Lords Sitting of 16 July 1971

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

POSTAL CHARGES FOR THE BLIND
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: 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 whether they will ask the Post Office to consider a special low rate of postage charge, including international postal charges, where a recorded message tape is sent to or by a blind person, bearing in mind that there is no postal charge for talking book cassettes or for many other items for the use of the blind.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, this is primarily a matter for the Post Office, but I understand that tapes sent overseas via a recognised institution for the blind already qualify for free surface postage and reduced airmail rates.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, does that mean that I can write to Eire, but not to Northern Ireland, with this advantage? Is it not surprising that the rest of the world recognises this little benefit for blind people, but not the United Kingdom? Should I make representations to the Post Office?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the answer to the first part of my noble friend's question is, Yes. The answer to the last part of my noble friend's question is that I am sure the Post Office will be extremely glad to hear from him, and very happy to talk with him about this. The existing concessions in the inland service are based on the principle that the blind should not have to incur
626
expenses normally avoided by sighted people; thus, they relate essentially to articles that have been specially adapted for use by the blind.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, even though tapes have not been specially adapted for the use of the blind, blindness inevitably represents a handicap in writing letters and, more so, in reading them, so that the technique of using a tape is adapted for the blind.
LORD DENHAM: Yes, my Lords. The point here is that if one is sending a Braille book by post it will weigh very much more than an ordinary book, and sighted people have the advantage of going to their local library whereas one of these letter tapes goes by exactly the same cost of postage as does an ordinary letter.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, cannot Her Majesty's Government raise this matter in the Universal Postal Union, with a view to getting some international co-operation?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the international point is different, as I said in my original Answer, but this is a point for the inland post, which is not the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. This is a matter for the day-to-day running of the Post Office.

VALUE ADDED TAX AND RELIEF FOR CHARITIES
11.7 a.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: 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, with reference to paragraph 4.9 of the Green Paper on Value Added Tax (Cmnd. 4621), wherein suggestions are made for helping charities with regard to V.A.T., whether they will consult the charities concerned with a view to giving them relief in relation to articles used for raising money and the distribution of free or subsidised aids, such as for example, wireless sets, braille machines, etc.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, Her Majesty's

627
Government would be very willing to receive from individual charities, or groups of charities, any representations which they wish to make, as part of the general process of consultation with interested parties initiated by the Green Paper on Value Added Tax. Such representations will be carefully considered before any decisions are made.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl.

SOVIET UNION AND TALKS ON DISARMAMENT
11.9 a.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY: 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 is their appraisal, following the talks between Sir Denis Greenhill and Soviet Foreign Ministry Officials, of the Soviet Union's declared intention to further progress towards disarmament and peace through the SALT talks, mutual balanced force reductions in Europe, a naval agreement, a Five-Power Nuclear Disarmament Conference, concessions regarding Berlin, and a European Conference for security and peace.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, consideration of the wide-ranging and complex matters mentioned by the noble Lord has confirmed Her Majesty's Government's resolve to continue to work for a relaxation of East/West tensions in Europe. We, like our allies in the North Atlantic Alliance, attach much importance to progress in this field. We are studying recent Soviet proposals as carefully as we hope they are considering ours.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while welcoming the Minister's reply, may I ask him whether this does not open out a heartening prospect of modifying the East/West conflict, perhaps even moving towards its end? When Her Majesty's Government have considered this development, can they make a rather more encouraging response to what has been suggested from the Soviet Union, particularly
628
in relation to the proposal for a European and North American conference for security and co-operation in Europe?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Yes, my Lords. We very much welcome this latest evidence of Soviet interest in détente, and I can assure the noble Lord that all proposals that are being put forward by the Soviet Union will be very carefully considered in a most constructive spirit.

PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill, and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43(2), that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SOCIAL SECURITY BILL
11.12 a.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, this Bill is designed first to put an end to practices which in the Government's view are not consistent with the basic purposes of the supplementary benefit scheme; and, secondly, to bring the social security system more closely into line with modern conditions.
First, I shall deal with supplementary benefit for strikers. The legislation of all Governments since the war has been based on the principle that a striker should get nothing from the State for himself, but only for his dependants. The Labour Government reaffirmed this principle in Section 10 of the Ministry of Social Security Act 1966, but it is violated by present practice, under which, in assessing the amount of supplementary benefit for a striker's family, any income personal to the striker—mainly tax refunds and strike pay—is disregarded, up to the limit of the man's own requirements, currently £4·35. Incidentally. I use the word"striker"somewhat

