Lords Sitting of 28 June 1968

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (BLACKPOOL AND STOURBRIDGE) BILL
11.5 a.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, this Bill is to confirm two Provisional Orders made under the Public Health Act 1875. Both Orders were advertised and no objections were received. The Blackpool Order was the subject of a local inquiry, but again there were no objections. The inspector recommended that the Order should be made, and this was accepted by the Minister. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PROVISIONAL ORDER (WEST KENT MAIN SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL
LORD KENNET: My Lords, this Bill also confirms a Provisional Order made under the Public Health Act 1875. The Order was advertised and a local inquiry held. The one objection received was withdrawn at the inquiry. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a, —(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL
House in Committee: Clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

IRON AND STEEL (RESTRICTIVE TRADING AGREEMENTS) ORDER 1968
11.8 a.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, I beg to move that the Iron and Steel (Restrictive Trading Agreements) Order 1968, a draft of which was laid before your Lordships' House on May 20, be approved. This Order is made by the Minister in pursuance of his powers under Sect ion 33 of the Iron and Steel Act 1967. This provides for him to repeal Section 7(1) of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956 when he is satisfied that 'ventral arrangements for the importation of raw materials or other iron and steel products for the use of the nationalised industry have been established under the British Steel Corporation's control.
Section 7(1) of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act provides for the exemption from registration under the Act of agreements between iron and steel producers for the central importation and distribution of raw materials and other iron and steel products; subsequent amendments to the subsection have made it the Minister of Power on whose approval exemption is dependent. Two agreements have been approved under Section 7(1). Under the first, all steel companies using imported iron and manganese agreed to obtain their supplies from B.I.S.C. (Ore) Limited, a subsidiary of the British Iron and Steel Federation; under the second, steel companies using imported magnesite and magnesite bricks agreed to obtain their supplies from the British Magnesite Corporation Limited, another subsidiary of the Federation. The Federation has now however been wound up and B.I.S.C. (Ore) and British Magnesite have become subsidiaries of the Corporation. The conditions set out in Section 33 of the Iron and Steel Act have therefore been satisfied and the Order can now be made.

1643
Under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, agreements solely between interrelated bodies corporate—that is to say, between a body corporate and its subsidiaries are not registrable. Arrangements confined to the Corporation and the publicly owned companies are not therefore registrable and will not be affected by the loss of the exemption from registration afforded by Section 7(1) of the 1956 Act. The private sector interest is very small: less than 1 per cent. of the ore, and only 15 to 18 per cent. of the magnesite and bricks containing magnesite, imported last year by B.I.S.C. (Ore) and British Magnesite respectively went to private sector companies. The Corporation have, however, offered all the private sector companies the use of their central purchasing facilities at terms comparable with those at which they will be available to public sector companies. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Iron and Steel (Restrictive Trading Agreements) Order 1968, laid before the House on May 20 last, be approved.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND NATIONAL INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL
House in Committee: Clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

SELECTIVE EMPLOYMENT PAYMENTS VARIATION ORDER 1968
11.14 a.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that the Selective Employment Payments Variation Order 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on May 30, be approved. The main purpose of this Order is to correct two anomalies. It will put the private-sector slaughterhouses in a similar position to those operated by the local authorities. The private-sector slaughterhouses, of which most are operated on a co-operative basis, have previously been at a disadvantage as compared with the local
1644
authority slaughterhouses, and the position has been very carefully, and I might say forcefully, put by Members in the other place.
As a result, this Order proposes that private-sector slaughterhouses and knackers' yards shall now be eligible, subject to certain conditions, for registration under Section 1 of the Act. The effect of this is that in all parts of the country, outside development areas, they will receive refund of the tax, and will be in a similar position to local-authority slaughterhouses. In development areas they will get, in addition, regional payments, as do food-processing establishments in those areas.
The second change made by this Order is the result of judicial decisions of this House. The testing of goods for manufacturers has been held to be eligible for refund of the tax under Section 1 of the Act as part of the manufacturing industry. However, owing to an earlier legal decision this ruling cannot apply to the testing of such goods to make sure that they conform with some Statute laid down by Act of Parliament. Thus the testing of anchors after manufacture to make sure that they conform with the standards laid down in the Anchors, Chains and Cables Act 1899 does not at the moment attract refund of the tax, whereas if there were no Act laying down standards, similar testing would attract refund of the tax. This is clearly inequitable, and the Order puts the anomaly right.
The cost of these two changes—slaughterhouses and statutory testing—will be about £650,000 in a full year at the proposed new rate of the tax which comes into effect on September 2. The Order is not and cannot be retrospective. My right honourable friend therefore proposes that the changes I have been explaining should take place on the earliest possible date, which is August 5.
There have been representations, in addition to those made by the representatives of the co-operatives about a number of other activities which are neither the subject of tribunal decisions favourable to those who pay the tax nor included in this Order. My right honourable friend has considered all these representations very carefully indeed, but has been unable to agree that there is sufficient merit

