Lords Sitting of 7 July 1975

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

EEC SOCIAL FUND GRANTS
Lord AVEBURY: 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 future they will inform organisations on whose behalf they make applications for assistance to the EEC Social Fund; whether they will reconsider their policy of deducting any grants made by the Fund from cash already allocated by the Treasury; and whether they will explain how any new project, not already supported by Departmental money, can get help from the EEC Social Fund.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the Government make grants for the retraining and resettlement of workers. In appropriate cases they make applications to the EEC Social Fund for 50 per cent. of the grant. This avoids the uncertainty and delay in payment that could arise if a direct application were made. It also facilitates control of public expenditure. To advise organisations of the applications would give rise to false hopes as the Government are not prepared to pass on receipts from the Fund as additions to grants. The Fund will not give financial assistance in respect of an activity which is not already supported financially by a public authority.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, can the Minister tell me whether it is true, as claimed by the Sunday Times, that the Government have a legal obligation to pass on to the EEC Social Fund any application made by a voluntary organisation for assistance; and if they do not make applications on behalf of particular private bodies do they use the information provided by those bodies in sub-
578
mitting their blanket claim? In particular, is it true, as claimed by the Sunday Times, that no help has been made available from the Social Fund to the Industrial Therapy Organisation of Epsom, Surrey, and that the Government have not even told the EEC Social Fund of the existence of this project? Has the noble Lord read the allegations made in the Sunday Times and will he give a complete answer to them?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I think I should speak for half an hour if I were to reply wholly to that supplementary. First, I am not aware of any such legal obligation. Secondly, as I have already explained, the EEC Fund will not make grants to any activity which is not already supported financially by a public authority. That means that the initiative is with the United Kingdom Government. They must assess the position; they must make a grant. It seems to us to be sensible, since that initiative is placed with the United Kingdom Government, that they should decide how much the grant should be having regard to all the circumstances, and should then make a claim upon the EEC Fund. If a direct application were made, there would be uncertainty and delay.
So far as this organisation is concerned, the position as I understand it is that it is a fairly assessed grant to which the United Kingdom Government were committed, and in the interim period it is obvious that some of the claims we make will be in respect of grants to which we are committed. This is one of those to which we were committed and for which we made the 50 per cent. application. In 1973, 50 per cent. was received; in 1974, there were no receipts so far as that organisation was concerned, because there was very great pressure upon the Fund from other countries.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, in other words, the Minister is confirming that any applications made by the Government to the EEC Social Fund do not benefit the organisations on whose behalf those applications are made, but the money is simply deducted from the Treasury grants which would otherwise have been made. Would the noble Lord not agree that it is partly as a result of this method of making applications that the grants from the EEC Social Fund to British

579
projects have declined from 33 per cent. in 1973, to 25 per cent. in 1974?
Lord SLATER: My Lords, will my noble friend—
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, when the supplementary questions are so long, I need to answer them one at a time. Taking the latter part of that question, in the two years in which we have been members of the EEC we have received £50 million from the Fund. That is equal to 60 per cent. of the applications made and 23 per cent. of the whole budget, so that our system has not worked too badly.
In the second year, the amount we received increased. There was a decline in the percentage, but it was nothing like 33⅓ per cent. That decline in the percentage was not due to the reasons put forward by the Sunday Times and which are now being put forward by the noble Lord. It was due to two other reasons: first, increasing employment in the countries of the Community; and, secondly, the fact that we have been more active in this field of retraining than most other countries, and some of the other eight countries which were not so active were encouraged by the Social Fund. Consequently, in the second year, they began to make applications and that is the reason why our percentage slightly declined.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, would it be in order to remind the noble Lord that we are having some questions and answers.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Both noble Lords.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether it may be possible that the nature and detail of the British applications is part of the reason for the misunderstanding in this connection? Could he explain to your Lordships whether it is true that the British applications to the Social Fund tend to be more global and less specific than those submitted by other countries, so that the authorities in Brussels are sometimes uncertain as to the exact nature of the projects for which Her Majesty's Government are applying?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I am advised that each of the projects is dis-
580
cussed with our representatives, and as a result of those discussions, it is decided which shall be supported by the Social Fund from the limited funds available, and which shall not.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, in view of the replies of my noble friend, is it not correct to say that Her Majesty's Government are still seeking to retain the identity which they have had for many years with regard to retraining and grants? The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who asked the original Question, ought to have known that as an ex-Member of another place.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, if the United Kingdom Government have to take the initiative and decide whether a grant is possible, it seems entirely sensible that, being the authority on the spot, they should also decide the amount of grant.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, while the Social Fund has financially assisted Government retraining schemes considerably over the past two years, has not the Fund also been ready to assist private schemes provided there was a Government grant towards them? Can the noble Lord give an assurance that there have been no opportunities missed for Britain through the Government neglecting to spread the necessary information about applications to private bodies?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, in our view, nothing has been missed. There is a shortage of funds, and having regard to that we think we have done fairly well. Publicity is not easy, because before an organisation has any claim whatever upon the Social Fund it must be subject to a public grant in this country. We must limit that kind of advertising.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, can the Minister reassure us that we are better at such things as retraining than the other members of the EEC? The general impression from television and the other media is that they are far better at it than we are.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that we are much better at retraining than some of the other countries in the EEC, which are doing very little work in this sphere

581
but have been encouraged by the Social Fund. Consequently there has been greater competition to get money from the Social Fund in 1974 than there was in 1973.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, am I to understand the noble Lord as saying, in answer to the third part of my question, that he would not explain publicly how individual organisations could make these applications to the Social Fund, because of the number of requests that that might generate? Is this what he and the Government mean by "open government"?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, since the United Kingdom Government have to take the initiative and make a grant, it seems sensible that they should determine the amount of the grant and that they should be the body which claims upon EEC. They are the body on the spot.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, it seems that we shall sit until 10 o'clock this evening and we have had nearly 10 minutes on this one Question. The House is interested and concerned, but I think we have had enough.

BRITISH GUIANA CONSTITUTION
2.45 p.m.
Lord HALE: 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 the additional facts now available, they will make a statement on the suspension of the Constitution of British Guiana in October 1953 and in amplification of the White Paper published on 20th October 1953.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, I understand that my noble friend is referring to recent reports of certain hearings in Washington. I have asked for further details, which I shall study carefully.
Lord HALE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer,
582
may I say that I am not referring to reports which appeared recently in Washington, but to statements made in every American newspaper and copied in The Times and the Guardian? Will my noble friend recall that some of us in another place at the time, including my noble friend Lord Brockway, challenged this whole White Paper? Does the Minister also recall that the whole story of the plot to burn Georgetown was never substantiated at all and that the trade union now proves to be fictitious? This is the almost-accepted result of the very useful and internationally very important Senate Committee under Senator Church, which is now making a full and clear investigation into all these matters with the intention of—
A Noble Lord: Speech!
Lord HALE:—cleaning up history a little. We may have to give some assistance.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I recall the involvement of my noble friend in this matter some 22 years ago. He was most ably seconded by my noble friend Lord Brockway and, to some extent, I helped a little. It is not a question of ignoring reports. Ministerially, of course one is not expected to proceed on newspaper reports, however well-founded. Without in any way impugning the integrity of these reports I ask my noble friend and the House to accord that I am required to rest on official information which I am in the course of securing now. In due course no doubt my noble friend may feel he would like to put down another Question.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Minister is asking for information? May I ask whether he remembers the occasion in another place when this White Paper was introduced and its main argument was the storing of petrol to burn down the Governor's House and Government buildings? Was it not proved on that occasion that this plot, with very flimsy evidence, was not discovered until the emergency was declared? In view of this historic misrepresentation of circumstances in respect of a British Colony, and now the allegations of CIA involvement, is it not up to the Government to make these inquiries very thorough indeed?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have said that we will pursue these inquiries.
Lord HALE: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that the point of recriminating about the past is to enforce action in the present, and that I have carefully put down the one example which entirely affects British territory and in which we have a clear responsibility to ascertain the truth. It would be greatly to the service of the world if this move to reveal all the facts continued. I think we ought to be grateful to Senator Church and the American Congress for at last saying that they will no longer pursue this policy, which continued right up to the fall of Chile, and indeed until a murder in Chicago a fortnight ago.

ROAD SAFETY: WING MIRRORS
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider making wing mirrors compulsory on all new motor cars in the interest of road safety, and take the views of motoring organisations and other interested bodies as to the safety value of such a step.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister of Transport is urgently examining the requirement for rear-view mirrors on new motor cars.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether these inquiries will take into consideration the fact that no matter how good the interior rear-view mirror is it usually has a blind spot? I am suggesting that wing mirrors might help in this direction.
Baroness BIRK: Yes, most certainly, my Lords. I think I can say that my honourable friend the Minister of Transport is himself very keen on bringing this in as soon as possible.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware
584
that two years ago the Answer given from her Ministry was the same as that which she has just given?
Baroness BIRK: No, my Lords, I am not aware, but I did not give the Answer. This time what I have said is absolutely true; the Minister of Transport is reviewing the position now.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I ask whether the Minister will introduce regulations to make it compulsory to look in the mirror, and how he will enforce that requirement?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, all we can do is have an extra mirror there and hope that with the number of mirrors the motorist has he might, even inadvertently, look in one or other of them.
Lord PEDDIE: My Lords, will my noble friend inform the House whether there exists any statutory body which maintains continuing liaison with the motor industry on these matters relating to public safety?
Baroness BIRK: No, my Lords. The Ministry of Transport is now part of the Department of the Environment, and it does this. Any draft regulation is put out through the motoring organisations and other bodies for consultation.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, has my noble friend looked up the past history in connection with this subject? The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, has informed her that she has now given the same reply as he personally gave some two years ago. As a motorist, she will know that unless the side mirrors are properly adjusted there is a blank spot. Will my noble friend inform the House later what research is taking place with a view to eliminating the blank spot, which remains even if you have both a wing mirror and an inside mirror? There will have to be a kind of convex mirror, or something like that. This is a danger that causes very near-misses and accidents from time to time.
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of that fact, and also that the last Answer on this matter was given by a Conservative Government and not by this Government. The problem of whether there should be a door or a wing mounting

585
is one of the matters which is being taken into consideration. If the mirror is on the door, it can be adjusted by the driver. On the other hand, there are supposed to be some advantages if it is on the wing. This is one of the reasons why the idea of having more than one rear mirror is under consideration at the present time. But, of course, nothing really takes the place of careful driving by the motorist, and using the mirrors effectively.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, is it advisable to allow people to obscure their rear windows with posters saying, "Vote for Bloggs" or "Hogsnorton Village Fete"?
Baroness BIRK: No, my Lords, it is not, but that is another question. Unless they want to commit suicide or homicide, I think most people who have a poster put it where it does not stop them seeing.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware, first, that we appreciate the work of the Road Research Laboratory; and, secondly, that the plethora and over-burdening of signs on the road have now become confusing? Thirdly, is she aware that I once drove through a red sign because a green chemist's bottle was five yards behind it in a chemist's shop, and I thought the light was green? We have too many signs and too many accidents.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords. I was not aware of that until my noble friend told me. I find it very interesting, and I hope it does not happen again.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

RECESS ELECTIONS BILL [H.L.]
2.57 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a consolidation Bill. It consolidates the various enactments under which Mr. Speaker sets in motion the machinery for a by-election at times when another place
586
is not sitting and is therefore unable to do so itself.
The principal Act now in force is fairly venerable—it was passed in the year 1784—and deals with vacancies in the House due to the death of the sitting Member or his succession to the honour of a Peerage in your Lordships' House. This was extended to vacancies owing to acceptance of disqualifying offices by the Election of Members during Recess Act 1858. The procedure was further applied by the Irish, English and Scottish Bankruptcy Acts 1872, 1883 and 1913, in respect of seats falling vacant as a result of the bankruptcy of a Member.
I think I should say a word about one aspect of this Bill, which is the absence of any reference in Clause 1 to certain of the offices mentioned in Section 4 of the 1858 Act. These are the offices of Steward of the Manors of East Hendred and Hempholme and also the office of Escheator of Munster. The position is that the titles to the two manors I have referred to have passed from the Crown, and therefore to hold one of these offices is no longer a disqualification from being a Member of another place and no by-election would be necessary. As for the office of Escheator of Munster, I can only say that it seems, from this side of the Irish Sea at least, to have disappeared without trace, a phenomenon I can only attribute to political events which have taken place since 1858.
One other matter I should mention, which is only indirectly connected with the main purpose of the Bill, is that it repeals Section 106(2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1914 because it duplicates, so far as England and Wales are concerned, Section 33(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1883, and is therefore unnecessary. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

LITIGANTS IN PERSON (COSTS AND EXPENSES) BILL
Lord DARLING o f HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. If I am in order I should like to be permitted to express the gratitude of the sponsors and supporters of the Bill to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the support that he has given to this useful measure, and particularly for the improving Amendments that he moved in Committee. These are now part of the Bill, having been accepted unanimously by your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Darling of Hillsborough.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, when this Bill was first introduced in the other place it consisted of 29 lines. Its passage through the House of Commons took six hours of deliberation and at the end of it the Bill was 44 lines long when it came to this House. In this House we have considered the Bill to date for just over 1½ hours and the Bill is now 67 lines long. The shape of the Bill has therefore changed considerably in its passage through Parliament—and I make no comment on the relative work ratios of the two Houses—but the purpose of the Bill has remained the same. The Bill when it becomes law, as now seems certain, will allow a litigant in person, subject to provisions to be made by rules of court, to recover his costs for preparing and arguing his case in civil proceedings.
Although the work of Parliament itself on this matter will shortly be complete, there is still much to be done. The Rule Committees in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will now have to clothe the bones of the Bill with the specific rules which allow cash to go into the pocket of the litigant in person. Much work remains to be done and I would ask for forbearance from those who wish the Bill to come into force at an early date. Not only on this occasion must the various Rule Committees consider carefully provisions that should be made, but they must also discuss with each other the provisions to be made so that litigants in person throughout the United Kingdom should, so far as possible, be treated
588
equally. Although work in this field has already begun it will take some time, but our aim is to bring the Bill into force by the 1st January, 1976, or earlier if possible.
I should like to close by saying that the increasing number of litigants in person appearing before the courts owe a debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Darling for the way in which he has carried this Bill through the House and for the work he has done in seeing that it reaches the Statute Book in a form which will benefit the maximum number of litigants. My Lords, the Government have supported this Bill from the first and I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read 3a with the Amendments.
Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, since I had never heard of these Rule Committees before I became involved in this Bill I am grateful for the Lord Chancellor's explanations of what is now to happen, and I now beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass— (Lord Darling of Hillsborough.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

CONSERVATION OF WILD CREATURES AND WILD PLANTS BILL
3.5 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. In so doing I should like to thank all noble Lords who have throughout supported the Bill. In particular, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for the great help which he gave us on behalf of the Government at the last stage of the Bill in moving some important new Amendments in replacement of some not so effective ones.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Cranbrook on his great success with this measure, and also the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, on the very able way in which he has dealt with

589
this Bill for the Government, especially for the way in which he has calmed the genuine fears of animal lovers on Clause 16, which fears in many cases were probably misunderstood fears. I think that he and the Government have done extremely well.
If I may paraphrase Dean Swift, I congratulate the Government on making two natterjack toads exist where one existed before, and for that the Government probably deserve more thanks than for many of the other measures that they have passed. I should like to thank both the noble Lord and the noble Earl.
Lord CAMOYS: My Lords, if I am not out of order, as happens from time to time, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Cranbrook on this Bill. However, I feel that it is not quite sufficient in its cover. I should prefer a kind of blanket Bill for all wildlife, with a list of those things which may be killed without a licence. In the case of the badger, in an outbreak of foot and mouth disease you isolate the farm and kill all badgers within two miles of the area. I should like to strengthen the Bill in relation to wild deer in England. Your Lordships will be familiar with the use of a very modern crossbow which is at least as potent for killing deer and for mischief as a 22 rifle, but of course it is not a firearm and therefore does not require a firearm certificate.
I have 40 wild plants which I should like to add to the list. They are just as wild as most of those the noble Earl has referred to. What we want is a blanket order, without using the Latin name since to do so makes it very complicated for people not familiar with the Latin way of dealing with things. We ought to give power to the Ministry of Agriculture concerning a bird or plant not among those already protected. I think more power should be given to the Ministry of Agriculture in granting a licence in relation to a particular form of animal life which exists in too great numbers.
I realise that we are in a bit of a hurry, and I support the Bill. Whether it is possible to make any Amendments at this stage I do not know; I imagine not. I am particularly worried about deer and the misuse of a high-powered crossbow. At 20 yards the arrow will go through
590
2 inches of oak plank; it has an absolutely fiat trajectory up to 40 yards, and is silent. The matter is being dealt with by the chief constable of the Thames Valley police force. I have been able to produce evidence that these poachers or so-called sportsmen go out in their cars with crossbows and shoot anything in sight. This is not necessarily poaching; it is just a depraved form of sport. Generally speaking, I support the Bill, though I should like to extend it and make it more general, and I should like to make it more difficult to get a licence for the use of a 22 rifle. This is a far more deadly weapon than a rifle, for which one must have a firearms certificate.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I shall be brief. As one who had the honour of addressing your Lordships at an earlier stage on the subject of smooth snakes and natterjack toads, I want to make a suggestion. This is a very valuable Bill, but will it be understood by the members of the general public? It has a Schedule which gives a list, both in English and in Latin, of various plants and animals which may not be taken by the general public. But the general public will not know anything about it. I therefore suggest that notices giving a list of the plants and animals the taking of which will in future be prohibited should be posted outside police stations and in post offices. Further and most important, I suggest that the notices should be illustrated with pictures of the plants and animals concerned. A mere statement on a notice that I am not to take a natterjack toad would be meaningless to me if I were unable to recognise a natterjack toad. I therefore suggest that these notices should be issued and that they should be illustrated.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, I am certainly a nature lover, but every time enthusiastic people pass a Bill of this nature my heart sinks because I know that in a few years' time it will have grave repercussions upon my gardening activities. The previous bird Bills which have discouraged small boys from collecting birds eggs have resulted, in my part of the world, in our being infested with enormous numbers of birds—blackbirds, jays and so on—which eat everything. I do not know what the natterjack toad will do to me in due course,

591
but my heart sinks and I am apprehensive.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I do not think that we can claim to have achieved quite the record on this Bill which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said was achieved on the Litigants in Person Bill. There is no subject which provokes your Lordships to talk quite as much as animals. However, I think we have played a very useful part in this Bill and I feel that congratulations are due, in particular, to the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who were responsible for introducing the two original Bills upon which the present Bill has been based.
I can reassure my noble friend in regard to his point about the appearance of the animals. This is a problem of which we are very well aware. There are two excellent posters already in existence depicting animals and flowers and the Government are doing all they can to inform all local authorities of the existence of these posters. I am sure that the sponsors of the Bill will also be doing all they can to draw the attention of everybody in the countryside to the existence of the animals and plants which are now protected.
I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Camoys, was wrong when he said that there were gaps in the Bill. I believe that the Bill, in its comprehensive form, now fills the one remaining gap in conservation legislation. Protection may be a different matter, but in conservation legislation the main gaps have been filled. I feel that noble Lords can be proud of the part—though it was somewhat lengthy—that they have played in getting the Bill on to the Statute Book.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, I should like to reassure noble Lords who are frightened about what is to happen. First, with regard to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Camoys, most of what he wants can be done under the Deer Act and, if he wants any alterations to the Schedule, if he will write to the Nature Conservancy Council, no doubt they will deal with the matter. In response to noble Lords who are frightened as to what will happen in their gardens if a natterjack toad comes in
592
and eats their potatoes or even their roses, they have a way out under the proviso in Clause 1 which allows them to prevent protected animals from doing serious damage to their property.
The question of informing the public has been dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I believe that one of the most important points about the Bill is that for the first time it brings parish and community councils in: they have a duty to inform the public in their area. They can get appropriate pictures from such bodies as the Friends of the Earth, who have produced admirable posters, and I have no doubt that they will be rubbing the noses of both schoolchildren and adults in the subject very soon.
On Question, Bill read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

LOTTERIES BILL
3.17 p.m.
Report of Amendments received.
Clause 9 [Rules for authorised lotteries]:
Earl COWLEY Earl COWLEY moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5, line 36, leave out ("25p") and insert ("50p").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Amendment seeks to increase the maximum limit for the price of tickets as laid down under Clause 9(2) from 25p to 50p. In paragraph 44 of the Witney Working Party Report, it proposed that the maximum price of tickets under small publicly conducted lotteries should be raised from 5p to 25p, with the maximum prize going up from £100 to £500 and the maximum turnover going up from £750 to £3,750. The Government, when they drafted their Bill, proposed that the maximum prize should go up to £1,000, with a maximum turnover of £10,000 for short-term lotteries and larger maxima for lotteries held over a longer period during a year. However, the Government did not alter the recommended price for tickets and, as the Bill is currently drafted, that price remains at 25p.
There are some 8.000 local authorities in the country, each with a right to hold a weekly lottery with a turnover of £10,000. That is not to mention the innumerable

593
voluntary organisations and societies which will also have the right to hold these lotteries. At the moment, some 40,000 tickets will have to be sold for each lottery of £10,000 and the total will be more in cases where the lottery has a maximum turnover of £42,000 and £130,000. There is a very real risk of many lotteries failing when so many organisations and authorities will be taking part. I believe, and my noble friend believes, that societies and authorities should be given a chance of making their lotteries a financial success, and that, furthermore, by increasing the limit for the price of tickets the number of people who will be pestered day in day out by those selling lottery tickets will be reduced.
It is in no one's interests that lotteries should fail, and so we believe that the maximum price of tickets should be raised to a more realistic level. But the price we propose is a maxima; there is no obligation on societies or local authorities to put their prices at 50p for each ticket. They can set the price at any level they wish below that figure. If the figure is set too high, people simply will not buy the tickets and the lottery will not be a success. Therefore in the long run it is up to the individual body running the lottery to set the price of its tickets at what the market will bear.
Under Clause 11, the Secretary of State has power to alter the maximum price of the tickets by order. But the Secretary of State is a very busy man, and a number of lotteries will have to fail for it to be brought to his notice that perhaps the maximum price is too low; and with the current rate of inflation running at 25 per cent. the figure proposed in the Bill is now out of date anyway. I should have thought that it would have to be raised within the next year to bring it up to even the level which the Government want. Therefore the arguments for this Amendment are, I believe, overwhelming. I beg to move.
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, I wish to support my noble friend who has just spoken on this Amendment. What I have to say can be said very briefly. I wish to make only one point; namely, if in this country we are to entrust these kind of decisions to the local authority we should do so, and it seems eminently
594
reasonable in this case that we should not hamper the local authorities in any way, restricting them to what the Government say in terms of the price remaining at 25p. I believe that it is important to make the local lotteries financially sound and I think we should support my noble friend's Amendment. We should not, on a small matter like this, give the impression that we are dictating to the local authority what the price should be.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, I must apologise to the House for my late arrival, but I was detained in my court. I am very keen on this Amendment and I wholeheartedly support my noble friend who moved it. My reason for doing so is that in courts of law, for instance, we magistrates are empowered to impose fines of up to £600. That does not mean that we impose fines of that amount, but we are empowered to do so. By the same token, I feel very strongly that there should be power here to put up the price to 50p. That would not mean that the price of the tickets would have to be 50p; they might be only one 1p. But I feel very strongly that there should be power to charge up to 50p.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, first, I wish to welcome one statement made by the noble Earl, Lord Cowley. He began with the frank admission that there was some risk that bodies setting up and organising lotteries under the terms of the Bill might conceivably be less than successful. As the noble Earl will recall, this point was made repeatedly in Standing Committee by my noble friend Lord Wigg, who pointed out both the risks involved in the organisation of lotteries and the fact that neither local authorities nor voluntary organisations should regard these lotteries as bonanzas or certain ways of making substantial sums of money. With that I wholeheartedly agree, and I welcome the conversion of the noble Earl to the argument previously put forward by my noble friend Lord Wigg. This matter was debated previously and by a small majority the Committee took the view that the price should be 25p, as set out in the Bill, rather than 50p as set out in the Amendment.
No doubt your Lordships will wish to have it explained why we think it right

