Sitting of 28 February 1966

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  VIETNAM

    British Shipping
    Lord Balnielasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has been the outcome of the talks between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government about British ships trading with North Vietnam.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): Talks have been held from time to time between British and United States officials about ships trading with North Vietnam and these have served to ensure that there is no misunderstanding between us about the true nature and volume of this traffic.
    Lord Balniel: Have the Government made it quite clear that these British ships are under foreign charter and that we have no control over their movements, and have the United States Government used their influence to urge the dockers to withdraw their threatened discrimination against British shipping?
    Mr. Stewart: The last part of the noble Lord's question is a little outside my responsibilities. We have made clear the nature of this trade. Naturally we hope, and I think that the United States Government hope as well, that no boycott will be persisted in.
    Mr. Webster: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that the Federal Maritime Commission does not use this as a pretext for seeing documents which should be confidential to British shipping?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir; I will bear that in mind.

    Hanoi (Representations)
    Lord Balnielasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement about the representations which were made by Her Majesty's Government to the North Vietnamese in Hanoi during the time when bombing was suspended by the United States Government.
    Mr. Hefferasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what assurance he gave to the Government of North Vietnam, in the course of the representations made by Her Majesty's Government in Hanoi during the pause in the United States bombing of North Vietnam, as to the basis of the negotiations at the proposed peace conference, and as to the parties to be invited to that conference.
    Mr. M. Stewart: During the recent bombing pause Her Majesty's Consul-General in Hanoi informed the North Vietnamese of my belief that the situation seemed especially favourable for initiating negotiations and offered to transmit any message or proposals. He drew attention to the United States' fourteen points which reaffirm their readiness for unconditional discussions. Neither then nor at any stage were Her Majesty's Government concerned with giving or demanding assurances on specific points from either side but rather with encouraging the promotion of negotiations.
    Lord Balniel: While thanking the Foreign Secretary for that answer, may I ask him to explain the constant references by the Prime Minister to the difficulty of getting a line through to Hanoi, as it appears that our Consul-General in Hanoi, from the recent Government statement, can pass on political communications to the Hanoi Administration? It would also appear that a similar line of communication exists through the Hanoi Chargé d'Affaires in Moscow.
    Mr. Stewart: It is certainly possible to get messages through. I think that what my right hon. Friend had in mind was the difficulty of getting any reply.
    Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend take into consideration the position which has developed in the United States, where, for example, Senator Kennedy and others have clearly indicated that

    871
    their opinion is that the National Liberation Front ought not only to be there—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Heffer—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may have another try, if he wishes.
    Mr. Heffer: It was certainly not wide of my question, if I might say so, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I would ask whether, in view of the position to which I referred, the Foreign Secretary is prepared to support the type of representation and suggestion that is being made.
    Mr. Stewart: I think that the proper thing for us to support is the desirability of getting a conference. We have continually done that, and shall continue to do so.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was right.
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the efforts being made by Her Majesty's Government to secure a solution to the Vietnam problem.
    Mr. Royleasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the Minister of State's discussions with the North Vietnamese representatives in Moscow.
    Mr. M. Stewart: My noble Friend the Minister of State for Disarmament had a four-hour discussion with the North Vietnamese Charge d'Affaires in Moscow on 23rd February. During this he asked on behalf of the Prime Minister for clarification of certain points in President Ho Chi Minh's message of 24th January to Her Majesty The Queen. The object was to establish whether the North Vietnamese Government really wished their position to be interpreted in such a way as to exclude the possibility of reasonable negotiations. My noble Friend made clear the Prime Minister's conviction that negotiations are urgent and essential for peace and asked whether the North Vietnamese Government would wish the Prime Minister to make any communication to the United States on their behalf.
    872
    The North Vietnamese Chargé d'Affaires gave a lengthy and repetitive description of his Government's attitude without revealing any new point, but undertook to transmit the Prime Minister's inquiries to Hanoi.
    Mr. Blaker: If it was possible for Lord Chalfont to have a four-hour discussion with the North Vietnam Chargé d'Affaires in Moscow, is it not a fact that it has always been possible to use that channel? Why, therefore, was not the British Ambassador in Moscow instructed to use it months ago?
    Mr. Stewart: This is only one of many exchanges that we have had by one channel or another with the Government of North Vietnam.
    Mr. Royle: Did Lord Chalfont achieve anything by his meeting in Moscow? Was it not put on purely to provide some sort of propaganda victory for the Prime Minister's visit to Moscow?
    Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that when there was this opportunity we should not have used it, I cannot agree with him.
    Mr. Soames: Surely the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that this is not the point? Will he tell us whether or not progress was made by the Prime Minister either on this or any other outstanding problem as a result of his visit to Moscow? In fact, the answer is "no". Is not this exactly what the right hon. Gentleman expected?
    Mr. Stewart: It is true that we have not yet received the essential answer from Hanoi that is necessary to get negotiations going, although I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's pleasure at that fact. We know from past experience that it is extremely difficult to get the right answer from Hanoi. What I cannot accept is that for that reason it is wrong to try.
    Mr. Mendelson: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there is widespread support in the country for he Prime Minister's efforts in his visit to Moscow to get a better understanding with the Soviet Government on the problems of nuclear proliferation and the other decisive issues facing all European countries, and that every effort, whether it succeeds immediately or not, to achieve

    873
    peace in Vietnam will receive our full support?
    Mr. Stewart: I am sure that that is so and that my hon. Friend's view is widely held. There are a number of matters on which it is difficult for the Soviet Government and ourselves to reach agreement, and because of that reasonably frequent discussions on all matters are useful.

    Peace Settlement (Negotiations)
    Mr. Philip Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what assurances he has received, in his capacity as co-Chairman, from Air Vice-Marshal Ky that the Government of South Vietnam is ready to accept and implement the provisions of the Geneva Agreement of 1954, by which Her Majesty's Government is bound, and which are still proposed as the basis for a peace settlement.
    Mr. Michael Footasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what representations he has made, in pursuance of Her Majesty's Government's policy of seeking a peaceful solution in Vietnam, to the Government of South Vietnam that a settlement should be sought to the Vietnam conflict on the basis of the Geneva Agreements of 1954;
    (2) whether, in pursuance of Her Majesty's Government's policy of seeking a peaceful solution in Vietnam, he will make representations to the Government of South Vietnam urging them to be ready to negotiate with the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the National Liberation Front represents a substantial portion of the people in South Vienam, he will, in pursuance of Her Majesty's Government's policy of seeking a peaceful solution in Vietnam, make representations to the Government of South Vietnam urging them to negotiate with the the National Liberation Front in order to promote a peace settlement.
    Mr. M. Stewart: We are in constant contact with the Government of Vietnam through our Ambassador in Saigon. The Vietnamese Government can be in no doubt about the views of Her Majesty's Government, both on representation at a
    874
    conference and on the basis for a peaceful settlement of the problems in Vietnam. But the first step is still to persuade the North Vietnamese authorities to come to the conference table.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Since Air Vice Marshal Ky is recognised by Her Majesty's Government as the representative of the people of South Vietnam, and since he publicly declares that he will not accept the Geneva Agreements, is that likely to encourage Hanoi to come to a conference?
    Mr. Stewart: I think that it is still open for Hanoi, if they wish, to say that they will come to a conference. Our own views on this matter are well known, and we have left the South Vietnamese Government in no doubt of them.
    Mr. Foot: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he has had the full support of the United States Government in urging on the Government of South Vietnam that they should agree to the Geneva Agreements and that there should be representatives of the National Liberation Front at the conference?
    Mr. Stewart: The attitude of the United States Government on the need for negotiations is, I think, as well known as our own attitude. I believe that my hon. Friend is aware that there are reports that Ambassador Harriman has said that the Americans would negotiate with the Viet Cong as a body having independent status, although not as a Government.
    Mr. Rankin: Is it not the case that the Government of South Vietnam is a dictatorship created and maintained by the United States, and does not my right hon. Friend realise that so long as it exists conversations towards peace will be difficult? Would my right hon. Friend urge the United States to consider seeking to create a more democratic form of Government as a first step to peace in South Vietnam?
    Mr. Stewart: Negotiation will be difficult anyhow. The Government in North Vietnam is also a dictatorship. But we should not allow this to stand in the way of negotiation, which could take place if Hanoi wished.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is it not a fact that the last thing that the United States

    875
    Government want is a dictatorship in South Vietnam? It is not their fault at all.

    Geneva Agreements
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he took before deciding to support the United States offer of unconditional negotiations to end the war in Vietnam, to satisfy himself that the United States administration still regarded itself as bound by its pledge to respect the 1954 Geneva Agreements and was prepared to accept the South Vietnam National Liberation Front as a party to the negotiations.
    Mr. Stewart: We maintain constant contact with the United States Government about Vietnam and are indeed satisfied that the Administration is prepared to negotiate on the basis of the Geneva Agreements.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the United States Government speak of the need for partitioning Vietnam, defending what they call the independence of South Vietnam and crushing the South Vietnamese National Liberation Front? Does he think it reasonable to expect the North Vietnamese Government to enter negotiations on that basis?
    Mr. Stewart: I think that it would be reasonable for the North Vietnamese Government to enter into negotiations on the basis which I have very frequently stated in the House. I believe that that is also the view of the United States Government.

  GENEVA DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE
  Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what new proposals have been put forward by Her Majesty's Government at the current session of the 18-Nation Disarmament Conference in Geneva.
  Mr. M. Stewart: Her Majesty's Government are contributing to the discussions on disarmament as they develop at the 18-Nation Disarmament Committee. In particular, we are determined to do all we can to forward agreement on the question of a non-proliferation treaty to which we attach the highest priority
  876
  and to which the Committee has now turned its attention.
  Mr. Blaker: Is it not a fact that the Government have not put forward a single new proposal in the whole field of disarmament since they assumed office? What has happened to their election promises?
  Mr. Stewart: I think that, with the way the Disarmament Conference is now going at Geneva, it is more sensible and more productive to make an extensive study of existing proposals.

  CHILE AND ARGENTINA (FRONTIER DISPUTE)
  Mr. Francis Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made by the arbitration court set up by the British Government to settle the frontier dispute between Chile and Argentia; and if he will make a statement.
  The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Walter Padley): The Court of Arbitration held preliminary hearings from 29th to 31st December, 1965. Early this year a Field Mission, consisting of two members of the Court, visited the disputed area. Air and land reconnaissances were carried out. In line with their general policy aimed at the settlement of disputes by peaceful means, Her Majesty's Government have welcomed this opportunity to be or service to two countries with which they have the friendliest relations.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Does not my hon. Friend agree that this is an exemplary way of dealing with frontier disputes and that the two Governments concerned, as well as the British Government, are to be congratulated? When does my hon. Friend expect the next stage to be reached in the negotiations?
  Mr. Padley: Since the dispute is sub judice, it would be improper for me to say any more than I have said.

  SPAIN (GIBRALTAR)

    Red Book
    Mr. Palmerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the Spanish Red Book on Gibraltar, now circulating in this country in an

    877
    English translation, contains photographs with captions referring to the British Gibraltar Wall and in the text compares the frontier barrier to the Berlin Wall; and what steps he is taking to counteract this misleading propaganda, in view of its probable distribution in foreign countries.
    Mr. Padley: I am aware of the contents of the Red Book. Our case over Gibraltar has already been fully explained at the United Nations and elsewhere. I do not consider that special steps are necessary to counteract such patently absurd propaganda as the comparison of the frontier fence at Gibraltar to the Berlin Wall.
    Mr. Palmer: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a widespread feeling that because of our diplomatic caution—perhaps "timidity" is the word—in Madrid, the British case on Gibraltar is going largely by default, to the despair of our good democratic friends in Gibraltar itself?
    Mr. Padley: There are other Questions on the Order Paper about our study of the Red Book and the question of talks with Spain. I think that the House would agree that we should await the reply to those questions by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Fisherasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet completed his study of the Spanish Government's Red Book on Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Jacksonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further representations he intends to make to the Spanish Government in connection with their blockade of Gibraltar.
    Mr. Jegerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now make a statement on the proposed talks with Spain about the blockade of Gibraltar.
    Mr. M. Stewart: As I told the House on 31st January, the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs informed Her Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid on 17th January that the Spanish Government were ready to initiate talks about Gibraltar. On my instructions, the Charge d'Affaires at Madrid subsequently
    878
    replied that Her Majesty's Government were ready to initiate talks about Gibraltar in accordance with the United Nations Resolution of 16th December, 1965, and proposed that these should begin in April. The Spanish Government have accepted our proposal.
    I have had copies of the Notes exchanged with Spain placed in the Library.
    Mr. Fisher: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that negotiations with Spain while the present very severe restrictions against Gibraltar are still in operation are bound to cause great anxiety and misgiving in Gibraltar, for which we are responsible? Especially in view of the threats at the end of the Red Book, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is difficult for this country to extend its normal and friendly relations with Spain while this situation, now in existence for more than 16 months, continues to be pursued by Spain?
    Mr. Stewart: I agree that our fellow subjects in Gibraltar are naturally extremely anxious about this matter and throughout the whole handling of the situation we shall have their interests very much in mind. Indeed, the United Nations Resolution refers to a previous U.N. consensus which specifically mentioned the interests of the inhabitants.
    Mr. Jackson: May we have an assurance that when the talks take place their purpose will, in practice and detail, be the removal of the restrictions on the frontier which at present are gravely disturbing the people of Gibraltar.
    Mr. Stewart: That is certainly an objective we shall have in mind, but it would be fully correct to say that the talks are undertaken in the light of the U.N. Resolution.
    Sir P. Agnew: Has the Foreign Secretary read sufficient of the Red Book to agree that, although the Spanish Government are not in breach of the Treaty of Utrecht governing the exercise of British sovereignty over Gilbraltar, they recognise that it is antiquated and needs revision? Are not steps therefore to be welcomed in which the two Governments get together to achieve a new constitutional settlement to the advantage, indeed, of the people of Gibraltar themselves?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We shall have to put our Questions more concisely.
    Mr. Stewart: As I have said, we propose to get the talks going, but the hon. Gentleman does not carry me with him on the rest of his remarks.
    Mr. Jeger: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the Treaty of Utrecht was broken by the Spanish Government by their attempt by military means to recapture Gibraltar? Why has my right hon. Friend gone back on his previous decision that he would not undertake any discussions with the Spanish Government until they had withdrawn the restrictions at present in existence on the frontier?
    Mr. Stewart: It was right for us to take account of the United Nations Resolution and to promote talks in accordance with it.

  RUMANIA (DELEGATION'S VISIT)
  Mr. Jacksonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the visit of the official Rumanian delegation to Great Britain at the beginning of February.
  Mr. James Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the recent visit of the Vice-President of Rumania.
  Mr. Padley: This was an official visit, made at our invitation. Mr. Birlandeanu, First Deputy Prime Minister of Rumania, was accompanied by the Rumanian Minister of Foreign Trade, the First Deputy Foreign Minister and a number of senior advisers. The high level of the delegation shows that the Rumanian Government share our view of the importance of developing Anglo-Rumanian relations, and we were able to have useful discussions on many questions of common interest.
  The delegation expressed a strong interest in developing trade, and were able to meet many representatives of British industry. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was glad to accept an invitation to visit Rumania and will, I hope, be going there in the autumn. Copies of the Communiqué issued at the
  880
  end of the visit have been placed in the Library of the House.
  Mr. Jackson: Can my hon. Friend tell me whether we are making any progress with the consular agreement? Secondly, are we likely to get speedy talks about compensation for the claims of British subjects?
  Mr. Padley: Of course, we would like a consular agreement. The claims arise from bonds, which have been in default since the beginning of the war and which were held by British pre-war investors in the Rumanian oil industry, and other miscellaneous claims. These will be discussed in future.
  Mr. Johnson: If my hon. Friend studies the Stock Exchange quotations, he will find that Rumanian shares have appreciated in value since his official visit. Will he greet this as a happy omen for increased commercial activity, which could do nothing but good to our two nations?
  Mr. Padley: As my hon. Friend knows, it is the Government's policy to expand trade with all countries.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: Will the hon. Gentleman say what specific assurances were given by the Rumanian delegation to rectify the adverse trade balance which this country suffers with Rumania? Secondly, did any discussions take place about the proposal for a nuclear-free zone in Europe, which was a prominent part of the Labour Party's last election manifesto?
  Mr. Padley: As the noble Lady knows, the conversations were confidential, but certainly they ranged over the whole of East-West relations and, of course, dealt with the desirability of expanding trade between Britain and Rumania.

  ANGLO-UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC FINANCIAL AGREEMENT
  Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will take up the United Arab Republic Government's failure to implement the terms of the Anglo-United Arab Republic Financial Agreement of 1959 with the World Bank, in view of their policy that no loans would be granted to countries whose finances were not conducted in

  881
  accordance with generally accepted standards.
  The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): Her Majesty's Government are always prepared to discuss matters of this nature with the Bank's management, but I think our ends will best be served if decisions on whether and when to make representations in specific instances remain confidential.
  Mr. Wall: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the U.A.R. Government are in breach of the agreement by their refusal to allow repatriation of private property? Would he not also agree that Governments which behave like this and which seize property without compensation should not receive international loans to which we contribute?
  Mr. Thomson: The World Bank has made its position on this matter clear, and some 18 months ago Mr. Woods, on behalf of the Bank, cited among others the U.A.R. as a country which at that time the Bank would not consider for loans because of the absence of tangible evidence that it intended to pay reasonable compensation within a reasonable time for national assets nationalised or sequestrated.
  Mr. Soames: This is one of the matters which we understood the hon. Gentleman was to take up on his visit to Cairo fairly recently. Has there been any improvement in the situation since his visit?
  Mr. Thomson: The negotiations are another matter. There has been no substantial progress since my visit.

  ARGENTINE (BRITISH ASSETS)
  Mr. Waltersasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, following his recent visit to a number of South American countries, including the Argentine, what efforts Her Majesty's Government has made to obtain satisfactory compensation for British assets nationalised by successive administrations in that country.
  Sir W. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions he had when in Buenos Aires with
  882
  the Argentine Foreign Secretary on the implementation of the Argentine Supreme Court's decision concerning compensation for the holders of Anglo-Argentine Tramways Debentures; and whether he will make a statement.
  Mr. M. Stewart: I assume that the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) is referring to the claims of British Tramways companies. During my recent visit to Buenos Aires I reaffirmed Her Majesty's Government's interest in a satisfactory settlement of the claim of the Anglo-Argentine Tramways Company. I do not think it would be helpful to make a statement at the present moment.
  Mr. Walters: Would not the Secretary of State agree that this nationalisation of valuable British assets has caused severe hardship to many investors, many of whom with only a small amount of capital have still to see any return on their funds after a great deal of very patient waiting?
  Mr. Stewart: Yes, I would agree with that, but negotiations for a settlement are now proceeding.
  Sir W. Teeling: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has any information from the Argentine about how long these negotiations will take? Secondly, is he aware that over the last 15 to 20 years our Government and the Government of the Argentine have always said that if the Supreme Court gave a judgment one way or the other the two Governments would get cracking to help these wretched people who have been waiting for so long?
  Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. Those points have been made, but as I have said, negotiations are now proceeding and I hope that a settlement will result.

  SPAIN (ARRESTED BRITISH SUBJECTS)
  Mr. Shepherdasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps were taken by Her Majesty's Government following the arrest of Mr. and Mrs. Frank Evans, who are British subjects, by the Spanish police in Barcelona on 4th August, 1965, on false allegations of taking photographs for hostile purposes.
  Mr. Padley: The Consul arranged for the release of Mr. and Mrs. Evans immediately he was informed of their arrest. He accompanied them to the police station next day and the film was returned.
  Mr. Shepherd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply and the consul for his activity. Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this experience was extremely frightening to Mr. and Mrs. Evans and would he not advise those going to Spain for their holidays, if they must, to leave their cameras behind?
  Mr. Padley: Taking into account the hundreds of thousands of British tourists who go to Spain, we should not magnify individual incidents. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary replied quite recently to Questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) on the whole subject of tourists in Spain.

  THE HAGUE CONVENTION (FOREIGN PUBLIC DOCUMENTS)
  Mr. Shepherdasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which countries have yet to ratify The Hague Convention of 1961 abolishing the requirement of legalisation of foreign public documents; and what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in the absence of comprehensive ratification.
  Mr. Padley: Of the fourteen countries which have signed the Convention, Austria, Finland, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Switzerland, Turkey and Liechtenstein have yet to ratify it. The Government would welcome the wider application of the Convention. They recognise, however, that for various reasons some countries may be unwilling to accept its obligations and that others are not able to do so until their internal law or regulations have been amended.

  INDONESIA
  Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent efforts to pro mote understanding with Indonesia.
  Mr. George Thomson: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the
  884
  House on 8th February, we would like to see a steady improvement in relations with Indonesia.
  Mr Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many, commercial and technical personnel are attached to Her Majesty's Embassy in Djakarta.
  Mr. George Thomson: There are at present seven representational officers at Her Majesty's Embassy in Djakarta who between them deal with the main work of the Embassy including the commercial work.
  Mr. Dalyell: Are these sufficient?
  Mr. Thomson: Yes, Sir, they are sufficient. We are considering appointing a full-time commercial secretary as soon as practicable, but it would be premature while the present state of tension and uncertainty persists.
  Mr. Hooson: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the time is ripe for a major diplomatic initiative to improve the relationship between Indonesia and Malaysia? With this in mind, is it not time that our representation in Djakarta was greatly strengthened?
  Mr. Thomson: Our representation in Djakarta is adequate. We are taking every opportunity to assure the Indonesian leaders that to improve relations we are ready to take any steps which are compatible with our obligations to Malaysia and to Singapore. I recently met informally the Indonesia Charge d'Affaires in this country and so informed him.
  Mr. Soames: While fully agreeing that our representation in Djakarta should be sufficient for this purpose, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that the Government in the Defence White Paper have announced that there is not to be a carrier force in the Far East after the mid '70s—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We must keep to Questions on the Order Paper.

  SOUTHERN SUDAN (BRITISH SUBJECTS)
  Mr. Peter Millsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) how many British subjects now remain in Southern Sudan;
  (2) if he is satisfied with the measures taken to safeguard British subjects in Southern Sudan; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. George Thomson: There are at present three citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and an estimated 12 Cypriot families living in the Southern Sudan. The Sudanese Government gave an assurance on 27th August, 1964, that all possible protection would be provided for British subjects and British property in the Southern Sudan. Following the Sudanese Government's action in breaking diplomatic relations with Her Majesty's Government, they have given further assurances that they will take all necessary measures to ensure the safety of British lives and property in the Sudan. Consular relations are being maintained.
  Mr. Mills: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him if it does not show that there is a very small number of British subjects there, in the appalling situation that has developed in Southern Sudan, and would he not make the strongest possible representations to the Sudanese Government and, perhaps, to the United Nations to rectify this state of affairs, bearing in mind our past interest in Sudan?
  Mr. Thomson: That is another question. Her Majesty's Government are responsible for the safety of our citizens. The general situation in Southern Sudan is not our responsibility.
  Lord Balniel: Is the hon. Gentleman able to say whether the R.A.F. mission which has been used, in the past, for supply drops in Southern Sudan has been reviewed since the breaking off of diplomatic relations? Are any steps being taken by the Government to try to restore diplomatic relations with the Sudan?
  Mr. Thomson: The second point is primarily a matter for the Government of the Sudan, who took the initiative in breaking off diplomatic relations with us. The question of military arrangements with the Sudan is under review as a result of that situation.

  LAOS (NORTH VIETNAMESE TROOPS)
  Lady Tweedsmuirasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reports he has received from the International
  886
  Control Commission concerning the invasion of Laos by North Vietnamese regular fighting units; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. M. Stewart: The last report I received from the International Control Commission on the presence of North Vietnamese troops in Laos was Message No. 35 of 16th September, 1965. A copy of this report was placed in the Library of the House of Commons on 16th December.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: Did the Prime Minister make any representations to Mr. Kosygin on his recent visit in his capacity as co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference, and, if so, would the right hon. Gentleman say what effect those representations had?
  Mr. Stewart: As the noble Lady knows, the talks are confidential. The whole matter of the Commission and South-East Asia came into those conversations.
  Mr. Soames: While appreciating the confidential nature of the talks, would the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is satisfied with their outcome?
  Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman must try to understand that this is a continuing process; that it is often wise to continue talks even when one knows that the problem under discussion will take a long time to solve.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether there was any increase or decrease in the number of troops moving up the Ho Chi Minh trail when the bombing was stopped?
  Mr. Stewart: No, Sir.

  NUCLEAR TESTS
  Mr. G. Campbellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to procure a comprehensive testban treaty proscribing underground tests.
  Mr. M. Stewart: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's reply of 15th February, to the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison).
  Mr. Campbell: Since the recent Soviet explosion has emphasised the importance

  887
  of this, why has the Minister for Disarmament been unable to make any progress at all?
  Mr. Stewart: The problem about a test-ban treaty proscribing underground tests is that, unlike other aspects of a test-ban treaty, it is not self-policing. The difficult question of inspection arises, but we are still seeking an agreed way of dealing with the problem.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  Mr. Eldon Griffithsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress he is making in his policy of negotiating British entry to the Common Market as long as British interests are safeguarded.
  Mr. M. Stewart: I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) on 7th February.
  Mr. Griffiths: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that, whenever he or his colleagues come to the Dispatch Box and make encouraging noises about Europe, they are immediately pulled up short by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), and will he say who is making British policy on Europe—the Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party or the Foreign Secretary?
  Mr. Stewart: In previous Parliaments I have heard leading members of the party opposite express views about Europe—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—I am answering—which provoked the most bitter and hostile comments from their colleagues. We all know that this is a question on which there are many differences of view in this country. Those differences of view are not always aligned with ordinary party differences. [Interruption.] I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question as to where the Government stand on this matter.
  Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend really believe that the countries of the Six are concerned about safeguarding British interests? Is not their primary concern to safeguard their own interests? Would my right hon. Friend mind if I ventured to ask him and some of his colleagues to exercise a bit of
  888
  caution in this matter and recall the decision of the Labour Party?
  Hon. Members: Oh.
  Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend will remember that Labour Party policy was not that we should never enter the Common Market but that we should enter it subject to certain conditions. I have had this matter very much in mind, and I know that my right hon. Friend's urging of caution on me is something on this subject which we should all urge on each other.
  Mr. Hooson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this country would be safeguarding her own interests if she entered the Common Market?
  Mr. Stewart: That is exactly the question at issue. It is a question of the conditions. If I may reply to the second part of the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and in reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I believe that a good many people on the other side of the Channel in all nations of the Six believe that their own interests would be served by consideration of the special interests which Britain would have to safeguard if she ever became a member of the Six.
  Mr. Snow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who believe that it is inevitable and essential for economic reasons that we should go into the Common Market one day are greatly alarmed at the reckless and impetuous speeches made by some Conservative speakers, which are highly prejudicial and against British agriculture?
  Mr. Stewart: I entirely agree with that.

  SOUTH-EAST ASIA (SECURITY)
  Mr. Eldon Griffithsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking to form a South-East Asian security system embracing Asian nations between the Gulf of Tonkin and the Indian Ocean and supported by Great Britain, Australia and the United States of America.
  Mr. M. Stewart: As I informed the hon. Gentleman on 7th February, I see

  889
  no need to propose changes at present in the existing arrangements.
  Mr. Griffiths: Since Chinese expansionism constitutes a threat to this whole area, what steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to resuscitate the S.E.A.T.O. Treaty, to align our policies and those of our Asian and American allies in the area, and to persuade the Minister of Defence to provide this country with the means of honouring our commitments in the area?
  Mr. Stewart: The S.E.A.T.O. Conference takes place before very long and all the nations there concerned will have in mind the kind of thing about which the hon. Gentleman is worried.

  BRITISH COUNCIL
  Mr. Sharpiesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement about the future of the British Council.
  Mr. George Thomson: Her Majesty's Government attach great importance to the work of the British Council and will continue to give it their support. As regards the financial arrangements, the hon. Member will have seen the written reply I gave on 7th December, 1965, to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence). The arrangements there described explain the new allocation of financial responsibility for the British Council but do not affect my Department's responsibility for the Council's grant-in-aid.

  VICTIMS OF NAZI PERSECUTION (COMPENSATION)
  Mr. Neaveasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the claims of Group Captain Day, Lieutenant-Colonel John Churchill, Mr. Sydney Dowse and other military personnel for compensation under the Anglo-German Agreement of 1964 as victims of Nazi persecution in Sachsenhausen concentration camp and other camps have been rejected by his Department; and whether he will make a statement.
  Mr. George Thomson: Under the terms of the Anglo-German Agreement the compensation is reserved for those
  890
  who suffered the horrors and degradation of concentration camps.
  These particular claims had to be rejected because they did not fulfil this requirement. The cells in which the men were held, although adjoining the Sachsenhausen Concentration Camp, were quite separate from it and the conditions and treatment in these cases were not comparable with those within the main concentration camp.
  Mr. Neave: Is not that a most pedantic and unreasonable decision? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these men were arrested as enemies of Nazi ideology, were imprisoned and ill-treated as such, and will he therefore refer this matter to the Foreign Compensation Commission so that, in spite of the need for rules of guidance, we may have a decision based on the facts in this case and not on other suggestions which have been made?
  Mr. Thomson: The men whom the hon. Gentleman is representing were, of course, gallant Service men and very audacious escapers during the Second World War. Their place of imprisonment, although in geographical proximity—[Interruption.]—although next to a concentration camp, had no connection with the main compound, and the conditions and treatment experienced were no worse than those experienced in the average prisoner-of-war camp. I am not in a position to meet the requests of the hon. Gentleman under the terms of the Anglo-German Agreement, to which I referred. To answer his second point about the matter being referred to the Foreign Compensation Commission, this has been dealt with administratively with a view to the making of payments to those who are entitled to payments as quickly as possible.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that these persons were inside the main barbed wire perimeter of the concentration camp, that they were in sight of the horrors which were perpetrated in that camp day by day and did not know what fate might befall them? Will not he look at this again? It seems to me to be a case which he should examine again, because there is no doubt that these people were inside the perimeter of a concentration camp.
  Mr. Thomson: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that this matter has been very closely looked at. The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and I have had a number of meetings about it, and he has made, as he was entitled to do, very strong representations about it. The difficulty is that the treatment which these people suffered could not be equated with the concentration camp treatment for which the agreement was designed. I am bound to tell the right hon. Gentleman that I am puzzled that he should take this matter up in the way that he has because what we are trying to do, with great difficulty in connection with a difficult human problem, is to carry out the criteria laid down by Lord Butler when he was Foreign Secretary in July, 1964. I understand that at that time he had private meetings with Conservative bank-bench Members, including the hon. Member for Abingdon, and that no subsequent representations were made about the criteria laid down which we are now trying to administer with the greatest possible humanity.
  Mr. Shinwell: May I ask my hon. Friend to look at this matter again? Should we allow a technical objection to stand in the way of acting with some humanity? Is it wise for him to rely on a decision taken by Lord Butler?
  Mr. Thomson: We are not relying on a technical consideration. We are trying, to the best of our judgment, to exercise this agreement with humanity. There is a sum of £1 million available for the victims of Nazi persecution as I defined it a moment or two ago. We have an obligation to those British citizens who were victims of concentration camp conditions to ensure that their rights under this agreement are protected. If we were to concede the point pressed by the hon. Member for Abingdon and my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), it would simply mean that those who had suffered the concentration camp conditions would enjoy much less than their proper share of the total sum.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: May I ask the hon. Gentleman not to allow himself to be influenced by whether a decision was taken by one Government or another in this matter? Will he look at it afresh? These persons were inside the perimeter
  892
  of a concentration camp and subject to all the nervous tensions to which people were subjected in that situation. I beg the hon. Gentleman—and I believe that the whole House would support me in this—to look at this matter again to see whether he can stretch the rules to include these people.
  Mr. Thomson: I should like to do so if I could because there is obviously strong feeling on both sides of the House. But we are bound to stand by the criteria laid down and under which applications have been made. I am bound to tell the right hon. Gentleman that, although the geographical situation of where these people were imprisoned is not in doubt, equally it is not in doubt that they did not suffer from concentration camp conditions. I have before me a letter from one of the most distinguished of the prisoners there, Captain Peter Churchill, who writes:
  "I entirely endorse the contents of your courteous letter of 9th September".
  Several Hon. Members—
  Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate this matter now.
  Mr. Neave: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

  DOMINICAN REPUBLIC (ELECTIONS)
  Mr. Philip Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reports he has received from Her Majesty's Ambassador to the Dominican Republic concerning the situation there; what action Her Majesty's Government's delegate to the United Nations has taken; and whether he will make a statement.
  Mr. George Thomson: As my right hon. Friend will know, general elections are due to be held in the Dominican Republic on 1st June. The President of the Provisional Government, which Her Majesty's Government have recognised, is faced in the interim period with many difficult problems arising out of the divisions within the country which created last year's crisis. I know that it will be the wish of the House that the elections in the Dominican Republic should take place peacefully as planned.

  893
  The Security Council last met to consider the Dominican situation in July 1965. There has been no occasion for my noble Friend Lord Caradon to take action since then.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Is my hon. Friend aware that the killing has gone on in recent weeks, that the officers of the military junta are flouting the orders of the provisional President which they promised to obey and that, apparently, they are doing so with the support of the C.I.A.? Is it not time that the competence and obligations of the United Nations were again asserted?
  Mr. Thomson: I should like to inform my right hon. Friend that the United Nations Secretary-General is kept continually abreast of developments in the Dominican Republic by means of regular reports from his special representative at Santo Domingo. Our information is that the situation in the Dominican Republic has calmed down again following the end of the general strike on 16th February. I am sure that the best way to make progress with the very difficult problem to which my right hon. Friend has referred is to have general elections in conditions of peace and without violence.

  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (RECOMMENDATION)
  Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he is taking on Recommendation No. 449, on the general and political unity of Europe and European economic integration, of the Council of Europe.
  Mr. Padley: We are considering this recommendation with our Council of Europe partners in the Committee of Minister's Deputies at Strasbourg.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this recommendation was sponsored by my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) and was accepted by an overwhelming majority of the Council of Europe? Will the hon. Gentleman get on and try to do something about following up these openings created at the Council of Europe?
  Mr. Padley: As I told the hon. Gentleman a week ago, we are generally in
  894
  favour of the recommendation, and it is being studied urgently by the Ministers' Deputies.
  Mr. Heffer: Will my hon. Friend take into consideration that, while there are many Members on this side of the House who want a wider European unity, we do not necessarily feel that this is the best approach, particularly on the basis of a straightforward acceptance of the Rome Treaty?
  Mr. Padley: The position of Her Majesty's Government on joining the Common Market is, I think, well known, particularly in view of the exchanges earlier today.

  PEACEFUL USES OF OUTER SPACE
  Mr. G. Campbellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in view of the little progress made by the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space and by its Legal Sub-Committee, whether Her Majesty's Government will take an initiative to promote agreements on the principles of international law by which claims can be settled and activities regulated in space and, in particular, on the moon.
  Mr. Padley: At the present time, No, Sir. Her Majesty's Government are anxious that the Legal Sub-Committee should bring its present work to a successful conclusion before taking on any further tasks. This does not, however, exclude the possibility that Her Majesty's Government may at some future date wish to take such an initiative.
  Mr. Campbell: Since the situation is not dissimilar from that of the High Seas, and since Britain has been preeminent in promoting international law in that area, will not the Government take an initiative before difficult situations are allowed to arise?
  Mr. Padley: I sympathise with the general objectives outlined by the hon. Member, but so far the Legal Sub-Committee has been occupied with its attempts to formulate two agreements which were specifically referred to it by the General Assembly—one on assistance to and the return of astronauts from space

  895
  vehicles and the second on liability for damage caused by outer space objects. To take an initiative before these specific references to the General Assembly have been resolved would not, we believe, be useful.

  VENEZUELA-BRITISH GUIANA BOUNDARY
  Mr. Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the result of his discussion with the Venezuelan Government on the Venezuela-British Guiana boundary; what assistance he has given to the Guiana authorities on this matter; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. M. Stewart: The Agreement signed by the Venezuelan Foreign Minister, the Prime Minister of British Guiana and myself at Geneva on 17th February will shortly be laid before the House as a White Paper. Her Majesty's Government have been in the closest touch with the Government of British Guiana, both before and during the Geneva Meeting. I believe that this agreement has dispelled the cloud which threatened to overshadow the independence of British Guiana, and I hope that it will pave the way for a friendly relationship between independent Guyana and Venezuela.
  Mr. Clark Hutchison: I wish to thank the Foreign Secretary for that Answer. But does he realise that this boundary was fixed in 1899? What has given rise to the dispute now? Will he make sure that British Guiana loses no territory at all?
  Mr. Stewart: After the talks in Geneva one can hardly fail to be very well aware that this was settled in 1899. The controversy arose from a Venezuelan claim that the award given in 1899 was invalid, a view which we did not accept. However, the agreement has now been made, to the full satisfaction of our friends in British Guiana, of Venezuela and ourselves, and I believe that it augurs well for the future.

  SOUTH AMERICA (BRITISH EXPORTS)
  Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
  896
  what discussions he had on his recent visit to South America particularly concerned with creating new opportunities for promoting British exports.
  Mr. M. Stewart: I had discussions on this subject with the Presidents and Foreign Ministers of the three countries I visited and with the Minister of Economy of Argentina. It was a major theme of the conference of our representatives in the area, over which I presided in Lima. I also had talks with the members of the Anglo-Peruvian Trade Centre in Lima and of the British Chambers of Commerce in Santiago and Buenos Aires.
  Mr. Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what promotional activities will now take place as a follow-up to his visit, in view of the potential trade in this area?
  Mr. Stewart: Inter-Departmental discussions are going on to see what action the Government can take in the light of the views which I was able to form from my visit.

  GENOCIDE CONVENTION (INTERNATIONAL PENAL TRIBUNAL)
  Mr. Hoosonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will propose at the United Nations the establishment of an international penal tribunal as envisaged in Article VI of the Genocide Convention.
  Mr. E. L. Mallalieuasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affair whether he will instruct his representative at the United Nations on the Human Rights Commission to raise at its forthcoming session the question of creating an International Penal Tribunal in pursuance of Article VI of the Genocide Convention, to which Her Majesty's Government is now to accede.
  Mr. George Thomson: Successive Governments have in the past seen great difficulties in this proposal. I sympathise with the purpose behind this suggestion which as the hon. Members know I have been carefully examining. I am bound to say however that I do not yet see how these problems can be overcome in existing conditions.
  Mr. Hooson: Is the Minister not satisfied that it would be most unfortunate to have a repetition of the measures taken to kidnap Eichmann in Argentina to bring him to trial in Israel? Temptations to repeat these measures are bound to exist until there is such an international tribunal as that suggested.
  Mr. Thomson: This is precisely one of the difficulties in the way of this proposal. If acts of genocide are committed by individuals without the support of their Governments there is no problem about dealing with them in the national courts, but if acts of genocide are committed by individuals or are alleged to be committed in which there is the support of Governments, there are great practical difficulties about arrest, about getting witnesses, about sentencing and so on. These are the practical difficulties.
  Sir B. Janner: When my hon. Friend is considering this matter, will he take into that consideration the fact that certain trials have taken place in Austria and in Germany in which there have been acquittals in one place in spite of convictions in another country, and that the verdicts, in some of the cases were quite derisory? Is it not time that some international court was set up which could be free from the Nazi feelings of some of the people who are still in office in those countries?
  Mr. Thomson: The first part of my hon. Friend's question is not a responsibility either of myself or of the Government. I have stated my sympathy with the proposal for an international tribunal and I have tried to spell out what I consider to be some of the practical difficulties.

  PAYMASTER-GENERAL

    Chelsea Hospital (Visits)
    Mr. Kershawasked the Paymaster-General what official invitations he has received in the last six months to visit Chelsea Hospital as chairman.
    The Paymaster-General (Mr. George Wigg): None, Sir.
    Mr. Kershawasked the Paymaster-General ever goes there again, will he
    898
    tell the pensioners there that he is against pensions for the very old and that he took steps to prevent the discussion in the House of a Bill designed to give pensions to very old pensioners?
    Mr. Wigg: If I have the good fortune to go to the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, either as a visitor or as a pensioner, for which I have the honour to be eligible, I shall at least have gone there more frequently than did my predecessors, of whom there have been six during the last ten years, for three of them never visited it at all and three visited it only five times. In my 15 months of being Chairman of the Governors I have visited it five times.

  JAPAN (EX-PRISONERS-OF-WAR)
  Mr. Huntasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now press the Japanese Government to make additional finance available to enable compensation to be paid to those who were under the age of 21 years at the time of their internment in Japanese prison camps during the war.
  Mr. George Thomson: No, Sir. The terms of the Treaty of Peace with Japan preclude any further claim against the Japanese of the kind suggested by the hon. Member.
  Mr. Hunt: Is the hon. Member aware that one of my constituents was interned at the age of 15 and that it is very galling for him and others like him to see the booming prosperity of Japan today and yet to know that because of this arbitrary age limit it is quite impossible for them to be compensated for the hardship and suffering which they endured?
  Mr. Thomson: I sympathise with the hon. Member in his efforts on behalf of his constituent, but it is unfortunately too late to do anything. I ought to explain, in fairness to the Japanese Government, that the exclusion of the under-21s from the original agreement had nothing to do with the Japanese. The total sum was agreed with the Japanese Government, but it was a British decision, taken by the Government in October, 1952, which decided to exclude the under-21s. I understand that the organisations of Far Eastern

  899
  prisoners-of-war were associated with that decision at that time.

  UNITED STATES FORCES (BRITISH IMMIGRANTS)
  Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements exist between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government permitting the call-up of British subjects for service in the United States armed forces and United States subjects in the British armed forces.
  Mr. Padley: None, Sir.
  Mrs. Short: Does my hon. Friend not think that it is a gross interference with personal liberty that British subjects should be subject to call-up after a six months stay in the United States, that they should risk being sent to fight an American war in Vietnam and that if they flee from the United States in order to escape the draft they get no help from my hon. Friend's Department?
  Mr. Padley: The United States Government have unilaterally legislated for the call-up of all persons of whatever nationality entering the United States on immigrants' visas. As there is no discrimination against British subjects, there are no grounds on which the Government could protest. Before being granted visas, immigrants are required to sign a statement that they understand and accept an obligation for compulsory military service.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: Would the Minister of State support a Private Member's Bill on a later date to make Americans do a bit of service in this country?
  Mr. Padley: That is another question.
  Mr. Rankin: Does my hon. Friend realise that these arrangements apply to students from Britain who have gone to America to further their education, and does he not think that when they are called up some attempt might be made from here to allow them to continue their courses in American universities?
  Mr. Padley: In my reply to the first supplementary question I stated quite clearly what the legal position is: no student who does not accept the obligation of being called up—[HON. MEMBERS:
  900
  "Oh."]—need go to the United States. They can stay in Britain.
  Several Hon. Members—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Minister of Pensions.

SOCIAL SECURITY (UNITED KINGDOM-IRISH REPUBLIC AGREEMENT)
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
62. Mr. SIMON MAHON: TO ask the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if she will report progress on her negotiations with the Irish Republic for a reciprocal agreement on social security.
The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Margaret Herbison): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now answer Question No. 62.
I am glad to be able to inform the House that the British Ambassador in Dublin and the Minister for Social Welfare of the Irish Republic have this afternoon signed a reciprocal agreement on social security between the Governments of the two countries.
This is the first agreement covering British retirement pensions and the contributory old age pensions of the Republic. It will come into force on 4th April, 1966. Under the agreement, people in the Republic who have British retirement pensions or widow's benefit will have them paid at the rates current in this country. There are also provisions for the linking of insurance under the two schemes.
It has further been agreed that in assessing means for the purpose of the Republic's non-contributory pensions, British war pensioners will have the same amount of their pensions disregarded as do Service pensioners of the Republic.
Mr. Mahon: May I thank my right hon. Friend for this very important statement? It will be welcomed by all those who have the interests at heart of the countries concerned, and by none more than those who are in need of financial help at the moment. I am grateful to her.
Can my right hon. Friend please tell me how many people will be concerned? May I thank her, too, for the compliment

901
in making this statement on my own birthday?
Miss Herbison: At present, there are about 11,800 retirement pensioners drawing the British pension in the Irish Republic and there are about 1,400 drawing widows' benefits. That gives a total of 13,200. About 11,000 will benefit because the others are already getting the current rate.
Sir K. Joseph: While welcoming the spread of all reciprocal arrangements for social security, may I ask the right hon. Lady when she will tell us what obligations this country has entered into as a result? In other words, how many citizens of the Republic resident in this country will receive more under her arrangements than they received before?
Miss Herbison: None. The residents of the Republic who are in this country get pension at the rate at which it is paid in the Republic, but it means that we have entered into commitments to pay the full pension to over 11,000 who are not getting the full pension at present. This will cost us about £800,000 a year.
Sir K. Joseph: May I ask the right hon. Lady to tell us, therefore, what is the reciprocal element? If the additional cost falls entirely on the United Kingdom taxpayers, what is the reciprocity?
Miss Herbison: Till there is a reciprocal arrangement—and this reciprocal arrangement at present covers retirement and widows' pensions; I have been dealing with widows' pensions—we cannot pay our full pension in another country.