629
loosely: strictly, I should say"men out of work due to a trade dispute and disqualified from receiving supplementary benefit for themselves ". The effect of this is that a married striker's income is often brought up to the full amount which he would receive if he were an ordinarily unemployed man.
This practice has grown up by historical accident. All that the Government are doing in this part of the Bill is to see that the principle accepted by all their predecessors is carried into effect. The Bill proposes accordingly, in Clause 1(4), that strike pay and tax refunds shall be disregarded, in assessing supplementary benefit for his dependants, only up to the limit of £1 which applies, under the 1966 Act, to other types of miscellaneous income.
Clause 2 is aimed at what I think it is fair to say is the deliberate exploitation of a weakness in current legislation. There is a statutory ban on the payment of supplementary benefit to men in remunerative full-time work. This ban is postponed for a fortnight by regulation, in the case of"persons becoming engaged…in such work ". The regulations are primarily designed to meet the needs of people resuming work after unemployment or starting their first job, who will have no wages for a week or a fortnight and to whom, as new and usually unknown workers, employers could hardly be expected to make advances on wages. They also apply to strikers when they return to work; although, in such cases, as the men are known to the employer and are presumably intending to carry on in the same employment for some time, it is perfectly reasonable that the employer should pay advances sufficient to keep them going until the first pay day. Until a few years ago, employers very frequently agreed to make such advances when men went back to work after a strike.
There was a disturbing development in 1969 when, after a major strike, the employers withdrew their agreement to give advances at all their different plants, under pressure from the workers at one plant. The precedent was very soon followed in other strikes; and it is now generally realised that it is very much to the striker's advantage to refuse an advance from his employer and to draw
630
supplementary benefit instead—since an advance has to be repaid, and is part of taxable income, while supplementary benefit is not repayable and does not count towards tax. The figures speak for themselves. In 1968, about £334,000 was paid out in supplementary benefit during strikes, but little more than £80,000 in the period after strike. In 1969, when the first signs of exploitation appeared, the comparable figures were: £747,000 paid out during strikes, and almost as much—£668,000—after the men had gone back to work. In 1970, £1,445,000 was paid during strikes; £888,000 after. In the first four months of this year, the amount paid out after strikes had already reached nearly £500,000. All the post-strike figures relate only to large strikes of which separate figures are kept.
The previous Government were aware of this problem and took power in their National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill to reduce this expenditure; their plan was to make supplementary benefit payable after a strike only for a striker's dependants and not for the man himself. But this was no more than a palliative: those who received supplementary benefit for their families would have remained in very much the same position as they are now. That is, by refusing an advance of wages, they could get supplementary benefit (though not at the full rate as they do now) for a period for which wages would be paid within a week or two. We can see no justice or sense in a system which requires the taxpayer to subsidise a man who has returned to work from a strike simply because he prefers not to take an advance of wages from his employers. Clause 2 therefore provides that any supplementary benefit paid after the end of a strike shall be repayable, through the employer. An important part of the clause, read with Schedule 1, is the proviso that supplementary benefit will not have to be repaid too quickly: if a person's income in any week would fall below a figure equivalent to £3 above the supplementary benefit level, repayment would be deferred.
The National Insurance Act 1965 provides that a man who is dismissed for industrial misconduct, leaves his job voluntarily, or refuses to take suitable work without good cause, may be disqualified for unemployment benefit for

