government Ministers; what particular pictures are allowed to be loaned for this purpose, and whether these pictures can be loaned for any other public buildings.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD RHODES): My Lords, the loan of pictures from the Tate and National Galleries for Government offices is governed by Section 4 of the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act, 1954. The choice of pictures which may be loaned is primarily a matter for the Trustees concerned, who in making a decision are required by the Act to satisfy themselves that the picture is physically in a fit state to be loaned and that it will not be exposed to any unnecessary or exceptional hazards. The Trustees will also take into account whether a particular picture is of such importance that it ought to be kept available in the Gallery for easy reference by the public and by students. Pictures may be loaned under this section not only to Government offices but to any public building or official residence, in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, for the furnishing of which the Minister of Public Building and Works is responsible.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Could
224
he say whether pictures may be loaned either to this building in which we are all assembled now or to our Embassies in different parts of the world?
LORD RHODES: Yes, my Lords. Pictures are loaned to Embassies in different parts of the world.

RECLAMATION OF DERELICT LAND
LORD PEDDIE: 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 what active steps are being taken to secure some measure of reclamation of land rendered derelict by the exploitation of mineral deposits, which covers a total area of 150, 000 acres and is increasing by 3,500 acres a year.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATIONAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHISON): My Lords, I am afraid that this is rather a long Answer, but the Question raises a number of different points. The figure of 150, 000 acres mentioned by the noble Lord relates to derelict land of all kinds and not merely to land damaged by mineral exploitation. Restoration of much of this land is not practicable in present circumstances, though something can often be done to improve its appearance by landscaping. My right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is aware of current schemes for restoring or improving about 2,500 acres of derelict land, most of which does not derive from mineral exploitation: most of these schemes are being carried out with the aid of grant. In addition, some derelict land is being used by local authorities for various development purposes, including housing and industry. The amount so used varies from year to year. In order to keep the position under review, and to ensure that we have up-to-date information on progress being made, my right honourable friend has asked local authorities to make an annual return, beginning on March 31, 1965, of the amount of derelict land in their areas

225
and the acreage which they propose to deal with.
Apart from treatment of derelict land resulting from past exploitation, work to restore or improve the land from which minerals are currently being extracted is going on all the time: it has to, to comply with conditions attached to the grant of planning permissions.
About 5,500 acres of mineral land are now being exploited by surface working every year, mainly for sand and gravel but also including ironstone and other minerals. At least half can be expected to be restored to agriculture, forestry and other uses and the remainder landscaped. These figures include about 500 acres of ironstone working, but they do not include the much larger area of opencast coal working by the National Coal Board. As regards opencast coal, restoration is required by Statute; and for ironstone there is a statutory levy.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that most informative Answer. I should like to ask him whether he would agree with the Civic Trust's estimate that the cost of reclaiming the majority of derelict land would be £27 million?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I do not think I can give an answer to that question. It is extremely difficult to fix what is really a very hypothetical figure. I can only say that the Civic Trust's Report goes on figures dating from 1955, and they are not always quite up to date.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that further answer. May I ask him whether he believes that the present legislation, which gives local authorities power to deal with this situation, is somewhat inadequate, because it leaves the responsibility largely, if not wholly, in the hands of local authorities? And does he feel that there should be a greater participation by the State?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, on the whole, no. However, I will see that my noble friend's remarks are brought to the attention of the Ministry concerned.

SCOTTISH MINISTERIAL RESPON SIBILITIES FOR DEVELOPMENT PLANS
3.12 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government which Scottish Minister, under the Secretary of State for Scotland, is responsible for consulting with Scottish local authorities on the action they take in implementing development plans.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, local authorities take action to implement the Government's plans for regional economic development in the various fields and services for which they have responsibilities. Consultations with them are undertaken by the appropriate Departments under the guidance of the responsible Ministers. Most of the services for which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is responsible in this connection fall to the Scottish Development Department with which Dr. Mabon is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State particularly concerned. That Department exercises a general oversight over the land use and town planning functions of the local authorities which are important in fitting together the local services needed to support economic growth. In so far as local authority services fall to the other Scottish Departments, any Scottish Office Minister may be involved in consultations with the authorities.
Naturally, we work as a team in this as in all our other activities, but in the present context I myself play a dual rôle. On the one hand, I assist my right honourable friend in his general task of co-ordinating the work of all the Government Departments concerned in the formulation and execution of regional plans for economic development; and, on the other, because of my special concern with agriculture, fisheries and forestry, I shall no doubt from time to time have occasion to

227
consult with local authorities and other bodies about the regional economic aspects of these subjects.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, and I hope it is a little less bewildering to the local authorities than it is to me. Can he give me an answer to one example? If a local authority was worried about the provision of executive housing in connection with commercial development, would they seek the advice of the noble Lord or of his right honourable friend?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I have not the slightest doubt that, because of the team work of which I have spoken, if they came to either of us they would receive a perfectly satisfactory response.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I have no wish to frustrate the noble Lord in trying to help Scotland, but I think this arrangement is very untidy.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, all I can say to that is that I cannot agree with the noble Lord.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord which of the Ministers of the Scottish Office is particularly concerned with tourism in Scotland and the tourist development plans?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, both Dr. Mabon and I are concerned with tourism.

SCOPE OF PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER (OMBUDSMAN)
3.17 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the implementation of the proposal, in the gracious Speech, to bring in new measures for the impartial investigation of individual grievances will include the appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner (Ombudsman); and if so whether a separate Parliamentary Commissioner will be appointed for Scotland.]
LORD RHODES: My Lords, it is the Government's intention to introduce legislation
228
to appoint a Parliamentary Commissioner to investigate individual grievances. The scope of his powers and functions is being considered, and I am not able to make any further statement at present.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, that was the Answer I expected. Is the noble Lord aware that the purpose of my Question is to declare in advance that Scotland, with her own laws and her own practices, will expect to have control over her own affairs in this field as recommended by paragraph 161 of Sir John Whyatt's Report by Justice?
LORD RHODES: My Lords, indeed we are aware of the importance of the point that is raised, and I would say that careful consideration is to be given to this before legislation is introduced.
LORD CRAIGTON: I thank the noble Lord.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, do the Government have in mind that the burden on this Commissioner is likely to be extremely heavy under any Government, and that it may be desirable not only to appoint a separate Commissioner for Scotland, but to give consideration to the importance of having Regional Commissioners?
LORD RHODES: My Lords, I will take note of the noble Baroness's point.

THE CHRISTMAS RECESS
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that at a suitable moment after half-past three my noble friend Lord Shackleton will be making a statement on regional economic planning.
May I also inform the House, for their convenience, that we intend to rise for the Christmas Recess on December 25, and to return on January 19.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 35 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) and

229
Standing Order No. 41 (No two stages of a Bill to he taken on one day) be suspended until the House adjourns for the Christmas Recess.—(The Earl of Longford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make new provision as respects the registration of births, deaths and marriages in Scotland, and as respects the recording of changes of name or surname there; and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Bill read 1a and to be printed.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

GAMBIA INDEPENDENCE BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

TRAVEL CONCESSIONS BILL
3.22 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 Lindgren.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Travel concessions]:
LORD INGLEWOOD LORD INGLEWOOD moved to add to subsection (1):
"and any local authority may pay any person operating a public service vehicle undertaking the whole or part of the cost incurred by him in granting travel concessions to qualified persons specified by the authority."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Ilford and myself. This is a very simple and straightforward Amendment. It has the support of the Association of Municipal Corporations and, what is much more important, if added to the Bill will substantially improve it. This Bill at present has one great weakness in that it concerns only a part of the country. We have not been told exactly what is the Government's estimate of this part, but I suggest that it is very much less than half of the country as a whole; and no benefit will be brought by the Bill to the areas where the local authorities do not themselves run public service vehicles. We must not forget that on our own doorsteps here no benefit is going to be brought to the people in London; and most country districts, too, where the distances to travel are longer, and therefore the fares that people will be asked to pay are larger, will also derive no benefit. So I would submit that we cannot leave the Bill as it is and continue to talk about equality of opportunity.
There is, naturally, dissatisfaction about this Bill in different parts of the country and I want only to quote the report of one local authority which was considering the Bill's limited nature. In the local Press of Carlisle City the Council was reported to have discussed this Bill, and Mr. W. J. Hunter, Chairman of the Labour Group on the City Council and

231
also Chairman of the Transport Committee, said this:
"If the provisions of the Bill make these facilities available for municipal transport"—
which is, of course, concerned in the concessions under the Bill—
"then there is no reason why other local authorities should not have the same benefits, especially if some municipal transport systems are being subsidised by the rates."
Of course, he is quite right.
The principle underlying this Amendment is not very new, and I do not think that it need arouse so much argument on the other side; such argument, for instance, as: if power is once given to a local authority to contribute to this or any other service, where do we then stop? If that is to be our mentality we shall achieve little or nothing. Of course, some powers to this effect already exist, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, will be able to say something about the application to this question of Section 136 of the Local Government Act, 1948. As there is only one sentence of this section, I hope that I may have permission to read it. It says:
"A local authority in England or Wales may, with the consent of the Minister given either generally or specially, contribute towards the expenses of any body carrying on activities within the area of that authority, being activities for the purpose of furthering the development of trade, industry or commerce therein, or of giving advice, information or other assistance to persons resident therein, or otherwise for the benefit of that area or those persons."
I should have thought that that section might well cover the point we have been discussing, but if it does not I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, will explain exactly how it fails to do so. I know that the noble Lord has been considering our argument since the Second Reading a week ago. He wrote me a long and helpful letter about some of the points which were raised in that debate, but he did not mention the main point, which, of course, is the purpose of this Amendment. So I am very hopeful that he will agree that the merits of what I propose are very strong.
In amending the Bill to give this power to local authorities there is no need for any great detail. In the course of his speech a week ago the noble Lord, when answering my noble friend Lord Chesham, said:
232
"My answer is that if you can help somebody but cannot help everybody, why not help somebody?"—[Official Report, Vol. 261 (No. 17), col. 1234, December 3, 1964.]
This is his justification for the drafting of the Bill as we are now considering it, but there is really no reason to set that limit on what we can do under this Bill. It is quite easy to extend the powers and make it a great deal fairer than it is at present. I am not committed to any particular form of words, and would willingly accept the noble Lord's words in substitution for mine; but failing an assurance on that, and failing an assurance that Section 136 of the Local Government Act, which I have quoted, can be used for the purpose, I feel that many noble Lords will be very anxious and will want to see that under this Bill justice is done to all parts of the country. As the Bill is at present before us, that is frankly not the case. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Inglewood.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LINDGREN): The Government have every sympathy with those local authorities who desire to see travel concessions given to deserving classes of their citizens but do not operate their own transport. As the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has said, there are, of course, many places in this category. Indeed, less than one quarter of the buses in the country are run by municipal authorities, and only about one local authority in seventeen has its own transport system. It is partly in the size of the problem that the difficulty lies.
As I tried to explain to your Lordships during the debate on the Second Reading, there is nothing to stop any non-municipal undertaking from giving travel concessions if they so desire, subject to the approval of the licensing authority. But, as I said during that Second Reading debate, it is understandable why they do not do so, or very seldom do so, because they are run as commercial undertakings and have to pay their way. There are very few concessions made by non-municipal undertakings apart from the usual children's and scholars' fares. The Amendment would, therefore, very substantially widen the scope of the Bill and the use that