1645
in them to enable her to include them in this Order. The general question of classification of particular activities for S.E.T. purposes will, however, be kept under review. In this connection I should mention that the present edition of the Standard Industrial Classification, which is used as a basis for decisions on classifications under the Selective Employment Payments Act, is at present being revised for statistical purposes and will probably be published later in the year. When the new edition is available, the Government will consider the implications for S.E.T. of any changes which it incorporates and will be ready, where appropriate, to take account of them for the purposes of the Selective Employment Payments Act. My Lords, I hope that with that explanation it will be possible for you to approve this Order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Selective Employment Payments Variation Order 1968 laid before the House on 30th May last be approved.—(Lord Beswick.)
LORD KILMANY: My Lords, may I take up for a moment the last few sentences of the noble Lord? I had not intended to speak on this particular variation of selective employment tax regarding slaughterhouses, but the noble Lord went further and promised the possibility of a review of other cases of selective employment tax. I wonder if he can tell your Lordships whether that review will include the case of the Scottish hoteliers, who sent a deputation to London last week. They made their case to the Government, and the Government promised consideration. The question I ask the noble Lord is whether what he has just told us is likely to include consideration of that particular subject.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his explanation of this Order, and ask him about the statistical review that is being prepared. Is it being prepared for publication or simply for the purposes of the Government? Is it only for statistical purposes? I understand that the impression which the noble Lord gave was
1646
that he was going to take advantage of something which had been prepared for another purpose in order to review the whole work of the Selective Employment Act. It seems strange that it should be necessary to await statistical surveys of this kind before the Government can give an opinion on matters of principle affecting the S.E.T. I should have thought that the statistical survey merely provides some evidence for that, rather than that it would govern the principles involved. I do not know whether the noble Lord is able to give us any further information on what he expects to get out of this and what he will be looking for in the statistical survey.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, on the point about the Scottish hoteliers. I understand that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Chief Secretary will be making a statement about the position there during the course of the discussions on the Finance Bill next week in another place.
In regard to the statistical publication, as I understand it a review of this kind showing the practical application of the tax may give rise to the need for a change. I assume that there must be cases where there is a marginal consideration. All I am saying here is that when this statistical review is complete, if it throws up any other anomalies which have not been brought to the attention of my right honourable friend he will be prepared to consider them.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, would the noble Lord answer my question as to whether or not the statistical review will be published?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am not able to answer that, but I wi11 certainly let the noble Lord know.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

