Lords Sitting of 12 June 1973

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Truro

E.E.C.'s GUIDELINES FOR SOCIAL ACTION
LORD O'HAGAN: 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 whether they endorse Guidelines for a Social Action Programme, recently published by the Commission of the E.E.C.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, the Commission's guidelines were prepared as the basis for general discussion within the Community from which will emerge proposals for a programme of action to be agreed by the end of this year. As guidelines they do not require endorsement. Nevertheless, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment welcomed the general approach contained in the guidelines when they were discussed at the Council of Ministers on May 21. He also suggested a range of subjects which deserved particular consideration for inclusion in the agreed programme.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, since members of the European Parliament are not allowed to probe the details of this document in depth, will the Minister assure the House that he will be prepared to answer detailed questions about it, so that we may assist in the formulation of policy, before the end of the year?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will be aware that the noble Lord's enviable reputation for harassing the Council of Ministers at the European Parliament has preceded him, and that the House will welcome the fact that he has now returned to harass me; but I am afraid I cannot give
526
detailed answers until they have themselves been discussed in Europe.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Earl appreciate that that answer is quite unsatisfactory as regards a national Parliament? Would he not agree that the European Parliament have no power whatsoever in fact, and it seems that there is no opportunity for penetrating questions to be put to the Council of Ministers? Will the noble Earl undertake to see that time is provided for this House to discuss this important Paper. when perhaps the noble Earl will be in a position to answer the debate?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I will do anything the noble Lord would like me to in order to provide time for a discussion through the usual channels, but I think that is a somewhat wider point than the original Question.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, as those Members of your Lordships' House who were appointed to go to the European Parliament have experienced formidable difficulties, is it not now time they came to your Lordships' House and told us all about them, so that we may seek some kind of remedy on their behalf?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I must repeat what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd: that many of my noble friends in the Parliament have been present in the last few days, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, will be delighted to talk to the noble Lord at any time he would choose.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that the European Parliament would be considerably stronger if the Opposition Party played their role in it?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl would explain to his noble friend how the European Parliament works and how ineffectual are all the Members of that Parliament. Would the noble Earl understand that Parliament looks to the national Government for advice and guidance on legislation which may come through as a consequence of these proposals?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I am anxious to be helpful, but I would point out to the noble Lord that we are going to debate these subjects in detail on the 27th of this month.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that in the other place it has now been reported by the appropriate Minister that Members of your Lordships' House and Members of another place are to receive further emoluments, together with secretarial and ancillary devices in order to maintain their positions? May we understand from that announcement that we are to have a similar announcement in your Lordships' House, so that we shall have an opportunity of expressing an opinion?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I am sorry, my Lords, but I thought it would be self-evident that if changes were made, they would be announced in your Lordships' House.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, may I finally ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that almost all the Members of the European Parliament would welcome the arrival of the Labour Party from this country to help improve the composition and status of the European Parliament? May I also ask him whether, in the interim, he would give an undertaking that this House and the other place will be able to probe in detail Green Papers of the sort that we are now discussing?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, if it will help the noble Lord and other Members of your Lordships' House, I will certainly see whether these Guidelines can be made available in the Printed Paper Office.

GLASGOW—OBAN RAIL SERVICE
2.42 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDONALD: 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 whether there is any intention to restrict the existing direct passenger rail service between Glasgow and Oban, bearing in mind, in particular, the developing tourist industry in the Oban area and the Outer Islands.
LORD MOW/BRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, there are no current proposals to restrict the existing direct passenger
528
rail service between Glasgow and Oban. The Government are well aware of the importance of Oban to the tourist industry both on the mainland and the Islands.
THE EARL OF DUNDONALD: My Lords., I should like to thank the noble Lord for that very clear-cut Answer which will put heart into that part of Scotland. May I draw his attention to Occasional Bulletin No. 4 on transport issued by the Highlands and Islands Development Board, and ask whether the wording I am about to quote conflicts in some way with his Answer? Paragrap h 20 says:
" We support the idea that the Oban line should be operated as a branch of the Glasgow/Mallaig railway—without signalling, with minimal track and terminal costs, and with through carriages detached and attached at Crianlarich. In winter the line could perhaps operate on a connecting basis without through carriages."
Would the Minister agree that that paragraph conflicts somewhat with the Answer that he has given?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the answer I must give my noble friend is quite simple. The document that the Highlands and Islands Development Board have issued is very interesting and useful. It is submitted purely as a basis for discussion for the Secretary of State for Scotland. My right honourable friend will be discussing these matters later.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, arising out of the noble Lord's reply, if the Government appreciate the importance of the West Coast of Scotland, can we have an assurance that they equally appreciate the importance of the East Coast, and that there will be no interference at all with the East Coast line up to Dingwall and Wick?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, being personally affected by the East Coast line, I can assure my noble friend that I will certainly take a deep interest in it.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that there is no significance to be attached to the use of the word "current" in his first Answer?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, there is obviously a significance because we have guaranteed everything up to January 1, 1974. After that we will be looking afresh in the terms of the rail policy review.

ROAD TRAFFIC CONGESTION
LORD MOYNE: 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 whether, for the reduction of traffic congestion, they will not tax motor vehicles according to the square feet of road space they occupy; whether they will not remove V.A.T. from taxicabs and whether they will not allow taxi-cabs (as in Paris) to use the new reverse bus channel in Piccadilly.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOUR-TON: My Lords, the answer to the first two parts of the Question is, "No". Whether taxis should be allowed to use the Piccadilly reverse bus channel is a matter for the Greater London Council.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his reply may 1 ask him whether he would be inclined to qualify his complete negative? Does he consider it equitable that a Mini should pay less for its few square feet than a Cadillac for its broad acreage? On the question of the reverse bus channel, will Her Majesty's Government tender advice to local authorities who are primarily concerned, with a view to allowing taxi drivers—who are anxious to use this channel—to do so without being allowed to set down passengers and so block the buses?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOUR-TON: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point about larger cars and smaller cars. As the noble Lord will be aware, the motor vehicle taxation system operated differently and it was changed many years ago at the request of the motor industry. It is self-evident that large cars pay much more in taxation inasmuch as they use more fuel. Regarding the question of taxi-cabs using reverse bus lanes, this is not practicable because when buses stopped the taxis would be held up. But,
530
more important, when taxis stop to set down and pick up the buses would be delayed, thereby defeating the object of the exercise.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, I hesitate to speak again but part of my supplementary question was as to whether taxis could be prevented from setting down if they were allowed to use the channel.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOUR-TON: My Lords, if taxis were prevented from setting down I do not think this facility would help them very much.

CITY OFFICE BLOCKS
2.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: 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 whether further steps are being considered to encourage developers to let new office blocks in the City centres.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STA 1E, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (BARONESS YOUNG): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is not aware that developers in general need any encouragement to let new office blocks in the City centre. As your Lordships know, a few large office buildings outside the City have remained unoccupied for a considerable time and my right honourable friend expects shortly to announce measures which should encourage the letting of these buildings.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is she aware that many people concerned in property development deplore the present unhealthy practice of a minority which casts a slur on property development generally? Can my noble friend say what general proposals the Government may have in mind regarding this matter?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I am quite sure that my noble friend Lord Kinnoull has expressed a point of view shared by a great many members of the public; that is, the growing concern about

531
unoccupied office blocks. My right honourable friend has today issued a White Paper on housing, a statement which indicates that local authorities will be given powers to charge up to a 100 per cent. rating on empty properties.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, why have the Government tolerated for so many years the insistence of some of these developers upon letting these blocks as a whole? Could not steps be taken to allow for partial letting of the blocks to relieve the present congestion in office accommodation?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, my understanding is that they have no powers to insist on office blocks being let either to one tenant or to several tenants.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given Private Notice, the Question being:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement following the decision in the House of Lords yesterday on illegal immigrants.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Colville of Cuirass will answer this Question at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS: PRINTERS' DISPUTE
2.51 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, with leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement about Parliamentary Papers. I regret to inform the House that, owing to a dispute in the Parliamentary Press, it has not been possible to produce the OFFICIAL REPORT Of yesterday's proceedings in its normal form today. The dispute is over a pay claim by Linotype operators. Her Majesty's Stationery Office are continuing urgent negotiations with the union concerned to seek a solution to the dispute. In the meantime, arrangements have been made to limit the inconvenience to the House so far as possible.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I understand that this has nothing to do with the events of last Friday which involved Hansard Reporters, and, in accordance with our usual custom on difficult industrial negotiations. I should prefer not to ask the noble Lord any questions, beyond asking him to keep us in the picture. As I understand it. Hansard will not have been printed and therefore there is no possibility of having photo-copies of the printing, even though not bound. But will the noble Lord be making available copies of the typescript for those who may wish to consult them? I hope that he will continue to keep the House informed on future events.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, as the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition says, this dispute is quite separate from the matter concerning the Hansard Reporters, the staff of this House, which was the subject of a Statement by the Government Chief Whip on Friday. I will certainly keep the House informed on the progress of both these matters. I can confirm that although printed copies of yesterday's proceedings are not available today, there will be a number of copies of the Reporters' typescript available in the Printed Paper Office.

USE OF WELSH IN COURTS IN WALES
2.53 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, with the permission of the House I wish to make a Statement on the Welsh Language Act 1967. The effect of this Act is that in any legal proceeding in Wales or Monmouthshire either Welsh or English may be spoken by any party, witness or other person who desires to use it, subject, in the case of the use of Welsh in any court other than a magistrates' court, to such prior notice as may be prescribed, and that any necessary provision for interpretation shall be made accordingly.
About a year ago, in a speech I made to the summer meeting of the Magistrates' Association at Bangor, in North Wales, I announced that, with the agreement of my colleagues, I had invited Lord Justice Edmund Davies to spend some of his

533
time making a personal study of the working of the Act in actual practice in the Principality and to make suggestions as to how this might be improved. This study was concluded in March and was of an informal nature not intended for publication. I have, however, asked Lord Justice Edmund Davies, to whom I should like to express my deep sense of personal indebtedness, to prepare a short summary of recommendations which I will arrange, with the permission of the House, to be circulated with the OFFICIAL REPORT. In the light of any possible difficulties, pending the publication of that Report, I will arrange for copies of the summary to be available in the Library; or, if any noble Lord wishes to apply to me, I will try to see that he gets a copy of those recommendations in advance of the OFFICIAL REPORT.
In Welsh-speaking areas of Wales, it is not at all uncommon for summary trials to be held entirely in Welsh where all concerned so desire it, and this will continue to be the case. In the predominantly English-speaking areas, where it may not always be possible to provide Welsh-speaking justices and clerks, it will still be necessary to rely on the ordinary machinery for interpretation. Nothing, of course, can take away from parties, witnesses, or other persons entitled to participate, the right to use the English language if they prefer to do so.
Lord Justice Edmund Davies's main recommendation affects proceedings in the Crown Court. This recommendation, which the Government accept, is that, where the parties so desire it and it is practicable to do so, the hearing of proceedings in Welsh should be further facilitated before the Crown Court. In order to preserve the principle of equal validity between the two languages and the equally important principle of the random selection of jurors, the only practicable way of achieving this, is, as Lord Justice Edmund Davies suggests, the provision of facilities for simultaneous translation. I am accordingly arranging for the necessary equipment to be installed in a number of selected Crown Court centres. Steps have been taken to recruit and train interpreters with the necessary skill, and experiments in the use of these facilities have been sufficiently successful to justify the installation of permanent
534
equipment. I believe that nothing like this has been attempted in legal proceedings in the United Kingdom before, and I sincerely hope that all concerned will co-operate in making this interesting new experiment a success. When these centres are working, it will be possible for either language to be used at will without interrupting the smooth flow of proceedings.
Obviously, so far as I am concerned, it is the quality of the justice administered in our Courts which must be my first consideration. But it has always been my intention to give full effect to the principle of equal validity as enshrined in the Welsh Language Act, both in spirit and in letter, and I hope that the present decision, which is in accordance with Lord Justice Edmund Davies's recommendations, will give satisfaction to those who, consistently with the administration of justice, wish to see a greater use made of Welsh in Courts of Law. My Lords, that is my Statement.
Following is the summary of Lord Justice Davies's recommendations, referred to in the Statement:
1. Welshmen who find themselves involved in Wales in criminal proceedings should be entitled to have those proceedings conducted in the language best calculated to lead to a result which is just to all concerned.
2. The Welsh Language Act 1967 recognised that the conception of a "just result" is not confined in the linguistic sense to the simple consideration of whether the accused Welshman is able to comprehend everything said in Court. It confers upon all who speak Welsh the right to use it without let or hindrance in legal proceedings, however complete their facility in English. But it confers upon no-one the right to dictate to other people the language those others are to use in Court; and, indeed, any statutory provision which conferred dictatorial powers of this kind would itself constitute an abnegation of the very right which fervent supporters of Welsh regard as basic to their own cause.
3. I understand the aspiration of people who would have criminal trials in Wales involving Welshmen conducted in Welsh, with the minimum of translation into and from English, and I support the attitude of those who say that what is needed is for the emphasis to be laid on the possibility of a purely Welsh trial (where that is asked for by the accused), rather than on its impracticability.
4.But I must forthwith enter a caveat. Though the "equal validity "principle was adopted by the Hughes-Parry Committee" so that justice would be seen to be done to the Welsh speaker", no-one must ever be entitled to say that Welsh justice is second-rate justice.
Whatever be the language (or languages) employed in the Courts in Wales, justice must be both seen and heard to be done. To that consideration all other factors are subordinate, and their cogency must depend on whether they am be reconciled with it. It is upon that basic premise that I approached my task.
5. Jury Trials. My enquiries confirmed my initial impression that trial by jury would probably prove to be the touchstone of the practicability of conducting in untranslated Welsh the sort of trials which have hitherto sparked off trouble in Wales. I therefore devoted a substantial part of the report to considering it. The Lord Chancellor has been criticised for intimating to Plaid Cymru that "it would be unsafe for a Judge to take the risk that all the jurymen did not need translation from Welsh unless our law and procedure for the selection and challenge of jurymen were radically altered". For my part, I have been principally concerned to enquire whether useful alterations in our law and procedure to that end are or could become available. The conclusion I have been forced to is (a) that no satisfactory means has been suggested and (b) that it would be of doubtful constitutional propriety to resort to it even if it had been.
As to (a), while various suggestions were advanced for amending the law and practice so as to ensure the empanelling of a jury every member of which is capable of following a trial conducted in untranslated Welsh, I am wholly unconvinced that this result is attainable in any of the ways suggested. Indeed, not the least disturbing feature is the strong conflict between various supporters as to the best means of achieving this end. An illustration of the inherent difficulty is afforded by a trial conducted last year before a jury, each member of which expressed preference for taking the oath in Welsh. During the hearing, the Welsh evidence was translated into English. It was later learnt that, while all the jurors said that they understood Welsh, eight of their number considered that such translation had been necessary, four that it had not. One juror who had even passed the School Certificate with oral proficiency in Welsh said that his understanding of the evidence given in Welsh was improved by its translation into English, as those participating had spoken Welsh of such a high standard.
As to (b), while jury service is often regarded merely as a duty, it is in fact one of the important privileges of citizenship. To take steps to ensure that 75 per cent. of the population of the Principality should be debarred from jury service in a particular case on the sole ground that they cannot understand Welsh would involve a radical departure from that random formation of the jury panel which Blackstone described as a "palladium" of our liberties.
I have therefore arrived at the firm conclusion that a jury capable of comprehending every part of a trial conducted throughout solely in Welsh is doubtful of being ensured and, further, that it ought not to be aimed at. It may happen that under the existing procedure a Welsh accused finds himself being tried by
536
such a jury. But as this is unpredictable, I recommend that there should be made available to every juror in a Welsh trial an individual simultaneous translation apparatus, the Judge taking pains to explain to all that it is there for them to switch on (and off) if and when they find it necessary.
6. Judges. The supply of Judges and Recorders who speak and understand Welsh is, and is likely to be, equal to the demand in both criminal and civil proceedings. Undoubtedly, the capacity of some of their number to preside over Welsh trials can and should be improved by attendance at the special courses recently arranged by the University College of Aberystwyth. Nevertheless, it would be impossible to ensure that every Judge called upon to preside over Welsh trials understands and speaks Welsh. A simultaneous translation apparatus should therefore be available to them, as to the jurors and all others participating in the trial.
7. Prosecutions. All other things being equal I recommend that prosecuting authorities be encouraged to present their cases in Welsh, where this course is sought by the accused. But this may not be reasonably practicable in cases of a specialised or complicated character (e.g. Inland Revenue prosecutions), and these should be conducted in a place where simultaneous translation instruments have been installed.
8. "Guilty" pleas and appeals. In the past these have frequently been conducted in Welsh throughout, and in such cases translation into English will seemingly continue to be unnecessary.
9. Public and Press. Some strongly deny that members of the public and Press present at a trial who do not understand Welsh have any right to be kept informed by translation of what is being said in that language. But, whatever criticism has been levelled against Welsh trials even in the recent past, the methods of simultaneous translation now available have transformed the situation, and suitable apparatus should be made available to both public and Press. It is to be noted that the Welsh Language Society favour the provision of such equipment to members of the public, and said in their 1972 Manifesto, "We cannot for one moment accept that their convenience is an obstacle to the right of a Welsh-speaker to be tried in his own language".
10. Magistrates. There appears to be no reason why some summary trials in the Magistrates' Courts should not continue to be held entirely in Welsh and without translation, provided proper steps are taken to secure the presence of a Bench and a Clerk who understand the language and are fully capable of following the proceedings.
11. Staffing. The staffing of Courts with Clerks competent in Welsh presents greater problems than the assembling of a Bench of Welsh Magistrates, and this matter deserves immediate attention.
12. Interpretation. The importance of this topic cannot be exaggerated, for even the most fervent supporters of all-Welsh trials recognise that in most cases a measure of interpretation is unavoidable. The necessity for

537
high standards of efficiency is increased by the installation of the simultaneous translation apparatus which I regard as essential if Welsh trials are to be held in the higher Courts. Special training is necessary and encouraging results are reported from experimental courses for Court interpreters conducted at Aberystwyth. Appointments to such posts should be made financially attractive, for the work calls for a high degree of skill.
13. Civil proceedings. There appear to be sufficient Welsh-speaking Circuit Judges to deal with such civil work as is likely to be disposed of in Welsh. While I favour a wholly flexible approach to the question of the primary language of the trial, I recommend acceptance of the following guide-lines:

(a) Every party and witness must be free to give evidence in whichever language he chooses.

(b) In some cases and places the primary language of the trial ought, as a matter of fairness and convenience, to be Welsh, while in other cases and places it ought to be in English.

(c) Considerations of time and expense cannot be ignored in determining the primary language of trial.

(d) The primary language of the trial should be determined beforehand, so that any necessary arrangements can be made in good time.

(e) In order to allow for the possibility of an appeal, pleadings and all other Court documents should continue to be in English.

2.56 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will wish to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his Statement. It seems to me to be an excellent one, embodying as it does an innovation which will remove one of the dissatisfactions felt by Welsh-speaking Welshmen about the administration of justice in Wales. In addition, on the practical side this will shorten Crown Court proceedings as against the time taken by translations made in the usual way in some of the courts in Wales. This decision I am sure will be widely welcomed by the people of the Principality. I happily join with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his expression of thanks to Lord Justice Edmund Davies for the consideration that he gave to this matter, and I certainly thank the Lord Chancellor for taking the necessary steps to have the information circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT—when we have an OFFICIAL REPORT—and giving us the advantage in the meantime of seeing this Report and recommendations in the Library.
538
The decision to start in selected Crown Court centres leads me to ask: Is it too early to give the House some indication of where these centres will be? Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has already made up his mind on this point, or is in process of making up his mind. May I further ask this? If this proves a success in the Crown Courts, will consideration be given to something similar in magistrates' courts where the practice in simultaneous translation has not obtained—indeed we have lengthy proceedings there, certainly in some of our courts. In order to "jump the gun", possibly, on the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, I will thank the noble and learned Lord in one of my very few Welsh phrases, Diolch yr fawr.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I rise merely to express our thanks to Lord Justice Edmund Davies for the way he has tackled this matter, and to say that I think it is an eminently sensible and modern solution.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I just thank both noble Lords for the way this Statement has been received. I am thinking at the moment of Mold, Carmarthen and Cardiff. There was an experimental trial on May 16 at Cardiff, and I am told that from many points of view it was a complete success; at any rate, it was an encouraging trial. It was a genuine trial and the judge, who is bilingual, summed up in Welsh and the simultaneous translation was in English. There are considerable difficulties about this method. What does the Court of Appeal do, for instance, if the two translations do not coincide? It is not as easy as it sounds. At any rate a certain amount of good will come of it and I hope we shall manage to get along. I take the point that was raised by the noble Lord with regard to magistrates' courts, but, strictly speaking, they are not my responsibility; they are the responsibility of the Home Secretary. But there is not quite the same need in magistrates' courts because in Welsh-speaking areas at the moment there are many trials purely in Welsh, if people so desire it (as I said in the Statement), with a translation for anyone who has not enough Welsh to follow the proceedings. Of course I will take it into account and will report it to my right honourable friend.

539
It is no small matter to introduce all this. Special interpreters have to be trained with the facility of simultaneous translation and it is no ordinary linguist who can do this. It requires not only a good knowledge of the language but facility and speed in translation. It is no use just being good at the other language: you have to translate legal terms straight into actual legal terms in the other language. A mere facility of speech will not do. I think we must see how we get along, and then if people have various improvements to suggest we will attempt to improve on our performance.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, may I add my thanks to my noble friend and my warmest congratulations, llongyfarchiadali cynhesaf.
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, whether the people who act as interpreters are remunerated for their labours?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, my Lords. They are paid a retaining fee and so much a day for their work.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord bear in mind the experiences in the Republic of Ireland in this connection? And shall we soon be having courts in Urdu in Leicester?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the law is that in the Principality the two languages of English and Welsh are of equal validity. My object is to administer the law and to carry it out myself, so far as in me lies. It is a fundamental human right, which has nothing whatever to do with the Welsh language, that if anybody does not sufficiently understand the proceedings in which he is engaged in any English court of law it is our business to find an interpreter, if we can, because it is a fundamental rule of natural justice that people should not have proceedings affecting them going on which they do not understand. Of course there will be all kinds of translations, not only in Leicester but in every town in England where they are required. I must add that there always have been.

LAND COMPENSATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.4 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Polwarth, I beg to introduce a Bill to re-enact in the form in which they apply to Scotland the provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973; and I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read la.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

SOCIAL SECURITY BILL
3.5 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Outline of basic scheme contributory system]:
LORD REIGATE LORD REIGATE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 5, leave out ("18") and insert ("17").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if with Amendment No. 1 we discuss also Amendment No. 2 and Amendments Nos. 47, 48 and 49 to Clause 44, since all five Amendments are part and parcel of the same proposal. This is a simple Amendment and I shall not detain your Lordships for long. It is to remove from this Bill the present obligation on the National Insurance Fund to contribute to the National Health Service. I apologise to my noble friend the Minister because I am quite certain that my drafting is imperfect. I do not want to burden the Committee for too long with the arguments that I put forward on Second Reading, which were much reinforced by the

541
speech of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who was of the same opinion.
Briefly, we have at present a complicated system of cross-accounting by which the Exchequer adds 18 per cent. to the contributions into the National Insurance Fund, and then the National Insurance Fund pays to the National Health Service what is called in Clause 44 the "appropriate National Health Service allocation". The National Health Service is of course almost wholly Exchequer financed. This is a rather complicated piece of Whitehall accounting which I earlier described as "robbing Peter to pay Paul" in order to pay Peter back again and speaking on Second Reading I said. as a lighthearted joke, that I was afraid that if the proposal were accepted I might be doing somebody out of a job. This is apparently true because I notice that Clause 4 provides for deducting the cost of this manoeuvre. I do not know whether my noble friend will be in a position to say what has been in the last few years the amount deducted. So. "many a true word is spoken in jest'', and if this proposal finds favour in the eyes of the Government I am afraid someone will be out of work.
This Amendment provides for the supplement from the Exchequer contribution to be 17 per cent. instead of 18 per cent. Here I must say this is only a cockshy because I do not think it is possible for someone from the Back Benches to be in a position to put forward an authoritative figure, and I shall be grateful if my noble friend can give me some idea of what it should be. I plead with the Government that in this day and age they should correct what really has been a rather outmoded piece of bookkeeping, and I shall be more than satisfied if my noble friend says that he will look at this again to see whether he can do something better by Report stage. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
LORD ABERDARE: I am grateful to my noble friend for having explained his point so lucidly and logically, as indeed he did on Second Reading. Quite simply, his point is that the National Health Service should be wholly financed by the Exchequer charges and this would correspondingly reduce the contribution of the Exchequer to the National Insurance Fund. Of course, to do this would be an act of administrative tidiness—just the
542
sort of thing that we are so often wrongly accused of doing. In this case we are being asked to tidy up an administrative situation which my noble friend thinks is anomalous, although in fact to do so would not have any effect on the total contributions made by insured persons, nor on the total Exchequer payments. As a good Tory I wonder why we should change an established practice when to do so does not, on the face of it, seem to have any advantage for anyone. In fact we believe the reverse. We believe that there are advantages in the present arrangement. It may seem to my noble friend somewhat of a ritual dance but we see some merit in the ritual itself.
Since the original recommendation in the Beveridge Report, successive Governments have followed the principle that persons insured under the wider schemes of National Insurance should also make some contribution to the National Health Service. Although the stamped card is to disappear, I think that contributors and employers will still be aware that they are, within their contributions, making a contribution to the National Health Service from earnings. This is a contribution quite separate from the amounts paid indirectly through the general tax system. If the National Health Service contribution were to disappear we should lose this well-accepted and, indeed, substantial source of revenue from the Health Service, because under the new scheme it will be worth some-think like £300 million a year and because it is tied to earnings automatically it would increase as earnings increase. We think it is still reasonable that people should contribute to the National Health Service with their National Insurance contributions.
So far as the amount of money is concerned, the 1 per cent. which my noble friend is suggesting should be the reduction is worth about £33 million so that if the reduction were entirely to counterbalance the £300 million held back from the National Health Service, then the Treasury supplement would have to go down from 18 per cent. to 8½ per cent. That may well be what my noble friend would think was a very good thing, but a reduction of this order in the level of State support for the National Insurance Fund seems to me —and it may well seem to many of your

543
Lordships—rather drastic. The total level of State support for the Welfare State as a whole would not be diminished by my noble friend's Amendments, but it is not altogether how the matter really stands but how it appears on the surface. We have always had support for National Insurance from employers, contributors and the State; and the amount of State support, though it has varied over the years, has in recent years been stabilised at about 18 per cent., which is the level we should like to keep. That is not a sacrosanct figure, but we think that it is about right, and to reduce it drastically would arouse suspicion that the State was not playing its full part in social security.
In summary, my arguments against my noble friend's proposals are that the system we have is one which the people have got used to and one they regard as fair. It could be that if we were starting completely afresh we might not choose this particular system, but as we go through the Bill I think it will become obvious to your Lordships that in social security it is very difficult to start afresh. I commend to your Lordships the well-tested means of financing our schemes that we have at the moment and that we should like to continue. I hope that my noble friend will not persist in his Amendment.
LORD REIGATE: I cannot pretend that I am not disappointed with my noble friend. I see that it will take a year or two more before I shall persuade him of the rightness of the cause that I have advocated. It is, frankly, a piece of administrative nonsense and I do not think that his case was a very convincing one. I think he is—dare I say it?—out of touch if he thinks that the average contributor to this scheme really in his heart of hearts realises that a proportion of his National Insurance contribution is going to the National Health Service, let alone how much is going to the National Health Service, I know what it is. It takes a long time to move bureaucracy. I am sorry that my noble friend has been enlisted in the ranks of the bureaucrats, and I hope that he will learn in due time that mine is the wiser course. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE THE EARL OF GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 40, leave out from ("liable") to end of line and insert (' to pay Class 1 or Class 2 contributions").
The noble Earl said: With the leave of the Committee may I take Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 together? These Amendments are to clarify the drafting of Clause 1(10) by removing a slight overlap between the provisions relating to liability for contributions and those relating to entitlement to pay contributions. At the moment the prescribed conditions as to residence or presence in Great Britain, that is to say, Clause 1(10)(a), refer to both liability and entitlement. Our legal advice is that this inhibits any separate provision conferring entitlement to pay, for a less stringent condition as to residence or presence is satisfied under Clause 1(10)(b) by restricting the new Clause 1(10)(a) to liability the Amendments avoid this technical defect. I beg to move.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I wish merely to ask the noble Earl whether he could put this into slightly simpler English. Is he saying that everyone is liable but that some are not entitled to benefits? I am not quite clear. I take it that this is a legal definition; but, even so, it needs a little more clarification. What is the difference?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: Possibly sometimes we all have difficulties over legal definitions, but I shall do my best to clear this one up for the noble Baroness. Perhaps it would help if I gave a case in point. Restricting the new clause under discussion to liability will enable suitable provision to be made in particular for a case where an overseas employer, with no place of residence in Great Britain, nevertheless has one or more employees here. It is the intention that such an employer should not be made liable for contributions under Clause 1(10)(a) since, for one thing, there would be no practical means of enforcing such liability. It is to get over such difficult cases that the Amendment has been drawn. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I have already spoken to Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 45 and insert—
("(b) be entitled to pay Class 3 contributions, unless he fulfils such conditions; or
(c) be entitled to pay Class 1 or Class 2 contributions other than those which he is liable to pay, except so far as he is permitted by regulations to pay them.")—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Class 1 contributions]:
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: These are the drafting Amendments which are designed to clarify the references to "year" throughout the Bill. Amendment No. 136 is the other Amendment referred to. I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 4, leave out ("a context") and insert ("otherwise stated, or the context is one').—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
LORD SHEPHERD: Could the noble Earl be a little more forthcoming? I was seeking to understand what he was saying in relation to the Amendment but I must say that I am slightly bewildered. Could the noble Earl be more forthcoming?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I shall do my best. The advice I have is that we need to clarify the references to the term "year" throughout the Bill and that Amendments No. 5 and also No. 136, which I am moving together, are designed to make such clarification.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved Amend-men No. 6.
Page 4, line 8, leave out from ("emloyments") to end of line 13 and insert ("and the owner earnings limit shall be £8.")
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment is a simple one; it refers to Clause 2 and contributions. As we were told at Second Reading, and indeed as we have been told throughout the whole of the passage of the Bill in another place, this is the Bill dealing with earnings-related contributions and I think that all of your Lordships will recognise, as I do, that this is a good move forward. This
546
will indeed make it possible for better benefits to be paid, particularly in relation to pensions. I would respectfully suggest that earnings-related contributions do not need to have a ceiling, nor indeed do I think they should have a ceiling. It is obvious that there must be a minimum —" the floor ",I believe is the official jargon word—and, those earning less than £8 a week obviously would not come into this scheme, but I cannot see the fairness or the logical argument for having a ceiling. If you earn more, it seems to me reasonable that you should pay more into a scheme of this kind. If we do have a ceiling we then enable even higher paid workers to pay their fair share.
When this issue was discussed in another place the Minister said about these figures—namely, the £8 and the £48, the floor and ceiling:
"I am not concerned with the level of benefit or contributions because this will not come into force until April, 1975."
We appreciate that. He went on to say:
"Therefore, the figures in the Bill cannot be more than illustrative".
I would say that if they are only figures for the sake of putting them in the Bill, I am wondering why they should be in at all; why not percentages?
I appreciate that the Bill makes the contribution of the employer higher than that of the employees; the employer pays 7·5 per cent. and the employee 5·25 per cent. If there is no ceiling, those with higher salaries, as I see it, will be making in proportion a smaller contribution. The figure of £48 is, I understand, the existing ceiling under the National Insurance Act 1972 and it is tied to average earnings. We all know that average earnings are something almost impossible to determine. I gather that on television or radio yesterday a plasterer said that he earned something like £200 a week, whereas in court this morning I heard about people earning £17 a week. To determine average earings seems to me wellnigh impossible. That being so, I feel that it is quite unreal to put a ceiling in a Bill of this character. I would ask the Minister to bear in mind the fact that if the Equal Pay Act is going to have any effect at all on the levels of earnings of lower paid women workers, a large number of these women will remain outside the pension scheme and dependent on supplementary benefit. There

