Sitting of 2 June 1964

Preamble
The House—after the Adjournment on 15th May, 1964, for the Whitsun Recess—met at half-past Two o'clock.
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
NEW WRIT
Mr. Speaker acquainted the House, that he had issued, during the Adjournment, a Warrant for a new Writ for Liverpool, Scotland, in the room of David Gilbert Logan, esquire, C.B.E., deceased.
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  WELSH SHIPPING AGENCY BILL [Lords]
  To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.
  WORCESTER CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    Television.(Feature Films)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Postmaster-General what conditions he will lay down regarding the fulfilment of a British quota in the showing of feature films on experimental pay-television.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): Any pay-television operator who shows registered cinema films will be required to include British cinema films at least at the prevailing rate of cinema exhibitors' first feature screen quota, at present 30 per cent. Any film which has been registered with the Board of Trade as a British quota film will count towards the quota requirement.
    Mr. Swingler: That is not a very satisfactory Answer. In view of the
    892
    decline in cinema attendances and the need to stimulate the British film industry, and as the pay-television companies are being given this important concession, ought they not to be required to fulfil a much higher British quota than the ordinary cinemas?
    Mr. Bevins: I appreciate the considerations which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but at the same time I do not think that it would be fair to have the same provisions applying to pay-television as to cinemas. After all, cinemas can show the newest of films whereas pay-television cannot, and, of course, we have to consider the interests of the local exhibitors. That is why we have made the special provisions for the pay-television companies.
    Mr. Mason: Can the Postmaster-General say what proposals he has in mind for limiting the cinema film proportion of total programme content of pay-television stations, and, secondly, is he satisfied that after a film has been on the major circuit the subsequent-run exhibitors will be safeguarded by this new innovation of allowing six-month-old films to go on pay-television?
    Mr. Bevins: The latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question was, I think, answered before the House rose for the Whitsun Recess. We are providing that at least the prevailing rate of the cinema exhibitors' first-feature screen quota of 30 per cent. shall be observed.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Postmaster-General if he will now have discussions with the British Broadcasting Corporation, the Independent Television Authority, and interested bodies in the film industry and cinema trade about the general principle governing the showing or feature films on television, in the light of his decision about experimental pay-television.
    Mr. Bevins: The procurement of programme material, including films, is a matter for commercial negotiation both for pay-television and for the B.B.C. and The only reason I have laid down certain conditions about the possible use of films in the pay-television experiment is to safeguard the interests of exhibitors in the few areas concerned during the experimental period.
    Mr. Swingler: Does not the Postmaster-General think that it is time that this whole matter was reviewed round the table by the interests concerned? Would it not be ridiculous, as the right hon. Gentleman has made the concession to the pay-television companies to allow them to show feature films six months after general release, that they should be doing that while the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. go on showing this ancient stuff at the weekends? Is it not time that all the interests concerned, especially as the Minister has incorporated provisions for compensation to cinema exhibitors while they suffer competition from pay-television, should now confer and try to reach a new basis of agreement?
    Mr. Bevins: I think that there are two points there. The first is that, unlike the B.B.C. and the I.T.A., pay-television, certainly in the early stages, is bound to rely largely on films. I do not think that it would be appropriate to treat pay-T.V. and the broadcasting organisations in the same way.
    As regards the six-month provision, as the hon. Gentleman knows there is the film defence organisation which prevents most films from being sold to television, on the score that the interests of the exhibitors would be damaged. The activities of F.I.D.O. are not a matter for me.

    B.B.C. 2 (Programmes)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Postmaster-General if he will give a direction to the British Broadcasting Corporation, under Section 14(4) of the Licence and Agreement, to refrain from transmitting on its second television network programmes of mass appeal which, its opinion, would discourage commercial television companies from maintaining their present number of programmes with a specialised appeal.
    Mr. Bevins: Programmes are a matter for the B.B.C. In authorising B.B.C. 2, however, the Government's overall purpose pronounced in the first White Paper on Broadcasting, was that the viewer should have a choice of different types of programme including more programmes of an educational or informative nature, or drawn from regional sources. The B.B.C. has made it plain in a number of public statement that it is
    894
    planning the use of the two networks on this basis. The I.T.A. is, of course, under a duty to see that the programmes it broadcasts maintain a proper balance in their subject matter.
    Mr. Allaun: Whilst very much welcoming that Answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he agrees that it will give the commercial companies an incentive to discontinue such specialised programmes as they put on at present if they know that they will inevitably be competing with mass appeal programmes on the other channels? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a real problem which needs to be solved?
    Mr. Bevins: I understand what the hon. Gentleman has in mind, the danger that if the B.B.C. were to put out two popular programmes they might have the effect of detracting from the balance of the I.T.A. transmissions. I do not think that there is any serious risk of the B.B.C. manipulating its programmes in this way, but I agree that this is a situation which requires watching.

    Pirate Radio Ships and Local Sound Broadcasting
    Mr. Liptonasked the Postmaster-General whether, following the example of Sweden, Denmark and Belgium, he will introduce legislation to ban pirate ship broadcasting.
    Mr. B. Harrisonasked the Postmaster-General whether, in considering legislation concerning offshore radio stations, he will take into account the need for an adequate all-music radio programme to serve the eastern half of England.
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Postmaster-General (1) what plans he has for the licensing of commercial sound radio;
    (2) what representations he has received in the last six months concerning the possibility of the licensing of commercial sound radio; and if he will give an assurance that no step will be taken in this direction in the lifetime of the present Parliament.
    Mr. Masonasked the Postmaster-General when he will publish the terms of his Bill to illegalise the support of off-shore private radio stations.
    Mr. Boydenasked the Postmaster-General (1) if he has received the report of the working party on local sound broadcasting stations; and when he expects to permit the British Broadcasting Corporation to start local experimental stations;
    (2) if he will permit the British Broadcasting Corporation to establish a local sound broadcasting station in the North-East as an experiment in local educational broadcasting.
    Mr. Bevins: As the answer is rather long I shall, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement after Questions.
    Mr. Lipton rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. As far as I can see, nothing could arise out of the Postmaster-General's Answer.
    Later—
    Mr. Speaker: I must consult the House, as I am not sure how to deal with the matter. In view of the form of the Answer which the Postmaster-General gave to Question No. 8 and others, I think that I should call other hon. Members whose Questions were answered then, in the hope that they will not be able to invent a supplementary question.
    Mr. Hamilton: Question No. 11.
    Mr. Bevins: As the Answer is rather long, I should like, with permission, to make a statement after Questions.

    Educational Television, Scotland
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement on the plans for educational television in Scotland.
    Mr. Bevins: As I indicated on 19th February in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) the discussions I am having with my colleagues about educational broadcasting cover a whole range of proposals; and raise important questions of general principle such as, who should produce, who should transmit, and who should pay for. Educational television in Scotland is covered by these discussions.
    896
    This study is bound to take a little time, but it is going ahead as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Hughes: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the numerous complaints about the lack of educational content and inspiration in Scottish television on the grounds that the choice and treatment of the subjects presented are unworthy of the viewers? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into this question again to make its standard more worthy of the viewers?
    Mr. Bevins: That is precisely the object of the study which is at present being undertaken.

    Reception, Port Talbot area
    Mr. J. Morrisasked the Postmaster-General whether he will inquire into British Broadcasting Corporation reception in the Port Talbot area.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Ray Mawby): The B.B.C. tells me that, provided suitable outside aerials are used, reception of its sound and television services should be satisfactory in most of the Port Talbot area.
    Mr. Morris: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that there is general dissatisfaction in many parts of Wales because of the television reception, and that that includes Port Talbot in my constituency? Many parts of Port Talbot are not able to receive the new B.B.C. Wales service at all. Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that within the last few days Red Dragon Relays has been concerned about the construction by the Central Electricity Generating Board of transmission lines which may well obliterate both B.B.C. and I.T.V. reception in this area? In view of the seriousness of the situation, will the hon. Gentleman investigate the possibility of the construction of a low-power station in the area and, secondly, undertake a survey to discover how many people receive the new B.B.C. Wales service in the whole of Wales?
    Mr. Mawby: The B.B.C.'s information is that there is quite widespread opportunity for obtaining this station. The B.B.C. has been made aware of the fact that many viewers are trying to obtain the new Channel 13 service on an existing Channel 10 aerial, which obviously will not give perfect reception, and it is

    897
    trying to publicise the need for fitting the right type of aerial, although it admits that there is a certain amount of ghosting in certain parts as a result of hilly ground, and so on. Nevertheless, I shall notify the B.B.C. of the points made by the hon. Gentleman.

    Distant-Water Fishermen (Sports programmes)
    Mr. Croslandasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the difficulty experienced by distant-water fishermen in receiving, owing to wave-band difficulties, the Saturday afternoon sports programme now that it has been transferred from the Light to the Third Programme; and what proposals he has for improving reception of this service.
    Mr. Mawby: It is true these fishermen will be able to receive the Light Programme on long wave, but not Network Three. However, the B.B.C. tells me that it broadcasts in its General Overseas service on short waves, a sports programme, "Saturday Special", from 3.15 p.m. to 5.0 p.m. and from 5.15 p.m. to 5.45 p.m. British Summer Time. This programme should be receivable at the distant-water fishing grounds on good equipment.

  POST OFFICE

    Mail Bag, Tamworth (Loss)
    Mr. Snowasked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement concerning the loss of a mail bag dispatched from Tamworth, Staffs., on 27th February, containing cheques deposited with a local bank; and on what date the loss of this mail bag was notified to the Tamworth bank in question.
    Mr. Mawby: The mail bag in question was dispatched to London on the evening of 27th February, and contained unregistered letters, including five packets posted by different banks in Tamworth and reported to have contained cheques. I regret that, in spite of the fullest inquiries, we have been unable to trace how the loss occurred. As the packets were unregistered we had no details concerning them and
    898
    could not notify the senders before they informed us, at various dates, that the packets had not been delivered.
    Mr. Snow: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that that is an extremely unsatisfactory Answer? Why was there a ten-day delay before the bank in question was advised about the loss? Why does postal control in Birmingham persist in regarding this as ordinary unregistered mail when these cheques were dispatched in official pouches and, therefore, presumably were subject to special control? What special tightening up has followed the raising of this sort of issue in the House three months ago?
    Mr. Mawby: The hon. Gentleman has given me some information which I did not have before. He suggests that the cheques were in pouches. That is a matter at which I shall have to look, because at the moment I am not aware of that. So far as I know, these were sent as normal unregistered mail, and therefore it is impossible to know what was contained in those bags when they disappeared, but I shall consider the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Snow: I am much obliged.

    Letter-Box. St. Olave's
    Mr. Priorasked the Postmaster-General if he will reconsider his decision not to replace the letter-box at St. Olave's, Great Yarmouth, in view of the inconvenience this will cause to holiday-makers and the fact that no saving will result to the Post Office.
    Mr. Mawby: We have reconsidered this matter and decided in the special circumstances to have the box replaced.

    Shakespeare (Special Stamps)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Postmaster-General when the Shakespeare sets of stamps were sent to Mr. P. N. Bulivant, who, as a stamp dealer, paid£81 in response to his Department's advertisement stating that they would be delivered on 24th April; and why, for over four weeks, inquiries have received the explanation that the stamps would be delivered in a few days without the stamps being sent.
    Mr. Mawby: I very much regret that this order was wrongly filed amongst

    899
    those which had been met or were being met and that Bulivant's inquiries were incorrectly answered on this basis without adequate verification. An apology has been made to him and his stamps were delivered on 28th May.
    Mr. Dodds: But is not the whole case one of inefficiency and misrepresentation? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Wait for it and I shall give the details. Will the hon. Gentleman explain how, when it was known that preparations were not made to complete the orders on 24th April, for weeks after stamp dealers were told that they would receive them in two or three days, yet the delay lasted for a month or five weeks? Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this sort of thing has created a good deal of ill-will with the customers, and having got them out, they are sticking to the material of the packs, thus damaging many stamps. This is an example of in-efficiency. Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that if this sort of thing is done again better preparations are made for it?
    Mr. Mawby: Certainly mistakes have been made in regard to this issue. The matter to which the hon. Member refers is the issue of a first-day cover which we provided. This is the first time that we have sought to provide a first-day cover. We made a calculation of how many would be required, and we were grossly out. In fact, we calculated that about 20,000 or 30,000 would be required, whereas, at the end of the day, it was nearer 100,000. Mistakes were made in the Department, but we are making certain that they will not occur again. This was a teething problem, in respect of an issue which we had never offered before. I can assure the hon. Member that next time an issue of this kind is made we shall have learnt from the mistakes we made this time.
    Mr. David James: Is my hon. Friend aware that this mistake is made by every publisher in the United Kingdom, all the time?

    Peterlee
    Shinwellasked the Postmaster-General if he will state the result of his inquiries into the organisation of postal arrangements in the area covered by the Crown post office in Peterlee.
    Mr. Bevins: I arranged for incoming mail to continue under periodic observation and as a result special instructions have been issued to those post offices where correspondence for the Peterlee area may have been delayed. I should be greatly helped in improving the service by a reduction in the amount of incorrectly addressed mail for the area. One of the main faults has been the omission of the post town of Peterlee. I am considering whether any further publicity measures in the Peterlee area would assist, and meanwhile I should be very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman if he would discuss this with me personally.
    Mr. Shinwell: What is the point? I recognise the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman in inviting me to have a discussion with him, but is he aware that I raised this matter more than two months ago? I then asked why this Crown post office was sited without any plan about the method of delivery and the nomenclature for the area. Surely this is a matter which could be settled in five minutes. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot do it himself, can I go to Peterlee and discuss it with the postmaster? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the failure to solve a simple matter of this kind is an example of the inadequacy of the Post Office?
    Mr. Bevins: I realise that there seems to be an aversion in the North-East to using the word "Peterlee" as a postal town. Since February of this year we have examined about 1,400 letters intended for Peterlee, and have found that about 40 per cent. were wrongly addressed, and that consequently quite a number were held up in the post. I agree that there was no trouble before the new office was opened in Peterlee. Clearly there are local associations here which the right hon. Gentleman could help me about. That is why I should like to discuss the matter with him.

    Postal Deliveries, Lichfield Area
    Mr. Snowasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the continued slowness of postal deliveries in the Lichfield, Staffordshire, area, which has been the subject of previous complaints by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth, is causing inconvenience to both private and commercial interests;

    901
    and why letters posted from Westminster by 10.30 a.m. are not delivered by first post the following day in Lichfield.
    Mr. Mawby: I am sorry that staffing difficulties at Lichfield are still causing delay in the delivery of mail there. We are doing our best to overcome these.
    Letters posted at Westminster by 10.30 a.m. should be delivered by first post the following day in Lichfield. If the hon. Member would let me have details of any cases of delay I should be glad to look into the matter.
    Mr. Snow: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have already referred this to the Postmaster-General in the House of Commons? I did this as a test to corroborate the many complaints that I have received about this bad service. Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that his Department, like certain other Government Departments, does not seem to understand the problems confronting the area because of its being an overspill receiving area, with a greatly increased population? Will he accept what is intended to be a constructive suggestion? Why cannot the mail for this area be sent on the express train which leaves London in the late afternoon and which would at any rate provide a delivery first thing in the morning, without any delay? Why must the mail go via Birmingham?
    Mr. Mawby: I will consider this point, but it is important for the hon. Member to remember that this is a rapidly growing area, which makes it more difficult to recruit the right type of labour. This is one of our problems. Nevertheless, we are doing everything we can to put the matter right.
    Mr. Snow: Pay them better, and you would get some more staff.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    S.T.D., Scotland
    Mir. Hector Hughesasked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement on the progress of the telephone conversion to subscriber trunk dialling in Scotland; and when he expects to have it completed and in full working order in all regions.
    Mr. Bevins: Forty per cent. of telephone subscribers in Scotland now have S.T.D. I expect that the introduction of this facility will be substantially completed in all regions and available to well over 90 per cent. of subscribers by 1970.
    Mr. Hughes: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he realises that that is an extremely unsatisfactory Answer? Why should Scotland lag behind England in this matter? Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that Scotland is brought up to at least the level of England?
    Mr. Bevins: There is not a great deal in it. The percentage covered in the United Kingdom as a whole is 45, the percentage in Scotland is 40, and, anyway, Aberdeen has it.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Dawley New Town
    Mr. W. Yatesasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when he expects to publish the master plan for Dawley New Town; and what have been the results of his discussions with the New Town Corporation and the Secretary of State for Education and Science concerning the idea of creating a new university town and including it within the master plan.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): The Development Corporation hopes to publish its master plan towards the end of the year, and it is open to it to reserve land for a university site. The proposal for a university at Dawley will be considered in the first instance by the University Grants Committee, and until provisional conclusions have been reached discussion; on the lines suggested would be premature.
    Mr. Yates: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that already on two previous occasions he has said that the University Grants Committee is considering the matter? Is he aware that the master plan is supposed to be ready in September? In view of the Robbins Report, can he intimate to me, the House and

    903
    the country when a decision will be taken to include the university in the new town plan?
    Mr. Corfield: I cannot give an indication of the date of the decision of the University Grants Committee, but I can assure my hon. Friend that I have no reason whatever to suppose that any delay by the Committee will in any way prejudice the proper planning of Dawley New Town.

    Litter Act (Penalties)
    Mr. Longdenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware that the maximum penalties under the Litter Act are inadequate; and if he will take an early opportunity of asking Parliament to increase them.
    Mr. Corfield: No, Sir. I have no reason to think that in general the penalties under the Litter Act are inadequate for the purposes for which that Act was designed.
    Mr. Longden: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the intentions of the Litter Act are being implemented? If he is, he must be the only person in the Kingdom who is. If not, what does he propose to do about it?
    Mr. Corfield: As my hon. Friend is aware, the great problem in connection with an Act which attempts to deal with the question of litter is enforcement. I know that my hon. Friend has in mind such matters as discarded motor cars, and so on, but I do not think that that is a reason for an increase in the penalties imposed under the Litter Act, as a general proposition.
    Mr. MacColl: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that when we last met, in the last hour, on the Adjournment, his right hon. Friend the Minister was saying that the Litter Act could be used to deal with the problem of discarded motor cars? If the penalties are not in line with the great commercial profits derived from dealing with this kind of scrap, is it not making a mockery of the whole idea of using the Act for this purpose?
    Mr. Corfield: The point that I wish to make—and I am sure that this is in line with the general thought in the House—is that for the ordinary offence under
    904
    the Litter Act £10 is probably an adequate penalty.
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: Can the Minister say how many prosecutions have been brought under the Litter Act and what penalty, broadly speaking, has been imposed.
    Mr. Corfield: That is another question. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will put it down I shall do my best to answer it.
    Mr. David James: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the whole of England, from Loch Ness to Ditchling Beacon, is becoming increasingly nauseating, and that it is high time that either the existing Act were enforced or stiffer penalties were imposed?

    South-East England (Migrants)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs from which overseas countries he expects that migrants will come to settle in the southeast of England between now and 1981; and how many migrants he estimates will come from each country.
    Mr. Corfield: For the purpose of the South-East Study our broad and necessarily tentative breakdown was that round about a quarter of the net migration into the South-East over the period 1961-81 was likely to be migration for retirement; that a further quarter was likely to be migration for work from the rest of Great Britain; and the remaining half migration for work from elsewhere. This last would come from Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, the Commonwealth and foreign countries.
    These figures were based on our judgment of the total situation and did not simply project past trends. For the purposes of the Study it was unnecessary to be more precise about individual countries and regions. The main object was to estimate the total population of the South-East.
    Mr. Lipton: As these figures envisage an increase of something like 550,000 people coming into London and the South-East Region from overseas, have the Government taken the trouble to discuss this problem with the London Standing Conference on Regional Planning

    905
    which consists of 15 local authorities in the area, all of which are concerned about the additional strain which will be placed on housing, transport and other social services?
    Mr. Corfield: That, with respect, is another question, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the proportion of the total migration, based on the estimates of the Government Actuary, which has been allowed for from overseas is considerably less than it has been in the past.
    Mr. Woodburn: In the figures for migration from other countries has the Minister included the exodus from Scotland to the south-east of England, or does his Answer refer to foreign countries or to different parts of this country which are losing population?
    Mr. Corfield: If the right hon. Gentleman will read what I said, he will find that I have attempted to regard the figure in three parts: migration for retirement; migration for work from other parts of Great Britain and migration for work from countries outside Great Britain.
    Sir C. Osborne: On what grounds does my hon. Friend base his estimate that only 500,000 Commonwealth immigrants will come in to that area during the next 20 years, since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department said recently that at least 300,000 are waiting to come in from India alone at the present time? Is he aware that on that basis the number would be 1 million?
    Mr. Corfield: My hon. Friend will be aware that I have to rely to a large extent on the Government Actuary. How many people are waiting to come in from India or Pakistan, or anywhere else has, with respect, no relevance to this estimate.
    Sir C. Osborne: Of course it has.
    Mr. Pentland: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have received a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour proving that in 1963 there was a net loss of 12,000 insured workers from the Northern Region who migrated to the Midlands and the South-East? Is he aware that many thousands of insured workers are migrating already to the South-East? Can he tell us what he intends to do about that?
    Mr. Corfield: If I did not quite hear what the hon. Member said, I apologise, but I must stress that these estimates take account of our estimation that the Government's efforts to reinstate or increase employment in the North-East, the North-West and Scotland will be successful.

  HOUSING

    Compulsory Purchase Orders
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will extend his policy regarding the approval of compulsory purchase orders for residential accommodation to include cases where colour discrimination is exercised by landlords in contracts for the sale or lease of houses or flats.
    Mr. Corfield: The powers of compulsory purchase under Part V of the Housing Act, 1957, are concerned with the provision of housing accommodation and not with questions of colour discrimination which of course we greatly deplore.
    Mr. Brockway: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the case—particulars of which I have for warded to him—of a property company in London which not only forbids property being sublet to a coloured person but even to the employer of a coloured person? If he cannot introduce legislation on this matter, will he at least use his influence among his colleagues on the Government Front Bench, and on the back benches opposite, who are shareholders or directors of this company, to try to end this practice of gross discrimination?
    Mr. Corfield: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises the great difficulty of formulating legislative provisions which would be enforceable in a matter of this sort. I can assure him that I and my colleagues—including the ones he has in mind—very much deplore this practice.
    Mr. Fletcher: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Islington Borough Council takes a very serious view of this matter and regards it as one which can be dealt with only by legislation of a national character? Will the

    907
    Minister therefore reconsider the reasons why it is not possible to introduce legislation on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend?
    Mr. Corfield: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that this matter has been considered on a number of occasions and I have no reason to believe that it would be easier to draft provisions now than in the past. I will continue to keep the matter under review, but I cannot hold out any hope that this is a matter which should, or could, be dealt with by legislation.

    Subsidies (Review)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what is the outcome of his review of housing subsidies; and when he intends to introduce his proposals.
    Mr. Corfield: The review is still in progress and it will not be possible to introduce proposals during the present Session.
    Mr. Allaun: Is not it true that this review has been going on for many months and that meanwhile the councils and their tenants have had the heavy burden of interest which they bear further increased because of a rise in the Bank Rate and the interest rate of the Public Works Loan Board? Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that to meet the same proportion of the annual deficit on a new house as was met 10 years ago would require the present rate of subsidy to be trebled?
    Mr. Corfield: The hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that this relates to the total cost of new houses. He must also bear in mind that the working party which has studied this has had to collate a great deal of information which is not uniform throughout the country. Only when that information can be put together and the result discussed with the local authority associations would it be right to make a firm proposal.
    Mr. Peter Emery: Does my hon. Friend realise that certain authorities which had introduced differential rent schemes, in order to spread the subsidy to those on their housing waiting list
    908
    who really needed it, are now considering doing away with the schemes purely for political ends? Will he do everything in his power to discourage this?
    Mr. Corfield: I can assure my hon. Friend that, so far as my information goes, no local authority is unable to relieve genuine need by means of the existing system without over-burdening the rates.
    Mr. W. Hamilton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there are hundreds of thousands of houses in the country in respect of which no rent is paid at all and that these are in the control of the Government? What do the Government intend to do about them?

    Mutual Households Association Limited
    Mr. J. Wellsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what sums of money his Department has paid to the Mutual Households Association Limited; on what dates this was done; and what conditions were involved.
    Mr. Corfield: From the financial year 1958–59 to date grants of £2,880 towards the cost of providing board and lodging in four of the Association's properties have been paid annually to local authorities to be passed on to the Association under arrangements made by the authorities with the Association and approved by my right hon. Friend. These arrangements incorporate a number of conditions, including conditions that the Association shall provide the apartments in respect of which the grants are made, and that they shall be let or kept available for letting.
    Mr. Wells: Is my hon. Friend aware that this Association has recently served notice on one of my constituents in most unjustifiable circumstances? Will my hon. Friend look into the recent new rules of management set out by this body, and will he investigate its affairs generally in so far as he can?
    Mr. Corfield: I am aware of the case which my hon. Friend has in mind and his concern is shared by my right hon. Friend and myself. Nevertheless, matters of complaint regarding associations of

    909
    this type are for the Registrar of Friendly Societies, who has not as yet heard both sides of the case, and I think that it would be wrong to prejudge the issue.
    Mr. MacColl: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that when we were discussing these kind of matters in the debates on the housing legislation which is being dealt with by the House, the Minister expressed great confidence that the existing provisions were strong enough to prevent this kind of thing from happening? Is he aware that if it does happen, it will greatly weaken the appeal to tenants of housing associations generally?
    Mr. Corfield: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten that under the proposed new legislation the Housing Corporation will have greater powers of mortgage than have ordinary local authorities under the existing arrangements.

    Old People's Home, Wembley
    Sir R. Russellasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when he expects to reach a decision on the size of the old people's home to be built near The Vicarage, Tokyngton, Wembley.
    Mr. Corfield: I assume my hon. Friend is referring to an appeal to my right hon. Friend by the owners of this site against a certificate from Middlesex County Council which would determine the price to be paid for it. The appeal is being conducted by written representations, the exchanges of which have taken some time. My right hon. Friend hopes to be able to give his decision very soon after one of his inspectors has visited the site on 4th June.
    Sir R. Russell: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask if he is aware that negotiations for this home have been going on now for about three years? Will he do everything possible to speed up the building, which is badly needed?
    Mr. Corfield: I appreciate that, but I have checked the dates when various representations were sent in and the fault of delay does not rest with my right
    910
    hon. Friend's Department, but, in part at least, with one of the local authorities concerned.

    Compulsory Purchase Order, Newcastle-upon-Tyne
    Mr. Popplewellasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware of the difficulty the local authority is experiencing consequent on his delay in reaching a decision on the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Slum Clearance Parker Street Compulsory Purchase Order 1963, on which the public inquiry took place on 10th December, 1963; and when he expects to announce his decision.
    Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend is aware of the corporation's anxiety and he expects to issue his decision within the next fortnight.
    Mr. Popplewell: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this application was made last August and that the Minister held an inquiry last December? Will the hon. Gentleman do something to see that such extensive delay does not take place in future? We are grateful for the fact that the Minister will give a decision within a fortnight.
    Mr. Corfield: I should point out that there were 75 objections to the scheme. There are limits to the extent to which these things can be speeded up without completely overruling the rights of interested parties.

  WELSH AFFAIRS

    Circular "The Welsh Survey"
    Mr. Watkinsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what is the purpose of the circular issued by his Welsh Office on 13th April to local authorities in Wales headed The Welsh Survey; aid to what extent authorities within the area of the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association are affected by it, in view of the Report on Rural De-population for this area which he has had since May, 1963.
    Mr. Corfield: The circular was designed to give local authorities in Wales and Monmouthshire, including

    911
    Mid-Wales, an opportunity to contribute views and information which might be of help in carrying out the survey.
    Mr. Watkins: Is the Minister aware that seven Reports on Mid-Wales have been issued since this Government have been in office? Surely to goodness this kind of information is not required after the last Report which was published last week? What is the purpose of it all? Cannot we get some action instead of Reports?
    Mr. Corfield: The hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree that Mid-Wales should not be left out of the general regional studies. I am equally certain that if this opportunity had not been offered to the local authorities in connection with this survey, the hon. Gentleman again would have been the first to complain. I can assure him that this further and wider survey will not prejudice action which may be taken under the Reports he has in mind and on which my right hon. Friend will make a statement very soon.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Beef Supplies
    Mr. J. Morrisasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on beef supplies.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): Beef is short partly because Argentina is unable to send us her usual supplies and partly because of the demand on world supplies from Continental countries. On the other hand home supplies should be well maintained and there are good supplies of other meat available.
    As regards the prospects for the rest of this year, I cannot add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) on 11th May, when I indicated that I do not anticipate a further fall in imports of fresh and chilled beef and that there will be a rise in frozen beef supplies.
    Mr. Morris: Does the Minister recall that two years ago he had to come to
    912
    the House to ask for a Supplementary Estimate for £78 million, principally for beef? Does he agree that his present policy still results in uncertainty as to how much the housewife will have to pay week by week for the meat which she buys; secondly, how much the Exchequer will have to provide; and, thirdly, how much the farmer will eventually get for the calf which he raises? Has not the time come for a thorough inquiry as to where the subsidies go and what effect they are having, and should there not be some co-ordination between home supplies, home needs and overseas trade?
    Mr. Soames: The difference between the year to which the hon. Gentleman referred and this year was that there was a total difference in the world supply and demand situation. No policy devised by Her Majesty's Government could influence the output of beef from the Argentine in any one year following upon a drought, or indeed the level of demand or the level of output on the continent of Europe.
    Sir Richard Glyn: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the number of beef cattle imported into this country in the first four months of this year was more than treble the amount of beef cattle exported from it and, further, that the increase in the number of beef cattle imported over the number imported in the corresponding period last year was more than half as much again as the increase in the number exported in the same period?
    Mr. Soames: I would not without notes give exact confirmation of the figures my hon. Friend suggests, but the figures of imports were infinitely greater than any figures of exports.
    Mr. Peart: Surely the Minister must accept some responsibility? His failure has led to rationing by the purse of a very important commodity, and the price of beef has increased considerably. Is not the Minister aware that the crisis in the Argentine should have been known months ago and he should have acted much more quickly? Will he give an assurance that he will stimulate production over the next two years? Can he say what will be the extent of supplies from the Commonwealth?
    Mr. Soames: The reason for the rise in the price of beef on our market in recent months has been the fact that we pursue here a free market from which the people of this country have drawn enormous benefit over the years. What the hon. Gentleman means by "rationing by the purse" is that the price of beef has risen because of the alteration in the balance of supply and demand. We look forward to the opportunity when he will tell the House and the country what he will do—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—when he will tell the House what arrangements he would make other than allowing the price of meat to rise, which inevitably happens in the workings of a free market when the supply and demand balance has changed.
    Mr. Turton: Would my right hon. Friend agree that a great deal of damage is being done by exaggeration of the shortages of supply and, still more, by exaggeration of the increases in price, which in many cases have not happened at all?
    Mr. Soames: I know that my right hon. Friend will have noticed that, although the prices rose over a matter of some weeks earlier in the year, in the past couple of weeks they have in fact been falling.
    Mrs. Slater: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement this afternoon will be small comfort to the housewives who have continually been paying increasing prices? If the statement of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) is true, does it not mean that the people concerned in selling beef use the housewife as a pawn in the game to get more profits from the so-called shortages? What assurance will the Minister give to the housewife that she will be able to buy beef at reasonable prices in the future?
    Mr. Soames: I disagree profoundly with the hon. Lady. I believe that housewives appreciate the great advantages they have gained and do gain from the operation of the free market in this country they would not like it to be interfered with.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: We have much to do. We cannot debate this matter now.

    CYPRUS
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the present situation in Cyprus.
    The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. Duncan Sandys): With permission I will make a statement at the end of Questions.

  SOUTH ARABIAN FEDERATION

    Conference
    Mr. Bottomleyasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies if he will make a statement about the proposed constitutional conference for the South Arabian Federation.
    Mr. Sandys: The conference of which I gave particulars to the House on 14th May will open at Lancaster House on 9th June.
    Mr. Bottomley: Is it intended to invite the political leaders of Aden Colony, particularly remembering that possibly after the election they will be in control?
    Mr. Sandys: I think that the right hon. Member will have seen the statement I made a little time ago on this question explaining why we were confining the conference to the representatives of Governments.
    Mr. Bottomley: As a result of representations made from this side of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman give the matter further consideration with a view to inviting the political leaders of Aden Colony?
    Mr. Sandys: I am always happy to receive representations from the party opposite.
    Mr. W. Yates: What were the reasons my right hon. Friend advanced for not holding an election in Aden and the area to decide who are the proper political leaders? What made him decide not to hold a general election in advance of the conference? What advantage is there in having a conference of people who are not properly elected?
    Mr. Sandys: That, of course, is quite a different question.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider raising the state of emergency in the Colony of Aden while his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is there holding consultations with the various political groups?
    Mr. Sandys: I was in Aden myself the other day. I must say that no one would know that there was a state of emergency there. It does not interfere with normal life. All the people who would wish to be consulted or invited to such meetings are freely available to express their opinions.
    Mr. Brockway: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision to limit representation at this conference to representatives of Governments? Would it not be possible to bring to the conference representatives of the very popular People's Socialist Party in Aden? [Interruption.] Yes, the dominant party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he believes that any solution of this problem is possible unless he confers with the representatives of the popular movements in the area?
    Sir C. Osborne: As they do in Ghana?
    Mr. Sandys: We have already to accommodate around the table the representatives of 14 different States. That is going to be quite difficult enough. If we enlarged the conference and included outside elements from all those States we should have a conference which would be quite unmanageable. When I was in Aden the other day I had a long meeting with representatives of all the main political parties, including the P.S.P., in which the hon. Member is interested. I am fully aware of their views on all these questions.
    Mr. Bottomley: Am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) that it is possible for political meetings to be held in Aden? If not, why not?
    Mr. Sandys: The position is that while the state of emergency is on political meetings are not permitted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] When I said that I had
    916
    a meeting I meant a private meeting. As the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) knows, that would not fall within the terms of the restrictions on movement and political assemblies under the emergency.

  MALTA

    Talks
    Mr. Bottomleyasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies if he will make a statement about his talks with the Prime Minister of Malta.
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies if he will make a statement on his recent talks with the Prime Minister of Malta, and on the results of the recent constitutional referendum.
    Mr. Sandys: I am at present having talks with the Prime Minister of Malta and I will make a full statement as soon as possible.
    Mr. Bottomley: We shall await this statement, but in the meantime may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any further consideration has been given to the suggestion that perhaps the referendum has shown that elections before independence are desirable?
    Mr. Sandys: The right hon. Gentleman will not press me to anticipate my statement.
    Mr. Driberg: Can the right hon. Gentleman say roughly how long we shall have to wait for that statement? Is it a matter of weeks or a matter of days?
    Mr. Sandys: More than days—weeks; or a week, maybe. But perhaps I could make this clear, to avoid any misunderstanding: the British Government's offer of early independence to Malta naturally stands, but the constitutional question remains to be resolved, and it is on this that I am having these talks with the Prime Minister of Malta.

  BECHUANALAND

    Constitution
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth

    917
    Relations and the Colonies if he will now make a statement about constitutional changes in Bechuanaland.
    Mr. Sandys: As a result of discussions initiated by the Resident Commissioner during the second half of last year representatives of all political parties and other important groups in Bechuanaland formulated unanimous proposals for the revision of their Constitution.
    The British Government are in general agreement with these proposals and have decided to introduce a new Constitution on these lines. The details are set out in a White Paper published today.
    This represents an important step towards independence of Bechuanaland which we have no wish to delay any longer than is necessary.
    Mr. Thomson: While thanking the Minister very much for that statement, and while wanting to read the White Paper before making a final comment, may I ask whether he can give some indication of when the general elections are likely to take place which are to follow these constitutional changes?
    Mr. Sandys: Next March.

  REGENT LION INVESTMENTS LTD.
  Mr. Parkinasked the Attorney-General if he will instruct the Director of Public Prosecutions to initiate proceedings for fraud against Regent Lion Invesments Ltd. for causing, in co-operation with Grosvenor Estates, a lady to exchange her controlled tenancy for alternative accommodation by inducing her to sign a document represented to her as being a standard lease for her new accommodation, but which was a receipt for £100 for the surrender of her controlled tenancy.
  The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson): No.
  Mr. Parkin: In view of the unchecked continuation of this kind of chicanery and in view of the fact that the measures introduced by the Government to cover such matters as plumbing do not cover the main menace of Rachmanism, which was intimidation, victimisation and swindling people out of their homes, will
  918
  the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an undertaking that in this Session of Parliament, as part of the Government's modernisation plan, he will introduce new legislation to deal with landlord and tenant relationships to cover this kind of trickery by which people are still losing their homes?
  The Attorney-General: I can find not the slightest evidence in this case that there was either any trickery or any swindling, and in the evidence which the hon. Member submitted to me there seems to be nothing to indicate that Mrs. Knight was induced to leave her fiat or to give up her controlled tenacy or to sign a receipt by reason of misrepresentation or any fraudulent or criminal activity. She has expressed gratitude for all that hat, been done for her by those who arranged the new tenancy.

  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (SPEECH)
  Mr. Stonehouseasked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Secretary of Stale for Defence on Wednesday 13th May at Rutherglen on foreign affairs and defence represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Prime Minister aware that on polling day the Glasgow Herald said that the Secretary of State's two-day canvassing visit had been a great fillip to Tory hopes, but that the Labour vote went up by 1,200 and the Tory vote went down by 2,000, showing a swing to Labour of 7½per cent.? In view of this magnificent result, will he send the Secretary of State for Defence to the other two pending by-elections forthwith? Is he aware that the Secretary of State said in his speech that conventional defence is not possible for Britain? As this country has no independent nuclear deterrent without help from America, is not this a doctrine of despair?
  The Prime Minister: If we are to get into questions of political results of by-elections the hon. Member might have a look at some other recent results—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Which ones?"] Hon. Members will see in a moment. The hon. Member asked whether I agreed with my

  919
  right hon. Friend's speech and I said, yes. I think that the hon. Member would be wise if he took account of the Secretary of State's advice and had a look at the possible defences of our island, because the nuclear deterrent is the only effective defence.
  Mr. Shinwell: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Secretary of State for Defence, during his speech in the Ruther-glen by-election, charged the Labour Party with wanting to return to conscription? Is the Prime Minister aware that there is no justification for any such charge? [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] If the right hon. Gentleman has any evidence to that effect, will he produce it so that we may debate the subject? May I ask whether he agrees with his right hon. Friend that the Labour Party wants to return to conscription? If he will not dismiss him from his post will he at least reprimand him?
  The Prime Minister: On the question of conscription, so far as I know the Front Bench opposite is always saying that we ought to have more conventional arms. I have continuously asked how hon. Members opposite would get them unless they are prepared to introduce conscription.

  BANK HOLIDAYS
  Mrs. Butlerasked the Prime Minister if he will discuss with the interests concerned the desirability, under modern conditions, of replacing the traditional Bank Holidays with five days statutory holiday with pay to be taken at such times of the year as may be agreed by individual managements and employees.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. This would not offer the same opportunities as the present arrangement for family and communal recreation, and I do not think that it would be so widely appreciated. Her Majesty's Government are however taking steps to relieve some of the congestion caused by the timing of the present Whitsun and August Bank Holidays.
  Mrs. Butler: In view of the appalling accident figures and the disturbances which have marred recent Bank Holidays, is it not increasing folly to continue this build-up of people and vehicles concentrating on a few week-
  920
  ends in the year? Since the Government are already considering the staggering of holidays and discussing this with the interests concerned, would it not be appropriate to discuss at the same time the replacement of Bank Holidays by some modern holiday?
  The Prime Minister: There is quite a lot in what the hon. Lady says, but we had better have an experiment first. We propose an experiment with August Bank Holiday next year.
  Mr. Rankin: The right hon. Gentleman may not be here.
  The Prime Minister: Again, I think the hon. Member is rather rash in his predictions. I think that we had better have an experiment next year with August Bank Holiday and possibly with Whitsun Bank Holiday, and then we shall be in a better position to judge what action to take.

  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDUSTRY AND TRADE (SPEECH)
  Mr. Stonehouseasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade at the opening of the British Week in Dusseldorf on Britain and the Common Market represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade said that he regretted the failure of the negotiations to get Britain into Europe and that he told the Germans during his speech that Great Britain belongs to Europe and that her policies are those of a good European? Is not this a wholly parochial outlook in view of Great Britain's Commonwealth and worldwide responsibilities? If the Prime Minister agrees with him, does it imply that the Conservative Party are preparing to take Britain into Europe again on the same humiliating terms? Will the Prime Minister do some straight talking on this with the electorate?
  The Prime Minister: A short time ago I offered to have a gramophone record made of my reply for the benefit of hon. Members opposite. My reply—and I repeat it once more to hon. Members

  921
  opposite—is this: we do not know what conditions there will be and we cannot anticipate whether any opportunity will come in future years to associate Britain more closely with the Six. Anyhow, Parliament would have to decide, if it did.
  Mr. Ridley: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the so-called five conditions of the Labour Party would, in fact, make it totally impossible for this country ever to join the Common Market?
  The Prime Minister: I think that that is true.
  Mr. Shinwell: Since the right hon. Gentleman has made an offer to produce a gramophone record of his speeches, may we in future have the gramophone instead of the right hon. Gentleman's presence?
  The Prime Minister: I know that this is a machine age, but I think that is going too far.
  Sir C. Osborne: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the more intelligent members of the Labour Party were great supporters of the movement for this country to join the Common Market?
  Mr. G. Brown: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), will he tell us which of the five conditions he rejects?
  The Prime Minister: Not without notice.

CYPRUS
The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. Duncan Sandys): With permission, I will now answer Question No. 35, which was asked earlier by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson).
Since the serious incidents in Famagusta, three weeks ago, there have been fewer acts of violence in Cyprus. The arrival of further troops from other countries has enabled the British contingent in the United Nations Force to be reduced to about 2,000 men, in addition to the important logistic support which
922
we continue to provide. Britain is thus still supplying the largest element in the peace-keeping force.
Our British troops have endeavoured to discharge their difficult task with complete impartiality; but this has not always
been appreciated by the two communities, who have at different times accused us of favouring the other. At present, anti-British feeling among the Greek-Cypriots is, unhappily, running very high and is being actively stimulated by newspapers and speeches.
This situation has recently been aggravated by the case of a British airman, who has been charged by the Greek-Cypriot police with carrying arms to the Turkish-Cypriots. Since the matter is sub judice, I will not comment upon it, except to inform the House that our High Commissioner has protested strongly about the statement made by the Cypriot Minister of the Interior, in which he publicly condemned the accused man, thereby prejudicing the prospect of a fair trial.
I do not know whether the charge against this individual is well founded. But it is not necessary for me to say that the British Government would be deeply distressed at any failure on the part of its Service men to live up to the high reputation which they have rightly earned throughout the world.
For some time we have been much disturbed by the build-up of arms and military forces in Cyprus by both sides. As guarantors of the Constitution, the Governments of Britain, Greece and Turkey have made representations to President Makarios about his decision to introduce conscription. At the same time, the British Government and the Governments of other countries which are contributing to the United Nations Force have expressed to the Secretary-General their concern about the reported intention of the Cyprus Government to import substantial quantities of heavy armaments.
The three-month mandate given by the Security Council expires in about four weeks' time and will no doubt have to be extended. We remain anxious to do all we can to help the United Nations Force to fulfil its mission. However, before entering into a commitment for a further period, we shall wish to be

923
satisfied that our continued participation is necessary and is generally desired by the other countries concerned.
The sole reason for our participating in the United Nations Force is our desire to help restore peace in the island and create conditions in which a settlement acceptable to both communities can be negotiated. While they are performing this thankless task, we feel that our troops and their families have a right to be treated with respect and courtesy by those who, in the crisis of last December, so readily accepted our offer to come to their aid.
Mr. A. Henderson: Is it not intolerable that British women should have to experience the indignities which have been reported in the Press in the last two or three days? Are any steps being taken to prevent such treatment? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that adequate arrangements exist to ensure the safety of British nationals in the event of a further deterioration in the situation in Cyprus?
Mr. Sandys: The first matter to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred is being taken up with the authorities concerned. We have for a long time had arrangements in preparation to deal with any deterioration in the situation, should it arise.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Are not some of the actions of the Cyprus Government, particularly towards the Turkish-Cypriot minority, placing in doubt their whole validity under the Constitution, of which we are guarantors? Will Her Majesty's Government ensure that all member-States of the Commonwealth, N.A.T.O. and the United Nations are fully aware of the constitutional position?
Mr. Sandys: I think that the constitutional position is well known.
Mr. Bottomley: We all join in the tribute to the traditionally high standard of conduct of British troops overseas. Is it not a fact that British troops are in Cyprus at the invitation of the Cyprus Government and now form part of the United Nations contingent? In the circumstances, ought not Her Majesty's Government to make it quite clear that they will not tolerate the continual humiliation of British troops and nationals whose only job is to try to keep the peace?
Mr. Sandys: I can assure the House that I feel no less deeply on this question than the right hon. Gentleman.
Sir A. V. Harvey: If anti-British feeling continues against our troops and their families, will my right hon. Friend make it absolutely clear, not only to the Cyprus Government but to the United Nations, that we will not continue to give the full strength we are at present giving unless the situation changes?
Mr. Sandys: I think that I dealt with that point in my original Answer.
Mr. Grimond: Everybody will agree with what the Secretary of State said about our troops in Cyprus. If it became apparent that we should withdraw them, has the United Nations indicated whether it would be able to maintain adequate forces in Cyprus to keep the peace?
Mr. Sandys: That is the point with which I was dealing when I said that, before entering into a commitment for a further period, we would wish to be satisfied, first, that our continued participation was necessary, and, secondly, that it was generally desired by the other countries concerned.
Mr. Berkeley: Would the Secretary of State not agree that the most urgent and immediate task is that of pacification? To achieve this end, will Her Majesty's Government press for a larger United Nations Force and, thereby, a smaller United Kingdom contribution? Will Her Majesty's Government also press for a greatly strengthened United Nations mandate, giving the United Nations Force full control over all military and police operations on the island?
Mr. Sandys: That is a matter for the Secretary-General. We have already expressed our views on some of these points at different times.
Mr. Driberg: If British troops are to be withdrawn from the United Nations Force, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can say what steps are being taken now, through the United Nations, to prepare other nations to send contingents to replace them? If British troops are to continue to serve in the United Nations Force, will the right hon. Gentleman look into a matter which has been

925
raised before—perhaps a secondary matter, but not altogether unimportant—the comparative pay and allowances of British and other contingents in the United Nations Force?
Mr. Sandys: The hon. Gentleman's second question should be put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
To answer the hon. Gentleman's first point, I did not say that British troops were to be withdrawn from the United Nations Force. I made it quite clear that we have not been at all happy about the situation and that we would be very pleased to be relieved of this obligation. On the other hand, we have a sense of responsibility in this matter and we have no wish to do anything which would result in wrecking the effectiveness of the United Nations Force.
Sir G. Nicholson: Cyprus is not a rich country and arms cost a great deal of money. Can my right hon. Friend say how this threatened importation of arms is to be financed and who will be paying for it?
Mr. Sandys: I am not Minister of Finance for Cyprus.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must pass on. We have much to do.

TYPHOID OUTBREAK, ABERDEEN
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Noble): With permission, I should like to make a statement to the House on the outbreak in Aberdeen of typhoid fever.
The number of patients at present in hospital is 249, of whom 241 are confirmed cases. This is, in fact, the most serious outbreak since 1937. The first indications of an outbreak appeared on 19th May, and the probable source of infection, in a supermarket in Aberdeen, was traced on 20th May. The speed with which the focal point of infection was established reflects great credit on the Medical Officer of Health of Aberdeen, Dr. MacQueen and his staff.
926
According to the information with which I have been furnished, the cause of this outbreak has not been finally established. There have been suggestions that the organism causing the epidemic was present in canned corned beef, and this cannot be ruled out. However, there is no foundation for the suggestion that the infection originated in canned corned beef from former Government stocks. No canned meat which investigation has shown could have been in the shop, could have come from these stocks.
Investigations made revealed that some 6 lb. cans of corned beef from a certain establishment—not from Government stocks—were in the shop at the material time. The establishment at which this corned beef was produced did not for a period of 15 months use chlorinated water in the cooling process. This could conceivably have been a source of infection. The Government are, therefore, advising that 6 lb. cans produced at this establishment during this period should be withdrawn from sale for the time being.
As an additional protection, we are also advising that corned beef in 6 lb. cans produced at another establishment where unchlorinated water was used for cooling should be withdrawn. I should add, however, that there is no evidence that corned beef from this plant could have been involved in the Aberdeen outbreak.
Medical officers of health are being advised how they can assist in this operation. We are in touch with the trade and I am sure that they will co-operate with us as they did last year.
Although we are taking these precautionary measures, there is no positive evidence at present that the brands to be withdrawn were responsible for the infection; and it must be accepted that many doubts remain unresolved. Because these uncertainties exist, the Government have decided to hold an inquiry, under an independent chairman, to discover the cause of the epidemic. The report of the inquiry will be published in due course. But I should point out that there is no doubt in my mind that the first priority must be to contain the epidemic which is now in Aberdeen.
I should like to take this opportunity, and I am sure that the House will join

927
with me, of expressing my profound sympathy with the townspeople of Aberdeen in their misfortune and my admiration for the public services of the city for the way in which they are confronting it.
Mr. Ross: My hon. Friends and I and the whole House will wish to join with the right hon. Gentleman's expression of sympathy for the people of Aberdeen, a city which has one of the proudest records in Britain for health and cleanliness. We will also wish to be associated with his tribute to the local services.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say why we have had to wait 12 days before getting an authoritative statement from the Government? Is he aware that there has been much speculation and a considerable amount of rumour, along with conflicting statements, which might have been avoided? Is he also aware that only half an hour before he spoke, telling us that there is doubt about the source, there has appeared on the tape a report from the Medical Officer of Health of Aberdeen to the effect that he has no doubt at all as to the source; indeed, that he again mentions that one of the possible sources was a can of meat which emanated from Government stocks?
While agreeing that the right course is now not to hold a post mortem but rather to ensure that the outbreak is contained, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Scottish Health Department has been participating in and guiding the battle for the containment of this epidemic? When did the Scottish Health Department come into the picture? Was that Department consulted and did it have anything to do with the decision not to publish—although many people have argued that it should have been published—the source or suspected source and locus of that source?
Has guidance and help been sought on the question of the need for workers, realising that the Medical Officer of Health has spoken today about the "terrific efforts of our over-small battalion of workers"? Surely one must leave nothing to chance in a matter of this kind, but ensure that everything that can be done is done, particularly to see
928
that the Scottish Office gives all the help that is required.
Mr. Noble: I shall try to answer all the points put by the hon. Member. First, he asked why there was a wait of 12 days before a statement was made giving the facts as I have just given them. Part of the facts in the statement were only finally confirmed yesterday afternoon. In a problem of this sort, where there is no certainty what the cause of the epidemic may be, one has to follow all the leads.
The Medical Officer of Health confirmed that in his view—and, I believe, rightly—it started from a shop that had a counter from which cooked meats were supplied, but the cooked meats were of many different sorts, and all of them had to be checked. So I do not think it remarkable that it should take a number of days of very intensive work to bring the facts properly to light.
The hon. Member's second point related to the statement made by the Medical Officer of Health—which the hon. Gentleman has seen on the tape—that this supply came from a can of meat of 1951 vintage—two cans of meat—
Mr. Ross: The statement was that the source was reduced to the possibility of one of two cans; and that one of those cans came from Government stock.
Mr. Noble: Again, this is something that we have been checking with the greatest possible care, for very obvious reasons.
The shop had been opened for eight weeks before the epidemic—it is a new shop. Every single consignment of cooked meat came to this shop from one depot in Dundee. Every single consignment has been checked with this depot, and the people there assure my officers that not one single can came from anywhere except these recent establishments of which I have spoken in my statement.
I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman that the officers from my Department have been in very close touch with the Medical Officer of Health in Aberdeen, and have given him all the help they could and all the help that he has asked for. The hon. Gentleman quoted a reference by the Medical Officer of Health to an "over-small" staff. I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman

929
and the House that the Medical Officer of Health in Aberdeen has been offered, on more than one occasion, any staff that he would like to ask for—the staff is available—but, up to date, he has turned down any offer of extra help.
Mr. J. Harvey: While I appreciate that my right hon. Friend is not answerable for the one case reported this morning from my own constituency, would he agree with me that soap and water and clean hand-towels are the first line of defence against the spread of typhoid infection? Would he and his colleagues who are responsible see that this simple fact is brought home as a matter of urgency to all those who have any sort of responsibility for the maintenance of toilet facilities in local authorities, factories, schools, and the like?
Mr. Noble: I thank my hon. Friend for making that suggestion. These are exactly the points to which Dr. MacQueen has been giving the widest possible publicity in Aberdeen, and through the Scottish Press.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the Secretary of State allow me to join with him in paying tribute to the devotion, skill and energy with which Dr. MacQueen and his staff have tackled this unexpected emergency? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the contamination arose from an outside source, and not in Aberdeen, and that the burden put on Dr. MacQueen was, therefore, thoroughly unexpected? Will he see that the inquiry to be set up is sufficiently wide in scope to take into account the points I have just referred to, with a view to preventing any recurrence of this sort?
Mr. Noble: I am very glad to repeat my confidence in the way in which Dr. MacQueen, the health and hospital staffs and other people in Aberdeen have dealt with the outbreak.
The bacillus identified from this outbreak is normally found in Spain, South America and the southern part of the United States. It is not one that is indigenous to Great Britain, so I do not think that Aberdeen need fear in any way that the city was responsible for the start of the outbreak.
Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: In view of the urgent need to contain this terrible epidemic, and as vans and other vehicles are still leaving the city in order to trade, and so on, in the countryside, what further steps do the Government propose to take to protect the countryside around the city from the spread of infection?
Mr. Noble: I do not think that it is possible, from all the inquiries I have made, at the moment to think of any extra steps which the Government can take, and which they have power to take, beyond those that Dr. MacQueen has already taken, either by direct action or by advice, in the area round Aberdeen, but we will certainly watch the position as it develops.
Mr. Grimond: Are there any other cases outside Aberdeen, either suspected or confirmed? Further, what exactly are the steps currently being taken—are there restrictions on travel in and out of Aberdeen, or on gatherings in Aberdeen?
Mr. Noble: There are no definite restrictions on travel, and I think for a city of this size and importance it would be impossible to impose them. But the Town Council itself has given a lead by closing the Beach Pavilion, which is a very big restaurant and dance hall, as the sort of step that is reasonable at times like this.
As to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, there are one or two other cases. There is one in Glasgow, I think, and one in Edinburgh—suspected, but not yet absolutely confirmed. I believe that I am right there. And there are one or two in London. But this is not untypical in a normal year. None of these cases that we know of at the moment has any connection with Aberdeen, and the House probably knows that in a normal year we do have isolated cases of typhoid—perhaps 50 or 100.
Dr. Bennett: While it may be early days yet, can my right hon. Friend say whether any of the cases so far confirmed can be traced to infections other than the at present unknown primary source; in fact, whether any cases have been traced to other people who have already contracted the disease?
Mr. Noble: As far as I know at the moment, the answer to that question is "No." Dr. MacQueen's view as expressed today is that this is still the primary stage of the outbreak, and, though each new case as it comes in will be tested to see whether there are any other causes, as far as I know at the moment, there are not.
Mr. G. Brown: There is obviously no difference in any part of the House in the seriousness of the approach to this matter. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he will be able to announce the name of the independent chairman and the names of the other members of the inquiry committee, and when he expects them to start work?
Further, following on the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) earlier, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the probable source of infection was traced the day after the first indication of the outbreak, will the Secretary of State say why it has taken 12 days to decide to withdraw certain cans, or brands of cans, of corned beef from circulation?
Does he not think that his statement that another brand that is being withdrawn could not have been in Aberdeen will cause a lot of worry elsewhere in the country? Can the right hon. Gentleman say where else in the country this brand has been available, and whether we might now worry about other cases being already incubated from that?
Mr. Noble: I will announce the name of the chairman as soon as I possibly can.
The right hon. Gentleman asked why, when the source of the infection was discovered the day after the first cases were concerned, there was yet a period of 10 or 12 days before action was taken. The answer is that the source of infection was the food counter in this particular shop in which there were cans of cooked meat, but before we knew, or could possibly tell, which kind of cooked meat, and where those supplies came from—not only the name on the label, but which establishments they came from—a con-
932
siderable amount of research and hard work was needed, which went on continuously.
As soon as we discovered that they came from an establishment which had been using unchlorinated water in the cooling process of the 6 lb. cans, which could be, as I say, the source of infection, we decided to withdraw them.
We then asked immediately whether there were any other establishments—not necessarily firms, because they have many different clients—where the same conditions apply, and we found one other. We thought that it was right, at least until the inquiry has pronounced whether this is the likely source, to withdraw these cans as quickly as possible from the public in case, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it might be conceivably possible that somebody would be incubating the disease from them.
But I should explain to the House that the consumption of corned beef in this country is in the region of 70,000 to 80,000 tons a year. Last year was the first time in history that any question of typhoid could be proved to have emanated from corned beef.
Mr. G. Brown: May I ask—
Mr. Speaker: There is so much to do and it is after four o'clock.
Mr. Brown Mr. Brown rose—
Mr. Speaker: Great difficulty is created—
Mr. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a point which, with respect, I submit emerges, and to which all the country would like to know the answer. Have all these tins already been withdrawn, or are they still available?
Mr. Noble: The question is one which certainly will be worrying people. These are 6 lb. tins, so that they are not likely to be found in the ordinary household. The trade and the medical officers of health of England, Wales and Scotland are being asked today to co-operate with us in having all these withdrawn from circulation.