595
that the figure should be 25p rather than 50p. First, I should point out that the present maximum price of tickets is 5p; that is set out in the 1963 Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act. Therefore under the terms of Clause 9 we are proposing an increase of 500 per cent. which, it seems to me, is a fairly satisfactory rate of increase, even allowing for the present high rate of inflation. It is only fair to mention that many voluntary organisations consulted by the Home Office during the period in which this Bill has been discussed have made it quite clear that they would not wish to go beyond a figure of around 10p as a maximum price at which they would wish to sell tickets, rather than the figure of 25p as provided for in the Bill. The figure of 25p is far more in keeping with the level of prizes which was set out in the Bill when it received a Second Reading, than the figure suggested by the noble Earl.
The noble Earl touched on the point that under Clause 11 the Secretary of State has power to vary this figure to take account of inflation, and the noble Earl sought to deal with this by saying that any Secretary of State was a very busy man and might not have brought to his attention the fact that there had been a high rate of inflation. If he will forgive me saying so, he underestimates the lobbying power of a large number of voluntary organisations and the local authorities. If these bodies took the view that there had been a high rate of inflation—and it was continuing—and it was desirable to take account of this under this provision of the Bill, I am sure that they would seek to persuade the Secretary of State that he should vary the maximum price limit as set out in the Bill.
This is a matter in which it is difficult to establish that one figure or the other is a reasonable figure to set out. But I repeat that the Government are here providing for a five-fold increase in the maximum ticket price and there is power for the Secretary of State to vary this to take account of inflation. In all those circumstances, I invite your Lordships to agree that the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl be rejected.
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, I have always accepted that there was always a great risk that a great many lotteries
596
would fail. Although the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has great power of argument and has persuaded me on many things, I was already convinced on this point before the Committee stage. There is one matter I should like to raise with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, before I withdraw the Amendment. I was interested to hear his argument for attacking this Amendment; that is, that it would be an increase of 500 per cent. I refer him to what is the existing law in relation to prizes and maximum turnover. I am sure that his mathematics are good and that he will realise that the Government themselves have increased the maximum prize by 500 per cent. from £100 to £1,000 and the maximum turnover from £750 up to £10,000.
The EARL of ONSLOW: My Lords, if my mathematics are as good as those of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, he has increased it by considerably more than 500 per cent.
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, this is a considerable increase, but I do not think it is any larger or smaller than is contained in this Amendment. However, in view of what the noble Lord has said and other Amendments to follow, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.31 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 6, line 9, after ("prize") insert—
(" (a) in a society's lottery which satisfies the condition specified in section 2(2)(b) above, or
(b)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, and with your Lordships' agreement it might be appropriate to discuss at the same time the group of Amendments Nos. 2 to 9 inclusive and the Amendments in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, Nos. 10 and 11. The Government's Amendments, and indeed those of the Opposition, deal with one of the central issues in this Bill; that is, what is an appropriate limit on prizes and turnover? I should be the first to admit—and I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, would admit—that these Amendments are needed because of what can delicately be

597
described as a series of contradictory decisions taken by the Standing Committee on the Bill.
I think the House would agree that without these Amendments and those in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and his noble friend Lord Cowley, there would be no limit, first, on local authority lotteries other than those run by parish or community councils; and, secondly, on those of societies whose turnover is in excess of £5,000. In these circumstances the question before us is this. Given that there should be a limit on the size and scale of these lotteries, what should that limit be? It is that issue to which we are addressing ourselves.
The Amendments set out in my name restore the limit which was in the Bill which obtained its Second Reading in this House. The Government believe that two things are needed: first, lotteries of a reasonable size which permit a maximum turnover in a year of up to £520,000; and, secondly, the same limit and roughly similar standards applying to both local authority and local society lotteries. I agree with my noble friend Lord Pitt, who unhappily is not here today but was with us on the Standing Committee on the Bill, that the Bill as drafted, which achieved its Second Reading here and was debated in Standing Committee, will not be of enormous financial advantage to the Greater London Council—I would not seek to suggest otherwise for a moment—but it will be of benefit to many smaller local authorities; and, what is more important, to a host of voluntary organisations, many of whom are finding it extremely hard to live at a time of very high cost inflation.
If I may I will turn to the Opposition Amendments which we are taking at the same time, and explain our objection to them. Our first objection—and I endeavoured to point this out to the Standing Committee—is that they treat voluntary societies and local authorities differently. In the case of local authorities, the control exercised over the scale of these lotteries is that of rateable value, but for voluntary societies it is quite different. Of course it will have to be different, because they do not have rateable values. The test which is applied by the noble Earl is that of gross income in the previous year. This clause is of
598
fundamental significance to voluntary organisations, particularly at a time of high cost inflation. In the terms of the noble Earl's Amendment, a small voluntary organisation seeking to create a lottery would be controlled in a very harsh and restrictive way. With anything like the present rate of inflation—and we very much hope we shall not be enduring such a rate for very much longer—they will be restricted, as far as the scale of a lottery is concerned, by the gross income of the previous year. Therefore, the smaller the organisation wanting to establish the lottery, the more harsh and restrictive this Amendment would be.
I am quite sure that the noble Earl is just as anxious as noble Lords on this side of the House to ensure that voluntary organisations are not badly treated by this Bill, but it seems to me that they would be seriously disadvantaged if his Amendment were carried. Secondly—and this is fundamental so far as local authorities and voluntary organisations are concerned—he is saying that the maximum limit should be not £520,000, which is what the Government are suggesting to the House is an appropriate level, but £5 million. It seems to me that this is a major distinction between us. The effect of this would be extremely serious to many voluntary organisations which are engaged in a life and death struggle to continue to exist. Many of them—as was testified to during the debate in your Lordships' House only a few days ago, when a large number of Members of the House pointed out the very difficult situation which confronted many voluntary organisations—would be faced with large-scale local authority lotteries with teams of hired salesmen, who would be in a very powerful position to compete with their own far smaller lotteries. That, again, would be a substantial disadvantage of the Amendment of the noble Earl.
What is the attitude of local authorities themselves? My noble friend Lord Pitt would be the first to say that the Greater London Council would favour what the noble Earl is suggesting, as also would a number of other local authorities. But, as the noble Earl will be aware, a number of local authorities are prepared to wait for the report of the Layfield Committee, as indeed are the Association of County Councils and the

599
Association of Metropolitan Authorities. Therefore, it is wrong to believe that those who are concerned at the financial predicament of many local authorities in the country must, of necessity, support the noble Earl in what he is suggesting this afternoon.
Before concluding, I must make one other point clear which was touched on by my noble friend Lord Wigg, who asked a pertinent question. He asked: what would be the attitude of the Treasury if the House and Parliament decided on large scale lotteries of the kind envisaged in the Opposition Amendment? I must make it clear that the Treasury has agreed that lotteries should be exempt from pool betting duty, but only in terms of the limits on the scale of lotteries set out in the Bill as originally published. There could be no question of excluding lotteries of the kind envisaged by the noble Earl. I would therefore suggest most strongly, both in terms of the effect which this would have on the voluntary societies concerned, and the fact that pool betting duty is bound to be attracted, which at the moment is excluded from the smaller lotteries envisaged in the Bill, which obtained its Second Reading here and which has already passed through another place, that he does not press his Amendment.
3.40 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, it may be convenient and possibly helpful if I set out the view of some noble Lords on this side of the House at this moment. So far as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is concerned, one matter in which I agree with him is that the Public Bills Committee was not entirely consistent in its deliberations so far as this Bill is concerned. Noble Lords who will have read the Bill as at present printed may have been confused, and perhaps bewildered, by the various clauses and subsections as they appear. The Committee was totally divided on nearly every Amendment, with very small majorities, as to what it would like to see so far as the future of these lotteries is concerned. It may be that this in itself is one more indictment, albeit a slight one, of the lack of thought and of proper preparation that the Government have put into this Bill.
600
It is at the cornerstone of our criticism of the Bill that nobody knows what is going to happen if it is passed in the form that the Government would like, and that the Government, as anybody who reads the Official Report of the proceedings in another place will see, are quite unable to say what will happen. There are certain things which are absolutely plain. The first is that there will be a considerable increase in the number of lotteries which take place in this country. That is certain. Unfortunately, at this stage we do not know how the public are going to be encouraged to buy tickets for these lotteries, whether some system will devolve on the public similar to that of the pools promoters; whether—and this, in a way, concerns the Secretary of State and the regulations he will make in due course—the public will he invited in various public places to buy these tickets, or whether it will be done by a postal system. One does not know. On the basis that there are certain classes of people who should be protected it does not give rise to any satisfaction, still less complacency. The general thought seems to be that there are going to be armies of knockers-up employed to go round on pay nights, I suppose, or whenever people have a little money, to try to relieve the citizenry of their spare cash for what in the event will be a good cause.
This leads me to summarise, if I may, the objections to the Bill as it stands and the reasons which lay behind the Amendments which we tabled, some of which prevailed upon the Committee and some of which did not. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, this Bill does nothing for the larger local authority or the larger society, or for the society which has a plan which is going to mean the raising a lot of money. None of these will be benefited at all. Therefore, it is not only the Greater London Council but many other councils who have good schemes—and in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, regaled us with the good schemes to which the Greater London Council would like to devote money raised in this manner; and there are also Olympic athletes, local swimming pools and so on. The number of organisations and charities which could avail themselves of a larger form of lottery is legion. None of these we believe will consider it worth the effort of putting in this form of lottery.

601
Secondly, and this is almost more pernicious, the Bill as drafted gives a premium so far as attraction is concerned to the promoters of lotteries who do it frequently. Noble Lords who read the Bill as it is printed, or who have made out and understood the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will have perceived that in order to raise the maximum, which is £520,000, the local authorities or societies will be encouraged to have weekly lotteries. Therefore they will throw their resources into a weekly lottery. A medium-term lottery, on the other hand, is disadvantaged and, worst of all, the charity, let us say, or the local authority that makes an effort once a year at Christmas, is going to be penalised by the comparatively derisory sum of £40,000. We regard that as being illogical, inefficient and unjust. It places a premium on frequency and inefficiency.
I had hoped the Government would have given thought to that matter between Committee and Report: that whatever the Government thought of the maxima we are recommending, they might at least have reconsidered this question of frequency because how the public should be approached for the purpose of buying these tickets has not been thought out sufficiently or at all, and the advantages are all with the organisation of whatever character that can mount a weekly lottery. If for no other reason, I would commend my Amendments to the House because they tidy up the situation and make an organisation, for want of a better word, which wants to put all its resources into less frequent lotteries just as advantageously placed as a large local authority that wishes to have a weekly lottery.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, kept using the word "harsh" in describing the effects he thought these Amendments—those passed in Committee or those before the House today—would have on what he described as the small society and the small local authority. I hesitate to accuse the noble Lord of any lack of logic; but, for myself, I find it difficult to accept that there is any difference in the harshness between the limits he lays down in his Bill and the limits we propose in our version of the Bill. If one considers it a moment, either a local authority which is going to try to raise £500,000 a year or one which is trying to raise £5 million in the
602
course of a year have got to lay down a method of work which, incidentally, will have to go in the form of a scheme to the Gaming Board. They will need to have helpers, employees—volunteers who will mount the operation in the way they wish. I do not see there is very much difference between one and the other so far as the organisation is concerned.
Then I suppose it could be said that because of these larger limits the smaller societies will find it more difficult to sell their tickets. That is taking a view of the British public which I have consistently refused to do: in other words, that it is only by the temptation of larger cash sums for prizes and venal character, as it were, of the larger lotteries which will persuade the public to buy tickets. Any of us who is bombarded by many good causes during the summer I am sure can confirm that in many cases the cause prompts us to buy the tickets rather than the prize, and certainly, I would empasise, in cases where it is either a small or a local lottery. People who go to a sale of work in aid of their church funds and try to win a cake by buying a lottery ticket rarely buy that ticket because they want the cake—it will probably taste rather nasty anyway—but in order to help the church.
That, I suggest, is the more logical and certainly the more humane and less venal way in which people will tend to regard these lotteries. So I would reject the interpretation that the smaller society is going to be somehow placed at a disadvantage. I would say that I have not had any representations on behalf of societies that these proposed Amendments, which have now been in the air and certainly in the hands of the printers for some months, are likely to disadvantage any of the societies. So far as my researches go, the Association of Local Authorities would welcome the maximum proposed by noble Lords on this side of the House. This is a matter of evidence and I do not think I can take it any further.
Turning now to our own limits, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is perfectly right when he says that he thinks there should be limits. We agree with that: the question between us is what those limits should be. I also take issue with him where he says that the small society will be harshly treated by the limits

603
which have been imposed. I think noble Lords will agree that it is a very bad idea if local societies, with a local scheme in mind—perhaps I should say a limited scheme—for which they want to raise money, are encouraged to set their sights too high. One therefore casts about for a method of stopping them from perhaps over-reaching their resources and capabilities.
I would submit to the House that the limitation in Amendment No. 10—that is to say, that they should be bound by last year's income—is as good a way as any of stopping a society or a charity from over-reaching itself; because this would allow, for instance, Oxfam or the Amateur Boxing Association, who are trying to raise money to send boxers to the next Commonwealth Games, to go to the top limit, because of their huge incomes from the year before. At the other end of the scale, it allows a small local society, running a sale of work for its own purposes, to incur a certain amount of time, trouble and expense on a small lottery but not more than their income for the previous twelve months. I think that is a reasonably sensible way of stopping the smaller people in the lottery world reaching for the moon. It does not seem to me to be harsh. So far as local authorities are concerned, I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Harris, felt that the proposal would discriminate harshly: I suggest that they, too, must have some limits placed upon them, and it seemed to us that the rateable value was a sensible and fair measurement of where the limit should be. That is no doubt a matter which noble Lords will wish to consider.
Finally, on the question of tax, during the Bill's passage through another place various Ministers were perhaps less than frank and even a little equivocal about the question of tax. There was a good deal of "they could not say, but …" and so on. I tried to tempt the noble Lord, Lord Harris, by casting a fly on the water during Committee, and he went no further than before. I do not blame him for one moment, but as a result of that I tabled Amendment No. 21, which will do the Government's job for them and will relieve the Inland Revenue of any further worry, because it will exempt these lotteries from the tax man's
604
ravages and at least the position will be resolved unless and until somebody else wants to do something about it. So far as your Lordships are concerned, in relation to this matter the position will be exactly the same if these Amendments are accepted as if those of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, are accepted. That is complete equality, my Lords, which I beg to commend to the House.
3.57 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in the Amendments he is moving and to oppose the Amendments being moved by noble Lords on the other side of the House. I do so because it is generally recognised that this measure seeks to give opportunities for lotteries of moderate size, and therefore the Amendments which noble Lords opposite are proposing virtually change the character of the Bill. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has made out the case that permission for very large lotteries would harm the smaller ones. I do not think it is a fair comparison to talk about lotteries for cakes at village fetes. We are thinking much more of lotteries of a larger and more important kind, possibly where motor cars are offered as prizes. I think lotteries of the first kind will be very seriously prejudiced if permission is given for lotteries with very large prizes. It is difficult to say exactly what will be their impact, but my expectation is that if we allowed very large lotteries they would in course of time squeeze out the more moderate lotteries carried out for very good causes.
As to these very large lotteries, my mind goes back to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Lotteries which your Lordships debated some time ago. Your Lordships will remember that there were recommendations that a certain limited number of very large lotteries should be permitted each year for some worthy cause, such as sporting activities, an opera house and so on. Many of us were attracted by that suggestion because we felt that money which is now largely going into private pockets would be channelled into really worthwhile social activities. But we were attracted by this suggestion because these very large lotteries were to be carefully controlled and were to be related to the football pools, which would themselves

605
have been controlled because of permissions for these other large lotteries. The proposals made by noble Lords opposite for lotteries with very large prizes would introduce those large lotteries without the controls that the Departmental Committee was suggesting. Such a situation might lead to a great deal of trouble, and I hope that the House will not accept Amendments which would allow this to take place.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, I rather support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London in this matter. I well remember when we tried to reform the law on prostitution and also the law on gaming. I served on the Select Committee connected with that Bill and I do not think that we realised we were to turn England into the gaming Mecca of the Old World. I do not think that Parliament, in reforming the law on prostitution, thought that it would turn London into quite the sink it has become. Therefore, I think we ought to be very careful about this subject.
I visualise that we are going to be pestered with innumerable lotteries. I cannot see any charity worthy of the name that will not rush to get itself on this list to start with; and once on the list the organser will think: "The easiest way of raising money will be to have a lottery." Therefore, lotteries will come out thick and fast until the general public will be heartily sick of them. Nevertheless, people will be induced to subscribe to these lotteries. Some people always do as a matter of course. Other people will be "blackmailed" into it. I regard the whole Bill with the gravest of disquiet.
4.1 p.m.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I hesitate to inflict my views on your Lordships' House, because I have done it so many times in the past. But perhaps I may be forgiven if I remind the noble Lord who has just spoken that, while it is true that the Street Offences Act and the Betting and Gaming Act 1960 have worked out differently from what was envisaged by everybody who played any part in their passage through this House and another place, we ought to remember that the balance is not completely averse. I do not believe that the Mafia has any
606
formidable hold in our society. That is not true of almost every other country in the West. I do not say that it has no foothold, but it has a very limited foothold in this country. That is because—I repeat it; I have said it so many times before but I must say it again—the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, had the courage to introduce two measures; and it took a great deal of courage to do it.
It is perfectly clear that after 15 years they have worked out very differently—be it heaven or hell, according to one's point of view. The time has now come when the way they have worked ought to be looked at again. They ought to be looked at again, not in terms of advantage or disadvantage as of the moment, but in relation to the changing social behaviour of our fellow countrymen. In the ultimate, whether big lotteries or small lotteries succeed, whether people go for £1 million or for a Dundee cake, will depend upon the ability of people to sell tickets. That will be the ultimate sanction. I am one of those who never have believed—as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, and others did, including Mr. Page in another place—that there were tremendous fortunes in lotteries, either for local authorities or for societies.
I venture the opinion—and here I cast not my flies on the water but my bread on the water—that some of the smaller societies with a vigorous membership will be able to carry on small lotteries and perhaps raise moderate sums through the enthusiasm and efficiency of the members of those societies. When, however, we move to visions that we are on the edge of El Dorado, as was expressed in terms of Mr. Page's Bill which came to this House a year ago, I do not believe there are any great fortunes to be won. If one looks around to the experience of other countries, that is borne out. It is particularly true in Great Britain. We have the equivalent of a lottery in Great Britain; namely, the football pools in which people can win large sums for very small stakes.
If I may just job back again into the past and personal experience, in 1963, I think for not very noble reasons. Mr. Maudling, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, was persuaded, cajoled,

607
pressured—call it what you will; convinced, if one wants to be wholly charitable—into believing that fixed odds betting on football here was making large inroads into the pools. By a few lines in the Finance Act he put paid to fixed odds betting. Few of us ventured to warn him what the consequences would be. It was obvious to anyone who had the slightest knowledge of the way people behave, not as members of White's or Boodle's but as members of Labour clubs and so on, that the people who bet fixed odds are discerning punters, of whom I like to consider myself one. We took large odds for three draws, because it was a useful kind of bet and there was a chance of winning; whereas the clientele who use a pin or a formula or the numbers of hymns at church and so on, as a guide to their investments in football pools, live in a completely different world; and one will not be transferred to the other.
So what happened? Mr. Maudling persuaded the House—many, perhaps even some on the Benches now, went into the Lobby in his support—to put the same rate of tax on fixed odds as on pools. The fixed odds completely vanished. But even if one's mathematics were no better than knowing the multiplication tables, one could have told him, as indeed some of us tried to tell him, both publicly and privately, that the pattern of football was changing. The introduction of the Continental system of defensive football was increasing the number of draws. If the number of draws was increased, that would lower the amount of the prize; and it was the lowering of the amount of the prize which led to the decline in the revenue which the Government extracted from football pools. But that argument was completely swept on one side. Nobody listened. Fixed odds have now gone and football pools have reached an astronomical level.
I listened last night to one of the odd broadcast programmes of the week. It was a debate on equality of income, between Mr. Jack Jones, a clear-sighted, courageous man, on the one hand, and a rather muddle-headed lawyer speaking for the Tory Party—I believe his name is Sir Geoffrey Howe. What they did not realise is that our society has produced a state of affairs in which the
608
Moore's family own a fortune of £600 million which was made out of football pools. We even get Mr. Healey, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, coming along and saying: "What I am going to do is increase the amount of tax on pools. Of course, this is a charge upon the football promoters who can well afford it". That is unutterable nonsense! Not a penny of it is extracted from the pockets of the football pool promoters. It is taken from the prize. It is a deduction from the prize-winner, not from the promoters. It is an absolute scandal that any individual or group of individuals in a society in the state ours is in can amass fortunes of that size.
I am never a nationaliser for nationalising's sake, but I would have nationalised pools a long time ago. They could be run perfectly efficiently. Of course, this would create a tremendous howl, but there is no earthly reason why it should not be done. But I am not arguing, and I hope that it will not be said that I have come out to argue, for the nationalisation of the football pools. What I am arguing and have all the way through the proceedings on this Bill—and I did it on my own a year ago when I convinced your Lordships that it was unwise to pass the Page Bill—is, please look before you leap.
If I may draw on another experience with a group of Members of the Labour Party, we forced a Conservative Government, I think in 1952, to have an inquiry into the Army Act. If you like, it was done by Dick Turpin methods of which not all your Lordships may ma approve, but they were effective. We then had a Select Committee. For two and a half years that Select Committee laboured. There never was a Party Division; it was always on the balance of evidence across Party. After two and a half years, we produced an Army Act that was "something like". Precisely the same approach needs to be made to this very complex problem.
May I pay my tribute to the noble Earls, Lord Cowley and Lord Mansfield, for the part they played in the Public Bill Committee. I thought there were times there when we got very near to the same kind of atmosphere. This problem is incredibly complex. Handled

609
properly, it may enable a large amount of additional revenue to be collected. May I remind your Lordships that against all the evidence of the time it was a Labour Government in 1964 who took steps to turn human frailty to human advantage. Revenue was increased from £33 million to £250 million, and if it was handled properly I believe that that revenue could be doubled without harm to anyone. If the noble Lord, Lord Mansfield, will forgive me for saying so, it is wrong to blame it all on to the present Administration. They inherited the inter-departmental committee about which no decision was taken by the Conservative Government. I do not blame them any more than I blame my noble friends for not tackling this problem, which is one of great complexity. Over the years, as a result of the occasional courageous acts of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, a little has been done here and a little has been done there, and every time that a little bit is done you make the problem worse. May I also remind your Lordships that the Pools Competition Bill expires this year. It has to be legislated upon, so we shall do another little bit there.
This nettle needs to be grasped; it cannot be grasped quickly. I understand that discussions are afoot to set up a Royal Commission, but I hope that the Government will think again about it. A Select Committee of both Houses is needed which will meet behind closed doors and will consist of men who realise the nature of this problem—who realise that it is not only a question of revenue but that it goes right to the heart of our social wellbeing. This is what led the noble Lord, Lord Butler, to take those steps. If we attempt by law to suppress something that is, I believe, inherent in human nature or, if that view is rejected, something that is born of the frustration and boredom of current society that makes men mis-spend, if noble Lords wish, their time in having a bet, the plain fact is that, whether or not we like it, people will have a bet and if they cannot have a bet within the law they will have it outside the law.
Therefore I nail my colours to the mast. I have always believed in control, never in suppression. If all Parties will accept the principle of control and will accept also that this problem needs to be handled
610
in the long term, and if we also go as far as I will go—which is a little further than the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, would go—we shall agree that this is a piddling, silly, trifling little Bill. You cannot improve it. You can alter it, and when you have done so you have not altered it on the basis of the facts. It has been altered because your opinion on this Front Bench is different from the opinion on that Front Bench. It does not alter the Bill one bit. It is essentially a stopgap measure.
I repeat that what is needed is that both sides must agree that the problem needs to be looked at and that measures need to be thought out. If that happens. we may raise a very large sum of money, our society may be healthier and we shall not have to spend our time messing about with the kind of nonsense that we are messing about with this afternoon.
4.14 p.m.
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, that this subject is extremely complicated, that it has a very long and chequered history and that all Governments are to blame for its failings. However, it is this Government which have introduced this Bill and it is they who have to defend it. Therefore, I prefer today to deal with this piece of legislation.
If we accept the Government's Amendments and they are passed, we shall be back in the unenviable position of having a positive incentive to hold weekly lotteries. This will have other unwelcome side effects, most notably the problem of people coming round every Friday, or on whatever day it is, to sell tickets. As the Government want it to be, the Bill benefits only small local -authorities and small societies. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, admitted this point because it goes to the very centre of the Bill. We on this side of the House think that this is a mistake. It is a failing of the Bill, especially in view of the Government's decision, as stated in another place, that they do not intend to produce legislation in the near future for large lotteries.
The whole House is concerned about the present economic plight of the voluntary organisations. It is not necessarily a Party matter. As was made clear in the Wednesday debate initiated by my