HOVERCRAFT DEVELOPMENT LTD. (MR. CHRISTOPHER COCKERELL)
Mr. Marples (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a statement about the resignation of Mr. Cockerell from the Board of Hovercraft Development Limited.
The Minister of Technology (Mr. Frank Cousins): Hovercraft Development Limited is a subsidiary company of the National Research Development Corporation, and Mr. Cockerell's resignation is primarily a matter for the company and the Corporation.
I personally regret that Mr. Cockerell has taken this step and I have invited
902
him to see me later this afternoon. I would prefer to await the outcome of our discussion before making any further statement.
Mr. Marples: After the right hon. Gentleman has seen Mr. Cockerell will he make a full statement to the House on the reasons why Mr. Cockerell resigned? Secondly, is he aware that a resignation of this nature by a preeminent inventor is something which causes a loss of confidence in technologically-based industry? What does he intend to do to minimise this?
Mr. Cousins: I shall wait till I have had discussions with Mr. Cockerell before I determine whether a statement is necessary. I think that that is a quite natural thing to do. I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's point that this shows any loss of confidence in the technologically-based industries. Mr. Cockerell has made his point of view. He did not make it to me; he made it to the Press; I hope to find out what it is about.
Mr. Dalyell: Is not this a very strangely timed resignation?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] For what reasons was help from the National Research Development Corporation refused to Hovercraft Development Limited in 1961, in 1962 and in 1963?
Mr. Cousins: I would not accept any inferences that this is a strangely timed resignation. Mr. Cockerell is a very capable inventor. I think that some people in the National Research Development Corporation would not regard him as quite so high up in the business sense. He made the point that during this period, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, they were not able to get any money. But we have since made some money available.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance that any steps which he takes in this matter will be entirely related to technological needs and the advice which he gets from his technological advisers, and not to political reasons?
Mr. Cousins: The hon. Gentleman will be aware, of course, that when the Development of Inventions Bill was before the House his side pressed very strongly that we should maintain the autonomy of the National Research Development Corporation. I was

903
reminded, of course, that there were hard-headed businessmen on that body. We have taken their advice up to now, and intend to do so.
Sir A. V. Harvey: In view of the lead that this country has obtained in this development, would it not have been more fortunate if the right hon. Gentleman had kept in touch with Mr. Cockerell, when this situation would not have arisen?
Mr. Cousins: I am sure that the hon. Member's side of the House will not expect me to respect the Corporation's autonomy and, at the same time, to direct it. It has been my practice to keep in touch with the Corporation and to make clear the great support we intend to give that Corporation, and it has been given precedence.
Mr. Marples: Is it true, as Mr. Cockerell said, and as stated in The Times, that the National Research Development Corporation has quite suddenly changed its policy—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not in order to quote in Questions, The right hon. Gentleman must make himself responsible for everything he says.
Mr. Marples: May I summarise what Mr. Cockerell said and ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is his view that the National Research Development Corporation has quite suddenly changed its policy to one which stultifies the Hovercraft industry? If so, who changed that policy, the N.R.D.C. or the Minister?
Mr. Cousins: It seems to me rather unusual that I should be pressed upon what a newspaper says after I have said I shall await discussion on the matter with Mr. Cockerell.
Mr. Lubbock: Is the difficulty not primarily one of marketing? Will the right hon. Gentleman press British Rail to exploit this great British invention, and also his colleagues who are responsible for the Services, to make sure that Hovercraft are used there as well? It that not the important factor now, rather than the matter that Mr. Cockerell has raised?
Mr. Cousins: Certainly, yes; and I am sure that it will not have been forgotten that, late in the autumn of last year, I came to the House suggesting that we should spend considerable money on the SRN4.

LEASEHOLD REFORM
3.41 p.m.
The Minister of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Frederick Willey): I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the proposals contained in the White Paper on Leasehold Reform in England and Wales (Command Paper No. 2916) as a basis for legislation.
The claim that the landowner can do what he likes with his land without a thought for the social consequences has disfigured English society for a long time. To a degree, it still does; it persists. Other social injustices stemming from the stark individualism of the nineteenth century have crumbled before the twentieth century Welfare State. Yet the remarkable fact is the tenacious success of the landed interest in retarding reform, despite the growing awareness of grave personal and social injustices. Just as Parliament is now facing the problem of betterment, so, in the case of the leasehold system, until now nothing has been done to remedy the fundamental basic unfairness which vitiates the law of leasehold.
As long ago as 1884, a Royal Commission considered enfranchisement as a possible reform. Even then, some members of the Commission, including Cardinal Manning, were in favour of enfranchisement and, in a supplementary Report, stated that
"legislation favourable to the acquisition on equitable terms of the freehold interest on the part of the leaseholder would conduce greatly to the improvement of the dwellings of the people of this country".
Since then, a whole series of enfranchisement Bills has been introduced, but only one has found its way on to the Statute Book—the Places of Worship (Enfranchisement) Act, 1920. Although that Act, with its limited scope, proved itself effective, the basic problems of the occupying leaseholder of residential property were left to fester.
The post-war Government set up the Uthwatt Committee, which became the Jenkins Committee. The majority of the Committee recommended against enfranchisement, but, as The Times has said:
"Few reports have become so rapidly obsolete as the Jenkins Report."
Indeed, the minority Report of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West

905
(Mr. Hale) and Mr. Justice Ungoed Thomas has become more accepted as the basis for action to alter the legal relations of landowners and leaseholders so as to accord with social justice.
The last Government did little to further the property-owning democracy about which they talked so much. Home owners got little help from them. The Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, has been a complete failure. It allowed the leaseholder to continue in occupation on certain conditions, but only under the terms of a statutory tenancy; and that only at a rack rent. At the same time, it achieved with remarkable ingenuity the result of drastically depreciating the value of the landlord's interest. That was quite pointless confiscation, because no one was satisfied—neither the landlord nor the leaseholder. To call that Act an ill-conceived failure would be gracious. Clearly, as has now been generally recognised, something more had to be done.
Faced with this responsibility, the Government are convinced that an effective solution will not be found unless we are prepared to tackle the fundamental injustice of the leasehold system which has been the subject of controversy for generations. The leasehold system has worked unfairly, to the advantage of the landlord and to the detriment of the leaseholder, because the landlord is entitled and has the impertinence to take, free of charge, the house and improvements created and maintained wholly by and at the expense of the succession of lessees.
Under the present law, at the end of the lease the landlord has the reversion not only to the land, which has always been his, but also to the house which has been built on his land, even though he has neither provided not maintained it. That is legal confiscation. The leaseholder is expropriated. He is left with nothing, even if the house which he or his predecessors have paid for still has many years of useful life.
Mr. F. V. Corfield: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how that amounts to confiscation in a case where the lessee has himself purchased the lease at a price which reflects the fact that it will come to an end at a certain date?
Mr. Willey: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to read the White Paper again. One has to take an historic view of both the freehold and leasehold interests.
That, then, is the system under which a million families, particularly in South Wales, the Midlands, the North-West and London have had to buy their homes. Often, it was the only way in which they could do so. In the nineteenth century, whole areas were developed as leasehold estates, and, holding a monopoly of the land, very often the landowners would allow no other form of development.
Many of the leases were bought it scarcity prices. Now, in growing numbers, they are drawing to an end, and families are faced with the prospect that their homes which they or their predecessors had paid for will revert to the landlord—a property company, often enough—or that, at best, they will be allowed to stay on as statutory tenants at a rent—not a ground rent, but a rack rent which recognises that the house is no longer theirs but the landlord's.
Before that, as likely as not, they will have been compelled to carry out extensive repairs under the leasehold covenants. At best, they have a roof over their heads, but that is all. They have no interest that they can sell, or pass on to their children, although, originally, they may have bought their home at virtually a freehold price.
What kind of social justice is that? Do not let us flatter ourselves that we are talking about a relic of the bad old Victorian days. A considerable number of houses now being built, particularly in Greater London, are being provided on the leasehold system at a price which is little, if anything, less than a freehold price and subject to ground rents which, very often, are quite substantial. In Greater London, about half of the total development of private housing estates is on leasehold terms.
It is undoubtedly true that some purchasers may prefer to buy on leasehold because it may be slightly cheaper. If that be so, I can see no reason why those who buy a lease should not have the opportunity later of buying the freehold on fair terms. But it oftens happens today, I am afraid, that landlords seek to exploit the housing shortage in order

907
to make the maximum profit, and it is surely right to protect householders from such exploitation by giving them the right to purchase the freehold at a fair price.
Both those factors give importance and urgency to leasehold reform, but there is another circumstance which I believe emphasises the need for immediate action. Today, practically everyone—certainly everyone I know—buys his house on mortgage. Many who do so are likely to suffer from the leasehold system. With a good many years to run, a purchaser of a lease may pay virtually a freehold price. What happens when he reaches the end of the mortgage term? He then realises that he has bought a wasting asset. He will realise that after he has discharged the mortgage—
Mr. Anthony Royle Mr. Anthony Royle (Richmond, Surrey) rose—
Mr. Willey: I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman. He will have an opportunity later to make his speech.
As I was saying, after a purchaser reaches the end of the mortgage term he will realise that after he has discharged the mortgage he will have an interest which is far less valuable, and which he will find difficult to sell because a subsequent purchaser may not be able to get a mortgage. He will find himself caught, the victim of the leasehold system. This is the reality now facing many owner occupiers who bought their houses, particularly when they were scarce, after the war.
Who is on the side of the property-owning democracy? A radical solution to the leasehold system cannot be put off any longer. Our solution is simple, and one which is fair. I would not pretend for a moment that there are not complexities. For example, there is the complication of covenants and chains of leases. We have examined the difficulties, and I assure the House that they can be overcome. We are dealing with them in the Bill which we introduce shortly.
Our aim—and I am sure that there is general acceptance of this—is to afford the occupying leaseholder who is living in his own home greater security. This we do by ensuring that his house will not revert to the landowner when the existing lease expires.
Mr. Raymond Gower: The right hon. Gentleman has made a survey of the background to this question, and I think that what I am about to say may strengthen his case. Would not he confirm that in the case of Scottish law, the last Government changed leasehold into freehold? Does not that strengthen his case?
Mr. Willey: I gather that the hon. Gentleman is on my side. I hope that he will make this clear during the debate, because shortly—who knows?—people may want to know which side he is on.
What we must do is to ensure that the house does not revert to the landowner when the lease expires. What we provide is that, instead, the leaseholder will be entitled to an extension of his lease for 50 years from its present expiry date. But we are going further than that, and the leasehold problem will not be settled unless we are prepared to go further. Social justice requires that the leaseholder should have the opportunity of obtaining the basic fundamental security which the home owner prizes most, namely, the freehold, with all the liberty and responsibility which goes with it. We therefore provide that he is to have the right to enfranchise his lease, that is, to buy out the freehold and any intermediate interests which there may be.
Those, therefore, are the twin rights which we confer on occupying leaseholders—the right to enfranchise, and, for those who do not want enfranchisement, or find it financially inconvenient, the right to a 50-years' extension of the current lease.
Having decided to provide those two rights, we must ensure—and there is surely no dispute about this—that the terms on which the rights are exercised are fair to both parties, and for this purpose we follow the principle that the land belongs in equity to the landowner, and the house to the occupying leaseholder.
Let me explain how that principle works out in the case of each of those rights. As the house is his own, as we recognise that the leaseholder is the owner of the building—the bricks and mortar—the extension for 50 years will be at a ground rent, and not at a rack

909
rent. Because we regard the occupying leaseholder as continuing to own the building, the landlord is entitled to no more than a fair ground rent, but for the extended use of his land the landlord is entitled to a modern ground rent. The original ground rent usually was fixed for the run of the lease and it would almost certainly be unfair to continue it unchanged. During the extension, therefore, the ground rent will be a modern ground rent, fairly reflecting the site value subject to its use by the leaseholder, and after 25 years it will be reviewed and, if necessary, brought up to date.
Now let us consider the price of enfranchisement. What price should the leaseholder pay? Ordinarily, one would turn to market prices, but we cannot do this. Present market prices reflect the existing legal rights of the parties, and we are changing these because we believe that they are inequitable to the leaseholder. This is especially true when the lease passes its half-way stage and the reversion of the bricks and mortar show more and more in the landlord's favour. The terms for enfranchisement, we believe, must accordingly be based not on present market values, but on the value of the land itself, including any development value which may be attaching to it.
I have exhaustively and carefully considered the different ways and means of calculating this fair price, and I am drawn to the conclusion that the fairest solution is the most obvious. As we say in the White Paper, where there is no development value
"the fair price for enfranchisement will be the value of the freehold interest of the site, subject to the lease and its extension of 50 years."
This will ensure that the value of the buildings on reversion is completely excluded.
I have considered whether it would be useful to the House if I gave some figures by way of example, but I am anxious not to mislead hon. Members, and particularly their constituents. There is an almost infinite variety of circumstances. The unexpired duration of the lease, the size and value of the house, the character of the neighbourhood and, as I have mentioned, the possibility of development, are all things which may affect the figures,
910
and they will vary from case to case. After all, we are dealing with a wide span, from the small Victorian house in a Welsh valley, where the vacant possession value may be no more than £1,000, to houses in London worth twenty times as much. Thus, unless I were to take an inordinate time giving a long list of cases, I would find it very difficult to take out examples which could be taken as representative.
Let me say just two things. In any particular case, if the actual circumstances are known, there is no great difficulty in seeing what the figure would probably be. Secondly, the price of enfranchisement can never be more than the present market price. It will either be less, or, in certain circumstances, the same, but it can never be more. It will never include anything for the reversionary value of the bricks and mortar, but at the same time, we have tried to get a formula which is fair and which will never expropriate from the landowner any of the reversionary value of the land.
I have mentioned development value. In most cases consideration of development value will not arise, and, of course, it is usually significant only towards the end of the lease. But if a site has development value which would give it a greater value than that of a site for the particular house—for example, if the house has large grounds which could be developed at the end of the lease to build more houses or flats—then our proposals recognise that the freeholder is entitled to that value, that is, the value at the time the leaseholder negotiates the purchase of the freehold. This may be quite a high figure, but if the leaseholder does not wish to pay it he has the alternative of a fresh lease for 50 years—in other words, security and an interest that can command a good price if he wants to sell the house.
I have mentioned qualified leaseholders, and I now want to deal with the qualifications we intend to impose. First, the leaseholder must hold a lease originally granted for more than 21 years at a ground rent. Secondly, the house must be within the rateable value limits adopted in the Rent Act of last year. Thirdly, the leaseholder must be occupying the house, or part of it, as his residence, and must have done so for at least the last five years as a ground-rent paying leaseholder.

911
These conditions will not have to be satisfied at the time the Bill becomes law. A leaseholder will be able to take advantage of the rights that we shall give him if he satisfies the conditions at any time in the future, whether the lease was originally granted before or after the legislation.
Mr. A. P. Costain: Will the Minister clarify the position and say whether somebody who has a boarding house or small hotel will qualify under these provisions?
Mr. Willey: I have said that he will do so if he occupies the house or part of it. This is a question of fact. What we are concerned with is the use of the house as a residence by the leaseholder.
I want to remind the House of the assurance given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government on 8th December, 1964, under which any qualified leaseholders whose leases expired after that date and who, when the Bill becomes law, are still occupying the house on whatever terms, will be brought within the scheme.
We are not intending to extend our proposals to flats. I know that some of my hon. Friends would like them to be so extended, but most flats are let at a rack rent and would not, therefore, come within the scope of the Bill anyway. Those let on long leasehold terms at ground rents are comparatively few, and do not present at any rate an immediate problem, because most of the leases are of recent origin. In any case, there are many practical difficulties about providing for the enfranchisement of single flats in blocks of flats, which do not arise in the case of ordinary dwelling-houses.
Having dealt with the leaseholder, I want to turn to the rights of the freeholder. We think it right that during the term of the original lease the landlord should be able to resist a claim for enfranchisement or extension of the lease, on the ground that he needs the house for occupation by himself or his family when the lease expires, and that they would suffer greater hardship from their inability to recover possession than would the leaseholder from being unable to exercise his rights under the scheme. But this right must have regard to the new situation which the Bill will create. If
912
the landlord succeeds he will have to buy the value of the bricks and mortar from the leaseholder when the lease expires.
In other words, he will have to compensate the leaseholder for his loss of the expectancy of the extension of his lease for a further 50 years. If the leaseholder does not enfranchise, and opts for the 50 years' extension instead, the landlord will have the right, at any time during the extension, to obtain possession if he can show that he genuinely intends to redevelop the property. Again, however, he will have to take account of the new situation, and compensate the leaseholder for the value of the leasehold interest as it then exists.
There are many well managed leasehold estates, where enlightened management makes a real contribution—incidentally, often giving those estates a distinctive character and sense of community. These I am most anxious to preserve. I do not share the view of some of my hon. Friends that all these things can be left to local authorities. However, it would not be fair to deny leaseholders on these estates the right to enfranchisement—although in most of these estates the right to extend which is already allowed makes this of little importance. But equally unfair would be the disruption of the benefits of comprehensive estate management. I am, therefore, providing that on these estates enfranchisement will be within an agreed scheme for continued estate management, and their distinctive character will be both improved and maintained.
Although we have, naturally, got to make special provision to meet special cases, subject to the qualifications that I have mentioned the provisions that I have outlined will apply to all residential long leases, not only against private landlords but against local authorities, the Land Commission and other public authorities. Leaseholders holding leases under the Crown Estate or the Duchies may expect to enjoy the same benefits as leaseholders holding from local authorities.
Mr. Graham Page: The Minister has mentioned local authorities. The paragraph in the White Paper which deals with local authorities is not clear. Is a ground lessee of a local authority entitled to enfranchisement?
Mr. Willey: Yes, he has the right to enfranchisement. As I have said, we have to make special provision to meet special cases but subject to the special provisions that we have made a leaseholder holding from a local authority will have the right to enfranchise.
I have outlined the Government's proposals, and explained why they are necessary and have taken the form they have. I now want to say a word about repercussions. First, there is their effect upon the price of leasehold houses. Certainly, some will sell for more. Unavoidably, the leaseholder will have a greater asset to sell. This we must face. But is it such a bad thing? One of the grievances caused by the leasehold system is the rapid fall which occurs in the value of a leasehold house as the lease nears its end. Many of these leasehold areas are twilight areas, marred by almost wanton neglect because the occupiers have not sufficient incentive to maintain the houses in good condition. But we are concerned with the price not only of leasehold houses, but freehold houses. If there is large-scale enfranchisement, this will diminish the scarcity of freehold houses.
Again, there is a question of redevelopment. Admittedly, this is often carried out advantageously under the present leasehold system. Our proposals may make redevelopment more difficult and less profitable for freeholders on some estates. This we recognise, but we must also recognise that in the past redevelopment has often been carried out cheaply precisely because the landlord has enjoyed the free reversion of property which someone else has built and maintained.
To put right this grievance we must accept that redevelopment schemes of some private landlords may be prejudiced. But we must also recognise that the present leasehold system is not wholly advantageous to redevolpment and, further, that with the powers of comprehensive civic redevelopment it is becoming less and less significant. In any event, we are making special provision for local authorities and other public bodies who have acquired leasehold property in order to carry out redevelopment schemes for the community.
Our proposals are simple, direct and fair. I invite the House to welcome the White Paper and to reflect the opinion
914
of the general public—there is no doubt about that. I invite the House to welcome its provisions as a measure of social justice and a reform long overdue, giving to hundreds of thousands of people the security and pride of ownership which is rightfully theirs.
One of the most significant features of British politics is the tenacious hold that the landed interests—even speculative interests—have had on the Tory Party. As I have often said, the Tories accepted land use planning, but only on the terms of the scandal of land prices. They allowed planning to create a rigged market, affording for the few outrageous windfall profits. They believe in a property-owning democracy, but only where the real power is with the property company and the land speculator, only where the property-owner is a law unto himself divorced from social responsibility.
This is why the Rent Act was an urgent priority last Session. This is why, today, I have announced the countryside policy to renew the work of Lord Silkin in strengthening our right to enjoy our countryside. Equally, this is why we are emancipating the householder who owns his house under the leasehold system, believing that his interest comes before that of the landowner and property company and that today the first priority is with the home and the family.
Mr. Reginald Eyre Mr. Reginald Eyre (Birmingham, Hall Green) rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) is seeking to put a question to the Minister before he sits down.
Mr. Eyre: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister spoke of the liberty to be given to the lessee who bore the cost of the erection of the house and maintained it, by being able to obtain the freehold. Will he give the same liberty to the lessee who is in the same position vis-a-vis the Land Commission?
Mr. Willey: Perhaps the hon. Member, before he makes his speech in the debate, will read the White Paper.
4.12 p.m.
Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: Before taking part in this

915
debate, I must, in accordance with our custom, declare two, I think conflicting, interests. One is as the holder of a long lease on a ground rent and the other is as a member of the board of a company owning property.
The fact that we are having this debate today—today of all days, if the evening newspapers are to be believed—on this hastily-produced White Paper instead of trying to complete some of the Government's legislation before the Dissolution of Parliament, the fact that the Government, in the last few days of this Parliament, have given priority to this discussion over and above their own legislation, reveals, of course, the fact that this is today's electoral gimmick.
We have one about every day nowadays. This is a rather more elaborate one than that of the Minister of Housing and Local Government on Friday, which proceeded broadly on the this year, next year, sometime never basis. They have this in common—they were both issued at four o'clock on Friday afternoon, at a time calculated to cause hon. Members the maximum of inconvenience and both have no reality whatever in this Parliament.
It is interesting to see that the Government think that they can make use of the last day or two of this Parliament by a propaganda exercise on this old and admittedly immensely difficult subject. The unreality of this debate is underlined by the fact that, even had this Parliament been going on, it would have been a very long time indeed before the Minister would have introduced any legislation. The right hon. Gentleman has only just taken his Land Commission Bill into Standing Committee. There, we are teaching him what it means and, even if he had been an apter pupil, and more diligent in his attendance, this process would have taken a little time in view of the fact that that Measure has 88 Clauses and eight Schedules.
It is quite clear therefore, that there could have been no question of legislation on this matter for many months, as the history of the matter shows. The House may have noticed an illuminating change in the Motion before us. It had been on the Order Paper for some days when, on Saturday, the last moment possible,
916
there appeared at the end of it the words:
"as a basis for legislation"
words which qualify and weaken substantially the effect of the original wording. I assume that this withdrawal on the part of the right hon. Gentleman is a result of the widespread criticism to which the actual terms of the White Paper have been subjected as well as from a realisation that the broad social issues here are issues of such importance that they ought to be examined in a manner not wholly tied to a particular set of very hastily-produced proposals.
To discuss a great issue of this sort not only on the basis of but including the Government's tentative proposals in advance of the commitments which come from the introduction of a Government Bill, is, I think, a good practice in itself. It is one which, if I may say so with becoming modesty, I followed in 1958 as a precursor to the National Insurance Act, 1959, which right hon. Members opposite never cease to denounce and never show any signs of amending. It is, therefore, a good thing that we should discuss—not tied to these particular necessarily rather hurried proposals, in view of their origin—the much more important isues which the right hon. Gentleman touched on, but did not go into deeply.
I follow him in recalling the more recent history of this matter. I shall not take it back to 1884 or, as he did in the White Paper on the Land Commission to the fifteenth century. Hon. Members opposite have not always had great enthusiasm for this matter. The House will recall the discussion some years ago when the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government said:
"Some of my hon. Friends appear to have an emotional fixation about the discarded Liberal Party policy of enfranchisement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1953; Vol. 514, cc. 2453–4.]
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): Hear, hear.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Parliamentary Secretary says "Hear, hear", but none the less, it appeared in the Queen's Speech in November, 1964.
Mr. Skeffington: We have heard these arguments so often.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps in time the hon. Gentleman will come to understand them.
Mr. Skeffington: Not when they are put by the right hon. Member.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Front Benchers ought to set an example. It does not do any good to have a running commentary.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I can give the hon. Gentleman the argument, but I cannot give him the capacity to understand it.
No less a person than Lord Silkin, who probably knows more about these matters than most people, said a month or two after—in December, 1964—that there was no urgency and that the matter needed a great deal more consideration. On 8th December, however, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, then in charge of the matter, made a statement in which he said—here, I think, the Parliamentary Secretary was a little premature—that he intended to bring forward a Bill on this issue last Session, and referred to the priority which the Government were giving it in their legislative programme. But last summer the Prime Minister transferred the issue from the Minister of Housing and Local Government to the Minister of Land and Natural Resources, no doubt on the argument that it had better be placed in more dynamic hands.
Still we have no Bill. We have only this White Paper, which comes before us in the dying days of this Parliament.
The main feature of the White Paper, as the right hon. Gentleman fairly said, is this great new principle, which none of the expert bodies to which he referred paid attention to or suggested, but which the seer of Gwydyr House has now produced. It appears in paragraph 4 and is the principle
"…that the land belongs in equity to the landowner and the house belongs in equity to the occupying leaseholder."
There is a somewhat Freudian touch in the repetition in that sentence of the word "equity".
This principle has been discovered in the last moments of this Parliament
918
so that it can glow in the sunset and will not have to be submitted to the sobering light of the precise language of legislation. It is completely unrealistic. It is a matter of infinite difficulty to separate a house from the land it stands on. English law for a thousand years has been based on that.
The principle raises tremendous practical problems, except, perhaps, in the case of caravans, and even with these practical problems arise. How does one value a house separately from the land? Precisely the same cottage will have a wholly different value if it is in Belgravia from the value if it is in Rotherhithe. On the other hand, land will have a different value if it supports the Hilton Hotel from its value if if supports a drinking trough.
Mr. William Handing: The same thing.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have not the experience of the Hilton Hotel that the hon. Gentleman has. I do not live at these literally high levels.
If this great new original principle which the right hon. Gentleman has brought us from Gwydyr House is right, why is it not to be universally applied? If it is a glimpse of the truth, seen by the right hon. Gentleman but denied to the dimmer eyes of Lord Jenkins and others who investigated the matter, why stop at £400 a year in London and £200 a year outside? These are Rent Act figures; but in the Act we were dealing with a totally different matter.
Rent control is an expedient designed to deal with shortage and although we may differ as to whether the line has been drawn at the right place, none the less we are generally agreed that one should not carry control beyond the levels of value at which shortage exists. That has nothing to do with the application of what one might call the "Willey principle of equity".
Why, if this new principle is right, does the action of the Inland Revenue valuer in assessing the rateable value of a house at more than £200 a year outside London and more than £400 a year in London take it completely out of the principle?
Mr. S. C. Silkin: Is the right hon. Gentleman making a plea that all

919
property which consists of long leaseholds should be subject to this right, or is he saying that none of it should be?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I shall be expounding our own policy at a later stage in my speech. At the moment, I am seeking to test the right hon. Gentleman's principle and all I am saying—and I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will follow me—is that this matter is not like rent control, which is an expedient designed to deal with a shortage which we hope will be temporary. It is a basic principle of equity—a principle which the right hon. Gentleman referred to as being necessary completely to reform the leasehold system.
I am asking why, if this is such a principle, it has to stop at the figures I have quoted. Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman can draw the deduction that an immutable principle which mutates at rateable value of £400 a year is a principle of doubtful validity.
Mr. S. C. Silkin: I understand that, but after listening to the right hon. Gentleman for 20 minutes I still do not know whether his party supports or opposes the White Paper.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will give me the pleasure of no further interruptions, we shall reach more quickly the point when I shall discuss our own policy. I seek his co-operation in this respect.
I ask why, if the principle is right, it is not to be applied to flats? Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that there are very great practical difficulties, but such difficulties are merely an extreme illustration of the difficulty of separating a house from the land it stands on. But why, if this is such a great principle, is it not also to apply to 50 years' hence—to the leaseholder who takes the option of a further 50 years? If I read paragraph 9 rightly, there is no question, at the end of that period, of, in equity, the house belonging to the leaseholder and the land belonging to the freeholder. Fifty years' hence, the principle is at an end.
It is no use the right hon. Gentleman saying that by then the houses will be falling down. Some will have gone or be ready to go, but many will not. There
920
are very many perfectly satisfactory houses which will last 150 years or more. I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) will follow that as an illustration of the doubtful validity of the principle that apparently it cannot be applied either above certain rateable values or to flats or after 50 years.
But the point that will arouse most criticism is that of the financial terms offered for enfranchisement. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to talk of the expropriation of tenants. That is a prejudicial term which did not clarify his argument. There is no question, however, that these proposals as they stand amount to a considerable major expropriation of freeholders. They flow, as the right hon. Gentleman honestly said, from his curious principle of "equity". This destroys the existing market value which otherwise the right hon. Gentleman, as he said, would have relied on.
But, again, the fact that these proposals produce such startling results perhaps casts a doubt even in the right hon. Gentleman's mind about the soundness of the principle. In many cases, compensation will be derisory and in all cases what is involved is a forceable transfer of what, in many cases, may be valuable assets from the reversioner to the leaseholder, and there is nothing to prevent the leaseholder who has availed himself of this opportunity immediately selling the property at a profit. In this way, although I am sure that he does not mean to, the right hon. Gentleman may well introduce Rachmanism in reverse.
Paragraph (12) of the White Paper is not a miracle of clarity, as the right hon. Gentleman admits. I hope that before we come to any Bill these points may be cleared up. The only freeholder likely to get market value for the property under this system is the slum landlord, because only in such cases is a house of so little worth that only the site has value. These are paradoxical aspects of the policy.
I have been given by professional people another example, which is not untypical. It concerns a house worth freehold about £8,000, for which the modern ground rent might be £50 a year. That ground rent capitalised is probably about £1,250. What the right hon. Gentleman would be doing would be to

921
transfer £6,750 from the reversioner to the leaseholder.
There are other cases I have looked at where the real value of compensation would he about one-third the present market value. How does that square with what was said on behalf of the Labour Party by the Minister of Labour in a television broadcast at the last General Election? I think that all of us know the Minister of Labour as a man of honour who would not say anything that he did not believe to be true. He said:
"We shall give them the chance to buy it at proper and decent rates. We shall ask them to pay, of course the proper value of it."
In the cases I have quoted, can any hon. Member claim the fulfilment of what the Minister of Labour said, I am sure with complete sincerity? I hope that the House has noted the very significant "of course". A society which takes people's property without proper compensation because they happen to be members of an unpopular minority is very well on the way to tyranny.
Mr. Leo Abse Mr. Leo Abse (Pontypool) rose—
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have been reproached by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) for taking so long. Perhaps I might get on.
The scales are very much weighted against the freeholder in other respects. Take the case of the freeholder who wants to occupy his house at the end of a long lease. Today, and indeed until any legislation comes forward, he has the right to occupy that house at the end of the lease, and many people have laid their plans on that basis. If he is to occupy what is today his own house, he will be have to pay his former leaseholder the equivalent of a further 50 years' lease, or what the White Paper calls the bricks and mortar value.
This is not the case which concerns the great estates and the great landlords to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred. They are not the people who want to occupy one of their houses. This is the case with the smaller man who has perhaps bought the reversion to a freehold house because he wants to occupy it in his old age, and he will find if the right hon. Gentleman's plans are put into effect, that he will have to buy that house over again if he is to occupy it as an owner-occupier.
922
On the other hand, the provisions with respect to redevelopment are highly material to the great estates. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman, though it appeared to irritate one or two of his hon. Friends, pay a very fair tribute to the way in which some of the great estates have been administered. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has given recognition to that fact in paragraph 22 of the White Paper. But does he realise what difficulties he is putting in the way of redevelopment in respect of them?
The House will probably know that a great number of estates proceed with plans of redevelopment many years forward, based on the dates when the leases are due to fall in. Under these proposals, in the case of houses with a rateable value of under £400 a year, in London, if the estate wishes to redevelop it will have first of all to grant the outgoing leaseholder a 50 year lease and then buy it back from him. Must this not have the effect of making the price of redevelopment on top of present building costs prohibitive, and is not this the recipe for the creation of slums?
The alternative offered by the White Paper is for the leaseholder to obtain a lease of 50 years with no premium, but at what the right hon. Gentleman calls a modern ground rent. There again, he gets a valuable asset which he could easily, if he wanted to, sell the next day. It would not be impossible, as only five years' occupancy is required, for someone in the course of his life to acquire the back end of several leases—the right hon. Gentleman said that the market for them would be strong—and take advantage of this several times and sell the new leases.
It is rather ironical that the only step which the Government are taking in this Parliament to help home ownership is by robbing somebody else. The right way to help home ownership is by subsidy. The right way is to provide for a fair price to be paid to the owner, for the State to help by way of the cheaper mortgages to which right hon. Gentlemen opposite have pledged themselves and by way of the grant towards the deposit to which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition referred at Hammersmith last week. To help the leaseholder to buy with State aid is the

923
right way to proceed towards home ownership.
It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to take this line in the treatment of landlords, that they are unpopular, that they are rich exploiters and that they deserve what they get or do not get. Indeed, one or two hon. Members opposite applauded him for these views. But has he analysed who these ground landlords are? There are, of course, the great estates which the right hon. Gentleman praised, conscientiously managed for a modest return—such as the estates connected with the names of Westminster, Cadogan and Portman, which have done a great deal to beautify and properly plan the city in which we now are.
But there are many other landlords. There are the Church Commissioners, whose property is admirably administered at present, the proceeds of whose operations go to help make up the stipends of our underpaid clergymen. There are charitable and educational trusts and, as the Economist last week reminded us, there are the pension funds the benefits from which go to people no less deserving than the long leaseholders themselves.
It has also been the practice—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is not aware—for people within a few years of retirement to buy the reversion to a lease because they know that in a few years' time their income will be reduced. They want possession of a house to live in or to rent at a full rent. This is a reasonable step to take and many people have taken it. This apparently, too, is to be frustrated and hon. Members opposite apparently do not mind very much.
There is another injustice. For some years Estate Duty has been assessed on the basis that the value of the estate includes the reversion of the houses; and Estate Duty has been paid on this basis. This illustrates the retrospection of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. If the right hon. Gentleman is to do this kind of thing, ought not the Inland Revenue to reopen those cases and refund the Estate Duty paid on a basis which now turns out to be wholly falsified? If we are to proceed with justice, let us recognise that this is the kind of issue to which proposals of this kind give rise.
I want to put some questions to the Secretary of State for Wales, who, I understand,
924
stand, is to reply to the debate. I recall with pleasure the debates in which he and I used to take part some years ago on other matters. First, if a house which is subject to a long lease has a good deal of land with it, is all the land to be available for enfranchisement or for a 50-year lease? The garden will obviously be so, but what about farm lands? What about open fields ready for development? Is the leaseholder to have the right to take all this, or only the house and garden in which he has lived?
Then there is the point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) referred in an interruption, and to which he was not able to get a clear response. What about the position of a local authority? Some local authorities are the reversioners of long leases. The White Paper suggests that the leaseholder can enfranchise against them—this is in paragraph 15—but cannot take from them the development value. What does that mean in practice? Does it mean that the person who has enfranchised, who is now the freeholder, will not be able to develop? What happens if the house falls down and he wants to rebuild it? What happens if somebody else puts a compulsory purchase order on—if, for instance, the Land Commission puts a compulsory purchase on? The land will have been enfranchised into the hands of the leaseholder, but the development rights will be in the hands of another person.
What happens if the Land Commission's land itself is to be enfranchised? According to paragraph 16(a) it enfranchises on Crownhold terms. What does that mean? As I understand Crownhold, the Crownhold so-called freeholder can lose his land if he has to rebuild his house or if he is guilty of any breaches of the covenants or conditions under which he holds. To call that enfranchisement is simply a misuse of language. This is not freehold as anyone in this House or outside it understands it. To talk of enfranchising against the Land Commission in these terms is a contradiction in terms.
Paragraph 22 of the White Paper refers to well-managed estates, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. His recognition of their quality is admirable, but what does he propose to do to maintain their good quality management? Are

925
they to do this for love, or are they to be paid for their services? If the latter, how? Once a property has been enfranchised, the administration of big estates of this kind is expensive, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I think that all of us, including the right hon. Gentleman, admit the advantage of the good management of these estates, but how is that to be maintained once the property has been enfranchised, and what will be the financial terms? I shall be grateful if the Secretary of State for Wales would answer these questions.
The fact that the proposals in the White Paper have been conceived in a highly partisan spirit and a state of some confusion does not and should not blind us to the fact that there is an important problem here. As I said at the beginning, we have been giving a good deal of thought to this matter and we are very grateful to the Government for, whether intentionally or otherwise, giving us an opportunity this afternoon to expound our views.
The leasehold system—and here I differ from the Minister—has served this country very well in the past. The development in London, to which I referred earlier, reflects great credit, but it is a fact of which we are all aware that there are certain parts of the country where it has been for some time now causing very special problems, notably South Wales, with which the Secretary of State for Wales is immensely familiar. Because there, though perhaps in few other parts of the country, there is lacking that real freedom of choice to which my hon. and right hon. Friends attach the greatest importance over the housing sphere as a whole.
The overwhelming majority of property in South Wales is entirely leasehold and it may well be true, though I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was wrong in saying it as a generality, that in those places there is not much difference between leasehold and freehold prices. Apart from that special problem, there is elsewhere the rising demand for home ownership. This is an immensely healthy social factor and development. The desire of the citizen to own his own house and to be beholden to no landlord or local authority, however well-disposed either may be, is a very sound social
926
development, and it is a source of pride to me and my hon. and right hon. Friends that this grew very considerably under the late Conservative Government.
We have taken some part in adapting the law of leasehold to the new and emerging circumstances to which I have referred. The Minister referred in rather disparaging terms to the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, but that gave what I think is most of all needed in this context—security of tenure—to a considerable number of people whose real and understandable fear was of being turned out of their homes. But this was limited to properties within the old rent control limits. This distinction is now becoming obsolete, and more and more so because under the Rent Act passed last year the Minister of Housing has power to take out of control and put into regulation such property as he thinks right to do. It is clear, therefore, that the area of control, as opposed to regulation, is likely to diminish and, therefore, the safeguard at the bottom of the scale, given and much appreciated by those affected under the 1954 Act, is now, as a result of these changes, diminishing in importance.
We therefore think it right to build on these past policies of ours, and to go further. We think that the ground leaseholder occupying residential property towards the end of his lease, where the landlord has no definite plans to redevelop or to occupy himself, should be given the option either of a lease at a rent fixed by the courts or to buy the property at a fair market price. We do not disagree with the White Paper, which itself follows our own 1954 Act, in limiting this to leases originally in excess of 21 years We would equally follow the White Paper by laying down that the property must have been occupied by the person concerned as his home for five years.
But—and here I promised the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich an answer and I come back to him—as this would be at fair prices and rents, fair to both sides, there seems to us to be no reason whatever to limit the scope of the proposal, as the White Paper does, to Rent Act figures. If this is fair, as we think it to be, we see no reason to limit it arbitrarily to certain figures.
Mr. Willey: Will the right hon. Gentleman elucidate two points? He has said repeatedly "fair rent". Is he talking about a rack rent or a ground rent? He talks about fair prices. Is he including or excluding the value of the bricks and mortar?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is a perfectly fair question to which I will give a perfectly fail answer. We are certainly not excluding the bricks and mortar. As for the rents, we shall follow the 1954 precedent and have them fixed by the county courts at what the county court judge thinks a fair price. This is a principle of which we have experience and which has worked with a considerable degree of general satisfaction.
There are, however, further points and here we go beyond what the right hon. Gentleman has considered. Where under our proposals the leaseholder exercises his option to purchase the freehold, it is important to protect the interests of the neighbours on the estate where they remain as leaseholders, taking the other option or purchase. We therefore think it necessary to adopt the recommendations of the Wilferforce Committee to provide that in those circumstances positive covenants shall run with the land. We think, also, that there is very much to be said for the recommendation of the Jenkins Committee that leasehold redemption policies should be allowable for tax. This is the way in which the State can help the purchaser to purchase the leasehold, if he wishes, without being unfair to the landlord.
The White Paper is intended in present circumstances as an election manoeuvre, though I very much doubt whether it has served its turn. It is designed, of course, to show my hon. and right hon. Friends as defenders of wicked and oppressive landlords, and all the claptrap repeated on this subject for the last 60 years. In fact, we have shown that we have followed consistently our party's developing policies in respect of leasehold reform, adjusting them to the needs of today in terms which are fair to both sides.
I think that hon. Members opposite very much under-rate the sense of justice of the ordinary voter if they think that they can buy his support by doing something which will benefit him by robbing
928
somebody else. I do not think that our fellow countrymen like that kind of thing. The right way to tackle this problem is to help home-ownership by direct public action, to help the home owner by the proposals on deposits and the help through the building societies to which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition referred the other day.
This debate, not the proposals in the White Paper, but the debate itself—which I hope will be very wide, may well provide the basis for legislation of a much better, more sensible and perhaps more generally agreed character. It will certainly shorten the time that will be needed when legislation comes forward, and as it will be my hon. and right hon. Friends who will be introducing the Bill it would be ungracious on my part if I were not to express to the Government our thanks for making arrangements today, however inadvertently, which will shorten our task.
4.50 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Pearson: The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) gave to this side of the House at least the impression that he is the spokesman for the landowners. He pushed out a number of red herrings and talked about the impossibility of doing this, that, and the other, winding up with some very unclear proposals from his own party on this leasehold problem.
There is nothing like the leasehold problem in my part of Wales for putting a little spring into the system. Once the subject is raised, the debate can go on day and night without cease, instance after instance being given of hardship and injustice arising from our leasehold law.
It should be stated, and I freely do so, that many freeholders or landowners have dealt very reasonably with the sale of land to leaseholders, usually on the basis of 25 or 30 times the annual ground rent. In one way, from that point of view alone, we owe it to them to ensure that present freeholders are required to sell to their leaseholders on a reasonable basis, and that reasonable basis, in my view, is stated in the White Paper. At last, owner-occupying leaseholders are within reach of being set free. After three-quarters of a century of agitation,

929
much of it in angry silence, the leaseholder will be able to look upon his house as his own in a truly legal sense. I give my warmest congratulations to the Minister of Land and Natural Resources and to the Government for introducing this reform and bringing it within practical possibility.
The White Paper tells us that the Bill, when brought in, will be based on the principle that the land on which the leaseholder's house is built belongs to the landowner and the house to the occupying leaseholder. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is impossible to separate these two interests, according to his idea of equity. But, in fact, it will be a new starting point, leaving behind the harsh and unjust present law which gave to the freeholder far too much scope for exploitation.
In today's newspapers, I have read a criticism of the White Paper proposals by a joint committee of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Chartered Land Agents' Society and the Chartered Auctioneers' and Estate Agents' Institute. It would have been wonderful if support for the Government's proposals for leasehold reform had come from such a quarter. There is a saying which is applicable here, that no one is so blind as he who refuses to see. In its criticism, the joint committee shows no evidence whatever of being aware of the significance and nature of society and one's part in it.
It passes my comprehension why the simple principle was not generally accepted years ago. I can remember, 50 years ago, election posters in blue print in my area advertising that the Conservative candidate had a slogan on leasehold enfranchisement. He may have been advocating it, but I cannot think that the Conservative Party itself was advocating it. Certainly, Conservative Governments over 30 years have done the merest minimum to deal with these unjust laws. For generations, leaseholders have known that it was harsh and unjust for the law to allow the ownership of the house to revert to the freeholder at the end of the lease without his having paid a farthing for it. Of course, this gave rise to deep and bitter anger, and I am glad that the Labour Government have decided that this unfair law shall cease to apply.
930
I welcome the provision that, if a qualified leaseholder does not want, or does not find it financially convenient, to exercise the right of enfranchisement, he will be entitled to an extension of his existing lease for a period of 50 years. These proposals of the Government will hearten thousands of leaseholders now threatened with the forfeiture of their houses built at their own or their predecessors' expense. It was the lessees who bore the cost of improvements and maintenance.
So often it is said that an Englishman's home is his castle, and most people like to feel secure in their own houses. But there are many who have bought their own houses who do not have this security. They are people whose homes are their ground landlords' castles in reality. When the lease ends, the leaseholder finds himself a tenant in his own house, having to pay to the ground landlord a rent similar to that charged for like houses. Having to pay a rent to an outsider for a house which a man or his parents bought and paid for goes against the grain of elementary justice as we understand it. The leasehold law was all on the side of the freeholder and was made when the big landlords held the reins of government and held sway, as they still do, in the party opposite. Things have changed for the better, but only when the proposed Bill is on the Statute Book will it really be true that the leaseholder has security in his own house.
It was vital that the nation should have a land policy. I contend that the new Bill for the benefit of leasehold owner-occupiers along with the Land Commission Bill go very far to provide such a policy. We have been reminded that Parliament passed an Act entitled the Places of Worship (Enfranchisement) Act, 1920, which gave trustees of church property the right to acquire compulsorily the freehold of their buildings and manses on reasonable terms, and that Act stipulated that, in the event of dispute, the county court judge should be the arbiter. Surely, the sanctity of a home equals the sanctity of a place of worship or a manse and has equal right to protection. An Englishman's home is worthy of the same consideration as an Irishman's.

