DECIMAL CURRENCY (Hansard, 18 April 1967)

§ LORD REDMAYNE
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ LORD SHEPHERD
My Lords, I have seen a copy of the letter to which the noble Lord refers. It was addressed by the Chairman of the Board to the chairmen of some 150 organisations affected by the change-over. The letter sets out in full the Board's terms of reference and invites evidence under any of the heads of its terms of reference.
It is important to put the statement referred to by the noble Lord into its proper context. This is the paragraph from which the noble Lord quotes: The Board will not be involved in the present controversy about the choice of decimal system. We cannot comment on this policy issue or receive views on it. Our job is to introduce the system which Parliament approves. Planning work needs to begin now, however, in order to make full use of the preparatory period, and many of the planning problems are much the same whichever of the two rival systems is chosen. In giving preliminary consideration to those problems which differ with the choice of system the Board must, of course, assume 102 that the £—new penny—½ system described in the White Paper will be approved. The general survey of change-over problems which the Decimal Currency Board was setting in train by the issue of the circular letter must be based on certain assumptions. It is not unreasonable that one of these should be the £—new penny—½ system chosen by the Government. Neither this assumption nor the general survey being carried out by the Board prejudges the issue on the final choice of system. With regard to the second part of the noble Lord's Question, the Treasury were aware of the terms of the circular letter before it was issued.

§ LORD REDMAYNE
My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether he has perhaps not made it fully enough clear that this letter was written even before the Bill was presented in the House of Commons, and that the tone of his reply is simply another example of the way in which the Government have set out to prejudice the final decision of Parliament? Is it not a fact that here we have a Board, which as yet has no statutory authority for its existence but which is making assumptions as a matter of course on a subject not yet approved by Parliament, despite the fact the Government have constantly said that this issue is to be approved by Parliament? May I ask the noble Lord what will be the position of those who assume that the tenor of this letter is correct, and therefore incur expenditure, if in fact that assumption is wrong? Against whom will their claim lie: against members of the Board or against the Government?

§ LORD SHEPHERD
My Lords, I think the noble Lord is reading into this letter something that is not there. The Board was set up in an advisory capacity, both to the Government and to industry. The Board's principal task is set out earlier in this letter to which the noble Lord referred. The principal task of the Board is to prepare the country for the switch to decimal currency in February, 1971. There is a great deal of preparatory work to be undertaken, whether we have the pound system, recommended by Her Majesty's Government, or the 10s. system, to which the noble Lord lends his support. There is a great deal of work to be done, and the sooner we start on this, 103 the better. I do not believe that there is any firm which at this stage has committed itself to capital expenditure, before a decision has been taken by Parliament. As I have said on a number of occasions in your Lordships' House, this is a matter for Parliament to decide, but it is certainly the duty of the Government to make their own views perfectly clear.

§ LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE
My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will remember that, although Questions and Answers and even Statements have been made on this matter for five, six or seven years, there has been no debate in this House—no major debate—on the principle, and no debate at all on the system? Will the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip consider letting us have a debate on the system, before the final decision is made by Her Majesty's Government?

§ LORD SHEPHERD
My Lords, if my memory is right, this is a matter which has been under discussion for some 150 years. The noble Lord himself raised it during the period when his own Party were in office. We did in fact have a debate upon it some weeks ago, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, was himself in sunny climes at that time, and perhaps did not have his attention drawn to our debate. We then had a very useful debate in which views were expressed both ways on this matter. If the noble Lord would like, I will certainly see that he is given particulars of that debate.

§ LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE
My Lords, I am sorry. I will look it up.

§ LORD LEATHERLAND
My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that, while a large number of people are opposed to the 10s. system, they are not completely happy about the £—2½d. (new penny) system? Will the Government bear in mind, before they take a final decision, that there is a third possible system, of 1,000 units to the pound and 100 to a florin? Will the possibilities of that system be fully considered before a final judgment is reached?

§ LORD SHEPHERD
My Lords, as I have already said, this is a matter which has been discussed in public. It has been 104 subject, I think, to five Royal Commissions, and we have never been able to make progress because it has never proved possible to satisfy all possible views. The Government have carefully considered the Report of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury; we have accepted the recommendations of that Report, and we are now seeking Parliament's approval of our decision.

§ LORD SOMERS
My Lords, I have not seen in either House of Parliament the £—florin—mil system mentioned or taken into account by the Government, ever since we had that debate which the noble Lord mentioned. Is it too late to hope that they will pay some attention to this system, the advantages of which were so very well put forward by my noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cleeve?

§ LORD SHEPHERD
My Lords, this is one of the schemes which has been very carefully considered by Her Majesty's Government. We certainly took note of all that Lord Sinclair of Cleeve said. I recognise that some forms of industry, perhaps the tobacco industry in particular, feel there is some advantage in the scheme to which the noble Lord referred; but the Government still maintain that the decision they have taken is the right one.

§ BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD
My Lords, as one of the people who received the letter referred to in the original Question put down by the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, I would ask the noble Lord whether he really thinks that a letter which assumes something as definitely as that letter does—this was my impression when I received it, knowing full well that the Bill was in Committee and had to come to your Lordships' House—is a fair way of presenting the matter. I feel that the noble Lord's reply was not very satisfactory.

§ LORD SHEPHERD
My Lords, I would ask the noble Lady whether she will be good enough to read what I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne. I pointed out that this Board was an advisory Board; it has no executive responsibility. At this stage there is a good deal of work to be done. The Board needs now to obtain the greatest amount of information from industry, upon which planning and educational arrangements can be made. As has been said—and as I think is recognised by the 105 protagonists of the 10s. system and for the £ system—in practice the conversion of machines or the manufacturing of them, and the principles involved, will remain whether we have the £ system or a 10s. system. Whatever is now done will not be wasted. I hope that the noble Baroness will carefully consider this, and I think that, if she does, she will agree with me.

§ BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD
My Lords, I have listened to the noble Lord, but the assumption that the machines are the same is not correct. The machines will be different if a different system is adopted and there will be waste of time, money, correspondence and everything else, if we assume that the whole thing is now finished and done with.

§ LORD SHEPHERD
My Lords, the machines may be different in construction, but the principles behind them are the same.

§ LORD SEGAL
My Lords, does my noble friend wish to state categorically that the time is now too late for any second thoughts to be considered?

§ LORD SHEPHERD
My Lords, this is still a matter for Parliament. If Parliament decides to disagree with the Government then the views of Parliament will prevail.

§ LORD CONESFORD
My Lords, with out questioning in the least the right of the Government both to have and to state their own view, may I ask whether it is not slightly unfortunate that an outside body should assume as a matter of course that Parliament is impotent?

§ LORD REDMAYNE
My Lords, will the noble Lord answer that question, because that is the whole point?

§ LORD SHEPHERD
My Lords, I never take that view, particularly having been a Minister for some two and a half years, that Parliament is impotent.