547
may be a case for lowering the £8. At any rate, I would ask that, in fairness, the ceiling be removed. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: The reasons for putting figures of this sort in the Bill are that when the Bill finally comes into effect in 1975 there will have to be figures of this nature if there are to be a floor and a ceiling and a band of earnings on which contributions will be paid. The figures that have been taken for the purposes of the Bill are those that would obtain at the present moment; they are, roughly speaking, a quarter of average earnings at the floor, and one and a half times at the ceiling. The effect of the Amendment that the noble Baroness has moved would be to remove the upper earnings limit, making both employees and their employers liable for Class 1 contributions on all their earnings. So far as employees are concerned, I quote from the White Paper Strategy for Pensions, which considered this point:
" If the shift of the cost of basic benefits to the higher earner is not to move too far into the province of taxation, the extent of redistribution in the contribution structure has to be limited, and there will therefore be an upper limit of earnings above which further contributions will not be payable."
Once you do away with the upper limit for employees there is very little distinction between the earnings-related contribution and the normal taxation system.
The noble Baroness referred to the Committee stage in another place, and I think her own Party agreed there that there had to be a ceiling on employees' contributions. The right honourable Member for Blackburn spoke of the crippling level of employees' contributions if there were no ceiling. In fact the figures are quite large. A person with weekly earnings of £48 a week would at the present moment be paying £3·24 basic and reserve scheme contributions. That would be the ceiling. If you took away the ceiling, a person earning £100 a week would be paying £6·75, and on £200 a week £13·50. These would be very hefty increases if there were no ceiling so far as employees were concerned. As to the ceiling on the contributions made by employers, the result of not having a ceiling would be to increase the burden on employers by about £140 million a year, and this would be over and above the extra
548
burden which they are already going to bear under the Bill of £275 million a year; in other words, another half again. This would certainly have an inflationary effect on prices. Moreover, it could be argued that the absence of an upper limit on the employers' Class 1 contributions could act as a disincentive for employers to pay high wages.
We therefore proposed in the White Paper, and it is reflected in the Bill, that both employers and employees should pay contributions over the same earnings range, but we made the split between them deliberately, so that a greater burden should fall on the employer. As the noble Baroness said. that split is 7·5 per cent. from the employer and 5·25 per cent. from the employee. That places a greater proportion of the contribution on the employer than was proposed in the pension scheme of the noble Baroness's Government. It seems to us that we have arrived at a reasonable band of earnings on which to base the contributions, and that to do away with the ceiling would impose too great a burden both on employers and employees. Those are the reasons why I should not like to accept the noble Baroness's Amendment.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I think the noble Lord will notice that I tried to be kind and not, like the Commons. place the burden on one side. I said it should be on both, if you are going to deal with a scheme of this kind. I must say to the noble Lord that quoting millions is never very impressive to me; I think it has to be broken down to the cost to the individual. I still feel that there is something unfair in somebody on a very high salary not making a higher contribution, because, as I understand it, he is going to draw out under an earnings-related benefit scheme. I also feel—this is not in my Amendment—that if the figure of £48 is arrived at by one and a half times average earnings. it would have been easier to put in the Bill something to that effect, since undoubtedly it will have to be reviewed by the time this becomes an Act. I will not press the point. 1 beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD ABERDARE: Of course the benefits are flat-rate benefits, not earnings-related.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Yes, that is so in this section.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.30 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 5, line 27, leave out from ("pension") to end of line 31.
The noble Lord said: I have pleasure in moving Amendment No. 7 on behalf of my noble friend, and wish also to speak to Amendment No. 8 because the same principle underlies that. We regard these two Amendments as part of the long continuing battle to obtain for the women of this country an equality with the men. By 1975, we will see the Equal Pay Act coming into operation, and we hope that next Session the Government will fulfil their promise, as a consequence of heavy pressure in your Lordships' House and in another place, to bring forward the Anti-Discrimination Bill.
The purpose of this Amendment is to deal with some of the inequalities that lie within this Bill in relation to women and men. Looking at the Amendment, it may seem strange that to deal with inequality one is in fact imposing a contribution on married women, who in the past have not been required to make contributions. That is true as far as the Amendment is concerned, but in later Amendments, and of course within the existing system, if the married woman were to make contributions she would enjoy very much higher benefits than she receives when she opts out of the pensions scheme. The opting out provisions were in the National Assistance Act 1948, and I understand that they slipped through the House of Commons pretty well on the nod. I think that the House, perhaps because of its exhaustion, was not fully appreciative of what was involved in the proposal.
If one is today making a case that a married woman who, shall we say, earns £25 a week, should now pay by law a contribution of 85p per week—or if she is earning £32 a week a contribution of 91p—one would need to make a very strong case for such an imposition. I think that there is a strong case both on grounds of equity, taking one group with another, and in terms of the social security scheme as a whole.
Let us take the social security scheme. In 1957 we had 4·7 million pensioners; in 1972 that had risen to 7·5 million; by 1980 it will have risen to 9 million. It one takes the ratio between pensioners and working people, in 1948 there were five working people to every old age pensioner; in 1967 it had come down to 3·6, and in 1980 it will be down to 3·2. If we look at married women in about the same period, but perhaps start a little earlier for the dramatic effect, the number of married women at work in 1931 was 500,000; in 1951 it had risen to 2½ million; by 1971 it had risen to 4½ million and I believe that it has evened out at about that figure.
It is quite clear, therefore, that the burden upon the contributors is bound to increase if we are to improve the general standards. If the married women who now opt out of the scheme were required by law to make a contribution, there would be a new income of some £130 million. But I think it is fair to say that this would not be in any way a net gain because these contributors would be able to benefit, particularly from unemployment insurance benefits and sickness benefits; at present they do not. So it is quite likely that their contributions would be absorbed by the new benefits that would be available to them.
I think that there is a clear case for needing new money, but on grounds of equity I would have to say that it is arguably wrong that a woman should be able to opt out of a scheme because she is married whereas if she is a spinster, performing the same work and making the same amount of pay, she would have to make the contributions. Of course, if the woman opts out because she is married and then becomes a widow or is divorced, she immediately, by the existing law, has to make the contributions. One thing is clear: that when this arises, the benefits that she will receive will be a good deal lower because her contribution will have been a good deal less than that of a person who has made the contribution from the beginning.
I think that one of the reasons for the opting out provision was that the flat rate system of contributions would have borne very hardly upon married women who, in the main, were doing part-time

551
work which in some cases, particularly I think during 1948, was regarded largely as a form of pin money. But today women go out because there is a need to do it; also, of course, the rates of pay are beginning to creep up in comparison with men. Certainly it is well to point out that, under this Bill, we shall be moving away from the flat rate scheme into the wage-related scheme, which will mean that anyone on a low rate of pay would have a very low rate of contributions to make. The Equal Pay Act will be in being in 1975, and it is significant that this particular provision will become operative at about the same time. So I do not see that any great problem arises there.
I have already mentioned that the benefits that married women are today being denied are the unemployment and sickness benefits. These are of very great significance where you have a husband and wife working with the object of meeting the household expenses. When the married woman losses her unemployment, or falls ill, the impact upon that home is very severe indeed. I wonder whether many of the women who opt out really appreciate the consequences. Certainly the Government Paper which is meant to be the guideline to the married woman is not exactly explicit or particularly encouraging to women to remain in the scheme. It is blank. It does not seem in any way to encourage women to make the contributions if they can, and so enjoy the higher benefits.
There is another aspect that we think makes this change really necessary. There is for women today a greater risk in terms of being a dependent upon the husband. There is no doubt that the divorce rate is increasing, and if a divorce takes place a woman who has worked and who has opted out can in those circumstances, be in a very difficult position and the aid must come from some form of charity, like the supplementary benefits. So we think that this is a time when we should not only provide equality for women but also give them the responsibility that goes with it. This is not in any way a political move. It is true that it was a proposal in the Crossman White Paper of 1969 but I understand that all the women's organisations support this proposal, in particular the National Women's
552
Council which always speaks with high authority and goes right across the whole political and religious spectrum. So I move this Amendment confident that the women's organisations support the proposal. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lord, in order that the House may hear the Statement on illegal immigrants, I move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
3.42 p.m.
THEMINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, I hereby now repeat the Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, following upon the decision of this House yesterday in the case of Azam and Others v. The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another. The Statement is as follows:
"The House of Lords' decision has confirmed what we believed the law to be and what we intended it to be.
"The provisions which we wrote into the 1971 Immigration Act fulfilled our undertaking to ensure that all those settled here on or before January 1 of this year should have all their existing rights protected; but we did not, and did not mean to, give this protection to those who had come here before that date illegally and who were therefore not settled here as defined in the Act.
"The power of removal under the 1971 Act applies mainly to those immigrants who come, or have come here without authorisation since March 9, 1968. But it also applies to any immigrants who may have entered prior to that date in defiance of a specific refusal.
"I want to set out what our policy will be in using this power.
"The cases of the three men who were the subject of the House of Lords'

553
decision yesterday will now be considered, and any representations made on their behalf before the end of June will be taken into account. The same will apply to the other 33 cases now awaiting decision.
"In deciding these and any future cases we shall look at each one individually on its merits and compassionate grounds will be taken into account. At the same time I must make it clear that where someone is found to be in this country illegally it must be normal practice to send him away. To do otherwise would be unfair to those who have already entered legally or are waiting to do so."
3.45 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement made in another place. I put the Question today because, with my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, I was one of those on this side of the House responsible for dealing with the Immigration Bill when it was before the House in 1971. It would not be appropriate to debate the merits of this whole subject, but my principal reason for raising it today is because, as a person who was active in dealing with this Bill, I cannot accept the statement made by the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary, and repeated in this House, that the Government intended that this should be the normal practice for the persons concerned. If they had intended that, my Lords, it should surely have been made manifest to those of us who were concerned with this legislation. It never was, in either House. We have taken pains to go through the records in the other place and in this House. At one moment we thought there was one phrase used by the late Sir Richard Sharpies which referred to this particular matter, but on further examination even that phrase does not appear to have referred to the persons with whom we are now concerned. Therefore I do not believe that it was the intention of Parliament to pass legislation in the form in which it was passed. It was done by inadvertence.
There may have been such an intention on the part of persons in the relevant Department who were concerned with the extremely complex drafting of
554
that Bill. I cannot believe that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who leads the House, would have concealed from us that this was the intention of the Government. He knows very well indeed that had we realised that that was the intention of the Government we would have put down Amendments to draw the attention of Parliament and the people to that fact. This was never done. I, as a lay person, might very well not have realised what the legal intention was, but had my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, a former Lord Chancellor, who has particularly strong feelings about retro-active legislation, supposed for one moment that that was the intention of the Bill, he would, I am certain, have drawn the attention of your Lordships' House to the fact. Because I regard it as a matter of honour, I believe that we are all offenders in this. I believe that we have put the liberty, the family life, the happiness of fellow human beings at risk because we were not aware of what we were doing. A law was passed that we did not believe would have such an effect.
This seems to me to be a moral issue in which we all, in both Houses of Parliament, are collectively at fault. This was never discussed; it was never debated; it was never understood that this was the intention of the Government or of the legislation before us. Therefore, my Lords, it appears to me that we have a very particular moral obligation towards the people concerned. These people believed, and we believed, that if they had been in this country for a certain period of time before the passing of the Act of 1971 they would be immune from deportation, and a number of them actually went to the police to confirm that this was their position. They are now all at risk, and for the Government to say in their Statement that they would consider each case on its merits is surely socially a completely unacceptable situation, because every one of these persons is now in fear and terror. Every one of them is now subject to possible blackmail; some of them are in fact being subjected to acts of blackmail at the present time.
The number concerned is not great—there is no precise estimate from the nature of the matter. As the noble Viscount has indicated, it concerns almost exclusively those who came in

555
after 1968 and before the passing of the 1971 Act; so the period concerned is a very short one. I am not referring to those who were actually refused permission to enter; they are in another category. Therefore the numbers concerned are not large, and I would implore the Government, in the circumstances which I have described, to say that they will not, unless some other offence has been proved, deport persons in the category concerned.
3.49 p.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Viscount for repeating this Statement. It is a very disturbing one, and I am particularly concerned because it so happens that it was I who moved the first Amendment in your Lordships' House, the purpose of which was to write into the Bill the assurance which we believed had been given by Her Majesty's Government. That Amendment was carried by your Lordships, and later, in a slightly amended form, it remained in the Bill. Obviously there is going to be argument as to what precisely is meant by this word "settle", but my own impressions are definitely the same as those that have just been stated by the noble Baroness, Lady White. Over and above that, I think one has to remember that during the period immediately after the introduction of the 1971 Bill there was a great increase in the feeling of insecurity, which was bad for community relations. When that Amendment was carried and later put into the Bill, I went out of my way to assure members of different communities in this country that it protected those who had settled prior to the coming into effect of the Act. While I appreciate the assurances which were given at the conclusion of the Statement, I am worried because I feel that the value of Government assurances is being depreciated—perhaps not intentionally, but that is the effect. I hope, therefore, that the plea of the noble Baroness, Lady White, will be listened to very carefully.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady White, is right in saying that this matter was not expressly discussed or divulged in the course of the passage of the Bill through either House,
556
and it would be disingenuous to suppose that one could construe anything of the sort which she suggested as showing that, under the Bill, the law was plainly what this House in its judicial capacity has now decided that it is. The fact remains that she is right in describing this as retroactive, rather than retrospective. I think there is a difference, because if it affects people who were here illegally, then they were here illegally and one cannot get away from that. They were here illegally as the law was at the time when they came in, and they must have known it.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, with great respect, I am sure the noble Viscount will agree that if they had been here long enough they were subject to an immunity which they have now lost. It is the immunity that we did not realise they were ever going to lose.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, it is a question of the period of time during which a summary offence can be prosecuted in a magistrates' court. But there it is. Their entry was illegal at the time when they came in. If I may say so, the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Wade, have addressed a plea which it is not really for me to answer. What I shall do—and I have been discussing this matter with my right honourable friend for quite a long time today—is to see that he is at once told what has been said by the noble Baroness and by the noble Lord. I know that the noble Baroness is right in terms of not being able to put any specific number on the people concerned. She is also right—and so is the noble Lord, Lord Wade in saying that, the law being what it is, we shall, nevertheless, deal with individual cases on merit, on compassion—and, if necessary, I can spell out the sort of grounds that come within "compassion". But the point of principle which they have put is one which I think I can only convey to my right honourable friend in the way they have put it because, after all, the law has now been declared to be what it is and that is the situation as it stands today. I do not think I can do any more this afternoon than give that promise to those who have made those comments.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, when the noble Viscount discusses this matter

557
further with his right honourable friend, will he bear two factors in mind? First of all, the law was not clear, because it had to be brought to the House of Lords for a final judgment, although it may have been clear to the Government. Secondly, I now come to the words in the Statement, which said that the law is what the Government intended it to be. Right through the Committee and Report stages, in which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, the Leader of the House, and, I think, the noble Viscount took part—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: No, my Lords. Actually, I did not.
LORD SHEPHERD: —there was undoubted concern about the position of those who may have entered this country illegally. If the Government had intended the law to be what the House of Lords has now said it to be, then I think that the Government had a bounden duty to tell the House, not only for the information of the House and for possible action, but for the sake of justice to the people who were likely to be affected. Therefore, will the noble Viscount bear those two major factors in mind when he discusses this matter with his right honourable friend? Also, since none of us wishes the immigration issue to become a matter of conflict again between the two Parties, will the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who is a Member of the Cabinet, undertake to meet some of my colleagues on these Benches, together with the Liberal Party and noble Lords from any other quarter of the House who are interested in this matter, to see whether some way can be found of preventing some of the appalling fears, not only of immigrants who came here illegally, but of families that have since been born; and also of relieving them of one of the worst crimes of which I know—blackmail.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I do not want to reopen the debate, but I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether he accepts that the particular reason for the Statement today illustrates what many of us felt when the Bill, which is now the Immigration Act, was passing through this House; namely, that it was opaque and confused? Will he now undertake, especially after the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to
558
look again with his right honourable friend—particularly in the light of the strength of the economy; the fact that we had two Jamaicans coming in last year, and the fact that by the end of 1974 the European Community will have introduced a system for harmonising immigration—at this really hopelessly muddled and confused Act and devise some way of quickly putting it in the dustbin?
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, may I ask him whether he can tell the House how many, in round figures, might be involved in this matter?
VISCOUNT' COLVILLE OF CULROSS: No, my Lords. From the nature of things, as the noble Baroness, Lady White said, it is really quite impossible to give even round figures. I have told the House in the Statement that there are 33 cases—other than the three who were actually before this House sitting in its judicial capacity—who are awaiting a decision. How many more there may be, I simply do not know. With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, my noble friend Lord Windlesham was sitting beside me and heard what was said. I shall also, of course, pass it on to my right honourable friend, because I agree that we do not wish this sort of issue to become at any time a cause of friction between any of the Parties in this House, or in the country. If noble Lords opposite, and, indeed, any other noble Lords, have positive proposals to put forward I do not see how we can resist listening to what they have to say. Incidentally, there will of course be an occasion, when the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, conies before the House, to discuss this matter again. So I shall indeed pass that message on as well. As regard blackmail, it is a very bad crime and is capable of happening to those who came in after January 1, 1973, just as it is to those who came in earlier. The police take these cases very seriously, and one trusts that the courts deal with them very seriously if they are proved.
As for the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, saying that this Act should go into the dustbin, I am afraid that there I must stand firm. In view of the proper prosecution of a good race relation policy in

559
this country, in view of the obligations that we have internationally and to our passport holders in other places, and in view of the really very great stresses which some areas are undergoing at this moment, it is absolutely impossible for us to take anything other than a strict line on immigration, and I cannot promise anything of the kind for which the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, asked. The Act may be opaque, but this particular matter arises under only a small section of it. and to promise a general review in the light of any of the factors that the noble Lord mentioned is something that I cannot possibly undertake at this moment.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, is it not a long-standing and well-established practice that what is said in either House at a time when a measure is being discussed, or what is not said or omitted to be said, but more particularly what is said—even what is reported in Hansard—does not make the law of this country. It remains for the law to be interpreted by the courts when the occasion arises. May we therefore not be wise not to confuse the law with a benevolent wish which has been expressed by noble Lords opposite and may be felt by others, and to which the Minister has said that the Government will give consideration? There may be circumstances in which a new law should be passed; I am not prepared to say that. But it would seem to me to be well not to muddle up what is the law, as defined by the courts, and what is thought to have been the intention of Parliament as expressed by Ministers or others in debates.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for that co-operative answer, and I hope that we may have further consultations about this matter. May I draw the attention of your Lordships to the transcript of the judgment given by noble and learned Lords yesterday in which both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, in giving the majority opinion, and also the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, in giving the dissentient opinion, sharply criticised the way in which this particular legislation was conducted in Parliament. I think it only right that we, as the legislative body in this country, should take note of these
560
very sharp criticisms from the highest legal authorities in the land of the way in which this particular legislation was fashioned.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale is perfectly right. No court would look at proceedings in this House, or in another place, in order to interpret what an Act of Parliament means. There are copious rules on the construing of Statutes and one of them definitely is that you do not look at what the Legislature intended; therefore my noble friend is quite right in thinking that the House, in its judicial capacity, would have construed the words of the Statute as they stand, without any confusion about what might, or might not, have been intended by Parliament. Of course the noble Baroness, Lady White, is right in saying that we should not legislate obscurely. I am sure that those who construct Statutes on this subject will take to heart the remarks of the noble and learned Lords about the obscurity of the words in the Statute, which is, I think, what the noble and learned Lords were criticising rather than the intention of Parliament in that respect, because I do not think they would be entitled to criticise that.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I ask one more supplementary question before I suggest that we ought to move back into Committee. It is important. In the light of the fact that previous legislation has given a degree of immunity when an illegal immigrant has been in this country over a period of time, and the Government now saying that the law as interpreted yesterday is what they intended, would the noble Viscount not have thought, on reflection, that Parliament should have been specifically told of the changes, not only in the interests of Parliament but also in the interests of all the people of this country?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, it is very difficult for me to give an answer to that. I should have thought in principle the answer was "Yes"; but I am bound to say that if I say that, I am reflecting adversely upon my noble friend Lord Windlesham—
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, that was not meant.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE oF CULROSS: —and those in another place who might have taken the course. Therefore I give a personal view. I say, "Yes". What may or may not have been right at the time when the Bill was being discussed, in another place or in your Lordships' Chamber, must, I think, rest with those who had the conduct of it at the time. I was not in the Government; I had no part in it and therefore I must stick to a personal view.
LORD WADE: My Lords, there is one point I should like to raise before we leave this subject. I should like to see this issue decided on grounds of principle rather than dealing with individual cases on compassionate grounds. But in so far as individual cases are considered, may I express the hope that this point will be kept in mind; namely, that there may well be bread-winners who, as a result of the decision of the House of Lords in its judicial capacity, are put at peril but whose wife and children may be perfectly entitled to remain here. There is a very real risk of dividing families.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, of course that is right. I do not know to what extent this is so; I simply do not know what these cases are. But the sort of points which will be taken into account when deciding whether to use these powers as now clarified are age; length of time a person has been here; the strength of his connections with this country; his personal history, including his character, conduct and employment record; his domestic circumstances, which certainly takes account of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and any other compassionate circumstances and representations received. So the sort of matter the noble Lord has in mind is very much one of the criteria which would be taken into account in a consideration of this kind.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before suggesting that we move back into Committee, may I just say that I did not intend in any way to say anything against the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham.

SOCIAL SECURITY BILL
4.6 p.m.
House again in Committee.
BARONESS SEEAR: I should like strongly to support the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for two main reasons. One is the purely logical argument that women and women's organisations cannot ask for equality of treatment and continue to ask for exemption from particular responsibilities. This longstanding exemption, which has allowed married women workers to contract out from paying their contribution to social security, seems a slightly unjustifiable privilege. The second, and perhaps more important or equally important, reason why I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is that it does something—not enough in my view, but something—to correct the unfortunately old-fashioned approach of this Bill, in that the Bill continues the practice by which many women depend for their benefits under social security on contributions paid by their husbands.
Many of us were hoping that we should quickly move to the time when every woman would be insured in her own right and, by paying contributions, accumulate benefits in her own right, irrespective of her marital status. In my view it is regrettable that this Bill does not introduce that principle. We should get rid of the provision whereby, misguidedly and with a short-term view of their advantages, married women workers continue to rely on their husbands' contributions for benefit and therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has pointed out, put themselves at risk in the event of a divorce or other circumstances in which they are unable to benefit from those contributions. Also by so doing they accumulate far smaller benefits than they would be able to obtain otherwise. If this change means that we go further in the direction of individual women accumulating their own benefits as of right, we shall have moved some way in the direction in which sooner or later we shall have to go.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I raised this point on Second Reading and I do

563
not want to be guilty of tedious repetition. but I do want to press the Minister on the subject. In a sense we are asking for emancipation for the married woman in respect of insurance. Years ago, as far back as 1911, when the Insurance Act of that year was introduced, only men were insured—I am talking about health insurance—because it was regarded as a man's duty to support his wife in the event of something occurring, such as ill-health, or any other hazard with which she might be faced. Times have changed. To begin with, the married woman can no longer regard marriage as a form of financial security. The new Divorce Bill is the strongest argument for accepting this Amendment. The most loving and devoted wife can be divorced after two years by consent, and after five years, despite the fact that she wishes the marriage to continue. Therefore to introduce legislation which makes this woman dependent on her husband is sheer nonsense.
It can be said that it is a question of option: that if she wants to be fully insured, covered for unemployment and health, then she makes her contributions. But may I once more summon up a picture of the home where this woman is considering whether she will pay the smaller or the larger sum? There will be the children to consider and the husband—he may be good or bad; a drinker perhaps, or a gambler—and there are certain pressures on her. The point is that at this period she is young and healthy. When people are young and healthy they do not envisage the time when they will be sick; and a married woman today does not envisage the time when she will be divorced. Therefore she usually will opt for the smaller amount. "I do not want to pay the larger amount", she says—and thereby opts wrongly. The pressures on her are such that often she will be more likely to want to contribute the smaller amount than the larger. I put it to the noble Lord that this is the time when this particular woman must be protected; she must be protected against her better self—and nobody but Parliament can do it.
It is not only a question of herself; she may have a husband who brings pres
564
sure on her and who says that more money will be brought into the family if she does not opt for the larger amount. This is therefore a matter of some great importance. I have been sitting on a Select Committee on Discrimination for a year and the women of the country being very much concerned with sex discrimination it seems to me very curious that a Bill should be before the House which discriminates against the married woman.
4.23 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: Under attack from all sides on this question of the married woman, I am beginning to feel quite old-fashioned; but I cannot say that I agree with the Amendment. The fact is that we are not changing anything in this Bill. The married women's option exists at present and about threequarters of the 5 million employed married women who earn enough to be liable to pay contributions exercise their right to opt out and elect not to pay contributions, preferring to rely on their husband's earnings. But more important than that, perhaps, is that many of them do not expect to go out to work for sufficient years to obtain a more valuable pension on their own contributions than they could earn under the present scheme on their husband's contributions.
I acknowledge that, as the noble Lord said, there are many more married women at work now; but despite that, at any one time the majority of married women are not in gainful employment. If they wished to earn a pension which equals that which they could receive under their husbands' contributions, they would have to contribute for something over half of their working lives. This is not yet the typical way in which married women behave. In the typical case, the wife continues to work after marriage and continues to contribute. When a family arrives, she qualifies for maternity allowance because of her contributions and then, in order to bring up the children, she either gives up work or, if she returns to work (often as a part-time worker), she prefers to opt out of further contributions.
If women are tending to go out to work for more of their married lives and to earn higher wages—which is what is happening—the prospect of personal