611
noble friend Lord Windlesham, that concern spreads throughout the House. But the problem with this Bill is that although I am sure that concern is very deeply felt by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, local authorities and societies are put on a par; they are treated identically. Therefore, one has the situation where local authorities will be competing directly in regional matters with voluntary organisations and societies—for example, in the setting up of a sports ground or other similar objects in which societies or local authorities might be interested.
By Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 we seek to amend this Bill so that the large societies and local authorities will be able to hold lotteries which are worth their while. The limits imposed in the Bill, as the Government intend, would mean that it would not be worth while for the Greater London Council or, possibly, War on Want or Christian Aid to hold lotteries. We seek to put this right. We do not accept the argument that by allowing large local authorities and societies to hold large lotteries they will be competing and threatening the voluntary organisations. If anything is to be threatened by these large lotteries it will be the football pools, the sweepstakes and any national prize competitions.
In attacking Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London put forward the argument that such people will be tempted by large prizes—that they will be tempted by the possibility of winning a motor car. I should like to point out to the right reverend Prelate that even under the Government's limits they can still win a motor car, because one of the Government Amendments seeks to put back the limit of £2,000 for a prize. Also, the right reverend Prelate criticised our Amendments on the basis that they would be without control. I would refer the right reverend Prelate to Clauses 2 and 3 where the controls are very strict. The Gaming Beard has to examine each of the lottery projects of that amount that is put forward.
My noble friend Lord Hawke criticised the proposed Amendments on the basis that they would encourage the
612
pestering of people by ticket sellers. If one accepts the Government Amendments, that is precisely what will happen.
4.20 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, perhaps I may reply briefly to the debate and begin with an agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. He said that the Bill did nothing for the larger local authorities. If he meant by that—as I am sure he did—that the larger local authorities were unlikely to avail themselves of this Bill, assuming that it emerges from Parliament in the form intended by the Government. I think he is wholly right, as I indicated in my speech. But, if I may say so, what he fails to point out to the House is what follows from that statement. It is impossible at one and the same time to pass legislation which will be of material benefit to authorities as large as the Greater London Council and, at the same time, to safeguard the position of voluntary organisations. You have to choose one or the other.
The noble Earl has nailed his colours to the mast of the Greater London Council and authorities of that size in the terms of the Amendments he has put before the House today. All I am saying is that there is this clear distinction between us, and your Lordships should have no illusion what you are voting on, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London made this clear in his speech. If the Government Amendments were to be rejected and the Opposition Amendments were to be accepted, this would be of material advantage to large scale local authorities. I concede that straight away. But it would also do considerable damage to a large number of voluntary organisations in this country who are, at the moment, encountering the most substantial difficulties in simply staying alive.
As I find myself once again in agreement with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London in his reference to the speech of the noble Earl when he painted this rather attractive picture of rural England trying to gauge the weight of the cake in the local raffle, I fear that that and £5 million, which is what the noble Earl is suggesting in the Amendment, do not ride very easily together. The difficulty is that I am sure the noble Earl and his friends are just as anxious as noble Lords on this side of the House

613
and the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, who spoke earlier, in making sure that voluntary organisations are protected by this legislation. But the fact is that if the Amendments were carried in the form proposed by the noble Earl and his friends the effect would be substantial damage to voluntary organisations.
The noble Lord, Lord Gridley, spoke on an earlier Amendment to the Bill and I should like to cite his words on one point. The noble Earl who referred to the Opposition Amendments sought to justify the very substantial difference which exists between the tests which he applies to voluntary societies and local authorities by saying that there was a need to avoid a situation in which voluntary bodies would overreach themselves. I note his position and I would say only this to him: a few moments ago his noble friend Lord Gridley was saying that he very much objected to language of that kind when it was applied to local authorities. Speaking as one who was closely involved in local government at one stage
614
of my life, and voluntary organisations—and I am sure the noble Earl has similar experience—I think the standard of responsibility which is shown is just as great in the generality of voluntary organisations as in the local authorities. Therefore I see no need to apply the standards which the noble Earl is insisting upon, which—and I must make this clear once again—substantially disadvantage the overwhelming majority of the organisations in this country. At a time of high cost-inflation (which we all hope will soon come to an end), if the Opposition Amendments were to be carried they would, in my view, have a profound and damaging effect upon the finances of these organisations. On the basis of that, I hope the House will agree to pass the Amendments in my name and to reject those in the name of the noble Earl and his noble friend.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 74; Not-Contents, 50.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hayter, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Arran, E.

Henderson, L.

Rochester, L.

Aylestone, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Rusholme, L.

Banks, L.

Hoy, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

St. Davids, V.

Bernstein, L.

Jessel, L.

Samuel, V.

Blyton, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Seear, B.

Brockway, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Buckinghamshire, E.

Lee of Newton, L.

Slater, L.

Byers, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Snow, L.

Caccia, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Champion, L.

London, Bp.

Stedman, B.

Chorley, L.

Loudoun, C.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Clwyd, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Crook, L.

McLeavy, L.

Summerskill, B.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Melchett, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Elwyn-Jones, (L. Chancellor.)

Pannell, L.

White, B.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Pargiter, L.

Wigg, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Phillips, B.

Wigoder, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Popplewell, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

Hale, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Wise, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

de Clifford, L.

Gridley, L.

Alport, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L,

Ebbisham, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Balniel, L.

Effingham, E.

Barnby, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Hanworth, V.

Camoys, L.

Elton, L.

Killearn, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Kinnaird, L.

Cowley, E.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Falkland, V.

Long, V.

Daventry, V.

Eraser of Kilmorack, L.

Luke, L.

615

Macleod of Borve, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Stamp, L.

Mansfield, E.

Platt, L.

Strathclyde, L

Merrivale, L.

Porritt, L.

Strathspey, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Rankcillour, L.

Tenby, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Teviot, L.

Newall, L.

Sandys, L [Teller.]

Vickers, B.

Northchurch, B.

Somers, L.

Vivian, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.33 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3, which is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 9, leave out from ("lottery") to ("shall") in line 10.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 15, leave out ("£3,000") and insert ("£1,500").—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 16, leave out ("£6.500") and insert ("£2,000").—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 17, after ("sold") insert:
("(a) in a society's lottery which satisfies the condition specified in section 2(2)(b) above, or
(b)").—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 18. leave out from ("lottery ") to ("shall") in line 19.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords. I beg to move Amendment No. 8.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 24. leave out ("£42,000") and insert ("£20,000")—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 25. leave out ("£130,000") and insert ("£40,000")—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.35 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 7, line 6, leave out ("30 per cent.") and insert ("25 per cent.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment in my name and, if I may, speak to No. 13 at the same time, In the Bill as drafted, where the proceeds of a lottery do not exceed £5,000, the maximum allowance expenses percentage is 30 per cent. During the Committee stage, the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and a number of his noble friends raised the question as to whether 30 per cent. was a reasonable figure. As I indicated to the Committee that I would, I looked into the matter and as a result of that reconsideration I am proposing this Amendment, which is to reduce the allowable percentage from 30 per cent. to 25 per cent., which I hope will go some way to meet the point of the noble Earl, and which I think is justified in its own right.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, one must be generous in giving credit for favours received, even in the nature of 5 per cent., and that, of course, I do with great pleasure. I would say only this: that one wonders how anyone has actually sat down and decided that 25 per cent. is better than 30 per cent., or that 25 per cent. is better than the 15 per cent. which was proposed by my noble friends and I in Committee. If one may say so in parenthesis, this seems to be the only occasion where the Government have

617
actually reconsidered any of the provisions of this Bill, and as such this is to be welcomed, so naturally we welcome it.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, I would also add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for this Amendment. It has been mentioned on a number of occasions that there will be a great proliferation of lotteries of one kind or another, at any rate at first, and that therefore the pressure to sell tickets will be very great. So it follows that the temptation to pay people to sell tickets will equally increase. By this Amendment, the amount of money available to reimburse people who sell tickets will be proportionately less, and I think that therefore the amount of badgering of the public will be reduced.
We should be aware of the shape of things to come. My attention has been drawn to a passage in a periodical I do not normally read, the Salcombe Gazette, in which it is recorded that:
"The Community Swimming Pool Committee decided to allow sellers £2.·50 commission for every £10 worth of tickets sold in their big football competition. The offer is open to all who sell tickets, but is intended primarily to appeal to the younger people who would normally take holiday jobs in vacation times. There is a need for sellers to visit the popular beaches, and it is considered it is here that the youngsters will have their best oportunities. There are two important conditions; to qualify for the commission, the sellers must be aged over 16, and they must sell at least £10 worth of tickets."
If this is going to be the way in which things are going to work out, when we are trying to take holidays on the beaches of Dorset and Devon we shall be pestered by young people over 16 trying to sell their £10 worth of tickets in order to get the £2·50 return, and life will be very unpleasant while on holiday. Anything that can reduce the temptation to pay large sums of money to people to sell lottery tickets will be for the general peace and prosperity of the citizens of this country. I therefore support the Amendment.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, briefly, although like my noble friend on the Front Bench I am grateful for the reduction of 5 per cent., it has not gone nearly far enough. I was one who thought that 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. would make people count their pennies when it is a question of expenses. If it
618
is a quarter of the total amount, some organisations will spend large sums of money in expenses when, with a little forethought, they need only spend, perhaps, 15 per cent. I will go along with my noble friend on this Front Bench in welcoming the 25 per cent., but I feel that I must register a protest on behalf of some of the charities with which I have to do.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, I side with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London on this matter. I agree with the noble Baroness that the amended amount is too large. We shall have professional organisers coming into this game, and the larger the percentage the more incentive there is to come in. What is also worrying me is the fact that there will be thousands of lotteries, and somebody has to police them and the limit on the expenses they are allowed to charge, and so on. It is well known that the Charity Commissioners, with whom all charities have to be registered, have a very able but rather small staff. They would be the first to admit that they do not peruse with care the accounts of every charity within their purview each year. The accounts of each one of these lotteries will have to be perused by somebody every year to see that they have not exceeded their percentage. If the job is to be done properly, we shall have to create a vast new bureaucracy for this purpose. I think the whole world that will be created by this Bill is a crazy one.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, on the point which has just been made, surely the job of policing will rest with the Gaming Board. is that not what the Bill is about?
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, speaking as a Puritan, I suppose some part of this 25 per cent. would be payable in commission, and therefore could be regarded as wages of sin. In justification of the 25 per cent., I think one ought to consider these facts. The price of postage has recently gone up very considerably, and we are threatened with further increases in the future, and postage will be an important item in the expenses of some of these lotteries. Secondly, again, the price of printing has gone up very considerably in recent years and looks like going up a lot more in the next year or two. Thirdly, the price of paper has risen phenomenally during the last few

619
years; it has gone up by 600 or more per cent. I do not think the figure of 25 per cent. for expenses, even admitting that some of this will go in commission to people who sell the tickets, is unduly out of place at the present moment. I would support my noble friend in his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 13.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 9, leave out ("30 per cent.") and insert ("25 per cent.").—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Regulations]:
Earl COWLEY Earl COWLEY moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 7, line 19, at end insert ("including provision for promotion of joint lotteries by local authorities amongst themselves or by societies amongst themselves.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment would allow local authorities and societies to combine together to hold joint lotteries. This would, of course, be of benefit where there was a joint project involved, where neighbouring local authorities were interested in the same idea and the same plans, and where societies followed the same kind of interests. In theory, it is possible for local authorities and societies to hold joint lotteries already, and there is nothing in this Bill to prevent that. However, if they did they would be subjected to the same limits as would apply to a lottery being run by one local authority or one society. It is illogical, I believe, to require local authorities or societies to run separate lotteries where they have the same kind of objectives. The administrative costs would he unnecessarily increased and the potential beneficiaries would receive less money. Furthermore, if joint lotteries are not allowed, there will be an increased risk of lotteries failing.
The Amendment is put down to Clause 10, which gives the Secretary of State tremendous powers to decide on the conditions under which joint lotteries can be held. The information about the beneficiaries of the lottery would be required to be printed on the ticket, and the proceeds to be divided up between the
620
organisations that run the lottery would be settled by the Secretary of State or between the organisations concerned. It may be argued that this Amendment would allow large scale lotteries by the back door, as it were. However, that argument rather ignores the fact that no one society or authority would benefit from the joint lottery. The only beneficiary would be the general public at large, which would benefit from the fact that less money was taken up in administrative costs than would be the case if societies or local authorities ran separate lotteries. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, this Amendment is similar to one which was withdrawn after debate in Committee, except that I think the present Amendment makes no reference, as did the earlier Amendment, to the promotion of lotteries jointly by local authorities and societies. The Government have taken careful note of what has been said in debates in both this House and the other place on the subject of joint lotteries, but their view is still that the wiser course is not to try to make provision for these. So far as local authorities are concerned, this could be a move in the direction of regional lotteries, but this is not a development which ought to come about until Parliament and the Government have reached firm conclusions about large lotteries. These are not within the scope of the present Bill, as has been debated at length on the Amendments under Clause 9.
The difficulties in the way of empowering two or more local authorities to promote a joint lottery arise, inevitably, out of the facts of the matter. A local authority has specific functions and responsibilities in relation to its own area. It does not have power to incur expenditure in respect of other local authorities' areas. Finally, the financial success of lotteries under this Bill will depend in great measure upon the exemption from duty which the Government are prepared to grant within the financial limits of the Bill as introduced, as I explained in the Public Bills Committee and as my noble friend Lord Harris has repeated this afternoon. No assurance can be given that joint lotteries with adequate turnover exceeding those limits would enjoy such exemption.

621
The noble Earl, Lord Cowley, said in the Public Bill Committee, "Oh, yes! But there would still be quite a lot of percentage left over." I believe that a combination of duty, expenses and prizes could total as much as 90 per cent., and would leave quite insufficient for the purposes of the lottery or combined lotteries. There is surely no point in these circumstances in trying to permit them as a matter of law. As has previously been explained, it would be necessary to make amendments to the body of the Bill to provide for joint lotteries, and this could not be done by regulations under this clause.
With regard to the societies, it has not been represented to the Government on behalf of societies that the Bill should provide for the promotion of joint lotteries by societies. Any such provision is open to criticisms, some similar to those arising on the provision for joint local authority lotteries. A combination of a number of societies could, of course, result in a joint lottery with a gross turnover exceeding the limits set out in the Bill, and the Government do not think that we should at this stage make any move in this direction. The Bill as regards societies' lotteries is constructed on the basis of the responsibility of the promoter, he being a member of the society. The Bill does not provide for a person to be a promoter of a lottery run on behalf of two or more societies. I hope that I have said enough to make clear that this Amendment would not be acceptable.
4.51 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I am bound to say that I find both the attitude and the logic of the noble Lord less than satisfactory—I might even say less than happy. It is not my intention to go over old esoteric ground covered in the Committee, but the difference in drafting is plain if one thinks about it for a moment. At that stage we produced an Amendment which would entitle, for instance, a local authority, the phrase I think I quoted was,
"… to take on board a local society if it wished, and form a joint lottery."
This was almost a consequential Amendment which gave the Secretary of State the power to provide for such joint lotteries and to make the necessary regula-
622
tions. That Amendment was defeated in the Public Bill Committee and, although it was a matter of slight regret to my noble friend and I that it was, we saw that there was at any rate something to be said for the Government's view. We did not wish to raise it again at this stage and therefore the Amendment was rephrased so as to cut out that one bit that dealt with the banding together of local authorities and societies.
What I want to emphasise is that this is a purely discretionary power given to the Secretary of State which he may in the hereafter act upon or not according to the conditions as they are presented to him. It is not difficult to visualise the sort of local lotteries—and I use "local" in its rather more strict sense—which could be immensely helped by the fact that two or more voluntary agencies band together to promote them. It is almost ludicrous to talk about tax and maxima under those circumstances, both of which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, did. We are not dealing with it in a matter of a discretionary power to the Secretary of State to make regulations.
For instance, if two local animal loving societies of a voluntary nature with voluntary helpers wish to pool their joint resources at Christmas time and produce a little money which would do good either to animals or to old folk in their locality, or something like that, it is surely not beyond the wit of the Secretary of State, as advised by his civil servants, to make regulations to allow them to do so. May I say in the same breath that it equally is not good enough to say, "Under the Bill this cannot happen". Surely it can be written into the Bill that it can, and if the demand is there at a later stage then the Secretary of State can make the necessary regulation. Unless there is an Amendment of this nature, of course, he cannot.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, says that he has not had any demand until now for such a provision to be written into the Bill in one form or another; of course he has not. Nobody has really considered the effects of this Bill, or what is to happen. I have been quite surprised by the lack of representation that I have had. I do not say this offensively, but even the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has been a bit scant with his evidence over this matter.

623
I shall not suggest to my noble friend that he divides the House on an issue like this, but I should have thought that so far as Parliament is concerned between now and the last stage of this Bill before it goes back to another place for consideration of Amendments, the Government might think again. This is not a Party matter. It will not do the Inland Revenue out of any money, it will simply make life easier for a very limited number of smaller organisations who wish to club together at certain moments.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, I wish to ask a question. I confess that I am utterly bewildered by the metaphysics of the subject, and utterly convinced by every word that drops from Lord Wigg's lips on this matter. I feel that we are, like Milton's Angels, in wandering mazes lost. That is not my point in rising. Suppose that there were to appear in the Art market an absolutely magnificent Braque which was valued at £750,000, and the Friends of the Tate—I am a member of the Friends of the Tate but not a member of the executive committee—and the Contemporary Arts Society were to decide that it would be a good thing to run a lottery. I am rather convinced by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, that they would be very amateurish at it and before things have been tidied up there would probably be a loss. But suppose this happened; would it, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, be a bad thing, something to be ruled out?
4.57 p.m.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I am worried because during the course of our proceedings in Committee I said to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that his argument about taxation was stretching my credulity to breaking point. I want to repeat to him the same question: is he now saying that there has been a decision by the Government that the tax amelioration provisions of this Bill do not apply to a joint undertaking? He used exactly the same argument today as on a previous occasion. If it looked like getting out of hand, if forthwith London was to join with Glasgow, and Birmingham with Norwich, to defeat the Bill by that method, I would without any hesitation support him. Indeed, my loyalty is such that if the noble Lord,
624
Lord Strabolgi, had not spoken, I would have been with him. But there are limits to what even dumb Lobby fodder are supposed to accept. I just cannot accept this any more than I could on the previous occasion.
I do not believe that the Government are as stupid as all that. They have not taken that decision. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and his colleague the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, have made their case. There may be instances here—and events may show this in the future—when one or more societies, or one or more authorities, in the interests of the objects they pursue, because of the gambling nature of the area, and so on, may want to work together. I entirely agree with Lord Strabolgi's point here, the principle is control, and the Government must keep control, but they have all the control in the world because nothing can be done without the permission of the Secretary of State. The only thing is that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, comes along—the bogeyman—and says, "This is all very well, but if you do that the boys in the Treasury will catch you". If he is really saying that, if the substance of the Government's argument is as put by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, today and on a previous occasion, I am sorry, but if there is a Division I shall vote against the Government.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, I welcome my noble friend's Amendment as being a possibility towards cutting down on the number of lotteries; that is my chief concern. For instance, if all the parish councils of Sussex were to combine together to have one lottery instead of one for each parish council, it would be of great advantage regarding both the control which the Government must provide and the unfortunate ticket buyers who will be pestered only once instead of several times.
Lord CAWLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, suggested that local authorities could spend money only in their own areas, but I can give an example of where a joint lottery might be useful. I was chairman of a local National Trust committee in Surrey and we received grants from three different local authorities. If they could club together and have a lottery in our favour I should certainly support that.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to address your Lordships again. There are two points here. With regard to the question of the excise duty, I am sorry if this exercises my noble friend and the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. I merely repeated what I said in the Public Bill Committee and what my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich said earlier in this debate; and these are the facts—
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that what he said then did not make sense, and that it does not make any better sense now? That is what I and the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, were saying.
Lord STRABOLGI: Perhaps I may repeat it then, my Lords. The Treasury have said that the limits in this Bill will not be subject to duty, but if you try to get round this by larger regional lotteries they might be—
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend—it must be the heat. But I am not arguing for regional lotteries. I should be pleased to be put right on this matter, but as I understand it the Conservative Party has put down an Amendment regarding joint lotteries, and it is quite clear from what the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, said that it is intended that a joint lottery should not exceed the limits as if it were only one lottery. There is no question of regional lotteries. It is a question of two societies and two local authorities; but they cannot do this unless the Secretary of State allows them. So what the hell has it got to do with the Treasury?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, as I read the Amendment it gives no limit to the amounts. But, anyway, this is something we can go into, and I will come back to it at a later stage in the Bill.
But quite apart from this matter, there is the question of what can be done by regulations. Clause 10 allows the Secretary of State to prescribe provisions by regulations. I am informed that it would be difficult to legislate satisfactorily for joint lotteries in this way, and the Government think it unnecessary to try to make such provisions for a concept of questionable value. But however one may argue, this cannot be done under the present Bill. The Amendment gives no
626
indication as to the principle on which joint lotteries would be authorised, and the concept raises several questions. Who would be the promoters? What is the object or purpose? How are the proceeds to be distributed? How are the requirements as to frequency affected by joint lotteries? These principles would have to be set out in the body of the Bill, and they cannot be determined by delegated legislation.
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, I should like to reply quickly to what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has said. I am grateful for his offer of consideration, which I accept. I am sure—
Lord STRABOLGI: I must make it plain, my Lords, that I am to clear up only the question of excise duty. I do not undertake consideration of the whole purpose of the clause—certainly not! That we do not accept.
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord said, could he possibly consider the issue, look at it, and see whether it can be written into the Bill? But the noble Lord has not answered the points raised. In principle, joint lotteries are already allowed. For example, local authorities are allowed to discharge any of their functions jointly under the Local Government Act 1972. I think that the tremendous discretionary powers given to the Secretary of State to organise regulations and rules to fit the individual circumstances of each joint lottery really meet most of the problems which might arise. But I am willing to withdraw the Amendment in order that the noble Lord might reconsider the comments he has made today and come back to the matter on Third Reading. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Increase in limits for certain small lotteries]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the earlier Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 31, leave out ("30 per cent.") and insert ("25 per cent")—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Increase in maximum prizes for certain lotteries and entertainments]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, this Amendment is a paving Amendment for the consolidation Amendments proposed to be included in the new Schedule to the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 8, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Commencement orders]:
5.6 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI Lord STRABOLGI moved Amendment No. 17:
Leave out Clause 18.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as noble Lords will recollect, Clause 18 was inserted in the Bill in Committee against the advice of the Government. It requires that before any provision of the Bill is brought into operation, draft regulations under Clause 10 of the Bill must have been made and affirmatively approved by both Houses of Parliament. Under Clause 10 the Secretary of State is required to consult the Gaming Board and local authority associations before making any regulations under the clause. It is intended to prepare a consultative document, a copy of which will be laid in the Library of your Lordships' House, inviting comment from these and from any other interested bodies. While the Government will proceed in the matter of the regulations without delay, they will inevitably take some time.
If Clause 18 is allowed to stand, it will have the effect of frustrating Clause 13 which contains transitional provisions to give immediate relief to societies by raising the limits of lotteries promoted under Section 45 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963. Your Lordships' House has recently debated the matter of voluntary effort when great stress was laid on the present difficulties of voluntary societies. It is most important that many of these should, at the earliest possible date after the Bill had become law, be able to gain financial benefit from the promotion of lotteries on the more liberal scale permitted by Clause 13.
Clause 18, if not removed, will certainly be harmful to voluntary societies. But it
628
is also open to objection on grounds of drafting. It leaves the provisions of the Bill relating to the making, and Parliamentary control of, regulations under the Bill in a state of chaos. For example, one effect of Clause 18, taken with Clause 19(1), as amended in Committee, is that regulations made before the commencement of the Bill, and intended to come into operation with the Bill, cannot be made by Statutory Instrument. Indeed, the interaction of Clauses 18, 19(1), and 20(5) is such that we can see no way of bringing the Bill into force at all without leaving room for argument as to the validity of what is done. For those various reasons, I beg to move this Amendment.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, do I understand from the noble Lord that if we fail to pass this Amendment the Bill will never come into force at all?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, Clause 13 could not be brought into operation for the transitional arrangements.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I do not mean this offensively, but the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, introduced his Amendment with what I might describe, both literally and metaphorically, as a giggle. That is a matter of regret to us. This was an Amendment which was passed by a combination of all the Committee, with the exception of the right reverend Prelate, because a great deal of time had been spent by the Committee in thinking and talking about Clause 10 and all it meant. It was during those discussions on the regulations that the real fears of the Committee as to the future—fears that were voiced on all sides—were expressed. This Amendment, which enjoyed very considerable support politically speaking, was passed in that sense of anxiety.
I want at this stage to say one thing to the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. He took me to task in the Committee for blaming the Government for the pass in which we were. I have certainly never sought to blame the present Government for the pass we are in so far as the laws pertaining to betting, gaming and lotteries are concerned. I do not want him to think that. What I do blame the Government for—and have consistently blamed them for—is the pass in which we now