PIRATE RADIO SHIPS AND LOCAL SOUND BROADCASTING
The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about pirate radio ships and local sound broadcasting.
In order to ensure good reception both here and on the Continent, broadcasting frequencies are agreed by the International Telecommunication Union. Pirate radio ships select their own frequencies. This is an infringement of international agreements.
If no action is taken against pirate radio, such transmissions from ships outside territorial waters may increase, with the result that radio communications with ships and aeroplanes would be interfered with and human life endangered. Also, such transmissions could well lead to massive interference with the reception of existing radio programmes both in Britain and Europe. As it is, protests of interference Lave already been received from Belgium and France.
The Council of Europe has been study-nig this problem and a draft Convention is now in an advanced stage of preparation. What is required to deal with the problem is concerted international action. The Government, therefore, propose to await the conclusion of this Convention and then to consider legislating on lines proposed by the Convention.
The Government cannot accept the establishment of pirate radio ships as a reason for making precipitate decisions on local sound broadcasting in this country. To legislate for a national service of local sound broadcasting and to establish the necessary machinery for supervision during the remaining months of this Parliament is, clearly, not practicable. In the next Parliament the Government will undertake the review of the situation foreshadowed in the White Paper on Broadcasting published in 1962 (Cmnd. 1893).
Mr. Mason: While agreeing wholeheartedly with the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, may I ask whether he is aware that we view with some apprehension the delayed action against the offshore radio stations? Is he not aware that meanwhile these law
934
breakers appear as champions? It conveys the impression that the right hon. Gentleman is bowing before the pressure of the commercial lobbyists, and in addition, in spite of his appeal, advertisers are already feeding these offshore radio stations.
Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that five other countries have already legislated quite effectively against these radio stations and have banned them from their shores? He appeared to have this intention in mind on 5th May. Why, therefore, the delay?
Mr. Bevins: The position is that the Convention of the Council of Europe will probably be signed towards the end of the year and legislation will then be considered. The hon. Gentleman has asked the pointed question: why, if it is possible for certain other European countries to legislate, is it not possible for us to do so? It is perfectly true that some of the Scandinavian countries and Belgium have already legislated against this sort of thing, but we take the view that concerted legislation is the only effective way of getting rid of this sort of thing.
It is the only effective way, because until legislation is concerted it would still be possible for other European sources to provide support, by way of finance, advertising, and so forth, to these ships. It is because the deliberations of the Council of Europe are now at an advanced stage that we think it right to await the final Convention so that legislation, when it comes, will be effective and will cover all loopholes.
Mr. Lipton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that by awaiting the decision of the Council of Europe he is creating the impression that the Government are somewhat cowardly in their approach to tackling this problem of the pirate ships? Is there any reason why, in order to deal with this menace, emergency legislation should not be passed through this House before the House rises for the Summer Recess, following the example of Sweden, which has tackled the problem very successfully? If, after that, some further action is required in the light of the decision of the Council of Europe, we could take it later.
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that by allowing the situation to drift as

935
he is, he is playing right into the hands of the very powerful commercial radio lobby on the benches opposite?
Mr. Bevins: That is, of course, a matter of opinion, but the Government's view here, quite firmly held, is that it would be wrong to introduce legislation at this stage when it could be evaded because of the absence of corresponding legislation in other European countries.
Mr. B. Harrison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the fact that he is not to take precipitate action will be welcomed by those people who listen to and enjoy these programmes? Will he ensure that if any action is taken some form of continuous music programme will be available for those who want to listen to it?
Mr. Bevins: I realise as much as my hon. Friend what the demand is in certain parts of the country for continuous music of a certain kind. I have, of course, discussed this with the B.B.C. The question of an all-music service, whether it be wholly "pop" or not wholly "pop", raises questions which are not confined to East Anglia, and probably the most efficient way to transmit an all-music programme would be on the long-wave nationally.
I have already authorised extended hours for the B.B.C. Light Programme to enable the Corporation to provide more light music, but to do this it needs permission to broadcast more gramophone discs and so far it has not been successful in getting this permission. It is at a very early date taking this matter to the Performing Right Tribunal. This is an important matter and I shall certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. W. Hamilton: Is the Postmaster-General aware that he has not answered, as he said he would, Question No. 12, which asks specifically what representations he has had from the pressure groups which are now agitating for commercial radio? Is he aware that this greedy, money-grabbing lobby is exactly the same kind of lobby to which the Government succumbed in the case of commercial television? Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman himself promised legislation against pirate radio ships and that many people think that the reason why
936
the Government are now retreating from that position is that they hope to give that same lobby much richer pickings later on?
Mr. Bevins: No, Sir. What I and my hon. Friend said in the House was that the Government were considering the desirability of early legislation. We have come to the conclusion which I have stated. In reply to the hon. Member's particular point, I think that I have received just under 50 letters from people who wish to have commercial local sound broadcasting in this country, and fewer than half of those letters are from people interested in setting up stations.
I think that the hon. Gentleman and, for that matter, some of his hon. Friends are very unwise to take a doctrinal stand on this sort of subject. After all, some of the hon. Gentleman's predecessors took the very same line against commercial television and later had to eat their own words.
Mr. Boyden: Why does the right hon. Gentleman leave out of account the possibility that he can provide of the B.B.C. setting up four or five experimental local sound stations? There are certain areas where no interference would take place with other broadcasting and reception. Why does he not pay attention to this and let us have one or two, or four or five, local sound broadcasting stations with a very heavy local and educational content?
Mr. Bevins: The case for B.B.C. local sound broadcasting will be considered in the review which takes place towards the end of the year, but I should like to say to the hon. Gentleman and to the House generally that there are some very serious questions which must be resolved before we embark either on experiments or on a national service. I do not want to detain the House, but there are, for example, questions of programme standards, advertising controls and, perhaps most important of all, the influence of local sound broadcasting on newspapers, both national and provincial, and the participation of national and local newspapers in this possible medium. Until we have settled these questions, we should really be most unwise to rush into early decisions.
Mr. Ian Gilmour: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a poll was taken

937
among the people who can hear Radio Caroline as to whether they would approve Government action against pirate ships? Fourteen per cent. said that they would approve Government action and 74 per cent. said that they would not. Should not my right hon. Friend pay more attention to the opinion of the people affected than to the ideological prejudices of the party opposite?
Mr. Bevins: I do not know who took the poll, but I am not disposed to quarrel with my hon. Friend. The important thing that a poll of that sort illustrates is undoubtedly the fairly widespread demand, not only in East Anglia, but in other parts of the country, for more music on sound radio.
Mr. Callaghan: May I ask a question about safety of life at sea? Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information about how close to the frequencies of Trinity House pilotage service some of these stations are operating? Has he made any inquiry as to whether of the five frequencies on which Trinity House operates one of them is being interfered with or at least is very close to the band on which some of these stations are operating? Will he inquire how far this is affecting questions of safety of life, including communication between ship and shore and pilotage, before he comes to any conclusions along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour)?
Mr. Bevins: As I think the hon. Member knows, in the main, the frequencies
938
used for radio communication with ships are, to put it very simply, at the end of the medium wave band, and at least two of the pirate ships are using frequencies which are comparatively close to the ships' frequencies.
At the same time, I think that it is only fair to say that, while there was a little interference with ships' radio communications—it was not serious—during the early days of the Caroline venture, there has not subsequently been any complaint of interference with ships at sea. But I entirely agree that the medium band, especially in this sector, is very congested. If there were any evidence that life at sea was being imperilled, the Government would not hesitate to review the position.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate this matter without a Question before the House.

PIRATE RADIO SHIPS AND LOCAL SOUND BROADCASTING

  NEW MEMBERS
  The following Members took and subscribed the Oath, or made the Affirmation required by law:

  Charles Andrew Morrison, esquire, for Devizes.

  Rear-Admiral Morgan Charles Morgan Giles, D.S.O., O.B.E., G.M., for Winchester.

  James Gregor Mackenzie, esquire, for Rutherglen.

  Eldon Wylie Griffiths, esquire, for Bury St. Edmunds.

FARM AND GARDEN CHEMICALS
4.20 p.m.
Mrs. Joyce Butler: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the labelling of farm and garden chemicals, and matters related thereto.
There is widespread public uneasiness about modern chemicals which are used on the land and their possible effects upon animal and human life and on the balance of nature. While recognising the benefits of modern science, we are all, experts and laymen alike, working in a field in which little is known about the long-term and chain reaction effects of what is being done. Happily, we have not yet reached in this country the situation set out in Silent Spring, the book by Rachel Carson, but I believe that largely we have been protected by the vigilance and the devoted work of the wild life and conservation and other interests which have pinpointed the danger signs as they have occurred and have enabled a limitation to be placed upon the use of certain chemicals.
The chemicals which are particularly suspect are the organo-chlorine pesticides and their danger lies in their persistence and in the residues which they leave behind. In 1963, of 333 bird bodies which were examined by the British Trust for Ornithology and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, 304 were found to contain these residues. Since then, the evidence has continued to come in. Only in the last few months there has been increasing evidence of residues in marine species. Residues have been found in sea birds such as shags and guillemots, which feed on fish, indicating an extensive contamination of the sea by these chemicals.
Research and study is continuing on this subject all the time. It is being increased as a result of the Government's statement in the House before the Recess and an evaluation is now being undertaken as far as is possible of what all this really means and the effect of it upon domestic animals and human beings. We may, however, rightly suspect that similar residues are in some degree beginning to affect our own health and well-being.
940
Public opinion has had its fears somewhat stilled by the ban on chlorinated hydrocarbon seed dressings, by the partial ban on aldrin and dieldrin, which comes into effect at the end of the year, and by the other proposed restrictions and by the Ministry's review of safety requirements for agricultural chemicals generally which is now being undertaken.
It was good news to see on television news only a few days ago that a rare pair of ospreys have managed to hatch out the eggs which, it had been feared, might be sterile as a result of chemical contamination. We would, however, be unwise to be lulled into a false sense of security because of any action which has been taken. We are using a vast sea of these chemicals on the land, on farms and on gardens every year, and we are all the time making fresh discoveries about the dangers of some of them.
For example, one organo-chlorine pesticide which is much used and has been so for almost 20 years—DDT, which is so widely used that it has become a household word—is suspect and is being specially studied for its effects. It is important, therefore, not to relax our vigilance and to provide means by which our 300,000 farmers, who are under pressure all the time from salesmen, and the 19 million gardeners, who have very little knowledge of the pesticides which they use, are given guidance on this subject. We have to recognise that most of them are not experts in this field and that when they use certain insecticides or pesticides, they do not know whether they could be harmful to species other than the insects which they destroy.
Even the horticultural advisers in the Press and on sound radio and television are not experts in this subject. The user has, therefore, to rely upon the small amount of information which is now provided on the labels of the chemicals he buys as to whether they might be harmful to domestic pets and what safety precautions should be taken. In some cases, some of the chemical contents of the bottle are mentioned on the label.
At a recent conference, the Government's chief scientific adviser, Sir Solly Zuckerman, said that we must not only

941
collate and pool our knowledge as to how far we have already contaminated the environment and the ultimate effect of that contamination, but that the information is of little value unless it is put in the right form, known in the right places and acted upon at the right time. One of the right places in which that information should be found is where the chemicals and the pesticides are used: that is to say, in the home, in the garden and on the farm. The right form in which the information should be given is that it should be clear and unambiguous and should indicate the nature of the substance which is used. To be acted upon at the right time it should be available on the container or on the label.
That being so, I ask the House to give me leave to bring in a Bill which would ensure that the active ingredients of all chemicals used in farms and gardens are clearly stated either on the label or on their container and which would ensure the placing of a simple mark upon the label, preferably a coloured marking, which could be seen at a glance and would indicate the degree of toxicity of the chemicals concerned.
I know that the Ministry is working on this subject, but what is being done will take a considerable time. In the meantime, the information which I have received from allotment associations and all kinds of other relevant sources shows that conscientious farmers, gardeners and manufacturers would welcome such a measure and the help that it would give in preventing further damage to birds and wild life and the building-
942
up of residues in food, soil and water and the possible danger to ourselves and to our children from these chlorinated hydrocarbons and other farm and garden chemicals.
The slap-happy user of these chemicals will always, unfortunately, be with us, giving overdoses to plants for quick effect, leaving half-used containers lying about or carelessly disposing of waste when the job is finished. The marking of containers would, however, reduce the harm that these people do and would help to protect those who are conscientious. So anyone handling a container of chemicals, from the retailer right through to the refuse disposer, should have a clear guide as to the danger, or possible danger, and be able to take the necessary precautions.
It is because I believe that the Bill would help, in the interim, while we are awaiting further Government action, to protect us from some of these dangers, that I ask the leave of the House to bring in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Butler, Miss Quennell, Mr. William Yates, Mr. Lubbock, Mrs. Slater, and Mr. Hilton.

FARM AND GARDEN CHEMICALS
  FARM AND GARDEN CHEMICALS
  Bill to make provision for the labelling of farm and garden chemicals, and matters related thereto, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 19th June, and to be printed [Bill 142].
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  WAYS AND MEANS [12th May]
  Resolution reported,
  WAYS AND MEANS [12th May]

    INCOME TAX (CASE VIII OF SCHEDULE D)
    That it is expedient to authorise charges to Income tax arising from amendments of Chapter II of Part II of the Finance Act 1963 (taxation of rents, etc.) relating to payments made or deemed to be made for any period in which a sale of the property, or some other transaction or event, takes place.
    Resolution read a Second time.
    Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions), and agreed to.
    Instruction to the Committee on the Finance Bill that they have power to make provision therein pursuant to the said Resolution.

  FINANCE BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]
  4.33 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I beg to move,
  That the Bill be considered in the following order: Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clause 2, Schedule 2, Clause 3, Schedules 3 and 4, Clause 4, Schedule 5, Clauses 5 and 6, Schedule 6, Clauses 7 to 18, Schedule 7, Clauses 19 to 22, Schedule 8, Clauses 23 and 24, new Clauses, Schedule 9, new Schedules.
  This Motion has been the normal procedure now for several years. It enables us to take the relevant Schedules along with the Clauses to which they refer.
  Mr. James Callaghan: It is, of course, a convenience to attach to the Clauses the Schedules which apply to them. I remember the days, some years ago, when we used to return to the Schedules after we had discussed the Clauses, and one of the reasons for departing from that old practice was not only that the new course gave rise to a more coherent discussion, but also that there was a tendency, on reaching the Schedules, to forget what
  944
  we had talked about on the Clauses, and to start all over again.
  That excuse is less necessary this year than it has been before. We have on this occasion a highly truncated Finance Bill. There are only 24 Clauses. Some of them will not tax our memories to any great extent, and some of them will be disposed of very quickly. I cannot imagine any undue excitement over the Government's stock entered in the Dublin register or much cheering or booing over the exemption of service contracts for Stamp Duty, and I do not suppose that the Amendments to the Sugar Act will cause much excitement, either.
  Altogether, I think that there is less reason for this Motion on this occasion, for we have this time a Finance Bill which is less than half the normal length. Obviously, from its length, it was designed for a June election, which did not come about. I have no doubt that the Chancellor wishes that it had. This is a dull Bill; it is a tedious Bill; it is unenterprising; it is unimaginative, and it is unexciting. I doubt whether it will detain the Committee overlong. I think that what the Chancellor has proposed may shorten even further the length of our discussion and, considering that the Bill is nasty, brutish, and short, we shall not oppose the Motion.
  Question put and agreed to

  FINANCE BILL

    Clause 1.—(SPIRITS.)
    Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Callaghan: I hope this is not to be a solo.
    Mr. Maudling: It is up to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Callaghan: I looked around, but I did not notice any great desire on the part of anybody else to discuss this Clause, yet I think that perhaps a word or two might be said—if I may continue what I was saying before, though putting it in a different key.
    I noticed that the Prime Minister yesterday, discussing taxation, which is the purpose of this Clause, said that the Socialists will bring in higher taxation. Well, it was Aneurin Bevan who said, "Why peer into a crystal when you can

    945
    read the book?" It may not be a bad idea to remind the Committee, if this is to be the burden of the Prime Minister's song, that in this Clause we are raising this taxation not for the first time, but for the second time during the course of the present Parliament. The plain truth is that the duty on spirits is higher today than it has ever been in the whole history of these duties. It is a record which I am sure the Government will be proud to publicise among their records—that they have raised the taxation on spirits to the highest level ever.
    I thought that it would be worth while to look up the figures. When this Parliament began its life in 1959 the duty on spirits was £10 10s. 10d. per proof gallon. Under the Bill it is now proposed that it should be put up to £12 17s. 6d. Excise duty, or £13 Customs duty. More is being drunk despite
    this discouragement by the Chancellor. The combination of this considerably higher duty, an increase, as I say, from £10 10s. 10d. per proof gallon to £12 17s. 6d., means that in the lifetime of this Parliament the Government have raised the tax on spirits—whisky, brandy, gin, vodka, and the like—from £145 million to £226 million.
    The Socialists may be going to raise taxation in the future—I do not think that that is true, and certainly the Prime Minister has no occasion for saying it—but at least we can say that the Government have raised taxation to record levels in this field. During the last three years the price of a bottle of whisky has gone up by about 5s. 6d. Either the nip has got smaller or the price has got higher, or there has been a combination of both. That really began from 1961 and the pay pause and although I know that the Government are acting purely in the knowledge that there is nobody left who wants to drink their health, they are now making it more expensive for us to drown our sorrows.
    I suppose that this is what we must expect from the Government, but I am sure that those who attend the Derby tomorrow and lose their shirts in the process will not throw many hats in the air and cheer the Government when they take a nip of whisky or brandy afterwards, and find that it will cost them a little moue, thanks to what we are doing today.
    946
    I do not want to put it too highly, but I think it worth while for the Chancellor to think about this, that this extremely high level of duty is having an effect on making other stimulants more accessible and cheaper. We have had a lot of discussion recently about drugs. I was interested to see that Professor Capps, a professor of forensic medicine, said that as many people take drugs in this country today as drink. I do not know what he includes among the drugs. Some, I have no doubt, are very benevolent drugs. It is an astonishing thing that while a bottle of whisky costs 45s. one can buy "purple hearts" in the black market for 6d. a time.
    I raise this point in a serious way. There is undoubtedly some tendency to get one's stimulant in the cheapest market that one can find, and it is a social point which the Government ought to take into account in these matters. If we are in a position where people can get the same effect from half-a-dozen "purple hearts" at one-tenth the price as from half a bottle of whisky there is a question I ere for consideration. Those members of temperance organisations—and I speak as one whose trembling hand, at the age of 5, signed the pledge in the Band of Hope—and those who have been directing their attention against alcohol might ask themselves whether we have now reached a situation in which they might transfer their activities.
    This is all against a background of a record high-level of taxes on spirits, beer and tobacco. I make these observations because I think that there is here a social point which is worth considering. Although we cannot deny the Chancellor his revenue, because he says that he needs it and we cannot say that he does not and we must, therefore, give him the Clause, we had better understand that under a Conservative Government the revenue from duty on spirits and the rate charged on spirits are higher than they have ever been in the history of our civilised community.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster-General (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I do not know whether I should thank the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) for preventing my receiving a pair of white gloves in debate on this Clause. I

    947
    assume that his intervention was intended to express his gratitude to us for helping to reinforce his intention to keep his pledge made at the age of 5.
    When we come to a later Clause I shall be able to correct what the hon. Member said about beer, but it is perfectly true that the duty on spirits is higher than ever before. On the other hand, it is necessary to put this into perspective. In comparison with 1951 the duty will be 22 per cent. higher, but industrial earnings are 99 per cent. higher. We must consider the burden of an admittedly heavy tax on the community against the background of the changed means of that community to bear that tax.
    This is particularly relevant to the suggestion, which I do not think the hon. Member intended very seriously, that the effect of the tax was to drive people to consume "purple hearts". In truth, the tax, though great, is one which the great mass of our population can more easily bear than was the case 12 years ago, because their earnings have risen far more in proportion than the tax has increased.
    I was amused to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he did not think that a Socialist Government, if we were to suffer that misfortune, would raise taxation. It is extremely interesting to note that. It casts an interesting light on pledges of increased expenditure given not in the House of Commons, but on television.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Schedule 1 agreed to.

    Clause 2.—(BEER.)
    Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. Callaghan: I offer myself again. In view of what has been said, I might follow up on this Clause the remarks made earlier. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is, of course, quite right. The Beer Duty is not at a record level. That distinction belonged to the last and not the present Conservative Government, but it is at its highest level since this Parliament began its
    948
    life. According to the Report of the Customs and Excise the duty on beer was £5 11s. 9½d. per barrel. Now, under the Bill, it will become £7 7s. per barrel. The revenue, again taking the two comparative years, was £218 million when we started this Parliament and it is estimated that it will be £291 million for 1964–65.
    Again, therefore, I say that this is the highest rate of duty in the lifetime of this Parliament. The Government have twice managed to raise the duty on beer since 1959–60. It is true that they lowered it in 1958 and 1959 for the purpose of helping them to win the General Election. Presumably they are now raising it for the same purpose.
    It should be taken into account that the increased tax enters into the retail price index. I have constantly made the point about various actions of the Government in this connection. By their own acts they make their own incomes policy more difficult. The cost of wine, beer, and spirits enters into the retail price index. I have looked up the weightings, which are constructed on the basis of 1,000 points. Food is highest at 314 points, but beer is by no means low. In the alcohol content of the index it comes out at 63 points. It is nearly as high as fuel and light, surprisingly enough, and they are placed at 66 points. It is higher than household goods, at 62 points, and it is higher than the miscellaneous group of services, on which I thought people were spending more money, at 56 points.
    The Chancellor, therefore, by means of this Clause, is helping to raise the cost of living. Every pint of beer drunk in clubs and "pubs" will affect the cost of living. Only yesterday Mr. Frank Cousins pointed out in a speech the difficulty which he and his executive will find, because of the increased cost of living, in moderating wage claims. Here the Government, as they have done with rents and general interest rates, are operating against them. The Government's left hand does not know what its right hand is doing.
    The Government will make life more difficult for themselves during the summer. The increased Beer Duty will be reflected in due course in the retail price index. It is true that 2 million or 3 million workers have their wages automatically adjusted up or down according

    949
    to the state of the index. In my young days it always operated downwards. There was a period of four successive years when the increment of £5 which I received was obliterated by the fall in the cost-of-living index. The Government, by this and similar actions, are helping to precipitate a rise in wages and earnings over the next few months.
    There is another point in this connection which I made in the Budget debate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that he must have his revenue. I take the Chief Secretary's point that we cannot deny it to him in these circumstances and that this may be one of the least offensive ways of raising it, but this affects quite sharply a comparatively small group of elderly people, the old men and women who like a pint of beer. We all know the kind of man who comes into the club. He is the first one there in the evening and he sits over a pint for an hour. He then has two or three more pints and makes them last for four or five hours while he sits there talking. This duty affects him adversely.
    This is a point which has been put to me more than once. I very much regret that the Chancellor has done nothing to offset in some way or another—I cannot, on this Clause, suggest how he can do it—this hardship, which affects a relatively small group, but, nevertheless, a group who can least afford any increase of this sort. I regret that the Chancellor is asking the Committee to agree to raise this duty in this way, at this time.
    When the Government are proclaiming their record and saying, "Why trust the Socialists? You can be quite sure you ought to vote Conservative", they ought to state, "Once again, we are getting more revenue and a higher rate of duty than we have had, and in the lifetime of this Parliament we have managed to put the Beer Duty up twice during the last four years."
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said, the effect of this Clause will be that the Beer Duty will have been put up twice in the last few years, but it is material to point out that the effect of so doing will be to put it at the identical level at which hon.
    950
    Members opposite left it in 1951–8½d. on the pint.
    The Committee will appreciate that, although nobody underrates the dislike that many people feel at any extra imposition in this direction, all sections of the community are in a very much better position to pay this rate of duty today than they were in 1951. It represents a very much smaller proportion either of earnings or of social benefits. I mentioned on the last Clause the fact that since 1951 industrial earnings had risen by 99 per cent. Therefore, this burden, obviously represents for those in industry a great deal less than precisely the same rate of duty represented in 1951.
    Mr. R. J. Mellish: That is not the whole argument. Since 1951, apart from the increased tax which the present Government imposed, the price of beer has been increased by the brewers themselves. If we are to argue about the price of beer in 1951 and what it is today, we might get a more realistic figure. Even in London, only yesterday, it was announced that the price of beer is going up even further to make more profit for the brewers.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is a perfectly reasonable point, but it does not bear on the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, to which I was replying, which was the effect of these duties on the citizen, for which, of course, the Government and this Committee are directly responsible. The fact remains that set against the far higher money incomes and substantially higher real incomes of today, this rate of duty—the same as that of 1951—must represent a very much smaller burden on the citizen than it did.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to the example with which perhaps the Committee has most sympathy of all—the old gentleman who likes his pint of beer. But if one is to get the matter in proportion the fact remains, as the Committee knows, that the general level of the National Insurance retirement pension is now in money terms 125 per cent. more than what it was in 1951, when we had the same rate of duty.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: And what is the price of beef?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Therefore, for

    951
    them this duty represents a much smaller proportion of their income than when it was thought right to impose it in 1951. I hope that the Committee will get this into proportion.
    The hon. Gentleman also referred to the fact that as beer appears in the retail price index the effect of increasing the duty is to affect the index. That is perfectly true, but I think, again, that we must get it into proportion. The effect of increasing the beer duty is one-fifth of a point—a variation which quite a minor fluctuation in the price of vegetables can produce. It is a valid point, but I think that it is a mistake to exaggerate it. The hon. Gentleman has accepted that it is necessary in the circumstances of this year to obtain some increased revenue, and I suggest to the Committee that this is not an unreasonable way of obtaining, as this Clause will obtain for us, £25½ million this year and £29 million in a full year.
    Mr. Mellish: The right hon. Gentleman really does not know what is going on outside. He has said that this tiny little tax makes not the slightest difference. To the vast majority of the people of whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East, (Mr. Callaghan) was talking, it is a tremendous hardship. To the dock worker who is in work it of course makes very little difference. He can absorb the extra tax; it may be only a fraction of some overtime he has earned. But in a constituency such as I represent, where one in every five is an old-age pensioner, every one of whom to the best of my knowledge is in receipt of the National Assistance, the main pleasure of the men, is to have a smoke and a drink. As for the old ladies, certainly most of the pleasure they can get is in visiting the local "pub" of an evening.
    When the right hon. Gentleman talks about this being an infinitesimal tax and says what nonsense it is to suggest that this is creating a difficulty, I assure him that in areas where I come from they say, "Why is it that when a Government are in power for as long as this one has been and impose new taxes they always seem to be put on those who can least afford them? "To impose this as a form of indirect taxation is grossly unfair. Some of the dock workers going into a local
    952
    public house may not even know that the price of beer has gone up, but the vast majority of old people certainly would and on them it would be a hardship. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept that the arguments put up by my hon. Friend are quite realistic and not to be scorned at.
    Mr. A. Lewis: I support my hon. Friend's argument, which is a statement of fact. I interjected while the Minister was speaking when he made reference to the fact that pensions had gone up by 121 per cent. since 1951.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: One hundred and twenty-five per cent.
    Mr. Lewis: Whatever the figure, it is immaterial. My interjection was: what about the price of beef? Some hon. Members opposite sniggered at that, but my object was to make the point that old-age pensioners, whether the pension has gone up by 125 per cent. or not, have long since lost the opportunity of ever affording beef, not only because of this last doubling and trebling of the price. They know that everything they touch is increasing in price, directly attributable to the actions of the Government.
    The Minister made an attack upon my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) on what the next Labour Government were going to do about taxation. I would remind him that this Government in the last election and in each election since 1951 said that they were going to reduce taxation, make the £ worth something, and reduce the cost of food. It is true that old-age pensioners in my constituency and in most of the industrial constituencies are in the position that possibly the only pleasure they get out of life is their pint of beer and packet of cigarettes. The Government have consistently increased direct and indirect taxation and what I would term the type of taxation that the old age pensioners cannot avoid as in fact others do. I am referring to the way in which rents have been doubled, trebled and quadrupled. I am referring to the way in which the Government have brought about the increase in rates. In fact, every action of the Government—. There is no need for the right hon. Gentleman to look at you, Sir Samuel. I am only mentioning these things in passing. The fact is that this is another

    953
    example of the Government not attempting to keep taxation down but deliberately increasing it. I hope that, when the election comes, it will be remembered that this Government have gone out of their way to increase taxation, and to increase it particularly against those least able to afford it.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I shall not attempt to emulate the adroitness of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) in opening up general questions of taxation policy, but perhaps I should say a word or two in reply to the two hon. Members who have addressed the Committee since I did.
    First, in reply to his reference to pensioners, I ask the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) to reflect on what I said in my earlier remarks in response to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) on the point that a beer duty at the same rate as it was in 1951 must represent less of a burden to someone on the pension today than it represented then. It must represent a considerably smaller burden. It is certainly not to suggest that it is trivial or unimportant—nothing of the sort—to point out that it is a smaller burden, and I think that this is an argument to which the Committee might feel disposed to give some weight.
    The hon. Member for Bermondsey went rather far in describing generally the increased duties on tobacco and alcohol as being imposed on those least able to afford them. However much we may argue on this Clause about who is the consumer of beer, it is surely a sound general proposition that taxes on alcohol and tobacco are pretty fairly borne throughout the population. They are not the kind of tax upon basic necessities of life against which the sort of charge which the hon. Gentleman made could, perhaps, properly be levied.
    As I say, I shall not enter upon the general issues of taxation which the hon. Member for West Ham, North raised. I say only that faced, as my right hon. Friend was, with the necessity, which, on the whole, the Committee accepts, of obtaining a moderate increase in revenue this year, it seems right that alcohol and tobacco should be the commodities to bear the increase. The position of those
    954
    who like their pint of beer and would feel a deprivation if they lost it is one which most hon. Members, at least, fully understand and sympathise with, but, as I said before, one must keep this in proportion. It is a proportionately smaller burden in this direction than was previously thought right to put upon people, and, all things being considered, I put it to the Committee that this is a reasonable and sensible imposition.
    Mr. Callaghan: I would not have risen again except that I take exception to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about putting this increase in proportion and about everyone paying very much less than he did in 1951. This is absolute rubbish. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has referred to his own tables. I referred to mine as he was speaking. According to the Report of Customs and Excise, the duty for all years up to 1958–59 was 155s. 4½d. on a barrel of 36 gallons. There was then a very substantial reduction for the period of the General Election. It was introduced in April, 1959, and the duty on beer went down substantially to 111s. 9½d. The Chancellor has now by instalments put it back to 147s. per barrel of 36 gallons. Although the right hon. Gentleman talks about a substantial saving, in fact, the saving amounts to 8s. on 36 gallons. That is the substantial saving, and he has steadily climbed back to the present figure which he suggests was wrong all the way up to 1958–59. This is putting the matter in proportion, I suggest. It is not a substantial saving at all; it is only 8s. on 36 gallons.
    As my hon. Friends have pointed out, when one takes into account the other burdens put upon the pensioner, it means that there is a further small burden put on the shoulders of those who can least afford it. Living in an affluent society as we are, if the Chancellor thought it right, for whatever reasons, to put the duty down substantially by about 40s. early in 1959, it is not a very good defence now to tell us that he has put it back to just under what it was in 1958–59 and no one need worry very much.
    I agree that it is small in relation to the total amount and it is small in relation to what a man at work and earning good wages might spend. On the other hand, it is a significant figure,

    955
    as my correspondence shows and as the right hon. Gentleman's correspondence must show, among old people, and I think it right that a voice should be raised on their behalf in this Committee today.
    Mr. John Rankin: The right hon. Gentleman compels me to say a word because he has made two statements which are not quite correct. The first was that the tax on beer and spirits is more easily borne today than it was years ago due to higher wages. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, this is not strictly correct. They cited examples to show that the tax is not, in fact, more easily borne.
    The right hon. Gentleman said also that the tax on beer, dealing with that particularly, was pretty fairly borne. I dispute this. I doubt that the tax is more fairly borne. Its incidence is unjust because the amount of tax which is paid in different parts of
    the United Kingdom is not necessarily the same because of the different methods of dealing out the commodity. In the case of spirits particularly, measures are used which have no statutory endorsement whatever, and they vary according to the whim of the retailer. In language which is not uncommon, one of the results of asking for a measure of spirits is simply to get a "dirty" glass. I believe that one distinguished person who used that expression is now a member of the Government in another place, and, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to follow the point a little further, he will find out who that noble Lord is.
    The tax is not fairly borne. I remind the right hon. Gentleman of a practice which is very common in Scotland but not, I think, so common in England. In Scotland, the glass of whisky is always accompanied by a chaser.
    Mr. Mellish: We cannot afford the whisky anyway.
    Mr. Rankin: I do not mind my hon. Friend interrupting me, but I think he may take it that I am not wrong in what I say about Scotland. I said that this example might well not apply in England.
    In Scotland there is the feeling that before one has a glass of beer one wants
    956
    something to go down in front of it. So the phrase "a glass and a chaser" has become accepted parlance in certain parts of Scotland. That means that the tax is not just the penny on the beer but also the penny on the whisky. So it becomes a double tax.
    The Temporary Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey): The Clause deals only with beer and not whisky. This is the "chaser" to which the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. Rankin: I realise that, Sir Samuel, but owing to an engagement which detained me a little longer than I expected, I missed the opportunity of joining with the Chancellor on the first Clause, and now I am trying to link the two. I always felt that in debate it was useful to establish a link between the past and the present. Whatever I may do to try to avoid your Ruling, Sir Samuel, there is nothing I can do to separate the "glass" from the "chaser"; that will still continue because the two are linked. As a result of this link, the Chancellor is doing double the damage to my Govan constituents who like a drink. This is another reason for taxing what I refer to as "the sins of the community" because then the Government know that a great many good people will support them in saying that we do not want others to drink or smoke or do things which they regard as not being very good.
    The right hon. Gentleman should realise that he is doing a little more harm than he realises and that in some cases he will be doubling the tax—unless he tells Scotland that it has to stop this ancient practice of having "a glass and a chaser", and if he does that he will be in terrible trouble when October comes along.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will not attempt to join the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) in the "chaser". I will stick to the beer, which is probably wise advice in general terms but is also what the Clause provides for. As to what he said about "the dirty glass", I recall the observation in another place with some interest. But that is plainly relevant only to the question of the duty on spirits, and I am sure that the hon. Member would not argue that it had anything to do with beer, unless the public houses in his constituency are very unusual ones indeed.

    957
    I am afraid that I must bring the Committee back to beer. I do not want to detain the Committee into licensed hours on the subject but I must make a further reference to what was said by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). The hon. Gentleman missed the point. He does not often do so, but he did on this occasion. I was not talking about savings at all. All I was saying—I must leave the hon. Member with this thought—was that the rate of Beer Duty as it now is in the Budget is the same as was thought right in 1951, although the resources of all sections of the community obviously make this rate of duty much less significant and much less burdensome now than it was then.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Schedule 2 agreed to.

    Clause 3.—(WINE AND BRITISH WINE.)
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 6, at the end to insert:
    Provided that the last-mentioned rates of excise duty shall not be charged on British wine berg such intoxicating liquor as is mentioned in subsection (1) of section 2 of the Finance Act 1956 (excise duty on strengthened cider and perry) and that the rates of excise duty set out in Schedule 3 to the Finance Act 1962 shall accordingly continue to be charged on such British wine.
    The Temporary Chairman: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 2, in line 22, at beginning, insert:
    "Subject to the proviso to subsection (1) or this section";
    Amendment No. 41, in Schedule 3, page 27, line 9, at end insert:
    "not applicable to such intoxicating liquor as is mentioned in section 2 (excise duty on strengthened cider and perry) of the Finance Act 1956";
    new Clause No. 17—(Excise duty on British light wines)—
    and Amendment No. 30, new Schedule—(British Light Wines (Rates of Excise Duty)).
    Mr. Mitchison: The Amendment which I move is designed to insert a proviso the effect of which would be to save from the proposed increase what is
    958
    called in a side note the 1956 Act "Strengthened cider and perry", and this means liquor in the nature of cider or perry over 15 per cent. spirit content and so described.
    The present rate of duty on British wine is 11s. 6d. The Bill proposes to increase it by 2s. to 13s. 6d. The question is whether that increase ought to be extended to the beverages which I have mentioned. The difference between the tax on light wines and that on heavy wines is a question of alcohol content. This, too, is a question of alcohol content. From that point of view it seems reasonable that there should be some distinction between the 15–25 per cent. range and the higher range covered by British wines and the still higher range covered by British heavy wines.
    There is a further reason for this. This is British wine in a sense that no other British wine is. It is grown in England. The apples come from our apple-growing counties. They are the product of a pretty considerable acreage. Cider is a drink that has been in this country for centuries. Strengthened cider may be more recent—I do not knew whether it is or not—but it is still substantially cider. It is a simple sort of drink. It is good; indeed, it is excellent. It is made not entirely of apples but mainly of apples.
    The effect of letting in this increase with regard to strengthened cider will be to put on something which is considerably heavier in the case of a fairly cheap beverage, a relatively cheap beverage, than it is in the case of most wines. Therefore, on the ground that the alcohol content is lighter, on the ground also that the beverage itself is rather different in character from the still wine which we are generally considering, and on a third ground which I shall now proceed to put, I hope that the Government will be able to see their way to make this small exception to the increase.
    The third ground is the smallness of the exception. When strengthened cider was brought into the duty on British wine in 1956—it was then called "a sweet"—figures were given by the Treasury indicating the extremely small quantity of the total of cider that it represented. It was surely a reason for not differentiating it from other cider rather than for imposing a duty on it.

    959
    At any rate, the Government insisted on bringing it in.
    The hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Irvine), who has his name to one of the Amendments that we are discussing, at that time introduced an Amendment to protect cider made from British apples—fortified or strengthened cider in this case. Looking back at that short debate, I think that the hon. Member had a very strong case, but he spoilt it a little by going into the Lobby afterwards as a dutiful follower of the Government and voting against his own Amendment.
    I hope that we shall not see that situation repeated today and that we shall have his support, even if, as is the case, his Amendment goes a little further than we would go. He proposes to reduce the present rate of tax on strengthened cider, whereas we would merely keep it at its present level. We offer a reasonable compromise to him between his constituency views and our views, and he might perhaps be willing to support that compromise if and when the question comes to a Division. However, I hope that we shall not divide. This is quite a small matter. It is obviously fair that there should be a rather lower duty on this beverage than on imported wine and that this is a convenient occasion for making a small concession which would be welcomed by those who grow apples for cider all over the southern counties of England.
    There is little more to be said about this. However, as we have been referring to the history of these duties, it is interesting to note that the duty on wine, British and other, has been reduced only once in its history. This was by Sir Stafford Cripps when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope in these circumstances that the Government, without going quite so far as that, will at least refrain from increasing the duty further in this case. The Tory achievement in this matter appears so far to have been confined to a reduction, introduced when Lord Amory was Chancellor, only in respect of sparkling wine and port. Now the Government have an opportunity to reconsider their proposed increase in respect of a humbler beverage, and to do so in the interest of many growers.
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: After eight years of using more or less the same words as those just used by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), I have the privilege of finding allies on the Opposition Front Bench, which does not often happen. However, I am delighted to accept support from wherever it comes. The only thing I would add concerns differences between Schedule 3 and Schedule 4. On page 26 in Schedule 3 there is a division between "light wine" and "other wine", whereas in Schedule 4 there is only one category.
    I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware that certain differences are alleged to exist between foreign wine, Commonwealth wine and even British wine. He must also know that British wine at least comes out in varying strengths. Perhaps he will tell me why the reference to British wine in Schedule 4 suggests that there is no difference between light and other wine.
    I have a constituency interest to declare in this matter. One result of the 1956 Act was that the company producing fortified cider was so heavily affected that it turned to producing wines from British fruit, and these wines are competing with light table wines from abroad. In these circumstances, it seems equitable that Schedule 4 should make a distinction between light wine and other wine. It would be reasonable for my right hon. Friend to accept the point that there is a difference between alcoholic strength, even if in the past there was perhaps no light British wine.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Amendment seeks in substance to reverse the decision this Committee reached in 1956. Hon. Members may recall that the basis of that decision was that a particular kind of fortified cider and perry was then coming into sale, deliberately fortified by the addition of sugar to produce fermentation and very substantially stronger than the ordinary cider brewed—if that is the word—in the normal and traditional way.
    After some discussion, it was felt by the Committee then that it was unfair to the British wine industry that this product should be at a lower rate—indeed, I think I am right in saying that it carried

    961
    no duty at all then—compared with other British wines paying a substantial excise duty. It was also felt, from the Revenue point of view, that to allow the British wine industry to be exposed to competition on this basis would undermine the return to the Excise of the duty on British wines and, therefore, that the right thing to do was to place the two duties on the same basis.
    That position remains, except that ordinary cider and ordinary perry are now subject to Purchase Tax in the soft drinks category. But the idea behind the 1956 decision is still right. I thought that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) perhaps exaggerated the scope of his proposal. He said that the Amendment
    would be welcomed by the cider apple growers of the southern counties. I think he exaggerated because, of course, ordinary cider is not touched by this duty or by the increase provided under this Bill. It is and remains under the Purchase Tax as a soft drink.
    Indeed, even in 1956, when this strengthened beverage was being introduced, it represented only 3 per cent. of the cider and perry output of the country. Therefore, very few cider apple growers would receive any benefit whatever from this Amendment, which would not touch the ordinary production of apples for cider. It would, indeed, affect what must be now considerably less than 3 per cent. of the production.
    That being so, I think we must take another look at the merits of the matter. What we are concerned with, as I have reminded the Committee, is a beverage founded on apples but fortified with sugar so as to induce higher fermentation and thus a beverage comparable with wine. It is not only I who make that comparison. The principal manufacturer in this country is marketing one of his brands of this product "Apple wine"—perfectly fairly I think. But surely that in itself suggests that, if it is to be marketed as wine in competition with wine also produced in this country, it should, as a matter of ordinary fiscal good sense and fairness, bear the same rate of duty. I cannot, therefore, recommend the Committee to accept the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering.
    962
    5.30 p.m.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Irvine) asked me why British wine was subject to the same rate of duty regardless of strength. He is, of course, quite right in pointing out that we treat imported wine in two different categories, whether it is heavy, above a certain specific gravity or below it. There is also a further complication in respect of duty in that we treat sparkling wines differently.
    The Committee discussed this point a number of years ago—I am sorry that I cannot recall in which year—and there was then, according to my recollection, very considerable argument because the standard British wines were, in fact, of a strength very close to the point of division, and very real practical difficulty was being encountered in classifying them in one category or another. It was therefore thought right to put them all into one category regardless of strength.
    I think that that was a right decision and that, on the whole, it was received satisfactorily by the public and the
    trade. So we really come back to the question as to whether in these circumstances we should now reverse the decision of 1956 and in respect of a very small proportion of the cider output of this country and in respect of a beverage deliberately fortified in order to strengthen it in respect of a beverage, the principal makers of which advertise it as apple wine, we should introduce a discriminatory and lower rate of duty. I could not advise the Committee to do that, because, as I was saying a moment or two ago, if we discriminate in that respect we are unfair to the producer against whom we discriminate and from the revenue point of view we undermine the receipts of duty. At the moment when, as the Committee knows, we are seeking to increase the revenue, that is a consideration which must be of some importance to us.
    Mr. Mitchison: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. If he is going to develop that argument, perhaps he would let us know what the concession would cost.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The net cost would be very small indeed, but I am not resisting it on grounds of immediate loss to the revenue, even though, of

    963
    course, if, as we fear, the effect were to undermine the receipts from the British wine industry the figure could become substantial. It is not, as I say, a point of the direct revenue which is at issue. The amount involved would be small, but it could, of course, become large. I put the matter to the Committee more on the basis of fairness between the industries, that these are comparable products. They are marketed as comparable and competitive products and I should have thought it reasonable in these circumstances that they should pay the same rate of duty.
    Mr. Mitchison: I only wish to say that if we are going to compare fortified cider with anything, the reasonable thing to compare it with is unfortified cider. That is what was done for a very long time indeed up to 1956. We are not asking the Committee to reverse the decision of 1956. We are not saying that there ought to be no duty on fortified cider but are simply asking that the Government should maintain the decision of 1956 which was to charge a certain duty on fortified cider. This is the whole point. I must say that I find it unconvincing to be told that we are going to undermine the duty on something else.
    This is one of the Chief Secretary's undermining days. He has been undermining matters or finding them undermined all over the place. I do not see how we are going to undermine duty on British wines to a greater extent than our loss of duty by the change here proposed, and the direct loss of duty, as the right hon. Gentleman is pleased to admit, would be so small that he cannot calculate it or even see it. In these circumstances, I think that the least that the Government could have done would have been for once to extend a proper and friendly gesture to the people engaged in this trade, whether as growers or manufacturers, and let them have this very small concession. But the Government are not going to do that. It hardly seems to be a matter on which it is worth dividing the Committee. There is no deep question of principle involved. It is just another case of Government stinginess.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. and learned Gentleman has put the matter
    964
    in his usual agreeable way and I respond, I hope, with similar agreeableness. It is, of course, a little ingenuous of the hon. and learned Member to say that we are not departing from the 1956 position to maintain the present rate of duty on fortified cider when we are increasing it on British wines. The essence of the 1956 decision, of course, was that these commodities should bear the same rate of duty. The purpose of the Amendment is to separate them.
    On the other point, I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is really as disingenuous as he seems. To allow a competing commodity to pay a lower rate of tax than another commodity would mean a shift of consumption from the one at the higher duty to the one at the lower duty and we should lose the revenue at the higher rate on the more heavily taxed commodity. I do not think that that is too difficult a proposition for the hon. and learned Gentleman even at five and twenty to six in the evening.
    Amendment negatived.
    Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Mitchison: There is less in a way to be said about the social effects of increasing the duty on wine than there is as regards the other commodities which we have been discussing, but I rather regret this increase. The consumption of wine, at any rate as far as I am concerned, is a pleasing and relatively harmless occupation, and I cannot really see the call for this increase at the moment.
    As I pointed out in connection with the Amendment, the Tory Government record is that at about the same time as they were remitting a large amount of Surtax they also remitted the duty on wine, but only on champagne and port. Let us never forget the over-ripe pheasant and the old port in which, I think, one of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues was found to be pleasantly and playfully indulging. He may be able to afford the increase, but a great deal of this wine is sold nowadays in small "pubs", off-licences and so on, and though I appreciate the broad reasons for the increase I am not at all sure

    965
    that I agree with them. I therefore dislike the Clause.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Schedule 3.—(WINE (RATES OF CUSTOMS DUTIES).)
    Dr. Reginald Bennett: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 26, columns 2 and 3, to leave out lines 30 to 38, and to insert:

    "£

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    14

    0

    12

    0

    16

    6

    13

    6

    1

    6

    6

    1

    4

    6

    1

    7

    6

    17

    6

    1

    10

    0

    19

    0

    2

    1

    6

    1

    11

    6".