565
benefits and pensions will become more attractive and the existence of the option leaves those women free to adapt to that trend while leaving others free to rely on their husbands' insurance. But the time is not in prospect, I suggest, when it will be the normal pattern for a wife to go out to full-time work for most of her life. Only if that time came would the option be unnecessary.
Those who advocate the abolition of the married women's option seem to assume conditions in which the normal role of a married woman is as an equal life-long contributor to the family budget. In those families for which this is true no doubt the wife will not wish to exercise the option; she will prefer to make her contributions and will look forward to a life where she is working and contributing to the family budget. She will contribute to her own pension. But for the majority of women this is not true, and the continuance of the option is, we believe, fair to the women concerned and to the general body of contributors. I know that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, rightly say that all the women's organisations are in favour of the abolition of the option; but it is not my view that the decision to abolish this option would be welcomed by the great majority of married women.
The decision we have taken to continue the option in the basic scheme we believe to be based on the realities of the situation. The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, speaks of this as the "emancipation" of the married woman, but I do not believe it is "emancipation" if all the married women and widows who are at present exercising their option not to contribute are to be forced to pay considerably more in basic scheme contributions because the option has been abolished at all levels. On earnings of £10 a week they would have to pay another 47p a week; on £20, another 85p; on £32, another 91p—and that was the figure the noble Lord quoted —and on £48, another £1·01. It is not a good investment. If that woman does not work a sufficient number of years to earn a pension higher than she would get anyway on her husband's contribution, it is not a good investment. She would be paying a lot of money in contributions which she would not get back;
566
she may get back the same amount by relying on her husband's contributions.
LORD SHEPHERD: Can the noble Lord tell me why, for the benefit of married women who do not today opt out, he does not publish all the facts that he has mentioned in the leaflet that his Department issues for the information of married women who work?
LORD ABERDARE: I should like to have a look at that.
LORD SHEPHERD: It is in the noble Lord's documents.
LORD ABERDARE: I have not got it in my head. I should need to study this.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I should like to ask the noble Lord one question. I appreciate that he spoke from his heart and said that he was old-fashioned. That was his heart speaking. Now the brief is speaking. It is not only organisations of middle-class women who want this done. It is the working class organisations, which are pretty comprehensive, who have asked for it to be done. Surely the noble Lord cannot say that they know nothing about what the working-class woman wants.
LORD ABERDARE: No. But I believe that many working class women do not understand what their organisations are saying on their behalf. I think that a number of these people do not realise that what is being proposed by this Amendment is that they would be asked to contribute substantial extra sums of money. In fact, I am surprised that noble Lords opposite should wish to impose this extra burden on women and widows, when at present they are free to make their own decision whether to contribute in full and earn their own benefits or to pay a lesser contribution and rely on their husband's insurance.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, mentioned the widow's benefit. If a woman opts out, her position if her husband dies will be exactly the same as if she had opted in; that is, in most cases she gets a widow's benefit which becomes a retirement pension, and her position is protected by credited contributions while she is a widow; or she does not get a widow's benefit and she has to start paying contributions, but in this case

567
the blank years of the marriage are filled in by the husband's record regardless of whether she opted out. So that in most cases it pays her to opt out, which is why—and this covers the point made by the noble Lord—the Department's literature reads that way, and why at least three-quarters of women exercise their option and do not contribute.
That is the situation, as we see it. We believe that this option is still a valuable option. When I say that I am old-fashioned, I think there are still a number of women who are as old-fashioned as I am and continue to want to use this option. I do not believe that they all want to pay these large extra contributions when, as things stand, they have very good benefits which they can receive.
BARONESS SEEAR: Would it not be fair, while the noble Lord is pointing out the relative amount the woman will get as pension, to mention that the woman who pays contributions also draws sick pay and unemployment money, which can be a very valuable addition to the family income and to her income? It is not merely a question of whether she gets the pension. It is these other benefits which are important to her.
LORD ABERDARE: I agree with that, but the fact remains that three-quarters of the women do not wish to pay the contribution for that reason.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I know the noble Lord said that he is old-fashioned. I go a little further and say that this Bill is antiquated and goes back even further than Victorian times in its concept. The noble Lord says that the Bill does not change anything. There is no particular virtue in that. This is going to be legislation for the 21st century, and we are living in a rapidly changing society. It seems that the Government do not understand the situation. I work with married women. I am General Secretary of a women's organisation, and I can tell the noble Lord that we are thoroughly democratic, because the ideas come from the bottom and not from the top: they submit these resolutions and we discuss them fully. You cannot fool women on finance. If we had a woman Chancellor of the Exchequer, I can assure your Lordships
568
that the country would be in much better shape. You cannot fool women over finance; they work out everything.
To say that the married woman who opts out is typical because she remains at home, or because she works for a short time, may be true now but it certainly will not be true in twenty years' time. For the first time in history the young married woman can control the number of children she will have and when she will have them. So at 30 years of age she may well come back on to the labour market and put in all those years of working life. This is why we are concerned that the whole of this legislation refers all the time to single men, single women and married women with dependants, whereas there are single men and single women who have dependants, and the dependency of the children may be shared by the man and wife, and, indeed, may be the sole responsibility of the woman. The whole concept of this is totally out of date.
The noble Lord made great play of the fact that many women exercise the option. This is true. As I said to the noble Lord before, they have worked out that it is not only the retirement pension that is involved. If you pay the full stamp, you get only the same benefits as you get through your husband's payment, so the women say: "What is the point of paying it?". But if they knew, as the noble Baroness has said, that when they were unemployed they would get unemployment benefit, or when they were sick they would get sickness benefit, obviously they would be prepared to pay the full stamp. It is not a very large sum, I should have thought, and is a very good investment. This again has to be considered. If the option is taken up, it is because the benefits are not paid out.
I would make an appeal to the Government to look at this not through the eyes of what is happening now, but what is going to happen in 20 to 25 years' time: because this is what this legislation is all about. I studied the Beveridge Plan, and I looked at the principle behind it. That principle is quite a simple one. You are either an earner or you are not earning because you are sick or handicapped, or because you are elderly or unemployed, or because your breadwinner has gone. That concept has changed. I know of

569
cases where both the man and wife earn the same salaries. We are rapidly moving to the situation where the woman will earn more than the man, because that is what equal pay will mean. So we have moved away from the old idea that the wife is dependent—and that is the word used in the Bill. I am certain that we are right about this, and I am sure the noble Lord will do the Government a service if he recognises the force of the argument.
VISCOUNT AMORY: This has been an odd debate to listen to. My noble friend has been accused of being old-fashioned, but he has not seemed to me to quail much under that.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: The noble Lord said it.
VISCOUNT AMORY: He has been be-laboured by noble Baronesses opposite in a very formidable way. What has he been belaboured for? It is for continuing an option that is available. That seems to me to be a very odd thing to be belaboured for. If my noble friend had been proposing to remove an option, I could understand him being belaboured. I must say that in this debate, old-fashioned or not, my sympathies are with my noble friend.
LORD SHEPHERD: I can well understand why the noble Viscount needs to give sympathy to his old-fashioned, fuddy-duddy noble friend.
A NOBLE LORD: Oh!
LORD SHEPHERD: That is a word of affection, not abuse.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: The noble Lord said he was old-fashioned.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord has made an extraordinary speech. What he told your Lordships was that married women who work and who pay their contributions to the scheme are a lot of idiots, because the contributions they make are not right in comparison with the benefits that they receive. I think that is one of the most extraordinary statements that I have ever heard from any Minister in your Lordships' House.
570
To deal with Lord Amory's point, of course when there is an option not to make a contribution, a lot of people exercise that option. Supposing we were to say, "When you start work at 18 you do not need to make a contribution towards your old-age pension until you are 25; you could if you wish, but you have the option not to", I wonder how many young men and women would in fact make a contribution? But we all know that in terms of the Scheme, in order that the benefits have at least some recognition of general standards, all need to make a contribution, and opting out cannot be permitted. That is why I sought in my speech to indicate not only the disadvantages—and I do recognise the disadvantages of removing the option—but also the benefits that will arise for a married women if she makes her own contributions to the scheme. I do not share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. Like my noble friends. I believe that in 15 or 20 years' time this will become the law of the land. I have no doubt at all about that. I suspect that the Government do not want to move. It may be too close to what Dick Crossman recommended in his own White Paper of 1969, or it may be the fear of meeting married women who might lose the option. But this is not government. The Government have a duty to ensure that women should be protected and should get the fullest possible benefits, not only when they retire but during the period when they are working.
I intended to have this debate and then to withdraw the Amendment, but in the light of the extraordinary speech which has been made—I say that not because it was old-fashioned but because of its general approach to this subject—I am going to ask the House to register a Vote.
LORD ABERDARE: Before the noble Lord does so, I must say that he has entirely misrepresented me, and I must put the Record straight. So far as contributions are concerned, there are many women who see the advantage of contributing throughout their lives and earning a corresponding pension at the end of it and also of receiving sickness and unemployment benefit. I never denied that, but I said that there were others who preferred to exercise their option and rely

571
on their husbands' insurance. It may very well he that in 20 or 25 years' time things will be different but they are not different at the moment. If the noble Lord thinks I am fuddy-duddy, I think he is fuddle-headed, because there are still a great many women who like to exercise
Resloved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
this option; and we do not intend to take it away from them.
4.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 67; Not Contents, 92.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Garnsworthy, L.

Seear, B.

Airedale, L.

Hale, L.

Segal, L.

Amherst, E.

Henderson, L.

Serota, B.

Annan, L.

Hoy, L.

Shackleton, L.

Archibald, L.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Arwyn, L.

Kennet, L.

Shinwell, L.

Bacon, B.

Killearn, L.

Slater, L.

Bernstein, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Snow, L.

Beswick, L

Southwark, Bp.

Blackett, L.

McLeavy, L.

Stamp, L.

Blyton, L.

Maelor, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Brockway, L.

Meston, L.

Summerskill, B.

Burntwood, L.

Milford, L.

Swaythling, L.

Champion, L.

Norwich, V.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Chorley, L.

Nunbournholme, L.

Wade, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Peddie, L.

White, B.

Diamond, L.

Phillips, B. [Teller.]

Williamson, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Platt, L.

Wise, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Raglan, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Douclass of Cleveland. L.

Rhodes, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Gaitskell, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ferrier, L.

Monck, V.

Amory, V.

Fortescue, E.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Auckland, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Mottistone, L.

Balfour, E.

Gage, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gowrie, E.

Berkeley, B.

Greenway, L.

Moyne, L.

Bethel], L.

Grenfell, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gridley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Porritt, L.

Cawley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Rankeillour, L.

Clwyd, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Conesford, L.

Hanworth, V.

Redesdale, L.

Courtown, E.

Harvey of Prestbury L.

Reigate, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hawke, L.

Roberthall, L.

Crathorne, L.

Hertford, M.

Rowallan, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Hurcombe, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Cromartie, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

St. Helens, L.

Cromer, E.

Ironside, L.

Sandford, L.

Daventry, V.

Kindersley, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Davidson, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Somers. L.

de Clifford, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Strathspey, L.

Derwent, L. Dudley,

Long, V.

Templemore, L.

Dundonald, E.

Lonsdale. E.

Thomas, L.

Eccles, V.

Lothian, M.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Elliot of Harwood,

Loudoun, C.

Vernon. L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Vivian, L.

Exeter, M.

Lvell, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Falkland, V.

Mar, E.

Wolverton, L.

Falmouth, V.

Merrivale, L.

Yarborough, E.

Ferrers, E.

Milverton, L.

Young, B.

4.42 p.m.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Class 2 contributions]:
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 8A, 8B, 8C and 10A together. These are drafting Amendments which simplify the wording of the provision in question. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 6, leave out from first ("the") to ("or") in line 7 and insert ("appointed day")—(Lord A berdare.)
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Class 3 contributions]:
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8B.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 1, leave out ("in that Chapter II") and insert ("basic scheme benefit")—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: I beg to move Amendment No. 8C.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 3, leave out ("in that Chapter") and insert ("of this Act")—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Supplementary provisions relating to contributions of Classes 1, 2 and 3]:
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: This Amendment is to give more flexibility in the reallocation of contributions which have been wrongly paid. The object is to reduce administrative costs by avoiding, in cases where one kind of contribution should not have been paid and another kind has still to be paid, the need for separate refund and compliance action. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 135, line 49, at end insert—
("or as paid (wholly or in part) in discharge of a liability for reserve scheme contributions or a reserve scheme premium;
(ff) without prejudice to sub-paragraph (f) above, for enabling the whole or part of any payment of Class 2 contributions to be treated as a payment of secondary class 1 contributions;")—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Class 4 contributions]:
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I am happy to say that this is a formal Amendment. It is a drafting Amendment to correct a reference to an income tax year. The words "income tax" are not needed because the term "year" is defined in Clause 2(1).
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 40, leave out ("an income tax") and insert ("a").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Descriptions of benefits; the earnings factor; crediting of contributions]:
LORD ABERDARE: This Amendment goes with Amendment Nos. 8A, 8B and 8C. I beg to move Amendment No. 10A.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 40, leave out ("Benefits under this Part of this Act") and insert ("Basic scheme benefits")—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 14, line 10, after ("grant") insert ("payable without regard to contributions"
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Phillips, I beg to move Amendment No. 11 and also speak to Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14. It may appear strange that one should take the maternity benefits alongside the death grant, but both are involved in one field of social security and the principle behind these Amendments is the same. What we are recommending by our Amendment is that these particular benefits should be payable, irrespective of any contribution made or not made. In the debate in another place the Minister referred to the Finer Committee, and I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, can give us any indication when this important report is likely to be available.
The Minister also said that the Government were considering the position of unmarried girls under the age of 16 who became pregnant. The maternity benefit is not solely for the prospective mother, it is to ensure that when the child is

575
born it shall at least have the necessary clothing, foodstuffs and the like. Reference to any Member of Parliament will show that from time to time—true, not very often—cases arise where women who are shortly to give birth apply for maternity benefit, only to find that they are not entitled to it as a consequence of their husbands' failing to make the necessary contributions. All that could have been avoided if noble Lords had not followed the old-fashioned noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, through the Division Lobby; but they did so, and therefore we have to seek ways and means by which we can help those women who may be in difficulties as a consequence of the failure of their husbands to make the necessary contributions. Both of these grants are important. In the case of the death grant, when special assistance is needed for the family, it should be made as a matter of right and not be subjected to the question of whether contributions have been made or not. I beg to move.
4.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I can say to the noble Lord that the Government anticipate that the Report of the Finer Committee will be made later this year. Of course that will be, as he knows, an extremely important Report where this problem of the lone parent and the kind of conditions he outlined, perhaps for young, unmarried mothers is concerned. Perhaps on a principle of "In the midst of life we are in death", the noble Lord has taken maternity grants and death grants together. I shall, perhaps rather more clumsily but I hope clearly, take them in order beginning, so to speak, at the beginning. I hope this will be satisfactory to the noble Lord.
The effects of the noble Lord's package of Amendments would I think be to attack radically the contributory principle of the scheme, and for this reason I must ask noble Lords to resist the noble Lord's Amendments. The effect would be to remove the contribution conditions for maternity grant and substitute a provision enabling qualifying conditions of residence and presence in the United Kingdom to be prescribed; pari passu, it would be necessary to provide some other conditions, residence or presence in Great Britain, as already mentioned,
576
where death grant would also be involved. I do not think that the noble Lord's friends on the Trades Union Congress would be enormously pleased at his suggestion, and certainly we understand they are resistant to it.
The Government's view is that there can be no really satisfactory halfway house between maintaining the present position and removing the contribution conditions entirely in favour of a residence and presence test, as the Opposition now appear to be advocating. Under the Social Security Bill a woman (to take the first case) can qualify for maternity grant either on her own or, if she is married, on her husband's contributions, on an earnings factor 25 times the lower earnings limit in any one year. This closely parallels the provision in the present scheme. Indeed, the new condition is slightly easier to satisfy. Contributions of Classes 1, 2 and 3 can count for satisfaction of this condition. The grant will therefore be payable in all but a very small proportion of births—in all probability well under 5 per cent. For instance, the number of registered births for the 1971 calendar year was 881,000, and we estimate that nearly 95 per cent. of this figure attracted maternity grant. Surely the main argument in favour of retaining the contribution conditions is that on satisfaction of the contribution conditions benefits arc paid as of right without a test of means. While the annual cost of making maternity grant non-contributory would be, I acknowledge, relatively small—about £1 million a year compared with the current cost of maternity grants of about £20 million a year—the process, once begun, would surely not stop there, as the noble Lord's Amendments relating to death grants clearly show. It is for these reasons that I must ask the Committee to reject the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Earl read his brief well and I think the Committee is now fully aware of the position of Her Majesty's Government on these two particular issues. The noble Earl recognised that there are cases where, because of the present ruling, there is hardship; but we must stay, as I understand the noble Earl, by the contributory principle. The previous Administration stood, in my view wrongly, on the contributory principle when we resisted a

577
number of Private Members' Bills which were introduced for the purposes of giving old-age pensions to men and women who were then over 80. Those persons in fact were not entitled to an old-age pension because they had decided to use their option; they opted out; they refused to make contributions. So the noble Earl now says that these benefits cannot be made to these people, despite the hardship, because they did not make a contribution. But it was noble Lords opposite, fulfilling, it is true, a General Election pledge, who gave pensions to a group of people who had opted out and who had not taken part in the contribution scheme and principle.
So the noble Earl cannot have it both ways. Either he is right today or he was wrong in terms of the over-eighties. My belief is that he and the Government were right with the over-eighties, and the Labour Government were wrong, and no doubt we need only to look to the Treasury buildings to find out where the instructions were given. But, if they were right then, I think they could be right today by recognising the undoubted hardship of a small number of people who could be dealt with, particularly if the first Amendment was accepted. Unless the noble Earl can change his view, 1 feel I should like to see noble Lords opposite again go through a Division Lobby on the issue of a principle which they stand by today but would not accept or support earlier in the Parliamentary Session.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I should like to speak again, even though we are not anxious to deny the noble Lord the pleasure of watching us traipse through the Lobbies. He accused me, in effect, of wanting to have my cake and eat it. I do not think this is a just accusation because what is concerned here is not a new benefit now being added to the scheme, and to date no Government have made an existing contributory benefit into a non-contributory one. He talked about the special hard cases of the over-eighties and said in this respect we were in danger of being accused of inconsistency. But we would point out that where the hard cases, perhaps of the very young, unmarried mothers, are concerned, they may not be entitled to benefit under the Bill but they are in many cases—indeed, in
578
most cases—entitled to supplementary benefit. The last point I would make, and which I think is especially important, is the one with which the noble Lord started off his introduction to the Amendments: that we are attending to a Report of the Finer Committee in order to have fresh thinking on how to tackle these very difficult but proportionately small problems.
4.59p.m.
LORD WIGG: I am reluctant to intervene in a dispute between the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the Government Front Bench, but Lord Shepherd said that the previous Administration were wrong in their decision about the elderly people outside the scope of the insurance contribution. His knowledge of the history of the matter seems to be slightly defective. I go back to 1945, when we became a Government. In 1945 I remember my old friend, now long dead, Sydney Silverman, coming to a Party meeting and urging that something should be done immediately for old people; it badly needed to be done. Jim Griffiths, who was then the Minister, came to us and said: "Look. You can have it one way or the other. We can either introduce a Bill as quickly as we can, giving the maximum of benefits to the maximum number of people, or we can wait and inquire into all the marginal cases and produce a more refined document—a more refined Bill." I was one of those who raised his voice in favour of the maximum good and the maximum advantage as early as possible. That having happened, one had to accept the consequences of one's actions.
Then we ceased to be a Government, and over the years a number of my then (if I may use the expression which I used the other day and got "ticked off" for doing so, but old habits die hard) honourable friends tabled a measure to extend the principle to elderly people. That was resisted by successive Conservative Administrations, time and time and time again. The Conservative Government over a period of 13 years objected, and they went on objecting until we became a Government by a narrow majority. Then, not in order to help the old people—the humbugs!—what they did to embarrass the Labour Government was to introduce the same Bill that a

579
number of my honourable friends had introduced on other occasions. Now they claim credit for it.
I speak now for this reason. We are approaching a General Election. It may come at any time. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has not been in politics as long as I have and therefore he is a little inexperienced, but if he is not careful his words will be used against him. He said this afternoon that a previous Labour Government were wrong, but that is untrue. The Government in 1945 and my honourable friends in between whom I have mentioned were right; the humbugs who were wrong were the Conservative Government. This was not the only occasion on which they were wrong. I wanted to get that on the record.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I should not like to intervene in a Party political dispute, particularly as I am taking part in a B.B.C. broadcast this week and I may get a question on this subject. I think it is now recognised that if we tie any benefit totally to contributions there will be hardships. Some mention has been made of unmarried mothers. I would cite the case of the young student I know who married soon after he had finished his rather long term of education, and he had not contributed enough stamps for those young people to be able to get the maternity grant. They needed it as people really need money. If we always tie grants and benefits to money it will go to the people who can afford to pay the contributions and not necessarily to those who need it.
What does it matter whether it has never been done before? That is surely the worst of all reasons. This is supposed to be a piece of changing legislation and I sincerely believe that it brings hardship to both groups: to the elderly, who have to find the cost of the funeral, which is very heavy and they receive no death grant, and to the young married people who desperately need the money. It is not enough to say that they can apply for supplementary benefits. It is a dif
580
ferent system altogether. One has to go and ask for it as if it was something that was being handed out to you. A grant is different; it is something you receive. If I may use the words of the pamphlet.
"The maternity grant is paid to help you with the general expense of having your baby".
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I would defend myself on one score: I never said that the argument was that this had never been done before. I agree very much with the noble Baroness that that is no sort of argument to deploy. Neither do I wish to intervene between the Front Bench opposite and the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, who often on these occasions does a lot of the Government's work for them. But I think we must point out that this is something which, as we understand it, the official Opposition, to judge from Mr. O'Malley's remarks in another place in the Committee stage on December 7, and, as I mentioned earlier, the Trades Union Congress in their general comments and strategy in regard to pensions, complain weakens the contributory principle. In regard to the death grant in particular, the abolition of the contribution conditions would soon raise the question of whether the grant should continue to be paid on all deaths, regardless of income. I can assure the noble Baroness that we shall be vigilant under other provisions in keeping an eye on hard cases. I have myself a special sympathy for students, but I do not think this Bill is the vehicle for such provisions.
LORD SHEPHERD: I think we had better make some progress. I rise only to say that my noble friend, Lord Wigg, as on other occasions, has not always quite understood what one has been saying. Or perhaps it is another example of our difference of view, which again arises from time to time. But for the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, to suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has today, as on previous occasions, assisted Her Majesty's Government by referring to them as a lot of "humbugs" is absurd. Anyhow, I think we should move on and that the Question should be put.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No.11) shall be agreed to?
5.15 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 15. line 22, at end inert ("Widowed father's allowance … Class 1,2 or 3")
The noble Baroness said: This is where we come to a slightly different situation. We move away from the question of contributions and non-contributions but come back to the basic philosophy of the Bill. We are still talking about wives
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 86.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Gaitskell, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Airedale, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Samuel, V.

Amherst, E.

Hale, L.

Seear, B.

Amulree, L.

Henderson, L.

Segal, L.

Annan, L.

Hoy, L.

Serota, B.

Archibald, L.

Hughes, L.

Shackleton, L.

Bacon, B.

Kennet, L.

Shepherd, L.

Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Shinwell, L.

Blyton, L.

Longford, E.

Slater, L.

Brockway, L.

McLeavy, L.

Snow, L.

Burntwood, L.

Maelor, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Champion, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Summerskill, B.

Clancarty, E.

Milford, L.

Wade, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Diamond, L.

Phillips, B.

White, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Platt, L.

Wigg, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Raglan, L.

Wise, L.

Foot, L.

Rhodes, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ferrers, E.

Milverton, L.

Alport, L.

Fortcscue, E.

Monck, V.

Amory, V.

Gage, V.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Auckland, L.

Gainford. L.

Mottistone, L.

Balfour, E.

Gowrie, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Greenway, L.

Moyne, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Grenfell, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Berkeley, B.

Gridley, L.

Northchurch, B.

Bethell, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Orr-Ewing, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Carrington, L.

Hanworth, V.

Redesdale, L.

Conesford, L.

Harcourt, V.

Reigate, L.

Courtown, E.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Roherthall, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hawke, L.

Rowallan, L.

Crathorne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ruthven of Freeland. Ly.

Crawshaw, L.

Ironside, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Cromartie, E.

Killeam, L.

Sandford, L.

Daventry, V.

Kindersley, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Davidson, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strathspey, L.

de Clifford, L.

Lauderdale. E.

Swaythling, L.

Denham,L. [Teller.]

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Templemore, L.

Dnumalbvn, L.

Long, V.

Tenby, V.

Dudley, E.

Lothian, M.

Tweedsmuir of Beihelvie, B.

Dundonald, E.

Loudoun, C.

Vivian, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Lyell, L.

Windlesham, L. (L.Privy Seal.)

Falkland, V.

Mancroft, L.

Wolverton, L.

Falmouth, V.

Merrivale, L.

Yarborough, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

and dependants. I feel quite seriously that when women talk about equality they mean just that; they do not mean discrimination against men. All of us know widows who depend very heavily on the widowed mother's allowance. Indeed, at the time they lose their husbands, they are in a state of stress and the financial support of the State is the thing that sees them through. But equally, I know men who have lost their wives—and I am now talking about a working-class man. He is left with two or three young children. If it were possible for him to have a

583
housekeeper he could claim something against his tax. But since he cannot do that—usually the house is not large enough and the kind of woman who would accept the wages he could offer is not readily available—he is usually forced to rely on some kind of daily help with the children. Alternatively, we have known cases where men have had to give up their own employment because they were left with small children.
It is not unreasonable that in this day and age we should recognise that for children to be left without a mother creates a financial difficulty for the father. I feel that there will not be many cases. We cannot say that the State is going to be overwhelmed but I believe that it would be a forward thinking move if we were to give the opportunity to the father who is left without a wife to get some kind of allowance. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: It is a comfort, of course, that Women's Lib. is non-discriminatory and that here is an Amendment in the name of the noble Baroness designed to help men. Her Amendment appears to be an exploratory one to test the Government's attitude towards a contributory benefit payable to a widower with young children. As the noble Baroness has shown, widows' benefits are provided to help women whose main source of income disappears when their husbands die. Not all widows are covered but widows who have young children and are therefore needed at home, and those who are older and may have been out of employment for a considerable time and who are likely therefore to find it difficult to re-establish themselves in employment, qualify for a pension or allowance which takes account of their limited earnings potential. By contrast, while a man whose wife dies leaving young children will be faced with many problems, he is not likely to suffer a substantial impairment of his earning capacity. Although it is not part of the Amendment, we assume that the intention is that cover for the widower's benefit should be provided by virtue of contributions paid by his late wife. At present only about one million out of the 11·1 million married women under pension age in this country pay full contributions, so that nine out of ten of all widowers—the proportion
584
could be even higher where there is a family of young children—might not qualify for the benefit even if it were allowed.
The Supplementary Benefits Commission takes a sympathetic view if, exceptionally, a widower is compelled to stay at home to look after the children, while practical assistance may be provided by the local social services departments with help with crêches or whatever. Again, as was mentioned in an earlier debate, widowers are among the lone parents whose problems are within the terms of reference of the Committee on One-Parent Families under the chairmanship of Sir Morris Finer Q.C., whose report is expected, as I said earlier, before the end of this year. So I do not think it can be said that no practical help is available from the social services for widowers with young childen, or that their problems are not receiving either care or consideration. But there seems little doubt that a benefit under the contributory scheme will not provide a satisfactory answer. Again, as so often, it is a question of priorities and I must rather regretfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her Amendment.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I would only say that I had not envisaged it as being contributory from the wife. I had thought that this would be an accepted part of what the husband had contributed and would continue to contribute. I am sorry that the Government do not see fit to look at it this time. I appreciate that we are waiting on the Finer Committee Report. I am interested not only in that but in other angles, but by then the opportunity may have gone; this legislation will be on the Statute Book. I will not press this point now. I feel that it is something unlikely to have been a heavy drain on the fund, and something which could have been incorporated now. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.21 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 16, line 39, leave out ("January") and insert ("September")
The noble Baroness said: With Amendment No. 16, with the permission

585
of the Committee I would also speak to No. 17. This is on a different point. The value of the supplements referred to in this clause has been considerably reduced in many cases since last month by the fact that the benefits year in future is going to start in January and not May. This may seem a small point, but it is one of those things that happen in an Act of Parliament; there is a change in the tax year or the benefit year, and this adversely affects many people. May I give an example? If we take from May, 1973, to December, 1973, the supplements will be based on the earnings for 1971–72, whereas for the same period in previous years they will have been based on a complete year. I wondered whether this would be a way in which we could put this small point right at this time. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: Identical Amendments were moved by the Opposition in another place in February, 1973. In the discussion which followed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State accepted, with the noble Baroness, that it was desirable and is desirable to keep to a minimum the gap between the end of an income tax year and the date of the start of the corresponding benefit year. He therefore undertook—and I quote—
" … that we shall struggle to bring the date closer to the end of the tax year than to January, mentioned in subsection (10)".
He indicated, however, that if it were found possible to make any change it would be—
"not in the next few months but in the next few years"—
that is to say, after experience had been gained of the working of the arrangements after 1975. On that occasion the Opposition withdrew their Amendments in the light of my right honourable friend's undertaking, and I hope that the noble Baroness will do so also.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I, of course, have to accept the explanation—not, I would say, a very satisfactory one, since it appears to have been spread over a period of years. One of the unfortunate effects of a Bill of this kind is that it is not retrospective, and if you happen to come within the wrong period you may well find yourself on the wrong side financially. I am sorry that we cannot
586
hope for anything better than a change in a period of years, but I will not press the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 (Contribution conditions for basic scheme benefit).
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS had given Notice of her intention to move an Amendment:
Page 141, leave out lines 1 to 31.
The noble Baroness said: This again was an attempt to deal with the question of making the maternity grant noncontributory, and although I remain completely unrepentent—I still believe that those who need things are not necessarily the ones who get them—I can see that I am not going to make any headway, so I will not move this Amendment.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: This is a drafting Amendment to insert a word inadvertently omitted on the reprinting of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 144, line 46, after ("first") insert ("contribution").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 (Rates of basic scheme benefits, grants and increases for dependants).
BARONESS SEEAR BARONESS SEEAR moved Amendment No. 20A:
Page 145, line 30, at end insert—
("4A. Invalid care allowance … £6·75.")
The noble Baroness said: If it is for the convenience of the Committee, should like to take in conjunction with this Amendment Nos. 35A and 35B; Amendment 20A is in fact consequential on Amendment No. 35A. The purpose of these combined Amendments, which are in fact a new clause with consequential Amendments, is to ask the Government to consider introducing a new benefit for a small but very needy class of people. This benefit we would like to have called the "invalid care allowance".
As our knowledge of social security has progressed and the social conscience has been roused, there is no doubt, and this Bill is an expression of it, that progress is being made in providing real