RATE REBATES (LIMITS OF INCOME) ORDER 1968
11.23 a.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall, in moving approval of this Order, speak to both this Order and the corresponding Scottish Order, which is next on the Order Paper. These Draft Orders, which have been approved in the House of Commons and have been welcomed generally throughout the country, raise the level of income at which the maximum rate rebate payable to a domestic ratepayer, and calculated primarily by reference to the size of his rate bill, has then to be tapered down by reference to the size of his gross income in a recent period.
Hitherto, between 1¼ and 1½ million ratepayers in Great Britain have been eligible for rate rebates because their weekly incomes have been below, or barely above, £8 a week in the case of single householders, or £10 a week in the case of married couples, extended by 30s. a week for each resident child. Around 1 million of these 1½ million eligible householders have been actually claiming rebates, amounting on average to £15 per year or about half their rate bills—which is, of course, quite something for people with incomes at that low level. They are mainly pensioners, but there are also low wage earners with large families, and the beneficiaries of the rate rebates include a large number of owner-occupiers as well as private and municipal tenants.
These Draft Orders raise these income limits governing entitlement to maximum rebate from £8 to £9 a week in the case of a single householder, and from £10 to £11 a week in the case of a couple; and to raise the extension for each resident child from 30s. to 40s. a week. Thus, for example, a single householder with gross income of up to £9 a week, and a couple with four children and a gross income of up to £19 a week will get the maximum rebate. And they will still get some rebate even if their incomes are a little above those levels, especially if their rate bills happen to be rather sizeable.
We estimate that as a result the total number of householders eligible for rate rebate will be kept for the time being around the 1½ million mark instead of
1648
falling rather steeply to well below 1 million, as would have been the case if these Orders had not been introduced. I do not need to remind the House that the overall justification for having rebates at all, and for the subsidies paid by the Ministries to local authorities in reduction of rate increase which would otherwise have taken place, is that rates are a regressive form of taxation which bears relatively most hardly on the lowest paid people in the country. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Rate Rebates (Limits of Income) Order 1968, laid before the House on May 29 last, be be approved.—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his explanation of these Orders. I have two points to put to him. He said that the effect of these Orders will be to keep the number of ratepayers who enjoy relief at about 1½ million. Is this the principle of the increase which is being made in the limit? Is it the intention of the Government to keep the number of ratepayers at this kind of level? If not, what is the principle on which this addition is being made? I am not in any way opposing the increase in the limit. I merely want to know on what principle the Government are acting in this particular case. Could the noble Lord give the House any estimated figures of the cost of the rebate at present to local authorities in England and Wales, and could he say what the increased cost, both net and gross, will be as a result of this Order?
LORD KENNET: The principle behind this Order is not in any way tied to a sacrosanct figure of 1½ million. The increase was introduced partly to give effect to the Government's pledge that the worst off sectors of the community would be cushioned against the adverse effects of all the measures which were taken around the time of devaluation and thereafter, and also because in itself it would have been a social injustice that people who had a certain benefit should be priced out of it by changes in the value of money since that time. This does not mean that automatically we shall try to hold it at 1½ million for ever. The time must be coming within a few years when there must be an overall