    I think that this Amendment is bound to meet with the sympathy of most of those in the Chamber at the moment. That sympathy has already been very generously expressed from the Front Bench opposite. I am also in no doubt that it is sympathised with or supported by many hon. Members who are not present to debate it today.
    Perhaps I should start by declaring an interest, as I happen to be a member of the committee of the Co-operative Wine Society. Many hon. Members, on both sides of the Committee, are among the society's 30,000 members.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: There are many who are not.
    Dr. Bennett: I wish that they would give the society the support which it is their duty to give.
    The wine co-operative is one which we know to be great. It has its 90th anniversary on 4th August, this year, an anniversary a good deal more felicitous than the anniversary of 40 years later.
    I was not surprised when certain duties were increased in this Budget. Without applauding in any way, I am bound to admit that I felt that it was most probable that there would be an increase in the duty on spirits. The trade was very buoyant and it seemed likely that the duty would be put up. But I was surprised and pained that the duty on wine was increased. I thought that if my right hon. Friend wanted to increase income from various commodities,
    966
    table wines at least and possibly fortified wines would not bring him much. Their trade seemed scarcely sufficiently buoyant to justify a further imposition.
    As we know, in 1949 Sir Stafford Cripps reduced what was a swingeing tax on table wines to a more reasonable level of 13s. a gallon, approximately half what it had been. But now we have the second of two what might be called insidious increases by which the duty has been raised to 15s. 6d. per gallon. My Amendment seeks to reduce it to the previous level of 14s. a gallon.
    This slight increasing of the duty on table wines seems to be becoming something of a habit in recent years. I enter a protest and seek to have the duty reduced. I am obliged to the Top People's newspaper this morning for having given attention to this plea and for the almost medical solicitude which it showed for the people of this country in their consumption of table wines.
    However, there are other beverages and fluids which are equally mild and not particularly strong and which could at least be classified with table wines as deserving of taxation, if table wines are so deserving. Professor Camps, Professor of Forensic Medicine at London University, said recently at a seminar for magistrates at Keele University that today as many people were taking drugs as were taking drink. Indeed, I am surprised that the wine trade does not counterattack, as Sir Alan Herbert, a former hon. Member of this House, has started to do. We need not think only in terms of "purple hearts", but of certain milder but almost universal addictions, from the old chewing of coca leaf in South America to the indulging in possibly mild administrations of cocaine and caffeine, not so much as the product of a leaf which is regularly chewed, but as infusions of such leaves.
    These caffeine and cocaine derivatives are direct cerebral stimulants, not mildly gentle depressants like wine. Having a directly exciting effect, they are far more likely to contribute to the maniacal driving of which so many people complain than are the wines which are so widely blamed.
    There is also the Cola group, which is very powerful and habit-forming. Only shortly before this Committee met this afternoon I was told of one woman who

    967
    was a great indulger in these Cola drinks which she used to suck through a straw, directing the stream from the drink on the same tooth all the time, until it all but disappeared. When there are these other possibly dangerous compounds it is a pity that my right hon. Friend should "take the Mickey" out of wine.
    5.45 p.m.
    I have been able to discover these figures for the wine trade: in the middle 1920s, the total of imported wines ran at about 18,500,000 gallons a year; in 1963, the figure was 24,300,000 gallons a year. In 40 years the consumption of imported wines rose merely by six million gallons, about one-third, while the population increased by 10 million, slightly less than a quarter. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a booming trade in wine which would justify this extra imposition. Nor do the figures I have quoted take account of the additional affluence of which we are all so proud.
    It is also a pity because there will be international results from this extra imposition. This is a nasty blow for Portugal, which I personally much regret, and it is bound to be a setback for our trade with France, which might invite retaliation, undoing as it does the good work which Sir Stafford Cripps did in this connection.
    Perhaps I may take this opportunity to quote from a page of the Wine Society's wine list of 1880. Lafite was 31s. a dozen, Volnay was 37s. a dozen and Pommard, the most expensive Burgundy, was 50s. a dozen. Even allowing for the fact that the £ today buys only what 4s. would have bought then, these prices are fairly reasonable. It is a shame that such a kindly and well-disposed Treasury should seek to do this to these admirable and much appreciated wines. I hope that my Amendment will be treated with the sympathy and consideration which it so obviously deserves.
    Captain Walter Elliot: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett). I should like my right hon. Friend to give us some detailed information about why it was decided to increase the duty on
    968
    wines. I suppose the time has long passed when the purpose of a Budget was only to raise revenue. It is now generally recognised that an extremely important reason for the Budget is to govern the economy generally. My impression from the Chancellor's Budget statement and from the comment on it was that the reason for increasing taxation was largely to keep the economy under control. If that was so, and I believe that it was, this increase in the duty on wines will not help.
    The wine trade is not responsible for any overheating in the economy. It has a good record of steady prices. The prices of moderately good wines now are much the same as before the war. Other industries are responsible for this overheating by disregarding the appeals to them to keep their incomes policies within bounds. Yet they get off scot-free this time, and no doubt in due course will repeat their performance, while the wine trade takes the knock for heeding the Chancellor's appeals and keeping prices steady.
    We have already heard that alcohol is included in the cost-of-living index, which will rise as a result of this increase. The great pressure groups will then swing into action, not only to compensate for the rise in the cost of living, but to get ahead if they can, as they have so often done before. Once more we are going to face the same dreary spectacle of rising prices, rising incomes, and so on.
    I hope that my right hon. Friend will seriously consider this Amendment and give recognition to those industries which pay heed to exhortations to keep prices steady, as the wine trade does. If my right hon. Friend wants to raise revenue, or to control the economy, he should knock those industries which disregard his appeals and as a result lead to the overheating of the economy and the general checks which we have so often experienced in the past.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) began by declaring an interest, and I must declare a similar, though smaller, one to his. I am also a member of the Society whose committee he adorns, and I can tell the Committee that I was one of my hon.

    969
    Friend's electoral supporters at
    the contested election at which he was elected. I hope that he will remember that.
    As one would expect, my hon. Friend made a powerful plea for wine, and he will certainly not find in me any doctrinal opponent of this beverage. I share very much the views which were agreeably expressed about it by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). Indeed, this short debate might well be included in the collected works of literature which are often published under the heading "In praise of wine".
    In fact, the consumption of wine in this country has risen very substantially over the years. My hon. Friend referred to the 'twenties compared with now. Then, the average consumption of wine per head was 0·35 gallons. In 1963, which is the latest year for which we have figures, it had risen to 0·6 gallons, an increase of about 70 per cent., which is the more remarkable when one reflects on the fact that the age composition of the population is now different, with a considerably larger proportion today of younger people.
    I think that what misled my hon. Friend was that, as he said, he took the figures for importations and ignored the substantial increase in the production and sale of British wines. At any rate, this is a commodity, the consumption of which, taken over the years, has risen substantially, and I do not think that it will be seriously affected by this impost.
    In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot), who referred to the effect on prices, I can tell him that the effect of this Clause in respect of wines on the retail prices index is negligible.
    Speaking on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, and to some extent my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham, asked why we had included wine in the increased alcohol duties provided for under the other Clauses. It is true that the additional revenue to be obtained, though significant, is nothing like as much as from beer or spirits—it is about an additional £2½ million in a full year—but I cannot help speculating about what the hon. and learned Member for
    970
    Kettering would have said if we had come to the Committee with proposals to increase the duties on spirits and beer, and had left the duty on wine as it is.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman, and some of his hon. Friends, would have said, with perhaps greater justification than they did on earlier Clauses, that we were hitting at the beverages of the less well off, and sparing the very champagne and port which the hon. and learned Gentleman twitted by noble Friend Lord Amory for having reduced.
    Mr. Mitchison: The right hon. Gentleman is making a false point, and I am sure that he would not wish to do that. I made it clear that in my opinion this Clause has not the social attractions which the other two Clauses about beer, and to a lesser extent spirits, have. I said at the beginning, and I never said anything else, that I dislike the Clause. So I do, but I dislike the others even more.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is fair to say that it follows from that that the hon. and learned Gentleman would have disliked the general provisions of the Bill even more than he does had we excluded the additional tax on wine while including the others, and I thank him for making that clear. I think that, on reflection, the Committee will feel that that is right.
    Whatever view one takes of wine as a beverage, and of its social or medical qualities, I think that it would strike opinion generally as being somewhat unfair to tax additionally the beer and spirit drinkers and to leave the wine drinker wholly unscathed. I think that it would be thought that the considerations which led my right hon. Friend to decide in favour of an increase in the alcohol duty instead of the alternatives which he canvassed in his Budget speech of an increase in Purchase Tax or petrol tax, point equally to wine as they do to beer and spirits. I think that we should have been subjected to the charge of exempting the very champagne and port to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, while increasing the tax on the pensioner's beer.
    I think, therefore, that the alcohol duties should on this occasion move to-

    971
    gether. Though many of us in our personal activities should regret it, I think that wine should go with them.
    Amendment negatived.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Schedule 4 agreed to.

    Clause 4.—(TOBACCO.)
    Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Michael Foot: I wish to say something about tobacco, which, I think, comes in a quite different category from the other commodities which we have so far been discussing, and I think that everyone would appreciate the reasons why that is so.
    I also wish to make some constructive suggestions to the Treasury on the matter, although I must say that I do so with considerable diffidence. The Treasury is a most extraordinary Department. Apparently one can make any accusations one likes against it, but it never takes them to heart. Earlier this afternoon one of my right hon. Friends accused the Treasury of stinginess, and the Chief Secretary bounced to his feet and thanked my right hon. Friend for the great courtesy with which he put his point.
    Another hon. Member said that the Treasury had behaved in a most mean and contemptible manner. Once again, the right hon. Gentleman bounced to his feet and said that he could not have put the point with greater grace or accuracy. Several of my hon. Friends accused the Treasury of showing its incompetence and incapacity, and the right hon. Gentleman then said that the argument had been presented with tremendous force.
    Try as we may, it is very difficult to insult the Treasury. The point is underlined by one hon. Gentleman opposite who congratulated the Treasury on its kindly and well-disposed manner and the right hon. Gentleman could not have been more startled than if somebody had let off a pistol next to his ear. One cannot dent the Treasury's thick hide, however one tries.
    I propose to make a constructive suggestion for dealing with a serious problem, and that should startle the Treasury.
    972
    Tobacco is a different kind of commodity, and the question that we should consider is whether the House of Commons is to take seriously the warnings which have come from the medical profession about the dangers of smoking. What we shall be doing by passing this Clause is to raise the tax on tobacco to a higher level than ever before; to make the amount of money which the Treasury receives through the tax higher than ever before, and, therefore, to make the revenue more dependent upon tobacco than ever before. Nobody can dispute that.
    6.0 p.m.
    In view of the reports which have been presented to the nation, some of them recently—the American report on smoking was presented to the world fairly recently; at any rate, since our last Budget debate—we should examine the matter carefully. I do not say that the allegation that smoking produces lung cancer is proved up to the hilt; some doubts still remain. But nobody can question the assertion that those doubts are certainly much less than they were a few years ago. Anyone who has taken the trouble to read what the medical profession, both in this country and in the United States, has had to say on the matter must have come to the conclusion that, as far as can be ascertained in our present state of knowledge, it is extremely dangerous for people to go on smoking and extremely undesirable that young people should be encouraged to smoke.
    This is accepted not only by the medical professions of this country and United States, but, in the main, by the Ministry of Health. The Ministry has not shown great alacrity in acting on the reports, but it has moved some way in the right direction. It is spending a few thousand pounds on trying to prevent the encouragement of smoking by young people. But it is not much good the Ministry's spending a few thousand pounds on that when, at the same time, the Treasury is taking action which makes the revenue of the nation more and more dependent upon people's smoking.
    Nobody can dispute that if the whole nation were to take seriously the warnings that have been issued by the medical profession about smoking, and were

    973
    to stop smoking completely, this country would soon be facing a first-class financial crisis. I can put the matter another way. The Treasury has a vested interest in trying to sustain the procedure by which people are encouraged to get lung cancer. It is no good hon. Members smiling; this is a fact. The question is whether it is a desirable thing.
    When the Chancellor imposed the extra tax he did not do so to discourage people from smoking. He would not claim that. He put on the extra tax because he thought that people would go on smoking and that he would get more revenue from it. He is not the first Chancellor of the Exchequer who has acted in that way. I am not discriminating between different Chancellors in this respect. Although people may not treat the matter seriously at the moment, they will do so in years to come.
    This Committee has a responsibility to people who will probably be killed by being encouraged to smoke, and it should decide what it intends to do about it. If all that we do is to go on raising the tobacco tax, thus making our financial structure more and more dependent upon people's smoking, we are doing something most reprehensible.
    I do not say that people should be stopped from smoking compulsorily, by Act of Parliament, but the Committee should show that it is taking seriously the warnings which have been issued by the most weighty medical information available to the world. As Members of Parliament we should do everything in our power to discourage young people from smoking. It is absolutely outrageous that advertisements should appear on television every day encouraging people to engage in a pastime which will help to give them lung cancer, especially when those advertisements are largely aimed at young people. We should stop the advertising and we should increase the amount of money which the Ministry of Health spends on propaganda against smoking.
    At any rate, we should increase the amount of money which the Ministry spends on telling the people the facts about smoking, as they are revealed by the medical profession. But it is not
    974
    much good our doing that if, by its deeds, the Treasury shows itself to be quite content with a situation in which our whole financial structure should become more and more dependent upon more and more people's smoking.
    How are we to solve the problem? I want seriously to suggest to the Committee how we should deal with it. In the light of the reports of the medical profession it is quite improper to allow a situation to continue in which we are so dependent upon tobacco taxation. It is irresponsible for the Committee to say, "We do not care about these reports. We do not care if it is proved, as conclusively as such things can be proved, that smoking causes this disease. We shall nit take any notice of it. We shall go on as if these reports had never been produced at all." That is what we shall be doing if we allow the dependence of the Government on this kind of taxation to continue.
    It is a difficult situation for the Government. I do not suggest that any Government could say, "We shall abandon the £600 million or £700 million a year which we derive from tobacco taxation." No Government, of any complexion, would like to do that. Therefore, I do not propose that the tax should be removed. That would make smoking easier, rather than more difficult. But we should see whether there is a way of solving this dilemma. We should not be content to go on passing legislation which makes us more and more dependent on spreading this kind of disease. Hon. Members, and the Treasury, should apply their minds seriously to the problem.
    It is impossible to think that any Government would abandon, in one go, the £600 million or £700 million a year which they receive in this way, but I suggest than if the Committee wants to treat the subject seriously it should decide that each year over the next 10 years we should make the country less dependent upon tobacco taxation. Let us suppose that it was agreed that the level of tobacco taxation should remain at the level at which it will be established if we pass the Clause. It should then be arranged by the Government, if they wish to treat the question seriously, that each year for the next 10 years we should reduce, say, by £100 million a

    975
    year, our dependence on the money raised from that source to meet our overall expenditure.
    We could maintain the tax at its present level, but we could disregard some part of it, each year, for the purposes of our overall expenditure. If a certain amount was lopped off each year in this way, although the same sum would be collected by way of taxation it would not be counted as part of the normal revenue to meet our total expenditure. To my knowledge this is an absolutely original proposal. At least, it tries to deal with the situation, and I have never heard of any other proposal which seeks to do so. I therefore hope that it will be seriously considered.
    Mr. Mellish: How will it stop anybody from smoking?
    Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend has not followed me with his usual acumen—or maybe he has. I am not saying that we stop anyone smoking by compulsion; of course not. A person has the right to do himself to death by the method of his own choice and I should not prevent him from doing so—there may be a few exceptions to that rule, but not in this case. I am not proposing to stop people from smoking by force, compulsion or by legislation. I leave the choice to them. I am concerned that the Government should not have a vested interest in the maintenance of smoking.
    I have made a concrete suggestion for dealing with the situation. If my plan were adopted, instead of having a crisis over this matter, in 10 years' time or so the country would no longer be dependent on this source of revenue. Hon. Members may think this is a bizarre proposal, but no alternative has yet been presented. It is up to other people who treat seriously the reports made by the medical profession to offer their alternatives. This is a novel idea and, therefore, I do not expect the Minister to get up and say, snap, right away, that the Treasury will accept the idea immediately.
    I expect the Government to consider the matter and that in about four years they may do something. We should bear in mind that in four years' time something else may have happened. It may
    976
    well be that further reports made by members of the medical profession will be even more conclusive than those presented recently. What will the Government do then? Suppose we get a report from the doctors of this country, or America, saying that they have now solved the medical problems which
    they had the honesty to admit were not fully solved when their previous reports were made, even though they may have reached a general verdict. Suppose they have solved the problems and that it is absolutely certain, without any shadow of doubt whatever, that smoking does greatly increase the perils of lung cancer.
    Suppose that is proved without anyone being able to contest it. What do the Government do then? Will they go ahead cheerfully and say, "We shall not worry about that. All we are concerned with is the revenue. We can easily raise money without getting into political difficulty"—which is all the Government are doing this year; everyone knows that—
    Mr. Eric Lubbock: Statistically, this has already been proved, and it remains for the medical profession to demonstrate the causal connection between smoking and lung cancer.
    Mr. Foot: I understand that. I did not put the case in the strict medical terms which have been used by the hon. Member. They have not proved the cause or connection, although their verdict is well-nigh conclusive.
    I am saying that it is quite possible that we shall have more reports in the next few months or years in which the members of the medical profession will go further and say that it is absolutely certain, and that there is no possible remote question of doubt about it. What will the Treasury do then? Will it say, "We are going gaily ahead as if nothing had happened. All we are concerned with is raising revenue"? In the face even of the reports we have already received, and even more so in the face of reports we may soon receive, I think that the Treasury, if it took that kind of attitude, would be utterly immoral.
    I suggest, therefore, that it is the duty of this Committee to relate the medical reports which we have received to the practice of the Treasury and see how it

    977
    can marry the two. When that conjunction is made, so far it has not been made, I think that the Committee will come to the conclusion that, somehow or other, we must reduce the dependence of the affairs of this nation and the conduct of our whole finances on revenue of this character.
    If that is to be done, the Committee will have to decide whether this form of taxation should be abolished altogether in one go—which would cause a financial crisis of the first order—or whether we should adopt my solution, or something along the lines of the solution which I have suggested, which is that we should make up our minds here and now that over the next 10 years we shall remove the dependence of this country on such a source of revenue. If that proposal were adopted, I believe that it would be much healthier for the country.
    Once the Treasury had revealed that it was no longer dependent on such a source of revenue we might get from the Government action in other respects such as they ought to have taken already for dealing with this menace. We might then get a Government which had the guts to stop all smoking advertisements on television. That would not be interfering with the free choice of anyone. It would interfere with people encouraging others to smoke themselves to death. We might then get a Ministry of Health which, instead of spending a miserable sum—about £25,000 a year on this subject, to counteract the tens of thousands of millions of pounds spent by commercial companies—on persuading people to stop smoking, might do its duty in this respect.
    We might then get from the Government a different attitude altogether to this problem. So long as the matter is not tackled as I have suggested, the Government approach this question as a corrupt body. They are corrupted by their own interest in raising tobacco taxation. Only when the Government have freed themselves from that impediment shall we have a Government which faces honestly the facts presented to them by the medical profession.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Donald Wade: The effect of this Clause is to increase the Tobacco Duty as from 15th April. I propose to approach the subject from a slightly different angle than that
    978
    of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot). I think that many people have accepted this increase philosophically, but among the elderly there is some sense of grievance and I think it only right that it should be aired.
    I do not propose to dwell on the health aspect, except to say that it seems inconsistent that vast sums of money should be expended on advertising cigarettes, for example, and, at the same time, an effort be made to dissuade people from smoking. However it is not the Government's policy to ban smoking and I am not suggesting that they should. We are at present dealing with the subject of raising revenue, and a very large amount of revenue. If this tax acts as a discouragement, I think it much more important to discourage young people, particularly cigarette smokers, rather than the elderly person who enjoys a pipe of tobacco.
    I should like to make my own position clear. On another occasion when I spoke on this subject I was described in the Press as an anti-smoker. My family of six consists of my wife, four grownup children and myself. Out of the six, five are voluntarily non-smokers. I am the odd one out. So I cannot say that I have a strong prejudice, but I smoke very little. I have considerable sympathy with those elderly people who have limited incomes. I think that there is a feeling of injustice among them and I speak with some first-hand knowledge. Surely the art of taxation—if it be an art at all—is to keep a sense of injustice to the minimum, and I do not think that the Government have succeeded in relation to the elderly.
    As the Committee knows, originally old-age pensioners had tobacco vouchers. These were introduced because the duty had been increased. When they were withdrawn in November, 1957, it was felt right to increase the pension to make up for the loss of the vouchers. I have been reading what was said then by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who was then Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. He said:
    "Therefore, for some time we have held the view that this concession should be brought to an end, but it could in fact be fairly and sensibly brought to an end only at a time when substantial increases were being given in the rates of benefit, and that is the process we have followed. Among other factors we

    979
    have taken into account in considering what should be the proper level of benefits is the fact that, so far as retirement pensioners are concerned, about half the total were losing vouchers which, if used to the full, were worth 2s. 4d. per week. We have taken that into account in deciding the level of benefits…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1957; Vol. 577, c. 982.]
    I should have thought that a similar principle might have applied here. Some elderly people feel that the Government have been rather "too clever". When the vouchers were withdrawn the pension was increased, but now that the tax has been increased there has been no corresponding benefit.
    I understand that in Eire, in this year's Budget, the duty on tobacco has been increased by 3d. for 20 cigarettes, but the pension was raised by 2s. 6d. per week. More important to my mind is that a distinction was made between the tax on cigarettes and on pipe tobacco. I understand that the Government there were able to find a way of dealing with this matter so that the increase did not apply to pipe tobacco. The answer of the Government here has always been that it is not practicable to distinguish between pipe tobacco and cigarette tobacco—that people would buy pipe tobacco and use it in the form of cigarettes—but for some reason the distinction has been made in Eire. I should have thought that it could be considered here.
    I certainly am not an advocate of cigarette smoking. I fully agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale about the serious dangers, but we should give some thought to the problem of the elderly, to whom a pipe of tobacco is quite an important item of expenditure from a very limited income. I thought it only right to express a word of protest on their behalf before we part with this Clause.
    Mr. Cyril Bence: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) in his very original and, as he said, bizarre idea of reducing the dependency of the State on tobacco tax. I cannot go all the way with him. I gave up smoking three years ago and as a result I have put on extra weight. I
    am assured by my doctor that if I do not reduce it I am likely to die from
    980
    overweight. It is difficult to know what to do in modern society when one gets so much different advice.
    In view of the dangers possible from over-eating or excessive smoking the increased revenue we expect to get from tobacco duty might be used in a more efficient educative campaign in the schools by the Department of Education and Ministry of Health to bring home the dangers of smoking, especially to young people. I think that there are other things, such as diesel fumes and had ventilation of factories, which contribute to the possibilities of getting cancer as well as heavy smoking, but I support my hon. Friend in saying that we should reduce the dependency of the Revenue on income from smoking and use the money in a campaign—
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but on this Motion he cannot stray into talking about what money could be used for. It is perfectly legitimate to argue that the Treasury should not be so dependent on the amount received from Tobacco Duty, but it is not in order to go into other questions about how that money could be spent.
    Mr. Bence: I was using it as an example in the same way as we talk about the Road Fund being used to prevent death on the roads. I made the suggestion in passing and was about to leave it.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That may well be, but it is not in order to discuss that on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Bence: I suggest that increasing the tax on tobacco will by no means cause a drop in smoking because of the higher price. What happens is that people's purchasing power is reduced in other directions. People spend as much on tobacco, but less on other things. We are attacking the subject in the wrong way. Statistics show that from time to time when the tax on tobacco is increased there is a fall-off in consumption, but after a short time it creeps up again and, unless incomes are raised, people reduce their consumption of other commodities which may be more desirable. In general, the tax is a bad thing.
    Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) for drawing attention to the way in which this tax might affect health hazards resulting from smoking. When the Budget was first mooted there was considerable interest in the question whether the Chancellor would introduce a penal tax on smoking because of the lung cancer interest which, perhaps, would have had greater consequence on the smoking public. He chose not to do so although we have a mild increase in the tax which will affect smokers.
    The question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale is pertinent for the Committee to consider. It is the whole problem of how future Chancellors of the Exchequer will arrange policy in relation to tax on tobacco. The point was brought out very thoroughly on the health side that if there is an increase in taxation it may be that youngsters will not smoke quite so much. I think that the whole Committee is agreed that in all our discussions about the impact of smoking on health we have sought to aim not so much at those who are already smokers—certainly not the old-age pensioner for whom, in the evening of his life, the hazard is not great—as to concentrate on young people and the present generation at school, 250,000 of whom, the medical profession estimate, will probably die from lung cancer as a result of smoking.
    The whole problem was highlighted by the previous discussion in the House today which we were very much concerned about the 240 cases of typhoid, most of whom will recover, arising in the last 10 days about which the whole nation is considerably concerned. Yet in the same period, according to Ministry of Health statistics, at least 230 people will have actually died from lung cancer. My hon. Friend has raised this matter against a background of stark reality about which something needs to be done. The Chancellor needs to be aware of these things in shaping his policy for taxation on tobacco.
    I looked carefully at the Clause with the idea of consulting my hon. Friends to see whether it would be possible to move an Amendment, but, owing to the
    982
    intricacies of the tax, I found that impossible. I am not an anti-smoker, but I am deeply concerned about what is happening to the health of the nation through cigarette smoking. Both the report by the Royal College of Surgeons and the report of the United States Surgeon General say that the hazard is much less to those who smoke pipes and cigars. I looked for a way of making cigars purchasable at 10 for ld. and cigarettes at £1 each, but I found that impossible, so I must confine my speech to the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. If my hon. Friends can help me in framing such an Amendment for a later stage of the Bill, I shall be much obliged to them.
    We have to bear in mind that there is no doubt among the medical profession about cause and effect. We are concerned not only with lung cancer, but with 31 million days lost to production through chronic bronchitis. Richard Doll, whose latest report was discussed in the Press last week, pointed out clearly that each year there were 10,000 cases of coronary thrombosis and 15,000 cases of people who died from respiratory diseases—people who would not have died but for the fact that they were smokers. In those circumstances the Chancellor has a responsibility not only to the Treasury, but to his colleague at the Ministry of Health and to all of us who are engaged in seeking to promote the health of the nation.
    6.30 p.m.
    It must be difficult for the Chancellor. In the Treasury, do officials sit around a table and say, "We can raise £800 million from taxes on tobacco and we shall spend £750 million on hospitals, so that one more or less equals the other"? Do they work out how many deaths they can afford from the one in order to provide the service in the other respect? Is there a computer or some other electronic device which works out the hazards and which calculates one against the other? Not being well versed in financial affairs, I cannot tell. But I plead that the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale is one which any serious Chancellor must study, because unless the Government are wholeheartedly behind these campaigns, and all Ministers are working together, nothing will be achieved.

    983
    The figure which my hon. Friend sought was £32,000 spent on campaigns to persuade against smoking and £10 ½million to £l1 million spent on advertising cigarettes, a matter in which the Chancellor must be extremely interested. How can we expect the Ministry of Health and the Central Office of Information—strangely enough, the only people at the moment conducting research into the matter—to be fully seized of this without Treasury support?
    At the moment, there is a vested interest in the Treasury to maximise income from this source. I plead with the Chancellor and the Treasury to consider this matter again to see whether there is some way in which, in the Clause, it is possible to convey to the nation the Government's serious concern, which was put forward by the right hon. Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) as long ago as 1957, when he announced Government policy. Between 1957 and 1964 they have not done very much about it.
    I am not simply anti-smoking. But if we are to take seriously preventive medicine and the promotion of health rather than the cure of illness, we must take positive action. One of the people most capable of taking positive action is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and one of the places in which it would have been possible to take such action is this Clause. It is very much to be regretted that the Clause does nothing about it.
    Mr. J. T. Price: I apologise to the Committee for not being present in the early stages of the debate. I was otherwise engaged. But I am interested in the matter before us, although I think that the arguments to which I have listened in the last few minutes, particularly those of my hon. Friends the Members for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) and Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) are irrelevant to the Clause. I have not yet heard any Minister argue in defence of the new taxation that it was imposed to discourage the smoking of cigarettes or tobacco or these noxious drugs which are supposed to kill so many people.
    I should be out of order in trying to discuss the merits of the medical arguments, because the only arguments which
    984
    I have heard from any Government spokesman during the earlier stages of the Bill is that this is £100 million of extra taxation to mop up surplus purchasing power. This is a variation of what we used to call Boyle's Law—not in the sense in which physicists use it, but in the sense in which one member of the Administration, now performing in a different Department, used it to mop up surplus purchasing power, to put a brake on inflation and to stop the spiral from going any further.
    These are economic arguments which can be defended rationally by people who believe in them. Let us not confuse the economic arguments with the medical arguments; let us not suggest that by putting penal, excessive taxation on cigarettes, in particular, and on other forms of smoking the Government have the medical object in mind. It may be incidental to the object which the Government stated for this new, heavy taxation, which was to stop some of the leak in the purse, if I may use their terms in another way. Too much money, they say, is being spent on all kinds of frivolous luxuries; therefore they must stop this by extra taxation.
    It is all very well for my enthusiastic friends below the Gangway, whose opinions I respect very much, to give qualified approval to this taxation because it makes it more difficult for people with limited incomes to buy the number of cigarettes which they bought in the past. That may be incidental, but the fact is that this very high level of taxation on smoking is having a very uneven effect on members of the community. The high price of cigarettes and other smoking materials represents no problem to the man with a big expense account who charges his cigarettes up to the firm. Such people represent a numerous section of the community. This high taxation is no deterrent whatever to the man who has the money to buy as many cigarettes as he likes. He may belly-ache a little about having to pay 5s. a packet for cigarettes. I suppose that we all do. But it will not deter him.
    To put this sort of taxation on one band of the community, particularly old people, of whom my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) was speaking as I

    985
    entered the Chamber, is wrong. It is putting tie brake on people who have the least to spend and not on those who have the most to spend. It is therefore wrong and inequitable to do it in this way.
    If the Government have reached the stage of accepting the evidence which has been provided about the ill-effects of smoking on many members of the community, they ought not to impose this sort of taxation; they should deal with cigarettes as they do with Indian hemp cigarettes, which are prohibited by law. This is the argument which must be considered. It is no use fiddling about with a fiscal remedy if it is necessary to prohibit a practice which is causing a great many people to die before they should.
    I must not go outside the rules of order, and I will try not to do so, but I feel that before we put any further penal taxation on smoking we should pay attention to the fact that many quite moderate smokers, particularly the old-age pensioners, and others with small incomes, who smoke only in moderation, are being penalised to an extent which means nothing whatever to many of us who can afford to buy cigarettes even if they are £1 a packet. Sooner or later the country will wake up to the fact that it is only the people who are not quite virtuous who are producing the large share of the revenue, while those who are very virtuous are getting away scot-free and are making no contribution to the Chancellor's Budget. To that extent I support very warmly my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East, but I am a little sceptical about the comments made by one or two other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate.
    Mr. H. Rhodes: My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) has done a service by raising this matter, because he has introduced another element into the debate. He may not be able to carry it to a conclusion during the course of the debate, but it will cause people to think very seriously about the future. If an increase in the price of tobacco leads people to criticise the Treasury for having a vested interest in the sale of tobacco, then if at some future time the Government of the day want to reduce
    986
    the price of tobacco there will be an even bigger indictment of the Government, especially if it is proved during the next 'new years that smoking cigarettes or tobacco induces cancer. The Treasury is in an even bigger dilemma than my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), who confessed that he had experienced great difficulty in making his decision about smoking. When he gave it up he immediately became fat. The Treasury is n that dilemma.
    The Treasury knows all about this. We are not talking to somebody who is doing this thing in a hit-or-miss fashion. There is not a single facet of smoking which the Treasury does not know. Years ago when we were having great difficulty with our dollar purchases, because we could not afford the dollars anyway and because the content of cigarettes was so dependent on the American Virginian type tobacco there was a terrific argument about the effect on the revenue of a small amount of adulteration.
    The producers of tobacco in the Commonwealth said that "adulteration" was a horrible word. An argument on scientific lines was deployed by the Board of Trade and the Treasury about the impact there would be on the revenue if even 1 per cent. of Commonwealth tobacco—Empire tobacco, as it was known in those days—was added to the mixture. This is all known. There is no more scientific branch of the Departments levying taxation than that which is concerned with tobacco.
    The advertising facet is important. I sometimes hear my hon. Friends condemn the advertising of tobacco because of tobacco's deleterious effect on the community's health. This is known in the Treasury, too. The Treasury knows precisely what effect advertising in the Press and on hoardings has on sales.
    Tobacco is a pawn in the economic game. The Treasury has a vested interest in the raising of revenue from tobacco. It could not care less about the effect tobacco has on the community's health, because it is obvious from what has happened in the Budget that when the Chancellor wanted £110 million to increase his discipline on the community's spending power lie immediately whacked an extra tax or tobacco, irrespective of its incidence on old people or on youth.

    987
    6.45 p.m.
    There is another aspect of this levy which is not considered by the Treasury. Both in America and in England there is a growing practice of studying the relative competitiveness of commodities of all types. The Americans know from their research into markets the type of competition they are likely to meet, the amount of money which is available for the commodity they are pushing, and the chances they have, in a market where there is, say, a limited income, of getting a fair share of the available income for their commodity. This type of taxation weighs in favour of the use of tobacco in this country against the ability of people to spend as much of their income on wool or footwear, or even on the necessities of life.
    If there is any type of taxation levied by Parliament which needs a thorough appraisal as to where it will lead us, it is the taxation on tobacco and drink. A decision on the ethics of this tax will have to be made at some time. If we could get a crumb of comfort from the Treasury Bench as to the way in which Ministers are thinking, the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale will have been of some avail.
    Mr. Diamond: The whole Committee will agree that we are indebted to my hon. Friends who have made contributions on a matter which obviously affects many people, both as to its fiscal and its moral and health aspects. This is a Clause which none of us on this side of the Committee likes. It was, therefore, very valuable that my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) should have made it supremely clear that, whatever the Government may argue in favour of the Clause, they cannot argue that this is part of a responsible attempt to reduce excessive smoking. There is no element in this which can prove that.
    The evidence indicating the relationship between smoking and cancer, if not proving cause and effect completely, proves conclusively that some kinds of smoking produce less cancer than other kinds of smoking. There is no attempt whatsoever by the Government to put more weight of taxation on, for example, unfiltered cigarettes than on filtered cigarettes and pipe and cigar tobacco, which clearly cause less damage. There
    988
    is no attempt by the Government to cover their responsibility in that way.
    Neither are the Government claiming that this is done to reduce consumption, because we know that that does not happen. Consumption has apparently reached its peak, but it fell when the tax rate remained constant. There is no clear correlation between increase in taxation and fall in consumption.
    Surely no Government would attempt to say that their attitude to collecting tax is so immoral that, if there is something
    which they are satisfied is wholly against the interests of the country, they should allow it to continue so long as tax is paid and the revenue can be collected and the Treasury profit. We do not manage our affairs in that way. In the case of harmful drugs we do not say, "These drugs are harmful. Either they should be made illegal, or we should charge a duty every time a drug is taken". If we do not like prostitution, we do not say that prostitution shall be permitted so long as a licence fee is
    paid by every prostitute. That is not the way in which revenue is raised.
    I repeat, there is nothing whatever in the Clause which is an attempt by the Government to shoulder such responsibilities as they have for reducing excessive smoking. Indeed, in my view—and I say frankly to the Committee that I am expressing a personal view—I do not believe that this is exclusively a Government responsibility but one which every parent must bear.
    My hon. Friend does not so much object to the right of an adult to eat, smoke or, by excessive speed, motor his way to death. He objects more to advertising which encourages young people who have not yet acquired the habit to acquire it. It is, at this point, that the responsibility of the adult and of parents comes in. With due deference, that is the responsibility of every parent. Every parent should not ask what the Government or Opposition are doing, but should ask, "Am I doing the right thing? Am I setting the right example to my children?" I repeat, I am expressing a purely personal view, one which does not affect my hon. Friends in the slightest.
    I have expressed this view, first, because I wanted to clear the ground before saying that our dislike of the

    989
    Clause is not based on any attempt the Government might be making to reduce smoking because, clearly, they are not in this Clause attempting to do that. Our objection to it is that it bears too heavily on those who can least afford to pay the tax.
    This was recognised by the Labour Government who, when in office, provided tokens so that old-age pensioners and people of minimum means were able to have the impact of the tax lessened and to continue to smoke when they might have been unable to do so because of the increased duty. That system of tokens ran from October, 1947, until January, 1958. There is no reason at all why the present Government could not have given thought to such a system. They could certainly have mentioned it and have explained the arguments against reintroducing such a token system.
    There is a matter to which I have already referred, but to which we have not yet received a reply. A publication of the Central Statistical Office, entitled Economic Trends, gives some interesting statistics for February, 1964. It is, in effect, a Government publication, so the statistics that it contains may be relied upon.
    As we suspected, but now know, there is no indirect tax which bears more heavily on those who can least afford it than the Tobacco Duty. To give two examples: an average family of two adults and two children with an income of between £1,750 and £2,000 a year, a well-off couple, pay at the old rate 1·8 per cent. of their spendable income in Tobacco Duty. The same family, but with an income of between £11 and £13 a week, pay not 1·8 per cent. but 5 « per cent. of their spendable income in Tobacco Duty, or three times as much. This shows that the burden on such a family is three times as great.
    Then, consider an old couple, two adults, with an income of between £4 and £11 a week. They spend between 6 per cent. and 7 per cent. of their spendable income in Tobacco Duty. It should be emphasised that this is not about 7 per cent. of the couple's spendable income on tobacco, but on the duty. It is a fantastic proportion.
    990
    There is no attempt by the Government to help people bearing such a burden. On the contrary. Their burden will be increased because the disproportion will be increased and there has been no attempt whatever by the Government to answer this argument. This is not a question of indirect versus direct taxation. We are not entering the realms of arguing whether the proportion of indirect taxation is too great as opposed to the proportion of direct taxation, or vice versa. This is a question of what is inequitable versus what: is equitable—of whether something bears too heavily on those who are least able to afford it. It is for these reasons that we dislike the Clause intensely.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): I hope that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) will not think I am proving his point that Treasury Ministers, even junior ones, have thick skins when I say how grateful I am to him for introducing the important—although slightly side element in the Finance Bill—question of the incidence of lung cancer and the dependence of the Treasury on the Tobacco Duty.
    Before I deal with that important side of the argument I will deal with a point made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and developed later by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond), who quoted statistics from Table VI of the document to which he referred on Second Reading.
    If one takes any item of expenditure it is true to say that the lower a person's income the higher the proportion of it that item will tend to represent. In saying that the Tobacco Duty bears most hardly upon old-age pensioners and others who can least afford to pay it one is saying that their expenditure on tobacco is a higher proportion of their total expenditure than other, richer people. The coupon system was abandoned in January 1958 in conjunction with an increase in pensions. It was abandoned for the same reason that it has not been reintroduced—that it bears unfairly between pensioners, not all of whom smoke. There is no reason why a pensioner who smokes should be favoured over one who does not, but on the more general side of the argument—
    Mr. A. Lewis: On a point of order. The Economic Secretary is adducing a wonderful argument and more hon. Members should be present to hear it. I therefore call attention to the fact that 40 hon. Members are not present.
    Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;
    Committee counted, and, 40 Members being present—
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. Macmillan: As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary pointed out when discussing a similar argument which developed on the whisky, beer and wine duty increases, industrial earnings have gone up by about 99 per cent. and retirement pensions by about 125 per cent. The hon. Member for Gloucester quoted some figures from the lower end of the income scale. I will quote some more from the same table from which he quoted.
    Taking the figures in Table VI of the document from which he quoted, a family of two adults in the income range £315£382 a year spends up to 6 per cent. on tobacco—that is to say, about 8s. a week. If it continues to smoke the same amount, the Budget increase will amount to approximately 8d. a week. This is admittedly a more serious increase than that on families with a larger income, but it is not reasonable to say that, over the field as a whole, increases in indirect taxation on items which cannot, except in very rare instances, be considered necessities, bear more hardly than the alternatives to which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor referred on Second Reading—increases in Purchase Tax or petrol duty.
    The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes)—
    Mr. J. T. Price: I am getting a little baffled by the hon. Gentleman's argument. In effect, he is denying the generally accepted opinion in the Committee, regardless of where we sit, that all indirect taxation is regressive by its very nature. The hon. Gentleman says that it is nothing of the kind. But it is regressive, and if one puts a steep increase in regressive taxation it is obvious that it will bear more harshly on those with the least money to spend.
    Mr. Macmillan: I was only saying that I personally regard the taxation of necessities as tending to bear more hardly on the great run of the population than taxation of what might be classed as luxuries. As indirect taxation, Purchase Tax is neither regressive nor progressive; technically, it is neutral, on most forms of analysis. Tobacco Duty is certainly regressive. On the other hand, Income Tax is extremely progressive, and becomes more so the higher the rate of money income rises, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
    The dilemma mentioned by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne is really not a dilemma at all, although he is quite right in referring to the balance of payments compensation to which the Treasury could look with any decrease in the consumption of tobacco. The very fact that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer chose this particular form of indirect taxation shows that neither he nor the Treasury is dependent on it because, as he pointed out on Second Reading, it was chosen as an alternative to increases in other indirect taxation such as Purchase Tax and petrol duty. In so far as it absorbs purchasing power from elsewhere—such as wool textiles, to which the hon. Gentleman referred—it is fulfilling an economic, as opposed to a fiscal, function at a time of pressure on the economy.
    The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale developed the argument that the Treasury had a vested interest in the consumption of tobacco, and therefore had some interest in maximising that consumption. With respect, I suggest that the place to deal with the problem of smoking and lung cancer is not in a Finance Bill, though, with respect, his proposition is not in any case valid. I agree that we do get a very large proportion of our indirect taxation from tobacco—by a paradox, which I think some hon. Members quoted, it is about the amount we spend on the Health Service itself—but we are not dependent on it in the sense that a trader is dependent on a market or a producer on maintaining the turnover on which he makes a set rate of profit, because what we are taxing is expenditure rather than a commodity, although it is expenditure on a particular commodity.

    993
    Even if, as the hon. Gentleman and many of his hon. Friends would like, the consumption of tobacco were seriously and progressively to be reduced, I think that he would accept the unlikeliness of its coming to an abrupt end at any moment. This would mean that the money not spent on tobacco was being spent on something else, in which case, if it came within Purchase Tax, it would be taxed; if it did not, it would be open to the Government of the day to extend the scope of indirect taxation to cover whatever the money was going on. If it was not spent, but saved, it would not present an economic problem in this context—
    Mr. M. Foot: Does the hon. Gentleman say that it does not matter what is done, because if one does not spend it on one thing one must spent it on something else? If so, it is a most extraordinary argument.
    Mr. Macmillan: No. The key to it is that we tax expenditure, and provided we have an obvious adjustment of rates of taxation to balance out the economic system, what expenditure is taxed is irrelevant. It is the amount that is raised. I do not say that other considerations do not come in, because they do—
    Mr. Rhodes: With respect, I think that the Economic Secretary has the wrong attitude towards this matter. If he thinks that in some way the mopping up of money by putting on this duty will be effective, let him come to his own constituency in the north of England and see the wage drift that is going on at the moment. Whereas it was calculated at 1·5 per cent. last September, I am sure that he will be surprised, and I shall be surprised, if it is not more than 3 per cent. today. They will have more money to pay for what they want.
    Mr. Macmillan: With respect, the hon. Gentleman says that the Tobacco Duty is ineffective economically, and I was saying that, if a tax on expenditure raises the same amount, for fiscal purposes what that money is spent on is irrelevant.
    This is really the clue to our problem, tee to think that I was taking lightly because I should not like the Commit-
    994
    the hon. Gentleman's suggestions, or those of the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), for dealing with the problem of smoking and lung cancer, particularly among children. I thought that the hen. Member for Willesden, West quoted to great effect what we have already been talking about earlier today. We must keep some sense of proportion in these matters. We get very upset, and rightly, over outbreaks of typhoid, but accept the incidence of lung cancer without much concern. In the same way, it has often seemed paradoxical to me that we get extremely worried about the deaths of children on the roads, and yet accept the fact, apparently without much fuss, that as many are killed by accidents in their own homes.
    I suggest to the hon. Gentleman and to his hon. Friends that a Finance Bill is not the most effective way of discouraging smoking or dealing with the problem of smoking. I emphasise that the Treasury has no particular interest in maximising the consumption of tobacco and that the argument that the economy would come to a standstill without the Tobacco Duty is not a valid one.
    Mr. Diamond: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to add to the argument by making clear, as I am sure is the case, that if the tobacco were not consumed at all it would not be imported and this would have a beneficial effect on our balance of payments.
    Mr. Macmillan: I made that point earlier and I emphasised that it would make our balance of payments situation considerably easier.
    The hon. Member asked why we have not attempted to make any differentiation between filtered and unfiltered cigarettes and various forms of smoking which are less harmful medically than others. The hon. Gentleman explained this later himself when he said that there was little correlation between tax and consumption. Experience in Denmark and in other countries where the Customs and Excise has made inquiries shows that the addictive nature of cigarette smoking means that it is

    995
    not particularly reduced as compared with other forms of smoking, because other forms are not a substitute for the cigarette smoker. Incidentally, I should like to express on behalf of the Customs and Excise my gratitude for the tribute paid to the expertise of that Department in these matters by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne.
    The hon. Member for Willesden, West also raised the question of a differential between different forms of tobacco. I hope that the answer which I have given will have explained our motives to him. The Clause is part of a general increase of indirect taxation for the Chancellor's purposes, as my right hon. Friend explained in the course of the Budget debate. I would emphasise to the Committee, and I hope to the country outside, that the Government are taking the problem of the dangers of lung cancer, especially among young people, very seriously and are not trying to minimise that problem by paying no attention to it, or appearing to pay no attention to it in this Clause. It is simply that, having considered the matter, and for the reasons which I have tried to explain, including the addictive nature of cigarette smoking, it was not felt right to try to deal with the problem by means of a penal tax. The tax therefore has remained in line with other increases of indirect taxation and we look to other methods of propaganda and to public opinion to deal with the problem of lung cancer. The problem is not to make the country less dependent upon tobacco taxation but to make people less dependent upon tobacco.
    Mr. M. Foot: I shall try not to repeat myself, and I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his reply, but I do not think that he has answered the argument. The hon. Gentleman says that the Treasury is not interested in maximising cigarette or tobacco smoking, but one could put the proposition in a slightly less strong form and say that if every member of the community became convinced tomorrow morning by the reports of the medical profession it would be a bad day for the Treasury. The revenue would take a sudden nose-dive and we should be in difficulties.
    996
    7.15 p.m.
    I am trying to prepare the Treasury against that day and to deal with the
    situation which will arise in two or three years' time when we shall have a financial crisis because people will understand what the medical profession is saying. The financial position of the Treasury in a few years' time is a supremely academic question for the hon. Gentleman, but I think that the situation will arise when a sufficient number of people will believe what the medical profession is saying. Therefore, the Treasury should take precautions well in advance to reduce its dependence on this single form of tax, which is being piled ever higher.
    The hon. Gentleman says, "On, no, this matter should be dealt with by various forms of propaganda." He should consider who the contestants are in this battle. We have the Treasury, with a huge vested interest in the sale of tobacco. We have the advertising profession with a huge vested interest and the newspapers with a huge vested interest in the sale of tobacco. We have all these powerful vested interests interested in or actively trying to persuade more people to smoke, and on the opposite side we have the Ministry of Health spending £32,000 and the still small voice of the medical profession.
    My secondary argument in introducing the matter was to remove at any rate one vested interest from the battle, that is the Treasury, so that increasingly by my arrangement of setting aside £100 million out of revenue collected by taxation each year and putting it in a separate fund, which would not deal with the normal expenditure of the nation, we should decrease the vested interest of the Treasury in seeing that tobacco smoking was maintained.
    I do not think that the hon. Gentleman answers that argument by saying that this is merely a tax on expenditure and that if the Treasury were not taxing this form of expenditure it would collect the tax on some other form of expenditure. That amounts to saying that it does not matter how one taxes and that if the Treasury did not have the tobacco to tax for revenue it would find something else to tax. This position is highlighted in the Budget, in particular,

    997
    because more and more the Government have to concentrate their taxation on fewer and fewer objects, and one of the commodities on which the Government concentrate their taxation is a commodity which has been exposed as highly dangerous to the community that consumes it.
    I do not believe therefore that the hon. Gentleman has answered the argument. It is not a sufficient answer to say that each individual must make up his own mind in this situation. Each individual makes up his mind whether he is going to smoke partly because of the influence brought to bear upon him, and the influence of the most powerful vested interests in the country is brought to bear upon an individual to try to persuade him, and particularly the young person, to smoke. I ask that that individual be given a better chance to make up his own mind on the evidence instead of having the pressures of vested interests apply to him.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I think that this matter is sufficiently important for me to try to reply to the last point made by the hon. Member. I hope that he will forgive me if I deal only with vested interest in so far as it is alleged to concern the Treasury. If people stopped smoking overnight it would, of course, cause great administrative difficulty, let alone the question of longterm economic or fiscal problems. The same would apply if people overnight stopped buying motor cars or if there were any other violent economic change, but I suggest that the measures which the hon. Member advocates are not as practicable in dealing directly with this problem as he argues.
    To set aside £100 million which is raised but is not required is the same economically as taxing and having a surplus of £100 million, or decreasing Government expenditure by £100 million. The effect of the tax on the economic system must be taken into account. It is not the same sort of operation as that of a private person setting aside something for a reserve fund. Therefore, much as I admire the hon. Member's attempt, and grateful as we all are to him for bringing the point before the Committee, I hope that if I do not answer him in greater detail he
    998
    will acquit me of not having any interest in the incidence of lung cancer. If he likes, he can condemn me of being more sceptical than he is about the Government's capacity to deal with the problem by means of a Clause in the Finance Bill.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Schedule agreed to.