587
security for the vast mass of the population who are able to pursue the normal procedures of life through a job to retirement. But if people fall out and are unable to pursue the normal progress through jobs to retirement, then they can be in an exceptionally unfortunate position. Our current legislation leaves certain of these groups seriously neglected. The group on whose behalf I am speaking this afternoon, on whose behalf this Amendment is moved, are those persons, normally women though sometimes men, who give up their employment to look after an infirm or aged person, usually a close relative. Of course, we are not suggesting that any provision should be made for them unless it is established medically that it is necessary for the aged and infirm person to have someone living with him.
The problem is increasingly acute today in that, as your Lordships are aware, people now live a great deal longer. There are a number of women—not a vast number but far too many—who at the age of 50, 55 or 60 give up employment, give up all earnings; they are, therefore, unable to continue to pay pension contributions, and their claim to State pension is greatly reduced. When the old person eventually dies, it is extremely difficult for these people to get back into employment and re—establish themselves in any way; if they do get back into employment it is usually of a very much less well paid kind. Their State pension rights and any other pension rights they would otherwise have accumulated in employment are also lost.
The sacrifice these people make is, of course, made voluntarily. It is a financial sacrifice, but it is also a considerable sacrifice in other directions. To a large extent they fall out of society and are lost sight of. Their friendships, their social contacts are lost, and this at a time when already they are subject to increasing financial and emotional strain in looking after old people getting progressively even more senile and sick. I have here a collection of letters; I am not going to read them, but again and again it is the story of a woman, or sometimes a man, who has come home to look after an old father. When the father dies the mother is also old and she needs
588
to be looked after; so the story goes on year after year.
If these women did not undertake the task of looking after these old persons, the State would provide for them in an old persons' home or geriatric ward, and this would cost £30 or £40 or even more a week, the price rising all the time. It is this amount of money that is saved by the act of the child, usually, in staying at home and giving up employment. What we are asking is that such persons, properly certified as being necessary so to do, should be paid an allowance. We should like it to be the equivalent of the unemployment benefit, paid as of right to the person who does the caring. Previous legislation has improved the position of the old persons themselves with attendance allowances, invalidity allowances, and so on, but these payments all go to the old person and no money goes as of right to the person who does the caring. It is on behalf of the person who does the caring that we are asking that a benefit should be paid for the job.
We have divided the proposals into three. Amendment No. 35A is to establish the principle that a benefit should be paid to someone undertaking this responsibility. We have separated this from Amendment No. 20A, which gives the amount that I would think is reasonable—the same rate as the unemployment benefit at present, £6·75p. Of course, it might be that the Government will recognise the principle of paying the person who does the caring without being limited to that particular amount.
I hope that noble Lords will accept this proposal. The total amount involved is not going to be large. We have not got exact figures. The most recent figures we have date back to 1966, and these show simply that, so far as women are concerned, there are 64,000 living in households of two or three persons where one of those persons is an old—age pensioner. Of course the vast majority of those 64,000 would not be eligible for this benefit, They may just be living in the house; the old age pensioners may not be in need. It is only a very small fraction of the 64,000 who would be able to claim this benefit. There are also 64,000 living in these households who are not themselves working. This may be because they do not have to, but it may

589
be that they themselves are ill, or that they may choose not to. This figure could be reduced in terms of those eligible for this grant. There are men not working and living in households of this kind to a total of about 50,000. One would assume that the great majority of those are not working because they are disabled or because they do not wish to continue working, and that they are not persons who would be eligible for this grant. However, if they showed that they were not working for the reason shown here they would be as eligible as the women.
We are putting forward these proposals in the hope that the Government will accept the principle that a grant shall be paid; secondly, that they will accept that this grant should be of the order of the unemployment benefit. If the Government are unable to do this, at the very least it is to be hoped that they will consider Amendment No.35B, which asks that a Class 1 contribution stamp should be credited to people caring in this fashion. Then at least their Class 1 insurance benefit could be maintained, as it is not at present. It is true that in certain circumstances a Class 3 stamp is paid for them, but this is done only if people are on social security payments. A considerable number of the people on whose behalf I am speaking are people who manage to keep just above the social security level but are carrying on on minute pensions, or small savings. They are people who either do not qualify or who, rightly or wrongly, are not prepared to apply for social security. The amount of money involved in this is very small, but the cases are acute and tragic cases and well worthy of your Lordships' consideration. I beg to move.
5.35 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: The noble Baroness put her case with very great force. I have great sympathy with the people for whom she is pleading, and so indeed do the Government. This is the first of a number of Amendments that relate to disabled persons, and I think that it would be fair to the Committee if I were to say in advance to all of them that, although we have great sympathy and although we believe there is a great need to do more in all these instances, it is not yet possible for us
590
to announce any further advance in policy. We have put in hand—and I think that this has been made thoroughly public in both Houses of Parliament and outside—a thoroughgoing review of all facets of cash provision for the disabled. My right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Social Services, told the annual general meeting—
BARONESS SEEAR: I should like to make the point that the people for whom I am speaking are not themselves disabled. It would be quite wrong to confuse their case with the case of the disabled. They are people perfectly able—bodied, and willing and most anxious to go on earning their living, but who give it up on behalf of the disabled.
LORD ABERDARE: The noble Baroness really must do me the justice that I did listen to her speech. But this is the first of a number of Amendments that deal with the disabled in general, although her case is for the people who look after them. We are studying thoroughly the position of the disabled and that includes those who look after the disabled. If she allows me to finish my case, perhaps she will appreciate what I am trying to say.
My right honourable friend the Secretay of State for Social Services said at the annual general meeting of the Disabled Income Group on May 5:
"The results of research, D.I.G.'s own publications, and the experience of other countries are all being fed into a thorough review in which administrators, economists, statisticians and doctors are engaged, and in which my Department is co—operating with other Departments."
We are determined on this thoroughgoing review, which will cover what is required to help the disabled and, if I may add, those who give up their time to help the disabled.
Nobody could but admire the self—sacrifice of those who are compelled to turn their backs on paid employment, on their careers and so forth, and outside interests generally, in order to devote their lives to the care of invalids. Indeed, they deserve not only our admiration but our support. As the noble Baroness mentioned, some of them get cash support, some of them receive some form of social service support—and sometimes it is the social service support that is so very

591
crucial. But they do provide a very valuable service, and it is certainly our wish to encourage people to remain as long as they may in their own homes rather than going into some form of institution, be it an old people's home or a geriatric hospital. This is very much in accord with our priorities, not only for financial reasons but also because it is a situation so much happier for the persons themselves.
Our emphasis so far has been on developing provisions to meet the needs arising from disablement and of the disabled themselves, such as the improvements we have made in invalidity benefit and the attendance allowance. At the same time provisions designed to help the disabled members of the household are of very real value to other people who share the household and share the problems. It is because there is such a vast range of inter—related and overlapping problems that we are engaged in a thorough review of cash benefits—"We are trying to put right the virtual neglect of generations" as my right honourable friend called it. Certainly the attendance allowance has been the most important cash benefit advance in this area, and the progressive extension of the attendance allowance which has already begun will benefit an increasing number of families.
The benefit, I know, goes to the disabled person in this case because often attendance is a shared responsibility and because it seems right that extreme physical dependence on others should be compensated to some extent by a little financial independence. As the noble Baroness herself knows, the attendant may qualify for supplementary benefit; and as she also mentioned this can cover the cost of her Class 3 non-employed contribution. But I appreciate that she is thinking of the cases of those who are not eligible for supplementary benefit and who still find it hard going.
On the question of credits for eventual pension earnings, the easier and different contribution conditions introduced by this Bill will mean that credits are less important than they are at present. But tile basic difficulty with both benefits and credits for those who look after disabled relatives or friends is that the need to give up work to provide this attendance is not so clear cut and objective and
592
readily definable as severe disablement. If the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, were here, he would confirm that it is very difficult to draw the line in the case of attendance allowance between those who are eligible and those who are not, and to grant a benefit which depends on someone's assessment as to the degree of dependence of the relative and the degree of necessity for the other person to give up work to look after her, might I suggest, be a little more difficult still. The burden of what I am trying to say is that this is one of the types of benefit within the field of disability—if the noble Baroness will allow me to say that rather than simply the disabled—which is very much within the review which we are now conducting, and it would be to preempt that review if I were to accept this Amendment. I can therefore only ask the noble Baroness to accept my good faith in this matter. I think that the record of the Government in the field of the disabled is perhaps sufficient encouragement for her to believe that we really do mean to make further progress on this front when we have sorted out all the problems and when we are able to find sufficient resources to add to the present benefits.
BARONESS SEEAR: Can the noble Lord give us any indication as to how long the review is likely to go on and when we are likely to have the result? I am fully aware of the great interest that the noble Lord the Minister takes in this matter and am confident of what he will produce; but it would be a very great comfort to the people concerned to have some idea—I know he cannot be precise —when the report will be produced.
LORD ABERDARE: I am afraid I cannot commit myself on this occasion. I assure the noble Baroness that the work is going ahead very rapidly, but it is very complicated.
LORD PLATT: With great respect to the Minister and with no loss of faith in his own good faith in this, I cannot be terribly excited about the survey which is apparently being made by economists, statisticians and even doctors, because I do not think, again with respect, that the noble Lord fully answered the point made by the noble Baroness; that is, that if these people were not looking after disabled people they, the disabled,

593
would be costing the nation very much more than the £6, or whatever it is, per week which is suggested in this Amendment. Furthermore, as to the difficulty of determining the degree of dependence —and I suppose some kind of determination and certificate will have to be made—no doubt this would fall upon the doctor who would be visiting the case from time to time. I suggest that the decision would be no more difficult than the many very difficult certification troubles that all doctors have when people whom one knows are on the borderline of malingering are claiming sick benefit or accident benefit for all kinds of things. So I am not wholly satisfied with the reply which we have received.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE THE EARL OF GOWRIE moved Amendment No.21:
Page 146, line 6, column 1, leave out from ("the") to ("was") in line 7 and insert ("deceased").
The noble Earl said: With permission, I should like to take Amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 37 together. These Amendments extend the description of the deceased to the Schedule as well as to the clause and enable the Schedule to be shortened and simplified. They are tidying Amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF COWRIE THE EARL OF COWRIE: I beg to move Amendment No. 22.
Amendment moved—
Page 146, line 37, leave out ("10(8)") and insert ("10(7)").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 (Unemployment benefit and sickness benefit]:
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Before the clause is accepted I should like to ask the Minister whether I interpreted correctly that a married woman who has paid the full contribution to the State basic scheme will continue to receive a lower rate of unemployment and sickness benefit—in other words, the situation that exists now, or will that be changed?
LORD ABERDARE: The noble Baroness is perfectly correct; the situation will not be changed.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Earnings—related supplement and addition]:
5.49 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 147, line 39, at end insert ("or, if the number of contributions from which the earnings factor is derived is less than 50 but not less than 10, by that number").
The noble Baroness said: With permission, I will take Amendments Nos. 23 to 27 together as they relate to the same point. These Amendments refer to the earnings—related supplements to sickness and unemployment benefits and the way in which they are calculated. It appears that no allowances have been made for periods off work in the previous year, so that we have here a situation where the earnings on which the benefits are calculated are often far below the real average earnings of the person concerned. This does not appear to be either correct or fair. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: The noble Baroness has made such progress that I am having a job to keep up with her. In general, this is essentially a Bill about pensions and about how they should be financed. It is not designed to change the structure of short—term benefits. But because it replaces the present flat—rate contributions on which benefit entitlement is based with a wholly earnings—related system of contributions, the existing provisions for short—term benefits have had to be brought into line with the new contribution system. The White Paper explained this at paragraph 36, which said that benefits covering sickness, unemployment and maternity would need to be adapted to the new system of earnings—related contributions, and added that detailed proposals would be announced later. We have made it clear that we are considering separately the possibility of future changes in short-term benefits, and any such changes would not necessarily be tied to the time scale for the new pension provisions. This is the same conclusion that was reached by the noble Baroness's Government when

595
they were in office. They took the same line on short-term benefits in their proposed Bill.
To come to the Amendments which she has discussed, Amendment No.23, as worded, is not workable. It assumes that under the Bill it will be possible to ascertain the number of weekly contributions paid by an employed person during a tax year. But this will not be so with wholly earnings—related contributions, which will be payable whenever earnings above the threshold are paid, and the amount of contribution will vary according to the level of the earnings. They will not therefore be recorded on a weekly basis and the amount will be known for a year only. So I regret that for that reason we could not accept Amendment No.23.
The effect of Amendment No.24 would be to increase the rate of earnings-related supplement from one-third to one-half of that part of reckonable weekly earnings between the lower earnings limit (which is £8 in the Bill) and £30. We have not made any change here. One-third is the proportion used at present and it is the same as was fixed by the noble Baroness's Government. The point of it is that it has regard to the fact that the claimants concerned get not only the earnings-related supplement but also a substantial flat-rate benefit which varies according to the size of the family. If we were to increase the supplement in the way suggested in this Amendment, we should be giving a man quite a bit extra. If we are looking to help the lower paid, it is better to concentrate available resources on the flat-rate benefit than on earnings-related supplement, which favours the higher earner.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 27 would be to remove the benefit ceiling which ensures that earnings-related supplement shall not increase total benefit so that it exceeds 85 per cent. of the claimant's reckonable weekly earnings. The object of this limitation, which is a normal feature of any earnings-related benefit scheme, is to ensure that total benefit does not reach the level of a claimant's normal "take-home" pay, thus avoiding any financial disincentive to return to work. In practice, however, the ceiling is calculated on reckonable weekly earnings which are based on gross pay, and the end result is that a claimant
596
who is affected gets something of the order of 90 per cent. of his average take-home pay.
I appreciate the point which the noble Baroness made about the claimant whose earnings in the relevant tax year have been reduced by periods of unemployment or sickness and who, as a result, is entitled to a lower rate of supplement than he could normally expect, but I am afraid that to attempt to meet this situation by removing the ceiling would remove the precaution against providing a disincentive. It might result in a family man with low earnings in every week in the year receiving more in social benefits than he could expect to receive when working, and I do not think that would be a desirable result. So again, I am afraid that I cannot accept any of these Amendments which the noble Baroness has explained so persuasively. I hope I have done something to explain the underlying reasons why and to express the point that we are not anxious to make any changes in the short-term benefits, because in this Bill we are concentrating mainly on the provision and structure of the new pensions scheme.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I thank the Minister for that explanation. Of course I have studied the White Paper, and we debated it and made some suggestions about how it could be changed; but none of those suggestions was taken up, thus rather justifying my thought that once something is written it is, as it were, carved in stone and cannot be changed. It is most curious, and my belief has been confirmed this afternoon. On the question of the disincentive, I thought that the "wage stop" would still operate if we were carrying over old legislation. I also thought that if we were calculating on a yearly basis it would be much more sensible to refer to weekly rates, because those who collect their money weekly do not realise that the yearly salary is being taken and divided by 52. But I understand what the noble Lord has said. I do not know whether he can tell me whether the "wage stop" would still operate, making it impossible to have more than one would have if one were earning.
LORD ABERDARE: The "wage stop" is in connection with supplementary benefit.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Not with unemployment?
LORD ABERDARE: Not with contributory benefits. While I am on my feet, may I answer the noble Baroness's point about contributions and earnings? This is a fearfully complicated matter and perhaps the noble Baroness would like me to try to explain it outside the House.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Yes. I recollect trying on one occasion to fill in a form which asked me for my weekly earnings, and as I had been paid monthly for many years it took me some time to work it out. Our forms are a little old-fashioned, like many other things. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Invalidity benefit]:
5.58 p.m.
LORD CRAWSHAW LORD CRAWSHAW moved Amendment No.28:
Page 20, line 39, at end insert?—
("(8) Where the earnings of a person entitled to invalidity pension, being a person who has not reached pensionable age, have exceeded £9·50 for the week ending last before any week for which he is entitled to the invalidity pension, the weekly rate of pension for the last-mentioned week shall be reduced—

(a) where the excess is less than £4, by 5 pence for each complete 10 pence of the excess, and

(b) where the excess is not less than £4, by 5 pence for each complete 10 pence of the excess up to £4 and by 5 pence for each complete 5 pence of any further excess.

Provided that this subsection shall not affect the rate of the invalidity pension and invalidity allowance for the first week after the date of the beneficiary's entitlement to the pension.")
The noble Lord said: I have been moved to put my name to this Amendment, which is one of a series of three which my noble friend Lord Aberdare mentioned a moment ago, for four main reasons. The first is that this is, after all, a Social Security Bill which should be comprehensive and should take quite an interest in the affairs of disabled people. The second reason is that during the Second Reading of the Bill in this House—although I did not speak on it myself—I was aware of the great interest of your Lordships in this subject, as indeed has been the case on many occasions in the past. One recalls an
598
occasion about a year ago when we kept your Lordships up till 5 o'clock in the morning to move an Amendment to the Housing Finance Bill. There has also been a great deal of debate in Standing Committee E in the House of Commons on this whole subject, and I have been impressed by what has been said and done there, particularly by Mr. Alec Jones, the Member for Rhondda West. In passing, I should like to say, too, that we appreciate very much all the trouble and interest which the Secretary of State takes in these matters. We believe that he is an exceptional Minister and we are very grateful to have him in that position.
My next reason is that I believe that there is obvious public concern over these matters. Anybody who saw a television programme on the subject a month ago will realise that. There has also been a campaign in the country, run by the Disablement Income Group, to draw attention to the problem. I know that they have set their hearts on amending this Bill and I think that they were disappointed and disheartened by what appears to be the intransigent response by Government spokesmen in another place. It is a long time since February 15, when this matter was discussed by the Standing Committee. It is now June 12. The sun has been shining; England has won a good victory in the Test; an English horse has won the Derby and we are in the middle of an economic boom. I am therefore trying to persuade my noble friend Lord Aberdare to take a look at this in the light of present circumstances, to see whether we cannot do something with the Bill now. Also, the so-called "lame ducks" in other spheres have more or less got what they wanted by loud quacks, and I think we should now turn our attention to their human counterparts and ask your Lordships to consider their position in detail. Your Lordships will remember the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act which was passed three years ago and which did a great deal to improve amenities for all disabled. Since then I recognise, and acknowledge at once, the great improvements that this Government have made—attendance allowances, invalidity pension allowances and so on, which were also mentioned by my noble friend Lord Aberdare.
For the moment I want to turn to the economics of disablement and the problems of employment. It seems to me that the worst-off people are those who have not been in a position to contribute or to pay National Insurance, those affected before even starting to work, and disabled housewives—and that will be discussed in a moment. I want to speak now about those who have paid National Insurance contributions but who by one cause or another have been struck down, are being rehabilitated and receive an invalidity pension. In my view it is in everybody's interest that they should be returned to work of some sort or another as soon as possible. I believe that at present there is not enough incentive, for as soon as they earn £4·50 they lose all entitlement to the invalidity pension. Until recently the figure was £2. That it has changed at least shows that the Government are movable on this point. I maintain that £4·50 is not really an incentive figure. All of us here who have been "through the mill" in one way or another realise that earning power is reduced by these accidents and diseases and so on, and that partial employment in one form or another must be the first step back—or (should I say?) forward. Equally, there must not be a hold-up in starting back in employment, for the longer it is left, the harder it becomes. This is something which should start as soon as rehabilitation itself starts. Also I believe it is important, especially now, that the theme and principle of the 1944 Disabled Persons Employment Act be put into operation; the question of firms taking their quota of disabled persons in employment seems to have been abandoned.
To illustrate what I am trying to get at, I cite the case of a professional man, now aged 45, with three children. He has multiple sclerosis and will be no longer able to go out to work. He receives, or will receive, an invalidity pension of something over £19 a week. If he earns more than £4·50 a week, he loses the entire £19. He would like to continue as a freelance in his own home but he cannot take the risk; for while building up his business he may earn more than £4·50 but not reach £19. So he is debarred from doing this. His condition may deteriorate at a later stage
600
and he may earn less than £19 a week for a considerable time. This man has been reluctantly forced to remain idle at home while able to do a certain amount of work in his profession. Such enforced idleness has meant that between 32 per cent. and 37 per cent. of invalidity pensioners have had to resort to supplementary benefit, so placing a further burden on taxpayers. More important is the effect on the individual's morale. A fighting spirit and enterprise is replaced by complacency and despair, and possibly a sense of false security.
Your Lordships may be wondering whether, in the recent words of Mr. Wedgwood Benn, there is anything magical in the figure £9·50 which is mentioned in the Amendment or whether it is simply a piece of uprating in a structure Bill. We have chosen £9·50 because this is what the wife of an invalidity pensioner can earn without affecting her husband's entitlement to pension. Also it is the amount that a retirement pensioner can earn without affecting his pension. The argument is this. Why not apply the same figure to the invalidity pensioner himself? I maintain that this is a matter of principle and not simply a piece of uprating inappropriate to this particular Bill.
My final point is that every other member country of the E.E.C. except the United Kingdom and Ireland has managed to devise a system of pension payment for partial incapacity. We are the only two countries still requiring total incapacity as a condition for sickness and invalidity benefits; so there is plenty of experience to draw on. Despite the foreboding words of my noble friend Lord Aberdare, I still hope that the Government may feel inclined to take this away and to come back with possibly a better solution at Report stage—for I do not want to cross swords with them. On the other hand, if we find that your Lordships give this Amendment some support I may well ask for your support in the Division Lobby. It does not require extra money from the Exchequer—in fact it would save money, because of the question of supplementary benefits. In my view, it would establish an important principle and in so doing would give great encouragement to a great many people to take a more active part in society. I beg to move.
6.7 p.m.
BARONESS DARCY (DE KNAYTH): I wholeheartedly support the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Crawshaw. I think it of tremendous importance. A great deal has been done to help the disabled over the past few years, but I feel that the whole question of employment in regard to the disabled needs looking into. As the noble Lord explained, this Amendment seeks to put the invalidity pension on a par with the wife of such a pensioner and with the normal retirement pensioner in relation to the amount they can earn before their benefits are affected. It is not a handout, a palliative for disablement, but an attempt to remove serious obstacles to a disabled person's return to work. Many disabled people cannot return to work immediately in a full-time capacity. Rehabilitation is a long-term process. It takes time to regain the maximum possible fitness and to adjust mentally to disabled life in an able-bodied society. While some people may never be able to return to work full-time, a vast number of disabled people who can do full-time and demanding jobs in many cases need an interim period of part-time employment. Many of the more severely handicapped who do not seriously contemplate the idea of going back to a full-time job find after a spell of part-time employment that they can manage a full day's work. The graduated earnings stop, which at present applies to disabled persons on an invalidity pension, makes it impossible for them to return to part-time employment.
My noble friend quoted the case of the disabled man with a wife and three children who was receiving about £19 invalidity pension and who could not risk earning more than £4·50 a week because if he did he would forfeit his entire invalidity pension in one fell swoop. So he will be far worse off, unless he can make sure of earning at least £19 a week straight away, whereas when the graduated earnings rule is applied the person never actually loses money by earning more. This situation is scarcely an encouragement to return to work and become a truly rehabilitated and fully fledged member of society. I know several people fortunate enough to have a small source of private means that they could use while they were progressing from part-time to full-time
602
employment. Without that to fall back on they could never have achieved full-time employment and would not now be repaying the State handsomely by paying income tax. It is disturbing to note that, as the noble Lord pointed out, about one-third of those disabled people receiving invalidity pension have to draw additional supplementary benefit because the invalidity pension is insufficient for their needs. This Amendment would help to reduce the number of these people and save the State money.
In another place the sum of £4·50 which the invalidity pensioner is allowed to earn before losing the pension has been referred to as "therapeutic earnings". As pocket money it is not ungenerous, but it in no way meets the needs of disabled people. It is rather like the prepared cake-mix sold to the housewife which tells her to add an egg, just to make her feel that she is doing the job properly. The idea, presumably, is that if we pay the disabled person his invalidity pension and allow him "therapeutic earnings", he will feel that he is pulling his weight and it will give him dignity. Dignity is important to the disabled—it is important to us all as human beings—but I do not believe that it is bestowed on one by "therapeutic earnings". The disabled want to earn their living and support their families, and to pay their taxes along with the able-bodied members of the community.
Perhaps I may quote a report in The Times of May 23 of Mr. Macmillan's remarks at a Press conference about the Department of Employment's report on the quota system for disabled people. The report states:
"Mr. Macmillan did not agree that the withdrawal of invalidity and supplementary benefits after a small amount had been earned caused widespread discouragement. There was considerable incentive in the 'justifiable pride' disabled people felt in being able to work in spite of considerable handicaps."
Again the whole approach is wrong. The disabled are not regarded as responsible productive workers, capable of contributing to the community and to the State. Medicine and technology have advanced so much in recent years that severely disabled people are capable of doing very demanding jobs in competition with the able-bodied. There are wheelchair-bound dentists and solicitors; I know of a computer programmer who can use

603
nothing but one foot; an accountant who runs his own accountancy business from home and whose sole functioning limb is one arm. Is it logical, or even financial good sense, to spend time, money and skilled energy on rehabilitating the disabled up to a certain point, only to deny them the opportunity of fulfilling their potential and the chance to repay the State by their labour and the taxes they may pay?
Some people might argue that when it comes to the disabled in full-time employment we are talking about a small and exceptional bunch of people. But I would say to those who argue in this way that one has to be exceptional to surmount the obstacles that we are seeking to remove by this Amendment. I would argue, further, that if we remove these obstacles we shall clear a path for the less exceptional to follow. From my knowledge of the disabled world I am convinced that removal of this obstacle will encourage and help a large number of disabled people to return to part-time, and eventually, one hopes, to full-time employment. Mr. Macmillan spoke of "justifiable pride". That was his own phrase as quoted in The Times report. But people cannot live on justifiable pride. I think that no able bodied worker in this country would agree that justifiable pride alone was a sufficient incentive for doing a job. I feel most deeply that society has lagged behind medicine and technology in the rehabilitation of the disabled by failing to offer them opportunities for worthwhile and productive employment and the chance to become useful members of the community. Today we have a real opportunity to change this situation and so I urge your Lordships to support my noble friend's Amendment.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: I also would support this Amendment. It seems to me absurd to discourage disabled people from getting back to work by providing such a low earnings stop. As soon as the disabled person earns £4·50, he loses complete entitlement to his invalidity pension. What is needed, surely, is a graduated earnings rule; in fact, all that we are asking for is the rule as it already applies to the wife of a disabled person. We are asking for a partial pension for a
604
partial inability to work, and we are asking for something which, as my noble friend Lord Crawshaw has already said, exists in seven out of nine of the E.E.C. countries. I warmly commend this Amendment to your Lordships.
BARONESS ELLIOTT OF HARWOOD: I should like to support this Amendment. Some of us who are lucky enough not to be disabled do not, I think, appreciate the enormous revolution that has taken place in regard to the rehabilitation of disabled people. I have reason at the present time to be working closely with a number of organisations dealing with disabled people and I have been absolutely astonished by what I have seen. It has been a revelation to me to see how extraordinarily successful and accomplished disabled people can be as a result of the many changes and innovations and the many new types of training which have been evolved for disabled people in the last ten years or so. I think it would be a great thing if in this Bill, which is the most up-to-date social security measure we are likely to have for a very long time, cognisance were taken of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, and the other speakers who have supported the Amendment. We are on the brink of something quite new in the way of work for disabled people to enable them to earn their own living in ways which could never have been possible before. I know that the noble Lord will personally be most sympathetic, and I hope that the Government will see their way to including this Amendment, or something like it, in the Bill to enable disabled people to take advantage of what I think is a very enlightened measure.
BARONESS SEROTA: Unfortunately, I missed the opening remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), but I listened with the greatest interest, as I am sure the whole Committee did, to the case that she and the noble Lord. Lord Crawshaw, made. I think it would help us all if the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, could give us some idea of the size of the problem by telling us how much it would cost if the Amendment were accepted.
LORD SOMERS: I should like to say a word in support of this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, spoke