931
Fair-minded people have always resented the law that, at the expiration of a lease, the freeholder had the right to claim not only the property as originally built, but all the improvements which may have been made to increase its value and convenience to the lessee. More than that, the freeholder has been able to enforce considerable expenditure on the lessee under what is called a schedule of dilapidations. We have known of the practice of leaseholders capitalising on the reversion of property by presenting large and unjust schedules of dilapidations using them in the main as a lever to extort from leaseholders.
Many leaseholders have suffered such inflictions. They are now promised by the Government a new deal which will give protection to the occupier-leaseholder. It is full time that we did this. I hope that the Bill will be a deeper red when it emerges finally from its Committee stage.
5.0 p.m.
Mr. F. V. Corfield: I shall make what I suppose will be regarded as a somewhat revolutionary suggestion, that we should look at the leasehold system as it is in fact and in practice rather than as described in the White Paper. These are two very different things. They are so different that I cannot remember reading a publication of any Government as misleading as this one.
Whatever the disadvantages and whatever the inequities that the Government claim to see in this system, completely to deny—indeed, wholly to ignore, as the Government do in the White Paper—any advantages and the many outstanding and valued developments which the system has made possible is to cast aside from the outset even the appearance of attempting to look at the problem with any sense of equity or justice.
Mr. S. C. Silkin Mr. S. C. Silkin rose—
Mr. Corfield: I will give way a little later perhaps.
Notably, it is the only system by which opportunity for comprehensive redevelopment when the time comes can be secured, save only by the intervention of the local authorities and the use of compulsory powers of acquisition. That
932
alternative, with all the heartaches and problems that it gives rise to, is not self-evident as in any way superior.
Secondly, the leasehold system has enormously facilitated the imposition and enforcement of covenants which have been mutually beneficial not only as between landlord and lessee but as between one lessee and another.
Sir Barnett Janner Sir Barnett Janner (Leicester, North-west) rose—
Mr. Corfield: I will give way later.
At least, in paragraph 22 of the White Paper the Government admit that these covenants have been of value, although I must admit that I think that in the paragraph they appear to be looking at the system almost solely from the point of view of the lessee with little regard to the point of view of the landlord. I hope that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) suggested, the Secretary of State for Wales will, when he winds up, expand on his ideas, to which paragraph 22 refers, and tell us a little more how one will preserve the good management to which the paragraph refers while depriving the landowner wholly of any control over redevelopment.
Furthermore, the leasehold system is one to which, at any rate in London, we owe some of the finest town planning in the world, not least the London squares, and many of the terraces of outstanding architectural merit, including those of Nash. Very few of those would have been preserved to posterity if it had not been for the leasehold system. To compile a White Paper entitled "Leasehold Reform" without even a mention of these matters, and without even an attempt to assess the problems that will arise as a result of the demise of the system, is as irresponsible as it is inequitable.
What is much more important, and, no doubt, more significant in the context in which we are discussing the White Paper, is that not a single word has been included on the main problem which, throughout numerous investigations, has baffled even the most ardent reformers who have been prepared to look at this matter with any sense of equity and justice.
I refer to the problem that arises from the fact that throughout these long leases

933
—we are dealing primarily with the 99-year lease; the lease that is falling in, as we are told in paragraph 4, having been created about a century ago—both the leasehold interest and the freehold reversion have been freely and perfectly legitimately bought and sold, and the reversions have been sought as investments by investors of every conceivable kind—charitable trusts, private trusts, private persons, and others. I also include the speculator, for I do not believe that over the history of this country the speculator has done anything but good.
In the case of the long lease, it must be very much the exception rather than the rule—though I very much doubt whether there are any statistics available, even to the Government—to find that both the freehold and the leasehold interest remain with the original families. In the great majority of cases, at some intervening stage leases have been sold or reversions have been sold, and in many cases both. In each case the price will inevitably have reflected those terms which are fundamental to the system.
I refer, of course, to the fact that the purchaser of the reversion will have bought the right to possession of the buildings as well as the land as at the date of termination of the lease, and the purchaser of the leasehold will have bought the right to occupy up to that date and no further. It cannot be too often repeated, in the light of what is omitted from the White Paper and of all that is said about fairness, that the price will have been fixed accordingly.
One of the peculiarities of the system is that over the years there has tended to develop two sets of values for the freehold reversion. This is partly, no doubt, the result of increasing pressure for housing, particularly housing for owner-occupation with vacant possession, and partly because inflation has reduced the value of ground rents in very many cases to little more than nominal payments bearing no relation whatever to the annual value of the land.
The result has been to lower the price that a purchaser is prepared to pay for a reversion to less than the difference between the value of the house freehold and the value of the leasehold interest. In other words, where an occupying lessee has had the opportunity to purchase the freehold, he has been able to do so at
934
a price which, when added to that which he gave originally for the leasehold interest, is substantially less than the market value of the total interest that he has thereby acquired.
In other words, he has a freehold house at much less than the full market value. Consequently, owners of reversions who have been willing to split their freeholds, thereby defeating the opportunities for redevelopment when the time comes, when offering reversions to occupying tenants have very frequently made an offer at between the value in the open market and the higher value to the sitting or occupying tenant.
Mr. Gower: I have listened to my hon. Friend's argument with great interest, but is he aware that in some areas—for example, South Wales and the City of Cardiff—a person buying a house with more than 40 years of the lease to run would have to pay exactly the same price for that leasehold house as for a freehold house? Does not that to some extent lessen the validity of my hon. Friend's argument?
Mr. Corfield: I do not think so, but I shall refer to that in a moment. When I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who was then Minister, invited hon. Members and any others concerned with hardship with regard to leasehold interests to let him have particulars. We carried out a very large number of investigations indeed both as a result of cases put forward by hon. Members, and independently through very large estate agents in London.
We were able to find no evidence whatever that the prices which landlords were asking for the reversion were such that they would not leave the leaseholder, if he bought at that price, a profit, in the sense that the value of what he had—the freehold house—would not have been greater than the total price he paid. If the words "fair and equitable", which are used so freely throughout the White Paper, are to mean anything at all, the only terms on which enfranchisement could be contemplated would be at a price somewhere between the open market value and the value to the occupying lessee.

935
We have been talking exclusively in terms of the long lease—the 99-year lease is what most people have had in mind. The Minister has made much of the point that the houses subject to these long leases were originally built by the lessees or their predecessors in title. This, I would suggest is a generalisation wholly without foundation. One has only to look at the great blocks of leasehold property in London, nearly all of which is in terraces, to realise the unlikelihood of any single individual ever building one of these houses. However that may be, what is abundantly certain is that nobody would build a house on a 21-year lease or any lease under about 60 years as a minimum. For the right hon. Gentleman to introduce a Bill which applies to every lease over 21 years on that argument is the sheerest hypocrisy and electioneering.
There can be nothing whatever to be said for the proposal in the White Paper for a complete expropriation, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames so rightly said, of a large part—probably the larger part in many cases—of the landlord's interest, which the White Paper proposes, in order to make a present to leaseholders of the most valuable portion of the landlord's reversion. The only explanation of that is that this is the most blatant attempt to bribe the electorate. If this is a prelude to the General Election—and it is certain that the Government will be in difficulties in making a convincing explanation for the programme for the last few weeks if it is not—the Government must indeed rate their chances very low, if they have to sink to this. They rate also the morality of the British people very much lower than I do. [Interruption.] What is abundantly certain—hon. Members opposite are emphasising my point at the moment—is that they are setting an example in cynical expediency which could not be in greater contrast to the moral lead that the country today, perhaps as never before, so badly needs.
Of course, I concede that it is true in some cases that either leaseholds or reversions of long leases, or both, have been continuously held by the same family throughout. But even in these cases the argument is no different. The families owning the reversion have quite deliberately refrained from cashing in on
936
the value of the reversion. They have put up over the years with ground rents which have often become nothing more than nominal as a result of inflation, and more often than not they have done so for good reasons of estate management which have proved of lasting benefit to their leaseholders and the general public.
By definition here we are dealing with those who have inherited, as opposed to those who have purchased. On both sides of the transaction this is the case. In some cases they will have inherited under a single demise, but much more often over a period of 99 years they will have inherited under a number of demises. I suppose the Government will tell us that it is just and equitable that those who inherited the freehold should have paid death duties on an appreciating asset now to be depreciated, and that those who have inherited the lease should have paid death duties on a depreciating asset now to be enormously enhanced.
I do not deny that there may in certain circumstances be hardship under the leasehold system.
Mr. Will Griffiths: What a discovery.
Mr. Corfield: This arises not from the nature of the leasehold system, but from the fact that there is a housing shortage in certain areas and at the end of a lease these people are faced with the impossibility, or at any rate the great dfficulty, of finding alternative homes in the same neighbourhood. Here, the answer is the quite simple one which my right hon. Friend outlined perfectly clearly. I say that despite the comments of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Arthur Pearson).
I suggest that any form of enfranchisement must be made subject not only to the greater needs of the landowner to occupy a house as his home, but also to the needs to redevelop where this is clearly in the public interest. If we do not do this then we rule out, and the provisions of the White Paper rule out, the participation of private enterprise in the renewal of outworn urban areas.
Whatever one's doctrine on these matters, it is abundantly clear to anyone who travels up and down the country, and who takes any interest at all in housing problems, that, if we are to get

937
decayed areas renewed in a reasonable time, we shall want all the resources and effort we can get. It is absolute madness to cut out the contribution of the private developer by putting impossible financial obstacles in his way as the White Paper does.
I maintain that this is a thoroughly immoral document. If it is the Government's concept of social justice, then those two words are mutually contradictory and the phrase means something totally opposite to that which it implies. It is a document and a philosophy utterly unworthy of the Minister and of the Parliamentary Secretary. The Government's proposals represent a straight electoral bribe by confiscating legitimately acquired private property from one section of the community to give it to another, solely on the principle that there are more of the latter who, the Government believe, are likely to be so bribed. This is not the mild Socialism with which the Labour Party is so anxious to delude the electorate. It is very close to Communism.
Last week we had a notable example of principle being put before expediency and before private interest. I should be called to order if I mentioned matters of defence, and I want only to say that I immensely admired the action taken by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), quite apart from the merits of the case. I mention that because I believe that in all these cases of personal resignation the decision rests on this and this alone—that the time comes when to the person concerned to stay on is too high a price in self-respect to be worth the while.
I believe that we are paying much too high a price in self-respect in the White Paper's attempt to attract the electorate by bribes of this sort, not only our own self-respect, but that of the House. If we are going to the polls, nothing convinces me more than this White Paper of the need for the British electorate to return to the House men and women capable of giving a lead in decent, honest dealing with the Government have so shamefully abrogated.
5.21 p.m.
Mr. Neil McBride: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member
938
for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) except to say that I shall again look up the meaning of "immorality" in the sense in which he used it. The attempt of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) to put every ground landlord and property-owning company in a white sheet was too ludicrous for words.
I have the honour to speak and declare my interest as a leaseholder. Nowhere in the country is this problem more important than it is in Wales. Proportionately, the number of leasehold houses in Wales is higher than anywhere else in Britain. I hope that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South does not say in Wales what he said in the House on the subject of leases reverting to the freeholder, for he would not last five minutes on the platform expounding his view.
In the areas where leasehold reform is a social problem, the matter has been a bone of contention for 80 years. It is not correct to say that in seeking to achieve necessary and desirable social reform the White Paper has a political content and an animosity to the landholder beyond what is necessary. This is a long overdue reform, for the long leases with which the White Paper is principally concerned were mostly granted in the second half of the last century.
These proposals take into account the position of the leaseholder, or his predecessor in title, who built, maintained and improved the house at his own expense. The White Paper foreshadows legislation to ensure the ownership of the house not reverting to the freeholder without the freeholder paying for it. This will relieve worry and hardship, felt especially over the last few years when leases have been about to fall in.
Nowhere is the White Paper more warmly welcomed than in Wales, where it is regarded as the leasehold emancipation charter. In the many miles of small terraced houses such as that in which I live, in the £30 to £56 rateable value bracket, the White Paper will be received with great happiness as the declared intention of the Labour Government—and if there is an election, we shall again be the Government to bring in legislation to solve this social problem.
There has been a long struggle since 1884 when the Leaseholders (Facilities of

939
Purchase of Fee Simple) Bill was introduced as the first of a long series of unsuccessful attempts to put the compulsory purchase of freehold on the Statute Book. Now we see the culmination of the fight, a fight by two generations of Welsh people, to secure the right to purchase the land on which their houses stand.
We look for the support of hon. Members opposite who have the declared intention of according the lessee the right to purchase. We look for the support of the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) who on the Second Reading of the Landlord and Tenant Bill said:
"It has been said tonight that a right has been given to Scotland for lessees to purchase. I have not familiarised myself so much with Scottish legislation as with this, but why if it is possible in Scotland, can it not be possible in Wales? Is Wales always to be behind Scotland? I know that we are well behind in the matter of Parliamentary time; I know that we do not occupy a day of the week in Parliamentary Questions, but is it always to be said that different laws can be designed for Scotland while, if there is a peculiar social problem in Wales, special attention cannot be given to Wales? I say that more as a Welsh Member than as a Conservative Member"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1954; Vol. 522 c. 1817–18.]
The hon. Gentleman said that he spoke more as a Welsh Member than as a Conservative Member, and if we have to stand and be counted I hope that we shall see him in the Lobby with us.
It has been said the White Paper introduces a new dimension. Certainly it introduces a principle of justice which has been long delayed, but which is now offered to ordinary working people among whom there are thousands of small leaseholders in all parts of Britain. The Labour Government's indication that it will introduce a Bill to enable leaseholders to acquire greater security by obtaining the freehold on fair terms demonstrates the Labour Government's intention to find a solution to the problem and to right the injustices suffered by occupants for so long in the leasehold property of which there are many miles in my constituency.
Leaseholders now have to pay large sums to purchase freeholds which were created as a result of the misuse of monopoly power by landlords in the second half of the last century who would not
940
permit development other than on a leasehold basis. The cruel and harsh injustice which has resulted from this misuse of power has been felt especially in South Wales. That is why I consider it to be a historic privilege as a leaseholder to speak for the rights of many thousands who live in houses like mine. The difficulties were rapidly accelerating and being exacerbated by the anti-social behaviour of landlords who refused to sell on fair terms and who declared instead that they would sit tight and wait for the leases to fall in. It is not a new dimension which has been introduced, but the old dimension of justice.
The Opposition may oppose these proposals on the ground of the sanctity of contract, but is that argument valid in this respect in 1966? The Tory Opposition may adduce this as an argument but in these modern times is this argumentum ad judicium—the argument appealing to judgment?
Sir B. Janner: Would my hon. Friend point out at the same time that that principle was set aside by the words of the 1915 Rent Act, which said "Any agreement to the contrary notwithstanding."?
Mr. McBride: That is the position, although perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite are not aware of it.
Speaking on the Second Reading of the Landlord and Tenant Bill in January, 1954, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), who has represented that constituency with great distinction and who was at that time the hon. Member for Sheffield, Neepsend, said:
"It is no consolation to those people to say that after all, it is a question of 'sanctity of contract', when their possession of what they regard—and are morally entitled to regard—as their home is threatened by the exercise of a right depending on a phantom title, 100 years' old, which is devoid of flesh and blood and simply armed with legal teeth".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1954; Vol. 522, c. 1775.]
As a result, I welcome the action of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government in assuring qualified leaseholders—those with leases expiring after 8th December, 1964, and who are occupying their houses whenever the Bill becomes law—that they will be brought within the scope of the

941
intended legislation. I welcome, too, the qualification that legislation will apply to those who have leases and entered into them for more than a 21-year period with a rateable value of £400 in London and £200 elsewhere, because the latter figure will cover the whole range of leasehold property in Wales.
I also welcome the principle that if the land belongs to the freeholder, then, in equity, the house constructed on that land belongs to the leaseholder. This is an irrefutable principle, particularly when one remembers that in Wales people have made huge financial killings without lifting a finger to make improvements to the property on leasehold land. Paragraph 4 of the White Paper points out that the leaseholder will have the right to retain his house after the expiry of the lease and the right to enfranchise his lease.
Is it not an obvious assumption that the bricks and mortar belong to the tenant of the land, the leaseholder, paying an annual ground rent, and that the ground belongs to the freeholder? Property owners are opposing the White Paper with the contention that this is coercion. They are also declaring that the principle of the White Paper, to allow the leaseholder to acquire the land on which his house is built, on fair terms is to allow one individual to coerce another.
I disagree with them, because our law must take into account public opinion—and public opinion has long been of the view that the proposals in the White Paper should be the law of the land. The assumption that the house erected by the leaseholder should not be his is born of vested interests. This should not be allowed to intrude upon or oppose the will of the people or of the Government in this matter.
It has long been asserted that the land was given to the people. The White Paper does not say at what time the marauders, armed with legal sanctions, came between and resulted in the parting of ownership from the people. However, the White Paper does say in paragraph 11:
"It is important to ensure that the price paid for enfranchisement is a fair price. But present market prices reflect the position under the present law which is inequitable to the leaseholder, and the price for enfranchisement must accordingly be based not on present market values but on the value of the land
942
itself, including any development value attaching to it."
It should be remembered that in the overwhelming number of cases there will be no development value and that, as paragraph 12 points out:
"…the fair price…will be the value of the freehold interest of the site, subject to the lease and its extension for 50 years."
It is pointed out that this will completely disregard the value of the buildings on reversion.
Only a Labour Government, attuned to the needs of the people and recognising the moral requirements of the people in law, are prepared to introduce proposals of this kind. Had the will and desire been there, these steps could have been taken at any time during the 13 years of office of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
The White Paper points out that, in the event of there being failure to reach a settlement, the parties in any case will have access to the Lands Tribunal. The White Paper will also be of great value to the great industrial conurbations of Wales, particularly Swansea and Cardiff. Much has been done for the leaseholder by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas). He has put up a great fight over the years for leasehold reform.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box) will support the principle of leasehold reform, because he knows only too well that for a small terraced house—two up and two down—in Cardiff the ground landlord is asking for a lump sum where there is yet 20 years to run on the lease; a £400 deposit to renew the lease for 80 years, taking into account the remaining part of the lease, while in addition increasing the current ground rent five times.
In the capital city of Wales ground landlords are cashing in on the inflated prices of property and are taking into account the value of the land plus the value of the property erected on it. In this connection, I recall the words of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in 1955 when moving the Second Reading of the Leasehold Enfranchisement Bill, a Private Member's Measure. He pointed out that in Cardiff alone 11,000 houses were owned by Western Ground Rents and 4,150 by Tredegar Estates.

943
The present system of leasehold, which the White Paper seeks to reform, is amoral and cruel and as recently as 1962 a petition signed by more than 60,000 people in Cardiff called for leasehold reform. However, that call was brushed aside by the then Tory Government, and I recall that the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) at that time justified the leasehold system and assisted in effecting the brushing aside of the public desire for leasehold reform.
Dr. D. R. Denman, head of the Department of Land Economy at Cambridge University, wrote in the Observer on 20th February last that the White Paper was based on a misconception in considering that bricks and mortar belonged to the tenant and the land to the landlord. He wrote:
"This is fundamentally wrong in legal concepts of property and certainly not the principle on which the market deals with leaseholds. If, in fact, the Government's whole policy is based on this, there is going to be a very grave injustice."
I believe that we should give approval to the White Paper, because it means that at long last the leaseholder is on the way to being freed from the social shackles which have weighed so heavily on him in the past. It is said that the lawyers are furious about the White Paper, but I do not know why. No Government can ignore public opinion, which is the greatest force in our democracy. And public opinion is on the side of the little man.
For over two generations this injustice has weighed heavily on leaseholders. Now the White Paper gives an outline of legislation and reforms to come. In all the towns of the southern seaboard of Wales and in all the towns and communities of the valleys running from the South to the North of Wales there will be great happiness where there is only anger now. The tears of frustration will be assuaged and in that great labour belt of South Wales there will be pride and faith in this Labour Government. They will know that the pledges made by my hon. and right hon. Friends are being kept and that what any Tory Government could have done at any time since 1884 is being done by the present Government.
This proposed legislation is illuminating the valleys with hope, because the White
944
Paper represents to the thousands of people there the fact that the Labour Party keeps faith with the electors.
5.41 p.m.
Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: The eloquence of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) was extremely reminiscent of that of Mr. Lloyd George, but I am not sure that his logic was as good as that of Mr. Lloyd George, at its best. He told us, if I may have his attention—
Mr. McBride: Although the distinguished Welshman to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred was a great legal luminary, I have no pretensions to a claim of that sort.
Sir K. Pickthorn: I do not think that that kind of interruption is anything short of cheating. It has nothing whatever to do with the argument, and interruptions are intended for that purpose.
I propose to refer particularly to the hon. Gentleman's telling us of a horrible story—apparently, the worst he could think of—in Cardiff, where stories are pretty horrible, as we have been told several times already this afternoon, where a wicked landlord wanted to put up the ground rent by five times. What about the wicked tenant who has been paying for I do not know how long—perhaps since 1884—a ground rent which his predecessor agreed to pay under a contract, which he presumably understood, at a time when it never occurred to anyone that the symbol for £1 sterling on a piece of paper or parchment meant anything but a gold sovereign? That was what people undertook to pay.
For anything up to 99 years—or more, for there are some leases which are even longer than that—and certainly all the time since 1915, which is a considerable period, the tenant, the lessee, instead of paying a gold sovereign each year, has paid a dirty piece of paper which is worth even less than the dirty piece of paper he paid the previous year. Everybody here knows that.
If any hon. Member talks about wages or prices, he remembers that the value of the £ has shifted. Why does he not remember that when he talks about ground rent? If the £ has fallen in value by a factor of five, as it has, if the

945
facility for perfectly ordinary people to acquire £s has been multiplied at least by a factor of five, as it certainly has, why all this horror when somebody, who has been waiting for good pounds and accepting bad ones for the previous 50 years, gets a chance to alter the price by saying, "In future, I want five times as much"?
Dr. David Kerr: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me?
Sir K. Pickthorn: This is the last time. I bet a shilling that the interruption is not relevant.
Dr. Kerr: I should like to know, with all the wisdom which the hon. Gentleman is displaying from hindsight about inflation, why his friends outside are being daft enough to grant leases for 999 years?
Sir K. Pickthorn: I do not see the relevance of that interruption. My premonition was perfectly correct.
Several hon. Members opposite have suggested that we cannot expect the British people to understand about leaseholds, I can expect the British people to understand about leaseholds. In case there are some hon. Gentlemen or hon. Ladies opposite who are British and do not understand, I will try to make them understand.
The British people, we are often told—and quite largely it is true—are very intelligent, and they have pretty long collective memories. A good many of them, even among the smallest individuals, have undertaken commercial bargains and contracts. They know perfectly well that if they pay the normal rate for hiring a bicycle or taxi-cab, or anything else, or if they try to pay off a mortgage, as long as what they pay does not represent more than a normal market rent for the object in question, that it does not diminish their indebtedness on the mortgage, it does not give them any right to claim the bicycle at the end of the hour or week.
We have had a lot today from Members on both sides of the House about morals. Generally, I do not speak about morals very much. My respect for morality is so deep that generally I leave the subject alone. However, on this
946
occasion, it is almost obligatory to say something about morals.
I cannot say that I have looked at all earlier White Papers, but I should be very grateful if the Secretary of State for Wales, who is on the Government Front Bench, would tell us whether he can remember a White Paper so extremely tendentious and propagandist as this one. I do not ask him to agree that, from his point of view, it is tendentious and propagandist, but I ask any candid hon. Member opposite to read this White Paper and to say how extremely propagandist it is from the opposing point of view.
We have gathered from derisory cackling from the benches opposite that this White Paper has nothing to do with the General Election—that it is a matter of deep principle, and all that. In any case, it is not supposed to be a propaganda document. It is a document of State, drafted presumably by civil servants, redrafted by other civil servants, and again redrafted by the Ministers concerned; and, in the end, the Ministers are wholly responsible for it. But, as a rule, such documents do not have the extreme partisanship which this one has.
Secondly, if we are to argue about, which side of the House approaches this matter from the point of view of morality, it is a fair general rule that people, especially those seeking commercial or political advantage, are morally less respectable in exact proportion to the excess of the moralism of their language. On the first page of the White Paper there are the words "unfairly", "justice", "injustice", "principle", "justice", "reform", "harshly", "sense of injustice", "harshness", "Plan"—with a capital "P" of course—"fair terms", "principle", "right", "equity", "right". There I stop—and I have not yet got to the end of the first page. Hon. Members may take it from me that anyone who sloshes all that amount of morals, and of emotion-raising terms of morality, within one page needs looking at carefully.
There are several particular difficulties about any Bill which one can draft in one's own mind on the basis of the White Paper, which I think I might bring to the attention of the House. Take four houses in a terrace next to

947
each other, lived in by X, Y, P and—guess who—Q. X lives in a house which his grandfather bought, in which his father was born, in which he was born, and the lease of which has still 10 years to run. The White Paper means to protect him. That is all right so far as I am concerned. Y lives next door. He bought his lease only six years ago, and he got it very cheap. He gets a large capital gain—not in the hope that he will vote Labour in the next election; we have been assured of that.
But he gets a large capital gain because it just happens that Labour Ministers have a life-long prejudice against landlords—or some of them have—and that some other Labour Members have a life-long prejudice against anyone who has anything, and it is rather fun taking something away from someone, and they intend to take it away from the landlord. To whom should they give it? Why this chap I do not know, but this chap Y is the chap who will get it.
P puts in a second bath. Perhaps it is rather over-luxurious of him, but, still, he does. There is no harm in that. His rateable value rises from £195 to £205. Q, next door, has never done anything to mend his house, or improve it, or look after it. He gets a large profit.
These would be comparatively small anomalies—and I could give half-a-dozen others—if we were dealing with a great general principle, but we are not dealing with a great general principle. The objection to the White Paper as a document is not only its excessive moralism and pietism, which I have mentioned, but also its absolute and perfect want of logic. There is not an attempted argument in the White Paper which it would not be the most truckling flattery to call a non sequitur. Every question is begged. No question is argued or settled. We are suddenly told, "It is a principle that the bicycle belongs to the shopkeeper from whom you hired it, but the tyres belong to you"—or vice versa. In this case, the lands belongs to one and the bricks and mortar to another.
No argument for this has been advanced. The only argument which we have heard from the Government benches is that there are 6,000 people in Cardiff
948
—or 16,000, or 60,000, I have forgotten which—who will be very thankful indeed. Of course, they will: I should be very thankful if someone gave me money. Perhaps, by the by, I ought to declare an interest—a very slight interest. There are members of my family who own ground rents and my college owns ground rents, although I have no control over them nor do I get anything out of them now.
These are no reasons, I think, why we should accept the White Paper in deference to two of the Jenkins Committee in 1950. First of all, we had the Select Committee, in the 1880s, and then the Jenkins Committee in 1950, which, incidentally, produced the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, which was of some use to the tenants, and more recently there has been an inquiry by professional associations. All these decided against anything of the sort suggested in the White Paper. It is not much use Ministers telling us that Cardinal Manning was in favour of something like it, or that on the Jenkins Committee there were two admirable chaps who were wholly in favour of it by anticipation, admirable in so far as they were both Socialist Members of Parliament. We are told that we cannot expect the experts not to be so prejudiced that they can see no truth in the matter. We were told that 10 minutes ago. Those of us who have the opposite prejudices might take the same sort of view about Socialist Members of Parliament. There has been no argument at all to indicate that the position suggested in the White Paper is right.
I come to what I think is the greatest objection of all to the White Paper. It seems to me to destroy the nature of contracts and to some extent to destroy the nature of Law. We heard one of the pious phrases which they forgot to put into the White Paper, but which the Minister who introduced it remembered this evening—the Minister told us a lot about social justice. I know what a people's democracy is: it is a State which is not popular and is not democratic. We might hazard a guess about what social justice is. Social justice is to be found in a community where the members have no society between each other—neither society nor equality. They get treated quite differently according to whether they pay rent or accept it, or according to

949
whether their rent is more or less than £200 a year. That is what the social part of social justice means.
What about the justice part of it? That appears to mean that if one goes seeking justice one cannot count on the predictability of the law. One cannot rely, in continuous and vital matters like land, on the predictability of the law, upon the law—although it must be changed from time to time—having continuity. You cannot rely on the law meaning what you are accustomed to its meaning and what others before you were accustomed to its meaning.
It is no answer to this to say, as has been said by hon. Members opposite, that there are statutes which cut out contracts, which say that so-and-so is to happen and that no contract to the contrary is to be valid. Here is a case where there is not the least doubt that these contracts have been valid for 500 years, and I might almost say 1,000 years. But all this is to be altered in the most arbitrary manner.
There may well be cases in which the leasehold system inflicts hardship and many more where it is felt to be a hardship, and most of all in those neighbourhoods and among those populations where it has been continually exploited as a grievance. If there are such cases of hardship—and if we had heard argument, not assertions about that from hon. Members opposite—I cannot believe the cases so awful as we are sometimes told, and certainly they are not so numerous as sometimes we are told—but for what they are, I can well believe that it might be possible to draft a Statute which might remove them or mitigate them.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) indicated some such possibilities. Certainly, there has not been the least attempt to produce today any kind of evidence for there being so many hardships of such a kind that it is necessary to inflict this blow upon the accustomed Law, the accustomed sense of fairness, and the reasonable expectations of our country.
6.0 p.m.
Sir Barnett Janner: I have listened with considerable interest to try to find out what, if any,
950
is the answer to the case which has been made by my right hon. Friend. I thought one of my hon. Friends was a little cynical about the position of the lawyers in this matter. A man who possibly pleaded more than most to enfranchise was a great lawyer, Mr. Lloyd George—
Sir Douglas Glover: He may have been a great politician.
Sir B. Janner: —and I am sorry to say that the supporters of his party do not appear to be present in order to give him credit for what he did.
Sir D. Glover: They also are on leaseholds.
Sir B. Janner: Let me say at once that any suggestion here that we are proposing to deprive anyone is sheer nonsense. Of course it is. Hon. Members on the other side of this House say that we are introducing something which is silly and which is all wrong. If it is all wrong, then, obviously, the electorate will vote against us because it is all wrong. If they think that what we are doing is right, then that sense of justice which has been referred to and which raised such great hopes in the mind of the right hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) will naturally cause them to vote for the Labour Government who at long last have introduced a measure which has been in the minds of the electorate for the last half century or more.
It is sheer nonsense for hon. Members opposite to suggest that this is something new. It is not something new.
Sir K. Pickthorn: Will the hon. Member remember that during every one of those fifty years the burden of ground rent has been reduced—every year?
Sir B. Janner: I appreciate the point the right hon. Member is making, but does he not realise that this has been a burning question for years? If he goes to South Wales he will soon find out. He must not sneer at this question. It is not a question involving hundreds of people, it is not a question of thousands of people being involved. It is a question of hundreds of thousands of people involved—street after street of people who would be turned out of their homes, yes, town after town of people who would be turned out of their homes—I am

951
not exaggerating—unless this proposed Measure or a similar Measure be introduced in time to save them. What is not understood on the other side of the House is that it is not only a technical problem of leasehold reform. This is a very serious matter which strikes at the very root of our society, because it means that the homes of the people are to be protected, and the people themselves protected from being turned out of their homes.
An Hon. Member: No.
Sir B. Janner: That is exactly what is being advocated on the other side of the House—that they should be turned out and that the landlord should be in a position when the lease terminates to take possession of the house—
An Hon. Member: No.
Sir B. Janner: —irrespective of what is happening. The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) wants to protect himself?
Mr. Gower: I am sympathetic to the hon. Member's case, but he is being less than fair now. The landlord cannot turn them out under the present law, and the hon. Member knows it. I hope he will try to be fair.
Sir B. Janner: That is a flimsy protection compared with what we are trying to bring into effect today. What we are endeavouring to do is to give the individual who has occupied his house—and not only may he have occupied it but he and predecessors may have occupied it for close on a century—the right to continue in the house as a home. This is where the Opposition falls in its approach to this matter. It is not a question of the house alone. It is a question of the home which is at issue here. It is a question of the walls within which the family has been brought up; it is a question of the person returning to his home, no matter how humble, and finding that that home has not been taken from him. That is the nub of the matter, and that is what we have got to deal with. It is high time it was dealt with.
We are not seeking any electioneering advantage. In our addresses at the last election we stated—and we stated it from every platform throughout the length and breadth of the country—that this was our
952
policy. Because the Opposition has impeded us with the various Measures we have been trying to introduce during this Parliament we have not had the chance of carrying this out before.
Then we are asked to regard the moral situation. I intervened to try to point out that, in the protection of the home, we have altered the contractual situation in order that men and women should not be deprived of the roof over their heads and of the home which they were occupying. This happened—why? There are plenty of good landlords, but in 1915 a lot of bad landlords took advantage of the situation that the menfolk had gone to the war and they started increasing the rents for the womenfolk and children left at home who could not afford to pay additional rents. The danger with which, in consequence, they were faced in their homes was avoided by the Rent Act, 1915, which said that the rents could not be increased beyond certain range.
That is what has prevailed since then as the basis of protection of the home. It is not unreasonable that this should be extended to the protection of the home when a lessee is being considered. It is his protection which we are endeavouring to ensure by means of this White Paper and the legislation which is to follow. It is a question of the morality of protecting a person's home, of a change of outlook in contractual matters which has prevailed since 1915. In these 51 years there has at the same time been an agitation for enfranchising leasesholders, to enable those who built their homes who built their houses and maintained them in a good and decent condition to get the advantage of their labour and of their energy—and not only of their labour and their energy but, in the towns I have referred to, the labour and the energy of the communities, of which they were part, who provided the roads and other necessities and facilities to make the land much more useable than it was before.
There is no denying the fact that in the places where leasehold has been the prevailing system of tenure the lessees have borne the brunt of practically the whole improvements from beginning to end. It is no good the hon. Member's talking about low ground rent. A ground rent of £4 or £5—or of £1 which was charged in those days—was perhaps ten

953
times what the land was worth when they took over.
If one thinks of a town like that which the hon. Member for Barry represents the land taken for building was agricultural, waste land, or swamp. People went there and built the docks. Around those docks, houses were built. Immediately, in addition to the benefit that the landlords obtained from the docks themselves, they reaped the advantage of a ground rent which was far in excess of anything that they could have obtained if the people themselves had not built it up.
That is where we differ from hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Labour Party believes that the benefits which people create for themselves as a community should be enjoyed by the community, by the individuals creating them. Hon. Gentlemen opposite believe that if people create anything of value on land, the benefit should go to the owner of the land, irrespective of what he has done towards it himself. The Measure which we are contemplating at present deals with the situation where some leases have existed for 90 odd years, ground rent has been paid, and the tenants have kept the houses in repair. They have built up a community. They have built their own homes and neighbourhoods because they wanted a community life. They have thus lived as communities and spent their energies and money in those communities. The result has been not just bricks and mortar but a worthwhile life for those who are living within the communities.
That is really the situation. For many years I sang a song, and I am sorry none of those who sang the same chorus are present in their seats to join—
"The land, the land
'Twas God who gave the land,
……
Why should we be beggars?
With the ballot in our hand?
God gave the land to the people."
That has prevailed as a slogan for many throughout the country. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are now afraid because one party, instead of regarding that as a slogan to acclaim from every election platform over the years, has at last had the time to do something about it. But we have had to overcome difficulties put in our way at every single step over the
954
last 15 or 16 months, to try and prevent us.
Mr. William Roots: I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the gifts of the Almighty. Surely that is diametrically opposed to the White Paper, which claims that the Almighty gave the land to the landlords.
Sir B. Janner: No, it does not say that at all. It says that the landlords have abused the gifts of the Almighty. That is what we are saying. I do not want to be ungenerous, because there are plenty of good landlords, but the fact is that far too many of them have considered themselves not only landlords but land gods. That has been the real trouble.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite are frightened now because they had 13 years in which to do something to remedy the position. If they really thought that there was anything wrong and that the electorate would be delighted if it were put right, why did they not do it in their period of office? They just smiled their generous smiles and took it easy. But now they are worried because the present Administration, which have done so well in every other respect, are now going one step further to provide leaseholders with security. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know that if there is a General Election, we shall be returned with a heavy majority, in which event we shall bring this Measure into force and see to it that the wrong which has existed for a very long time is put right.
Do not let those hon. Gentlemen imagine that lessees will be entirely satisfied with the merit of the proposals. The landlords are getting as generous a deal as could be handed to them, and we are prepared to do it in order that this wrong can be put right as soon as possible. I hope that the country will realise that the Measure is consistent with our action about the Rent Act—that vicious Act of 1957 is being swept aside—and that is consistent with our policies and with the desires of the people of our country.
6.15 p.m.
Mr. Raymond Gower: The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) asked what my view was about

955
this Measure, and I should have thought that it would not surprise the House if I said that I welcomed any attempt to modify the leasehold system as it affects those who occupy dwelling-houses under long leases, which is the description of the houses affected by the White Paper. As long as I can remember, I have done so.
The hon. Gentleman may recall that some years ago I supported a Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell), and I also supported a Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) and, together with him and the late Mr. Clement Davies, the former Member for Montgomeryshire, I presented a petition on behalf of South Wales leaseholders. In addition, I have had the honour on a number of occasions to formulate proposals in Private Members' Bills which I have presented in order to try and find a solution to this very difficult problem.
Mr. Arthur Probert: Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman dissents from the proposals made by his right hon. Friend from the Opposition Front Bench?
Mr. Gower: I am going further than that. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome my support, but he does not seem to want it. I should have thought that he would have been agreeably pleased that I was speaking so favourably about the general principles which he is supporting.
Mr. Abse: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?
Mr. Gower: Not at the moment. I have hardly risen to resume my speech after the last intervention.
It must be recognised that this is a most difficult problem, but, from the comments made by some of my hon. Friends who represent English constituencies, I realise that it is hardly a problem for them at all. I envy them. The hon. Member for Leicester, Northwest (Sir B. Janner) will appreciate that in many English constituencies it is not a problem.
Sir B. Janner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gower: I will, in a few seconds. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that there are not many constituencies in the country where 90 per cent. of the property is leasehold.
Sir B. Janner: I quite agree, but perhaps I ought to declare an interest. I happen to be president of a leaseholders' association, and there are very many districts in which it is a very important problem and in which there are many leasehold properties.
Mr. Gower: The figures show almost conclusively that in very few parts of England is there anything comparable to the problem in one part in South Wales. What has made this such a problem in parts of South Wales is not only the nature of the tenure, to which reference has been made, but the high incidence of it. Indeed, it must be difficult for many hon. Members to appreciate a state of affairs where three-quarters, or perhaps more, of the dwelling-houses in a district are leasehold, but this is the position which obtains in many parts of South Wales.
For more than 50 years Members from South Wales have striven to make Westminster aware of the peculiar problem which affects us. That some progress has been made is evidenced by the appearance of this White Paper. Indeed, some success in our missionary work is also indicated by the fact that tonight there is not to be any official vote against the White Paper. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is surely an indication that we have made some progress. I said that there was not to be an official vote against it. There may be some individual Members who feel strongly about it; I do not know. I submit that these facts suggest that today Parliament at least recognises that there is a problem and that it is most acute in South Wales.
I appreciate that hon. Members may have different opinions as to the nature of a fair solution to this problem, but I should like to feel that there was general agreement that in some areas, and above all in South Wales, there is a leasehold problem for which a solution must be found. I would remind any doubters among my hon. Friends that it was a Conservative Government who in 1954 turned all leasehold property in Scotland into freehold. The hon. Member for

957
Leicester, North-West said that the Conservative Government were the friends of landlords. I hope he realises that in Scotland, in a country of large estates, where there were many large pockets of leasehold property, it was a Conservative Government who turned them into freehold property, and nobody in this chamber can deny that.
Mr. McBride: In view of the hon. Gentleman's comment, does not he think it ironical that his party should not support a lessee purchasing his freehold in South Wales?
Mr. Gower: For a long time I have been endeavouring to promote the idea of a lessee being able to purchase the freehold. I agree that it is strange, because, as I have said, it was a Conservative Government who changed the position in Scotland. I agree that the problem there was smaller than in Wales, but the law was fundamentally changed.
Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: I think that the hon. Gentleman is discussing long leases.
Mr. Gower: Yes.
Mr. Mackenzie: They were transferred not to freehold but to another form of feu duty, which is another thing.
Mr. Gower: Nevertheless, leases in Scotland were, in effect, brought to an end.
Paragraph 1 of the White Paper refers to
"an occupying leaseholder who at the end of the term has lived in it for a period of years regards it as his family home."
This is true in the parts of Wales to which I have referred, where leasehold properties form the preponderant part of the dwelling houses. I go further than the White Paper in commenting on the situation in South Wales. In areas where 70 per cent., or 80 per cent., or possibly even 90 per cent., of all houses are leasehold, it is natural that the owner-occupier should regard his house as the family home. In English towns, where freehold property predominates, the position may be different. A person who has acquired a leasehold property has probably made a conscious and deliberate choice. Few persons in Cardiff, Barry, Newport or Swansea could have made
958
such a deliberate choice, because at one time nearly all the houses available were leasehold.
Paragraph 2 of the White Paper includes the interesting formula, subject to one or two reservations, already commented on by hon. Members on both sides, namely, that the freeholder is deemed to own the land, and the leaseholder the buildings on it. The criticisms made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) may not be acceptable to hon. Members on both sides, but the formula has some limitations, as was shown by my right hon. Friend's example of a valuable property like the Hilton Hotel where it is difficult to separate ownership. Nevertheless, I believe that if certain provisions could be made for special cases, the formula would provide a chance of finding a solution to a difficult problem.
I turn briefly to the qualifications prescribed in paragraphs 5 to 8 of the White Paper for those who will benefit from possible legislation. I think that the requirement that the original lease should have been for more than 21 years at a ground rent is reasonable. By far the majority of cases which we have in mind are houses on a 99-year lease.
I expect that the proviso that a leaseholder must have occupied the house for at least five years is accepted on both sides, and my right hon. Friend indicated that this was so. As has been pointed out, it is possible that this could lead to a few anomalies, but I hope that my hon. Friends who find fault with this paragraph will not for that reason alone reject the whole idea of a solution of our difficulties.
I can appreciate the difficulties which have led to the omission of flats, but I should not have thought that these were insuperable. All that is needed is a change in the law to enable freeholds of flats to exist. I appreciate that this has not been the case generally in England and Wales in the past.
In relation to the proposals for 50 years' extension of leases, for those who do not wish to spend capital sums to acquire the freehold, the term "modern ground rent" is used, and in his introductory speech the Minister referred to this. I am not trying to be hostile about

959
this, but I submit that this term needs more accurate definition.
The inclusion of "development value" in paragraph 11 has also been mentioned. In some cases this formula could be open to criticism, but again I trust that those who have reasonable criticisms about this paragraph will not thereby be led to reject all ideas of reforming the system of leasehold.
I am glad that to a limited extent local authorities and various public authorities are brought within the White Paper, but, except in extraordinary cases affecting the provision of essential services, I would plead that the leaseholder of a house whose freehold is owned by such an authority should be placed in a similar position to a person who lives in a house the freehold of which is owned by an individual or a company.
In my experience leaseholders of local authority property have sometimes been in a worse position than other leaseholders because, certainly in Glamorgan, rightly or wrongly the county council has refused to sell, and it is no solace to a leaseholder to be told that he cannot buy it because the freeholder is the local authority. I hope that this paragraph is not so limited as it appears to be on first scrutiny.
I am not sure why the right hon. Gentleman has favoured the use of the Lands Tribunal. I am not hostile to the proposal, but he will recall that in other Rent Acts Ministers have preferred to use the county courts. He has not explained why another body is chosen on this occasion, and I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to refer to the point tonight.
I reiterate that hon. Members on both sides of the House should be glad that some progress has been made towards finding a basis for legislation—because that is how the White Paper is described. There are obvious divergencies of view among hon. Members on both sides of the House, but it is a sign that we have advanced a long way that this debate is not dividing us tonight, in the traditional manner, in the Lobbies.
Mr. Willey: The hon. Member says that the House is not being divided. I want to make it clear that if we welcome the White Paper we should welcome it.
6.31 p.m.
Mr. S. C. Silkin: I begin by declaring an interest in this matter, in that I am a lessee on a long residential lease, and qualify under the terms of the White Paper. Apart from that direct personal interest, it is also right that I should mention a less direct one. I have occupied leasehold property for many years, and my friends and neighbours are all leaseholders. There is a large leasehold estate in my constituency, in addition to other smaller leasehold estates, and of that very large estate I was for seven years an estate governor. In that capacity I was one of my own landlords. I hope that that has at least enabled me to appreciate the problems and the achievements of the freeholders, in some cases, and to take a balanced view of the matter.
This debate, like previous ones, has shown how utterly split from top to bottom is the official Opposition. We heard the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) take about three quarters of an hour to reach a point at which he was able to declare any policy at all, and when eventually it came it was not the mountain that I had been expecting. It was not even a mouse; it was a mini-mouse. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) took an entirely different view, and described the White Paper as a moral outrage. Finally, the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) gave the White Paper his broad support. We are told that there will not be a vote tonight. I wonder why. If the White Paper is a moral outrage it is surely the duty of the Opposition to show that it believes it to be a moral outrage by voting against it.
Mr. Gower: I merely said that I understood that there would not be an official Opposition vote against the White Paper. I did not say that none of my hon. Friends would divide against it.
Mr. Silkin: I do not know what is the official Opposition view. Does it believe the White Paper to be a moral outrage? Does it agree with the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South? If not, why not? If hon. Members agree with the White Paper no doubt they will vote in favour of it—or are we to see the familiar

961
spectacle of hon. Members opposite leaning over backwards to sit on the fence?
Any hon. Member who represents a leasehold constituency, as I do, is likely to support the White Paper, on whichever side of the House he sits. I want to pay tribute to my Conservative predecessor as Member of Parliament for Dulwich. He, like the hon. Member for Barry, played a great part in trying to persuade his colleagues, again and again—unsuccessfully—to support measures for leasehold reform which did not go anything like so far as the proposals in the White Paper go. Again and again my predecessor was blocked in his efforts. He produced a Ten Minute Rule Bill. That was blocked. Every time it came up, hon. Members opposite objected to it.
I am glad to say that Mr. Robert Jenkins, who has no axe to grind now, because he has retired from politics, has declared himself, in public, as being wholeheartedly in favour of the White Paper. He says that thousands of his ex-constituents will at last be released from bondage, and the stranglehold of unjust covenants. I shall not use such emphatic language as Mr. Jenkins has used, but I am grateful for the support of one who had 13 years' experience of representing a leasehold constituency, not in Wales but in England.
We have heard much about the philosophy of the White Paper. I accept it generally, but not entirely. I have four main objections to the long leasehold system in respect of residential property. I believe that in days gone by, especially when the Dulwich College Estate was being developed in Victorian days, there was a great need for this type of tenure, because it enabled a large landowner to find people who would erect houses for him when he was not able to find the money to do it himself. To get that done—and as a part of the process which was necessary for housing people—he did it on leasehold tenure, and either the lessees themselves or a builder who sold to the lessees built the houses.
That was a valuable process at the time, but it is no longer necessary. We do not have to have such a system to procure estate development. Today, money can be found. There are developers
962
who will build houses with freehold tenure.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames said that many leasehold estates today are owned by charities and similar organisations. They deal in land in this way as a hedge against inflation. This is not necessary today. By way of proper investment in the right sort of equities much more can be done to hedge against inflation—without the disadvantages of ground rents remaining stabilised for a long time—than can be done by putting money into land.
Secondly, it is no longer necessary to have this system in order to preserve good estate management and amenities. It was necessary in days gone by, before we had a modern town planning system, but it is not necessary today. It is much better that that kind of consideration should be left in the hands of the occupying lessees, who will be much more concerned for the amenities of their areas than will some remote freeholder. There are many examples of development companies developing freehold estates and providing a system under which the freeholders control the amenities of their own estates.
Thirdly, there are positive disadvantages in the system in that it creates severe hardship at the end of the term, especially at times and in areas of housing shortage. The more money the lessee has spent on his house the greater the hardship to him when he loses it. That is a formidable argument against the present system.
Finally, there is the positive disadvantage, which I have seen again and again in my area, that as one of these leases comes towards the end of the term there is no longer any incentive to maintain the house, certainly none to modernise and spend money in bringing it up to modern conditions, and, therefore, that is not done. One sees houses coming towards the end of their term deteriorating at much greater speed than houses in freehold tenure.
I said that I do not entirely accept the White Paper's principle although I accept it to a very large degree. The principle is that the value of the land should go to the landlord and the value of the house to the lessee. One has to recognise that there are differences in different parts of the country and in different estates.