629
are as far as the likely effects—to the extent that they can be guessed at—of this Bill are concerned. It is also fair to say—and I say this under the beady eye on the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill—that at various stages Ministers have expressed what at first was a firm belief and later sank to a pious hope that the consultative document would be placed in various libraries. I am sure that that belief was honest. I would not dream of saying anything else. But the fact of the matter is that we have still not seen the consultative document, nor are we likely to do so until after the Bill has taken effect. I did not wish to be mysterious. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is clarifying my allusion to the noble Baroness.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I was explaining the meaning of the noble Earl's remarks to my noble friend.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: As long as everyone realises that I was pointing no finger.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, does the noble Earl mean me or is he flattering me and has he mistaken me for my daughter?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, if I did, I feel that it would have been a very happy mistake.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: I do not know what the noble Earl is talking about.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: Perhaps we could meet later, my Lords. I should just like to take a very little time on the Amendment because we regard this as one of the most important parts of the Bill. We feel it essential to look at Clause 10 to see what it is we sought to do and did successfully and what it is on which the Government will apparently not compromise and wish now to reverse. Clause 10 contains the regulations which the Secretary of State may prescribe and which are, if I may so describe them, the "nuts and bolts" of the Bill. For instance, Clause 10 lays down the provisions for a scheme for the promotion of a lottery by a society or by a local authority. It lays down the person to whom tickets may be sold and by whom they may be sold. Here, we come to the
630
right reverend Prelate sitting on his beach in the West. Unfortunately, he is not in his place here. We come to the circumstances in which tickets or chances may be sold and, here, I return to the widows whose doors are battered on on Friday nights and to the books of tickets in supermarkets and so on. Then we come, in Clause 10(3)(c), to the minimum age at which any person may buy a ticket or chance. During the Committee stage, I sought to ask why it was considered fit to overturn Section 45(3)(m) of the 1963 Act, which lays down that persons under 16 cannot take part in these lotteries or sell the tickets. Then we have information which must or must not appear on the ticket, the manner in which lotteries may be advertised, the use of postal services and the matter of expenses and the way in which they may be incurred.
What I said then and what I say now is that the Government are asking the House for a blank cheque. They are asking that we should pass the Bill with all the proliferation of lotteries which it will entail—and this is something which all sides of the House agree will take place—and we are asked to rely upon the Secretary of State to make these regulations in the form of the negative procedure for all these most important—indeed vital—aspects of our new lottery life. I recognise that, in the main, all Governments like this form of procedure; that is, they like the regulation provisions to be by the negative procedure. I fully appreciate and, indeed, agree that it is only in certain circumstances that an Act shall come into force only after both Houses of Parliament have had a chance to approve or disapprove or change the regulations.
It was in that sense that we tabled the Amendment which resulted in the insertion of Clause 18. All it seeks to do is to turn the position round. In other words, it provides that the Bill shall not come into effect until the regulations have been made, put before both Houses and approved. I should have thought that this would be something which your Lordships would commend and about which even the Government might see fit, if they could not approve it, at least to exercise a certain measure of sympathy.
I know very well that, under Clause 18 as it stands, Clause 13 will be stopped from coming into effect. All that does,

631
however, is to hurry the Government up with their consultative document which we have been waiting for for months. It will hurry them up in producing the regulations which will, as it were, form the very important backbone of the Bill. So far as drafting is concerned, I do not, in my humble way, feel from what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said that there is anything about the drafting which would actually stop the Bill from taking effect as a Bill. Certainly, I should have thought I was right in saying that there is nothing in Clause 18 which is not incapable of amendment if it had that noxious character about it.
I quite understand that Clause 13 cannot come into effect until the Act does while Clause 18 remains in the Bill, but I want to say, with all the uncertain force at my command, that this rather ill-thought out Bill, which almost everybody has agreed is liable to have unsatisfactory consequences, should not come into effect before the Secretary of State tells us and before we have the opportunity to consider such matters as the age of the children who shall buy and sell the tickets and other matters of that kind.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, perhaps I can help the noble Lord. I am informed by my neighbour, who is an eminent lawyer, that "draft regulations" do not mean exactly what they say. They are not draft and they cannot be amended. In the past, though I cannot remember this happening for many years, I remember Lord Swinton introducing in this House regulations which were really in draft. We discussed them and made suggested amendments and, by the time it came to what, in Parliamentary terms, were the draft regulations, they had been amended to take account of the wishes of the House at the stage when they had to be passed or rejected and could not be amended. The noble Lord might find that method helpful.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, the noble Earl has fought a magnificent rearguard action on this clause. Indeed, I find myself compelled to say that, if ever I were charged with an offence of which I was guilty, I should be very happy if he would appear for me, because he would make a much better show of it than I could do myself. I feel that it would be far better if the
632
noble Earl accept the Amendment so that we could pass on to the next clause. I would, however, say one thing. He charged me with taking him to task during the Committee stage. I am sorry if I gave that impression. I thought that there was common ground between us about the Bill and that we agreed that it was a stopgap measure
The part I wanted to play in the Committee and again today is to draw your Lordships' attention to the basic fact that it is not a good Bill but it is not the fault of the present Government that they find themselves having to produce a Bill in these circumstances. If they had spent more time on it, it may well be they could have produced a better Bill. If I wanted to castigate the Government I would point out that when the Page Bill came from another place a year ago and I took upon myself the task of endeavouring to enlighten your Lordships as to what the Bill really meant, the Home Office could have been in no doubt that the Page Bill was a piece of unutterable nonsense. But when it went to a Division not one Minister on the Government Benches voted with me.
So, if I wanted to castigate anybody, the charge is that the Government did not take aboard the nature of their inheritance. That being the case they failed to do anything about it until the 11th hour. They have now produced this thoroughly bad Bill and nobody in this House has the least idea how it is to work out. We know that there are other stopgap measures coming along. I honestly want to try to convince the Conservative Party of the wisdom of the course I have advocated. I do not believe that one can get the inquiry in depth into this very important subject unless it is tackled on non-Party lines. In fact, I am making the same approach to this subject as I made when I tried to get the Army Act amended almost a quarter of a century ago. There are no Party points in this Bill.
The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, says that the Government have produced a bad Bill. But for the grace of God they would be sitting over here and they would probably have produced a worse one! There is nothing in it from a Party point of view, but there is a tremendous amount in it both in money and in terms of the quality of our lives by

633
taking a long view and inquiring what it is all about. It is for that reason that I trouble your Lordships. On this point I want to carry the Front Bench opposite with me.
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, may well say that this is a stopgap measure, but I do not seem to remember either in this House or in another place the Government saying that this was a stopgap measure. They put forward this Bill as a piece of legislation to stand on its own merits and to be considered as such. There really is concern about the very wide powers given to the Secretary of State under Clause 10. This came out in Second Reading and during the Committee stage of the Bill. My noble friend has already gone through the powers of the Secretary of State and the only thing which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, can really say is that the consultative document is going to be put in the Library of the House. I may say to your Lordships that I have heard that one before; we heard it in another place. At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said that he could not produce a consultative document and now the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is saying that it will be put into the Library of the House. When?
Under this Bill the Secretary of State has been given tremendous powers—virtually carte blanche—to make any Regulations he likes concerning lotteries. In the absence of any consultative document to indicate how the Government is thinking I feel that it is only right that this House and another place should have the power to examine properly these Regulations. This can be done only by an Affirmative Resolution procedure. Therefore I hope that the House will reject the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, I wonder whether we could get from the Government Benches how long the transition period is expected to be. If one admits that this is a necessary stopgap piece of legislation I think the way one votes on this Amendment depends on whether the transition period is to be a matter of weeks, months or even years.
Lord STRABOLGI: With the leave of the House I should like to reply to the points that have been raised. I was
634
a little surprised when the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, said that I introduced this Amendment with a giggle. During all the years in your Lordships' House I hope I have never been guilty of giggling during a speech. This is a serious matter; I take it seriously and I hope that I gave the impression of some seriousness. Perhaps I had the sun in my eyes; I do not know. Since the noble Earl has been in the House I have had the highest regard and admiration for the way he has handled things. Outside the Chamber I have always thought of him as a friend, and I am rather surprised that he should have made this personal attack on the way I introduced the clause. Be that as it may, it was not intended, that the clause should be introduced in any way that was not serious.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: If the noble Lord by a break in his voice or because he lost his breath or by any other physical manifestation gave the appearance of a giggle which was not intended, of course I withdraw anything that I said. Equally, I should say in my own defence that, having taken an immediate sounding from my noble friends on this side of the House, that was also the effect that he had on them. I shall not say any more.
Lord STRABOLGI: I readily accept what the noble Earl said and I apologise if I gave any impression of that, which, of course, was in no way intended. Reverting to the Amendment, this will make the operation of Clause 13 absolutely impossible. Although one of the main purposes of the present Bill is to increase the financial limits of Section 45 of the 1963 Act on lotteries promoted by societies to which that Section applies, it will be some time after the Bill becomes law before it will be possible for such societies to benefit from the increased limits set out in the Bill. Many of the detailed requirements for the promotion and conduct of lotteries will have to be set out in Regulations made after the Bill becomes law and yet to be negotiated.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, I should say it would be a matter not of days or of years but of months. Many societies, including football clubs, are finding the present limits on tickets, prizes, turnovers and expenses I very restrictive, and the purpose of Clause

635
13 is to give some immediate relief by allowing these societies to run lotteries on a larger scale as soon as possible after the Bill becomes law and without waiting for Regulations to be made. This will be invalidated by Clause 18. I listened with great interest to what the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, said about Affirmative and Negative Resolutions, but there are still powers to pray against Negative Resolutions and much legislation is brought in in this way.
Clause 20 [Citation, repeals, etc.]:
5.37 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No.
636
There will be plenty of opportunity for Parliament to pray against these when the time comes. I do not think I have anything else to say and I hope I have answered all the points that have been made. I beg to move.
5.30. p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 17) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 64.

CONTENTS

Headfort, M.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Henderson, L.

Popplewell, L.

Aylestone, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hoy, L.

Rusholme, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

Cawley, L.

Janner, L.

Samuel, V.

Champion, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Shepherd, L, (L. Privy Seal.)

Chorley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Slater, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Snow, L.

Crook, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Somers, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

London, Bp.

Stedman, B.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Longford, E.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Loudoun, C.

Strabolgi, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Feather, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Feversham, L.

McLeavy, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Garner, L.

Mais, L.

Wigg, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Melchett, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

Granville of Eye, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Wise, L.

Hanworth, V.

Pannell, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Phillips, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Onslow, E.

Airedale, L.

Gridley, L.

Platt, L.

Alport, L.

Harvington, L.

Porritt, L.

Amory, V.

Hawke, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Barnby, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Robbins, L.

Berkeley, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Byers, L.

Inglewood, L.

Rochester, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Killearn, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Kinnaird, L.

St. Davids, V.

Cowley, E. [Teller.]

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Sandys, L.

Craigavon, V.

Long, V.

Seear, B.

Cranbrook, E.

Luke, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Crawshaw, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Stamp, L.

Daventry, V.

Mancroft, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Dramalbyn, L.

Mansfield, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Merrivale, L.

Strathspey, L.

Elton, L.

Meston, L.

Tenby, V.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Tweedsmuir, L.

Falkland, V.

Vickers, B.

Ferrers, E.

Newall, L.

Vivian, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Northchurch, B.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Gainford, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Wigoder, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

19. This is a consolidation Amendment to which I referred earlier.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 29, at end insert—
"( ) Schedule [Consolidation amendments] to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of facilitating the consolidation of the enactments

637
relating to lotteries, and in particular for the purpose of removing anomalies and correcting errors in those enactments."—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 22. This is consequential on earlier Amendments.
Amendment moved—
After Schedule 3, insert the following new Schedule:

CONSOLIDATION AMENDMENTS
The Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963
1. For subsection (2)(d) of section 43 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (exemption of small lotteries incidental to certain entertainments) there shall be substituted the following paragraph:—
"(d) the facilities for participating in lotteries under this section, or those facilities together with any other facilities for participating in lotteries or gaming, shall not be the only, or the only substantial, inducement to persons to attend the entertainment.".
2. For section 48 of that Act (provision of amusements with prizes at certain non-commercial entertainments) there shall be substituted the following section:—
"Provision of amusements with prizes at certain non-commercial entertainments.
48.—(1) This section applies to the provision, at any entertainment to which section 43 of this Act applies, of any amusement with prizes which constitutes a lottery or gaming or both but does not constitute—

(a) gaming to which Part II of the Gaming Act 1968 applies, or

(b) gaming by means of a machine to which Part III of that Act applies.

(2) Where any such amusement constitutes a lottery, nothing in section 41 or section 42 of this Act shall apply to it.
(3) In relation to any such amusement (whether it constitutes a lottery or not) the conditions set out in subsection (4) of this section shall be observed, and if either of those conditions is contravened every person concerned in the provision or conduct of that amusement shall be guilty of an offence unless he proves that the contravention occurred without his consent or connivance and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent it.
(4) The conditions referred to in the last foregoing subsection are—

(a) that the whole proceeds of the entertainment, after deducting the expenses of
638
the entertainment, shall be devoted to purposes other than private gain; and

(b) that the facilities for winning prizes at amusements to which this section applies, or those facilities together with any other facilities for participating in lotteries or gaming, shall not be the only, or the only substantial inducement to persons to attend the entertainment."

3. Sections 51 (search warrants) and 52(4) (forfeiture) of that Act shall have effect in relation to offences under this Act.
The Local Government Act 1966
4. In Part II of Schedule 3 to the Local Government Act 1966 (fees for licences, registration etc. that may be varied by an order under section 35(2) of that Act) in paragraph 23 (which relates to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963) for the words "paragraph 4" there shall be substituted the words "paragraph 16".
The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966
5. In Part II of Schedule 4 to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 (fees for licences, registration etc. that may be varied by an order under section 42 of that Act) in paragraph 26 (which relates to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963) for the words "paragraph 4" there shall be substituted the words "paragraph 16".
The Gaming Act 1968
6.—(1) For subsections (2) to (4) of section 33 of the Gaming Act 1968 (use of machines at non-commercial entertainments) there shall be substituted the following subsections:—
"(2) Where a machine to which this Part of this Act applies is used for gaming as an incident of any such entertainment, the whole proceeds of the entertainment, after deducting the expenses of the entertainment, shall be devoted to purposes other than private gain.
(2A) Where a machine to which this Part of this Act applies is used for gaming as an incident of an entertainment to which this section applies, the opportunity to win prizes by means of the machine, or that opportunity together with any other facilities for participating in lotteries or gaming shall not be the only, or the only substantial, inducement to persons to attend the entertainment."
(2) In subsection (5) of that section, for the words "to (4)" there shall be substituted the words "and (2A)"."—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Repeals]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 23 which is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 46, at end add—

" 1968 c. 65.

The Gaming Act 1968.

In Part I of Schedule 11, the entry relating to section 48 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963."

—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

SOCIAL SECURITY PENSIONS BILL
5.40 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord ALPORT in the Chair.]
Clause 17 [Invalidity allowance and disablement pension]:
Baroness DARCY de KNAYTH Baroness DARCY de KNAYTH moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 10 line 9, leave out ("40") and insert ("50").
The noble Baroness said: I am afraid I am not really prepared because this Amendment is one which my noble friend Lady Kinloss was going to move. However, we know that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, mentioned that in the Bill as it stands the age at which one can benefit from the larger amount of invalidity pension has been reduced from 50 to 40. The original intention was that those who were disabled at an earlier age would not have had the opportunity of saving up money and therefore should have a higher rate of invalidity pension than those who became disabled at a later age. My noble friends and I feel that lowering the age to 40 would benefit those who are disabled at a later age because in many
640
cases they have not been able to save up a worthwhile amount for their old age. This is particularly important now we know that the mobility allowance will not be given to women aged 60 and men aged 65. In fact, when they reach retirement age all their mobility assistance will be withdrawn. I feel that by increasing the pension we could at least partly alleviate their situation in old age—though one cannot really call it "old age" because noble Lords would not agree that a woman aged 60 or a man aged 65 had reached an age when they should be confined to their home and receive no benefit. Indeed, only a few weeks ago one of your Lordships demonstrated in a sense that life begins at 65. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, revealed that he had made more money between the ages of 65 and 70 than he had in the entire first 60 years of his life. I beg to move.
Lady KINLOSS: Surely age has very little to do with the onset of incapacity. While thanking the Government for raising the ages from 35 to 40 and from 45 to 50 respectively, I would ask them earnestly to consider the raising of the age from 40 to 50 in Clause 17(a). I agree that the older a person is at the onset of incapacity, the more likely he is to have been able to save up for his old age, yet the lower paid worker would most likely have been quite unable to do so. But need they be penalised for having endeavoured to save and thereby enjoy a few extra comforts in their old age, especially if they are incapacitated? As new recipients of the mobility allowance will from January 1976 no longer receive this allowance after the age of 60 in the case of women and 65 in the case of men, would it not be possible to give the higher rate of invalidity allowance for those up to the age of 50? This would enable them perhaps to save a little or to acquire a few extras before retiring age is reached.
The Countess of LOUDOUN: I should like to support my noble friends Lady Darcy de Knayth and Lady Kinloss. It appears ridiculous to argue that the rate should decrease as the age of the onset of incapacity increases. How many of us prepare ourselves in advance in case we should become disabled in later life? The lower paid worker would in most cases be quite unable to do this, even if he wished to. In my view, also, age has

641
very little to do with it. Clause 17 goes some way towards easing the situation, but this Amendment, if accepted, would further relax the age criterion by making the higher rate payable to anyone if their incapacity began before they reach the age of 50. I hope your Lordships will be able to support us over this Amendment.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The Government have a great deal of sympathy with the Amendment. I do not always want to appear at this Dispatch Box and talk about money; but money is involved—several million pounds in fact. We have to look at this from the point of view of why the allowance is given. It is an invalidity allowance, which is given in addition to the invalidity pension. This was never intended to be a sum of money given in the same way as the invalidity pension is given; that is a great deal more. So far as I can remember, we have always had three levels of allowance because, rightly or wrongly, previous Governments—and it is a view shared by this Government—felt that the invalidity allowance is of far greater significance to a younger person. It had been fixed at 35, that is where the onset of the invalidity was before the 35th birthday of the person concerned. We are now raising it to 40. The middle rate is raised from 45 to 50 and the lower rate applies to women of 55 and men of 60.
The whole purpose of the invalidity allowance is to try in some small way to meet the little expenditures which are perhaps of greater significance when the onset of invalidity occurs at a much earlier age. For instance, a married man with a wife and several children who becomes an invalid before the age of 35 will be entitled to an invalidity pension. The whole idea was to put a further pound or two in his pocket so that he could buy the children something or give them an extra treat. We have raised the age now to 40. The middle one we have raised from 45 to 50. I think the invalidity allowance provisions reflect the general effect of incapacity on different age groups, and they do so in a graded way which does not draw too sharp and indefensible a line between sick people below and above pension age.
I would say to your Lordships that, however sympathetic one may be, here is a definite attempt to put a little more
642
money into the pockets of a younger person who has certain responsibilities, where the onset of the invalidity occurs before the age of 40, to reduce it slightly where the onset of invalidity is before 50, and to reduce it still more when the onset of the invalidity is before 55 in the case of women and 60 in the case of men. If you look at the invalidity allowance quite separately from the question of the invalidity pension, and what it was designed to do, I think that few of your Lordships would not come to the conclusion that perhaps it is right to give a slightly higher amount to the younger invalids and to reduce the amount as one goes on. Perhaps people who are 50 or 55 do not have quite the same little things they want to do for those around them. The intention is to try to put the invalid person in the position where he or she can do little things for those around.
I ask my noble friend Lady Darcy de Knayth not to press this Amendment. As I say, several million pounds are involved. What we must try to do is to use whatever money is available to do something for most people. We can do this only if we have concern about the money we are spending. The money we spend must do the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. If we do not work on that basis it means of course that we have to restrict the amount of good and the help that can be given.
Lord SANDYS: We are not wholly convinced by the noble Lord's argument. He suggested to us that there would be few Members of your Lordships' House who would not agree with him. But we are not wholly convinced, for this reason. The age argument is a somewhat artificial one resting on the premise that it would be possible, perhaps, between certain ages to accumulate capital. Who can say nowadays that he makes provision for invalidity at any stage in his life beyond a general provision of life insurance? I am quite sure that as a basis of calculation it is probably one of those things which very prudent and cautious people do, and it is naturally an excellent provision to make. But it is a somewhat artificial argument to say that this provision should be written into the Bill; and therefore we support the Amendment as it stands.
Baroness DARCY de KNAYTH: I should like to thank the noble Lord for his reply. First of all, I would set the Record straight because I began by speaking about invalidity pension whereas of course I meant the invalidity allowance, but as your Lordships saw I was slightly caught on the hop. While I appreciate what the noble Lord has said about the importance of the little additional things the invalidity allowance can buy for younger disabled people, I feel that those who are older and who will be confined to their homes when the mobility allowance is withdrawn also could think of plenty of little things to do with it (to quote the noble Lord), and I feel they would benefit enormously from this extra money. However, in view of what several noble Lords have said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clauses 18 to 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Mobility allowance]:
5.53 p.m.
Baroness DARCY de KNAYTH Baroness DARCY de KNAYTH moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 14, line 3, at end insert ("; provided that the appliance is related to the provision of mobility and cannot be used indoors.")
The noble Baroness said: Under the present wording of Clause 22(5)(b) a future Government would be able to withdraw altogether, or reduce, the mobility allowance paid to anyone in possession of any appliance issued by the Department of Health—a wheel-chair such as I am sitting in now, a Possum typewriter, a walking frame, crutches or an artificial limb, for example. We should realise that, almost without exception, anyone who has sufficiently severe mobility problems to qualify for the allowance will be in receipt of some form of appliance issued by the Department of Health. This means in effect that as the subsection stands now virtually anyone eligible for the allowance may run the risk of having this allowance withdrawn or reduced.
We have an assurance from the Minister for the Disabled, made during the passage of this Bill through another place, that the kind of appliance they had in mind was the occupant-controlled, powered, out-of-door wheelchair. I have
644
also had an assurance from the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, in a letter following the Second Reading of this Bill two weeks ago that it is not the Government's intention to introduce abatement of the mobility allowance in respect of any articles now supplied free under the existing arrangements, including those powered indoor wheelchairs now on issue. While I naturally accept the noble Lord's assurances, I feel that no Government should enjoy such sweeping powers to withdraw or reduce the mobility allowance by Regulation.
If the intention is to reduce the allowance only in respect of expensive, out-of-door, mobility aids such as the occupant-controlled, powered, outdoor wheelchair this should be explicitly stated in the subsection. This is precisely what the Amendment seeks to do. The addition of the words:
"Provided that the appliance is related to the provision of mobility"
ensures that the allowance would not be withdrawn for, for example, a Possum typewriter. The further addition of the words, "and cannot be used indoors" does the same in respect of crutches, ordinary wheelchairs, artificial limbs, walking frames and such like. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, explained in his letter that the Bill was not drafted in terms specifically excluding items now being supplied free because such terms might be constricting if, for example, some technical advance made it possible to supply a much better but much more expensive version of an existing item. I do not accept that such sweeping powers are necessary to cover any eventuality simply because one cannot forecast technological developments. Surely any future Government can amend the subsection at some future date to take account of any unforeseen development.
At Second Reading I said that the tax element in private motoring today could easily amount to between £155 and £175 per annum for a disabled driver or passenger, and that in some cases this tax element alone in private motoring would not be offset by the mobility allowance, which being taxable amounts to only £169 a year for those who are paying tax at the standard rate. We learnt from the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, at Second Reading (and he confirmed this in his letter to me) that the recipients

