Lords Sitting of 18 February 1975

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the; Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

LORD GIBSON
Richard Patrick Tallentyre Gibson, Esquire, having been created Baron Gibson, of Penn's Rocks in the County of East Sussex, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Moore and the Lord Goodman.
PERSONAL STATEMENT BY LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON
Lord BELHAVEN and STENTON: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to make a personal statement arising out of the Starred Question which stands today on the Order Paper in the name of the noble Lord. Lord Brockway. The Question refers to an article in the Press in which there is a suggestion that I might have abused my position as a Member of your Lordships' House to forward my own interest and that of the syndicate concerned. I should like to take this opportunity of stating that this suggestion is entirely without foundation.

LUNCHEON VOUCHERS
2.48 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the maximum value of luncheon vouchers permitted by the Inland Revenue without income tax liability; and when this value was last reviewed.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, luncheon vouchers issued to employees are not taxed provided their value does not exceed 15p for each working day. This
162
extra-statutory concession is kept under constant review.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. May I ask whether he is aware that the amount was last reviewed in 1948, and has he any idea by how much the cost of luncheons has increased since that date? Is he further aware that in France the limit is 50p a day and in Sweden is 68p a day?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, first, the noble Lord is, I think, inaccurate when he says that, the amount was last reviewed in 1948. As I said, it is under constant review, and the fact that there has been no change does not mean that it has not been reviewed. In any case, it was particularly reviewed in January 1959 by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer—the noble Viscount, Lord Amory as he now is—who gave it formal basis. I would also refer the noble Lord to an Answer to a similar Question which was given by my right honourable friend in the other place on 14th November 1974, at column 185, when he said that an increase in the amount of tax allowance on luncheon vouchers was, in his opinion, not justified.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if the noble Lord has 15p, will he take it out into the City of Westminster and see exactly what he can buy for 15p—and then come back and report to the House?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I have no need to go out. I know what 15p will buy. There is a complete misconception here. The luncheon voucher allowance of 15p was never intended to cover the cost of the meal. The facts are these. Some employers had canteens and they subsidised them to some extent. It was intended that the tax allowance of up to 15p should cover the subsidy which the employee did not get because there was no canteen. That was the intention of the allowance. It is our information that the average subsidy does not greatly exceed the present 15p.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware, as he will be if he has read the paragraphs in The Times newspaper, in the Daily Telegraph and in reputable newspaper organs, of the many luncheons; and dinners provided out of the Government's hospitality fund for Ministers and ex-Ministers—although have never been invited to one—and for

163
innumerable civil servants who receive very good luncheons, according to what I hear? Would he ask his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to turn his attention to the possibility of raising revenue from that source?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I think that, obviously, that is quite another question.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, does the noble Lord not appreciate that when luncheon vouchers were first fixed at this sum, it was quite possible to buy a two-course hot lunch for what was then three shillings?
Lord JACQUES: Yes, my Lords, I understand that; but it was not the intention to cover the cost of the meal. The intention was to cover the hidden subsidy of the employer with a canteen. In our view, it still covers it.
Lord MERRIVALE: Would not the Minister agree that the inflation rate in France is considerably less than in this country? If the value of a luncheon voucher has been fixed at 50p over there, are there not reasons—the noble Lord the Leader of the House shakes his head —for a review to be considered, taking into account the cost of living in France and here and the lesser inflation rate in France compared to that here?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, it is not a question of the cost of living or of inflation. The question is whether French employers subsidise canteens more than do British employers. If so, then the French would be justified in making a higher allowance for luncheon vouchers.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Tory Party, when in power from 1970 to 1974, did not look at this issue? Why do they cry now?
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, does the noble Lord know the difference in value between 15p when it was finally fixed in 1959, and its value now?
The LORD PRTVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is pursuing a point which has been effectively dealt with; and I suggest that we now move to another Question.

POST OFFICE: CHARITY STAMPS
2.54 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE: 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, in view of advertisements in the Press, and in particular in the Radio Times of 8th-14th February, which state "the new charity postage stamps … send l½p towards the help of handicapped people", they will defray the Post Office expenses which will otherwise be borne by the charitable fund.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: No, my Lords. Her Majesty's Government are not responsible for the conduct of the charity stamp experiment or for any advertisements related to it.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I am much obliged for that Answer. I was not suggesting, or intending to suggest, that the Government were responsible. But in so far as the people who rely upon these advertisements have been led to suppose that the administrative expenses do not begin until the l½p has arrived at the charitable body, will the Government keep faith with these people by making what amounts to a charitable donation of a few thousand pounds?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I see no reason for the Government to do so, in view of what I have already said. I think that the noble Lord's question is best addressed to the sponsors of the advertisements. It is generally recognised that all charities have their administrative costs. At the same time, it ought to be made clear that the Post Office, in all their advertisements and Press handouts, have made it clear that the proceeds paid to the charities concerned will be the net proceeds.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, has the noble Lord read the advertisement to which I am referring? Can he say that there is any reference at all to any administrative expenses being deducted from the l½p, before the 1½p is paid to the charity?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, must be referring to the advertisement which appears, and which continues to appear, in the Radio Times. This would have been changed, I think, had it not been for the fact that the Radio Times, in common with other large circulation organs of that type, has to be printed much in advance. I believe that the advertisement may be changed in the future.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I accept what the Minister has now said. Will he now retract his statement made just now, in which he said that the advertisements made it perfectly clear? —because they do not make it perfectly clear.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I thought I made it clear that the advertisements to which I was referring were those issued by the Post Office. The advertisement to which the noble Lord referred was issued not by the Post Office but by the Board of Trustees appointed by the National Council for Social Services.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, may we be assured that the administrative expenses will be shared between the Post Office and the charities in proportion to the amount that they get from the stamp; that is, 4½p and l½p.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I do not see any real reason for that to happen. The Post Office will simply take the costs involved in producing this stamp. What the charities do, I am afraid I am not in a position to answer.

ABACO
2.58 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, in view of the personal statement by the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, may I say that as a matter of courtesy I informed him of this Question; but I made it clear to him that I was 1:0 make no reference to the charges against him.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will draw the attention
166
of the Commonwealth Secretariat to the article in the Daily Mail of 11th February giving details of a plan by an American syndicate to take over the island of Abaco in the Bahamas and to turn it into a millionaires' resort under an independent administration, thereby destroying self-government.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the Bahamas is an independent State, and questions affecting its territorial integrity are entirely for its own Government to consider. The Commonwealth Secretariat has no executive function and cannot interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister, as usual, for that Answer, may I ask him this question? While the Commonwealth Secretariat has no executive authority, has it not the authority, in the interest of Commonwealth nations, to draw their attention to occasions when very serious objective charges are made against one part of their territories?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: No, my Lords, the Commonwealth Secretariat has no such authority. It is not for it to report on one member-State to another in the Commonwealth.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if what is to be inferred from my noble friend's supplementary question were so, it would do away with the independence which has been granted to the Bahamas?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think that is self-evident. I am grateful to my noble friend for pointing it out.
Lord MAELOR: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a wealthy Englishman is to take over the island of Bardsey in Wales to turn it into a millionaires' resort, under an independent administration, thereby destroying self-government? I would remind my noble friend that until recently—
Noble Lords: Order‡
Lord MAELOR: Is my noble friend aware that until recently there was a

167
King in this island, King Pritchard, and that the people there did not even pay rates; they had total self-government, and no luncheon vouchers?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am well aware of these very important constitutional facts. I am also relieved to hear there are a few wealthy Englishmen left and that they propose to spend their wealth in Wales.

PUBLIC SEARCH ROOM
Lord TEVIOT: 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 a decision has been reached as to the future location of the Public Search Room of the Registrar General's Department.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Yes, my Lords. The Director of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and Registrar General is today announcing which parts of the Office will be dispersed to Southport, and also that the Public Search Room will remain at St. Catherine's House, London.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for the great trouble he has taken and for his personal intervention in this matter? The many people and various bodies affected by this move will also be extremely grateful to him.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, but your Lordships' House should know that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, himself deserves a great deal of credit for this situation because of his persistence which we have experienced over nearly the last 12 months. I hope the situation will indicate to him that our minds were not closed on this matter and that we have been much assisted by him and his friends in reaching this decision.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, may I express on behalf of all of us great appreciation of what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has said and express our thanks to him for keeping to his under-taking given when we debated this matter
168
before Christmas, and for keeping to the guarantee given by the previous Government about the Public Search Room? I am delighted to add my tribute to my noble colleague Lord Teviot for his tenacity.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am extremely grateful for his kind remarks and those of my noble friend? Can he give any indication of the service we are likely to enjoy when the rest of the Department, possibly, goes to Southport? What kind of delay will there be in the production of certificates? Will a telex system be installed?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Not at this stage, my Lords. If I may presume to give the noble Lord advice, I suggest he be content with the situation as it is. We are in the process of working out the back-up services that can be given.

HOUSING RENTS AND SUBSIDIES BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS BILL
3.5 p.m.
Lords WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill provides for increases in pensions and other benefits under the National Insurance and industrial injuries schemes. These benefits were last increased in the week beginning 22nd July 1974, and it is proposed that they should be further increased from the week beginning 7th April of this year. The Bill also provides for the first increase in family allowances since 1968 and for the first increase in supplementary benefit disregards since 1966. I am sure the whole House will give a warm welcome not only to the increases and improvements provided by the Bill but also to the two entirely new disablement benefits which are introduced by it.
The increase in National Insurance benefits are provided under Clause 1 and Schedule 1. The standard rate of long-term benefits, namely retirement, invalidity and widows' pensions, will be increased by £1·60, from £10 to £11·60,

169
for single persons, and by £2·50, from £16 to £18·50, for married couples. As your Lordships will know, the Government have undertaken to increase pensions and other long-term benefits in line with the movement in the general level of earnings, unless on a particular occasion it would be more advantageous to beneficiaries if regard were had to the movement in the general level of prices. On this occasion earnings are more advantageous. The standard rate of pension for single persons will be increased, after rounding, by 16 per cent.; for married couples the increase will be just over 15½ per cent. Since pensions are being increased by reference to the movement in gross earnings, the majority of pensioners will fare better than the working population who have deductions made for National Insurance contributions and income tax.
The Government are well aware that prices and earnings have not stood still since our proposals were announced in November, and I would remind your Lordships that a further uprating has been promised for later this year. In the present inflationary situation pensions and benefits will be uprated as frequently as is necessary. But already in our two uprarings since we took office just under a year ago pensions will have been increased in money terms—I acknowledge it is just money terms—by 50 per cent. Our first uprating in July 1974 was such that in January of this year the pension still, after six months, represented an improvement in real terms, after allowing for price increases, of 4 per cent. for single persons and over 3 per cent. for married couples on the levels introduced by the Administration of noble Lords opposite in October 1973.
Other benefits will be increased proportionately. Details of the increases are given in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill and in the Government Actuary's Report, which no doubt many of your Lordships have seen. To give just a couple of examples, a widowed mother with one dependent child will have her benefit increased by £2·35 per week, from £14·90 to £17·25; and an invalidity pensioner whose incapacity began before the age of 35 and who has a dependent wife and two children will have his benefit increased by £4·35 per week, from £27·85 to £32·20,
170
including family allowances. There will be pro rata increases in benefits payable at the reduced rates. Your Lordships will welcome the fact that from April the increments to pensions, which are payable when retirement is deferred, will not only be increased but will also be uprated, for the first time, in line with the pension increases.
There will be corresponding increases in benefits under the industrial injuries scheme; for example, disablement pensions at the 100 per cent. rate will go up from £16·40 to £19. Short-term benefits—that is, unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, maternity allowance under the national insurance scheme and injury benefit under the industrial injuries scheme—which are linked for uprating purposes to the movement in prices will be increased by 14 per cent. This means that the increase will be £1·20 for a single person and £2 for a married couple. A man who is entitled to unemployment benefit, for example, with increases in respect of a dependent wife and three children, will have his flat rate benefit increased by £3·20. In consequence, his income will go up from £22 to £25·20, including family allowances. The Government intend to maintain the purchasing power of the flat-rate, short-term benefits, and an earnings-related supplement can be paid in addition to these flat-rate benefits.
If your Lordships will allow me to return to the Bill, Clause 2 and Schedule 2 deal with the increases in benefits under the industrial injuries scheme. As your Lordships know, war pensions will be similarly increased by means of Instruments under the Royal Prerogative. Your Lordships know also that war pensions have always been dealt with in this way. Before I turn to the other main provisions of the Bill, I should refer to supplementary benefit scale rates. These will be increased, by means of Regulations which are now before your Lordships' House under the Affirmative Resolution procedure, from the same time as the corresponding contributory benefits. The main scale rates are being increased by the same amounts as the corresponding contributory benefits, and in this way we can ensure that those social security beneficiaries who are in most need get the full benefit of the proposed increases.

171
Another step in this direction has been taken by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment who, having consulted his Advisory Committee, proposes to make corresponding increases in the needs allowances for rent and rate rebates and rent allowances to ensure that, as in last July's uprating, housing benefits will not normally be affected by the increases in social security benefits. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced proposals for new and improved tax allowances for elderly people over the age of 65.
The Government had to have regard, when our proposals were prepared, to the serious economic difficulties facing this country which make restraint on public expenditure essential. We were determined to protect, to the fullest possible extent, pensioners and other people who depend on social security benefits. We considered that a further relaxation in the earnings rule—which was substantially relaxed in July of last year by this Government— could not be justified on the grounds of priority. But I am sure that it will not have escaped the attention of noble Lords that the Government's view did not prevail in another place.
Several Noble Lords: Hear, hear‡
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it is all very well for noble Lords to say, "Hear, hear! "Perhaps they would give the House an account of what they did when they were in power, when the financial position of this country was a lot better than it is now. If we are to have cries of "Hear, hear!", let them be backed by sound facts. It is all right, my Lords: I am not cross
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord is getting cross‡
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: No, my Lords, I never get cross‡ I just want to maintain a balance. As I was saying, the Bill which is before your Lordships' House contains subsection (3) of Clause 1 which was added in another place, the purport of which was to increase from April 1975, from £13 to £20, the level of earnings at which retirement pensions are affected. Your Lordships know what happened in the other place. The change
172
would also apply to the wives of invalidity and retirement pensioners who reside with them. The Bill provides for the level of £20 to be raised to £35 after one year, and for the £35 to go up to £50 after another year. We have to face the cost of this; I do not think anyone on either side of the House has not had doubts in recent months about this matter. We must take into account the times in which we are living and the financial implications. The cost to the National Insurance Fund of this change for pensioners who have earnings would be £60 million in the current financial year of 1975–76, if the £20 became operative then, £110 million in 1976–77 and £145 million in 1977–78. I believe that that is in excess of £300 million.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord and ask him whether those figures arc net of tax? In other words, are they gross figures?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, as I understand it, this would be the cost to the National Insurance Fund. This is what the National Insurance Fund would have to bear in additional cost.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord once again, this is not the net cost to the Exchequer. The Exchequer will recover income tax on these sums.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Yes, my Lords, that is perfectly true. But if the noble Lord, as I am sure he has done, works out the amount involved, it is not very significant when one considers what the actual cost will eventually be. I said just now that the purport of the provision is to increase the level of earnings from April 1975. I used the word "purport" quite deliberately, because the Government are advised—I want to say this with some degree of emphasis and, if I may say so, rather slowly—that there may be some question as to whether the new sub-section technically achieves all that its sponsors intended when this was passed in another place. The Government are still considering this point. At this stage I am unable to go beyond that, because I understand that the technicalities are legal ones and that advice is being taken.
I move on now to Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill which replace the existing requirements for future upratings. The

173
link between long-term benefits and earnings which we first provided statutorily last year is retained, but in a simplex form which I am sure will commend itself to your Lordships.
My Lords, I turn now to Clauses 5, 6 and 7, which provide the framework for a non-contributory invalidity pension and an invalid care allowance. These new benefits are the first fruits of the report to Parliament last September on Social Security Provision for Chronically Sick and Disabled People by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. This is a matter which was debated on more than one occasion in your Lordships' House.
That Report resulted from a review in depth of the position of sick and disabled people in relation to the existing fabric of benefits, and it identifies three priority areas. First, there were found to be some 220,000 men and single women who had been totally incapable of work for a long time but who were receiving only means-tested supplementary benefit, or in some cases less than that. Secondly, there were housewives—40,000 or so married women who wore so disabled as to be not only incapable of work but also unable to perform normal household duties. Thirdly, there were those mainly single women who had sacrificed jobs, careers and, in some cases, marriage to wait—if I may use the expression kindly—hand and foot on a severely disabled parent or parents. These devoted daughters were also obliged to resort to supplementary benefit. What, therefore, the Government have set out to do in Clauses 5 to 7 is to provide modest but radically new non-means-tested benefits for well over a quarter of a million people who, though deprived of the chance to earn or to do their housework, are without rights under the contributory arrangements.
Perhaps I should stress, my Lords, that the noncontributory invalidity pension is not a benefit for disablement as such. If non-contributory invalidity pension were a benefit for, perhaps, "loss of faculty "or" restriction of activities ", it would make no sense at all to introduce it for those who have no contribution record, while denying it to those who had one. Clause 6 makes clear that the non-contributory invalidity pension is a benefit for incapacity for work or, in the case of the house-
174
wife, incapacity for work and incapacity to perform normal household duties. The non-contributory invalidity pension is set at the non-contributory level of £6·90 in April, 1975, terms. We are hoping to make the first payments this year, except for housewives. The Amendment agreed to in Standing Committee in another place merely anticipated the Government's own legislation on housewives' non-contributory invalidity pension by a month or two. But it is still the case that the benefit cannot be brought in for some time, and perhaps your Lordships will permit me to explain why.
Inability to perform normal household duties is an entirely new concept. It is less of a purely medical question than incapacity for work; so the procedure for claiming may well require non-medical as well as medical evidence. A fair and workable scheme must be evolved. Thus we are faced with two major hurdles: devising appropriate arrangements and fitting them into the operational programme. The Government share with disabled people and their organisations a desire to improve the lot of the disabled housewife as soon as possible. But the facts must be faced frankly and squarely. There is a formidable array of tasks facing the Department of Health and Social Security over the next two years, some of them imposed by this Bill. I would be less than frank with your Lordships if I were to suggest that housewives non-contributory invalidity pension was likely to come in before 1977, though the Government will aim for the earliest practicable date.
Before I turn to Clause 7 and invalid care allowance perhaps I could helpfully refer to a point which properly belongs to Clause 11 and Schedule 3 to the Bill which deal with sums to be disregarded in calculating supplementary benefit. There can be no question of disregarding non-contributory invalidity pensions, in whole or in part. To do so would make nonsense of the long-standing principle that State benefits having the same purpose—personal maintenance benefits in this case—should not overlap or be duplicated; and of our policy of reducing reliance on means-tested benefits.
The invalid care allowance, for which Clause 7 provides, is on many counts a leap into the dark. We do not know

175
how it will work out in practice and we might as well be frank about it. In another place it was explained that we do not even have any means of estimating what the initial uptake will be. So the wise and responsible approach is to tread warily. There are ample powers in Clause 7 to extend the invalid care allowance net once it has been cast. The single daughter, for whom the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants have compaigned so vigorously, will be in from the beginning; so will other relatives such as sons, nieces, et cetera, and the invalid care allowance, also at £6·90 a week in April, 1975, terms, will be put into payment in the course of the financial year 1976–77.
My Lords, some recent criticism of our proposals has emphasised that people who are disabled are ordinary members of the community, but has overlooked the implications of this in terms of this uprating. All I would say is, first, that the increases in benefits will put £110 million a. year into the pockets of those receiving benefit specifically for chronic sickness or disablement; in addition, 2½ million retirement pensioners who have some measure of disablement will benefit from the higher pensions the Bill brings. This £110 million is additional to the £26 million net which a £6·90 noncontributory invalidity pension and invalid care allowance would cost in a full year. Secondly, legislation will be introduced before very long to provide for the new mobility allowance which we announced last September; and our new long-term pensions proposals include earnings-related invalidity pensions. Non-contributory invalidity pension and invalid care allowance are, therefore, but a step —though I believe your Lordships will concede it to be a substantial one—on the road to better benefits for sick and disabled people.
Clause 8 of the Bill provides for various minor amendments to social security legislation with similar provisions for Northern Ireland, where appropriate. I do not think that I need to deal in detail with the contents of that clause. Next I turn to Clause 9, which provides for the first increase in family allowances since they were previously increased, by a Labour Government, in 1968. On this occasion, while the increases will be subject to normal taxation, there will be no
176
"claw-back". The increases will take effect from the week beginning 7th April 1975, and we are proposing that family allowances should be paid at a uniform rate of £1.50 a week for each child after the first. Thus the rate for the second child will be increased by 60p a week and for each subsequent child by 50p a week. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has promised that a Statement will be made in another place about the details of our further proposals for extending a cash payment to the first child through our child benefit scheme. This is a Statement which I hope will be made in the not too distant future.
Clause 10 of the Bill provides a purely technical change. So finally, in trying to confine my remarks to the main provisions, I turn to Clause 11 which, with Schedule 3, provides for substantial improvements in supplementary benefit disregards. Under these proposals all savings up to £1,200 will be completely disregarded in calculating supplementary benefit and the disregards of income will be simplified. The amount of earnings to be disregarded will be doubled. As you know, my Lords, certain part-time workers are allowed £2 not to be taken into account. The figure will in future be one of £4, and there are several other categories where the disregard will be doubled. This improvement, which was one of the recommendations of the Finer Committee on One-Parent Families, will be, we feel—and we hope your Lordships will feel so top—of particular help to this type of family. In addition, the earnings of dependent children who are under 16 or are still at school will be completely disregarded. These changes in the supplementary benefit scheme will be implemented as soon as it is operationally possible after the main uprating of benefit rates has been completed.
The increases and improvements will benefit about 11½ million people apart from the 4½ million families whose family allowances are to be increased. The increases and improvements contained in the Bill, apart from the changes in the earnings rule to which I have already referred, will cost over £1,070 million in a full year. To this can be added over £90 million for the increases in rates under the supplementary benefit and war pensions schemes, so that the total cost of what I have been describing will exceed £1,160 million. On top of that will