631
up to six weeks. The decision on whether or not to disqualify is made by the independent statutory authority appointed under the National Insurance legislation. It would make nonsense of these provisions if the disqualified man could immediately draw full supplementary benefit.
I do not think your Lordships will disagree with me that the present 75p reduction is derisory; and indeed the previous Government in their National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill proposed to raise it substantially. This Bill goes a little further than they did; we retain their principle that the reduction should be limited to a proportion of the single householder rate, and differ only on what that proportion should be. Clause 1(2) provides for a reduction of 40 per cent.; if the previous Government's Bill had become law, the reduction would have been 35 per cent. The Supplementary Benefits Commission will have no power to remit or alter the amount of the reduction; their discretionary power to"add back"something in exceptional circumstances where otherwise undue hardship would be caused will remain unchanged. And an assurance has been given that the Commission will be invited to review their rules for dealing with such cases of special hardship when the Bill becomes law.
Clause 7 of the Bill abolishes entitlement in any circumstances to flat-rate unemployment benefit and sickness benefit under the National Insurance Act and to injury benefit under the Industrial Injuries Act for the first three days of a period of interruption of employment. Subsection (1) does so for unemployment and sickness benefit; and subsection (2) for injury benefit. The retrospective payment of these benefits for the three waiting days was introduced into the National Insurance scheme at its start in 1948. It was no doubt justified by the circumstances of those days, but in the twenty-three years which have since elapsed the situation has been transformed. Personal disposable income, for example, has quadrupled in the period 1946 to 1971; and in the same period the annual total of personal savings has increased eight-fold. National Insurance benefits have increased very substantially in real terms and will be increased again when the new rates of benefit provided by
632
the National Insurance Act 1971 come into operation in September. Earnings-related supplement to sickness and unemployment benefits, which comes into payment with effect from the third week of incapacity or unemployment, was introduced in 1966. In 1949, 28 per cent. of married women were either in employment or self-employed, and the average earnings for women, both married and single, were £3·94 a week; in 1969, no less than 46 per cent. of married women worked, and the average earnings for women, both married and single, had risen to £12·11—with that figure having gone up still further to £13·99 in 1970; and while the Government well recognise that there is not a working wife in every family, changes of this order of magniture are bound to have a substantial effect.
Another important development has been that the provision of employers' sick pay schemes has grown very substantially. The figure of coverage was only about 56·5 per cent. as late as 1961–62, but in April, 1970, employers' sick pay schemes covered over 72 per cent. of all male employees. For manual workers, the corresponding figure, while lower, was still nearly 65 per cent. of all full-time male employees aged 21 and over. And even given that many employers' sick pay schemes may have waiting days for which no payment is made, the introduction and development of these schemes makes a great improvement for workers over their situation in 1948, when many of them had no sick pay scheme at all. In these new circumstances we believe that the substantial savings of a net £19 million per year are better used to help those in greater need; for example, the chronic sick, for whom we have made extra provision amounting to £24 million per year in the recent National Insurance Act.
I need not trouble your Lordships with a long account of the remaining clauses of the Bill. They are designed mainly to remove some minor anomalies which have crept in with the passage of time. Clause 3 improves arrangements for the prevention of duplicate social security payments; Clause 4 removes a defect in the control of fraud by extending the functions and powers of inspectors; Clause 5 provides that arrangements can be made

633
with Northern Ireland for a unified social security system; Clause 6 extends existing powers to make reciprocal arrangements with other countries; and Clause 8 increases the fine for failure to pay National Insurance contributions from £10—at which it stood in 1911—to £50. I should explain in a little more detail why it has been decided to abolish in Clause 9 the local advisory committee. The local advisory committees which were set up in 1948—and which were succeeded in 1967 by the present bodies served a most useful purpose in the early years of the post-war schemes. As more experience was gained of the operation of the schemes, and with the development of more sources of advice both to the Departments and to the general population, the need for formal machinery of this kind has diminished. In many cases it has been increasingly difficult to find sufficient work to justify calling them together except at long intervals. I am sure your Lordships would wish me to repeat on your behalf the thanks which have been expressed to the chairmen and members of these advisory committees for their past services.
This Bill is the stable companion of the National Insurance Act which recently passed through this House. That Act made many and significant improvements in social security benefits; it also made considerable increases in contributions. It surely behoves us at the same time to examine the whole system with a view to eliminating abuses and rearranging priorities. That is what this Bill seeks to do. It will make an important saving of £21 million a year by recognising that in the course of time some parts of our provision have been misused and other parts are no longer necessary. It seeks to bring our social security legislation up-to-date and eliminate waste. It must be looked at in conjunction with the social security system as a whole, and I am confident that I can ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord A berdare.)
11.28 a.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for explaining the various clauses of the Bill. This is part of the implementation
634
of New Policies for Public Spending, and it has to be looked at against the other measures that are being introduced to save money: the school meals price increase, the withdrawal of the free milk to the children and the cost-related prescription charges—I could go on. It also must be looked at against the backcloth of substantial unemployment figures. I am very fond of the Minister who introduced this measure and I do not like to have to tell him that I do not like his Bill. I find it a peculiarly mean Bill, and I think it is difficult to justify it except as a measure for saving money.
The Minister has very carefully described it as a tidying-up process, but basically this is a measure to save money. In New Policies for Public Spending there is a direct reference to the fact that there will be a saving of £20 million a year by changing the unemployment, sickness and injury benefit payments as the Minister has described so that they will not now be payable on the first day, but there will be three days of absence from work. Most Bills are mixed bags. One generally finds some clauses which make life a little better for people, even if some other clauses make life a little difficult. But, except for the clauses on the reciprocal agreements, this Bill does not appear to me to make life better for anyone.
I turn to Clause 7, relating to the payment of unemployment benefit. The National Insurance Act 1966 set out the conditions of payment of benefit and said that a day of interruption of employment means a day of unemployment or incapacity for work. This matter concerns particularly those industries where people are often put off, or where they have to seek other employment at very short notice. They are the low-paid workers, the people in the industries which depend on the short-term worker. The original Beveridge Report, which I have just reread to refresh my mind, emphasised that if a man could not work by reason of sickness, unemployment or any other incapacity, he should be in receipt of some money to help him over the period. This is a basic part of our scheme of National Insurance and Social Security. I am sure that there are excellent reasons for introducing this change, but we must recognise that we are changing what has been a basic principle.