605
of the frightful effect on the morale of enforced idleness. There was a time in my life when that was the case with me and I can entirely confirm what the noble Lord said. Furthermore, having during the past six days or so been minus the use of one hand, I can realise the tremendous bravery shown by those who have permanently lost an arm but who are carrying on a normal life. I think the suggestion about a gradual reduction of the benefit is only reasonable and natural and should have been thought of by any humane Government years ago. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, will consider this Amendment seriously.
6.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT LONG: May I first congratulate my noble friend Lord Crawshaw and his great "team" on this Amendment. I think that they have all spoken admirably and put their case strongly. I am sure that we all congratulate them. From my point of view, I should like to make two points, one as a member of the Royal British Legion and another as a parent of a thalidomide child. Naturally, the Royal British Legion deal with pensions and the disabled all the time. Therefore it is our duty to make sure that in Parliament our voice is heard. At the present time, we are having more work placed on our shoulders with the very young soldiers who have been injured in Northern Ireland. I should not like them, or anybody, to think that they are being neglected when they come out of the Army, disabled through defending law and order. I should like the Government to appreciate the feeling through the Royal British Legion.
I make the second point, as I have said, as a parent of a thalidomide child. We were extremely lucky. I should like to think the Government are doing something not only for the future of the thalidomide children but for other disabled children also. I do not want to bring in the battle with the Distillers Company, but I should like the Government to consider the future of these children in the way of pension and training for a job. At the moment, in some sections of society certain of these children are being taken care of, but there are still children looked after by their
606
parents. I should like the Government to realise that we are looking to the future also for the children, and I hope my noble friend Lord Aberdare can give a very good ear to the Amendment of my noble friend, Lord Crawshaw.
LORD ABERDARE: This is an extremely difficult Amendment for me to speak to because of the immensely human and sympathetic way in which it has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, and supported by various others of your Lordships. I have a deep sympathy with the case that has been put. I know these same people that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), mentioned. I have seen them and the work they do, and I know the magnificent way in which with the aid of electronic devices they manage to earn a living for themselves. I am acquainted with the gentleman who is a lawyer.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, thought that the speeches made in another place were intransigent. The fact is, as I tried to say when I was replying to the noble Baroness, Lady Secar, that we are engaged in a very thorough-going review of all the benefits for the disabled, without seeming to be a little intransigent—that is the last thing that we are trying to be. The noble Lord paid a tribute to my right honourable friend. My right honourable friend is the last person who would enter into discussions and investigations of this kind without meaning to try to get some result from them. My answer will no doubt seem very disappointing to the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, and his supporters, because all I am going to say, in effect, is that we feel it would be anticipating the results of that review to change this Bill in the sense that the Amendment would.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Amendment is quite rightly put down to this Bill. It is not just a matter of uprating. It would be possible to uprate the present amount of £4·50 which the noble Lord mentioned, but it does in fact change the concept that at present exists of invalidity benefit. The present underlying purpose of invalidity and sickness benefits—and invalidity benefit follows on from sickness benefit—is that they are paid where some physical or mental condition renders an insured

607
person incapable of working. His benefit is therefore payable because the claimant is unable to do any work, and the general rule is that the day on which a person does any work cannot normally be regarded as a day of incapacity for benefit purposes. Nevertheless, it has always been recognised that there can be circumstances in which a person may be accepted as incapable of work and yet be capable of doing some work. It was for that reason that a small amount was allowed to be earned. That was originally £2. It was, I am afraid, described as "therapeutic earnings", which I agree is not a very happy phrase, but at least we can claim credit for having increased it to £4·50. I know it is not as far as others might wish to go, but we did increase it. It is not intended to be an earnings rule in the accepted sense. It is a measure of the amount of work that a person can do in somewhat special circumstances and still be accepted as being incapable of work.
If we are considering changing this kind of earnings rule—and again I would ask the noble Lord to allow us to look at it in the context of other possible improvements in the scheme for the disabled—it must be considered together with the position of disabled people in full-time, open or sheltered employment. The noble Lord mentioned the £19 a week invalidity pensioner. If there were a sliding scale earnings rule, that pensioner would be able to get £28 a week doing a fairly limited amount of work, while another disabled person, a low earner who had never received invalidity pension, might not be able to earn that amount by working full time. This is an anomaly. It is one of the difficulties that one always has to go into in these cases. There are always difficulties, and I mention them only because they form part of the review of the whole question of disabled assistance under the social security Acts of which I have been speaking. It is also worth adding that the age of most invalidity pensioners, and the severity of their disablement, make it unlikely that many invalidity pensioners would be working but for the earnings disqualification. Some might be, and some no doubt are. But it is simply because of this that we are so determined to look carefully at the position. As the noble Lord quite rightly said,
608
there are other European countries which deal with this matter in different ways, although there is no single agreed solution in Europe: if there were, it might be easier for us to move towards it. Certainly the experience of other European countries is being used. We are studying what happens in other European countries, and we are hopeful of making improvements.
I come back, however, to the point that I made when I began: that this is to be a comprehensive review which my right honourable friend has set in train. The comments that have been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, on her Amendment, and the comments of other Lords and Baronesses who have spoken to this Amendment, will all be taken into account and we hope that we shall be able to make progress. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, will not take this Amendment as far as a Division, because I feel that to pre-empt the review that my right honourable friend has promised and to put one particular improvement into this Bill would not be, in the long run, in the general interests of the whole subject of what we ought to be doing for the disabled in the social security field.
6.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I am sure we all reaiise the difficulty that my noble friend finds himself in here. Also I think that none of us could fail to have been moved by the terms of great moderation in which the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, and his supporters have spoken in this matter. I am sure all your Lordships will agree that there must be something wrong when, in a case like this, the whole of an invalidity pension is lost through a modest increase in earning capacity. It surely must be right, for all the reasons that the noble Lord has given, that we should find some way to avoid this sudden removal of the whole of an invalidity pension. Some principle of gradual movement must replace it. I would beg my noble friend, even if it is not possible at this stage to deal with this case, to bear in mind that every noble Lord in this House will feel that in principle the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, has established a case for change, and that such a change may be considered positively at the earliest possible moment.
LORD SHEPHERD: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, could give the information for which my noble friend Lady Serota asked? We all recognise that throughout our legislation there are anomalies, and the fact that we may be making another one neither improves the situation very much, nor does it make it much worse. But I think the Committee would very much wish to know the approximate cost that would be entailed if this Amendment were to be passed; in that way we may see the difficulties of the Government in proper perspective.
LORD ABERDARE: I am sorry I did not reply to the noble Baroness, but one of the difficulties is that it is impossible to forecast the cost. One does not know how many disabled people who are in receipt of this benefit would wish, or be able, to earn more than £4·50. However, I appreciate what has been said. The difficulty is really one of principle, because here is an attempt to introduce an entirely new concept in this field of invalidity benefit. I am not saying that this is right or wrong; but it is a completely new concept. It has never been considered a proper function of the National Insurance Fund to supplement earnings, and it would clearly be inconsistent with the principle on which sickness and invalidity benefits are paid to make them available to those who are capable of substantial earnings. Here a complete change is being asked for. All I am saying is that I will ask my right honourable friend to consider it in conjunction with all the other changes that we are being asked to provide, such as the case raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, of the person who looks after a disabled relative. There is also the question of the disabled housewife to be borne in mind. We have sympathy with them all, but were we to accept them all I am afraid we should not be able to study the problem as a whole. The entire situation needs to be studied carefully as a whole. We have to take into account what other countries in Europe are doing, and in the end arrive at a balanced and sensible proposal which we hope can be adequately funded from the resources available.
LORD GRENFELL: I feel I must say something here. This is the kind of
610
debate in which it is essential that everyone who is going to vote should have heard both sides of the question. To my mind, it would be a rather unhappy situation if the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, pressed the Amendment to a Division at this stage, because noble Lords would come in to vote not really having heard the full situation at all. That might give a wrong impression. This has been a particularly moving debate, and I personally think that we should understand the position of the Government, which my noble friend Lord Aberdare has put before us.
There is going to be this survey of all the disabled, and perhaps it is better to do this in a complete way, taking into account all the consequences of disablement, rather than to do it in bits and pieces. I think that if my noble friend Lord Crawshaw would have faith in the Government in this matter and wait a little longer for this report, we shall come to a much better conclusion than by putting this matter before the Committee and pressing for a Division at this moment.
LORD SHEPHERD: I would respond to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, by saying that I only wish he had spoken in similar terms on a previous Amendment put from this side of the Committee—one on which we had set great store. On that occasion the Committee was relatively thin, but the total vote for the Government was about 90. In fact I suspect that the Committee at the present moment is a good deal fuller than it has been for the greater part of this debate. I merely touch on that point. I have some sympathy, because I have been swamped by people who have come from distant parts of the House to vote on many occasions when I have put down Amendments which I thought had merit, and these Amendments have been voted down by people who did not wish to listen to the debate. On this occasion the Committee is relatively full.
I am rather surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, cannot give us at least a hint of what the cost might be. The advice I have had—true, it is not so close as that of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare—is that the total sum involved is relatively small. I wonder whether the noble Lord, without claiming to be accurate, could give us a rough estimate of what is involved—and I do recognise the difficulty—so that we might see the

611
approximate size of the contribution which the State is being required to make.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I wonder whether the noble Lord could also give us an idea of how long such an inquiry is likely to take? Could he tell us whether the inquiry is in train, or whether it is still to be set up? Is it necessary for the whole range of disablement to be included, or could not something be done for those people who have been so ably and so movingly described by the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw? We all know of people who are becoming rather more able every year to earn their living because of the great advances made in the rehabilitation of the disabled. Could the noble Lord say how long all this would take?
LORD ABERDARE: In reply to my noble friend Lady Elliot, I tried to answer this question when it was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I am afraid I cannot answer the question. I can tell her that the review is in progress and that a large number of people in my Department are very hard at work on it. We are most anxious to make progress with this, but I cannot actually tie myself down to giving a date. So far as the cost is concerned, again it really is impossible to put any kind of accurate figure to this. I do not think it would be very large. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, about that. I am not arguing, however, entirely on grounds of cost: I am asking the Committee to accept that this is a completely new principle and it is a difficult one to accept in this Bill at a moment when we are trying to study the total needs of the disabled right across the board with all the other people concerned—both those that we have already discussed and those we shall be discussing later.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I wonder whether my noble friend could go so far as to say that even if it is a new principle—and I quite accept what he says about that—it would be a principle for which there is a great deal to be said?
LORD ABERDARE: I agree with my noble friend. I have listened with the greatest sympathy to the points that have been made by everyone who has spoken this afternoon, and I will certainly see
612
that my right honourable friend is made aware of the strength of feeling that has been expressed during this debate.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am afraid I am rather depressed when I hear about comprehensive reviews. In the time of the Labour Government there was a comprehensive review into the social services. I was in Government for over three years and the review was still going merrily on when I finished, and it is probably still going on. Our main Bill on this matter was never carried into law before the Election swept us away. So I am not exhilarated by the news of this comprehensive review. It means less to me than it does to the noble Lord.
So far as the immediate situation is concerned—and I speak for myself only—if the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, decides to take this to a Division I will support him with alacrity. If the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, feels that he would like the opportunity of discussing what has been said to—day with his colleagues and, without any commitment, feel able to promise to look into it before the next stage, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, that he postpones this for the next stage. If the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, cannot go so far as that then I see no option but to press the Amendment to a Division.
LORD ABERDARE: The noble Earl underlines the difference between the two Parties. His Party may have been engaged for many years on a long—term review; we are getting action. Our record stands for itself. I gave all the figures during the Second Reading. Some £100 million more will be spent on new benefits for the disabled in 1974–75 than was spent in 1970. We have done an immense amount to increase the invalidity benefit and we have introduced the attendance allowance. We are genuine in claiming that we are concerned with the disabled and I think our record proves it. What was said by the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, was that the present Secretary of State means what he says. I can promise the noble Lord that we are engaged in a real review; that it is not just an academic exercise and it is intended to produce results. But if he asks me whether I will take it back and bring the feelings of the Committee

613
to the attention of my right honourable friend, I have said that I will do so. I will certainly see that he is well aware of all that has been said in this debate. It was for that reason that I was hoping we would not need to go to a Division. I will take it back without commitment because we are trying to look at the whole of this field and not pre-empt one particular corner.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: There is a slight ambiguity there, although not intentional, I am sure. The noble Lord means that he would have time to discuss this matter with his colleagues before the next stage. I think that is what he said. He does not mean that he has time for a good discussion after the Bill is finished with and while the review is going on. He means before the next stage.
LORD ABERDARE: I will see that to-morrow, if Hansard is available, my right honourable friend gets a copy and looks at what has been said.
LORD CRAWSHAW: First of all, may I acknowledge the great support and interest your Lordships have shown in this Amendment. I can perhaps clear up the question of the cost which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. It was my contention that there would be a saving, because less people would be drawing supplementary benefit. I believe that to be the decision. I acknowledge, too, everything that my noble friend Lord Aberdare said in perfactly good faith about the review, and so on. I am a little suspicious, like the noble Earl, Lord Longford, about reviews—one likes to have something rather more concrete. I acknowledge, too, that this Amendment is not perfect and that was why we were trying to draw the Government to produce a better alternative.
I am grateful for what the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, said, because I am sure there is a good principle here which should be developed and it is possibly something which can be put in better terms. I am in a slight quandary as to what to do. I think the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said that he would discuss this and come up with something at the Report stage—
LORD ABERDARE: I said, "without commitment". I will certainly draw the
614
attention of my right honourable friend to every word that has been spoken in this debate; but, as I explained, I cannot undertake that I can come up with anything at Report stage. The difficulties lie with the need to review every side of the question.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My noble friend made it clear that he would call the attention of his right honourable friend to the strong feelings expressed by every Member of the House who has spoken in this debate.
LORD CRAWSHAW: In view of that, and in view also of the fact that we are in a position to put down another Amendment on Report stage, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment for the time being.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 15 agreed to.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Widow's allowance]:
6.47 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 31, line 5, leave out from ("death") to end of line 6.
The noble Baroness said: We come now to an entirely different point from the one we discussed earlier in relation to women. We are now on the subject of widows' benefits and the point that I will be discussing in this Amendment is also a point discussed in later Amendments, though in a slightly different connection. We are all aware that the Bill provides certain benefits for a widow, but equally we have a carryover of the old rules which characterise present legislation: if a widow re-marries or cohabits with a man as his wife, her pension ceases.
We will leave for the moment the question of remarriage, but I feel it is humiliating for a woman to have this kind of thing printed in her pension book. It was drawn to my attention many years ago when I first started working for widows. I believe the words have now been changed to say "lives with a man as his wife". One could make some kind of unfortunate joke and say that you would be safe in having casual

615
affairs provided you did not have a regular one, because that seems to be the implication of the wording.
This rule gives rise to all sorts of unfortunate circumstances. I believe I have quoted before the case of the young widow who lived on a farm and shared a house with a single man who was engaged to a girl in another village. This single man was in the habit of watching television with the widow. It was never established at any stage that there was any situation other than that. Quite recently when speaking to widows I said to them, "If you have a colour television set and the man next door has only black and white, be careful if you invite him to come and look at your television". But on the strength of an investigator who called at the cottage and interviewed not the woman, but one of her children, who said that this man had looked at the television with her mother, the mother's pension was withdrawn. After some difficulty, we managed some months later to get the pension back again.
This is not an isolated case. Many women are subjected to this humiliating situation merely if they take a lodger. It is not unreasonable in this day and age to prefer to have a male lodger to a female one. After all, I believe he is not so much trouble; he does not want to wash his clothes so frequently. and there are all sorts of other advantages. But it comes to the situation where a widow with all honesty declares that she has a man lodger and she is immediately under suspicion. We always have the situation of the neighbour who wishes to cause some difficulty. I would respectfully suggest that, for the very small number of cases in which the wicked woman would be drawing this £6·75 and spending it on a man with whom she happens to be living, there must be thousands more widows who live, or try to live, on their pension and deplore the fact that this rule is still included. So, if we leave aside the question of remarriage, which I will come to when I speak of the widowed mother, I would ask for this particular rule to be taken out of the widow's benefit. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: The only time I have found myself at sharp emotional variance, as it were, with the noble
616
Baroness is when I felt she did not significantly appreciate that the widow's allowance is a short-term benefit. Normally it is paid for 26 weeks to help tide the widow over the early months of widowhood. To accept this Amendment in isolation—and the noble Baroness has moved it on its own—would be to remove the disqualification for remarriage or cohabitation for a maximum period of six months. So that even if linked with Amendments Nos.32 and 33, which are still ahead of us, the advantage to a remarried widow would last for no more than six months.
The second point is perhaps a more general one. Social security widows' benefits have always been subject to remarriage disqualification, even before 1948, and I think with good reason in this case because the benefits are designed to provide a cash benefit to a woman who has lost her husband—normally the main provider for her and for any children of their marriage. To continue payment of widow's allowance after remarriage or cohabitation, as the noble Baroness proposes, would give a remarried or cohabitating widow financial help at a time when she has essentially resumed her pre-widowhood position; that is to say, she again has someone to whom she can look for support. So I think I must ask the noble Baroness on those grounds to withdraw her Amendment.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I wonder whether the Minister would distinguish. There is a difference between marrying and cohabitation which this wretched rule describes. Obviously, if a woman has married then she has a legal claim, even in this day and age, on her husband's money, but that is not so in the case of somebody who is cohabitating. There is a difference.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I certainly appreciate that there is a difference between marriage and cohabitation; and I think the end result of the noble Baroness's philosophy might be a significant diminution of the number of marriages. But that may be neither here nor there. What is a serious point is that one must not disadvantage the married in Statute form for the benefit of the unmarried; that would be, surely,

617
inequitable, even by the most enlightened standards.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Widowed mother's allowance]:
6.55 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 31, line 19, leave out ("and") and insert ("or she satisfies prescribed conditions as to residence or presence in Great Britain and, in either case,")
The noble Baroness said: We return now to the question of remarriage and cohabitation, a discussion of which I am sure your Lordships will enjoy. This Amendment deals with a different point and concerns a woman who remarries and loses the widowed mother's allowance. I think your Lordships will take the point that if a man takes over the care of another man's children it is not unreasonable that there should be some monetary recompense to help him. Indeed, I have seen situations where this question has created quite a lot of difficulty. It is a very delicate role, as anyone will tell you, to be a stepmother or a stepfather, and it seemed to me in the cases I had occasion to discuss that it would have been a little easier if the widow had been able at any rate to retain the allowance for the children of the previous marriage. May I say again that this will not at any stage ever concern a large number of people; and, of course, those who do not wish to take the allowance would not need to do so, if the husband felt particularly that there was something in it that was undesirable. But I would plead in this new legislation for the opportunity for the mother who is getting the widowed mother's allowance to continue to have it after remarriage. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: In a very charming but, I still find, a dangerous way, the noble Baroness is again battling against the contributory principle, and is also battling against it at a time when, so far as we can tell, most, at any rate, of the official Opposition, and certainly the Trades Union Congress, are anxious to retain it. The effect of her Amendment would be to allow the widowed mother's allowance to be paid on the basis of a period of residence in Great Britain as an alternative to the normal contribution
618
test. We have already spoken about the other cases in which that would be a major inroad on the contributive principle. Since its inception in 1948, a widowed mother's allowance has always been a contributory benefit, rightly I think, again because from 1948 there was a 10-year marriage condition, but this was reduced to a three-year test in 1956, and abolished completely in April, 1971.
I have already defended at this Box the contributory principle. Suffice it here to say that acceptance of the Amendment would be equivalent in most cases to abolishing the contribution condition. It would be a very serious breach of the principle indeed, and therefore a serious breach of the basis of the benefit. It would inevitably lead to pressure to abolish the contribution tests for the other widows' benefits, which I am sure the noble Baroness would not wish, and indeed it would put the whole basis of the scheme at risk. We cannot believe that either the Opposition or the Trades Union Congress would wish to see this arise. We agree with them, if I am right in that description, and hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her Amendment.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I should not like to challenge the Minister to give me this quote from the Trades Union Congress, but as he has quoted it several times I shall probably have to ask him for the column number or reference. I should not wish this case to be overstated, but I am not unduly concerned about what the Trades Union Congress feel in this matter. We have to be guided by the equity of it. Again, I do not regard the contributory system, which has been quoted several times, as sacrosanct. This is new legislation, and it seems to me that the Government are missing an opportunity. They are carrying over all the old, sometimes outdated and sometimes quite bad previous rules of previous Acts. However, I will not press this Amendment, and beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: This might be a convenient time for us to break off for the other Business, and I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume. —(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed accordingly.

BAHAMAS INDEPENDENCE BILL
7.0 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ALPORT in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Fully responsible status of Bahamas]:
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3) of this section").
The noble Lord said: I hope your Lordships will be agreeable to taking Amendment No.1 with No.2, as the former is a paving Amendment and will make no sense unless it is taken with Amendment No.2. In fact, in a sense I should like to speak to all four Amendments together because they are all consequential upon one another; but for the sake of procedure I will now speak to Amendment No.1.
May I say at once that I deeply regret the necessity of having to move these Amendments. I regret it for reasons which I hope I shall be able to make clear. Let me make it quite clear at the start that I have no wish at all to encourage a minority opinion to bring disaffection in the Bahama Islands. My noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir suggested in strong terms last Thursday that I should not do this. I assure her and your Lordships that it is no part of my intention to do this.
To put this into perspective I should like to refer to the very informed speech
620
made by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, on Thursday last, and I hope the noble Lord will not mind if I quote him. At the end of his speech he said:
"The only other thing I would say to Her Majesty's Government is this. In the very unlikely circumstances of difficulties arising between Abaco and the Bahamas Government, perhaps the Government might consider whether it might not be desirable to ask Canada (whose inhabitants, after all, are similar to those of Abaco in being loyalists who did not fight with the U.S.A. for independence) and perhaps some representatives of West Indian countries to offer their services for a solution of the problem."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7/6/73, col.233.]
I think it is a matter of opinion as to whether the events which the noble Lord suggested might take place will or will not in fact take place, but I think it is a great deal more likely that they will take place than does the noble Lord. So in the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, I can find only one particular in which we are at all in disagreement in connection with this matter: I think these events are likely to take place, whereas the noble Lord does not think so. That is a matter of opinion. I am not asking for them to take place; I hope they do not. But this is essentially where we are in disagreement, and it was because of what I thought was the likelihood of events of this sort taking place that, as your Lordships know, over the last few weeks I have been pressing Her Majesty's Government to take action of some kind to investigate the real wishes of the people of Abaco.
I should also once more, and for the last time, like to say that I regret the way in which this Bill is going through the House. I shall not labour this point as I raised it last Thursday, but it seems to me that I might have obtained some concession from Her Majesty's Government to—day, and if I had done so I might have withdrawn the Amendment. In the present situation, the Bill is going through in one day. We discussed it on Thursday and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was very fair. We agreed to it and I do not complain but, although I have been in your Lordships' House for quite a number of years this is the first time that I have moved an Amendment.
I have studied this over the week-end and I have come to a much more solid conclusion on it than I had on Thursday. I think it is a mistake to move three

621
stages of a Bill in one day. I think one might have time to discuss it, to give the Government time to think. But here I am, and I may have to take a more extreme attitude than I should like to take. But what can I do? The Bill is going through to-day and the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, said that it is to be given the Royal Assent on Friday. I have no alternative, unless I obtain some concrete concessions from Her Majesty's Government, but to press my Amendment to a Division, no matter how many of your Lordships may or may not agree with me.
On this affair of the Island of Abaco, on which the Amendment is based, I should like to make a brief excursion into statistics. I am not sure that I believe in statistics and I am sure most of your Lordships do not, but we have had a great many statistics thrown around about this matter. It is not in dispute that in the last election in Abaco 62·5 per cent. of the electors voted for the Opposition. Independence was only one of the issues, and I have been assured by Mr. Watkins, who is one of the members for Abaco, that he himself, in his own constituency, fought the election on a solid anti-independence basis. How it was fought in other constituencies I do not know, but I do know that the Government Party fought it on a number of issues, among which independence was one.
As I have said, in Abaco 62·5 per cent. of the population voted for the Opposition, but in the island itself, owing to the way in which the constituency boundaries have been drawn—and I make no comment on that; it happens in this country as well—there is one member for the Government and one member for the Opposition. This could happen anywhere in this country. I do not know that I believe that the way in which we have our House of Commons elections is particularly democratic; it is the way in which we do it. So that 62·5 per cent. of the population of the island voted for the Opposition and, as I understand it, in doing so they voted against independence. One of the constituencies in fact fell to the Government Party. That could happen here, and it could happen in any of the islands we have round our coast.
As I said on Second Reading, Mr. Watkins has told me that in his view
622
80 per cent. of the electorate would support him in his desire to have Abaco as a Crown Colony. I certainly cannot tell your Lordships whether or not this is so. My noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir cannot say, either—none of us can say whether it is so, unless we ask the people. The only thing I can say is that a petition was recently organised. I myself asked Mr. Watkins to do it, because I thought it was possibly the best way in which he could get his case made clear in the other place and in your Lordships' House.
LORD SHEPHERD: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I thought he said that he asked a certain gentleman to organise this petition. Why did the noble Lord do that? Does he live there? Is he part of the people of Abaco? Why was he involved?
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: I am not involved in any way at all in Abaco. I am interested in the fact that here we have British subjects whose ancestors have been loyal to the Crown for 200 years, and, it seems to me, are going to be sold down the river. That is the only reason why I am intervening in this matter. I have not got 2p in Abaco, Nassau or the Bahamas. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that from me. I have declared my only interest. That Petition in two days received 1,200 signatures. I see the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, trying to work that out: 6,500 people and 1,200 signatures. It took two days. The weather was very bad. They had only two days because, as noble Lords know, Parliament was in rather a hurry. The Government of the Bahamas tried to organise a counter-Petition and to my knowledge they got 40 signatures. That is so far as I know.
May I get off that subject? I should not want to labour this business of Petitions toe much, because Petitions, I know, can be very difficult things. One gets all sorts of signatures on Petitions. One can get six of one's own children to sign them. That is well known to Her Majesty's Government, as it has been well known to every Government for the last 200 years. I should like to come on to the affair of the Greater Abaco Council because Her Majesty's Government have sought to make great play of the supposed fact that it changed its mind, and

623
that having had its Petition dismissed last December it said that it would work for a united Bahamas. I put it to Her Majesty's Government that the facts are rather different, and I have taken some pains to obtain them. There were 20 members of the Greater Abaco Council; three of them changed their minds after December; one of them has since died; and 16 of them are still in favour of Abaco's becoming a Crown Colony. The Council was self-appointed and has not met since last December, but even with a self-appointed body it is surely a little odd that Her Majesty's Government should take the view that the opinion of three members who have changed their minds carries more weight than the opinion of 16 who did not. That ends my statistical excursion.
We can throw around and juggle with these figures as long as we like, but the fact remains that there is a problem here, and if it is not dealt with, in my opinion—and it is not merely my opinion, as I know other people who share my opinion—it will probably get worse. Some of your Lordships may have read the article in The Times yesterday. I shall not go into detail on it, but it points out the dangers which exist both for Abaco and the Bahamas in the present situation. The article points out, and everything I have heard confirms what it points out, that the people in Abaco are deeply afraid for their future after Independence. It goes further, and I will quote from the article. I am quoting from The Times which your Lordships will not think is a very biased newspaper. It is the great newspaper of this country. Perhaps the writer may have been biased—I do not know—but this article has been printed in The Times. I tried to get a letter on this subject into The Times but they would not print it. However, they printed this article from one of their own correspondents, and this is what that correspondent said:
"It certainly does not seem that Mr. Pindling has sought to smother the suspicions of the white Abaconians with kindness. The full pettiness of party and racial vindictiveness has been deployed in much the way that an African Government often revenges itself on its tribal and party opponents."
The Government ought to think hard and deeply before it throws people of proven loyalty and devotion to the British
624
Crown to the wolves. It has been done before, but here we are not dealing with the same sort of situation which we dealt with in Kenya and which we have been dealing with in Rhodesia. Here we do not have a minority of white settlers who are loyal to the Crown, a minority perhaps of 1 per cent. That is not the situation in Abaco. We are dealing with the majority of the population of an island which has lived peacefully under the British Crown for 200 years and now fears that its time is up and that they, the people of the island, will be forced to pack their bags and leave their ancestral homes. That is the stark reality of the situation which faces us to-day. It is no use our ducking it or pretending otherwise. That is what these people think. So far as I can see, nothing that has been done by Her Majesty's Government or the Government of the Bahamas has done anything to quiet these fears. And they should have been quieted in a civilised country and in a civilised community. They may be wrong in thinking what they think, but that is what they think.
That fact was rather poignantly brought home to me yesterday when a gentleman from the Bahamas visited my home. He asked me—and your Lordships know the procedure of this House and of another place—whether the Government could not give the people in the Bahamas (and he was speaking of the Bahamas in general though he is a resident in Abaco) one year between the passage of this Bill through both Houses of Parliament and its implementation, so that the opponents, both black and white, of the present Government could have time to pack their bags, sell their belongings and leave. He is quite convinced that he will have to leave after Independence, and his family have been in residence for 200 years. I hope, and I am sure that all your Lordships hope, that his fears will not be realised, but these fears are real. They do exist; and it is no use pretending in your Lordships' House that they do not exist.
In all my interventions on this subject, and I may have bored your Lordships slightly on it, I have sought for only one thing, and that is that the real wishes of the people of Abaco should be ascertained. There is no doubt at all that the majority wish to remain British.