177
be the cost of the changes in the earnings rule.
My Lords, I have spoken at some length and perhaps I ought to apologise to your Lordships for having done so, but I will now conclude my remarks. The Government are committed to protecting and improving the lot of the elderly and others who are no longer part of the working population. This Bill demonstrates how we are continuing to discharge that commitment and how, despite the present serious economic difficulties, we are resolved to carry on along the road to—I know it is a much-hackneyed phrase but I want to use it—social justice. I commend the Bill to your Lordships and I hope your Lordships will welcome it and will give it—and I want to emphasise this—a speedy passage. Thank you for your attention, my Lords.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I ask him about one small point. I did not want to interrupt him earlier in such a closely reasoned speech. He referred to the increments for deferring pensions, but I am not quite clear where that comes in this Bill.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it will not come into this particular Bill. I imagine it will come in the Bill for better pensions, which I hope will be available fairly soon.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, before my noble friend deservedly relaxes after his explicit and clear speech, for which we all thank him, I should like to ask him a question on industrial injuries. Has the noble Lord a note of the amount by which that benefit will be increased? In my day in the Ministry one of the largest funds was the industrial injuries fund, and I should like to ask whether he now has figures about that, and whether that industrial injuries fund has been raided by any other Departmental Minister?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I have an enormous amount of information here, including the tables showing the increases. If the noble Lord will allow me a moment or two to look at them I can probably give him the information in the next few minutes.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: It will do later, my Lords.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
3.37 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for having explained this Bill in detail to us and for having "kept his cool", despite the fact that at one moment he appeared to be rather cross with us! On the whole, we welcome the Bill. Obviously, increases in benefit for those in need are always welcome, although at the same time when costs of this magnitude are involved I think we must remember that this cost falls on those who subscribe to the National Insurance fund or on the taxpayer.
The Bill is much improved as a result of two major Amendments made in another place against the advice of the Government. These were, first, the phased relaxation of the earnings rule, by three annual stages, as the noble Lord explained to us; and secondly, the extension of the new non-contributory invalidity pension for disabled people to cover disabled housewives who cannot perform their normal household duties.
So far as the earnings rule is concerned it has never been popular; indeed it has been extremely unpopular on all sides of this House, and in that connection I always think of my noble friend Lord Reigate, who is to speak later in this debate. He has been a dire opponent of the earnings rule for many years, and I am sure now he is enjoying his triumph. My memory, too, goes back to the days when we were discussing our Social Security Bill of 1973 and when in solid array noble Lords opposite were trooping into the Lobby against the Government, asking for the complete abolition of the earnings rule, not merely its relaxation. On that occasion I made no attempt whatever to defend the rule on its merits, only as a matter of priorities.
Now the Labour Party in government are reaping the whirlwind. Now the situation has changed, and they find themselves in the position of defending the maintenance of the rule on grounds of

179
cost. However, as the noble Lord has explained to us, they failed to carry all their own supporters with them and the result is that we have the relaxation of the rule, which I am sure will be welcomed on all sides of this House. The noble Lord kindly spelled out the fact that there was some doubt about the wording of this clause and that there were legal technicalities which had to be gone into. I would ask him whether he would undertake to inform the House, before the Bill leaves us, as to what these technicalities are and to what extent they have been overcome?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. Of course I shall give that undertaking. The only thing I ask him to do is not to press me today, because I could not give a satisfactory and intelligent reply as the matter is still being considered; but, of course, the House must know this.
Lord ABERDARE: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, because he made out that there was a difficulty. It would be wrong to pass the Bill not knowing what the difficulty was and whether it was possible to tackle it. So far as provision for the disabled housewives is concerned, in their original Clause 6 the Government proposed a new non-contributory invalidity pension limited to people incapable of work and excluding married women living with their husbands or maintained by them. There was no provision for the disabled married woman who was incapable of performing normal household duties. If passed in that form, the Bill would have led to a number of most peculiar anomalies. A disabled husband with a working wife would receive the new benefit, while a disabled wife with a working husband would not; yet clearly the extra amount of cars and household work would be exactly the same. Another anomaly would be that a disabled single woman living in the same house as her brother would receive the benefit, but a married woman with a husband doing the same amount of work for her brother would not. A third anomaly would be that a single disabled woman would have the benefit immediately taken away on marriage, and this would have been an unexpected financial detriment adding
180
very much to the difficulties of a young handicapped wife.
I mention those anomalies merely because although the situation has been put right by this Amendment to the Bill it will nevertheless persist in the intervening period until the extra allowance is expected to cover the disabled housewife. I would plead with the noble Lord that, despite the difficulties—and I do appreciate that within the Department, in the administration of this new benefit, there will be difficulties—he should try to bring in this benefit as soon as possible to avoid those anomalies. He spoke of 1977, which was the date mentioned in another place. I think this is much too far ahead and I hope that the noble Lord and his right honourable friends will do their utmost to introduce this benefit much earlier than 1977.
I should like to welcome the new invalid care allowance which will bring help to some of those who care regularly for a severely disabled person. I would ask the noble Lord whether he can explain it in more detail. I think he did it in rather a limited way when he was talking about restriction on the benefit to close relations. This will be covered by the regulations under Clause 7(1)(c) which reads:
"… the severely disabled person is either such relative of his as may be prescribed or a person of any such other description as may be prescribed."
My Lords, as the noble Lord said, this will cover the case—with which we are most concerned—of the devoted daughter looking after a disabled parent or parents and may well cover other fairly close relationships; but there will certainly be other equally deserving cases where the person caring for the disabled person is a friend or a neighbour and will not be entitled to this new allowance. I wonder whether it is right to discriminate in this way on grounds of relationship rather than on grounds of need? It will lead to many border-line cases and many anomalies. There will be border-line cases as it is in deciding on the qualification for the benefit, and I should not have thought it desirable to introduce another element of doubt over the question of the relationship between the caring and the cared for.
The noble Lord said it was impossible to forecast the number of claims. I

181
thought that there was a figure of 11,500 people involved in possible claims for invalid care allowance. With that relatively small number, I think it would have been better to avoid difficult border-line decisions and to rest on the degree of disablement and the need for regular care, rather than the relationship between the two persons.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. We were just discussing this and I wonder whether the noble Lord said that the disabled housewives would not benefit until 1977?
Lord ABERDARE: I was trying to urge the noble Lord to amend this and bring it in a little earlier. In his speech he said it would not be possible for those persons to benefit until 1977, which corresponds to what was said in another place.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I thank the noble Lord. I apologise.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, in Clause 9 there is an increase in family allowance, but it still excludes the eldest child. I think it is a tragedy for our Social Services that the Government have set their face against the tax credit scheme. This was a highly ingenious plan which would have brought real benefit to many people and—something I should have thought would have particularly appealed to the noble Lords opposite—it would have greatly reduced means tests for benefits. It would have helped the family by giving credit for the eldest child, and it would have particularly helped the one-parent family, which was the subject of the Finer Report. I believe this is a great opportunity missed by the Government who, with this Bill, have done no more than uprate family allowances for the second child and subsequent children. There is no doubt in my mind that a tax credit scheme would have brought far greater benefit to those in need than any amount of food subsidies. I believe the Government have their priorities wrong here and it is very sad that the tax credit scheme has been dropped.
Lastly may I ask the noble Lord one question on the financial side related to the Actuary's report. This was based on an assumption of 650,000 unemployed.
182
Unfortunately, that figure has already been exceeded and may well rise further. I should like to know whether the financial details worked out by the Actuary will be badly affected. I understand that for every 100,000 unemployed the National Insurance Fund loses a net £70 million as between the decrease in contributions and the increase in payments; and in that case the Fund could be very badly affected by the present level of unemployment and especially if unemployment rises further. Can the noble Lord assure me that the Fund is, in fact, in a solvent state and that it will not be necessary to raise contributions? In general, my Lords, we welcome the improvements to the Bill. We believe it is a better Bill since it left another place, and I would press the noble Lord only to see whether he can speed up some of the provisions that depend on the financial provisions in the Bill.
3.50 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, it is with considerable trepidation that I rise to address your Lordships' House for the first time, but I am fortified by the hope that the House will extend to me the indulgence which I understand is customary on these occasions. If I were seeking a phrase to express my reaction to this Bill, I think I would choose the Gilbertian exclamation, "modified rapture ". In this Bill there are many pluses, but these are balanced by a number of minuses. For example, we must all welcome the increase in benefits, the highest in actual terms ever made. Yet we have been reminded this afternoon that all these increases do is to restore the value of benefits severely eroded by inflation.
Even now, there is good reason to question whether a 16 per cent. increase for long-term benefits provided by the Bill will cover the rise in costs from July 1974 to April 1975. Alter all, coal went up 20 per cent. in November, and we heard yesterday that it is shortly to go up yet another 10 to 12 per cent. Electricity is to go up this spring by 25 to 30 per cent. It is vitally important at least to maintain the real value of benefits. We have been told there will be a further uprating in the autumn. This is to be welcomed, but the danger is that the upratings will never catch up with the increases in the cost of living.

183
My Lords, if we are to eliminate poverty, we cannot be content merely to maintain the value of benefits. We must increase the value of benefits. I ask your Lordships to take, for example, the case of the retirement pension. The essential point about the retirement pension in this country is that it is inadequate. One-third of retirement pensioners are on supplementary benefit; one-third are probably just above that level. The first step in a retirement pension policy must be to secure a substantial increase in the real value of the retirement pension at the earliest possible date. I am aware of the considerable problems of cost, but should we not be prepared to shoulder the burden in this generation, rather than content ourselves with plans for ensuring that a future generation shoulders a burden which we decline?
I am glad that the Bill comes before us containing Clause 1(3), the subsection which raises the earnings rule limit over three years to £50. I would prefer, had it been possible, to eliminate the earnings rule altogether, because it has always seemed to me wrong that someone with a large investment income can enjoy the whole of his pension, whereas someone with no other resources is penalised for earning a comparatively few pounds. It is important to establish as soon as possible the principle that the retirement pension is paid as of right, subject, of course, to tax, but regardless of all other sources of income. Eventually, in the future, I hope it will be possible for any man or woman to draw their pension at any time between the ages of 60 and 70, whatever they may be earning at that time, the amount of the pension being adjusted to the point in the ten-year term at which the individual begins to draw the pension.
The only qualification I would make for drawing the pension is a suitable period of residence in this country. If this could be done, one would have one individual person's pension, which every individual with the qualification of being over the retirement age would be able to draw, whether married or not. The present married couple's pension would disappear. If this were provided within the scope of the tax credit scheme, then a housing credit could take care of the difference in costs facing those who live
184
alone and those who live in the same household as others. The present anomaly, perpetuated in the Bill, whereby a married couple receive less than two single persons living in the same household, would be removed.
My Lords, I welcome the introduction of the noncontributory invalidity pension and the invalid care allowance. These are considerable pluses, but there are minuses as well, because it will be a little while, as we have heard, before they are actually available. There will be a longer delay in the case of the non-contributory invalidity pension for housewives. I support the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that the Government should introduce this at the earliest possible moment. It is disappointing, perhaps, that the invalidity pension is fixed at only 60 per cent. of the retirement pension level for a single person; that is to say, £6·90 a week. The increase in family allowances is long overdue and much to be welcomed. The leveling-up of the benefit for the second child to that of the third and subsequent children is a common sense improvement, but by the time the Bill is implemented seven years will have passed since the last increase. This is another minus.
According to a Government statement the retail price index, which underestimates the price increase for poor families, increased by 55·7 per cent. during the period between the last family allowance increase and May 1974. That is the increase to May 1974, but of course we all know how prices have risen since then. In spite of the substantial increases, it looks as though family allowances, raised 66 per cent. for the second child and 50 per cent. for the third and subsequent children, may not have been restored to the real value which they acquired at the time the last increase was made. There is a welcome commitment in the Bill to review National Insurance benefits annually in the light of increases in earnings and prices, but unfortunately this commitment does not extend to family allowances.
Finally, I regret that it was not found possible to provide a family allowance for the first child. This would help all families with children, but in particular would help 7 million mothers in this country and half the nation's children, who are excluded from the existing family

185
allowance system. In this connection, it is relevant to bear in mind that one-third of poor families have only one child. I realise that the Government are pledged to introduce this reform, and hope it will not be long delayed. When it comes, I hope it will be coupled with a further increase in the family allowance generally, the abolition of income tax on children's allowances and the extension of the claw-back principle. A family endowment scheme of this kind would make a start on the road towards a full tax credit system. I have given some indications of the pluses and minuses in this Bill, as I see them Once again, I welcome the pluses, while expressing those reservations about the minuses.
3.58 p.m.
Lord CRAWSHAW: My Lords, the honour falls to me this afternoon to speak on behalf of the whole House in congratulating most warmly the noble Lord, Lord Banks, on his maiden speech. His was a most composed performance, and he showed himself to be a complete master of this very complicated field of pensions. I gather that the noble Lord in the past has been chairman of the Liberal Party. Therefore, I am sure he is going to be a great asset both to his Party and to the whole House. As I am, so to speak, the "sandwich" speaker in today's debate, I should like to say how much we look forward to hearing the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington.
My Lords, I am aware that I address your Lordships fairly frequently on this sort of subject—I hope not too often. My interest was aroused because of my previous interest in the Social Security Act of 1973. It seems to me that so much of what is in this Bill follows very closely upon that Act. I realise that today's debate takes place against a background of high inflation and calls from many quarters for curbs on Government spending, which many people believe to be the, or at any rate a, cause of this inflation. We have heard this afternoon from the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that the measures in this Bill, quite apart from the earnings rule, will in fact cost the Exchequer over £1,100 million. This is not really the time for a general economic debate, but I should like to pick up one or two points the noble Lord, Lord Banks, made on this subject, because a Bill such as this is highly vulnerable in an
186
inflationary situation, and the provisions and benefits which it sets out to make, and which we hope will accrue to many people, could all too quickly be seriously eroded unless our currency is protected. No doubt these considerations and their relationship to the proposals in this Bill are uppermost in the minds of, among other people, the former Secretary of State for Social Services in the last Conservative Government.
Another problem in passing legislation such as this is the need to keep it as simple as possible, so that, first, an enormous and expensive bureaucracy does not need to be set up to administer it, and, secondly, people can readily understand what is being done and help to ensure that the benefits reach those in the greatest need. We have so often seen—I know this perfectly well from my own experience—the difficulties in the rent allowance scheme, for instance, where the proposals are very good but the question of the benefits reaching those that need them most is always very difficult. As I say, this Bill is essentially a corollary to the 1973 Act. To my mind, there is hardly any political content in it; it is not a matter of its being Left or Right Wing. I believe it to be simply an old-fashioned act of chivalry, and it deals with matters which should be the concern of every Briton worth the name.
I hope I should not be accused of fawning if I were to say that I have sometimes been overwhelmed by the chivalry and support which your Lordships have given to propositions which in the past I and others have made along the lines of the provisions of this Bill. I hesitate to take issue with such an eminent authority as Edmund Burke, but I feel he was inaccurate on several counts, including his forecast of the fortunes of the EEC, when he said in a famous passage:
" The age of chivalry is gone; that of sophists, economists and calculators has succeeded, and the glory of Europe is extinguished forever ".
Turning to the details of the Bill, I am glad that at least three points that we debated fairly fully here in 1973 have been included. I welcome, along with other noble Lords, the abolition of the earnings rule for retirement pensioners, and also, incidentally, for the wives of invalidity pensioners; I do not think that

187
has been mentioned up to now. I also welcome the concept of the non-contributory invalidity pension in Clause 6. It has always seemed to me that the worst off people in this field, or in any other field for that matter, are those who have not been in a position to contribute to the National Insurance fund; that is, those who are very severely stricken before even starting work; and, of course —and this has been mentioned several times this afternoon—the disabled house-wives. I am glad that they receive recognition in this Bill. In passing, I should like to add my congratulations to those Back-Bench Members of the other place who have so successfully championed their cause. It shows what can be done by our Parliamentary democracy.
I understand—I think the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, confirmed this this afternoon—that the Secretary of State has had trouble in defining disabled housewives. It is not really my field to preach to the Secretary of State exactly what a housewife is, especially in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Castle, but we did in fact discuss this in the debate here on the 12th June 1973. It was the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, who explained that normally a housewife's job is cooking, housework and shopping. House-wives 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. I hope that is a basis of definition which will appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell.
New ground has been broken by the concept of a non-contributory invalidity pensioner; though obviously at this stage, and I accept this, anomalies will exist. For example, he will receive £6.90 under the Bill, or 60 per cent. of that paid to a contributory pensioner, who will receive £11.60; whereas his child—that is, the child of the non-contributory invalidity pensioner—will receive £5.65, in fact the same as the child of the contributory invalidity pensioner.
Like other noble Lords, I welcome the new concept of the invalid care allowance. I remember this being argued very forcefully in this House by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in 1973. I accept the problem of the anomaly here, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Aberdare, on the question of relationship, and I
188
expect we shall deal with that at the Committee stage.
When this Bill was being debated in the other place, I originally pricked up my ears when I heard that the earnings rule for retirement pensioners was to be abolished. I am concerned that there is nothing proposed in this Bill to encourage the invalidity pensioner, or indeed the non-contributory invalidity pensioner, to return to part-time and from there to fulltime work. Although the earnings rule for the retirement pensioner and the wife of the invalidity pensioner is to be abolished, the invalidity pensioner himself is still only to be allowed to earn £4.50 before he loses his entitlement to his entire pension. In our debate at the Committee stage of the 1973 Act, in which no fewer than 12 noble Lords took part, I quoted the case of a professional man, aged 45, with three children, who had multiple sclerosis and was no longer able to go out to work. He was then entitled to an invalidity pension of £19 a week, which by now will be about £25. He wanted to do part-time work in his own home, but he dare not risk it because of the rule which lays down that as soon as he earns more than £4.50 a week he loses his entire pension.
As a result of this rule, about one-third of invalidity pensioners fall back on supplementary benefits instead of doing something to earn their keep, and the supplementary benefits are a considerable charge on the Exchequer. I appreciate that this is really a Committee stage point, but I wanted to warn the Government that I shall be pursuing this matter. I received considerable support on the last occasion, and only withdrew my Amendment because of the general review that was about to take place. But I am much encouraged to go into this question further on this occasion because of the abolition of the earnings rule for the retirement pensioner and the wife of the invalidity pensioner, and the opinion expressed in the previous debate by my noble friend Lord Aberdare, when he contended that the invalidity pensioner in fact had a stronger case than the retirement pensioner. I rather tend to agree with the view expressed by my noble friend. This apart, I support the trends and the new concepts in this Bill, and I look forward to further improvements at the Committee stage.
4.11 p.m.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I rise to ask the indulgence of the House which is customarily extended to all those that have the opportunity of addressing it for the first time. I only hope that I am able to emulate the noble Lord, Lord Banks, in the magnificent effort he made in the course of his admirable speech. With the permission of the House, I should like to consider the Bill within the setting of the whole social security provisions currently in force in this country. Indeed, in so doing I shall be following the example of my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell who touched on a number of matters that are, strictly speaking, outside the ambit of the formal provisions of the Bill itself.
Immediately following the last war, over thirty years ago now, Parliament enacted a whole series of social security provisions which, at that time, were calculated to remove the whole spectre of insecurity from the mass of the people of our country. A number of Bills were passed, and the basic assumptions on which all those enactments were based were, first, that there should be a first-class National Health Service; secondly, that there should be adequate provision for housing; thirdly, that there would be conditions of full employment; and, fourthly, that there would be some progress towards the ensuring of a fairer share to all the people of our country in the results of the productive effort of the nation. It seems to me that today affords one occasion when we may look back to see how far we have progressed towards those ideals put forward so forcibly at that time.
I should first like to draw your Lord-ships' attention to the position as it seemed to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in 1972. My right honourable friend is not one who is addicted to extremes. He is a man of great moderation who measures his words carefully, and this is what he wrote in 1972:
"The total of all those whose income is below, at, or a little above supplementary benefit scale level is about 10·6 million; 2 million below, 46 million on benefit, and 4 million just above."
I venture to suggest to your Lordships that this was not the state of affairs which one would have envisaged a quarter of a
190
century earlier, and that despite the efforts of successive Governments to bring in social reforms, and despite the introduction of that quite revolutionary measure, the Redundancy Payments Act 1963.
Coming to consider the existing Bill, one has to remember that since 1972 there has been the passing of the Social Security Act 1973, more recently the Social Security (Amendment) Act, and now we have the current Bill. I would respectfully suggest to your Lordships that we have to consider how far all these measures—the three that I have named, and indeed others—have gone to alter, or substantially to ameliorate, the conditions that were so aptly described by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in 1972. I should say that undoubtedly some amelioration must have taken place, and I certainly do not want in any way to imply that Her Majesty's Government, or my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Health and Social Security, have done anything other than their best, but my conjecture is, in the absence of any alternative information, that although some impact must have been made, despite inflation, on the figures quoted by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in 1972, there still remains a very solid core of people existing at, on, or slightly above subsistence level.
These people, however many millions they may be—they may be something less than the 10·6 million quoted by my right honourable friend, and say they are perhaps now, owing to the efforts of Her Majesty's Government, reduced to 7 million—are people. They are people who, in the majority of instances, are living in bad housing; they are people, in quite a large number of instances, who are living without hope; they are people who, in quite a number of instances—particularly the people who are very old—are living without that degree of personal serenity which one would hope for everyone towards the end of their natural life; they are people, the people to whom I am referring, without hope and without purpose. They are people for whom the mere provision of money does not bring happiness. They are the people for whom, like so many others, money merely makes unhappiness more comfortable.
It is not, of course, the entire fault of successive Governments that; this state of