233
could potentially be made of it, because it would bring in all those local authorities that are at present outside this Bill and also the 1955 Act. This extension would be in a field where the activities of local authorities are customarily limited; that is, in supporting commercial undertakings out of public funds.
It is obvious that the financial effect of the Bill would likewise be greatly altered most certainly beyond what was stated in another place. As it stands, the cost to the Exchequer by way of the rate deficiency grant and the Exchequer equalisation grant, will clearly not be substantial, mainly because these are concessions which are given by the local authority and, in fact, will be used very largely during off-peak hours. But to do what is now asked in the Amendment would alter the whole character of the Bill.
It can be fairly said that the Bill as is stands does no more than restore the legal position of municipal transport undertakings to what most people believed it to be prior to 1954. Before that time many of these undertakings had been giving concessions, in some cases for many years, without let or hindrance. But there is no tradition of concessions on non-municipal transport, and neither the original Bill introduced in another place by Mr. Short, which became, in restricted form, the 1955 Act, nor any of Mr. Short's subsequent Private Member's Bills, nor the present Bill, has sought to facilitate concessions on these non-municipal undertakings. They have had the specific purpose of putting matters right for the municipal undertakings alone.
We do not think that this measure should be inflated beyond its avowed purpose. As it stands, it is a simple and useful measure within the accepted limitations. It will deal with the situation so far as that can be done, without entering into any of these wider issues, and we have brought it forward in the hope of a quick passage. For these reasons, I cannot advise your Lordships to accept this Amendment. As I indicated to your Lordships on Second Reading, we are aware of the wider issues to which I have referred; we shall tear them in mind for the future. Meanwhile, I very much hope that this Bill, useful in itself, will
234
go forward without hindrance on its present basis.
The noble Lord asked me about Section 136 of the 1948 Act. All I can say on this point is that it is a matter for the Minister of Housing and Local Government, but I am informed that, although the powers given by that Statute are in general terms, the use of them is subject to that Minister's consent and in practice it has not to date been given for a purpose of this kind. That was an answer I prepared prior to the debate in anticipation of the point being put to me by the noble Lord. I therefore hope I have persuaded the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment. It is a simple Bill to put matters back as everybody thought they were prior to 1954 and to let local authorities carry on as they could then. That is what we want to do and that is all this Bill is intended to do.
LORD CHESHAM: Of course, I have no means of knowing whether the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, has persuaded my noble friend to withdraw his Amendment. The one thing I want to say about it is this. I think I made it perfectly clear on Second Reading that I regarded this Bill as a pretty poor piece of legislation, and why, and I am certainly not going to repeat that argument to-day. But, in my view, to understand exactly why people who travel by municipal transport should be better off than those who travel by some other form of transport beats logical thinking. But I do not want to argue that because, surprisingly enough, having thought the matter over since Second Reading and having listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, has said to-day, I feel that we are in a very difficult position.
We certainly do not want to oppose this Bill, although we accept it with a good deal of reservation, as I have already said. I do think there is force in what the noble Lord says—although he did not make much of it; he rather referred to other matters—about the breach of the principle of municipal authorities not supporting a wide range of outside interests. I now think that that is an important point which we should be extremely chary about accepting, and therefore I think we should approach our consideration of this Amendment with the greatest caution.
LORD INGLEWOOD: I had hoped for a more sympathetic reply from the Minister. He said there was nothing to stop bus companies from giving on their own concessions to their passengers. I should have thought there was even less that could stop the Government from giving us this Amendment this afternoon, and although there are admittedly certain wider issues involved I thought that he tended to exaggerate those issues throughout his speech. It is a strange reactionary view, to keep his eyes fixed on some date ten years ago. Surely what we have to think about is the services and opportunities for people in the future. There is nothing holy about any particular arrangement which happened to have evolved by the year 1954. Therefore I hope that even now, at this late hour, he will undertake to look at this matter again. There is still a later stage before we finish with this Bill. I had hoped this afternoon that he would at least hold out some hope to us by saying that he would look at it and see whether he could get over these wider issues. In that case I would have asked permission to withdraw the Amendment, but in the circumstances, in view of a flat refusal I do not think your Lordships would wish me to do that.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: May I support this Amendment? I live in a rural area, and I think other noble Lords will agree that the village bus services are not in a very prosperous condition. One of the main reasons is that the young people have motor-cycles or small cars, and that leaves the old people without a very easy means of getting to their shopping centres. I feel that while this transitional stage is going on, and since not all the people have some kind of transport of their own, we ought to pay attention to the difficulties of the old people. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will look at this Amendment again.
LORD LINDGREN: I will certainly look at it again, but I should make one thing quite clear. We have already looked at it very sympathetically, so far as possible, and I doubt very much indeed whether a further look at it will bring any satisfaction in the direction the noble Lord requires. So far as local authorities are concerned, there are 95
236
which operate their own municipal bus undertakings. They have off-peak times in which they can allow the old-aged pensioner, the blind person or the disabled person to take up an empty seat on a bus with very little charge. This charge falls on the local rate: and if there is a deficiency it is borne by the local rate; it is part of the municipal service. But if this Amendment were accepted or carried, it would mean that the same concession would be open to people coming under 1,300 other local authorities who do not operate their own buses.
LORD INGLEWOOD: Surely the noble Lord is not suggesting that persons in his qualified classes who live in the areas of the 1,300 local authorities are any less deserving than those who are living in the areas of the 95?
LORD LINDGREN: No; I am not suggesting that at all. If the noble Lord will allow me to finish my argument I shall come back to that point in a moment. It means that this would operate in relation to 1,300 local authorities. The noble Lord would not claim to be a Parliamentary draftsman. Nor would I. It is a skilled profession. I was not going to bring this matter in; but the failure of the noble Lord's Amendment means that it does not apply to the county councils. If this Amendment were carried what happens in relation to a rural district in, say, Westmorland or Cumberland? The authority might agree to make a contribution to a private bus operater, but when a vehicle reached the boundary of the rural district the concession would then not apply. What happens in most rural areas is this. If an old-age pensioner or disabled person in a village wants to go into the market town or into the rural district in order to do some shopping, to see some friends or to go to some social activity, what would happen is what happens now on some municipal transport undertakings—namely, the concession would operate only within the borough, and when the bus came to the boundary of the borough the passengers would have to pay the ordinary fare. So we should have a person obtaining a concession for perhaps two miles and then having to pay the normal fare for six miles. If in fact it was going to apply on a real basis it would be far better for this type of concession to be applied throughout all

237
county councils, rather than in some local authority areas.
I mentioned in the Second Reading debate—I do not want to over-emphasise it now—that rural transport was a problem considered by a Committee set up by the previous Government back in the late' fifties, under the chairmanship of Professor Jack. They presented a Report to the Government indicating what they felt ought to be done to facilitate rural transport in this country. Nothing was done from the time that Report was received until now. In conjunction with a survey of transport generally, we are now looking at the Jack Report, and we hope that we shall be able to make some concession at some later date in regard to rural transport; but that will be on rural transport as a whole.
So far as this Amendment is concerned, certainly I will look at it again. But I want to make it clear that I do not want to mislead the noble Lord into thinking that my agreeing to look at it again carries with it an undertaking to implement the Amendment. We will look at it, but I do not see a great deal of hope of implementing it.
LORD INGLEWOOD: The noble Lord has now said that he will look at the Amendment again. Of course I accept that in the spirit in which he has said it. He will recall that I said that I was not committed to any particular form of words. I appreciate that it is extremely difficult to draft Amendments to satisfy the Parliamentary draftsmen. But perhaps, in the light of what I have just said, the noble Lord will help me between now and the Report stage to draft an Amendment which will in fact be acceptable to the Parliamentary draftsmen. Then we might have an opportunity of considering it, as he has said he will willingly do. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, while the noble Lord is looking at things, will he also look at the date when the Jack Committee reported?
LORD LINDGREN: Yes; I think it was about 1955. So five years have passed without any action being taken on it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [H.L.]
3.45 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Clause 14 [ Special provisions with respect to statutory deposits, & c.]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Gardiner) moved, in subsection (2), to leave out
" (a) section 2 of the Assurance Companies Act 1909; ".
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment raises a question which has arisen since the Committee stage. The subsection 1n question provides that
"Sections 6 to 8 of this Act shall not apply to money deposited with the Accountant General under or by virtue of any of the enactments mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (g) of the foregoing subsection or under"—
and then there are set out references to three sections of three Acts, paragraph (a), in line 19, being "section 2 of the Assurance Companies Act 1909". It has now been ascertained that the last deposit made under that Act has been withdrawn. The Act of 1909 was repealed by the Insurance Companies Act, 1958, so that no new deposit can be made under the 1909 Act. It having been ascertained that the last deposit under that Act has now been withdrawn, there is no need to make any reference to it in this clause. I beg to move accordingly.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 19, leave out line 19.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 25, to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of section 8 of Prosecution of Offences Act 1879. 1879 c. 22.
". A statutory instrument by which the power to make, vary, rescind or add to regulations conferred on the Attorney General by section 8 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1879 is exercised shall be subject to annulment