    Clause 5.—(HYDROCARBON OILS: INCREASE OF EXCISE DUTY.)
    Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Douglas Houghton: This Clause is worth a few minutes' consideration. It proposes to increase the excise duty on light oils produced in the United Kingdom and to bring up the excise duty on home-produced light oils to the level of taxation imposed on imported oils of a similar kind.
    Although the Clause is very close indeed to the one that we have just considered—raising the Tobacco Duty—and comes very close to it in the Bill—the two things were a long way apart in the Chancellor's Budget statement. He mentioned the proposal in Clause 5 in the first minute of his Budget speech and the proposal in Clause 4 in the last minute of his speech. That illustrates the wide difference of effect and of the public interest between them.
    The amount of additional duty raised by the Clause is £1½ million this year and £71½ million in a full year, which is very small beer compared with most other taxes in Clauses in the Bill. The interest in this Clause to me is the calm with which the Committee is taking the implementation of the Convention of the Seven, our E.F.T.A. partners. I suspect that had we been doing this by Convention of the Six, the Committee would have been very bitterly occupied in a debate on whether the supremacy of Parliament had been lost.
    I do not want to touch any exposed nerves on either side of the Committee, but we are taking this very calmly—yet it is exactly the same in principle. We have reached agreement in E.F.T.A. to abolish the Excise preference to home-produced light oil, so we throw it out of the window. The truth of the matter

    999
    is that we would be no more free to reject Clause 5 and remain in E.F.T.A. than we would be able to reject any other proposal and remain as a member of the Six.
    I am always fascinated by contradictions, and this, I suspect, is one of them. However, this is what it is all about. It is interesting to note that this is in fulfilment of our obligations to our E.F.T.A. partners and that we accept the fulfilment of those obligations like men, taking it calmly, with a stiff upper lip and all that, without feeling in any degree that we have lost the sovereignty of Parliament. That is an extraordinary position. It is one which I feel very happy about, because I think that it augurs well for the future, whatever it may be. That is all that I have to say on this Clause.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I have very little to add to what the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has said. This is purely a consequential Clause to meet our obligations to our E.F.T.A. partners to abolish the preference. The only point of detail which I think the hon. Gentleman did not mention was the reason for having to put the increase on the home duty rather than to do it the other way round. That, of course, is due to the impossibility of segregating imported oils of different origins. It is not physically possible to separate in their passage through our industrial system oils coming from E.F.T.A. or from other parts of the world, and, therefore, the only practical method of abolishing the preference is by raising the duty on the home-produced oils.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 6.—(HYDROCARBON OILS: RELIEFS.)
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 44, in page 6, line 21, to leave out "furnace".
    This Amendment has the virtue of brevity. The brevity of an Amendment is always in in-verse proportion to its importance, at least to the person who is moving it.
    This is an Amendment to Clause 6 which is the Clause setting out the cases in which Customs or Excise duty on
    1000
    hydrocarbon oils is not to be payable. The duty is not to be payable when the oil is used as a material or a solvent in an industrial process. The Clause sets out two schemes for dealing with such cases. If I have understood the Clause correctly, the first scheme is where the oil is free of duty when one adds a chemical additive to it and if one cannot do that one reclaims the duty afterwards, but that is not the part of the Clause with which my Amendment is concerned.
    My Amendment is concerned with the second scheme under the Clause, that of a particular use of light oils. Perhaps I might explain it in this way. There are considerable advantages in certain industrial processes, particularly in the steel industry, in using light oils as an alternative source or an additional source of furnace fuel. By light oils I mean the light petroleum distillate which is akin to motor spirit. Any industrial concern
    which desires to gain advantage of these
    modern processes of using light oil in that way is faced at the moment with the duty of 2s. 9d. a gallon as opposed to the duty on the ordinary fuel. Subsection (4) seeks to remedy that by turning those light oils, for duty purposes, into ordinary fuel oils provided that they are used, as the subsection is phrased, as "a furnace fuel."
    Obviously, the Chancellor should in this way encourage technical progress in industry. Subsection (4) as it stands will not only encourage that technical progress in industry, but it will also benefit the British refineries by giving a better balance of demand of the different types of oil and, therefore, a better balance of production in the British refineries.
    But subsection (4) does not go quite far enough if it is to take advantage of technical progress. By referring specifically to "furnace" fuel, it makes an invidious distinction between two very beneficial industrial processes, exempting one process and not another; it is the other which is really the advanced one, but which is not, as the Clause stands, within the exemption granted by this subsection.
    7.30 p.m.
    The process to which I refer is this. Light oils are used for the enrichment of flue gases from blast furnaces. Those flue gases can be used beneficially in the

    1001
    furnaces themselves, and the process of returning the gases, as it were, to the furnace is included within subsection (4). On the other hand, the gases may also be used, and better used, in gas engines, but if they are used in gas engines they cannot, I understand, be regarded as being used as "furnace" fuel.
    This is where subsection (4) falls short of taking advantage of present technical progress. The presence of gases in the furnace flue is something different from the use of those gases as a furnace fuel, and the process which I now have in mind would not be covered by subsection (4) as it stands.
    If the purpose of subsection (4) is, as my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said on Second Reading, to enable the potentialities of these fuels to be explored, it is most unwise to make this distinction between whether the gas is returned to the furnace or used in a gas engine. It is quite certain that, if the Clause were amended so as to omit the word "furnace", the steel industry, and other industries, too, probably, would be encouraged to develop the process of using enriched flue gases in gas engines. If the subsection stands as it is, on the other hand, it will have the sort of effect that the old predecessor of Schedule A tax, the window tax, had—it reduced the number of windows by making people block up window apertures.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Do I understand my hon. Friend to refer to the use of the gases after they have been burnt in the furnace for other purposes? I am not quite clear. Is he referring to a byproduct rather than the direct product?
    Mr. Page: As I understand, the gases are produced from the use of light oils and are returned again, but not reburnt by the furnace; they are used in gas engines.
    My hon. Friend may say that subsection (5) allows for regulations to be made which might cover this proposition, but I do not think that regulations could be made to cover the particular process to which I am referring if the word "furnace" remains in subsection (4). I am not a technical man and I do not find it easy to explain processes of this kind, but I think that it is fairly simple to understand. I sug-
    1002
    gest that it would be entirely in accordance with Government policy for the modernising of industry and for taking advantage of technical advance, encouraging industries themselves so to advance, to amend this subsection as I have proposed. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I much regret having, to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) that I cannot accept the Amendment as it stands because its effect, as I see it, would be to exempt from duty petrol used as an ordinary fuel for engines. This, of course, would go extremely wide.
    Like my hon. Friend, I am no technician in these matters, but, as judge the point, his argument is that the Clause as it stands does not fulfil the full range of purposes for which it was designed. It is a Clause which was to some extent governed by the technical considerations put forward by the steel industries concerned, and it was largely to encourage technical advance and more modern methods in these industries that the Clause was drafted. The enrichment of flue gases to be burnt in furnaces was a process of which a point was made, and this is the first time I have heard from private sources, from the industry or from anyone else about flue gases used to drive engines. No request for the inclusion of that process was made.
    I should like to go into the question. The object of the Clause is quite clear, and I can say, without encouraging my hon. Friend to hope too much, that if we find that we have, in effect, drafted it so that it does not fulfil its object entirely, we shall look at it again and bring the matter forward at a later stage.
    Mr. Graham Page: I am very grateful for those words. I shall endeavour to provide my hon. Friend with technical information on the particular process which I have in mind. In the light of the assurance which he has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Schedule 6 agreed to.

    Clause 7.—(POOL BETTING DUTY AND BOOKMAKERS' LICENCE DUTY.)
    Mr. Mellish: I beg to move Amendment No. 46, in page 8, line 33, at the end to insert:
    Provided that this subsection shall not apply to ante-post bets on horse races or greyhound races; and for the purposes of this proviso the expression "ante-post bets" means bets made in respect of named entries at odds agreed upon between the parties negotiating the bets.
    This Clause introduces a new form of betting tax, and it is understandable that such a change is likely to produce anomalies. This simple Amendment is designed to make quite clear that the Pool Betting Duty which is introduced by the Clause shall not be applicable to the ordinary ante-post betting carried on by bookmakers on horse races and greyhound races.
    In introducing his Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he wished to apply the Pool Betting Duty now applied in respect of football pools to other forms of coupon betting. This seemed clear enough on the face of it, but it is by no means clear from a reading of the Clause itself. Subsection (3) purports to specify what bets shall be chargeable to the pool betting duty, and it provides that
    "for this purpose bets shall be deemed to be made by way of coupon betting where they are made in pursuance of an invitation which offers up to a time fixed by the invitation or by the circumstances of its issue stated odds for a choice of bets."
    What all that jargon means, I gather, is that, by implication, ante-post betting, which is a common feature of betting in this country, will be liable to be taxed because, unless there is a clearer definition, it would come within that ambit. The Customs and Excise officials, who have been very friendly about this matter, did suggest to those who raised the point that, if they could draft a suitable set of words which would not destroy the purpose of Clause 7, the Chancellor might be prepared to look at it.
    I will try to put the point in simple terms. It is common practice, particularly on big races, for example, the Derby tomorrow, for people to have an ante-post bet. It is not the Chancellor's intention to tax such bets, but, as the Clause now stands, they could be taxed.
    1004
    It is as simple as that. I ask the Minister to accept the Amendment, at least in principle, if the words are not satisfactory, and give an assurance that new wording will be found by the Treasury so that the anomaly can be removed.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I can assure the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) that we have no intention of bringing ante-post betting within the scope of the betting tax. The hon. Member stated his case with great moderation and great fairness, and I am grateful that he and his hon. Friends have recognised that the Customs and Excise attempted to deal with the problem—and several others of a different nature which we have solved—in a spirit of common sense.
    I must tell the hon. Gentleman that we could not accept the Amendment as it stands for two reasons. One—perhaps not as important as the other—is that the Amendment, for the first time in the history of betting, appears to try to give some legal definition of ante-post betting. This could lead to several difficulties in related fields. But the main reason is that the Amendment goes very wide. The purpose of the Amendment is not to make evasion of the coupon betting duty easier, but we fear that the effect of the Amendment as it stands would be to make it possible for certain types of coupon betting to escape duty.
    The real difficulty is in finding a form of words which defines coupon betting but which does not include the presentation in a newspaper advertisement of the ante-post odds of a big race like the Derby and an invitation to fill in a coupon and turn it thereby into a coupon bet.
    We shall have a little while to consider this between now and Report, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that we will do everything we possibly can, after consultation and listening to everybody concerned, to find a method of accurately defining coupon betting, which does not allow those who wish to try to evade the duty to do so by taking advantage of an ill-drafted definition, but which, at the same time, does not make it impossible for perfectly legitimate advertisements of ante-post odds to be sent through the post or put in the Press.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: I welcome what the Economic Secretary

    1005
    has said. I think that he has met the spirit of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) in the way that we all hoped he would.
    As my hon. Friend said, this is a real problem. My hon. Friend did not pretend that the drafting of his Amendment was accurate. I appreciate that it is difficult to get the right form of words. I think that all of us who saw an attempted definition of ante-post bets on the Notice Paper felt that my hon. Friend had a great deal of courage in attempting this very difficult definition.
    However, the Economic Secretary has accepted the principle of the Amendment, and we are grateful to him for saying that between now and Report he will give thought to an appropriate form of words to meet the grievance which my hon. Friend has in mind.
    Mr. Mellish: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    7.45 p.m.
    Mr. Mellish: I beg to move Amendment No. 47, in page 8, line 33, at the end to insert:
    Provided that—

    (i) in relation to bets made at fixed odds on football matches, the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall apply only to bets on draws; and

    (ii) in any case in which the amount of pool betting duty payable in respect of the bets on draws on football matches made by way of any coupon is less than 12½ per cent. Of the stake money paid in respect of all the bets made by way of that coupon there shall be added to the pool betting duty payable in respect of such coupon such sum as represents the difference between the amount of such pool betting duty and 12½ per cent. of the stake money paid on all such bets.

    (4) For the purposes of the foregoing subsection the expression "a bet on draws" means a bet whereby the person making the bet forecasts that, in the case of a certain number of events specified on the coupon by which the bet is made, the result of each event will be a draw and the expression "bets on draws "shall be construed accordingly.
    This is a much more serious Amendment and takes in the major part of the intentions of the Clause. I ought to put it on record that the Amendment has been considered in some detail by the Treasury and the Customs and Excise and that they have already declared against it. I would also say that it is
    1006
    not my intention to take the Amendment to a Division. I recognise that I should lose anyway, and, in any case, I have tabled the Amendment to ensure that we have a discussion on the principle which is involved.
    When the Chancellor introduced this tax in his Budget—this is where the fixed-odds football coupon is brought in for the first time—he said that the income from the present tax of 33⅓ per cent. which was applied to pool betting had been so substantially reduced—about £12 million—that he was advised that a great deal of it had been attracted from the normal pool betting and had gone to fixed-odds betting. He also said that it was right and proper that there should be some equity about it and that the tax should be applied in respect of both the pools and the fixed-odds coupon. He reduced the tax to 25 per cent. and applied it to both forms of betting.
    From my knowledge of these matters, I think that the Chancellor is making a mistake if 'le thinks that he will get the £12 million by imposing this tax on fixed-odds betting. Indeed, it may destroy this form of betting, and I think that something ought to be said about it here. I am sure that it is not the intention of the Chancellor to destroy this form of betting. If it were his intention to do so, [would hope that he would say so here. If he said that, he would be honourable, but if he is not saying that, I hope he will not mind my saying that I do not think that he will get the money by this means. I shall show why that is so.
    First, there is all the difference in the world between the sort of gambling which takes place on football pools and that which takes place on fixed-odds coupons. The majority of people who bet on the pools go in for the treble chance. Millions of people bet on this type of pool, and a colossal sum of money is involved. At the end of the day the whole thing is a lottery. Those who win a big prize have probably done so by making use of birthday dates which happened to turn up lucky that week. If a great many of those taking part won, the prize would be infinitesimal. Therefore, it is a lottery. Between 85 and 90 per cent. of the income of the pools comes from the treble chance. The

    1007
    punter betting on the treble chance has no knowledge what he will draw. He can have no idea what the amount will be. Whatever he happens to get, whether it is a large or small amount, he is very grateful.
    When we turn to fixed-odds betting, it is quite a different gamble. There is a coupon on which odds are laid to certain results, and those taking part have to decide which teams they want to back and make a definite bet. In other words, it is a gamble as opposed to a lottery. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is here. On the Second Reading of the Bill he made a speech which spelt this out in some detail. He was right when he argued that there is all the difference in the world between these two forms of gambling.
    If the Chancellor wants to tax gambling—I am sure that it will be taxed as the months and years go by—let us do it properly and not mess about with it. I do not believe that he will get the £12 million which he says he will get from the tax on this form of betting. The right hon. Gentleman also dreams that if he does not get it this way the punters who have been betting on the fixed-odds pool will go back to the ordinary football pool. I believe that he is wrong again. They are not the same sort of gamblers.
    The most popular feature, of course, is picking out certain matches which the punter on a fixed-odds coupon favours on form, and so forth. The only similarity between the normal football coupon and the fixed-odds coupon is in the draws. The purpose of the Amendment, which is supported by responsible people who understand what the Chancellor intends to do and want to cooperate, is to ensure that the revenue which can be obtained from this source should be obtained in the easiest possible way.
    The Amendment would safeguard both the bookmakers and the Chancellor from the effect of the Bill's proposals for the taxation of fixed-odds betting. It is felt that the imposition of such a heavy duty as 25 per cent. Of stakes will provide the strongest possible inducement for an unscrupulous collector to stand fixed-odds coupon bets himself. Another variation of the difference between the two coupons
    1008
    is that the fixed-odds coupon goes out to collectors and is returned to the original bookmaker.
    If a tax is imposed there will be a tendency for some of these people to stand the bets themselves and so evade tax. An agent who is a bookmaker on his own account will not risk the loss of his permit, but there are hundreds of part-time collectors who may be willing to take this risk. We believe that much of the tax which the Chancellor
    hopes to get from this source will not reach the Inland Revenue at all and that it will be difficult to trace. I am informed that about 2,000 operators of these different fixed-odds coupons are in being at the moment. If the right hon. Gentleman and his officials in the Customs and Excise Department can trace them, all they will be doing well but they will certainly have a very busy time in trying to do so.
    The object of the Amendment is to put this tax on a realistic basis. It is felt that, in this way, the tax would be collectible, but the Chancellor has already said that the Amendment would have the effect of reducing the amount that he wishes to collect by about 50 per cent. I advise him to settle for what he can get out of this source and put the tax on a realistic basis. He is taking a gamble with his present proposal. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is taking another gamble as well. He is not handling the betting laws and taxation in general in the proper way, and he and his staff face a very difficult problem as it is. Unless he deals with this situation in a more rational way there will be more trouble.
    When one talks in this Committee on behalf of these people one always faces the argument, "Why are people like you arguing for people like them? Why not tax all bookmakers and gambling to the hilt?". Gambling, however, is part of the British way of life, whether we like it or not. In 1948, I said that we should legalise it and I was applauded by some bookmakers and yelled at by others. The present Government had the courage to introduce the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960, and I applaud them for their courage. I do not think that my party would have done it. I believe that it would have "ducked it". For the first time the Government put the bookmaker in the High Street, and that was a courageous thing to do.

    1009
    I have always been anxious to establish that if people want to gamble—as they undoubtedly do—the Government should recognise it. I am tired of those humbugs who turn their heads away and say that it is not really going on. But if there is to be a tax on gambling let it be done honourably and decently and not by hole and corner methods.
    In this case, the Chancellor has chosen the wrong way. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley supported my ideas on Second Reading and I hope that he will speak in this debate. I do not want a reversion to what I call the" 1960 era" in betting and gambling. Everyone knows what was going on then, including the vast amount of corruption in our police. We all knew that this was happening in my own area. I was glad then that the Government recognised gambling as inevitable. I hope that they do not intend to introduce methods now which will push us back to those hole and corner days. That is why I have put down this Amendment for discussion.
    If the words of the Amendment are not satisfactory, then I will willingly withdraw it. I move it mainly as a vehicle for debate. I want a clean and above board way of taxing these people, a way that will give the Government and the tax dignity and effectiveness. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley was on a substantial point in arguing that we should make this proposal permissive. By November this year we shall know whether this tax is to be collected, but I have a shrewd feeling that we shall find that it cannot be. If that is so, we must await another Finance Bill in order to make a change.
    The Chancellor's present proposal surely means the abolition of this form of betting. If that is what he wants, let him say so and I will admire his honesty. But if that is not his purpose then let him accept the advice of those who know something about the subject and realise that, if he wants £12 million, he will not get it this way.
    Mr. Alan Hopkins: It is appropriate on the eve of Derby Day to discuss betting.
    Mr. Mellish: Put your money on Oncidium.
    Mr. Hopkins: I would not necessarily accept the hon. Gentleman's tip about that but I would accept his invitation to discuss the Amendment. This seems to centre on one matter. It is the intention of the Chancellor to raise some taxation in the form in which it has been expressed in the Bill. My right hon. Friend estimates that the yield is likely to be about £12 million. I wonder whether that claim is justifiable in the light of trade experience.
    I believe it is true that the football pools have suffered a decline in turnover over the last few years but that, at the same time, there has been a rise in the amount bet by the public as a whole upon fixed odds, promoted in the main by three large bookmaking firms with very many collectors and sub-agents throughout the country. It is, therefore, natural that my right hon. Friend should look to these bookmakers for a source of revenue.
    I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has made a justifiable assumption. Is it likely that the money at present in the fixed-odds pools will revert to the football pools and thereby increase the revenue from that source? Or is it likely that the fixed-odds pools will be able to absorb a tax of this nature and still carry on in business? I think it probable that the amount of money bet on fixed odds football pools will decline substantially and that it is not likely to go back into the hands of the football pool promoters. If this is so, it appears likely that my right hon. Friend will not get the amount of money he is hoping to obtain from this form of taxation. It may well be possible so to do, however, and the case for the Amendment is to see whether or not it is possible to devise another form of words which will take care of the practical difficulties of the bookmakers in making this tax workable.
    I would not be prepared to press this to a Division, but, if the discussion results in my right hon. Friend considering whether there is an alternative form of words which will achieve his object while making it workable from the point of view of the bookmakers, it will have served a useful purpose.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. George Wigg: I will not weary the Committee by continuing an argument which started on Second

    1011
    Reading, except to say that there is clearly a difference of opinion between me and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is quite confident—he said it in columns 1530–33 of HANSARD for 7th May, 1964—that his estimate in his Budget statement will be justified and that the money being spent on fixed odds will pay duty, or tend to go back to the football pools. He has also expressed his confidence that there is no danger of evasion. All I can say—and I say this as a compliment—is that he has the faith of the early Christians, a faith which in this respect I do not share. However, he has access to highly competent advice and he has taken it, and I hope very sincerely that he is right. I do not think that he is.
    First, I believe that he fails to understand one or two things about this business. He has listened rather too easily to what the football promoters have to say. He has tended to regard the football pools operators in the same category as, say, William Hill, Copes, or Ladbrokes. I hasten to say for the benefit of the charitably-minded that I am in the pay of none of those gentlemen. I have no interest in them at all, except in so far as I can occasionally win something from them. There is a world of difference between those gentlemen and the football pools operators. The football pools operator never loses. He is on a winner from the word "Go".
    However, the fixed-odds bookmaker does lose. I do not guarantee my figures, and I have no doubt that the Chancellor has access to this information, but I am sure that in the last two years the fixed-odds bookmakers have had a pretty thin time. That is one of the reasons why I repeat my advice to the Chancellor that he should be careful. If in the first six weeks of the next football season I am right and fixed odds have gone, that is to say, if the punter has refused either to pay 25s. for a £1 bet—and as a punter I am sure that I would not do this, and I do not know of anyone outside a lunatic asylum and even inside who would pay 25s. for a 20s. bet—or the punters have refused to accept odds of 45 to I where they had been getting 60 to I—there will be a great increase of illegal betting.
    1012
    I remind the Chancellor that there are many punters, members of Conservative clubs, who are Tories and who have votes and who will not get paid. The Labour punters have only one vote, and they will vote Labour anyway, but the Tory punters will wake up to find that the bookmakers have gone. It is the existence of the big firms which gives any stability to betting. The small operator who is pirating someone else's coupon and running someone else's coupon through the means of a local printer is all right so long as he is winning and is able to buy his second Bentley and the second mink coat for his wife or a few more diamond rings. When William Hill or Mr. Ladbroke or Copes or any of the other big operators are winning, they put something against a rainy day.
    Many bookmakers have been offering odds of 65 to 1. This is a part of the business which they do not like because it does not pay. Offering 65 to 1 is dodgy, and half of the business of fixed odds is on draws, something they do not like. If in the first six weeks of the next season there is a succession of weeks when there are draws, the number of bookmakers who will "knock" and the number of punters who will not get paid will run into millions. This is something which the Chancellor does not begin to understand. He has approached this matter with the attitude of the early Christians—"Everything in the garden will be all right; I have been given some estimates and they will work out."
    If it does not work out and there is a run of successful draws on two or three successive weeks, not only will there be trouble, but the Chancellor will not get his revenue. My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) put his finger on it—the boys who operate on the fixed odds are the discerning punters, the people who have tried a succession of birthday dates or a succession of coincidental dates in the family and who have tired of paying out 5s. a week on the pools and who, through a process of trial and error, have gone to the fixed odds. I do not believe that those who have graduated—if that is the right word—from the pools to the fixed odds will return from fixed odds to the pools. They are completely different beings. In fact, the popularity

    1013
    of pool betting is waning, and never mind how much propaganda the pool owners may put out. I do not believe, with all the help of the Chancellor, that he will ever again collect from the pool promoters anything like he collected in the old days.
    In these circumstances, it becomes an argument about fixed odds. It is perfectly clear that the bookmaker would like to get rid of draws. As I have said, they have offered odds of 65 to 1 on draws only because the public have demanded it. If the Chancellor puts on a tax of 25 per cent. and says that the existence of betting shops is a guarantee that people will get their coupons—which is what he told me—he knows little about this business.
    What he does not realise is that a vast number—I believe that there are some 14,000 betting shops—of these chaps are not bookmakers in the strict sense of the word, especially those dealing with football betting, but are operators on commission, Since Second Reading, I have spoken to one or two who operate on a very big scale. They have told me that they gel 3s. 6d. in the £, out of which they spend 1s. 6d. sending in the coupons, leaving themselves with 2s. profit. If that 3s. 6d. in the £ cannot be paid because of the operation of the tax, the punters will go where they can get 3s. 6d. in the £, and that is round the corner where the same coupon will have been Roneoed. If the Chancellor thinks that this will not happen, all I can say is that I hope that he is right and I am wrong.
    I underline, emphasise and back up what my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey said and what I said on Second Reading: the present Foreign Secretary performed an act of great political courage when he introduced the present betting legislation. When it came up in the last Parliament, I did not believe that any Government would tackle it. But the right hon. Gentleman did, and it has been a very important step forward, and I pay my tribute to his courage in getting rid of not all but 95 per cent. of illegal betting.
    What the Chancellor now proposes can take us back to square one. He is re-creating illegal betting just at the time when we have moved away from it and when the habit of legality and respect-
    1014
    ability has begun to grow. This is at a time when he or his successor might have begun to think of the steps which could be taken to tax betting as a whole, because it ought to be taxed. It is a non-productive undertaking, and, as an act of social justice, it ought to be taxed. It ought to be taxed because of the great pre-emption of capital and the number of people employed in the industry at a time when the labour market is starved, and for the Chancellor to gamble in this way seems to show a touch of confidence, or overconfidence, in the face of all the evidence and of past experience.
    If the Chancellor is right and I am wrong, I shall give three cheers, and no harm will be done, but if I happen to be right and he is wrong, we shall be stuck with it. The country will be stuck with it. All that I ask the Chancellor to do is to make this permissive. If by the first week of October he finds that fixed odds have gone—and those who operate this business are confident that fixed odds are finished because they cannot bear a tax of 25 per cent. and because of the price that the punter will have to pay—the position can then be put right.
    Let us not leave it to be dealt with at the next Budget. The Chancellor can then say, "My estimates were wrong, and I shall introduce a Statutory Instrument to restore the situation". I do not want the Chancellor to say that he was wrong. All that I want him to do is to prevent the growth of illegality, because I do not want to waste another two years before we find ourselves in the position when gambling in all its forms bears the tax which it ought to bear in the interests of the community as a whole.
    For many years I have laboured to try to get some sense into this matter. The Chancellor has now taken this step. If he is right, he will be able to go on from there, as will others who follow him, but it is not right that he should gamble on being right and make no provision for safeguarding the position if he happens to be wrong. I am not saying that he personally will have made a mistake. The mistake will have been made by his advisers whose life's work does not give them the necessary experience in this field to enable them to be certain about what will happen. Nobody can be certain about this matter.

    1015
    The right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) was wrong, and it is therefore a little surprising that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be so emphatic in saying that he is right, so right that he proposes to smash the lifeboats, throw away the lifebelts, and make sure that the wireless does not work. He is throwing away all the safeguards which will enable him to put the position right should he be proved to be wrong.
    I do not understand why an intelligent man should be so stubborn. I am not warning the Chancellor, but I repeat for the umpteenth time that in the interests of the country as a whole, he should take steps to ensure that if the situation envisaged by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and by myself should arise, there will be an opportunity to put the matter right. This matter could be dealt with by a simple Amendment on Report, and I shall be very glad to hear that the Government have had second thoughts on the matter.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I hesitate to oppose the formidable body of expertise which was presented with a persuasiveness worthy of Epsom Downs tomorrow afternoon, but I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Hopkins) that this is not really a question of finding a form of words which is suitable to achieve a mutually agreed purpose, as it was in the case of the last Amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). I must oppose the Amendment as a matter of principle because, as the Committee will realise, it is, in effect, asking that the proposed duty on fixed-odds coupon betting should be halved. It is therefore an argument not about a form of words, but about an overall rate of duty.
    8.15 p.m.
    Inevitably the arguments put forward by hon. Members on both sides must be of a rather speculative nature, perhaps suitable for a rather speculative business. It is not possible in this case to say with certainty what is going to happen, although one must admit that a fall in the wagering on football pools, accompanied by a rise in the wagering on fixed odds, does not seem to be prima facie evidence that different types of people bet on the two different forms of gambling. The
    1016
    argument put forward by the hon. Member for Bermondsey, and by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), is that really only the mug punter puts money on football pools and that the discerning better wants better odds and the chance of beating the handicapper, which the fixed odds coupon gives him.
    I have a greater faith than has the hon. Member for Dudley, not only in the rightness of the Chancellor and his advisers, but in the capacity of the bookmaker to find a form of arranging his coupon and the gamble he offers to the public which will succeed both in satisfying those who regard themselves as discriminating gamblers, and in not weighing the odds too strongly against himself.
    The second part of the argument was that because of this difference between the two types of people who gamble in this way, the Treasury would lose revenue, and that because the pools are a lottery and the fixed odds are a gamble we would destroy one form of betting without getting a compensating increase in revenue from the other. I could not possibly refute that argument with any definiteness, but one must admit that the balance of evidence—and certainly the balance of evidence which we have been able to accumulate—shows that the traffic can bear the overall duty of 25 per cent.
    The hon. Member for Dudley suggested that we might be wrong—and I suppose that we might be—and that, therefore, it would be better to make the duty permissive. At one stage in his argument he hinted that the bookmakers were willing to pay the duty in relation to bets made at fixed odds on draws, not only because this was competitive with football pools, but because it was a part of their business which did not pay, and that they would not mind very much if it were destroyed. I do not think there is anything in that argument. I think that the hon. Member will agree that he cannot expect the Chancellor to encourage evasion by saying, "If you can evade the tax successfully enough at the beginning we will take it off. "That is really what the proposal amounts to.
    Mr. Wigg: I am not advocating any course of action. What I am trying to indicate is what will happen. I am not going to do the evasion.
    Mr. Macmillan: I accept the hon. Member's reassurance on that point. I can only point out to the Committee that the Customs and Excise authorities feel confident that they will be able to collect the revenue due to them, and that whatever may be the administrative difficulties in respect of those who organise fixed odds betting and also the Customs and Excise authorities, we believe that they can be overcome, that by the imposition of this tax we shall not destroy those who operate fixed odds betting, and that we shall collect from it the duty we have estimated. Even if the imposition of the tax tends to make people move away from this form of betting, it is only equitable that the two forms of betting on football, dissimilar though hon. Members say they are, should be taxed in the same way.
    In the circumstances, I can only recommend the Committee not to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Mellish: This is a flat rejection of the Amendment. I am not surprised, because we had an earlier indication that it would be rejected. But the hon. Member did not deal with the point that I made, that some people will produce illegal coupons which the Customs and Excise authorities, with all their ingenuity, will not be able to trace. The hon. Member has not mentioned that point. I do not think that he cares about it. I think that all he is concerned with is that if he can get EX hundred million he will be satisfied. The amount of money is a matter for the Chancellor, but I hope that he will not ruin what the 1960 Act has been trying to do. That was the only thing that I was pleading for.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) referred to the fact that some of the big firms lost money on fixed-odds betting. The accounts of these firms are subject to constant audit by the Customs and Excise authorities, so that there is no chance of a fiddle. I am told that the books of one firm which have been examined show that in 1961–62 it lost £80,000 and that last year it lost £606,000. If the Chancellor imposes a 25 per cent. tax on top of this such a firm will be very foolish if it carries on. Anyway, we shall see.
    1018
    I do not intend to press the Amendment, but I shall not withdraw it.
    Amendment negatived
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 8.—(SURCHARGES AND REBATES UNDER SECTION 9 OF FINANCE ACT 1961.)
    Mr. Anthony Crosland: I beg to move Amendment No.5, in page 10, line 1, to leave out subsection (2).
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. F. Blackburn): With this Amendment we can take Amendment No.7, in page 10, line 14, leave out from "to" to end of line 16 and insert:
    "any duty or group of duties of customs or excise (including purchase tax as such a duty) without: applying 10 other such duties".
    Amendment No.8, in line 16, at end insert:
    "or to the duties on one or more of the chargeable goods within any of the said groups without applying to the duties on the remainder of tie chargeable goods within those groups or any of them"
    Amendment No.10, in line after "the", insert "duty or".
    Amendment No.11, in line 21, leave out subsection (5).
    Amendment No.13, in line 42, leave out "groups" and insert "duty"
    Amendment No.14, in line 45, leave out "group" and insert "duty".
    Mr. Crosland: Yes, Mr. Blackburn. It is not surprising that in order to understand the Amendments we must understand the purpose of the Clause. Its purpose, as explained by the Chancellor in his Budget speech, is to make the regulator more flexible by dividing Customs and Excise duties into four large groups—broadly speaking, tobacco, alcohol, oil and Purchase Tax—giving himself the power to increase the use of the regulator for one or more of these groups without necessarily having to do the same for all. We are sympathetic to the idea of making the use of the regulator more flexible, if it is possible. The reason for our putting down this group of Amendments is that we have serious doubts whether the Clause, as it stands, gives a sufficient additional degree of flexibility, particularly when it is considered together with Clauses 1 to 4.

    1019
    We have two or three serious doubts in the matter. In particular, we doubt whether this provision increases the amount of flexibility in the use of the regulator. In a sense, the reason why the Chancellor has introduced the Clause is that he thinks that he might have to use the regulator in the autumn, and since he presumably does not think that he can increase drink and tobacco duties any further he wants to give himself power to use the regulator in respect of the remaining two categories only.
    Nominally, one might say that this was an increase in the flexibility of the regulator. The trouble is that the fact that he has already increased the duty on drink and tobacco in Clauses 1 and 4 makes the whole regulator very much less useful than it otherwise would be. Suppose it is true that in the autumn he can increase only Purchase Tax and oil duties. If the Chancellor had to do something—or if some other Chancellor had to do something—and if he could not do anything more with the duty on drink and tobacco, it has been estimated that the use of the entire 10 per cent. regulator on everything except drink and tobacco would bring in only about £100 million. The Minister will correct that figure if it is wrong. If that figure is right, it suggests that the Chancellor has very much weakened his reserve weapon. He may easily need to try to raise more money than that, which is the first reason why we doubt whether he has increased the flexibility of the regulator in the Clause as it is drafted.
    The second reason—this is a point dealt with implicitly, at least, in our Amendments—is that the additional flexibility created by subsection (2) appears to be largely nullified by the provisions of subsection (5). Subsection (2) gives the Chancellor power to use the regulator for some of these groups without having to use it for the others. Subsection (5) makes clear that, for whatever groups he uses the regulator, he must either increase or decrease taxation by precisely the same amount. Subsection (5) rules out the possibility of having, say, a 10 per cent. increase for two groups and a 5 per cent. increase for the remainder. It is not at all clear why the Clause intends to increase flexibility by one subsection and at the same time reduce it seriously by another subsection.
    1020
    The third of our doubts relates to the division of these duties into four groups. If there is an argument for dividing them into groups, would not it be sensible to go further and give the Chancellor power to use the regulator for individual duties and not simply for the four major groups? The basic object of the Amendments is to increase the flexibility of the regulator by saying that the Chancellor should have power to use it on certain individual items and at the same time not be compelled to use it for all the other items covered by the various groupings. That, basically, is the object of our Amendments; to try to do what we think that the Chancellor has failed to do by the provisions of this Clause, to make the regulator a great deal more flexible.
    We feel strongly—at least I and some of my hon. Friends do—that it is desperately important to try to make the regulator more flexible. Even since the Chancellor introduced his Budget, evidence has been increasing—I should have thought—that the right hon. Gentleman or someone else would have to use the regulator in the autumn. All the
    statistics which we have had since the date of the introduction of the Budget indicate that the pressure of demand is building up heavily in the economy and we may be running into serious inflation by the autumn. Let us be frank. The chances that the regulator will have to be used by the present Chancellor, or his successor, are getting very high indeed. For that reason we attach importance to trying to make the regulator as flexible and as efficient as we can.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. Maudling: I am very interested in the point raised by the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland). We are discussing a group of Amendments, several in the names of hon. Members opposite and one in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Cleaver), on the question of the regulator. It is a rather unusual situation in that the Committee is proposing to give to the Chancellor greater powers than he is seeking.
    The history of this matter is on these lines. Traditionally all changes in

    1021
    taxation take place at the time of the Budget, but that, as the late Aneurin Bevan once said, is following the traditions of a pastoral society, and I accept the view that under modern conditions we should try to get away from the purely annual Budget context. This first happened on Purchase Tax when the Committee gave flexibility in raising and lowering rates to the Chancellor That proved of advantage in the reductions made on motor cars. It was followed by the regulator: this was specifically designed for economic purposes so that one could make an immediate impact on totality of demand by putting up or down the general level of indirect taxes.
    I think it was felt at the time that it would not be very readily acceptable to the Committee to go beyond that in the discretion given to Chancellors. There are two objections to giving too much power to change particular duties between Budgets. The first is that when we get pressure or claims for individual tax changes we should weigh the competing claims against one another and one can do that only at the time of the Budget. This is a sensible in-built reason for not having too great ability to exercise that power at a time when by its nature it probably should not be exercised.
    The second reason is parliamentary control. Quite clearly parliamentary control over a change of taxes by order is of its nature less complete than parliamentary control over changes of taxation that have to be brought into being by the whole machinery of a Ways and Means Resolution and a Finance Bill. Therefore, in expanding the flexibility of the Chancellor's taxing powers in the case of the regulator it has so far been the view that this should be kept as a very general power, so that in using the regulator the Chancellor should be operating on the economy generally and that detailed provisions on relative tax rates judged on the basis of equity, and considerations related to particular industries, are better left to be dealt with in the Budget by the detail of particular tax changes.
    That was the situation I faced this year. In looking at the regulator and deciding what to ask the Committee in the way of reviewing these powers, I
    1022
    thought it wise to ask for more flexibility, very much for the reason which the hon. Member has suggested. Having raised duties on alcohol and tobacco, it might be desirable at some stage to operate the regulator and yet difficult to operate the regulator if it involved a second increase in duties already increased in the Financial Bill. Therefore, I am asking the Committee to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whoever he may be—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—coming events do not cast their shadows that often—authority to exclude from the use of the regulator one of the main four groupings of indirect taxation.
    Frankly, I considered going a little further, but I felt that the Committee might be unwilling to grant me such latitude. I am interested to find that the opinion, as shown in the Amendments and in the speech of the hon. Member, is rather inclined to give me further latitude than I thought the Committee would be willing to give. With the permission of the Committee, I should like to consider the question further. There are two matters before the Committee. One is the splitting up of the individual blocks of duties into rather smaller compartments. The other is the power, which would be given by the Amendment to eliminate subsection (5), to vary the rate of duty. For example, it might be put up or down by 10 per cent. On one section and 5 per cent. On
    another. Taking the two suggestions, I am not sure that in practice the first would yield very great benefit. Take the question of duties on alcohol. There is a balance always between beer and wine and spirits. It is unlikely that one would want to use the tax regulator on one without using it on the others.
    Tobacco also is a homogeneous subject, and I think that within the hydrocarbon oil duties there is unlikely to be scope for making changes in one part of the block and not another. At first sight it seems that the scope for using regulatory powers within the four individual blocks of taxation is probably small, and I doubt whether the advantage of having additional power in that field would counter the rather serious arguments about Parliamentary control and about the need for considering comparative individual tax rates, as opposed to general economic changes of taxation,

    1023
    which only a Finance Bill can carry out. But I will consider this again, although I think that its advantage is rather doubtful.
    On the second point, there is a strong argument for saying that one should have the power of introducing a regulator, whether up or down, of a character which does not necessarily impose the same rate, say 5 per cent. or 10 per cent., over the whole field. The argument has been rather well made for this power by those who have said that we should not bind ourselves, as subsection (5) does, to imposing the same rate of duty over the whole range of articles affected by the regulator.
    With the permission of the Committee I will undertake between now and Report to consider the proposals before us. I am pretty certain that in principle I shall wish to accept the suggestion that there should not necessarily be uniformity of rates; in other words, in practice subsection (5) would be eliminated as suggested in my hon. Friend's Amendment. In principle I shall probably wish to accept that.
    I am not so convinced about the other suggestion for having flexibility within the main blocks of taxation, because I feel that Parliamentary control ought to be a little closer than that. But I am interested in the attitude taken by the Committee and I am encouraged to find that the Committee, so far from being jealous of traditional privileges in the matter, has been inclined to give the Chancellor of the day a little more flexibility in these matters. I do not think that any Chancellor would be wise to spurn this opportunity of greater flexibility.
    Mr. Leonard Cleaver: I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend say that he would look at the matter again. My two Amendments simply try to give him more flexibility, as I strongly feel that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have that flexibility when dealing with an economy which is on a knife edge, as our economy is. The two Amendments would give him power, if he wished, to make increases in some of the categories under subsection (2) and to leave out others or to make increases in different groups
    1024
    while leaving one chargeable section of goods out. This would give him more flexibility.
    The right hon. Gentleman would use the regulator only in times of crisis, and at such times he should use it as a rapier rather than as a bludgeon. To give an example of the way in which he might use the regulator, he might feel it wise to increase the petrol duty, but if he did that under the powers of the Bill as they stand he would have to increase the duty on hydrocarbon oil and diesel oil. That would undoubtedly put up costs, which would affect exports as well as the home market, and he might not wish to do that. Similarly, he might wish to alter the duty on imported wines, but under the Clause the increase must apply to beer, too, and that might be unnecessary and undesirable.
    Purchase Tax covers a very wide range, and it applies to necessities as well as to luxuries. Some of the goods to which it applies go for export. He would therefore be wise, if he had the power, to differentiate between one Purchase Tax class and another.
    I am encouraged by what my right hon. Friend has said. I hope that, on reconsideration, he will decide to accept my Amendments. I believe that he should have the extra power. I ask him to take all these considerations into account.
    Mr. Diamond: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is adding to his other manifest qualities the quality of undue modesty. He is being offered by the Committee the possibility of using existing powers—not additional powers—with greater precision. He doubts whether he is the man to accept this responsibility. We on this side have no doubt that he is the man to accept this responsibility, because this was the only argument when the regulator was first discussed.
    The argument from this side was not whether this was a wise addition to the armoury of government. We questioned whether it was a wise addition to the armoury of government having regard to the complexion of the Government. At that time we on this side came to the conclusion that the arguments in favour of additional flexibility were far greater than the natural hesitation we had about

    1025
    entrusting further powers to a Government of the complexion they had held hitherto.
    Those arguments are, perhaps, a little weaker now than they were at the time they were considered. Nevertheless, those were the arguments at the time. They are still the arguments. Nothing that has been said from either side of the Chamber supports the Chancellor's view that he should hesitate. This is not the first time the Chancellor has seen the Amendments. They have been on the Notice Paper. He has had an opportunity to consider them. While the rest of us have been enjoying our well-earned and temporary respite, the Chancellor has been busy at his desk every day reading the Amendments and considering his attitude to the Finance Bill. Therefore, he has had ample opportunity to consider whether he should accept the Amendments.
    Both sides are anxious to give the Chancellor the power to use—the possibility of using—existing powers with greater precision, holding the weapon, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Cleaver) said, as a rapier rather than as a bludgeon. It was only a question of having a period of trial before these powers inevitably came to be more precise.
    We on this side cannot see why the Chancellor should not now make up his mind. He has had plenty of time to consider the matter. We sympathise with him in his new rôle of a modest, retiring, withdrawn individual. We find it difficult to recognise him, but we sympathise with him in his new attitude. We do not know what occasioned it other than such things as public opinion polls. We take the view that there has been ample opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to consider this matter. The Amendments are clear. The Chancellor has not said that they are drafted inaccurately or inadequately. He has not complained about a single word. It would have been surprising if he had, because my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has drafted them with his usual expertise.
    Therefore, we can only take it that the Amendments are verbally adequate and correct and serve their purpose. We find it difficult to believe that there is any reason to avoid reaching a conclusion. We like to get on. We do not like to dilly-dally and have a second and third bite at a simple cherry. It is a simple preposition which has been put forward by both sides of the Committee. We hope that the Chancellor will accept the argument. If he will not accept the argument which has been put forward in the Chamber, we will have to rely on the argument in the Division Lobby, but we believe that is completely necessary. We feel sure that the Chancellor will accept the argument which has been advanced.
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. Maudling: To comment on the wording of the Amendments, I am advised that despite the extremely distinguished nature of their origin, they would not be entirely satisfactory in every detail.
    I turn to the principle of them. I have been interested in this reaction because I have been concerned that the Committee should feel that I should not ask for too much and escape parliamentary control. I wanted to consider, therefore, not only what the Amendments were designed to do, but also to listen to the arguments adduced before forming a view on what would be the best sort of proposal to make on Report and how far it should go. I did not want to press the Committee further. I wanted to consider how far this degree of flexibility would be consistent with our tradition of parliamentary control.
    I did not wish to make up my mind until I had heard the arguments, and I wanted to ask for time between now and Report to decide how far—and I will go a good way—I could go in this direction and how far I could recommend hon. Members to go.
    Question out, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 212, Noes 161.

    Division No. 96.]

    AYES

    [8.46 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Arbuthnot, Sir John

    Barter, John

    Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Batsford, Brian

    Allason, James

    Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Anderson, D. C.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin

    Peel, John

    Bidgood, John C.

    Holland, Philip

    Percival, Ian

    Bingham, R. M.

    Hollingworth, John

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Bishop, Sir Patrick

    Holt, Arthur

    Pitman, Sir James

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Hooson, H. E.

    Pitt, Dame Edith

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Hopkins, Alan

    Pounder, Rafton

    Box, Donald

    Hornby, R. P.

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

    Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Braine, Bernard

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Pym, Francis

    Brewis, John

    Hurd, Sir Anthony

    Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter

    Buck, Antony

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Bullard, Denys

    Jennings, J. C.

    Renton, Rt. Hon. David

    Burden, F. A.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)

    Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Chataway, Christopher

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Chichester-Clark, R

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Seymour, Leslie

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Kirk, Peter

    Sharples, Richard

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Lagden, Godfrey

    Shaw, M.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

    Cordle, John

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Corfield, F. V.

    Leavey, J. A.

    Speir, Rupert

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Stainton, Keith

    Critchley, Julian

    Lilley, F. J. P.

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Dance, James

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Lubbock, Eric

    Talbot, John E.

    Drayson, G. B.

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

    Duncan, Sir James

    MacArthur, Ian

    Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    McLaren, Martin

    Temple, John M.

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute & N.Ayrs)

    Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Farr, John

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Maginnis, John E.

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Maitland, Sir John

    Turner, Colin

    Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Marshall, Sir Douglas

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Freeth, Denzil

    Marten, Neil

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Gardner, Edward

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan

    Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Mawby, Ray

    Wade, Donald

    Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Walder, David

    Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

    Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr, S. L. C.

    Walker, Peter

    Goodhew, Victor

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

    Green, Alan

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Webster, David

    Grimond, Rt. Hon. J,

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Grosvenor, Lord Robert

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Gurden, Harold

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Neave, Airey

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)

    Worsley, Marcus

    Hay, John

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Hiley, Joseph

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Mr. Hugh Rees and

    Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

    Partridge, E.

    Mr. R. W. Elliot.

    NOES

    Abse Leo

    Bowles, Frank

    Cronin, John

    Ainsley, William

    Boyden, James

    Crosland, Anthony

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Dalyell, Tam

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Burnett Guy

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Bence, Cyril

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Benson, Sir George

    Callaghan, James

    Deer, George

    Blyton, William

    Carmichael, Neil

    Delargy, Hugh

    Boardman, H.

    Cliffe, Michael

    Dempsey, James

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Collick, Percy

    Diamond, John

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S.W.)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Dodds, Norman

    1028

    1029

    Doig, Peter

    Lipton, Marcus

    Rhodes, H.

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Loughlin, Charles

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Driberg, Tom

    Mabon, Dr. J, Dickson

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)

    McBride, N.

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    McCann, J.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    MacColl, James

    Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    McInnes, James

    Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

    Evans, Albert

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Ross, William

    Fernyhough, E.

    MacKenzie, J. G.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Fitch, Alan

    McLeavy, Frank

    Short, Edward

    Fletcher, Eric

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Silkin, John

    Foley, Maurice

    Mahon, Simon

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Manuel, Archie

    Small, William

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Mapp, Charles

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Ginsburg, David

    Marsh, Richard

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Grey, Charles

    Mason, Roy

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Steele, Thomas

    Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

    Millan, Bruce

    Stonehouse, John

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Milne, Edward

    Stones, William

    Hannan, William

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Stress, Sir Barnett, (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

    Harper, Joseph

    Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Morris, John (Aberavon)

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Hilton, A. V.

    Mulley, Frederick

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Holman, Percy

    Neal, Harold

    Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

    Thornton, Ernest

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    O'Malley, B. K.

    Warbey, William

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Oram, A. E.

    Weitzman, David

    Hunter, A. E.

    Owen, Will

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Hynd, H, (Accrington)

    Padley, W. E.

    Whitlock, William

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Parker, John

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Paton, John

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Jeger, George

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Williams. Ll. (Abertillery)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Peart, Frederick

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Kelley, Richard

    Pentland, Norman

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Woof, Robert

    King, Dr, Horace

    Probert, Arthur

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Lawson, George

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Randall, Harry

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Mr. charles A Howell and

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Mr. Redhead.