635
Let us have another look at the question of the abolition of the local advisory committees. Again, in the Act of 1966 we get some idea of the kind of people who make up these committees:
" The persons from among whom members of such committees are selected shall include persons representing employers, persons representing employees and persons having local knowledge and experience in matters affecting the function of the Commission."
I know such a person: she is a neighbour of mine, a retired executive worker, who sits on one of these committees, unpaid, at some inconvenience to herself as she has to travel. She is most conscientious and anxious to help all the cases that come before her, and she is knowledgeable because she has been a worker herself.
I notice that the Minister in another place, in justifying the abolition of these committees, said that there were other ways in which voluntary workers could use their talents. He referred to the fact that we could now have more professional advice. Surely, my Lords, this misses the whole point of the committees. They are showing the public that there is an independent link between the statutory administrators and those who are on the receiving end. Again, a very important feature in British life is that people must know that they can always appeal to have their cases looked at by their peers. I wonder whether these committees have been given opportunities to operate as widely as they might have been, or whether they have been encouraged enough. I will return to this point during the next stage of the Bill, because it is one about which I am not at all happy. I believe that to save the small sum concerned was the major point of the exercise, rather than the suggestion that the need for them had disappeared.
If we look at some of the other points of the Bill, we see that a lot of work will be thrown on to employers. Part I of Schedule 1, which refers to the way in which the deduction notices on the recovery of the money have to be made out, says in paragraph 2(2):
" Every deduction notice shall contain the following particulars, namely—

(a) particulars enabling the employer to identify the claimant;

(b) the amount by reference to which deductions are to be made by the employer
636
from the claimant's earnings by virtue of the notice;

(c) the claimant's protected earnings; and

(d) such other particulars as may be prescribed."