191
affairs has come about. We know quite well—though we have no up-to-date figures—that quite a large number of people entitled to draw benefit for a variety of reasons do not in fact draw it. One of the reasons is the degree of illiteracy among the population. None of your Lordships present the other day during the débate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, can be under any illusion as to the extent of illiteracy in our, presumably, civilised country. The fact of the matter is that quite a large number of people in the country cannot read, let alone understand, the regulations that are put forward from time to time.
Moreover, the regulations themselves are far from simple. They are couched by tradition, in the terms of people who understand the world of insurance better than they understand the close domesticity of family life. They are couched in terms which are replete with cut-off points, earnings rules, disregards, cohabitation rules and so on. Further there are a large number of people who are extremely suspicious over the years of any contact at all with authority. For reasons of their own, these people do not like the intrusion of officials in their own private affairs. Then there are those who are too proud to take the amounts that the State provides and to which they are entitled. And for a very good reason too. There is a current viewpoint to which considerable, and, in my view, undesirable, publicity is given; that is, that all people who apply for benefits of this kind are scroungers and shirkers—and nobody with a degree of pride likes to be regarded on that basis. I think the time has arrived (although this is not the occasion to enlarge upon it) when some serious consideration ought to be given to taking the whole of the social security provisions outside the insurance world and think anew. My Lords, my time is up and I cannot possibly give any hint as to what kind of proposals I would put forward. But I thank your Lordships for your indulgence and I am grateful for your attention.
4.22 p.m.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, this is the first time in my membership of your Lordships' House that I have had the privilege of congratulating a speaker on
192
a maiden speech. The very civilised custom of your Lordships' House of arranging a list of speakers at least enabled me to rush to the reference books to ascertain the record of the noble Lord who has just spoken. I learned that he was a Member of Parliament from 1945 to 1950 when I joined that august assembly, so he must now belong to that very select minority who have made more than one maiden speech within these four walls. I listened with great interest to the speech which touched on rather more general issues than I think have been broached so far in this debate. It was all the better for that. I congratulate the noble Lord very much on what he said.
I should like also to offer my congratulations to the other noble Lord, Lord Banks, on his maiden speech. He seemed to me to display—apart from any other qualities—a most admirable view on the subject of the earnings rule. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, in the course of his remarks referred to the complexity of these matters. I intended to open my remarks by also referring to this problem. I must declare an interest in that in the course of recent months I have had to study something called "NI 15" on the subject of retirement pensions. I refreshed my memory of it yesterday and I can say only that, with all the advantages of a university education, clearly written though the document is, it is extremely difficult to follow. The noble Lord's remarks are very apposite because I do not see how, without a great deal of counsel and advice, average citizens of less education can always ascertain that they are getting the rights to which they are entitled. I believe he touched on a very real problem.
Apart from that point, on this Bill I should like to confine myself to one or two matters. First, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for having interrupted him at the end of his very well reasoned and admirable speech. I had gathered the impression from his speech that the increments which are given for deferred pensions were to be increased in the Bill. But I think I am right in saying that that is not so.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I not only misinformed the noble Lord but I misinformed the House. I shall

193
deal with the matter at some length at the end of the day, provided he wishes me to do so.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, I am quite happy about it because I intended to refer to the matter anyway.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, as I understand the position, it stems from the Social Security Act 1973 and it will not be in the "Better Pensions" Bill as I thought.
Lord REIGATE: I am left a little baffled, but no doubt the noble Lord will be able to clear any doubts that I raise when he comes to reply. I was about to commend the fact that the Government's White Paper announced proposals for increasing; the increments, which would mean that the man who defers his retirement will be able to earn an extra one-third to the basic pension. I think that this is very good and a long overdue change. I must give full credit to Her Majesty's Government if they have done it. as I hope they have. But, first, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he will confirm that it will ex-tend to those pensioners who have earned increments and are now drawing them, because it will mean a great deal of difference to those earning the extra £1.78 per week if that is doubled by the addition of another £1.78, which would be the effect of the new proposals. All the same when one looks at the increment matter generally it is still not a very viable proposition from the point of view of the man who is deferring his pension. I would not care to go so far as to say it was a swindle, but any insurance company which attempted to get away with the amounts which are paid, which are not based on any actuarial calculations, would find itself in considerable trouble with the Government Department concerned. The situation has been the same since 1946, and I once found in a reply to a Parliamentary Question that there never has been any actuarial basis for the increment which is offered.
Whatever other reasons a man may have for deferring his retirement, the increment is surely one of the least attractive. To take one example; the self-employed person, a man aged 65 pays approximately £600 a year (I am rounding up the figures to
194
make it easier) for five years, as a result of which he receives for himself and for his widow an increment to his retirement pension of £95 per annum only. He has forgone a pension of about £500 a year and yet his expectation of life at the age of 70 is, to put it mildly, substantially less than it was at the age of 65; so of course is that of his widow. So there are no grounds for advising a man to defer his retirement because it is worth his while. I have chosen the self-employed person in this example, but even with an employed person you get other variations. With the employed person, even if you leave out the employer's contribution, it is still a bad bargain. One rather curious feature about it is that this must be almost the only case in which women, for once, are treated more favourably. Even then it is a bad deal. But women, after all, pay less in contributions, they retire younger and they live longer, so they get a better deal than the men. But for both sexes it is a bad deal.
It will come as no surprise that the other matter to which I should like to refer is the earnings rule. I am appalled to find that in four and a half years as a Member of your Lordships' House this is the fifth time I have bored your Lordships with my views on this matter, and I have not tried to count the number of times I have addressed another place on this subject. I welcome with a resounding cheer the amendments made in another place. While I think this is a great victory, it is not a defeat for the Labour Government. It is certainly not a win for the Opposition; both Front Benches have been equally bad in their time. It is a victory for Parliament over the pundits. Let us also remember that it is not abolition but, effectively, an annulment. If it comes to an inter-Parliamentary battle, I think that the dishonour is distributed equally uneasily between the sides. The only point, if this does not suit the Labour Government, is that there may be some rough justice in the fact that, after all, it was they who invented the earnings rule in 1946.
My Lords, I regret that the time limit of 1980 for total abolition was not acceptable in another place. I think that it might be worth considering putting down an Amendment perhaps giving 1985

195
as the date by which the rule would finally be removed from the Statute Book. The fact is that the earnings rule has always been unpopular and has always been misunderstood. Its effects have never had the investigation that they should have received, but, faced with continuing opposition over nearly 30 years, no Goveminent has evolved or sought to evolve a plan for its gradual abolition. Both Parties have talked of "ultimate abolition" or of "phasing out"—mellifluous and meaningless words—but now it has been done for us. Every Government since 1950 has relaxed the earnings limit, not unaided by a Private Member in another place in 1956, but each rise has only more or less kept pace with the rise in earnings, so that the effect has been nullified.
When I hear the arguments against further reaxation—such as "We can't afford it "or" We have other priorities"—I am reminded that somebody once said that Socialism was the language of priorities. That has always seemed to me to be rather a glimpse of the obvious, because every political creed is the language of priorities; that is what politics are about. In this case, the priority has at last been chosen for us by public pressure and by the firm ruling of the House of Commons.
My Lords, we are sometimes told—or we have been told in the past—that if we relax or abolish the earnings rule we shall not be able to do this or that. The example which was most frequently cited in the recent debate in another place was that it would not enable us to increase the death benefit. This is true and always has been true. It was no less true when the earnings rule was raised from £9·50 to £13·50. Each relaxation must be at the expense of other benefits which could be brought in, but that does not make it any less right to give it priority on this occasion. I am tempted to say, if that is the argument, that indiscriminate food subsidies are just as much at the expense of an increase in the death benefit.
We are also told about the cost— and I was not quite clear about the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. The last figure that I read for the cost of total abolition was £175 million a year after clawback—that rather awful phrase used to describe the activi-
196
ties of the Inland Revenue. I must also say that I mistrust all these figures. When I first interested myself in this question 20 years ago, the figure was £100 million. Two years ago, my noble friend Lord Aberdare said that it was £125 million and now it is £175 million. With great respect, I do not believe any of the figures, because I do not think that anyone can possibly calculate them.
It is impossible to calculate the full effect on tax, on the increments or on the changing pattern of whole or part-time employment. Anyway, what is £175 million? It has to be seen against a background of the Government Actuary's Report, which tells us that the income of the National Insurance industrial injuries fund in the current financial year will be just under £7,000 million. That means an increase of 0·5 per cent. on the contributions and, even for the selfemployed—who are probably the worst hit by the earnings rule and the lower paid of whom would stand to benefit most by abolition—it might mean an increase in the weekly stamp from about £2·41 to £2·43. I think that that would be thought by many of them to be a very worthwhile increase.
My Lords, this is certainly a great day for all those of us who for years have disliked the earnings rule and have sought to abolish it. If the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, were in her place, I am sure that she, like me, would wish, with the assistance of the right reverend Prelate, to sing a solemn Te Deum, followed by the Nunc Dimittis, because at last the earnings rule has gone.
Lord CAMOYS: My Lords, permit me to add—
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am sorry but, if the House will allow me to say so, I have seen the noble Lord make two attempts to get up. I do not know whether he wants to ask a question or to speak.
Lord CAMOYS: My Lords, I have a very brief question. Why is the first child always discriminated against?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if the noble Lord wants to put a question, I think he should have put it to me before I sat down, or he could perhaps put it in the gap following the speech of the

197
noble Lord, Lord Sandys, though I understand that another noble Lord is to speak after him.
Lord CAMOYS: My Lords, my apologies to the Minister and to my fellow Peers.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, no apology at all is required.
4.38 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, permit me to add my congratulations to those already given to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and to my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington on their maiden speeches. Both speakers showed a comprehension of the detail and of the wide-ranging social significance of the Bill which is before the House today. My noble friend Lord Bruce was already in the House of Commons when I arrived there in 1949, and your Lordships will remember that we were then occupying your Lordships' Chamber for the purpose of meetings of the House of Commons. I made my maiden speech from about where the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, is now sitting.
When I arrived I looked around my friends for someone on whom to model my Parliamentary style and behaviour. My noble friend Lord Bruce was one person to whom I gave very close consideration: his voice was clear and his style and invective were very much to my taste, but I thought that I could never match him in lashing the Tories as he could do in another place. We may see a glimpse of that style in the course of his contributions in your Lordships' House in the future. I hope so, because I feel that a little vitality, invigoration, conviction and enthusiasm will do this House no harm. I hope that we shall hear from my noble friend many times in the future.
This is an important and a welcome Bill, but it is not a Bill for congratulation on plans fulfilled and hopes accomplished. When we look back on the past seventeen years only, we see the whole path of social reform strewn with the wreckage of attempts to bring about this great reform of social security that so many of us have dreamed of and have worked for, but have not yet seen. In 1957—seventeen years ago—the Labour Party produced its comprehensive
198
National Superannuation Scheme. In 1960, a Conservative Government, in introducing the graduated pension scheme, declared that the flat rate principle was no longer enough, that it could not satisfy the retirement needs of those in the higher wages and salary groups and some supplementation of the flat rate scheme was clearly called for. So we had the graduated scheme, called the Boyd-Carpenter Scheme, of 1960 which many of my friends said was a swindle. I never used that word myself, because I never thought it was; but, nevertheless, it was a swindle that was going to be swept away at the earliest possible moment. Then, in 1970—ten years afterwards—a Labour Government introduced the National Superannuation Scheme, then in the hands of our late friend, Richard Crossman. That scheme passed through all its stages in the House of Commons —except Report and Third Reading— and then fell at the time of the General Election in 1970. That was to be the earnings related scheme, the new concept of social security to replace the outworn Beveridge idea of flat rate benefits for flat rate contributions.
A Conservative Government then introduced their social security scheme of 1973. We were back with the flat rate concept, with the supplementation of approved occupational schemes. A change of Government came about in 1974 and that scheme was scrapped, and we are now awaiting the Labour Government's new version of social security reform. Meanwhile, we have this Bill to go through the processes of uprating the flat rate benefits. It is no occasion for congratulations upon the accomplishment of some great reform. I wish to refer, my Lords, to one or two important matters upon which I have criticisms to make. I believe Parliament develops the critical faculty, and I think that this is the place for that to be done. Fulsome praise for all that Governments do is bad for them; they become complacent and lazy, and full of virtue, and therefore I think that a little criticism, even of one's friends, does not go amiss. I had plenty of it myself and I do not see why others should not bear it, too.
With regard to family allowances, my noble friend, Lord Wells-Pestell, said that the improvement would be made in family allowances right across the board,

199
without any clawback. This means that only the normal incidence of taxation will be brought to bear on noncontributory family allowances, no matter what the income of the parents. I was a very strong advocate of the clawback system in 1965 and 1966. I believed that the separation of child relief for tax purposes and non-contributory family allowances for social benefit purposes was not the most satisfactory combination to provide family endowment, and I wanted to bring them together, so that as income rose there could be a diminishing benefit from the increase in the family allowances to a point at which the benefit was extinguished altogether. That was the principle of the clawback scheme.
My noble friend Lord Gordon-Walker, who assumed the mantle of responsibility for the social services after I relinquished it, did, in fact, see the clawback scheme through. It caused a great deal of trouble because of the inept way in which it was introduced, and the timing of it was bad—shockingly bad. The Inland Revenue was inundated with hundreds of thousands of requests for an explanation of why there had been a reduction in the tax reliefs before anybody had the increase in the family allowances. That was what went wrong in 1966. It was clumsy, and good ideas can be spoiled by clumsy application. But the principle, I thought, was a good one. But a concept—again which the Labour Party had, and to which I subscribed wholeheartedly in the years gone by—of a minimum income guarantee came later, in more sophisticated form, in the tax credit scheme. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in questioning why the tax credit scheme appears to have been put aside entirely.
I think that in the use of vast resources at a time of national stringency, one has to look carefully at whether one is doing the best with what is being spent, even in the field of social benefits. I have never regarded it as shameful to be searching all the time for an acceptable means test. I know that the phrase "means test" is unpopular and is regarded by some people as an index to humiliations. But income tax is a means test. A tax to pay is not a humiliation; it is accepted; it is part of our official system. Some people are even proud to be in the tax brackets and
200
to be paying so much tax, or, indeed, to be paying tax at all. But a means test to receive—because of its association with the horrors of the Poor Law of the last century or two—is viewed with disfavour. If one uses the same means test to dispense social benefit, on the one hand, and to demand payment, on the other, then that means test does not provide any basis for discontent.
The tax credit scheme would have given a benefit to the first child. I heard my noble friend say that there is to be a Statement made before long about how the Government propose to deal with family allowances for the first child. I hope, however, that the tax credit scheme will not be thrown completely aside, because I believe that it contains the basis for a use of a combination of tax and social benefits which would be a more economic use of resources and provide ample benefits for those who need them without much of the disfavour of the conventional means test. I sat on the Select Committee on the tax credit scheme. I differed in some respects from my honourable friends who sat with me. As an old taxes man, I believe that there is more in income tax than meets the eye, and it can be used for beneficent purposes as well as to scourge the rich.
I turn now to the earnings rule, to which the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, also referred. I shall not shed any tears over the departure of the earnings rule. Nevertheless, I have always defended it and I have never gone into a Lobby against it. I know of no social security scheme in the world in which there is not an earnings rule as a condition of the retirement pension. So it is not just one of the quirks of the British system. It has been regarded as quite fundamental to the acceptance and application of the retirement principle. After all, why have we accepted the retirement principle? It is to provide adequate income to replace the earnings lost during retirement. Therefore, to ask that there should be a limitation on earnings in retirement is not inconsistent with the fulfilment of one's purpose of providing an adequate income in retirement.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has made a fair point; but would he not agree with me that the trouble has always been that it