239
in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, and for the requirement that the approval of the Lord Chancellor and a Secretary of State shall be requisite to the exercise of that power there shall be substituted a requirement that the exercise thereof shall be subject to the concurrence of a Secretary of State."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment raises a question which at the time of the Committee stage was still under discussion between my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, the learned Attorney General and myself. It arises in this way. The Prosecution of Offences Act, 1879, provides for the appointment and duties of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Section 8 empowers the Attorney General, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary, to make regulations for carrying the Act into effect. It also requires proposed regulations to be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and not to be finally approved until the draft has been so laid for 40 sitting days.
The effect of the Amendment is this. In the first place, the Amendment substitutes the Negative Resolution procedure for the procedure of laying in draft. The requirement to lay in draft serves no useful purpose: the precise effect on this requirement of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, is obscure, and it is suggested that it is in every way preferable that the procedure of laying in draft should be replaced by the normal provision for annulment, under the Negative Resolution Procedure. Secondly, it is not in accordance with modern practice to require one Minister's acts to be approved by another Minister. Accordingly, it is proposed to substitute for "approval" the word "concurrence".
At the time when the Act of 1879 was passed, the Attorney General was not a Minister; he was a barrister doing his work in Chambers. The Law Officers' Department as it now exists, was not then in existence, and therefore it was not unnatural that his actions should require the approval of the Minister.
The third change which the Amendment makes is to delete the requirement for either approval or concurrence by the Lord Chancellor. It may have been thought in those days that it was desirable that somebody with legal knowledge should approve or concur, but, as your Lordships will appreciate, as the Lord Chancellor is a Judge, the less he is concerned with the Director of Public Prosecutions, obviously the better. The Home Secretary has some direct interests as they relate to the police. Those are the three amendments which would be made by this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 25, insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Amendments of Enactments for Securing Conformity with Part I of this Act]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should respectfully desire to take Amendments 3 to 8 together. These Amendments substitute the expression "England or Wales" for the expression "England and Wales" in places where the disjunctive formula is more appropriate. As drafted, Schedule 1 modifies the application of a number of sections of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 "in the case of lands in England and Wales". It is obviously more accurate to refer to "lands in England or Wales".
Amendments moved—
Page 27, line 43, leave out ("and") and insert ("or"),
Page 27, line 52, leave out ("and") and insert ("or"),
Page 28, line 13, leave out ("and") and insert ("or"),
Page 28, line 24, leave out ("and") and insert ("or"),
Page 28, line 31, leave out ("and") and insert ("or"),
Page 28, line 44, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

REGIONAL, ECONOMIC PLANNING
3.53 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to intervene to repeat a Statement which is being made by my right honourable friend the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, in another place, on the Government's proposals for the organisation of regional economic planning. The Statement is as follows:
"The purpose of the regional councils and boards which the Government intend to establish is to provide effective machinery for regional economic planning within the framework of the national plan for economic development.
"Regional economic planning has two main purposes: first, to provide for a full and balanced development of the country's economic and social resources; and secondly, to ensure that the regional implications of growth are clearly understood and taken into account in the planning of land use, of development—in particular of industrial development—and of services.
"The economic planning councils will be concerned with broad strategy on regional development and the best use of the regions' resources.
"Their principal function will be to assist in the formulation of regional plans and to advise on their implementation. They will have no executive powers.
"The economic planning boards will provide machinery for co-ordinating the work of Government Departments concerned with regional planning and development, and their creation will not affect the existing powers and responsibilities of local authorities or existing Ministerial responsibilities.
"Since regional economic planning must be on a broad scale, the number of planning regions required should be kept as few as possible.
"Special attention will be given to those areas within each region which have particular economic problems,
242
and neighbouring councils and boards will co-operate on problems which cut across regional boundaries.
"Separate economic planning boards will be established in Scotland and Wales, whose Chairmen will be officials appointed by my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State, who will also appoint the economic planning councils.
"In England there will be the following regions:
Northern: covering Cumberland, Durham, North Riding of Yorkshire, Northumberland, Westmoreland.
North West: covering Cheshire, Lancashire, and the High Peak District.
Yorkshire and Humberside: covering the East and West Ridings of Yorkshire, and Lindsey.
East Midlands: covering Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Holland, Kesteven, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, and Rutland.
West Midlands: covering Herefordshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, and Worcestershire.
South West: covering Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Gloucestershire, Somerset, and Wiltshire.
No decisions will be taken about regional organisation for the rest of England until we have completed our review of the policies set out in the previous Government's White Paper on South-East England.
"A map showing these areas is available in the Vote Office.
"The offices of the English economic planning boards will be in Newcastle, Manchester, Leeds, Nottingham, Birmingham and Bristol.
"The Chairmen of these boards will be officials of my Department, and other Departments will make suitable arrangements to enable them to make a full contribution to the work of the boards.
"Steps will be taken as soon as possible to house in the same building the regional planning staff of the Departments concerned.
"The members of the economic planning councils will be appointed

243
as individuals and not as delegates or representatives of particular interests, but they will be widely representative of different types of experience within the region.
"I and my right honourable friends propose to discuss the procedure for the selection of members of the councils with the local authority associations and other organisations concerned.
"I hope to make an announcement about the membership of some of the councils early in the New Year.
"In some of the planning areas, development councils are in active existence, drawing their finance from local authorities and from industry in the regions.
"The Government see a continuing place for such councils to complement the work of the economic planning councils.
"We shall continue to contribute financial help towards the valuable publicity work done by the Scottish Council and the North East Development Council under the arrangements made by the previous Government.
"In due course the economic planning councils will take over the responsibilities at present carried by the Regional Boards for Industry.
"I propose to discuss with the T.U.C. and the employers' organisations the best means of ensuring that the new machinery, when it is set up, profits from the valuable experience built up by the boards over a period of years."
3.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for making this Statement. I received a copy of it only a few minutes before the noble Lord got to his feet, and I am afraid that I have not taken it in quite as rapidly as I ought to have done. Perhaps the noble Lord would be kind enough to elucidate two points which I should like to put to him. There is one general point about the boards and councils, and one particular question about Scotland.
My general question is this. I think the noble Lord said that the councils will be entirely advisory and have no executive powers, and that they will be
244
representative of local interests, whereas the boards (which will have, I take it, executive functions because they will have to provide machinery for coordinating the work of the Government Departments concerned) will have departmental chairmen. Ought we to take it from that that all the members of the planning boards with a departmental chairman will be departmental officials, or can the boards include non-departmental members?
Then, as for the councils, I think the noble Lord said that he hoped to announce their membership in the New Year. I wonder if he could tell us whether they will be entirely non-departmental, nothing to do with the Government Departments, and not having any officials appointed as their members. I just ask that for elucidation. If the noble Lord would like to answer that point, perhaps I could put the Scottish question afterwards.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, that would be helpful. I sympathise with the noble Earl: there is rather a lot to absorb, and I am sorry he did not get the Statement earlier. The noble Earl is quite right. The planning councils are non-executive, and their members are essentially representative of the interests and experience in the particular region. They are concerned with advising on the broad strategy of regional development and the best use of the region's resources, and, of course, their chairmen will have access to the First Secretary of State. Although I should like to be advised further on this, I do not think it is quite right to say that the regional boards have executive powers independently. They have members who certainly are all civil servants, and are drawn from the various Departments concerned, but of course they tie in with the national plan.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: They are all departmental?
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Earl is right, to the best of my knowledge: they are all departmental. Does this make the position clear?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: And the others are all non-departmental?
LORD SHACKLETON: The others, the regional councils, are, so to speak, the public representative side. The regional boards are the official side.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I thank the noble Lord very much. I just wanted to make clear that they are quite different sets of people, and not overlapping. I shall quite understand if the noble Lord is not able to answer straight away my next question about Scotland, but he will perhaps remember that at the beginning of 1963 the Secretary of State for Scotland appointed what was called the Scottish Development Group. That is entirely departmental and its functions, so far as I can see, are almost identical with what the Statement says will be the functions of these new regional planning boards with a departmental chairman. I was wondering whether the noble Lord could tell me whether the new board will supersede the existing Scottish Development Group, or will it just be another name for it?
Then the noble Lord said that account would be taken of the views of certain existing non-departmental bodies in Scotland, such as the North-East Development Council, and so on. I do not want to ask him now about the proposed Highlands Development Board, although 1 dare say somebody will want to ask him about that. But we should like to have answered this question of whether the existing Scottish Development Group is to go on as it is, or whether it will be replaced by the new board whose chairman, according to the Statement, is to be appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Earl is right in his supposition. I am afraid that I am not able to supply a definite answer to these questions. Without wishing to deny to noble Lords the opportunity to ask questions, may I say that it might be helpful if they would digest the Statement and look at the map? Certainly, these are questions to which I am sure an answer exists.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I quite appreciate that, but I should like to know as soon as possible, if the noble Lord could obtain the information.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the effect of the setting up of these regional bodies will not be to delay still further applications for planning development, which are already over-long delayed, by interposing an additional body that will need to be consulted? Although they will not
246
have executive powers, I imagine that their advice will be very much taken into account. While I am not putting this question in order to object to the setting up of these councils, I hope that the noble Lord will make representations to his right honourable friend to ensure that their introduction does not result in further undue delay.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am afraid, my Lords, that I think I must say that that is really another question. I should not have thought the councils would interfere in any way with existing procedure on planning permisison. But I have certainly taken note of what my noble friend has said and will pass that on.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, if my noble friend would not have thought that, then he obviously has not understood the purport of my question. Because it seems to me obvious that if a local planning authority has to consult an additional body, a regional body, before giving a decision, in many cases that must inevitably result in some delay. My question was directed to getting an assurance from the noble Lord's right honourable friend, that that point will be looked into to ensure that the delay will be as short as possible.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [H.L.]
4.7 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
Schedule 2 [Obsolete, &c, enactments ceasing to have effect]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, your Lordships may remember that Schedule 2 is the Schedule which sets out a good deal of legislative dead-wood, which one is naturally anxious to clear away, in Acts all of which have some relation to the administration of justice. The object of all the remaining Amendments is to add to this number other examples, putting them in the Schedule in their proper chronological order. Your Lordships will observe that Amendment No. 9 relates to four different Acts, the first of which is the Administration of Justice Act, 1705. The point here is that there is only one section of that Act which