963
There are different kinds of property even within the same area, as in my area, where the Dulwich College Estate is very different from some smaller leasehold estates in my constituency.
I agree that unhappily many landlords have contributed nothing at all to the value of the houses on their estates. They have not built the houses. All they have done is to collect the rents. To them the land is a mere investment. They have no more right to the value of the house than a moneylender has to the profits made from the use of the money he has lent to an entrepreneur. They are entitled to no more than the value of the land on which the house stands.
There are other areas, however, where the landlord, by good management, has contributed to the value of the house itself. My area is probably one of those. There the estate governors look after the properties, the woods and the manor wastes, as they are called, and generally preserve the rural atmosphere. Those things contribute to the value of the houses which stand there.
Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Would not the hon. and learned Member concede that the landlords have recovered what they have expended by having increased rents to which they are entitled in an area of good amenity and in the payment of the lease?
Mr. Silkin: If the hon. and learned Member will allow me to develop my argument, he will see what I am getting to eventually. I do not in any way dissociate myself from the general point he made.
Undoubtedly, part of the value of the houses in those cases lies in the value of the amenities of the area. That is why I particularly welcome paragraph 22 of the White Paper, which provides for estate management in future in the case of well-managed estates. That is something for which I have pressed for a long time. I hope that the negotiations which that paragraph envisages will be between the lessor, the various lessees whether they are enfranchised or not, and the local authority—because many local authorities may well be concerned with the amenities of such an area. I hope, also, that housing associations, mentioned in another paragraph, will be
964
used where necessary to assist in the preservation of amenities. I hope, although this is not suggested in the White Paper, that the Land Commission may be put to use to supervise this general operation.
On the financial side, if the lessor in those cases is to be left to carry on with the amenities of the area which he has carried on up to now in times when leases are enfranchised, it seems right to give him an incentive to continue his sound management policy, some financial reward, possibly for what he has done in the past, but more important for what he will do in future after enfranchisement. In those circumstances I would accept that it would be perfectly just to ask the enfranchising leaseholder to pay some contribution towards the freeholder's management expenses.
Mr. Hooson: It seems that there is a basic misunderstanding here. Surely the value of the land which goes to the lessor in any event is all the greater because of the high general amenity of the area. The lessor recovers that in the value of the land if it is ever sold.
Mr. Silkin: It may well be true that the lessor will recover some part of his amenity in the increased value of the land. I do not dispute that. I say that the lessee, for his part, will also recover a very much higher value in some cases than if he lived on the kind of estate where nothing of this kind is done. In trying to be fair to both sides—I hope that is what we are trying to do—I see no reason why some management contribution should not be given to the freeholder. I hope that in saying that, I am not either in danger of losing votes nor in danger from my friends and neighbours of something worse befalling me. I do not think so because I think that the electors of Dulwich are reasonable people.
Mr. Willey: I am very interested in the point made by my hon. and learned Friend, because I am concerned about the question of well-managed estates. Would he agree that if we provided for an agreed scheme the enfranchised leaseholder would play his part in determining that scheme and, as freeholder, could contribute to the cost of management through a rent charge?
Mr. Silkin: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend. That is the sort of idea I had in mind. I hope that further thought will be given to the question of how it can be done.
I turn to three other paragraphs in the White Paper, first, to paragraph 11 which provides that enfranchisement can take place during the original lease. I hope that the Government will have second thoughts about that. I see no reason why enfranchisement should not be permitted during the extended lease, subject, of course, to the lessor's right to retake for redevelopment purposes, which is provided elsewhere. If we do not give that right to the lessee it seems that at the end of the extension we shall encounter exactly the same sort of problem as we would otherwise have encountered at the end of the term.
Paragraph 17 deals with the rights of freeholders to resist enfranchisement or an extension when they want the house for occupation for themselves or their families when the lease expires. I welcome that proposal. It seems a measure of equity to the individual lessor, but I suggest that it should be subject to two restrictions. First, it should be restricted: to a lessor who acquires the freehold before a lessee has vested rights under paragraph 5. Once the lessee has vested rights by having occupied for five years, it ought not to be possible for a new landlord by acquiring the freehold reversion to oust those vested rights.
There is a strong case for restricting this particular qualification to the last part of the term, say, the last five or seven years of the lease. Otherwise, what the freeholder would have to show to the court would be the intention to occupy for himself a very long time ahead and that clearly would be something very much subject to abuse.
The final paragraph I deal with is paragraph 8, on the exclusion of flats. I appreciate the difficulties which including flats might bring, but I believe that there will be greater anomalies arising from excluding flats than the anomalies or difficulties arising from including them. The idea of a freehold flat is not new and provisions could be incorporated in the Bill which would provide the necessary safeguards as between one flat owner and another.
966
If we do not do that it seems that two particular difficulties and problems will arise.
In the first place, we shall have recently developed areas such as exist in the Dulwich College Estate, which have been comprehensively redeveloped to contain both flats and houses and the common areas—the grassland, and so on—serving both flats and houses. We would have a most anomalous situation in that a man who took a lease of one of the terraced houses and shared in the common amenities he would have a right to enfranchise but a man who took a flat, possibly at the same price and sharing the same facilities, would have no such rights. I cannot see that that will do anything other than create difficulties and anomalies.
Secondly, there is in my constituency at least one little area where there are what look like semi-detached houses, but, instead of being semi-detached vertically, they are semi-detached horizontally, they are one up and one down. Presumably, they are flats and would not qualify. If the principle that flats are to be excluded is adopted, in future those who want to develop on leasehold terms will develop in that way rather than by vertical division, because in that way they will get round this provision. In the London squares which have been mentioned today there will be horizontal divisions rather than vertical divisions when conversion takes place. I suggest that the Government should look again at the question of excluding flats.
Mr. Willey: I am greatly obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for the points he has raised. We have these points very much in mind. The difficulty is that we have received the Report of the Wilberforce Committee, which deals with the question of providing flats on freehold terms. This is not a difference of principle. We take the view that we should consider generally the question of the provision of freehold flats in the light of the Report of the Wilberforce Committee rather than deal with it in a Bill arising from this White Paper.
Mr. Silkin: I am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend for that assurance, which shows that flats are not wholly excluded from the Government's

967
proposals. It is merely that the government have not at the moment completely made up their minds. I hope that we shall be able to say this during the campaign which I understand is about to begin. I assure my right hon. Friend that his assurance will give a great deal of satisfaction to my constituents, as indeed will the White Paper, which I welcome and which I am certain that the vast majority of my constituents, whatever their political opinions, will also welcome.
6.52 p.m.
Mr. William Roots: I shall endeavour to be brief and to avoid repeating many of the pertinent points which have been made. The White Paper's first fault, as is indicated by The Times today, is its pontifical reliance at the outset on words such as "justice" and "equity", to which it attaches absolutely no known meaning. Indeed, it contradicts itself on more than one occasion in using these words. This has made people suspicious of what is proposed, because there appears to be an abhorrence of stating what seems to be the truth.
The fact surely is that there are many areas, particularly South Wales, where long leases are coming to an end and the tenants, understandably so, fear hardship arising because, although they will go on living in the same houses, instead of paying a ground rent they will have to pay a rack rent or, alternatively, be asked to buy the house. It is clear from speeches made by hon. Members opposite that this is where the rub has come.
Even so, I am not so pessimistic as to take the view that the difficulties to which the White Paper refers are insuperable. I ask the House to consider it from the point of view of the individual. The interest of a landlord with a lease which has more than 20 years to run is of an investment nature. In the case of individual premises, there would be no undue hardship in giving such a landlord a sum of money as an alternative investment, which would have the effect of buying up the lease. In the case of a tenant who is to be allowed to go on living in the same premises because they are not required for redevelopment, modernising the ground rent and allowing him to continue
968
in those premises, which the landlord has done nothing to improve, is an expedient which most people would recognise.
I am surprised that there has been no attempt by hon. Members opposite to refute the charge which, I think, can justifiably be levelled at the White Paper that it is grossly unfair. I hope that the Secretary of State for Wales will tell us why the White Paper seems deliberately to avoid facing the issues raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). He gave figures which showed that provisions on the proposed lines would deprive a landlord with a lease nearing the end of its life of about £5,000. No attempt has been made by the Government to justify this. It is where the lease has less than 20 years to run that there is likely to be a definite financial hardship and a quite unjustifiable removal of value—value on which the landlord has probably been taxed. He will have paid death duties, if nothing else. He may even have bought his interest. The first fault of the White Paper, therefore, is that it makes no attempt fairly to meet this problem, which arises in the last 20 years of a lease, particularly in the last 10.
Mr. Willey: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not appreciate the action which the Conservative Government took in the 1954 Act. It satisfied no one. In fact, it considerably depreciated the market value of the freehold interest. It often reduced it to one-third of what it was before. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot stigmatise the present Government for seeking a formula which will provide a fair price for enfranchisement.
Mr. Roots: The point is that it is not a fair price. It is a deliberately "cooked" price. This is my quarrel with the White Paper. If a genuine attempt were being made to give a landlord a fair price for an interest on which he may have been taxed, the Estate Duty valuation would be a reasonable figure. In paragraph 17 of the White Paper, which is entitled "Rights of Freeholders", the right to object to enfranchisement is inordinately limited and takes no account of the vastly important planning aspects.

969
Perhaps at the outset of my speech I should have declared an interest, because I occupy a leasehold house in London and a leasehold cottage in Wales. In neither case could there be any possible justification for my insisting on buying the freehold. In the case of the London house, from the planning aspect it would be a virtual scandal. The square in which the house is situated has been maintained, because it is owned by a charity. It is a very pleasant square which depends on its architectural unity. The Government have advanced no reason why a charity should not have the right to object to an enfranchisement on the ground that redevelopment is proposed. The charity I speak of owns an even wider area and its power to replan and redevelop is of enormous importance.
My second criticism of the White Paper, therefore, is that it contains no proposal for allowing such a charity to make any representation in this regard. A charity has not got a family which could occupy individual houses. If the charity proposed to allow the occupier—the tenant—to go on occupying, that could easily be provided for—if redevelopment is near—either on a year-to-year basis, or, alternatively, by granting some form of tenancy until redevelopment takes place.
Mr. Willey Mr. Willey rose—
Mr. Roots: I have been asked to be short.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no desire to stop interventions, but a number of hon. Members have sat here since 3.30 trying to get into the debate, and interventions prolong speeches.
Mr. Roots: I am trying to put this argument as shortly as I can. This aspect of redevelopment is one which any future legislation should and must deal with.
Let me give another example which relates closely to the position of flats. In my constituency there is a small estate which was developed as a whole on an access road. A porter or caretaker has a house at the entrance and is able to assist in the running and the order of that estate. To break that up can be of no advantage to anybody. There is no case for it.
970
If the tenants were likely to suffer any considerable hardship, that would be quite a different matter, but there is no reason why in either of the cases that I have mentioned the factor of a genuine redevelopment and permission for the tenant to occupy should not be allowed. Indeed, it is recognised by local authorities. Why it should be regarded as wrong for a local authority to buy back a house which it does not want, but which it wishes to pull down, but quite right if a charity, which is operating in virtually the same way, wishes to do the same thing, I do not know.
The White Paper has two grave defects, in particular. It takes no account of the case where a genuine hardship is suffered by the freeholder and a gift of £5,000, or whatever the sum may be, is transferred from the freeholder to the leaseholder for no particular reason, and it takes no account of redevelopment. There are cases where redevelopment does merit and require a retention of the whole of the freehold of the estate, and this is particularly so just now when leases in many cases are coming to an end. This may not affect all cases, but it is quite easily decided, whether by a county court or by a tribunal. But at the moment these are two grave defects and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to remedy them.
7.3 p.m.
Mr. Alan Williams: I too, wish to declare an interest, as have so many hon. Members, being myself a leaseholder.
Before I deal with the various points which have been made by hon. Members opposite, I am sure that I express an opinion which is shared by many hon. Members, including those who disagree with this proposal, when I say that we regret that the procedure of the House prevents my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) from speaking in support of the Bill. We all know how much is owed to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Cardiff, West for the campaign which he has waged to bring this matter to national attention.
I should, first, like to make a few local points. This Measure will be extremely welcome in Swansea, because in many parts of that town there are leases which are nearing expiry. Unfortunately,

971
far too many nave expired in the last five years. In these areas a particular type of exploitation takes place. In localities which are based upon the leasehold system, when these leases are nearing expiry there are attracted to those areas a particular group of commercial parasites who buy up the reversions in order to exploit the commercial advantage which they obtain. In many cases a person who owns a house finds that the land has passed from one owned to another without it having been offered to him, although in all justice this would seem to be the first reasonable offer to make.
We find that these people who have bought up the tail-ends of leases then try to exploit the situation by charging as much as £1,200 for a small plot of land on which is built a terrace house 99 years old. Of course, no one can doubt that the £1,200 is justified by the fact that a house stands on it. There is another type of exploitation where the ground rent is boosted unfairly. There are cases where the ground rent of £2 or £3 10s. has gone up to £50. Yet nearby new developers are charging modern ground rents far smaller than that. In far too many instances people who buy up these leases refuse to sell, waiting parasitically to take over the house when they are legally allowed to do so.
I hope that the majority of people in my constituency and in others will note the attitude of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). It is quite clear that he does not welcome the idea of leasehold reform, and this should be made absolutely clear throughout the country. It occurred to me that he showed more interest in developing his capacity for Christmas cracker humour than in making any valuable or constructive contribution to the proceedings.
At one stage the right hon. Gentleman made the point that in producing this White Paper we on these benches were seeking electoral advantage. In that case, does he deny that in refusing to have an official Division tonight his party is trying to seize electoral advantage because hon. Members opposite know that they dare not go into the election having voted against leasehold reform? I challenge them to show what they think of the
972
Bill in the Division Lobby. We on this side of the House would welcome a Division.
Anyone who has sat in the galleries today will have been reminded of the fact that the Tories are never more moved emotionally than when they try to defend the vested interests of property against the moral rights of the mass of the people.
Sir D. Glover: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to refer to strangers when making a speech?
Mr. Speaker: I did not hear the hon. Member do so.
Mr. Williams: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for this major breach of etiquette. As a new Member, I did not realise that this was the case. I am sure the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) does not think that this in any way undermines the strength of my point.
Should any member of the public feel in danger of being deceived by the pose that has been adopted today by hon. Members opposite, they need only refer to the speech made by the previous Minister of Housing and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), in Cardiff, in 1963. When dealing with the problem of leasehold reform he made it quite clear that in his opinion no hardship arises from the leasehold system. Anyone who has lived in South Wales will know quite well that only calculated blindness would stop anyone seeing that hardship on all sides resulting from the existence of the leasehold system.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the great virtue of the leasehold system was that it keeps prices down. This could be true of leasehold land on which council houses are built, but it is not true in the case of the purchaser who is going to buy a house. In the major urban areas the real determining factor is the supply of and demand for houses. In Cardiff the only land available is leasehold, and the fact that the land is leased in no way reduces the prices of houses.
Let me give an example. There is a building firm which builds to set plans in various parts of the country. Two years ago it was offering a certain type of

973
house, leasehold, in Cardiff at £450 more than the price asked for freehold property in Swansea. The same house and land in Swansea were being offered for £450 less than in Cardiff. This surely undermines the argument that the leasehold system keeps prices down.
In any case, another factor which undermines the previous Minister's point of view is that some builders use development charges so that they have the advantage of the land and the advantage of selling it, in that they charge the builder to build on the land and they still retain the title and virtually receive the income which they would have had if they had put the land on sale. It may be true that leasehold reform will raise the price of certain houses, but we should not apologise for this.
These are the houses which were artificially kept down in price because they had only 20 or 30 years of the lease to run. Mortgages were not available for this reason, but as a result of the proposals in the White Paper mortgages will be available and, therefore, the price of these houses will become a fairer price. This will result in introducing into the market a large number of houses which are at present not for sale. This, in turn, will take the pressure off the newer houses. It will reduce the demand for them and thus help to level down prices.
There is also the important social consequence in terms of human liberty in that this will provide far greater mobility to those people whose houses have only 20 years' lease to run. A constituent of mine who came to see me had wanted to move out but she had been unable to do so because no one could raise a mortgage on her property.
In his speech in Cardiff the former Minister also said that he was satisfied with sale at market value. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames has repeated this today. Let us be clear what we mean by market value. It means that one pays again for the house which one has already bought. Having paid for it once, when the lease expires one is expected to pay for it a second time when one may be at an age when one has not a large income to pay for it.
Two other main arguments have been put forward on this subject. One is the
974
sanctity of contract argument. We should not go too far on this. I had the terrible suspicion that if some hon. and right hon. Members opposite had been in the House when the abolition of slavery was discussed they would have said, "Look at the property rights of the slave owners. Consider the sanctity of the contract." In South Wales there can be no question of sanctity of contract. I am not a learned Member and, therefore, will bow to advice if I am wrong, but as I understand the law of contract—
Sir D. Glover: I am chairman of the Anti-Slavery Society, because slavery still exists, and I would draw to the attention of the hon. Member that the House, in its wisdom, provided a great deal of money in compensation when the slaves were liberated.
Mr. Williams: I hope that should there be a Division the hon. Member will come into the Division Lobby with us against this form of slavery.
As I was saying, under the law of contract, as I understand it, if one is forced into a contract that contract becomes void or unenforceable, but in South Wales many people were forced into a leasehold contract simply because of the monopolistic power of the ground landlords in that area. It is calculated that 400,000 families live in leasehold houses in South Wales. They could only get leasehold houses. They had no choice and, therefore, one can say that there is morally a doubt about the sanctity of contract there.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) made what he seemed to feel was an important point of principle when he referred to death duties and he said that in the past they would have been paid on a decreasing asset but now this asset would be increased in value. He thought it an important principle that this should not be allowed to happen. If that is so, why did not the hon. Member make some comment on his own party's Rent Act which had exactly the same effect on houses which were previously under control? As a result of that Act the value of those houses shot up and an exactly parallel situation was created.
I am glad that in the proposed legislation we have provided the alternative of buying, or extending the lease. Many

975
people will not be able to afford to buy. Many people without children to whom to pass on the house will feel that it is not worth tying up the capital, though at this point one should stress that children who possibly will inherit houses in this way have a certain moral obligation on them to provide the capital with which their elderly parents could be buying the freehold.
The country as a whole must realise that this reform is long overdue and could have come about only under a Labour Government. It is noticeable that the fact that we are now willing to take action in this matter has produced a slight reform among the party opposite, but let us be absolutely clear that the reform is slight. The general public should remember that under the terms put forward by the party opposite this afternoon there would be little or no change in the existing position and that if they were allowed to buy the land freehold they would have to buy it at a higher cost.
7.17 p.m.
Mr. Donald Box: I did not want to interrupt the election speech of the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams). We have heard that the date of the election has been announced and no doubt some hon. Members on both sides will have that very much in mind when the are speaking on this important White Paper today.
If I heard him aright, I concluded that the hon. Member made out a case that one could purchase a house rather cheaper in Swansea than in Cardiff. If that is so, that no doubt adds to the attractions of Cardiff over Swansea, because the hon. Member, like two of his hon. Friends, has the rare privilege of living in my constituency and being represented in the House by me. If either he or his colleagues have any trouble with their ground landlords I shall be only too glad to offer my services in bringing the two parties together.
Mr. Alan Williams: If I may say so, I thought of writing to you—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can say that to the candidate when the election is on, but in the Chamber he must address his Member in the third person through the Chair.
Mr. Box: Anyway, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Swansea, West for his attempted intervention.
Although we have heard of a wide range of differing opinions on the methods proposed in the White Paper, I am sure that few would disagree, and certaintly very few in South Wales, that reform of the leasehold system is something which is long overdue. Like other hon. and right hon. Members who sit for Welsh constituencies, I have lived with this problem long enough to know something of what is described in paragraph 3 of the White Paper as the "sharpening sense of injustice" felt by leasehold owners as the day of judgment approaches.
By that day I mean the expiration of leases, whereupon the leaseholder has to make up his mind whether to hand the property over, lock, stock and barrel and in good order, to the ground landlord or to seek the protection of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, whereby he becomes virtually a tenant in his own house.
Lawyers both inside and outside the House of Commons have had great difficulty in understanding this sense of injustice, and I think that this is the main reason why we have so far failed entirely to find a solution to this complex problem. In my opinion, their view is misguided. I believe that it is based, and has been based, on the assumption that the leasehold contract is one invariably freely negotiated between ground landlord, on the one hand, and leaseholder, on the other.
In South Wales, at least, I can affirm that nothing is further from the truth and the overwhelming proportion of would-be householders in recent years have had no option whatever. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Arthur Pearson) reminded us that an Englishman's home is his castle. I submit that, under the leasehold system, the Welshman's home is very rarely really and truly his own.
Whatever may be the legal argument for continuing the present leasehold system, I have always found a number of fundamental objections to the present system. I list them in this way. First, if there has been an offer of the freehold, it has been solely at the whim of the ground landlord. If the ground landlord

977
did not want to sell his freehold, there was nothing on earth which could make him do so.
Secondly, for some reason best known to themselves, ground landlords have tended to cloud the price they ask for a freehold in mystery. We all know that surveyors have some sort of table to which they refer and from which they derive the basis of the price which they ask. But I have written on several occasions to ground landlords to ask for some justification of the price they have required, and I have received either no reply or merely an unsatisfactory one.
Thirdly, when the offer of a freehold has been made in the past, it has been done invariably on a "take it or leave it" basis. No question of negotiation—either accept the price or reject it. No recourse could be made to the courts, to a referee, or even to the district valuer to ascertain an arbitrated figure. For these reasons, there has been a great genuine and deep-rooted sense of injustice over the system.
I have long felt, therefore—and I have expressed the opinion in the House in the past—that the pendulum has swung far too much one way, in the direction of the ground landlord, and that appropriate legislation would be required to bring some equilibrium back into the situation.
I have always understood that a basic principle of English law is that, if a contract is restrictive, onerous or unfair, it can be contested in the courts, and, if it is confirmed that the contract is unfair, it will be undone. Again, I submit that the leasehold system qualifies in this respect. Yet, despite the Jenkins Committee's Report produced under the last Labour Government and, more recently, the examination carried out in 1962 for the last Government by the Law Society, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and other professional bodies, we have so far failed to provide a satisfactory solution.
I know that many eminent lawyers, surveyors and estate agents in South Wales who see this problem at first hand, as hon. Members on both sides of the House representing Welsh constituencies do, believe passionately, as I believe, that something should be done to right this wrong. Naturally, I regret
978
that it is not a Conservative Government who are introducing a measure of reform.
I turn now to the White Paper, because I have several queries to put to the Secretary of State for Wales. First, if it is generally agreed that the leasehold system is a bad one, why are there no proposals in the White Paper to abolish it altogether? We know from experience that some parts of the country get on very well without the leasehold system. The problem is that so many people entering into leaseholds today—I am talking about new leaseholds, which are being entered into every day of the week—are quite prepared to sign a contract covering 99 years because they know very well they will not live to complete it. In other words, they are putting off the evil day. We are all putting off the evil day. In South Wales, we have had an opportunity to see the sort of problems which arise and are likely to arise when leases near expiration. If we do not tackle this problem in the very near future, we shall leave a grave legacy to future generations.
I come now to the reference to a fair price, which, I understand, is in future to be based on the principle that the land belongs to the ground landlord and the building belong to the leaseholder. It has been stated emphatically that the price to be asked would not be related to market value. This seems to raise a number of issues, not the least of which is how fair is fair. But, even ignoring the fact that landlords, even good ones, have any rights at all, under the proposed legislation home owners who have purchased their freeholds in recent years may well feel aggrieved. Equally, those who sold properties recently at what may now be well below the market price will be most unhappy about the proposed legislation.
Is the Minister of Land and Natural Resources certain that the proposals outlined in the White Paper will not paralyse the market for the buying and selling of houses at least within a certain price range? Will it be so easy for freeholder and leaseholder to settle a price where development value may be involved, and will the Lands Tribunal be able to cope with a rush of cases in the event of a large number of disagreements?
Further, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), I wonder why the

979
Minister has chosen to exclude houses with a rateable value of over £400 in London and £200 in the provinces. I have always understood rateable value to be based mainly on the building rather than on the land. Yet we are told that the price to be paid for the freehold is to be based on the land alone. There seems to be something contradictory in the White Paper proposals here.
Next, I cast doubt on the right of the leaseholder to buy the freehold at any time during the period of the lease. If this is to cover 99 years, it seems a very far-reaching proposal, and it will present a number of problems. It will reduce the incentive on the leaseholder to acquire his freehold. I wonder what the situation will be if a ground landlord dies and lawyers want to wind up his estate. If the leaseholder does not want to buy the freehold, presumably the number of other prospective buyers of the ground lease will be very few and far between. Will there not be quite a number of estates which cannot finally be wound up because of the outstanding ground rents?
I notice, and I welcome, the decision to include the local authorities in the proposed Bill's provisions. It is unarguable that some local authorities have not behaved very well in offering freeholds to their sitting tenants. I notice, also, that there is a qualification with reference to the exclusion of development rights. I wonder whether we shall receive a firm assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that such exclusions on account of development will be kept to an absolute minimum and will not be used as an excuse to reduce the effect of this aspect of the proposed enfranchisement.
I certainly welcome the alternative to purchase by providing the right to extend the lease by 50 years at a modern rent. This seems to be an eminently suitable suggestion, particularly in present circumstances. I do not say that only because I suggested something similar during the 1962 debate, but it seems to me that, as a basis of easing the position at a time when we know that housing is in very short supply, to extend the lease in this way and relieve the position gives breathing space and also gives the building programme an opportunity to catch up so that the supply and demand situation
980
of housing generally is more in balance. Also, with a slight variation on the proposal in the White Paper, it might also provide a better atmosphere for ground landlords and their leaseholders to come to grips of their own accord.
No doubt many of the variations that I have mentioned, and which have been mentioned in various articles in newspapers and trade papers that we have read in recent days, will be debated and altered during the Committee stage by whichever Government is destined to resolve this problem. Naturally, I welcome my right hon. Friend's remarks in this regard.
With these reservations, I welcome the White Paper as an attempt to resolve what everyone admits is a most complex problem, one which has been bitterly resented and bitterly misunderstood and will continue to be so unless we find a solution. I welcome the White Paper, in the words of the Government Motion, as a basis for future legislation.
7.32 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Probert: It has become apparent during the debate that there are only two hon. Gentlemen opposite who fully appreciate the difficulties of the leasehold system and the hardships involved. I put it to the hon. Members for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box) and Barry (Mr. Gower) that they have been fulsome in their praise of the White Paper, but we have not had a word from them about whether they dissent from the proposals put forward by their right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). I should like to hear their views about that.
The Opposition's proposals in this respect are fundamentally different from those put forward by the Labour Government—
Mr. Box: I do not want to make another speech, but, obviously, I do not dissent from what my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has said. What he has said may not go far enough. However, I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that if we can find a fair price solution to this difficult problem, that is the one we want.
Mr. Probert: I am sure that the constituents of Cardiff, North, and Barry will pay due attention to what the hon. Gentleman has said.
The crux of the matter is: what is a fair price? I do not consider that a fair price on reversion includes the bricks and mortar which have not been contributed by the landowner. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) dubbed the White Paper—or so one could deduce from his remarks—a wholly immoral document. I do not in any way doubt his integrity; he has been consistent in these matters ever since he entered the House of Commons. I would assume from what he has said that his is the voice of the Opposition in dealing with leasehold reform.
But if he considers the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend as immoral, what would he consider to be the position of friends of mine who had reached the age of 70 and had lived in their home for 55 years, and then found all at once that they were to become tenants of their home, that in doing so they would have to pay a very large bill for repairs to put the house into the conditions that the landlord thought necessary, and that they would also have to pay £1,200 for the house which they had considered their home for all those years? If that is not immoral, I do not know what is. In putting an end to that, the White Paper, I consider, is a moral document and not an immoral one.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames was apparently in great difficulty. He said that the Conservative Party had given great attention to the problem and had come to certain conclusions. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) said, what the Conservative Party produced was a veritable mouse. The right hon. Gentleman's difficulty arose from the fact that he realised that in a space of 16 months the Government had produced proposals. The right hon. Gentleman said that they were hastily produced. Every week hon. Gentlemen opposite say that the Government have been in office for a long time but are not producing anything. Now that the Government have produced proposals, the right hon. Gentleman says that they are hastily prepared.
982
In effect, the right hon. Gentleman's speech was grudging appreciation of the fact that people in many parts of Lancashire, the whole of South Wales, and so on, have come to the views expressed by the Government in the White Paper. I urge the right hon. Gentleman, when he considers these proposals again on behalf of the Conservative Party, to consider the views of his hon. Friends the Members for Barry and Cardiff, North, for they agree fundamentally with the taking away from the valuation of the bricks and mortar on the land. This is a point of fundamental importance.
This day is a momentous occasion in the history of South Wales. We are emancipating not just houses, but the homes of thousands of people in South Wales. In so far as the White Paper affects England, the Englishman now owes a debt to South Wales and the Welsh Members for their consistent approach to this problem. We owe a great debt to my right hon. Friend for bringing these proposals forward. We who have been conversant with the problem for many years have appreciated the great difficulties inherent in the system. Probably he has had a great fight with the purely academic legal mind in this respect.
I do not say that with any disrespect to the legal approach to the matter, because I fully appreciate the difficulties. But here we face moral principles above purely legal ones. We should also pay great tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, because we realise that he has been the watchdog for Welsh interests in this matter. I repeat, today is a very momentous occasion.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) about the question of the sanctity of contract. I am glad that that matter has been dealt with, however briefly, today. I spoke about the matter some years ago. In my area, the sanctity of contract in the matter of leasehold is absolute bunkum. The people know it is. If they wanted a roof over their heads, they had to lease a piece of ground. By leasing that piece of ground for 99 years, they helped to produce the wealth of the country by manning the mines, iron works, steel works, and so on. We owe a great tribute to them for that, but they simply did not have any choice in the

983
matter, I will not deal with the proposals here, because they have been dealt with adequately already by a number of hon. Members, and later we shall hear the views of the Secretary of State for Wales. I think that they can be adequately dealt with in Committee when we deal with the Bill.
However, I want to express my full appreciation of two important points in the White Paper. One is the departure from the old principle of buying leasehold property—the separation of the bricks and mortar from the land. This is fundamental to the problem in South Wales, and I am glad that the Labour Government have been able to deal with it. The other aspect—and I say this with some reservation—is the choice of the 50-year period. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich posed the valid question whether, during that 50-year period, possible purchase can be reconsidered.
I want to mention the debt that the people of Wales owe to the Prime Minister. On two occasions in South Wales, in 1964, he pledged that he would pay due attention and give priority to the problem of leasehold. He bound this up with the other vexed questions of rent and land reform. We have the Rent Act on the Statute Book, the Land Commission Bill is before the House, and now we have these leasehold proposals. I hope that in a few weeks' time my right hon. Friend the Minister of Land and Natural Resources, if he is successful—as I hope he will be—in retaining office, will be presenting the proposals in this White Paper in a Bill before the House of Commons.
7.40 p.m.
Mr. Peter Griffiths: Having listened to so many hon. Members from Wales, I feel rather like the Irishman who asked, "Is this a private fight, or can I join in?" I say this because, despite my name, I wish to draw attention to the fact that the problem of leasehold reform exists to a marked degree in the Midlands, particularly in the Birmingham conurbation and spreading over into Smethwick.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss leasehold reform. It is of vital importance to a very large number of people
984
in the Midlands and I know that many of them feel that their case has not been greatly helped by hon. Members opposite who have sought to make party political points. That sort of thing merely leads to a hardening of attitudes when we should be seeking the greatest possible measure of agreement.
In welcoming the opportunity to discuss the subject, one feels that it is hardly possible to congratulate the Government on bringing forward a White Paper on a matter which has been under discussion since 1884 for we did not know until after 5.30 p.m. today that there was to be a General Election for certain. When we began to discuss this White Paper, therefore, we were still in a pre-election period. Why was not a Bill presented instead? Why are we not discussing the Second Reading of such a Bill instead of the rather academic points of the White Paper?
It really will not do for hon. Members opposite to ask why the Conservatives did not deal with the matter in their 13 years of office. Leaseholders in general will not accept that kind of argument. They will point to the fact that the party opposite is not in office for the first time. Leaseholders will find much to criticise in successive Governments.
There is grave danger that the White Paper may raise the hopes of leaseholders for early legislation. I believe that it would be correct to say that, had such legislation been ready, it would have been presented to the House rather than this White Paper. We should not now be discussing broad principles but the hammering out of some kind of agreement between both sides of the House. There is, in fact, a broad measure of agreement between the Minister's statement and the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] There is broad agreement on the need for change.
I have always been a firm advocate of leasehold reform, and I would welcome a Bill which led to wide changes. But I realise that there are broad ranges of opinion within the House and I would like to see us try to get an agreed solution rather than one which represents a party political viewpoint.

985
When speakers seek to obtain sympathy for their case, they often refer to the aged and to widows, but in this subject one can with justice point out that it is very often the aged and the widows who live in streets most affected by leaseholds. Often, the streets are called "Mafeking Terrace" or "Pretoria Villas", both in the Midlands and in South Wales, and the very names proclaim the date at which they were built. In my constituency, there is row upon row and street upon street of such houses. Indeed, one ward is made up of houses affected by leasehold, except in a few cases where groups of lessees have banded together to buy blocks of freeholds.
Some of the houses are in very bad condition and do not present a great problem because they are scheduled for redevelopment under council housing schemes. The real difficulty lies in the well-maintained houses of 60, 70 or 80 years old which have a good expectancy of life, which have been improved over the years with proper sanitation and other facilities installed and which are, therefore, first-class dwellings that will continue to provide homes for a very long time. The owners of these houses have a growing feeling of worry and, indeed, fear as they realise that their leases are coming to an end. I take issue with the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert), who spoke of a family who had lived in their house for 55 years and suddenly found that they were to lose their home. How could this have happened, unless they entered into the agreement without understanding it? They must have known, under present legislation, what would happen.
Many of my constituents explain to me how worried they are in realising that their leases are coming to the fag end. They have great difficulty in selling—not because it is difficult to sell a house in the Midlands, where there is a terrible housing shortage, but simply because of the difficulty of the would-be purchasers obtaining a mortgage. I agree that it will make a great improvement in the general housing situation if such houses can be bought and sold with a reasonable expectancy of life.
If we face the problem squarely, we see that the broad aims of the White Paper are acceptable to most people. What are not acceptable are the terms in
986
which it is couched and its implications, together with the failure to explain the correct legal position. I am not a lawyer, but since the White Paper appeared I have ascertained the legal position.
We should be explaining to people that while it may be possible to say that, in equity, the lessee owns the bricks and mortar, in law he does not. No one should go round saying that he does own them in law. We should explain that until such time as the Government brings in legislation to give leaseholders the opportunity to own the bricks and mortar, they do not own the bricks and mortar in law. To say merely that they do "in equity" is misleading and an injustice that should not be perpetrated on the aged, the widows and others we are trying to help. It does not strengthen the case but weakens it.
There is great need to give security of tenure to people with leases and reform is needed. I have listened carefully to the arguments of some of my hon. Friends who say that if an agreement has been entered into that agreement should have been understood and therefore should have been upheld. Apart from three rows of houses which fetch enormous prices relative to those in other parts of the country, except London, in my constituency there is no choice other than between a council house and a pre-1914 house. It is ridiculous to think that in such circumstances there is a free contract, a free choice. One has to take a house of that type because there is nothing else. We have to help people in that position, and I hope that hon. Members who do not have this problem in their constituencies will show sympathy and understanding for those who do.
Certainly we should consider very closely the proposed terms which are outlined in the White Paper. There are dangers, for this is not purely a one-sided argument. For example, there is the danger of property continuing to be used long after it has ceased to match up to the standards of the present time. When it comes to the end of a 99-year lease, much property in industrial towns is not good, and while keeping those which are in good condition and which we want to keep we do not want also to be keeping slums which are hardly worth keeping and which will perpetuate

987
themselves and prevent private development. In my constituency the number of new private houses built since the war could be numbered on one hand, and it would be a great pity if in the Midlands and other areas we were to go on with redevelopment being carried out only by local councils. This proposal might lead to a reduction of the amount of private development which could take place with the end of leases. This is a matter which should be considered very closely.
The subject of price has exercised the minds of many hon. Members today. I am not entirely happy with the suggested way of making a financial settlement. I would have liked to have had the district valuer asked whether he could assess what would be a fair market price under the conditions of whatever legislation is introduced. As a layman, that seems to me to be more fair than the present rather arbitrary proposals.
I should like to ask a straightforward question. We have heard that flats are to be excluded while houses are included. Maisonettes are a popular form of building in the Midlands where we have to build rather higher. Are they to be included? I hope that they are.
There is an exception which ought to be made. In certain areas enlightened councils offer council houses for sale to sitting tenants. It is normal practice not to offer the freehold in such cases. Even my own council does not offer these freeholds. It would probably be sensible for the council to keep a freehold in these circumstances. This is quite a separate issue from private ownership.
Finally, ought there not to be a covenant when freeholds are acquired compulsorily? It would be wrong for a person who acquired a freehold compulsorily to be able to sell it the following week. A five-year or ten-year covenant would ensure that these freeholds were purchased by people who wanted to live in the house. If they did not want to live in the house, we would want the site to be redeveloped if that was at all possible.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter. If legislation had been before the House today, it would have had my support in any Division, but I reserve my right to criticise individual
988
provisions in any legislation brought forward by the Government which will succeed the present Government so soon. However, I believe that these proposals are a serious attempt to bring this subject into public discussion which must do good. Leaseholders throughout the country do not want party political points to be made out of this by either side. They want action to be taken by this honourable House and they could not care less which party does it, as long as they get it done soon.
7.55 p.m.
Mr. Leo Abse: May I follow practically all other Welsh Members and declare my interest in leasehold? So pervading is the effect of leasehold in Wales that it would be exceedingly difficult for any householder, business or professional man not to declare such an interest.
On the eve of the election, we have heard the Conservative Party speak with its customary number of voices. It is an extraordinary feature of today's politics that, with an election so imminent, we find the Conservative Party split three or four ways and presenting to many contrary views. We have heard a great deal from every quarter of the Conservative Party about how hon. Members opposite have some reservations or some disquiet about the leasehold system. To that extent, the election has cast its shadow before it. However, when we come to the fundamental proposal which has come from the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) we find that at this late stage, at one minute to twelve, the Conservative Party, at long last, has come out officially to say that it believes in the principle that a leaseholder should have the right to acquire the freehold of his property. This is a deathbed conversion.
But Wales will not be deceived, for Wales will understand that what the Conservative Party has done today, frightened of the growth of public opinion and aware that the Labour Party has diligently worked out a viable plan in the short time that it has been in office, is to save what is left from the wreck. Its proposal, which has been put forward clearly and unequivocally, is simply that we should give the right to a man to buy his freehold, but that it should be at the market price. That is

989
what the Tories have said. By the market price, they mean not only the cost of the land and not only the development value which may be within the land, but the house, the bricks and mortar, all that we in the Labour Party say has already been paid for by the leaseholder. This is a view from which, under the questioning of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert), the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box), who is temporarily my Member of Parliament, has unambiguously declared that he does not dissent.
If our politics are to be open and free from confusion, it must be known that the view of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North and presumably, if he had taken the trouble to remain in his seat, that of the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), is that they do not dissent from the official view of the Conservative Party that the right to enfranchisement must be given only on the principle that the leaseholder must buy his own house twice.
Mr. Box: The hon. Gentleman must be hard of hearing, I emphasised "fair price". When the hon. Gentleman declared an interest, he did not tell us what it was.
Mr. Abse: I will certainly declare my interest. I have a leasehold property and I also have shares in a company which owns leasehold property.
The expression "fair price" was adopted by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, who said that it was the market price, which definitely included the value of the house. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North wants to evade the issue. If he does not agree with his Front Bench on this subject let him say so, but he cannot have it both ways.
On occasions I have dissented from the view expressed by my Front Bench and I have never dithered about doing so if I felt that a matter of principle was at stake. The hon. Gentleman, however, has not dissented in any way from the Conservative proposal that the right to enfranchisement must be conditional on the leaseholder paying the full market price, including the value of the land.
Mr. Box: The hon. Gentleman really must not misrepresent me. I said that a fair price was the solution to this problem. Had the hon. Gentleman listened to
990
my speech he would have heard me also say that the pendulum had swung too far in the direction of the ground landlord, but that perhaps this was swinging it too far in the opposite direction. I said that something between the two, the payment of a fair price, might be the answer.
Mr. Abse: The hon. Gentleman makes it clear that he does not agree with the method of assessment in the White Paper and believes that it goes too far in favour of the leaseholder. I gather that he dissents to some degree from the Conservative view that the leaseholder should pay the full market price.
Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman cannot dodge the fact that he believes that the White Paper favours the leaseholders of South Wales far too much. My hon. Friends and I do not believe that and that is why we are bound, on this St. David's Day, a memorable day for Wales, to feel that Wales has been given an announcement which will bring to an end the injustices which have been going on for generations.
For quite a time I have heard of how the principle of the sanctity of the contract is being breached. I have equally heard that our proposals are immoral. Those two views are being put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite. We in South Wales look back and ask, "How morally was the land acquired on which the homes of our constituents are built"? It is an important question. If the morality of this matter is being put at issue, have we not the right to turn back the pages of history and ask by what right, what morality, the owners of the large estates that straddle Wales came by their land?
We recently had a discussion, which was well canvassed in Wales, during which we found that the soil of the land even of the Severn Bridge which is being constructed had to be paid for to the Beaufort Estate. This estate straddles across Wales to such an extent that before the reform legislation it was at the behest of the then duke as to who would be the hon. Member for Pontypool and who for Swansea, West.
When we look back we are obliged to ask ourselves how these landlords acquired their land in Wales. I am mentioning the Beaufort Estate by way of example, particularly since we know

991
something about it. It is a name well known in South Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) even has a township in his constituency named after it. I am not sure that he takes a particular pride in that, although I know that he does not exactly follow the politics of the Beauforts.
To take that one example of the Beaufort Estate—and I do not wish to worry hon. Members by giving an historical exercise—these points should be made because of what has been said about the morality of the matter. How did Beaufort begin? There was a playboy, James I, who had some singular whims and tastes, among them being that he elevated many a page boy to be duke or earl. Let us go back to, say, 1607, when lands were being bestowed on people like the Beauforts. We find that one of Beaufort's ancestors was the first Master of the Horse. I will not go into the morality of the question, but it came about that following a meeting in a hunting lodge between the then Master of the Horse and the notorious king, these grants came into existence.
Is it seriously suggested that these huge estates came into the hands of these landlords in Wales or elsewhere by accident, rather than by the most ambiguous and distasteful methods? Is it not time, when hon. Gentlemen opposite are talking about the sanctity of contract being breached and that there is something immoral involved in this, that we did something to make the family homes of our people secure? Is it not time that we reminded the nation that these robber barons or doubtful personalities of the past never came to their land by any legalistic method?
It is ludicrous for anyone to put forward the proposition being adduced by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is characteristic of the Tory Party that on a day when we are discussing this issue they should seek to talk of morality. What has happened so often with Conservative talk is that they are merely talking about morality but start by saying, "We must begin by looking after our pockets".
We are making a radical assault on the idea that the landlord has a right to his land and everything that goes on it. This radical approach to an old doctrine
992
needs to be taken and on this side we are proud of it. We do not have to apologise because we are putting into effect a principle which is part of a social revolution. The lawyers on the benches opposite have suggested that this is a tremendous breach—this severing of the land from the house—and they are right because it is a breach in that respect and it has come about, I am glad to say, thanks to the energy of my Welsh colleagues and I and the fact that we have a Minister for Land and National Resources with courage and a Secretary of State for Wales in the Cabinet—and not least because we have a Prime Minister who, having given pledges to Wales, is prepared to see that they are fulfilled.
This is, of course, a long battle. It is a battle which Wales has fought before. My right hon. Friend the Minister rightly drew attention to the fact that a Measure was introduced in 1920, the Places of Worship (Enfranchisement) Act. That legislation has always interested me. I confess that wherever I canvassed the view now being expressed in the White Paper I drew attention to it, as have some of my hon. Friends for many years. It was because we knew that we had a precedent—a precedent which Wales had given us—that we could canvass the proposals in the White Paper.
So rapacious were the ground landlords—so unscrupulous and utterly immoral were they—that during the 19th century they were getting their hands on the chattels and churches of Wales which were coming to the end of their leases. Greedy even for the houses of God in Wales at that time, the ground landlords were prepared for them to be used for worship only upon payment of extortionate premiums, high ground rents or large capital sums.
I remind hon. Members—if my hon. Friends who represent Wales need reminding—that Wales persuaded the nation in a battle that lasted for many years that there should be the right for people to be able to save their places of worship for themselves. There were four or five attempts to gain that right. Four of them were made in 1891, 1892, 1911 and 1912. It is as a result of that—of Wales being in the vanguard of this movement—that this reform is being made; that the ground landlord should

993
have precisely the same compensation in respect of a home as he receives in respect of a chapel.
When I hear Conservatives in Wales trying to spread confusion by saying that there is difficulty in the principle, that it is impossible to apply, that it would introduce something of such astounding novelty that there would be complications in the Bill, I say to them that they should go to any experienced valuer in Wales who will tell them that this principle has been operated over years in respect of places of worship without any difficulty. Therefore, we know that what we have in this White Paper is a viable and moral scheme.
Mr. Box: What about flats?
Mr. Abse: I will come to that in a moment.
I hope that it is fully appreciated in Wales and Smethwick what the differences in cost would be if the Tory Party came to power—an unlikely probability, but let us test this extraordinary hypothesis—in money terms to the leaseholder if he lived in Cardiff or in Smethwick and if the Tories fulfilled their five-minutes-to-twelve promise of tonight that they would give a right of enfranchisement on their terms. I realise that there are some dangers in trying to make an assessment, because, as the Minister rightly said, there are so many variables, but perhaps I can presume to be a little bolder than he could be in this context.
I put precisely the same question to valuers in South Wales: what would be the difference in the so-called market price of typical houses in South Wales if the principle belatedly adopted by the Tory Party were applied and if that adopted by our party were applied? I am sure that the attention of Wales is focused on this debate. The are 400,000 leaseholders in Wales who are waiting to hear the views expressed in this Chamber. Therefore, it should go out to them how substantial are the differences in payment which they would be called upon to make if they wished to acquire their freehold if Labour is returned to power or if the Tories come back.
Let me take a typical small terrace house in one of the valleys, in a back street of Swansea or in some of the more
994
modest areas of Cardiff with a value, with vacant possession, of £1,000. If the lease had 25 years to run and there were a small ground rent of 30s. per annum, on the Tory Party's scheme it would cost £180 to acquire the freehold, and on the Labour Party's scheme £31. I hope that it will be realised throughout Wales and, indeed, the Midlands that the differences can be as large as that between the scheme presented by the Tories and the one which we believe to be moral and equitable.
Let me take a small house as would be in a typical area in the Cardiff, North constituency, Plasnewydd, with a lease which has 19 years to run and a ground rent of £2 10s. per annum which today would bring £1,600 vacant. There are many such houses in Barry. The indolent Tories did nothing to prevent large sections of the town of Barry from being utterly immobilised because of the refusal of some of the ground landlords to sell the freehold in any circumstances. Under the Tory principle, the freehold of such a house would cost £450. Under the principle expounded by the Labour Party, it would cost £54.
Let it be know that the differences between the two parties are not marginal, as the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Peter Griffiths), in his attempt to blur the differences, tried to indicate. The differences of principle are wide and they are reflected in the figure which we regard as just and which should be paid by a leaseholder in Cardiff and the figure which, perhaps would be paid under the Tory principle.
Mr. Box: The hon. Gentleman said that he would put these examples into currency. Will he at the same time give the exact addresses of the properties concerned, and, furthermore, will he ask the Secretary of State for Wales to confirm these figures when he winds up?
Mr. Abse: I have deliberately selected typical properties, and I have gone to a qualified—[Interruption.] Let the hon. Member for Cardiff, North put the same questions which I have put to a qualified valuer in South Wales—we have many—and he will find that, although there would be marginal differences perhaps between valuers, they are great and wide as between the Tory formula and the Labour formula.