201
has been a retirement pension for five years and then it becomes an old-age pension?
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I do not defend the cutting off of the earnings rule at the age of 70. I have had the benefit of it myself, and I think it is quite undeserved. It is ridiculous that I should be deemed to have retired, even though I am 76. As long as one can go on earning, one does not need a retirement pension—at least, not a full retirement pension. But right from the beginning, it was accepted that there comes a point at which it might be unkind to pursue an aged gentleman who still has the capacity to earn something of his living and ask him, "Have you retired? Is what you are doing consistent with retirement? "They said, "Let him go. He does not have very long to go. Let him go on; and what he can earn, he can keep." But I submit to the noble Lord, let us not throw out the whole earnings rule because of that difficulty five years after the age of retirement.
I notice that there is no lamentation in the Bill. The Government have expressed no regrets in the Schedule at the departure of the earnings rule; so, presumably, they are going to accept it. It is not mentioned even in the rubric; there is nothing on the tombstone. Out it goes. I think the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, said that he is sorry it has been phased out; that it ought to be thrown out. It is being phased out, and what an angry outburst from the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it happened! Let it go. I will say no more about it.
My Lords, I come finally to the position of women. I have always said that social security is mostly about women. If you look at the figures you will find— whether it is a retirement pension, a war pension or an industrial pension—that women are the major beneficiaries of our social benefits: millions of them, war widows, civil widows, industrial widows. When I first accepted responsibility for doing something to guide the development of the social services in 1964, the first thing I said was, "Women! We must get women in our scheme of reform on a more radical basis than we have had before!" And where are we now? We have two important new benefits in
202
Clauses 6 and 7, both of which will mostly benefit women. They are welcome. But as for the rest, I must make a plea for a more radical approach to the position of women in social security. Among women there are single women, married women, married mothers, unmarried mothers, separated wives, deserted wives, divorced wives and widows. Each condition requires some attention in our social security scheme. Widowhood is a respectable condition; separation is not; divorce is not; an unmarried mother is not. There is a moral judgment; implied in the way in which we treat those women in our social security scheme.
A married woman's social security rests chiefly upon her having a faithful husband or upon the alms of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. That is almost true. There should be a fall-back benefit in our social security scheme for women who suffer the growing hazards of marriage. What always amazes me is the way in which women voluntarily join with men in the institution of marriage, with so little economic security. They would never do it in any other aspect of life. Their emotions put them at risk. And at risk they are! It is often said that this is a man's world. The regrettable and astonishing thing is how many women are prepared to leave it to men to reform it. Women have had votes for many years; but they have not used them as women should have done—to get this kind of reform brought about in our social security system. Why is it that when women enter into public life they appear to be bashful about behaving as women? Why do they want to behave as men and to espouse the causes of men? Why should they be diffident about stating clearly, loudly and consistently the grievances of women? We should soon get them changed if that were to happen.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, some of us have spoken up as women for the cause of women. Perhaps the noble Lord has not read previous speeches that have been delivered in this House.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, my remarks have had exactly the purpose I intended them to have. I will accept the rebuke of my noble friend and will anticipate the rebuke of my noble friend Lady Gaitskell.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me to say so, I think it is a gross libel to say that we have not taken up the benefits for women. It really is not true.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I am glad to have introduced a little controversy into the debates in your Lordships' House. I take all that. I stand rebuked. I was not throwing any caps about and expecting anybody to try them on. But there is a serious note here. I do not want to exaggerate it; but my noble friends who have just intervened know very well that they share my own regret that the women's movement is not stronger in the direction that some of us wish to see. That is my message to your Lordships' House on this scheme. I sincerely hope that when the major reform proposals come before this House later, we shall see something more about women than we have seen in this Bill. If we do not, then I shall crave the indulgence of the House to make a very similar speech again.
4.59 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I can only say that I regret that the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, was not present to hear some of his comments. Certainly very great vigour was added to a debate which has been vigorous throughout. I should like to open my remarks by adding to those which preceded me my congratulations to our two maiden speakers this afternoon. Rarely has this House listened to two such distinguished, fluent, informative and interesting speeches. Both noble Lords have considerable experience in this particular field. I find myself in a rather different category because I wish to speak to a special part of this Bill.
I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that this is, I believe, the first Social Security Benefits Bill or Social Security Bill we have had in your Lordships' House for many years about which one voice is now, alas! stilled—the voice of the late Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, who, over a period of about sixty years championed the cause of the ex-Serviceman, and, I should hasten to say, the ex-Servicewoman of all three Services.
204
I would put down in these stormy seas of inflation a marker-buoy with a flag of the Royal British Legion clearly attached to it. There is a particular case for mentioning our retired ex-Service personnel. I was glad to note in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that war pensioners were referred to. I would draw attention to one phrase he mentioned in regard to a 50 per cent. increase in pensions in the last 12 months: they have yielded in real terms a mere 3 per cent. for a married couple and 4 per cent. for a single person. I think in referring to those figures I quote the noble Lord correctly. This prodigious increase has yielded such a very small real benefit.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in his interesting speech pointed out the efforts over the past many years to achieve something. Of course, every previous Social Security Bill has added greatly but it has been eroded in the passage of time. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that surely there is a case for introducing something we were speaking about yesterday in the course of dealing with the Children Bill: a system of indexing. There is a case for indexing pensions and for indexing everything else in regard to our economic affairs, rather than having an annual review. As has been so rightly said in, I believe, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, we never catch up; we never manage to fill in those extra months because in the course of time a gain is so rapidly eroded.
My noble friend Lord Aberdare has told the House that broadly we welcome the Bill from out side, but we would address to your Lordships some criticisms. The speech of my noble friend Lord Reigate made a special point in that regard. We certainly intend to assist the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, in a speedy passage of the Bill, which I think was referred to in the noble Lord's closing sentence. This may have some sinister connotations. Perhaps I might pick out one. I hope that the noble Lord will seek the assistance of the Government Chief Whip in preventing what is happening in respect of other legislation, especially the Children Bill, of having a mere seven days between Committee and Report. This is a particular difficulty for many of your Lordships, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, knows

205
more about it than anyone else since, according to my count, he has been carrying on for the Government almost single-handed from the Front Bench opposite for certainly the last 10 hours of our deliberations.
I would return to a point in the Bill which is important and which we will deal with at a later stage, and it concerns phraseology. It is the question of what is a severely disabled person and identification of the phrase "incapable of work ". We feel it is a bad definition in the Bill. In the course of our debates we shall seek to discover what is the Government's reading of this phrase, and possibly to quantify it in some way. This may be impossible, but the phrase "incapable of work" appears to be a blanket phrase and difficult of interpretation.
I would draw one or two further matters to your Lordships' attention, but I do not wish to make a long speech since we have had many considerable speeches and there will be other business before your Lordships this afternoon. Nevertheless, it would be churlish not to welcome all those clauses of the Bill dealing with the chronically sick pension. Of course it is a little confusing to have a Social Security Benefits Bill and a Social Security Pensions Bill. Nevertheless, this new system of differentiating between the two has been quite straight-forward. But we have in front of us in Clauses 5, 6 and 7 this quite new approach which we have all from this side of the House said how much we welcome. I will join with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in not over-congratulating the Government. His comment was apposite in that regard. However, the whole tone of the debate in your Lordships' House this afternoon has been almost universal in welcoming this Bill as a whole.
I return to the problem of the Royal British Legion. The particular problem which Servicemen and Servicewomen find themselves in is related to the special status which they have in the country as a whole. The nature of military service, in the beginning, naturally is unique. The Serviceman is subject to military law. Not only does this impose considerable limits upon his freedom, but some of his civil rights are taken away, notably because of the Crown Proceedings Act
206
1947. It would probably not be for the benefit of your Lordships' House if I were to dilate to a considerable extent on this subject. We shall be bringing before your Lordships a number of Amendments at Committee stage, and I would much welcome the opportunity before then of direct discussion, if it is possible, with Lord Wells-Pestell, who has been particularly courteous in this regard. With these few remarks, my Lords, I will close my speech and thank your Lordships for listening to my intervention.
5.8 p.m.
Lord COLERAINE: My Lords, I should be most grateful to your Lord-ships if you would allow me for a very few minutes to make an unexpected and unintended intervention into a field in which I am not expert and with which I am not greatly familiar. I do so only to make one point which I believe is important and which I think no one has made this afternoon. Before I do so, I would congratulate most warmly the two maiden speakers whom we have heard this afternoon. I envied as much as I admired the composure, clarity of thought and exposition displayed by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. So far as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is concerned, I was spared the embarrassment of my noble friend Lord Reigate of having to rush to get a reference book, because I remember well when he came into another place, a young man fresh, I think, from the Army. He seems to me, except in one respect, to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghlon of Sowerby, referred, not to have changed at all. The respect in which he does seem to have changed is that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, appears to be rather milder than the honourable Member for one of the divisions of Portsmouth (I think it was) whom I remember in another place. However, I would congratulate him on his thoughtful and interesting speech. In the case of a maiden speech, it is usual to say that we hope that the speaker will be heard again. In both cases I have indulged that hope. In the case of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, I think that I can go further than hope and indulge a certainty.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is not only the most generous-minded and most kindly of men; if he will allow me

207
to say so, he is also the most fair-minded of men. I want to take him up on one sentence towards the end of his speech. Although I cannot quote it textually and made no note of it at the time, I hope he will agree that I am not misrepresenting what he said. What I understood him to say was that in spite of our difficult economic position, the Government were able to produce this Bill which added to the national expenditure at the rate of £1,100 million annually. My quarrel with the noble Lord is over one phrase. It is not "in spite of" our economic difficulties that the Government have introduced this Bill; it is "because of" our economic difficulties that they have had to introduce it. What I myself am very much afraid of is that in the long run, and perhaps in the short run, it will increase our economic difficulties simply by the massive increase in public expenditure which it proposes.
I am old enough not to have experienced but to remember very vividly the inflation in Germany not only after the last war but after the first war. I doubt whether there is any Member of your Lordships' House who can put his hand on his heart and declare categorically that we are not beginning to slip dangerously quickly towards that degree of inflation which Germany has experienced twice in my lifetime—and, as I say, in my vivid recollection. An old-fashioned phrase that people used to use in the face of discipline was, "He is being cruel in order to be kind." I have an uneasy feeling that in this Bill we are, perhaps, being kind in order to be cruel.
5.13 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, so far as I am able I will try to deal with the questions which noble Lords have raised. At the end I hope to have covered them all, but if I have not done so perhaps noble Lords will draw my attention to the fact so that I may deal with their questions in some other way.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who raised the question of tax credits. I believe that it was the Party opposite who admitted that it would take something like five years to introduce these after the passing of the legislation. I take that to mean that in itself, apart from the question of expertise, it is quite a difficult
208
thing to do. My recollection is that this was the view of the Party opposite.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I do not want to debate this matter with the noble Lord. However, there was a possibility of introducing part of the tax credit scheme, namely, the benefit for the first child.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it is not that we are unsympathetic but that we are very mindful of the difficulties. That is why the present Government have plans for child benefits which will be payable in respect of every child in the family. As I tried to explain earlier on, an announcement will be made as soon as possible. In effect, these plans take the place of the child credit portion of the tax credit scheme. This is a matter upon which I hope to make a Statement at some later date, when my right honourable friend has done so.
If I remember rightly, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, also referred to the earnings rule, although it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, who did so. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, based his speech upon the earnings rule, but I think that other noble Lords also referred to it. If an allowance were made for tax at current tax rates, I am informed that the cost in 1975–76 would be reduced by £15 million to £45 million. I mentioned £60 million; £15 million of the £60 million would be tax. In 1976–77 the cost would be reduced by £25 million, namely from £110 million to £85 million. In 1977–78 the cost would be reduced by approximately £35 million to £110 million. This is the information which I have been given, and I have no reason to suspect that it is anything but accurate.
So I come back to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. He asked what increase in unemployment would affect the finances of the scheme. I seem to remember that in your Lordships' House not so very long ago I said something about this particular matter. The balances of the National Insurance Fund are reduced by about £105 million for every 100,000 who are unemployed above the figure of 650,000. Therefore we have 650,000 who are unemployed; for every 100,000 above that, the cost to the National Insurance Fund is £105 million. However, it will not affect the rates of

209
the benefit proposed in the Bill, for the reason that unemployment is only one of several factors which affect the income and expenditure of the Fund. For example, rising earnings will increase the income. There are also substantial reserves. I am trusting entirely to memory now and I may be wrong; however, I seem to remember telling your Lordships' House some time ago that the reserve was in the region of £1,500 million which could be called upon, if necessary, before the time for the next review of the contribution rates arose.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, had a point on the invalid care allowance for non-relatives. As I understand the situation, the invalid care allowance has been designed primarily to meet the case of the single daughter. However, the Government do not intend to confine the allowance to the daughter-parent relationship. The intention is that the regulation should prescribe a wide range of relatives. Whether or not this meets the noble Lord's point, I do not know. At the outset, the invalid care allowance would not be available to other than these relatives. The emphasis is on the; words "at the outset". Under Clause 7 we shall have powers to extend the allowance to other groups, and it follows that long-standing friends are not necessarily excluded for all time. However, I think that we shall have to deal with this in stages. The first stage is the single daughter; then it can go on to include other relatives, and, as I say, it does not exclude or preclude other people.
As the noble Lord knows, the invalid care allowance is brand new; it is an untried benefit. As I have tried to say, frankly we do not know how it will work in practice. We do not even know what the initial uptake will be. I think the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said that he thought it would be in the region of 11,500 people, but the number of beneficiaries may be much higher—we do not know. I understand that there is no available information from which an estimate can be made. Though the invalid care allowance is, I think I used the phrase, "a leap in the dark" on so many counts, the Department of Health and Social Security—and nobody knows this better than the noble Lord himself—will have to find staff, office accommodation and make a hundred and one other plans to
210
ensure a successful start to that allowance. The risk involved is being willingly accepted, but the Government are not willing to extend the risk by widening the scope of the invalid care allowance at the outset and adding a further unknown quantity to the initial unknown uptake. It would be much wiser if we gained experience as we went along, and then, if necessary, we can begin to extend it. I think I have dealt with all the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare.
It is customary in your Lordships' House to start by saying something about the maiden speeches, but I propose to deal with them in order—but that is not to say in order of merit. It is much easier for my tidy mind if I do do it this way. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for his partial acceptance: (shall I say?) of the Bill. I think we have to be frank about this. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said that it is a Bill that does not call for much congratulation. Perhaps it does not, but if he had been introducing it he would probably have felt very differently about it. Let us face the fact that if we can in the present financial climate maintain benefits at the level of earnings. I think we have achieved something; if we are able to introduce into a Bill new forms of payment, I think we have achieved something. I do not think any of us on this side of the House, and it may go for everybody in the House, is content with the provisions but it is probably the best that we can do. I hope that the noble Lord will speak often in the future, for one reason if for no other. I felt more than once the slight prick of the point of a rapier, and I think this is very desirable. It indicates that behind it there is a good deal of feeling and knowledge, and there is no better place to have both than in your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, mentioned the earnings of the invalidity pensioners and regretted that the disqualification remained at £4·50 a week. Both the existing contributory invalidity pension and the new non-contributory invalidity pension are benefits for people who are incapable of work—by definition, therefore, unable to earn. This is the purpose of the whole scheme. This is how we see it and why we have introduced it in this Bill. Notwithstanding this, invalidity

211
pensioners are often able to keep themselves occupied by a small amount of work, normally under medical supervision, without losing their pensions. They are allowed what are often called therapeutic earnings of £4·50 a week. The non-contributory invalidity pension is not a benefit for the partially incapacitated or disabled people with low earnings.
In paragraphs 46 to 51 of the Report of the Secretary of State, which dealt with the problems of disabled people in employment—which is by no means as simple as it appears—your Lordships will see the exposition of this complex problem. In paragraph 51 the Government promised to go further into the problem and this will certainly be done. Meanwhile, priority has been given to the non-contributory invalidity pension, because as paragraph 54 reads:
"The loss of ability to earn is stark, over-whelming and readily identifiable ".
I would hope that that would satisfy the noble Lord.
It may be presumptuous on my part to congratulate my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. He brings to your Lordships' House a good deal of experience of Government not only in another place but in other spheres. He is quite right when he says that there remains a solid core of people existing at subsistence level. The only comfort for many of us who have fought for a good many years to try to raise people above that level is that in a very large measure we have succeeded. We realise that there are still unpleasant pockets which we hope to deal with from time to time. But, again, one can only bring forward legislation which is possible in a climate of financial ability and whether it is this year or next year or in the years to come, social justice and social progress can only be made in that climate. I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, because this is the kind of House that warms to people who have something to say when it is backed with a great deal of experience. That is certainly the position of my noble friend.
There are a number of matters which I want to direct to the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, and I hope I shall get them all right. I should like to say something
212
about the increments. I find this a little involved. The new and improved method of calculating increments which will come into effect in April was provided under the Social Security Act of 1973. Under this method a pensioner will earn one-eighth of 1 per cent. for every week for which he postpones his retirement. Thus the 6½ per cent. for each year referred to in Better Pensions—and this is where went wrong; I knew it is was in Better Pensions—is the rate which will apply from April this year, so it will not be a new proposal. Increments earned before April 1975 will from that date be uprated in line with the main pension, and on this occasion it will mean about 16 per cent. I hope I have succeeded in making that clear.
Coming to the earnings rule and the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, about total abolition, I do not think there is a great deal between us. So far as I and the Government see it, it is a question of timing and a question as to whether in the present financial climate (I apologise for using that phrase again) we can afford to do so. Let me put it like this: the cost figures of total abolition are made up, first, of the pension which people now earning above the limit and not retired would receive; secondly, the pension which people now having their previous pensions reduced or extinguished would receive; and, thirdly, the reduction in expenditure on sickness and unemployment benefit to people under Clause 1— that is the people now earning above the limit and not retired. Fourthly, the loss of contributions that would have been paid by those people in Clause 1; namely, the ones who are earning. Fifthly, the amount of income tax that would be paid on the pensions.
There is no clear evidence that people would do more work and earn more pro-vided the earnings rule were abolished. I think this is just a matter of opinion. No calculation can be made of the income tax that might be paid on extra earnings, because we just do not know. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Reigate—I see that he agrees. It is, of course, quite likely that some people would reduce their earnings if the rule were abolished, as they could maintain their income by a combination, perhaps, of pension and low earnings.

213
I think that the noble Lord will not mind my saying this, because I have known him a long time and he has a sense of humour. If the noble Lord who spoke in 1973 at the Report stage of the Social Security Bill were to look up Hansard for 4th July 1973, volume 344, col. 279, he would see this recorded against his name:
" My record on this matter is fairly consistent. I think that when I die 'earnings rule' will be written on my heart. It will take its place there with a number of other graffiti, but I am sure it will be the largest."
I am not suggesting that that should be on his tombstone‡
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. I thought he was about to quote some words I once used in your Lordships' House which might almost be paralleled by the noble Lord, Lord Hougliton of Sowerby. I said that I could put up a very good defence of the earnings rule.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I have heard the noble Lord say that, too. Perhaps I can leave the noble Lord alone now! I really do not know what to say to my noble friend Lord Houghton. I was a bit dispirited when he said that this. Bill was not a matter for congratulation and that it was no great reform, but he would be the first to recognise that we never made a claim—
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend for giving way. I said that it was not a matter for congratulation for plans fulfilled and hopes achieved, which is in a much broader context than the provisions of this Bill.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, of course the noble Lord is perfectly right, but to a large extent the position we are in at the present moment is not of our own making and I think we have to try to meet the needs of those less fortunately placed in the community. One aspect of this country is that—whether we are on the Right, on the Left or in the centre—there is an acceptance, varying in degree, that we have a responsibility for those less fortunately placed. What I think we are doing in this Bill is giving them the best possible standard of living in the circumstances.
214
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys—and when I say "I", naturally, I mean we, the Government. We are grateful that noble Lords on the other side of the House will assist in a speedy passage of the Bill. There is much legislation going through both Houses at the present moment. I know exactly how the noble Lord feels about the Children Bill and he can imagine also how I feel on this matter. I am sorry to put it like this, but we have to move things through speedily if we want to put them on the Statute Book at the right time. The only point I would make to him—and I know he will not take this amiss—is that if there are going to be Amendments (and he said there would be), I hope they can be tabled as quickly as possible so that we may look at them carefully.
When I moved the Second Reading of the Children Bill on Tuesday, 21st January, I think I am right in saying that on the following Friday morning there were 18 printed Amendments in the Printed Paper Office. When I arrived here on Monday there were 102, and it is really frightfully difficult to do justice to them when the Committee stage is being started the very next day. This is not a criticism; it is merely a cry from the heart to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, to ask if there are to be Amendments, for them to be tabled as quickly as possible.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, obviously I cannot reply for my noble friends. Any noble Lord is entitled to table an Amendment when he or she wishes, but it is a very difficult thing in a revising Chamber to combine speed with accuracy. We can and must have accuracy, but speed is not always to be desired.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Finally, my Lords, I come to the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. There is nothing between us at all; what he says is absolutely true. It is because of the difficulties we are in that a Bill of this nature comes before your Lordships' House; but I was trying to say that we are doing it despite those difficulties. I wonder how much social legislation is on our Statute Book today of a type comparable with other countries which have had, perhaps, fewer difficulties than we have had. When I look back to 1945—and remember that we emerged

215
from the war with every bit of investment gone because we had been required to sell it or to use it to prosecute the war—despite the difficulties we were in, we were able to introduce great social reforms like the National Health Service. Whatever the position of that Service today, I think it is already recorded in history as a great social reform.
What I am trying to say is that there is a sense of awareness and a sense of need in the people who guide our destinies —if I may so refer to the two Houses of Parliament—that certain things must be done regardless of our financial climate. There is nothing at all between the noble Lord and myself on this; it was merely a question of how it should be phrased and I accept his phrase as he gave it. I am grateful to noble Lords who have participated in this debate and for the comments they have made. I hope to be able to read what has been said so that we can pick up anything that ought to be picked up.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