247
is still in force—namely, Section 4. Section 4 provides that the Act is to apply to the Palatine and other courts of record, but, as there are no other parts of the Act still in force except Section 4, it obviously has no application and clearly should have been repealed a long time ago.
The second Act is the Sale of Spirits Act, 1750. That Act prohibits the bringing of any action for the price of spirituous liquors sold, unless the amount is at least £1. The Act also prohibits the taking of security for the price of such liquors by the retailer from the purchaser. The Act of 1750 was repealed by the Sale of Spirits Act, 1862, in so far as it applied to the sale of liquor for consumption off the premises and delivered to the purchaser's residence in quantities of not less than a reputed quart. It therefore affects only sales for consumption on the premises. These provisions are now obsolete, and not only is the figure of £1 obviously hopelessly out of date—I think it relates to the period of "drunk for a penny, dead drunk for twopence"—but the object of the provision, which is the discouragement of "chalking-up" drinks sold for immediate consumption, is effectively achieved by Section 132 of the Licensing Act, 1953, which makes it a criminal offence to sell on credit intoxicating liquor for consumption on licensed premises or to consume liquor so sold. So the price could not be sued for, because it would in any case be an illegal transaction. Then, there seems no reason why, regardless of the amount involved, spirits should not be sold on credit for consumption off the premises.
The third Act is the Disorderly Houses Act, 1751, Sections 5 to 7. This Act provided for a special mode of initiating criminal proceedings against brothel keepers. It enabled any two inhabitants of a parish to give notice in writing to the constable of the existence of a brothel, and required the constable and the informants to enter into recognisances before a justice of the peace to prosecute the brothel-keeper. The Disorderly Houses Act, 1818, made provision for the local overseers of the poor to be given notice of these proceedings, and empowered them to take over the prosecution. But in fact, these procedures are now all obsolete, proceedings now lying under the
248
Sexual Offences Act, 1956, which consolidated the law in this field; but by some error these sections were not then repealed.
Then your Lordships will see that there are two Acts, both of which it is proposed should become non-effective, which dealt with a part of the garden of Lincoln's Inn. The first Act, the Act of 15 George III, Chapter 22, vested in the Accountant General of the Court of Chancery part of Lincoln's Inn garden. An Act of the previous year had authorised the use of certain dormant funds in court for the purpose of rebuilding the offices of the six clerks and the Accountant General, and a convenient site for the latter was purchased from Lincoln's Inn and vested in the Accountant General under this Statute. The Act of 15 George IN, Chapter 56, made fresh provision for the offices of the six clerks, including the acquisition of the site for their new office in the garden of Lincoln's Inn, and the Act accordingly vested the appropriate land in them.
Then, in 1842, the office of the six clerks was abolished, and the office of the Accountant General is now in the Supreme Court Pay Office, and is situated in the Law Courts. Lincoln's Inn was authorised to re-acquire the land under Section 23 of the Courts of Justice Building Act, 1865, which was the Act which provided for the erection of the present Courts of Justice, and in fact did so. Accordingly, all this legislation is now spent, and I beg to move accordingly.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 32, at end insert—

("4 & 5 Anne c. 3.

The Administration of Justice Act 1705.

The whole Act.

24 Geo. 2. c. 40.

The Sale of Spirits Act 1750.

The whole Act.

25 Geo. 2. c. 36.

The Disorderly Houses Act 1751.

Sections 5 to 7.

15 Geo. 3. c. 22.

An Act for vesting part of the garden of the society of Lincoln's Inn, in the county of Middlesex, in the accountant general of the court of chancery, and his successors, for ever, for the purpose of erecting thereon offices for the accountant general, and for the register of the said court.

The whole Act.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment relates to the whole of the Disorderly Houses Act, 1818, and, for the reasons which I gave your Lordships when moving the last Amendment, this Act is now obsolete. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 35, at end insert—

("58 Geo. 3. c. 70.

The Disorderly Houses Act 1818.

The whole Act.")

—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment relates, as your Lordships will see, to the Fines and Recoveries Act, 1842. This was an Act which was passed in consequence of the abolition of Courts of Great Session in Wales and the Palatine Court of Chester. The Act gave formal validity to fines and recoveries levied or suffered in those courts, notwithstanding that the prothonotaries and other court officials had not recorded them with the proper formalities. The Act also made provision for the enrolment of such fines and recoveries in the records of the Court of Common Pleas. This Act is now spent. Fines and recoveries had already been abolished by the Fines and Recoveries Act, 1833, but those
250
levied or suffered before then continued to be relevant in conveyancing for some time. There is, however, no practical possibility of the Act of 1842 now being effectively relied upon for the purpose of establishing an old title to land. I beg to move accordingly.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 44, at end insert—

("5 & 6 Vict. c. 32.

The Fines and Recoveries Act 1842.

The whole Act.")

—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment concerns two Acts, the Sale of Spirits Act, 1862, and the Courts of Justice Building Act, 1865. The Act of 1862 restricts the application of the Sale of Spirits Act, 1750, which is itself repealed by the Amendment which your Lordships have already passed. Section 23 of the Act of 1865—that is, the Courts of Justice Building Act—authorised Lincoln's Inn, when the present Law Courts were built, to reacquire the land which had been bought for the Inn for the purposes of erecting the offices and buildings. It is one of the last of the series of Acts referred to on the previous Amendment, and is accordingly spent. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 23, at end insert—

("25 & 26 Vict. c. 38.

The Sale of Spirits Act 1862.

The whole Act.

28 & 29 Vict. c. 48.

The Courts of Justice Building Act 1865.

Section 23.")

—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question. Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as your Lordships will see, this concerns the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1879. It repeals the words in Section 9 which extend the definition of the Attorney General to include the Solicitor General—and I quote—
"whenever such Solicitor General can by reason of a vacancy in the office of Attorney General or otherwise act as the Attorney General."
These words are no longer necessary, because Section 1 (1) of the Law Officers Act, 1944, gives a general power to the Solicitor General to discharge the functions of the Attorney General if the office of Attorney General is vacant, if

251
the Attorney General is unable to act owing to absence or illness, or if he authorises the Solicitor General to act for him in a particular case. As that general provision has been made for the Solicitor General to act on behalf of the Attorney General, it is no longer necessary to have this more limited power in Section 9 of the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1879, and I beg to move accordingly.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 33, at end insert—

("42 & 43 Vict. c. 22.

The Prosecution of Offences Act 1879.

In section 9, the words from 'and Her Majesty's Solicitor General' onwards.")

—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question. Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment repeals the whole of the Middlesex Registry Act, 1891, and Section 4 of the Land Registry (Middlesex Deeds) Act, 1891. The latter Act transferred the Middlesex Registry of Deeds to the Land Registry, and Section 4 made provision for the transfer, precedence, pensions and superannuation allowances of the staff of the Middlesex Registry. The former Act made temporary provision for the discharge by the Land Registry of the Middlesex Registry's functions pending the transfer. These provisions are now spent. So the former Act was purely transitional; and, as to the latter, the pensions and so forth of those who occupied those offices in 1891 no longer apply to anyone. I beg to move accordingly.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 35, at end insert—

("54 & 55 Vict. c. 10.

The Middlesex Registry Act 1891.

The whole Act.

54 & 55 Vict. c. 64.

The Land Registry (Middlesex Deeds) Act 1891.

Section 4.")

—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question. Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it may seem surprising that there is so much legislative dead wood about. Of course, the Statute Law Revision Committee are doing very fine work in this field, but it is extraordinary what a lot of dead wood remains. I hope the House will think that at the expenditure
252
of a fairly short amount of time it is worth while clearing them off the Statute Book if we can. This Amendment relates to some words in one section of the Land Registration Act, 1925. The Amendment repeals a reference in Section 137 of the Land Registration Act, 1925, to the Mortgage Debenture Act, 1865. But the Act of 1865 was repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1958, and the reference is therefore obsolete. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 7, at end insert—

("15 & 16 Geo. 5. c. 21.

The Land Regisstration Act 1925.

In section 137 (3). the words 'and of the Mortgage Debenture Act 1865'.")

—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment relates to Section 199 of the County Courts Act, 1959. That is a section which prohibits the bringing in any county court or any other court of any action to recover the price of any "ale, porter, beer, cider or perry" which was consumed on the premises where it was sold. The Act of 1959 was a Consolidation Act and this provision dates from the County Courts Amendment Act, 1867. For the reasons which I ventured to give when moving an earlier Amendment with reference to the Sale of Spirits Act, 1750, any action such as is prohibited by Section 199 would in any case be fruitless by reason of the prohibition imposed by Section 132 of the Licensing Act, 1953. Section 199 is therefore now unnecessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 42, at end insert—

("7 & 8 Eliz. 2. c. 22.

The County Courts Act 1959.

Section 199.")

—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a reference to certain words in Section 8 of the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1879, and the Amendment is consequential upon the new clause amending this section with reference, as noble Lords will remember, to the regulations to be made by the Attorney General in respect of the duties of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 3, at end insert—

("42 & 43 Vict. c. 22.

The Prosecution of Offences Act 1879.

In section 8, the words from 'The draft' onwards.")