1649
review of the system of local government taxation and the rating system. This will be after the Report of the Maud Committee.
The noble Lord asked for some overall figures. A theoretical possible total payment of rebates in Great Britain during the financial year 1968–69 as a whole, assuming a maximum take-up—that would be if everybody claims it—would be about £22½, million. If these Orders were not made, it would be about £18 million. With the Exchequer meeting 75 per cent. of the cost of these rebates, that means a theoretical Exchequer liability for 1968–69 of about £16,750,000 instead of about £13½1 million. In practice one must allow for a certain amount of non-claiming, especially among householders paying inclusive rents in households and dwellings of a kind where the reckonable rates, and therefore the allowable rebate, would be relatively small. The actual Exchequer liability in 1968–69 may be well below the £16,750,000 figure, simply because not everybody who is eligible to the rebate claims it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord could answer this question. Is he able to say how many persons who are believed to be entitled to rent rebates if they made application for them have in fact not made application for them?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I believe it may have been somewhere in the neighbourhood of half a million; that is one-third of those entitled.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RATE REBATES (LIMITS OF INCOME) (SCOTLAND) ORDER 1968
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Rate Rebates (Limits of Income) (Scotland) Order 1968, laid before the House on May 29 last, be approved.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MOTOR VEHICLES (INTERNATIONAL CIRCULATION) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1968
11.32 a.m.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, this Order amends the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Order 1957, as amended in 1962, to enable effect to be given to commitments which the Government propose to accept under an Agreement (Cmnd. 3606) with the Swedish Government and an Exchange of Notes with the Turkish Government. These provide for a bilateral waiver of taxation on goods vehicles registered in one country while they are visiting the other country in the course of international goods haulage.
This measure will considerably ease the formalities which are at present involved for goods hauliers engaged in international traffic. It will no doubt be welcomed by them, and, in particular by those British hauliers going to Turkey, who have since July, 1967, been subjected to a particularly heavy visiting vehicles tax levied there. The Turkish authorities have agreed to waive this when we give exemption from our vehicles Excise Duty to any Turkish goods vehicles coming here. The Order will become operative by notification in the London Gazette as soon as the necessary formalities connected with the ratification of the Swedish Agreement and the Turkish exchange of notes have been completed. This completion must, however, await the approval of the Order by the Privy Council. I beg to move that the Order be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order 1968, laid before the House on Thursday, June 13, instant, be approved. —(Lord Bowles.)
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I should just like to draw attention to the last sentence of the Explanatory Note on the back of the Draft Order, which says:
"copies of the Agreement with Turkey may, pending issue as a Command Paper, be inspected at the offices of the Ministry of Transport, St. Christopher House, Southwark Street, London, S.E.1."
I think that, in fact, the Command Paper in relation to the Agreement with Turkey was published about two days ago and

1651
that that information is no longer strictly accurate. I do not complain about that, and the point I wish to make is this. The agreement was signed, I think, on April 2; that is, nearly three months ago. It is quite a short document, only a page and a half long, price 8d. from the Stationery Office. It was going to be published as a Command Paper at some time. It seems that nearly three months is rather a long time for people who may be interested in the subject to have to wait for the Command Paper, during which time they have to go to the office of the Ministry of Transport in South-East London to inspect the Agreement. I should have thought, that if there was going to be a Command Paper, and if it was quite short, it ought to be possible to publish it in a great deal less time than three months, to save people making journeys to South-East London to a Government office.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I think the noble Lord knows that the Command Paper is now available at Her Majesty's Stationery Office. I am not quite certain why there has been this delay, but the negotiations have been going on. As the noble Lord said, the draft has been available and it can now be inspected at the Stationery Office or at any of the branches; and that has been the position since the 25th of this month.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PRICES AND INCOMES BILL
11.35 a.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is the one which we secured with a certain amount of exertion from the other place and which was read a first time yesterday evening. I thought it might be for the convenience of the House if I indicated briefly what differences there were as between this Bill and the No. 2 Bill which we debated yesterday.
None of the Amendments made on Report stage in the other place makes any substantial change to the Bill which we discussed yesterday. With one exception, about which I shall say something more later, the only significant Amendments—that is to say, the only ones of
1652
any practical consequence—are Amendments restricting the terminal date of standstills imposed by order or direction by reference to the date on which the order or direction was made instead of that on which it came into operation. Those Amendments are to be found in Clause 3. There is also an Amendment to Clause 4, limiting to a maximum of three months the period between the making and the coming into force of price reduction orders. In addition, there is an Amendment imposing certain restrictions on the maximum postponement of wages regulation orders.
The exception to which I referred is an Amendment to Clause 4, which deletes the provision limiting the application of the clause and which was originally inserted by a majority of one during the Committee, stage of another place. That Amendment was taken out during the course of the Report stage and after the Bill for discussion in this House was printed. I give those details hoping that they will be for the convenience of the House and make it possible for a more easy understanding of the No. 1 Bill when we come to discuss it on Committee stage. With that, my Lords, I hope it will be possible to accept the Second Reading of this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Beswick.)
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for explaining to us in his introduction some of the differences which we can study over the weekend as his words will be recorded in Hansard. I do not wish to take up any more of your Lordships' time today, apart from saying "Thank you to the noble Lord.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PRICES AND INCOMES (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Prices and Incomes (No. 2) Bill.
Bill, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before twelve noon.