625
The only question which has ever come up for argument before your Lordships is the size of that majority. The trouble is that Independence is an irrevocable step. Whatever happens after July 10, Her Majesty's Government have no authority. We have finished with it. There is nothing whatever we can do. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, suggested certain things which Her Majesty's Government might do should trouble break out after Independence between Abaco and the Government of the Bahamas. I think myself that his suggestions were absolutely right. I agree in essence with everything that he said. The only particular in which I disagree with the noble Lord is: would it not be far better if we did this before, rather than wait for trouble to break out. It seems to me, from what I know, quite certain that something will break out there, and I hope to God that nobody will be killed! Something is going to break out, and would it not be better if we made an inquiry into the situation now, rather than wait until British sovereignty is withdrawn, until we have no power over the situation at all except to make feeble pronouncements or protestations in the United Nations. Now we are the sovereign Power. We could do something now.
That is why, short of some suggestion from Her Majesty's Government which might modify the stand I am taking, I shall have to ask your Lordships to support me in the Lobbies in voting for Crown Colony status for Abaco. That would not preclude a subsequent investigation and it would not preclude eventual reunion with the rest of the Bahamas, but it would preclude the sort of trouble that has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. It would enable the people of Abaco to express their wishes in a proper, legal and democratic way, which is all I have ever asked for in your Lordships' House. So far as I know, that is all that they are asking for; and in asking your Lordships to support my Amendment I am asking only that the wishes of the people of this island should be taken into account before they are, as they feel they are going to be—although I do not know—thrown to the wolves.
I have had to move my Amendments in their present form as it seems to me
626
to be the only way to contain the situation at this stage. What is suggested in my Amendments is certainly not the only possible solution. I suggest that even now Her Majesty's Government and the Bahamas Government could agree to an impartial investigation of the situation. There could be some sort of solution on the basis of an associated State or a status similar to that of the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands. It ought not to be impossible to find a happy solution, if only it can be grasped by Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Bahamas that there is a problem here. I do not think it has been grasped. I would hope that my noble friend, Lady Tweedsmuir, might suggest something to-day. As I have said, I think it is deeply unfortunate that we are taking this Bill in the way in which we are taking it, because any suggestion of the Government will have to be fairly concrete if I am not to press my Amendment. If my Amendment were accepted by the Government or carried by your Lordships, it would at least give time for second thoughts and possibly wiser counsel.
All I would say in conclusion is that many loyal British subjects, simple people who are loyal to the Queen and to the British Crown and to this Parliament, are looking to your Lordships to-day—and do not let us have any doubts about it—for a sign that this country has not forgotten them and will not sell them down the river for the sake of bureaucratic tidiness. I beg to move.
7.22 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: The mover has just made a powerful and nostalgic speech, which I am sure will have made a great impression on the Committee. Indeed, he did this also at Second Reading. Unfortunately, I myself was unable to be in the House that day, but of course I have read the proceedings carefully, as indeed I have read the proceedings in another place, where also there were most moving speeches. But, further, the mover has, I am sure, in the opinion of the Committee, shown evidence of great knowledge of the subject which he has dealt with. In our House the debate was notable in that it contained a speech from the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, which was more equitable and less emotive than we are

627
habituated to hearing from him, much as we always enjoy the undoubted sincerity with which he advances his views.
But now history generates romanticism and at times this can justify secession. In this case the mover has amply told us the historical and constitutional facts which must have concrete bearing on this subject. He has told us of the original settlement. Many of us, I am sure, were unaware of the circumstances; that originally it was loyalists from Canada who settled on what was until then an uninhabited island. There can be no argument, as there often is in the case of South Africa, because it is forgotten that the white man came in where there was no non-white population. Here we have been given a picture different from what is usual.
Of course, the Government's Bill will get an easy passage, as it did on Second Reading, for the remaining stages, but that is largely because, historically, it has been the Opposition's policy to support dismemberment. Through the last two decades the British Empire or Commonwealth has been progressively dismembered, until to-day, it is looked on in the world as a whole with a respect and regard very different from 50 years ago. Fragmentation, naturally, is disliked. The whole policy of self-government involves fragmentation. We often hear in discussion about the African continent of nations. What nonsense! They are not nations. Many of the now independent countries are peoples; they are not nations. They are a conglomeration of different tribes, as different as the continental countries.
I and many others think the Bahamas would have been much wiser to remain a colony and have the advantage of the protection of the Crown. Inevitably there has been a flight of capital; there is fear of corruption, intimidation. But, of course, it does give jobs for the boys. To justify my intervention, I must explain to the Committee that from the early 'twenties I have had a good deal of familiarity with the Colony. I have been there very often, visited many of the islands, and at least have some knowledge of the situation. I remember well all the stories of the Bay Street bandits, which the noble Lord, Lord
628
Shepherd, with his familiarity with this subject in his responsibility of Government, will know.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD: Not the bandits.
LORD BARNBY: Anyhow, I must ask the indulgence of the Committee if I give a personal experience. I remember being there in 1940, I think, when Sir Harry Oakes was making his first airport. I came back so impressed with the possibilities for the national effort that I wrote to the Air Minister of the day and said I thought there was reason to make good use of the airfield being established there. I remember getting back a letter, under the official heading from the Minister, saying that he thanked me very much for the offer and reminder, but it was definitely unlikely that it would serve any purpose during the present conflict. As every Member of the House knows, it became a most important staging post in the support of aircraft for the continuance of the war. I go further: I remember going to Eleuthera with Austin Levy. Until that time the colony had been dependent, even for its milk, eggs and elementary supplies, on the mainland and Florida. He started that ranch on the island of Eleuthera which gave tremendous benefit to the populations of the Islands.
I must say that I get perplexed about the denials of independence. I never realised why the defection of Katanga was so resisted. That would have been a perfectly viable country, and yet it was resisted. It might be claimed that Biafra was never viable independently, but I understand that the populations of Nigeria are as different as are the Finns and the Turks, although I do not know Nigeria well only having been there occasionally. All this argument makes one think, and my mind goes back to the analogy of the Danzig corridor, which was discussed for so long. All that passed away in 20 years. Again there was all the trouble of the plebiscite in Teschen. That has all passed away now.
I turn now to the speech of the Minister on Second Reading. It was reassuring that there is not likely to be any increase in citizenship difficulties as a result of this Bill; but the speech did turn to the possibility of financial aid, and that raises some alarm. If independence is needed, are we to have a repetition of all this

629
absurdity in other parts where there has been independence? If independence is wanted, let there be independence. But in the last two decades we have paid out over £350 million in subventions to all these countries that wanted to break away from the Government that they then had. They probably were jolly good Governments because they were under the Crown. In that connection the Opposition so often suggests that there has been cause for atonement for some past offences of Britain against the populations who claim independence. Atonement for what? Under our rule they have had all the benefits that Britain gave to them, in education, health services, and all the other benefits that science could offer to them. I personally have never believed in the idea that there is any ground for atonement, because there has been nothing to atone for.
At least an inquiry is to take place. The noble Lord who moved this Amendment is anxious as to whether proper consideration will be given. I was interested to hear that Colonel Mitchell, who is well known in the other place, is proceeding there to make a personal inquiry. There are other small dependencies in the world, and surely it is not impossible that this one should be viable. Why should we renounce all historical responsibility?
The Motion failed in the Commons, and I can hardly believe that it will succeed here; but it merits a protest both on the grounds of the mechanics as regards the procedure through the House, to which the mover has drawn attention, and also on the proposed imposition of compulsion and the suggestion of the noble Lord of possible discrimination and reprisals. All that is disquieting. After all, these are human beings and should attract sympathy and compassion. I support the Amendment.
7.35 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: I propose to speak with the utmost brevity in this debate. I had no intention of speaking at all. I listened carefully to the Second Reading debate and I have listened very carefully this afternoon, and my reason for determining to abstain from speaking in the debate was that I have no personal practical knowledge of the Bahamas—one of the few places in the formerly
630
world-wide colonial empire about which I cannot claim to have a wide experience. However, since I gather that I share that deficiency with the noble Lord who opened this debate—and that brings us back to basic principles—perhaps I may say that I have listened to what has been said this afternoon and I am deeply unimpressed with the reasons given for asking the Government to change their policy.
I listened with great care to what the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, said at the end of the Second Reading debate, and in my personal opinion it would he a great pity if she altered that. I do not think that she will, because, if I may say so without any undue arrogance to anybody with a wide personal knowledge of these affairs, what she said was fundamentally impressively true.
LORD MONSON: I rise to support these Amendments. First of all, I should like to apologise to the Committee and to the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, for unfortunately having missed his opening words. I hope that I shall not be repetitious in any way. What impels me to support these Amendments is chiefly a most dramatic statement made by a highly respected Bahamian elder statesman a few months ago. It is pertinent to note that the gentleman in question is of mixed blood. What he in effect said, after spending all his life in the Bahamas like his father and grandfather before him, is that he now intended to emigrate for good and live in the United States. His reasons for doing so were that he had not spent most of his life fighting white racialism only to be confronted now with black racialism. For such a distinguished public figure to take such a drastic step must surely make one stop and think.
I would never claim to be an expert on the West Indies, but I have visited a good many of the islands in the Caribbean and to the North of the Caribbean—English, French and Spanish speaking—and I know one or two of them quite well. As a schoolboy just over 30 years ago I lived in one of them for about 18 months, and I remember well that anybody, irrespective of sex, age or colour, could walk anywhere at any time of day or night in personal safety—well, perhaps

631
not on Saturday nights when the rum tended to flow rather freely, but at least at any other time. Furthermore, people scarcely bothered to lock their doors at night. Now things have changed, and I think that they have change particularly in the last ten years.
Perhaps one is reading too much into this. Perhaps some of it can be attributed to the general spread of violence among younger people which is a phenomenon all over the world. Some of it, I suggest, is due to the alien importation into these Islands of the phenomenon known as Black Power. I say "the alien importation" because I do not believe that it is in any way indigenous. It comes in from the United States, and is diffused partly by the cinema but chiefly by television, both directly by showing manifestations of Black Power—riots and so on—to young people, so perhaps putting ideas into their heads, and also to some extent indirectly inasmuch as hitherto rather unworldly people are brought face to face with a more exciting and more affluent lifestyle on the screen. When they find that it is not possible for them to participate in this lifestyle straight away, there is a natural tendency to resent this and their resentment tends to be directed against minorities on the Islands such as white, brown or yellow people (to make a generalisation). As I think is well known, the people of Abaco are mainly white or brown rather than black and they therefore—or so it appears—feel themselves in the firing line and subject, if not to out and out black power discrimination, then discrimination in matters of jobs, licences and so on.
There is also, of course, the loyalty aspect to which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, referred on Second Reading—and very fairly if I may say so—and I do not think one can dismiss this lightly. These people have been loyal to Britain and felt themselves quasi-British anyway for over 200 years, and until very recently they must have expected that this state would continue in perpetuity. It is, after all, I suppose, not more than 15 years ago that if one had suggested that a group of islands or a territory with a population of under a million or, at the very least half a million should become independent it would have been thought that one was
632
talking through one's hat—except perhaps for Iceland. which is one of the oldest and most literate civilisations; but generally speaking this was the consensus of opinion.
This brings me to the objections advanced by those who opposed these Amendments and the sentiments which lie behind them. First, there is the question of size. Consider a situation which we now have and which could not have been foreseen 20 or even 15 years ago—independent countries of 170,000 or so people. We have also heard advocated independence for Bermuda—contrary, if I may say so, to the wishes of the Bermudans. Bermuda has a population of only 54,000. I do not think that one can advocate independence for Bermuda with all the trappings of independence—State visits, a seat in the United Nations with the same voting power in the General Assembly as Britain which has 1,000 times the population and so on—and in the same breath say that the wishes and aspirations of the people of Abaco, with a population of only 6,500, are of no account.
There is the fragmentation aspect. An archipelago which is comparable to the Bahamas is the archipelago in which the Windward and Leeward Islands are found—and a more variegated group of islands it would be impossible to find, politically and linguistically. In the South there is Grenada and the Grenadines, St. Vincent, St. Lucia, Martinique, Dominica, Guadeloupe, St. Kitts, Montserrat, Anguilla, and so forth. The majority are British speaking, with varying degrees of independence from or affiliation to Britain. Two are French-speaking and technically speaking, are part of Metropolitan France. Indeed, one in the North is half Dutch and half French: St. Martin, with an area of 37 square miles: 20 miles belonging to France, the other 17 to Holland. This fragmentation does not seem to have worked against the prosperity of these islands or to have been any impediment to trade, communication or indeed friendship between them.
It has been said that Abaco is an integral part of the Bahamas. The Turks and Caicos Islands were also an integral part of the Bahamas for almost half a century. They are no longer. I do not

633
think that that is a very powerful consideration. What has not been mentioned so far is the actual interests of an independent Bahamas. The exclusion of Abaco from an independent Bahamas seems to me hardly injurious to its interests either economically or from the point of view of defence or communications—under the benevolent guiding hand of a British administrator. On the contrary, if—and we do not know for certain—an overwhelming majority of people in Abaco are violently hostile to joining the Bahamas in independence, it would only be to the benefit of the Bahamas if this weak link in the chain, this thorn in the side, were removed and the Bahamas started off on a happy and unanimously supported footing.
To sum up, I suppose that most of us in this House are talking in a vacuum. We are only speculating. Both sides think that they know the feelings of the people of Abaco and advance their views with sincerity, but in the last resort it is only those who live on the Islands or whose families live on the Islands 365 days of the year who can really know what is happening and what their feelings are. Whatever statements might be made by people in power at any given moment, promises made and guarantees given, the people of Abaco are the ones who can read between the lines, assess tendencies, trends and so on. It seems to me, therefore, that the only fair and correct course is to support these Amendments, to give time for a referendum to be held to ascertain what the sentiments and wishes of the people of Abaco really are. For myself, I would reluctantly concede as the lesser of two evils, that if only a small majority in the Islands are in favour of Crown Colony status (say between 51 and 55 per cent.) perhaps existing plans ought to go ahead; but if, as the Member for Marsh Harbour claims, 80 per cent. or even 75 per cent. are further in favour of continued British protection, then I feel sure that your Lordships will agree that it would be quite immoral to deny this to them. I therefore support these Amendments and urge your Lordships to do the same.
LORD BROCKWAY: As some reference has been made to me, perhaps I may say a few words. I was a little surprised,
634
and perhaps in small part embarrassed, by the tributes paid to my speech by the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, and particularly, if I may say so, by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby—not in their references to myself, because I enjoy their friendship, but in their references to the argument which I put forward during the Second Reading debate. As I said then, I tried to approach this subject in an objective way. I did so from a certain principle, because I believe deeply in the right of self-determination and because I am often sympathetic at local level where there are strong feelings against centralised authority. It was from that point of view I approached a study of the problem of Abaco, and I did so even though I had no political sympathy with the attitude of the majority of the white population on the island of Abaco.
As I said on Second Reading, I think that the British Government have some duty of sympathy, and even of generosity, towards them, because they are the descendants of British troops and of British loyalists left on the coast of the United States of America during the War of Independence, even though I personally would not have sympathised with their forefathers—I should have been all in favour of the American claim to independence. But even though one differs with people, one must recognise their human rights and I tried to face this problem from the point of view of that recognition. I tried to be objective, although I do not think there is any doubt that the attitude of the majority of the white population on Abaco is anti-black, and that there is colour prejudice. There has been reference to the mixed race. May I apologise to one of the Abaco representatives elected to the Legislature, for describing him as half English and half African? I understand that he is, in fact, half Irish and half African. But, as I said earlier, in territories such as Abaco people of mixed race are very often more English and more European than the blacks in those territories.
I do not think there is very much doubt that most of the white population there are now bitterly opposed to the independence of the Bahamas and to being part of it, because of their racial attitude towards a black Government in

635
the Bahamas. I also have this concern: there is an association between them and extremist Americans, only a few miles distant in Florida, who were previously associated with the Bay of Pigs attack upon Cuba, and who represent a fear in America that there should be a black Government in the Bahamas so near to their coast. Therefore, if I have sought to think in terms of the right of peoples, it has been with some discipline of myself, because I cannot imagine any group of people with whose political attitude I have less sympathy than the white population of Abaco.
We must get this problem into correct perspective. The noble Lord who has just spoken referred to suggestions that Bermuda might become independent when it had a population of only 54,000. I recognise at once that this problem of small nations, particularly when recognised by the United Nations, is a serious problem to which we must all give our minds. But Abaco has a population of only 6,500. Admittedly, it is one of the larger of the 700 islands in the archipelago of the Bahamas, but it is sparsely populated. If the estimate is correct that 60 per cent. of the population of Abaco take the view that they should not join independent Bahamas, then the total number about whom we are speaking this evening is between 4.000 and 5,000, while the total population of the Bahamas is 170,000. I should like the Minister to clear up one point when she replies, because I may have been misled about it. I had understood that the Greater Abaco Council, in its negotiations with the Government, had finally agreed that it would work within the independence framework, but now some suggestion is being made that that did not represent the view of the Council as a whole.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: If the noble Lord, who is a very assiduous listener to speeches in this House, will give way to me for a moment, I explained the situation with regard to the Greater Abaco Council. Three of them changed their minds, 16 still want Abaco to have Crown Colony status, and one of them died. If Her Majesty's Government choose to think that three out of the original 20 are still the Greater
636
Abaco Council, then that is their business.
LORD BROCKWAY: I listened to the speech of the noble Lord and heard him say that. I just wanted to know from the Minister what is her version of that matter, because I understood from Ministerial Statements that the Greater Abaco Council have now agreed to work within the framework of independence.
References have been made to a proposal which I put on Second Reading, but it has been taken out of context to a considerable extent. What I said was that if a situation arose in the Bahamas—which I thought very unlikely indeed—where there was violence between the residents of Abaco and the central Government, then in those circumstances the British Government should give support to the central Government. I also drew attention to the fact that the only defence forces which the Bahamas have are 900 half—trained policemen and four small boats. Therefore, my appeal to the Government was that if an ugly situation did arise in the Bahamas assistance should be given to the Bahamas Government. But I added this—and I believe it very sincerely indeed: I do not want in the Bahamas another Anguilla situation—Anguilla withdrawing from the Associated States of St. Kitts and Nevis, and British forces having to be there although, incidentally, doing very good civilian work while they are there. I do not want that situation to arise in the Bahamas.
Let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, that I think he is a little unrealistic in urging that this matter should be considered before independence is accorded. The Bill has gone through another place, and the point of view which he has put forward was strongly argued there. It was also put forward during the Second Reading debate here. Arrangements for the independence celebrations have been made, and a member of the Royal Family is to attend. If the art of politics is the possible, I am suggesting that the noble Lord is not being political and that the proposal that independence should be postponed in order that this matter of 4,000 people should be considered is quite unrealistic.

637
But I want to say, not only to him but to the white and European population on Abaco Island, and to Mr. Pindling, the Prime Minister, whom I have known for so many years, that if there is this conflict on the part of the whites on the Island of Abaco, they should seek to find a settlement which does not bring about a violent situation there. I believe that such a settlement could be reached. Mr. Pindling's Government, despite assertions which have been made about it, is not a racialist or an extreme Government. There might be others much more extreme if a dangerous situation arises in the Bahamas.
During my Second Reading speech I made the suggestion that, if conflict does occur, then it might be well to approach both Canada, near at hand, and other West Indian independent Governments to seek a solution and settlement of the problem. That was the proposal I made; it was not a proposal for the withdrawal of independence, or for its postponement. I hope that the friends of the noble Lord in Abaco and Mr. Pindling's Government will both respond to the appeal that, with the coming of independence, they will seek together to reach a solution of this problem and so enable the Bahamas—despite the difficulties—to realise the great opportunities offered.
LORD COLERAINE: I do not wish to stand for long between the Committee and my noble friend the Minister of State, but I have one or two observations to make on this very difficult problem. Like my noble friend Lord Milverton, I am not fully versed upon it, but, unlike him, I have not been impressed either by the Government defence on Second Reading or by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, moderate and persuasive as it was. I have been greatly impressed, if they will allow me to say so, by the speeches of my noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, which were, in my judgment, convincing, moderate and based on deep conviction.
Now to a layman like myself the problem, it seems, is not a quantitative one. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, used these words, but I think he asked: how can you speak in terms of injustice to a population of 4,000, 5,000 or 6,000 when you set it against a popu
638
lation of 100,000, 160,000 or whatever the figure is? But injustice cannot he measured quantitatively or statistically. Injustice to one man is just as great as injustice to a million, and if we are doing injustice to the people of Abaco then that is injustice, however much we try to juggle with figures. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said that the population of Abaco—he used the words "white population", but I think he intended the greater part of the population, which I understand is multi-coloured—was racialist, and he argued that a population of mixed blood is far more loyalist than the king, so to speak, and for reasons of prestige, snobbery or whatever you like is very anxious to draw a line between itself and its black compatriots. I do not think that is so in this case. From what I have read of the problem and the extent to which I have studied it, it is not that the population of Abaco is racialist and anti—black: it is that Mr. Pindling's Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, is the representative of Black Power, a political movement; and it is to that, as I understand it, that the population of Abaco is opposed.
When this was debated in another place, Mr. Ronald Bell, in moving an Amendment similar in purport to that of my noble friend, gave instances, not of fears of victimisation on the part of the people of Abaco, but of victimisation that had already taken place since the election. I think I am right in saying that the Minister in charge of the Bill was unable to deny these facts. I think I am right in saying that already there have been cases of victimisation. What is likely to happen when these people are delivered, bond, to the people of the island 50 miles away?
There is one particular argument that I would put to the Committee and to my noble friend. It is this. If my noble friend the Minister of State accepts she Amendment of my noble friend or, at any rate, accepts the general arguments on which it is based; and if she will say that she will see what can be done to improve the situation before the Bill becomes law, nothing is lost. If she makes a mistake, if my noble friend is wrong, if the argument is altogether the other way, nothing is lost because the situation can very easily be altered. But

639
if Her Majesty's Government take the other decision, that decision is irrevocable. Nothing they can do can undo the injustice, if it proves to be an injustice, or undo the harm if it proves to be harm.
There is another point that I should like to touch on. It is this. Abaco is a reasonably prosperous community. It has in it great possibilities of development. It is generally accepted, I think, that when the Bahamas on July 10 get their independence there will be a flight of capital—and in that will be included Abaco. But if Abaco is there as a colony under the Crown that capital which would flee from the Bahamas would transfer itself there, and there will be the possibility of a genuine development in those islands far transcending the potential development of an independent Bahamas. We are told that there are only 5,000 or 6,000 people, whatever may be the figure, there to-day; but Abaco has the resources, if capital were applied, to support a far bigger population than that—perhaps 50,000, perhaps 100,000. Nobody knows. But it has these resources.
Can we not give them the chance to use those resources to develop their island? If they do not make use of the chance nothing is lost, the position can be rectified. If the Government stick to their policy and if that policy is found to be wrong, and tragically wrong, all that they can do is to sit back and watch the tragedy developing. It seems to me that it is not a very far-fetched analogy to compare the island of Abaco and the rest of the Bahamas with the Republic of Eire and Northern Ireland. Could we not give to the people of Abaco the same privilege that we have given to the people of Northern Ireland—namely, the chance of deciding their own future by a referendum? It is really no use my noble friend saying that they took that chance in the recent elections. The elections were not fought on independence. Like any other elections they were fought over a wide range of issues. I cannot remember what the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd is, on the Common Market. I rather fancy that he is opposed to it; but if he is, I think he would not accept that the last General Election gave Her Majesty's Government's present advisers an absolute mandate to enter the Common Market. In the same way the
640
Elections in the Bahamas, it seems to me, did not give Mr. Pindling an absolute mandate to embrace the people of Abaco in his independent Bahamas. I appeal to my noble friend to reconsider the matter.
LORD SHEPHERD: I intervene only because I have in a way some responsibility for the issue that is before us this afternoon. I was Minister of State at the Commonwealth Office and I chaired the Constitutional Conference in 1968. Previously I had made a special visit to the Bahamas to ascertain from the political Parties, the leaders, the Members of Parliament and, where I could, the grass roots political thought what their attitude was to constitutional change and to eventual independence. As I said on Second Reading, I found all the political Parties unanimous for independence as the ultimate goal, and all three Parties shared the same view—that the time was not yet ripe but that given time they would wish to go independent. I will not be led into the question of the Common Market. I agree, however, with the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, and funnily enough with Mr. John Davies, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who said that Her Majesty's Government did not have a mandate arising from the General Election to take Britain into the Common Market.
In terms of the Bahamas, I believe that the Government of Mr. Pindling had a clear mandate. Independence has always been the goal, as I have said, of all the political Parties. It has been discussed ever since 1968. I can tell the Committee that I sought to use what influence I had with Mr. Pindling to proceed to independence earlier than he has done, for the sole reason that the Constitution that had been granted in 1968 was so advanced. It was a Constitution which one would have been granted only within a few weeks of independence because it devolved so much power to local government and left little effective power for the Government except in the end, perhaps, the suspension of the Constitution. It is not foreseeable in these days, I suggest, that a Governor, or a Government of Britain, should suspend a Constitution of an advanced colony like the Bahamas with its long history of government and of self-administration.

641
Throughout my time and in my connections, I have not heard of any question of secession by any island or any people; but what I did hear—and anyone who knows anything about the Caribbean knows this—is that all politics (and politics is the absolute spice of life; it is really more important than making money) is conducted at a key much higher than we could either tolerate or sustain.
LORD COLERAINE: Key, or level?
LORD SHEPHERD: Key or level. But they enjoy their politics, and those who do not know the Caribbean often do not understand that they are conducting their politics in the normal key. I well remember a Leader of the Opposition in St. Vincent saying at the end of the Constitutional Conference when I had to make certain rulings: "The blood will flow through the streets of the capital." But it was one of the most happy of celebrations. Now the country has a different Prime Minister from the one who was in office when it attained independence. So I should not wish to think, because harsh words are said and deep passions roused, that there is any great fear to be found there.
One must judge whether the Government have done all they can to ascertain what are the wishes of the people of the Bahamas as a whole, because that is important. Is it not a fact that last year there was a general election in which independence was the major issue? Is it not a fact that Mr. Pindling's Government got a big majority? I am not defending Mr. Pindling to-night, although he is a personal friend. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton; I think he may prove a little better than the "Bay Street boys" that he succeeded. There was this general election and Mr. Pindling got a big majority. Then as a consequence of the general election and the mandate we had a Constitutional Conference in London. I hope that the noble Baroness will confirm that at that Conference the two major political Parties unanimously signed the report, and also that she will confirm that on not one occasion was it necessary for the Government to impose a solution regarding the Constitution. In other words though the political Parties may be in disagreement over the actual timing, they were able to come to an agreement as to
642
what should be the working Constitution. If that is the case, in my view the British Government have done all they possibly can do to ascertain the wishes of the Colony as a whole prior to going to independence.
I am quite sure that the question of the secession of an island is a factor which is deeply written into the hearts of all officials at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It is deeply written into mine. Not only was I involved in the tragic events between Nigeria and Biafra but also Anguilla is very much in my heart. On the day after I became Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs I found myself in an aircraft flying out there with Mrs. Judith Hart to help to conduct the conference in Barbados. There are lessons to be learnt; but the situation in Anguilla was quite different from the situation in the Bahamas. Anguilla was a separate island. Abaco has been part of one unitary State for some 200 years. Until now there has been no difficulty, no sign of movement outside, whereas in the case of Anguilla there was permanent hostility with St. Kitts; whether it involved white settlers or black, there was continuous hostility. So the situation is not the same. I have no doubt that the Government have looked at all these matters with the greatest possible care and have gone through all the functions and procedures open to them to ascertain what are the wishes of the people of the Bahamas as a whole. As I said on Second Reading, they have not rushed into independence. They have been rather slow, and because they have been slow perhaps they have been more sure.
I want to say only one last word about loyalty, as that expression has come in. The fact that people come to independence means perhaps that loyalty comes slightly differently, because a person's loyalty clearly should be to the new State. When noble Lords talk about loyalty, my thoughts go very much to the island of Fiji. When that island attained its independence it was explained on the ceremonial night that the Union Jack was to he lowered at midnight and the new flag would be raised in its place. Government and Opposition, Fijian and Indian said, "No, this we will not have. We will leave the Union Jack flying at midnight and we will go home; and with