—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Title has, of course, to be wide enough to cover the whole of the contents of the Bill, and the additional reference in the Amendment to this Bill makes it necessary to alter the Title accordingly. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
In the Title, line 13, after ("Wales") insert ("to amend section 8 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1879.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE &c. BILL
4.25 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Just a year ago to-day I moved a Resolution in another place calling upon the then Government to introduce a comprehensive social security system and, pending its introduction, to take immediate steps to meet the hardships of pensioners and widows. It was an Opposition Resolution and it was voted down. Pensions were a matter of public interest and concern at the last Election and the gracious Speech promised a major review of our social security schemes and. promised too that the Government would immediately introduce legislation to increase existing benefits.
The review is proceeding; but, as my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his recent Budget statement:
"We believe that it was right and in accordance with the feeling in the country that we should not delay bringing, about these improvements for the old, the sick and the widows while we are working on our longer term plans."—[Official Report, Commons, Vol. 701 (No. 10) col. 1033, November 11, 1964.]
Accordingly this Bill deals with improvements as immediate as we can make them, and similar improvements are being made
254
in National Assistance scales and in war pensions.
These changes are overdue. I think your Lordships must be well aware of the difficulties and hardship that comes to people, old folk, single or married, who have little or nothing to live on but a retirement pension. I do not think I am going too far when I say that, whatever the position may have been from time to time, everyone with any knowledge or experience of these cases knows that at present pension rates are insufficient for their purpose; and broadly that purpose is to enable pensioners to live in reasonable comfort during adversity or old age, even though they have no other resources. To look at the matter from another angle, where it is easier to compare figures, pensions ought to be at least a constant proportion—I would hope a rising proportion—of average earnings; and there has been a known increase of 11 per cent. in average earnings since the date when the last increases in pensions came into force. There is therefore a distinct element of urgency in the proposals in this Bill, and the Government would have wished to bring them in earlier than March 29, 1965, when it is proposed to bring the main changes into effect. In fact, however, that is the earliest day by which the necessary arrangements can be made.
As my right honourable friend, the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, pointed out on the Second Reading of this Bill in another place, it is not possible for post offices to give the correct statutory increases simply by making a flat or percentage addition to the amount shown on the pension orders—there are 200 different rates of retirement pension orders, and the same total rate may be made up in various ways qualifying for different rates of increase. The pension order books in pensioners' own possession have therefore in the great majority of cases to be recalled to the Ministry's offices, and each individual order foil overstamped with the appropriate new rate, which has to be determined separately for each pensioner. Some 6 million order books and some 200 million order foils are involved in this process, and there is a vast amount of preliminary work to be done before overstamping can start.

255
All this extra work has to be clone at a time when the Ministry's offices are under very heavy pressure in dealing with the extra Lord of winter sickness benefit claims.
Searching inquiries were also made into possible alternative methods of giving at any rate some increase immediately; but any rough-and-ready scheme would only have led to confusion and unfair discrimination. Having regard to those difficulties and to the economic situation at the time, there was no sensible or practicable alternative to the date proposed towards the end of March.
In this connection, the Ministry are engaged on a study of whether the present order book system might be replaced by some other method of paying pensions, using a computer and high-speed printing equipment. It is a great pity that the outgoing Government neither made such a study nor started on the preliminary work which I have outlined and which is necessary under the present system. Judging by what was said in the debate a year ago, and by the Conservative Election Manifesto, there was No 1ntention of making any early general increase of pensions, if the Conservative Party had won the General Election.
A convenient summary of the main changes proposed by the Bill will be found in a memorandum on it in the White Paper (Command 2518). Among pensions and other benefits, far the largest item in total amount and in the number of recipients is retirement pensions. There the standard weekly rate is to be increased from £3 7s. 6d. to £4 for a single person, and from £5 9s. to £6 10s. for a married couple. There are corresponding increases for dependants, including dependent children, and for the various types of widows' benefit, as well as in unemployment and sickness benefit, maternity benefit, the child's special allowance and the guardian's allowance. An increase of £6 in the lump-sum maternity grant will take the place of the present home-confinement grant, which has had some unsatisfactory features in practice. It is not proposed to make increases in the graduated element in pensions, which of course only applies to earnings over £9 a week. The existing and the proposed weekly rates for the above are
256
set out on page 8 of the memorandum I have mentioned. Corresponding proposals are made for benefits in the field of industrial injury insurance, and the figures for those are on page 9 of the memorandum.
My right honourable friend the Minister estimates that, as regards the flat rate retirement pension for a single person, somewhere between 4s. and 5s. would be required by the time these increases will come into force, to keep pace with the rise in prices; that is to say, to restore the purchasing power of the pension to what it was about two years ago, when the last increase took effect. To keep the benefit in line with increases in earnings would require a higher addition, between 9s. and 10s. The addition now proposed is 12s. 6d.
The increases will be met by increases in contributions, including the Exchequer supplement. The proposed increases appear on page 10 of the memorandum. To take, as an instance, men over 18, there will be an increase of 5s. 3d. in the stamp, of which 2s. will come from the employed person and 3s. 3d. from the employer. In all, those stamp increases will result in insured persons and employers paying £274 million more, supplemented by £69 million from the Exchequer. The income limit below which National Insurance contributions are excepted is being raised from £208 to £260 a year. I may mention that one result of these changes will be to increase the proportion of the total payable by the Exchequer, if only by a small percentage. The increase, however, will be the biggest total increase since the start of the National Insurance Scheme.
I now turn to another group of proposals affecting widows. I think it has always been difficult for them to understand their individual position about pensions, and even more difficult to appreciate the reasons for some of the differences among them. One major change now proposed is to abolish the earnings rule so far as it applies to widows' pensions or to widowed mothers' allowances. This will cost about £8 million a year, and that cost is included in the general figures I have just been giving. After all, one may understand the reason for an earnings rule in relation to pensioners generally, since earnings must be taken into

257
account in defining retirement or in dealing with what I may call half-retirement. The main point about widows is not any question of retirement but the fact that they have lost the benefit of the husband's earnings in the household. In one way or another, whether by benefits or by the widow's earnings, the husband's earnings must be replaced in order to provide for the livelihood of the widow and any children there may be. Next, I turn to the 10s. widow, who is getting a rate of pension unchanged since 1926 and maintained in recognition of previous contributions and accrued rights. This pension will be increased by regulation to 30s.
I have stated the main provisions of the Bill without reference to particular clauses, because the form of National Insurance legislation is often so hard to follow. Provisions for the changes in contributions and benefits as regards National Insurance are in Clause 1 of the Bill and Schedules 1 and 2, while the corresponding provisions for Industrial Injuries Insurance are in Clause 2 and Schedules 3 and 4. Clause 1 (5) abolishes the earnings rule for widows, and Clause 1 (6) raises the limit for exception from contributions. Clause 3 relates to some particular cases of industrial injury benefits—that is to say, for incapacities arising from pre-1948 employment. These are normally called the "old cases". The questions involved are complicated, but I will do my best to answer them in reply if I am so required. Clause 4 brings in some minor but complicated amendments in Schedule 6, which are made by way of preparation for consolidating the involved legislation about National Insurance, industrial injuries and family allowances. It is rather like snakes and ladders: when the legislation gets too snaky, one has to go back to the beginning and start again; but the procedure of consolidation is tightly drawn, and one may have to straighten out the snake a bit first. Clause 5 contains financial provisions which are necessary mainly because of the increase in the Exchequer supplement and in administrative expenses, and also because, to a very small extent, the legislation about family allowances is involved. The major cost of the Bill will be borne by contributions and paid out of the National Insurance Fund and the Industrial Injuries Fund. In this connection, I may mention that the National Insurance Act, 1959, provided for some quinquennial
258
increases in contributions, which would have been made in April but are now treated as absorbed in the more substantial increases under this Bill.
In conclusion, I may add that under a provision of the 1946 Act, my right honourable friend the Minister is required to make quinquennial reviews, and such a review appears on pages 6 and 7 of the memorandum, to which I have already referred. When that Act and the corresponding Industrial Injuries Act were passed, it was recognised that they were new and sweeping measures, a remarkable contribution as we now see it to provision for social security under modern conditions. Their very novelty called for periodical reviews; hence, the provision in the 1946 Act. Since those days, however, we have found that a further and more fundamental examination is required. To some extent, at any rate, the need for that is common ground among all Parties. To-day we are not directly concerned with it. The object of the present Bill is merely to meet an urgent need which cannot wait for the fundamental examination. I hope your Lordships will accept this Bill on those grounds. In all the circumstances, it would indeed be hard-hearted to refuse to make the changes now proposed.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Mitchison.)
4.40 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to welcome this Bill on behalf of my noble friends on this side of the House, and to congratulate the noble Lord on his lucid explanation of it. I noticed that he wisely avoided undue complications—for example, the exposition of Clause 3—and I must confess that this side of the industrial injuries legislation, and the old pre-Industrial Injuries legislation, is so complicated that I would scarcely venture to explore it myself. But may I ask this one question about it: whether, broadly speaking, the improvements made in this respect are in line with the improvements made elsewhere in industrial injuries, and whether, apart from that, there are any variations of which he would like to inform us?
We shall certainly not do anything to hamper the passage of this Bill. At the same time, I think it is fair to say that we are asked to give somewhat summary

259
consideration to it. I understand that the Committee stage of this Bill is to come quite early next week, and I would only say this to the noble Lord. Should we decide to put down Amendments, I hope he will not feel unduly inconvenienced if he gets rather short notice of them. I understand the House is to sit next Monday, and it would be quite impracticable to put the Amendments in at any rate before to-morrow. I hope that, in the circumstances, this will be agreeable.
This Bill continues the steady progress made in the past thirteen years in raising the real value of National Insurance and Industrial Injuries benefits and pensions by proportionately more than the increase in industrial earnings. It only marginally deals with National Assistance, and I do not propose to touch on that to-day. The Minister of Pensions has generously acknowledged in her Quinquennial Report, to which the noble Lord referred, that over the past five years earnings rose by 27 per cent. and benefits rose by 35 per cent. I am glad also that, despite views expressed by noble Lords opposite when in Opposition, the Government have maintained the preferences in favour of war pensions and war widows and the higher rates for industrial injuries.
The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, could not refrain from the boast that the increase is the biggest total increase since the start of the scheme. Of course, that is true in terms of £s. d., but it is not the largest proportionate increase ever made. The proposals increase basic benefits by about 18½ per cent.; but in 1955 the previous Government increased the then benefits from 32s. 6d. to £2, an increase I calculate at 23 per cent.; and in 1958 they further increased them from £2 to £2 10s., where the calculation is a little easier and I make it an increase of 25 per cent. This increase of 12s. 6d., like previous increases, is more than would be required to maintain an increase proportionate with average industrial earnings. The Minister says that the amount needed would have been between 9s. and 10s., and the noble Lord to-day has said that the amount would be about 11 per cent. up to the time when the increases will be payable. That amount, I might say in passing, is twice as much as the amount needed to maintain the purchasing power of
260
the benefits: in other words, earnings increased by very much more than prices under the last Government—and I hope that this is a tendency which will be maintained.
I congratulate the Government on succeeding, by adding the extra 2s. 6d. or so, in restoring the relationship between the basic benefit and average industrial earnings which existed in 1946. At the same time, I am bound to point out that it has taken thirteen years and six successive steps fully to repair the damage done in the five and a quarter years, from 1946 to 1951, under the last Socialist Administration, during which the relationship declined from 21½ per cent. to 18 per cent. as a result of inflation. The Labour Party started off in office in 1945 with a fine flourish. It fell to them to implement the social security plans made by the war-time Coalition Government on the basis of the Beveridge Report, and I give them full credit for adjusting upwards the benefits foreshadowed by Beveridge, the cost of living having risen since the plans were made. What is perhaps worth recalling is that the Socialist Government at that time thought that by planning they could stabilise the purchasing power of the pound at a given figure above its 1939 value, and many of the difficulties we have experienced since are due to the progressive decline in the value of the pound.
In listening to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, yesterday I wondered whether the Government had really learned very much since 1945. Unfortunately, if they have learned nothing, the electorate has forgotten a good deal about what has happened in the way of improvements to pensions that have been made since 1951. In 1964, on their return to power, the new Labour Government again started off with a flourish—what one might call a fanfare of welfare. I only hope that they will not subsequently be so neglectful, as they were when last they were in power, of the interests of the pensioners, and especially the sick and unemployed, who received No 1ncrease at all in those five and a quarter years.
The widowed mother with more than one child does not do so well as she did when the main rates were last raised on May 27, 1963. We raised the rate