OFFSHORE PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
5.38 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Acquisition of land for purposes connected with offshore petroleum]:
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out from ("for") to (" the") in line 11 and insert (" purposes relating to exploration for or exploitation of offshore petroleum in ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 1 of the Bill covers its scope and this Amendment is addressed to that scope also. The need for a short Bill was clear nearly a year and a half ago—a Bill with a very narrow scope—because the attainable programme to extract our offshore oil as soon as possible was likely to be seriously delayed. If certain types of special concrete platforms could not be built in time, oil which could have been extracted in 1977 and 1978 would be delayed.
There are exacting conditions for the building of such platforms, and few areas where it can be carried out. The prime illustration was at Loch Carron, where the conditions are to be found and where two applications were made for planning permission. Eventually, after well over a year, permission was given for one site there at Kishorn, but we must face the fact that we have lost valuable time, and a quantity of oil which we would otherwise have obtained from our own oil-fields in 1977 and 1978 has been delayed. As a result, our balance of payments in those years would have been substantially better than it will now be, and some orders for platforms worth over £100 million went abroad, because, I believe, it became clear last March that urgency in this matter was no longer recognised by the new Government. So the requirement a year ago was the quick passage of a Bill adding a modernising adjustment to streamline planning procedures for a limited range of projects—mainly, platform building and pipeline terminals. That was the scope of the Bill required a year ago.
We now have before us a Bill, Clause 1 of which would apply to virtually anything connected with offshore oil. Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, defines four categories for which an expedited acquisition order procedure is prescribed, but subsection (2)(d) is very wide and, in particular, refers to,
" sources of material or other services or facilities ".
Subsection (1), in addition, provides for compulsory acquisition—not expedited, but compulsory acquisition—
" for any purpose relating to exploration for or exploitation of offshore "
oil; and subsection (2), is so wide that it is difficult to see why subsection (1) is needed. In the discussion which we had at Committee stage on two Amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, told us that it was most unlikely that this power would be used; that was his defence of it—it was a general insurance policy for possibly unexpected requirements in the future. That is not an attitude which normally commends itself to Parliament, which considers it one of its tasks to limit additional powers to what are needed by the Executive.
I have not myself charged the Government with seeking to use and extend

217
public ownership for doctrinaire reasons, although some of my noble friends may be anxious on this score as a result of the speech of the Secretary of State for Industry in another place yesterday. For my part, I have simply queried the necessity of seeking these powers which we are told are most unlikely to be used. The examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, last week at the Committee stage—and I refer to column 1099 of Hansard—were the need for service leases which he foresaw, pipe-coating works and warehouse storage. These fall within the categories of subsection (2)(a), (b) and (d) respectively, and it is largely because the noble Lord was unable to give examples which fall outside subsection (2), and to tell us of something which would fall within subsection (1), that we felt we must put down this further Amendment. Indeed, he encouraged us to do so.
We believe that subsection (2) is much wider than is necessary, and covers all the possible purposes for which the expedited compulsory acquisition system and the ordinary compulsory acquisition system would be needed. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, to give us examples, if he does not agree, of projects that would not be covered by subsection (2) and, in particular, by the words
" sources of material or other services or facilities "
which are very wide. Secondly, can he really tell us that he needs compulsory purchase in order to deal with them? This Amendment includes the Government's drafting of those four categories, so that the drafting should not be defective. I recognise that some consequential Amendments might need to be made later in the Bill, but that is a drafting matter and I have not attempted it. I think this Amendment crystallises what came out of our debate last week, and I hope that the Government will be able to accept it. My Lords, I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, when we debated this same issue in the Committee stage, and noble Lords on the Opposition Benches moved an Amendment which had virtually the same effect as this Amendment today, I urged upon them then that they should carry it to a Division. They were dissuaded from
218
doing so by the persuasion of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, at the last moment. But on this occasion, unless we receive a more satisfactory answer from the Government than we did then, I hope that the noble Lord who moved the Amendment will indeed carry it to a Division, because I believe there is here a matter of important principle—a particularly important principle to this House.
I make no apology for attempting a short analysis of subsections (1) and (2) of this Bill as they now stand, because it is conceded—indeed, it is said in the Explanatory Memorandum to this Bill— that they comprise the very heart of the Bill. They are the main provisions of the Bill, the guts of the Bill, and I think it appropriate and right that this House should understand quite clearly what it is being invited to do, what it is being asked to do, and what powers it is being asked to vest in the Secretary of State for Scotland, so far as the exploration for and exploitation of offshore petroleum are concerned.
My Lords, what is the chief objective —indeed the whole objective—of this Bill? It is to provide an accelerated procedure for the acquisition of land that is required for the purpose of extraction of the petroleum from the North Sea. If one looks at subsection (2)(a), (b), (c) and (d), one will see, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has just said, that the Government are seeking the most comprehensive powers for the acquisition of land. What they are seeking in subsection (2) is to be allowed to use their accelerated or expedited procedure, in order to acquire land for any purpose connected with the construction of works and installations and so on for getting the oil out of the seabed. When you turn to subsection (2)(b), you find that they are seeking power to acquire land by the expedited procedure for any purpose connected with establishing equipment for getting the oil ashore. Then, under subsection (2)(c), you will see that there they are asking for everything which is necessary in order to receive the oil on the land, to store it on the land, and eventually to dispatch it to wherever it has to go.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has been pointing out, that in subsection (2)(d) you then have a sort of long-stop clause

219
which gives the Government, the Executive, power to acquire land for all sorts of ancillary purposes connected with the purposes denned in subsection (2)(a), (b) and (c). One would have thought that that was enough. But when you turn back to subsection (1) as it now stands, you find that there the Government say, "No, that is not enough; we also want the Secretary of State to have a general, undefined, imprecise power to acquire any land at all in Scotland, so long as it is related, however tenuously, to the exploration for and exploitation of offshore petroleum".
The root objection to this proposal, is that we are being invited to vest in the Executive these wide, undefined powers to acquire any land that the Secretary of State may seek to acquire—and, if necessary, acquire compulsorily. The only limitation put upon that enormous power is that the acquisition shall in some way be related to the exploration for or exploitation of the offshore oil. I suggest that this is a classic example of Executive arrogance, a classic example of the thirst of the Executive for arbitrary and undefined power. To my mind, that is the root objection to the general power sought under this provision.
I follow in the footsteps of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in saying that I do not attribute to this Government any sinister purpose. I am not complaining that the Government have something up their sleeve which they do not want us to know about. I am concerned with the general principle; that is, the role of Parliament vis- -vis the Executive. In my respectful submission, one of the fundamental duties of this House and, indeed, of the other House and of Parliament as a whole, is to see that the Executive is not given wide, imprecise, undefined powers at its request. The Executive should be given powers of this order, particularly powers to acquire land and interfere with individual rights and to take other people's property away, only if they are prepared to define precisely how they will be used. This is what the Civil War in this country was all about, if I may say so. It is a mournful thought that it may be appropriate that a Government should be seeking to obtain these arbitrary powers for the Executive at a time when the statue of
220
the Lord Protector is boarded up. When the day comes, and I hope it will be soon, when they take the boarding down, it may not be surprising if we find that Cromwell has turned in his temporary tomb as a result of what is being done here today.
My Lords, what does this Amendment seek to do? It seeks to do something very simple. It says," No, you are not entitled to have powers of this kind; take, if you will, your expedited procedure in relation to all those purposes defined in subsection (2). It may be that they are too widely drawn; if so, let us reduce them. It may be that they are too narowly drawn; if so, let us enlarge them. But what you are not entitled to do is to set out in detail all these purposes for which you want to take powers, and then ask, over and above that, to have a general, imprecise, undefined power to do virtually anything you like ". The noble Lord laughs, but the only qualification for doing anything you like, or for the Secretary of State to do anything he likes, is that it shall be related in some way to the extraction of oil from the North Sea.
I suggest that in a case of this kind, when the Government seek powers of this order, the burden of proof is on them—indeed, a very heavy burden of proof lies on them—to show that there is some overwhelming need for the Government to be given such powers. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, was saying, in the previous debate we were given no justification for granting these wide powers to the Government. In effect, we have heard two arguments attempting to justify subsection (1). The first argument is that those of us who seek to resist the granting of these powers are, in effect, thwarting or forgetting the national interest. I reject that argument completely. I think it comes close to being a contemptible argument, because it assumes that everything must give way to the urgency of getting oil out of the North Sea—that must be the paramount consideration and everything has to be subordinated to it.
In my book, the national interest is not entirely a matter of economics, even if it is vitally important economically that we should extract the oil from the North Sea as quickly as possible. There are other considerations to be borne in mind. When one talks about the national

221
interest, the two things which come to my mind as being comprised in it are the defence of individual rights, and the defence of the environment. How often in the past have we been persuaded to allow our countryside to be despoiled? How often have we been persuaded to allow civil rights and the rights of property to be taken away in the name of immediate economic expediency? I reject that argument altogether.
My Lords, the other justification which was advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on a previous occasion was the argument that in subsection (2) the Government have endeavoured to set out all the occasions when they may need to acquire land, or when the Secretary of State, may need to acquire it, but they may have left something out. We may not find that it is foreseen—
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Hughes): My Lords, may I be permitted to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Foot, at that point? I did not say that. I said that in sub-section (1) we had attempted to name all those cases where the urgency procedure might arise. The reason for the other part being there is that we could not argue beyond that the need for the expedited procedure.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord has said. If he will refer back to the debate on the Committee stage, he will find that he did, in fact, use the argument of urgency in relation to the powers which he seeks to acquire under subsection (1). However, we will not argue about that. The argument of the noble Lord was that they have tried to set out in subsection (2) all those occasions when they may need to use the expedited procedure for the acquisition of land. But they want this long-stop provision, this imprecise and uncertain power given to the Secretary of State in order to deal with cases that have not been foreseen, and with circumstances which they have not been able to allow for.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, quoted just now three examples which we were given by the Minister on that occasion of when these powers under subsection (1) may be required—the acquisition of land for service leasing, the acquisition of land for the purpose of
222
Pipe-coating works, and the acquisition of land for warehouse storage. Those were the only examples which the noble Lord gave. It seems to me two points are to be made about them. The first has already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. Is it not clear that all those three examples given by the noble Lord are covered by paragraph (d)? The noble Lord shakes his head. If he is right, I go on to my second point, which is that if they are not already covered by paragraph (d), why not put them into that paragraph now? Then we should know exactly what powers we are conferring on the Secretary of State. It is a very simple operation, not at all difficult. All the noble Lord has to do is go away with the draftsman and put his three examples into paragraph (d) and the whole of our problems will be over. It is for those reasons that I would again ask and invite the proposers of this Amendment, if we do not receive a more satisfactory answer than we have had before, to carry this; matter to a Division, because I believe it is in this House that this sort of issue ought to be discussed, and indeed ought to be decided.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment very warmly. The words "for any purpose" in sub-section (1) are far too wide. If you carry it to the limit, you might say that you could acquire land in, say, the centre of Perthshire to manufacture paint for the oil rigs. I should say, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has said, that the powers granted under subsection (2) are ample— probably too wide in themselves—to cover any eventuality. I have taken no part in the debate on this Bill because I was not able to be here, but what I cannot quite understand in regard to exploration is why Her Majesty's Government want to acquire land on the mainland of Scotland to explore for oil. I quite agree that this is perhaps not relevant to the Amendment, but I should like some enlightenment. I was under the impression that if you are exploring for offshore oil you are exploring in the sea and are therefore exploring with ships. There are plenty of harbours for those ships. Why do they want to acquire land to explore for oil in the sea? It does not really add up.

223
To return to the Amendment, you might have a position where a Government take over salmon fishing or acquire some land for a golf course in order to amuse the individuals engaged in the exploitation of offshore oil. Since I have been in this House—about 18 or 19 years —I have seen every year, rather like the Hindu expression, "slowly slowly catchee monkee", more power going from Parliament to the Executive. The public appear to be quite unaware of it.
Lord HENLEY: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Viscount could not have spent some of the last 18 or 19 years reading the reports of Second Reading debates, because a good many of these points have already been made at considerable length.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I did not quite hear what the noble Lord said. I know the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will say that we had the Highlands and Islands Development Act about 10 years ago and we have not used those compulsory powers. I accept that, but if you are speaking to a civil servant he knows that he has those powers. If you do not agree he has that threat; these powers are there. I will not detain your Lordships, but I warmly support this Amendment. It is far too wide to say "for any purpose"; it can embrace anything.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, I was not here at the beginning but I have listened to the last two speeches. I was rather surprised, and I was almost on my feet to intervene, when the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and the noble Viscount were speaking. The whole argument has been on compulsion and compulsory powers because of North Sea oil. If noble Lords look back in history to previous Governments right from the beginning of this century, and even to when the Liberal Party were in power, certain powers and rights were conferred upon local authorities. They were given compulsory powers to purchase land for the development of certain sectors within their areas for the benefit of the general public, even for social services—the building of houses, the building of the main highways running across the country at the moment. Compulsory powers were given to local
224
authorities acting as the agents of Her Majesty's Government, principally in regard to the motorway system which is now in operation.
I want to put a question to the two noble Lords who have spoken, and it is this. Each and every one of us is aware that one of our basic commodities in this country is coal. We have been reminded, in speeches and Statements that have been made in your Lordships' House, that there is one area in this country where there are millions of tons of coal not yet tapped. It is there, according to the geologists, and it will be of great service to this nation once extraction does take place. I refer to the area of Selby, in Yorkshire, and compulsory powers would have to be used to take over that land, as the old coal owners used to do when they wished to sink their shafts and engage miners to produce coal for the benefit of the nation. That is just what the Government are doing here in trying to extract the principal commodity which this country urgently requires, because of the position with which we are faced following the action taken by the oil countries of the Middle East.
Therefore, listening to the speeches I cannot for the life of me understand, speaking as one who spent so long in local government before entering the other place, the approach taken by noble Lords sitting on the Liberal and Tory Benches. I cannot understand why they should take this line of approach when they have been parties to giving powers to local authorities up and down the country, to enable them by compulsion to take land away from landowners for the benefit of their own areas and of the nation.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, with due respect to the noble Lord, I do not think what he has said is really relevant to the Amendment.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, if I may use the same language as used by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, with respect— I did not notice an awful lot of it—I do not think anything that has been said so far would justify me in accepting the Amendment. If in the past, when I have been moving an Amendment in your Lordships' House which has been the

225
subject of opposition from the other side and have occasionally felt that I might be wrong, those doubts were sometimes totally removed when I found that the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, was on the other side. I knew then that I could not possibly be wrong.
Today the examples which he gave were similar to the kind of thing said on the Highlands and Islands Development Bill when it was before your Lordships' House. The idea that we would want to acquire a piece of land in the centre of Perthshire in order to construct a factory to make paint to apply to pipes for North Sea oil, puts, perhaps, in less reasonable language the same kind of argument as was being advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, in his much more brilliant oratory, when he talked about the tenuous connection that might exist between subsection (1) and the necessary purposes of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, indicated that his Amendment might be technically defective. I must concede that that may be so; but, as I indicated at the last stage, I never like arguing against a proposal merely on grounds of drafting, because if that is all that is wrong with it, it can be sorted out. That is not my objection to the Amendment. My objection is that, although it purports to retain the more general reference in subsection (1) to exploration and exploitation, it effectively restricts the scope of land acquisition under the Bill. In connection with exploration, although I think that the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Henley—unfortunately not heard by the noble Viscount —-effectively dealt with his queries on that point, I would draw his attention to the fact that exploration of the North Sea does not depend on somebody descending from mid-air in the Atlantic; almost every one of the operations starts on land, and mostly in Scotland.
The Amendment would effectively restrict the scope of land acquisition under the Bill to the purposes listed in subsection (2). As I have made perfectly clear, subsection (2) defines as narrowly, or as widely—whichever way one likes to look at it—the subjects for which the Government think that the powers of the expedited procedure are necessary. The Government accept that the powers of
226
expedited procedure are a limitation of the ordinary rights of property in this matter and, for that reason, they felt under an obligation to confine it to those situations where it could reasonably be expected that it would cover the whole range. If there was any possible ground of need, where the question of this urgency would not arise, the Government felt that they were not justified in seeking to subject these other matters to the expedited procedure.
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, and I think by implication the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, invites us to contemplate all the purposes for which we might require land for oil exploration, and to apply the expedited procedure to them all. We do not think that we would be justified in doing that. We have said that there are two types: one where, because of urgency, we apply the expedited procedures, and others, where it would be desirable, or quite satisfactory, to go through the ordinary procedure, which would cover acquisition by agreement or by compulsory purchase. This is where the paint factory in Perth-shire of the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and Lord Foot's tenuous connection with oil come into the same category. If the Secretary of State is proposing to acquire land by the ordinary compulsory procedure, he has to be able to satisfy that a requirement exists for that to be done. A compulsory purchase order would not go through, unless it was shown quite clearly that the need existed for the land to be acquired for that purpose. I can assure the noble Lords, therefore, that the question of land being acquired for a ridiculous or tenuous purpose is so unlikely to be accomplished that it ought not to carry weight in support of this Amendment.
However, the Amendment would not just do this; it would similarly restrict the powers of the Secretary of State to carry out or contribute to the cost of works under Clause 10, and to make loans or give guarantees under Clause 11, since these clauses are tied to the purposes for which land may be acquired. If the amendment was made, it would be only in those cases where land had been acquired under the expedited procedure that we could use the powers in Clauses 10 and 11. I am quite certain that nothing that the noble Lords, Lord Campbell

227
or Lord Foot, have said, would indicate that they wished these powers to be so restricted.
The effect of the Amendment would be to make the Bill a less versatile, less useful tool, for the Government's task in helping to ensure speedy development of, and lasting benefit from, our offshore oil. At Committee stage, I mentioned examples of purposes for which land could be acquired under subsection (1), and the noble Lords have both referred to this. But I am informed that subsection (2) does not cover service bases—and, incidentally, in Hansard, it says "leases"' where it is the word "bases" that is intended—it does not cover pipe-coating works, and it does not cover general warehousing facilities. Subsection (2)(d) related only to services, et cetera, for the development or use of land, and that is what is normally referred to in the rather unlovely word "infrastructure". I have been invited to give further examples, and this my advisers anticipated.
Would the noble Lord permit me to give them and then I shall give way. Suppose that a shore-based testing facility is required for underwater apparatus intended for use in the North Sea, there might be difficulty in obtaining a site or in obtaining finance. Under subsection (1) of the Bill as at present drafted, the Secretary of State could step in to provide the land, pay for part of the cost, or make a loan to enable the work to proceed. Yet facilities for testing, and for research and development are not mentioned in subsection (2). The kind of assistance that I have described would not be possible under the narrow terms of the Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, invited me, having identified something of this kind, to insert it in sub-section (2). I would say, No, because on known information we should not be justified in seeking the expedited procedure for that purpose. If it is not justified, then we ought not to do it.
Alternatively, a need might emerge for the establishment in Scotland of a repair yard for, perhaps, semi-submersible drilling rigs. There could be difficulty over obtaining a suitable site, or the intending operator might have difficulty in obtaining a loan from the banks and finance houses. Once again, the Secretary of State could—if he thought the yard was
228
necessary for oil exploration—take action under subsection (1). He would not, however, be able to do so if this amendment was made, because subsection (2) says nothing about repair facilities. This is not a defect in the drafting; it is a point of substance.
As I have said, subsection (2) is concerned with developments where land may be needed as a matter of urgency. It represents the Government's well considered and strictly limited list of such developments. We have no wish to add to it; nor need we do so, since subsection (1) permits us to acquire land for other purposes of the kind I have mentioned, either by agreement or under normal compulsory purchase procedures. For years the normal compulsory purchase procedures have been regarded as a satisfactory method of dealing with Government or local authority acquisition of land for these purposes. In this connection I can see no reason why the ordinary compulsory purchase machinery should be regarded as defective. I said that I would allow the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, to intervene.
Lord CRAIGTON: My Lords, I apologise if I have misunderstood the noble Lord, but was not one of his arguments, in rejecting our Amendment, that if subsection (1) were deleted, he would have to acquire land by expedited procedure? Subsection (5) says quite clearly that if he considers that the land should be purchased as a matter of urgency, he may, instead of being authorised to purchase the land, purchase it by the quicker procedure. Surely even without subsection (1) he still has powers of compulsory purchase without using the expedited acquisition procedure?
Lord HUGHES: Not if the Bill is amended as proposed in this Amendment. That is why the Government do not wish to accept it. I have tried to give concrete examples—
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: Will the noble Lord give way? The two examples he has given raise the question of the definition in paragraph (a). His first example, we would have thought, would have come under the wording:
" or other installations for use in or under the sea in connection with the exploration for or exploitation of offshore petroleum ".

