LORDS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 12 December 1974)

§ Lord WELLS-PESTELL
My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed. Your Lordships 782 may wish to know the terms of the Commons Reason, which is: Because it alters a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient by your Lordships.

§ Lord ABERDARE
My Lords, this is a very regrettable Message from the Commons. There can be no question at all that the opinion in your Lordships' House was wholly in favour of the Amendment that we passed on the contributions for the self-employed, and there can be no question at all that the majority of noble Lords in this House consider that the provisions in the Bill are unfair and discriminatory against the self-employed. The Amendment was passed with support from all sides of the House. In fact, every Member present on the Conservative Benches, on the Liberal Benches and on the Cross-Benches, and a few from the Labour Benches, voted for this Amendment. There can be no question but that this represented the view of your Lordships. It is therefore very disappointing that the Government have made no effort at all to meet the opinion of this House. It is even more disappointing that they have given no grounds for disagreeing, other than that it is a charge on public funds. What was said in another place is entirely unknown to us because the question was taken at a late hour last night; there is nothing at all as yet in Hansard, and none of us can therefore tell whether our point of view has been considered at all.
This is typical of the deplorable way in which this Bill has been rushed through Parliament and rushed through this House. We have had to take all stages of the Bill in one week. Now we have to consider the Commons' Message when we have not even the record of what went on in another place. However, although I consider that this is a raw deal for the self-employed, we have made our protest; we have sent it back to another place. They have now voted twice on the same Amendment and the Government have refused to give way. Therefore I reluctantly advise your Lordships that we do not insist on our Amendment.

§ Lord WADE
My Lords, I greatly regret the decision of another place on the Lords Amendment. But I must make it clear that throughout the proceedings of this Bill—both on Second Reading and in Committee—I argued that these contributions for Social Security were in the nature of taxation and not contributions to a somewhat mythical National Insurance Fund. That being so, I cannot with consistency contend that this is an appropriate subject for a showdown between the Lords and Commons. But I do not think this is the end of the story. I hope that ere long there will be some major reform of taxation that will embrace Social Security contributions. I listened with great interest, during the Committee stage of the Bill on 5th December, to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, when he referred to major proposals coming next year. I do not know what those proposals will turn out to be, but I hope they will cover this subject of contributions for Social Security, and that we may have another opportunity of returning to the problems of the self-employed. Meanwhile I do not think we can press this matter any further.

§ Lord DRUMALBYN
My Lords, I should like to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has just said about the need for reconsideration of this matter in the very near future. Perhaps I should declare an interest in this because I, too, am a self-employed person. This is not something that can be left to lie where it is now. Whenever there have been increases in contributions it has been the intention of the Government always to make them as gradual as they can possibly be made. The increases which are being imposed in the matter involving this Amendment are very severe indeed. Compared to what they are at the moment, the rates will go up at the top of the level—that is, £3,600 of income—by about £92.50, I think it is. That is a very severe increase indeed and quite contrary to what has generally been done in the past.
Of course, the Commons are perfectly entitled to insist on the clause as it was before. They are entitled to do this wherever a charge is involved on public funds. Of course it is right to say that the charge on public funds is reduced; 784 it is not increased. Therefore, perhaps the Commons are a little less justified than they otherwise would have been. My noble friend Lord Aberdare pointed out during the Committee stage that there was a surplus in prospect, and that there was therefore no good reason why this Amendment should not be accepted. I must say that I think we should all regret the rather peremptory way in which the Commons have rejected this Amendment, and in those circumstances we shall be bound to return to it at a later stage.

§ Lord REIGATE
My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, can he tell us exactly how the social contract affects the extra impost on self-employed workers under this change?

§ Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY
My Lords, living as I do in a small village in the country, I feel very strongly about this matter. The self-employed, as hitherto, run the village store, the village garage, the village post office and so on, and they are being taxed out of existence. This is happening not just in my village but all over the country. The post-war enterprise of somebody with energy and the will to get on is being totally crushed, and I think this is a subject which needs reconsideration and mitigation of the taxation which has been imposed.

§ Lord CARRINGTON
My Lords, may I say just one word before the noble Lord replies? I address my remarks more to the noble Lord the Leader of the House than to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. It seems to me that my noble friend Lord Aberdare is quite right in saying that we should not insist upon this Amendment, not least because if we did so it would mean the postponement of this Bill and of the benefits that other people would get from it. Therefore, it might not be very responsible of the House to do that. But I would say to the noble Lord the Leader of the House, with great seriousness, that because of its composition there is always a problem in this House when there is a Labour Government. On this occasion your Lordships on all sides felt very strongly that the Government had taken the wrong decision. We had speeches from all quarters of the House which made it clear that this view was very widely and strongly held.
785 I think the Government ought to be a little careful about the way in which they treat the House in circumstances like this. This Bill was rushed through. We are then asked to take consideration of the Commons Amendment on a day when there are about 40 of your Lordships wishing to speak on the abolition of capital punishment. I do not see why we had to do this today, in the situation where we do not know what the House of Commons has said on this Bill and where there is no availability of Hansard. We are patient and forbearing people, but I really think that the noble Lord ought to take warning of the fact that perhaps if we get many more repetitions of this kind of procedure we shall be neither so forbearing nor so patient.

§ Lord WELLS-PESTELL
My Lords, I have taken into account what noble Lords have said, and I think this is not an appropriate moment to go over the ground which I tried to cover on a former occasion. There is some urgency—whatever noble Lords may think—about the passage of this Bill. As I said on a previous occasion, there is a great deal to be done in relation to a large number of employers, and that is one of the reasons why there is some urgency. I understand the points of view which noble Lords have expressed, but in the circumstances, and in view of the business before your Lordships, it might be better for me to say no more.