    Mr. A. Lewis: I beg to move Amendment No.6, in page 10, line 14, after "may", to insert "(a)".
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. F. Blackburn): We can also discuss Amendment No.9, in line 16, at end insert:
    "and
    (b) notwithstanding anything in the said section 9 apply to the pool betting duty in the case of bets on dog races made by means of a totalisator on a licensed track without applying to any other of the duties included within the aforesaid group (d).
    In this subsection 'dog race' 'licensed track' and 'totalisator' have the same meanings respectively as in the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963".
    and Amendment No.12, in line 37, at end insert:
    "or the provisions of subsection (3) of this section under which an order may be made with respect to the pool betting duty therein referred to without applying to any other of the duties included within the group (d) specified in subsection (1) of this section".
    Mr. Lewis: When I put these Amendments on the Notice Paper, with the support of my hon. Friends and some hon. Members opposite, I was not too
    1030
    sanguine of the Chancellor accepting them, but after listening to his remarks on the last batch of Amendments I feel quite hopeful. These Amendments are somewhat similar to those, but whereas the others were of a general character these deal with a particular point.
    The purpose of the first Amendment is to enable the Chancellor to apply the regulator to the duties embraced in Clause 8(2,d) which, as framed, includes Pool Betting Duty in the case of bets placed on the totalisator and other forms of betting on greyhound racing without necessarily altering the amount of Pool Betting Duty, which is now 5 per cent., as fixed under Clause 7(1,a).
    I pay tribute to the Chancellor and the Treasury for the fact that the percentage duty is reduced in the Bill to 5 per cent. from the previous 10 per cent. This is a courageous and correct step. Unlike my hon. Friends who spoke earlier, I am not against the taxation of gambling, betting and gaming. I am in favour of it, but I feel that all forms of 'letting, gambling and gaming should be dealt with on an equitable

    1031
    basis. This has not been the position in the past and is not even the position now.
    The second Amendment is consequential on the first and is necessary to overcome the provisions of Clause 8(5), which provides that the orders made shall apply uniformly to all the duties in the groups set out in subsection (2). The Chancellor mentioned earlier that he would like some flexibility in the application of the Clause. Here is a case where, if he can make the same sort of speech as he made a few moments ago, I can promise that we shall not press the Amendment to a vote. We would willingly accept his promise to look at the matter further between now and the Report stage.
    9.0 p.m.
    Clause 7 deals with the Pool Betting Duty separately from the duties mentioned in the group. We feel that it is, therefore, appropriate that that particular type of duty should be separate and dealt with separately from the other duties in respect of the use of the regulator under Clause 8. We also feel that pool betting on greyhound racing is better dealt with under Clause 7.
    The Amendment, in effect, gives power to the Chancellor to deal with pool betting duty on dog racing, for example, as entirely separate from all the other types. We have put down these Amendments in this form only for reasons of drafting. We want to give the Chancellor the opportunity of dealing with this matter on a flexible basis. It is obvious that if he wants to alter or amend the regulator to deal with pool betting on dog racing, it is a little stupid that he should have to deal with the whole of the other types of taxation within that group. It is equally stupid that if he wants to deal only with tobacco or whisky he should find that he is dealing under the regulator with pool betting on dog racing.
    Greyhound attendances might be declining and totalisator takings dropping and it might be necessary for him to deal with these individually on their merits. We feel that if, as appeared to be the case, the Chancellor was considering the possibility of accepting the principle of the previous Amend-
    1032
    ment, here is an opportunity for him, by accepting our proposals, to put it into operation.
    For many years the sport of greyhound racing, which is followed by many people, has been the only one to be taxed. Tomorrow, the House will have rather a slack day because a number of hon. Members opposite will be going to the Derby, but no Member will be taxed on his bets at Epsom. On greyhound racing the tax would be 5 per cent, which is much better than the previous 10 per cent. In again thanking the Chancellor for what he has done, I ask him to go one step further and accept these Amendments. These would provide for a more flexible operation of the regulator, which, I understand, the Chancellor desires to do.
    Mr. Godfrey Lagden: I do not intend to keep the Committee for more than a few moments, but I should like, on behalf of many of those who are engaged in greyhound racing, to say that the Chancellor's action in reducing the tax from 10 to 5 per cent. has not gone unnoticed or without praise. At the same time, this resembles perhaps the modest punter who had hoped for a large win and had to be content with a place bet at considerably reduced odds. I think that the greyhound racing business really hopes that it is only a question of when the day will come when it can say, "Any to come?", and that the Chancellor's next effort will, perhaps, prove an all-time winner.
    I join in what has been said by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis). It is most unusual for me to agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that I shall not often do it.
    Mr. A. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is trying to increase his majority.
    Mr. Lagden: On this occasion, however, I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman's appeal will not have been wasted. My right hon. Friend is the first Chancellor for many years to show that he understands something of the predicament in which this form of racing has found itself.
    Earl of Dalkeith: I express my appreciation to my right hon. Friend for the reduction from 10 per cent. to 5 per cent. which he has made

    1033
    in the duty. I am one of those who have taken part in this argument for some years, and I congratulate him on what he has done.
    The arguments now are the same as they have been for many years. I only hope that my right hon. Friend will bear these arguments on principle in mind when, next year, he thinks about the matter again and, perhaps, knocks off the remaining 5 per cent. If he can do it sooner, so much the better. On behalf of those whom I represent in my constituency, I congratulate him on what he has done thus far.
    Mr. Marcus Lipton: I associate myself with the plea which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis), the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden) and the noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith).
    I have now lost count of the number of time5, on which I have been on deputations to see Chancellors of the Exchequer about the injustices from which the greyhound organisations have been suffering for years. It must be said to the credit of the present Chancellor that, at long last, he has recognised the validity of at least some of the arguments which have been put to him. I hope that he will be able to go just a little further and accept the Amendment which has been moved. It will do no harm if he does.
    Mr. Maudling: I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who have said that the provisions in the Bill will be of help to greyhound racing, which has, I think, been suffering under a weight of taxation which was unfair and which, therefore, ought to have been reduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden) hoped that there might be more to come at some time. I think that I should remind him of the old maxim, which is not a bad one, that no one ever went "broke" taking a profit, and I think that the present profit should be helpful. It was generally agreed that the position of greyhound tracks called for some attention.
    But this, of course, is not the point of the Amendment before us. This Amendment is an example of the general principle which was covered by the previous
    1034
    Amendment, and it is, therefore, covered in principle by what I said earlier, which I shall not seek to repeat verbatim now. It is an illustration of the difficulties which could arise. I believe that the regulator should be used for the purpose for which it is designed, that is, for regulating the movement of the economy and not primarily for the purpose of changing the incidence of duties between one subject of taxation and another. This, as I said before, must remain the function of the Finance Bill as such, when we can look at the whole picture of demand and the various claims and source s of revenue.
    I wanted more flexibility in the regulator because its use without variation could, in certain circumstances, be unfair and difficult. I wanted, therefore, to have a situation in which the Chancellor of the day could use the regulator but had the power to exempt certain forms of taxation from it. My proposal was that there should be four blocks. It has been suggested that the size of the blocks should be reduced. It is now suggested that greyhound racing taxation, for example, should be capable of being excised from the fourth block in which it is at present included along with the Purchase Tax.
    Clearly, the undertaking which I gave on the previous Amendment to consider all these possibilities covers this possibility as well, and I shall certainly consider it along with the others. I must make clear, of course, as I am sure the Committee will understand, that I can give no undertaking beyond that.
    Mr. A. Lewis: I am much obliged to the Chancellor. It seems that he, too, is helping to increase my majority. Every time we ask for anything the Chancellor may not go the whole way, but he goes most of the way with us.
    However, I would remind the Chancellor that on the last group of Amendments he spoke generally. But here is a particular question. In Clause 7 there is reference to the Pool Betting Duty. Surely it is strange to deal with the Pool Betting Duty for greyhound racing in Clause 8 when there is already a Clause dealing with the duty. Also the regulator is for a group of things which cannot be tied up with general industry.
    I ask the Chancellor to bear in mind that this subject is most definitely different

    1035
    from any of the other subjects in the regulator group on which there may be some discussion if he wants to alter the tax. This is not tied up with anything else except the Pool Betting Duty such as fixed-odds and ante-post betting mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). Surely that should be the category in which the Chancellor should deal with this group.
    I thank the Chancellor for what he has said, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Diamond: There is very little more that need be said, because the essence of the matter has already been discussed on an Amendment. I am sure that the Chancellor is aware of our views, that his existing powers could be improved by greater precision and greater sharpness in the tool which has been designed for "the Chancellor of the day", a very pleasant phrase which the Chancellor used and which I am only too glad to accept.
    I noted with gratitude that the Chancellor said that he was still considering the precise form of an Amendment that he would no doubt introduce on Report. This is a very important Clause, and the only reason why I speak so shortly is that we have considered the essence of it on an Amendment.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 11.—(EXEMPTION FROM EXCISE DUTY OF VEHICLES MODIFIED FOR INVALIDS.)
    Mr. Wade: I beg to move Amendment No.48, in page 12, line 10, after "vehicle", to insert:
    "and whether or not the disabled person would have qualified for a grant at the time when the controls were fitted".
    This may seem to be a comparatively narrow point. On the other hand, it may be an important one. I welcome the relief that is to be granted to disabled persons
    1036
    under Clause 11, and I am anxious that it should be clear to whom it will apply. There is a later Amendment, which I intend to support, which seeks to widen the scope of the Clause.
    My Amendment seeks to add some words. Under the Clause relief is granted in the first case where the disabled person
    "…caused the controls to be fitted to the vehicle and obtained in respect of the cost thereby incurred a grant paid by the Minister of Health…or"
    secondly,
    "whether or not he caused the controls to be fitted to the vehicle, his disability is of a kind in the case of which grants in respect of the fitting of such controls are so paid".
    The question is whether the test is the nature of the disability or the eligibility for grant. There may be a distinction there. Before 1948, there probably would have been no eligibility at all for a disabled person. I understand that since then, each application is considered on its merits and that one of the circumstances taken into account is the need for the person to get to and from work.
    9.15 p.m.
    Let us consider the case of the housewife stricken with polio who has to have a special vehicle fitted with these controls but who does not apply to the Ministry, or perhaps might not succeed in an application because she does not work. I say "might not succeed" and I would put it no higher than that, but that type of person is an example of those who might not be eligible at the time when the controls are fitted.
    On Second Reading, the Financial Secretary said:
    "If one of the two Health Departments would have done the job, but it has been done privately, the invalid is still entitled to receive a certificate."—[OFFIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1964; Vol. 694, c. 1468.]
    Does that mean that the test is whether the invalid would have received a grant? This point has been put to me by a body in which I am interested and which is concerned with disabled people. It may be that the Economic Secretary will be able to satisfy me that the wording of the Clause is adequate to cover the kind of case I have in mind.
    I have my doubts, however, and that is why I move the Amendment. I hope that either it will be accepted or that I shall be satisfied by the reply.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: This Amendment turns on the question of timing, and on that I can assure the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) that it is redundant. Any driver who would be eligible at any time under the Ministry of Health test of disability for an invalid carriage will qualify under the Clause as it stands. For instance, where a disabled driver who is eligible for the provision of transport and who qualifies on medical grounds has bought a secondhand car with controls already adapted, he will qualify. Again, where a disabled driver has received help with the adaptation of a vehicle within the preceding five years—which would not entitle him to further help directly from the Ministry—he will qualify provided the medical qualifications are present.
    I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will withdraw the Amendment. I thought at one stage that he was getting on to the point of whether the disability qualification was wide enough. This is covered by further Amendments, however, and could perhaps be more conveniently discussed then.
    Mr. Wade: In view of the hon. Gentleman's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Dr. Horace King: I beg to move Amendment No.37, in page 12, line 12, at the end to insert:
    "or
    (c) he has been granted a disabled driver's badge by a local authority, being a badge the renewal of which has not been refused".
    The Chairman: With this can also be taken the Amendment No. 15, in page 12, line 18. at end insert:
    (2) A mechanically propelled vehicle registered under the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962 in the name of a person to whom a disabled driver's identity badge has been granted by a local authority on conditions specified by the Minister of Health shall not be chargeable with any duty under that Act by reason of its use by or for the purposes of that person, or by reason of its being kept for such use.
    Dr. King: The House of Commons is always very sympathetic when considering the claims of disabled persons, and the spirit of the Financial Secretary's reply just now makes me think that in
    1038
    this debate we shall probably get a little nearer to what some of us have in mind in suggesting the various Amendments to this Clause.
    First, I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the concession which he is granting in this Clause. It is the second of what I hope will prove to be a series of reliefs through the years for disabled drivers as inventions and methods of coping with the disabilities of disabled motor drivers develop.
    In Section 6(9) of the Vehicles Act, 1962, we exempted from motor duty mechanically propelled vehicles not exceeding 6 cwt. if they were used by disabled persons. That was the first step, and that concession helped disabled persons who had what we now call the old invalid tricycles, the first motor propelled vehicles for disabled people.
    The invalid tricycle is now being superseded by the small car, and usually—and this is the point of the Clause—such a sir all car is adapted in some way. It has some kind of special controls for the man who has lost an arm or leg, or the use of one or both of his upper or lower limbs.
    Last year, at the Report stage of the Finance Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), probing this problem, suggested that we should advance the limit of 6 cwt. to 15 cwt. and in that way bring in the mini car which disabled drivers were using. It was perhaps too crude an approach and the Financial Secretary pointed out that it would bring in several other types of car if we had this weight qualification and might be open to abuse. However, he expressed great sympathy with the motives and promised to do something about it. This Clause does something along the lines of what we were asking for last year. Exemption from duty is now to be provided for small motor cars which have special devices to enable disabled men to drive them. The Amendment goes further, and the Liberal Amendment which we are also discussing is also an attempt in the same spirit to go further. I support either.
    It is worth pointing out that most disabled drivers will not benefit from the Clause. If they receive grants as ex-Servicemen who are disabled or in some other respect as disabled men, and

    1039
    receiving a grant is one of the qualifications of the Clause, they also have their tax paid by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, or the Ministry of Health. The only people who will benefit from the Clause as it stands, or as amended, will be those who do not have their tax already paid by some Ministry.
    My disabled friends in the various associations of disabled men, B.L.E.S.M.A. in particular, point out that more and more disabled men, even severely disabled men, are managing and preferring to drive a car without the hand or special controls which the Ministry fixes. With automatic gears it is possible for a severely disabled man to drive a motor car if his disability is of a certain kind. Very often he would prefer to do that rather than use the clumsy and difficult apparatus which is provided by the Ministry as a substitute for the ordinary controls when fitting mini cars. Would not it be possible to give the concession which the right hon. Gentleman is giving in this Clause not to the car but to the disabled person?
    Two years ago we began by a weight of vehicle qualification. Now the qualification is the kind of motor car being used. The tax exemption will be given in only two cases: first, if the car has controls fitted by the Ministry, and, secondly, if the disabled driver has himself fitted controls which, in the opinion of the Ministry of Health, might have been fitted by the Ministry. From the debate which we have just concluded I believe that that will be interpreted as generously as possible, but this concession is tied to the controls which exist on the car.
    The difficulty of taking the tax off the car is that all other motor taxation is on the motor vehicle itself, and nobody, least of all the disabled men for whom I am pleading tonight, would want a situation to arise whereby a car which was not fitted with controls could be exempt from motor tax and some able-bodied man could drive it around the country.
    I accept that the Clause as it stands ties the benefit to those two cases: first, controls on the car, and, secondly, entitlement to be supplied with controls on the car by the Ministry. What we are seeking to do is to add a third alter-
    1040
    native, and for this we go to the local authorities who issue disabled drivers with badges, which are very useful as they are a kind of protection for disabled drivers. There are three qualifications for the issue of those badges, two of which the Government have adopted. The first is that mechanical improvements have been made to the car. The second is that the driver qualifies for mechanical improvements to the car. The third is that local authorities issue such a badge
    "to drivers with amputations which cause considerable difficulty in talking, or who suffer from a defect of the spine or the central nervous system which makes control of the lower limbs difficult."
    On that broad basis local authorities issue disabled driver's badges, and from time to time they check on the degree of disability to see whether it has disappeared or whether the man has become fitter than he was. If he has, his disabled driver's certificate is taken away. Every year when he applies for his disabled driver's certificate, local authorities check on his circumstances, so we need have no fear that this provision would be abused.
    The Amendment would extend the concession which the Government are generously and gladly giving to all disabled drivers who have a degree of disability which conforms to those degrees of disability set out in the local authority regulations. We could then have one single badge which the police would recognise as a disabled driver's badge, and which all authorities in the country would recognise as qualifying a man for exemption from the motor tax on his vehicle.
    There will be no administrative difficulties about adopting this provision. The work is already being done by local authorities and by medical officers of health. I would leave it to the disabled man to decide whether to use the kind of apparatus which is fitted to these small cars for the disabled driver. I pay tribute to the inventors of the various aids which have been provided, but if the disabled man finds that he can get about better without those aids, he should not be debarred from the benefits of this Clause. The Amendment would achieve the object that I have in mind as would the Amendment that we are discussing with it, which tackles the

    1041
    problem in another way and whose explanation I will leave to those who have put it down.
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. Lubbock: My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and myself, who have put down Amendment No.17, would be prepared to back the Amendment that has been moved by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King). Amendment No.17 has exactly the same object. The difference between the two Amendments is purely a matter of wording. I shall not go over the ground that has been covered by the hon. Member for Itchen. I merely want to emphasise a point which has been put to me by the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association, on whose behalf I have tabled the Amendment, which is that a number of disabled drivers are now using cars with automatic gear changes which need no modification for their operation by those drivers.
    As I read the Clause, those drivers would not be entitled to the valuable but limited concession granted by the Bill. We cannot see any reason, in principle, why the concession should not be extended to cover the newer types of cars which are coming into increasing use. The Government must surely accept that smaller and smaller cars are being fitted with automatic gear changes and that their use by limbless people, or people with substantial difficulties of locomotion, is increasing all the time. That is one important technical reason why one or other of the Amendments should be accepted.
    The yellow badge scheme which is operated by local authorities provides a satisfactory means of tying together this concession in respect of licences with the other advantages which the badge scheme gives to limbless people and people with substantial difficulties of locomotion. It is a rigidly controlled scheme. Before issuing the badges local authorities must be satisfied not only that applicants suffer from a permanent and substantial disability, but that it causes severe difficulty in walking. That is the criterion laid down, which must be interpreted by the medical officers of local authorities.
    1042
    We have included in our Amendment a provision that the disabled driver's identity badge shall be granted by a local authority on conditions specified by the Minister of Health. This would enable the Minister to bring into the scope of the concession any people who may not be covered strictly by the wording quoted by the hon. Member for Itchen, namely, drivers with amputations which cause considerable difficulties in walking, or who suffer from a defect of the spine or of the central nervous system which makes control of the lower limbs difficult. We would like to include anyone covered by the more general grades that I mentioned earlier. On the basis that these conditions are laid down by the Minister and have to be observed by the medical officers of local authorities in awarding a disabled driver's badge, there need be no fear of this concession being given to people not strictly entitled to it.
    I hope that the Government will accept one or other of the Amendments, or that if the wording is not satisfactory they will move their own Amendment on Report.
    Mr. Pavitt: I support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King), and I also commend the Amendment of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). Both Amendments seek precisely the same objective. I am sure that the Treasury has a considerable amount of sympathy for this objective and that it is not far divorced from the case that is being made. I do not want to repeat all the arguments that have been put forward, because every possible point was covered in the speech of my hon. Friend.
    I wish to add just two points. The first refers to the anomaly which arises when two disabled men, equally qualified, have two different vehicles. One has a car in which the controls have been altered and the other a car where the controls have not been altered. This means that one man would be exempt and the other would not. I should like to quote the case of a Mr. Adrian Weitzman who, because of polio, has a leg disability. He had a Ministry vehicle for a number of years. About four years ago he was able to change it and received a grant from the Ministry in order to

    1043
    acquire an ordinary Vauxhall car in which the controls were adapted to suit his disability.
    Such is the speed of invention in the car industry that Mr. Weitzman now finds that he can drive a modern Morris car with automatic gears without the necessity for any adaptation. If this Clause remains as it is drafted, does it mean that Mr. Weitzman can get some slight adjustment made at the Minister's expense to meet the technical point behind the wording of the original Clause, which would cause the Ministry to pay for some alteration to the vehicle and thus enable him to qualify for exemption? Or, alternatively, is he to leave his car as it is and pay the tax?
    If the Clause is left unamended, it will be a direct incentive to disabled men to seek to get their vehicles adapted at the expense of the Ministry rather than pay tax and so obtain a grant under the provisions in the Clause. In view of all the arguments which have been put more forcibly by my hon. Friends than I can put them, I hope that the Economic Secretary will not resist the Amendment or that the Government, if they cannot accept the wording of the Amendment, will Rive an undertaking to incorporate the principle behind it into the Bill. In the event of the Government being unable to do so, I hope that my hon. Friends will press this Amendment, because it involves an important point of principle affecting a large number of our constituents.
    Mr. Wade: The Amendment takes to a logical conclusion a point which I made during the discussion on an earlier Amendment. In effect, relief would be granted to a disabled person and under the proposals in the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) the test would be the provisions in the yellow badge scheme and that would be a fair test. The
    conditions which would have to be satisfied have already been indicated and I merely wish to add that in their administration of the badge scheme the local authorities confirm by physical examination the extent of the disablement in individual cases. There is a review at least annually when the applicant applies for a renewal of his badge and I think, therefore, that the conditions are reasonable.
    1044
    We must foresee that in the future more and more small cars will be made available and suitable for disabled persons without special controls having to be fitted. I think it only reasonable, therefore that proposals such as have been made should be accepted.
    Mr. Mitchison: I should like to get quite clear what we are considering. There are several Amendments on the Notice Paper and I refer to them only for the purpose of pointing out that some would involve definitions which might present considerable practical difficulty, but this Amendment does not wholly rule out the vehicle element in this matter. Indeed, it leaves it untouched. The mechanically propelled vehicle has still to be "fitted with special controls", and so on.
    What it does is to deal with the second class of Amendments which are already personal ones and appear in paragraphs (a) and (b) on page 12. They require that the claimant should have
    "caused the controls to be fitted to the vehicle…or whether or not he caused the controls to be fitted"
    to have a disability of a kind which would have carried the right to a controlled vehicle.
    This Amendment adds a third qualification in no way detracting from the other two, the third qualification being that if he is a man who has been granted a disabled driver's badge by a local authority and if the badge, which though renewable annually, has not been refused he need not necessarily be the person who has caused the controls to be fitted or has a disability of a kind which would have carried the right to a controlled vehicle.
    This is a very narrow Amendment and would make a very small extension. It leaves the vehicle side of the matter untouched and it is a single alternative qualification to the personal side of the matter. I can see no possible objection to the present Amendment in the form it is put forward. There is no real administrative difficulty. The class of people covered by the proposed paragraph (c) are a great deal easier to identify than the class of people covered in the Bill by paragraph (b), because that paragraph involves an inquiry into the man's or woman's disability—the kind and quality

    1045
    of the disability. All that this Amendment does is to provide an absolutely objective test from the point of view of the Revenue in the grant by a local authority of a particular badge under its powers to do so and its continual renewal year by year.
    Nothing could be easier to administer than the addition now proposed. I earnestly hope that without any qualification the Treasury Bench will accept this Amendment. I can see no possible objection to it. It is asked for by responsible organisations, at least they ask for something to this effect. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) pointed out in clearly and succinctly moving the Amendment, this Committee is always sympathetic in cases of this kind.
    There is, however, a further point to which I refer only because the answer of the Government may be, "We are prepared to accept this in principle, but we do not like the wording". I cannot remember any occasion on which the Treasury has accepted anyone's Amendment in the form in which it was put forward, unless the Government fathered it on him in the first place.
    I have little doubt that in these circumstances they will be reluctant to accept this Amendment, but I hope that they will accept it in principle. If they say that, I hope they will look also at Amendment No.32, in page 11, line 41, after "vehicle", to insert "whether or not". That would make the personal condition we seek to introduce a substitute for the controls.
    I feel that the drafting on the Notice Paper is too wide, but I must not discuss it at any length, because we are not considering it now. Nevertheless, it falls to be considered in the broad interests of these people whether there ought to be, in the case which we are putting forward, anything but the grant of a disabled driver's licence by the local authority as a condition of getting the remission of duty which is proposed.
    I hope that the Government will show in a matter of this sort, which surely does not involve any very substantial question of revenue, the generosity which successive Governments have always felt that they were bound and
    1046
    glad to show to disabled drivers. I imagine that every hon. Member here has had representations from B.L.E.S.M.A. about this point and perhaps about others, too, with which all of us, however we may view any part of the recommendation, have had in broad terms the deepest sympathy, the sort of sympathy which any person in full possession of his faculties must feel for people who by no fault of their own are disabled.
    I therefore trust that the Government will give not only a favourable but a generous answer and that, if they have to consider the whole matter, they will do so in that spirit.
    9.45 p.m.
    Sir Douglas Glover: I intervene for only a moment or two because of a case which I had in my "surgery" last week and which will not be covered by the Amendment. It concerns a constituent who has had poliomyelitis since the epidemic of 1917, when he became paralysed in one leg. Ever since then he has had it in irons. He has been to the Department concerned and has been offered a certain amount of money for the conversion of a motor car.
    In considering the Amendment, my right hon. Friend ought to take into account the fact that the motor industry has made considerable development through scientific knowledge and that cars today are very much more efficient for disabled drivers than they were 10 years ago. My constituent tells me that he does not need a motor car for a disabled driver; all he needs is a car with automatic gear change. As he points out, he has to pay a higher price for such a car than he would normally pay for a car.
    My constituent is, therefore, not asking that he should qualify as a disabled driver for the conversion of a motor car. What he says—and there is much power in his argument—is that there ought to be a system whereby he can receive a grant towards the purchase of a car which provides all the conditions of a disabled driver's car because it is virtually automatic.
    The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going further than the two Amendments which we are debating.
    Sir D. Glover: I apologise, Sir William. I realised that I should have to rely on your good nature in allowing me to state the case. I think that I have said enough to show my hon. Friend that there is another case, apart from that concerning the conversion of a car for a disabled driver.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I am sure the Committee appreciates that I and the Treasury have every sympathy with the cause of disabled drivers and I will therefore go with some care into the points of detail and principle which have been raised. It is worth looking back at the history of this Clause, as the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) did. I am grateful for the kind words which, for once, came towards the Treasury. It was a very limited proposal deriving from the idea that the weight concession should be extended from 6 cwts. to 15 cwts. for vehicles broadly coming under the title "invalid carriages". I think that the Committee must accept that the Amendments carry this concession a very great deal further. I am not saying that this is necessarily wrong or that it should not be done, but it introduces a new principle and extends the concession on vehicle licence duty to a new putative class of disabled drivers.
    The first question is the technical one to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) referred. He said that for the purposes of vehicle licence duty the automatic gearbox should be considered as an adaptation for the disabled driver because in many cases it is nowadays adequate. I am afraid that at the moment we could not possibly accept this because of the necessity, which the hon. Member for Itchen accepted, of being able to police this concession effectively. One of the methods of so doing is to have a vehicle which is clearly visible as having been adapted and therefore used by a disabled person. It seems extremely difficult to find any method of identifying a car itself which has been adapted for a disabled driver from one which merely has an automatic gearbox in any case. To elaborate, it is because there is a medical criterion of the degree of disability that one of the main difficulties arises. It is possible for a car to be driven by a disabled driver whose disability has been judged as not sufficient and yet for him
    1048
    to be seen when getting out of the car to be disabled.
    Dr. King: Such a disabled man, when he is stopped by the police, will, if the Amendments are carried, have to produce the certificate not only that he is disabled but that he is the kind of severely disabled man that the local authority registers as disabled. The only abuse we are afraid of is, not the disabled man driving in a motor car, but the able man driving with a disabled man's motor car.
    Mr. William Yates: Surely my hon. Friend will ask the other Ministers concerned to examine the possibility of having the Excise logbook formally registered at the County Hall or licensing authorities?
    Mr. Macmillan: My hon. Friend's intervention brings me to the second point, which is the need to have the vehicle registered in the name of the disabled driver, which has been accepted by the Committee as a whole. The point made by the hon. Members for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) and Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) was that this scheme could be extended to people who were identified by being in receipt of a badge entitling them to park under the local authority scheme. The difficulty here is two-fold. First, these additional criteria, if accepted, would do one of two things. Either they would create a new class of disabled persons who did not qualify necessarily under the Ministry of Health Regulations for an invalid carriage but who did qualify under other Regulations for exemption from Vehicle Licence Duty, or they would, in effect, be tending to extend to a less disabled person the Ministry of Health qualification.
    I can inform the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) that the case of Mr. Weitzman is a somewhat exceptional one. It is know to us and we are examining it. There might have to be a slight Amendment to the Clause to take account of the circumstances, but if there is it will follow the present spirit of the Clause as it stands.
    The other disadvantage of identifying those who qualify for exemption from the Vehicle Licence Duty by reference

    1049
    to the scheme for parking is that at the moment this is a collection of local authority schemes and not one scheme in itself. The criteria at present for issuing these badges is wider than the Ministry of Health criteria; and that would lead to the creation either of two separate classes or an extension of the Ministry's criteria. The scheme would have to be adapted to bring a degree of uniformity y into it to make it suitable for the purposes of the Amendments. It is a fairly new scheme which has got off to a good start, and I do not think that it would be wise to interfere with it in the way necessary to make it possible and practical to provide the extra criteria which the Amendments suggest.
    There is also the difficulty of identification, to which I have referred. For these reasons I must recommend the Committee, with considerable regret, to reject the Amendments. It is fair to remind the Committee that the proposals put to the Finance Bill last year were rejected, but the then Economic Secretary said that he would look at the matter. We have taken one more step and the existence of the comparatively new scheme of badges for parking has led hon. Members to suggest that we should take yet another step. This would itself involve reconsidering the criteria laid down by the Ministry of Health for invalid carriages.
    Also raised has been the whole question of the advance in the techniques of building motor cars, making cars used by normal drivers sufficiently easy for
    disabled persons to manage without further adaptation. Having posed these difficult problems, I suggest that the Committee give us a little longer in which to consider these matters. We must also see how the scheme in the Clause works out in practice, whereupon we can reconsider the matter in the light of that experience.
    Mr. Mitchison: What is the Treasury estimate of the cost of accepting the Amendments?
    Mr. Macmillan: I cannot give an estimate of the cost at the moment, but that is not the main point. The main point is the effect it will have in either creating two separate classes of disabled person or of extending the Ministry of Health's criteria for the provision of invalid carriages.
    Mr. Mitchison: It was the intention of those who moved the Amendments and supported them to extend the category of disabled persons. That is the whole and obvious intention of them and I am afraid that we cannot accept the assurance of the Government of good intentions, an assurance which we believe is a substitute for doing something in this matter. I must, therefore, advise my hon. Friends to divide the Committee.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 136, Noes 182.

    Division No. 97.]

    AYES

    [10.0 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Ainsley, William

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Delargy, Hugh

    Hilton, A. V.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Dempsey, James

    Holman, Percy

    Awhery, Stan (Bristol, Central)

    Diamond, John

    Houghton, Douglas

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Doig, Peter

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Barnett, Guy

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Hunter, A. E.

    Bence, Cyril

    Driberg, Tom

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Blyton, William

    Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)

    Jeger, George

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    Jones, J. Idwat (Wrexham)

    Bowles, Frank

    Evans, Albert

    Jones, T. W, (Merloneth)

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Fitch, Alan

    King, Dr. Horace

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Foley, Maurice

    Lawson, George

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Callaghan, James

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Loughlin, Charles

    Collick, Percy

    Ginsburg, David

    Lubbock, Eric

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Grey, Charles

    McBride, N.

    Cronin, John

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    MacColl, James

    Crosland, Anthony

    Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

    McInnes, James

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Hannan, William

    MacKenzie, J. G.

    Dalyell, Tam

    Harper, Joseph

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

    Manuel, Archie

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Thornton, Ernest

    Mapp, Charles

    Rhodes, H.

    Wade, Donald

    Mason, Roy

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Warbey, William

    Millan, Bruce

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Milne, Edward

    Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

    White, Mrs. Eirene

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Ross, William

    Whitlock, William

    Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

    Short, Edward

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Neal, Harold

    Silkin, John

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)

    O'Malley, B. K.

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Oram, A. E.

    Small, William

    Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh. E.)

    Padley, W. E.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Woof, Robert

    Peart, Frederick

    Steele, Thomas

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Pentland, Norman

    Stones, William

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Probert, Arthur

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Mr. Charles A. Howell and

    Randall, Harry

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Mr. McCann.

    Redhead, E. C.

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

    Morgan, William

    Allason, James

    Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Anderson, D. C.

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

    Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

    Neava, Airey

    Barlow, Sir John

    Goodhew, Victor

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Barter, John

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)

    Batsford, Brian

    Green, Alan

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Grosvenor, Lord Robert

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

    Gurden, Harold

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Bidgood, John C.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Partridge, E.

    Bingham, R. M.

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Percival, Ian

    Bishop, Sir Patrick

    Hay, John

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Hiley, Joseph

    Pitman, Sir James

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Hill Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Pounder, Rafton

    Box, Donald

    Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin

    Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James

    Brains, Bernard

    Holland, Philip

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter

    Brewis, John

    Hollingworth, John

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Hornby, R. P.

    Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)

    Buck, Antony

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Renton, Rt. Hon. David

    Bullard, Denys

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Hurd, Sir Anthony

    Roberts, Sir Peter(Heeley)

    Carr, Rt Hon. Robert (Mitcham)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Chataway, Christopher

    Johnson Eric (Blackley)

    Seymour, Leslie

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Sharples, Richard

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Johnson Smith Geoffrey

    Shaw, M.

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Stainton, Keith

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Kirk, Peter

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    Corfield, F. V.

    Kitson, Timothy

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Critchley, Julian

    Leavey, J. A.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Talbot, John E.

    Dance, James

    Longden, Gilbert

    Tapsell, Peter

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmith, Sir Henry

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

    Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    MacArthur, Ian

    Temple, John M.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    McLaren, Martin

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Duncan, Sir James

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N.Ayrs)

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Elliott, R. W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

    Macmilllan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Turner, Colin

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Maginnis, John E.

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Maitland, Sir John

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Farr, John

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Marshall, Sir Douglas

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Marten, Neil

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Walker, Peter

    Freeth, Denzil

    Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

    Gammans, Lady

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Gardner, Edward

    Mawby, Ray

    Webster, David

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    1052

    1053

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Woollam, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Worsley, Marcus

    Mr. Peel and Mr. Pym.

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Maudling: I beg to move,
    That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Maudling: Seldom have I heard such unanimity in response to a proposal of mine. I think that we have made very good progress today, and I hope that it will be repeated on subsequent occasions.
    Mr. Callaghan: I wish only to echo the Chancellor's remarks and to ask whether we can have a guarantee that, if the rôles are reversed next year, we shall have such co-operation from the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  RAILWAYS (BANGOR-AFON WEN LINE)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pym.]
  10.11 p.m.
  Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I am grateful for this opportunity of raising a matter which is causing my constituents a good real of anxiety, namely, the proposal of the Railways Board to close the Bangor-Afon Wen railway line.
  I raise the matter for the following reasons. The public hearing of objections to the Railways Board's proposal was held in Caernarvon on 8th April. The Transport Users' Consultative Committe for Wales heard some very strong arguments for the retention of this line, and on 5th May it issued a statement containing the following passages:
  "It Was found that closure of this through line during the holiday season would cause substantial hardship to those engaged in the tourist and holiday industry in Caernarvon and South Caernarvonshire. Certain local and off-season hardship would also arise. The comprehensive report
  which has been submitted to the Minister of Transport includes
  1054
  references to the possibility of alleviating some of the hardship".
  Here is in admission of hardship, of substantial hardship, followed by a suggestion not for its avoidance but only for its alleviation. As the decision regarding the future of this line rests squarely with the Minister of Transport and the Government, it is vital that they should understand that this is a case in which the substantial hardship, which the Minister's advisers admit, cannot be alleviated to any marked extent once the line is closed and that the real answer is to retain the line.
  As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, the line runs for about 28 miles southward and westward from a point near Bangor where it leaves the London-Holyhead line. It is important to realise that this is not a branch line but a link line. It is part of the railway connecting Caernarvonshire with Liverpool, Merseyside, Chester and Manchester, a region with which we have very close commercial, industrial and, indeed, medical relations. A great many of our people have to go to Liverpool and Manchester for hospital and out-patient treatment.
  The line is also part of the rail link between North Wales and South Wales along the western seaboard. It is the only connecting line in Wales; otherwise, one has to make a long detour deep into the Midlands to proceed from North Wales to South Wales or vice versa. Finally, it is part of a unique circular rail system which runs right around North Wales. Its closure, therefore, would be a matter not of lopping off an end branch but of fracturing a continuous system which, once broken, might be impossible to restore.
  I shall only very briefly mention the general case against the closure. It is a case which is common against all such proposals for closure—the hardship to the elderly and infirm who depend on rail transport, the hardship to people who have no cars and live far from bus routes as is often the case in the area which the dine serves, and the hardship to families coping with luggage, perambulators and children. I might mention in this connection that for various reasons the proportion of elderly folk

  1055
  in the county of Caernarvon is higher than the national average.
  Turning to the specific case for the retention of the line, my first point is that its closure would mean an injection of additional traffic into roads which are already seriously congested, especially during the tourist and holiday season, which is from about Easter until the end of September. According to the county council, the average weekly number of passenger journeys on this line in winter approaches 5,000. To be exact, it is 4,728. The average number each week in summer is 12,128. These are average figures. At the height of the season the figures are very much higher.
  The roads, or, rather, the road which would have to take this added traffic—there is really only one road—is a narrow and twisting one beset by natural and built-up obstacles, S-turns, over-bridges and under-bridges, and as a result we sometimes have in summer queues two miles long at each end of the town of Caernarvon, and long, costly and frustrating delays at many points along the road.
  Nor is it easy to see how this road could be greatly improved without the expenditure of vast sums of money. There are geographical even geological, and built-up reasons. The village of Port Dinorwic will come to the mind of the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. P. Thomas), as being a major problem confronting our road engineers. What to do at that point on this road no one really knows. If these geographical, geological and built-up difficulties were tackled, it would certainly send the cost of really improving the road to astronomical heights.
  We consider that it would be the height of folly to scrap the railway line in these circumstances, and that, indeed, the height of wisdom would be to retain it, to improve it, and to extend its use as much as possible. The traffic, particularly during the tourist season, is growing every year and will inevitably grow in the future. This is part of the Snowdonia National Park, and during the past five years the tourist influx to central and south Caernarvonshire has more than doubled and almost trebled, and the signs are that in the next few
  1056
  years it will again double and even treble.
  Indeed, the tourist and holiday industry is already the largest single industry in the county and in the area that this line serves—broadly speaking, my constituency—it employs as many as 35 per cent. of the insured population. The area includes some of the top sight seeing attractions in the United Kingdom. Caernarvon Castle, for instance, was top of the list last year, being visited by 231,000 people who got there by road and rail and were most welcome but whose presence contributed to major traffic difficulties and hazards.
  The area also includes one of the biggest holiday camps in Europe, if not in the world, and one which is continually expanding. This is Butlin's holiday camp, at Penychain. Last year the camp attracted 111,000 campers, 22 per cent. of whom came by rail. These campers come and go on Saturdays and at present they are able, if they wish to do so, to make the whole journey by rail between Lancashire or the Midlands and the camp, which is a boon to families coping with luggage, prams and children.
  The closure of this line w ill inflict particular hardship on those people who come into the area in their increasing thousands every year. If the line is closed at Bangor they will have to complete the last 30 miles of journey by the road which I have tried to describe and under the conditions I have indicated.
  The Railways Board has put forward an extraordinary proposal. It proposes that people should detrain at Bangor station, climb a stairway, cross a bridge, go down another stairway—luggage, prams, children and all—and then board a fleet of buses in the forecourt of the station. The county planning officer tells me that as many as 30 double decker buses would have to be deployed somewhere in the vicinity of the forecourt at the same time in order to cope with that traffic.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. I. Davies) is familiar with the forecourt of Bangor station. It is a small place used by private cars, taxis and pedestrians for which there is hardly enough room already. Yet it is in this restricted area that a fleet of double

  1057
  decker buses is supposed to be deployed. The forecourt is reached through a narrow entrance provided with traffic lights because it gives access to the busiest road in North Wales, the A.5. This suggestion by the Railways Board is a fantastic one which should kill stone dead the proposal to close the line.
  Another suggestion being mooted and which I want to dispose of is that the closure should be effected not at Bangor, but at Caernarvon station, nine miles, down the line—in other words, that the amputation should be made about one third of the way down. The argument is that Caernarvon town is the county administrative centre and is, indeed, a regional centre for certain purposes, such as the provincial police force and the river board, while it is also a royal borough where, in due course, the traditional ceremony of the investiture of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales will take place.
  It is farther suggested that the forecourt at Caernarvon station is somewhat larger than that at Bangor. It is a little larger—not much. In any case, this forecourt also opens into a road where the longest traffic queues in Caernarvon-shire build up. It is quite possible that these hapless campers will have to start camping out earlier than they intended without being able to break out into the stream of traffic before next morning. Proposals such as these will not alleviate the hardship, but only intensify it.
  I now briefly turn to the question of economics and social hardship. This is an area which has long suffered high and persistent unemployment. This had led to serious depopulation which we are only now beginning to arrest by attracting new industries. There is no doubt that loss of the railway line would seriously discourage new industries from entering the area and give pause to existing industries planning to expand. It is true that most of the raw materials which are imported into the
  county and most of the finished goods which we export are carried by road at the present time, but some of our industries use the railways and use the passenger goods facilities for this purpose. As the congestion on our roads reaches the point of recoil, increased use of this railway line is bound to come about.
  1058
  We are also concerned about the hardship to the men who will be displaced. One hundred men and their families now depend upon this railway for their livelihood. There is practically no alternative work for them in an area of high unemployment such as this. They will either go on the dole or migrate, as so many of their fellows have had to do in the past, to Birmingham or London. There it is again, the same sickening technique, 100 families recruited from the land and community they love and thrown into the seething conurbations of South-East England. What sort of planning is this? All this hardship for the elderly and infirm, the people without cars living far away from these roads, the tourists coping with luggage, all this new stimulus to depopulation and unemployment are designed, we are told, and justified by the need for economy.
  We are told that the line costs too much. How much does it cost in fact? All over the country people are affronted by the tendentious and selective way in which the Railways Board seeks to prove its losses on these lines. We are told that this line loses £70,000 a year. No one outside the Board believes that. What is quite certain is that the cost of unemployment benefit and National Assistance to the displaced railwaymen would cost half as much as this alleged loss in a year, and the cost of the vast fleets of double-decker buses to take the place of the trains will account for the rest. Where is the saving?
  How does the Railways Board count its receipts on lines which it wants to close? Does it include in this case, for instance, a proportion of the fares to the Butlin camp travellers, or a proportion of national and local rover type tickets, or a proportion of receipts for through tickets, or receipts from mail and newspaper traffic and passenger trains, or a proportion of paid travel warrants, or receipts from agencies?
  A hearing in the north of England revealed that the Board had conveniently ignored the yield of paid travel warrants in one case and that that was a very substantial omission. Are all these items totally credited to the lines which the Board
  wants to retain and no part of them credited to the lines it wants to close? Before a line of this importance is closed on the grounds of economy, full

  1059
  and frank figures of income and cost should be made available.
  Finally, there is no doubt that, given a real effort to publicise and popularise the present services on this line and to meet the needs of the public by sensible adjustment of timetables, this line could be made to pay very substantially. I urge the Minister to keep this line open. Its retention is vital to the future development of Caernarvon as a major tourist and holiday centre and to the rest of the area to which new industry is increasingly being attracted. The decision is in the hands of the Minister.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): The hon. Gentleman the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) has presented his case very clearly tonight. I am grateful to him not only for doing that, but also for his kindness in telling me in advance about some of the points which he wished to raise. Normally, when an hon. Gentleman does this, it is an advantage, because it gives the Minister opportunity to get at the facts and for providing a useful answer, but I am afraid that tonight, if the hon. Gentleman is looking for a detailed reply to much of what he has said, he has, as it were, jumped the gun, because while the future of this line is under consideration by my right hon. Friend I really cannot comment on many of the points the hon. Gentleman has raised, though, of course, I recognised the relevance and importance of them to the case for preserving this railway line which he has championed.
  I think the hon. Member knows the procedure with regard to railway closure. First of all, the railways, on their own initiative—I cannot stress that too often: it has nothing to do with the Minister or the Government—decide in the light of their commercial judgment which railway lines they wish to close and that is what they have done here, and the proposal we are now discussing affects, as the hon. Gentleman said, the closure of railway passenger services running from Bangor, on the Chester-Llandudno-Holyhead line, via the historic town of Caernarvon, which the hon. Gentleman represents, to the junction at Afon Wen with the Cambrian
  1060
  coast line not far from Pwllheli. Here I ask the hon. Gentleman's indulgence—indeed, I think I should ask the indulgence of the whole House—if should mispronounce any of these names. Like the hon. Gentleman and others here, I also come from the Celtic fringe, but it happens to be a different part of Celtland, and I hope that they will bear with me in any mistakes I may make.
  The service we are discussing therefore carries three kinds of traffic, local traffic mainly to Caernarvon and Bangor; traffic via Llandudno to London and Merseyside; and traffic from Pwllheli and Portmadoc to North-West England. The longer distance users, as the hon. Gentleman indicated, include a substantial number of tourists in the summer—I do not think there is any doubt about that—including 17,000 to and from Butlin's camp at Penychain, and though this is a very substantial number—17,000—it still amounts to 13 per cent. Of the total number of visitors who go to the camp. Therefore, the rest of the proportion must find some other way of getting there. I think that is a relevant point to remember.
  The railways having made a proposal to close this line, what happened next was that objection was lodged; in fact, several objections were lodged; and because they were lodged, they set in motion the special machinery devised by the 1962 Act to protect the interests of passengers, and the case came before the Transport Users' Consultative Committee on 8th April at Caernarvon, where the objectors amplified their written evidence on hardship. At that hearing the hon. Gentleman represented his constituents' difficulties, and did so very ably. I know this because, though I was not there, I had the benefit of seeing a transcript of what he said in making those representations before the Committee. The hon. Gentleman did the right thing, because the Transport Users' Consultative Committee has been set up to consider whether or not a proposed closure would impose hardship and whether or not the alternatives were satisfactory. This, after all, is the only thing that a passenger is concerned with: how to get from one place to another if the railway line is closed, and what sort of additional burden faces him if the closure takes place. Financial matters

  1061
  and other considerations are utterly irrelevant to the passenger. He is only concerned with movement, not with cost, and that is why there is no wide-ranging discussion at the committee, and why there is no cross-examination on the financial figures, because whether railway lines cost £5 or £500,000 does not affect the hardship issue. There has been a great deal of misunderstanding about this, and I hope that from what I have said tonight I have made clear what is the function of the T.U.C.C. It is to report on hardship, and on nothing more.
  As the hon. Gentleman told the House, the T.U.C.C. has already reported to my right hon. Friend. While the details of the report are confidential, the main finding was published, and this indicated that in the view of the T.U.C.C. closure of this through line—whether it is called branch or through does not matter; it is the same procedure for them all—would cause substantial hardship to those engaged in the tourist and holiday industry in Caernarvon and South Caernarvonsh ire, and that certain local and off season hardship would arise as well.
  In addition to that general view, the T.U.C.C also indicated how far certain possible courses of action which had
  also been suggested would relieve the hardship. One of these possibilities—of which the hon. Gentleman did not think mach—was the idea referred to at the hearing of retaining the service as far as Caernarvon and not stopping at Bangor, and another possibility was the provision of certain additional bus services which the Railways Board and the local operator had suggested would be necessary to cater for the traffic from Chwilog and from Butlin's camp.
  The position, therefore, at the moment is that the railways have made their proposals for closure, in accordance with their statutory duty to operate with due regard to efficiency and economy. That is their job, and that is what they have done.
  The T.U.C.C. has examined this proposal and the possible alternatives which have been suggested from the point of view of hardship to the passenger. It has made a report on that, and that is its duty. Now it is up to the Minister
  1062
  to come to a decision, but in doing this he has to take a very much wider view than that taken by the Railways Board or even by the T.U.C.C. because it might well be that though a line was losing money, and though no hardship was caused to passengers, it would still be wrong to dose the line or at least to dispose of it, perhaps because of possible future industrial development, or because of defence considerations, or because of the prospect of the growth of the housing population, or because of the condition of the roads—to which the hon. Gentleman referred—or because of the pattern of the traffic on them—to which the hon. Gentleman also referred. All these different considerations which I have mentioned have in fact weighed with my right hon. Friend in some of the decisions which he has taken on closure proposals in different parts of the country, and they will certainly weigh with him in this case.
  In reachnig his decision on these important matters, wide-ranging as they are, the Minister of Transport does not work on his own in a glass case insulated from every consideration except the economics of transport. He does not do that at all. He has the help and advice of his colleagues who have to deal with other matters of State than transport, such as, in this case, the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade and the Minister for Welsh Affairs. The hon. Gentleman will see, therefore, that the points which he raised with regard to the tourist industry and employment, and in fact all the non-hardship points which he raised are considered in conjunction with the Departments which are responsible for their welfare, and not by my right hon. Friend alone.
  I mention that because it is too often assumed that the Ministry of Transport is a mere rubber stamp to Dr. Beeching's proposals. I am sure that Dr. Beeching does not find that, because once details about hardship have been clarified by the T.U.C.C., the whole Government machine becomes involved in the process of working out the right decision, taking into account the various conflicting interests, the financial implications for the Railways Board, possible hardship to passengers, and tee social and economic consequences in the districts affected, and the possible economic consequences may well,

  1063
  in some circumstances, be enough to tilt the balance in favour of not closing.
  This process of weighing up the pros and cons is not done haphazardly, and is not done as an impersonal financial exercise. It is carried out with the greatest care and with a deep sense of responsibility in respect of all the issues involved.
  There is not time for me to answer the other questions which the hon. Gentle-
  1064
  man raised. The difficulty is that this matter is sub judice—that we are having a shadow boxing match—and all I can say is that the points that the hon. Member has raised will be considered carefully by my right hon. Friend when he makes his decision.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

POST OFFICE
  Savings Bank Staff (Transfer)
  Savings Bank Staff (Transfer)
  Returned Letters (Sealing)
  Returned Letters (Sealing)
  Pictorial Air Letter Forms
  Pictorial Air Letter Forms
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Pirate Radio Stations
  Pirate Radio Stations
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Dialling Faults
  Dialling Faults
  Subscriber Trunk Dialling
  Subscriber Trunk Dialling
  Brookmans Park
  Brookmans Park
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  South East Study
  South East Study
  Sewerage Works, Richmond
  Sewerage Works, Richmond
  Rights of Way Survey (East Riding)
  Rights of Way Survey (East Riding)
  South-East England (Population)
  South-East England (Population)
HOUSING
  Multi-occupied Houses (Fire Precautions)
  Multi-occupied Houses (Fire Precautions)
HONG KONG
  Electricity Supply Companies
  Electricity Supply Companies
SOUTH ARABIAN FEDERATION
  British Obligations
  British Obligations
  High Commission Staff
  High Commission Staff
MALTA
  Talks
  Talks
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Litunga of Barotseland
  Litunga of Barotseland
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Forestry Exhibition, Blackbushe
  Forestry Exhibition, Blackbushe
  Wiltshire Bacon
  Wiltshire Bacon
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Defence Contracts (Value Analysis)
  Defence Contracts (Value Analysis)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Typhoid
  Typhoid
  Medical Students
  Medical Students
  Medical Manpower
  Medical Manpower
  Doctors (Car Expenses)
  Doctors (Car Expenses)
  LAOS AND THAILAND
  LAOS AND THAILAND
  UNITED NATIONS AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES (GRANTS AND LOANS)
  UNITED NATIONS AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES (GRANTS AND LOANS)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Decimal Currency
  Decimal Currency
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Military Operations (South Arabia)
  Military Operations (South Arabia)
UNIVERSITIES
  Medical Students
  Medical Students
  Management Teaching Techniques
  Management Teaching Techniques
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Experiments on Animals (Committee)
  Experiments on Animals (Committee)
COAL
  Coal Mines (Outside Contractors)
  Coal Mines (Outside Contractors)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Gas Production (Coal)
  Gas Production (Coal)
  Electricity Transmission (Higher Voltages)
  Electricity Transmission (Higher Voltages)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Building Management Techniques
  Building Management Techniques
ROADS
  Eastern Avenue (Gants Hill Junction)
  Eastern Avenue (Gants Hill Junction)
  A.2 (Canterbury)
  A.2 (Canterbury)

Preamble
Reassembling for Public Business after the Whitsun Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock, The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon

"NO TURN" ROAD SIGNS
2.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: 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 some more distinctive way of indicating No Left Turn and No Right Turn could be devised, as the present signs are indistinguishable one from the other at a distance at which cars should be manœuvring to get into their correct lanes.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, I would refer my noble friend to the symbolic signs to indicate No Left and No Right Turns on page 103 of the Worboys Report. They will be prescribed in new Traffic Signs Regulations which are being drafted, and should be clearly distinguishable by drivers some distance in advance of the point at which a change of lane is necessary.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I am most grateful for my noble friend's reply, which I am sure will receive the welcome of all motorists.

R.A.F. SLEEPING ACCOMMODA TION AT TENGHAH, SINGAPORE
2.36 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in pro-
374
viding air-conditioned sleeping accommodation for air crews at Tenghah, Singapore.]
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL NAVY (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, the work is being planned and should be completed by August, 1965.
LORD SHEPHERD: I thank the noble Earl for that reply. I hope, if I may put it in this way, that this matter will be expedited, because there is considerable concern among the medical section of the Royal Air Force as to the facilities and accommodation that is available for air crews at Tenghah.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl why it should take over a year to put in the necessary instruments or machines, because they can be bought in Singapore and in a large number of other places and installed in 24 hours?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think it is a rather more complicated matter than the noble Lord suggests.
LORD OGMORE: Why?
EARL JELLICOE: This is part of another building project and has to be phased in with it. But the noble Lord was kind enough to speak to me some time ago about this particular matter, and I fully understand the need for speed and will see that the comments of both noble Lords are passed on to the appropriate quarters.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, this Question deals only with sleeping accommodation. Surely these instruments can be put into a barrack room, bedroom or whatever it may be, without any difficulty at all. They are on sale in a number of places. What is causing the delay?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I would assure the noble Lord that this is a far more complicated matter than he suspects. It has to be phased in with another project which is being done and also with the operational requirements of Tenghah itself. I am assured that this is being pushed forward with speed; but I will gladly look into this personally to assure myself of this.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if the noble Earl has given this undertaking, I am quite sure that the matter will be proceeded with a good deal more quickly than he has suggested.

PEDESTRIAN RAIL CROSSING AT HURST GREEN
2.38 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose in order to provide safe and secure crossing of the railway line of persons, in particular school children, between two housing estates and schools south of Hurst Green, Surrey.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, responsibility for the altered use of the public footway crossing south of Hurst Green rests with the local authorities, and the onus to improve conditions at the crossing lies with them. The Railways have met their statutory obligations fully and the Minister has no powers to order the installation of additional protection. However, I am sure that the noble Lord will be pleased to know that the local authorities have asked that a footbridge be erected and that an estimate has been sent to them by the Railways.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's reply. I hope that, as with the previous Question, there will be more speed than there has been in the past. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that approximately 1,000 crossings are made each day, many by children, across this completely unguarded footpath. There have already been two people killed at this point. Will the noble Lord use his best endeavours to see that the local authorities proceed with this matter with the British Railways as quickly as possible—certainly before the autumn season sets in, with the consequent dark nights.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, of course, I sympathise with what the noble Lord has said but, in fact, my right honourable friend has no powers to expedite this matter. At the moment it
376
rests with the speed with which the local authorities concerned decide to accept the estimate. In so far as it lies within my power, anything I can do to help I will do willingly.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord may be right that the Minister has no powers, but there is such a thing as power of persuasion, which we know does rest with the Minister.

FUTURE OF MALTA
2.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: 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 can make a statement about the future of Malta.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, my right honourable friend is at present having talks with the Prime Minister of Malta and will make a full statement as soon as possible.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess, in view of the fact that Malta is the first British Colony whose independence has been postponed after a date had been fixed by Her Majesty's Government—the date, in fact, was May 31—whether he does not agree that this was a serious miscalculation on the part of the Government and that regrets should be expressed to the people of Malta for the fact that the Government have been obliged to disappoint their expectations? May I ask also whether a date for independence will be fixed as soon as possible after the approval of a new Constitution? I am not, I think, asking questions which would in any way embarrass him in the course of negotiations he is now conducting. May I further ask him whether, before the new Constitution is approved by Her Majesty's Government, Mr. Mintoff, the Leader of the Labour Party in Malta, will be consulted as well as the Prime Minister of Malta, who is being consulted at the moment? I am sure the noble Marquess agrees that it is vital that the Labour Party should approve of the new Constitution.

377
I apologise for asking so many questions but this is really a very important matter. May I ask him, finally, whether he will make a statement in this House, in view of the fact that he cannot make a statement now, as soon as the new Constitution has been approved?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, in reply to the first part of the noble Earl's omnibus question, the answer is No, I do not agree.
I think your Lordships would appreciate that it would not be proper or wise for me to make any piecemeal announcement of the full statement which my right honourable friend has promised. In regard to the question the noble Earl has put relating to whether or not my right honourable friend will see Mr. Mintoff, as your Lordships are aware, my right honourable friend is now discussing with the Prime Minister of Malta all these delicate problems and, if he considers it necessary, clearly my right honourable friend will consult other political leaders also.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, is the noble Marquess unable to say whether or not the Secretary of State has made up his mind that it is essential to consult the Leader of the second most important Party in Malta—which has the support, as the noble Marquess is aware, of all the dockers and a very large section of the population—before a new Constitution for Malta as an independent country is finally approved?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, with great respect I think I have already answered that point.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble Marquess said: if his right honourable friend thinks it necessary. Apart from its being necessary, is it not desirable that we should carry with us on the new Constitution all sections of the community in Malta?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord must allow my right honourable friend to decide whether or not it is necessary.
LORD SILKIN: I am challenging the criterion. I would certainly not challenge his judgment, but the criterion of whether he thinks it necessary. Is not the criterion whether it is desirable in the public interest?