995
Let me give a final example. I take a small property whose vacant possession value today would be £2,350 with a lease which has 27 years to run and a ground rent of £2 10s. If the Conservative formula were applied, the price of the freehold would be £470. If the Labour Party's formula were applied the price would be £53.
Mr. Box Mr. Box rose—
Mr. Abse: The hon. Gentleman will have plenty of opportunities to put forward his argument in the election campaign.
It is right that it should be understood that there are great differences of principle between the parties. It is right that it should be understood that there is considerable ambiguity in the scheme of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, some of whom think it utterly immoral that there should be any interference with the sanctity of contracts—that view has been clearly expressed today—and those who say that the market price or the full economic rent, as I understand it should be paid. That was the alternative presented. There is no alternative in the Tory Party's scheme to the 50 year extension which we are proposing. What the Conservatives are offering is either the market price, or turning the owner of the house into a tenant at a market rental.
Mr. Box: What about flats?
Mr. Abse: The hon. Member asks about flats. What zeal of the proselytiser the hon. Gentleman shows in his sudden conversion to the enfranchisement proposals by wanting to have every type of property taken into account. I heard the Minister make a very measured statement in which he declared that he would give full consideration to the Wilberforce Report and that he would study it with great care to see whether he could turn the recommendations and proposals in it into a viable scheme so that the leaseholder of a flat could take advantage of it. Hon. Members opposite who have hopes that none of these schemes will come to fruition—the flats scheme, for example—should be a little measured in their pessimism.
I realise that, after 13 years in which the Tories were not even able to work
996
out a feasibility study, they felt confident that when the Labour Party came to power we would never be able to deliver the goods. But the goods are being delivered, and after the election comes we will see the goods are delivered in a Bill which will be proudly presented and received by Welsh Members of Parliament.
Mr. Box: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Roderic Bowen): The hon. Gentleman has sat down.
8.19 p.m.
Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I will not attempt to follow the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) in his remarks save to reflect that he mentioned that his constituency was at one time a rotten borough in the patronage of the Duke of Beaufort—and I hardly think that the hon. Member would have been nominated in those days, at least not for his views on leasehold reform.
I shall speak for only a short time. I am happy to say that I have no interests to declare. As far as I am aware, there is no leasehold property in my constituency, and it is my view that there should be no leasehold property in anybody's constituency. In the long time since I first had acquaintance with the labyrinth of English land law I have thought that it badly needed simplification. The great F. E. Smith, then the Earl of Birkenhead, in the 1920's tried to simplify the law, and succeeded to a certain extent by the Property Acts of 1925 and 1929 but, even so, we are left with the highly complicated system of land tenure of today.
I was brought up in the belief that the land belonged to the people—not to the landlords, not to the State, but to the people; and I have always believed that the leaseholder should be enfranchised. I am very happy to give the warmest possible welcome to the White Paper and, indeed, I should be prepared to go further than the White Paper has gone.
As a member of the legal profession I should like to deal with the argument of sanctity of contract, which I believe to be absolute nonsense in this context. Certain socially ameliorating legislation was introduced in the 1920's which obliged landlords to fulfill their obligations in small

997
tenements and small houses, and the legality of the apparent effect of those Acts was challenged in the court, when there was a famous judgment by Lord Justice Atkin, as he then was, one of the greatest jurists of his age, in which he said that where there was gross inequality of bargaining position in the original contract, the same considerations could not apply as where there was a contract openly entered into with people of equal bargaining power.
How can it be argued that in areas such as those in South Wales, where the only possibility of getting land on which to build a house was to get leasehold land, in 1870, there was equality of bargaining power? There was nothing of the kind. If we are to make any advance socially in this country the argument of sanctity of contract must be carefully weighed and kept in proper perspective. It is a very important principle in the right circumstances, but where there is gross inequality of the bargaining power, as when most leaseholds were originally entered into, it is nonsense to pray this argument in aid today.
May I introduce a note of cynicism into the debate? I have looked at the history of the attempts to reform the leasehold system in this country. Any number of Bills have been introduced into the House by private Members. We all know of the great efforts, to which I am happy to pay tribute, of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas). I am sure that we regret that he is not here today. Not only private Members but also Governments of different complexious have tried to reform the leasehold system and there have been genuine attempts when this House was overwhelmingly in favour of some kind of reform. But somehow or other we have still the leasehold system with us, and it is not without significance that even today we are discussing only a White Paper.
This is a general debate on leasehold and there is not a Bill before the House. It needs a very tough Government and a very tough Minister to get through the House and another place the necessary legislation to reform the leasehold system, but I hope that whichever Government is in power after the next election will give priority to a Bill to reform leasehold and will push the Bill through.
998
It can always be argued that there is some injustice when we reform the law. After all, we are changing a system and we must balance these matters. We have heard arguments about morality and about principle but I believe that this is so much bunkum. All we can say that there will be far less injustice if the leaseholders are enfranchised than if they are not. There will be some hardship and inequality here and there in the changes. We have to accept them, while trying to avoid them as far as possible. There are bound to be equitable arguments on both sides whenever we change an established system.
One is bound to be able to point to a degree of hardship in one place or another, but that does not in this context detract from the fact that we ought not to have had a leasehold system in the first place. I am not an authority on the law in Scotland, but I understand that there are no leaseholds in Scotland and that the problem does not arise there. Even if one buys a flat there, one buys the equivalent of the freehold of the flat. I cannot see why we cannot do that in England and Wales, too, and I should be prepared to support legislation to introduce simplicity of tenure into our land system whereby we should have only freeholds or the equivalent of freeholds and the leasehold system would be abolished altogether.
May I conclude by mentioning one matter concerning the value which is to be paid? It seems to me that we could have a simpler system of evaluating the land than that contained in the White Paper. We must have a broad and simple touchstone. It seems to me that a house plus the land can easily be valued. What would the house make if it were freehold property? If a percentage were introduced to apply throughout the country—say 10 per cent.—as the value attributable to the land, this would be a far simpler system.
There would be complaints from many quarters if such a simple system were introduced, but it would be far better for the majority of the people. Looking back at the historical development of leaseholds, it seems to me that it would be fair to say that the value of any land where the leaseholder has been emancipated is a certain percentage of the value

999
or the house and land sold together as though it were freehold.
Mr. Iorwerth Thomas: Is the hon. and learned Member expressing his personal views, or the views of the Liberal Party?
Mr. Hooson: On the earlier points I am expressing the view of the Liberal Party in that we welcome the White Paper and that we have always pressed for leasehold reform. On the question of compensation, I am expressing entirely my own view.
8.27 p.m.
Dr. David Kerr: We have listened with some interest to the minority views of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who has been giving us such a graphic representation of the Parliamentary Liberal Party in a few weeks' time. We should not overlook that the Liberal Party have campaigned on the subject of leasehold for a very long time.
Mr. Hooson: And the Labour Party.
Dr. Kerr: It is a good thing that we have arrived at a moment in time when leasehold reform is presenting itself as a practical possibility. The hon. and learned Member expressed some cynicism which perhaps is justified in the light of the past, but we now have quite a different situation because the housing situation is different, the pressure for housing is different and more people are buying houses. This represents a change in the whole of the housing occupation of the country. We are in a new situation because of the Government's Rent Act. I trust that we shall shortly be in a new situation because of the provisions in respect of the Land Commission. If it were not for this background the possibility of leasehold reform would fade considerably.
It is plain that on all sides of the House—though not perhaps uniformly from the Opposition—there is a welcome for a Measure which is by no means determined by electoral considerations, whatever may have been said by hon. Members opposite. Within my constituency there is a very large estate owned by Magdalen College which is occupied predominantly by people who do not vote for me. I do not kid myself
1000
that because of this promise in the White Paper they will suddenly have a change of heart. We as politicians know that people do not make up their minds at the polls over one single issue. There is much more to the change of public opinion than that. Moreover, that this Government devote one day to a measure which will benefit a relative minority of voters, whatever their colour, scarcely allows the claim that this is an election, vote-catching measure. It is a measure which we have promised ourselves, and which we have promised the country for so long, and that is precisely why this White Paper is before us tonight.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) suggested that this was a hastily presented White Paper. Those, I think, were his words. Of course, my experience of gestation periods is likely to be a little bit narrow, but, compared with the time I am used to, it has been some 14 months since the Queen's Speech in November, 1964, which promised a measure of leasehold enfranchisement, and I do not think there has been anything hasty about this. I regret very much that the difficulties which surround the problem should have occasioned so much delay. But here it is at last. It is a singular indication of the haste with which we are anxious to get this through that not only two of my hon. Friends on these benches referred to it as "this Bill before us "but my right hon. Friend the Minister of Land and Natural Resources himself made the same mistake, and I can only urge that this, if I may use a misnomer, poignant error is an indication of what I trust we shall be doing when we come back with a reinforced majority in a few weeks' time.
We have gone through a period of massive housing change—I think few of us have taken this into account tonight and few of us have tried to place the problem of leasehold reform against it—an era in which rising land costs and the possibilities derived from developments have made nonsense of the security which appeared to be offered by the 1954 Act. For instance, in my own area, in Tooting, a leasehold house with a lease approaching its end was the subject of an approach by the occupier to see whether the freehold might be purchased; a similar approach a few years before

1001
had met with the price of 50 years' equivalent of the ground rent; the latest approach, before this Government came into power, was for no less than 500 years' equivalent of ground rent—a measure, firstly, of the inflation of land values, but, more particularly, of the fact that had that lease fallen in and a Tory Government been in power the possibility of developing that land would have meant the end of the tenure of that accommodation.
The fact is that leaseholds and their values have tended to diminish while the values of freehold property have increased, and while the value of the £ has diminished. It is this fact above everything else which has meant harsh injustice to people who devoted large capital sums to leasehold property always in the hope, however slim, that the freeholder might relent and sell the leasehold or that some legislation would be brought in to allow them a measure of leasehold enfranchisement such as we are discussing tonight.
In many leasehold estates there are parts of houses where the freehold has been sold, and where this makes absolute nonsense of the claim made by the hon. Members opposite that these great leasehold estates represent good management and better planning. We have lived through a time when local authorities' planning powers have grown and outweighed the planning possibilities of leasehold estates.
Mr. A. P. Costain: Does the hon. Member disagree with his own Minister, who has paid tribute to these well-run estates?
Dr. Kerr: The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) must be a little more specific. My right hon. Friend the Minister has paid tribute to the well-run estates. I do not differ from that. I am castigating the badly-run estates, and when hon. Members opposite wave aloft the banner of London's squares as examples of what leasehold estate management can achieve, it seems to me that those banners are concealing the ill-run estates which are so frequently owned by freehold property owners granting sub-leases.
I welcome the White Paper first and foremost because any legislation which follows will almost certainly lead to an
1002
end of the leasehold system as we know it now, and that is something which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery will welcome. There are one or two points in the White Paper about which I have some misgivings, and I have not heard any reference made in a critical fashion to the five-year tenancy which the White Paper suggests should be imposed if enfranchisement is to be granted.
There are three criticisms that I have of it. First of all, if a person has to prove a five-year tenancy of his house, it means that we are sacrificing, perhaps for so little, that mobility of labour without which the economic plans of the country cannot come to full fruition. It means that he has to sit tight for five years, and he has a disincentive to move if employment entices him to some other spot.
Secondly, the boot is on the other foot when it comes to talking about widows and orphans. Say that a wage earner with a family is purchasing a leasehold property and, within the five years which is required to prove his tenancy, he dies. It becomes necessary for his widow or whoever is administering his estate to get rid of that house. It seems to me that five years is an unnecessarily long time to impose upon anyone to assert his right to a tenancy. I do not believe that an individual householder buys a house and occupies it for as much as a year unless he is proving his intention to stay where he is.
Lastly, there is another small point about the five-year imposition, and that is where an elderly person makes a house available for perhaps only a short time to a member of his own family, not to make any profit, but where, by not occupying the tenancy himself for a short time and allowing it to go to his son or daughter, he loses the right to leasehold enfranchisement.
When we come to table legislation in the future, I urge that we take a closer look at the five-year period, thinking more in terms of the realities of housing among people and not in terms of the bookkeeping of large estate companies, and recognise that a year is long enough for a person to establish the intention of living in a property.
I have a few reservations about what the White Paper, with a considerable

1003
share of glossy generosity, calls fairness to landlords". I am all for fairness, but it means different things in different contexts. I am not so happy about reviewing ground rents after 25 years. It is not even something which people who have granted leases in recent years have felt it necessary to do. Even allowing for the inflation that we were discussing earlier, they have been prepared to grant leases without any review of ground rents for a much longer period—for 99 years or even 999 years—and I do not see why any legislation should give the freeholder the power to revise his ground rent after only 25 years.
I would add my voice to the plea that we do not have to be so fair to landlords that any renewal of a lease is extended to 50 years. We know that any lease for less than 50 years is precisely the lease that does not get a mortgage. Therefore, the moment that a new lease is granted for 50 years, it becomes a much less saleable product than before. Why not a new lease for 99 years, if we are talking of perpetuating a system which the White Paper should set out to destroy root and branch? We do not have to be that fair to landlords who have had a very generous slice of the cake for many years.
In many ways, the leasehold system is the most exquisite refinement of all that is wretched about the landlord system which has pervaded the country for so long. In common with my hon. Friends, I hope that we shall find a way, with the Wilberforce Committee's recommendations, to include flats in any future legislation.
I want to refer with a glow of joy to the reference in the White Paper to a chain of leases. I do not have any interest to declare, because I managed to sell my leasehold house a couple of years back. But I suffered from a chain of leases, and it is one of the most irritating things imaginable to make an approach for the freehold of a property and find that between oneself and the final freeholder there stand half a dozen people making a good thing out of a large number of such leases. I welcome the extinction of the chain lease system.
This is a first-class indication of what a Labour Government who really set out to right so many wrongs can achieve. I
1004
do not believe that this is a great social revolution, and I do not detect the malign hand of Moscow behind it, as one hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to think. I welcome it as an earnest, first, that we are struggling hard to keep our promises, and, secondly, that it displays the Labour Party's firm intention that justice shall be done, however much hon. Gentlemen opposite may castigate it as mere words and pomposity, among all sections of the community.
8.40 p.m.
Mr. Norman Miscampbell: Like many other hon. Members who have spoken during this debate, I must declare an interest, although I do not think that it will be a very valuable one. I have become the possessor of an 80-year lease, and by definition I have to pay for it at very nearly the freehold price, so I suspect that there will not be a great deal in it for me. None the less, it is an interest which I declare.
From those who have spoken in this debate, it has been apparent that this is a problem which has strong regional overtones. Clearly, there is a problem for Wales, and I accept that. Where there are towns which consist largely of leaseholds and council property, and a person has little opportunity of making his choice between the two, there is certainly a problem, so there is a regional problem in Wales, and possibly one in Birmingham, too.
There is also a difference between leaseholders in equity. The word has been derided, but we would all agree that it makes a great difference as to when the leaseholder got his hands on the lease. For the man—and he has been instanced—who has been the holder of a lease for many years, and perhaps his father and even grandfather before him, there will be a great sense of injustice if the house finally goes from his keeping and he becomes a tenant. We can accept that. There will be a different sense of injustice for the person who, with his eyes open, buys the last 10 or 15 years of a lease, and knows what he is doing. Therefore, among leaseholders, too, there are dearly great differences in equity, and what must be put right on their behalf, so we have both the regional problem, and the differences between leaseholders.
Because I am not qualified to do so, I do not want to speak about those areas

1005
in Wales and Birmingham where this problem exists to a large extent. I want to mention for a moment or two some of the inner areas of London where it seems that the problem is entirely different and where legislation based on this White Paper might well cause considerable injustices which will have to be watched if legislation is finally brought before the House.
If one considers an area like Pimlico, which is very near this House, which was developed by Cubitts within the last 100 years, one gets the position of large areas, well within the £400 limit, where there is a moving population, and by definition few leaseholders will have been there for very long, and yet for all of them, on the present proposals, there will be the most enormous uncovenanted gains if they can get their hands on leasehold property and change it into freehold.
I cannot help but think that any legislation which works on roulette principles, which finally gives to people, admittedly in a small and specialised area, who have held leases for a short time, and may have bought them at the fag-ends of leases within the last 10 or 15 years for sums well under four figures, and which can be disposed of as freehold for more than £10,000, must inevitably create injustice. Whether or not it is an injustice to the landlord hardly matters; in fact, the landlord has been half expropriated already by the 1954 legislation. None the less, it seems to be unjust that, simply through legislation, someone should obtain a windfall involving sums quite different from those which we have heard discussed in relation to Wales.
There is also likely to be an injustice in the inner areas, near the centre of the town. A typical leaseholder may live in the bottom half of a house, or even in a basement, while other people live in the rest of the house, and there will be a strong tendency for him to try to get hold of the freehold and then, because of the tremendous prize that is dangled before him, try to move out everybody else from the house, whether or not they are protected tenants.
It is not possible to make many useful suggestions in a debate such as this,
1006
but there is great merit in the suggestion that anyone who cares to turn a leasehold into a freehold and get a gain such as I have mentioned should certainly be prevented from realising that sum by the immediate sale of the freehold to somebody else. This restriction already applies in the case of houses which are valued for probate. If they are sold within a certain period credit must be given for the extra money over and above the probate valuation.
It also applies if a person receives a grant of, say, £400 to repair or decorate his house, or to put in a bathroom. The money must then be handed back, together with interest. The sale of the property is prohibited unless that is done. In cases where large gains are made it is right that the community should be protected against exploitation in this way simply by people turning leaseholds into freeholds and selling straight away.
On paragraph 21, which dealt with covenants on enfranchisement, if legislation is introduced on the basis of the White Paper the question that I have referred to will have to be considered with the greatest care. I can only view with cynicism the prospect of managing to insert in legislation covenants which will really protect those who have bought into a well-managed estate, knowing that this means that they must wash their houses every year and paint them every fourth year—as I am under a covenant to do—and who wish to keep their street looking at its best, with uniform painting. I see the greatest difficulty in making certain that these covenants will always be applied in future if an estate becomes fragmented.
This is not an argument against leasehold enfranchisement, but it is an argument for submitting that the Government should think very carefully about the question of protecting those who are now subject to covenants of this kind.
8.50 p.m.
Mr. G. Elfed Davies: I do not want to detain the House for very long. This White Paper, with its far-reaching proposals for leasehold reform, has been warmly welcomed in those areas most directly affected. When its provisions become law they will go a very long way to justify the old adage that "An Englishman's home is his castle."

1007
Need I say that that applies also to a Welshman? In my constituency the proposals in the White Paper have been received with exceptional pleasure. This may be well understood when it is realised that well over 70 per cent. of householders there are owner-occupiers, a very high percentage by any standard. The proposals will remove from the minds of many of those people fears and anxieties which become more real and intense as year by year a lease nears the date of expiry. The possibility of losing one's home is very real for those people.
The publication of this White Paper last week meant that a revolutionary and radical change is envisaged in a system which has created fear and insecurity for many thousands of people for decades past, a system which was basically illogical and terribly unjust. It will be hailed as a new legal charter for leaseholders and will end for ever the continued terror of the unscrupulous ground landlord for it will confer on leaseholders legal rights founded on the principle of justice and good social morality.
The present system where, on the expiry of a lease, the law allows ownership of the houses to revert to ground landlords without their making any payment whatsoever, is totally indefensible in a modern society. Unscrupulous landlords, over the years, have taken every advantage of this provision, causing untold misery and suffering to many householders who have struggled to purchase their homes and keep them in good repair through the years. I say at once that all ground landlords are not bad and they do not all act in this manner. In many cases I know of there has been a readiness to sell the freehold reversion on reasonable terms. That ought to be said, but in the majority of cases—I speak more of South Wales and Western Ground Rents comes to mind very swiftly as one of the most inhuman and unjust—the record is not one of which they can be proud.
I can give many instances of a ground landlord refusing to sell at any price, or asking fantastic prices. This can have many different effects as the lease draws nearer to the closing date. The owner finds it impossible to sell and prospective purchasers find it impossible to raise a loan with only a short period of the lease
1008
remaining. Building societies—who can blame them?—refuse to consider loans in those circumstances. I will give one example in a letter I received from a constituent. It is dated 6th January.
I quote a small part of it:
"I am the owner occupier of the above leasehold property and pay ten shillings per annum ground rent under a lease which is due to expire in nine years.
Despite the short term remaining on the lease, I have spent a large sum of money modernising the property in the hope that I would be able to purchase the freehold or renew the lease. I have contacted the landowner several times to this end without satisfaction. On the last occasion the landowner refused an offer of £250, plus legal fees, against the advice of her estate agent …
My family has now reduced in size and my wife and I would very much like to move to a smaller house. I have tried to sell the above property since April 1965 but have been unable to do so because interested parties have been unable to obtain a mortagage loan due to the short term remaining on the lease."
That is one of the problems that face many people in these circumstances.
In another instance I know of in Rhondda—and this is not an isolated case—£800 is being asked by one ground landlord for houses bought a few years ago for between £500 and £650. I will not weary the House with the many more examples which I could give at this time. One feature of the White Paper which is very welcome is contained in paragraph 7, page 4. This extends the provision to cover cases where the lease expired after the 8th December, 1964, in accordance with the promise and assurance given on behalf of the Government by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. This is extremely important and very welcome. It is evidence of the good faith and responsibility of this Government.
When I first came to the House, in 1959, I was appalled at the apparent indifference of the Tories, and especially their Front Bench, to the human problems resulting from the present law. There seemed to me to be a complete failure to recognise the injustices it permits. I felt that we were living in two different worlds. Their record over the years in opposing every attempt to right the situation is deplorable and does them no credit whatsoever.
The House can, therefore, understand why I feel sick when I hear the Leader

1009
of the Opposition talk about the wish of his party that the people should own their own homes. He should reflect upon the record of past Conservative Governments on this question of leasehold enfranchisement. He will find that it is indeed a sordid one, and I would suggest to him that it would be far better to have an example than a precept.
The White Paper makes it clear that the present Government will carry out their promise on leasehold reform and even if the leaseholder does not want to purchase the freehold—and one can appreciate conditions and circumstances where this will be the case—he will have the right to extend or renew his lease for a further 50 years if he desires. This will enable him to sell his house for a fair price if he so wishes. Building societies will be more ready to lend money to the prospective purchaser and this will allow a freedom in the sale and purchase of houses which is not now possible when the lease nears its end. This will be to the mutual benefit of all concerned.
Above all, the White Paper makes clear without any dubiety that the land belongs in equity to the landowner and that the house belongs in equity to the occupying leaseholder. Under this principle I believe that justice rests evenly with both parties. It is a principle that I am satisfied will commend itself to all decent, fair-minded people.
I have no intention of dealing with the many other parts of the White Paper. The Bill which is soon to be published will be eagerly awaited by thousands of people who have lost all hope of the Tories doing anything in this matter. I sincerely hope that it will be made as simple as is humanly possible, that the machinery for the implementation of this change can easily be understood by ordinary men and women, and that it will speedily pass through the various stages necessary for it to be placed on the Statute Book, for when it does I believe that it will be a day of joy, a day of liberation from worry, a day of freedom from fear, for many thousands of people in England and Wales.
8.58 p.m.
Mr. A. P. Costain: Mr. Deputy Speaker, having sat here all day I am grateful for the oppor-
1010
tunity of catching your eye, although I understand that I am to speak for only seven minutes.
The White Paper is nothing more than a piece of electioneering propaganda. In fact, the Labour Party, having during the last election produced a manifesto which it could not honour, could not go into the next General Election with a manifesto but had to use another device which it has called a White Paper.
The hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) made great play of the fact that the Conservatives did not know how they would vote on this matter, or whether we would vote at all. This is such a mixed grill that it is not possible to pick out the pieces. If the Minister of Land and Natural Resources wanted to test opinion, he should have produced a Bill and then we could have tabled Amendments Clause by Clause. There are a number of parts of the White Paper—[Interruption.]—I have only seven minutes, so I hope that the Minister will do me the courtesy of keeping quiet.
There are some paragraphs in the White Paper with which my hon. Friends will agree. There is one paragraph which follows exactly the policy which my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has enunciated. We believe that the people who have the primary rights are those who are living in their houses, and that they should not be deprived of their accommodation for the sake of making the property empty. What I find most regrettable in the White Paper is the use of a word such as that to which my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) referred, the word "equity".
This is not equity at all. So far as I know, nobody on either side of the House has yet quoted The Times, which "comes clean" in its leading article when it talks about the war on the landlords. At any time landlords are fair game for the Labour Party. During election time they are particularly ripe. It is because there are more tenants than landlords that right hon. Gentlemen opposite aim their big guns at the landlords.
Had time been available I would like to have explained the leasehold system. Apart from my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, nobody has attempted to explain it. There

1011
is no political powder there. Without the leasehold system many parts of this country could not have been developed. The leasehold system in housing is equivalent to preference shares or debentures in ordinary industrial world. The Liberal Party, which came, went and has not returned, said that it was dead against any attempt to have any type of leasehold system. Is it against debentures or dated stock? Does it not realise that there are certain parts of the community, certain investors, who, in the interests of long-term security, are prepared to accept a lower rate of interest?
Why, when they have carried out their side of the bargain, when they have accepted a low rate of interest and expect at a later date to receive a capital sum, should they be deprived of it? Why do right hon. Gentlemen opposite say that somebody who has managed to buy a lease cheaply, as people could easily have done in the last six years, should not be able to take advantage of it? A man who happens to own his own house and sells at a profit gets his profit free of tax. The Minister has not mentioned that.
Do hon. Members opposite intend to say, at the next General Election, "Let us have another gimmick"? Why not say to the motor manufacturers that if a man buys a second-hand car cheaply and it breaks down, they should give him a new car? When we start breaking the sanctity of contract, where do we go? Leasehold is part of the financial system. If I had the time I would have quoted many examples of the leasehold system having worked most fairly for the landowner, the occupier and the developer. A building which is well known to many hon. Members, Dolphin Square, was made possible only because of the leasehold system. My small group had only the money with which to buy the land. We had to get a leasehold in order to find the money to produce the building.
The Minister has ruined his case for the White Paper and for equity when he says that leasehold enfranchisement can only be brought about for the middling and lower poor. The Labour Party says that it is not interested in the middle class. That is why it restricts the ability to enfranchise all land. If it is fair for one, it ought to be fair for all. If it is not for all, it is not fair for any.
9.5 p.m.
Mr. Graham Page: As I may be referring to assistance by and to building societies in connection with leasehold reform, I should disclose an interest as being a director of a building society and also of a trust property company, which does not own any residential long leaseholds. The hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) commented on the varying views which had been expressed from this side of the House. He went on to express his own disagreement with certain vital points in his right hon. Friend's proposals. So did the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr). They all expressed divergent views on the proposals in the White Paper.
There are, of course, difficult points to decide, upon which members of the same party will express various shades of opinion. But my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) stated fully and clearly the Conservative policy on long leaseholds. I will try to restate it in my own words precisely, so that I can move from that basis to criticise the proposals in the White Paper.
The Conservative policy is that the person who has made the long lease house his home shall not be evicted from it when that long lease comes to an end. He should have a right to choose in what capacity he should remain there, either under a form of controlled tenancy such as exists at present, or under a lease for a substantial and definite term, or as a freeholder. But as this involves taking away the freeholder's present right to possession of the houseat the end of the lease, the tenant must pay for what he takes, namely, the house itself either in rent or in a purchase price.
There is a corollary to that general statement of principle—that we must see that any proposals put forward do not frustrate the provision of modern dwellings and the redevelopment of the land. It would be ironical if any reform of leaseholds merely preserved the old dwellings, and perhaps even the slum dwellings, and we were unable to develop.
One could use long words about this—leasehold enfranchisement, compulsory

1013
acquisition, enforceable options, and other such long phrases, but what we want to put forward from this side of the House is the occupier's opportunity to stay on in his home and the freehold owner's opportunity to get paid for what he gives up. The fair rent at which the tenant should continue in the house could be decided by the county court or any of the other agencies, such as the Lands Tribunal, equipped to decide these matters, and so also the question of the settlement of the purchase price if the long leaseholder desires to become the freeholder.
But there are three major points in this scheme. First, the tenant should be credited with the cost of recent improvements. This was a point mentioned by the hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. G. Elfed Davies). It would be fair that the tenant who wishes to purchase the freehold should be credited with the improvements that he has made to the property. Perhaps in future one would provide for some prior notice of proposed improvements of that sort.
Secondly, we would ensure that adequate building society loans are available for the tenant who wishes to purchase the freehold, something on the lines of the previous scheme of subsidising loans on older houses. I realise only too well that it is no good saying to a tenant, "You can buy the house at the end of the lease at a fair price", if he cannot raise money on a house which, if we are dealing with a 99-year old lease, is a 99-year old house and not normally one on which a building society advance would be made. So we must ensure that he has that opportunity.
Third, the tenant should have assistance, if he needs it, with the deposit in purchasing that freehold interest. We have proposed the scheme which, I think, is best expressed by "double your money"—that is, the Government granting £ for £ or a certain proportion of the individual's savings for a deposit.
With that assistance, we would hope to make it easy for the long leaseholder who has made the house his home to stay on there as freeholder. That is a statement of a fair policy and, moreover, one which is consistent with previous Conservative policy. Within the housing shortage range, we have for many years recognised the need for security of tenure
1014
for the long leaseholder. We proved that in the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, Part I. That Act is not, as the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) said, a flimsy protection to the long leaseholder whose lease runs out. He is given the rights of a controlled tenant. It certainly is not, as the Minister himself called it, an ill-conceived failure. It has worked very well in protecting those tenants who might otherwise have been evicted from their homes. In passing, I point out that since 1957 that 1954 Act has applied to long leases at normal rents, so existing Conservative legislation gives protection to a wider category than that covered in this White Paper, that is, tenants holding 21-year leases at normal rents.
The hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central said, quite rightly, that we are in a new housing situation now. There is the increase in home ownership and the growing desire for owner-occupation. There has been the introduction of the recent Rent Act and the regulated tenancies provided by it. That Act gives protection to weekly tenants of houses of quite high rateable value, and this necessitates the removal of the anomaly that at present the weekly tenant in a house of, say, £100 rateable value has greater protection in law than is given to the long leaseholder, someone with a lease for 21, 30, 40 or 99 years. Thus, in view of that present position, with the desire for home ownership and the protection for even the weekly tenant of property of high rateable value, our rethinking on leasehold reform has brought us to the conclusion that the long leaseholder deserves greater security than the weekly tenant. But such rethinking did not require from us the mental gymnastics of this extraordinary White Paper.
Mr. Skeffington: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for spelling out these suggested reforms, which, of course, we did not have a chance to study before they were announced earlier this afternoon. I take it that he accepts that all three remedies, extension of the lease, staying on as a statutory tenant under the 1954 Act or any new legislation, or enfranchisement, are absolutely defeated if there is development. In those circumstances, the leaseholder would have no chance; he could be out in the street again.
Mr. Page: I think one must preserve the right to develop, as I said earlier. Otherwise, any form of leasehold reform such as is put forward in the White Paper will frustrate the provision of new dwellings. All it will do is preserve dwellings 99 years old already, without any opportunity for good development. Where good development is offered, we must preserve the right to allow it to go ahead.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) called the White Paper a "leasehold emancipation charter". If legislation slavishly followed the statements in the White Paper, it would be better called a seven-page "spivs' charter". After nearly 500 days in office, the Government give birth to this election hand-out. [Interruption.] Indeed, it is an election hand-out in more senses than one. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is the second time I have had to call a Front Bench to order today.
Mr. Page: If leasehold reform was as vitally important as some speakers from the Government Benches today have said, why have a General Election before bringing in this legislation? But the White Paper is necessary as the Government's window-dressing for the General Election.
Take paragraph 5 of the White Paper, for example. Here one qualifies for a bonanza in the following manner. Suppose one bought in 1962 the fag-end of a lease of a £10,000 house, because that is the sort of house that these proposals might cover in London. Say the lease was to end in 1967 and one paid, as one would have done, about £2,000 for it in 1962. The rise in value since 1962 would probably cancel that out and, in 1967, the tenant, having acquired the house at a small price a few years ago, would be entitled to the whole house—£10,000 worth of it—which would be handed over to him as a gift, and the very next day he could flog it. Is that equity? Is that what the Government want to bring into operation? What a lovely General Election this is going to be! [Interruption.]
I have told the Minister, who is jeering from the Government Front Bench, that we support a form of leasehold enfranchisement, and I explained exactly what form we supported. We do not support
1016
the sort of frills which are put forward in the White Paper. Up to the present the Government have had to pay electoral bribes out of the Exchequer. Now they can pay them out of the unfortunate freeholders' pockets. Who are the freeholders about whom we are talking in the White Paper? We have heard about some of them, such as the great estates. They include institutions, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames said—the Church Commissioners, charitable and educational trusts, and pension funds. In many cases they are persons of small means who have purchased ground rents as investments.
This is where I think the reasoning of the White Paper is so naive and false. The proposition is put forward that the land belongs to the freeholder and the bricks and mortar belong to the tenant because 99 years ago the land was provided by the freeholder and the bricks and mortar were provided by the tenant. That principle is then completely abandoned in paragraph (5) where it is applied to a 21-years' lease. How can anyone in their senses think that a person will take a 21-years' lease and build a house on the land? I challenge the Minister to produce a single instance of a house being built on land by a lessee who has a lease of only 21 years. That paragraph shoots down the whole principle in the White Paper. In 999 cases out of 1,000, what happened 99 years ago is about as irrelevant as the hon. Member for Pontypool's case on homosexuals in Charles I's reign.
Mr. Abse: James I's.
Mr. Page: It is just as irrelevant. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) said, as between the present tenant and the present landlord, the tenant bought the right to use the house for the remaining years of the lease and paid, therefore, less than he would have paid for the right to use it forever, the freehold. On the other hand, the landlord bought not only the right to receive a few £s in ground rent but the right to the reversion, the right to receive possession of the property at the end of the lease. He paid for that accordingly when he purchased it.
Not even in its wildest dreams, as far as I know, has the Labour Party proposed

1017
the seizure of investments without compensation. In proposing nationalisation, even when seizing for the benefit of the community, as far as I know it has always been prepared to pay compensation. But here is seizure of an individual's investments without compensation. That is why we object to the principles set out in the White Paper.
Mr. Willey: Then vote against it.
Mr. Page: Have I to say it again? I endeavoured to set out our proposals for enfranchisement as the basis for reform at the beginning of my speech.
Mr. S. C. Silkin: Why, since the Opposition oppose this in principle, do they not intend to divide the House on this issue?
Mr. Page: I am pointing out the parts of the White Paper which I oppose because they are based on a wrong principle of compensation, but that does not mean that there is not a good case for protecting the long leaseholder who has made the house his home and to protect him without seizure of the property from the landlord. Let us take another example.
In paragraph 3 the White Paper says:
"Two circumstances make reform a matter of urgency."
I suggest that there were actually three circumstances—the two phoney circumstances as set out in paragraph 3 and the General Election. The first "phoney" statement in paragraph 3 is the story of the person who purchased a mortgage just after the war and now, as the mortgage runs out, finds that he has nothing left. But he would not at that time have got an advance from a building society on under a 60 years' remaining term and he would have got an advance for 20 years. So he has 40 left. The other circumstance is expressed as
"…landowners used their monopoly power…"
But later we are told that the Minister praises the enlightened management of the larger estates. It is not these circumstances that make the White Paper so urgent. The urgency is that the Government thought it was necessary to put the White Paper before the people at the General Election.
1018
On paragraphs 9 and 10, one can really win the pools without buying a 2s. postal order. Suppose the case of a person who acquired a five-year fag-end of a lease five years ago for the equivalent of, say, five years' rack rent. The owner of the ground rent bought at the same time. I do not care whether it concerns a £200 house in Cardiff or a £20,000 house in Chelsea—the owner of the ground rent who bought it five years ago will have paid nearly the freehold value. If the tenant does not want to take over the freehold he can, under the scheme, have a 50-year lease—on a house for which he paid a very small sum a few years ago. If he wishes, he can sell that lease next day. The freeholder gets nothing but what in paragraph 10 is called
"a modern ground rent attributable to the site"
In face of that sort of result, my right hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) was right to refer scornfully to these phrases about "equity", "morality" and so on in the White Paper. The White Paper is dripping all over with the words "fair", "equity", "justice between the parties", "morally entitled", and so on. This is sheer hypocrisy. This is just an electioneering stunt.
Mr. Willey: Then vote against it.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Minister wants to intervene, there is a Parliamentary way of doing so.
Mr. Willey: The hon. Gentleman has now been addressing the House for a considerable time on a Motion welcoming the White Paper. What I am asking is what he is welcoming.
Mr. Page: I am welcoming leasehold enfranchisement in a form which I have put to the House. I shall continue to criticise the White Paper even if the right hon. Gentleman does not like it, because when it talks about equity and justice and morality, what equity and justice and morality are there when a tenant who has paid for his leasehold interest 45 years ago and who has lived in the house for all that time is entitled to receive the house free at the end of his lease—no more than his neighbour, who paid the value of the leasehold interest only five years ago and who can get exactly the same. What equity is there is giving the same gift of a few

1019
thousand pounds to each without discrimination?
One could take example after example of the inequity between tenant and tenant within this system put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman has gone out of his way in the White Paper to say that he desires to have equity between landlord and tenant, but in doing so he creates the greatest possible inequity as between tenants themselves.
What about the extraordinary position with flats? What are the different considerations of equity which apply as between flats and houses? The hon. and learned Member for Dulwich expressed the anomaly. I cannot see what difference in principle there is between paying a premium in 1960 for the lease of a flat which started in 1950 and paying a premium in 1960 for the lease of a house which started in 1850. Is there some distinction between flats and semidetached houses? My hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Peter Griffiths) called attention to maisonettes. Do the Government say, if they are to implement the White Paper exactly as it stands, "You own the bricks and mortar if your dwelling is semi-detached vertically, but you do not if it is semidetached horizontally"? That is what appears from this provision.
Mr. Scholefield Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman and his party vote for an Amendment to this effect which I and many of my hon. Friends have signed? Would he support it?
Mr. Page: I shall certainly read that to see whether I can support it. Obviously, the White Paper was produced in such a hurry for the election that the right hon. Gentleman could scarcely find time to read the Report of the Wilberforce Committee. Why not provide here for the recommendations about enforcing positive covenants?
If both the right hon. Gentleman the Minister and his Joint Parliamentary Secretary had not started their careers in the Temple on the common law side, they might, perhaps, have known the maxim of the Chancery Bar, "He who comes to equity must come with clean hands". [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman and the Joint Parliamentary
1020
Secretary come to the House with very mucky hands with this White Paper—with the paste for the posters and the printer's ink for the pamphlets for the General Election dripping from their fingers.
I will repeat Conservative policy on this, because it does not seem to have sunk into the Minister's mind. It is that, subject to ensuring that the provision of modern dwellings is not frustrated, we would give the residential long leaseholder the right to continue in residence—as a long leaseholder or as a freeholder—but in giving that right we would not expropriate the lawful and in no way improper an immoral investment of the freeholder. So the tenant would not get his house free but would have the right to buy the freehold or a long lease at a price which would take into account improvements and at a price with which he would be assisted by building society advances and in saving up for his deposit. That is a fair scheme between the both parties, a scheme which a Conservative Government will have the honour to pursue in the next Parliament.
9.31 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. James Griffiths): This has been an interesting debate and it will have an extraordinary conclusion. [Interruption.] I am used to the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). He is not half as clever as he thinks, and I speak as one who proceeded him in the National Insurance sphere.
This evening the House is called upon to vote for or against a Motion which reads:
That this House welcomes the proposals contained in the White Paper on Leasehold Reform in England and Wales (Command Paper No. 2916) as a basis for legislation.
I understand that the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames and other hon. Gentlemen opposite have described this as the "spivs' charter". They have also called it confiscation. They have referred to it as being all sorts of things—yet the House intends to accept it unanimously, without a vote.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have said that this is an election gimmick. Then they told us that they have been having

1021
some rethinking about it. Why have they been rethinking? It is less than 18 months since we had a General Election. At that time they issued a special manifesto for Wales. I have it with me—the authentic document with the picture of the lost leader. Being a manifesto for Wales, it had to refer to the issue of leasehold, did it not? Of course it did. It began in a typical Conservative way, with these words:
"As Conservatives, we have very great sympathy with the desire of occupiers, particularly in Cardiff, Swansea and Newport, to own their own houses."
I declare my interest. Why is Llanelly not included in it? Why not the Rhondda and Monmouth? Having expressed their complete sympathy with the people of those three great towns—the capital city of my country—in the end they turned down enfranchisement, so why do they bring a bogus enfranchisement to the House tonight? You tell us that these are election gimmicks. What is yours?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am neutral.
Mr. Griffiths: I exempt you from that completely, Mr. Speaker.
Let us have no more about election gimmicks. I am very proud that this evening I am a member of a Government who are taking the first decisive step to remove an old grievance and to right an old wrong. Perhaps the House will extend its indulgence because much of this debate has been about Wales and, therefore, I think that I am entitiled, and want, to explain why, to use the words of the right hon. Gentleman, this issue for us is—how did the right hon. Gentleman describe it, "an emotional fix"?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I did not so describe it. I was quoting the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. They were his words, not mine.
Mr. Griffiths: Very well. If anybody says that I, or the Welsh people, feel emotional about this subject, let me confess at once that we do. Let me explain why.
I have grown up with this problem. I know its background. Let me set the background, because it is important that it should be understood. Welsh Members on the benches opposite dare not
1022
come out against the White Paper. They will now have to defend in their constituencies the scheme put forward in the White Paper. This is the background. This is why we feel proud about what we are doing.
Let me give the background in the setting of my own South Wales. In the 40 years from 1871 to 1911 the population of the three industrial counties of South Wales—Carmarthenshire, Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire—trebled. People came from the valleys and the hills and the other side of the Severn to work in the pits and the mills. There was work in plenty, but no homes. There were no council houses. It must appear to hon. Members opposite an idyllic society. There were a few private contractors' houses.
Hon. Members opposite have never understood Wales—but Wales understands them all right. What was available to the men who came to work was the company house, and the worker did not care to have his boss as his landlord. So the people set about building their own houses. It became a passion with them. These are the people who have been described as "spivs".
Mr. Graham Page: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that when I talked about "spivs" I was talking about the opportunity given by the White Paper to purchase a leasehold interest in the last five years.
Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman said it in general terms He has now qualified it.
The people set about building their own houses. That is what they wanted to do. But they had to get land. Practically all the land—in some places all of it—was owned by one landlord or a few landlords and there was no freehold available. It was leasehold land.
Right hon. and hon. Members opposite talk a lot about the sanctity of contracts. What sanctity is there about that contract—the working man in a pit or mill who wants to build his own house, not on good agricultural land but on land in the valleys? The only terms on which he could get a site for his house was a lease, generally of 99 years, with terms set out in the covenant, and at the end of the 99 years everything—the house he

1023
had built and stinted, saved and sacrificed to pay for, for which he cared and which he had improved, and a garden which he had made out of the stony soil—went to the landlord.
Not only did the house go back to the landlord but it was often accompanied by a bill to meet the cost of making it in a better condition for the landlord. That is the background to the problem, the reason for all the intense feeling about it and the reason the White Paper has been warmly welcomed.
We are a land of owner-occupiers. Fifty-two out of every 100 houses in Wales are owner-occupied. In some areas such as the Rhondda it is 70 or 80 out of 100. We are owner-occupiers because, traditionally, that is our background. This was the tradition and the great sense of dignity which belonged to all these people—and these are the people about whom we are concerned. The sons and the daughters and the grandsons and the granddaughters of those people will be cheering today. One hon. Member said that the White Paper would result in cheers in South Wales—and certainly South Wales can do with a bit of cheer. We have had more than our share of tears.
We set about this task and we worked very hard. For some time we have tried to find a basis. We have been seeking to do justice to the people I mentioned. Does any hon. Member opposite claim that the present leasehold system is fair to the owner-occupier? I pause and give hon. Members a chance to say so. Does anyone opposite claim that the system which I have described is fair?
But it has been our experience, every time this problem has come before the House, that every Bill, every inquiry and every investigation has become bogged down by arguments about sanctity of contract, and by all the other legal entanglements around it. I am glad that our Government have cut right through them and have sought a solution. We looked for a principle on which we could build and plan a design to embody in legislation.
The principle which we have taken is that we regard the land, the site, as belonging to the landlord, to the freeholder. We admit that, and from it flows
1024
certain things and certain provisions in the White Paper. Secondly, we said that the house belongs in equity to the leaseholder. That may be argued. My view is that we were right to begin by laying down a basic principle of this kind. Unless we do that and unless it is accepted, I do not think that the House will arrive at legislation and my desire is to arrive at legislation as quickly as possible.
But we have gone beyond that. Having said that that is the basic principle, we have tried to clarify it. It has been said that in these proposals we have leaned over towards the leaseholder and the owner-occupier. If that is said, my answer is, "Why not?". Is it not our privilege as well as our responsibility to protect the weak? Is not that the concept of the Welfare State which we have been developing? If it is said that in some cases we are unfair to the landlord—I do not think we are—and if it can be proved that we are slightly more than fair to the leaseholder and to the owner-occupier, I say, "Why not? I am glad we are, and I make no apology for it".
We have sought to produce a practical plan. We have said, first of all, "We will define what kind of leases are covered". We have said that they should be leases of 21 years or more. Generally speaking, in Wales and many other parts of the United Kingdom they are 99-year leases. Secondly, we have sought to lay down what kind of house will be covered. We have used what are already established, in a sense, as standards—the standards in the Rent Act. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames asked about that. He asked why we confined the Bill to houses within the rateable value limits of the Rent Act. I was not sure whether he desired that we should abolish these limits altogether. Perhaps he is producing his own scheme. But since he asked why set the limits at £200 rateable value outside London and £400 inside London, I will give the answer. Why confine it? he asked. Why not make the proposal apply to everyone? Well, I put it to the right hon. Gentleman, are these limits to be exceeded in his party's proposals, such as they are?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I hope I made it clear in my speech that our proposals have no rateable value limits. The question I asked the right hon. Gentleman, on

1025
the other hand, was, why, if this was a great principle of equity—not just an expedient for helping the poor, but a principle of equity—equity stopped at the rateable value of £200 a year?
Mr. Griffiths: We have set these limits—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—If hon. Gentlemen will wait, I will give the answer. Because we planned this as a consistent whole. The Bill will not stand alone. It will be one of a consistent series. The Rent Act gave security of tenure to some; and when we bring in the Bill based on this White Paper it will give it to others. Since these are related Measures the value limits obviously ought to be the same in each case.
Now to clear up the right hon. Member's concern about those left out. These proposals exclude houses having a rateable value of £200 and over in the provinces. In Wales, there are only 799, out of 879,000 houses. Indeed, outside London, in England, there are only 110,000 house above that. They are few. It is a problem of size. We think it right, since we have the value £200 already embodied in legislation, to have it again.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked me a question about what happens to development where the leaseholder purchases his enfranchisement from a local authority or the Land Commission. In this case, he does not acquire the development rights, but he can if he wishes rebuild his house on the same site, since that sort of development does not fall within the scope of the planning Acts. What we set out to do is to grant to the owner-occupier security in his own house.
We gave a good deal of time and attention to the problem of well-managed estates in all our considerations. We know, of course, that there are good landlords. One decent landlord in my town has played fair with the town. I pay tribute to him. He could have sold his rights in the town to tycoons. But he said that when he came to the town the town had been good to him and he would not do that.
There are well-managed estates, as my right hon. Friend said. We are very anxious that on those estates which are subject to covenants and to agreements by those who occupy the houses or the
1026
flats, whatever they may be, and who join in preserving the amenities, those shall be preserved. One hon. Member gave an account of the house and the terrace in which he lives, and where, every year, the occupiers are under an obligation to do certain things to the houses, and he said that they did them.
I am proud of my own country, but I hate the ugliness that man has made of some of it. I wish that there were more well-managed estates. There are some in my country, and we want to preserve them. We do not want to deny the rights of people living in well-managed estates. At the same time, we want to establish terms and conditions whereby, if an extension to a lease is given, it will be such that those well-managed estates can be preserved.
I give the assurance, therefore, that when we come to frame the provisions of the Bill it will be our intention to provide arrangements by which those well-managed estates can be sustained and be enfranchised in that setting.
Mr. Graham Page: We need some clarification on that point. If a local authority wishes to develop and takes a property for development, will it pay the long leaseholder compensation for the loss of interest which otherwise he will suffer?
Mr. Griffiths: Certainly it will.
The problem which occupies the minds of some of my hon. Friends is how it will work. As I see it, when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, there will be certain rights. There will be the right to enfranchise and the right to an extension of a lease. It is essential to preserve the right to enfranchise, and I understand that hon. Gentlemen opposite have put forward proposals to that end, although they fall far short of our Measure and far short of what the people want.
When it becomes an Act of Parliament, there will be many questions to be settled, not the least of which is how prices of enfranchisement are to be assessed. We shall be considering all those matters, and they will be embodied in the Bill later. We are merely setting out the basic principles here. When the Bill finally becomes an Act, and it begins to operate, I believe that our people can get down to working it in a constructive and co-operative manner.