Surely, employers already have to do quite enough work. The P.A.Y.E. system throws on the average employer quite an amount of extra work for which he takes time and employs people specially. This is yet another instance of the extra work involved.
Let us look at another clause in the Bill. The point I refer to recurs several times, and I shall ask the Minister to explain—not necessarily now, but during the passage of the Bill—why we find these words. I am bound to tell him that I have found them in the other Acts as well, so that he can say, with every justification, that the previous Administration used them. But I think he will know by now that I do not consider that a good enough reason for anything being included for the whole of time. In Clause 3, we see the words:
"…at the discretion of the authority administering it…"
I am not quite clear what this means. If there is only one authority administering these matters, it would be more specific and much safer to say just that.
My Lords, I will not labour any further points now. I cannot go through the usual convention of wishing this Bill a fair passage. I do not like it. I feel that it is an erosion of some of the basic principles of social security, and that, apparently, it is merely a way of taking from one group in order to give to others.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, when I heard the noble Lord introducing the Bill a point occurred to me, and perhaps the Government or any lawyer can help me on this. It was stated that a person in full employment is not entitled to draw supplementary benefit. Surely, when one returns from striking one is in full employment, and it is quite immaterial whether there is some private arrangement, however helpful, with one's employer to advance money. That has nothing to do with the law—whether it is common law or Statute law I do not know but one is in full employment from the moment one returns. Why, then, is any special new legislation required?
11.37 a.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am most grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken on this Bill. I will first deal with the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, since it is a specific one. He was quite right when he said that supplementary benefit is not normally paid to a person in work; but there is the one exception which I mentioned in my speech, which is made under regulations, that it can be paid for the first two weeks of a person's taking up work. The exception is there in order that somebody who is working for an employer for the first time, or who has returned after a period of unemployment, shall be helped through those first two weeks when the employer may not be willing to make an advance of wages to him. What has gone wrong is that this has also been applied to persons returning after a strike, when we think it is perfectly reasonable to expect the employer to make an advance to the man. After all, he knows the man, since he was employed by him previously, and presumably he will then continue to be employed by him. That is why the anomaly has crept in, and we are trying to put it right under the Bill. I hope that that explanation will satisfy my noble friend.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: No, my Lords. May I speak without leave?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord has leave.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, may I have the leave of the House to ask a further question, for elucidation? I quite understood what the noble Lord has just said, because he said it in his opening speech. But whether it involves a strike or a man first going into employment does not seem to me to matter very much, unless the regulation to which he has now referred has statutory backing. Has it such backing?
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, my Lords.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, if it has, that answers my question. Then when we did it last time we made an ass of the law or somebody did.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, my noble friend is trying to be a little more harsh than we are. We still think it is
638
right that a man who is taking up employment for the first time and who may not have any funds at his disposal should be able to apply for supplementary benefit.
I did not expect the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, to welcome the Bill. It was no surprise that she did not, although she disagreed in a very charming way. May I briefly take up one or two of the points that she made? She emphasised her point that we are doing this entirely to save money. I hope that is not the impression that the House gained from my speech. This Bill is to put right various anomalies, and most of its provisions were proposed, although perhaps not enacted, by the last Government. Of course, we have different approaches in certain regards and we put forward different proposals, but I think I am right in saying that nearly all these provisions were proposed at some time by the last Government We are also trying to adjust priorities within the field of social security. We are indeed making savings in certain directions where we think they do not cause hardship, and we are applying those savings within the national insurance field to other benefits where we think they are more urgently required. This is particularly true of the saving which the noble Baroness mentioned in regard to the payment for the three waiting days.
I should like to make just one point to the noble Baroness. She said that the low-paid worker would suffer because he would not get anything for the first day or two of his unemployment. That is not so. He never received this payment within the first three days. He always had to wait for two weeks before any payment was made. He received it after two weeks. I tried to explain that conditions are different now. Many employers have sick pay schemes, and the benefits themselves are so much improved that this is no longer an urgent priority. There are other more important priorities. The remarks on local advisory committees are noted. They do not have sufficient important work to do, but I respect the opinion of the noble Baroness, and I shall return to it at the next stage.
The burden on the employer of complying with Schedule 1 on the recovery of supplementary benefit paid was mentioned. The employer can avoid the

639
necessity for doing that by making an advance of wages. This we would prefer. The employee need not then claim supplementary benefit, and the employer will not have to get it back. That is the way out for the employer who feels this process to be too complicated. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness and my noble friend.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I do not wish to intervene at any length, because I have not done my homework; but the Minister could clear up one difficulty. I can understand the Government wanting to do something about the three days of unemployment, because that is part of their philosophy. But what about the question of injury? Is it the fact that a man who has sustained an injury does not receive the first three days' money? I do not understand why that should be so.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, it has been the case that the first three days, the three waiting days, were not paid within the three days because of administrative difficulty. Hitherto, after two weeks—twelve days—retrospectively the three waiting days have been paid. The Bill abolishes this procedure.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SPECIAL ROADS (CLASSES OF TRAFFIC) ORDER 1971
11.43 a.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON rose to move, That the Special Roads (Classes of Traffic) Order 1971, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Roads (Classes of Traffic) Order 1971, dated June 15, 1971, and the Special Roads (Classes of Traffic) (Scotland) Order, 1971, dated June 22, 1971, copies of which were laid before the House on June 22 and 24 of this year respectively, be approved. The Orders were approved in another place on July 1. I should explain briefly what the Orders do and the reasons for them.
The first Order, which I now move, will, if approved, amend Schedule 4 to the Highways Act 1959, which lays down classes of traffic which may be allowed on or excluded from motorways. The
640
Order would apply to England and Wales. The second Order is substantially the same, but relates to the corresponding Scottish legislation, and will have effect in Scotland. Of the 11 different classes of traffic laid down, only classes 1 and 2 are normally allowed to use motorways at all times. These include private cars, lorries, buses, motorcycles, motor tractors, breakdown vehicles, and vehicles authorised to be used for conveying abnormal loads.
The effect of the Orders is to include in classes 1 and 2 some additional categories of vehicles, and thus to allow them to use the motorways. The most important of these categories is the locomotive, which is a legal term meaning vehicles not designed to carry loads themselves and weighing more than 71 tons. The purpose of such locomotives is to haul the trailers containing the load. When the load is abnormal and indivisible for example, a big generator or a giant boiler tank—the locomotive is allowed on the motorway. It is only when the locomotive travels solely, or hauls a normal load such as a consignment of paint or metal castings, that it is forbidden to use the motorway. The order will make it lawful to drive such tractors on motorways. The other categories included are vehicles for moving excavated material, vehicles constructed for use outside the United Kingdom, and engineering plant. In all cases there is a condition that the vehicle should be capable of a minimum speed of 25 miles per hour.
There are good reasons for making the change. Operators claim that the present situation is very inconvenient and substantially increases their costs. In addition, the alternative routes which they are compelled to use often pass through densely developed and highly industrialised areas, or through our historic towns. These larger vehicles can cause considerable congestion and delays to traffic on such roads, thereby increasing costs to the community. I can give the assurance that road safety will not be adversely affected.
The total number of vehicles involved amounts to only a few thousand, and very few are likely to be on the motorways at any one time, or to be travelling any distance. Most of the vehicles can maintain a speed of 35 to 45 miles per