645
of the mobility allowance will no longer be eligible for VED exemption—that is, road tax exemption. Thus, £40 are added on to this tax element at one stroke. This will be a very serious blow to many disabled passengers and drivers and I feel strongly that it is vital to protect the mobility allowance from any possible further erosion under this subsection.
This Amendment would ensure that the mobility allowance could be withdrawn or reduced only in the event of a genuine alternative form of outdoor mobility being issued. If however the clause stands unamended, Parliament will lose the power to prevent the mobility allowance from being reduced in respect of any aids at present issued by the Department of Health, should economic circumstances deteriorate further. I believe that Parliament should retain the power to ensure that disabled people do not suffer further in difficult times. I very much hope that noble Lords will support me on what I believe to be a really important issue, and that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will be able to accept this Amendment, which simply puts down in black and white the avowed intentions of the Government. I beg to move.
Lord SANDYS: From these Benches we should like to support the noble Baroness in her intention. She laid special stress on this Amendment. I think she nearly moved it on Second Reading because she gave us then a great deal of detailed information relating to it and, further, she sent a letter to the noble Lord the Minister about this subject; and he was kind enough to send a copy of his reply to us. So we have already a fund of documentation and details about this technical argument. We entirely agree that this situation looks for a remedy. The noble Baroness has moved her Amendment in a most reasonable manner and has underlined particularly the situation over the vehicle excise licence. There is no exemption, and this in itself is an important point. Notwithstanding what has been mentioned already, we wish to support the noble Baroness in what she has said.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I support this Amendment. Subsection (5) of Clause 22 contains the power to deprive a person of a mobility allowance or to reduce it. Paragraphs
646
(a) and (b) of subsection (5) set out the conditions under which that may be done. The Amendment is to paragraph (b) which is of a sweeping character. Subsection (5) provides that
"Regulations may prescribe cases in which mobility allowance is not to be payable, or is to be payable at a reduced rate …".
Under paragraph (b) that will apply to
"… any prescribed description of appliance supplied under the enactments relating to the National Health Service."
It refers to "any prescribed description of an appliance."
This is a very sweeping power to put into the hands of the Secretary of State. He would have the power to do it by regulation. As the noble Baroness has pointed out, it could include literally any appliance that the Secretary of State felt moved to regard as providing some disqualification from receiving the mobility allowance or reducing the amount.
The Amendment seeks to qualify that power and I think it does so in a reasonable manner. It says,
"(; provided that the appliance is related to the provision of mobility and cannot be used indoors.)"
After all, mobility is related to outdoors. That is why there is a provision in paragraph (a) relating to an invalid carriage. It is not reasonable for the Secretary of State to take these powers by regulation against the possible contingency that technology may invent something different. If it does, then it can be taken account of when we see what it is and what it does.
I know that it can be argued that the Secretary of State would not behave in an irresponsible or absurd manner and would not therefore prescribe by regulation an appliance which disqualified a person from receiving the mobility allowance or reduced its amount if there was no real justification for doing so. Nevertheless, persons who are receiving the mobility allowance are entitled to feel a sense of security and not to be exposed to the modification or withdrawal of their allowance if the Secretary of State makes regulations which prescribe that any appliance shall be the basis for withdrawal or reduction of the allowance.
I hope that my noble friend will be able to accept this Amendment. We are not talking about money now; we are talking about safeguards. It seems to me that somebody has thought that there

647
may be a conceivable contingency in which some new appliance may be invented which the Secretary of State may feel comes under the regulations provided for here. If the Amendment is carried, at least it will qualify paragraph (b) at the top of page 14. It will stipulate that if whatever may be invented relates to mobility in the home and not to mobility outside the home, it shall not be a basis for disqualification or for the reduction of the mobility allowance. I need scarcely say that certain noble Lords have been listening to the persuasive arguments of the noble Baroness for the last couple of hours and that we are persuaded that this Amendment is a worthy one. Unless I am very much mistaken, she has gathered together in this Committee of your Lordships' House quite enough support to give it a run for its money.
Baroness PHILLIPS: I should also like to support the noble Baroness in her Amendment and at the same time to correct my noble friend. I do not think that she has been speaking for a couple of hours! Although I am not speaking for the Sex Discrimination Bill, it is usual in your Lordships' House for the female Members to speak very shortly and to make their points much more alertly than some of the male Members! I listened very carefully to the arguments which were advanced by the noble Baroness during Second Reading and was impressed by them. The arguments advanced by the Government are those which have been brought forward many times in this House. Your Lordships will recognise that it is all too easy to say that one can refer to what has been said in Parliament at the time of the passing of an Act. Equally, we know that the real crux of the matter is reference to the Act—not to a copy of Hansard about the discussions which took place during the passing of that Act.
This is a very important Bill. We have gone through it at least three times and we hope that this time it will become an Act before the end of the Session. May I suggest that this is merely a tidying-up process which will protect those who are in sore need of protection. It seems very strange that anybody would resist having an appliance given to him which was an improvement; one has the picture of an
648
appliance having to be removed forcibly because the individual who has received it does not want a technical improvement to be made to it. I cannot believe this to be true. I believe, with other noble Lords who have spoken, that we must make certain that both now and in the future all those who are in receipt of any kind of appliance which will be an improvement—I am thinking in particular of a typewriter which has made all the difference between being able to make a contribution to the community and being totally housebound and immobile—are protected. It is a very simple Amendment and I cannot believe that the noble Minister whom we all admire so much will have it in his heart to reject it.
The Earl of LONGFORD: I support very strongly the noble Baroness and others who have supported this Amendment. I do not intend to labour the points which have already been put so well. A word to the wise is enough and I feel sure that the noble Minister will be able to meet us.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: May I also support this very important Amendment. My experience over very many years has led me to believe that however good the records in Hansard or, indeed, letters may be, Parliament attaches most importance to the Act. It seems a most reasonable Amendment that the noble Baroness has moved. I liked particularly her reference to the fact that there should be an annual review of the mobility allowance. That would make Parliament responsible for doing what has to be done by a Parliamentary Act. I would much prefer to have it in a Parliamentary Act than in Hansard, or in letters, or in anything else.
I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness for having introduced this very good Amendment and for the manner in which she has moved it. It is indeed true that the Minister has sympathy, but he may have difficulty with the Treasury. We cannot get at the Treasury so it is up to the Minister, now that he has the responsibility, even if the Treasury are not very happy about it, just occasionally to overcome the Treasury. I have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
Lord BANKS: I should also like to support this Amendment and I hope I

649
shall please the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, by doing so very briefly. The arguments have already been well deployed. The words "any prescribed description of appliance" require qualification. Also, it seems to me that the Amendment we have before us does so in exactly the way we wish.
Baroness NORTHCHURCH: May I also congratulate the noble Baroness for introducing this Amendment and tell her that I am very much behind her in what she has said. I hope that all will go well.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: This is a bit of pernickety drafting. Everybody knows of the good will and the good heart of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, in this matter. But as one who does a great deal of work for one organisation for the handicapped, the drafting of the present Bill has given rise to very serious misgivings indeed. A future Government might add to the ambit of regulations the number of appliances that could reduce or annul the allowance. The noble Lord at this moment, and in his letters to the interested parties, has made plain that this Government do not desire so to do. I hope that he will be able to accept the Amendment in view of the widespread feeling expressed in the House.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: The noble Lord may take my speech as read!
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am not unmindful of the reactions of your Lordships to this Amendment. I am wondering whether I can go some way toward meeting the wishes of the noble Baroness.
A Noble Lord: Go all the way!
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: No, I cannot go all the way. Sometimes one must be thankful for small mercies. Perhaps I may satisfy the noble Baroness. There are certain difficulties. A number of noble Lords have criticised the wording of the Bill in relation to the Amendment. Let me say here and now that we are not ourselves entirely satisfied with the drafting. We have given a good deal of thought to the problem. I want to be perfectly frank to the House, as I always endeavour to be. We are anxious to have a reserve power so that we can use it if and when the occasion arises.
650
As I pointed out, there is no intention on the part of the Government to introduce charges for articles which are now supplied. But there is a good deal of investigation and research continuing in this field, and it is likely that a number of such articles will be very expensive. We shall need to examine whether these items can be made available without, in some way, affecting the mobility allowance. One piece of hardware which comes immediately to my mind in connection with the possible reduction of mobility allowance is the occupant-controlled powered outdoor wheel chair which at present costs a large sum of money. We are studying this matter carefully because we must be satisfied that if we are to issue such equipment it will not just be reasonably safe but entirely safe. It has to be able to negotiate kerbs and all kinds of obstacles. We shall have to ask ourselves, if this equipment is made available, whether or not the mobility allowance, wholly or in part, can also be made available. But this wheel chair is also a piece of hardware—I do not like the expression but it is the only one I can think of—that can be used indoors. I do not want to be unkind, but I think that the drafting of the Amendment of the noble Baroness is as defective as the Government's.
What I suggest is that, because we feel that her drafting is similarly defective, we should meet to discuss how best we may solve this situation. Then, at Report stage, the noble Baroness may consider tabling an Amendment in light of such a discussion, or the Government may table one, which will tighten the provision in the way that she requires and one which, obviously from what your Lordships have said this afternoon, will meet with general approval. So I ask the noble Baroness, in spite of what has been said, whether she would be willing not to press the Amendment but for us to meet instead to examine the whole matter fully and frankly because the Government are minded to do something along the lines which she has suggested.
Lord SANDYS: For the information of the Committee, could the noble Minister tell us what procedures will be applied to the regulations? This will lead us along a path which in this regard we can perhaps follow. Parliamentary control over regulations is particularly important, especially in a field where so many

651
are to be drafted. I believe that the Committee will be much assured if the noble Minister will so explain.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Offhand I cannot oblige. Perhaps later in the Committee stage I might be able so to do.
Baroness DARCY de KNAYTH: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. One sentence of his frightened me—that about reserve power, if and when the occasion arises. I am interested in his offer to meet and discuss the position. I am, however, sorry that he feels my Amendment to be defective. I am aware that some out-of-door controlled wheelchairs can be conceivably used indoors. I think the effective ones which present a genuine alternative to outdoor mobility can be used indoors only with difficulty. Conceivably it might be used in your Lordships' House, but in a council flat such use would create havoc. Would the noble Lord consider that we might agree to an Amendment possibly running along the lines of the wording of "primarily for use out of doors", or some similar wording? Will the noble Lord indicate what he is considering.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: If I may be honest, I do not wish to commit myself any further on this issue. If the noble Baroness would ask me privately I believe that we may well agree. But, if we are to consider this matter, it would be much better to get together and examine it in every detail. I do not believe that so far as this Amendment is concerned the noble Baroness will find the Government unsympathetic.
Baroness DARCY de KNAYTH: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, again. In view of what he says I feel reassured. If we can meet to discuss this point perhaps we shall make some headway. Also I thank noble Lords for their tremendous support, which has been of great value. In thanking the noble Lord once more, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.18 p.m.
The Countess of LOUDOUN The Countess of LOUDOUN moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 14, line 29, at end insert—
"( ) Regulations may provide for the sum payable as a mobility allowance to be reviewed
652
annually to ensure that its value to all recipients reflects any increases in both the cost of motoring and the cost of public transport and takes due account of the cost element of labour associated with both private motoring and public transport."
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move the Amendments standing in the names of my friend Lady Darcy de Knayth and the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, and at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 44, which I understand is consequential. I suspect that this Amendment may fall foul of the tight money No. 2 Resolution, but its purpose is just what it says, to enable the,
"mobility allowance to be reviewed annually to ensure that its value to all recipients reflects any increases in both the cost of motoring and the cost of public transport and takes due account of the cost element of labour associated with both private motoring and public transport".
The cost of private motoring for a disabled driver or passenger has risen by 30 to 33 per cent. since September 1974 when the mobility allowance was first announced at £4 a week. It has since increased to £5 a week. Anxiety has been expressed about the need to enable the allowance in some way or other to rise in line with wages and prices. I beg to move.
Baroness DARCY de KNAYTH: My noble friend has referred to the speed at which motor costs are rising, and it is essential that the amounts of the allowance should be reviewed annually. The proposed amount of the mobility allowance will not, as I have said, in some cases even cover the cost of the tax element in private motoring now, and for some the introduction of the mobility allowance will straight away mean less help. In this case I am thinking of newly-disabled mothers in sole charge of a child for a substantial part of the day who will no longer be entitled to a small car. We must try to ensure that the amount of help provided by the allowance will not be further whittled down. If the mobility of many disabled drivers and passengers is not to be severely curtailed, it is vital to have an annual review of this allowance to ensure that its value keeps in step with the rising costs of motoring. I support my noble friend in this Amendment.
Lord SANDYS: I should like to support this Amendment, and I think to cast

653
the ambit of it a little wider at this stage might be helpful. As a whole we are very much in favour of the scheme as proposed in Clause 22 whereby the former discretionary allowance is replaced by a statutory scheme; it removes an injustice between those who can drive and are disabled and those who are often even more seriously disabled but who cannot drive. At present the more seriously disabled may receive nothing at all—not even the cash allowance. What the noble Baroness has just said and what the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, has referred to, concerns the imperative need to re-examine the situation every year. We are all too well aware that the cost of motoring is rising sharply. In her earlier remarks on Second Reading the noble Baroness referred to the fact, which I think is recognised by every noble Lord in the House, that although motoring may be regarded in Treasury circles as a luxury, to the disabled it is a necessity. If it is a necessity then surely the case for anual review is infinitely stronger.
I should like to refer to some remarks made by the Prime Minister in a speech at Oxford on 19th February 1974, when he referred to a display (as he conceived it) of meanness by the Conservative Government, as it then was, in their attitude towards disabled drivers. If there were—and we certainly contest it—any display of meanness towards disabled drivers at that time, certainly there would be a display today by the present Government in very much more difficult circumstances for the disabled drivers. I think the case for an annual review is self-explanatory. I do not wish to make a very long speech; I merely say this is a matter on which we feel strongly.
Lady KINLOSS: I should like to support this Amendment. The cost of maintaining and running a private car varies with the cost of whatever form of power is used. Some disabled drivers are unable to use any form of public transport other than taxi-cabs since, for one reason or another, they do not possess their own transport. I support the annual review of the mobility allowance.
Baroness PHILLIPS: I support this Amendment, for the reasons which have already been advanced. This is a very important piece of legislation and it will
654
be a little while before it finally becomes law. In that event, those of us who remember working for the annual review of pensions will recall that Governments resisted this until, only very recently, it was finally effected. I can only say that if there is a necessity to review wages, salaries and prices for the fit and healthy, there is certainly a vital need to review annually—and, sadly, it may be necessary to do it more frequently—the needs of this particular group in the community. Once it becomes law this Bill will not be amended for a little while, so this is the moment to do it, and I strongly support this Amendment.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I will take only one minute of the Committee's time because most of the speeches have been self-explanatory, but as somebody who worked for a while as a Minister in the Ministry of Social Security, I can say that the fight for dynamising pensions and dynamising allowances like this has been going on for a long time. In our studies we found that in all the civilised and progressive parts of the world most allowances and pensions were now dynamised. I do not want to embarrass the Government at all—I know our difficulties—but I think this should be looked at seriously because it has a good purpose and should indeed increase the wealth of the country, because some of these people could thereby carry on constructive work for the nation.
Lord BANKS: May I briefly support the Amendment. I like the idea of linking the review to the cost of the service which the allowance is supposed to provide—not just to a general increase in the cost of living, but linked specifically to mobility—the cost of transport and of getting around.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I want to clear up one or two misconceptions with regard to the mobility allowance. I was interested to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, feels strongly in support of this. I hesitate to do so but I think I must say that it was this Government which introduced the whole concept of mobility allowance. Nobody seemed to feel strongly about it before then. I think that must be borne in mind, and let me add that we introduced it at a time of very grave financial restraint. It will give people who are entitled to it

655
something like £260 a year. There are 100,000 of them, so the sum will amount to about £26 million a year. I think it has been estimated that only one-third of the 100,000 are car owners, and therefore would be using it in connection with the cost of the running expenses of their own car. I say this so often that I hesitate to say it again; this was never intended to be an allowance to assist people to buy a car, or for that matter to maintain their own car, and the vehicle excise duty really does not come into the matter in the strict sense. It was really designed to help the vast majority of disabled people who did not own a car or could not drive a car but who could find somebody who would allow them to go out in their car, to set off against the expenses.
The Amendment would enable regulations to provide for an annual review of the level of mobility allowance to reflect increases in the cost of motoring and of public transport and to take into account the cost of labour associated with those costs. We see the purpose and perhaps the need to do this. There is a case for putting mobility allowance in the same category as maintenance benefits and the attendance allowance and guaranteeing that it is increased at least annually in line with earnings. Mobility costs will rise if costs in general rise, and mobility expectations may to some extent rise if earnings increases outpace price increases; indeed, it can be argued that where mobility is related to ability to maintain oneself, because some severely disabled people will use the allowance to help meet their travel to work costs, any distinction between maintenance and mobility is a little artificial.
But the case for uprating is not more strong than the case for widening the scope of the allowance, which is also being strongly urged on the Government. We are not in a situation where we can do all the things for which there is a good, or even a strong case; of that I have to remind your Lordships from time to time. Noble Lords here could readily list half a dozen, if not more, projects near to their hearts that they would like to see implemented. We know this. Unfortunately, we have to be realistic and responsible, to look at the total situation
656
and not just at the individual merits. As I said earlier, we have been able to introduce mobility allowance at a time of very serious financial restraint. We shall be phasing this introduction over a three-year period, which will spread the cost as well as spreading the administrative load.
Having said all that, may I say that we shall look at the need for uprating and, in doing so, shall take into account all the relevant factors. I do not think we would be allowed—and I am not sure that we should wish—to let long periods pass without any change in the level of allowances if costs of mobility continue to rise steeply. I ask noble Lords to accept that the price to be paid for getting anything at all in the present situation is acceptance of changes which are less than perfect, and which often do not really meet the need.
Moreover, it does not seem to me to be entirely consistent to make strong exhortations for massive cuts in public expenditure and to insist on further improvements immediately in each and every desirable social change that is capable of improvement. I can only ask your Lordships and the noble Baroness to accept my assurances on behalf of the Government that this is an allowance about which, as with a good many allowances in addition to pensions, we are concerned with what the real value is in terms of purchasing power. It is our intention to look at this. I cannot give an undertaking that we would uprate this annually; it would not be right for me to do so. We accept that this is an important allowance; that is why we have introduced it. But it is not on quite the same level or in the same category as pensions.
Having said that, I can only repeat what I have just said. This is an allowance which clearly is of no value at all if inflation increases and the amount stands still. The most I can say now is that the Government are aware of this. We will look at the allowance from time to time, but I do not think I can give an undertaking to your Lordships that, even if we review it annually, we shall be able to do what this Amendment has in mind.
The Countess of LOUDOUN: I thank the Minister for his answer, in view of

657
which I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 22 and 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Power to modify provisions about graduated retirement benefit]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 16, line 10, leave out ("Schedule 26 to the Social Security Act 1973 or").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical Amendment. Schedule 26 was repealed and replaced on consolidation of the social security legislation which took effect after publication of this Bill. There are now no regulations under that Schedule which continue in force Sections 36 and 37 of the National Insurance Act 1965. Accordingly, the reference to Schedule 26 is superfluous, and the Amendment therefore deletes it. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.36 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE Lord ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 16, line 27, at end insert—
" (d) for applying provisions similar to those of sections 124 to 126 of the principal Act to the amount of any Equivalent Pension Benefit which has arisen on the termination of Contracted Out Employment as defined in the National Insurance Act 1965."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 8. Clause 24 concerns graduated retirement benefit, familiarly known as the Boyd-Carpenter Scheme. The clause, which is somewhat complicated in its drafting, allows regulations to be made which would allow graduated retirement benefit to be increased in line with the movement of prices, for increments to graduated retirement benefit to be calculated in the same way as for increments for the additional component of pension. The clause also allows for widowers, like widows at present, to become entitled to half the graduated retirement benefit earned by their late spouse. Therefore, in effect, it is an inflation-proofing of the graduated retirement benefit and is wholly beneficial, so we would welcome and support it.
However, we are worried that in doing justice to the State pensioner, it does injustice to those employers who con-
658
tracted out of the original Boyd-Carpenter Scheme. This they were perfectly entitled to do—indeed, they were encouraged to do it. They took their decision at the time, on the facts as they were presented at the time, when there was no question of inflation-proofing. They entered into a contract with the Government on the basis of certain facts and figures. What has happened now with Clause 24 is that the Government have unilaterally broken that contract by undertaking to pay increased pensions to pensioners who remained contracted in; and those companies which contracted out are faced with a situation in which they are unable to provide the same benefits for their employees who were contracted out as will now be available to other employees who remained in the State scheme. The pensioners who have contracted out of occupational pensions schemes will suffer from the very fact that they were contracted out. This seems to me quite wrong and most inequitable.
The contract was struck at a time when everyone knew where they stood. Those pensioners who remained contracted in were looked after by the Government, and those pensioners who contracted out were looked after in exactly the same way by the employers. Now the Government have changed the basis of the scheme. because they have agreed to provide some inflation proofing for the pensioners for whom they are responsible, but have left the others high and dry, and there is nothing to be done to help them. This seems to me to be extremely unfair.
The point of the Amendment is to provide that regulations may be made so that the Government can put this matter right, and can provide for those pensioners who were contracted out the same benefits as those who remained contracted in. However, as I understand it, there is an alternative open to the employer. I understand the employer can buy his pensioners back into the State scheme, thereby ensuring that all his employees get the benefits promised by this clause. But I should have thought it would be much more preferable if the Government were to treat all graduated pension schemes alike and increase all their pensions, whether or not they were contracted out. I beg to move.
Lord BANKS: Clause 24 undoubtedly alters the balance of advantage, as the