1027
A leaseholder will be able to apply to a free holder and say, "I want to buy the freehold of my house." No doubt the freeholder will put a price to him, and, if he regards it as satisfactory, that will be the end of the deal. However, if he regards it as being unsatisfactory and too high, he will say to the freeholder, "I am not prepared to pay that", and thereafter the problem will have to go for final decision to a tribunal.
We regard it as essential that any tribunal which settles a matter of this kind shall be easily available to the people concerned. We are dealing with ordinary people, very often with low incomes, and we are anxious to make the scheme work in a practical way, so that we do not offer enfranchisement and, at the same time, make it impossible to obtain it because of the cost.
Mr. Box: The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware that his hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) gave some alleged savings under the provisions of the White Paper of properties which he refused to identify. I am sure that the Minister realises that that may raise false hopes. Will he, therefore, give some specific examples which have behind them the authority of the Government?
Mr. Griffiths: I am not going to be drawn into giving specific examples. They will vary from house to house. Unfortunately, I did not hear my hon. Friend, and he may have given some examples, but he has a lot of experience in these matters. I am anxious that people who seek to enfranchise their houses or extend leases will understand that they will have a fair and square deal and that we shall make it possible for them to settle the transactions.
There are many terrace houses in the valleys of Wales. I believe that once the Bill becomes an Act the occupiers of these houses will form an association and seek to get a price for them. I believe that the price will be settled for one house of this type, and that once the pattern is established there will be voluntary agreements between the leaseholders and the freeholders. I shall not, therefore, quote any figures at the moment.
During the debate I have heard hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about the possibility of some people getting uncovenanted
1028
benefits as a result of a Bill based on this White Paper. I was interested to hear this intense indignation about people getting such benefits. What about the landlord? All that he did was to lease the site for 99 years, and more often than not he did not live near it. There is in this an element of the absentee landlord, who did not lift a finger to help, and at the end of 99 years took the house from the son of the man who had built it, the miner or the pit worker.
The urgency of the matter is that many of these houses were built in the 'seventies, the 'eighties and the 'nineties, and the leases are running out. We have had representations about this, as I am sure the hon. Member for Cardiff, North will agree.
Mr. Box Mr. Box indicated assent.
Mr. Griffiths: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman nods in assent.
These leases were running out and these houses were going back to the landlords during the 13 years when hon. Gentleman opposite were in power. Did they develop any indignation about landlords confiscating peoples' houses and gardens? Of course not. What we have seen this evening is merely synthentic indignation just before an election.
I have been greatly privileged to say a few words during this debate. I feel that I am repaying a debt of honour to a great generation of men and women, the finest of our citizens in Wales, and indeed in other parts of the country. They had two great ambitions. First, to own their own houses, and, secondly, to give their sons and daughters a better chance than they had. To do so they stinted and saved. They never had a holiday, apart from a day out in Cardiff or Swansea. They saved and stinted because to them there was a nostalgic mystique about owning their own houses.
I ask the House to approve the White Paper. I do so because it is fair, just, and right, and because I want to repay a debt of honour to my forebears and those of my colleagues who did all this for my country and for our kingdom.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the proposals contained in the White Paper on Leasehold Reform in England and Wales (Command Paper No. 2916) as a basis for legislation.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gourlay.]
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Bowden): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a business statement.
In view of the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister earlier this evening the business for the remainder of the Session has been rearranged as follows:
WEDNESDAY, 2ND MARCH—Supply [8th Allotted Day]: Committee.
Defence Vote on Account, Votes A, Civil Vote on Account, 1966–67.
THURSDAY, 3RD MARCH—Supply [9th Allotted Day]: Committee.
At 9.30 p.m. the Questions will be put from the Chair on the Vote under discussion, and on all outstanding Votes, under Standing Order No. 18.
A Motion will be moved tomorrow, Tuesday, to give precedence to Government business on Friday, 4th March. I regret the necessity to ask Members to give up this occasion.
If the Motion is agreed to, the business on Friday, 4th March, will be:
Remaining stages of the Commonwealth Secretariat Bill [Lords].
Motions on the Post Office, the Farmers' Machinery Syndicates Grants and Tay Road Bridge Orders, the Police Pensions (Amendment) Regulations, and on the Payments in Aid of Agricultural Schemes Order.
The business for the following week will be:
MONDAY, 7TH MARCH—Supply [10th Allotted Day]: Report.
At 9.30 p.m. the Questions will be put from the Chair on the Vote under discussion, and on all outstanding Votes, under Standing Order No. 18.
TUESDAY, 8TH MARCH—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
1030
WEDNESDAY, 9TH MARCH—Remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
THURSDAY, 10TH MARCH—There will be a Royal Commission for the approval of Bills, followed by Prorogation.
As the House may know, the New Parliament will meet on Monday, 18th April, for the election of Mr. Speaker and on 19th and 20th April for Members to be sworn in.
The State Opening of Parliament will be on Thursday, 21st April.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in this rearrangement of business, the Government are proposing to make a statement on the Annual Price Review for agriculture before Dissolution? If this is done before Dissolution, as I hope, will he make sure that the statement will not be made on Friday?
Mr. Bowden: I answered that question on Thursday of last week, when I said that the Price Review is usually made in mid-March. I have no reason to think that it will be anything different on this occasion.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As this statement involves the dropping of the Building Control Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Minister of Public Building and Works will be making a statement about the operation of the control by way of advance permits, which he is at present operating on the basis that the Bill will become law in this Parliament? In view of the great importance of this matter outside, will he secure that a statement is made at the earliest possible moment?
Mr. Bowden: I shall certainly refer this matter to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Building and Works, but I think that I am right in saying that the Orders are made under the statement issued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Harry Gourlay: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SINGAPORE (GIFT OF A BOOKCASE)
  Resolution reported,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented, on behalf of this House, a book case containing Parliamentary and Constitutional reference books to the Parliament of Singapore and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same
  Resolution agreed to.
  Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

  SARAWAK (GIFT OF A SPEAKER'S CHAIR)
  Resolution reported.
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will give
  1032
  directions that there be presented, on behalf of this House, a Speaker's Chair to the Council Negri of Sarawak and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

  SABAH (GIFT OF A MACE)
  Resolution reported,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented, on behalf of this House, a Mace to the Legislative Assembly of Sabah and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT, DEVON
  10.5 p.m.
  Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying, that the Exeter Order 1966 (S.I. 1966, No. 135), dated 9th February 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th February, be annulled.
  This Order is one of three piecemeal Orders which the now redundant Local Government Commission dealt with. It will doubtless be pleaded on behalf of the Minister that this Order, or the provisions in it, were recommended by the Commission.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will listen quietly. Other hon. Members may wish to pray one night.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: If the Minister prays in aid of the Order that it is on the advice of the Commission, that will be both an insincere and a bogus plea, because in the case of Plymouth and Plymstock he has done the opposite to what the Commission recommended. I hope that the House will agree that this is not a case of the Minister backing up the Commission, but that he could not care less about the recommendations of the Commission when they do not fit in with his plans.
  The result of this Order would be that Devon, with a population of 555,000, one of the lowest population densities in the country, would lose 9,300 people. The county would be £56,000 a year worse off taking into consideration the changes in general grant and rate deficiency grant. Moreover, unless the Minister can give a specific undertaking—which, of course, he cannot, with a General Election just coming up—that rate deficiency grants will be continued at least at their existing level into the indefinite future, a further £11,000 burden will fall on the county, making a total of an additional £67,000 thrown on to county ratepayers in a county suffering from chronic under-population.
  The effect on the rural district council from which this amputation is proposed will be far more disastrous, cover-
  1034
  ing a very wide area much land of which is poor, hilly farming land with very few public transport facilities. The effect of the Order would be to remove no less than 24·6 per cent. of the population of the rural district which would then be extraordinarily difficult to administer, if one takes the Minister's own criteria laid down by Act of Parliament that he should be guided by those factors which are conducive to convenient and efficient administration.
  What would be the effect upon the individual parishes concerned? The parish of Topsham is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Mathew), but Alphington and Pinhoe are in my constituency. The effect on both would be to lose one tier of their government. At the moment, they have parish councils, but, incorporated in Exeter, they will lose their parish councils. Alphington will be agglomerated with twice the population of Alphington in the new ward, but it will not have direct representation at that level.
  What will the effect on the rates be? If there is a 10 per cent. escalation in Exeter's rates, as seems highly probable, Alphington, once the 6d. umbrella is removed, will have to pay another 1s. 7d. in the £, without there being any suggestion that the services received will in any way be improved.
  What is the position of Exeter? Let us be charitable and say nothing, except that it has a population of 81,810 at the moment. It never had any interest in increasing its frontiers until Burton lost its county borough status and Exeter woke up one morning and took fright. When the Commission had first asked what Exeter wanted, it did not want anything at all. Having taken fright, it wanted a huge chunk of the county, but gradually agreed to settle for the parishes of Pinhoe, Alphington and Topsham. Even with these added, Exeter would still be about 90,000. It is losing its police force any day now because it is too small. Incidentally, it is one of the only two county boroughs in England which receive a special grant from the Government because of a low population density.
  In other words, this is not the case of a thriving city, bursting at the seams, unable to undertake its development

  1035
  because the available land is used up. It even has farm land within its boundaries. It is a matter of the local government officers wanting to ensure the continued existence of Exeter as a city. In all seriousness, I do not think that anybody would suggest that it should not be. It is the county town of Devon, a university city, the cathedral town of Devon, the largest shopping centre in the county. It would be ridiculous to suggest that, because of its existing size of 81,810, and growing, its county borough status is in jeopardy. It is not. Nor has Exeter claimed that it ever was or ever will be.
  What will be some of the side effects of this ridiculous Order, which with what one might think is a somewhat cynical sense of the appropriate the Minister proposes should become effective on April Fool's Day? First, the location of newly-built schools by the county is rendered ridiculous. The excellent new modern school at Broad Clyst, which draws a large proportion of its children from Pinhoe, would never have been sited at Broad Clyst if there had been any suggestion of Pinhoe being raped from the county and being drawn into Exeter. There will be complicated cross-arrangements whereby children from Pinhoe will continue for a while to go to Broad Clyst, and many bits of paper will change hands between the county treasurer and the county borough treasurer. At the end of the day nothing will have been gained, but quite a lot of money will have been spent.
  What do the people living in these areas feel? My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton will tell the House what the people in Topsham feel. The rural district council conducted a referendum in Alphington. Seventy-three per cent. of all the voting cards issued were returned. Of those, 7 per cent. were favourable to the proposed transfer and 91 per cent. were against it. In the case of Pinhoe, 69 per cent. of all the voting cards issued were returned—incidentally, a higher proportion than most Members of the House have in parliamentary elections. Twenty-three per cent. of the votes were in favour of amalgamation. Seventy-four per cent. were against it.
  This was after very prolonged debate, after the evidence for and against the proposals had been given at the public
  1036
  inquiry before the inspector appointed by the Minister, and after the evidence for and against had received widespread publicity in the Press. Therefore, these are not referendum figures based on an initial revulsion against any change in status. These are the figures that resulted after all the facts were known. Let us be under no misapprehension about this.
  What of the character of these villages? My hon. Friend will tell the House about Topsham, which, incidentally, used to be in the Tiverton division. Alphington is a rural village contiguous to Exeter. It has not lost its rural character. It has farms practically in the middle of it. It has its village hall and it is the only highly-populated part of a large chunk of land stretching one-third of the way to Moretonhampstead. Take Alphington out, and we are left with a truncated area.
  In Pinhoe, we have a village separated quite distinctly from the city by the express railway line from Exeter to Waterloo. On the far side, on the Exeter side, there is a trading estate which is part of Pinhoe and which could reasonably be transferred to Exeter. Indeed, both the county council and the rural district council thought it was reasonable that this should be transferred to Exeter. We would then have a quite clear physical line of demarcation, the railway.
  In Pinhoe itself there are many facilities. There is a Church of England church and a Church of England hall-church in the village itself. There is also a Nonconformist church, a public library, two public houses, and one of the nicest village halls that I know of, provided entirely by money contributed by American soldiers who were billeted in the area during the war, as a gift to Pinhoe. It is perfectly true that many of the people who live in Pinhoe work in Exeter; but, to take the analogy, is it suggested that having moved an overspill population out of London, the area to which those people have been moved should then be brought within the jurisdiction of the G.L.C. on the basis that, as the people are working in London, the same local authority should cover the area? Of course, it is not. It would be a preposterous suggestion; But this is the suggestion that is made with a religiously straight face in the case of Alphington, Pinhoe and Topsham, that because some of the people

  1037
  work and shop in Exeter they should be administered by county hall at Exeter.
  On that basis I cannot think what would happen to County Hall. County Hall, from which Devon County Council is administered, is in the centre of the City of Exeter. On this basis, presumably, the City of Exeter should take over the whole of Devon. That, admittedly, has not yet been advanced by the Minister, but as another proposition to come into effect on April Fool's day, it should rank very high indeed on the right hon. Gentleman's list.
  What advantages are claimed for the people living in these villages if they are taken into Exeter? Absolutely none. What advantages are claimed for Exeter? Not the building land, which it does not need. Not a greater stretch for its local bus service, which is already very hard pressed. Not a greater area for its police force to administer, because its police force is not going to administer anything. Very shortly it is being drawn into the county.
  What are the advantages? It is hard to see any, except that the unfortunate people brought in will have to pay higher rates than they were paying before. To that extent, I suppose that there is an infinitesimal alleviation of the rate burden to the people who are already in Exeter.
  Is that a good reason for doing it? When a deputation from the Devon County Council and the district councils concerned, with my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme) and I, went to see the Minister last summer it was quite clear that he had already made up his mind long before we went into the room. He had made up his mind precisely what he would say when he had heard what people who had journeyed from Torbay, Pinhoe and Alphington had to say to him. It was a waste of breath. The Minister had been presented in advance with a fully documented brief so that he was familiar with the details of the case. Apparently he did not challenge any of the facts stated in it and he stuck to his guns. He stuck to this stupid decision, made in advance of a full knowledge of the facts.
  Moreover, having announced his decision, he then comes to his senses and realises that this Commission did a lamentable job anyway and he says to the
  1038
  House that he will not let it go on doing that lamentable job and that he will have a super commission to decide what sort of commission should do what sort of job. But the flywheel in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government had acquired such a momentum that it was not practicable for him to withdraw Orders out of the system, although they had been made on the recommendation of a body already disparaged in the House. He did not come to the House to answer this debate, but sent his Parliamentary Secretary instead, and I cannot say that I blame him. That, in outline, is the case against this preposterous suggestion.
  It is being taken piecemeal in the House at the moment. We have only one of the three Orders before us and, therefore, it would be out of order if I were to adumbrate on the effect on the county of all three Orders. We must debate this Order on its merits, but it is only fair that the House should know that this is intended by the Minister to be the first of three steps, the final result of which will be to reduce the population of the county from 555,000, already a lamentably low population density, by taking 95,000 people out but taking only a very small area out. The intention is to take out the land of highest rateable value in the county and the areas, with the most miles of unclassified road per head of population in the whole of England.
  The intention is to take out of the county these most highly rated and most densely populated areas. One does not need a crystal ball to predict that this will be presented to the House as a piece of efficient and convenient administration. It is neither.
  10.24 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Mathew: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has just said. I have the honour of representing Topsham, which is concerned in this Order, and I would add my protest against the whole procedure that is being followed.
  I feel that the inevitability from the beginning of the proposal of the working of a bureaucratic steam roller has been apparent to all who have been concerned with it. I was not able to make a protest in person to the Minister, but I had

  1039
  considerable correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman and it seems to me that the whole procedure that was followed throughout had an inevitability about it which was a mockery of the whole democratic process that is supposed to be followed in making these changes.
  At the time of the inquiry, as I pointed out in my correspondence with the Minister and as he stressed in his letters to me, there was not necessarily very much interest in the proposals in Topsham itself. Topsham is a small ancient and historic Devon town on the estuary of the River Exe, a very beautiful town which, I think, is not unknown outside Devon. It has little part in the history of Exeter itself and cannot be said by even the most starry-eyed planner to have much to do with the growing City of Exeter. It has its own history and its own way of life. But, as I say, at the time of the original inquiry, there was not necessarily a majority of people in Topsham against the proposals. I think that the proposals were little understood at the time. There was a general apathy and a misunderstanding of what was proposed.
  Following this, there were in Exeter City itself certain political developments—I do not wish to stress this at length—which were less than happy. The Minister was so concerned that he sent the very distinguished lady who was his chief officer at the Ministry to look into the matter. These developments were not unnoticed in Topsham, as can well be imagined, and the result was a hardening or crystallising of opinion in Topsham about the proposals. The apathy disappeared overnight.
  At this stage, I was approached, first, by the Topsham Society and then by a large number of individuals, including the chairman of the Topsham Council, a very distinguished gentleman and former stipendiary magistrate in London. As the Member for Parliament responsible, I made it my business to find out where opinion in Topsham stood. I wrote to the Topsham Council asking for an official expression of opinion. I wrote also to several societies and groups in Topsham and to the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Parties there. From all three parties and from all the other groups I
  1040
  received the unanimous reply that the vast majority of people in Topsham were wholly against the amalgamation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton mentioned the referendum which was taken, and I can give the House the figures for Topsham. There were 2,883 voting cards issued, 72 per cent. of them were returned, and 16 per cent. were in favour of the change, but no less than 81 per cent., a remarkable figure, was against the change.
  This shift of opinion had taken place as a result of a full realisation of what was involved. I shall not repeat the facts which have been put before the House by my hon. Friend. I add only that, in the light of the political developments in Exeter to which I have referred, the full realisation of what was involved for this town, with its great and historic tradition, had gone home to the people of Topsham.
  The Topsham Council and the three political parties were very strongly opposed to what was proposed. I put this to the Minister, who made it clear to me that at that stage it was somewhat late. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton has said, it is clear that public opinion in Topsham was ignored throughout from that moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme) went to see the Minister, and the impression gained by all who were at that meeting was that the Minister's mind was closed and had been for some time.
  I make no imputations against the Minister. In all these instances where Ministers have to make a decision on an inquiry, suddenly after having been a party in a case where there is a dispute, such as a local government boundary case, the Minister has to become quasi-judicial. This is an instance of administrative law in our system which I have long deplored. It is impossible for any Minister to carry out this change of character overnight and become judicial and make an impartial decision on all the facts and considerations. Inevitably, under the present system, and in the fact of what I have already called "the steam roller of bureaucracy", he is a rubber stamp of the bureaucracy.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): My

  1041
  right hon. Friend is not a party to any dispute. He has responsibilities, laid down by Statute, to receive recommendations from the Local Government Boundary Commission and to take certain steps to hold an inquiry if there are objections and then to make a decision. He does not start the operation, and is not a party to it.
  Mr. Mathew: I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman. In all such cases—it is not only Local Government Commission cases—where the Minister is a judge of matters concerning his Department, he is up to the moment that he becomes quasi-judicial a party to it because he is the head of his departmental officials who are advising him one way or the other. In the case under discussion no doubt the officials advised him that the balance of advantage was this way.
  It is very difficult for any man—I make no imputation whatever against the right hon. Gentleman for I know him to be very fair-minded—to divest himself of the interests of his Department and suddenly become a judge and totally disinterested; place on his head the wig and on his shoulders the robes of a judge and become quasi-judicial. This applies not only to the right hon. Gentleman, but to a number of other Ministers who have certain statutory duties placed on them.
  In the case in point, 81 per cent. of the population of Topsham were against the proposal. This opinion, for reasons which I have given, was expressed somewhat late in the day, as the right hon. Gentleman hastened to inform me, and this I fully accept. But I think that the reasons for it will be understood by the House. Because of what had happened, the inevitability of bureaucracy was such that they had to be ignored.
  For these reasons, I submit that the Minister, in this case, was in an impossible position and that the Order is wholly against the interests and the wishes of the people of Topsham.
  10.35 p.m.
  Sir Henry Srudholme: I agree with the view expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and Honiton (Mr. Mathew). I shall not reiterate their arguments, but I want to put four points.
  1042
  First, no case has been made out that Exeter needs more land for further development. Exeter is one of the county boroughs in receipt of a special grant from the Government because the population is sparse in relation to the area. Secondly, as far as I understand it, the only reason for that extension is apparently that the Local Government Commission suggested that, because Exeter has a population of under 100,000—I believe that it is about 81,000—it might lose its county borough status. I have yet to learn of any county town of the status of Exeter which would ever be demoted in that way. The argument does not hold water.
  Thirdly, the majority of the population of St. Thomas rural district have shown clearly in a referendum that they are against an extension of the boundaries of Exeter. I am glad to see the Minister here and I repeat to him that the same thing occurred in Plympton rural district. The Minister says that Plymouth should swallow up the major portion of the Plympton rural district, but the local population has come out against that proposal in no uncertain terms—91 per cent. being against it.
  Fourthly, if the St. Thomas rural district goes to Exeter the county will lose the equivalent of ¾d. in rate—about £56,000. As a county ratepayer, I see no benefit in that to anyone. I am sure that the Minister has long made up his mind—that was clear when my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and I went on a deputation to see him the other day—but I see no public advantage at all in this proposal.
  My old home is situated in St. Thomas and some of my family still live there. I know that in what I am saying I am voicing their opinions. I strongly oppose this Order and should like to vote against it.
  10.40 p.m.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I support the hon. Members for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), Honiton (Mr. Mathew) and Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme) in opposing the Order.
  The speech we have just listened to may be—although I hope not—the last speech in the House by the hon. Member for Tavistock before his retirement and I hope that it would not be out of order

  1043
  if I were allowed to say, since he is our senior Member in the West Country and has been for many years, that we shall greatly miss his wise counsel. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."] I should like to tell him, also, that it is with great pleasure that I find myself on this occasion in wholehearted agreement with him. He enjoys our respect and, if I may say so, our affection as well.
  I neither represent, nor is my constituency contiguous to, any of the parishes involved in the Order, but, of course, the Order will have a considerable effect upon Devon as a whole. I represent one of the most sparsely occupied parts of that county. As the hon. Member for Tiverton rightly said, it would be out of order to discuss any other prospective schemes, although as he said—and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, did not see fit to suggest that he was out of order—this will be one of three, and other schemes will follow.
  All one can say is that already the right hon. Gentleman has been made a Freeman of the Borough of Torquay.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Richard Crossman)The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Richard Crossman) indicated dissent.
  Mr. Thorpe: If the right hon. Gentleman does not know, perhaps I am breaking secrets and this is something which may fall upon him. I know that he has been wined and dined in an ultra Conservative borough better than any Labour Member would ever have dreamed or imagined possible. The right hon. Gentleman must have realised that this was a case in which the cat was giving the cream, and it was richly appreciated.
  The position is that three parishes with a total population of 9,000 are to be transferred to the County Borough of Exeter. We do not know the extent to which the loss in rateable value will be compensated for by a rate deficiency grant, but neither does the right hon. Gentleman. When he spoke in the House on 5th May, last year, and was questioned by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), he said that these were matters very much under consideration, because this was one of the reforms of local government, carrying through the pledge of 1955, which the Government
  1044
  would have to scrap. This was not the promise which was to be scrapped—this was not one of those sentences—but the rate deficiency grant, and the right hon. Gentleman suggested that there must be a new way of defining it.
  No doubt, an excellent way may be contrived, which nobody will be able to understand, but at the moment neither the county nor anybody else knows what will be the effect of losing rateable value, because we do not know what form of rate deficiency grant will take its place.
  Sir Rolph Dudley Williams: We will have the White Paper tomorrow.
  Mr. Thorpe: The hon. Gentleman may be right. There may be two White Papers, with suitable comments in all the newspapers appearing the following day.
  We are taking from the county a rateable value and leaving behind a county which still has the largest mileage of road of any administrative county in England, with only 74 people per mile, now to be reduced to 59. We shall have a situation in which either greater burdens will be put on those parts of the county which remain, including my own constituency, or a far greater burden on the Exchequer.
  What is sinister is that when these matters were originally raised—and the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if my information is not correct—the particular accretions of land asked for by the county borough were very minor. It wanted part of the parish of Pinhoe, where it had a trading estate, and another part of Pinhoe, where it had an occupational centre for the mentally handicapped and at Alphington, where it wanted an extension of land where it had an industrial estate.
  To those claims the county council readily agreed, with no difficulty at all—until the Local Government Commission got to work and suggested that unless Exeter increased in numbers to about 100,000 it was in very great danger of losing its county status. It may well be that the Commission would say today that it never gave any such impression or that if it did, it was wholly erroneous.
  Mr. Crossman: Who said it did?
  Mr. Thorpe: That is the view which the Devon County Council took.
  Mr. Crossman Mr. Crossman rose—
  Mr. Thorpe: I will try to answer the right hon. Gentleman. I will not give way yet. He asked who said that the Commission had given that impression.
  Mr. Crossman Mr. Crossman rose—
  Mr. Thorpe: The right hon. Gentleman must let me answer. He is a patient man.
  Devon County Council clearly took that view. It is the view of many officials in the County Council at Exeter. It may be wholly erroneous, but that is the impression that was clearly given. Therefore, the City of Exeter, with a feeling for, to use a word familiar to the right hon. Gentleman, lebensraum, decided that it must start swallowing up the land around it. However, even on that basis it will not be a borough of 100,000, but will be about 10,000 short.
  Mr. Crossman: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously saying that the Commission gave the impression that it would think adversely if Exeter did not get the right number of population? I see no evidence whatever for thinking that.
  Mr. Thorpe: The Minister asked a fair question. The answer is, "Yes".
  Mr. Crossman: With respect, I would like to know what evidence there is for such an impression. The hon. Gentleman said that the Commission had created that impression, but there is no evidence to show that that was so, nor could there have been such an impression created. The Commission's job is to study the facts as they are. My job is to decide, after the Commission has done that. It is unfair for the hon. Gentleman to say that the Commission gave an impression which it could not give. What does he mean by "Gave the impression"? The Commission looks at a situation. So far, not one county borough has been down-graded for lack of population.
  Mr. Thorpe: The right hon. Gentleman rightly says that one must look at the facts. That is perfectly correct. Before the Local Government Commission came on the scene, the demands, suggestions and recommendations made by the County Borough of Exeter were very modest. They were for fragments
  1046
  of various surroundings parishes. By the time the Commission had completed its hearings, by the time that all those matters were heard, it was clearly the impression of Exeter that if it did not substantially increase its acreage it might well run the risk of losing its county borough status.
  I accept immediately what the right hon. Gentleman says about the Commission never having any intention of giving such an impression or that this has perhaps never happened before—
  Mr. Crossman: Nor since.
  Mr. Thorpe: —or that it will never happen in the next 500 years, but the fact remains that this impression was clearly created, which the right hon. Gentleman cannot controvert. The territorial claims of the County Borough of Exeter were substantially inflated to include these three parishes. Before that time it had asked for three portions of two parishes. By the end of the hearings its appetite had become insatiable.
  What is it intended to do? One thing that will happen, which is, presumably, prayed in aid in this Order, is that the existing fire service will incorporate the services existing in the three parishes. It is interesting, as the hon. Member for Tiverton said, that at this moment the Exeter police force is being amalgamated with the Devon police on the ground of administrative efficiency. Here, I must declare an interest. I have some connection with the fire service. I act in a legal capacity for a fire organisation. That is a very good thing, for if there were a little more legal advice perhaps Her Majesty's Government might benefit by it.
  The fire service was very impressed by a speech made by the right hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke), when he was Home Secretary, in adumbrating a policy which was carried on by the former Home Secretary, who, I think, is now Lord Privy Seal, the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice)—a policy that every fire authority should have basically 100,000 population at the very minimum to bring about efficiency and that, wherever the population was below that figure, there should be amalgamation. The Order seeks to create a fire service with a 90,000 population whereas at the moment

  1047
  Exeter and the county fire services could, in my view, be amalgamated in the interests of efficiency in the same way as the police have already been amalgamated.
  We are artificially creating small administrative units at the very time when the public services ought to be amalgamated on the ground of efficiency. The Minister for Housing and Local Government agreed with what I said about the police and I suggest that what is good enough for the police is good enough for the fire service.
  It cannot be said that this step is necessary because Exeter needs land for expansion. Exeter has plenty of land for expansion, as no doubt the Minister will confirm in his reply. I am particularly interested in the statement in the right hon. Gentleman's letter that local opinion must always be fully considered. If I may coin a phrase, my retort would be, "Sez you". There has been a referendum, and this proposal has been clearly rejected by the overwhelming majority of the local electorate. This is an unnecessary measure which is truncating the County of Devon, it is against the wishes of the local people and I submit that a case has not been made out for it.
  10.53 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Mills: I shall be brief and cut my remarks considerably, but I should like to oppose the Order on a matter of principle.
  I look upon the County of Devon as a whole and not as a county made up of several bits, such as urban and rural areas, rich and poor areas, highly populated and sparsely populated areas. We stand or fall as a county, and I very much dislike this hiving-off of another part of the county, which is quite wrong, can do no good to the county and must have an adverse effect in the long run on those who live within its boundaries. I believe that we need to remain as a whole county. Here we see possibly a prosperous area being hived off, and later it may be Plympton and Torbay. This cannot do any good for the county as a whole in the long run.
  I conclude my brief remarks by opposing the Order as a matter of principle. We should remain as a whole
  1048
  county and not have little bits taken away—a tendency which could well increase as the years go by.
  10.54 p.m.
  Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: Before I open my remarks on the Order I wish to associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) in respect of my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme). I have had many kindnesses from him since I have been a Member of Parliament, and I am sure that we all very much regret that he will shortly be leaving the House of Commons. I hope that he will have many years of happy retirement in Devon and that we shall not altogether lose contact with him.
  These proposals result from the deliberations of the Local Government Commission. I am extremely grateful to the Minister of Housing and Local Government that he has never recommended me to go on the Commission, because it must have been a most heartrending job to have to make these decisions. I appreciate fully the very strong feelings which exist in these three parishes which are being brought within the control of Exeter. I have always kept out of the controversy as much as possible, so I cannot be accused of intervening in any way to bring this about. All I will say is that if these parishes do find themselves within the confines of Exeter they will be made very welcome, and that we look forward to the people of those parishes taking part in the government of Exeter.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government has made this Order, and I think that he has made it fairly. I think that he has carefully considered it. I know the pleas which have been made that the Order should be reversed or postponed, but I think that the Minister gave every possible consideration to it before making it. It has been his decision to make it, and now that he has made it I think we should all try to make the Order work, because it is far too late now to reverse the Minister's decision—
  Hon. Members: No.
  Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: I understand the strong feelings that are held about this by hon. Members for county

  1049
  constituencies in Devon, but the county council rate has been fixed for the next year, and the financial arrangements for Exeter are almost concluded and in the first week or two of next month—March—the rate will be fixed, and if these three parishes are taken out of Exeter the whole of the financial arrangements for the next financial year will have to be reversed.
  There would be complete chaos if the decision were reversed at this late hour. I think that the officials who have been responsible for bringing about this amalgamation will feel utterly frustrated. They have worked very closely together over the last few months to enable this changeover to take place as smoothly as possible. Practically every difficulty has been ironed out. Only two, so far as I am aware, still exist, over the old people's homes at Alphington and some old people's homes which have been constructed at Topsham, and I think that those difficulties will be ironed out before many days are past. There is another particular sad case the details of which I shall not go into in the House. I hope that it will be satisfactorily concluded.
  If we decide that this Prayer should be successful tonight I think that very grave difficulty will be caused not only to Exeter City Council, but to Devon County Council, also. I do not know whether my hon. Friends are to take this matter to a Division, but if it is taken to a Division I shall certainly support the Minister.
  10.58 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): May I also join in what has been said about the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme), who is a very old friend of mine. Though he was a political opponent of mine—and deputy mayor of Paddington before I was mayor—I have always had difficulty in thinking of him as a West Country man. I know how well he has served his constituency over the years. I can only say that I hope that when he thinks about these last days of this Parliament he will think rather of our Prayer about Cornwall, a happier background for him, than our Prayer about Exeter. I am sorry that he feels that it was a wrong decision.
  The other thing that ought to be said is a word of thanks to the officials and
  1050
  staff of the different local authorities who worked particularly well in getting the Order prepared in rather a hurry. I have been told by my right hon. Friend's advisers that the contribution made by the officials, whatever their views about the general theme of the Order, was, as one would expect from local government officials, of the highest quality. They showed great skill and wisdom, and the Order, as a technical achievement, represents a very successful job.
  Before I come to look at the merits of the case, I should like to point out the timetable to the House. The matter first came before the Local Government Commission in the autumn of 1959. The Commission's draft proposals were published and circulated in July, 1961. The statutory conference was held at Exeter in November, 1961. The final proposals were published and circulated to local authorities in February, 1963. The public local inquiry was held in October, 1963. My right hon. Friend's decision letter was issued in March, 1965. The Order which we are discussing was made in February, 1966, and the appointed day is 1st April, 1966.
  The Commission made it clear in its report that the proposals that it put forward in its final report differ significantly from those in the draft proposals only at Alphington, where a more regular boundary is proposed to bring all the houses in Shillingford Lane within the city. In other words, from the moment of preparation of the draft proposals until the appointed day, there has been a trend of agreement about the proposals. The Local Government Commission accepted them both before and after its statutory consultations. My right hon. Friend accepted them when he issued his decision letter. Therefore, one can hardly call this a bureaucratic steamroller, except that it is extremely slow.
  All this time has been spent in reaching a decision, and to defeat the Order now would be to reveal not only the weaknesses of the procedure which we all have to operate, but would be an intolerable burden on the area in creating uncertainty.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Nonsense.
  Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend has been accused of inconsistency about this, but he has not been inconsistent.

  1051
  When he announced that he would invite the House to wind up the Local Government Commission and ask the Prime Minister to consider other proposals, resulting in the Royal Commission, he made it clear—and he has acted consistently on that basis—that any matters that had reached decision stage would be decided one way or the other. To say that he would leave certain matters over to the Royal Commission would, again, have meant intolerable delay. Therefore, my right hon. Friend has done the only responsible thing that he could do, in view of the weight of support that these proposals has had, and made a decision. The opposition to that at the beginning—and this has been said by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop)—was not too great.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I never said any such thing. My hon. Friend referred to Topsham. I never said any such thing about that. The opposition has been very strong indeed—at individual level, at parish council level, and at rural district council level—ever since these proposals were first put forward, when Exeter took fright that it might lose its county borough status.
  Mr. MacColl: The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Mathew) quoted the case of the parish which had agreed to the proposals, and there is some question whether later, when the formalities had been completed and the inquiry was held, it changed its mind, but it accepted the proposals, and it is the parish which, geographically, is further removed from, and less contiguous with, Exeter.
  Mr. Mathew: What the hon. Gentleman says is true, but it must be appreciated that people in Devon are not perhaps as well versed in matters of local government law and local government procedure as they are perhaps in the Greater London Area, for instance, and, therefore, it was some time before the people in Topsham realised what was involved. In addition, there were the political developments in Exeter to which I have referred, and for this reason there was then the full realisation of what was involved. I do not think that it is surprising that it took some time to understand what was involved. If it had been in
  1052
  London no doubt people would have understood, but we have other things to think about in Devon. We are busy people.
  Mr. MacColl: I should have thought that the degree of participation in rural affairs in Devon was a good deal higher than in London, and I think that the hon. Member for Tavistock would probably agree with that. I believe—but I would not attach a great deal of importance to it—that a parish meeting called by Pinhoe to discuss the proposals before the inquiry was attended by about 10 people. That does not really suggest that there was a great upsurge of feeling about it.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: If the hon. Gentleman wants to produce facts of that kind, he might not be aware that the case had been canvassed. There can be a meeting because people's views are not known, or their views can be gathered by a complete canvass, in which case the purpose of the meeting is merely to discuss anything about which there is not agreement. It is possible for there to be a few people at a meeting because there is already a consensus of agreement. People go to the meeting to disagree, not to agree.
  Mr. MacColl: When I undertake a canvass, I like people to come to the meeting after I have done so. I am looking for evidence of this great upsurge of feeling. I have to look at the case which has been put to me.
  The other point which was put was about the plebiscite. This was quoted as of great weight. The plebiscite, as I think the hon. Gentleman might have mentioned from his knowledge of the area, has been particularly criticised as being extremely misleading because the description of the decision was described inaccurately on the card which was sent round.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The hon. Gentleman keeps on making statements like that. It was criticised as being misleading by the Town Clerk of Exeter, not by an unbiased and independent judge. I have yet to meet a person who read the questionnaire and was not able to understand it. It was quite unambiguous.
  Mr. MacColl: That gentleman has been Town Clerk of Exeter. But the point at issue is quite clear. I would not

  1053
  have raised it but for the fact that I thought it a little unfair for the hon. Member, in deploying his case, to say that this was a very important expression of opinion. The point was that people were asked whether they thought that the rural district of St. Thomas should be merged into Exeter.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: That is untrue.
  Mr. MacColl: I would draw the attention of the House to the document in question. It says:
  "Are you for or against the inclusion in the City of Exeter of the rural district of St Thomas in which your premises are situated."
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop rose—
  Mr. MacColl: I am sorry, but I am bound by the time. The hon. Member has said that what I have stated is untrue. I have read out precisely what was on the card.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The hon. Gentleman has added to it.
  Mr. MacColl: I have not. I have read out precisely what is on the card.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The hon. Gentleman was added to it "in which your premises are situated."
  Mr. MacColl: I do not wish to be unreasonable. I realise that the hon. Member is making the best out of a not very good case. But he categorically quoted the statistics and the proportion of people voting—and the hon. Member for Honiton did the same—on the basis of what was on the card.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Yes.
  Mr. MacColl: The hon. Member then said that what I quoted as being on the card was untrue. I produced the card and read out what was on it, and he said that I was putting words on it. He ought to learn to put his case with more accuracy and moderation.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: When the hon. Member first quoted to the House the
  question as put he left out the words "in which your premises are situated". He said that only when he read from the card. Previously, he gave the impression that the question put was whether the whole of the rural district of St. Thomas should be transferred. That is why I challenged him.
  Mr. MacColl: Those people who received this card and who had premises situated in the rural district would have thought that the question would apply to the whole rural district. These decisions on matters of local government reorganisation are extremely difficult and awkward ones to make. I feel that hon. Members who see themselves as responsible leaders in their local communities should be accurate in what they say. I do not want to add any more.
  There is no difference between the Commission and my right hon. Friend on the question that these three areas have a great deal of their life in Exeter. They are, to all intents and purposes, geographically linked with Exeter. As the hon. Member said, many of their inhabitants go to Exeter to work. They use many of the facilities and social services of Exeter. There is, therefore, a strong presumption that they should take part in the life of the government of Exeter, and also that they should pay for the services provided in the town of which they are part.
  My right hon. Friend has looked very carefully at the proceedings. He had before him the recommendations of the Commission and the report of the inspector and looking at the whole thing he thought that this was a case in which the Commission had acted rightly and that its judgment of the matter was correct. Rather than put back the clock in respect of operations which began in 1959 the only responsible thing to do was to make this Order, which the House is invited to approve.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 8, Noes 149.

  Division No. 36.]

  AYES

  [11.15 p.m.

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Kirk, Peter Mills,

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Mr Maxwell-Hyslop and

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Mr. Robert Matthew.

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Gregory, Arnold

  Oakes, Gordon

  Alldritt, Walter

  Grey, Charles

  Ogden, Eric

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)

  Orme, Stanley

  Bagier, Gordon A. T,

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Beaney, Alan

  Harming, William (Woolwich, W.)

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Bence, Cyril

  Hannan, William

  Paget, R. T.

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Harper, Joseph

  Palmer, Arthur

  Binns, John

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Bishop, E. S.

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Blackburn, F.

  Hazell, Bert

  Probert, Arthur

  Boardman, H.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Rees, Merlyn

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Bradley, Tom

  Horner, John

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)

  Richard, Ivor

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Brown, Hugh, D. (Glasgow, Provan)

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & Fbury)

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)

  Jackson, Colin

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Buchanan, Richard

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Rowland, Christopher

  Carmichael, Neil

  Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

  Shore, Peter (Stepney)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)

  Coleman, Donald

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Silkin, John (Deptford)

  Conian, Bernard

  Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Lawson, George

  Small, William

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Swingler, Stephen

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Symonds, J. B.

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Thornton, Ernest

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  McBride, Neil

  Urwin, T. W.

  Doig, Peter

  McCann, J.

  Varley, Eric G.

  Driberg, Tom

  MacColl, James

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.

  McGuire, Michael

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Dunn, James A.

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)

  Wallace, George

  Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Watkins, Tudor

  English, Michael

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Fernyhough, E.

  Manuel, Archie

  Whitlock, William

  Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)

  Mapp, Charles

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)

  Marsh, Richard

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Maxwell, Robert

  Williams, Albert (Abertillery)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Williams. Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)

  Floud, Bernard

  Millan, Bruce

  Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

  Ford, Ben

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

  Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Sheffield Pk)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Neal, Harold

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Garrow, Alex

  Newens, Stan

  Mr. Ifor Davies and

  Gourlay, Harry

  Norwood, Christopher

  Mr. Alan Fitch.