643
the dawn we will raise the new flag. We will not lower the Union Jack in such a way". Loyalty is a factor, and I can understand that in the Caribbean there is the sense of feeling towards Britain. That is why we have so many Jamaicans, Trinidadians and the like in this country, because what they have in terms of law, education and system of government is what we have given to them. So I am not terribly worried about this. I hope that the Committee will feel that the Government have done all they can in this matter. They have had their Constitutional Conference, the Constitution has been worked out and agreed upon by the two political Parties, and independence is not very far away. I have not the slightest doubt that politics will still be conducted in a—I will not use the word "violent", but rather loud way. But it will still be conducted in a good spirit; and the people of Abaco and the rest of the Bahamas will remain together in unanimity.
LORD COLERAINE: The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is so courteous that I wonder whether he will allow me to put this question to him. In a matter of this kind we are, in fact, living under a coalition Government and it is rather difficult for the people who do not share the views of the Establishment on the other side to make their case. But would not the noble Lord agree with this proposition that I put to my noble friend? If the Government have second thoughts and test the feelings of Abaco they may be mistaken, but the mistake can be rectified. When you are faced with the choice of making a mistake which is irrevocable and one which can be rectified, is it not better to choose the latter rather than the former?
LORD SHEPHERD: I would have a good deal more sympathy with the reference of the noble Lord to a referendum if he would be willing to have an internationally conducted referendum in Rhodesia. But I think it would be impracticable. I do not know how many inhabited islands there are in the Bahamas where a referendum could take place. In practice this is probably what would occur, because if you granted a referendum for one island you would need to grant a referendum for them all. Then I think you would have an impossible situ
644
ation. At the end of the day people live together, whatever Government there may be, and I have no doubt that, given time, the people of these islands will live together and will benefit by their common cause.
LORD THURLOW: I do not want to prolong the proceedings and I had not intended to intervene. I made my personal position clear on Second Reading. But having heard the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, refer to his considered judgment in the perspective of his immensely long and varied colonial experience, and having listened also to the highly emotive speeches that have been made this evening, I think I ought to say that I retain without qualification the view that I expressed before; namely, that having been considerably involved in Bahamian affairs in recent years, I do not regard the proposal that is before the Committee now as coming within the realm of constitutional and political realities. Let me make just two points of detail. The people of the islands of Abaco have, in my judgment, always regarded themselves first and foremost as Bahamians. If I had circulated in those islands and suggested that their people did not regard themselves first and foremost as Bahamians, I think I should have got into serious trouble. This is a comparatively recent political manifestation, the essence of which is lack of confidence in the government of a particular political Party. That is not, I think, a reason for setting everything in motion backwards, after what has taken place constitutionally in recent years.
Secondly, analogies have been drawn between Abaco and the rest of the Bahamas on the one hand, and other places such as the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, the Turks and Caicos Islands and elsewhere. I am firmly of the view that it is most misleading to consider the Abaco and Bahamas problem in terms of analogies with anywhere. None of the analogies that has been quoted (I will not prolong the proceedings by giving reasons) holds up to examination. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will support the Government and not agree to the Amendment.
8.32 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I think the Committee will agree that we have had a very fascinating debate. I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton that I admire the vigour and the sincerity with which he put his case. As one who comes from Scotland, a nation which has been trying to secede from England for about 200 years, I quite understand the feelings he is trying to express to the Committee, in which he was supported by my noble friend Lord Barnby, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and my noble friend Lord Coleraine. But I was glad to see that I had what I felt was powerful support indeed from my noble friend Lord Milverton. There are few people in your Lordships' House who have given so long and distinguished service to this country overseas, and, if I may say so, I think his judgment in this case needs very much to be taken into account. Then we had the support given by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, who was a distinguished Governor of the Bahamas, and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who after all, had the responsibility of the first Constitutional Conference.
I do not wish to repeat, if I can help it, the various facts which I ventured to give to your Lordships when we were discussing this question on Second Reading, but I feel that I must ask your Lordships not to accept these Amendments. We know that as long ago as 1971 some Abaconians organised a Petition to Her Majesty the Queen asking that their islands should be allowed to secede at independence and to remain a Colony under the Crown. It was claimed at the time that the Petition had the signatures of 75 per cent. of the electorate of Abaco. However, according to the Government of the Bahamas, some 320 signatures were residents of Nassau only, with Abaco connections, some 314 were made by persons other than those named, some signed their children's names and some were not even Bahamians. Certainly if 75 per cent. of the electorate supported the Petition in 1971, one would have expected the same kind of support for the Opposition candidates in the 1972 General Election; but, as your Lordships are aware, this did not happen. Of the two Abaco constituencies, one went to the
646
Government P.L.P. and the other to the Opposition F.N.M., and the popular vote was split 40 per cent. for the P.L.P. and 60 per cent. for the Opposition F.N.M., which is a great deal short of the 75 per cent. support claimed in the Petition.
I should like to ask your Lordships to imagine the case put the other way round. If one said, "Despite the fact that at the last Constitutional Conference in December of last year both Opposition and Government in the Bahamas asked for independence, nevertheless, we will grant to"—shall I say, being generous—" two—thirds or at any rate a good part of the residents of Abaco the right to secede, to be a Colony on their own", that would involve, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, perhaps about 4,500 people. We do not, as a Government, feel that we should be exercising either our judgment or our duty to this House or to the Bahamas in the right way if we were to deny independence and to fragment in this difficult part of the world these particular islands.
I think it is worth remembering that neither of the Opposition F.N.M. candidates stood on a platform (or, as the Americans call it, "a ticket") demanding secession for Abaco if the Bahamas went to independence under Mr. Pindling's Government. They had the chance, but they did not do so. Independence was the subject of a Green Paper issued by the Bahamas Government in March, 1972, and it was part of the declared policy of the successful progressive Liberal Party in the September, 1972, election. That was the time when the Opposition—and the Abaco Opposition candidate, in particular—should have come out into the open. That was the moment for them to say that there could be no independence without secession for Abaco. But nothing like that took place, and the outcome of the election is well known. Mr. Pindling and his Party, campaigning on a platform of early independence, won 29 of the 38 seats and gained 60 per cent. overall of the votes cast.
I put it to your Lordships that there really can be no doubt in our minds that early independence has the support of the people of the Bahamas, and a very large number of adherents even in Abaco. Both the Government and the Opposition have always regarded Abaco

647
as an integral part of the Bahamas, and the islands have always been treated and administered as an integral part of the whole. This was as much the case in the days when the United Bahamas Party (which was the forerunner of the present Opposition) was in power as it is today when Mr. Pindling heads the Government. I would only say this. Of course independence is a very difficult thing. True independence means what it says. You cannot guarantee that everything is always going to be all right. How can you do that? Independence means genuine independence, where the people who have responsibility and power and who are elected to power must take the responsibility and must govern the commonwealth of the Bahamas as a whole.
One can understand if some people have fears of independence. It is a very difficult thing to manage—that is, to manage one's own life, and not least to manage 700 islands, of which only 22 are inhabited. Therefore it will not be easy for any political Party in the Bahamas to manage their independence well, but so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned we are convinced by the fact that both Government and Opposition have asked us for independence that we can do no other than to grant it and to wish them well.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: I shall not detain your Lordships for very long. This debate has gone on possibly quite long enough. I must say I was surprised to hear my noble friend say that there was a petition in Abaco several years ago which was signed by 75 per cent. of the electorate. I know what we can do with petitions. I have heard it said in another place by my learned friend Ronald Bell that nobody outside Parliament should bother with petitions because they are always cut up and are said to be signed by 20,000 6-year-old children, 6,000 lunatics and 500 adults. Nevertheless, I think it is rather impressive that several years ago there was a petition signed by some 75 per cent. of the inhabitants of Abaco,

CONTENTS

Barnby, L. [Teller.]

Greenway, L.

Rowallan, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L. [Teller.]

Lytton, E.

Somers, L.

Monson, L.

Templemore, L.

Coleraine, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Wise, L.

even if only 25 per cent. of the signatures were genuine.
I have never asked Her Majesty's Government to do anything but have an inquiry into this matter. In fact, as I said earlier, I deeply regret having to move my Amendment. I did so because it seemed to me that we were not proceeding properly on this Bill. I have complained about this before. I have asked a Question about this and I have spoken in a Commonwealth debate, but at no point in the proceedings have Her Majesty's Government given me any indication at all that they intend to make any sort of inquiry of the inhabitants of Abaco. That, so far as I can see, is the situation. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said there might have been appeals of objections from every other island in the Bahamas, but in fact there have not been. The only island in the Bahamas from which there has come an appeal is Abaco. If every island in the Bahamas had objected to being independent, I could have seen the force of the noble Lord's remarks. We cannot have referenda everywhere. One might say the same for this country: we have nearly a hundred counties and we might have a referendum in each county. Naturally that would not be reasonable, but in the Bahamas there is only this one small area which has objected.
As I say, I shall not keep your Lordships very long, but I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in my support. In addition, I feel I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, once again, if he will permit me, that I did not bring race into this. I am not interested in race. I am not a racialist: I do not mind whether a man is black, white, purple or green. My interest is in what he expresses and what he wants, and I am afraid I cannot withdraw this Amendment.
8.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, l l; Not-Contents, 51.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mowbray and Stourton. L. [Teller.]

Amory, V.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Balfour, E.

Falmouth, V.

Rochdale, V.

Berkeley, B.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Sandford, L.

Blyton, L.

Gainford, L.

Segal, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gowrie, E.

Shepherd, L.

Brockway, L.

Gridley, L.

Soper, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strang, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Hood, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Champion, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Teviot, L.

Collison, L.

Kennet, L.

Thurlow, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Tenby, V.

Courtown, E.

Lothian, M.

Trefgarne, L.

Craigavon. V.

Loudoun, C.

Trevelyan, L.

Daventry, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Maelor, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Dundonald, E.

Milverton, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Eccles, V.

Young, B.

Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed; Bill reported, without amendment. Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of June 8), Bill read 3a; and passed.

INTERNATIONAL COCOA ORGANISATION (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER 1973
8.53 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I beg to move that the International Cocoa Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on May 22, be approved. The purpose of this Order is to give legal personality to the International Cocoa Organisation in accordance with Article 21(1) of the International Cocoa Agreement 1972. This Agreement was concluded last October following lengthy negotiations in which the United Kingdom did important work. It will enter into force by the end of this month if by then sufficient countries have ratified it or have said that they will apply it provisionally.
The aim of the Agreement is to reduce the extreme fluctuations of price to which cocoa is notoriously subject. It should therefore be a great help to those developing countries, among them Commonwealth nations such as Ghana and Nigeria, whose revenue from cocoa
650
exports represents an important, and in some cases crucial, factor in their economies.
A decision on where the International Cocoa Organisation is to be located will not be taken until after the Agreement has entered into force. But we hope very much that it will be established in London. The practical application of the Order will be small unless the Organisation is set up here. It could then assume greater importance. In such an event it would be necessary to seek approval for another Order, conferring appropriate immunities and privileges upon the Organisation and its staff. This is because the present Order, despite its title, is, as I have said, limited to the provision of legal personality to the Organisation.
The main importance of this Order is that it must be made if we are to ratify the International Cocoa Agreement. Also in order to ratify it we must enact brief legislation in order that we can give effect to one of its economic provisions. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food expects to introduce a short Bill for this purpose today, if he has not done so already. This is a separate issue and not something with which we are now concerned. What I am commending to the House is that it should approve this Order so that the United Kingdom can, when the time comes, ratify an Agreement for which we have long worked. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft International Cocoa Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1973, laid before the House on May 22, be approved.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.
8.57 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I understand from what the noble Baroness says that although this is called the International Cocoa Organization (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1973, it does not in point of fact confer any immunities and privileges on anybody yet. This makes what I have to say perhaps more appropriate, since it will be quite clear that I am not "gunning" for the International Cocoa Organization in distinction to any other international organisation.
On May I this year the noble Baroness sent me a very full and helpful Answer to a Written Question about the number of people in this country enjoying diplomatic immunity. I was startled by that Answer, as your Lordships may be. The number of people enjoying full diplomatic immunity, both criminal and civil, is 1,682. The number of people enjoying limited diplomatic immunity—that is to say, only criminal but not civil—is 2,760. The number of people enjoying the two types of diplomatic immunity respectively belonging not to embassies but to international organisations, is 34 and 67. Lastly, there are 200 consular or quasi consular officials enjoying diplomatic immunity. The total is 4,743. But every one of those is also entitled to claim diplomatic immunity for his family.
What shall we allow them for a family? Shall we say three dependants each? If we multiply the total by four it comes out at just under 19,000 people. Nineteen thousand people, my Lords, above the law in this country. Why? What are they doing? Why are they different from the rest? Most of them are ordinary government officials doing honest and necessary jobs. That is no reason why for their normal work they should have immunity from the normal functions of the law. Are we not coming to the point when it would save the time of Parliament if, instead of introducing this series of Orders conferring a few hundred more immunities here and there, the Government were to introduce once and for all a British People Law Observance Order which would list by name those who have to keep the law in this country and would decree that nobody else does have to do so?
I know that these Orders come under a law or a precedent which was introduced
652
by the last Labour Government, but does the time not come when enough is enough? Would the Government shortly consider referring the whole matter to an appropriate inquiry for recommendations on when, if ever, this sort of thing should cease?
9 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, if I may briefly reply, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will make that particular speech in more detail if and when I come before this House and ask your Lordships to grant the particular immunities and privileges which would apply if the headquarters of this organisation is to be located in London. All I am asking your Lordships to do at the moment—and this follows the precedent of similar Orders which are made under the International Organisations Act—is to confer upon the organisation the legal capacities of a body corporate. These include the capacity to enter into contracts, to acquire and dispose of property and to take part in legal proceedings. The Order, no doubt the noble Lord will be glad to know, confers no additional privileges and immunities. It is a limited Order, and I commend it to your Lordships.

SOCIAL SECURITY BILL
9.2 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into a Committee on the Social Security Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill.—(Lord Aberdare.)
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, before we resolve ourselves into a Committee on the Social Security Bill, I think we ought to lodge a complaint about the way in which these Bills are being dealt with. We have considerable discussion about the number of days that are to be devoted to the various items of business. Yesterday was supposed to be a day devoted to the Water Bill, and then we found, for reasons no one had learned about, that we had an adjournment and a certain

653
amount of time was wasted. A piece of legislation, instead of being taken at dinner time, was taken out of the time otherwise allocated to the Water Bill. Then, to-day, when it was understood that we should have half-an-hour or three-quarters of an hour on other business, we find we have taken some two hours. This is not good enough. We have not allocated a day to the Social Security Bill. We have allocated only part of a day, and I think it is unreasonable and unfair, having had this diversion on other business, that we should be expected to sit late and make up for it.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, my sympathies are all with the noble Lord opposite because I, too, was expecting that we should have resumed this debate rather earlier. But there are unforeseeable events which happen in your Lordships' House, and it is awfully difficult to predict what is going to happen. As a matter of fact, I thought that we were going to spend the best part of to-day on the Social Security Bill—until about half-past ten, anyway. We have been making very good progress. I do not think there are many big debates to follow, and I hope we can now get on with it. Perhaps we could try to do better in the future.
LORD BESW1CK: But, my Lords, may we have an undertaking from the noble Lord, the Deputy Leader of the House, that we shall not go on later this evening than otherwise we would have done, and that, if necessary, a further day will be found for the consideration of this Bill?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, certainly I think we should talk about that later on; but if we look like exceeding the hour of 10.30 we ought to think twice.
House again in Committee.
THE COUNTESS OF LOUDOUN THE COUNTESS OF LOUDOUN moved Amendment No. 35:
After Clause 20 insert the following new clause:
Inactive housewives allowance
—(1) A woman who is an inactive housewife shall be entitled to an invalid mother's allowance at the weekly rate specified in Part I of Schedule 4 to this Act if—

(a) she is entitled to invalidity benefit under section 11 of this Act and to an increase in that benefit under section 31(1) in relation to a child dependant; or

654

(b) she is entitled to a widowed mother's allowance under section 20(1)(a) of this Act or would be so entitled but for the proviso in section 20(3) regarding co-habitation; or

(c)she is a married woman who would be entitled to a widowed mother's allowance under section 20(1)(a) of this Act if her husband were no longer alive; or

(d)being divorced she is entitled to a child's special allowance under section 29 of this Act or would be so entitled but for the proviso in that section regarding co-habitation.

(2)In this section "inactive housewife" means a woman who—

(a)is entitled to an attendance allowance under section 15 of this Act; or

(b)not being entitled to an attendance allowance, is wholly or predominantly prevented by physical or mental handicap from carrying out her normal household duties.

(3)Subject to subsection (1) above, the period for which invalid mother's allowance is payable to any woman shall be that specified in a certificate issued in respect of her by the Attendance Allowance Board as being—

(a)a period throughout which she has been or is likely to be an inactive housewife; and

(b)a period immediately preceded by one of not less than 6 months throughout which she has been an inactive housewife."

The noble Countess said: I had hoped to support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol in this Amendment, but in his absence I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I take a few minutes to explain a little about the people we are trying to help and ask the Minister to have another long look at the problems of disabled housewives. They include disabled mothers, whom this Amendment seeks to help. People disabled through an injury at work are favourably treated, not only by receiving a disablement pension on top of normal National Insurance benefits, but also by having a more extensive scale of attendance allowances. Normal National Insurance benefits depend on a contribution record, but industrial injury benefits do not. This results in many of the civilian disabled being ineligible for invalidity benefits: those disabled from childhood and never able to work; those disabled early in their working life; married women whose work is in the home or who, if employed, rely on their husband's insurance. At the moment only the new attendance allowance is available to all who need it regardless of contributions or means, and it is of course tax free.
But what of the disabled housewife? A housewife is usually defined as a person, other than domestic servant, who does most of the domestic chores, or would do most of them if not prevented by disability. Household chores are taken to be cooking, housework and shopping. Housewives who can do two out of three of these chores are usually defined as active. Those who can do only one, or none, are defined as non-active. According to the figures given in the Government's Social Survey and reported in Handicapped and Impaired in Great Britain, there are about 488,000 non-active housewives living at home of whom about 185,000 are very severely, severely or appreciably handicapped physically. These figures include women of all ages, married and unmarried; women with dependent children and women without. Depending on the interpretation the Attendance Board placed on the meaning of subsection (2)(b), this new clause would help nearly all mothers of dependent children as defined for the purposes of the Family Allowances Act, if they were so physically or mentally handicapped that they were prevented from doing all but a small part of their normal household duties.
But what of the plight of the disabled single woman with dependent children who would not qualify for an invalid mother's allowance under the new clause unless she already received an invalidity pension in her own right? Even worse off is the disabled single woman who has no children. Can the Government have another look at the plight of these people and perhaps give them some hope for the future? The number of women who would benefit from this new clause would not be enormous—about 50,000—but if our Amendment were accepted it would be a first step in the right direction. I beg to move.
LADY KINLOSS: I should like to support my noble kinswoman, the Countess of Loudoun, in this Amendment. It will benefit a small number of people who nevertheless form an important section of the community. I hope the Government will feel able to give this Amendment sympathetic attention.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: I should like to support the two previous
656
speakers and I sincerely hope that a noble Lord will support this Amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who is in the same situation as myself with young children, will agree that it is important to keep the family together. Perhaps extra monetary support might do this. Recently, I have been saddened to hear of many young married women with children being left by their husbands. In our modern society this is becoming more and more prevalent. I hope sincerely that the Government will consider the housewife as a matter of priority.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: I shall be bold enough, as a husband, to say something on this Amendment. I think part of the trouble is that a housewife who looks after the home and the family is not assumed to be working. I can only wonder what would be the effect on this House if all our wives gave up looking after our homes and families. I think the attendance here might be even thinner than it is at the present time.
I am not a disabled wife, but I am at times a disabled husband without a wife. There are times when my wife has to stay up in Yorkshire, looking after the family, and I come down here alone as I did yesterday. I had to get my own breakfast: I had to lay the table and then wash up afterwards and it took me a very long time. A few of the disabled wives do get the attendance allowance but it is not enough to provide for the care of the disabled wife and for the work that she cannot do. There are times when a husband has to give up working in order to look after his disabled wife, the alternative being that the wife would have to go into an institution and the family be broken up. It seems to me to be a family disaster when the husband has to give up working in order to look after his disabled wife, so therefore I warmly support this Amendment.
LORD ABERDARE: I have great sympathy with what has been said by the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, in moving this Amendment and those who have supported it. It is difficult for me to make the same speech again as I have already made on other occasions in the course of this afternoon, but again we are here coming into contact with a very

657
deserving class of people who are disabled and are housewives. We have previously had to consider the case which was so persuasively put by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for those who attend their disabled relatives and who give up their careers to do so. We have considered the case of the disabled themselves who would be in a position to earn but who lose their invalidity benefit if they do. Now we have the case of the disabled housewife. All these cases are very strong and I have great sympathy with them, but all must, I am afraid, come within the general review which I have already mentioned. I do not wish to labour it, but this is the position and the case of the disabled housewife is a very good one. However, again it falls within the question of priorities and what we do first within the resources that we have. I hope the noble Countess will agree, having put her case strongly, that we should take it into account and I will see that it is considered—indeed it is already being considered—in the course of the review that is being conducted.
The reason why there has not been provision so far in the National Insurance scheme is because the scheme has always been based on loss of earnings and obviously the housewife has no earnings to lose. But at least we have moved forward; we have nowadays the attendance allowance, which is a non-contributory allowance and at least is a start in the right direction. I hope it will be accepted as an earnest of good intentions for the future, as will indeed the statements which are made on so many occasions by my right honourable friend when he wants to do more to help these particular categories of people. The attendance allowance is now being paid to about 90,000 people, including 20,000 children. It has been extended from June 4, on the reduced basis, to those who need attention, either by night or by day, who are adult, and we are extending it again to children from October 1. So we are moving ahead. As I mentioned earlier, since 1970 £100 million more will be devoted to the needs of the disabled by 1974–1975. It is a matter of priorities. But I can assure the noble Countess that the problems of disabled women with children are being closely studied, although we are anxious not to put forward recommendations which might
658
create anomalies or even add to the distress of that section of the population.
There are strong emotive and psychological reasons for not wishing to favour disabled women with children compared with other disabled women whose disability might be of such an extent that they are unable to have children. Although there is no doubt that the presence of young children in the household for which a woman is responsible can add greatly to the burden on the disabled housewife, in many cases the presence of children can be a positive boon to the mother, not only in terms of emotional satisfaction but also in assisting a family in the performance of household duties. The type of benefit that has been suggested by the noble Countess, by its very nature, would be withdrawn from the mother when there is no longer a child in the family. That could cause a great deal of mental distress when it was withdrawn, just at the time when the mother perhaps needs extra help because her now adult family are leaving home. These are all problems that need thorough investigation and a thorough thinking out before we come to any conclusion on exactly what might be the best way of helping the disabled housewife. All I can promise is that that is exactly what we are doing, and I hope that the noble Countess will accept my assurance that this is going ahead.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Before the noble Countess speaks, may I say that I should not like it to be thought that we from these Benches do not entirely support the Amendment. On a personal basis, I was one of the people responsible for the original formation of the Disabled Incomes Group. I remember so clearly—leaving aside any emotive qualities which this Amendment may have—that we found that young mothers were actually detained in hospitals and their children taken into care because they could not care for them, resulting in a much more costly operation to the State. One of the things we do not take enough account of, apart from the emotional tie, is the fact that if you retain the mother in her home with her children it is, in the end, a much cheaper operation. I realise that the noble Lord is concerned with this review which has to take place. I should

659
like strongly to support this Amendment because this is a section of the community which is in urgent need of care. This Amendment would go a long way to helping that very small section who are in dire need.
THE COUNTESS OF LOUDOUN: I should just like to thank the Minister and all the noble Lords and Ladies who have supported me. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS had given Notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 33.
Page 32, line 31, leave out from ("remarriage") to end of line 32.
The noble Baroness said: We are back to the problem of remarriage and cohabitation, and as I did not get very far before I shall not weary your Lordships with this point but perhaps return to it on Report. The Amendment is not moved.
Clauses 21 to 24 agreed to.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 (Supplementary provisions as to Category A and B retirement pensions.)
On Question, Whether Clause 26 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD RAGLAN: I am one of those who have cause to regret that this clause comes on so late in the evening, because I know that if it had come earlier I would have had considerable support from the other side of the House as well as this side; but I know there are still a number of people here who will strongly support me on it.
My purpose in moving the deletion of this clause is to urge the Government to abolish the earnings rule, whereby a retired man up to the age of 70 or a woman up to the age of 65 may not earn more than so much before their pension is reduced or taken away altogether. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, knows, I have the honour to be President of the Pre-Retirement Association. What we do is to draw attention to the need to provide education for people before they retire in order to prepare them for retirement. We make suggestions on how to
660
manage money, how to keep fit, on hobbies and so on, and we encourage those who retire to take jobs. We proselytise, we exhort firms and local authorities, we provide courses of certain kinds, and we make available to those who want it our considerable knowledge of how people may best prepare for retirement.
To some, it may seem strange to have an association whose whole purpose is to help people prepare for retirement. That would be because it is not yet widely recognised what a significant, traumatic and often drastic change retirement can bring to those who are not prepared for it. It brings about a complete change of existence at a time of life when it is notoriously difficult to adapt to change. After a person has been, in effect, institutionalised by perhaps 50 years in a job it is very difficult indeed, to put it mildly, to get used to not working. Work is usually a kind of social activity as much as it is a productive one, and retired people not only lose their job but their friends with it. Many of them miss the regularity and order in their lives which a job brings. All but the luckiest are affected by a reduction in income. Wives come under strain, too, wondering what to do with a man about the house all day. One of my friends who is near retirement was told by his wife, "Remember, I married you for better or worse, but not for lunch".
We should also be aware that a job can be therapeutic, in the sense that it gives a purpose in life to take one outside oneself. One wise doctor, a specialist in geriatrics, told me that illness tends to fill the gap formerly occupied by the job. As is well known, a number of people die very soon after retirement. But what is not counted is the number who fall ill constantly and chronically. At the Second Reading of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, quoted a figure of £150 million which it was said it would cost the Exchequer to abolish the earnings rule. How that figure is arrived at I have not yet discovered. But another figure should be produced—it might be the same, it might be many times greater—of what it costs the Health Service to minister to the needs of the psychosomatic sicknesses of the elderly who are discouraged from working, when the whole of their up-bringing, their education and training has taught them to have a job. On top of that, of course, should be added the loss

661
in tax on earnings which—if it were not for the earnings rule—the pensioners could provide out of their extra incomes, and the extra spending power. I wonder whether the Government have included that in their figure?
I do not want to risk going on for a long time on a subject in which I have been deeply involved for many years, and in which my noble friend Lady Phillips has been involved for even longer, but I must try and impress on the Government, with all the force I can, that the earnings rule has an evil effect on retired people. It also seems to me that the earnings rule acts as a highly inequitable, confiscatory tax. Where, I wonder, is the morality in arbitrarily removing a pension they have earned and to which they have probably compulsorily contributed? Any other section of the community would be up in arms about it.
As the whole matter of pensions is tangled and muddy I do not want to pursue that particular point now. What I must try to do is to convey to your Lordships this firm belief, that over 12 per cent. of the population is over retiring age and the proportion is increasing; and the way to help them to be contented, healthy, and not penurious is to encourage them, or those of them who wish to do so, to stay in what is known as "gainful employment". The earnings rule does exactly the opposite. For whatever purpose it was originally instituted it is now, in my view, an anachronism and a bad rule, and I beg leave to move my Amendment that this clause be left out.
9.27 p.m.
BARONESS SEEAR: I should very much like to support the noble Lord. From these Benches we have long advocated the abolition of the earnings rule, though without any effect at all. May I return to a previous charge made last year which received an answer from the noble Lord's Department, but an answer which did not in the least satisfy me. If it be really impossible to get rid of the earnings rule as a whole, is it really impossible to aggregate the amount the earnings rule permits? I mean by this, that £9·50 is the figured permitted in the clause here; that is £500 a year. If you will allow the retired person to earn only £500, why cannot it be £500
662
in the whole of the year and not £9.50 a week? with longer holidays it would be surely to everybody's advantage to have a pool of recently retired people who could come back into employment, say in the summer months when holidays occur and could earn £300, £400, or £500 a year without any reduction of pension if it was possible to aggregate over a year, instead of on a weekly basis, the amount allowed before deduction under the earnings rule. This would be a way of dealing with production needs during the holiday period, epidemics, and pressure periods of seasonal excess demand for labour. In addition it would make the pensioner feel needed which is what people of retirement age require more than anything else. It would give them a highly desirable addition to their income, and I find it extremely difficult to understand why this cannot be done. I suspect that it is administrative inconvenience; but we never should accept administrative inconvenience as a reason for not implementing some policy.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HAR WOOD: I should like to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has just said about a spreading over of income earned by retired people (whether they are disabled or otherwise, although we are talking about disabled people now), which would enable them to earn, let us say in seasonal employment, enough to tide them over for quite a long time. It seems to me that that really could be done without a great deal of difficulty in regard to administration. I entirely support the noble Baroness when she says that we can get too much tied up by administration, which costs a great deal of money when we might save quite a lot of money by breaking down some of this administration and doing some things a little more originally.
I hope that the Minister, who is himself a most original and excellent person in always trying to do new things, will look upon this as one thing which as a new principle could be put into the Bill. Why not? It is a good one, and it would enable people to earn money and to spread it over a period, as is suggested by the noble Baroness. I strongly support this Amendment.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I should like to support the noble Lord,

663
Lord Raglan. I should like to press one sentence which I may or may not remember quite rightly but it was more or less in this form. The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, says that this earnings rule discourages elderly people—or as I am not ashamed to say now, old people—entering gainful employment. Is that the Government's policy—to discourage what we have been told is 12 per cent. of the population from gainful employment? The noble Lord with dutiful charity treated the matter a little more therapeutically than I do. Speaking on behalf of the old, I do not feel quite that need for wealth or active therapy, but the fact is that old people are certainly capable of rendering a service to the community. No doubt the noble Lord has recently looked up the work of Cicero on old age, written when he was 62 but put into the mouth of the elderly Plato who was supposed to be 84; at any rate, whether he was thinking of old age beginning at 62 or 84 it was Cicero's view that old people could be more useful than young people because they had so much influence.
Well, whether it is influence in community service or wherever you like to put it, there are these old people. If I may say so with great respect to my leader whom I am trying to follow, I do not think they are all on the point of having a nervous breakdown through inanition. I simply feel that they could render very good service and it is rather disgraceful that they should be discouraged from doing so. Of course, in this House we have not a very dispassionate view of this. This is the finest geriatric institution in the world, with only very moderate financial reward. We are able to come here, make speeches and feel we are as young as ever—in fact, what Cicero would call infants. I hope I have said enough to show that I am entirely behind the noble Lord in leaving out that slightly patronising reference. I think his main point is absolutely irrefutable; it is socially criminal to waste the efforts here by, in effect, trying to stop them from working.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I hope that the Government will begin to appreciate that the case for ignoring earnings is a question that is going to have to be met before very long. The noble Lord has
664
indicated the price of abolishing it. I read with interest the debate in the other place and I think we ought to have from him a clear statement as to whether in computing that figure the Government have taken into account the very considerable sums of money that local government is spending in trying to keep elderly people healthy. I know it is the very considerable concern of the local authority on which I serve, as it is of every other local authority that has to deal with the problem of ensuring that the elderly are kept as healthy as they can be. Allowing people to continue at work without penalising them in the way that they are penalised at present is the most positive and constructive way of helping to keep them healthy. My noble friend, Lord Raglan, is absolutely right about this. We are wasting a tremendous amount of money on people who have retired and who, because they have retired, begin to go to pieces.
It is not only a matter of what local government is spending on them. If the earnings rule were ignored, the Government would gain substantially by way of income tax. I took the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made about administrative inconvenience. I cannot believe that that could be a reason, or that anybody would possibly think that that could be a reason. There must be a tremendous amount of administrative work in computing the money that people can be given. I find myself in full agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, and it is time that that point was seized. That, again, is another cost which ought to be offset against the £150 million about which the noble Lord has spoken.
Again and again this evening, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has been placed in what I feel is a position of acute embarrassment. He has had to resist every appeal that money earned ought not to be taken into consideration in regard to entitlement to benefit. I am sure that his heart, and I rather think his mind as well, has been with those who have been trying to impress upon the Government that the time has come for a new look, particularly at this time when this Bill is going through. I very much hope that before the Bill leaves this place we shall, at least, have secured some improvement, even if we cannot