261
for a fatherless child by 5s.; the Bill raises it by only 2s. 6d. It is only the widowed mother who earns more than £7 a week who benefits under the Bill. Those who earn less, or nothing at all, do less well. The noble Lord referred to the link with earnings. In their Election Manifesto the Labour Party said that they would not only raise National Insurance benefits, but thereafter link them to average earnings,
"so that as earnings rise, so too will benefits."
The noble Lord said that a study was at present being carried out. But may I ask him what the word "thereafter" in the Manifesto is to be made to mean? Does it mean this year, next year, some time or, indeed, ever?
I have referred to the restoration of the original relationship between National Insurance benefits and average industrial earnings established in 1946. Clearly there is nothing sacrosanct about this relationship, and the noble Lord himself said that he hoped it would improve from time to time. Still, there could hardly be a better time to establish the link than just when the relationship has been restored. Under the present system of dealing with contributions and payments it will be quite impracticable, in my view, to maintain the link even at yearly intervals. Besides, the pensioner is better off to-day, as we have constantly said, than he would have been if pensions had been tied to average earnings, since pensions have risen proportionately more. For example, while earnings rose 95 per cent. between October, 1951. and April. 1963, the basic National Insurance pension increased by 125 per cent. But there has been a growing feeling in the Conservative Party, and, I think, in the country, that rather than continue to increase pensions by more than enough to maintain the ratio with average earnings, we ought to give more to those most in need, in particular the very old and the completely incapacitated. Indeed, we pledged ourselves at the last Election to do so.
One solution would be—and I do not put this forward as a universally agreed solution—to link pensions with average earnings, and devote any further funds that can be made available to special categories such as these. Assuming that the Labour Government still intend to
262
carry out this Election pledge, what matters to the pensioner is the ratio between National Insurance pension and average industrial earnings that they intend to fix. But I must warn them of snags. If there is to be a link established, the machinery will have to be altered, both of making changes in National Insurance benefits, to which the noble Lord referred, and also of arriving at average industrial earnings. As I understand it, average industrial earnings are determined twice a year, and it takes almost six months to arrive at a firm and final calculation. If, on top of that, there is to be a sizeable delay—five months, as it is at present—to bring the altered rates of benefit into effect, it is going to be nearly a year before increases in average earnings are reflected in National Insurance benefits. This is one of the things which the Prime Minister does not seem to have thought out fully before he committed himself to the changes which he indicated in his manifesto.
I agree that the idea appears attractive. The basic fact is that by the time pension increases come into effect they are worth less than when they were announced. The fact that the value of money declines less when Conservatives are in power is important for the country but not much appreciated by the pensioner in the period between raising the benefits. The benefits still decline while wages and earnings rise, and, of course, the pensioner cannot go on strike—he can only vote.
The Labour Party's prescription for this is simple, so far as one can see from experience: put the pensions up the moment you come into power and immediately before an Election. Memories are short. It is true that they slipped up in 1950, but that was because they decided to go to the country in February rather than wait for Parliament to run its full course. It is a sign of grace that they now recognise that "pensioneering" in this way is unsatisfactory. But do not let us deceive ourselves. Merely by linking pensions to average earnings you do not take pensions out of politics. There still is the right ratio between pensions and average earnings, and that is bound up with the whole question of contributions, to which I wil refer in a minute or two.

263
I should like also to consider the level that the Government have chosen, because this is of considerable national interest. Why have the Government chosen £4? When I was Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, the Trades Union Congress stated publicly that £4 was the right amount and that they believed that unemployment benefit, sickness benefit and pensions should be raised to £4 before relating benefits to wages was considered. I should like to ask whether the Government have had further talks yet with the T.U.C., and whether the T.U.C. are now prepared to consider favourably unemployment benefit and sickness benefit related to wages.
I do not think this is the time to discuss future changes in the National Insurance system, but let me say just this. The Conservative Party were pledged to introduce the principle of relating benefits to wages for unemployment benefit and sickness benefit, and also to carry out a review of the whole, system of State insurance. The Labour Party offered the public a prospectus entitled New Frontiers for Social Security, with one regrettable omission—the cost to the individual contributor, to his employer and to the nation. Now I presume there is going to be some boundary rectification—to put it in that way—to the new frontiers, in the form of a review. I would say this to the Government. The great advantage of the Beveridge Committee's review was that it had the support of all Parties. The 1946 Act received as near universal support as I believe it is possible to get. I believe it to be of the utmost importance that if there are to be fundamental and far-reaching changes in the social security system, they should be based on the widest possible support.
The alternative course, in my view, is to move forward gradually by stages, so that if a false move or a faulty move is made it can then be rectified. But one thing is certain: whether or not changes were needed before this Bill, they will certainly be needed after it; and the reason for that is this. The abolition of the earnings rule for widows makes that inevitable. Let me say frankly that nobody will be sorry to see the end of the earnings rule for widows. Of course, I should be surprised if I were not immediately asked: "Well,
264
why did you not abolish it?" The answer is, of course, because it would have been entirely wrong to abolish the earnings rule for widows except at the same time as, or in anticipation of, a review of widows' benefits as a whole, if not of the whole system. The system is founded on the principle that benefits are payable in the absence of earnings, or, at least, of significant earnings. On that basis, widows capable of earning are excluded, like everyone else, from benefit. On that basis, women widowed over 50 are deemed to be incapable of earning, and they receive full benefit if, and only if, they do not earn significant amounts.
I quite understand the point of view the noble Lord expressed, that widows are in a special category because they have lost the benefit of the husband's earnings. Of course, it is possible to treat widows as an entirely separate class. But if you do that, you cannot logically deny women widowed under 50 any benefit at all. By abolishing the earnings rule for widows over 50, as well as for widows with dependent children, the Government are undermining the present scheme as a logical and coherent system, and creating a situation which cannot possibly endure. If a woman who is widowed at just over 50 is to receive a pension irrespective of her earnings, and remains exempt from paying National Insurance contributions, is it tolerable that a woman who loses her husband when she is just under 50, or one who has brought up her family by herself and finished the job before she is 50, not only should receive no pension until she is 60 or retires, but should even have to pay National Insurance contributions as well? Surely this cleavage is far too sharp. It is the unfairness between one widow and another which the abolition of the earnings rule involves that makes a review of the principles underlying the National Insurance scheme, so far as women are concerned, imperative.
The noble Lord referred to the "10s. widow," who is not included in the Bill, but may I just say about the "10s. widow" (and of course I speak entirely for myself) that here again we are up against a question of judgment as to what is fair between one woman and another. The great majority of "10s. widows" are in employment, and they receive their 10s. pension in addition to their wages,

265
or to their sickness or unemployment benefit. This is a. benefit which is right outside the National Insurance scheme. But, what of other widows who receive National Insurance pensions and are in employment? Will they be allowed to receive their unemployment and sickness benefit in addition to their widow's pension? The "10s. widow" has all the advantages of the National Insurance scheme, and 10s. besides, except that she cannot have her 10s. in addition to her retirement pension. The Bill increases the 10s. to 30s. for these ladies. Good luck to them! But do not let us imagine that nobody will feel that her own personal case is not much harder and much more deserving than the "10s. widow." I am not sure that social justice is done here.
My Lords, I want in conclusion to say a word about the cost. Contributions go up sharply: for the employed man by 2s., and for his employer by 3s. 3d. Originally the employer's contribution was less than the employee's. Since 1961 it has been the same. Now it is to be more: it is to be 11s. 5½ d. for National Insurance, as compared with 10s. 2½ d. on the part of the employee. I think it is right to draw attention to what is a significant departure from the principle that National Insurance contributions, which go towards benefits with which they were equally concerned, should come equally from employer and employee. Of course, the employed person contributes 2s. 1d. more than his employer towards the National Health Service element, so that he will still bear more than half the total cost of the weekly stamp; but he will be paying less than the employer on National Insurance alone.
I believe that the principle of parity has exercised a useful discipline upon Governments. I am sorry to see that the principle is sacrificed to expediency in this way. I could have understood it if the Government had proposed to vary the proportion; for example, I understand that in Germany the employed man pays three-eighths and the employer five-eighths of the contribution to superannuation—though I am not at all sure that the German scheme covers the self-employed. That the Government have not done. They have not come forward with a proposal to alter the proportion. The relationship between
266
the two contributions has, so to speak, been left in the air. But, my Lords, the further we depart from parity the more difficult it will be to fix rationally a contribution which the self-employed can pay. The new rate of contribution for the self-employed amounts to nearly £48 a year, which, I would imagine, is over one-tenth of the net income of many small farmers.
One reason why the cost of the stamp is being increased by so much is that the income limit of £18 on which graduated contributions are chargeable is not being increased. Part of the object of the graduated pension element was to ensure that all but the lowest wage earners would pay a contribution more closely related to the total pension they could expect from the scheme. When the upper income limits were first fixed, average earnings lay about midway between the lower limit of £9 and the upper limit of £15. When the retirement pension was raised in 1963, the income limit for graduated payments was raised from £15 to £18 as from the beginning of this year. But now £18 is scarcely more than the average industrial earnings.
In another place the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster claimed that it was a matter of principle that the Government had not this time, as he put it, "lifted the wage band" on which graduated contributions are calculated. The truth is that it would not have been sensible to make another change so soon after the last one, especially if the Government are reviewing the scheme as a whole. Any change in the upper limit involves a great deal of trouble for those responsible for private pension schemes. I am glad in this case that, for once, good sense and Socialist principles coincide.
If the basis of the graduated element is to be changed before long—and some changes were inevitable whatever Government were in power—I for one think that the Government were right in this. But the consequence is that the whole burden is thrown on to the flat-rate contribution, and, of course, the quinquennial increase, to which the noble Lord referred, has to be included.
LORD MITCHISON: I beg the noble Lord's pardon: not "as well".
LORD DRUMALBYN: I said which has to be "included". It is taken into