CYPRUS
2.46 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given notice: whether they will make a statement on the situation in Cyprus?
Before the noble Lord answers that I am sure the House will be glad to see my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough sitting beside me, in good health, and I should myself like to give him a very cordial welcome back to the House.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I will, if I may, with the permission of the House, answer the Question put by the noble Lord as soon as convenient after half-past three.
I would take this opportunity, if I may, of joining him and, speaking on behalf of my noble friends, of saying how very pleased we are to see the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition back again. I think all your Lordships will agree the Opposition has been led with great skill by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, but nevertheless we have missed the noble Earl, and I am very glad to see him looking so well, though I fear it bodes ill for Her Majesty's Government.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I say to my noble friend and to the Leader of the House how grateful I am for this expression? Also, I am more than grateful, for the help it was to me in recovering in hospital, for that wonderful united message sent to me there from the House as a whole. I deeply appreciated that, and I hope that, in spite of our political differences, we shall maintain the spirit in the House of Lords that we all admire so much.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.48 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, would inform your Lordships that two statements will be made at a suitable moment after 3.30: one on the typhoid position, by my noble friend Lord Lothian, and one on pirate broadcasting, by my noble friend Lord Newton.

MALAWI INDEPENDENCE BILL
Brought from the Commons on the 14th of May last, and printed pursuant to Standing Order No. 44A; read 1a.
RESALE PRICES BILL
Brought from the Commons on the 14th of May last, and printed pursuant to Standing Order No. 44A; read 1a.

NURSES BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment: Report received.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
2.50 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has asked me to apologise to the House for his absence. He is engaged on judicial business at the Privy Council, on a case which was left over from last week, and he has asked me to assure your Lordships that he will be in the House at the earliest possible moment.
My Lords, this is the latest in the series of Statute Law Revision Bills, the first of which was introduced just 100 years ago. Previous Bills during the past dozen years were introduced in 1953, 1958, 1959 and 1960. Both by effluxion of time and for other reasons many statutory provisions become spent or obsolete, and it is desirable that they should be repealed. Your Lordships will not, I am sure, expect me to discuss all the dead provisions which this Bill proposes to remove. These will, of course, have to be examined, in the normal way, by the Joint Select Committee on Con-
380
solidation Bills, whose Report will be laid in due course. After that, your Lordships will have the usual opportunity of considering the Bill as amended by the Joint Committee, if necessary, and it will then be open to your Lordships to comment on any points of detail which may need consideration. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Derwent.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sure we all approve of getting rid of dead wood in our legislation. This long series of Acts of Parliament has remained on the Statute Book for many years without having any practical effect or validity, and quite possibly merely with the object of confusing the lawyers. I do not assume that the noble Lord is personally responsible for this, but I should like to ask him how it comes about that some of these Acts have been on the Statute Book for 200 years without their having any effect at all, having long since ceased to have any purpose, having regard to the reason for their enactment. And since we have had a considerable number of Statute Law Revision Acts, how is it that we have not been able to repeal these before now? Are there many others that could be repealed, or are we today making a clean sweep of all the dead wood that exists? I should like an answer on that point; but, subject to that, we support any measure of this kind.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that this examination of the law and what may or may not be dead wood, takes a considerable time, and one has to be most careful not to do away with something that is referred to in another Act and may have some effect in that Act. Although some of these Acts have been in force for 200 years, it is not necessarily the fact that they have been dead wood all that time, or for anything like that time. I am afraid that I cannot give an undertaking that there will be no more of these Statute Law Revision Bills. This work is continuous and it is going on at a much greater speed than hitherto, if I may put it that way. As I have already said. we have cut out dead

381
wood in 1953, 1958, 1959 and 1960, and I am sure that we are making an impression on the dead wood; but I cannot go further than that at the moment.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL [H.L.]
2.55 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The references are to Bill [76] as first printed for the House of Commons]
Clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out ("except for") and insert ("for any offence other than—,
(a)")
Clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave out ("or") and insert—
("(b) any offence of which he could have been convicted at the original trial on an indictment for the first-mentioned offence; or
(c)").
Clause 2, page 2, line 21, at end insert (", and if the appellant is acquitted on the retrial, the costs of the defence which may be ordered to be paid out of local funds under section 1 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1952 shall include—

(a) any costs which could have been ordered to be so paid under that section by the court by which he was originally tried if he had been acquitted at the original trial; and

(b) if no order was made under section 3(2) or section 4 of that Act in respect of his expenses on appeal, any sums for the payment of which such an order could have been made.")

Clause 3, page 3, line 6, leave out from ("but") to end of line 11 and insert ("in computing the term of his sentence or the period for which he may be detained thereunder, as the case may he, there shall be disregarded—

(a) any time before his conviction on retrial which would have been disregarded in computing that term or period if the sentence had been passed at the original
382
trial and the original conviction had not been quashed; and—

(b) any time during which he was at large after being admitted to bail under section 2(2) of this Act.")

Clause 6, page 3, line 29, at end insert—
("(4) Any reference in this Act to any other enactment is a reference thereto as amended, and includes a reference thereto as extended or applied, by or under any other enactment, including this Act.")
Schedule 1, page 4, line 10, leave out ("except for") and insert ("for an offence other than—
(a)")
Schedule 1, page 4, line 12, leave out ("or") and insert—
("(b) any offence of which he could have been convicted at the original trial on a charge of the first-mentioned offence; or
(c)")
Page 5, line 25, leave out ("Admiralty") and insert ("Defence Council")
Page 5, line 50, leave out ("Admiralty") and insert ("Defence Council")
Page 6, line 1, leave out ("Army") and insert ("Defence")
Page 6, line 4, leave out ("Air") and insert ("Defence")
Page 6, line 10, leave out from ("the") to second ("Council") in line 11 and insert ("Defence").
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I think it would be for the convenience of the House I were to outline the broad effect of the various Amendments with which I am about to invite the House to agree. Then perhaps I might move them en bloc, and if, at the end, there are any questions that any noble Lord wishes to raise on the Commons Amendments I will do my best to answer them. I hope that a brief explanation will make sufficiently clear the purpose and effect of the Amendments made in another place.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 on the Order Paper make a limited extension in the offences for which an appellant may be retried if a new trial is ordered by the Court of Criminal Appeal. Under Clause 1(2), as originally drafted, the appellant could be tried either for the offence of which he was convicted at the original trial, and in respect of which he was appealing, or for an offence with which he was charged in an alternative count in respect of which the jury, having convicted him on the first count, were discharged from giving a verdict. The Amendments now add a third category of offence—namely, any other offence of

383
which he could have been convicted at the original trial on an indictment for the offence of which he was actually convicted and in respect of which his appeal has been allowed.
Suppose, for example, that the appellant had been indicted and convicted of felonious wounding. On that indictment he could have been convicted of the lesser offence of unlawful wounding. When he appeals it may appear to the Court of Criminal Appeal that, taking into account the fresh evidence, any new trial should be for the lesser offence. The Amendments permit the new indictment to be framed accordingly. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7, which go with Nos. 1 and 2, make parallel provision in Schedule 1 in respect of new trials by court-martial.
Amendment No. 3, which makes an addition to Clause 2(3), deals with the costs of the appellant in the proceedings leading up to the new trial. The position before the Amendment was as follows. Through the normal operation of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act, 1952, the Court of Criminal Appeal could, at its discretion, give the appellant, on ordering a new trial, the costs of his defence at the original trial and at the appeal; and the court of re-trial could, if it acquitted the appellant, give him the costs of that trial. But the court of re-trial had, on acquitting, no power to give him the costs of the earlier proceedings. It seemed to the Government that while the Court of Criminal Appeal might have good reason, before the new trial, to decline to give costs, the matter might appear in a wholly different light after the trial, and that the new court of trial ought therefore to have discretion to give him the costs of all the proceedings, first trial, appeal, and re-trial. This is what this Amendment does.
Amendment No. 4 stops a small gap in Clause 3(3), which deals with the computation of any custodial sentence that may be imposed if the appellant is again convicted on re-trial. The original wording of the clause had the effect of allowing the offender to count towards his second sentence time which would not have counted if the sentence had been imposed at the original trial and the original conviction had not been quashed—for example, time during which he had been unlawfully at large following escape
384
from prison. This would clearly have been wrong and the subsection has been re-drafted to avoid it.
Amendment No. 5 is purely formal. It makes the usual provision for any reference to a Statute to be construed as a reference to that Statute as amended or applied by or under other legislation. It has been added because some of the Statutes referred to in the Bill have been amended since its introduction by or under subsequent legislation, in particular by the Defence (Transfer of Functions) (No. 1) Order, 1964, made under the Deference (Transfer of Functions) Act, 1964. Finally, there are amendments Nos. 8 to 12. These are merely drafting Amendments, consequential upon the Defence (Transfer of Functions) Act, 1964. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The references are to Bill [62] as first printed for the House of Commons]
Clause 2, page 2, line 18, leave out from ("area") to end of line 32 and insert ("to be known as the inner London area, consisting of the inner London boroughs;
(b) an area to be known as the north-east London area, consisting of the London boroughs of Barking, Havering, Newham, Redbridge and Waltham Forest;
(c) an area to be known as the south-east London area, consisting of the London boroughs of Bexley, Bromley and Croydon;
(d) an area to be known as the south-west London area, consisting of the London boroughs of Kingston upon Thames, Merton, Richmond upon Thames and Sutton;

385
(e) an area to be known as the Middlesex area, consisting of the London boroughs of Barnet, Brent, Ealing, Enfield, Haringey, Harrow, Hillingdon and Hounslow;").
Clause 8, page 6, line 39, at end insert—
("(2) A person shall not be qualified to be appointed a clerk of the peace for a London commission area unless he is a barrister or solicitor of not less than five years' standing.")
Page 7, line 13, leave out ("the general fund of")
Page 7, line 13, leave out lines 17 and 18 and insert ("or if the clerk of the peace for a London commission area is aggrieved by any such determination with respect to his salary, the Council or the clerk, as the case may be, may appeal to the Secretary of State.")
Page 7, line 22, leave out from first ("of") to ("as") in line 24 and insert ("section 75 of the London Government Act 1963")
Page 7, line 25, at end insert—
("(7) The Minister of Housing and Local Government may by regulations provide that the Local Government Superannuation Acts 1937 to 1953 and any regulations made thereunder shall apply, subject to such adaptations, modifications, and exceptions as may be prescribed by the regulations, to clerks of the peace and deputy clerks of the peace for a London commission area and other officers of the court of quarter sessions for such an area or to any class of such officers; and any such regulations may make different provision with respect to different classes of officers and may contain such incidental, consequential or supplementary provisions as appear to the Minister to be necessary or expedient.
(8) Any regulations under subsection (7) of this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
Page 7, line 27, leave out ("5(2) and (3) and 12") and insert ("and 5(2) and (3),")
Page 7, line 29, leave out from ("thereof") to end of line 32.
Page 7, line 36, leave out subsection (9).
Clause 10, page 9, leave out line 5 and insert ("A metropolitan stipendiary magistrate who")
Clause 10, page 9, leave out line 8, leave out from beginning to first ("be") in line 10 and insert ("shall not by reason only of his being a justice of the peace for that area by virtue of that office—

(a) act as a member of a court of quarter sessions for that area; or

(b)").

Clause 13, page 11, line 40, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) There shall be a chairman, a vice-chairman and a deputy chairman of the committee of magistrates, and the chairman of the court of quarter sessions for the inner London area shall be the chairman of the committee, the chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate shall be the vice-chairman and a person chosen from amongst themselves by the lay justices who are members of the committee shall be the deputy chairman.")
Clause 15, Page 13, leave out lines 23 to 25 and insert—
("(6) The following provisions of this subsection shall have effect with respect to determinations under subsection (5) of this section and related matters—

(a) no such determination shall have effect unless confirmed with or without modifications, by the Secretary of State;

(b) the committee of magistrates shall not make or refuse to make any such determination with respect to terms and conditions of employment except after consultation with persons appearing to the committee to represent the interests of the officers affected;

(c) any refusal of the Committee to make any such determination with respect to any terms and conditions of employment may be reviewed by the Secretary of State and on the review the Secretary of State may confirm the refusal or make such determination with respect to those terms and conditions as he thinks fit;

(d) in the case of any matter which falls to be determined under the said subsection (5) and")

Clause 15, Page 13, leave out line 32 after ("under") insert ("paragraphs (a) to (c) of").
Clause 19, page 16, line 1, at end insert ("or the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957").
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause—
Extension of jurisdiction of magistrates' courts to try offences
(".A magistrates' court for a London commission area by which a person is tried for an offence shall have jurisdiction to try him for any summary offence for which he could be tried by a magistrates' court for any other London commission area.")
Leave out Clause 22.
Clause 27, page 22, line 30, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
("(c) any sums payable by him in connection with a reasonable settlement of any such proceedings or claim;")
Clause 27, page 22, line 39, leave out from ("costs") to ("any") in line 45 and insert ("or sums as are mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of this section may, if the person claiming to be indemnified so requests, be made in advance before those costs are incurred or the settlement made, as the case may be:
Provided that any such determination in advance for indemnity in respects of costs to be incurred shall be subject to such limitations, if any, as the committee think proper and to the subsequent determination of the amount of the costs reasonably incurred, and shall not affect")
Page 23, line 9, leave out from ("in") to end of line 10 and insert ("advance for indemnity in respect of such costs")
Page 23, line 13, leave out ("principle with respect to") and insert ("advance for indemnity in respect of")
Page 23, leave out line 31 and insert—
("(6) Subsection (5) of this section shall not apply to the inner London area, but in the application of the other provisions of this section to that area, for any reference to local funds there shall be substituted a reference to the metropolitan police fund;")
Page 23, line 36, leave out ("a deputy chief clerk") and add ("any officer employed by the committee of magistrates.")
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause—
Functions of, or relating to, quarter sessions
(".—(1) The existing functions of the standing joint committee of the court of quarter sessions and the council of any county, except functions exercisable by the committee as police authority, shall cease to be exercisable by the committee and shall be exercisable in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the county council shall provide such courthouses and other accommodation whether in the county or elsewhere, and such furniture, books and other things, as the council may determine to be proper for the due transaction of the business, and convenient keeping of the records and documents, of the court of quarter sessions for the county or any committee of quarter sessions and the functions of the county council under this subsection shall include the functions of managing, controlling and maintaining any such accommodation which by virtue of section 30(3) of the Local Government Act 1888 were exercisable immediately before the commencement of this Act by the standing joint committee.
(3) The county council shall consult with the court of quarter sessions before making any determination under subsection (2) of this section and, without prejudice to the foregoing provision, shall consider and determine any matter which they have been requested by the court to consider and determine.
(4) If a court of quarter sessions are aggrieved by any determination of a county council under this section they may appeal to the Secretary of State.
(5) Any functions to which subsection (1) of this section applies, other than functions relating to the matters mentioned in subsection (2) of this section, shall be exercisable by the court of quarter sessions for the county.
(6) The court of quarter sessions for a county where the offices of clerk of the county council and clerk of the peace are held by different persons shall appoint such officers (in addition to a deputy clerk of the peace) or provide such other assistance as they may, after consultation with the county council, determine to be necessary for the purpose of assisting the clerk of the peace in carrying out his duties as such, and—

(a) the salary and other terms and conditions of service of any officer appointed under this subsection and the terms on which other assistance is provided thereunder shall be such as may from time to time
388
be determined by the court after consultation with the county council; and

(b) section 60 of the Local Government Act 1958 (transfer and compensation of officers) shall apply to officers affected by the fact of the clerk of the county council's becoming or, as the case may be, ceasing to be clerk of the peace for the county as it applies to officers affected by an order under Part II of that Act, subject, however, to the following modifications—

(i) a reference to the aforesaid fact shall be substituted for the reference in subsection (2) of that section to the provisions of any such order; and

(ii) the provisions mentioned in subsection (1) of that section shall, instead of being contained in any such order, be contained in regulations made by such Minister as may be determined by the Treasury to be appropriate in relation to the officers affected and those regulations shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(7) Section 8(7) and (8) of this Act shall apply to the following officers of a court of quarter sessions as they apply to officers of the court of quarter sessions for a London commission area, that is to say—

(a) a deputy clerk of the peace who is not also clerk of the county council;

(b) a deputy clerk of the peace who does not fall within paragraph C of Part II of Schedule 2 to the Local Government Superannuation Act 1937;

(c) an officer appointed under subsection (6) of this section.

(8) The provisions of subsections (6) and (7) of this section, except such of those provisions as are adopted by a resolution of the county council, shall not apply to any county for which provision for purposes corresponding to any of the purposes of those subsections is made by any local Act passed before, or in the same session as, this Act.
(9) The following expenditure of a court of quarter sessions, that is to say,—

(a) any expenditure incurred by them in exercising their functions under subsection (5) of this section; and

(b) the sums payable by way of salary or expenses to officers appointed under subsection (6) of this section, together with any employer's contributions payable in respect of them under the National Insurance Acts 1946 to 1963, and any expenditure on any other assistance provided for the clerk of the peace under that subsection;

shall be defrayed by the county council.
(10) If a county council are aggrieved—

(a) by the incurring of any, expenditure by a court of quarter sessions in the exercise of their functions under subsection (5) of this section; or

389

(b) by any determination of a court of quarter sessions under subsection (6) of this section;

the council may appeal to the Secretary of State.
(11) Any functions of a court of quarter sessions with respect to the appointment of, and other matters relating to, the clerk of the peace, deputy clerk of the peace and other officers of the court shall, except so far as the court otherwise resolves, be exercised by a committee consisting of the chairman of the court and such other justices as may be appointed by the court, and any other administrative functions of a court of quarter sessions may, if the court so resolves, be exercised by a committee so constituted; and section 96 of the Local Government Act 1933 (proceedings of committees) shall apply to any such committee with the substitution of references to the court of quarter sessions for references to a local authority.
(12) The foregoing provisions of this section except subsections (6) to (8) shall apply to a London commission area as they apply to a county with the substitution of references to the Greater London Council for references to a county council.
(13) The Secretary of State may by order make such amendments of or repeals in any local Act, including an Act confirming a provisional order, or any instrument in the nature of a local enactment made under any Act, as appear to him to be appropriate in consequence of the foregoing provisions of this section or of a resolution under subsection (8) of this section; and any such order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
Leave out Clause 34 and insert the following new clause—
Application of supplementary provisions of the London Government Act 1963
(".—(1) The following provisions of the London Government Act 1963, that is to say—

(a) section 84 (power to make orders containing consequential, transitional and supplementary provisions);

(b) section 85(1) to (4) (transfer and compensation of officers); and

(c) section 87 (local Acts and instruments); shall, subject to subsections (2) to (4) of this section, have effect as if the provisions of Part I of and Schedule 4 to this Act were provisions of that Act.

(2) The officers to whom the said section 85(1) applies by virtue of subsection (1) of this section shall not include any persons other than clerks of the peace, deputy clerks of the peace and other officers of a court of quarter sessions, members of the staff of metropolitan stipendiary courts, justices' clerks and other members of the staff of magistrates' courts and probation officers and other persons employed by probation committees or the Secretary of Sate in connection with the work of probation officers.
(3) Section 85(2) of the London Government Act 1963 shall have effect subject to the following modifications:—

(a) the reference to local authorities who are or include a council to whom section 3(1)(b) of the said Act of 1963 applies and the second reference to local authorities shall include a reference to the following authorities, that is to say—

(i) the Secretary of State;

(ii) the standing joint committees for the counties of London and Middlesex;

(iii) the magistrates' courts committees for the counties of London and Middlesex and the county boroughs of Croydon. East Ham and West Ham;

(iv) the probation committees for the county of Middlesex, the said county boroughs and the petty sessional division of Becontree in the county of Essex;

(b) the authorities to whom any person may be transferred under the subsection shall, in the case of a person affected by Part I of this Act, include such of the following authorities for a London Commission area or a county adjoining any such area as may be specified in or determined under the order, that is to say, the court of quarter sessions, the magistrates' courts committee (or in the case of the inner London area the committee of magistrates) and the probation committee;

(c) the power of making orders under the subsection in the case of persons not employed by a local authority shall be exercisable by the Secretary of State and not by the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

(4) For the purposes of section 85(1) to (4) of the London Government Act 1963 and of this section the clerk of the peace, deputy clerk of the peace and justices' clerk for any area shall each be treated as employed by an authority, if that authority appointed him, and as having been transferred to, and thereafter as being in. the employment of an authority, if that authority has power to appoint such a clerk.
(5) Nothing in section 86 of the said Act of 1963 shall be construed as requiring a joint committee established under that section to consider any matters falling to be dealt with under section 84 or 87 of that Act by virtue only of this section.")
Clause 36, page 26, line 28, leave out from first ("the") to end of line 31 and insert ("Greater London Council under section 8(4) of this Act. section 77(3)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 1948 or section 27(2) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949 shall be placed to the credit of the special London account out of which the relevant expenses of the Council arc payable; and in this subsection 'the relevant expenses' means—

(a) in relation to payments under section 8(4) of this Act, expenses under that section:

(b) in relation to payments under section 77(3)(a) of the said Act of 1948, expenses, under Schedule 5 to that Act;

391

(c) in relation to payments under section 27(2) of the said Act of 1949, expenses under section 25(2) of that Act.")

Clause 39, page 27, line 26, leave out subsection (2)
Clause 39, page 27, line 43, leave out ("subsection (2) of this section)") and insert ("section (Application of supplementary provisions of the London Government Act 1963) of this Act).")
Clause 40, page 28, line 8, leave out ("Part II of this Act") and insert ("The following provisions of this Act, that is to say, Part II (except section 30),")
Clause 40, page 28, line 16, at end insert—
("(5) Any order under this section may make such transitional provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in connection with the provisions thereby brought into force, including such adaptations of those provisions or any provisions of this Act then in force as appear to him necessary or expedient in consequence of the partial operation of this Act (whether before or after the day appointed by the order).")
Clause 40, page 28, line 22, after ("Act") insert ("(which include enactments which were already obsolete or unnecessary before the passing of this Act)")
Clause 40, page 28, line 25, leave out subsection (8).
Schedule 1, page 29, line 18, leave out from ("appointed") to end of line 22 and insert ("or holding office under Part II of the City of London (Courts) Act 1964.")
Schedule 2, page 32, line 28, at end insert—
("7. Any contribution payable by the Treasury under paragraph 3, or by virtue of paragraph 5, of this Schedule shall be paid out of the Consolidated Fund.")
Schedule 3, page 32, line 36, at end insert ("a metropolitan magistrates' court")
Page 33, line 4, after ("to") insert ("the county of")
Page 33, line 12, leave out ("referernce") and insert ("references")
Page 33, line 13, leave out ("a reference") and insert ("references")
Page 33, line 24, leave out sub-paragraph (1)
Page 33, line 31, leave out sub-paragraph (3)
Page 33, line 41, at end insert—
("THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CLERKS) Act 1931
14.—(1) In sections 3(1), 4 and 7(3) for references to the standing joint committee there shall be substituted references to the court of quarter sessions.
(2) So much of section 3(3) as adapts the enactments relating to fees and costs payable to the clerk of the peace shall cease to have effect.")
Page 34, line 13, at end insert—
("THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPERANNUATION ACT 1937
15. For the purposes of section 4(2), in its application (by virtue of Schedule 3 to the
392
Local Government Superannuation Act 1953) to justices' clerks for an outer London area and staff employed by a magistrates' courts committee for such an area to assist a justices' clerk, Greater London shall be treated as a county and the Greater London Council shall be treated as the council of that county.")
Page 35, line 9, after ("shall") insert ("if the duties are those of a justice for the inner London area out of sessions, be paid by the Receiver and shall in any other case")
Page 35, line 16, leave out ("In section 18(9)(a)") and insert ("Section 18 shall in its application to the outer London areas have effect as if any reference to the council of a county were a reference to the Greater London Council, and in subsection 9(a) of that section")
Page 36, line 6, at end insert—
("(2) Section 12 shall, in its application to the Central Criminal Court, have effect as if for the reference to the end of the assizes there were substituted a reference to the latest date on which, under paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 to this Act, the trial of the accused must begin or, if the court has under that paragraph ordered that the trial shall begin on some other date, that other date.")
Page 36, line 35, at end insert—
("2) In Part III of Schedule 1, in its application to the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the entry relating to clerks and other officers and servants of a metropolitan magistrate's court shall cease to have effect.
(3) In Part IV of Schedule 1, in its application to the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom—
(a) after the entry relating to Her Majesty's Commissioner of Lieutenancy in the City of London there shall be inserted the following words—

"Her Majesty's Lieutenant for Greater London.

Any constituency comprising any part of Greater London";

(b) after the entry relating to the Governor of the Isle of Wight there shall be inserted the following words—

"The High Sheriff Greater London.

of Any constituency comprising any part of Greater London".")

Page 37, line 33, at end insert—
("THE LICENSING ACT 1964
29.—(1) In section 2(1) for the words from "(a) in the administrative" to "London" in paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the words "the City of London".
(2) In section 25(2) for the words from "and (b)" to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words—
"(b) if the licensing district for which the licensing justices acted is in a London commission area, out of the general fund of the Greater London Council;

393
(c) if the licensing district for which the licensing justices acted is the City of London, out of the general rate of the City of London; and
(d) in any other case, out of the county fund of the county in which the licensing district is situated;
and any sum falling to be paid by virtue of this subsection out of the general fund of the Greater London Council shall be chargeable only on the London boroughs."
(3) In section 25(3) for the words from "as if" to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words "subject however to the following modifications—

(a) for any reference in those provisions to a borough or county borough there shall be substituted a reference to the City of London or to a borough having a separate court of quarter sessions, as the case may require; and

(b) in the application of those provisions to the City of London for any reference to the treasurer there shall be substituted a reference to the Chamberlain".

(4) In section 201(1), for the definition of "the metropolis" there shall be substituted the following definition, that is to say, "'the metropolis' means an area consisting of the inner London area within the meaning of the Administration of Justice Act 1964 and the City of London".
(5) In Part VII and Schedule 11 any reference to the administrative county of London shall be construed as a reference to the metropolis, and any reference in Schedule 11 to the county of London or London shall be construed as a reference to the inner London area.")
Schedule 4, page 38, fine 18, after ("appointments,") insert ("the")
Schedule 4, page 38, leave out lines 36 to 48 and insert—
("4.(1) After the issue of a commission of the peace for a London commission area and before 1st April 1965 the Greater London Council shall make all necessary arrangements for satisfying the initial requirements of the court of quarter sessions for that area as to accommodation and equipment, and subsections (2) to (4) and (7) of section (Functions of, or relating to, quarter sessions) of this Act shall apply for that purpose notwithstanding that that section has not come into force.")
Schedule 4, page 38, line 50, leave out from ("area") to end of line 9 on page 39 and insert ("if the county council of Essex, Kent or Surrey, as the case may be, are requested by the Greater London Council to provide any accommodation or equipment necessary for the purposes of the said arrangements and decline to do so or fail to agree with the Greater London Council about the terms or conditions on which it is to be provided, the dispute shall be referred to the Secretary of
394
State who may give such directions in the matter as he thinks fit, but no county council shall be required by virtue of this sub-paragraph to provide any accommodation or equipment for those purposes after 1st April 1970.")
Page 39, line 22, at end insert—
("(2) Any order made under or by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph may contain transitional and other consequential provisions.")
Page 40, line 25, at end insert ("and
(c) the lay justices elected to the committee under paragraph 6(1) of this Schedule or paragraph (a) of this sub-paragraph shall as soon as practicable after being elected choose a person in accordance with section 13(5) of this Act to be deputy chairman of the committee.")
Page 40, line 36, leave out ("by justices of the peace for") and insert ("under paragraph 6 of this Schedule in the case of")
Page 41, line 12, at end insert—
("(5) Any requirements imposed by the foregoing provisions of this paragraph shall have effect subject to the provisions of any instrument made under any enactment including this Act.")
Page 43, line 8, leave out ("an existing") and insert ("a")
Page 43, line 13, leave out ("Acts 1953 to 1961") and insert ("Act 1964,")
Page 43, line 14, leave out ("division") and insert ("district")
Page 43, line 14, leave out ("on 1st April 1965") and insert ("by this Act,")
Page 43, line 17, leave out ("division") and insert ("district")
Page 43, line 20, leave out first ("division") and insert ("district")
Page 43, line 20, leave out second ("division") and insert ("district")
Page 43, line 21, leave out ("division") and insert ("district")
Page 43, line 25, leave out ("division") and insert ("district")
Page 43, line 29, leave out ("division") and insert ("district")
Page 43, line 35, at end insert ("and subparagraph (1) of this paragraph shall with necessary modifications apply to things done by any such committee for the purpose of disposing of proceedings in pursuance of this sub-paragraph.")
Page 43, line 40, after ("area") insert ("and")
Page 43, line 41, leave out from ("court") to end of line 42.
Page 44, line 7, at end insert—
("(3) Any expenditure incurred by the Greater London Council under this paragraph in connection with any of the matters mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b) of this paragraph shall be chargeable only on the outer London boroughs.")
Page 47, line 7, leave out ("an existing") and insert ("a")
Page 47, line 8, leave out ("an existing") and insert ("a")
Page 47, line 44, leave out from ("to") to ("which") in line 45 and insert ("a petty sessions area, petty sessional division or licensing district")
Page 47, line 46, leave out from ("to") to ("which") in line 47 and insert ("an existing petty sessions area, petty sessional division or licensing district")
Page 47, line 49, after ("by") insert ("or in consequence of").
Schedule 5, page 48, line 20, at end insert—

("8 & 9 Vict. c. 18.

The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845.

Section 148 originally enacted or as incorporated in any other enactment.")

Schedule 5, page 48, line 28, at end insert—

("32 & 33 Vict. c. 18.

The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1869.

The whole Act as originally enacted or as incorporated in any other enactment.")

Schedule 5, page 48, line 28, column 3, leave out lines 44 to 47 and insert—
("In section 3(iv), the words from "subject" to the end of the paragraph.
Section 30, except so far as relating to the police.")
Schedule 5, page 48, line 53, at end insert ("Section 64(3) and (4).")
Page 49, line 6, at end insert—

("58 & 59 Vict. c. cxxvii.

The London County Council (General Powers) Act 1895.

Section 43.")

Schedule 5, page 48, line 14, leave out ("(1)")
Schedule 5, page 48, line 21, at end insert—

("16 & 17 Geo. 5. c. xcviii.

The London County Council (General Powers) Act 1926.

Section 35.")

Schedule 5, page 48, line 25, column 3, at beginning insert—
("In section 3(3) the words from "and in the enactments" to "this Act".
Section 12.
Section 13(1)(b).")
Schedule 5, page 48, line 58, leave out ("county") and insert ("section ninety")
Page 50, line 19, at end insert—

("11 & 12 Geo. 6. c. liii.

The London County Council (General Powers) Act 1948.

Section 49.")

Page 50, line 19, leave out lines 26 to 30.
Page 50, line 42, at end insert—
("In section 27(10)(c) the words "a clerk to a metropolitan stipendiary court".")
Page 51, leave out lines 5 and 6.
Page 51, leave out line 24, at end insert—
("In Part III of Schedule 1, in its application to the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the entry relat-
396
ing to clerks and other officers and servants of a metropolitan magistrate's court.")
Page 51, leave out lines 32 and 33.
Page 51, leave out line 51, column 3, at beginning insert ("Section 84(6).")
Page 51, leave out line 54, after ("and") insert ("in")
Page 51, leave out line 58, at end add—

("1964, c.

The Licensing Act 1964.

Section 57(2). In section 60(2) the words "wholly or partly".

In section 60(3), the words "wholly or partly".

Section 201(3).

1964, c. iv.

The City of London (Courts) Act 1964.

Section 8(2).")

LORD DERWENT: My Lords, your Lordships will see that there are a large number of Amendments on the Order Paper—91 in all. However, many of these are minor and I thought it might be convenient to your Lordships if I singled out for particular mention those which substantially add to the Bill as it left this House. The Bill was improved during its passage through this House, and I think your Lordships will agree, when I have described these further Amendments, that they represent a further useful addition to the Bill.
The first Amendment I should like to mention is Amendment No. 2 on the Order Paper, which prescribes the qualifications of a clerk of the peace for a London commission area. There is no statutory provision for the qualifications of clerks of the peace elsewhere in the country, though, so far as I know, and have been able to find out, they all have legal qualifications. However, it was represented in another place that it would nevertheless be desirable to make it clear that in London the clerk of the peace must be a barrister or solicitor of not less than five years' standing, and the Government agreed that this should be done.
Next there are Amendments Nos. 10 and 11, which alter the provision in Clause 10(5) that a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate, although he is an ex-officio justice of the peace for each of the London commission areas and for the counties of Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent and Surrey, may not sit at quarter sessions for those areas. It was represented to us after the Bill had left this House that it is not really necessary to preserve

397
this absolute ban on metropolitan magistrates sitting at quarter sessions, and that if a metropolitan magistrate were appointed to the commission of any of the areas concerned in his own right he should be allowed to sit insofar as his other duties permitted. We felt able to accept that suggestion and the Amendment provides simply that a stipendiary is not to sit at quarter sessions by reason only of the fact that he is an ex-officio justice.
Amendment No. 12 relates to the Committee of Magistrates for the Inner London area. Clause 13 of the Bill as it left this House provided that the chairman of the Inner London Quarter Sessions should be the chairman of the Committee of Magistrates and that the Chief Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate should be deputy chairman. The effect of the Amendment is that the chief magistrate is designated vice-chairman, and the deputy chairman is to be a person chosen from among themselves by the lay justices on the Committee of Magistrates. The Government were urged in the other place to recognise the joint participation of the stipendiary magistrates and lay justices in the integrated courts of Inner London by providing that there should be two joint deputy chairmen, one a stipendiary magistrate, the other a lay justice. The Government, while appreciating the spirit in which the suggestion was made, did not feel that it would be practicable to have two deputy chairmen of the Committee but proposed instead that there should be a vice-chairman and deputy chairman. This proposal was accepted in another place, and the Amendment provides accordingly.
I come now to two Amendments relating to the staff of the Inner London magistrates' courts, Nos. 13 and 14 on the Order Paper. These are designed to make it clear that if the Committee of Magistrates for the Inner London area rejects a proposal which would vary the terms and conditions of service of the staff of the magistrates' courts in Inner London, the decision is open to review by the Home Secretary, who may confirm the decision or, if he thinks fit, make an alternative decision with regard to the terms and conditions. These Amendments were put forward by the Government following negotiations with the staff associations, and I think I may
398
say that they are acceptable to all the interests concerned.
It might be convenient if I mentioned at this point a later Amendment, No. 25, which is a new clause relating not only to the staff of the Inner London magistrates' courts but also to all other staff affected by the Bill. The new clause adapts Section 85 of the London Government Act, 1963, to provide more specific measures for the protection of the interests of persons affected by the Bill than those contained in Clause 34 of the Bill, which is superseded. The Home Secretary is empowered (and, in the case of authorities which are disappearing, obliged) to transfer officers to new employing authorities on terms of service no less favourable than those enjoyed by them before transfer, and to make regulations for the compensation of persons suffering loss of office or loss of diminution of pay as a result of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore (who is not at the moment in his place), asked at Committee stage in this House whether there could be assurance that existing staff of the metropolitan magistrates' courts and the lay justices' courts who became the staff of the Inner London magistrates' courts would do so on a "no detriment" basis. The new clause gives full assurance on that point and extends not only to those persons but to all officers affected by the Bill.
The next substantial Amendment is No. 16. This is a new clause which allows a magistrates' court for one London commission area, when it is trying a person for an offence committed in that area, to deal at the same time with offences which have been committed in other London commission areas. It is not uncommon for someone to be apprehended for summary offences committed in various parts of the future Greater London area, and the new provision will make for flexibility in dealing with such cases. It is, I think, a useful reform.
Amendment number 24 is also a new clause. My noble friend the Lord Chancellor explained on Second Reading in this House that, after the creation of new police authorities in the Police Bill and the consequent abolition of the police functions of standing joint committees, those committees will be left with only the residual function of dealing with court accommodation for quarter sessions; and,

399
in the event, he and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary decided that it would be anomalous for standing joint committees to continue to exist solely to discharge these residual functions. The new clause makes alternative provision. It transfers to the county council the existing duty of the standing joint committee to determine what buildings and equipment are required by the court of quarter sessions, and obliges the county council to consult quarter sessions before making a determination. There is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State if quarter sessions is dissatisfied with a decision by the county council. That is the main pattern of the clause. Certain other subsidiary matters are also dealt with in the clause, and if any noble Lord wishes to have further details I will do my best to help him.
My Lords, I think that the only other Amendment which I need single out for special mention is Amendment No. 29 which makes it clear that Clause 31, which allows the payment of subsistence allowances to justices, is to come into force on the passing of the Act. This clause was welcomed in both Houses and noble Lords who have expressed an interest in the clause will, I am sure, be glad to know that it is to come into immediate effect. Regulations will need to be made under the clause, and I understand from my right honourable friend the Home Secretary that it is his intention that these should be made very soon after the passing of the Act.
The remaining Amendments, as I have said, are comparatively minor changes. Many of them have been made to meet suggestions and criticisms which have been made during the progress of this rather complex and technical Bill through Parliament. I have done my best to point out the salient features of the Amendments of substance on the Order Paper. If it is convenient to the House, I would propose to move all the Amendments en bloc, and if any noble Lords wish to ask questions about any particular Amendment I will be glad to try to help them. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

POLICE BILL
3.10 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Clause 2 [Police authorities for counties and county boroughs]:
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment to put it beyond doubt that in county boroughs the town clerk is the person to take or defend any legal proceedings on behalf of the watch committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 44, after ("council") insert ("or town clerk").—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 [Local inquiries]:
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, after subsection (5), to insert:
"(6) Any person attending any inquiry held under this section may be represented by counsel, solicitor or any other person."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is similar to one moved in Committee by my noble friend Lord Stonham, to which my name was affixed. I believe that when this point was discussed in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, gave an assurance that the matter would be considered.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but he was not here. I said that I would have another look at it, which is not quite the same thing.
LORD SILKIN: I think it is a distinction without a difference. All I said was that there was a promise to consider. I should be very glad to have the result of that consideration, or further look, if the noble Lord prefers that expression. The short point is that Clause 32 provides for inquiries to be held into the conduct of certain police officers or others. Such inquiries may have very important consequences to the people concerned. They are asked to come before the inquiry, and questions are put to them. Many of them, however, are unaccustomed to dealing with matters of that kind before tribunals. They may be asked questions which are of great consequence to their future, and may even have consequences

401
on their liberty. It was felt—and the Law Society, in particular, felt very strongly—that such persons should have the opportunity to be represented by counsel, a solicitor or any other person, particularly if their interests were going to be vitally affected. This Amendment seemed to me earlier, and seems to me to-day, a most reasonable Amendment. I do not propose to take up any further time in arguing it, because in my opinion it is self-evident that a person appearing before an inquiry, whose interests may be prejudicially affected, should have the opportunity of being represented before that inquiry. I should be very interested to know what the noble Lord has to say on the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 44, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, the result of my further consideration is that I hope to be able to explain the position more clearly to your Lordships than I did last time. I think the first thing I should say is that it may not be quite realised how wide are the terms of Clause 32. These inquiries ordered by the Secretary of State can be on any police matter, and will not necessarily be confined to so-called offences by or complaints against the police. The terms are very wide. These inquiries will be similar to those under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, and the point here, as I said last time, is that there are no parties to these inquiries.
If it is clear before an inquiry starts—and one must remember that in charge of the inquiry is an experienced barrister or lawyer—that somebody in his personal capacity is going to be involved, he can, as is the case with inquiries under the 1921 Act, apply in advance to be legally represented. I would point out that if during the course of an inquiry somebody is unexpectedly personally involved, not only can he or she apply to be legally represented, but it is the duty of the lawyer in charge of the inquiry to see that anyone who may be adversely affected has pointed out to him there and then that he is entitled to be legally represented, and he may well advise that person that this should in his own interests be done. My Lords, that is how these inquiries work over the whole field at the moment, and the type of inquiry
402
for which this clause provides is really no different. As I say, applications for legal representation are normally made before the inquiry starts, because it is known that somebody is personally involved and may be at risk. But there is nothing to prevent its happening during the inquiry.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I stop the noble Lord at this point? The person who thinks he is going to be affected may make an application to the tribunal for permission to be legally represented. Am I to gather that if such an application is made the tribunal is legally bound to grant such an application, or that it is within the discretion of the tribunal?
LORD DERWENT: It is within the discretion of the tribunal, as it is in all inquiries of this sort. But it is the duty of the person in charge of the inquiry to see that permission is given, if there is a possibility of the man's being adversely affected. We feel that it would be quite inappropriate, and I might say unprecedented, to confer an absolute statutory entitlement to legal representation in inquiries of this sort. There are no parties and nobody may be involved, and for every witness to be entitled without applying has really never been done and would be inappropriate.
Where there are parties to proceedings before a statutory tribunal—there can be parties or actual sides—the parties are usually entitled to arrange for legal representation, but at an inquiry under Clause 32 there will be no parties in the ordinary sense of the term. All the persons appearing, whether or not their conduct is in question, will appear as witnesses, so that it is up to the person holding the inquiry to see that the witnesses are protected. Where application is made and he thinks that the applicant's interests are affected, the person in charge must give permission, and he may well decide himself before application is made to advise a witness that he is, perhaps, at risk and should be represented. That is the position, and I think that witnesses will be fully protected in the same way as they would be in the case of an inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act. I hope, therefore, in view of what I have said, that the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, he said at one stage of his speech that if the lawyer holding the inquiry thought that one of the witnesses was at risk of being prejudiced by the course that the inquiry was taking he would be under a duty to advise him that he was entitled to be legally represented. If the procedure is, in fact, going to be that under the 1921 Act—and I have no doubt that my noble friend's words will be read carefully when inquiries of this sort are being set up, in order to see that the procedure is right—then the witness will not be entitled to be legally represented; he will be entitled to ask for legal representation. I hope that, if that is the case, nobody will be misled by what my noble friend has said.
LORD DERWENT: I am very grateful to my noble friend. He is quite right. Perhaps I may repeat, in particular, that the person who is holding the inquiry will at all times take care to see that witnesses are alive to the opportunities for legal representation where he thinks this necessary—that is, where he advises. If somebody applies on his own behalf for legal representation, the person holding the inquiry must consider the point; and if he considers that the person applying is at risk (I am not a lawyer, and perhaps I am using the wrong term, but this is what a layman would call it), then he will give that permission. That is the effect of the working of the present system under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 64 [Interpretation, repeals and transitional provisions]:
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, there is a mistake on the Order Paper. The extent of the mistake will be immediately apparent when I call the next Amendment: Clause 64, Amendment No. 3, Lord Derwent.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, the mistake is that the Amendment is not down under my name—a printer's error. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 go together. They are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 41, at end insert—
("(4) The Secretary of State may by order repeal or amend any provision in any local Act, including an Act confirming a provisional order, or in any instrument in the nature of a local enactment under any Act, where it appears to him that that provision is inconsistent with, or has become unnecessary or requires modification in consequence of, any provision of this Act or corresponds to any provision repealed by this Act; and any statutory instrument made under this subsection shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 65 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 17, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Combined police authority constituted as committee of constituent council]:
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment to clear up a doubt. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 34, after ("of") insert ("the council of").—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Amendments of Police (Scotland) Act 1956]:
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 6 and 10 really go together. Amendment No. 6 is drafting and No. 10, when we come to it, is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 3, leave out ("and (4)") and insert ("(4) and (7)").—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 go together, and they should be read in conjunction. They are both drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 15, at end insert—

("The Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act 1960.

In section 2(8), for the words 'a standing joint committee or water committee' there shall be substituted the words 'a police authority which is a committee of the council of a county or borough'.")—

8 & 9 Eliz. 2. c. 63.

(Lord Derwent.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Enactments repealed]:
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 31, column 3, leave out ("2(10)") and insert ("2, in subsection (8) the words from 'and any proceedings' to the end, and in subsection (10).").—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment consequential upon the repeal of The Special Constables Act, 1914. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 50, at end insert—

("13 & 14 Geo. 5. c. 11.

The Special Constables Act 1923.

In section 5 the words from 'and the' to the end.")—

(Lord Derwent.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 10, column 3, leave out ("and (4)") and insert ("(4) and (7)").—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

HOUSING BILL
3.25 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 18 [Suspended improvement notices: effect after five years]:
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "twelve" and insert "six" [months]. The noble Lord said: In the absence of the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill in this House, I beg to move Amendment No. 16. The purpose of this Amendment is to deal with the considerable delay which, under various clauses of this Bill, takes place in dealing with the admitted evil of the bad condition of our houses. I have pointed out on a number of occasions that it could take five years before an order became operative and the work was in fact completed. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said three years, but I would challenge him on that. At any rate, it could take a very long time, measured in terms of years; and I have tried, by a series of Amendments, to reduce the period of the various steps which have to be taken.
One of those Amendments is to Clause 16, which provides a period of twelve months in which steps must be taken after an improvement notice has been served on the person having control of the dwelling. It seems to me that he has twelve months in which he may carry out the work specified in the improvement notice. It may well be, of course, that the works are of an extensive nature, and in such a case twelve months would be a reasonable period; but the clause itself provides for an extension of the time in cases where it is thought that a longer time is justified. The work itself may, however, be of a relatively simple kind, especially since a reduced standard has been made possible under this Bill. It may amount merely to putting in hot and cold water, or to something even simpler than that. I should have thought, therefore, that the right

407
thing would be to provide, in the first instance, a period of six months in which the work should be done, and to extend that period if it should be thought desirable—that is, if the work was of an extensive nature. Alternatively, a longer notice could be given to start with if the work was of an extensive nature. But it seemed to me that, in the simple case, there was no justification for giving the person in control twelve months in which to carry out this work. I hope, therefore, that the Government will take a sympathetic view of this Amendment. It must be their desire that this machinery should be expedited, and that persons having control of property should not have a longer time than is absolutely necessary to dally about the carrying out of the work of this improvement. I hope, therefore, that the Government will be prepared to accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 28, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("six").—(Lord Silkin.)
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS): First, I would apologise to the noble Lord opposite that he should have beaten me, as it were, by a short head; but I had not expected the speed at which my noble friend advanced—not to mention the statement which is to follow. This particular Amendment, of course, refers to Clause 18, which deals with the action that may be taken by the local authorities after the five-year period has elapsed and the consent of a tenant to an improvement notice is no longer necessary. It does not refer directly to the completion of works; and I pointed out on a previous occasion that there was a slight difference between this Amendment and the others.
On thinking it over, it seems unnecessary that when, after the end of five years, the local authority wished to serve a final improvement notice they should have to wait for twelve months. Therefore, the Government propose to accept this Amendment on this particular issue, on Clause 18. The local authorities' associations have been consulted about this matter, and three of the four associations are in favour of this reduction in time from twelve to six months. Therefore,
408
I propose to accept this particular Amendment. But I still cannot accept the general inference of the other Amendments which we discussed previously (and I think there are one or two later to this effect), relating to the actual carrying out and completion of works. But the Government accept this particular Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am afraid that my speech was directed to a later Amendment. I had forgotten how far we had got last time; I was using the old Amendment sheet. I will not make exactly the same speech when I come to the right Amendment, but I will make something like it. But I am glad the noble Lord has accepted this Amendment. It curtails the period from 5 years to 4½ years; and that is something.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words after "of the local authority to", and to insert:
"offer, or arrange for some other authority or person to offer, suitable alternative accommodation to the tenant, so as to afford to the tenant a reasonable opportunity of taking up that alternative accommodation."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to meet criticism in another place, where this matter was discussed at considerable length. It refers to the duty of the local authority to find accommodation for a tenant who had hitherto refused to have improvement carried out and now, after five years, is no longer in a position to do so. It was not made perfectly clear that the local authority were actually under a definite obligation to find him accommodation. It stated merely that the authority must give the tenant reasonable opportunity of finding accommodation. After considerable discussion another Amendment was introduced, and that again was withdrawn for further consideration, the criticism being that the obligation of the local authority was not only not put explicitly but was restricted to local authority accommodation. We think that we have now found an Amendment which will satisfy all these criticisms. It makes it clear that the local authority's duty is either to offer accommodation themselves of to make arrangements for some other person or body—for example, a housing association—to offer it. The phrase

409
"afford a reasonable opportunity" is, however, retained as a qualification, because this would prevent the local authority from not giving sufficient notice to the tenant. I hope that this Amendment will meet with the wishes of the Committee here and the criticisms expressed in another place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 46, leave out from ("to") to end of line 48 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
House resumed.

CYPRUS
3.35 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I will now answer the Question which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, asked earlier this afternoon, about the present situation in Cyprus. Since the serious incidents in Famagusta three weeks ago, there have been fewer acts of violence in Cyprus. The arrival of further troops from other countries has enabled the British contingent in the United Nations force to be reduced to about 2,000 men, in addition to the important lcgistic support which we continue to provide. Britain is thus still supplying the largest element in the peace-keeping force. Our troops have endeavoured to discharge their difficult task with complete impartiality, but this has not always been appreciated by the two communities who have at different times accused us of favouring the other. At present anti-British feeling among the Greek-Cypriots is, unhappily, running very high and is being actively stimulated by newspapers and speeches.
This situation has recently been aggravated by the case of a British airman, who has been charged by the Greek-Cypriot police with carrying arms to the Turkish-Cypriots. Since the matter is sub judice, I will not comment upon it, except to inform the House that our High Commissioner has protested strongly about the statement made by the Cypriot Minister of the Interior, in which he publicly condemned the accused man, thereby prejudicing the prospect of a fair trial. I do not know whether the charge against this individual is well-founded.
410
But it is not necessary for me to say that the British Government would be deeply distressed at any failure on the part of its Servicemen to live up to the high reputation which they have rightly earned throughout the world.
For some time we have been much disturbed by the build-up of arms and military forces in Cyprus by both sides. As guarantors of the Constitution, the Governments of Britain, Greece and Turkey have made representations to President Makarios about his decision to introduce conscription. At the same time, the British Government and the Governments of other countries which are contributing to the United Nations Force have expressed to the Secretary-General their concern about the reported intention of the Cyprus Government to import substantial quantities of heavy armaments. The three-month mandate given by the Security Council expires in about four weeks' time and will no doubt have to be extended. We remain anxious to do all we can to help the United Nations Force to fulfil its mission. However, before entering into a commitment for a further period, we shall wish to be satisfied that our continued participation is necessary and is generally desired by the other countries concerned.
The sole reason for the presence of our troops in the United Nations Force is our desire to help restore peace in the island and create conditions in which a settlement acceptable to both communities can be negotiated. While they are performing this thankless task, we feel that they and their families have a right to be treated with respect and courtesy by those who, in the crisis of last December, so readily accepted our offer to come to their aid.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we are grateful for that statement. The position is a very unsatisfactory one and all of us agree that everything should be done to clear up whatever it is possible to clear up. I should like to ask one or two questions about this statement. The first is: could the noble Lord tell us what has been the result of the representations that have been made to President Makarios about his intention to introduce conscription? Secondly, I think we should all agree that we should continue to participate so long as it is necessary. I hope that we shall continue

411
to remain in occupation while there are British subjects on the island, because they are very much in need of protection. I would say, I am sure on behalf of every noble Lord here, that we very much deplore the action which has been taken as regards individual British subjects on the island and their families, particularly the wives of Servicemen.
We should like to pay a tribute at this stage to the conduct of our Servicemen on the island under extremely difficult conditions. We should not like them to feel that they are in any way open to criticism, in spite of the charges which are made against them. We realise that the situation is a difficult one and we wish to be assured that the Government are doing everything they can to protect British subjects from the indignities from which we are told they have been suffering recently at the hands of the Cypriots.
LORD REA: My Lords—
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I was asked three questions, and if the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition—the Leader of the Liberal Party, not the Opposition yet—would speak after I have replied to them, I should be grateful. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for what he has said, and would join with him in saying how much we all admire the restraint with which British troops have carried out their task in Cyprus. He asked me what was the result of the representations to President Makarios about conscription. The President's answer was that while there was a threat of Turkish invasion it was the duty of any sovereign Government to take steps to defend itself.
With regard to the British subjects on the island, I can give the noble Lord an assurance that this will be one of the paramount considerations of Her Majesty's Government in any decisions upon what steps we take with regard to the United Nations Force. I can also assure him that we will be careful to do as much as we can to save British subjects from any further indignities.
LORD REA: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I am sorry if I caused him embarrassment, but I hoped to save him trouble by adding one small question, after endorsing what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, about our
412
troops there in their difficult situation. I understand that the British Forces have been reduced to about 2,000, which still leaves us in the position of having the largest element there. Are arrangements in progress, or is pressure being made, to have these men replaced by the forces of other nations, so that we may take a less prominent part in the armed part of this island?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, not at the moment. The ratio of troops has been fixed to the end of this present mandate, but no doubt this will be one of the questions for discussion when the renewal of the mandate is under consideration in New York.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, arising out of the reply regarding the proposed or suggested conscription in Cyprus, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government will suggest to the United Nations that they should make the strongest possible representations to President Makarios that any such introduction of conscription would very likely lead in itself to a civil war much more acute than we have yet seen, and that, in its turn, would lead to foreign intervention in Cyprus?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend that the decision of the Cypriot Government to introduce a Bill on conscription is one of the greatest gravity, and I think we must take every possible step we can to bring home the seriousness of the situation to all those interested in peace in that area.