641
hour, thus fitting into the slow stream of commercial vehicles without difficulty. Fluorescent and reflective marker boards, which will be required to be fitted to the rear of heavy vehicles and trailers by November 1 of this year, will make most of the vehicles more conspicuous, and we are also considering requiring amber flashing beacons on these vehicles as an additional safeguard. There is no reason to fear that the Orders will have an adverse effect on safety, and they may be a positive safety benefit by removing these vehicles from roads ill-equipped to accommodate them. Finally, I would mention that interested organisations have been consulted, and the proposals have met with their general agreement. I hope, therefore, that the House will now approve the first Order.
Moved, That the Special Roads (Classes of Traffic) Order 1971, be approved.—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
11.48 a.m.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, we are all grateful for the noble Lord's explanation and for the assurances he has been able to give the House on those matters about which some apprehension may be felt. It is a long time since I was on speaking terms with an"abnormal indivisible load ", but I have listened with interest to what the noble Lord had to say about the present position relating to these. It is clear that with the development of the motorway system it would be absurd not to make the amendment. Unless we make this amendment, we shall be channelling these extremely cumbersome loads through historic towns and through villages where the damage to amenity is considerable.
We wholeheartedly support the amendment which the Government are proposing and are pleased to learn that the Government have very much in mind those points on which we may have been worried: the question of their travelling either at too low or too high a speed. It is to be hoped that the Government will be satisfied that the regulations about the braking power of such vehicles are adequate, and that there will be some guidance as to overtaking, which is the one aspect of the problem which could give cause for alarm. As a member of the Transport and General Workers
642
Union, I express the view that in my opinion lorry drivers are among the most courteous and careful users of the road and we need not view the proposed amendment with anything but the most warmhearted and cordial approval.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I do not want to take up your time unduly on a matter on which I have no particular expertise, but may I say that I am not really satisfied with the three assurances which were given on the subject of safety. The first assurance simply amounted to this: that there would not be a large number of these vehicles, and from that I gather that the number of accidents would, therefore, be small. I do not think that that is an assurance on safety. The second was that although these vehicles had to be guaranteed to be able to reach a speed of 25 m.p.h., most of them would be able to do 35 or 40 m.p.h.; in other words, that is surely an admission that a speed of 25 m.p.h. on a motorway is extremely dangerous. The only assurance is that most people will not be travelling at speeds as low as that. If that is so, why should not this Order say 35 or 40 m.p.h., instead of 25 m.p.h.? The third assurance was that the interested parties had been consulted. The interested parties are those who want to use the roads in this way, not, presumably, those first of all concerned with safety. I should like a further assurance.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I listened very carefully to what my noble friend said, and I am perfectly satisfied that the Order which he is moving is in the interests of road safety. With regard to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Platt, just now about the minimum speed, my noble friend, I think, said that most of these vehicles are able to do 35 to 40 m.p.h., but one cannot guarantee that they all are; therefore one cannot lay down a minimum speed greater than the one that has been imposed. It is most certainly safer for them to travel on a motorway than on the rather narrower roads with the great deal more overtaking, and sometimes not very wide overtaking, which occurs there.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a question? Is there any possibility of making a regulation to provide that these vehicles, if they travel one behind the other, shall leave double the distance