267
account already; I recognise that. This, I appreciate, is why the Government have decided to increase the employer's contribution by more than the employee's. What I think is only fair to realise is that the lower-paid worker will still be getting a very good bargain for his contributions in comparison with his opposite numbers in foreign countries.
So much for the extra cost to contributors. The extra cost to be borne by industry, if my calculations are correct, is £150 million—a not inconsiderable sum. While the increased contributions by insured persons can be regarded as a straight transfer of income from them to the pensioners, the unemployed and the sick, employers' contributions are part of the cost of labour and are bound to be reflected in prices, the more so as everyone has to pay them. To the extent that they act as a tax on employment, they are perhaps not altogether a bad thing in these days of alleged labour hoarding. It is very remarkable that while employment has gone up, production has remained more or less at the same level since February, and has even declined a little in September. Nevertheless, the increased burden on industry is undeniably inflationary. The Exchequer contribution, together with the extra cost of National Assistance, £23 million, and of war pensions, £15 million, is to be recouped, one understands, out of an additional 6d. on the standard rate of income tax, to give £122 million, of which £78 million will fall on companies in the first year.
The Chancellor of the Duchy mentioned in another place that the White Paper on Public Expenditure in the years for April, 1964, to April, 1968 (Cmnd. 2235) showed a prospective increase in expenditure on benefits and assistance of £360 million. He claimed credit for "boldness" on the part of the Government in that £285 million (I think the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, said £275 million) out of that £360 million has already been pledged by this Bill.
LORD MITCHISON: Including industrial injuries benefits.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I see; I am obliged. "Bold" it may be; but it certainly conflicts with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said during the
268
Election, as reported in The Times of October 15. He said:
"We shall not cash cheques until there is money in the bank."
This increased social expenditure was to be financed, he said,
"out of the growing expansion of British industry".
The Chancellor of the Duchy himself is reported to have said, in his Election address, that Labour
"will not need to increase the level of taxation to pay for its programme."
I doubt very much whether it really did need to do so. Admittedly, the Manifesto made an exception of the "early introduction of the income guarantee", which would, in any case, take the place of National Assistance, financed out of Exchequer funds. Instead, we have this Bill, which increases the burden on the lowest-paid workers. Yet, as long ago as 1960 Mr. Crossman said:
"You cannot possibly allow the National Insurance contribution, a flat rate poll tax on the lower paid worker, to be increased once again."
And the Minister herself complained in 1963 that the increase of 10s. would involve an extra 1s. 1d. for the labourer.
The noble Lord really must face up to this fact. We were criticised when we were in Government for placing a heavier burden on the lowest paid worker. The noble Lord must face up to the fact that the present Government are putting almost double the extra burden on the lower paid worker that we did. This is just a fact. The present Minister also complained loudly at the time taken to bring in the new rates for pensioners. It is no good for the noble Lord to say, "Well, she was in Opposition then". She told me again that she was convinced that if I really tried I could bring these rates in sooner. The 1963 increases took eighteen weeks. The 1965 increases are to take twenty weeks, and that is, says the noble Lord, as immediate as the Government can make these improvements.
There is nothing that the Government have yet done to lead noble Lords on this side of the House to share the Chancellor of the Duchy's economic faith, as he called it, in the ability of the nation to pay for these increases. These increases have to be paid for in increased production in this country. While we

269
welcome the Bill, we must warn the Government that unless by their action they can give a very much better lead to the country than they have so far done, and inspire a very great deal more confidence in this country in the world as a whole, then we shall be heading for disaster.
5.13 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I feel a certain measure of responsibility in finding myself, according to the Order Paper, the only speaker outside the official representative of Her Majesty's Government and the representative of Her Majesty's Opposition; but I feel that it is right, proper and fitting that somebody, as it were, outside those two official agencies should say a word on this very important matter. I want to say two things. I shall not detain your Lordships long. The first is of somewhat general import, and the other of particular import.
First, the more general thing. I must say, on my behalf and I hope on behalf of many throughout the whole country, how deeply grateful we ought to continue to be for all that is meant by the term "welfare society". Because there are still those, I find, who pour scorn upon the whole notion. One knows that faults can be found in the idea, in the structure and in the results of the work of the welfare society, but, returning recently, as I have done, from the United States of America, one is forced to recognise, with profound thankfulness, the immense benefits which have resulted from the implementation of this national way of life.
There are those in particular who pour scorn upon the psychological effect of this great humanitarian concept in the lives of people. I believe that these critics exaggerate these defects, and that anyway such bad effects as are visible need only be transient, provided the Church and other spiritual agencies do their work properly, and provided we recognise that, just as the peoples of Africa have had to learn in 20 years lessons that we in this country have taken 200 years to learn, and not with complete success even now, so the people in the welfare society cannot be expected to adjust themselves overnight to these vast new privileges and rights.
270
At the outset of this speech, then, I wanted to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the welfare society fot one reason only: that it is all too easy for us to begin to take it for granted and to cease to be conscious of its merits and to be grateful for the benefits as we ought to be. To-day, as never before, it ought to be possible for the ordinary man in the street to live a full life, freed from the fears, the worries and the insecurities of life—though I hasten to add that better pensions and unemployment provision do not automatically themselves provide the full life, but they do give the recipient a chance to choose the full life if he desires to do so. I say that it ought to be possible to live this full, rich life; but even now there are all too many in this country who, while not poverty stricken, are at least living a life which could hardly be designated secure or happy, and the reasons are mainly twofold: first, lack of adequate housing, and secondly, lack of adequate pension.
I welcome this Bill because it is clearly the Minister's objective to move towards an entirely new basis for benefits, a basis which thinks no longer in terms of basic minimum levels below which no one is allowed to fall, but thinks instead of progress towards ensuring the conditions of the good life. One feels that in this Bill the Minister of Pensions is paving the way towards a condition of affairs in which the whole matter of pensions is lifted out of the realm of flat-rate subsistence considerations into a position where payments vary from person to person, and where they are related to previous earnings, and to the standard of living of the person concerned.
This removal of insurance benefits from flat-rate subsistence as a basis would involve a fundamental change of principle, as was indicated by the noble Lord who spoke before me, but it has been done in Sweden. In that country, retirement age is 67, at which point there is division into two parts: first, a basic pension equivalent to our old age pension, which is at a flat rate for everybody and which represents subsistence; and secondly, a supplementary pension which is graduated according to earnings throughout the working life of a person and which is based upon the best fifteen years of earnings during the whole of working life. It is calculated on a points

271
scheme. It should also be noted that, with supplementary pensions, actual cash payments are adjusted in accordance with changes in the cost of living; in other words, they have constant purchasing power. Both pension schemes are contributory, the supplementary pension scheme taking a percentage of earned income; in other words, as we saw in 1964, 7 per cent. Full retirement pension is calculated to represent 60 per cent. of the average pensionable earnings for the best 15 years of a man's or woman's working life, pensionable earnings being considered as salaries and wages and not interest on capital investment.
If it has been done in Sweden, then we ought not to rest until we have explored every possible avenue to discover whether it can be attempted here. Of course, this is entirely different from anything we have seen hitherto. It will involve a major reorganisation and, what is more important, re-thinking, if this happy state of affairs is to be achieved.
To turn more in detail to this particular Insurance Bill, I would say that it was hoped that when the 1946 National Insurance Act was passed a quinquennial review of benefits would suffice, and this was provided for in that Act. Experience since then has shown very clearly that this interval of five years is too big to enable payments to be related to the cost of living and the movement of earnings. The quinquennial review has, in recent years, been supplemented by, and therefore should be replaced by, keeping all aspects of the scheme under continuous review. There have been two improvements in payments since 1961.
The intention behind these periodic reviews is, of course, to relate payments to the changed cost of living and the changes in earnings. Since 1946, benefits have exceeded prices in their rate of growth, though they have not kept pace with changes in the earnings of workers. But this simply means that pensioners are only very slightly better off than they were in pre-1946 days. In the last five years benefit rates have been overtaking the rise in earnings—as we have heard, 35 per cent. against 27 per cent.; but it must never be forgotten how low was the starting figure, how inadequate was the provision of old age pensions before 1946.
272
However, to come back to what I was saying earlier, we must never be content with a system of pensions which merely keeps pace with the movement of retail prices and of earnings. We must never forget to look at the previous level of earnings of the recipient of the pension. It is clearly important from every angle that benefits bear some relation to what was being earned, on the average, by the insured person prior to becoming eligible for benefit, in other words pensionable. If he has been used to a certain standard of living, then it is surely right that we should do everything in our power to ensure that the contrast after retirement is not so grievous as to make it a plunge from happiness to unhappiness.
Of course, I am not fool enough not to realise that there are vast and almost insuperable problems between the ideal and the possible, and it may well be some time before the cost of this substantial rise can be met. In addition to the contribution income, the cost to the Treasury of this Bill alone would be approximately £67 millions in the first year. The question must be asked whether it is justifiable to raise benefits above the rates indicated by changes in retail prices and in earnings. I would plead that this should always be our ideal and goal, and that we should not rest until this has been achieved.
If it is the Minister's objective to work for an entirely new basis for benefits away from basic minimum levels towards an attempt to ensure the conditions of the good life by means of an adjustment of pension to the standard of life that was enjoyed before retirement, then I can only say that in general principle I am wholly behind the Minister. And speaking as a churchman, I would state with every possible emphasis that if we do not have a sufficiently high ideal, we shall always have an extremely inadequate state of affairs and, what is worse, shall find ourselves deluded and bemused by a state of affairs which is adequate without being satisfying, which salves the conscience without gladdening the heart.
An historian has said that our century will be remembered in history, not because of the technical progress made, but because it was in the 20th century that the welfare of all citizens became a practical political aim. Perhaps he will be right. We are beginning to understand