659
noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, on which the judgment had to be made when the Boyd-Carpenter Scheme was introduced in 1951. I speak as one who took part in a number of consultations at that time about the pros and cons of contracting in or contracting out. It is true that most of those who have been contracted out are probably better off than those who were contracted in, because the schemes of which they are members provide higher benefits than the minimum required. The right honourable lady Mrs. Castle has said that three quarters of a million people—and that is quite a sizeable number—are in schemes which give purely equivalent pension benefits; that is to say, they are minimum schemes at the minimum level necessary in order to be able to contract out.
It may be argued that these people are better off because the equivalent pension benefits which had to be guaranteed were based on the assumption that they were on the higher earning rate, even if they were not, in fact, so. Clearly those who were on the maximum earning rates are not better off. So far as the others are concerned, we would need to work out how long it would take for the inflation-proofing of the contracted-in benefit to bring the benefit up to the level of the contracted-out benefit. Undoubtedly, an advantage has been given to a number of people contracted-in; this is a retrospective advantage which upsets the balance which was agreed upon the basis of decisions taken in 1961.
I am not sure this Amendment is necessarily the best way to deal with the matter. It might be better to inflation-proof only the graduated benefits derived from the graduated contributions which both contracted-in and contracted-out have had to pay, and coupled with that raising the basic pension so that it represents a higher percentage of national average earnings. My complaint against the Bill is that it is unlikely that the second part of that proposal will be adopted, because if it is adopted it increases the earnings-related component—the seven times principle comes in—and therefore destroys the current balance. It is not merely a question of increasing the earnings-related component in relation to cost of living or earnings, but increasing it as a percentage of average earnings;
660
that would mean eating into the occupational pensions field and upsetting the balance which is at present agreed. So, working within the framework of the Bill, the best thing is perhaps to support the Amendment.
Then the question arises as to whether the equivalent pension benefits should be inflation-proofed or whether it should merely be the amount which the individual would have had guaranteed if he had contracted-in, which for most is a lower amount. But since the Government originally said that these things are to be equated—that is to say, on the one hand contributions under the graduated scheme and, on the other hand, contracted-out schemes providing benefits as if on the highest rate in the graduated scheme—perhaps they should continue to equate them and it should be the equivalent pension benefits which are inflation-proofed.
6.43 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: This Amendment follows from the argument that, if the value of graduated pensions is to be maintained, then in equity the equivalent pension benefits (EPBs) provided by contracted-out schemes should benefit similarly, and that the Government should meet the cost. But the question of equity between those who were completely in the State scheme and those who were not, and of the terms of the original contracting-out arrangements are not clearcut. I think the noble Lord, Lord Banks, touched on this. There are a number of strong arguments, in our view, against uprating and revaluing EPBs. First, as to equity, the fact is that EPBs were set at a maximum level for all those who contracted-out irrespective of what their earnings were; whereas graduated pension in the State scheme varies according to earnings. And, for the most part, people contracted-out were in schemes which provided pensions much above the EPB level. So, on the whole, those contracted-out got a fair bargain.
To touch on something which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, raised, I think it is putting it a little strongly to say that the Government are unilaterally breaking a contract. What they are doing is breaking a contract to benefit a certain section of people. The people who are contracted out are not losing something, they just are not gaining something. I think the

661
noble Lord would accept there is a real distinction. Of course, there is nothing to stop companies which provided contracted-out schemes from also breaking the contract and inflation-proofing their own schemes, though, of course, I would not expect that they would do so unless the pensions were already inflation-proofed, and that is something I will come to.
Secondly, it is accepted that it would be difficult to put the cost on employers; they did not undertake to uprate or revalue the EPBs. Some pensions have been bought out as annuities; some employers are no longer in business, so the cost would have to be borne by the State, but the money could, in our view, be put to better use. Thirdly, in many cases uprating or revaluing has already been provided by the contracted-out scheme. In the case of final salary schemes, pre-award uprating of EPBs is provided, because the EPB slice of earnings is regarded as part of the final salary on which the scheme pension is based. And those schemes that pay cost of living or other increases after the pension is put into payment do so in respect of the EPB slice of pension and thus revalue the EPB as much as the rest of the pension. So uprating or revaluing of EPBs by the State would in many cases mean duplicating an existing benefit, or presumably a cutback in scheme benefits.
Fourthly, the operation would be administratively difficult to perform. To revalue EPBs on the same basis as for graduated pension it would be necessary to determine not the amount of the EPB but the amount that would have been payable if there had been no contracting-out. The Department's computer records do not contain details of a contracted-out person's earnings, and it would be necessary to examine 9 million records manually in order to obtain those details. The administrative costs would be high in relation to the cost of increasing the pensions.
Fifthly, apart from administrative costs, the amount of money needed to provide price protection for EPBs would be significant. In arriving at an estimate of the cost it has been necessary, of course, in the absence of individual records, to look at the average earnings of the contracted-out. On this basis we estimate that the cost of this Amendment would
662
rise to about £22 million annually by the end of the century. Finally, I should point out that people who were contracted-out under the Boyd-Carpenter arrangements nevertheless were liable, from 1966 onwards, to pay some graduated contributions, and the graduated benefit arising from those contributions can amount at maximum earnings to £1·20 a week for men and £1 for women. These pension rights which are greater than the maximum level of EPB will be price-protected under the provisions of Clause 24, which, therefore, already confers a considerable amount of benefit on the group of people about whom noble Lords opposite, in tabling this Amendment, are showing themselves to be concerned. In view of what I have said, I hope the noble Lord will feel that this is not a good reason for further increasing public expenditure, and see fit to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord ABERDARE: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for having given a very full answer and put his point of view in great detail. As it is a complicated matter, I should like to have the chance to study more carefully what he said in Hansard. He was a little sensitive about what I said about the Government breaking a contract, but I still think there is a rather unpleasant taste about the matter. It is nothing to do with breaking a contract with the pensioner, so much as breaking the contract that was made with the employer who contracted-out. It was put to the employer who contracted-out that this was the scheme and if he wanted to contract-out on that basis he could do so. Having done so, many years later he now discovers that the terms that were offered at the time, from which he decided to contract-out have been unilaterally changed, and the Government are taking steps to inflation-proof those people who remain contracted-in. I think the noble Lord will agree this is not a very happy situation; long after an offer has been made on certain terms one party changes the terms. I think it is unfortunate. However, as I say, I should like to have a further look at what the noble Lord has said, and, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 25 to 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Review and alteration of contracted-out rates of Class I contributions.]
6.50 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 18, line 44, leave out ("fourth") and insert ("third").
The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, perhaps I may be allowed to take Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11 together. These Amendments fulfil the undertaking made at Report stage in another place that an Amendment would be made to ensure at least twelve months' notice of any changes in the contribution reduction. In practice, we envisage that on average there will be about 18 months' notice. The first report will now be made as soon as maybe after the third anniversary instead of after the fourth anniversary, to allow for the longer period of notice. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I beg to move Amendment No. 10.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 7, leave out from ("alteration") to end of line 8.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I beg to move Amendment No. 11.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 10, at end insert:
(" ( ) An order under subsection (4) above shall have effect from the beginning of such tax year as may be specified in the order, but not a tax year earlier than the second after that in which the order is made.")—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: On this Amendment I should like to ask a question regarding the semantics, the verbiage. I have been looking at it a long time, parsing and analysing it. It reads very difficult, but does it mean in simple English that an order shall not have effect until the second year in which the order is made, thus giving that lacuna, or space, in between where an offer was made in another place that at least a year would pass before something came into effect? Have I the exact meaning? If I have, that is how it should be done.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I think that my noble friend's interpretation is perfectly correct.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 29 to 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Contracted-out schemes]:
6.53 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE Lord ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 22, line 41, leave out from ("schemes") to end of line 46.
The noble Lord said: This is a probing Amendment to try to find out exactly what is in the Government's mind. Clause 32(2)(b) provides, among other things, that a pension scheme can be contracted out only if
"the rules of the scheme applying to the requisite benefits are framed so as to comply with the requirements of any regulations prescribing the form and content of rules of contracted-out schemes"—
we have no quarrel with that; but it goes on—
"and with such other requirements as to form and content (not inconsistent with regulations) as may be imposed by the Occupational Pensions Board as a condition of contracting-out, either generally or in relation to a particular scheme."
Those are the words that we seek by the Amendment to leave out.
We quite understand that the Secretary of State should prescribe in regulations what are the requirements as to the form and content of rules for contracting-out, and equally we think it could be desirable for any such regulations to give the Occupational Pensions Board a discretionary power to relax those requirements in suitable cases; but we do not quite understand why the reverse of that is put in this subsection—that the Board should be able to impose additional requirements without any form of Parliamentary control, and the only condition being that they have not to be inconsistent with the regulations. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: With the permission of your Lordships, as I am replying in the main to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, I wonder whether I might be allowed to use this opportunity to tell him of the result of my promise to him at the last Committee stage to see that my right honourable friend the

665
Secretary of State was aware of his comments and observations with regard to the married woman's option. I have done as I promised, and made the noble Lord's view perfectly clear. The only thing I can say at this stage is, that now all the organisations have sent in their final views— and they have been to hand only a comparatively short time, as I think I mentioned to the noble Lord—it is the intention of my right honourable friend to make a decision and to make it known without further delay. If the noble Lord asks me what I mean by "without further delay" I am hopeful that the announcement will be made fairly soon.
In reply to the noble Lord in respect of his Amendment, as I understand the situation the effect of this Amendment would be to remove the Occupational Pensions Board's power to lay down requirements as to the form and content of the rules of contracted-out schemes additional to (but not inconsistent with) the requirements which will be laid down in regulations in relation to requisite benefits.
I imagine that this is probably a probing Amendment to discuss the Occupational Pensions Board. The Occupational Pensions Board will examine scheme rules when an employer makes an election to contract out. If the Occupational Pensions Board have any doubts whether the rules will ensure that a member require that the rules must be changed tial that they should have the power to require that he rules must be changed before a contracting-out certificate is issued. The form of scheme rules varies and it would be impractical to seek to lay down every detail of the requirements in the Bill or regulations. Without this kind of flexibility the work of issuing contracting-out certificates could prove very difficult and delays would inevitably occur, as I am sure the noble Lord would agree. This outcome would not be in the interests of employers or scheme members.
There was an exactly parallel provision—if the noble Lord does not mind my reminding him—in the 1973 Act, with almost identical wording (Section 51(4)(d) Social Security Act 1973). The Occupational Pensions Board used the power on that occasion to require a minimum bene-
666
fit rule. While in the Government's Scheme the minimum benefit (guaranteed minimum pension) is written into the Bill, nevertheless they would wish to give the Board the same powers as the previous Government did to protect the interests of those contracted out and the same flexibility in dealing with applications by employers to contract-out.
Lord ABERDARE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said about the point on the married women's option regulations for the interim period. I accept that he can only say that these decisions will be made as swiftly as possible. I repeat that I very much hope that this may be possible before the Bill leaves this House. I have listened with great interest to what he has said, and of course if this was in the 1973 Act that is good enough for me. I would also welcome anything that gives flexibility. I did not really appreciate that this was to help the Occupational Pensions Board in dealing with schemes where changes were required for the benefit of the scheme. I looked on this as being a further general requirement similar to those laid down in the regulations. However, from what the noble Lord has said, this is helpful and is something that gives greater flexibility. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Requisite benefit for earner]:
7.2 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE Lord ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 23, line 39, leave out first ("on") and insert ("within one month of").
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which is designed to assist schemes in paying pension for the first time. Subsection (2) states that the scheme must provide for the pension to commence on the date on which the earner attains pensionable age. However, many schemes have rules which state that, although the normal pension date is defined as, say, the 65th birthday, pensions are payable on a fixed day of the month. Normally it is the first of the month, with the first full payment due on the fixed date immediately following retirement. They would have difficulty

667
in meeting the requirement for the pension to be paid from the actual pensionable date. I know that there would be ways and means by which this could be overcome, but it would cause a lot of extra difficulty administratively and would be an additional burden on contracted-out schemes. Not only would it oblige them to alter their rules, but it could also interfere with the established practices which are on the computer for the paying of pensions.
I hardly think that it is right to impose a considerable administrative burden on existing contracted-out pension schemes just to make sure that the date used is the day on which the person qualifies for his pension rather than the first of the month or whatever the scheme may provide following that date. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: As we understand the Amendment, it would have the effect of delaying the commencing date of entitlement to guaranteed minimum pension by up to one month from the date of pensionable age. The Amendment also covers pension in excess of guaranteed minimum pension, but Clause 33(4) already provides for entitlement to this excess to be delayed for up to three months. Representations on this point have been made to the Department by one of the organisations representing occupational pensions interests. They have probably made their views known.
In general, occupational pension schemes pay their pensions once a month and the first payment is usually made on the first of the month following retirement. The pension is paid in monthly instalments and pension is not recovered for any odd days or weeks outstanding when a pensioner dies. On average, therefore, taking pensioners as a whole, this is generally fair. The provisions of the Bill would enable schemes to continue their present system of paying pensions, but they would have to pay arrears of guaranteed minimum pension from State pensionable age. The reason why arrears of guaranteed minimum pension would be payable is that the State scheme pays pensions weekly from the first pension pay day following retirement. The provision in Clause 33(2) is designed to bring payment of the guaranteed minimum pension into line with the payment
668
of the State pension because it is being provided instead of the additional component. If this were not done, a pensioner could be worse-off by being contracted-out.
The pensions interests have said that to conform with the provisions in the Bill would cause administrative complications and the Government quite understand that they should want to avoid this. But the Government have to balance that consideration against the interests of the pensioners concerned. As I said during the Second Reading debate, one of the two main principles upon which the contracting-out provisions are based is that the position of the individual pensioners should be safeguarded by providing that they shall be no worse-off on account of contracting-out. To accent the Opposition Amendment would mean that some pensioners would be worse-off since they would have to wait longer before the first payment of guaranteed minimum pension became due than they would have to wait for the first payment of additional component to be due from the State scheme.
I cannot think that that is really what the noble Lord has in mind nor that he would wish this to happen. The Government have carefully considered the position and have come to the conclusion that their overriding aim must be to safeguard the interests of individual pensioners. Accordingly, I would ask the noble Lord, in view of what I have said, whether he would not feel it right in the circumstances to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord ABERDARE: I have listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. I appreciate that there is this difference. The point I was after was indeed the administrative point and the fact of schemes having to change their rules and alter their computer programmes. This was what was worrying me and I should like to look carefully at what the noble Lord has said.
Lord BYERS: May I just put this point to the Government? I am quite sure that there is no intention that the pensioner should be worse-off in the long run, but I have heard from a number of those running pension schemes of the extra administrative burden which this will put on them. Many of them pay on the first of the month, others pay on the 15th and so on. What worries me is that every

669
additional burden which is placed on pensions schemes tips the balance between contracting-in and contracting-out. I should have thought that there must be some way in which, while the Bill is going through this House, we could get together to see whether something could be done. I do not want people to be deterred from contracting out of the State scheme.
Lord ABERDARE: I am very grateful for what the noble Lord has said. It was my feeling that this was a small and not very important point. It was merely to try to make it easier administratively for schemes to continue to operate. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord may be kind enough to consider this point to see whether there is a way to obtain justice for the pensioner—we certainly do not want the pensioner to be worse-off—while, at the same time, avoiding the additional administrative burden of having to make considerable alterations in the arrangement of schemes.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: We should like to look at this matter from the point of view of seeing whether the difficulty is so insurmountable, and certainly we should welcome any comment which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, may feel able to make. Perhaps when we have looked at it, if some useful purpose is served—I say this not unkindly, but kindly—by seeing the noble Lord, perhaps I may be permitted to do so.
Lord ABERDARE: I am very grateful for what the noble Lord said. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Earner's guaranteed minimum]:
7.10 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE Lord ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 27, leave out lines 19 to 22 and insert—
(" (a) 8 per cent, per annum compound for the period from the termination of service to the attainment of normal pension age; or
(b) the amount by which an earnings factor for those years equal to that weekly equivalent would be increased ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 15 and perhaps it would
670
be convenient for the Committee to consider at the same time the Amendment to leave out Clause 44, which is shown on the Marshalled List after Amendment No. 30, as these two matters go together. They deal with the case of the early leaver, the person who leaves an occupational pension scheme before reaching the normal retirement age and whose pension, under the Bill, has to be preserved and revalued in line with earnings. The White Paper Better Pensions put no limit on this commitment to revalue and occupational pension schemes were left with an open-ended commitment. It is in the very nature of an occupational pension scheme that an open-ended commitment is a nonsense. No actuary can possibly work on such terms.
The Bill has certainly improved the situation. Clause 35 provides that the employer may limit his liability to revalue the pension to 5 per cent. per annum compound as a maximum, but, in addition, under Clause 44, he has to pay a premium to the State to cover the cost to the State scheme of revaluing the balance in line with earnings. Here again there enters uncertainty and an open-ended commitment. The employer cannot be sure what this premium will be, as its terms can be altered periodically in the future, and if they are altered will apply to benefits that have already been earned under an existing scheme. In other words, there is an element of retrospection that would make it impossible for a scheme to be sure of its future commitments. Indeed, it would even make it difficult for the Occupational Pensions Board to give its certificate, as provided under Clause 40, that it is satisfied that the resources of the scheme are sufficient for meeting the various claims that may fall upon it when there is this unknown part of the contract: the need to provide a premium to the State in the case of an early leaver.
Any proposal that provides for such a premium involves payments from occupational schemes to the State scheme, and I should think that is the reverse of what we should be seeking to do. We should be anxious to keep the maximum amount of money in occupational schemes where it is available for productive investment, and not be returning it to the State. I certainly find it psychologically wrong to ask an employer to

671
make a payment of this premium to the State every time someone leaves his service. This costs extra for him, and if it occurs at a time of economic recession, when people are leaving his service, when possibly he is least able to raise the money to make such payments, it could be damaging.
It could also lead to a certain amount of resentment on the part of other people employed by the same firm when they see sums of money being paid over to the State in respect of people who were leaving their employer's service before retirement age. The Amendment suggests what we regard as a preferable way of treating the problem of the early leaver. It is more equitable to limit the occupational scheme's revaluation commitment to 8 per cent. and to forget about the premium; to raise the commitment from 5 per cent. to 8 per cent. and abolish the premium. The final pension paid to the pensioner will of course remain the same; there is no question of his pension being affected. But the occupational scheme would know where it was. It would be committed to paying a revalued pension at 8 per cent., or less, of average earnings, if average earnings had increased less over the period from leaving to retirement; and any excess over 8 per cent. would be borne by the State.
As was evident at the time of Second Reading, there is a very great importance in encouraging the contracting out of occupational schemes if the Government are to achieve the partnership they are seeking. At present it is not very easy to detect much enthusiasm from either employers or their advisers, and the best that we can hope for is that those advisers will be able to discuss contracting out as a realistic option and will not be eventually induced to recommend an employer against it.
In these circumstances, it is most important that the real dangers, such as an open-ended commitment, should be avoided. I realise that this matter has already been considered in another place, but I hope that the Government will still give very careful consideration to this alternative method of dealing with the problem of the early leaver. It is so important at the moment; the climate is so bad; it is so difficult honestly to recommend contracting out when you see your
672
pension schemes in their present state. Anything that savours of a premium that cannot be properly assessed at the moment must be an added disadvantage, whereas if an overall limit of 8 per cent. is imposed, without a premium, that would be a fair way of meeting the situation, and it would be much more encouraging to occupational schemes. I beg to move.
Lord BYERS: I do not want to repeat what I said in some detail on Second Reading, but I wish to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said. The Government have improved the situation since the White Paper, but as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, one of the tasks to which we ought to address ourselves in this House is to attempt to remove the uncertainties which face the employer when having to make his decision to contract out; or which face the consultant who has to give the advice. I put forward privately, I think in January, that we should abolish the premium and go for something fixed and quantifiable, which the employer would know was there. He would not therefore have this open-ended liability. I come back to the point I made on the last Amendment: the more we can remove the uncertainties from the Bill, the better chance we have of a successful co-operation and partnership between the good occupational scheme and the State scheme, which is what most of us want. I do not want to be too repetitious but I would plead with the Government, wherever there is uncertainty, to try to make it quantifiable and reduce the doubt.
7.20 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, would be the first of your Lordships to say that the Government have made a sincere and sustained effort to try to meet any objections—and I use that phrase in the widest possible sense—so that we can have a first-class scheme. I wish that I could say something helpful on this matter to the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Byers, but I cannot do so. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, knows that the Minister has had discussions with the major pensions interests and has made an effort to see whether this situation can be met along the lines indicated. The Government have considered all the views put forward and decided on the 5 per cent.

673
revaluation plus the premium to cover the excess, and they feel that there is an overwhelming case for doing this. They have come to that conclusion in the light of the discussions that they have had with the specialists in the field.
The figure of 5 per cent. was chosen so that schemes retained a reasonable amount of the revaluation and because 5 per cent. was considered to be as high a rate as was reasonable in the long term. There could be no short-term changes in the rate since this would complicate the administration, both for the schemes and the Government, very significantly because there would be guaranteed minimum pensions revalued at different levels. It was then necessary to decide how schemes should pay for the excess revaluation over 5 per cent. To take account of this factor in the contribution reduction would mean spreading the payment over all contracted-out employees and their employers. This would mean that those firms with a low turnover would in effect be paying or helping to pay, for the revaluation of preserved pensions of those firms with a high turnover. Against this background, the Government decided that a premium was the fairest way of paying for all the revaluation over 5 per cent. If, as some suggested, the State were responsible for the full revaluation the premium would be much higher.
If this Amendment were accepted, a cost would fall on the State scheme in all cases where the increase in earnings over a period up to retirement exceeded 8 per cent. Would that be right? Under the Amendment, schemes would be able to pay whichever was the less, 8 per cent. over that period or the actual rate of interest in national average earnings. Even if the average increase for all those with preserved guaranteed minimum pensions was 8 per cent., schemes would not pay the average figure. Where for a particular earner the figure was less than 8 per cent., the scheme would take advantage of the lower figure, but for other earners for whom the figure was higher than 8 per cent., the extra cost would fall on the State scheme. If there is no premium from the scheme to cover this extra cost, either it becomes a cost which falls on all contributors to the State scheme, whether or not contracted out, or there would have to be a smaller con-
674
tribution reduction for those who were contracted out.
This brings us back to the disparity in turnover between contracted-out schemes. Those with a smaller turnover would be paying for those with a larger one. I want to say very sincerely that we have given this matter careful consideration and have come to the conclusion that 5 per cent. revaluation plus a premium seems to the Government to be the right conclusion, and what is perhaps much more important, the fairest all round. There are sound reasons for it and the Government do not feel that they can be persuaded that it would be right to change it. In the circumstances, I cannot take it any further and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, will feel, however unsatisfactory the reply may be, that this is a matter to which the Government have given careful attention and cannot meet.
Lord ABERDARE: I am interested to hear what the noble Lord has said. This is very serious because there is a very great loss of confidence among those who advise employers on contracting-out. The current economic situation is such that they have lost a good deal of confidence and their difficulties are very grave when, as the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has rightly pointed out, there is some such provision for what is an open ended commitment and the exact amount of this premium cannot be foreseen. Actuaries who are responsible for working out the finances of a scheme are in a hopeless position when they cannot tell the employer exactly how much he is liable to find by way of premium in the case of an early leaver.
These small points are of enormous importance to the pension advisers and to the pension schemes. They will make all the difference as to whether or not people contract-out. Although I must confess that I am not a great expert, the people whom I have seen feel that the situation is very gloomy. I know that the noble Lord, like those of us on this side of the House, is anxious to find a means of forming a partnership between the State and the occupational schemes. Unless the Government are willing to give way a little more on these points where there is an open ended commitment I fear that their hopes for a partnership of any size may well be disappointed.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I think the noble Lord puts it too high when he says there is loss of confidence. This is not our information. There are people in your Lordships' Committee who know that there have been full, frank and deep discussions, and I think they would be tempted to say that the Minister concerned has tried, so far as possible, to meet many of those requests and that there is a good deal of common ground between them. I do not think the situation is acute and, as the noble Lord puts it, there is a loss of confidence. I accept that there is a great deal of disappointment, and if at this late stage something could be done about it no one would be happier than the Government.
Lord ABERDARE: I readily agree that the Minister has done all he can to try to meet these points, but I am afraid that the economic situation has deteriorated progressively while these talks have been going on and those who advise employers on their schemes are gloomy. That is a fact. However, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Requisite benefit for widow]:
7.30 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 27, line 41, leave out from ("contain") to the end of line 5 on page 28 and insert ("rules whereby the annual rate of the pension will be not less than the requisite minimum under subsection (1A) below.
(1A) The requisite minimum is one half of—
(a) the annual rate of the pension to which the earner was immediately or prospectively entitled at the date of his death; or
(b) if less, the annual rate of the pension to which he would have been so entitled, counting towards that pension only his years of service in contracted-out employment by reference to the scheme.
(1B) To comply with subsection (1) above the scheme must also contain a rule to the effect that if the earner had a guaranteed minimum under section 35 above the weekly rate of the widow's pension will be not less than her guaranteed minimum, which shall be half that of the earner.
(1C) Where it is a condition of the scheme that the earner shall complete a specified minimum period of service before qualifying for
676
requisite benefits in excess of guaranteed minimum pensions the scheme need not contain the rules specified in subsection (1) above for the case of the earner's service being terminated (by death or otherwise) before completion of that minimum period.")
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will see that this is a Government Amendment which fulfils an undertaking given during the Committee stage in another place that an Amendment would be moved to make it clear that the requirements to provide requisite benefits for a widow relate only to periods in which the earner was in contracted-out service. The Amendment also introduces a new subsection to take account of Clause 30(2) which was introduced at the Report stage in another place to cover schemes which have a waiting period before an earner qualifies for full scheme benefits. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: Since Amendment No. 16 has been accepted I cannot call Amendment No. 17.
Lord ABERDARE Lord ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 28, line 5, at end insert—
(" ( ) Where a rule of the scheme provides or has provided for the payment to the earner of a lump sum either—