643
between each other, so that cars behind can overtake? Because that is where the real danger occurs.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, and my noble friend Lord Somers for the welcome they have given to these two Orders. They have been conceived in a spirit of trying to be helpful to road traffic in general and industry in particular. The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, asked about braking power, and this was a point about which the noble Lord, Lord Platt, was obviously worried. These are heavy vehicles, and with loads they are heavier. The advice I am given is that the braking standards are continuously under review. The Road Research Laboratory is continually at work on this subject and my right honourable friend the Minister is always willing to be advised again. Certainly he has safety continuously in the front of his mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood made a point on overtaking which I, personally, from my own experience, would endorse, that long-distance lorry drivers, in particular, who spend a lot of their time on the roads, are as a rule most courteous. These are matters which can he put into a Highway Code; they can be made apparent chiefly by what public opinion feels about it. I think the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, is met by the fact that obviously if these very heavy lorries were to tail each other, with no gaps, the drivers would be behaving very inconsiderately. I do not think we should legislate too much about things like this; we want to do it by public opinion. In any case, I do not think there is much of this sort of thing. When traffic jams occur, of course, it is inevitable, but in the normal conditions of road driving we do not find this is a great problem.
My Lords. I think I have answered most of the points that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, asked about the interested parties. Obviously, these included industry and the unions and the motoring associations. In the course of this short discussion this morning, we have mentioned all the obvious reasons why this is the case.
On Question, Motion agreed to

SPECIAL ROADS (CLASSES OF TRAFFIC) (SCOTLAND) ORDER 1971
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the second Order be approved.
Moved, That the Special Roads (Classes of Traffic) (Scotland) Order 1971, be approved.—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (COLLECTION OF LEVY) (AMENDMENT No. 2) REGULATIONS 1971
11.55 a.m.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS rose to move, That the Draft Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1971, laid before the House on July 1, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Acts provide for the imposition of a levy on exhibitors of cinematograph films, and for payments from that levy to makers of British films and for some other purposes. Under Section 2 of the 1957 Act, the Department of Trade and Industry is required, after consulting the Cinematograph Films Council, to make regulations prescribing the rate and the method of collection of the levy. The regulations require the prior approval of Parliament by Resolution of each House. In determining the rate of levy, the Statute requires that regard should be paid to the prevailing economic circumstances of cinema exhibitors and of makers of British films, as well as to the prevailing level of films production. It also provides for action to ensure that the yield in a year of 52 weeks does not fall below £2 million, nor exceed £5 million. The rate of levy payable at present—that is, since the last change in the rate which took place in 1968—is one-ninth of that price of a cinema seat which exceeds 7½p, with the exception to which I shall refer in a moment which is the subject of the Resolution now before your Lordships.
All cinemas which show films publicly must pay this levy. The yield of the levy reached about £4·6 million in both 1964–65 and 1965–66. In the following year, the yield was approaching the statutory limit of £5 million, and in July,