665
get the whole matter agreed to. I hope that at some stage we shall move an Amendment which the Committee will insist on carrying. I appreciate that the noble Lord will say, "We are studying the matter, but if you start here or there you will be creating an anomaly." But that is the way that progress is often made; and because we create an anomaly we then set about trying to achieve justice. I sincerely hope that as a result of this discussion we shall give further thought to the matter and come back to the whole business, and to the other points that have been raised, at a later stage of the Bill.
LORD ABERDARE: We have had another debate on the earnings rule. The earnings rule is not popular with anybody and it has never been popular with any Government. It is very difficult to defend, and nobody has ever defended it except on grounds of priorities. The reason why it was introduced and the reason why it stands is that it reinforces the retirement condition on which the pension has hitherto always been based. It has always been a retirement pension and not an old age pension. May I say that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has the secret of eternal youth, and I do not look upon him as either elderly or old. But, certainly, the pension has always been considered a retirement pension. We have always kept the earnings rule under constant review. From time to time we have made relaxations in it, and further relaxations between now and the appointed day, which is, after all, in 1975, are certainly not ruled out.
The Bill itself contains power, in Clause 38(8) and Schedule 11, to alter the operation of the earnings rule by order at the time of an uprating. But the present situation is that under Clause 26 the pension is to be reduced by 5p for each 10p of earnings, after deduction of reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the employment, between £9·50 and £13·50, and 5p for each 5p thereafter. The real reason why no one has yet found it possible to abolish the rule is simply the cost. I think the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, said that I mentioned a figure of £150 million. I hope I did not say that, because the figure is £115 million, and I hope that that is the figure I gave on the previous occasion. That
666
is the figure which we estimate it would cost the fund in the first year at current benefit rates, reducing to £65 million a year after five years or so, assuming that the present retirement trend continues. This amount of money would be required, of course, to pay full retirement pensions to people who had decided to go on working, and against whom the rule was operative; so that in effect we should be putting most of this extra money into the hands of those pensioners who are in fact better off already by virtue of the fact that they have been able to carry on work more or less on a full-time basis.
I feel that if we were able to save the Fund figures of this size, your Lordships would feel that there are other priorities that really should come first. Only this afternoon—and perhaps I may just finish this point before I give way to the noble Lord—we heard the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, appealing for this very earnings rule to be accepted in the case of the disabled. They would be happy to have just this. I am not sure that, if I was asked where my priorities would lie if I had a few million pounds that I could spend from the National Insurance Fund. I would not be inclined to put it in the way of my noble friends who sit on my right, on the mobile Bench, much sympathy as I have, indeed, with the noble Lord. Lord Raglan—and let me say how much I admire the work he does for those who retire. But I really think this is a matter of priorities. There are fairly substantial sums of money involved. I am talking about the money in the National Insurance Fund. I think it impossible to compute whether there are other savings in social services. It is a very difficult thing to predict. All I know is that, if we relax the rule, most of the extra money goes into the pockets of those people who are at the moment working and are now affected by the rule, and these are not the people of whom the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, was thinking, whom the social services have to try to help. Those are my reasons for reiterating once again our reluctance to change this rule, much as all of us may feel it would be nice to do so. It is simply a matter of priorities.
LORD RAGLAN: Does the noble Lord accept this point, that at the moment it is the people who are better off who can afford to ignore the earnings rule,

667
and that the people it affects most deeply are the poorer in the community?
LORD PLATT: May I ask, just as a matter of interest, whether it is really any use talking about priorities when the whole of these Amendments and, as we think, improvements to this Bill are being rejected? There is no priority in rejection, is there?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I think I should start at the point on which the noble Lord, Lord Platt, has just commented. Certainly the Minister appears sympathetic to every one of the Amendments, but so far he has not accepted any of them; so the question of priorities really does not arise. On the question of money, I am informed that in the National Insurance Fund in 1971 there was a surplus of £57½ million. That would be quite useful to put towards one of the priorities. So far as the retirement rule is concerned, I do not describe them, of course, as elderly, because this is the group of 60 to 65 and 65 to 70, immediately after retirement. We are not talking about somebody who is living on a consultancy fee of £40,000 a year, because if he had capital this would not be criticised; he could have it. It is the little woman who is washing up cups in the Strand Palace Hotel: that is the kind of person we are talking about; who, because she goes out to work and earns £10 a week, has to repay 50p of her pension. This is a squalid operation which cannot be justified by anyone. Exactly the same arguments were put forward about the widows. Not very long ago there was an earnings rule in regard to widows. It was taken off. The Fund did not collapse; the country did not collapse. Somehow we found a way to come through it. This woman of 61 is asked to pay full prescription charges. She gets no opportunity to get free prescriptions. The Government cannot have it both ways. Either one is in full retirement, with all its benefits, or if retired and willing to work one should get the benefit of it. After all, this is a meagre pension. The richer we get the smaller it becomes. We gave ten shillings years ago when the average wage was about thirty shillings. Now that
668
wages have reached about £40 we are giving £6·75 to elderly people. If anyone has the energy or enthusiasm to go to work I think they should be encouraged and not discouraged. I feel strongly about this. I hope the Government will accept this Amendment and I should like to see the Committee divide on the Question.
LORD ABERDARE: It is a little unreasonable to move to leave out a whole clause to put right one part of it. There are other subsections which are important. I hope that the noble Lord will not go so far as to have a Division on this particular clause. If he wanted to change the retirement rules he might have thought of putting down an Amendment to that. To move out the clause is a little unreasonable. I have put the case as clearly as I can. It is entirely a matter of priorities. I think it is unreasonable to suggest that because I have talked only of priorities that is the end of the matter. The fact is that the Insurance Fund is fairly heavily committed and in order to find new money one must put up the contributions or increase the contributions from the Exchequer. Our record in this field, as I have said over and over again, is absolutely first class. We have given £100 million more a year to help the disabled as compared with 1970; we have increased other provisions and there is plenty more we can do, but it is a matter of priorities. With the best will in the world and taking into account that the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, wanted this same rule for the disabled—and I give that higher priority—I do not think it reasonable to press this Amendment when it entails a whole clause.
LORD RAGLAN: The noble Lord has not even said that he will consider it. If we remove this clause now, the Government can always put back the necessary bits later. I think it might be a simple operation. As the noble Lord has not moved in our direction in any way at all, we on this side are bound to divide.
On Question, Whether Clause 26 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided, Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 25.
Resolved in the affirmative and Clause 26 agreed to accordingly.
LORD TREFGARNE: Is the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman, aware that there were at least two noble Lords in the Not-Contents Lobby who were a little undecided as to whether they were in fact to be counted?
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My duty is to inform your Lordships of the result of the Division.
LORD HOY: There were six people in the other Lobby who did not know what they were doing.
Clauses 27 to 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Death grant]:
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE: Amendment No. 37 has already been discussed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 15, after ("section") insert ("and in that Part of the Schedule").—(Lord Aberdare.)
LORD HOY: I did not quite get what the noble Lord said. Perhaps he would explain what this Amendment does. I just heard a mumble and was not certain what the explanation was.
LORD ABERDARE: My noble friend Lord Gowrie spoke to this Amendment on an earlier Amendment, No. 21. The Amendment extends the description of the deceased to the Schedule as well as the clause and enables the Schedule to be shortened and simplified.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clauses 31 to 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Increase of certain short-term benefits in respect of adult dependants]:
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: This is a drafting Amendment to correct a wrong cross-reference. I beg to move.
Amendment moved
Page 46, line 42, leave out ("by virtue of section 10(8)") and insert ("under section 10(2)(b) or (c)")—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35 agreed to.
10 p.m.
BARONESS SEEAR BARONESS SEEAR moved Amendment No. 40:
After Clause 35, insert the following new clause:
Report on needs of chronically sick
" The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament on or before 30th April 1974 or such later date as may be approved by resolution of each House of Parliament a report on what amendments are needed in the law relating to social security to meet the special needs of chronically sick and disabled persons (including categories of such persons not at present entitled to benefit hereunder)."
The noble Baroness said: No doubt the Committee will feel that this subject has already been fully discussed, and I certainly do not intend to make a long speech in support of this Amendment.
However, I should like to make two points. First, I should like to underline what has been said previously this evening: it is disastrous that from this Bill—a new Bill with which we shall probably live for decades—this subject of the disabled should have been omitted. It is a reflection on the thinking of the Government that they could have produced a Bill of this sort and failed to be ready with provision for the disabled. While we appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has said about a review being in progress, there is no good reason why such a review should not have been completed in time for the insertion in this new Social Security Bill of adequate provision for a small, extremely important and unquestionably needy group of the disabled. There has been a good deal of pressure, and public opinion is that something should be done in this field.
My second point is that we all accept what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has said about a review being undertaken. We all know—and we have been reminded this afternoon—that reviews can go on and on, and that research can never be completed: indeed it is one of the rules that it never should be completed. It is all too easy to say that we must wait until the review is produced. It will never be finished, and so we believe it is necessary to have a deadline. We would rather have an incomplete review reported to the House by an agreed date than to be told that there is a review in progress and that we must wait indefinitely. That is why in this Amendment we have asked that the Government should report to Parliament by April 30, 1974, the position with regard to the review undertaken of the disabled and what proposals they intend to make. It is because we feel that some proposals should be made in this new Social Security Bill and that a deadline should be secured that, despite the late hour, I am moving this Amendment.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: I should like to support the noble Baroness on this Amendment, which I do not believe would cost very much money. The noble Lord has already told the House several times that the review is under way. A report which is clear and
672
can be understood by everyone should be laid before Parliament. I personally find social security matters very complicated but a report would make it evident that provision for the disabled ought to be incorporated in this Bill. If the Government do not accept this Amendment I feel that their attitude to-night will show the country that they seem to treat the disabled as second-class citizens and that they are a long way down on the list of priorities. I am sure that this is not really so. The noble Lord understands all the problems of the disabled so well, and I am sure that by accepting this Amendment he will show the Committee that he really means to do something for the future. I hope the noble Lord will consider this and give us a date for this report.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: If I may, I should like to say just a few words about my own position. I am very lucky in many respects, one of which being that I contracted poliomyelitis when I was in the Army in Egypt just after the end of the war. For that reason I have been given a very generous pension. But I might just as easily have contracted the disease when I was at school, or I might have been born with some congenital disease—in which case my need would have been no greater and no less than it is in the circumstances in which I became disabled. I would ask your Lordships to consider whether disability payment should not be based on need rather than on the particular circumstances in which one's disability was acquired.
Also, this review is needed for another reason: being disabled is quite an expensive business. Disabled persons need extra clothing, extra heating, and they need to have their house adapted. There are a great many things they cannot do for themselves, and they either need to have a very nice wife, as I have, or must pay someone else to do things for them. I hope that the Government will be able to produce this report. I feel the needs of disabled people merit special attention, and I hope that we shall be given a date for the report in the not too distant future.
LORD ABERDARE: This Amendment is very similar to an Amendment that was debated in another place, both in Committee and on Report stage. It was

673
very fully debated. I am sorry if I cannot go any farther than my right honourable friend and my honourable friend were able to go on that occasion. I certainly do not accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, said, that by not accepting this Amendment we are treating the disabled as second-class citizens. That I would never accept. I should have thought our record in the field of help for the disabled belied that remark and I am sorry that she made it. So far as the Amendment itself is concerned, it is difficult to list all the improvements that one thinks are necessary for one particular group of people, however much one values their lives, and however much one wishes to he helpful. There are so many other cases of people who deserve help under this Social Security Bill. We have heard them all as we have gone along to-day: the widows, the daughters looking after their parents, widowers, married women and their shorter-term benefits, earlier retirement, the earnings rule, the basic pension itself, which the disabled income group themselves place very high on their list of priorities.
There is no dispute in principle. The need for further progress is clear. I can repeat again what the Secretary of State had said elsewhere: we are anxious to make progress as soon as possible and in the best way possible. Our doubts are whether we shall get very far by agreeing to make a list of what Amendments are needed in the law relating to social security by a certain date to meet certain special needs. I have a fear that any such report by such a given date might easily be incomplete. It would be very difficult to go back to Parliament and ask for an extension. It might raise all sorts of false hopes when there are no resources available to meet the particular requirements that might be needed to put into such a report. I do not think this would be helpful in achieving what we all want to achieve, which is better pro

CONTENTS

Beswick, L.

Hughes, L.

Raglan, L.

Champion, L.

Ingleby, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Kennet, L.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Longford, E.

Segal, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Serota, B.

Greenway, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

Hanwarth, V.

Phillips, B.

Terrington, L.

Hoy, L.

Platt, L.

Wise, L.

vision for the disabled. I have already pledged my right honourable friend's and my own word that the review is going ahead; it is being actively pursued. I do not think that diverting energies into the production of a report by a certain date is going to help this process. Much as I respect the motives that underlie the Amendment, I am not able to recommend your Lordships to accept it, although I accept the implications of it.
BARONESS SEEAR: I much regret that it will be necessary to divide the House.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: It seems that this Amendment does only two things. First of all, it assures that we get a report in a reasonable time; secondly, it ensures that the Government make up their mind what legislation they can introduce in the future to help the disabled. It does not say what legislation they would like to produce, if they had the money and everything else; it says only what they propose to do. Therefore it seems that the Amendment would simply ensure that such legislation as they think is desirable is brought in speedily. I may be wrong in that, but it seems to me that there is no more in it than that. If that is all it is doing, I feel sure that we should pass this Amendment.
LORD ABERDARE: With due respect, I do not think that that is what it says. The words are:
"a report on what amendments are needed in the law".
It does not say what the Government can do.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: I am afraid I still stick to my point.
10.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 40) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 23.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Eccles, V.

Sandford, L.

Balfour, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Swansea, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Trefgarne, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gowrie, E.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Gridley, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Lothian, M.

Young, B.

Conesford, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Drumalbyn, L

On-Ewing, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Claims for, and payment of, benefit and other ancillary provisions]:
10.16 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: Amendment No. 41 is a drafting Amendment to provide a more accurate description of the scope of Schedule 10, parts of which extend to the Family Allowances Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 41. after ("Acts") insert ("and payments under the Family Allowances Act"). —(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended agreed to.
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Crown servants, Armed Forces etc.]:
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: With the leave of the Committee I should like to take Amendments No. 44 and No. 45 together. These are drafting Amendments to delete superfluous words for consistency with the rest of the clause. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 54, line 21, leave out ("any of") line 33, leave out ("any of").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Married women, widows, etc.]:
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: Amendment No. 46 is a drafting Amendment to omit a subsection which is now otiose. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
676
Page 56, line 30, leave out subsection (5). —(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended agreed to.
Clauses 42 to 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 [The Committee and its functions]:
10.23 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWR1E THE EARL OF GOWR1E moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 62, line 5, leave out ("94") and insert ("47A").
The noble Earl said: With the leave of the House I wish to speak to Amendment No. 50 in conjunction with Amendments Nos. 52 to 54, 63 and 64, 78 and 79, 80 to 86, 88, 101, 102, 104, 105 to 109, 110 to 115, 121, 129, 130, 131, 134, 135 and 137. I apologise for wearying the House with that long list.
LORD BESWICK: I agree that it was a rather long list and as one of my noble friends missed one of the Amendments, I wonder whether the noble Earl would mind going through them again so that we can note them more carefully. There is a serious point about this. Having got to this stage—and I am quite frank about it—we should now go on to 10.30 p.m. before the House adjourns. I so invite the noble Lord. We should get Part I and we should get it at exactly 10.30. If the noble Earl has this consideration in mind I am sure it will be to the convenience of all concerned.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I shall certainly see to the noble Lord's request and take that list again a little more slowly. With the leave of the House, which I understand I have, and with the leave of the noble Lord opposite particularly, I should like to speak to the following Amendments: Nos. 50, 52, 53, 54, 63, 64, 78—
LORD GARNSWORTHY: With the greatest respect to the noble Earl it is quite impossible to turn the pages over

677
at the speed he is going. I realise it is difficult because I had the same task yesterday, but I tried to do it slowly and most people were able to mark the Amendments off. But it is really impossible to follow the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: Third time lucky! With the leave of the House I should like to speak to the following Amendments: Nos. 50, 52, 53, 54, 63, 64, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 121, Clause 92, 129, 130, 131, 134, 135, and 137. These are technical Amendments relating to the application of the Bill to Northern Ireland and may conveniently be discussed together as a whole, although of course put to the Committee for adoption in their appropriate place in the order of the Bill.
The main changes are the restriction of Clause 91—Application of the Bill to Northern Ireland—to Parts II, III and IV of the Bill, and the inclusion in Part 1 of the Bill of a new clause, Clause 47A, and two new Schedules, 12A and 12B, dealing with the basic scheme in Northern Ireland. This separate treatment of the basic scheme arises from the fact that Great Britain and Northern Ireland have separate basic schemes, although closely co-ordinated, whereas the occupational pension provisions and the reserve scheme apply to the United Kingdom as a whole. The remaining Amendments are minor or consequential ones. I beg to move Amendment No. 50.
LORD HUGHES: I do not want to prolong things unduly, and I ticked these Amendments off as the noble Earl went through them for the third time. He says that they all relate to Northern Ireland, yet one of the Amendments which he named, if I marked it correctly, was No. 114, which reads:
"Page 112, line 4, after ('costs') insert ('or in Scotland, the expenses')".
I object to Scotland being regarded as an incidental to Northern Ireland.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: As one of Scottish ancestry who was born in Southern Ireland, I understand the noble Lord's feelings, and I apologise if I overlooked that provision. As he rightly says, Amendment 114 reads:
"Page 112, line 4, after ('costs ') insert ('or in Scotland, the expenses')".
678
But, naturally, Amendment No. 114 is not being moved on this occasion.
LORD SHEPHERD: Do I understand that under the basic scheme the Northern Ireland Province had its own legislation and that this is now being incorporated in our statutes? And in regard to the reserve scheme, which is Part III of the Bill, if there is to be a new Constitution in Northern Ireland, has the reserve scheme been so drafted that this could be taken out and put into the Northern Ireland scheme without any major difficulties of administration?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I do not think the noble Lord is correct in that assumption. The advice I have is that the basic scheme is treated separately because Great Britain and Northern Ireland have separate basic schemes, although they are very closely coordinated; but the occupational pension provisions and the reserve scheme apply to the United Kingdom as a whole.
LORD SHEPHERD: That, of course, includes Northern Ireland, I take it. What I was asking was has it been so drafted, as a consequence of these Amendments, that if it were decided to set up a new Constitution in Northern Ireland so that they could have their own legislation it would be relatively easy to transfer the present provisions into the Northern Ireland concept, so that there would not be any administrative difficulties?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: We are dealing with the United Kingdom as the United Kingdom finds itself. It would he quite wrong, in my view, to provide for contingencies in the future in that way.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 12 [The National Insurance Advisory Committee]:
10.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE THE EARL OF GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 162, line 23, leave out ("11(a)") and insert ("12(a)").
The noble Earl said: These are drafting Amendments which are designed to ensure that the order in which the provisions as set out in Schedule 20 follow the order of the enabling clause, Clause 84. The Amendments to Clause 90 and

679
Schedule 12 are simply consequential corrections of reference. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I beg to move Amendment No. 52.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 47, insert the following new clause:
The basic scheme in Northern Ireland
("47A.—(1) This Part of this Act, except sections 7, 8, 38, 39(2) to (4) 42(2), 46 and 47 and Schedules 11 and 12, extends to Northern Ireland, but with the adaptations set out in Schedule 12A (Adaptation of Part I, and other provisions, for Northern Ireland) to this Act; and other provisions of this Act applying for the interpretation of this Part also extend to Northern Ireland with those adaptations.
(2) Whenever the Secretary of State makes an order under section 7, 8 or 38 of this Act, the Northern Ireland Ministry shall make a corresponding order for Northern Ireland, amending—

(a)this Part of this Act as it has effect in Northern Ireland;

(b)the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act (Northern Ireland) 1966; or

(c)the Workmen's Compensation (Supplementation) Act (Northern Ireland) 1966,

in the same way, and to the same effect, and from as nearly as may be the same date or dates, as this Part of this Act, the Industrial Injuries Act or the Old Cases Act (as the case may be) is amended by the order of the Secretary of State.
(3) The Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury and the Northern Ireland Minister with the consent of the Ministry of Finance may make arrangements ("the joint arrangements") for co-ordinating the operation of this Part of this Act in Great Britain and its operation in Northern Ireland with a view to securing that, to the extent allowed for in the arrangements, the basic scheme as it operates in both territories does so as a single system.
(4) There shall be a Joint Authority (so referred to in this Act) consisting of the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Minister, with responsibility for giving effect to the joint arrangements and having power—

(a) to make any necessary financial adjustments between the National Insurance Fund and the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund; and

(b) to discharge such other functions as may be provided under the joint arrangements;
and Schedule 12B (Joint Authority for Great Britain and Northern Ireland) to this Act shall have effect with respect to the Joint Authority.

(5) The Secretary of State in relation to Great Britain and the Northern Ireland Ministry in relation to Northern Ireland may make
680
regulations for giving effect to the joint arrangements; and any such regulations may for any purpose of the basic scheme provide—

(a) for adapting legislation (including subordinate legislation) for the time being in force in Great Britain or, as the case may be, in Northern Ireland so as to secure its reciprocal operation between the two territories;

(b) without prejudice to paragraph (a) above, for securing that acts, omissions and events having any effect for the purposes of this Part of this Act in relation to Great Britain or, as the case may be, Northern Ireland, have a corresponding effect in relation to Northern Ireland or, as the case may be, Great Britain;

(c) for the Joint Authority to be substituted for the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Ministry in relation to any power under this Part of this Act to make regulations (other than regulations under this paragraph) or orders.

(6) Regulations made by the Joint Authority may apply section 39(2) to (4) of this Act to Northern Ireland, with or without modifications, and provide for determining—

(a) the persons who, being employed earners in respect of their membership of Her Majesty's forces, are to be treated as belonging to Northern Ireland; and

(b) the sums paid as contributions by and in respect of those persons.

(7) Any sums determined by regulations under subsection (6)(b) above shall be treated as paid as basic scheme contributions under this Part of this Act as it applies to Northern Ireland, and not as it applies to Great Britain, for the purposes—

(a) of arriving at the amount of any Treasury supplement or Northern Ireland Exchequer supplement; and

(b) of making any adjustment between the National Insurance Fund and the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund."—(The Earl of Gowrie.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I beg to move Amendment No. 53.
Amendment moved—
After Schedule 12, insert the following new schedule:
("SCHEDULE 12A
ADAPTATION OF PART I, AND OTHER PROVISIONS FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
Introductory
1. In the provisions of this Act which are extended to Northern Ireland by section 47A (The basic scheme in Northern Ireland) (1), there shall be made the adaptations provided for by this Schedule.
General adaptations of references
2. For any such reference as is specified in column 1 of the Table set out below there shall be substituted the reference specified in column 2.

TABLE

Reference>

Substituted reference

The Attendance Allowance Board.

The Attendance Allowance Board for Northern Ireland.

The Consolidated Fund.

The Exchequer of Northern Ireland.

The Family Allowances Act.

The Family Allowances Act (Northern Ireland) 1966.

The former principal Act.

The National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1966.

Great Britain (except in section 40(1)(d) and section 47A).

Northern Ireland.

The Industrial Injuries Act (except in section 47A).

The National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act (Northern Ireland) 1966.

The Industrial Injuries Acts.

The National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts (Northern Ireland) 1966 to 1972.

The Industrial Injuries Fund.

The Northern Ireland Industrial Injuries Fund.

The Minister for the Civil Service.

The Ministry of Finance.

Money provided by Parliament.

Money hereafter appropriated for that purpose.

National health service.

Health service.

The National Health Service Contributions Act 1965.

The Health Service Contributions Act (Northern Ireland) 1966.

The National Insurance Act 1970.

The National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1970.

The National Insurance Fund (except in section 47A).

The Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund.

The National Insurance (Reserve) Fund.

The Northern Ireland National Insurance (Reserve) Fund.

The Old Cases Acts.

The Workmen's Compensation (Supplementation) Acts (Northern Ireland) 1966 to 1972.

The Redundancy Fund.

The Northern Ireland Redundancy Fund.

The Secretary of State (except in section 5(4) and (5), section 47A and section 96(2A)).

The Northern Ireland Ministry.

The Supplementary Benefit Act 1966.

The Supplementary Benefits &c. Act (Northern Ireland) 1966.

The Treasury (except in section 5(4) and (5), in the second place where the reference occurs in section 43(4), in section 47A and in the expression "the Treasury supplement").

The Ministry of Finance.

The Treasury supplement (except in section 47A).

The Northern Ireland Exchequer Supplement.

The Treasury supplements.

The Northern Ireland Exchequer supplements.

Adaptations of particular provisions
3.—(1) In section 1(3) for "sections 7 and 8" substitute "subsection (2) of section 47A", and for "those sections" substitute "that subsection".
(2) In section 1(5) after "supplement to contributions" insert (in this Act referred to as 'the Northern Ireland Exchequer Supplement')".
(3) In section 1(6)(c) for "section 27 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1965" substitute "section 37 of the Contracts of Employment and Redundancy Payments Act (Northern Ireland) 1965".
4. In section 9(3) omit "to the extent provided for by section 38 of this Act (annual up—rating review)", and for "from year to year under that section" substitute "under section 47A(2) of this Act".
5. In section 14(6)(a) for "the Employment and Training Act 1948" substitute "the Employment and Training Act (Northern Ireland) 1950".
6. In section 15(5) for paragraph (a) substitute—
"(a) in pursuance of Article 15 or 36 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972; or".
7. In section 18(2) for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute "by any court of summary iuris-
682
diction in deciding whether or not it shall make an order under the Illegitimate Children (Affiliation Orders) Act (Northern Ireland) 1924".
8. In section 22(5) for "subsections (2) to (6) "substitute" subsections (2) to (4)".
9. In section 24(8) for "section 38 of this Act (annual uprating review)" substitute "section 47A(2) of this Act".
10. In section 33(2)(b) for "the proviso to paragraph 1(1)" substitute "paragraph 1(2)".
11. In section 40(1)(d) for "outside Great Britain" substitute "other than Northern Ireland".
12.—(1) In section 43(3) after "the Comptroller and Auditor General" insert "for Northern Ireland "and for" Parliament" substitute "the Parliament of Northern Ireland".
(2) In section 43(4) for "the National Debt Commissioners and be invested by them, in accordance with such directions as may be given by the Treasury," substitute "the Ministry of Finance and by that Ministry invested".
(3) For section 43(5) substitute—
"(5) The Ministry of Finance shall certify a statement of the securities in which money forming part of the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund is for the time being invested and that statement so certified

683
shall be included with the accounts of that Fund laid before the Parliament of Northern Ireland under subsection (3)."
13. In section 44(4)(a) for the words following "cost" substitute "of the health service in Northern Ireland".
14. In section 96—

(a) in subsection (1) omit the definitions of "the Family Allowances Act", "the former principal Act", "the Industrial Injuries Act", "the Industrial Injuries Acts", "the Old Cases Act" and "the Old Cases Acts";

(b) in subsection (6)(b) for "the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act 1967" substitute "the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1968".

15. In Schedule 1 omit paragraph 8.
16. In Schedule 7, in paragraph 1, for "4" substitute "3" and for "9" substitute "7".
17. In Schedule 10—

(a) in paragraph 4(1) and (2) for "11(6)" substitute "11(5)";

(b) in paragraph 8(4) for heads (a) and (b) substitute "to persons who would take beneficially on an intestacy under the provisions of Part II of the Administration of Estates Act (Northern Ireland) 1955";

(c) in paragraph 9, for sub-paragraph (2) substitute the following sub-paragraph:—

"(2) In the application of sub-paragraph (1) to Northern Ireland the reference to the bankruptcy of a beneficiary shall include a reference to the vesting of his estate and effects in the official assignee under section 349 of the Irish Bankrupt and Insolvent Act 1857.""—(The Earl of Cowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF COWRIE: I beg to move Amendment No. 54.
Amendment moved—
After Schedule 12 insert the following new Schedule:
("SCHEDULE 12B
CONSTITUTION, ETC., OF JOINT AUTHORITY FOR GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND
1. The Joint Authority shall be a body corporate by the name of the National Insurance Joint Authority, and shall have an official seal which shall be officially and judicially noticed, and the seal of the Authority may be authenticated by either member of, or the secretary to, the Authority, or by any person authorised by the Authority to act on behalf of the secretary.
2. Either member of the Joint Authority shall be entitled, subject to and in accordance with any rules laid down by the Authority, to appoint a deputy to act for him at meetings of the Authority at which he is unable to be present.
3. The Documentary Evidence Act 1868 shall apply to the Joint Authority as if the
684
Authority were included in the first column of the Schedule to that Act, and as if either member or the secretary, or any person authorised to act on behalf of the secretary, of the Authority were mentioned in the second column of that Schedule, and as if the regulations referred to in that Act included any document issued by the Authority."—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 48 agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

TYNESIDE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
METALS SOCIETY BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.