(a) at or after normal pension age; or

(b) at early retirement on grounds of ill-health or otherwise,

whether or not such lump sum is instead of any part of or is in addition to the pension required to be provided for him under section 32, the pension referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above shall include the pension equivalent of such lump sum; and the manner in which the pension equivalent is arrived at for the purposes of this subsection shall be such as to be satisfactory to the Occupational Pensions Board.
( ) For the purposes of determining the annual rate of pension which is referred to in paragraph (a) or subsection (1) above there shall be disregarded any purchased credits, where "purchased credits" has the meaning given in paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 16 to the Social Security Act 1973.
( ) Any question arising as to the member's entitlement or the amount of his accrued rights as the case may be under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above at the date of his death shall be determined by the Occupational Pensions Board.").
The noble Lord said: If I cannot move Amendment No. 17 then I must move Amendment No. 18. The purpose of this Amendment (and indeed of Amendment

677
No. 17) is to clarify and make rather simpler the provisions for the payment of widows' pensions. If I may mention Amendment No. 17 (although I am not allowed to move it) the point of it was to clarify the words in the Bill "immediately or prospectively entitled". It is not very clear what "prospectively" is intended to mean in this context. On the face of it, it might mean the pensions that a person would have received if he had stayed a member of the scheme until normal pension age; but, surely, what is meant is the accrued pension at the date of death to which he was prospectively entitled if he had lived until the normal age of retirement.
I see that the same words appear in the Amendment that we have just accepted under which he is "immediately or prospectively entitled". I do not know whether it is too late to ask the noble Lord whether he could clarify those words and confirm that they mean what I have said they mean; that is, the amount of pension earned up to the date of his death. The provision in the 1973 Act for the preservation of leavers' pensions have led, as I understand it, to very great difficulties already and much the same considerations will apply here in the case of death in service.
There are many differing views on how you calculate an accrued pension. We were hoping that Amendment No. 17, combined with the third subsection of Amendment No. 18, might have led to greater ease and flexibility in determining what the man's accrued pension should be for the purpose of determining the widow's pension. The last paragraph of Amendment No. 18 reads:
"Any question arising as to the member's entitlement or the amount of his accrued rights as the case may be under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above at the date of his death shall be determined by the Occupational Pensions Board."
This was a method of trying to give the Occupational Pensions Board rather more discretion, so avoiding all the difficulties that had arisen under the 1973 Act in respect of the preservation of leavers' pensions.
The first part of Amendment No. 18 deals with the payment of a lump sum. There is in some schemes a provision for payment of a lump sum. Where you have two people, one of them having in his scheme a full pension and the other provi-
678
sion for a lesser pension plus a lump sum, then, when you are calculating the widow's pension, the widow whose husband had a lump sum due to him could come off worse because she would get only half the actual pension, which was less because of the lump sum. I do not know if I am clear, but it is quite a clear conception. The idea of this subsection was to include the lump sum when calculating the widow's pension so that the widow would get the same amount whether or not the man's scheme allowed him to get a lesser pension and a lump sum, or a larger pension.
The next sub-paragraph at the bottom of page 3 allows for the disregarding of purchased credit. This is another attempt to avoid difficulties which might arise in a case where a member had paid additional voluntary contributions for extra benefits. This is possible in many schemes and, as the Bill stands, these extra benefits must have widows' rights added to them. It would seem that this might lead to considerable complications, and it appears to us that it would be more sensible to exclude these purchased credits when calculating the widow's pension. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I must congratulate the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman of Committees because I certainly had not seen that if Amendment No. 16 was carried then Amendment No. 17 would fall.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, asked whether the widow's benefit is based on accrued earner's pension as at the earner's death. The answer is, yes, it is. I shall endeavour to answer the various points raised by saying that representations have been made to the Government that there are a number of technical problems arising from the way in which Clause 36(1) is drafted. Having said that, may I go on to say that the Government are sympathetic to much of what the noble Lord has said. We are still considering the representations which have been made to us and we should also need to examine further whether the Amendments put down would themselves be acceptable. The position therefore is that the Government would wish to consider what has been said by the noble Lord on this subject and also to consider the representations which have been made before we arrive at any decision as to whether or not to amend

679
this clause. If an Amendment is considered necessary then we should want to put it down in due course. At the moment I cannot go further than to give the assurance that we are considering not only the point raised by the noble Lord but the representations from other quarters.
Lord ABERDARE: I am grateful for the noble Lord's sympathy and his attitude to what are mainly bits of machinery in how you work out the widow's pension. I am sure it would be of advantage to find some way to overcome what has led to difficulties. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord MELCHETT: With the Committee's permission, I will move Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 together. These are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 28, line 7, after ("the" insert ("widow's").
Page 28, line 9, leave out ("the widow") and insert ("her").—(Lord Melchett.)
On Question. Amendments agreed to.
7.40 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 28, line 22, leave out from ("Board") to end of line 27 and insert ("contain provisions whereby, at the discretion of the trustees or managers, any other part of the pension required by this section is not paid to her, but instead comparable benefits are provided for one or more dependants of the deceased earner.").
The noble Lord said: This is also a drafting Amendment, designed to make it clear that payment of the excess over the guaranteed minimum pension to a dependent other than the widow is an alternative to paying it to the widow. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 36 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord ABERDARE: I should like to raise one point with the noble Lord concerning widows. I should like to ask him whether it is logical or fair to place on an occupational scheme the obligation to pay a widow's benefit in the case of someone who has left an employer's service and married after leaving it. Indeed, I should like to ask whether it is equitable,
680
logical or fair that an occupational scheme should pay a widow's benefit in respect of someone who has already retired on a pension from the firm, marries after leaving the firm and later dies, leaving a widow. To take the case of the person who leaves the firm's employment, whose pension is then preserved and who marries after he has left, may I ask whether it is then correct for that firm to provide the widow's benefit?
It really does not seem to be very logical that this should be done. After all, the man has left his employment and married subsequently. Surely any liabilities for subsequent payment of his widow's benefit should be the responsibility of the employer at the time of death—in other words, the employer he is then working for, if that employer is contracted-out. If the man is working for an employer who is not contracted-out, then surely it should be the obligation of the State. But I cannot see it is logical to ask this scheme to find a widow's benefit in respect of a person who has left their service and then marries.
In the case of a pensioner who marries after retirement and who then dies and leaves a widow, the requirement to provide a widow's benefit is still less logical, as there will be few if any cases where the widow will not be entitled to a pension or, if under retirement age with responsibility for dependants, other forms of benefit either from rights acquired by virtue of a previous marriage or from her own employment. There is no intention here of affecting the widow herself—she will get paid what is due to her under the scheme—but it is a question of whether that payment is made by the employer who employed the man before he married, by the employer who is currently employing the man, or by the State. I cannot see much logic in saying that a scheme should pay a widow's pension in respect of a man who married the woman after leaving the scheme. Nor, indeed, can I see much logic in saying that a firm should pay a widow's pension in respect of someone who was single when he left the employment and who subsequently married and then died, leaving a widow.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: This is a very fascinating area. I would not wish to be dogmatic, but it is difficult to come to a conclusion about it on Whether

681
the clause shall stand part? because constructive Amendments would have to be discussed in depth. I may be completely wrong, but I can foresee that the line of approach, to put it moderately, taken by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, might bring repercussions on the whole line of pensions. As somebody who at one time had responsibility for war pensions, I do not even know in the case of a warrior who was wounded and had a pension, whose wife died and who then married a second wife, whether his pension would go on to the second wife. This is a very involved question and I feel rather sorry for the Minister if he has to give an immediate constructive answer. All I would say is that to get a constructive, concrete answer on Whether the clause shall stand part? is very difficult with this kind of approach.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am much obliged. In fairness, I think I should tell your Lordships that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, gave me very good notice that he was to raise this question and this has enabled me to get an answer for him. Whether or not he accepts it is another matter. The noble Lord has argued that it is not just to expect occupational schemes to pay a widow's benefit in respect of early leavers or retirement pensioners, when they marry after leaving service or after retirement. To accept what the noble Lord has said would mean that an unmarried man under pensionable age could not build up pension rights in respect of a future wife, although he pays the same pension contributions as a married man, except by continuing to work for the same employer, and the unmarried man over pension age could not marry in the expectation of his wife qualifying for a widow's pension, although he too may have paid the same contributions as a married man while at work. Moreover, if we were to deny post-retirement widows' pensions, we should be going back on the provisions of the 1973 Social Security Act, about which the noble Lord, I am bound to say, knows more than I do. That Act provides for post-retirement marriages in the same way that we are endeavouring to do here. I think I had better leave it at that point.
Lord ABERDARE: I accept that it had better be left there. I suppose I must say "stumped again!".
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 37 and 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Financing and assurance of benefits]:
Lord ABERDARE Lord ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 21A:
Page 31, line 9, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) For an occupational pension scheme to be contracted out it must contain a rule whereby certain liabilities of the scheme are accorded priority on a winding up over other liabilities under the scheme and those liabilities which are accorded priority must consist of or include—

(a) pensions and other benefits in respect of which entitlement to pension has arisen;

(b) guaranteed minimum pensions and accrued rights to guaranteed minimum pensions; and

(c) equivalent pension benefits under Part III of the National Insurance Act 1965,

with or without priority as between particular liabilities.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. This is merely to give the noble Lord an opportunity of putting on the record what I understand to be the case, because it has been said that from Clause 41 it seems that the three categories stated for priority should rank equally. This is objectionable in principle because we do not think there should be any suggestion of a reduction in the priorities granted to pensions already in course of payment, where a scheme commences to contract out. where the existing rules provide for this. We should like to return to the provisions under the Social Security Act 1973, which the noble Lord has been throwing at me all this time, which allowed any of the three categories mentioned in this clause to be ranked in any order. Additionally, under the winding-up provisions at present in the Bill, it will be necessary for the trustees of many schemes to obtain the consent of all their members to alter the winding-up rules on existing schemes. I hope that my fears can be put at rest and that the noble Lord can make some statement about this matter which will then be on the record. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: I hope I can satisfy the noble Lord as to the relationship between this Bill and the previous Act. The noble Lord's Amendment, we originally thought, was designed to give

683
a greater priority to pensions and benefits already in payment than to the guaranteed minimum pension, although in practice the priorities of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) would rank equally; and that is of course the position in the existing Clause 39. There is nothing in the clause as drafted to prevent a scheme from giving greater priority to pensions and other benefits in respect of which entitlement has already arisen, provided that all the priorities listed in Clause 39(3) are still accorded priority over other liabilities in respect of benefits under the schemes. I think that that answers the noble Lord's question.
Lord ABERDARE: Yes, I think it does. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 (Sufficiency of resources]:
7.52 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE Lord ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 32, line 39, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: This is simply a probing Amendment. This clause gives the Occupational Pensions Board power partially or completely to prescribe the holding for a pensions scheme of "investments of a specified class or description" as a condition of contracting out or continued contracting out. I should welcome any information that the noble Lord could give me as to what is intended here. Trustees of pension schemes should be able to know what classes or descriptions of investments may be subject to prescription; and that such prescriptions should be by Regulation by the Secretary of State, perhaps, and accordingly subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. By this clause it will be simply the action of the Occupational Pensions Board. I should be grateful, therefore, if the noble Lord could go into a little more detail as to exactly what is intended in this clause. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The effect of this Amendment would be to remove the requirement that the Occupational Pensions Board should have regard to the investments held by the scheme in deciding whether the scheme has sufficient resources to cover the items listed
684
in Clause 40(1). The Board would also be prevented from controlling the proportion of schemes' resources being held in one investment or from being able to require a scheme to dispose of certain kinds of assets. My information is that there was an identical provision in Section 59(8) of the Social Security Act 1973, and this has been embodied in this particular provision as well.
Clause 40 is to ensure that a scheme has sufficient resources to pay the guaranteed minimum pension to its members, to pay any State scheme premiums in respect of its members, and to cover the liabilities accorded priority under Clause 39(3) in the event of the scheme's having to wind up. This is essential if we are to secure that those who are contracted out have their pensions and pension rights safeguarded to the maximum extent possible. If subsection (5) were deleted, an essential part of the Occupational Pensions Board's powers of supervision would be removed, and the measure of security given to those contracted out would be reduced. We feel that this would not be advisable. The subsection is designed in particular to prevent excessive self-investment or excessive concentration of investment by a scheme. In either case a failure by the company invested in would have a considerable effect upon the scheme's fund and put the pension rights of scheme members in jeopardy. For those reasons we resist the Amendment of the noble Lord and hope that, on reflection, he will feel that we are right in doing so.
Lord ABERDARE: I was only anxious to have a further statement about this matter and I think the noble Lord went some way to helping me in what he was saying. What was worrying me particularly was the Board's powers to prescribe that:
"no part, or no more than a specified proportion, of the scheme's resources shall be invested in investments of a specified class or description".
I was wondering exactly what was intended by that provision. The noble Lord has at any rate answered me in part, and I do not think the Amendment was well drafted. As the provision was in the 1973 Act I had better sit down. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Premium on termination of contracted-out employment]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I think that your Lordships will see that Amendment No. 23 is purely a drafting Amendment, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 26, leave out ("which") and insert ("in respect of which the scheme").—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42 [Premium under section 41: additional provisions]:
Lord MELCHETT: With your Lordships' permission I will speak to Amendment No. 25 while moving No. 24. These Amendments are to make it clear that "service" referred to in line 22 of Clause 42(4) is contracted-out service. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 22, leave out ("length of") and insert ("lengths of relevant").—(Lord Melchett.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT: I beg to move Amendment No. 25.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 25, at end insert—
" ( ) In subsection (4) above "relevant service" means service in contracted-out employment by reference to the scheme, together with any linked qualifying service in relation thereto."—(Lord Melchett.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43 [Premium on termination of contracted-out scheme]:
7.59 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Amendment No. 26 is in the main a drafting Amendment, but it also adds administrative flexibility by providing that both accrued rights premiums and pensioners' rights premiums are to be paid by the "prescribed person". The prescribed person will normally be the employer, the scheme managers or the scheme trustees. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 7, leave out from ("otherwise)") to end of line 16 and insert ("then—

(a) in respect of each earner whose accrued rights to guaranteed minimum pen-
686
sion under the schemes are not subject to approved arrangements; and

(b) in respect of each person who has then become entitled to receive a guaranteed minimum pension under the scheme and whose guaranteed minimum pension rights are not so subject,

a state scheme premium shall be payable by the prescribed person.")—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.0 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 36, line 4, leave out from ("tables") to end of line 10 and insert ("as in force at the time when the scheme ceases to be contracted-out").
The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 33 with Amendment No. 27. These Amendments have been introduced in fulfilment of an undertaking given during Committee stage in another place. The new clause provides that the regulations prescribing actuarial tables have to be approved by an Affirmative Resolution in both Houses and that the procedure for changing the tables is the same as that for changing the contribution reduction. This means that changes to the actuarial tables can be made only after a report by the Government Actuary has been laid before both Houses of Parliament, together with the Secretary of State's proposals for implementing the report. If the tables are to be changed, this can be done only with the approval of both Houses of Parliament. A further result is that, as with the contribution reduction, a period of at least 12 months will elapse before revised tables come into effect. I am informed that in practice the waiting period is likely to be about 18 months.
As a consequence of making the regulations prescribing actuarial tables subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure, a consequential Amendment is being made to Clause 60(2) so that the Secretary of State does not also have to send the regulations to the Occupational Pensions Board. The Amendments also make some drafting changes by bringing Clause 44(4) and part of Clause 43(7) into the new scheme. I beg to move.
Lord ABERDARE: As the noble Lord has said, this was a matter on which undertakings were given in another place, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for

687
having moved these Amendments. Certainly this goes some way towards helping, in that the actuarial tables cannot be changed overnight. As I understand it, there will be some degree of warning which will vary between one year and two years, with an average of 18 months. It still does not go quite so far as we should have liked to see it go, and my next Amendment will try to extend it to three years.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord ABERDARE Lord ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 36, line 10, at end insert—
("(c) shall be so framed that the tables applicable from time to time shall be consistent with the provisions of section 35(7) above. Any alteration of such tables shall only have effect from a date 3 years after their adoption and shall apply to benefits accruing after the date of the aforesaid adoption only.")
The noble Lord said: I am not sure how this Amendment now fits in, the Committee having accepted the Amendments which the noble Lord has already proposed, but at any rate the Chairman has not ruled my Amendment out of order! Its purpose is perfectly straightforward and, I think, clear; namely, to be consistent with the calculation of deferred pension in the case of early leavers and to ensure reasonable notice of any change in the amount of premium due as a result of the alteration of these actuarial tables. The noble Lord has said that there will be notice, as was agreed, fulfilling a commitment that was given by the Government in another place, and that alterations at the beginning of such tax years as may be specified in the regulations will be not earlier than the second tax year after that in which the regulations are made. So there will be a minimum of one year's notice.
I am suggesting that these are major matters for an occupational pension scheme where a premium is required. If the actuarial tables are changed, considerable calculations will need to be made and a great deal of work done before any decision can be made as to whether the scheme wishes to continue to contract out. If the notice is even as little as one year or 18 months, the temptation on a contracted-out scheme to say, "We have got to make a decision quickly, so we had better cease to contract out", will be
688
strong. We would much prefer to see a rather more generous allocation of time for vital decisions of this kind to be made. An Amendment similar to mine in another place asked for a five years' notice period, which seemingly was a long time, but I should have thought that three years was reasonable; and again, I should have thought it was a concession which would be very helpful to those who are advising on the contracting out.
I wonder whether the noble Lord would have another look at this Amendment and consider whether or not it is one way in which he could encourage a little confidence among occupational pensions people.
Lord MELCHETT: I think I shall be able to be helpful to the noble Lord. When what is now called the open-ended commitment was discussed in another place, my right honourable friend gave an undertaking that he would go on discussing with the pensions industry the problems that they saw. This discussion has continued ever since and we have been made quite aware of the views of the pension industry. Among the solutions put to us which my right honourable friend has been discussing are those put down in these Amendments—that the tables should assume a rate of increase of not more than 8 per cent. a year; that these tables should be frozen for three years; and that each set of tables should apply permanently to benefits accruing during its currency.
The Government are still considering the various points made—and that is the helpful thing I have to say—and have not yet come to any final decision on whether any further amendment of the Bill is necessary to deal with the open-ended commitment. However, I must tell noble Lords that there are serious objections to all the points made in this particular Amendment An assumption of a maximum of 8 per cent. revaluation for the purposes of the premium tables could involve financial cost to the State scheme; and if this were attempted to be avoided by making it a fixed level, regardless of the actual movement of earnings, this could hardly be held indefinitely to the detriment of schemes; and if the level were changed from time to time this would lead to great complexity. I think the noble Lord will remember that problems of cost in relation to fixing an 8 per

689
cent. level are something which my noble friend has already pointed out. He did so when the Committee were discussing Amendment No. 15.
As to the freezing of the tables by three years, this could make them out of date in some cases by as much as nine years. The noble Lord said he was not quite sure of the effect of accepting a previous Amendment. The view of the Government is that such a period is altogether too long. We think that our Amendment No. 31, which provides a period of notice which may be 18 months on average, is likely to be sufficient in practice for this purpose. The proposal that the tables should apply permanently to benefits accruing during their currency means that the payment of a single premium will he replaced by the payment of a number of smaller premiums, each applying to particular years of accrual. I need only to state that problem for noble Lords to see how complex it would make the situation.
For these reasons, the Government are bound to resist these particular Amendments, but that does not mean they have closed their minds to the possibility of any change whatsoever. If, as a result of further consideration of the industry and of what has been said this evening, the Government come to the view that some further amendment is necessary on top of the concessions already contained in the Bill, then we shall be ready to put down an Amendment at the next stage. In view of that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
Lord ABERDARE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for being willing to consider this Amendment further, and also for not throwing at me the 1973 Act! I gladly accept his assurance that these various matters are still under consideration. I think that it would be a great encouragement to those who work in the pensions field if additional help could be given with regard to the notice they get over the changing of tables. But I will have to leave it to the Government and hope that they will be able to come back with an Amendment of their own at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 44 [Premium where guaranteed minimum, pension excluded from full revaluation]:
8.10 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 36, line 37, at end insert—
(" ( ) Where a state scheme premium is payable in respect of an earner under this section, and the case is one in which his service in contracted-out employment is terminated in consequence of the relevant scheme ceasing to be contracted-out, the costs referred to in subsection (2) above shall, if the employer so elects in the prescribed manner, be calculated on the basis that (disregarding any orders made under section 21 of this Act) the relevant earnings factors have been increased by 12 per cent. per annum in each of the five complete tax years before that in which the scheme ceases to be contracted-out.")
The noble Lord said: This is another Amendment which fulfils an undertaking given by my honourable friend the Minister of State on Report stage in another place. The Amendment provides that, where a scheme ceases to contract-out and opts, with the approval of the Occupational Pensions Board, to revalue and preserve guaranteed minimum pension under Clause 35(7) at 5 per cent. compound and pay a limited revaluation premium, the employer can elect to have the earnings, on which the guaranteed minimum pension is calculated, revalued at the rate of 12 per cent. for each of the last five years instead of in line with the general growth of earnings. This brings Clause 44 into line with the provision of Clause 43(6) which was approved on Report stage in another place. I beg to move.
On Question Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I spoke to Amendment No. 30 when I moved Amendment No. 27. With your Lordships' permission I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 5, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I spoke to this Amendment when I moved Amendment No. 27. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
Provisions as to actuarial tables
.—(1) Regulations prescribing actuarial tables for the purposes of sections 43(7) and 44(3) above—

(a) shall be made only after consultation with the Government Actuary; and

(b) shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.

(2) The regulations shall be so framed that the tables applicable from time to time vary with the yield on such investments or classes of investments as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
(3) With any reports laid before Parliament under section 28 of this Act, the Secretary of State shall lay—

(a) a report by the Government Actuary on any changes in the factors affecting the actuarial tables prescribed for the purposes of section 43(7) and 44(3); and

(b) a report by the Secretary of State stating whether he considers that, in view of the Government Actuary's report, there should be any alterations in the tables and if so, what alterations are in his opinion required.