229
If it is not covered by that what do these words mean?
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, was Secretary of State for Scotland, and he must have discussed exactly this sort of situation with the lawyers and draftsmen in the office. All I can say is that this matter has been gone into very thoroughly and the advice we have is that the Bill as drafted would be defective in these respects if the Amendment were accepted.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, if that is right then we are being asked to accept from the noble Lord that the words of paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) do not include and cover the examples which he gave us the other day and those he gave us today; and we are being asked to accept "that simply because the noble Lord is informed by somebody or other that they are not inclusive of his examples. Are we to hear from the Lord Chancellor, for example, or have a legal opinion as to why it is said that the words of paragraphs (a), (b) (c) and (d) do not include these examples?
Lord HUGHES: No, my Lords, it is perhaps a defect in your Lordships' House that the Liberal Party have for so long been out of office that they do not get the benefit of this experience.
Several Noble Lords: Oh‡
Lord HUGHES: It is a perfectly fair point. Any of your Lordships who has been a Minister knows the machinery inside Government Departments for seeking the explanation, the need and necessity for the language used in Bills; and when that is obtained within the Department you do not rush off to seek the advice of the Lord Chancellor or another legal officer.
Lord WINDLESHAM: My Lords, it is quite true that Ministers have the advice of civil servants, but it is also customary for Ministers to be able to explain that advice when they come to Parliament.
Lord HUGHES: This, then, my Lords, I must accept is a defect attributable to me and not to the civil servants because in two stages I have endeavoured to
230
explain. But there is a saying, the truth of which is often demonstrated in your Lordships' House, that
" A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still,"
and at the Committee stage, when a similar Amendment was made, I used the language against the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that he had encouraged, if not incited, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, not to withdraw the Amendment at that stage. The noble Lord has made it perfectly clear that nothing I said then, and nothing I am saying now, is having any effect on him whatsoever. This I must accept as being due to my deficiency.
I have endeavoured to make it plain that there is a difference between the need for acquiring land quickly and acquiring land without need for speed. In the clause as drafted, in these two parts, we have endeavoured to cover both aspects, limiting the expedited procedure to those aspects which we have identified. The advice which I have been given, departmentally, from my officers, is that matters to which I have referred are not covered by the clause. I am not a lawyer and I am not competent to argue against that advice. I have been persuaded that the advice I have received is correct. Other people, not having had it directly but second-hand through me, may not find that advice as convincing as I found it at first hand. That I must apologise for, but the procedures of the House do not allow me to produce the civil servants here to advance to your Lordships the arguments which they have advanced to me. If it is the desire of noble Lords opposite that the procedures of the House should be so altered as to make that course possible, then that is not a subject for this afternoon.
Lord STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord for one moment, I understood his argument in relation to paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). I may be wrong, and if so I should like him to correct me, but I believe it was based principally on the fact that they referred to the expedited procedure. But I have read this clause through time and again and can find no reference to these applying to the expedited procedure. Will the noble Lord correct me if I am wrong?
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, speaking from memory I think it is Clause 1 (5) so the noble Lord will not have to read too far into the Bill to find it. But perhaps for a moment we may leave aside this question because I think I could talk long enough and not persuade noble Lords who have already spoken from the other side of the House about the need for differentiating between land acquisition for these two purposes. The fact remains that the Amendment would prevent the powers being used for Clauses 10 and 11, and nothing that either the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, or the noble Lord, Lord Foot, have said, has indicated that they wish Clauses 10 and 11 to be dissociated from Clause 1. So, from that point alone, the Amendment could not possibly be accepted. It would be straining the word a little to say that the effect of the Amendment would be "wrecking", because it would in fact be capable, if it were insisted upon, of making all the other Amendments necessary. But if this Amendment were inserted it almost requires a redrafting of the Bill, and not just the insertion of other consequential Amendments. At this stage a redrafting of that nature could certainly not be carried out in your Lordships' House.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say I have been interested to follow what he said about these compulsory powers, but can he enlighten me about this point? If he will look at Clause 1 and imagine that it reads, as I think it would if the Amendment were passed,
"The Secretary of State may acquire by agreement, or compulsorily, any land in Scotland for the purposes of (a), (b), (c) and (d) "—
If he then turns over to subsection (5) he will find that the Secretary of State may use the expedited procedure instead of compulsory purchase in the ordinary way. He is not required to use expedited procedure. He is merely enabled to. If therefore he wished compulsorily to acquire under the ordinary procedure for any of the four purposes now set out in subsection (2), he could do so. What therefore prevents him doing it in the ordinary way if he so wishes? This is the way that it is being narrowed down in my noble friend's Amendment, and
232
I do not see why, or upon what basis, the noble Lord is criticising my noble friend's drafting in that respect.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Viscount has completely missed the point. If the Amendment is carried it is perfectly true that the Secretary of State may acquire land for the purposes (a) to (d) by the expedited procedure or by the normal procedure. But these are the only purposes for which he can acquire either one way or the other. If it is narrowed he cannot even acquire by agreement. He cannot acquire outside these purposes. This is why the Amendment so restricts the operations. I have tried to make it perfectly clear that we have deliberately narrowed them down to the cases where we would be justified in using an expedited procedure which no one on the Government side, either here or else-where, has denied is an interference with the ordinary rights of property. Because it is an interference it has to be justified on the narrowest possible base that will accomplish the purpose. The noble Viscount has completely missed that point. Certainly, if for any of these purposes, urgency does not arise, then the ordinary procedures will be carried out. But if there are other purposes for which land is required, which we do not envisage at this stage, we may be wrong in excluding some of these other things from the expedited procedure. However, if we are not wrong and it becomes necessary to acquire land for other purposes, we are bound to do so under the ordinary procedures which are laid down—the ordinary machinery of compulsory purchase following, if there is a planning application, the necessary planning procedures.
My Lords, I had virtually concluded what I wanted to say when the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, intervened. It is fairly clear from the number of interventions that there have been that I have miserably failed in trying to persuade noble Lords opposite of the intention of the Bill. All I can say before your Lordships divide—and the indications are that that is what your Lordships will do—is to ask your Lord-ships not to blame the Bill for the deficiencies of my explanation and to remember that if your Lordships accept the Amendment there is an obligation upon you, in justice, to seek to remedy

233
the other defects which will arise particularly in respect of Clauses 10 and 11. Your Lordships have until Thursday to find such a remedy.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I must admire the noble Lord for fighting a single-handed battle against an enormous amount of heavy artillery, but it will not be news to him that the examples that he has given have not convinced my noble friends or noble Lords on the Liberal Benches. I feel that we must get away from the argument that it is unreasonable to expect the Government to use the powers in the way suggested. Rather, we must stand that argument on its head. If the Government think that the sort of powers which could be used are so unreasonable, why take powers to do those things? The Government must accept that, if they want very wide powers, the obligation to prove the case lies with them.
The same argument applies to the CPOs. If the noble Lord is so pleased with the CPO procedure, would it not be best to continue with the present CPO procedures? There is one very grave objection—that they end up with the Secretary of State as judge and jury in his own case. We accept, of course, that there are the two different types of case. In spite of what my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said, we realise that there are the non-expedited cases that the noble
Lord wishes to maintain. But I believe that, at the end of the day, we are bound to turn back to what the noble Lord has said both at the end of his last speech during the Committee stage and today. He has invited us to do the Government's work for him. With respect, I do not think that he can reasonably expect us to do that.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I am not inviting the Opposition to do the Government's work for them. What I am inviting the Opposition to do is. if they make a mess of the Bill, to meet the obligation which falls upon them to sort out their own mess.
Lord STRATHCONA. and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, we do not accept that at all. What we are saying is, "If you do not like the mess we have made of the clause, let us go back to what you said at the Committee stage and see whether you can have a better shot at it". So far as Clauses 10 and 11 are concerned, we feel that anybody could draft the quite small consequential Amendments needed. I cannot recommend my noble friend to withdraw the Amendment.
6.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 88; Not-Contents, 56.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Davidson, V.

Meston, L.

Airedale, L.

Denham, L.

Mills, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Monck, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Dulverton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Auckland, L.

Dundonald, E.

Muirshiel, V.

Balerno, L.

Elton, L. [Teller]

Netherthorpe, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Northchurch, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ferrers, E

Norwich, V.

Belstead. L.

Foot, L.

Onslow, E.

Berkeley, B.

Fortescue, E.

Pender, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Gainford, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Glenkinglas, L.

Pike, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Harvington, L.

Reigate, L.

Chelmer, L.

Hawke, L.

Rochester, L.

Chelwood. L.

Henley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller]

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hertford, M.

St. Helens, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

St. Just, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Killearn, L.

Sandys, L.

Courtown, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Selkirk, E.

Cowley, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Selsdon, L.

Craigton, L.

Long, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Crawshaw, L.

Lyell, L.

Sharples, B.

Cromartie, E.

Mancroft, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L

Masham of Ilton, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal,

Daventry, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Vivian, L.

Wigoder, L.

Tenby, V.

Wakeficld of Kendal, L.

Windlesham, L.

Thurlow, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Young, B.

Vcrulam, E.

Wemyss, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Milford, L.

Arwyn, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Balogh, L.

Gardiner, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Blyton, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Peddie, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Phillips, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Greenwood of Rossendalc, L.

Rusholme, L.

Castle, L.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Champion, L.

Hood, V.

Shinwell, L.

Chorley, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Slater, L.

Collison, L.

Hoy, L.

Somers, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Hughes, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Craigavon, V.

Jacques, L. [Teller]

Stow Hill, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Janner, L.

Strang, L.

Crook, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Crowthcr-Hunt, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Darwen, L.

Lovell-Davis, L. [Teller]

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Maelor, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Melchett, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.41 p.m.
Lord CRAIGTON Lord CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 29, at end insert—
" ( ) An expedited acquisition order shall not be made in respect of any land or part thereof which has been declared to be inalienable by virtue of any enactment."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships I should like to discuss this Amendment with Amendment No. 7. This Amendment is to exclude inalienable land from the expedited acquisition order procedure. I will not repeat all the points I made during the previous stage. Nearly all the properties of the National Trust for Scotland are declared to be inalienable and we are talking today of that small part of the land which the Trust holds in Scotland, which is the coastline representing 40 out of the 6,400 miles of Scottish coastline. Therefore, very little land so far held by the Trust is involved.
The presumption in seeking to persuade the Government to accept this Amendment is that the value of land held by the Trust is valuable because it is held as sacrosanct, as untouched. If it is donated to the National Trust for Scotland, it is often donated on condition that it shall be held as inalienable. That is the main reason for the giving of the land in the first place. So anything that strikes at the present legislation on which inalienability is based is also striking at
236
one of the reasons why the Trust has been able to build up this precious heritage of land that it holds in Scotland. The Trust fears that any breach in this good faith and in this legal protection will lead to a substantial diminution in the future giving of land. The Trust feels and I agree with it, that if the expedited acquisition procedure once overrides the procedure for declaring land inalienable and the rights that were given, it can be done again.
I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for having written to me very courteously in reply to a number of points I raised during the previous stage, and I wish to read part of the letter that the noble Lord wrote to me about this Amendment which I am now moving for a second time. The noble Lord stated:
"… we think that failure to provide for the acquisition of inalienable land by expedited order could prove a serious defect at some time in the future. There could arise a case when the national interest in terms of acquiring land quickly for a crucial oil development had to be balanced against the ' national interest' as represented by the National Trust's inalienable tenure of land. The Bill provides a means—through the Affirmative Resolution procedure—for Parliament to resolve any such conflict. That is what should be allowed to happen. To accept the amendment"—
my Amendment—
" would be to prejudge the issue now and to say in effect: 'We cannot foresee what situation we may face in the future but inalienable land—and the qualified nature of that "inalienability" and the Trust's power to declare additional land to be inalienable must be

237
emphasised—must remain in this respect forever inviolate'. In these uncertain times, that seems a judgment that we would find it hard to justify."
The noble Lord made three points there. He said first, without doubt, that if my Amendment is not agreed to inalienable land will come under the Affirmative Resolution procedure laid down in this Bill. Secondly, he agreed that the national interest is represented by the National Trust's inalienable tenure of land. But, finally, he said that inalienable land,
" must remain in this respect forever inviolate ",
if my Amendment is accepted. If that were so, I would not move this Amendment.
I regret to point out to the noble Lord that I am not suggesting for one moment that inalienable land should be forever held inviolate. In the Acquisition of Land Authorisation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1947, it is stated in paragraph 9 of Schedule 1:
"A compulsory order shall, in so far as it authorises the compulsory purchase of land … belonging to the National Trust for Scotland which is held by the Trust inalienably, be subject to special parliamentary procedure in any case where an objection has been duly made by the … National Trust for Scotland, … and has not been withdrawn."
So, my Lords, we are not arguing that the National Trust for Scoiland should, against the national interest, hold land which it holds by law as inalienable. We are simply arguing about two methods of Parliamentary discussion and approval. There is already, as I say, an alternative procedure.
What does the argument come down to? On the one hand, how much quicker—if at all—is one procedure compared with the other? Under the Bill, the expedited acquisition order goes under the Affirmative Resolution procedure. But there might, as your Lordships know, be a Special Order—it might come under the Special Order procedure—before that Affirmative Resolution is considered by this House. There may be delay, although it is fairly quick. But how long would the method of giving your Lordships the right to decide about inalienable land take? As I calculate it, there are 52 days of statutory delays for various reasons. There is the time taken by the Chairman of Committees in this
238
House, and by the Chairman of Ways and Means in another place, to satisfy themselves that there is substantial ground for objection and to make a précis of the case to be reported to both Houses. And then there is, if it is so ordained, consideration by the Joint Committee, and the only case I can find is that concerning the Saltrom by-pass which, in 1968, involved a sitting from the 19th to the 26th November in consideration of a case similar to the sort of case that would arise if my Amendment were accepted. So the delay which may be 70 days, is surely worth while in the vague possibility of this happening to alienable land without the Trust having agreed to accept whatever the Government want.
So your Lordships have to judge: on the one hand, the little longer time and, on the other hand, the near certainty that the amount of land given to the National Trust for Scotland—and later, also, I believe, the English National Trust will feel this;—will be less because this Amendment is not passed. I hope that the noble Lord will consider my Amendment and will consider with it the substantial undertaking given by my noble friend Lord Wemyss at the Committee stage of the Bill. I beg noble Lords to consider this carefully and hope that the noble Lord opposite will be able to accept my Amendment.
The Earl of WEMYSS and MARCH: My Lords, in supporting the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Craigton, I find that it is becoming more and more difficult to say anything new on this extremely important subject. The noble Lord has said it all very well and much else has been said by other speakers at earlier stages of the debate. There is one special point which I should like to emphasise. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, understands the matter very well; but if noble Lords—or, what is much more likely, anybody outside this House—were to read literally the noble Lord's words uttered in Committee stage on February 10th (and they can be found in col. 1146 of Hansard) they would find that he said something to the effect that somebody in the future—meaning, presumably, somebody in Scotland—can make land inalienable. I repeat, "somebody". This is not so. Nobody in Scotland and nobody

239
in the United Kingdom, except for the two National Trusts, can make land inalienable. This is a special privilege granted to these two Trusts by Parliament and to them only.
It is possible that some person in the future could offer land to one or other of the National Trusts on the condition that it should be made inalienable. But the Trust does not have to accept this; the Trust does not have to declare land inalienable because of such a condition. It could always refuse the offer. Even if it were heavily bribed to accept it, I can assure noble Lords that in the present crisis (as I have already assured you) this would not happen. You may take my word for it. In other words, I can repeat what I have said before, having since the Committee stage had discussions with the Executive Committee of the Trust, that the Trust will not, without the greatest care, and, if this Amendment is agreed, without consulting the Government, declare inalienable any more land which might well be wanted for oil-related purposes.
This, therefore, I submit, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and to your Lordships, narrows down the whole field. All that we are talking about in practice is the present inalienable land of the National Trust for Scotland and nothing else at all. Everyone has admitted that the use of this land for something of the kind envisaged in the Bill, though not impossible, is most unlikely. Even so far as the expressions in the noble Lord's letter which has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, are concerned—" the land being forever inviolate "—I confirm that this is not an accurate statement of the situation; and this kind of expression exaggerates the fear that ought to be felt. The land is not inviolate. Parliament can always release it from its inviolability, from its inalienability, if you like. Not only that, but the Trust itself, if it were convinced of the pressing national need in some example (which would probably have been shown by the planning process) is most unlikely to resist to the death not to do much more than go through the motions of resisting inalienable land acquisition under existing procedure.
240
I think that this narrows the case to a most unlikely contingency affecting only a small extent of coast and, we all hope, probably only for a few years. For this very small thing, Her Majesty's Government, unless they accept this Amendment, propose to destroy this principle of inalienability which is of great moral force and of great practical use. I beg Her Majesty's Government to think again about this. We still hope that they will accept the Amendment; and if they will do so, I can make a promise which goes beyond what was said in our executive discussions last week. I feel compelled to go beyond it because our discussions were held in the comparatively sunny climate brought about by the noble Lord's words in the House last week, before the clouds came over again and we all buttoned up our overcoats as we now must, in view of the letter that he wrote to my noble friend Lord Craigton.
I can promise positively—and I do not think I shall be repudiated by the National Trust for Scotland—that we will declare no more land at all inalienable until we have had time—with the Government—to make a genuine effort to work out a formula for the future for testing whether land should be declared inalienable henceforward, if it might possibly be wanted for the purposes of Clause 1(2) of this Bill. This could be on the lines of the procedure already in use by the National Trust with the Government in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will have a last-minute, an llth-hour, repentance on this matter. I almost said a "deathbed repentance";but I bit the words back because I hope that the noble Lord has not yet gone to that length.
6.58 p.m.
Lord CHORLEY: My Lords, I, too, have spoken on this point at both earlier stages of the Bill. Some of your Lordships know, that I speak from long experience as the Deputy Chairman of the English, Welsh and Northern Irish National Trust which has close on half a million members and which—I can assure your Lordships—is solidly behind the National Trust for Scotland on this point. I do not want to repeat arguments which I have put forward previously. At the

241
end of the Committee stage on this matter, the situation looked rather promising because of a valuable interjection by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who asked whether the danger was not that some people might come along and wish to transfer their land to the National Trust of Scotland, not for the purpose of protecting its beauty but because they did not want the Government to get it. If the National Trust of Scotland made it inalienable, that would give rise to an unfortunate and difficult position.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, suggested that this could be overcome in every case where the National Trust for Scotland was offered land—at any rate, coastal land— by their inquiring of the relevant authorities in the Government how they would view such an acceptance and such an inalienability order made by the National Trust for Scotland. As appeared from the earlier part of the debate, my noble friend Lord Hughes said that so far as he was concerned, he was quite satisfied as regards the existing land. It was such a small area; it had all been looked at and there had been this careful inquiry at Drambuie. He said that what worried him was the possibility of this subterfuge type of transfer to the National Trust in a case where the object was not really to protect natural beauty but to defeat the Government.
I had a dim recollection that in the National Trust of England we had been faced by this kind of difficulty on a few occasions just after the end of the war. Your Lordships will remember that during the war years there was a great deal of requisitioning of land and some landowners felt they had not been treated at all fairly over it. At the National Trust we were offered land in a number of cases—not many—in some of which it rather seemed to us that there might be an indirect motive of the kind which the noble Earl, Lord Perth, mentioned and of which I have already spoken in my earlier remarks tonight. Therefore, we laid down—I should say in the late 1940s or early 1950s—a rule that we would never accept land with the intention of making it inalienable without first submitting the matter to what is now the Department of the Environment and obtaining their views on it, and making quite sure that it was not required in the national interest by the Government, by
242
local government, by a statutory corporation or any organisation of that kind. That procedure was introduced and has been pursued, I think on every occasion, since that time. I have checked this point with the Secretary of the National Trust during the last 48 hours and he assures me that that is so.
Surely, this is as much as is needed. It has worked admirably throughout the last 25 years so far as England, Wales and Northern Ireland are concerned. Why should it not work equally well in Scotland? I assumed that that was what the National Trust of Scotland had been offering to the Government as a result of the deliberations of their executive committee last week. Surely, if it works so well in England it will work equally well in Scotland. That knocks the bottom out of the argument which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has now produced, which is going back a long way from what he said at the end of the Committee stage last week. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will insist. There is the safeguard, as has been pointed out, of the Parliamentary procedure. It could be in only a rare case that it would have to be brought into effect, but the safeguard is there. In all these circumstances, I appeal to my noble friend Lord Hughes to accept this Amendment and to rely on the ample safeguards which exist.
7.4 p.m.
Viscount NORWICH: My Lords, as a member of the executive committee of the National Trust for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, I should like to add my support to that of previous speakers for this Amendment. The point is an extremely simple one. It is that since 1907, when the National Trust Acts were originally passed, the privilege that the two National Trusts have had to declare land inalienable has been more than any other single factor responsible for the tremendous success that they have had. Our own English, Welsh, Northern Irish National Trust now has under its protection something in the nature of 1 per cent. of the total acreage of England, Wales and Northern Ireland—something like 1 mile in every 10 of coastline. It is an extraordinary achievement. It is absolutely unquestionable that only a minute percentage of that amount of land would ever have been given to us had the donors not been confident in their