TYPHOID OUTBREAK IN ABERDEEN
3.45 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, I should like, if I may, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Craigton, who unfortunately cannot be here to-day, to repeat a statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. It runs in these words:
"With permission, I should like to make a statement to the House on the outbreak in Aberdeen of typhoid fever.

413
The number of patients at present in hospital is 249 of whom 241 are confirmed cases. This is in fact the most serious outbreak since 1937. The first indications of an outbreak appeared on May 19, and the probable source of infection, in a supermarket in Aberdeen, was traced on May 20. The speed with which the focal point of infection was established reflects great credit on the Medical Officer of Health of Aberdeen, Dr. MacQueen, and his staff.
"According to the information with which I have been furnished, the cause of this outbreak has not been finally established. There have been suggestions that the organism causing the epidemic was present in canned corned beef, and this cannot be ruled out. However, there is no foundation for the suggestion that the infection originated in canned corned beef from former Government stocks. No canned meat which investigation has shown could have been in the shop, could have come from these stocks.
"Investigations made revealed that some 6 lb. cans of corned beef from a certain establishment—not from Government stocks—were in the shop at the material time. The establishment at which this corned beef was produced did not, for a period of fifteen months, use in the cooling process chlorinated water. This could conceivably have been a source of infection. The Government are therefore advising that 6 lb. cans produced at this establishment during this period should be withdrawn from sale for the time being.
"As an additional protection, we are also advising that corned beef in 6 lb. cans, produced at another establishment where unchlorinated water was used for cooling, should be withdrawn. I should add, however, that there is no evidence that corned beef from this plant could have been involved in the Aberdeen outbreak.
"Medical officers of health are being advised how they can assist in this operation. We are in touch with the trade and I am sure that they will co-operate with us, as they did last year.
"Although we are taking these precautionary measures, there is no
414
positive evidence at present that the brands to be withdrawn were responsible for the infection. And it must be accepted that many doubts remain unresolved. Because these uncertainties exist, the Government have decided to hold an inquiry under an independent chairman to discover the cause of the epidemic. The report of the inquiry will be published in due course. But I should point out that there is no doubt in my mind that the first priority must be to contain the epidemic which is now in Aberdeen.
"Before I sit down, I should like to take this opportunity, and I am sure the House will join with me, of expressing my profound sympathy with the townspeople of Aberdeen in their misfortune and my admiration for the public services of the City for the way in which they are confronting it."
That is the statement.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I am quite sure that the whole House will be relieved to hear that the Government intend to institute a public inquiry. Could I ask the noble Marquess two questions? Has he read the report of the proceedings of Aberdeen Town Council yesterday, in which Councillor Mutch drew attention to the depletion in the sanitary services in Aberdeen and urged that they should be brought up to establishment level? In view of this evidence, is the noble Marquess satisfied that the medical officers, who work in the half dozen districts in Scotland where there have been small or large outbreaks, have sufficient help and particularly expertise at their disposal? And what are the Government doing immediately about that?
The other question I want to ask him is this. In view of the fact that we are living in an age in which a great proportion of our food is tinned, are there any regulations which serve to inform distributors of tinned food of what the noble Marquess has just informed the House—namely, that, when cooled, tinned food must be cooled with chlorinated water? Furthermore, after food has been tinned, is any period of time laid down after which that tinned food should not be distributed to the population? I am sorry if my questions have been rather long.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lady for her acceptance of the statement which I have made. I must confess that I have not seen the report of the proceedings yesterday in the Aberdeen Town Council. I think the noble Lady has raised an important point in connection with the sanitary conditions in Aberdeen and other Scottish cities, and, if I may, I should like to take this matter up with my right honourable friend.
On the noble Lady's second point, about whether distributors of these canned goods know about chlorination, my information is that they are quite aware of this. I will make sure of this and let the noble Lady know, but my information, which I am pretty sure is correct, is that they do know that all canned food should come from plants where chlorinated water is used in cooling. So far as I am aware, there is no period of time after which cans brought into this country cannot be sold to the trade.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I understood the Minister to say that it was a period of fifteen months during which this particular firm, presumably in the Argentine, was using non-chlorinated water for this batch of corned beef. Could he say whether the two outbreaks of typhoid last year, one in Harlow and the other, I think, in Bedford, were cases involving this same batch of corned beef? My second question is this. The Minister speaks of an independent chairman for the inquiry. If I remember rightly, the chairman of the inquiry into the Croydon typhoid epidemic, who was a civil servant, had sitting with him a medical assessor and an engineering inspector. Will the chairman in this case be an engineer, or a doctor, or what kind of person will the chairman chosen to carry out this independent inquiry be?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, to take the last question first, I am afraid I cannot at present tell the noble Lord who the chairman is going to be or to what profession he may belong. My right honourable friend has only recently taken this decision, and I do not think he has made up his mind about this. With regard to the two outbreaks last year, my information is that the meat did not come from the same source, although again I believe it was
416
the use of unchlorinated water which was the cause. The meat did not, however, come from the same place.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, further to the Minister's reply, it appears, then, that several firms have been using non-chlorinated water from the River Plate to cool this corned beef. Is there any kind of step Her Majesty's Government can take to ensure that in future all corned beef coming from the Argentine is cooled by chlorinated water?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Yes, my Lords. As a result of what happened last year, my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture now sends his inspectors out to South America for the precise purpose of checking, not only on whether the water is chlorinated, but on the general hygiene of the plant concerned. That is why we hoped this would not occur again.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, arising out of the Minister's reply, twice he used the word that his Department is "advising" certain action. May I ask the Minister whether Her Majesty's Government have any mandatory power to prohibit the marketing of this particular batch of corned beef which has been cooled with unchlorinated water, or is the limit of the Government's powers advising in this matter? If this is so, it does not seem to be a very satisfactory position.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that the Government can effect this withdrawal only with the co-operation of the trade concerned. When this happened last year, as I said in my statement, the trades were most co-operative and understanding about it. They are being consulted to-day about the position.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: So the spread of the possible infection relies on the good will of the trade, and not on the power of the Government?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the Government cannot enforce this at the present time.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, arising out of the last question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, referring to the period of turnover of these tins, is it not a fact that

417
the contents of the tins must have been contaminated from the time when they were tinned and, therefore, the period of turnover could not affect whether they were originally infected with germs or not?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: That is quite true.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Marquess may not be aware of what has come through on the tape in the last hour. I understand that tins in this particular shop have been recognised by the manufacturer as tins of corned beef that had been sold to the Ministry of Food in 1951, arid therefore there may be some connection between those tins and those that the medical officer of health believes were infected. The point I want to make is this. These tins were recognised by the manufacturer by the coding on the tin. Can the Minister undertake to see, if the coding can identify these tins as belonging to this particular period when the meat may have been cooled by non-chlorinated water, that the trade, and particularly the retailers, are informed as to the suspected tins, and that those tins, before they are sold, are inspected by a medical officer of health, so that we can do something to prevent the spread of this particular disease?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, is it not a fact that inspection, unfortunately is no use, much as I wish it were? Is it not necessary to have bacteriological tests of any tin that is suspected?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Yes, my Lords. And, also, even if it were possible—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has pointed out, it is not—there are so many tins in a consignment that it would be a very difficult operation to inspect them all. However, I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend to what the noble Lord has said. As to his first point, about what came over on the tape just now, I had heard about this. But investigations that we have made at the source from which the shop drew this supply indicate that at no time since it was opened, which is only eight weeks ago, have any supplies
418
been issued which were at any time in the stocks of the Ministry of Agriculture. But this is a matter which will have to be cleared up.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, may I ask whether in the stocks of the Ministry of Agriculture there are any tins which have been tinned with the use of non-chlorinated water?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Yes, my Lords. I think I am right in saying that the use of chlorinated water came into general acceptance only in about the year 1955.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, would it not be a wise thing to destroy all tins, wherever they are, which have been produced, if non-chlorinated water has been used?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think there is a great deal in what the noble Lord suggests. I also think that this is perhaps a matter which the committee of inquiry will be looking into.
LORD SHEPHERD: Speed!
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask this final question? If the experts in this matter decide that there is a risk if there is a continuation of the distribution of some of these tins, why is it that the Government have to wait for some firm to give their consent in order to protect the public health of the country?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I will take note of what the noble Lady says.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I am sorry to press this, but it is obviously very important indeed. If there are large numbers of tins, either in private stock or in Government stock, which have been prepared with non-chlorinated water, as soon as the knowledge is in the hands of the Government should not the sale of these tins forthwith stop?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I will certainly look into this matter.

"PIRATE" RADIO SHIPS
4.0 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, may I now repeat a statement on "pirate" radio ships and local sound broadcasting which my right honourable friend the Postmaster General has just made in another place? I will use my right honourable friend's own words:
"In order to ensure good reception both here and on the Continent broadcasting frequencies are agreed by the International Telecommunication Union. 'Pirate' radio ships select their own frequencies. This is an infringement of international agreements. If no action is taken against pirate radio, such transmissions from ships outside territorial waters may increase, with the result that radio communications with ships and aeroplanes would be interfered with and human life endangered. Also, such transmissions could well lead to massive interference with the reception of existing radio programmes both in Britain and Europe. As it is, protests of interference have already been received from Belgium and France.
"The Council of Europe has been studying this problem and a draft Convention is now in an advanced stage of preparation. What is required to deal with the problem is concerted international action. The Government therefore propose to await the conclusion of this Convention and then to consider legislating on lines proposed by the Convention. The Government cannot accept the establishment of 'pirate' radio ships as a reason for making precipitate decisions on local sound broadcasting in this country. To legislate for a national service of local sound broadcasting and to establish the necessary machinery for supervision during the remaining months of this Parliament is clearly not practicable. In the next Parliament the Government will undertake the review of the situation foreshadowed in the White Paper on Broadcasting published in 1962 (Cmnd. 1893)."
That, my Lords, is the statement.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, the House will be obliged to the noble Lord for the statement he has made. In the first instance, I will deal with the first part of his statement, leaving something over for a subsequent supplementary on the second part. May I say that we are very glad that the Government have accepted in principle the idea of prohibiting by international Convention pirate radio from ships? Obviously, there is great advantage in its being done by international Convention, because it would not work perfectly unless that were done. Could the noble Lord tell us how soon it is likely that the Council of Europe will settle the terms of an international Convention? Then may we take it that the Government will at once bring in legislation to confirm that Convention?
I notice from the noble Lord's statement that this pirate broadcasting is actually endangering life and limb at sea and in the air. I wonder whether he would be good enough to bring this to the attention of his honourable friends in another place who are interested—and when I say "interested", I mean interested—in this matter, and who have been advocating the right of pirate radio to go on until commercial radio is established in this country? It is a very serious thing if Members of Parliament are engaged in any activity which is calculated to endanger life and limb at sea and in the air.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, it is expected that the Convention will be ratified by the end of this year and, as I said in my statement, when the Convention has been ratified the Government will consider legislating on lines proposed by it. As regards the danger inherent in the broadcasts, there is no evidence at the moment that the "pirate" ships are interfering with the radio communications of other ships and aircraft, but if there is an increase in the number of these ships, then interference is all too likely to happen. If the equipment used by these "pirate" ships is not well maintained, then that could result in interference with the radio communications of ships.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. Of course, the argument that has been proceeding contemplates a

421
possible increase in "pirate" ships, and therefore responsibility must be accepted. Could the noble Lord say whether it would be possible for the Council of Europe to hasten the settlement of the terms of the Convention? Because it is a pity if we have to wait until the end of the year—which means waiting for a new Parliament—to get legislation on this matter. Is it possible for them to hurry up?
With regard to the future of sound radio, to which the noble Lord has referred, and particularly local sound radio, may I ask him to keep in mind that there is very strong opposition to the introduction of a commercial element in radio? It is bad enough on television. I have heard it in the United States, and it really is worse on radio. Will the noble Lord convey to the Government that some of us are becoming apprehensive about the nation's and the Government's going television and radio mad? These things involve the use of highly skilled labour, electronics and valuable material, and surely we have enough communications going through the air as it is, without assuming that there is no limit to the amount of this development which should he permitted. I would ask the noble Lord—I do not know whether I am speaking for all my noble friends, but I hope so—to convey to the Government that some of us are very anxious about the nation's losing a sense of proportion as to how much national skilled labour and materials should be diverted into an industry which is already quite ample.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I do not know whether or not the Council of Europe will decide to speed up its deliberations.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Tell the British representative.
LORD NEWTON: I can only repeat, as I said in my statement, that the draft Convention is now, as I understand, in an advanced stage of preparation. I take note of what the noble Lord said about the possibility of the introduction of local commercial sound broadcasting in this country. I know very well that the noble Lord has always been a firm opponent of commercial broadcasting and television in this country. I do not know, any more than he does, the extent to which he
422
reflects the view of his Party on this matter. It may be that there are other people, like the noble Lord, who disapprove of people enjoying commercial television and broadcasting; but, on the other hand, there are undoubtedly many people who would welcome the introduction of local broadcasting.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, may I say that I have devoted years of my life to making the people happy. I have done more in that direction than the noble Lord or any other of his colleagues in the Government.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would like to consider that last point when he is further reflecting on the possible advantages or disadvantages of an extension of commercial broadcasting in this country.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, can the noble Lord say why Her Majesty's Government have passed their responsibilities to the Council of Europe, which has no real power, while at the present moment they are signatories to the International Telecommunications Convention which has power to suppress these stations? Why is not action taken? Why do not the Government jam them? Secondly, why is trespassing allowed on Government property by somebody who rejoices in the name of "Radio Sutch" on the old air-towers on the estuary of the Thames? Why is not action taken there?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, if one considers this in a reasonably cool manner one must see the advantage of there being concerted international action on a matter of this kind. As regards Sutch—I do not know whether I should call him the ignoble Lord, Lord Sutch—I am told that the fort is disused and unmanned, and it has been established that he has not done any harm to it. The possibility that he may be prosecuted for broadcasting in territorial waters is under consideration.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, may I reinforce the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, for urgency in this matter? It is extremely serious. What would happen if one of these stations were to start putting out political propaganda before the Election?
LORD NEWTON: One would listen to hear what it was.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: True to his previous manifestation of bias, the noble Lord would not be so worried if it was Tory propaganda, but would be very worried if it was Labour propaganda. May I ask the noble Lord whether the statement of my noble friend Lord Hobson, as to powers existing already under the International Telecommunications Convention, is correct? If the Government have power to prohibit this now (which I should presume the Minister is briefed upon one way or the other, and can therefore answer categorically) why do they not use it?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I think legislation would be necessary to achieve what the noble Lord would like to see achieved. As regards the content of possible political propaganda, I do not think the noble Lord ought to draw any conclusions as to what I think most beneficial.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he would clear up one matter which arises out of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hobson? If another ship went outside the three-mile limit with the sole intention of jamming these existing programmes, would it be acting more or less legally than the ships already there?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I do not know, but I think it would be unfortunate, as I said earlier, if anything were to be done to increase the number of pirate radio broadcasts, whether they were jamming each other or not.

HOUSING BILL
4.11 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "may", where that word occurs the second time, and insert "shall". The noble Lord said: This Amendment goes with No. 19, and No. 20, a Scottish Amendment, is consequential upon them. They simply clear up some loose ends in subsection (3), which as it stands at the moment could allow a final improvement notice to remain indefinitely in a state of suspended animation. This would occur if the court
424
upheld an appeal by a tenant and the local authority then failed subsequently to satisfy the court that it had complied with the obligation to provide suitable alternative accommodation. It is thought that it is much more satisfactory to bring this procedure to a close in due course, and to impose a time limit of twelve months. The Amendment provides that that should be done by obliging a local authority which fails to satisfy the court that it has complied with the obligation to withdraw the improvement notice.
In Amendment No. 19 the local authority is also obliged to inform the person having control of the dwelling, and every other person with an interest in it, that an appeal has been made by the tenant. If that were not done, a landlord who had received a final improvement notice might, of course, go ahead and carry out the works not realising that the tenant had in fact appealed against the improvement notice, and the appeal might be upheld by the court. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 6, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: I beg to move the next Amendment formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 8, leave out from ("operative") to end of line 10 and insert ("unless, within twelve months (or such other period as may be prescribed) from the hearing of the appeal, the local authority satisfy the court that they have complied with those obligations.
If the local authority have not so satisfied the court, they shall at the end of that period from the hearing of the appeal withdraw the improvement notice, and the withdrawal shall be effected by serving notice of the withdrawal on the person having control of the dwelling, and the local authority shall serve a copy of the notice on the occupier of the dwelling and on every person who, to the knowledge of the local authority, is an owner, lessee or mortgagee of the dwelling.
(4) If an appeal is brought under the last foregoing subsection it shall be the duty of the local authority, when served with notice of the appeal, to inform the person having control of the dwelling, and every other person who, to the knowledge of the local authority, is an owner, lessee or mortgagee of the dwelling, or the bringing of the appeal and to draw their attention to the provisions of the last foregoing subsection and the effect which it may have on the improvement notice.").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 10, at end insert—
(" (4) As soon as practicable after service of a withdrawal notice under subsection (3) of this section in Scotland the local authority shall cause to be recorded in the General Register of Sasines a certificate in the precribed form stating that the said notice has been served as aforesaid.")—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 [Dwellings outside improvement areas]:
4.15 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "twelve" and insert "six" [months]. The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment which I thought I was moving before. This is an Amendment, as I said then, to cut down from twelve months to six months the period of notice to carry out work; and, as I said earlier, it is, of course, possible, where the works are of an extensive nature, to increase the period: six months would be the minimum. It is possible under Clause 19 for local authorities to require works to be carried out to buildings that are sub-standard—for example, to provide hot and cold water, a water closet and satisfactory facilities for storing food. But where a dwelling house is below standard merely because it has not satisfactory facilities for storing food, or a hot and cold water supply at a sink and so on, it ought not to take twelve months for the necessary work to be done.
I suggest that in such a case, where the work required is not to be the full standard work but something below that—that is, work set out in paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) of subsection (1) of Clause 39—then the period within which the work must be done could well be six months. That would be ample. If further time should be required, through circumstances which were not foreseen, there is nothing in Clause 19 that will not enable the local authority to extend the time. But if, as I believe, the noble Lord is concerned, as I am, to reduce this possible period of years before work is carried out, why cannot we say six months in the first instance and a longer period if necessary, instead of saying twelve months and
426
then longer if necessary? The purpose of my Amendment is to cut down the period from twelve months to six months. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 28, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("six").—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD HASTINGS: We had a long discussion of this point on our previous Committee day, and I am afraid that on this occasion I have not come to any different conclusion. The real difficulty is the physical possibility, with the shortage of labour, of getting the work done in the time. These programmes must be staggered by the local authorities, but, even so, there is going to be considerable competition for the labour available. It seems to us much more likely that more work would be created for the local authority by making the completion necessary within a period of six months, as a result of which they would have continuously to extend the period and to examine the reasons for the work not being completed, than if we were to leave the period at twelve months, in which case we believe that the work will invariably be completed, and the local authority will not have to bother itself about inquiring why work is not completed and whether or not the period should be extended.
The noble Lord has, of course, made a point here, in respect of Clause 19, that it may be dealing only in this case with improvements to a lower standard and, therefore, presumably the work will take a shorter time. I could look into that particular point, but again I think that administratively it would probably be awkward to prescribe a different time limit for one form of works from that for another. On the whole, we believe that it will be better to keep to this period. As I think I partially explained on the previous occasion, there were consultations with the local authority associations on this matter, and when they were told what period of time was in the Government's mind it was not challenged in any way and no alternatives were suggested.
We have, in fact, modelled some of this Part of the Bill, and the time periods we are using, on the experience of Leeds, who have a pretty comprehensive programme of area improvement and a good deal of experience of these matters. They do in fact accept undertakings from

427
people to carry out improvements within a twelve months' period, and if they are then carried out they do not apply for a compulsory purchase order. Thus we have some practical experience to base our thoughts upon, and we feel, not having had any protests or other suggestions from the local authorities in this matter, that, on the whole, this is the better way, and that we shall create less work for the local authorities by adopting the twelve months' period rather than the six months' period when it is a question of carrying out and completing works.
LORD TAYLOR: May I ask the noble Lord to clear up one point which is not clear to me? After "twelve months" it says, "or such other period as may be prescribed". Is this prescribed in the improvement notice? Because if so, the local authority has to make up its mind every time. Otherwise, how on earth can the local authority exercise any discretion, if it is to be a period longer than twelve months?
LORD HASTINGS: These words in brackets refer to the Minister's powers. It is the Minister who prescribes such other period in the light of practice, as local authorities gain experience in working this Part of the Act, and if we find the time is unnecessarily long the Minister will be able to prescribe a shorter time. It does not refer to the local authority's prescribing another period. They merely have permission to extend the period.
Referring to this question of lower standards, I might elucidate that point a little further. The next Amendment of the noble Lord refers to tenement blocks. The difficulty is that, whereas one tenement could presumably be improved to the lower standard, I think the whole building would obviously be dealt with at the same time, and in this case the twelve months' period would refer to the whole block rather than to one or two dwellings in it.
LORD SILKIN: I do not want to pursue this matter much longer. If the noble Lord has promised to consider it again in the light of the possibility that the only work to be done might be work carrying out some of the items in paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) of Clause 39(1), I should think it would be possible to
428
say, "six months or such longer period as the local authority think necessary, having regard to the circumstances", and leave it to them. They might say straight away, "twelve months". I should be grateful if that point could be looked at. I am most anxious that this provision should not become a dead letter simply because years may go by from the time when the local authorities first consider taking action until work is actually done. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Immediate improvement notices as respects tenement blocks]:
LORD SILKIN: I will move this Amendment quite formally and withdraw it, because the noble Lord has promised that it will be considered in the same way as the Amendment to Clause 19. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 15, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("six").—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD SILKIN: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Local authorities may acquire dwellings, &c., in tenements in improvement areas in Scotland]:
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Craigton, I beg leave to move Amendment No. 23. At present allowances and removal expenses for displacement are payable under Section 131(1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, where tenement and other property is acquired for slum clearance and redevelopment. This Amendment extends this power to pay allowances to tenements which are acquired for improvement under this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 19, at end insert—
"(5) The power conferred on a local authority by section 131(1) of the Act of 1950 to pay certain allowances to persons displaced in consequence of the exercise of certain

429
powers shall include power to pay allowances to any person displaced from a house or building which, or a part of which, has been acquired by a local authority under this section; and accordingly in the said section 131(1) after paragraph (e) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"or
(f) which, or a part of which, has been acquired by the local authority under section 23 of the Housing Act 1964'.").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 [Acceptance of undertakings to carry out works]:
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: The purpose of this Amendment is to make clear that the owner of a Scottish tenement dwelling can give to a local authority an undertaking that he will carry out improvement works at any time before an improvement notice is served on the dwelling, and to ensure that if he does so the local authority is not debarred from serving an improvement notice later if the undertaking is not fulfilled. The Amendment adds an improvement notice under Clause 22 (which deals with Scottish tenements) to the list of improvement notices which may be served if an undertaking is not fulfilled, even if the original time limit for serving such a notice has run out. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 4, leave out ("or section 21(2)") and insert ("section 21(2) or section 22(1) ").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: This is little more than a drafting Amendment. It removes words which on consideration are not thought to be necessary. The opening words of the clause make clear that once an improvement notice of any kind has been served, Clause 24 no longer applies. Accordingly it is not necessary to say so also in the words proposed to be deleted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 34, leave out from ("modifications") to end of line 38.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 25 to 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Adjustment of relations between lessors and lessees]:
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, after subsection (1), to insert:
"(2) This section shall not authorise the county court to increase the rent payable to the landlord in respect of an agricultural holding as defined in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948."
The noble Lord said: The next four Amendments can conveniently be taken together. No. 27 is consequential for Scotland on No. 26, and No. 29, the Scottish Amendment, is consequential on No. 28, and Nos. 26 and 28 go together. No. 26 is, in a manner of speaking, a paving Amendment to the new Government clause following Clause 34—that is to say, to Amendment No. 28. This Amendment, No. 26, has the effect of ensuring in respect of an agricultural holding that increases of rent on account of compulsory improvements will be determined under the arrangements of the Agricultural Holdings Act as adopted by the following clause. Under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, as a result of improvements being carried out by a landlord or tenant of an agricultural holding, the rent could of course be increased or terminal compensation given to a tenant, as the case may be. But at present these provisions relate only to improvements which are carried out with the agreement of both landlord and tenant. Here, in Part II of this Bill, we are dealing with compulsory improvement, perhaps forced upon the landlord without his agreement by the tenant. Therefore we must take special account of that fact, and we must allow for an increase in rents after expenditure has been incurred on the compulsory improvements.
This new Clause 34 (Amendment No. 28) makes special provision for that. Subsection (1) enables the landlord of an agricultural holding who incurs such expenditure to obtain an increase of rent under the normal machinery of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948. Subsection (2) enables the tenant of a holding who incurs such expenditure to claim improvement compensation under the 1948 Act on quitting the holding at the end of his tenancy—in other words, what we know as "tenants' rights". Subsection (3) provides for proportional reduction of compensation where a person other than the tenant has made a contribution to the works. That ensures that

431
these matters are handled by people who understand the technicalities of farming and farming rents, as they are at the moment under the Agricultural Holdings Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 13, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD TAYLOR: I am not quite sure whether this is dealing with the same point as we seek to deal with in our Amendment No. 74 after Clause 97. Are we now dealing with the tenants of tied cottages, with the agricultural workers who are occupying tied cottages, and whose position as such has not been dealt with?
LORD HASTINGS: No. There is a Government Amendment coming shortly which relates to the point that the noble Lord is referring to. This is purely a question of rent as between the landlord and the farm tenant. The ability of service tenants to make applications for improvements is dealt with in an Amendment, upon which I cannot at the moment put my finger, but which is coming quite soon. That Amendment relates to the new clause that the noble Lord has put down.
LORD TAYLOR: Does not this one deal with the problem of the tenant who pays no rent—the agricultural worker occupying a tied cottage? What is to happen if an improvement grant is granted and his notional rent goes up? Is he then charged a rent under this particular clause?
LORD HASTINGS: No; the rent is chargeable under the Agricultural Holdings Act, to the farm tenant and not to the service tenant. If compulsory improvements are carried out on farm service cottages, the landlord would be entitled, if we did not pass this Amendment, to charge that service tenant the rent; but because we bring it under the Agricultural Holdings Act, the matter falls to be settled by the person who is really in control of that dwelling, that is, the farmer and not the occupier. We come to the noble Lord's particular point under an Amendment to be moved soon in regard to the definition of a tenant. That matter will be dealt with then.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: I beg to move this Amendment formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 16, at end insert—
(" (3) Subsection (2) of this section shall not apply to Scotland, but this section shall not authorise the sheriff to increase the rent payable to the landlord in respect of—

(a) an agricultural holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949, or

(b) a croft within the meaning of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955, or

(c) a holding within the meaning of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts 1886 to 1931.")—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: This Amendment is moved formally.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
Amendments of Agricultural Holdings Act 1948
(".—(1) Section 9 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 (increases of rent for improvements carried out by landlord) shall apply as if references in subsection (1) of that section to improvements carried out at the request of the tenant included references to improvements carried out in compliance with an immediate improvement notice or final improvement notice or an undertaking accepted under this Part of this Act:
Provided that where the tenant has contributed to the cost incurred by the landlord in carrying out the improvement, the increase in rent provided for by the said section 9 shall be reduced proportionately.
(2) Any works carried out in compliance with an immediate improvement notice or final impovement notice or an undertaking accepted under this Part of this Act shall be included among the improvements specified in paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 (tenant's right to compensation for erection, alteration or enlargement of buildings), but subject to the power conferred by section 78 of that Act to amend the said Schedule 3; and section 49 of that Act (which makes that right to compensation conditional on the landlord consenting to the carrying out of the improvements) shall not apply to any works carried out in compliance with such a notice or undertaking.
(3) Where a person other than the tenant claiming compensation has contributed to the cost of carrying out the works in compliance with any such notice or undertaking, compensation in respect of the works, as assessed under section 48 of the said Act of 1948, shall be reduced proportionately.").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: This Amendment is consequential and is moved formally.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
Adjustment of relations between lessors and lessees of agricultural holdings, etc., in Scotland
(" .—(1) Section 8 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949 (increases of rent for improvements carried out by landlord) shall apply as if references in subsection (1) of that section to improvements carried out at the request of the tenant included references to improvements carried out in compliance with an immediate improvement notice or a final improvement notice or an undertaking accepted under this Part of this Act:
Provided that where the tenant has contributed to the cost incurred by the landlord in carrying out the improvement, the increase in rent provided for by the said section 8 shall be reduced proportionately.
(2) Any works carried out in compliance with an immediate improvement notice or a final improvement notice or an undertaking accepted under this Part of this Act shall be included among the improvements specified in paragraph 18 of Schedule 1 to the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949 (tenant's right to compensation for erection, alteration or enlargement of buildings), but subject to the power conferred by section 79 of that Act to vary the said Schedule 1; and sections 51 and 52 of that Act (which make that right to compensation subject to certain conditions) shall not apply to any works carried out in compliance with such a notice or undertaking:
Provided that where a person other than the tenant claiming compensation has contributed to the cost of carrying out the works in compliance with any such notice or undertaking, compensation in respect of the works, as assessed under section 49 of the said Act of 1949, shall be reduced proportionately.
(3) Any works carried out in compliance with an immediate improvement notice or a final improvement notice or an undertaking accepted under this Past of this Act shall

(a) if carried out on a croft within the meaning of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955, be permanent improvements on that croft and be deemed to be suitable to the croft for the purposes of section 14(1)(a) of the said Act of 1955 (crofter's right to compensation for improvements),

(b) if carried out on a holding within the meaning of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts 1886 to 1931, be permanent improvements on that holding and be deemed to be suitable to the holding for the purposes of section 8(a) of the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886 (landholder's right to compensation for improvements),

and accordingly, after paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 to the said Act of 1955, and after paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the said Act of 1886 (both of which Schedules relate to
434
permanent improvements), there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
'(1A) Works carried out in compliance with an immediate improvement notice or a final improvement notice served, or an undertaking accepted, under Part II of the Housing Act 1964'.").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.37 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, after Clause 34, to insert the following new clause:
Compulsory application for standard grant
" .—(1) Where an immediate or a final improvement notice is served in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act on the person having control of any premises to which this section applies requiring him to carry out in those premises the works specified in the notice, that person shall, prior to the carrying out of the works (and notwithstanding that he is not required under the provisions of the section hereinafter referred to so to do) make an application (which shall not be withdrawn) to the local authority for a standard grant in respect of those works in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the House Purchase and Housing Act 1959.
(2) Where, after an application has been made in accordance with the provisions of the preceding subsection, a standard grant is made available by the local authority but is refused by the person making the application, the rent of the premises the subject of the application shall be assessed in the same manner as it would have been had the grant been accepted.
(3) This section applies to any dwelling let under a controlled tenancy as defined in section 25 of the Rent Act 1957."
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which is similar in terms to that which was discussed in another place in Committee, but it varies because in another place the Amendment provided for tenancies, whether they were controlled or decontrolled, and this Amendment applies only to controlled premises. The point of the Amendment is that where an improvement notice is served, whether immediate or final, there is provision that a grant shall be made by the local authority. It may suit the landlord not to accept the grant but to carry the whole burden of the cost himself. By this means he can impose an increase in the rent of 12½ per cent. of the total cost. That may be quite considerable, and may impose a heavy burden on the tenant. He may do this either because he is vindictive and wants to get rid of the tenant, or because it suits him to get a higher rate of interest on his outlay.
It was felt—and I think the Minister had some sympathy with this in another

435
place—that the landlord should be compelled to accept the grant or, if he refuses, at any rate that he should be treated as if he had accepted the grant so far as an increase in rent to the tenant is concerned. The simple object of this Amendment is merely to say that if a landlord becomes entitled to a grant, but refuses to accept it and chooses to carry out the work himself (which he is quite entitled to do), he will not thereby be entitled to increase the rent to the tenant beyond what he could have done if he had accepted the grant; in other words, the tenant is not to suffer by way of an increase in rent simply because the landlord refused to accept the grant to which he was entitled under this Bill or under an earlier Act. I hope that this will commend itself to the Government, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 34, to insert the said new clause.—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD HASTINGS: I know that this was discussed in another place and, so far as I remember, decontrolled dwellings were included at that time. The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, refers only to controlled dwellings. We have thought this over carefully, and of course it is extremely unlikely that any landlord would behave in this way—it does not really make sense that he should not take a grant but should spend twice as much as he needs to. It is only a very remote possibility, but, as the noble Lord says, there is just a remote possibility that he might insist on paying the full cost and refuse grant merely in order to victimise, as it were, the tenant, knowing that the tenant would not be able to afford the extra rent, and thus forcing him out. As it is a possibility, the Government propose to accept this Amendment in principle.
As the noble Lord will realise, there is some difficulty in accepting the Amendment in the form in which it is set down. The new clause is defective in one or two particulars, first of all because there are no sanctions. The Amendment says that the landlord should apply for grant. Unless he applies for grant the local authority will not be in a position to offer him or refuse him, as the case may be. One cannot force the man to apply for grant if he says that he is not going to do so.
436
The second point is that one could run into the most interminable difficulties about agreeing the acceptable cost of these improvements which were being carried out entirely at the landlord's expense. This could lead to a great many arguments.
We believe that there might be a better way of bringing out what the noble Lords opposite are aiming at. We could, for example, extend the right of appeal given to the tenants of controlled dwellings by Section 5(3) of the Rent Act, 1957. Under this subsection a tenant may appeal to the county court for an order cancelling an increase of rent on account of improvements carried out to the dwelling, on the ground that the improvement was unnecessary or that a greater amount was spent on it than was reasonable. We think that it may be possible to extend this right of appeal to cases where the rent increase, on account of improvements carried out following an improvement notice, is based on the total expenditure on those improvements and where the increase would have been less if the landlord had sought and obtained a standard grant.
I think that achieves what the noble Lords opposite would like. I believe that it could be done better by extending this right of appeal under the Rent Act than by putting it in the words suggested by noble Lords opposite. If they will withdraw their Amendment, I will study this further. It is not altogether easy to frame such a provision as I have outlined, but I think that it can be done. The Government will undertake to produce an Amendment on Report stage as near as possible to fulfil this purpose.
LORD TAYLOR: I am glad to hear what the noble Lord has said, but part of our concern was not with vindictive landlords, but simply that it would be profitable for landlords who had a number of properties. They could get a small extra profit on each one by not taking improvement grant, for the reason that they could borrow the money in toto from the local authority to do the job, and then, as a result of not taking the improvement grant, their permitted increase in rent would be slightly greater than it otherwise would have been. This would represent a profit per house of a few pounds, and therefore if they had a

437
large number of houses it would pay them to do this. We were not thinking purely of vindictiveness.
LORD HASTINGS: It is rather an abstruse point, and I should like to study it more carefully. I am not sure that the economics works out exactly as the noble Lord says. I will have to take his word for it at the moment. I do not know whether we would go so far as to draw a new Amendment particularly in order to prevent what the noble Lord suggests, but we would wish to prevent any sort of victimisation or hardship, and that is what we propose to do. If noble Lords have other ideas as to how this can be done, I should be glad to hear of them.
LORD SILKIN: If we are agreed in principle, then it only becomes a question of the method by which this is to be carried out. On the face of it, it looks as if the suggestion of the noble Lord is a quite reasonable one. I should like to see it on paper, and if the noble Lord will put it down we will give it sympathetic consideration. In the meantime, I am very glad indeed that the Government have seen fit to accept the principle. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 35 and 36 agreed to.
Clause 37:
Exclusion of dwellings controlled by Crown or a public authority
37.—
(2) No preliminary notice or improvement notice shall be served in respect of any premises if the person having control of the premises is—
(c) a housing association satisfying one of the conditions set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 33(2) of the Housing Repairs and Rents Act 1954 (exclusion of certain lettings from Rent Acts) or, in Scotland, a housing association satisfying one of the conditions set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 25(2) of the Scottish Act of 1954 (exclusion of certain lettings from Rent Acts),
4.47 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (2), to leave out paragraph (c). The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to delete paragraph (c), under
438
which housing associations are to be exempt from the provisions of the Act: they are put in the same position as the Crown or a public authority. I agree that, in general, housing associations are set up without any desire to make profits, and that the individuals who form such associations derive no benefit from them. Therefore, on the face of it a housing association is the same quasi-charitable organisation as a housing trust and bodies of that kind. But if the noble Lord will consider how a housing association can be formed, he will see that there exists the possibility of an abuse of the whole conception of housing associations.
The Industrial and Provident Societies Act, under which they are formed, requires that there must be seven people to form a housing association. These seven people may themselves be owners of land, the housing association having been set up to sell the land to the association at an inflated price. There is nothing to prevent them from doing that, so far as I know. Having done that, they lend the purchase price to the housing association at a rate of interest—5½ per cent., I think, is the maximum. They are thereby getting a rate of interest of 5½ per cent. on a highly inflated selling price. That suits them very well. This is not working without profit, it is not a charity—it is a commercial transaction. Since it is possible for housing associations (though I certainly do not suggest that this applies to a large number of them) to be formed in this way and with this motive, it seems undesirable that they should be exempt from the ordinary provisions of this Act. I would therefore suggest that it is right that paragraph (c) should be deleted and that housing associations should be subject to the ordinary law.
In any event, why should they be exempt, even those which have not been formed in this manner and are merely carrying on in the ordinary legitimate way? Why should they not be subject to the ordinary law which requires them to carry out work that is urgently needed? I can see the ground for exempting a local authority, but I cannot see the ground for exempting a housing association in any case. I therefore beg to move this Amendment with the object of deleting them from the numbers of exempted organisations.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 7, leave out paragraph (c).—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has really put his argument for leaving out housing associations on the basis that they might originally have been formed by certain people who had made a rather good profit out of them. He was tying up his argument with the possibilities under Part I of the Bill. In point of fact, of course, we are dealing with Part II and the serving of improvement notices, which is a different matter. But, to answer the noble Lord's first argument, under Clause 2, the Housing Corporation makes loans to the housing associations, and these loans have to be approved by the Treasury and my right honourable friend, so that housing associations are not likely to be allowed to purchase land at unrealistic prices.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Lord has not quite understood my case. These people do not get a loan from any public body at all; they themselves lend the money to the housing associations. Let me give a concrete case. Suppose that they own 50 houses, and that they sell these to the housing association at an inflated price. They lend the purchase money to the housing association, and the housing association pays them interest. This interest may be more than the normal rate, and they are then entitled to charge a high rent. That is the case I am making. I agree that if they are borrowing money from the Exchequer, or from a local authority, the district valuer comes in and values the land, and it cannot be purchased at an inflated price. But where they are not borrowing money from any public source, they can fix any price they like, and the tenants suffer. I would say that in such a case there is a possibility that it is not a bona fide housing association. But I did not base my argument entirely on that kind of case: I said, "generally". I cannot see why housing associations should be exempt from the provisions of Parts II and III of this Bill.
LORD HASTINGS: I am sorry that I did not appreciate fully the distinction which the noble Lord is drawing, as regards the housing associations formed without the help of the Housing Cor-
440
poration. I will look into that particular point and see whether there is any case for separating the two sorts. But as regards the housing associations which we have in mind, which will be formed as a result of this Bill and operated under the terms of this Bill, we feel there is no case for excluding them from the same privileges as are given to local authorities, New Town Development Corporations and so on, because in fact they are not building houses to make a profit, and they can be trusted to act as responsible landlords and to improve their dwellings wherever possible. There will be few instances, I think, where it will be necessary to improve their dwellings, as we shall mostly be dealing with new houses. But, of course, they are empowered to buy and manage existing dwellings and, presumably, they would do so only if they were going to improve them.
But these associations will be made up of responsible people, not in the business for profit; and I do not think we should get so far with encouraging the development of these housing associations if they were to be treated in a way that suggested they could not be relied on to manage their own affairs responsibly and fairly, and to do the job properly. I do not think we could allow a Sword of Damocles to hang over their heads and allow them to be interfered with in this way. We do not believe that it would be a good thing, and we do not believe that it would be at all necessary. The noble Lord referred to the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, under which these housing associations must be registered, and I should imagine that even the sort of people he was referring to would find it difficult to get away with doing the sort of deal which he suggested. However, I will look into that particular point to see whether there is any form of distinction that can be made. So far as the housing associations to be formed through the Housing Corporation are concerned, we feel most strongly that they must be allowed to take their place in this other list of exemptions from outside interference.
LORD TAYLOR: I still think we have not quite got over to the noble Lord the point we are trying to emphasise

441
here. As I understand it, this clause exempts these bodies from the compulsory improvement provisions of Part II of the Bill. A good housing association will not mind not being exempted, because a good housing association will want to keep itself up to standard. It will not in the slightest mind being improved, as it were. What we are concerned with is not a fraudulent housing association, but a housing association formed for the specific purpose of dodging the compulsory provisions of this Bill; a body which is not, in ethics, a bona fide housing association but is in law a bona fide housing association, Indeed, a perfectly simple way of dodging the duty to be compulsorily improved seems to be simply to form oneself into a housing association and then to go through the manœuvres which my noble friend Lord Silkin has described, thereby getting the same rent, or even more, while not being subject to the compulsory improvement powers. That is the point we are concerned with.
LORD HASTINGS: I think the noble Lord was really talking about a possible gap in the housing association law in general, and I have said I will look into that and see if there is anything in it. But that does not directly concern the question of compulsory improvements, and we feel that the question of compulsory improvements hardly arises with the housing associations to be formed under Part I of the Bill. Therefore, we do not want them to have compulsory notices served on them: first, because I think it would be completely unnecessary; and, secondly, because I think it would discourage public-spirited people from trying to form these associations and running them on the proper lines. As regards the point of this possible gap in housing association law—where other housing associations might as a result of this particular clause escape compulsory improvement notices—I will look into that question again and report to the noble Lords opposite what I find in that respect.
LORD SILKIN: Half a loaf is better that none. On the noble Lord's assurance I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved in subsection (5)(a), after "includes" to insert "(i)". The noble Lord said: There is a question of definition here. We thought the Bill was wide enough to cover all the police authorities, but it appears that it will not catch watch committees; nor will it catch police committees as provided for in the Police Bill at present before Parliament. It was accepted in principle in another place that dwellings held by police authorities of all kinds should be exempt from the provisions of Part II of the Bill, and this Amendment, together with the next one, Amendment No. 33, which is consequential, completes that coverage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 33, after ("includes") insert ("(i)").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 35, after ("aforesaid") insert ("and (ii) any police authority").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 38 and 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Interpretation and construction of Part II]:
5.2 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 go together, and No. 36 is drafting, consequential upon them. This first Amendment is to the definition of the person having control, and is needed mainly to deal with dwellings which are part of agricultural holdings. It is a continuation of the previous discussion I was having with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and concerns the point about which he was asking me. This Amendment ensures that the request of both the National Farmers' Union and the National Union of Agricultural Workers is carried out—namely, that the farmer, in the case of the farm cottage, and the landlord of the holding, in the case of the farmhouse, are respectively the persons having control for the purposes of this Part of the Bill. This is what Amendment No. 34 is about and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 40, leave out ("the rack-rent") and insert ("any rent including a rack-rent) payable by the tenant (as defined in this section)").—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD TAYLOR: I am very pleased to hear what the noble Lord has said. He mentioned the National Farmers' Union and the National Union of Agricultural Workers. He might also have mentioned Her Majesty's Opposition in another place, who also asked for this same Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 43, leave out ("it") and insert ("the rent").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 43, leave out ("house") and insert ("premises").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved in subsection (1) to leave out the definition of "tenant". The noble Lord said: This Amendment is a paving Amendment for the main one, No. 38, and I will deal with them together, for the convenience of the Committee. This refers, again, to the definitions, and particularly to those concerning agricultural holdings, The Committee will note that Amendment No. 38 very largely repeats lines 4 to 19 on page 46 which are deleted by Amendment No. 37; but, in addition, by paragraph (b) in Amendment No. 38, there is included in the definition of "tenant",
"a person employed in agriculture … who occupies or resides in the dwelling as part of the terms of his employment"—
in other words, a service occupier.
By this means the Government are giving effect to their pledge, given in another place, to extend the provisions of Part II of the Bill to farm cottages occupied by service occupiers. In fact, the Amendment goes rather wider than the Opposition asked for, because it applies not only the compulsory improvement powers under Clause 19 relating to dwellings outside improvement areas but also the improvement area powers dealt with in Clauses 13 to
444
18: so compulsory improvement can be forced upon the owners of these cottages both inside and outside improvement areas. In fact, they come generally under the Bill as a whole. I think—I hope, certainly—that this will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, when it comes to his Amendment to insert a new clause after Clause 97, because I think this is doing what that clause is intending, to do—in fact, it goes rather beyond it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, leave out lines 4 to 19.—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD TAYLOR: I must confess that this is a very difficult matter to understand. When drafting the new clause after Clause 97, I found it very difficult to know what I was really doing, because I had to refer to other Acts in order to get what I required. If the noble Lord assures us that this Amendment is doing what we want to be done, and is doing it even more effectively, I am delighted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: This is merely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 20, leave out from ("which") to end of line 24, and insert ("as constructed contained, and which contains, two or more flats;").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: I beg formally to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 27, at end insert—
(" (2) In this Part of this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, "tenant"—

(a) includes a sub-tenant and a tenant (as defined in section 12(1)(g) of the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1920) who retains possession by virtue of the Rent Acts and not as being entitled to a tenancy, but does not include—

(i) in relation to England and Wales, a tenant holding under a lease granted for a term certain of more than twenty-one years at a rent of less than two-thirds of the full net annual value of the demised premises, or a mortgagee in possession,

(ii) in relation to Scotland, a tenant holding under a lease granted for a period of more than twenty-one years at a rent of less than two-thirds of the net annual value for rating purposes of the leased premises, or a heritable creditor in possession, and

445

(b) includes, in relation to a dwelling, a person employed in agriculture (as defined in section 17(1) of the Agricultural Wages Act 1948, or in relation to Scotland, section 17 of the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949) who occupies or resides in the dwelling as part of the terms of his employment,

and "tenancy" shall be construed accordingly.
References in this Part of this Act to a tenant occupying a dwelling include, in the case of a tenant within paragraph (b) of this definition, a tenant residing in the dwelling and "occupation" and "occupied" and related expressions shall be construed accordingly; and in relation to a dwelling occupied by such a tenant "the person having control" of the dwelling means, in this Part of this Act, the employer or other person by whose authority the tenant occupies the dwelling.")—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Amount of standard grant]:
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in column 2 of the Table in subsection (3), to leave out "the local authority are satisfied" and insert:
"before the time when the local authority approve the application they have been".
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 39 to 54 inclusive can be dealt with as a whole, but they are split into three groups and one subsequent Amendment. Amendments Nos. 39 to 43 are one group; Amendments Nos. 44 to 48 are the second group; Amendments Nos. 49 to 52 form the third group—and we can take them together, because they all do exactly the same things; Amendment No. 53 is a condition attached to all three groups; and Amendment No. 54 is consequential. This is merely to improve the position, and to make sure that the intentions of the Government in respect of standard grants are carried out. With the introduction in this clause of a special upper limit applicable to certain cases of standard grant—that is to say, where a septic tank is put in, where an additional building at the back is put up, where an out-building is converted to take a bathroom or where a cold water supply is being piped for the first time—then in such cases an extra amount will be allowed upon the standard grant. But, of course, an applicant will need to know whether or not he is going to qualify for that extra, and, if so, by how much.
For this reason, local authorities will have to determine what the upper limit will be and when it is going to apply. They will have to study the application, consider the reasonable cost and then—and this is one of the things the Amendment does—having ascertained that reasonable cost, they will be obliged to pay half of it. As drafted at the moment the clause merely says "not more than half". Of course, the intention is that once there is going to be extra cost, half should be paid in the same way as the statutory obligation to pay half of the normal standard grant. Therefore, I think it would help if I were to read out in respect of the first group of Amendments what the full wording will be, so that the Committee may appreciate the sense of it.
The second column will read in this way:
"£25, or, if the bathroom is being provided by the building of a new structure or the conversion of outbuildings attached to the dwelling (or to the building of which the dwelling forms part)"—
and this is the first piece of the Amendment:
"and before the time when the local authority approve the application they have been satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to provide the bathroom in any other way, such higher amount"—
and this is the second piece of the Amendment:
"as the local authority shall fix at that time as being in their opinion one half of the part of the cost to be reasonably incurred in executing the works being the part of the cost attributable to the provision of the fixed bath or shower."
That ensures that everything is carried out in the order in which it should be carried out: prior consideration is given and then the local authority are bound to pay half. And by Amendment No. 53, when they approve the application they then must inform the applicant of the decision taken by them and of the amount he is going to receive. By this procedure we shall avoid any misunderstandings and difficulties, everybody will know where he is and the intentions of the provision will be carried out properly, without any argument and without the possibility that people may go ahead with work before they get approval, thinking they are going to get half the extra cost and then finding it is not going to be

447
allowed. It is really a clarification and ties both sides in this bargain down to a clear procedure. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 22, column 2, leave out from ("and") to ("satisfied") in line 23 and insert ("before the time when the local authority approve the application they have been").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: If the Committee agrees, I think I could put a single Question as to the remainder of the Amendments in this group.
Amendments moved—
Page 48, line 26, column 2, leave out ("not being more than") and insert ("as the local authority shall fix at that time as being in their opinion").
Page 48, line 27, column 2, leave out second ("of") and insert ("to be reasonably incurred in").
Page 48, line 28, column 2, leave out ("which is") and insert ("being the part of the cost").
Page 48, line 29, column 2, leave out from ("shower") to end of line 30.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Again, with the Committee's leave, I will put Amendments Nos. 44 to 48 inclusive.
Amendments moved—
Page 48, line 41, column 2, leave out from ("and") to ("satisfied") in line 42 and insert ("before the time when the local authority approve the application they have been").
Page 48, line 45, column 2, leave out ("not being more than") and insert ("as the local authority shall fix at that time as being in their opinion").
Page 48, line 46, column 2, leave out third ("of") and insert ("to be reasonably incurred in").
Page 48, line 47, column 2, leave out ("which is") and insert ("being the part of the cost").
Page 48, line 48, column 2, leave out from ("closet") to end of line 49.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OP COMMITTEES: Now, I will take the group of Amendments Nos. 49 to 54.
Amendments moved—
Page 49, line 3, column 2, leave out from ("amount") to end of line and insert ("as the
448
local authority shall fix at the time when they approve the application as being in their opinion").
Page 49, line 4, column 2, leave out third ("of") and insert ("to be reasonably incurred in").
Page 49, line 5, column 2, leave out ("which is") and insert ("being the part of the cost").
Page 49, line 7, column 2, leave out from ("dwelling") to end of line 8.
Page 49, line 10, at end insert—
(" (3A) The local authority shall, when they approve the application, inform the applicant of any decision taken by them under the Table fixing a higher amount in respect of the cost attributable to the provision of a fixed bath or shower, or of a water closet, or fixing any amount in respect of the cost of bringing a piped supply of cold water into the dwelling.").
Page 49, line 26, after ("(3)")insert ("(3A)").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44:
Standard grants excluded for certain houses and other buildings in multiple occupation
44.—(1) Section 4 of the Act of 1959 shall apply to an application made after the coming into force of this section in respect of a dwelling which is or forms part of a house or building in respect of which the local authority are satisfied that they have power to serve a notice under section 15 of the Act of 1961 (which, as extended by section 21 of that Act, relates to the execution of works in houses and buildings in a state not suitable for multiple occupation).
5.15 p.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that this subsection shall not apply in relation to a dwelling as respects which the local authority are so satisfied if the person having control of the dwelling undertakes in writing to carry out therein within a time to be agreed between him and the local authority such works as may be required to provide, for the exclusive use of its occupants. the standard amenities referred to in subsection (1) of section 4 of the Act of 1959."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment concerns a somewhat complicated matter, even for this Bill. I understand that the subject matter of the Amendment has been under discussion, and, indeed, under correspondence, between the London County Council and the Ministry. It is designed to avoid placing certain properties at a disadvantage, as will happen as the Bill is at present drawn. As we