(4) The charges referred to in subsection (3)(a) above are, in the case of the first report under that paragraph, changes since the passing of this Act and, in the case of a subsequent report, changes since the preparation of the last report.
(5) If in a report under subsection (3)(b) above the Secretary of State states that he considers that there should be alterations in the actuarial tables, he shall prepare and lay before each House of Parliament with the report the draft regulations prescribing tables to be in force with those alterations from the beginning of such tax year as may be specified in the regulations not earlier than the second tax year after that in which the regulations are made.
(6) If the draft regulations are approved by resolution of each House the Secretary of State shall make the regulations in the form of the draft."—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 45 to 59 agreed to.
Clause 60 [Consultation about regulations]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 49, line 37, at end insert ("or contained in a statutory instrument which states that it contains only regulations to make provision consequential on regulations under that section").
The noble Lord said: The effect of this Amendment is to include among the categories of regulations not requiring
692
prior submission to the National Insurance Advisory Committee regulations made in consequence of a change in the lower and upper earnings limits for liability for Class 1 contributions, to vary the tables showing the amounts of contributions payable on different amounts of earnings. These regulations are only of an arithmetical nature about which the Committee would not normally expect to be consulted. They are not required to be submitted to the Committee under the present provisions of the Social Security Act 1975 when the earnings limits are altered by an Order under Section 120 of that Act. The Amendment is merely to preserve this position when those limits are altered by regulations under Clause 1 of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT: I beg to move Amendment No. 33. My noble friend spoke to this Amendment with Amendment No. 27.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 17, at end insert ("regulations prescribing actuarial tables or").—(Lord Melchett.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 61 to 63 agreed to.
Clause 64 [Consequential amendments and repeals]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 33A:
Page 53, line 1, after ("in") insert ("Part I of").
The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I wish to take this Amendment with eleven other Amendments; namely, Nos. 33B, 34A, 43A, 43B, 43C, 43D, 43E, 43F, 43G, 44A and 45A. These are all technical Amendments to make corrections and improvements in the text of some of the Acts which form part of the recent consolidation of the Social Security legislation. Most of the Amendments relate to such legislation for Northern Ireland. They derive from the special constitutional and legislative processes subsisting during the last three years between Westminster and Belfast. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I beg to move Amendment No. 33B.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 4, at end insert—
"(1A) The enactments mentioned in Part II of Schedule 4 to this Act shall have effect, and be deemed always to have had effect, with the amendments there specified, being amendments required for the correction in certain minor respects of the social security consolidation Acts passed in March 1975; and paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 to the Social Security Benefits Act 1975 (commencement orders) shall be deemed not to have been repealed."—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 64, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 65 [Interpretation]:
On Question, Whether Clause 65 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord SANDYS: We have no specific Amendment to this clause, but it is important to stress the part it plays in the Bill. The interpretation of a number of technical matters are dealt with here. I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to errors which have occurred. The first is in line 18. We have not tabled a specific Amendment, but the error is that the accrued rights occur in Section 37 and not in Section 35. Secondly, it is an omission, we feel, that although we have not specifically tabled an Amendment to it, the phrase "prospectively entitled" is not given an interpretation or definition. This occurred under Lord Aberdare's Amendment No. 17.
On the general point, I think that the Government should be a little more generous in their interpretation of phraseology. One recognises there must be a reference back, but nevertheless it is important to get the interpretation right in helping those who have to read this Bill in the future.
Lord MELCHETT: I have had a quick look at Clause 35. I cannot find mention of accrued rights in it, so I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, is right, in which case I believe the Government will be extremely grateful to him for pointing out the error. I certainly take on board the point which he made in providing greater interpretation. If there is any specific point which he would like to raise with my noble
694
friend or myself we should be only too willing to assist in any way that we can.
Clause 65 agreed to.
Clause 66 [Commencement]:
8.20 p.m.
The Countess of LOUDOUN The Countess of LOUDOUN moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 55, line 43, at end insert—
" ( ) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 14(5) of, and of Part I of Schedule 5 to, the Social Security Benefits Act 1975, as amended by the Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Act 1975 (which relate to commencement of certain provisions), section 36 of the principal Act shall come into force on 1st January 1976 in respect of entitlement to a non-contributory invalidity pension of a married woman who is incapable of performing normal household duties."
The noble Countess said: On Second Reading, in answer to one of my questions, the Minister indicated that there was no definite timetable for implementing the benefit for disabled housewives, and in fact there was little hope of it being implemented immediately. Apart from economic difficulties, it is our view that administrative difficulties prevent the disabled housewives' allowance being payable before the 1977–78 year. The main non-contributory invalidity pension for single men and women is due to become payable in November 1975, when single men and women will start receiving the non-contributory invalidity pension of £7·90 a week. There are said to be about 40,000 disabled housewives and if they are not phased in at the same time, these disabled women will lose their invalidity pension should they marry. The problems associated with cohabitation rules will also be unavoidable in the cirsumstances. I agree that it may take time to assess all the disabled housewives, but some are already known; for example, those in receipt of an attendance allowance, and surely these could be paid the disabled housewives' allowance immediately. After all, someone requiring attendance from another person day and night is bound to be unable to perform household duties and can therefore be paid the disabled housewives' allowance immediately without difficulty. This Amendment seeks the introduction of this allowance for all by 1st January 1976 and I hope your Lordships will support this. I beg to move.
Lady KINLOSS: I should like to support this Amendment. Would it not be possible to implement it in January 1976 for the disabled housewife who has young children and is already known to the local social security department? This non-contributory invalidity pension is urgently needed to take the financial strain off those families where the wife is severely disabled.
Lord SANDYS: I wish to support this Amendment and perhaps as a preamble I might tell the noble Lord how much we support it. At an earlier stage when we were dealing with the mobility allowance he cast Clause 22 in my teeth and perhaps I might return the service and say to him that in 1971 (I think it was) the Conservative Government introduced the invalidity allowance, so perhaps it may be remembered that we can all claim credit for certain pieces of legislation.
I should like to draw the attention of the Government to a very recent publication—the report by the Government Actuary on the draft of the Social Security Benefits Uprating Order 1975, published in June, Cmnd. Paper 6083, and I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph 11 on page 6 of that document and to read two sentences because I think it is very important:
"Estimates for 1974/75 and 1975/76 were given in my report in November 1974 on the Social Security Benefits Bill, 1974 (Cmnd. Paper 5788). At that time the surplus for 1974/75 was estimated to be £428 million whereas according to the latest information available the actual amount will he £647 million. The main changes appear to be that income from contributions was £150 million more than had been estimated and expenditure on benefits was £74 million less."
Here is an occasion when we see just a little of the scene behind the very firmly closed doors of the Treasury as to how things stand. I feel that there is an argument here for supporting on financial grounds that this Amendment should be seriously considered by Her Majesty's Government. Here is the Government actuary saying that there is more money available in the immediate future. They further reinforce that in their tables to substantiate what has taken place. I believe this Amendment could play a very important part. The noble Countess has already referred to 40,000 housewives who would benefit from this and it seems to us
696
to be an exceedingly worthwhile Amendment.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: I should like to add my support to this Amendment, particularly after the speech made by my noble friend Lord Sandys, as it really produces an effective background for the new clause that we are discussing, which has been proposed by the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun. It is really most interesting that suddenly, out of the blue, it is found that the estimates which were originally made were too large and now there really is more money available. As that so rarely happens, it seems to be a very real reason for accepting this Amendment. I cannot imagine that the noble Lord, Lord WellsPesten, could possibly disagree with this Amendment and it would be very nice if, on the basis of the facts that have been adduced, it could be accepted.
Lord BANKS: I should like to associate myself with those who have spoken in support of this Amendment. During the discussions on the Social Security Benefits Bill there were requests for an early date for this benefit to become payable, and I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has discovered how we can pay for it. When the noble Lord, Lord WellsPestell, replies I hope he will find that his figures agree with those put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and that he will agree to accept this Amendment.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I think the first thing we should do is to look for this money that is supposed to be going around. I am in no way surprised to see this Amendment on the Marshalled List. Pressure on this point is perfectly proper as well as being inevitable. Since the Second Reading of this Bill. I have had a tremendous amount of correspondence from, I should think, every women's organisation in the country, to which as yet I have not been able to reply—if ever I am able to reply to it. We know the position of the disabled housewife. It has been championed in another place and it is quite properly being championed in your Lordships' House. But I have to say at the outset that the Government cannot accept the Amendment and there is no possibility of introducing the housewives' benefit on 1st January 1976—and I have got to be as definite about it as I sound.

697
I know that if I mention administrative considerations I shall be told either that the Government are sheltering behind a conventional universal pretext or that the Department of Health and Social Security is not as efficient or as hard-working as it should be. So perhaps I could be more forthcoming. First, last September the Government announced a programme of improvements for disabled people to be meshed in with wider improvements, also of benefit to disabled people, and spanning a period of years. You just cannot introduce as many benefits as we have introduced recently and put them all into operation at the same time. It is only a few days ago that I reminded your Lordships—and you will forgive me for saying it again—that we have 26 major benefits in this country and this year they will cost £9,000 million. Put it down on paper and see what it really looks like.
We cannot hope to bring all these new benefits into being at once. If I may say so, the important thing is to get them through both Houses of Parliament and on to the Statute Book, and then to bring them in as soon as one possibly can. The order of events announced in the original programme was, first, the general non-contributory invalidity pension; second, the mobility allowance; third, the invalid care allowance and, fourth, the non-contributory invalidity pension for housewives—rightly or wrongly, this was the order of priority which the Government gave. It will be possible to introduce the first stage of the mobility allowance in January 1976 because the work is sufficiently far advanced. This in turn stems from the Government's order of priorities.
Work on the housewives' benefit is not sufficiently far advanced for a start in January 1976. This is because the Government's programme required that other things should be given priority, rightly or wrongly. Perhaps in passing I should make the obvious point, a point so obvious that it is regularly overlooked, that announcing a forward programme really does mean announcing an orderly sequence of improvements. During the period in which new cash benefits for the disabled are being introduced, and during the build-up to their introduction, we are also committed to a second 1975 uprating, to changes in the supplementary benefits disregards, to interim child benefit, to
698
child benefit, to the start of the new pensions scheme, to further upratings, to changes consequent on the end of the transitional period which began in April 1975 under the revised contribution arrangements initiated by the previous Government and so on. Mechanisation has its part to play, but we are not yet able to design slot machines from which people can obtain their appropriate cash benefits. There has to be a very heavy investment in human time, and human beings do not have inexhaustible resources.
Thirdly, while I do not want to labour the complexities of the non-contributory invalidity pension for housewives, complexities with which we can and will cope when the time comes, I must point out that those other countries which provide far housewives find the task more demanding than the task of coping with normal invalidity pension claims. Special arrangements are needed, and although I do not know whether we shall want to make the same arrangements, it would be very rash indeed to assume that we shall he able to do simply what these other countries find themselves unable to do simply.
Fourthly, I must mention money, as I have already done. I have said that so far as the 1st January 1976 for this benefit is concerned, it is simply "not on." It is a sheer impossibility. I have not ruled out a later date in the 1976 financial year, after the invalidity care allowance has been introduced, nor have I indicated that the Government are firmly committed to some later year. Once we can announce a firm date, of course we shall do so. One of the factors influencing the decision will no doubt be money. In our own domestic spheres, we have to spread our financial liabilities and the Government, if they are not to be considered guilty of bad house-keeping, must do likewise. The cost of the housewives' non-contributory invalidity pension is likely to be relatively modest if compared with the total cost of the Bill. But even in this day and age, and particularly in the present financial circumstances, we just cannot write off £16 million a year as being an insignificant sum.
In short, I have noted the continuing pressure not to delay action for the housewives. I am reminded of this not only by

699
your Lordships, but by every post I have, both at home and in your Lordships' House. The Secretary of State and the other Ministers are just as anxious not to delay as is any noble Lord in this House. I do not think I can take it any further than that. It is a matter which causes us some concern. We are hoping to bring this new benefit in at the earliest possible opportunity, and will do so, but it cannot be done on the 1st January next.
The Countess of LOUDOUN: I thank all those who have supported me on this Amendment. In view of the reply of the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 66 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord ABERDARE: We talked about the commencement date for the contracted-out schemes on Second Reading, and the noble Lord spoke of the possibilities of 1977 as opposed to 1978. He himself pointed to the real difficulties about 1977, and said that he could not be too optimistic. He knows full well the difficulties of rearranging all these schemes. My only point is that when it comes to making a decision, which the noble Lord said would be made this autumn, I hope it will be borne in mind that the worst possible outcome would be to decide on the year 1977, and then find it impossible to achieve and postpone it to 1978, because a great deal of rushed work would have to be done for the 1977 target date, work that could not subsequently be put right.
Personally, I think that in present economic circumstances it is better to give a longer period to decide whether or not to contract out, but obviously the decision will be taken in the autumn. My point is that I hope it will not be put forward to 1977, which in some respects would be very nice, because everyone wants the pensioners to get their pensions as soon as possible, but it may be better to postpone it to a later date.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for his comments. The noble Lords, Lord Byers and Lord Banks, I believe are
700
on record as having said that 1977 would be a desirable period, and I think we are in complete agreement as a Government. However, they and we know that it might not be possible, and it might well be 1978 before anything can be done. Obviously we are all in complete agreement that it must be brought in at the right time.
I am sorry that I did not deal with a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, because I lost the paper. The figures quoted by the noble Lord about the financial position refer to 1974–75—he was perfectly right about that. But I should like to make it clear that in the same report the financial position for 1975–76 is now estimated to be some £200 million less favourable than earlier estimated. This means we have £200 million less to play with. This is apparently responsible for the situation.
Clause 66 agreed to.
Clause 67 [Short title, citation and extent]:
Lord MELCHETT: I beg to move Amendment No. 34A.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 11, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
"(4) Section 56 of this Act extends to Northern Ireland; and this Act extends to Northern Ireland so far as it—

(a) amends sections 66, 67(4) and 89 of, and Schedule 17 to, the Social Security Act 1973;

(b) amends section 99(1) of that Act by inserting definitions of "the Pensions Act" and "state scheme premium";

(c) repeals Part III of, and Schedules 18 to 20 to, that Act;

(d) by section 64(1A) and Part II of Schedule 4 amends the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975 and the Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Act 1975 and reinstates paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 to the Social Security Benefits Act 1975;

(e) amends or repeals the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970;

(f) repeals provisions of the Public Records Act 1958 and the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975;

but subject to the foregoing provisions of this subsection and to subsection (3) above, this Act does not extend to Northern lieland.—(Lord Melchett.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Deferred retirement]:
8.40 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 57, line 6, leave out from ("age") to second ("the") in line 7.
The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I will take Amendment No. 36 with this Amendment. These Amendments remedy an unintended omission from the provisions in the Bill which require that retirement must be deferred for at least a minimum period before increments to retirement pension become payable. The intention, both under the Bill and under the 1973 Act which preceded it, was that increments should not be payable until a person had built up entitlement to an increase amounting to at least 1 per cent. of his or her weekly pension. Since the rate of incremental return is set at one-eighth per cent. of the pension for each week of deferred retirement, this establishes a minimum period of 8 weeks before increments can become payable. The purpose of a minimum period is to avoid the administrative costs of having to calculate and pay very small sums.
In the Bill as drafted there is no such minimum period provided in the case where, although a pensioner has deferred his retirement for at least 8 weeks, some of the days in that period do not count for increments because of the provisions of paragraph 3 of the Schedule. The provisions in paragraph 3 are intended to cover days on which a person receives some other National Insurance pension or benefit because, for example, he has been unemployed or sick. As the Bill stands, a person might have only one day for which an increment was payable in this period of deferment of 8 weeks or more, and yet the Department would be liable to calculate and pay the tiny proportion of one week's increment for which the person had qualified. This simply does not make administrative sense, and the Amendment therefore deletes the reference to 8 weeks as the minimum period and instead specifies 1 per cent. of the weekly pension as the minimum increment entitlement. This achieves the intention of the Bill which was to continue in essence the de minimis provisions
702
now operating under the principal Act. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT: I beg to move Amendment No. 36.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, leave out lines 11 to 13 and insert ("but only if that amount is enough to increase the rate of the pension by at least 1 per cent.")—(Lord Melchett).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendments Nos. 37 to 43:
Page 57, line 15, leave out ("week in his period of deferment") and insert ("incremental period in his period of deferment.
(1A) In this Schedule—

(a) "incremental period" means any period of six consecutive days, excluding Sunday (Monday therefore being treated as the next consecutive day following Saturday); and

(b) "period of deferment", in relation to any person, means the period beginning with the day on which he attains pensionable age and ending with the day before that of his retirement.")

Page 57, line 18, leave out ("week") and insert ("incremental period").
Page 57, line 20, leave out ("that week") and insert ("the period").
Page 57, line 23, leave out ("week") and insert ("period").
Page 57, line 24, leave out ("week") and insert ("period").
Page 57, line 31, leave out from ("any")
to end of line 33 and insert ("incremental period shall be determined under sub-paragraph (3) above as if the order or orders had come into force before the beginning of the period of deferment").
Page 57, line 33 leave out lines 36 to 42 and insert—

("(a) if any incremental period in that person's period of deferment consists wholly of days that fall to be so treated in relation to him or his pension, he shall not be entitled to any increment for that incremental period under sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 above;

(b) if any such incremental period contains one or more such days, the amount of the increment for the period under subparagraph (2) of that paragraph shall be proportionately reduced.")

The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 37 to 43 en bloc. The effect of these Amendments is to remedy an unintended consequence of the Bill

703
as drafted by replacing the term "complete week" in the Schedule by the term "incremental period", defined as any period of six consecutive days disregarding Sundays. The term "week" in the Bill as it stands is defined in the glossary in Schedule 20 of the principal Act as "a period of seven days beginning with midnight between Saturday and Sunday". As applied to the provision in the Bill that increments can be earned only for complete weeks of deferred retirement, this could make it possible for a person to have as many as twelve days of deferred retirement disregarded in determining the amount of increment he has earned. For example, if a man's 65th birthday falls on a Monday and he does a full week's work that week, it will nevertheless not be a complete week of deferment. If when he eventually retires he finished work, as most people will, on a Friday, that also will not be a complete week of deferment. This could mean that he would have to defer retirement effectively for 10 weeks before any increment were payable at all. The Amendments will ensure that this sort of situation does not arise. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 2 and 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Consequential amendments]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I beg to move Amendment No. 43A. I spoke to this Amendment and also to Amendments Nos. 43B to 43G when I moved No. 33A. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 8, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT: I beg to move Manuscript Amendment No. 43H.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 16. leave out ("or") and insert ("and").—(Lord Melchett.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Viscount Hood): Now I
704
think we can take all the Amendments down to 43G en bloc.
Lord MELCHETT: With your Lordships' permission, I will take all those Amendments together. In moving them, may I point out that in Amendment No. 43E the line reference should be 24 and not 23, and the second line reference should be to line 26 and not line 25. I beg to move Amendments 43B to 43G en bloc.
Earl ST. ALDWYN: I do not think this is quite right. I do not think we ought to move a block of Amendments where there is an alteration. I think they should be taken separately and dealt with in the proper way.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: Then perhaps the noble Lord will put the three Amendments, Nos. 43B, 43C and 43D to your Lordships.
Lord MELCHETT: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 43B, 43C and 43D en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 65, line 22, leave out ("or") and insert ("and")
Page 66, line 36, at end insert ("or under any provisions in force in Northern Ireland and corresponding to the last-mentioned Act.")
Page 67, leave out lines 26 and 27 and insert ("for the words following "benefit under" there shall be substituted—

"(i) the Social Security Act 1975,

(ii) the Social Security Pensions Act 1975,

(iii) the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975, or

(iv) any provisions in force in Northern Ireland and corresponding to provisions of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975".").—(Lord Melchett.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT: I beg to move Amendment No. 43E.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 24, leave out from ("references") to end of line 26 and insert—

("(a) to any provisions in force in Northern Ireland and corresponding to provisions of this Part of this Act or the Pensions Act; and

(b) to contracting-out certificates within the meaning of any such provisions.")—(Lord Melchett).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 43F and 43G.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 18, after ("Act") insert ("or under any corresponding provision in force in Norhern Ireland")
Page 69, line 31, at end insert—
("32A. In Schedule 17 to that Act in paragraph 14, after the word "Act" there shall be inserted the words "or under any corresponding provision in force in Northern Ireland" ")—(Lord Melchett.)
On Question Amendments agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I beg to move Amendment No. 44A.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, line 17, at end insert—

quote>MINOR CORRECTIONS OF 1975 CONSOLIDATION ACTS
The Social Security Act 1975
65. In section 142(4)(b) of the Social Security Act 1975, for the words "Great Britain" and "Northern Ireland" there shall be substituted respectively the words "Northern Ireland" and "Great Britain".
66. In section 152(2) of that Act, for the words "Criminal Justice Act 1948" there shall be substituted the words "Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973".
The Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975
67. In section 96(1) of the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975, for the words "95(1)(a) or (b)" there shall be substituted the words "95(1)(a) or (c)".
68. In section 133(3)(b) of that Act, for the words "Northern Ireland" and "Great Britain" there shall be substituted respectively the words "Great Britain" and "Northern Ireland".
69. In section 138(5) of that Act, for the word "paragraph" there shall be substituted the word "subsection".
The Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Act 1975
70. In Schedule 3 to the Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Act 1975—
(a) for paragraph 12(4) there shall be substituted—
"(4) in paragraph 10 of this Schedule as it applies to Northern Ireland—

(a) the first reference in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) to an Order in Council includes a reference to an order made by the Secretary of State; and

(b) in sub-paragraph (b) the words "and any regulations having effect by virtue of section 22(2) of the Family Allowances Act" shall be omitted."

(b) after paragraph 13(1) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) An order made by the Secretary of State under an enactment repealed by this Act, for any purpose for which an Order in Council may be made under one of the consolidations shall not be invalidated by the repeal but shall have effect as if it were an Order in Council so made."
(c) in paragraph 31, there shall be inserted at the end of the Table—

"The words from "by statutory instrument" onwards (in paragraph 30(2)).

The words "by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules Act (Northern Ireland) 1958; and any statutory rule containing any such regulations shall be laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly after being made."."

—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Repeals]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 74, leave out line 53 in column 3, and I insert—
("Section 91.
In section 92, subsections (1) and (2); in subsection (4) the words from "the recovery" onwards; and subsections (5) to (7).
Section 93.")
The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, perhaps I can speak to Amendment No. 46 at the same time. The object of these Amendments is to save from repeal a provision in the Social Security Act 1973 which is still required for a specific continuing purpose. As it stands, Schedule 5 to the Bill repeals Section 92 and Schedule 23 of the Social Security Act 1973 which deal with offences, penalties and proceedings. This Amendment and Amendment No. 46 save from repeal those parts of that section and Schedule which contain the power to make regulations providing for the recovery of penalties for offences of contravening or failure to comply with regulations and set out the general provisions as to prosecutions. Regulation 8 of the Occupational Pensions Board (Determinations and Review Procedure) Regulations 1973, which provides for penalties for failure to produce documents and to furnish information to the Occupational Pensions Board, has been made under these powers and needs to be retained in order to ensure that the Board continue to have an effective sanction for use if necessary. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I beg to move Amendment No. 45A, to which I have spoken already.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, column 3, leave out line 11.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I beg to move Amendment No. 46. I spoke to this Amendment when moving Amendment No. 45.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, leave out line 22 in column 3, and insert—
("Schedule 22.
In Schedule 23, paragraph 5, and from paragraph 7 to the end.
Schedule 24.")—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 46A:
Page 76, line 21, column 3, leave out ("(8(a), 52") and insert ("7(a), 47, 51, 53").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment corrects references to provisions of the Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Act 1975 which are to be repealed by the Bill. That Act had
708
not completed its progress through Parliament when the Bill was published and the paragraph numbers of the relevant provisions were changed between preparation of this Bill and the (Consequential Provisions) Act receiving Royal Assent. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, may I be permitted to thank noble Lords for remaining until this hour in order that we could get the Committee stage finished. I am most grateful.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at six minutes before nine o'clock.