243
hearts that, by declaring this land inalienable, they were in fact protecting it for ever.
Every time this principle of inalienability is chipped away unnecessarily, and, above all, when it is chipped away indiscriminately—it is not a question of taking each case on its merits but of simply saying, "Inalienability does not count" and striking it off—it not only makes it easier for successive Governments to take away what has, after all, been given to us in trust in the past. It also, equally importantly, diminishes the possibility of other potential donors in future trusting us to look after land they love and know is worth preserving. I assure your Lordships that the decision to declare land inalienable is not taken easily. It is taken only after great care and great consideration. There is no serious risk. We have already seen in the case of Saltram how, when good reasons apply, the decision can be revoked. I therefore implore your Lordships to give all your support to this Amendment, which will protect and uphold the greatest single trump card we possess for conservation in this country.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, comes to reply he will consider sympathetically what has been moved by my noble friend Lord Craigton. When he replies, could he clarify a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley? We understand that subsection (6) of Clause 1 would have the effect of cutting out the special Parliamentary procedure of a Joint Committee of both Houses where inalienable land is involved. Our understanding is that under the expedited procedure the Petition and the Select Committee would not be possible. The two National Trusts made clear in a letter in The Times last November, to which I referred when we considered the Bill earlier, that they are content where inalienable land is concerned to go by the decision taken in the appropriate way by Parliament, but that they are against the special Parliamentary procedure being truncated. If that is the proper interpretation of the Bill, that the Statutory Instrument under subsection (6) would not allow petitioning and the setting up of a Joint Committee, I would put it to
244
the noble Lord that it is detracting from the Parliamentary procedures.
We believe that Members of your Lordships' House and of the other place, because they know of the urgency of our need to obtain offshore oil, would not in this Parliamentary procedure waste time, and it would simply be a matter of a few days, if that. If the Government are proposing to cut out that procedure, would they even now consider changing the Bill to make sure that that procedure is retained? To include inalienable land within the scope of the Bill and yet, as my noble friends have pointed out, at the same time to cut out the traditional, prescribed procedure for taking a decision in Parliament, seems to us to be dealing with inalienability in a cavalier fashion.
7.8 p.m.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I must admit I am somewhat surprised at the last statement by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. The Government have not at any time concealed the fact that the purpose of this provision is to substitute an Affirmative Resolution, in the case of the National Trust land as in other expedited procedure matters, for the special Parliamentary procedure which would apply. I do not know why the noble Lord is asking about that at this stage. That was made abundantly clear at the last stage of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, in moving his Amendment has enabled me to shorten my remarks, because much of my brief was contained in a letter which I wrote to him; and as he read it very accurately (I followed it with what was before me) there is no need for me to repeat it. The only thing I want to say in that connection is that there is a certain misunderstanding about a reference I made in the letter.
I think the noble Lord referred to three points which I made; accepted the validity of two, and queried the last one. I think the noble Earl, Lord Wemyss, also found that one a little difficult to swallow. But I would point out that they have missed some words in the letter. I did not say that the land would be forever inviolate, because it was in relation to the expedited procedure; that was what was covered by the three words "in this respect". Therefore, it would be in

245
respect of the use of the special procedure (hat the land would be for ever inviolate though, obviously, if we went through the procedure and the House confirmed an Affirmative Resolution in relation to a piece of land which hitherto had been inalienable, it would cease to be inalienable—just as it would if the House considered it through the special Parliamentary procedure.
The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, concluded his remarks by saying, "I hope that the noble Lord will find it possible to accept this Amendment". We had a discussion before coming into the House in which the noble Lord made it perfectly clear that, no matter what I said, he was going to divide the House. Equally, I made it perfectly clear to him that I did not think he would be able to persuade me to accept the Amendment. Therefore, we know where we finish on this Amendment. I do not think I shall be able to persuade the noble Lord not to divide the House on his Amendment, because I do not believe that I can say to him anything which is new. However, what I hope is that, in dividing the House, noble Lords will not do so under the misapprehension under which the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, is suffering.
This Bill does not destroy inalienability. What the expedited procedure docs is to subject inalienable land to the same procedure as otherwise; but land which is not touched by an application of that kind remains inalienable and in future any land which comes under this procedure will so remain. Therefore, the principle is not touched by what is included in the Bill. What is touched is the application of the special procedure to a particular piece of land. When the noble Lord talks about the Bill not allowing each case to be looked at on its merits, in this regard that is just exactly what the Bill does do, because it is any particular piece of land which is looked at on its merits; whereas what the Amendment asks the Government to do is to give a blanket exemption to National Trust land.
Fortunately for me, National Trusts do not operate like certain political Parties. A number of people have declared an interest in the National Trust for England, Wales and Northern Ireland and also in
246
the National Trust for Scotland. I can also declare a very minor interest in that I am a contributor. If, therefore, the National Trust were a political Party I should be in danger of expulsion for not agreeing with them in what I am saying, and it is just possible that there are other people who find themselves in the same position. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Wemyss, will concede that, generally, the attitude of the Scottish Office and of individual Ministers of all Governments has been to lean over backwards to help the National Trust for Scotland. In this respect, I think our record is pretty good, particularly in the Drambuie situation where the Secretary of State showed that he was conscious of the need to differentiate between different aspects of the national interest. In that case, where it would have been so easy to come down on the side of oil, the Secretary of State came, down on the side of amenity.
I appreciate very much what the National Trust has done. Even more do I appreciate the extent to which the noble Earl, Lord Wemyss, has gone beyond the terms of the letter which he wrote to me. I should like to say—this fits in very much with what my noble friend Lord Chorley said about the position which applies South of the Border—that if the consultations which have been offered take place, it would, at the very least (and it might do a good deal more than that) identify sites which are unlikely to be needed for oil development. If that were the case, the probability is that the Government of the day would say to the National Trust, "If you wish to make this land inalienable, go ahead and do so because, so far as we can see, it is unlikely to be required for oil".
At Committee stage I suggested a possible way of dealing with this matter that would take care of the doubts for the future and would relate matters solely to the present position. However, I was sticking my neck out when I suggested that we might look at the possibility of exempting from the effect of the Bill land presently in the inalienable ownership of the National Trust. This question has been looked at very carefully and, as the noble Earl, Lord Wemyss, said at the last stage and has said again today— because he has been completely fair in this matter—he, and, by the same token,

247
we, cannot exclude the possibility that some of the land in the existing ownership of the Trust might be affected. It seems to be unlikely, but we cannot say with certainty that all of the 40 miles which are referred to are excluded completely from possible oil use. I feel that we should all prefer it if they were excluded, but we cannot say so with certainty. For that reason, the suggestion which I put forward as a possible compromise cannot be accepted by my colleagues who have primary responsibility in this matter.
The noble Earl, Lord Wewyss, has said that if there were a case where land —may we take it that at the moment we are talking about the land in this category which is in their possession at the present time—was required for oil purposes, he did not think that the National Trust would fight this proposal to the last ditch. It seems to me that the Affirmative Resolution procedure is being offered in this Bill as a substitute for the more prolonged special Parliamentary procedure. In a case where the National Trust disagrees with the Government (although we must accept that there may be circumstances in which the National Trust, on consideration of the matter, would not oppose the acquisition of its land, because that has not been ruled out by anything they have said) and feels that it is necessary to oppose the Government in taking over the land, the Affirmative Resolution procedure gives to the National Trust the opportunity of the case being stated
fairly before both Houses of Parliament. It seems to me, therefore, that, as the Bill stands, it will give to the National Trust the opportunity of stating its case but that it will not give to the National Trust the opportunity of fighting to the last ditch. If, however, it has deprived itself in advance of any wish to fight to the last ditch, then I do not think that the procedure which is included in the Bill will be unfair to the National Trust.
I am sorry, therefore, that I am unable to advise acceptance of the Amendment. However, I shall be surprised, having regard to the fears which are held about this matter—and I must admit quite frankly that they are fears which are widely and sincerely held—that I shall have persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, to withdraw his Amendment. However, the Amendment involves the Government in a commitment which in the national interest they do not believe that they would be justified in accepting.
Lord CRAIGTON: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his careful and good-humoured reply. Clearly he has not fully appreciated the vital importance in the national interest of not breaching the legal status of inalienability. For that reason alone, I hope that my noble friends will support me.
7.19 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 46.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Dulverton, L.

Muirshiel, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Dundonald, E.

Northchurch, B.

Auckland, L.

Elton, L.

Norwich, V.

Balerno, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Onslow, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Falmouth, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Belstead, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Berkeley, B.

Ferrier, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Foot, L.

St. Helens, L.

Chelmer, L.

Gainford, L.

St. Just, L.

Chelwood, L.

Harvington, L.

Sandys, L.

Chorley, L.

Henley, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hood, V.

Somers, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Stamp, L.

Cowley, E.

Inchyra, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Craigton, L. [Teller. ]

Kilmarnock, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V

Cranbrook, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Tenby, V.

Crawshaw, L.

Long, V.

Tranmire, L.

Cromartie, E. [Teller. ]

Lyell, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Davidson, V.

Mills, V.

Wemyss, E.

Denham, L.

Monck, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Melchett, L.

Balogh, L.

George-Brown, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Beswick, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Birk, B.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Peddie, L.

Blyton, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Phillips, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Henderson, L.

Rusholme, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Castle, L.

Hoy, L.

Shinwell, L.

Champion, L.

Hughes, L.

Slater, L.

Collison, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Stow Hill, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Janner, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Crook, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Wallace of Coslang, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Darwen, L.

Lovell-Davis, L. [Teller.]

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Maelor, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Pusher of Camden, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
7.27 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 43, at end insert—
(") Where more than eight months have already elapsed between the receipt by the competent authority of an application for planning consent and the issuance of a decision letter granting consent in that case, in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972, subsections (5), (6), (7) and (8) of this section shall not apply.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment arises following the helpful setting out by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes [Official Report, 10/2/75, col. 1156] in reply to our questions at Committee stage, of situations where there are obligations to hold public inquiries following applications for planning permission. The noble Lord told us of the occasions when a planning inquiry was obligatory, and of others where it could be held at the discretion of the Secretary of State, depending on the weight of objections which had been lodged. He confirmed that unless an Amendment was made to the Planning Act, inquiries must accordingly take place, no matter how urgent and essential a project to win offshore oil might be. At col. 1196, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in describing similar inquiries, said
" A compulosry purchase order which is subject to a public inquiry rarely takes less than six months … and sometimes it can take very much longer …"
The noble Lord has really made my point for me. We can all recall urgent matters in Scotland where an inquiry following a planning application has taken
250
well over six months. Dunnet Bay was one that was concerned with the oil industry—it was to build steel platforms. Fortunately that did not delay the operations because the company, Chicago Bridge—and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is familiar with this as it was near his area—decided after planning permission had been given, to go to Ireland. I think I must point out, since the news has just emerged in the last few days, that that company has now decided to give up its operation in County Mayo in Ireland—having already started a considerable amount of work—because they did not get an order. I think that completely vindicates the condition of the planning permission at Dunnet Bay which I gave as Secretary of State, that the Company should obtain an order before work started, otherwise we would now have at Dunnet Bay a great mess, a large hole having been dug, and the company packing up and going away. I need hardly say I also laid down conditions of reinstatement.
The inquiry took a considerable time. Other examples are Edinburgh Airport, the motorway near Perth and, of course, the Loch Carron situation which took over a year. But, so far as I know, there have been no delays over acquisition of land. At Kishorn in the Loch Carron area, the landowner was a willing seller; there was no need for any compulsory purchase order or compulsory acquisition procedure. This Bill could not have helped at all in that Loch Carron situation.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Campsie, was under a misunderstanding on this point at Committee stage—at column 1102 of Hansard—because he

251
spoke of delays arising from lengthy procedures which could be invoked. I agree with him. I pointed out how these delays have occurred, that they were to do with planning procedures and not with the acquisition of land. If the noble Lord knows of any cases where offshore oil has been held up because of difficulties over the acquisition of land, I should be glad if he would let me know in due course, because I do not myself know of any. It is the protracted planning procedures which have caused delay to date, but this Bill does nothing to streamline or improve them. It does not touch on them at all. I know that the Government have been saying for months that they did not want to disturb the planning procedures, and I hope that that was not simply in order to be different from us. But as a result they now feel unable to do what is really required; that is, to have an effective time-saving system for urgent cases of national importance relating to the winning of offshore oil.
This Amendment considers the situation where an inquiry has been found necessary under the planning Acts in such an urgent or important case, and where the proceedings have been prolonged for more than eight months. If a delay of that order occurs, is it really then reasonable to use a special expedited procedure system to save further delay, probably measured in a few days? I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes may say, "Yes, it is, because if it happens to come in the early summer the three months weather window may be missed." I understand that point, but it is illogical —indeed, some might call it crazy—to allow the first stage of the most likely cause of delay, a planning inquiry, to go meandering on unchecked and then, after it has taken eight months or more, to slap on an accelerated system for the later stage of land acquisition.
I do not intend to press this Amendment; the Government could not accept such a basic change in the Bill at this stage. But I suggest it illustrates how this Bill, if it is used at all when it is enacted, would face that difficult situation where the expedited acquisition order procedure would be used after many months of delay had already occurred over a site. This is an illogical way of
252
tackling what we all recognise could be a problem of national importance.
On the day on which Mr. Dobry has made a report about planning procedures concerning England and Wales, and has made recommendations as to how they may be streamlined—he has dealt with a lot of minor cases such as building garages, but has also made recommendations for England and Wales on the similar problems of the time taken by planning inquiries in controversial cases, like most of the ones we are considering —I hope the Government will recognise the stage where delay over land needed for offshore oil purposes is likely to occur. Further I hope they will recognise that the procedures for compulsory acquisitions, which they are putting forward in this Bill, could prove quite irrelevant compared with the months of delay which could still occur owing to planning procedures. I beg to move.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, the thought occurs to me, perhaps rightly and properly, that the subject of the Bill which never was is almost becoming the King Charles' head of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy; the constant reiteration of the advantages of curtailing planning procedure, compared with the advantages of curtailing compulsory purchase procedure. Obviously it is a point of view which is held quite strongly by the opposing sides of the House in this matter, and I think I could not possibly say that one is wrong and the other is right. We happen to think that what we are doing is the better way of dealing with it, in that it does not interfere with the widest ranging examination of a problem and that to curtail the examination on the first stage and then allow unlimited examination on the second stage is in fact the wrong way to go about it. However, I do not think any useful purpose will be served by arguing that, because what has been said already makes it quite clear that we differ in our views. I want to emphasise that we did not do this merely in order to be different, although generally speaking it would seem to us to be right if we differed from what the Administration of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, had done, but in this case we did not arrive at it in that simple way.

253
I can see the argument that the noble Lord has put forward: that the planning procedure has been allowed to run on for more than eight months; there is in fact no need for urgency, and therefore why apply an urgent procedure. I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, is overlooking the fact that the length of time that will elapse in a matter of this kind is not necessarily within the control of the Secretary of State. There have been, and there could be, circumstances of desperate urgency where a proper examination should be made. For instance, at Drumbuie, where there was a proper examination as to whether it was the view of the National Trust— and after all, the House has just said that in certain circumstances the view of the National Trust must have preference. In such circumstances it would have been wrong for us to cut short the procedure that was carried out in that inquiry.
There could be another case of the kind, and we have therefore said that we want to take all proper steps to eliminate needless delays in planning. In this connection, in view of what the noble Lord has said about the Dobry Report which has been published today, I expect to be able to make a Statement on Thursday concerning improvements in planning procedures in Scotland, to which I referred briefly at the last stage of this Bill. I am hoping that it will be completed in time for me to make a reference to it at the next stage of the Bill. As the matter has been touched on so much in your Lordships' House, it would seem appropriate that your Lordships should be among the first to know what we are proposing to do to help in this direction. If there were a circumstance in which the delay in planning lasted more than eight months, and perhaps in a case where there was no obvious need for urgency during the inquiry, but the urgency could have developed at a later stage, the effect of the Amendment would be to compound the delay by compelling the normal compulsory purchase procedure to go through.
The noble Lord has asked whether there is any case where we have been prevented from acquiring land. The answer is, No, there has not been such a case, because up to the present all the land acquired for our purposes has been acquired by agreement. If it can be
254
so acquired, so much the better, because everyone knows that acquiring by agreement is always a much more speedy process than acquiring by compulsion. As I say, if that is the position, then so much the better. But at the present time there are cases where, if the statements are to be followed up, there is at least the possibility that we shall be unable to acquire by agreement the land at present needed for oil purposes. In that case, compulsory purchase may in fact be followed out. The one thing which is quite certain is that if you have an owner determined to avoid a compulsory purchase there are many ways in which the procedure can be carried out at considerable length.
I rather hesitate to tell your Lordships, "I am informed ", because the next thing I shall be asked is, "What is the value of this information that you have got". While I cannot bring my informants along, I am probably quite in order in reading what I have just been informed, and you can at least see from where the information has come even if you do not know the informants:
"Zetland County Council have found it necessary to make a compulsory purchase order in relation to land at Sanaignore. Purchase with the scheme may have been delayed by other factors at the same time, but the county council clearly regarded early possession of the land to be an important factor."
The need for powers of compulsory purchase in this connection are, of course, very similar to those which were taken by the Zetland County Council in their Bill.
The noble Lord has said that he does not intend to press this Amendment. I am grateful for that, because as he has admitted, it would be going completely in opposition to the procedure which the Government have pursued in this Bill. It would be quite wrong for me to say that I can prove that this procedure is better than the procedure which the noble Lord would have preferred. What I can say is that we think it is better. We believe that we will do less injustice to the rights of communities and to the rights of individuals if we accelerate on compulsory purchase rather than on planning. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, will be content that we each rest on our declared beliefs in this matter.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I make no apology for having returned to this point, because I believe it is the most important point in our bid to win offshore oil as soon as we can, and in order to keep in perspective where delay has occurred and is likely to occur in the future. We regret the delay that has already occurred in that offshore oil that we would have been able to extract in 1977 and 1978 we shall not now be able to extract, and we hope that in future such delays can be avoided.
With respect to Zetland, I suspect that the compulsory purchase order there was more related to their need to control development than to any delay which has been caused, because I was much concerned about their private legislation that was passing through. Of course they made it clear that their intention to try to control what would be a great development in a very small area of their island caused them to seek special powers, which I am glad to say Parliament granted to them.
Having again pointed out where the delay is likely to occur, in planning procedures, where it has occurred already and where we shall not get the oil we might otherwise have got, I think the point has been made, and I seek leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Terms and effect, etc. of licences under s. 4]:
7.44 p.m.
Lord BALOGH Lord BALOGH moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 35, at beginning insert (" Subject to subsection (4) below,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords will notice that I shall move certain drafting Amendments on a topic of which I know very little. This is one of those Amendments. Its purpose is to make it absolutely clear that subsection (3) does not prevent a person from raising a court action under subsection (4) where, for example, a licensee in a designated sea area fails to pay agreed or awarded compensation. I beg to move.
Clause 9 [Arrangements to ensure reinstatement of other land developed for purposes connected with offshore petroleum]:
Lord BALOGH Lord BALOGH moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 8, line 32, leave out (" at the end of a specified period ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Committee stage this Amendment was tabled in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie. He was unfortunately unable to be present to move it. The Government would have accepted it, because it was very closely linked to the Government Amendment which removes from Clause 9(1) the reference to Section 27(l)(b) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972.
While we do not agree with the very restricted interpretation of the words "specified period", which were argued for when the matter was debated in another place, we accept that there is need to clarify that the use of the power in Clause 9 is not restricted to circumstances where it is possible to specify in advance an exact period of time in a planning condition. The Amendment achieves this purpose by removing the words which have given rise to doubt. We hope it will assist planning authorities in imposing the requirement under Clause 9, whether the related planning condition is expressed in terms of a period of years or in some other less narrowly defined specific period. I beg to move.
The Earl of CROMARTIE: My Lords, I have a very nice letter from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and this Amendment follows very much one for which I was not able to be present. I had suggested a period of six or seven years. A "specified period" could have been one year to 100 years. I support this Amendment as it stands now.
Clause 12 [Supplementary provisions as to acquisition and appropriation of land]:
Lord BALOGH Lord BALOGH moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 10, line 21, at beginning insert:
" ( ) The power of the Secretary of State to acquire land compulsorily under this Act shall