449
know, there are in the London area at the present time many thousands of Victorian properties, consisting of two floors, originally constructed for occupation by one family but since adapted as two dwellings. It would seem that under the terms of the Bill the landlord, and also the tenant, will be at some disadvantage. The landlord will not be entitled to any financial aid, and will therefore be in a position to pass on to the tenant, by way of increased rent, the cost of the improvements.
It is felt that cases could well arise, as has been indicated, where the landlord, faced with the knowledge of the local authority's powers under Section 15 of the 1961 Act, would prefer, where the premises are defective with respect to the amenities referred to in Section 4 of the Act of 1959, to accept a standard grant and provide these full amenities, thus making each of the premises virtually self-contained. The operation of Clause 44 of the Bill, by excluding payment of standard grant, will deny most landlords in these circumstances this opportunity, as it will the tenant. If the local authority has to rely solely on the service of a notice under Section 15 of the 1961 Act both the landlord and the tenant will be denied the opportunity of obtaining the exclusive use of the amenities. The point, it is submitted, would be met by excluding from the provisions of the clause a dwelling in respect of which a landlord agrees to provide for the exclusive use of its occupants the five standard amenities; and that is the object of the proposed Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 35, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Latham.)
LORD HASTINGS: As the noble Lord said, this is a rather complicated matter. Clause 41 and Clause 44 (the one that we are dealing with here) are complementary to each other. Clause 41 makes it possible to accept for grant a standard lower than the full five amenities. That is why the tenements, the multi-occupied houses, are excluded under Clause 44: because the intention of creating the lower standard was that it should be applicable only in complete dwelling houses which were otherwise too small to have the full five amenities put into
450
them. It had not occurred to Her Majesty's Government that there would be tenements where it would be possible to put in less than the five standard amenities. Because if we began allowing in all tenements the three amenities for the lower standard it would mean that in a house which perhaps originally had been one house, but had been broken up into multi-occupied dwellings, there would be a number of lower standard improvements which would also qualify for grant from the Exchequer. Obviously, that is not the intention of the Bill.
At the same time, because we realise that there may be some borderline cases in these multi-occupied houses or tenement blocks where it will be possible and desirable to provide all the five standard amenities in parts, we accept this Amendment in principle. There are, however, some difficulties about the drafting. For example, there is the point, which may only be a technical one, that approval to a standard grant must be given on an application made before the work commences, and once an approval is given the local authority would be bound to pay the grant, regardless of the length of time which may elapse before the work is carried out. The noble Lord's Amendment puts in a time factor. There are one or two points like that. I should like to look at this matter again, and I undertake to introduce on Report stage an Amendment in the Government's own words to take care of this point.
LORD LATHAM: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clauses 45 to 48 agreed to.
5.23 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR LORD TAYLOR moved, after Clause 48, to insert the following new clause:
"Partial Grants
.—(1) Where a dwelling would have qualified for a grant if it provided accommodation for fifteen years but in fact provides accommodation for less than fifteen years, the local authority may make a partial grant.
(2) The amount of such partial grant shall be the standard grant less one fifteenth for each year under fifteen in the expected life of the dwelling.
(3) The Minister's contribution shall be proportional with the size of the grant made."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this new clause. Here we come to something which would make a substantial difference to the Bill. It is not concerned with a small detail of working, but with something of great importance to a great number of people. What we are seeking to do here is to make it possible for people to get a grant when the expected life of the finished building is less than fifteen years. We propose that the grant shall be proportionately smaller to the length of the expected life of the building. We have drafted this in a much simpler way than a similar Amendment which was discussed in another place. We have tried to put simply what is proposed, so that its purpose can be seen exactly.
We feel that there has been a move forward in this Bill, in that it is not absolutely necessary all the time to have everything provided in terms of facilities. Equally, why should it be necessary all the time to have an absolute standard in time? There may be many cases where a dwelling will have to be lived in for 14, 13, 12 or 11 years, perhaps for what may be the whole of the tenant's life, and yet, because it cannot be improved and expected to last for fifteen years, he will not be able to have it improved.
The argument the other way is that we should not dissipate our scarce resources. I think that the local authorities are themselves probably the best judges of the available resources in their area and are unlikely to dissipate these building resources unduly. I have here a report of a debate in the Blackburn Town Council when both Conservative and Labour Councillors argued that this fifteen-years rule is too long. For example, the leader of the Conservatives said:
"If a house is going to be up for twelve or thirteen years, it is ridiculous that people cannot enjoy a bath in their own homes".
I also think that that sort of thing is ridiculous.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, quoted the experience of Leeds, because Leeds has done a great deal in this respect, as a model to be followed, when dealing with an earlier clause in the
452
Bill. The Chairman of Leeds Housing Committee says that eight years is a reasonable time. I think that eight years may be a perfectly reasonable time, but why not leave it flexible?—because if we draw a hard and fast line there are bound to be hard cases just below the line.
The situation in this respect is probably much worse in the North of England than in the South. The city planning officer of Newcastle-on-Tyne has pointed out the difficult situation there. It was found that of 87,000 houses, 29,000 were without baths, inside lavatories or hot water systems, and that, of these, 11,000 should be dealt with by what is called long-term revitalisation and the balance should be dealt with either by demolition or by short-term revitalisation. This is what we want to make possible—short-term revitalisation.
The planning officer of Newcastle-on-Tyne has said that there is a need for some way of dealing with a dwelling which is still sound but which is not going to have the expected life of fifteen years. He suggested that we should try to find improvement units—for example, standard bathroom, kitchen and toilet units—that were either so cheap that they could be thrown away, or so durable and so good that they could be re-used when the house was rebuilt. These seem to me to be two reasonable and sensible suggestions. I hope that the Minister will look at this Amendment in the kindly way he has looked at so many Amendments this afternoon and will be able to give us some encouragement. We do not say that our approach, particularly our drafting approach, is correct, but we hope that he will feel that here more discretion ought to be given to local authorities to do the best they can for people who would otherwise be in great hardship, often for the rest of their lives.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 48, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Taylor.)
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: It is to be hoped that Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to accept, or at least seriously to consider, the principle of this Amendment, even if they cannot accept it in its present form, which I agree they cannot do. In the past, I have

453
known of several instances where local authorities have refused grants on the ground that the time of the future life of the house would not be sufficient to justify one. One particular case I remember was where it was proposed to put a by-pass round a town somewhere between ten to fifteen years ahead. The result was that a man of limited means who owned a couple of cottages, which were situated where it meant that they would eventually be removed when the by-pass was built, felt himself unable to face the expense of modernising them, because he was told that he would get no grant from the local authority.
As the noble Lord opposite has said, there is a period of anything from ten to fifteen years during which houses cannot be put in such a condition that they can be occupied by a tenant with reasonable comfort, just because there is a fixed term which is to be regarded as the laws of the Medes and the Persians. The Amendment in its present form would not, I submit, be very satisfactory, because it gives no minimum time, and I think if it were accepted it would be necessary to say that the minimum life would have to be perhaps ten, and certainly not less than eight, years from the time of the giving of the grant. However, I feel that the principle is one that is worthy of acceptance.
LORD HASTINGS: I realise that this is a difficult matter, and I shall try to treat it sympathetically. I must say, however, at the outset that we regard this very much as a question of priorities. We know that we have a tremendous housing programme ahead of us to cope with, and that will be the task of either or any political Party which happens to be in power. We have to clear all the slums; we have to keep up with the increase of population; we have to improve all the improvable houses to the highest standard possible, and a few of them to a lower standard. That is going to take up both the physical and financial resources of the nation. We should be very chary of making it possible to get any Government money for repairing or improving houses which should not be repaired or improved.
We know that, apart from the slums, there are what we call "twilight" areas which must be completely redeveloped
454
after the first priorities have been dealt with. It may well be that the sort of houses to which the noble Lord is referring fall within either slum or "twilight" areas. I would remind the noble Lord that there are the patching grants. Local authorities have power to acquire houses which are considered unfit or will shortly become unfit and to patch them up in such a way that they are habitable until such time as they will be demolished. Under a later clause in the miscellaneous section of Part V (Clause 93, I think it is) we are in fact increasing the patching grant from £3 to £8 a house in England and Wales and from £7 10s. to £12 10s. a house in Scotland over the fifteen year period. There is, therefore, that possibility open to local authorities, and we should prefer to recommend that course rather than accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
To turn to a more detailed examination of the Amendment, it seems that it would be difficult to work. In the first place, scaling down the amount of grant in proportion to the reduction in expected life does not alter the actual cost of the improvements, which would be the same as it would be for a house lasting longer. But the consequence would be—and here I am dealing with tenanted dwellings—that the owner would always have to pay more than half the cost when the life of the dwelling was less than fifteen years, and much more if it came down to as low as eight years, as was suggested; and the shorter the life, the higher his share of the cost. It hardly seems likely that an owner would voluntarily seek grant on that basis.
It must be remembered that we are dealing here with Part III (assistance grants) and not with Part II (compulsory improvement areas) and there will be no compulsion to improve these houses. It is simply the possibility of offering grant to those willing to improve their houses. I suggest that landlords could hardly be expected to make an improvement voluntarily on this basis, because, to continue the argument, they will still be limited in the rent that they can charge if they accept a grant. This would be 12½ per cent. of the owner's share of the cost. On a sinking fund basis this would involve the landlord in a loss of 1 per cent. per annum on his expenditure on improvements over a ten-year period,

455
and he would not make ends meet until after twelve years. It does not therefore seem likely that this sort of thing will be done voluntarily. It could affect some owner-occupied houses and people who might wish to improve them to live in them for the rest of their lives, but were not allowed to do so because of an instance such as my noble friend Lord Mansfield mentioned, of some proposed development which was expected to take place in the near future.
There is one final argument, apart from the main one I have used—of, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said, dispersing our resources both physical and financial—and apart from the extreme difficulties of getting any owner-occupier or landlord to agree with the local authority the precise number of years for which his house was going to stand, which could lead to a lot of argument. The clause could—I do not say would—give a chance for any rather reluctant local authorities to drag their feet in respect of assistance grants and evade the full mandatory powers of the standard grants scheme simply by assessing houses at a reduced life. It would be, as I think the noble Lord will see, a temptation in some respects.
So there are quite a number of difficulties. In view of the possibility of patching these houses if the local authorities think it right, and the extra grant to be given them to do so, and in view of the difficulties I have outlined and the Government's strong feeling that we must concentrate on the priorities, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment, because I cannot advise the Committee to accept it.
LORD TAYLOR: I think the noble Lord has made a number of reasonable points and reasonable criticisms about this, but, at the same time, as the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, pointed out, there is real hardship wherever one draws the line. Here I must confess that I am in great difficulty to know how local authorities decide that the precise life of a house may be expected to be exactly fifteen years. I do not see how it can be done. The noble Lord spoke of the local authority varying its estimate of the life in order to dodge the full grant under my Amendment. Well, equally they could vary the estimate of the life
456
by one year, or even one month, at present and dodge the whole of the improvement grant. One has to assume that local authorities are not going to dodge their responsibility, otherwise their assessments in terms of years are meaningless.
I can imagine a situation where the officers of a local authority might be strongly pressed by the members to assess as generously as possible in respect of the expected life in order to achieve what I want to do. I personally should have preferred to see the figure of perhaps ten years or eight years rather than fifteen years. I still think it is a very hard thing that a person who has lived all his life to, say, the age of 58 or so in a home, which is not a bad home, but lacks the standard amenities, cannot get a grant to help him over the last period because the expected life of the house is only twelve years, for the sort of reasons which the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has given. I hope that the Minister will have another look at the difficulty, although I appreciate his difficulties and accept at once that our clause would produce an impossible situation. I wonder whether he would look once again at the margin around which this operates, to see whether there is any further concession that could be made to give greater flexibility to local authorities.
LORD HASTINGS: I am glad the noble Lord is not going to press his Amendment and that he appreciates the difficulties. It is very difficult to be precise. I do not think we can alter the figure of 15 years as a general principle. It is rather easier to be precise about that sort of figure than about a much shorter period, because if a house is going to stand 15 years the odds are that it is good enough to stand a good deal longer, but when one comes to consider a really short time, such as 10 years, one sees that a house must be in a pretty ricketty condition for one to come to that opinion. I would not quibble on that. It is extremely difficult, and I would gladly consider particular cases, such as owner-occupiers and one or two cases suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, to see whether there is anything at all that can be done. But I will not hold out a lot of hope. I will consider it and discuss

457
it again with the Department, and see whether there is anything that can be done in an extremely limited number of cases. It certainly would not take in a great many people. That is all I can say at the moment.
LORD TAYLOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord for being so accommodating, and in view of what he has said I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 49 to 55 agreed to.
Clause 56:
Amount of improvement grant for dwellings provided by conversion of houses of three or more storeys in England and Wales
56.—(1) Section 32(1)(b) of the Act of 1958 (which limits the amount of an improvement grant under Part II of that Act for each dwelling provided by the improvement works to four hundred pounds or such other amount as may be prescribed) shall have effect in relation to a dwelling provided by a conversion of a house which consists of three or more storeys as if for the words "four hundred pounds" there were substituted the words "five hundred pounds".
(2) The reference in the foregoing subsection to the number of storeys shall, if any of the dwellings provided by the improvement works is a dwelling all or part of which is in the basement, include the basement as one of the number of storeys of the house.
(3) The Minister's power under the said section 32(1)(b) to vary the amount specified in that paragraph shall be exercisable separately as respects the amount of four hundred pounds mentioned in that section and as respects the amount of five hundred pounds substituted by this section in the cases specified in this section.
5.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "in relation to a dwelling provided by a conversion of a house which consists of three or more storeys". The noble Viscount said: With your Lordships' permission, I will speak to the three Amendments to this clause which stand in my name, because they all raise the same point. If one wishes to convert an existing building and provide dwellings by that conversion, or to improve a house that one has, there is a provision in the 1958 Act by which one can get a grant from the local authority for this purpose. The grant is half the cost of the works, provided that that half does not exceed £400. The discretion is given to the local
458
authority whether to give the grant at all and, if so, how much, up to the limit of £400.
This clause in this Bill has slightly modified that provision in the 1958 Act by providing for a larger grant of £500 in the case of conversion—not improvement—of houses of three storeys or more in height. The three Amendments which I have put down have the effect of increasing, not that small part of the grant under Section 32 of the 1958 Act, but the whole of the discretionary grant system for improvements and conversions, and by placing a top limit of £600 on the amount that the local authority can contribute.
It is Government policy, and has been for a long time, that old houses if possible should be converted or improved so as to provide proper dwellings. The Minister said in 1954, in one of his circulars, that he was
"convinced that all local authorities will recognise that houses which lack modern services and amenities are well on the way to permanent unfitness The owners have less and less incentive to maintain them properly as they fall steadily behind modern standards. It is a question of time only—not a long time—before they become slums and a statutory responsibility to the local authority."
He goes on:
"If this process can be arrested by timely improvement or conversion at a charge to rates and taxes appreciably less than that imposed by building a new house to replace a slum, it is only elementary prudence to encourage the owners to do the necessary work."
The Government have continued with that policy, and rightly so. I understand that, whereas the number of houses that were improved with grant-aid in 1960 was 135,000, and in 1962 it was only 115,000, the Government have now set a target of between 150,000 and 200,000 houses a year to be improved in this way. So the Government are stepping up the target. The situation now is that the number of houses being improved seems to be falling. I think this will be a particularly bad year because, of course, everybody will have waited for the provisions of this Bill before they put in for a grant at all. So it may be that this year will not be representative.
In addition to avoiding houses being turned into slums by neglect, another

459
great advantage of improving or converting old buildings to provide up-to-date dwellings is that this needs no extra land. I am sure my noble friend Lord Jellicoe will not be slow to see the advantage of that. The 1958 Act provided this figure of £400. It was not new then. It was fixed at that figure in 1954, and it was put up in that year from the £300 limit which had been set, I think, in 1949. I am now suggesting that the top limit should be £600. It is fairly obvious to see why I am suggesting that. I am told that since 1954 the costs of building have gone up by between 40 and 50 per cent., and I have no doubt that they will not go down in the future but will continue to go up. Of course, it is mostly the easier houses, the more obvious ones, that have been converted and improved already, and in many cases it is the difficult ones, or the ones far out in the countryside, far away from the builder and all the services required, which are left. So these will be more expensive, quite apart from the rise in the cost of building.
When this point was raised in another place, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Housing resisted the Amendments on the grounds that the average of both the improvement and the conversion grants had not yet reached the £400 limit. In fact, he said they were nowhere near it. They were higher in the case of conversion than they were in the case of improvement. This seems to me to be a curiously bad piece of logic, because if, quite regardless of what the improvement job costs, you take into account only £400 of it, of course the average will be well below £400. Therefore I hope my noble friend Lord Jellicoe is not going to put that argument forward this afternoon. I have a certain amount of information, although I am afraid it will not be as full as that in the possession of the Ministry, and this information suggests to me that in a very large number of cases in some rural districts (it seems to be about half, over the last year or so) the jobs which come to them for improvement or conversion grant cost over £800 to carry out. That is over the maximum for which one can get half at the moment; and perhaps about one quarter of these cases cost over £1,000.
That is the present situation, or the situation that can be gleaned from the last
460
figures that are available. It is possibly a representative thing to say, as I was told by the clerk of a rural district council in the West Midlands, that even a fairly small job by way of improvement or conversion nowadays will cost about £1,200. That is not altogether surprising, when we look at the standards required by the Minister after a house has been improved or converted in order to warrant the grant at all. It must be in a good state of repair and substantially free from damp—that envisages damp courses, which are very expensive; each room must be properly lighted and ventilated—which sometimes means raising ceilings and increasing the size of windows. It must have an adequate supply of wholesome water laid on inside the dwelling; must be provided with efficient and adequate means of supplying hot water for domestic purposes; must have an internal or otherwise readily accessible water closet. Then it must have a fixed bath, or shower, preferably in a separate room; it must be provided with a sink, or sinks, and with suitable arrangements for the disposal of waste water; it must have a proper drainage system; it must be provided in each room with adequate points for gas or electric lighting (where reasonably available); it must be provided with adequate facilities for heating; it must have satisfactory facilities for storing, preparing and cooking food; and have proper provision for the storage of fuel, where required.
Will all these things be obtained for £800? Not all these things will necessarily be required in each case; but some may be. Is it surprising that on an average the cost of conversion or improvement seems to be in the region of £1,200? I hope, therefore, that my noble friend Lord Jellicoe will be able to see his way to putting up this ceiling of the grant. I feel certain that it will be a false economy if he does not, because the incentive which his own Minister has said in his circular is required to get owners to improve these houses is just not going to be there if the Statute does not provide a proper proportion of the money to come from the local authority, and if the Minister is tied to a sum which is now ten years old.
There are only two other points that I should like to make. In another place the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said

461
that the Act provides for two things. First, it allows a local authority, at its discretion, and with the Minister's consent, to give a higher grant in certain individual cases. I do not think this is of much comfort, because this is obtainable in practice only if the building to be improved or converted is one of, say, historic nature or one where very special treatment has to be given—because perhaps the material of which it is made is very expensive. The other thing the Act of 1958 provides is that the Minister can himself at any time, by regulation, put up the ceiling. I move this Amendment because he has not done so, and therefore I hope that, my noble friend will not say that he has powers and can in the future do so. The reason why I am asking your Lordships to accept this Amendment this afternoon is that I believe it is necessary as there has been no sign whatever from the Ministry that they seem to recognise this situation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 63, line 18, leave out from ("effect") to ("as") in line 19.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: There has been only one thing wrong with the noble Viscount's presentation of his case. He has badly under-stated it; because I know from my own county council experience that not in any single instance in the last few years has a house requiring complete modernisation been able to get it done for £800. In each case the cost has exceeded £1,000, and very often £1,200, or even considerably more. And that has usually been for a one-storey house. Therefore, where a two-storey house, and still more a three-storey house, is concerned, surely it is obvious that the Government's proposals, to put it very mildly, do not err on the side of generosity. I hope very much that at least they will accept my noble friend's Amendments, and that, for the future, they will look once, twice and again at the grants which are being given for modernisation. Unless they are greatly enlarged in the near future, many buildings which could be modernised at a lower cost than that of erecting new houses, will not be modernised, because of the excessive cost. These buildings are often in excellent condition and only
462
require this modernisation to be made habitable for perhaps another fifty years.
LORD SILKIN: I should not like it to be thought from the silence on this side of the House that we are not in complete sympathy with the objects of this Amendment; we are. We do not speak at any length about it, because the case has been so adequately presented by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and we are content to rest our case on what he has said. I hope very much that the Amendment will receive sympathetic consideration.
5.56 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: I think we are all agreed on the need for making progress with improvements, either by way of standard grants or by discretionary grants in the manner which we are now discussing. I should like to express myself at one with noble Lords who have spoken on this Amendment. Not only are we anxious to make progress with improvements, but it is, of course, as 1 sought to explain on Second Reading, a cardinal aspect of our housing policy That is why, in various ways in this Bill, we are embodying measures designed to improve the rate of improvement.
Perhaps I should add, by way of introduction, that I think my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross was a little pessimistic about the way improvement is going at the present time. I think he indicated that it might be dropping off. It is not going nearly as fast as we should like it to go, but in fact there is at present no sign of the rate of improvement dropping off. Indeed, the reverse is the case. For the first quarter of this year the figure of improvements was about 5,000 up on the equivalent for the first quarter of 1963. But I say that merely in passing, and by no means do I wish to put a gloss on what my noble friend has said about the need for an increased rate of improvement.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: May I interrupt my friend at this point? I do not suppose that the building rate in the first quarter of 1963 is the highest in history.
EARL JELLICOE: I think that is a perfectly reasonable point. I doubt

463
whether the figures for the second quarter will show this pessimistic trend which my noble friend was suggesting is to be seen at the present time.
The background, of course, my noble friend has explained. I should like just to make one thing clear. The Government have never taken an inflexible stand on this question of improvement rate. Your Lordships will remember that when the grants scheme was first introduced in 1949 no application could be entertained if the cost of improvement exceeded £600. In 1952, that limit was raised to £800; schemes costing more than that sum of £800 did not rank for grant purposes. But, again, under the Act of 1954, that ceiling of £800 was abolished, and schemes which cost more than £800 are now eligible for grants. In this very clause, as my noble friend explained, we are raising the level for three-storey houses and above. I feel, therefore, that the record suggests that the Government have been willing to make sensible relaxations in the scheme where the case has been made crystal clear. Unlike my noble friend and those noble Lords who supported him, I am not myself convinced that the case has yet been made for a general relaxation, apart from the particular relaxation written into this Bill, such as is suggested by my noble friend. My reasons for this are as follows.
In the first place, I would suggest that £800 still remains a substantial sum to expend on improving old buildings. As my noble friend Lord Hastings was saying, in a slightly different context, I believe, when there is so much to be done we have to be very careful about our priorities. Again, I am doubtful whether expenditure of the order which is envisaged in my noble friend's Amendment, total expenditure of, say, £1,200, would be attractive to tenants, in view of the amount of likely rent increase of 12½ per cent. of the expenditure less grant; that would amount to £75.
I do not wish to dwell on it, as my noble friend has put a shot across my bows in advance, but there are the average figures. I should like to mention what they are at the present time. In 1963, for conversion under discretionary grant the average grants have been run-
464
ping at £291 in urban areas and £338 in rural areas, and for improvement £232 in urban areas and £298 in rural areas. My noble friend said these average figures are of course misleading if a great deal of work is going on above the present limit of £800, and I would agree with him entirely that they are misleading if a great deal of work is going on above that level.
The real point is whether or not this is the case, and here I think the figures and the evidence available to the Government are at present rather incomplete, A good deal of evidence on this point has been submitted recently to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, following discussion of it in another place, and that evidence has been pretty carefully sifted and analysed. In this initial analysis of the figures which have been submitted I think two curious facts tend to emerge at the present time. The first is the enormous disparity in the cost of similar improvements undertaken by different people and apparently in similar conditions; the margin is enormously wide. The second disparity which emerges is the very great difference between the cost of improvement undertaken by people on their own initiative, subject to discretionary grant, and that undertaken by local authorities.
Since my noble friend Lord Mansfield mentioned the experience of his local authority I would just mention the figures which I have been given and which I have got, of course, from the Ministry. There were four cases in Cornwall, for example (these were by the County Council) approved in July, 1963, which involved a very substantial amount of work—the provision of bathrooms, w.c.s, hot water supplies, septic tank, drainage and so on—and the highest total cost figure was £340, which is very low. Very similar work was undertaken in Surrey, Wiltshire and Kent; where work of this kind has been undertaken by county councils the costs in those areas were well below the figure of £800. I do not wish to draw any firm conclusions from the figures I am mentioning at this stage. The only tentative conclusion which one could draw at this stage is that we are without sufficient evidence to suggest that there is a case at this moment for increasing the limit of grant. And the only firm evidence available to the Ministry at

465
present is that the cost of improvements undertaken by local authorities tend to confirm that the existing limit of grant is adequate, even in rural areas.
I have said that that is our present conclusion. I should like to say this to my noble friend my right honourable friend is very willing to look at this evidence again, and I understand that fresh evidence may be submitted to the Ministry. He is very willing to look at any such fresh evidence, and he has by no means closed his mind on what conclusions will then be drawn from that evidence. All I have said is that present evidence and the present facts available to the Ministry produced the tentative conclusions they have formed.
Moreover, having said that, I would remind your Lordships—although I need not remind my noble friend, because he is perfectly well aware of this—of two other things. First, the Minister already has power in certain special and individual cases to permit payment of grant at a higher figure than the present £400. Secondly—and this is perhaps more to the point—he has power to raise the general limit without coming back to Parliament; that is under Section 32 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1953. Thus the position is that, should it appear on further examination of further evidence which may be submitted to him that the general level should be raised and that a real case has been made out for that, then my right honourable friend has power to do that under existing legislation by order. I would therefore suggest that there is no need to write into the Bill the specific figure for which my noble friend is pressing, and indeed, on the present evidence available to the Ministry, it would be undesirable to do so. For these reasons, given the fact that I have sought to demonstrate to your Lordships that my right honourable friend's attitude on this matter is by no means inflexible, I hope my noble friend will not at this stage wish to press this Amendment.
LORD AIREDALE: There is one thing which the Minister said which I found rather difficult to follow. I understood him to say that there was some difficulty in collecting evidence of the number of conversion schemes which cost £800
466
or more. I do not see that there need be any difficulty in collecting that evidence. Surely all you need to do is add up the total of grants of £400 each and that gives the total number of conversion schemes which are costing £800 or more. I did not understand that part of the Minister's speech.
EARL JELLICOE: I think that process of mathematics is far too simple. One thing it would not show is how much more than £800 and how many over £800 are wrapped up within these figures, or what sort of special factors are at play. I think there is a case for looking at the figures and making a detailed investigation of them, and my right honourable friend is ready to do that.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I am sorry if I did not make it clear, when I spoke of figures checked by county councils, that they were not mainly for work by county councils themselves but figures they themselves had to check from private persons whose figures were being submitted to them with the schedules for the carrying out of the work. I can assure my noble friend that what I said is absolutely accurate. Furthermore, I have had painful experience, having modernised many houses myself. These figures are again correct, and they have been mostly, but not all, for houses for which, being agricultural cottages, no rent is payable.
EARL JELLICOE: I misunderstood my noble friend. I thought he was speaking of work undertaken by local authorities. I would remind him that one fact which seems to emerge is that similar work by local authorities is undertaken less expensively than by private individuals. My own experience—this is limited to one particular instance—was not totally dissimilar from his.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Local authorities have lower standards than private owners.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am grateful to my noble friend pr taking so much trouble. May I make two points on the arguments he adduced before he came to the figures? First of all, he said that £800 is a substantial sum to spend on any one house. This may very well be so, but there is no requirement that the local authority

467
should pay half, or even any, of the money that is claimed by the person improving the house. Secondly, I know as a fact that there are certain local authorities who, as a matter of policy, do not pay the full amount in any case. Therefore I do not think this is a very good argument against raising the ceiling, because there is no requirement for them to give grants up to that ceiling, in any case. Secondly, so far as the attractiveness to tenants is concerned, it remains a perfectly clear fact that houses are being improved, and have been improved for some time, to the tune of about £1,000 or £1,200 each, without apparently creating any difficulty; and I do not see that this provides any substantial argument against putting up the ceiling.
Now to turn to these figures. When we are discussing this Bill we have a golden opportunity to deal with this matter, at any rate for the moment, in a concrete way. I do not underestimate my noble friend's promise that his right honourable friend the Minister will consider these figures again. But here we have an opportunity to do something concrete and substantive. If we miss this opportunity there will not be another, and it will not be possible for this House, or any House, so far as I know, to make the Minister raise the ceiling under the powers which admittedly he has in the 1958 Act. So I do not think this opportunity should be lightly missed; and if my noble friend is inviting me to miss it, I would ask him, first of all, what are the figures that the Minister is looking at? Is he making a serious effort to get a wide cross-section of the sums that have been paid, both by the private owner and by local authorities for improvements of this sort? If he has not got enough figures, will he have enough, and will he have studied them, by the Report stage, so that he can come to us with some conclusion about them?
If there is this extraordinary discrepancy between the £300 paid by the local authority, and perhaps double or three times that amount by the private individual, is this not in itself something that my noble friend ought to have looked into? Because it seems to me that it is certainly possible, either that
468
the local authorities are not improving the houses up to the proper standard or that there is something which is militating against the private owner to make him pay more, and therefore of course, claiming more public money, or more ratepayers' money, in the process. It seems to me to be a most serious situation, and I hope that by the Report stage my noble friend will be able to produce some more facts to explain this extraordinary discrepancy. If I withdraw this Amendment to-day, it will be only on the undertaking that something will be said before we leave this Bill altogether.
EARL JELLICOE: On the question of where this information, at which my right honourable friend the Minister will look, has come from, I can tell my noble friend that it was sent in by one of the sponsors of a similar Amendment in another place. I can assure my noble friend straight away that the sort of points which he suggested should be looked into are precisely the sort of points which the Ministry themselves are anxious to look into, and I certainly hope that I may be able to bring more information to bear on this matter at the Report stage.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: In those circumstances, I think I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. But I hope that I may keep in touch with my noble friend in order to see how this is going on.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clauses 57 to 64 agreed to.
6.17 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, after Clause 64 to insert the following new clause:
Request for Action by a Local Authority
".—(1) On the request in writing by any person who is or has been within the last three months a tenant or lodger in a house to which Part II of the Act of 1961 applies, the local authority shall forthwith cause the house to be inspected, and shall take any appropriate action under the Act of 1961 which the condition of the house or the circumstances of its occupation make desirable
(2) The local authority shall within three months inform the person making the request of the action it has taken.
(3) If the person is aggrieved by the decision of the local authority, he may apply to the Minister, who may take any appropriate action he thinks fit, on behalf of the local authority.
(4) Any action taken by the Minister shall be deemed to have been taken by the local authority on the date on which it was taken by the Minister."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. This Bill throughout provides that action is to be taken on the initiative of the local authority. Nowhere does it provide for a tenant, or, as I describe him, a lodger, to take the initiative in requiring action to be taken. I think that there ought to be the opportunity for tenants or lodgers to draw the attention of the local authority to defects in their premises which require attention under this Bill or under the Act of 1961. There ought to be provision for the tenant to be able to carry the matter further, where the local authority does not take action, or does not take action satisfactory to the tenant.
I say at once that the noble Lord may quarrel with the language of this Amendment. It may be that it is too strong. It may be that it is imposing too great a burden to say that the authority must immediately take action. It may even be said that to enable a person aggrieved to apply to the Minister, with the possibility of a public inquiry, is going a little too far. But I feel that there ought to be provision for two things: first, for a tenant or a lodger to take the initiative and ask the local authority to have a look at his premises. He ought to have the right to get the decision of the local authority somehow, and within a reasonable time. Secondly, he ought to have the right to make representations to the Minister if he is not satisfied. If the noble Lord would give me those things, then he can improve this new clause in any way which may be satisfactory to him. I believe that this Amendment was moved in another place. I myself find it a little too strong; but I feel that the particular requirements that I have specified ought to be met in this Bill. So far as I can see, they are nowhere met. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 64 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Lord has rather surmised that the occupier or tenant of the dwelling has no rights in the matter; that he cannot take the
470
initiative. But there is nothing in the Bill to say that. Such a person has the normal right to bring the condition of the house to the knowledge of the local authority. The noble Lord's first subsection refers to a request in writing. But, I should think it quite likely that any aggrieved tenant would write in any case, whether or not we state in the Bill that he can do so. And, of course, local authorities, their housing committees and their health committees and so on know pretty well what is going on in their areas: they keep an eye on these houses, through their welfare officers; and they get to hear of bad conditions. There is nothing in the world to stop any tenant who is not satisfied with the condition of his house from saying so, and making that known to the authorities. I do not think there is any curb on his normal citizen's right in that respect. To that extent he can perfectly well take the initiative; and in many cases I dare say he will do so, if the local authority is slow in getting round to his house. But to take the matter a step beyond that, and as far as the noble Lord does in his Amendment, is, I suggest, a very different thing.
If any member of the public who feels he is not housed as well as he should be is enabled to oblige the local authority to inspect his house and take action within three months, he could throw into disarray the whole of the organisation of the council concerned. After all, the local authority public health and surveyors' departments are going to have extra work to do as the result of Parts II, III and IV of this Bill in regard to compulsory improvement areas, assistance grants and the compulsory orders made to take over houses and manage them for up to a period of five years. There is going to be a great deal of work entailed in these matters. The local authorities are bound to phase their policy and to allocate their limited resources of manpower. To have the whole of this machinery upset at the demand of somebody who might be quite an eccentric person, not to say a frivolous one, or somebody who is never satisfied with his conditions, and to force the local authority to put the whole phasing out of gear to deal with his particular case, is really asking too much. Any genuine case, of

471
course, will be inspected by the local authorities as soon as they can arrange it.
I am sure that, knowing their areas as well as they do, they are not going to be far behind any complaint which they hear about and will make the inspection within a reasonable period; but to give a private citizen the power to force them to do something within a limited period and thereby perhaps to put out a carefully phased programme, would be going too far. After all, the Minister has got default powers which he can exercise in extreme circumstances against a local authority which breaks down completely in performance of a statutory duty. But it is asking too much to allow a citizen not only to put the machine out of gear but to go over the head of the local authority and appeal direct to the Minister and thus put him in a position of constantly breathing down the neck of an authority which is struggling under many difficulties to do its best. I do not think that the noble Lord himself would really wish to put the local authorities in such a position.
Finally, if the Minister were appealed to and should by any circumstance make an order, which could happen in only the most extreme circumstances, then an anomalous position would be created in the court. If that decision were appealed against in court, the local authority would be in a position of having to defend something which both the judge and the appellant knew perfectly well they did not want to do in the first place. With all respect to the noble Lord, I think that he is making a mountain out of a molehill in this matter, that the private citizen will be able to make his complaints known perfectly well and that the local authorities will be only too anxious to inspect the dwellings and to take action under Part IV. Let us remember that they are having some drastic new powers put into their hands. I do not think that we need worry that they will fall down on the job in this respect. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. This is something the Government could not accept, and, in parenthesis, I feel on quite safe ground in saying that the local authorities themselves would not welcome this at all.
LORD AIREDALE: I feel that the Minister is painting rather an unrealistic
472
picture here. He seems to suggest there would not be any difficulty in a tenant's seizing the initiative and taking up the matter with his local authority. I dare say the Minister himself would easily be able to go and have a straight talk with his local authority surveyor, but there must be a great many tenants who could easily be fought off by a busy local authority surveyor saying, "We are very busy, and as soon as we can we will come round and look at your house"—and it may be several years before they have time to do so. When eventually they do look at it, they may well find that it is in a condition which makes them wish that they had known about it earlier and given it greater priority.
As to the eccentric people mentioned by the noble Lord, one might introduce a clause which said that once inspected no further complaint should be entertained from that tenant for two or three years or something of that kind; but this Amendment is only enabling a tenant to require the council to come and have a look. I should have thought that there is a great deal to be said for it, and that the picture painted by the Minister is in some respects not realistic.
LORD HASTINGS: I must say that I feel my picture is more realistic than the noble Lord's, which I should call somewhat impressionistic. His picture is painted in unduly sombre colours. These powers have been given to the local authorities, they want to operate them, and are going to do so. They know their areas and will inspect them as soon as they can. I am sure the procedure will work perfectly well in the way it is laid down in the Bill at the moment. I do not think that we can put any more onerous burdens on the local authorities than we are doing and make them run at the beck and call of everybody. I do not think that we can suggest, as the noble Lord has suggested, that local authorities are not going to inspect a bad house for a matter even of years. I doubt very much if it would amount even to months, and in fact it will probably be only weeks before they get round to look at the case. I do not feel that we can put an absolute statutory obligation on them to do something and then involve the Minister personally if the complainant is not satisfied. This would be

473
adding altogether too many difficulties to the procedure, and in any event it will be quite unnecessary.
LORD AIREDALE: I wish that a clause of this kind were introduced to require the local authority simply to go and inspect when requested. I think then they would get their priorities right; they would deal with the houses in the proper order of priority. There is a danger that without a provision of this kind the local authority will not get its priorities right.
LORD TAYLOR: I would agree with the Minister that we were wrong in this clause to suggest that the tenant should invoke the Minister and also to stress the word "action" so much. The local authority will have to take its action as and when it can, and we would agree about that. I agree also with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that it is rather a different matter for the ordinary citizen in a big borough—for example, in the borough of Islington, where I happen to live, in which there are 300,000 people living and where our relations with the town hall are very distant affairs. I can remember trying to get permission to put up a garage, and this required a number of personal visits before we could get anything to happen. I think it is not unreasonable to specify the tenant's or lodger's right to notify, and the duty then to inspect and report the result of the inspection.
The public health inspectors are inspecting all the time, surely, when a tenant reports a nuisance, that there is a smell coming up from the drains, or whatever it may be. In many cases they will know where houses are grossly defective, but where 60,000 or 70,000 or even more premises are involved, as in Islington, I think they cannot know the details. It is not unreasonable, I think, that we should ask that the ordinary citizen should have the right of inspection and the right to know the result of inspection. If we could get those two points established I would feel that was very reasonable, although I would agree with the Minister that we have asked for too much here.
LORD HASTINGS: I would just say that I am willing to consider subsections (1) and (2) of the Amendment, which cover the points which the noble Lord,
474
Lord Taylor, was raising about inspection and the report of information, but certainly excluding subsections (3) and (4). Whether one can come to any conclusion about that before Report stage, I am not sure. Even if it were acceptable that these subsections should find a place in the Bill, the period of three months might have to be changed and it might become six months. However, I will look into that particular aspect, which of course from my point of view is a much more minor one than the whole Amendment taken together.
LORD SILKIN: I myself did not put the case too strongly. I felt that the language was not such that I could justify on a Division, but I felt that the principle ought to be accepted. I know that anybody can write a letter to the town hall, and that the town hall can file it or lose it and is under no obligation even to reply. My noble friend pointed to Islington, but he did not make the case as strong as he could, because under the London Government Act Islington is being merged with other authorities.
We are now getting colossal housing authorities with populations which might run up to a million in extreme cases. It is quite obvious that they cannot know the condition of all the houses in their area, so we must accept that a person should have written into the Bill the right to ask the local authority to look at his house, and he should be entitled to a reply—we can discuss in what time—and he ought to have some action taken if he is not satisfied. If the noble Lord will really look at that—and I do not even ask him to give any assurances—I am quite willing to withdraw this Amendment.
LORD HASTINGS: I have said that I will look at subsections (1) and (2)
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 65 to 67 agreed to.
Clause 68 [Restriction on recovery of possession after making of compulsory purchase order];
6.34 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: This Amendment concerns the period of time which limits the possibilities of eviction of a tenant by a landlord, if a compulsory purchase

475
order has been made but not confirmed, without applying to the county court. It means that the landlord must apply to the county court. He is barred from using either his right at Common Law to evict by direct action, which might already be an offence if carried out with undue force, or by means of a specially endorsed writ of the High Court. The clause already says that he must apply to the county court, but the period he was given to do that was after nine months. After discussion in another place my right honourable friend undertook to extend that period to twelve months, so as to give more time for the compulsory purchase order to be completed and confirmed and to give more time to the tenant. That has now been done by this Amendment which alters the period from nine to twelve months, as a result of that undertaking given in another place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 32, leave out ("nine") and insert ("twelve").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: I beg to move this Amendment formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 34, leave out ("nine") and insert ("twelve").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 69 [Making of control order]:
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (1)(b) to leave out "those sections". The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 62, 63 and 64 go together. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, is running away, but I want to refer to what he said on Second Reading. On Second Reading I dealt with the question of what is becoming known as Rachmanism; that is, the action of certain unscrupulous landlords in intimidating tenants to such an extent as to force them to give up possession. This would apply to tenants who are subject to rent control, and when they give up possession the premises become decontrolled and the landlord can then charge whatever rents he can obtain.
In the course of discussion on Second Reading the noble Lord sympathised
476
with what I said. I pointed out that this Bill does not deal satisfactorily with this particular question. I was referred then to Clause 69 and was told—this is on record in the debate on the Second Reading—that the meaning of Clause 69 was that the landlord who was proved to have intimidated his tenant would be liable to have a control order made against him, with everything that that involved, and it did involve protecting the tenant against eviction. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, referred to the expression,
"safety, welfare or health of persons living in the house."
He thought that those words meant that, if anyone evicted persons living in the house or threatened their safety, welfare or health by intimidation, then such a case was covered. I then said that I presumed that we were in agreement that such a case ought to be covered under this Bill, and that if the language were not adequate to cover it then the Government would be prepared to look at the language again, and I understood the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, to say that that was the position.
I still do not think that the language in this clause covers the case of intimidation, and, together with my noble friends, I have tried to incorporate in this Amendment words which would cover the case of intimidation. Without my trying to explain the details exactly, I think the noble Lord who is going to deal with the Amendment will see how this clause will look if it is amended. But the purpose of the Amendment is to secure that any threat to the safety, welfare or health of persons living in the house shall be as much the subject of a control order as are the other matters, (a) and (b), mentioned in the clause. It does not involve any great amendment of the clause, and if it is really the Government's intention that a physical threat to the tenant, or intimidation, should be subject to a control order, then I think that this series of Amendments carries out that intention, whereas the words in the clause as it stands do not. I hope that the Government will assure me that it is their intention to cover the case of intimidation, and that since the language of my Amendment covers it they will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 6, after ("sections,") insert ("or").—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD MOLSON: I understood that one of the main purposes of this Bill was to deal with the abuses which had been disclosed in what are normally known as the "Rachman cases" of last year, and I had certainly understood that this control order would be at the service of the local authority if it could be shown that abuses such as are associated with the name "Rachman" were taking place. It appeared on Second Reading that the inclusion of the words "living conditions" might mean that the control could be applied only if the structural condition of the building itself was unsatisfactory, whereas I had certainly understood that the intention of the Bill was to deal with cases where menaces, violence and pressure were brought to bear. I hope that the Government will be willing either to accept this Amendment or to make it plain that the present words are not as limiting as they appear to be. I have very great sympathy with the general line that has been taken by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and I hope that, if it is the case that a control order can be applied only where the structural conditions of the house are unsatisfactory, the Government will be willing to accept this Amendment.
6.43 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: I should like very briefly to remind the Committee of some of the background to this clause. I think that for some time past many of us, both inside and outside this House, and of all shades of Party opinion, have been worried about the squalid conditions, in some of our larger towns and cities, of houses, especially what are called multi-occupation houses, in which a number of families live, sharing certain common facilities. Part II of the Housing Act, 1961, was, of course, designed to help local authorities to strengthen their powers in dealing with these problem houses, and these provisions have, I think, worked and been useful. However, it became clear as a result of the Rachman revelations last year, and as a result of my right honourable friend's consultations with local authorities, that still stronger powers were required. That is why, as I tried to explain on Second Reading, we are taking powers in this Bill to strengthen the existing machinery of Part II of the 1961 Act, and to introduce this new pro-
478
cedure for control orders. In the Bill as it stands at present the local authority must be satisfied of two things: first, that the house is subject to action under Part II of the 1961 Act, or is susceptible to that action; and, secondly (and this is one of the points at which the noble Lord's Amendment drives), that the living conditions in the house are such as to make a control order necessary for the protection of the residents' safety, health or welfare.
As I understand it, the Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has spoken to would have the following effect. The first two of his Amendments would mean that a control order could be made even when a house was not subject to Part II of the 1961 Act, or not liable to be so subject. The third Amendment would remove from the local authority the obligation to base its judgment on the need for a control order on the living conditions which could actually be observed in the house. Taken together, as these Amendments are being taken, they would enable a local authority to make a control order, in the first place, if in any respect, however minor, the house was subject or susceptible to action under Part II of the 1961 Act. A control order could, therefore, at least in theory, be justified by the mere fact of a leaky washbasin, or a chance accumulation of litter, or anything else which could trigger off the management code of the 1961 Act. Alternatively, a control order could be made if it appeared to the authority, for any reason whatsoever, that it was necessary to protect the residents' safety, health or welfare. Thus, an order could be made—I am not saying that it would be so made; but it could be made—on the basis of an unsubstantiated complaint from a tenant or lodger, or simply because the council did not like the "cut of the jib" (if your Lordships will forgive a nautical expression) of a particular landlord.
I am sure that we in this House are all anxious to cut at the root of what is sometimes, I think, loosely termed "Rachmanism". The Government believe that the Part II powers of the 1961 Act, strengthened as they will be by this Bill, and reinforced where necessary by this new control order procedure and by the compulsory purchase

479
order machinery, give local authorities the means to do so. But the Amendment which the noble Lords opposite have tabled goes a good deal further; and, sympathetic though I am to their objectives, I cannot advise your Lordships to accept it. My reasons, which I will seek to explain—I am sorry to be speaking at some little length on this Amendment, but it deals with a very important point—are as follows.
In the first place, if the Amendments were carried a control order could be made, as I have shown, where there was nothing in the situation that in any way endangered the safety, welfare or health of the persons living in the house, but where there had been merely a very minor or technical breakdown, bringing the house, at least in theory, within the ambit of Part II of the 1961 Act.
LORD AIREDALE: May I interrupt the noble Earl a moment? Is it not fair to say that under subsection (4) there is the right of appeal against a control order? Surely, that would act as an insurance against control orders being made for trivial reasons.
EARL JELLICOE: Yes, I think that is so; but it would go into effect straight away. It is, of course, a very severe sanction, and even where there is a right of appeal I think one should be very cautious about making severe sanctions possible in a case where the offence may be very trivial. I cannot believe that this very severe sanction—and this control order is severe—should be available for the sort of minor breakdown which I have described, which could trigger it off, even though there is this right of appeal.
Secondly, a control order could be made even where the living conditions in the house were perfectly good and the house was well managed, and the house was therefore not subject to Part II of the 1961 Housing Act machinery. I myself strongly suspect that where we find Rachmanism—and I think this has probably been the case in London; it certainly gives that impression—we should also find conditions bringing the house within the orbit of Part II of the 1961 Act. I think that is what my noble friend Lord Hastings had in mind
480
in his exchange with the noble Lord at Second Reading.
But, even admitting that the tenants could be intimidated by "Rachmanesque" methods in a house which is well-run, well-maintained and well-managed, then the tenants, if an attempt is being made to evict them either through victimisation or some trick or jiggery-pokery, already have existing remedies. The individual has his legal rights and the local authorities can also go for a compulsory purchase order. I mentioned at Second Reading that my right honourable friend has clearly indicated that he is prepared to endorse a compulsory purchase order where threats of homelessness result from this type of eviction.
LORD MOLSON: May I interrupt the noble Earl? The trouble is that in many cases the tenants are not sufficiently intelligent or educated to know what are their rights at law. That is the great disadvantage in relying exclusively on the courts for enforcing those rights.
EARL JELLICOE: I was saying that the compulsory purchase order operated at the instance of the local authority just as this control order would be operated if applicable. I also mentioned at Second Reading that there was already written into Clause 68 in another place a strengthening of the compulsory purchase order machinery.
I would put two further considerations to the Committee. The first is the need in legislation of this sort to try to establish really objective criteria. That is why, as my noble friend Lord Hastings explained at Second Reading, we think it desirable to attach the control order power firmly to physical and living conditions. Living conditions can go wider than the purely physical. These are the sort of conditions on which local authority officials, by their experience of day-to-day work, are accustomed to pass judgment, Noble Lords opposite, in their Amendments, by whittling away the objective tests to which I have referred, would make it possible for a control order to be made by reference to purely subjective criteria. They would open this possibility. The result would be that local authorities could formally dispossess an owner of any multi-occupied house—I am not saying that they would; but they could legally do so—on the basis of a passing

481
whim or fancy or purely subjective consideration.
In making my second point, I am not in any way suggesting that we do not trust the local authorities to act reasonably. That is not my point at all. All I am saying is that where we have strong powers we need very strong safeguards. I think in this control order we are introducing very strong powers indeed. Because of that, I think it is all the more necessary, when this Bill enables us to vest the powers of dispossession in some 1,500 local authorities whose judgment and discretion are bound to vary in 1,500 different ways, to keep our safeguards strong. I am sure we must try to maintain a balance here.
We all wish to strike at Rachmanism where possible; but at the same time I think we must, wherever possible, safeguard the liberties of the subject. Speaking from memory, I think that The Times said in a leader when this Bill was published that the powers in this part of it were drastic, if not ruthless. Since then these powers have been sharpened in another place, and this control order machinery is a very sharp weapon indeed. I feel, therefore, that we must put it into the hands of the local authorities with all due and adequate safeguards. I believe that these Amendments would unduly diminish the safeguards that are written in the Bill and I hope that noble Lords opposite will not press them.
LORD SILKIN: I should like to continue this discussion because, in my view, although the noble Earl has discussed this subject with his usual ability, he has really concentrated on the language of the Amendment rather than on the content. I still adhere to what I said in moving the Amendment. There was never any difference of opinion between the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and myself on Second Reading as to the intention. The noble Lord actually gave examples of savage dogs being put on to tenants. I gather he wanted to deal with cases of that kind and to enable the control order to be made. Now, as I understand him, the noble Earl is going back on that. Rather cleverly, he is dealing with what is admittedly a
482
defect in my Amendment, as it is equally a defect in the clause itself, because I take it the word "or" ought to be "and" in all cases. Even in the clause itself you can get a control order either on (a) or (b). That is one of the defects to which he drew attention. I say "or on (c)." But if we had the word "and" it would make it clear.
I would suggest that we all think about this matter. We have sat on this Bill now, with the greatest concentration, for a good many hours. I suggest that we defer consideration until Thursday and do not try to dispose of this clause at the moment. That is my suggestion, because I have by no means finished, and some of my friends would like to say something on it. It is probably the most important of the matters that remain to be dealt with, and I would remind the noble Earl that on Third Reading my friends in another place complained that the one matter about which they were dissatisfied was that this Bill failed to deal with Rachmanism. We still think that it fails in that respect. When we talk about Rachmanism, I would define it particularly as the evil of intimidation of tenants by one means or another so as to get them out. I think it is worth a discussion, and I think we could continue this discussion on Thursday. I suggest, therefore, that we might adjourn now and continue this discussion on Thursday. I believe that this is almost the only outstanding important question which remains on the Committee stage.
EARL JELLICOE: I had hoped that we could deal with these particular Amendments this evening; but we have been going for quite a long time and we have made very good progress at this Committee stage of the Bill. I entirely endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said about the importance of these Amendments, and indeed of this clause, and of this Part of the Bill, and of the evils with which it deals. I do not wish in any way to curtail our discussion of these important areas of the Bill although, as I have said, I had hoped that we could get through, and if this is the wish of your Lordships, we shall be willing to fall in with it. In these circumstances, I beg to move that

483
the debate on Amendment No. 62 be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate on Amendment No. 62 be adjourned.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

NATIONAL PROVIDENT INSTITUTION BILL [H.L.]
Committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's Consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
MACDUFF HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

HAVEN MARINE TERMINAL COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: Ordered, That the Bill be not further proceeded with.
House adjourned at one minute past seven o'clock.