273
that it is, after all, probably easier to land one man on the moon than to provide all people with their share in the riches of the earth. Nevertheless, the latter task is stimulating also. With this vision in our minds, one can think of few Christmas presents which would be more statisfying to the recipient than the wholehearted support of this Bill which is now before the House.
5.25 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I have listened to two speeches in reply, and I cannot be the only noble Lord who has noticed a quite considerable difference between the language of the speeches and the real purpose of the speakers. Speaking on my own behalf I should like to thank the right reverend Prelate, with respect but with warmth, for what he has just said. It represents almost exactly my own personal view of the kind of problem we have to face.
I appreciate the immense value of some of the Scandinavian schemes, including the Swedish one, as: an indication of what can be done. I think I can safely go beyond my own personal opinion and speak for the Government in saying that that is the kind of thing we want in this country. We want to relate the possibilities of a good life—if I may respectfully take the phrase of the right reverend Prelate—after one has retired, to the possibilities of a good life while one was working, and to see that there is no end in later years to whatever may have been possible in earlier life. If I may go one stage beyond that, again I respectfully agree with the right reverend Prelate that there is no more important problem in these times than that of ensuring that men and women can live with dignity. That seems to me to be a fundamental question which these issues of pensions really raise.
I turn now to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. I always value speeches, not only for what they have in them but for what they omit. I made two statements—I made them on purpose and as statements of importance—in the course of introducing this Bill, and I wanted to see whether the noble Lord opposite was going to contradict either of them. He did not contradict either of them. The first was that it is common knowledge at present that pensions are insufficient for their purpose. That really
274
is the question that we have to consider. I remember references to statistics. Of course, pension statistics are so complicated that one could always produce a perfect demonstration, or, better still, an imperfect demonstration, of almost anything out of them.
The question we have to consider to-day is surely the common-sense and ordinary question: are pensions at present enough? Not only was that question not answered directly, but at the end of his speech the noble Lord committed himself to two most remarkable statements. The first, of course, I welcome: that those on his side of the House welcome the Bill. But this was followed by the other remarkable statement that the country was going to be ruined by the Bill unless something or other could be done which he thought could not be done. I do not quite know in what frame of mind one welcomes a Bill which is, according to the noble Lord's own views, going to produce national ruin. The fact of the matter is that the Conservative Party did not intend—this was the second statement I made, and this, too, was not contradicted—any early general increase in pensions, but now that it is brought in by a Labour Government they welcome it, even if their reason is that they do not dare to do anything else.
I turn now from that to one or two remarks which were made. Of course there are these comparisons with the past. I have never understood how it really helps one to solve the question of whether pensions are insufficient and, if they are, by how much they should be increased, by demonstrating to your own perfect satisfaction that—was it 21 years ago or fifteen years ago?—somebody did or did not do something about the level of pensions. This kind of argument leaves me absolutely cold. Surely the question which we must consider to-day is: are pensions sufficient? If not, are these proposals the right proposals or not? Does it really matter who did what fifteen or 21 years ago; and if a man has not enough to live on, is it going to help him to talk about that?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, what I had to say was directed to the fact that I did not think the noble Lord had given sufficient recognition of the progressive improvements which have

275
been made since 1951 in the real value of the pension. If I may say this to the right reverend Prelate, of course demands for a higher standard of living go on all the time, but it surely cannot be denied that as a result of what was done in these thirteen years the pensioner is in fact very much better off than he was thirteen years ago. That is what I was leading to.
LORD MITCHISON: If at the end of the day, by tacit admission or by express admission, it is agreed that the pensioner has not enough to live on with the present pension, what does it matter whether there has been an increase or a decrease or whatever it is over the past fifteen or 21 years? There is only one point which really needs consideration in a Bill of this sort, and with these limits, and it is this. Is the pension enough? Are these proposals to increase it sufficient, and are they broadly on the right lines? That is the question, and there is no other question that matters two pins.
The trouble about these comparisons with fifteen or 21 years past is that the period of 21 years which is being covered was one of very varying national economic conditions. The Tory Party always leave out the war. But there was one. It finished in 1945 and left some consequences. That makes it a little difficult to draw comparisons. But surely the comparisons are in any case completely off the point. Once one admits, as was tacitly admitted, that the pension is insufficient the remainder is not sense but irrelevant abuse of your adversary; and that was all we had to-day. I am sorry to put it like this, but this kind of thing is put forward as a justification for the fact that during the past thirteen years these attempts to catch up and provide a reasonable standard of living for those on retirement pensions have been persistently too little and too late. That is what has been happening.
Let me say this at once to noble Lords generally. I indicated that the comprehensive review we wish to see is taking place now, and of course this would have been a difficult thing to do without the resources of the Government of the day. I am glad to hear that a review of some sort is recognised to be necessary
276
by all noble Lords. So far so good; but if the review is now proceeding, the noble Lord will hardly expect me to answer a number of questions which he put to me about what its results are going to be. That is why we have a review, to decide what is the right thing to do. We shall of course value all the observations which the noble Lord, with his great experience in these matters, made in the course of the debate, but he must not expect us to tell him what we shall discover for ourselves only by making a comprehensive review. That is surely the whole point of it.
I turn to one or two other points. I was asked, "Why £4?" I can only say to the noble Lord that if he will look up the debate which I mentioned, which took place in the other place on December 10, 1963, he will find, I think, that precise figure mentioned or pretty clearly indicated, with the history of it. He will find his answer there. It may well be that this is not enough. This is only an emergency measure, and I would point out to the noble Lord that, according to the rules in another place, at any rate, it was open to the Opposition to propose an increased payment out of these two Funds. I do not know whether the same rules prevail in this House, but at any rate we should always value an indication from noble Lords opposite of what they thought was the right figure, if they think that these figures are insufficient. I would merely point out to them that in this and in other respects they have been in government for thirteen years, and if the widows are in a bit of a muddle at present they might have taken the opportunity to put it right many years ago.
I do not agree with the suggestion that the principle of all this legislation is necessarily that benefits are payable only in the absence of earnings. Those of us who have attained the age of 70 are entitled to benefits without regard to our earnings, and surely what applies in one case may equally apply in another. There is only one principle as I see it in all this legislation. That is to provide sufficient by way of pension for people to be able to live decently and comfortably if they have not got anything else to live on. That is the only principle which I recognise. But it is an incredibly complicated structure of legislation by

277
now, and that is another reason for the review which is required.
We were told that the employers, were being asked to pay too much. Well, I have not very much sympathy with this particular cry at the moment. But we were told that it would interfere with our competitive position as regards other nations and so on, The short answer to this is that employers in this country at present pay a far smaller percentage of the total cost, or, if you like to look at it another way, a far smaller amount per head, than do employers in almost any other country—Sweden, West Germany, France, and elsewhere. There are minor differences between one scheme and another, but the general picture is absolutely clear. Employers in this country do not pay the same share as employers do in other countries. I am sorry to put the matter so bluntly, but the result is that the amount by which employers pay less in this country represents something which might have been added to benefits in one form or another. It seems to me that that is a very serious point, particularly as we were the country in which this kind of scheme was first introduced, or introduced at a very early stage.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, from the point of view of our competitive position, what matters is the total bill for labour, not just one particular part of it. The insurance contribution is, of course, part of the total bill for labour. I do not think that it is relevant to compare alone the cost of insurance. What one has to compare is the total bill for labour.
LORD MITCHISON: It might not have been relevant had not the noble Lord complained, as he did, that the increase in the employer's contribution was unbalanced or excessive. That was his complaint, and this is my answer to it. It seems to me on that point, if I may respectfully say so, to be a complete answer.
I turn from that to say a few general words before I sit down. This is of course a Bill on the old lines. These are increases in the existing structure of pensions. They are widespread, and cover almost all the ground. Incidentally, may I mention that the changes in relation to workmen's compensation are, broadly speaking, in line with those for Industrial
278
Injuries benefits. There is nothing, to the best of my knowledge, revolutionary or strange in this Bill. It is really a number of increases, overdue increases, in the existing structure, and they are spread through all of it. But we recognise—and if I am repeating myself it is still perhaps worth doing—that the whole scheme of things, the whole basic ideas of National Insurance, need to be looked at again.
We recognise, too, that the Beveridge scheme and the 1946 Act made what I think in the light of subsequent events we can agree was one mistake; they did not sufficiently relate the life after the receipt of a pension to the life before. Therefore, they did not concern themselves with the proportion of previous earnings, as indeed most private schemes do; they were directed to fixed figures. We were the first Party to recognise that something needed to be done on the lines of relating contributions to benefits, and the graduated contributions which the late Government finally introduced derived from an idea of the Labour Party.
Unfortunately, it is possible to do a very great deal by applying a good idea badly; and that is exactly what the late Government did. The graduated contributions were, in fact, used to put an additional burden on the shoulders of contributors. When one looks at the finances of the graduated scheme the graduated contributions were without doubt an addition; they were, indeed, a shifting of the burden on to the lowerpaid workers. In addition to that, they had the result, and the intended result, of reducing, perhaps in the future, but still reducing, the Exchequer contribution. This has been said and argued at considerable length at a time when the noble Lord was, I think, actually the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. He must be well acquainted with the argument, and I am not going to take up the time of the House by adducing it now. But, none the less, those graduated contributions were a good idea, and it is that idea which we propose to develop.
It is examples such as that of Sweden, which the right reverend Prelate adduced to-day, and of many other countries, which lead us to believe that it should be possible to end up by giving men and women in their old age, or in adversity,

279
not merely some fixed sum but some proper proportion of what they have been earning during their lives; some such proportion as will enable them to live as fully and as happily as they lived in their earlier life. If we do do that, surely at the end of the day we are doing no more than our duty, as citizens of this country, to other citizens in it; and I would go one stage further—our duty as men and women to our fellow men and women, irrespective of questions of money.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MUSEUM OF LONDON BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before six o'clock.