257
include power to acquire a servitude or other right over land by the creation of a new right."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is two-fold. The first is to clarify the position of the Crown Estate Commissioners under the Bill. Crown interests in land are dealt with in Clause 16(5) and the intention has always been that such interests would not be prejudiced by anything in the Bill. This Amendment provides an express saving for the powers of the Commissioners who are responsible for managing the Crown's interests.
The second purpose is to extend the list of enactments in relation to which a specific saving from the provisions of the Bill is provided. In particular, it is necessary to make it clear, for the avoidance of doubt, that the provisions of these listed enactments continue to have effect within designated sea areas and are not overridden by the provisions of this Bill in any such areas. It is, however, also necessary to make it clear at the same time that this saving for the effect of the listed enactments does not over-ride the need for a licence in respect of any "relevant operations" which may be authorised under any of them, or by any of the bodies mentioned.
Lord HUGHES: I am sorry, my Lords, but my noble friend has turned over two pages and it will not be necessary to repeat the story which he has given you most beautifully when we come to Amendment No. 8. I suspect your Lordships might well have passed this Amendment, notwithstanding the fact that it was the wrong explanation. But the Amendment we are dealing with is a technical one to provide a means whereby the Secretary of State can exercise his power of compulsory purchase for the purpose of the Bill, so as to create a servitude or other right in or over land without having to acquire the land itself in which the right subsists. A power of this kind may well be useful and could in fact be more acceptable to the landlord in enabling the Secretary of State to provide a new right of way under Clause 2(6) in place of the right of way extinguished by an order under Clause 2(5). I apologise to my noble friend for not noticing earlier that he had turned over two sheets instead of one. When
258
we come to Amendment No. 8, your Lordships perhaps will allow him to move it formally.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I was only about to say that when the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, was telling us about this, it sounded as if he were referring to other Amendments coming later, as though this was, indeed, a paving Amendment.
Lord CRAIGTON Lord CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 10. line 41, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment arises out of Amendment No. 2, on which your Lordships have already divided. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will be able to accept this Amendment, and not divide the House again on it. I beg to move.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I cannot accept the Amendment, but that does not mean that I am forced to divide on it.
Clause 18 [Savings]:
Lord BALOGH Lord BALOGH moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 13, leave out lines 19 to 24 and insert—
(" (a) the: powers of the Crown Estate Commissioners;
(b) the powers of the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses;
(c) the Pilotage Act 1913;
(d) Part II of the Coast Protection Act 1949 (safety of navigation);
(e) the Land Powers (Defence) Act 1958; (f) the Pipelines Act 1962;
(g) the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971;
(h) the: Dumping at Sea Act 1974;
(i) the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974;
but this subsection shall not enable any person to execute any relevant operations requiring a licence under section 4 of this Act without obtaining such a licence.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise to the House. As I said earlier, I was interested in Amendments about which I knew nothing, and I have demonstrated it. I beg to move.
Clause 20 [Short title, interpretation and extent]:
Lord BALOGH Lord BALOGH moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 14, line 10, leave out ("sea bed") and insert (" foreshore ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I take this Amendment and Amendment No. 10 together. These two Amendments are interrelated; they are essentially drafting changes and do not make any alteration in the provisions of the Bill or in any way in which these provisions will be operated. It is desirable that the power of acquisition, for the purposes of the Bill, should extend to areas of the seabed adjacent to platform sites. On reconsideration, it appeared more satisfactory to achieve this by applying to the seabed provisions for the temporary acquisition of land rather than by including the seabed in the definition of land, which I am advised might have left the matter unclear. Amendment No. 10 achieves this. Amendment No. 9 is to cover expressly the position of the foreshore. I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I should like to raise a query about this, because the whole question of the seabed comes up in a new way when dealing with offshore oil. From what the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, has just said, it sounds as if he is catering for areas of the seabed in the United Kingdom Continental Shelf, which could be 10 miles, or even 100 miles, away from the shore. The noble Lord spoke of the seabed for platforms. Most of these platforms will be installed for something like 20 years about 100 miles from the shore. On the other hand, I recognise that the noble Lord may be speaking simply of the period during which they are constructed. For example, some will have to be assembled in the Firth of Clyde, and because there is only a clearance of about 25 fathoms, they will have to be further assembled at Loch Carron. It may be the noble Lord is speaking of national waters, because this is inside not only territorial limits but also inside a firth or a bay. Therefore the word, "land "covers" water ". The seabed can be treated in the same way as ordinary land.
However, if the noble Lord is talking about the seabed outside territorial waters,
260
then I should like to raise a point—and if it is too short notice to get a reply now I shall understand this. My understanding is that the agreement on allocating the Continental Shelf, so far as the North Sea is concerned, was not an agreement concerning sovereignty over the seabed, but was an agreement on ownership of the minerals—in this case the hydrocarbons—under the seabed. If we are apparently treating the seabed around a platform 100 miles away from shore as though it was land in the United Kingdom, I suggest this sounds like a new departure. So I can only assume that, in fact, it is the construction of a platform that is intended, and not its final station out at sea.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. Only the seabed in territorial waters is affected by the Bill.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 39, at end insert—
(" Except where the context otherwise requires, this Act shall apply in relation to any estate or interest in or right over the sea bed as it applies in relation to land, and the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947 and the compulsory purchase enactments specified in paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 2 to this Act shall apply accordingly."—(Lord Balogh.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 14, line 43, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
(" (4) This Act shall not extent to Northern Ireland.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it might be convenient if this and Amendment No. 12 were considered together. I say straight away they are probing Amendments. The first one simply queries why the Bill is not being extended to England and Wales. The second Amendment takes up a point which was made on a previous occasion by the noble Lord, Lord Balogh. If it is the case that only Scotland is involved because certain requirements can be found only there, why not restrict the Bill accordingly to that part of Scotland? During the Second Reading debate on

261
28th January 1975, the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, said that the reason for confining the Bill to Scotland was that,
"… the problem of making semi-submersible and fixed concrete structures requires sites adjacent to deep water and that these are to be found only in Scotland".—[Official Report; 28/1/75; col. 442.]
The second Amendment covers all the suitable Scottish coastline in question, and its hinterland. But, demonstrably, after our discussions the Bill is not restricted to such structure-building projects, nor is it limited to pipeline terminals, which also might conceivably be restricted to that coastline of Scotland.
My Lords, as has emerged again today, Clause 1 covers a wide range of projects connected with offshore oil, and such projects might just as well be sited in England and Wales as in Scotland. For instance, if land were required for a factory to make shoes worn by men working on oil rigs or special vessels, this would no doubt come under "other services or facilities" in paragraph (d) of Clause 1(2). That factory could as well be near Newcastle as near Edinburgh, but the Bill would apply to it only if it were near Edinburgh.
What happens when oil is found, as it is expected to be found, below the Celtic Sea or, as expected also, off the Scilly Isles and Cornwall? That area is the subject of arbitration between our country and France as to where the median lines should be drawn. To give a practical example, if a trans-shipment terminal were required at a pipeline landfall in Wales or Cornwall, and following experience in Scotland we found the conditions required meant it had to be at a place of outstanding beauty, and there were weighty objections from amenity bodies, the tourist industry and local communities concerning the possibilities of oil spills, what legislation, if any, would apply in Wales or in England? That would be a similar situation, which could be a very urgent one of national importance if the production of that oil could be carried out, and everything was ready for it in other respects, and yet the terminal and the trans-shipment facilities were holding it up.
Do the Government intend to leave legislation for England and Wales on planning and compulsory purchase as it now is, having taken out this very wide
262
insurance policy on compulsory acquisition so far as Scotland is concerned? This is the opportunity for the Government to give us some indication when this sort of problem arises—as it undoubtedly will if oil is discovered in England and Wales—whether it is their intention simply to present Parliament with a kind of carbon copy of what has already been done for Scotland, or whether they would expect to tackle it in some different way, or do nothing.
I recognise that my second Amendment might make the Bill a hybrid Bill, and there may be other defective points in it, but my purpose has been to show how the application of the Bill, being limited within Scotland at present, would mean that similar situations arising else-where in Britain—and we must expect those—would not benefit from anything that is now in this Bill. I beg to move.
8.1 p.m.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, perhaps it would help if I were to go back to the Statement made on 12th August by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy. In that Statement the crucial importance of obtaining sites for concrete platform fabrication was emphasised. Most concrete designs require sites with at least 12 fathoms of water close inshore, and all designs require access to much deeper water, of the order of 85 fathoms, to be completed. The most suitable sites are deep inlets of the sea with adjacent flat coastal land and these physical conditions exist only in Scotland.
More generally, regardless of the location of the area on the Continental Shelf in which exploration or production is taking place, it is in Scotland that the onshore effects are being directly felt. It is in relation to Scotland that the powers are needed. It was a follow-up of that to which my noble friend Lord Balogh was speaking in the reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. That was in his reply to the Second Reading debate. These factors seem to point strongly in the direction of a Scottish Bill.
An important additional factor, however, is that the powers in the Bill have been criticised—and once again very extensively criticised today—in relation to the debate on Amendment No. 1. The

263
Government have been accused of taking unnecessary, indeed Draconian, powers to deal with oil-related developments. We feel that in asking for these powers we are fully justified by reference to the situation which exists in Scotland. We do not claim that there is a similar need, or that there is any evidence of a similar need, elsewhere in Great Britain. If the impact of oil developments were felt more directly in England and Wales, the Government would, of course, look at the question of the adequacy of their powers to cope with it. But if we had made this a Great Britain or United Kingdom Bill, then I am quite certain that Amendments would have been tabled—even if it were accepted that these powers are necessary in Scotland— saying: Why apply them to an area of Great Britain where there is no need known at the present time? While we hope that there will be major oil discoveries in the Celtic Sea or the area at present in dispute with France—which would, incidentally, present our mutual friends in the Scottish National Party with a new problem, if the discoveries no longer merely referred to Scottish oil —that is possibly very much in the future. However, I think it would have been wrong to take these powers—which we think can be shown to be necessary in relation to an existing situation which arises only in Scotland—and extend them to areas of Great Britain where there is no justification for them at the present time.
I would remind your Lordships, also, in relation to the last Division we had in connection with the National Trust for Scotland, that on Committee stage I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, who, in reference to the National Trust said,
" Let the National Trust in England beware. The Red Flag had been hoisted."
They would undoubtedly have had cause to beware if we had sought to apply these provisions over the whole country, because they would not have been defending themselves against a possible future attack of this kind, but would have been defending themselves against one which was already in the Bill. I am quite certain that, if this Amendment had been going to a Division, a considerable number of those who
264
voted in the National Trust's defence in the last Division would not have been able to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, into the Division Lobby on this one. So the justification for confining it to Scotland is well made.
I come to the second one, which goes the other way. It is said: "Very well then, if it is right to confine it to Scotland, why spread it to areas of Scotland not going to be involved? "There are technical objections to the Amendment arising from the fact that, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, indicated, it might make it a hybrid Bill; but leaving that aside, it seems to us to be impracticable to restrict the Bill's application in the way proposed. It may be true that the developments with which we are most immediately concerned in the Bill, concrete platform fabrication, are restricted, because of the site conditions they require, to geographical areas referred to in the Amendment.
The Bill is concerned not only with concrete platform fabrication, but with other sites for other types of installation which may be developed, for instance for sub-sea completion systems, and for other purposes. Pipelines and shore terminals are examples of development covered expressly by the Bill which are more likely to occur on the East Coast than the West. In fact one of the actions taken by the noble Lord himself when he was responsible at the Scottish Office, in facilitating oil developments, was to agree to the operations taking place at Peterhead Harbour, which, if I am right in my recollection, is not in the Highland Region. The operations in connection with oil are most prolific at Aberdeen; they have extended to Montrose; they have reached my home town of Dundee. So if he were seeking to restrict it to areas of Scotland, he would at least have to add to his list the Grampion Region and the Tayside Region.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I tried to make it clear that it was only if the Bill were confined to the building of special concrete platforms that it would need to apply only to that part of Scotland. But if it applies, as now, to virtually anything connected with offshore oil, the building of rigs and steel platforms and supply vessels and many

265
other things, then, of course, it would need to apply to the whole of Scotland, and one might say to England and Wales when the time comes for such things to be built there in greater quantity than they are at present.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Lord makes my case against the second Amendment better than I can make it myself. Why should I seek to destroy it when he does it for me? The noble Lord indicated that these were probing Amendments. I have indicated, I think to his satisfaction, why it should be a Scottish Bill rather than a Great Britain Bill, which would be the effect of the first Amendment; and I think having accepted that the Bill applies to more than platform sites then it does extend beyond the regions of Scotland defined in his second Amendment. I, therefore, with more confidence than I would have had, invite him to withdraw the first Amendment and not to move the second one.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, the noble Lord has again done what has happened in this Bill before, which is to say that, because of the Statemeat on August 12th and the special conditions required for building certain kinds of concrete platforms, that would of course confine it to Scotland and also confine it to virtually the West and Northern coastlines of Scotland. If that were the case, my second Amendment would be appropriate, and that was why it was put forward as a probing Amendment. But the noble Lord went on to say that the Bill covers a whole lot of other things as well: that there are pipelines and service facilities and other things at Montrose and Peterhead and other places. Indeed there are, and so there are in the North of England. A pipeline is being laid to the North of England. There is a steel platform being built on Teesside, and rigs and other installations and equipment connected with North Sea oil are being produced—particularly supply vessels—in England. That brings us to the first Amendment.
The amenity bodies are worried that the Government have the intention of simply extending this to England and Wales. I quite agree with the noble Lord—I do not think that the amenity bodies would be particularly keen to do so by this Bill. I certainly would not
266
press this probing Amendment, but the amenity bodies are anxious that when problems arise in England and Wales the Government intend simply to try to extend the provisions in this Bill to England and Wales. If I understand what the noble Lord has said, that is not his intention, and I hope that they may get some comfort from that.
I must make it clear again that the noble Lord has not really answered the question. He has answered one point by saying that the intention was to confine the Bill to the building of certain special concrete platforms—and that is certainly the impression that the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, gave—but on the other hand the Bill, when we look at it, extends to a very wide range connected with exploration, sub-sea projects, which he mentioned, and pipelines, and these are already happening not only on the West Coast of Scotland but on the East Coast and also in various parts of England. The pressure is not so great South of the Border, but that does not mean that it will not increase later on.
These probing Amendments have been moved to try to discover the Government's intentions, and to point out that the Government really cannot pretend that the Bill is connected only with certain special concrete platforms. It is not; it is much wider than that. We accept that the Bill is simply confined to Scotland, and we hope that the Government will learn lessons from it when it is enacted, and when problems arise in England and Wales perhaps bring forward rather better proposals.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, before the noble Lord withdraws the Amendment, I should like to make it clear that I did not say that the Bill was confined to the purpose of oil fabrication. The Statement of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said that that was what caused a Bill to be necessary. We should have been failing in our duty if we had produced a Bill for only these purposes. The Bill in fact covers things which are essential and which are confined to Scotland; and other things, while necessary in Scotland, could, as the noble Lord indicated, also be necessary in England, but there is no need at this stage for any of the procedures in relation to fabrication, so therefore there is

267
no need at this stage for any legislation to cover what is taking place, or may take place, in England or Wales at the present time.
I would repeat that if the impact of oil developments—and I think that I said the same sort of thing earlier on—bears more directly in England and Wales, the Government will of course look at the question of the adequacy of their powers to cope with it. In any case, the problems, if any, which arise might well take on a totally different form from those in Scotland, and might demand different solutions to those contained in the Bill. I think it perhaps would meet the noble Lord's wishes that I should emphasise that point; we do not see that all that would be required, should the situation change in England and Wales, is a short Bill applying these principles South of the Border.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am grateful for that further explanation. The noble Lord has confirmed that when the Bill was an idea, it was because of the especially exacting conditions required for building these concrete platforms, and then while it was being drafted it was expanded into something embracing a great deal more.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I did not say, "while it was being drafted." I said that having accepted the need for legislation, we then considered what else should be in the Bill. It was no after-thought. Having accepted the need for this special thing, we then had to consider what were all the subjects the Bill should cover.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, after 12th August, when the Statement was made about the special concrete platforms and the fact that they could be built only in certain parts of Scotland, the Government, whether it was at drafting stage or some other stage before the Bill was presented, decided that they would put in the Bill a whole lot of other things. The original reason for limiting it to Scotland had, by that time, I suggest, disappeared. We have a clarification now of what is more important, which is what the Government's intentions are for the future, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Making and revocation of expedited acquisition orders]:
8.18 p.m.
Lord HENLEY Lord HENLEY moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 16, line 14, leave out ("conclusive").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, at Second Reading, pointed out that paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 ousts the jurisdiction of the court. This means that an order cannot be challenged in the courts at all. I wonder whether, by taking out the word "conclusive", it would enable it to go before the court if it was necessary to do so.
I see one defect in this; that is, that there probably ought to be some limit as to how long an order could be challenged, and I see that in the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946 at Schedule 1, paragraph 15 and paragraph 16, there is a provision by which what I want to effect could be done. It says that a certificate given by the Secretary of State should not be capable of being challenged after the expiry of a particular period. I discovered this too late to put down an Amendment that would embrace that particular provision, and for that reason I would not want to spend too much time arguing about "conclusive" or to seek to divide your Lordships on it. But I believe that it is not right that the Secretary of State should have quite such conclusive powers as he has given himself in this subsection, and I should be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has to say about it.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I must admit that when I saw the brief on this Amendment this morning, I was not satisfied with it at all. It did not seem to me that it presented me with any reasons whatever for declining to accept this Amendment. The result was that I spent a considerable time disagreeing with the advice that I was being given. As a result, they went back to examine it because it seemed to me that leaving out the word "conclusive" would not imperil the procedure which we were seeking and lead to any lengthy delay. In the result, I am now in the position that I am to ask the noble Lord not to press the Amendment because all the argument that has taken place has enabled them

269
to present me with the real reasons, which apparently were so obvious to them that they missed them out, and I got a lot of the subsidiary material.
There is a good case for having the word "conclusive" in. The intention behind paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 is to eliminate the possibility of challenge to the validity of an expedited order arising in the courts as a result of some technical defect in the observance by the Secretary of State of the procedural requirements in paragraphs 1 and 3 of Schedule 1. These deal with such matters as the service of notices related to expedited acquisition orders and the contents of such notices.
It it is accepted that in cases of urgency there should be a rapid way of gaining access to and developing sites for oil-related purposes—and the Government regard this action as fundamental—then, in our view, it follows that the risk of such developments being delayed by challenges on technicalities should be eliminated so far as possible. Without the existing provision in paragraph 7 it would be possible for someone to go to court to challenge the validity of the order because of some minor defect in a notice. The courts would no doubt dismiss the case if it were found to be without real substance, but we all know that the determined litigant, improperly advised, can prolong—sometimes at great length—the judicial decision-making process. There have been a number of cases in Scotland where this has happened under the ordinary compulsory purchase procedure. We must ensure that this does not happen in the case of expedited orders; otherwise the whole point of having the procedure disappears.
There must of course be the possibility of a mistake being made and remaining undetected in relation to such an important matter, but we think it is extremely remote. Secondly, where a mistake of that kind comes to light early enough, the Secretary of State will be able to take appropriate action to remedy matters. He could serve an additional notice if need be or, indeed, start the whole proceedings all over again. The point is that no Secretary of State will present to a court a certificate which he knows to be false. If an error is detected then there is the opportunity of remedying it.
270
But if we take out this word "conclusive", all the value that the certificate has is reduced to a statement which could be challenged, point after point, and which could compel the procedure to be gone through item by item, requiring proof that it was advertised in a paper at such and such a time; proof that something was posted on such and such a date and that a recorded delivery receipt had been received, and so on. The whole purpose could be defeated. I gave my people a great deal of work because, on the basis of the information which I first had, I did not think I had reasons for objecting to the omission of this word. But I am now satisfied by what I have been told that it would be a cause for delay, not on the part of the person whom one would want to help, but on the part of the person who was deliberately seeking, as occasionally happens, to use the machinery of the courts to frustrate the proper purpose.
There are precedents for this sort of situation. In this case I do not think it is any great advantage to create precedents. Other precedents are related to particular subjects, and the next time this subject comes up the precedent in this Bill may be of no value. The merits of the case must be the justification. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will find it possible to withdraw his Amendment.
Lord HENLEY: My Lords, I agree that I could find no effective precedents; they were all rather small ones. I accept in considerable measure that difficulties can arise due to a litigious person. This is one of the effects of law and one tries to get around it. As my noble friend Lord Foot said earlier, it is important that if a Government are asking for extensive powers, and are seeking to shortcut various safety nets, one must look very closely at what is proposed. I think I am happy with what the noble Lord has said. I shall need to read his remarks tomorrow, to see whether, in spite of what he said, I feel that some form of words embracing what is in the Acquisition of Land Act 1946 ought to be included. I will think the point over. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.