645
1968, having regard to the rate at which cinemas were closing and to the high level of activity in the film studios in this country, Parliament approved a change in the levy-free portion of the admission charge, raising this to the present rate of 7½p.
The result was that the yield in the levy period 1968–69, which was the first full period after the change took place, fell to a little over £4 million. In the latest complete period, up to October, 1970, it had increased to £4·2 million, and the yield so far in the present year suggests that unless there are any unforeseen changes by the year's end, the yield will be something under £4·5 million by October 2. I refer to the exemption which is the subject of this Resolution. The regulations provide that if a cinema's weekly takings are below a specified figure, no levy at all is payable. The figure was fixed at £150 in 1957, and it was increased in stages until it reached £400 in 1967. It still is £400.
Representations were made earlier this year by the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association for a reduction in the size of the levy. They asked, first, that the levy-free portion of the price of a cinema seat should be increased from 7½p to 10p; secondly, that the rate of the levy should be reduced from one-ninth to one-tenth of that part of the seat price which exceeds 10p; thirdly, the maximum weekly takings below which the levy would not be payable should be raised from £400 to £450. The Association of Independent Cinemas wanted the maximum weekly takings for exemption purposes raised to £500. As is required by Statute, the Department of Trade and Industry consulted the Cinematograph Films Council, which recommended that, while there was no case for reducing the rate of the levy, cinemas with low takings merited some further assistance, and that the exemption limit should be raised from £400 to £500. The Department accepted that recommendation.
This change of itself is not expected to have any considerable effect on the yield of the levy. As I have already pointed out, the Department of Trade and Industry has a duty to keep a constant watch on the yield, and your Lordships can be assured that this will be maintained. The amount of levy collected, both in absolute terms and in
646
terms of a percentage of total box office takings, as well as the level of production in British studios and the rate at which cinemas are still closing, are all factors which would be taken into account.
It is expected that in the main those who will benefit from the minor change now before the House will be owners of those cinemas which are at present only just able to pay their way. It is certainly not in the interests of producers that cinemas should close and this small change may help some which would otherwise have closed to remain in business. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1971, laid before the House on 1st July, be approved.—(Earl Ferrers.)
12.2 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Earl for explaining the provisions of the Order, and for the very clear way in which he has gone into this particularly detailed and rather complicated matter. He has told the House of the different representations made by the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association and the Association of Independent Cinemas, which varied slightly in detail, but I am very glad that the Government have consulted the Cinematograph Films Council, and have agreed to exempt cinemas with maximum weekly takings of up to £500. This is approved, and, indeed, has been welcomed by the Cinematograph Exhibitors Association, the larger of the associations.
The effect of the Regulations will be that cinemas with up to about £26,000 annual box office receipts will be exempted. As the noble Earl said, this will help many cinemas which have been having difficulties, due not only to rising operating costs, but also to declining audiences, to remain in business. I should therefore like to say that we on this side of the House will welcome this Order.
However, I should like to ask the Government whether they will consider the long-term effects of this policy in the light of the changing industry. I think that the Eady Levy, as it is called, which was started by the Labour Government after the war, has been tremendously

647
successful in ploughing back finance into production. Indeed, it has been one of the main reasons which have encouraged American producers to come here and make films over the last 25 years on a co-production basis. As a result, we have had several hundred very notable British films.
Nevertheless, the industry is changing. Audiences are declining. But the exhibitors, both the big circuits and the independents, are doing a great deal to put their houses in order. One of the things that they are doing is to change to much smaller cinemas. Some of the larger houses are being converted into twin and sometimes triple cinemas. Indeed, I am told that there is one scheme for a chain of cinemas backed by American interests where there will be an audience of only a few hundred. This will have an effect on the levy, because it will mean that the number of cinemas with very small audiences, and in consequence rather small takings, will increase. I hope, therefore, that the Government will go into this matter.
The Labour Government after the war saved the British film industry by the introduction of this levy, which was agreed by all sections of the industry, both producers and exhibitors. They were also responsible for the National Film Finance Corporation. The present Government (I am sorry to say this, and I do not mean it in any way personally to the noble Earl), when in Opposition, showed that they had not done their homework so far as the film industry was concerned. At the beginning of this month the Government announced that they were going to phase out the National Film Finance Corporation, which had been granted £5 million by the last Government under the Films Act. Everything they have done so far, I am afraid, has not given one very much confidence. I therefore hope that they will look into the future of the British film industry, which is a
648
very important industry not only for British prestige, but also for exports, and come back to Parliament in due course with some concrete proposals for the future.
12.5 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the welcome he has given to this Order. I am bound to say that I wondered whether he would manage to pop into his speech at some juncture a little comment about the National Film Finance Corporation: it did not surprise me that he took the opportunity to do so. I assure him that the Government are concerned that the British film industry should prosper. As he rightly said, we are in changing times, and the industry has to change. Indeed, the Government intend to keep an eye on how it is changing. The point about smaller cinemas, to which he referred, is one that is very germane to this particular Order. Incidentally, in these days, when everything seems to have to get bigger and bigger in order to succeed, it is interesting that apparently there is one industry which in some ways finds that it has to get a little smaller to succeed.
With regard to that particular point in the context of the levy, I would reassure him that it is the duty of the Department of Trade and Industry so to set the levy that it brings in between £2 million and £5 million per year. That is what has been happening up to date. If the effect of the increase in the number of small cinemas is to bring a larger number into the category which do not pay a levy, then of course it may be necessary at some future juncture to alter the rate at which the levy will be set. I can assure the noble Lord that we shall keep an eye on that.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at eight minutes after twelve noon.