SERVICE PERSONNEL, TRINIDAD (ALLOWANCES)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]
11.24 p.m.
Sir Eric Errington: I count myself fortunate that I have the opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment. It concerns a number of officers and other ranks of the Services who were seconded orginally to the West Indian Federation and were subsequently transferred by a further secondment to the Trinidad forces, the Federation having come to an end.
The terms of the secondment were set out in a document of considerable length, which I do not propose to read, dated 26th January, 1961, and I have been able to trace the loss that has occurred to
1056
these officers and men from that document which, so far as I know, has only been amended by one letter, to which I think I ought to refer. It was in the form of what is called a saving-gram, something of which I had not heard before.
It was dated 1st August, 1962, and was from the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the officers administering the Government of Jamaica and Trinidad. It is necessary that I should refer to Jamaica, because other officers and other ranks of the Services were seconded to Jamaica and it is on a comparison of these two sets of secondments that the loss that has been sustained in Trinidad can be clearly seen.
The saving-gram read as follows:
"I have been asked by the War Office to seek your agreement to an immediate review

1057
of the rates of West Indies allowance for military personnel seconded to your forces with a view to according retrospective increases effective from 1st January, 1961."—
that is, 18 months before—
"The West Indies allowance related to British Army local overseas allowance which it replaces. The local overseas allowance was increased in July, 1961, with retrospective effect from 1st February, 1960. The West Indies allowance was not reviewed at the time and remains at the same level as was in issue before the review of the local overseas allowance. In equity, this allowance should have been reviewed at the same time as the local overseas allowance review and it should have kept in step with it. I should be grateful if you would agree with the review suggested by the War Office, as the individuals concerned must by now be experiencing some hardship due to increases in the cost of living."
That was, in truth, the position.
I come now to the next step in the story and I am taking for the purpose of ease an officer who occupied the rank of major, who compares absolutely accurately both in seniority and in conditions for allowances with one who occupied the same rank in Jamaica. The seconded personnel in Jamaica were dealt with in accordance with the saving-gram to which I have referred.
The difference between those two officers, both of the same rank and the same seniority, is most striking. Particularly striking is the fact that the West Indies allowance in the case of the major in Jamaica is £840 per annum when in Trinidad it was £680. I do not propose to go into detail about the other allowances, except to say that the total allowances per annum for the major in Jamaica were £1,414 as against the Trinidad figure of £1,080. If, as I hope, my mathematics are not wrong, that is a difference of £334 per annum. The officer concerned was in Trinidad under the arrangements made from 4th August, 1962, until May, 1964, a period of 21 months. On the full allowance, that would be £334 for the 12 months and £243 for the nine months, a total of £577. That is the claim on the allowances.
I shall come in a minute or two to deal with the difficulty experienced over a period of nearly two years to get anyone to move in the matter, but I should first complete the story. I have pointed out that, before May, 1962, there was a period during which there ought to have been the allowance paid by the
1058
West Indian Federation Regiment. Fortunately, the commanding officer of that regiment, when he came back to England, did a little bit of sleuthing, as a result of which he found that there was a surplus in the Federal West Indian assets.
At about this time, on 25th May, I took the matter up with the Ministry of Defence. An ex gratia payment of £46 9s. 8d. was then made which had absolutely nothing to do with the absence of the proper allowances in Trinidad. It was most unfortunate that it should have been treated as an ex gratia payment in respect of the period from 1st January to May, 1962, but, at any rate, it has been credited to the time when the officer was with the Federal forces and not with Trinidad.
The matter does not stop there. When the officers and other ranks calculated in detail what their Income Tax would be, they found that their P.A.Y.E. liability was increased by £75. Then, before they could leave Trinidad, they were informed that they had to accept a further levy of £115 by the Trinidad Government for extra Income Tax over and above the amount it had been agreed that they should pay. There are 22 officers and men affected in this way.
I think that I ought to go quickly through the correspondence. I took the matter up as long ago as May of last year, and I received a letter on 28th July saying that all the claims submitted to the War Office by this particular officer were inadmissible; and a point was made about a vehicle tax involving a question of £11. At the end of that letter, there was the statement about the ex gratia payment of £46 during the period of West Indian Federation service.
The next letter after 28th July was on 17th August, stating that the question was being pursued as a matter of urgency. The next letter was on 3rd December, and said:
"I am sorry that we have been unable to give you some further information."
Then came a letter stating that it was hoped that something would be done before Christmas. A letter on 2nd February said:
"We cannot give you any definite news."

1059
A letter on 15th February said:
"The question of claims for a higher rate of income tax paid in Trinidad is still under consideration. I will write to you again when I have further information."
On 22nd February I received a most extraordinary letter from the Ministry of Defence:
"You will be pleased to know that it has now been agreed that nearly all the 18 Income Tax claims will be substantially met, at least six of them in full, including"
the major to whom I had referred.
The officer I have in mind brought his motor car into Trinidad, and because he sold it and did not re-export it he was not permitted to claim import duty allowances to reimburse him. But the agreement says nothing about re-export or anything of that sort. Ie merely says that everything will be taxed that is brought into Trinidad with the exception of horses and vehicles belonging to officers. The words are:
"All goods brought into the island are subject to import duties except that in the Second Schedule of the Customs Law, 1939, the following may be imported free of duty—horses and motor vehicles of serving officers of Her Majesty's Forces."
There is no justification at all for saying that because he did not re-export the car he is not entitled to the allowances.
There is a very unsatisfactory aspect to this. I have always taken the view that the Services, particularly the Army should underwrite the loss that serving personnel on secondment suffer through the fault of those to whom they are seconded. But all I have found—and I have found it on one or two occasions—is that there has been completely unnecessary delay. In this case, I regret to say that one sergeant who was owed a considerable sum was killed in Aden, so that he cannot recover the money to which he would otherwise have been entitled. The Services ought to be looked after properly, and there ought not to be any delay. Where personnel are not looked after and there is delay, and a man does not get redress before he is killed in action, one feels that the Service is being badly treated.
It is now more than two years since the losses occurred, and there has been pressure on the Ministry nearly all the time. I hope that tonight we shall have from
1060
the Under-Secretary of State a promise to pay.
11.40 p.m.
Mr. Peter Walker: I want to say a few words in support of what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) has said about the problem. It is a case of very shabby treatment to a number of Service personnel, and it affects one of my constituents. I have had similar experience to that of my hon. Friend.
I took up the matter on 23rd June, 1964, with the then Under-Secretary of State on the question of both pay and taxation. On 5th August, 1964, I received a letter stating that pay would be dealt with on an ex gratia basis and later that year information was given as to the amount. On the tax question, letters were sent on 20th August, 31st October and then on 16th December, 1964. The then Under-Secretary of State stated that he was still holding inquiries.
The remarkable fact is that just over nine months later, I received a letter stating:
"I am writing further to my letter of 16th December…"
as if that letter had been written only a couple of weeks beforehand. This latest letter said that inquiries were still being held. That was on 24th September, 1965. It was followed by another letter from the then Under-Secretary on 18th December,
1965, and then by another letter from the present Under-Secretary of State on 15th February.
I do not criticise the present Under-Secretary of State as far as this is concerned because he has only recently taken up his office and I must confess that since he did so we have obtained quicker action. In his letter of 15th February, he stated that inquiries were still being made. This afternoon I had delivered to me, in an envelope marked "immediate," a letter stating that my constituent is to receive an ex gratia payment described as being virtually the full amount of his claim. The payment, in fact, is more than £50 less than the amount.
In today's letter there is the remarkable statement:
"In July last year, we heard that the Trinidad Government had decided that the income tax claims were inadmissible.
We then had to consider whether payments which were rightly the responsibility of the

1061
Trinidad Government could fairly be accepted as a charge against the British taxpayer."
So the Government have hesitated for seven months to take a decision on the matter, although it knew all the facts last July.
Indeed, presumably they had not reached a decision until recently because, on 15th February, and also in December, they wrote saying that inquiries were still being made. But they failed to inform me that the Trinidad Government had made their decision and that Her Majesty's Government had decided to make an ex gratia payment. It took them seven months, once they knew the facts, to decide on ex gratia payments.
The life of officers and men seconded to certain parts of the Commonwealth is not usually an easy one or a pleasant one and for those who are seconded and who serve well to be treated in this way and to suffer these delays is a disgraceful form of treatment. I hope that it will not occur again.
11.43 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Merlyn Rees): The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) has been pursuing the question of compensation for officers and men seconded to the Trinidad Defence Force since May last year. He has tonight raised a number of points, as has the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) who, as he says, has been making representations since June, 1964. For the record, and to put the matter into perspective, I would give the facts, but since I have only 10 minutes in which to reply I shall have to cut down the amount of information that I thought I should give.
The facts, briefly, are that eight officers and 14 soldiers of the British Army were seconded to the Trinidad Defence Force formed in mid-1962. Before that, some had been seconded to the West India Regiment and others went direct from the British Army. The new terms of service for secondment to the West India Regiment, introduced in January, 1961, included a special West Indies allowance to cover the high cost of living in the area, and three features of these are of relevance.
First, motor vehicles were allowed to be imported duty free. Secondly, Income
1062
come Tax on pay and allowances was at the local rates. Thirdly, travel allowances and refunds of travel expenses were based on rules applicable to overseas civilian officers of the Federation Government. When the Federation broke up, and the Trinidad Defence Force was formed, it was agreed with the Trinidad Government that the terms of service would be no less favourable than those that had been received from the Federation. But those seconded were told that their employment would be under the Government of Trinidad and Tobago, that their emoluments would be paid from the funds of that Government, and that their appointments would be subject to local regulations.
In May, 1963, some of those who had come from the West India Regiment and were now serving with the Trinidad Defence Force complained about their allowances and tax. The complaints were mainly in respect of the West Indies allowance, vehicles tax, payment for expenses incurred in travel between their homes and duty stations, and Income Tax charges. I will deal with these in that order.
The West Indies allowance was designed to replace the local overseas allowance, overseas family allowance and cost-of-living allowance payable to British Army officers and men posted overseas in the normal way. It was agreed that it would be reviewed periodically. Caribbean local overseas allowance—one of the main elements in the West Indies allowance—had been increased in July, 1961, to meet rises in the local cost of living in Jamaica, and this was backdated to 1st February, 1960.
This increase was not, however, reflected in the West Indies allowance and negotiations were accordingly opened with the Federation with a view to the new rates being admissible from 1st January, 1961, the date from which the new terms of service were operative. Unfortunately, these negotiations had not been completed by the time the Federation of the West Indies came to an end on 31st May, 1962.
Sir E. Errington: 1st May.
Mr. Rees: The date which I have is 1st June, 1962, as being the date on which the Government of Trinidad and Tobago first assumed responsibility for

1063
their own affairs and they would not accept responsibility for backdating the increase to 1st January, 1961. Since there was no local Government in a position to grant the increase from that date, Her Majesty's Government accepted responsibility for the period 1st January, 1961, to 1st June, 1962, and ex gratia payments were made to the officers and men concerned. As a result, these officers and soldiers received sums ranging from £6 to £132. In this way, the first and perhaps most important cause of complaint was put right.
I now come to the three claims which were submitted by the officers and men concerned. The first of these is the vehicle tax. As I have already said, seconded personnel were allowed under their terms of service to import a motor car into Trinidad duty free. What was not realised, however, was that a high tax is imposed on all vehicles on first registration in Trinidad. This tax varies in amount and works out at about 16 per cent. of the assessed value. If a vehicle is exported from Trinidad, the tax may be refunded, but the owner is then faced with the cost of shipping it. I understand that nearly all the officers and soldiers concerned decided to sell their cars before leaving Trinidad and put forward claims for compensation ranging from £25 to £109.
The second claim concerns the expenses incurred by officers and men using their own motor cars to travel between their own homes and their duty stations. British Army personnel are, of course, normally entitled to public transport between their residence and place of duty, or, alternatively, an allowance to cover their expenses. This provision was not included in the West India Regiment terms of service as quarters in Jamaica were within either the camp area or a very short distance from it. In Trinidad, the quarters were some 17 miles away from the place of duty, involving personnel in at least one return journey of 34 miles each working day.
The third claim was in respect of Income Tax. The terms of service of seconded personnel indicated that Income Tax would be levied at West Indies rates, but, in fact, Trinidad rates were levied. Initially, the two rates of tax were broadly the same. However, from 1st
1064
January, 1963, the Trinidad rates were increased sharply, with the result that seconded personnel were faced with additional tax payments ranging from £5 to £145. These three claims were put to the Trinidad Government who considered them at length, but felt unable to accept them and finally rejected them in the summer of 1965.
I must say something about secondment terms. Seconded officers and men are on a special footing. Although they do not, of course, cease to belong to the British Army, they are during the period of their secondment the financial responsibility of the Government in whose country they are serving. They undertake these duties as volunteers and they accept the conditions of service which are offered to them. The financial terms take account of any inconvenience and perhaps interruption of their normal military careers.
If, having accepted the terms, they find that they are not working out as well as they had expected, any claims that they may put forward are rightly addressed to the Government concerned. Even if such claims are rejected, it does not by any means follow that the British taxpayer must automatically step in to meet them. On the other hand, we thought it reasonable to see that seconded officers and men are protected from hardship at least to the extent that they are left no worse off than they would have been under the kind of arrangements that we ourselves would have applied in similar circumstances.
Sir E. Errington: Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to discuss some of these in detail with me?
Mr. Rees: I certainly would be pleased to meet the hon. Gentleman.
The House will appreciate that before a decision is made to meet from the British Exchequer claims made against another Government, all the facts must be most carefully weighed and each individual case must be justified in full. Such cases can never be disposed of overnight. Briefly, the claims in respect of vehicle tax were given sympathetic consideration, but since there is no entitlement to exemption from this kind of tax in the United Kingdom Service man's normal expectation, it has been decided

1065
that no ex-gratia payment can be allowed in respect of these claims.
With regard to the other two claims—travelling expenses and Income Tax—I am glad to be able to report a happier outcome. On the first, it has been possible to apply the test of how these officers and men would have fared if they had been travelling between home and place of duty under British Army rules. All the claims under this heading, ranging from £4 to £25, pass this test, and arrangements are being made to make ex-gratia payments to the full extent of the claims.
The Income Tax claims have proved to be rather complex. It has been necessary to examine each claim in detail to compare the net emoluments actually received with the net emoluments that might have been allowed by Her Majesty's Government in similar circumstances. A detailed scrutiny of the claims under this heading, taking into account rank, service, marital status, all pay and allowances due, and so on, shows that many of them can be met substantially, if not in full, and ex-gratia payments are being arranged accordingly.
I accept that it has taken a long time for these claims to be cleared up. There were three main reasons for this. Briefly,
1066
the first was that the claims involved more than one Government. It was last July—that is, July, 1965—that the Trinidad Government finally decided that the Income Tax and travelling claims were inadmissible. Secondly, there are no set rules for claims of this kind. Each case has to be considered on merit, bearing in mind the principle—and I emphasize this—that we are not prepared to underwrite secondment terms regardless of their content. Thirdly—and this explains the delay of the last few months, which I accept there has been—the staffs dealing with the matter were preoccupied with the recent pay review.
The hon. Gentleman expressed the hope that other seconded personnel might not be faced with similar problems. Since 1963 a new form of secondment called "loan service" has been formulated to meet the needs of emergent countries. Under these arrangements the cost is shared between the Government concerned and Her Majesty's Government, who, therefore, have a direct responsibility. Under the new formulation the circumstances related tonight are unlikely to be repeated.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Twelve o'clock.

  CHANNEL ISLANDS (CONCENTRATION CAMP DETAINEES)
  CHANNEL ISLANDS (CONCENTRATION CAMP DETAINEES)
  PERU (MANTARO RIVER PROJECT)
  PERU (MANTARO RIVER PROJECT)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (WORKING PARTY RECOMMENDATION)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (WORKING PARTY RECOMMENDATION)
  WAR GRAVES CEMETERY, MOUNT SCOPUS
  WAR GRAVES CEMETERY, MOUNT SCOPUS
  ARABIAN PENINSULA (BRITISH INTERESTS)
  ARABIAN PENINSULA (BRITISH INTERESTS)
  YEMEN
  YEMEN
  RHODESIAN INFORMATION OFFICE, WASHINGTON
  RHODESIAN INFORMATION OFFICE, WASHINGTON
  RHODESIA (SOUTH AFRICAN OIL SUPPLIES)
  RHODESIA (SOUTH AFRICAN OIL SUPPLIES)
  CONSULAR OFFICERS
  CONSULAR OFFICERS
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
  LAOS (AMERICAN AIR ATTACKS)
  LAOS (AMERICAN AIR ATTACKS)
  SYRIA (BRITISH SUBJECTS)
  SYRIA (BRITISH SUBJECTS)
  KUWAIT (EXCHANGE OF NOTES)
  KUWAIT (EXCHANGE OF NOTES)
  BAHRAIN, QATAR AND THE TRUCIAL STATES (DEFENCE OBLIGATIONS)
  BAHRAIN, QATAR AND THE TRUCIAL STATES (DEFENCE OBLIGATIONS)
  SLAVERY (RATIFICATION OF CONVENTION)
  SLAVERY (RATIFICATION OF CONVENTION)
  I.L.O. CONVENTIONS (RATIFICATION)
  I.L.O. CONVENTIONS (RATIFICATION)
  DISCRIMINATION IN EDUCATION (U.N.E.S.C.O. CONVENTION)
  DISCRIMINATION IN EDUCATION (U.N.E.S.C.O. CONVENTION)
  GENOCIDE (U.N. CONVENTION)
  GENOCIDE (U.N. CONVENTION)
  POLITICAL RIGHTS OF WOMEN (U.N. CONVENTION)
  POLITICAL RIGHTS OF WOMEN (U.N. CONVENTION)
  RACIAL DISCRIMINATION (UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION)
  RACIAL DISCRIMINATION (UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION)
  WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION ASSEMBLY (RECOMMENDATION)
  WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION ASSEMBLY (RECOMMENDATION)
  BRITISH VISITOR'S PASSPORT
  BRITISH VISITOR'S PASSPORT
LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
  Land Commission Bill
  Land Commission Bill
HOSPITALS
  Young Chronic Sick
  Young Chronic Sick
  Physics Technicians
  Physics Technicians
  Physics and Medical Laboratory Technicians (Pay)
  Physics and Medical Laboratory Technicians (Pay)
  Elderly and Mentally Disordered Patients
  Elderly and Mentally Disordered Patients
  St. Cross Hospital, Rugby (X-Ray Equipment)
  St. Cross Hospital, Rugby (X-Ray Equipment)
  Hospital Development (East Anglia)
  Hospital Development (East Anglia)
  Child Patients, Wales (Mothers' Accommodation)
  Child Patients, Wales (Mothers' Accommodation)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Cervical Cancer
  Cervical Cancer
  Disabled (Training of Handcraft Teachers)
  Disabled (Training of Handcraft Teachers)
  General Practitioners (Practice Expenses)
  General Practitioners (Practice Expenses)
  Day Nurseries
  Day Nurseries
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  Doctors (Emigration)
  Doctors (Emigration)
  Cervical Cancer Screening Service (Sherborne)
  Cervical Cancer Screening Service (Sherborne)
  Cervical Cancer Screening Service (Southampton)
  Cervical Cancer Screening Service (Southampton)
  Cervical Cancer Screening Service (Clevedon)
  Cervical Cancer Screening Service (Clevedon)
  Cervical Cancer Screening Service (Woking)
  Cervical Cancer Screening Service (Woking)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Selly Oak Employment Exchange
  Selly Oak Employment Exchange
  Shipyards
  Shipyards
  Aircraft Industry
  Aircraft Industry
  Dismissal Procedures
  Dismissal Procedures
  Restrictive Practices
  Restrictive Practices
  Banks (Five-day Week)
  Banks (Five-day Week)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  F111 Aircraft
  F111 Aircraft
  Departmental Staff (Service Personnel)
  Departmental Staff (Service Personnel)
  Dog-Handling Establishments
  Dog-Handling Establishments
  B.A.O.R. (Nuclear Weapons)
  B.A.O.R. (Nuclear Weapons)
  N.A.T.O. Infrastructure Depot
  N.A.T.O. Infrastructure Depot
  H.M.S. "Sea Eagle"
  H.M.S. "Sea Eagle"
  Neatishead Radar Station (Fire)
  Neatishead Radar Station (Fire)
  Phantom, Hercules and F.111 Aircraft (Cost)
  Phantom, Hercules and F.111 Aircraft (Cost)
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  African Countries (Military Aid)
  African Countries (Military Aid)
CYPRUS
  Constitution
  Constitution
  Situation
  Situation
  Treaty of Establishment
  Treaty of Establishment
MALAYSIA
  Defence and Mutual Assistance
  Defence and Mutual Assistance
MALTA
  Defence and Mutual Assistance
  Defence and Mutual Assistance
BRUNEI
  Defence Agreement, 1959
  Defence Agreement, 1959
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Town Centre Development (Basingstoke)
  Town Centre Development (Basingstoke)
  Proposed Reservoir, Draycote
  Proposed Reservoir, Draycote
  Shop Windows (Advertising)
  Shop Windows (Advertising)
HOUSING
  Lower Interest Loans (Backdating)
  Lower Interest Loans (Backdating)
  Council Houses
  Council Houses
  Rent Assessment Panel (Kent)
  Rent Assessment Panel (Kent)
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Lockheed C130 Aircraft
  Lockheed C130 Aircraft
  TRS2 Contracts
  TRS2 Contracts
  Phantom Aircraft
  Phantom Aircraft
RAILWAYS
  Train Fire (Inquiry Evidence)
  Train Fire (Inquiry Evidence)
  Passenger Services (Closures)
  Passenger Services (Closures)
ROADS
  A.650 (Footbridge)
  A.650 (Footbridge)
  Accidents (Stepney)
  Accidents (Stepney)
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
TRANSPORT
  70 m.p.h. Speed Limit
  70 m.p.h. Speed Limit
  Testing Stations
  Testing Stations
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Military Equipment (Imports from America)
  Military Equipment (Imports from America)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Agriculture Bill (Money Resolution)
  Agriculture Bill (Money Resolution)
  Finance Act, 1965
  Finance Act, 1965
  Gross Fixed Capital Formation
  Gross Fixed Capital Formation
  Consumer Price Index
  Consumer Price Index
  Income Tax (Child Allowances)
  Income Tax (Child Allowances)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Annual Review (Cost Changes)
  Annual Review (Cost Changes)
  British Wool Marketing Scheme (Report)
  British Wool Marketing Scheme (Report)
SOUTH ARABIA
  Unfederated States (Treaty of Friendship and Protection)
  Unfederated States (Treaty of Friendship and Protection)
  Treaty of Friendship and Protection
  Treaty of Friendship and Protection
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Married Women Teachers
  Married Women Teachers
  Residential Colleges of Education (Costs Per Student)
  Residential Colleges of Education (Costs Per Student)
  Nursery Schools (Place Cost)
  Nursery Schools (Place Cost)
  University of Bradford (Draft Charter)
  University of Bradford (Draft Charter)
  Free School Dinners (Hull)
  Free School Dinners (Hull)
  Fires in the Home (Female Deaths)
  Fires in the Home (Female Deaths)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Coroners Courts (Jurisdiction)
  Coroners Courts (Jurisdiction)
  Drunkenness (Convictions)
  Drunkenness (Convictions)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Kiosks, Belfast (Vandalism)
  Kiosks, Belfast (Vandalism)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Coal (Chemical Resources Research)
  Coal (Chemical Resources Research)
  Area Electricity Boards (Initial Connection Charges)
  Area Electricity Boards (Initial Connection Charges)
  National Coal Board (Deficit)
  National Coal Board (Deficit)
  SOUTH-EAST ASIA (PEACE NEGOTIATIONS)
  SOUTH-EAST ASIA (PEACE NEGOTIATIONS)
  STERLING (RESERVES)
  STERLING (RESERVES)
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
  MINISTRIES (DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITY)
  MINISTRIES (DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITY)
SCOTLAND
  House Purchasers (Local Authority Loan Schemes)
  House Purchasers (Local Authority Loan Schemes)
  Housing Subsidy (£12 Basic Rate)
  Housing Subsidy (£12 Basic Rate)
  Agricultural Houses
  Agricultural Houses
  Heifers (Veterinary Surgeon's Certificate)
  Heifers (Veterinary Surgeon's Certificate)
  Houses (Additional Subsidy)
  Houses (Additional Subsidy)
TECHNOLOGY
  Maddock Committee
  Maddock Committee
  Fast Reactor (Prototype)
  Fast Reactor (Prototype)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Journal (Parliamentary Answers)
  Journal (Parliamentary Answers)
  Advance Factories (Bellshill Industrial Estate)
  Advance Factories (Bellshill Industrial Estate)
  Pit Closures South Ayrshire (Alternative Employment)
  Pit Closures South Ayrshire (Alternative Employment)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Ayr and Prestwick)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Ayr and Prestwick)
  Insurance Premiums (South African Clients)
  Insurance Premiums (South African Clients)
  Rhodesia (Insurance Claims)
  Rhodesia (Insurance Claims)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD GRENFELL on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford

THE F.111A AIRCRAFT
2.36 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: 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 is their estimate of the total cost to this country of the F.111A force over a ten-year period.]
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, the estimated cost of the F.111A force over the next ten years is about £280 million.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, whilst thanking the noble Lord for giving us this figure, may I ask him whether this estimate includes all relevant items of expenditure, such as the in-flight refuelling element and that part of the cost of the air and land defences and the bases from which these aircraft will be operating which can be attributed to them?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, it does not include all the items mentioned by the noble Earl. This covers the provision of the aircraft and for the support for the aircraft in terms of capital payments and running costs. It does not cover the other items I think I am beginning to see what the noble Earl is getting at now.
2.38 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: 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 will be the total dollar cost of the fifty F.111As to be ordered for the Royal Air Force, including the initial purchase price. spares, replacements
456
and the United Kingdom contribution to United States research and development costs.]
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the total dollar cost of the F.111A programme, including all interest and capital payments, and running costs over the next ten years, is expected to be about £260 million.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving your Lordships this information. Would the noble Lord agree that, in the light of that Answer, paragraph 10 of the first part of the Defence White Paper could be extremely misleading?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, unfortunately I have not had an opportunity to look at paragraph 10.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I refresh the noble Lord's memory on his own White Paper and remind him that in paragraph 10 the unit cost of each aircraft is given as £2·1 million? That is the basic unit cost, which would amount to a total of £105 million, which of course is a very different figure from the one he has just given, of £260 million.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not think the noble Earl should be surprised that I am not able to put a paragraph number to each subject in the White Paper in which there are a large number of paragraphs. I really do not see why the noble Earl is worried. He is experienced enough to know that over a period there is a great difference between unit costs and total costs. I have given much more information than the previous Government ever gave on this sort of subject, and I should have thought he was the last person to accuse us of in any way misleading the House.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask whether the British stake in the F.111A will be limited to a communications fit, or can we hope that the percentage of British equipment will tend towards the percentage which has been satisfactorily reached for the Phantom? I believe there is a figure of 45 per cent. for British equipment in the Phantom.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord really ought to put down a Question on the subject. This point

457
does not arise from the Question now before us. In fact, the Phantom reaches that high figure because of the cost of the engine. I think there will be slightly more, or it may be of the same order, of British equipment as in the C.130. I would hazard a guess that it would be about 10 per cent.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I reassure the noble Lord? I was not in any way suggesting that he was misleading me; all I was suggesting was that the White Paper, without the additional information which he has been good enough to give me, could have misled the country.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not want to continue with this matter, but it is astonishing that the noble Earl and his friends when in Government gave Parliament very little information. There is infinitely more information in this White Paper, and we continue to pour information on to them when they ask for it, and then they grumble.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (EXEMPTION) (MILK) ORDER 1966
2.42 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD RHODES): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that appears in my name on the Order Paper. Your Lordships may recall that under Part V of Schedule 4 to the Weights and Measures Act 1963 milk shall be pre-packed only if it is made up in a quantity of one-third of a pint, half a pint or a multiple of half a pint, and if the container is marked with an indication of quantity by capacity measurement. The way in which the marking is to be carried out is laid down in the Weights and Measures (Marking) Regulations 1964, which are applicable to all the various kinds of goods which have to be marked under the Act. Regulation 4 will require that, on or after July 31, 1967, the quantity indications on containers must be in colour—in distinct and conspicuous contrast to a plain background—unless the containers bear no wording in colour contrast to the background.
458
The dairymen and the bottle manufacturers have represented to us that on that date there will still be large numbers of half pint and pint milk bottles in existence which will fail to comply with these marking requirements, because they have colourless quantity markings but have, say, the name of the dairy in colour. As the law stands to-day these bottles would have to be scrapped and new ones provided. Many silk screens used for colour labelling would also need to be redesigned. We came to the conclusion that those points should be met. One possibility would have been to make special provision for milk bottles in the Marking Regulations originally. This, however, would have created an undesirable precedent for special exemptions from the Marking Regulations for goods of other particular kinds. Subject to certain transitional exemptions for all descriptions of food, these regulations apply uniformly to all descriptions of pre-packed goods required to bear indications of quantity, and we did not wish to depart from that.
The proposed Order therefore deals with the point in a different manner. It exempts pint and half-pint bottles of milk from the requirement in the Act that they must have a quantity marking. That requirement seems to us to be unnecessary when there will still be the requirement that pre-packed milk must be sold only in one of the specified quantities—namely, one-third pint, half a pint or multiples of half a pint and when any third of a pint bottles will still be required to bear quantity markings. This may sound rather complicated, which I suppose in a way it is; but this is a request from the dairymen and the glass bottle manufacturers who say that enormous waste would take place unless this was acceded to. We have agreed to do that, and I ask your Lordships to support it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Weights and Measures (Exemption) (Milk) Order 1966 laid before the House on 26th January, 1966, be approved.—(Lord Rhodes.)
2.45 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I very much hope that the Government will not press this Order and that if they do the House will not accept it. The Special

459
Orders Committee considered this Order and reported on February 16:
" That in the opinion of the Committee the Order cannot be passed by the House without special attention ",
because, they said:
" in their opinion the provisions of the Order raise an important question of policy and principle: namely the permanent exemption of half pint and one pint bottles of milk…from the marking provisions of the Weights and Measures Act 1963."
I always understood that in matters of this kind the function of delegated legislation was to fill in details which Parliament had not dealt with, Parliament having laid down general principles. But this is not what is happening this afternoon. This is an Order laid pursuant to the Weights and Measures Act 1963 which, your Lordships may well remember, occupied weeks of time in this House and in another place. That Act dealt in the greatest detail with milk and milk bottles and the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, for one, did not allow this part of the 1963 Bill to go through unexamined.
As the Minister has explained to us, the Act laid down quite specifically with regard to milk bottles:
" Milk shall be pre-packed …"—
that expression apparently escaped the scrutiny of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford—
" only if—

(a) it is made up in a quantity of one-third of a pint, half a pint or a multiple of half a pint; and

(b) the container is marked with an indication of quantity …"

Nothing could be clearer than that, and that was what Parliament decided, having given the closest scrutiny to the whole of this matter over days and weeks. The Minister now comes before your Lordships and seeks, in effect, to repeal that part of the provision of the 1963 Act; and the reason he advances is that representations have been made by the dairymen and the glass bottle industry; and, further, that by July, 1967, the Marking Regulations 1964 will have come into effect and there will still, according to the Minister, be bottles in existence which will not be complying with those Regulations. These milk bottles are only the ones which bear coloured markings, and they must surely
460
represent a very small proportion of the total quantity of milk bottles in circulation.
Furthermore, by July, 1967, the glass bottle industry will have had four years notice of Parliament's requirement that milk bottles are to be made in a certain way with certain markings. So one would hope that ever since 1963 milk bottles have been manufactured which comply with the provisions of the Act and the provisions of the Marking Regulations, and presumably by July, 1967, we shall be dealing only with those milk bottles still in circulation which do not comply.
There is a precedent for this Order. The Minister did not quote it, but I would like to refer to it because it supports my case, though it does not support his. I refer to the Weights and Measures (Exemption) Order 1965, which dealt with a situation very similar to the milk bottle situation before us now. The position was that the 1963 Act had laid down that things like soap, which were to be sold pre-packed in wrappers, were to be marked with the quantities, but there were still in the shops old stocks of soap and other items pre-packed which did not comply with the provisions of the Act of two years previously. As a result, Parliament was asked for, and readily gave, permission for a year's exemption until next July, so that old stocks of pre-packed soap, and other goods, could be cleared before the provisions of the 1963 Act came into existence.
If your Lordships thought that by 1967, when these Marking Regulations come into force, there would still be, as the Minister assured us there would be, old milk bottles, presumably pre-1963 milk bottles, still in circulation, deserving of further reprieve, then I think that the proper thing to do nearer July, 1967, would be to grant a further reprieve to the old milk bottles. But by means of this Order, upon an afternoon when your Lordships have come here mainly to discuss other things, to make a Regulation which practically tears up a part of the 1963 Act which was passed after close scrutiny is, in my submission, quite wrong.
We understand that the custom is that normally we do not divide against ministerial Orders. But I would hope that there is a corresponding custom

461
that Ministers do not seek, on that ground, to push delegated legislation through the House against the wishes of your Lordships, and particularly after the Special Orders Committee have switched on the red light, as they have in this case. I hope, therefore, there being absolutely no urgency about this matter—it can be dealt with at any time before July 1967—that the Minister will this afternoon decide to withdraw this Motion and will consider the matter further, with a view to coming back to the House with an Order which gives temporary exemption to old milk bottles and does not seek to repeal a detailed provision of an Act of Parliament.
2.53 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will not take this matter to be as trivial as it may seem on first looking at the Order Paper. This Weights and Measures Act was conceived largely to protect the consumer and, in the case of milk bottles, particularly the housewife, so that she should see exactly what amount of milk she was getting. We now come to the position where there are thousands, probably millions, of milk bottles which have not got this marking on them. It would be unfair and extravagant to ask that they should be taken hack or smashed, and we are suggesting that they should be allowed to continue their normal life until, in the hands of the milkman or the housewife, that comes to an end.
But this Regulation, which says that after a certain date newly manufactured milk bottles should have this indication on them, surely has weight. Why should the new ones which are going to be made be exempted from having the weight or contents on them, simply because there are a lot of old ones? The point is, let the old ones die out; let us, if necessary, have a little further legislation to give them a shorter span of life; but it would seem most improper that we should go back on the Weights and Measures Act, passed by both Houses of Parliament, by repealing a definite Regulation that the housewife should be protected at some time in the future, not too far ahead, by being able to see exactly what is in the milk bottle.
2.55 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I quite see that in a matter of this kind
462
there is a question of Parliamentary propriety. It seems to me, though, that it is not just a question of ensuring that milk bottles that are already in existence should be exempted from the provisions of the 1963 Act, whether for a period, or forever, or for their life. It is also a question of making it clear, if this is to be the case, to the manufacturers of milk bottles that they are not going to be compelled to comply with what the Act lays down to come into force at, I think it is, July 1967. Quite plainly, if they are going to be compelled to do it it is necessary to tell them now; there is no use in putting it off. From the point of view of Parliamentary propriety, I suppose it would be possible to comply with the request of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that this Order should be withdrawn, so long as the House was prepared to say in its turn that it was prepared to accept this principle; but otherwise, it would be quite impossible. I think this is case where we should weigh Parliamentary propriety against common sense, and I think that in a case like this the main point is to make it clear to the manufacturers that they can get on and produce the bottles, and that the Order will be coming into force in July, 1967.
I am told that if they are told that now, there is going to be quite considerable difficulty. I sympathise with the Government in the difficulty they are in, but I think it would be going a little far to expect a special Act of Parliament in order to deal with this matter. I would say that this is ade minimis matter and I would hope that the House so agrees.
LORD REA: My Lords, we do not want a special Act; we want to stick to the Act that has already been passed.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I normally admire greatly the vigilance of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, in these matters, but I have fetched the Act since he raised this matter, and what puzzles me about his point is that this Order purports to be made under Section 21(5), and, if it is validly made under that section of the Act, I find it a little difficult to know on what grounds he says it contravenes the Act. He will see that Section 21(5) reads—
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene?

463
I must not speak twice on a matter of this kind, but I think the noble Lord asked me a question. I did not seek to suggest that this Order contravened the provisions of the Act in the sense that this Order was ultra vires.What I sought to say was that this Order purports to contravene paragraph (3) of Part V of Schedule 4 to the Act, which is part of the Act, which says, in relation to the milk bottle and not generally, that the container must be marked with an indication of quantity. This is what Parliament decided, and this is what this Order seeks to repeal.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I evidently misunderstood him. I thought he was saying that this was a wholly improper use of the provision under which it purports to be made. But I must at once disclose to the House that I do not take any great interest in milk, and therefore cannot say what would be the proper method of exemption. The noble Lord also in his speech said that the expression "pre-packed" apparently escaped my vigilance when the measure was passing through this House. To the best of my recollection it did not. Curiously enough, "pre-packed" does not mean quite the same as "packed". It means packed before a certain event. "Pre-packed", the noble Lord will find, is in fact defined in the definition section, which is Section 58 of the Act. I will read him the splendid definition. It reads:
"'pre-packed ' means made up in advance ready for retail sale in or on a container…".
There is a lot more, but I would only point out to him that this expression is defined in the Act, and it was passed by Parliament, in spite, I think, of my calling attention to it. I did not particularly object to it, because, provided that pre-packed "means something different from" packed "and the definition section points out what it does mean, I do not find it objectionable.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I stand a confirmed milk drinker. It is not, however, on that account that I very much hope that Her Majesty's Government will see fit to take back this Order. To start with, whatever Lord Conesford may say—and legally, of course, he is perfectly correct—I feel that the Order contravenes the Act under which it is
464
made; that is to say, it is completely contrary in feeling and intent from what Parliament had in mind when it passed the Weights and Measures Act. I, too, remember very well the long and detailed discussions on that measure. I regard this Order as tearing up completely a part of the Act and disregarding it.
I do not want to impose hardship on makers of bottles or on dairymen. I appreciate the fact that they have large quantities of bottles left on their hands which would have to be destroyed if it were not for this Order, or something like it. I would strongly recommend to your Lordships that, whilst the House makes it clear to Her Majesty's Government that this particular Order will just not do, we should on the other hand be prepared to agree to an Order which gave additional time to the bottle manufacturers and the dairymen to keep matters correct in relation to the Weights and Measures Act. It seems to me to be utterly and completely wrong that bottles should be manufactured at present without the mark which they ought to have on them when eventually they are sold to the public. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will reconsider this Order, will take it back and will bring us something better.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, I do not consider this a trivial matter. It is very important. There is a matter of principle which was hammered out at the time the Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1963. If I remember correctly, during the debates in the House of Commons on the subject, particular reference was made to the difficulty of the labelling of milk containers. The arguments advanced were that if at that particular time exemption had been made for these easily definable milk quantity markings, then a whole range of commodities would have claimed something similar, and nothing would have been possible on lines which were hoped for by the Government of the day.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, referred to the comparison between milk containers and wrappings and containers for other sorts of commodities. The permissible quantities for milk are widely spaced in comparison with other sorts of food packings. The permissible quantities for some foods, for instance, are

465
2 oz., 4 oz., 8 oz., 12 oz., 1 lb., 1½ lb. and multiples of 1 lb. Nobody could mistake a half pint for a pint. We say that it is not necessary to mark a half-pint and a pint so that they may be identified by persons buying milk. But we consider it important that, where there may be a chance of somebody taking a third of a pint as a half-pint, the third of a pint should be marked. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, put his finger on the whole question when he said that dairymen and the makers of milk bottles should know precisely where they are, so that they can get on with the job of continuing to make bottles, and so that the trade as a whole can do the same. An immense saving can be effected by this means. It is quite simple, there is no danger at all that
Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

ANGLO-IRISH AGREEMENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should like to make a short Business Statement. At a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Bowles, will be making a statement on the reciprocal agreement with the Irish Republic on social security. May I also announce that dinner will be available this evening.
466
anybody could be mistaken on the matter, and I hope that the House will pass the Order.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, the Minister has now introduced something which he did not mention initially; namely, that nobody is going to be misled. Has he forgotten the thousands of people who visit this country every summer from countries where milk is dealt with in litres? Surely when those people see a pint of milk for the first time over here they would be pleased to see the quantity marked on the bottle.
3.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 22.

CONTENTS

Auckland, L.

Harlech, L.

Segal, L.

Blyton, L.

Hawke, L.

Shackleton, L.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Henderson, L.

Shannon, E.

Burden, L.

Ilford, L.

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

Latham, L.

Silkin, L.

Conesford, L.

Leatherland, L.

Snow, L.

Devonshire, D.

Lindgren, L. [Teller.]

Stonham, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Strang, L.

Dudley, L.

Milverton, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Monsell, V.

Summerskill, Bs.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Rhodes, L.

Swinton, E.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Sackville, L.

Uvedale of North End, L.

Foley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Winterbottom, L.

Forster of Harraby. L.

St. Helens, L.

Wise, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

NON-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Greenway, L.

Raglan, L.

Airedale, L. [Teller.]

Howard of Glossop, L.

Rea, L.

Amulree, L. [Teller.]

Iddesleigh, E.

Saltoun, L.

Barrington, V.

Ironside, L.

Sherfield, L.

Byers, L.

King-Hall, L.

Strange, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Faringdon, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Fortescue, E.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (SOLID FUEL) (CARRIAGE BY RAIL) ORDER 1966
3.15 p.m.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion appearing in my name on the Order Paper. This Motion is concerned with a draft Order—the draft of the Weights and Measures (Solid Fuel) (Carriage by Rail) Order 1966—to modify certain provisions of the Weights and Measures Act 1963 in their application to whole train-loads of fuel which is all to be carried by rail to one single

467
industrial undertaking. Those provisions, in Part IV of Schedule 6 to the Act, require a rail waggon to be tare-weighed at the loading place before a seller may load it with solid fuel for despatch to a buyer, and require him to ticket it with particulars of its load as soon as he has completed the loading and knows who the consignee is to be.
The National Coal Board has drawn our attention to certain cases where those requirements do not seem necessary for the protection of the customer and are difficult or inconvenient to comply with. In some collieries, for instance, special loading arrangements have been, or are being, introduced; these enable pre-weighed fuel to he loaded from overhead storage by automatic weighers which weigh the fuel net and automatically print the particulars for a complete train on to one invoice. There are other cases where fuel is held at disused collieries or dumps where there is no weighing equipment; cases where the fuel is to be loaded from collieries where there is at present no weighing equipment; cases where weighing at the point of loading is unnecessary because the National Coal Board and the buyer have agreed that the weight of the fuel shall be determined at the waggon's destination; and cases where the same waggons are repeatedly loaded with fuel for the same buyer and where he would be prepared to accept tare-weighing at occasional intervals.
We have accordingly discussed this matter with other interested organisations and found general agreement that there is a case for relaxing the Act as this Order does in relation to whole train-loads of fuel which is all for one industrial user. For other consignments—including, for instance, all deliveries of fuel to coal merchants—the Act will continue to apply as it now stands. For waggons for trains of the kind I have described the draft Order modifies both the requirements to which I referred at the beginning of my speech. It does not modify the tare-weighing requirement except for fuel in heavy steel waggons capable of taking loads of up to 24 tons. Subject, however, to those two conditions—the single user to receive the whole train-load, and the use of a 24-ton steel waggon—there will be three cases where a waggon can be loaded without having first been tare-weighed at the
468
loading place: first, the case where the waggon will be loaded by automatic weighing and loading equipment; second, the case where the buyer and the seller have agreed that the weight of the load will be ascertained at the end of the journey; and, third, when the buyer has agreed to accept tare-weighing at three-monthly intervals and the tare weight has been ascertained and durably marked on the waggon on a stated date up to three months earlier.
In the second place—and for this relaxation the waggons need not be the heavy steel ones—the waggons in those single-user trains will be relieved of the requirement in the Act that each one must be separately ticketed. Instead of ticketing each waggon, the seller must give the requisite particulars with respect to each waggon and its load—the place of loading, the weight and so forth—in one single document, which we are calling a "train bill". I bee to move.
Moved, That the Draft Weights and Measures (Solid Fuel) (Carriage by Rail) Order, 1966 laid before the House on 1st February, 1966, be approved.—(Lord Rhodes.)
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I am sorry to see that the Liberal Party appear to have departed en bloc now, when we are considering a further modification of the Weights and Measures Act. When we passed that preliminary Act, and then the final Act, after immense discussion in this House, those of us who studied it knew that there would be many cases in which, in practice, its provisions would be found silly and unworkable; and I am glad that, in this instance, the National Coal Board and the Electricity Board are being let off the full rigmarole as prescribed in the Act. I can only conclude that the Liberal Party are not here because the National Coal Board has no vote.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his explanation of this complicated Order? I am sure that this is a sensible provision to make. I take it that the noble Lord is satisfied that the automatic weighing and loading equipments do succeed in loading all the coal that is weighed into the waggons, and not elsewhere. Certainly nobody could have any objection to weight at destination. In

469
fact, I think that at the time the Act went through there were some who felt that coal ought to be weighed at destination. As to the third exemption, I think that this also is a sensible provision, to take care of a reasonable need for efficiency. I have no objection to this Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendments: Report received.

POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK BILL
3.23 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY (LORD SNOW): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. When this Bill was brought before another place it was welcomed on all sides. This is a happy situation, and therefore I need not trouble your Lordships with a long explanation of its general principles. In fact, on these—and, indeed, on the whole business—I hope to be quite short. The Bill is designed to give effect to a proposal announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he reviewed the Government's saving services in his Budget speech last April: that the Post Office Savings Bank should introduce a new form of savings account to be known as an investment account. The Post Office Savings Bank is, in fact, the most widely used of all the small savings facilities provided by the State, and by increasing the scope of its service the Bill will make a valuable contribution to the achievement of the Government's economic objectives. We hope, indeed, that it will to an extent encourage saving.
People with small savings are now tending to be more selective in their choice of investments and to weigh more carefully the interest and facilities offered by the various alternatives. The Government have concluded that there is a strong case
470
for supplementing the present service of the Bank by providing for deposits on longer notice than the present ones, which could therefore be invested to earn the depositors a better rate of interest. I use the word "supplementing" advisedly, because we are in no doubt that the present type of account should be continued side by side with the new accounts. The 2½per cent. interest rate on the present type of account is not an unreasonable rate on deposits which are repayable on demand or at very short notice—especially as the first £15 of a person's annual interest is free of income tax. Twenty-one thousand Post Offices serve as outlets for the use of savings bank accounts, and at any of these a depositor can deposit or withdraw his money with a minimum of formality. The fact that over 20 million people operate the present accounts and make about 100 million deposits and withdrawals a year is evidence of their continuing usefulness.
We propose to keep this present type of account and to introduce a separate series of accounts for the new kind of longer-term deposits. With a rather smaller range of withdrawal facilities and less activity in transactions, the Post Office expects to be able to administer these rather more cheaply. This, with the better income that should derive from the investments, will enable a higher rate of interest to be paid to the depositors. I should like to make it clear straight away that the Post Office is not seeking any unfair competitive advantage over the Trustee Savings Bank in the extended service it is now planning. The Post Office Savings Bank serves many areas which are not so conveniently served by Trustee Savings Bank branches, and its service covers wider hours of business; but the main concern now is that Post Office Savings Bank customers should wherever possible have access to a range of services as comprehensive as that available to Trustee Savings Bank customers. The Bill, then, is to authorise the Postmaster General to run an investment deposit service and to invest the deposits received in a wider range of securities than that permitted under the Post Office Savings Bank Act, 1954 for ordinary deposits.
I will now run through the clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 brings the new deposits within the scope of the 1954 Act, but excludes certain provisions, such as

471
those relating to the 2½ per cent. interest rate and the investment arrangements applicable to ordinary deposits. Clause 3 provides for the creation of a new and quite separate account or fund through which the whole of the investment deposit business will be transacted. The balance of deposits over withdrawals and other payments will be invested to provide the income of this Fund, and the Fund will meet all the outgoings of the business, including all its costs. In other words, investment account business is to be strictly self-supporting and without any expectation of help from outside—subject only to a final Government guarantee provided by Clause 3(4). Unlike the Ordinary Account Fund, it will not be required to transfer any surplus at the end of the year to the Exchequer, but will retain this in the fund for the benefit of the investment account depositors.
The underlying principle on which the Post Office will conduct the whole of the investment deposit business will be to serve the interests of the depositors—and I want to emphasise this point. The objective will be to invest the deposits within the authorised range of securities so as to obtain the best possible income, consistent with maintaining the capital value of the Fund and a necessary margin of liquid funds to cover expected payments. The income earned will basically determine the rate of interest that can be paid to depositors. The better the rate of interest that can be paid, the more attractive the service will be—that, I think, is not one of the most original statements of all time—and the greater the benefit to the nation in extra savings. In other words, the interests of the depositors are to all intents and purposes the same as those of the Government.
Clause 4 of the Bill provides for a wider range of investments than the Government and Government-guaranteed securities authorised for ordinary deposits by Section 17 of the 1954 Act. It does this by giving the Treasury power to make Orders which will permit investment of the deposits in a selection of the investments within Part II of the First Schedule to the Trustee Investments Act 1961. This device will give the Treasury reasonable flexibility in prescribing an investment range for any future situation. The selection of investments will thus be prescribed
472
by Statutory Instrument which will be laid in draft before both Houses of Parliament. I can say now that we intend to make an Order including local authority loans and securities within the permitted range. These, together with Government securities and securities of the nationalised industries and undertakings, will start the service with an adequate choice of investments offering good yields with adequate security of capital. Within this range it will be the responsibility of the Post Office, in agreement with the Treasury, to decide precisely how the investment portfolio should be composed. In this it will have the benefit of the experience and advice of the National Debt Office and will take any other financial advice which may be desirable in the interests of the business and the depositors.
The Post Office will provide information annually on its stewardship of this new service by a statement of accounts to be presented to both Houses of Parliament, under Clause 5. These will be prepared in accordance with the best commercial principles. They will, for example, include a statement of the investments and their cost and recent valuation so that the position of the Fund in relation to its liability to depositors may be readily seen. Like other Government accounts, the accounts will be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General whose report will be presented to Parliament with them.
Your Lordships will have appreciated from what I have already said that the rate of interest to depositors will be variable and will depend on the income earned and the expenses of the service. Clause 2 provides for the Postmaster General, with the consent of the Treasury, to determine the rate and to vary it. Any alteration of a rate will be suitably published and advertised. For obvious reasons, my right honourable friend the Postmaster General will try to avoid frequent alterations, so that a reasonably stable rate can be achieved over a period. The Postmaster General and the Treasury cannot yet fix the rate with which the service will begin, but we hope that this may be about 5 per cent. Investment account interest will be subject to tax, but tax will not be deducted at source.
Clause 2 also provides for certain conditions of investment deposits to be laid down by regulations. These will provide for the manner in which interest is to

473
be calculated and added to capital and for the terms as to notice of withdrawal. The use of regulations will afford a useful measure of flexibility. Under the clause it would be possible (if this were considered desirable) to introduce a series of accounts for deposits on differing periods of notice at different rates of interest. The period of notice could never be less than one month.
Passing next to Clause 7, subsection (1) will enable regulations to be made fixing the minimum amount of deposits required to be held in an ordinary account before a person may pay money into an investment account. This will be fixed initially at £50. This is a condition to which the most careful consideration has been given. It has been suggested that it could constitute an unnecessary obstacle to the success of the new service. The Government do not see it that way. The Trustee Savings Banks are bound to a similar condition by statutory requirement, and we understand that many of these banks look upon it as a useful protection for the finances of their special investment departments. It would in fact amount to unfair competition with the trustee Savings Banks if the Post Office operated without such a condition. That unfair competition we are anxious to avoid. As a partner with the Trustee Savings Bank in the National Savings Movement, the Post Office Savings Bank is certainly not seeking such an advantage.
There are three other supplemental provisions in Clause 7 which call for comment. Clause 7(1) enables orders and regulations made under the principal Act (not this Bill) to make different provisions with respect to ordinary and investment deposits. Section 4 of the principal Act empowers the Treasury to make orders fixing annual and total limits on the deposits a person may make. No annual limit is proposed for investment deposits, but there will be a total limit of £5,000. Subsection (2) of Clause 7 and the Schedule to the Bill are somewhat complicated, but their purpose is merely to simplify procedure. They will enable the National Debt Commissioners to invest deposits in loans to local authorities under the powers conferred by Clause 4 without the need for formal mortgage deeds. It will be sufficient for the Commissioners and the local authorities con-
474
cerned to enter into simple agreements to effect the loans. These provisions are in fact modelled on similar ones in the Public Works Loans Act 1965.
Thirdly, there are the provisions relating to tax in Clause 7(5). So far as ordinary deposit business is concerned, the Post Office is not liable for contributions in lieu of corporation tax on income or capital gains derived from the investment of these deposits. The Trustee Savings Banks also have exemption from corporation tax in respect of their ordinary deposit business. As regards their special investment deposits, however, the Trustee Savings Banks have a liability to pay corporation tax on income and capital gains arising from the relative investments but subject to a limited exemption and relief. This exemption extends to the amount of income and gains that Trustee Savings Banks apply in payment or credit of interest to the depositors; and they enjoy relief in respect of management expenses. The Post Office Savings Bank's new accounts are to have similar tax treatment to the Trustee Savings Banks' special investment accounts and so the investment account fund is to make contributions to the Exchequer in lieu of corporation tax calculated on a similar basis. Clause 7(5) makes the necessary technical provisions to achieve this.
I have spoken so far of the provisions in the Bill designed solely for investment deposits. Clauses 6 and 8 make certain provisions which apply to ordinary deposits also. In these clauses we aim to bring up to date parts of the principal Act which are now out of line with current Savings Bank practice and experience. For instance, the Act still assumes that all deposits are made over post office counters; but there are now many organised savings schemes in industry and H.M. Forces which account direct to Savings Bank Headquarters. And on occasion individual depositors post deposits to Savings Bank Headquarters for credit of their accounts. In such respects legislation has not kept pace with the development of the Bank. Clause 8 will put this right.
Again Section 3 of the 1954 Act makes somewhat rigid provisions for the Headquarters office to send acknowledgements of larger deposits. These provisions are relatively little used because, by virtue of

475
regulations, the minimum amount acknowledged has been increased until it now stands at £250. We think that the time has now come to discontinue the acknowledgement of individual deposits. Indeed, the whole of the provisions in Section 3 about acknowledgements and deposit book entries have now outlived their usefulness, and Clause 6 substitutes power to make regulations covering all the matters now dealt with in the section. This is especially desirable at the present time. It will give the Post Office Savings Bank greater freedom to adapt its business arrangements now that the scope of its services is to be widened to include the investment deposits and it is approaching the introduction of computer working.
Clause 6 will also enable minimum amounts of deposits to be fixed by regulations. For investment deposits the Postmaster General proposes a minimum of £1 and he is considering an increase in the present minimum of ls. for ordinary deposits. This latter figure has remained unchanged over the whole of the Bank's history and is of course now quite out of line with current costs and money values.
Clause 9 extends the Bill to Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, so that investment deposit business can be transacted at all the post offices which give the present Savings Bank service.
If the Bill receives your Lordships' approval and is passed fairly soon the Postmaster General hopes to lay the necessary draft regulations quickly and to launch the service early in June. The new service will he administered from Glasgow. This is the first major task the Savings Bank will perform from its new location under the Government's dispersal plans. Preparations for this are going well. I am afraid that this Bill is of a technical nature and is not glamorous. But I would invite your Lordships to consider this project in a somewhat broader perspective. With investment accounts at one end of the spectrum and the Giro at the other, the Post Office will at last answer the need for a popular bank on a national scale giving a reasonably full range of simple facilities for transferring and investing money. I believe that these two major innovations ensure that this will come to be regarded as one
476
of the most creative and significant periods in the history of the Post Office. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Snow.)

ANGLO-IRISH SOCIAL SECURITY AGREEMENT
3.40 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, it might be convenient for me now to repeat a reply which has just been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance in answer to a Question about negotiations with the Irish Republic for a reciprocal agreement on social security. Her statement was as follows:
" I am glad to be able to inform the House that the British Ambassador in Dublin and the Minister for Social Welfare of the Irish Republic have this afternoon signed a reciprocal agreement on social security between the Governments of the two countries. This is the first agreement covering 'British retirement pensions and the contributory old-age pensions of the Republic. It will come into force on April 4, 1966. Under the agreement people in the Republic who have British retirement pensions or widow's benefit will have them paid at the rates current in this country. There are also provisions for the linking of Insurance under the two schemes. It has further been agreed that, in assessing means for the purpose of the Republic's non-contributory pensions, British war pensioners will have the same amount of their pensions disregarded as do Service pensioners of the Republic."
That concludes the statement.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating this statement. I welcome it very much. I know that this is something which has been the subject of negotiation for a considerable time. I welcome in particular the fact that British retirement pensions and widows' benefits earned in this country by people now living in the Republic will be paid at the rate current in this country. The important word is "current" because, if I

477
understand it aright—and I would ask the noble Lord to confirm this—that means that, instead of pensions continuing forever to be paid at the rates current at the time when the British pensioner had gone to live in Ireland, the rates will now be raised as they are raised in this country.
I am not quite certain what is meant by linking Insurance under the two schemes, and if the noble Lord has any information on this I would ask him if he would give it to us. The disregards for British war pensions in the Republic's non-contributory pension scheme is also important, and I am glad that the Irish Government have agreed that the same disregard should apply in relation to British war pensions as that in the Republic scheme.
LORD REA: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I give a warm welcome from these Benches to the statement the noble Lord has made? It is most encouraging that we are getting on so much better terms with the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland. if we could act in a tripartite way with Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland, we could get closer and closer together; and I congratulate the Government on a very good step forward.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for his gracious remarks. On the question he raised about the Irish Republic pensioners in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Irish Republic are already paying their pensioners in Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the rates current in the Republic.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is quite right when he interpreted the words "the rates current in this country" in the way he did. He also raised the question of the British Insurance transfer. British Insurance will be transferred to the Republic where contributions have been paid in both countries and one pension is payable in either country or only a reduced rate of penion is paid by one country. British contributions will count towards the 156 test of the Irish Republic and the British and British average will be added to the average in the Republic. In some cases, the pensioner will sacrifice his British pension in order to receive a higher rate in the Republic,
478
but can transfer back to the United Kingdom, if there is a subsequent increase in British rates.
The noble Lord also raised the question of British war pensions in the Irish Republic. The Republic ignores the first £80 of its own war service pension when a pensioner claims a non-contributory pension and he then has to satisfy a means test. Under the agreement, British war pensioners will be treated in the same way.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I should just like to congratulate the Government on a remarkable achievement.

POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK BILL
3.45 p.m.
Debate resumed.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the Government are coming in for a lot of congratulations this afternoon, because I would also congratulate them on bringing forward the Post Office Savings Bank Bill. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Snow, for his clear and detailed exposition of the Bill. As he said, it was given a welcome in another place and I think that he can rest assured that it will receive a welcome here, too.
It is a simple Bill, basically, because what it does is to encourage savings. That is a welcome step for us all, in whatever part of the House we sit. One cannot help but reflect that between 1951 and 1964 savings multiplied sixteen times. The fact that this happened during a Conservative period of office one merely mentions in passing. The point is that it did not occur by accident, and it did not occur by passing Acts of Parliament. It occurred basically by encouragement, by assistance and by various other methods which help people to save on their own. While this Bill, in itself is not likely to increase the savings of the country sixteen times, it will at least encourage those who have their money in the Post Office Savings Bank, by giving them the opportunity of a more realistic interest on their money, as compared to the existing 2½ per cent.
It is a fact that since the war people own far more, whether it be houses, land, cars or money. Much more money

479
is owned and there is a greater body of opinion concerned with seeing that that money is put to the best possible use. I think it would be fair to say that increased earnings and increased ability to save have not been matched by a corresponding increase in the knowledge of how best to save. Unit trusts have done a good deal in this respect, and more people now own shares than ever before, even if only about 9 per cent. of the population are owners of shares. The other people do their savings through the Post Office Savings Bank, the Trustee Savings Bank and Premium Bonds.
These are basically, of course, small savers, but that does not mean to say that they are short-time savers. We must bear in mind that people who save through the Post Office save because they probably go to the Post Office every week, or possibly two or three times a week, and while they are occupied with other business they make use of the Post Office Savings Bank. The result is that their money in the Post Office Savings Bank has accumulated over the years and represents, in many cases, lifelong savings. If these are long-term, life-long savings, then I think that Parliament must be concerned that those who invest their money this way should not have any advantage taken of them, simply because they regard the Post Office as a secure place for their money and interest of 2½per cent., with no form of capital appreciation, is not giving them anywhere near the best use of their money.
I think that one of the reasons for this Bill is that, over the last ten years, Post Office Savings Bank funds have been relatively static, compared with the Trustees Savings Bank and Premium Bonds, whose deposits and funds have increased considerably. Recently local authorities have been offering very high rates for short-term loans, and they have been getting them. In a number of cases, the Trustee Savings Bank have been able to take advantage of these loans by purchasing them and passing on to the depositors the benefits of these high rates. They have done this by the special investment department of the Trustee Savings Bank. This facility has been de-
480
nied to the Post Office, and this Bill will rectify the position.
One cannot help wondering, in passing, how this might be contrasted with the exhortations of the right honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has told us over a number of months how prices must be kept down, how wages must be kept down and, indeed, how dividends must be kept down, as well. Here comes his right honourable friend the Postmaster General with a Bill asking permission to increase his dividends by 100 per cent. I am myself by way of being a trustee of a Trustee Savings Bank, and in our particular bank, the East Anglian Trustee Savings Bank, for a period of some six months we were denied the opportunity of increasing the interest paid on the special investment department by ¼ per cent. Though the bank was able to pay 5¼ per cent., the depositors were denied the ability to receive that extra payment, simply because the National Debt Office, presumably under the jurisdiction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that the increased payment must not be paid. But, as I have said, here comes the Postmaster General seeking permission to increase his interest payments by no less than 100 per cent. I think that one appreciates the reasons why this has been done.
This is a good Bill, and we are in favour of it. However, I should like, if I may, to ask the noble Lord, Lord Snow, one or two rather more detailed and pointed questions, for this reason. It is entirely commendable that the Post Office should be brought more into line with the Trustee Savings Bank, but I think it would be a pity if by this Bill the Post Office should be given the opportunity of outbidding the Trustee Savings Bank—and I think the noble Lord said that this was not the intention—whether this would be by intent or by inadvertence. The noble Lord said that this was not the purpose of the Bill, but I should like to highlight one or two particular facets of it so that, if he can, he will give an answer this afternoon, or, failing that, will look at it before the next stage of the Bill, because I am not so convinced that the Bill is as innocuous as it may at first sight seem.
Clause 3 refers in general to the Post Office Savings Bank Investment Account Fund, and what may be debited to it,

481
and relevant powers. But it is, in effect, a Government guarantee against a deficiency. At the moment, the Ordinary Department of the Trustee Savings Bank and the existing Post Office Savings Bank have this guarantee against a deficiency. But the Special Investment Department of the Trustee Savings Bank does not have this guarantee. It would appear, therefore, that the Post Office Savings Bank Investment Account may be going to enjoy a certain degree of security which at the moment is not enjoyed by the Trustee Savings Bank.
Clause 4 deals with the investment of money in the Fund and says that this must be done in accordance with Part II of Schedule 1 to the Trustee Investments Act 1961. Part II of Schedule 1 to this Act includes Commonwealth loans and debenture and loan stocks of British companies with a share capital of £1 million and which have paid dividends for the five preceding years. This, of course, differs from the investment powers allowed to the Trustee Savings Bank, for they are allowed to invest only in mortgages to local authorities, dated Government securities or dated corporation securities. They are specifically prevented from investing in Commonwealth loans by the Trustee Investments Act 1961. This closed a line of investment that was previously open to them, and which, incidentally, was very remunerative. Nor are they allowed to invest in British securities. There have been, for instance, since the last Budget, many debenture issues, such as I.C.I. and British Insulated Callender's Cables, to take but two, where a yield of 7 per cent., and better, has been obtainable. This, as I understand the Bill, will be permitted to the Post Office Savings Bank, and yet it will not be permitted to the Trustee Savings Bank. One wonders whether this is an intentional differentiation.
Here I should like to ask the noble Lord whether it is proposed that a depositor may not take any advantage of the Investment Account Fund unless he has a holding in the Ordinary Department of the Post Office Savings Bank. I think the noble Lord said that you had to have a holding of £50. This is so at the moment in the Trustee Savings Bank. One wonders—and I assume this provision has been put into this Bill be-
482
cause it also refers to the Trustee Savings Bank—whether the noble Lord would consider re-thinking this. I find very little purpose in this rule. I cannot see why a depositor should be made to receive only 2½ per cent. on £50 in order that he may thereafter receive 5 per cent., or thereabouts, on his remaining investment. This seems to me to be a rather pointless provision, both in this Bill and in the Trustee Savings Bank Act. I should have thought that it would possibly discourage people from investing their money. Maybe this is supposed to discourage them from removing it. I shall be grateful if the noble Lord will consider looking at this again, because I do not see that it contains any great inherent value.
I wonder, also, whether the noble Lord would be prepared to explain a little further than he did the tax position of the Fund, because under Clause 7 it would seem that any profit made by the Investment Account Fund is to be tax free. I thought the noble Lord said it was not to be tax free, but my reading of the Bill is that it is. If this is so, this is again in marked contrast to the Special Investment Department of the Trustee Savings Bank, where both income tax and capital gains tax has to be paid.
Moving to the Schedule I would draw to the noble Lord's attention paragraph 2, which refers to loans being made to local authorities, not by mortgage, which has been the practice in the past, but by agreement. I think this is a relatively new venture, and it may be welcomed. The Bill says that stamp duty will not be paid on these agreements, but instead, the aggregate of the sums that would have been paid in stamp duty will be paid over in block. What, therefore, is the purpose of this provision if the same amount of money is to be paid as would have been paid if the stamp duty had been paid? I fail to see this, unless it is for one very significant reason, which would allow the stamp duty, or its equivalent, to be paid, not by the borrower, the local authority, but by the lender, who in this case would be the Post Office Savings Bank. If this is so, of course it would be a significant difference between what happens in Trustee Savings Banks, and this would immediately put the Post Office at a substantial advantage over the Trustee

483
Savings Banks, as any local authority would obviously prefer to lend money where the lender, the Post Office, would pay the stamp duty, rather than where the borrower, namely themselves, would pay the stamp duty.
I have mentioned these specific points, not in order in any way to deny a welcome to this Bill or, indeed, to denigrate it in any way at all, because it is a good Bill and I welcome it. But if it is to enable the Post Office to move into an area of being more competitive, then I think it is right that one should see that the competition which is envisaged is fair and just, and I think this is the purpose in the noble Lord's mind. I hope that this Bill, when it becomes law—and, indeed, I suppose one may say if it becomes law now—will encourage not only the savings of the country but also the savers themselves.
4.2 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I should like to say a few words of welcome to this Bill, because for some time now one of the strange things about our economy has seemed to be the apparent indifference of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the importance of savings in our economy. I should have thought that a few hundred millions swung from current consumption into savings—and that means capital formation—would have made a tremendous difference in our battle for the pound. He is alleged to rely on the advice of economists who originated in other countries; and it may be that, as we know, the serfs of Hungary never had any savings at all, and for that reason savings have been rather overlooked in this context.
Now that he is moving on the savings front, I think the Post Office ought to undertake a great deal more publicity to try to get people to put money in the new accounts they are creating. If one considers the purpose for which people save, one finds there are two overriding desires among a great proportion of our population. The first is a motor car, and the second is some sort of dwelling on marriage. The majority of people who own motor cars do not provide a proper depreciation against their wearing out and against having to buy a new one. These accounts would be an ideal repository for an annual payment in of a
484
motor depreciation account. A large number of teenagers are tending to marry at very early ages nowadays, and Parliament has to make all sorts of arrangements for them to have low deposits and cheap mortgages on houses. If only somebody would persuade them to start saving their very large wages early and to put them into something like this, it would be much more to the purpose.
Finally, I should say that there is one slight element of deceit (I think I may call it) in all Post Office Savings accounts. They say that the first £15 is free of Income Tax. They do not also say, "But the first £15 will definitely not be free of surtax." I have always thought that this is a silly and petty provision, and rather unworthy of Her Majesty's Government. With those few remarks I welcome the Bill.
4.5 p.m.
LORD SNOW: My Lords, I am glad of the welcome that this Bill has received from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. I think I can reassure the noble Earl to the extent of at least 90 per cent. of his worries. There is genuinely no intention of taking an unfair advantage of the Trustee Savings Banks, and where there appear to be differences, those differences are theoretical. For instance, it is perfectly true that the Government have a guarantee on the Ordinary deposit accounts, exactly as the Trustee Savings Banks have. The Trustee Savings Banks do not have a guarantee on the Special investment deposits. On the other hand, the Government must be able to give a guarantee to all its accounts. This is a condition of Government saving in this way. So there is a theoretical advantage, it is true, in favour of the Post Office Savings Bank as against the Trustee Savings Banks, but it seems to us that this advantage is purely theoretical. No one thinks that the Trustee Savings Banks are not going to be able to meet their depositors, and we cannot depart from the broad principle that the Government must be able to guarantee their accounts, but we should not think that this made any difference in the competitive position of the two systems.
Similarly in the investment powers which are referred to in Clause 4, here the range of investments has been deliberately widely drawn. But the Government intend that the securities to be prescribed,

485
initially at any rate, shall be those in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 8 and 9 of Part 11 of the Schedule to the Trustee Investments Act, which bring them into line with the powers granted to the Trustee Savings Banks. That is, the securities which it will be possible to invest in for these investment accounts will be Government securities of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man, Government guaranteed securities, securities of public authorities, nationalised undertakings and local authority loans and securities. This is the same fistful that the Trustee Savings Banks have at their own disposal. It is purely a matter of flexibility in the future that the possibilities are left open, and presumably there is always the possibility of extending the trustee powers in exactly the same way.
The question of the £50 limit has been fairly carefully considered, but we will have another look at it in the light of what the noble Earl said. The actual arguments were, first, that our understanding is that not all Trustee Savings Banks are certain that they would not like the £50 limit. That was the first consideration. The second was that if there is no money in the 2½ per cent. accounts, then all movements have to be at one month's notice, which might not be convenient for depositors and would tend to reduce the earning power of the investment accounts. I admit that these points are somewhat small and technical, but they have some substance. Nevertheless, we are perfectly prepared to have a look at it.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I wonder whether, while he is looking at this matter, the noble Lord would also look at whether or not the proviso to have one month's notice before withdrawing is also sensible. It might be possible to join the two together and to say that, not only was it unnecessary to have a deposit of £50, but also the one month's notice could be reduced, which I should think would be an advantage.
LORD SNOW: That will be looked at. The fourth point was the tax position of the new fund. There the position is exactly the same in the Post Office Savings Bank and the Trustee Savings Banks. The investment account business will have similar liabilities to tax to the Special investment deposit business of the Trustee Savings Banks. The new
486
Fund is to make contributions to the Exchequer in lieu of corporation tax on income and capital gains arising from the investments of the Fund but subject to a limited exemption and relief similar to that enjoyed by the Trustee Savings Bank. The exemption extends the amount of interest credited to the depositors, and the relief to the costs of management. In fact I mentioned that in my speech, but it probably was not clear. Indeed the position is exactly equivalent.
Finally, we come to paragraph 2 of this Schedule and the problem of stamp duty. This is merely a matter of technique. It is supposed to provide a convenient procedure for the recovery of the stamp duty in respect of loans which are secured by agreements under paragraph 1. Under paragraph 2(1)(a) the National Debt Commissioners will account to the Inland Revenue periodically for the aggregate amount of duty that would have been payable if the loans had been secured by mortgage deed. The Commissioners will then be able to recover the amount of this duty from the local authorities concerned under paragraph 2(1)(b). This is purely a technical matter which seems to us to be sensible and convenient.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again. This is possibly a matter of detail, but in fact I think there is nothing in the Bill to say that this is recoverable from the local authority. The Bill merely says that the Postmaster General may recover it. Can the noble Lord say whether it will be written into the Order that the money will be recoverable, because this makes a substantial difference?
LORD SNOW: My Lords, my understanding is that "may" is to be interpreted as "will", but I shall have to investigate the position and write to the noble Earl.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MINES (WORKING FACILITIES AND SUPPORT) BILL [H.L.] STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
4.14 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. This Bill marks the first stage in the Government's proposals for reshaping the social security schemes of the country. As the House will recall, when the Government came into office they made their first priority the payment of higher retirement pensions and other National Insurance benefits, together with improvements in National Assistance scales. At the same time, the Government announced that they proposed to carry out a general review of social security, and it has been made clear that as progress on it is made, measures will be introduced to carry into effect the decisions reached.
The main purpose of the Bill is therefore to bring into effect the Government's proposals for earnings-related supplements to the existing flat-rate benefits for the early months of unemployment, sickness and widowhood. At the same time, the Government are proposing certain valuable simplifications and rationalisations in other parts of the National Insurance schemes, particularly on unemployment benefit. The Bill also gives a suitable opportunity to bring in quickly the changes in the Industrial Injuries Scheme which are needed to carry out the recommendations made in the Report by the Committee on the Assessment of Disablement, which was so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton. Finally, there are proposals for a few minor changes designed to keep the present National Insurance Scheme in good day-to-day running order.
Having thus briefly sketched in the main features of the Bill, perhaps I may discuss in rather more detail the major points in the Bill. I turn first to the proposals for earnings-related supplements, and the additional contributions needed to pay for them, set out in Clauses 1, 2 and 4 of the Bill. The Government have, of course, been committed from the start to providing earnings - related National Insurance benefits for these contingencies, but I
488
know that there has been some interest in why priority has been given to these proposals. The Government's policy on this was explained in The National Plan, published last September. The extent to which our social provisions can be improved depends fundamentally on the growth of the economy. One of the factors in this must be the most efficient use of labour in the light of scientific change and development, and this means encouraging the proper mobility of labour. If this is to be done, then adequate economic protection must be provided for workers who have to change their jobs. Considerable help is provided by the system of lump sum payments under the Redundancy Payments Act, which started last December, and further help will be provided by the earnings-related supplements to unemployment benefit proposed in the Bill.
But National Insurance benefits fulfil a social as well as an economic purpose, and the sudden drop in income which unemployment brings can be matched by a similar drop when the breadwinner is sick or dies. In the Government's view, therefore, it was essential to provide similar earnings-related supplements for the early months of sickness and widowhood, too. Indeed, because of the inherently close links between unemployment and sickness, it would have been extremely difficult to distinguish between them without, for example, encouraging some sick people to try to register as unemployed in order to get the higher benefit. I would stress that these proposals relate only to the early periods of loss of earnings. In the Government's view the provision of benefit on a long-term basis for people such as the chronically sick raises different issues, which are being considered as part of the review of social security.
Clause 2 of the Bill provides for supplements to unemployment and sickness benefit payable for up to six months to people over 18 and under pension age, who are entitled to the flat-rate benefit. The clause also contains special provisions to allow supplement to be paid with injury benefit or widow's benefit where these take the place of unemployment and sickness benefit. The supplements will be one-third of average weekly earnings between £9 and £30. They will be paid on top of the present fiat-rate benefits, including increases for

489
dependants, subject to a maximum total benefit of 85 per cent. of earnings. The maximum supplement will therefore be £7 (one-third of £21) for the claimant with average weekly earnings of £30 or more. The 85 per cent. limit is to secure that claimants generally are not better off when sick or unemployed than they would be at work. A maximum of this kind is a natural feature of a scheme in which benefits are related to earnings and is particularly necessary where the personal rate of benefit can be substantially augmented by allowances for dependants. The figure of 85 per cent. is on the basis that when a man is unemployed or sick he does not pay National Insurance contributions and may save on other items, too. For other examples of benefit payable, I would refer your Lordships to the Table at the end of the White Paper on the Bill, Command No. 2887.
In order to get the scheme started as quickly as possible—it is hoped this autumn—and to keep it as simple as possible, supplements will be based on earnings assessable to Schedule E income tax—in general, earnings taxed under P.A.Y.E. Average weekly earnings will be taken as one-fiftieth of the annual figure usually in the last complete tax year. Claimants will be asked to produce the Certificate of Pay and Tax Deducted—the Inland Revenue form P60 or its equivalent—which the employer gives to each employee at the end of the tax year. Where the P60 cannot be used, inquiries will have to be sent to employers, but the Government hope to keep this to a minimum by encouraging employees to retain their P60s. It would, however, be unjustifiably expensive to calculate and pay supplement for the large number of very short spells of unemployment and sickness, and so the clause provides that it shall not be paid for the first twelve days of such spells. These supplements will help many people. The numbers of unemployed and sick vary, but the Government Actuary estimates that on average about a quarter of a million sick people (including 30,000 on injury benefit) and about 110,000 unemployed people (assuming a 2 per cent. level of unemployment) would be receiving the supplement at any one time, and on this basis the cost of the supplement in the first full year is estimated at about £64 million.
490
Clause 4 provides for two important changes in widow's allowance, the specially high benefit now paid for 13 weeks after the husband's death to women who are under 60 or whose husbands had not retired. First, the allowance will be paid for 26 weeks, instead of 13, for all widows entitled to it on or after the appointed day. Secondly, widows of employed men who have not retired and who die after the appointed day will receive a widow's supplementary allowance, calculated in broadly the same way as the supplement to the husband's unemployment or sickness benefit. The rate of the supplement will be one-third of his average weekly earnings between £9 and £30, giving a maximum supplement of £7 a week on top of the existing widow's allowance of £5 12s. 6d., plus allowances for children. Similar improvements will apply to industrial widows, It is expected that the extended period of widow's allowance will benefit about 85,000 widows a year, and that the new supplement will be paid to about 70,000 widows a year, giving a total cost in a full year of about £9 million.
Clause 1 provides the extra graduated contributions needed to pay for these earnings-related benefits. In order to get the scheme started quickly, the present machinery for graduated contributions for the graduated retirement pension scheme is used. New ½ per cent. graduated contributions a side will therefore be added on to the existing 4¼ per cent. contributions payable by employer and employee on earnings between £9 and £18 and will also extend to earnings between £18 and £30—the latter being the maximum reckonable earnings for the new supplements. It is not feasible to contract people out of the new earnings-related unemployment and sickness supplements, and so the new ½ per cent. will be paid also by those who are contracted out of the graduated pension part of the scheme. I should like to make it quite clear that the new ½per cent. graduated contribution will in all cases also count towards graduated pension. This is an incidental result of the fact that, to get the new scheme under way as quickly as possible, the new contribution will be calculated and collected as an increase in the existing 4¼ per cent. contribution week by week. For, under the existing scheme, employers are permitted, if they wish, to provide the Ministry only

491
with annual totals of graduated contributions paid by each employee—and most employers do so. By the time the total reaches the Ministry, therefore, it is not feasible to separate out the new ½per cent. contributions, and it would not be possible to change this without completely upsetting employers' arrangements. Accordingly, the ½ per cent. contribution will be included in the total of a person's graduated contributions each "unit" of which—namely £7 10s. for a man and £9 for a woman—produces 6d. a week graduated retirement pension. The present contracting-out arrangements for graduated pension purposes remain undisturbed, and existing contracting-out certificates remain valid. The new contributions will raise £76 million in the first full year. This compares with extra expenditure of £77 million—£64 million for supplements to unemployment and sickness benefit, £9 million for improvements in widows' benefits, and £4 million for administration costs.
Clause 3 provides for certain changes to reduce difficulties and anomalies in unemployment benefit which have been thrown into relief by the introduction of earnings-related supplement. Subsection (1) of the clause deals with the difficult problem of unemployment benefit for the comparatively small number of workers whose employment has not been terminated but who are temporarily suspended from work by the employer. I would emphasise that it does not affect at all the worker whose employment has come to an end and who is looking for a new job. At present workers who are on short time or are temporarily laid off can qualify for unemployment benefit, subject to a complicated set of rules. But these have caused difficulties and anomalies, and in some industries arrangements for short-time working have been manipulated to get round the benefit rule. This has meant that employment exchanges in certain areas have to deal with a mass of benefit claims from workers who already have an employer, at the cost of their constructive work on behalf of the totally unemployed. It can also mean that the general mass of workers—many of whom earn less full-time than others are getting when they are on short-time—are subsidising earnings in certain industries. The introduction of earnings-
492
related supplements would increase both the administrative problems and the anomalies of subsidising certain industries.
In the Government's view, where an employer wants to retain a worker in his employment he should accept responsibility for paying him a guaranteed minimum wage—at least for the initial period. Many employers already do this, and their workers do not claim unemployment benefit. The Bill therefore proposes, in Clause 3(1), that as a permanent long-term measure, the first six days of suspension shall not give title to unemployment benefit, either flat-rate or supplement. Since Sundays are excluded, this means that workers who are suspended will not start to qualify for unemployment benefit until suspension has lasted a week. The Government recognise, however, that to impose the new six-day rule in its entirety from the outset would impose hardship where there are at present no satisfactory guaranteed wage agreements. The Bill therefore provides for a transitional period of three years in which the new six-day rule will apply only to the new earnings-related supplement and in which flat-rate benefit will be payable as at present. This transitional period will give both sides of industry time to negotiate on the provision to be made for short-time working and for the first week of lay-off when this will no longer be covered by the National Insurance Fund. The Government will study the position reached halfway through this transitional period, and if the progress made is not satisfactory will, if necessary, examine the possibility of legislation to make guaranteed week agreements compulsory. This transition should ensure an important long-term improvement in the scheme, without producing the short-term hardship which a sudden, complete, reform might bring.
Clause 3(2) of the Bill sets out another reform, this time in the duration of flat-rate unemployment benefit. At present this is 180 days (7 months' benefit, excluding Sundays), plus up to 312 days (one year) of "added days", depending on a person's contribution and benefit history. But unemployment usually arises through social and economic factors over which the individual has little or no control, and it is unfair to pay benefit for a shorter period to the man who has

493
worked in a less stable industry and has been harder hit by economic factors. The calculation of added days is also a further complication of unemployment benefit. The Government therefore propose again to simplify the arrangements by substituting a straight 312-day maximum duration for flat-rate unemployment benefit. This will give up to twelve months total benefit—six months of which may attract earnings-related supplement. These changes in Clause 3, together with the new earnings-related supplements, the scheme for redundancy payments and further simplifications which are to be made by regulations, will ensure a new deal for people who have unavoidably lost their jobs and are available for re-employment.
I turn now to changes in the industrial injuries scheme in Clauses 5 to 7. Clause 5 is consequential on the proposal, to which I referred on Clause 2, to pay earnings-related sickness benefit supplement under the national insurance scheme on top of injury benefit. At present there are minor differences in title to and payment of injury benefit, as compared with sickness benefit. These are already the cause of considerable administrative difficulty, and the proposal to pay simultaneously sickness supplement and injury benefit made it essential to bring the schemes into line. Clause 5 accordingly alters the conditions for injury benefit. The main change will be that injury benefit will not be payable for the day of the accident in most of the cases where it is now payable; it is probable, however, that in many cases wages (or wages less benefit) are paid for that day. Moreover, in certain other cases the changes will benefit the insured person. In any case, the payment of supplement with injury benefit, which is the main reason for the changes, will provide a considerable measure of extra help to the industrially injured.
Clauses 6 and 7 arise from the Report of the Committee on the Assessment of Disablement, and implement its recommendations so far as the Industrial Injuries Scheme is concerned. Similar changes are being made in the War Pensions Scheme by Royal Warrant. I think the House will agree with me that we owe a great debt to the Committee for its full and careful study of this most important problem of war and industrial disablement, and for its lucid and valuable Report. Again I
494
should like to mention the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, who was the Committee's Chairman and also the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, who was a member. As I indicated to the House when the Report was published on December 20, the Government were happy to accept in full the proposals which were made and are glad that they are now able to bring legislation forward on them so soon. It is hoped to bring the improvements into effect soon after Royal Assent to the Bill.
Under Clause 6 a new increase of disablement pension is to be provided, as recommended by the Committee, for people who are exceptionally severely disabled and likely to remain so permanently. The new allowance will be at the rate of £3 a week and will be payable in addition to existing benefits, in-chiding constant attendance allowance. The clause ensures that it will go to pensioners in hospital, as well as to those being cared for at home, and that it will also be applied to old workmen's compensation cases. It is estimated that perhaps 1,000 people will benefit. Clause 7 arises from the Committee's consideration of the list of scheduled disablements. They recommended an increase from 60 to 70 per cent. in the scheduled assessment of disablement for certain amputations between mid-thigh and the knee. This change can be made by regulations for new cases but Clause 7 ensures that there is also power to give the benefit of this change to existing cases. The opportunity is also taken in this clause to make a small change which will enable constant attendance allowance under the Industrial Injuries Scheme to be paid to a small number of badly disabled men, injured more than once, whose compensation arises from two or more different sources.
Clauses 8 and 9 make certain technical changes in the machinery under the National Insurance and Industrial Injuries schemes for adjudicating on claims to benefit. Clause 8 arises from the proposal to pay the new earnings-related supplement on top of injury benefit. The adjudication machinery under the two schemes is almost identical, with the same persons operating as insurance officers, local appeal tribunals and Commissioners for both schemes; but the mere existence of two sets of authorities will create special problems. The clause

495
therefore provides for the assimilation of the Industrial Injuries system (other than the special medical adjudication system) into the National Insurance system. I would emphasise that existing rights of appeal will in no way be altered.
Clause 9 is virtually consequential, in that it restyles the present Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners, who are the final appeal authorities under the two schemes, as Chief National Insurance Commissioner and National Insurance Commissioners respectively. This is to remove doubts that have arisen with some appellants about the status of Deputy Commissioners. Again the change is technical and does not affect the way appeals operate. Clauses 10 and 11 contain minor adjustments to the schemes to which I referred at the opening of my speech. Some make minor beneficial modifications in certain benefit conditions; the rest are in the main to make the schemes simpler to administer. The remaining parts of the Bill contain the formal provisions and those needed to bring the substantive provisions into operation, and I do not think I need detain your Lordships by describing them in detail. Fuller details on the finances can, of course, be found in the Government Actuary's Report on the Bill, published as Command Paper No. 2884.
I would now commend the Bill to your Lordships as a useful and beneficial measure. It marks the first major stage in the Government's review of our social security system. The Government are conscious that a very great deal remains to be done. Indeed, the improvements made by the Bill inevitably throw into relief the areas yet to be covered. The Government are, however, pressing on with their review and, as noble Lords will doubtless have seen, my right honourable friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance has referred two questions of particular public interest to the National Insurance Advisory Committee for their consideration and advice, in the light of representations made to them. The first is that of unemployment benefit conditions for people who have retired with an occupational pension before the National Insurance retirement pension age. The second is the retirement pension earnings rule. In the meantime, the Bill will provide a new system of earnings-
496
related benefits for the early periods of unemployment, sickness and widowhood; the system of unemployment benefit will, under the Bill and regulations, be rationalised and modernised, and extra benefits will be made to certain severely disabled industrial injury cases. Finally, certain aspects of the administration of the National Insurance schemes will be simplified and improved. In these ways new advances will be made in our social security and the path will be laid for the future developments to which the Government are pledged. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Bowles.)
4.38 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I start by thanking the noble Lord for his patient and careful explanation of the contents of the Bill, and also for giving us some information outside the Bill as well. As the noble Lord said, the Bill introduces for the first time the principle that unemployment and sickness benefit should no longer be at the same rate for all but should be related to past earnings, and that the same should apply to industrial injury benefit. The principle of relating benefits to earnings is not entirely new, since the Guaranteed Pensions Scheme already relates the graduated supplement to the retirement pension to previous earnings. But for unemployment and sickness it is new, and it is on a new basis. All political Parties have accepted and advocated its innovation. Indeed, the Election Manifestos of all three Parties in 1964 contained undertakings to put it into effect.
For my part, I welcome the implementation of the principle. Indeed, I could scarcely do otherwise for, as the right honourable lady the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance indicated on the Committee stage in another place, I was already discussing it with the T.U.C. nearly three years ago. The Minister implied, however, that it was not until the National Economic Development Council recommended it that the Conservative Government started work on it. But, as their report Conditions Favourable to Faster Growth shows, the suggestion did not originate with N.E.D.C. In fact, the Ministry of National Insurance had

497
already been working on it, and Ministers had already discussed its implications and complications. All the same, it was encouraging to have the endorsement of N.E.D.C., and that still stands.
The arguments in favour of applying the principle to unemployment benefit are strong. As the noble Lord said, they are twofold. From the point of view of the individual, which is probably the more important, particularly the individual with earnings above the national average for so-called manual workers, the drop in income when a man loses his job or is prevented by illness from doing it can be very serious. The average wage as at last October was £19 11s. 9d. That means that a man on the average wage, if he has a wife and two children, drops to £8 7s. net a week, while an unmarried man would drop to £4. This obviously involves real hardship. Secondly, from the national point of view, as the noble Lord said, we want to reduce the resistance to change which such a degree of hardship intensifies. That is why I put the individual first—it starts there. If we are to shake out the overmanning and increase mobility in industry, to put into effect the principle that unemployment benefit and sickness benefit should be related to earnings is at least as important—I would say more important—as a national scheme which gives lump sum payments to men and women made redundant by industrial development and change.
My noble friend Lord Blakenham is, I think, entitled to take most of the credit for the redundancy payments scheme which the present Government introduced last year. So, too, the Conservative Government can claim credit for starting the process of working out ways and means of carrying out the principle of relating unemploment benefit and sickness benefits to earnings—a process which had been brought a long way forward before the present Government took over. The noble Lord has said that the number of contributors who will benefit when they become unemployed is estimated to average 110,000. This compares with a total number of 360,000 unemployed last month. We understand the reasons for this, but it shows that the problem does not cease there.
There is one point I should like to mention. The Government Actuary's
498
calculations of the cost of the scheme appear to have been based on a 2 per cent. ratio of unemployment. If there is more mobility, then will not the amount of transitional unemployment be rather higher than that? I wonder whether it was really safe to take that as a basis for the future. For sickness benefit, the arguments are rather different. As a matter of administration it would be possible for unemployment benefit to be related to earnings whilst sickness benefit was not. The two benefits are paid in different ways. The noble Lord mentioned the fact that it might be possible for those who fell sick to register as unemployed, but I should have thought it was less likely now than it was before the war that employees who were off sick would sign on as unemployed in order to get the higher benefit. The introduction of redundancy payments has seen to that. But the fact is that the two benefits are still closely connected.
There is the much broader question of how far employers should be responsible for their employees when they are ill. In 1962 an inquiry was carried out to find out what proportion of employees who fell sick were covered by employers' sick pay schemes. As a result of that it was found—and I give rough figures—that 88 per cent. of the white collar workers were covered; at the other extreme it was 41·4 per cent. of unskilled workers. The overall average was 56·6 per cent. for men and 59·5 per cent. for women. The skilled workers and the semi-skilled workers were, respectively, just above and just below the average.
These figures, of course, do not indicate how much help employees receive. In some schemes the employer makes up the National Insurance sickness benefit to full wages or salary, although presumably not to normal earnings where there is regular overtime. In others he makes it up to a fixed proportion of wages or salary. In each case he generally does so for a fixed maximum period—perhaps not necessarily a fixed maximum period, but sometimes a maximum period related to the length of service. Sometimes it would be full wages for a period followed by a proportion of wages. Some employers, I find, even pay full wages and ignore sickness benefit entirely. There must be many cases where

499
an employee is financially better off when he is sick than when he is working, since sickness benefit is not, I believe, liable to income tax. It is obviously important that the Departments of Health and the Ministry of National Insurance should maintain their vigilance to prevent abuse.
The right honourable lady the Minister said on Second Reading in another place that under the Bill about 250,000 sick would on average be receiving supplement at any one time. Because of private supplementation of National Insurance sickness benefit some may not be any better off as a result of the Bill. We cannot help that. What at least is plain is that the need for earnings-related sickness benefit is less universal than for earnings-related unemployment benefit, because of the existence of private sickness schemes covering to some degree nearly three employees out of five. Nevertheless, for those earning over £9 a week who are over 18 years of age, I am sure the earnings-related supplement will be very welcome, and for that reason I believe it is right to cover in this scheme both the short-term sick as well as the unemployed.
To do so will put an additional burden of £38 million on employers—that is, ultimately on the consumer. Against that has to be set the greater willingness to accept change which it is hoped will result from the introduction of earnings-related unemployment benefit. I believe employers and the community as a whole will gain in the long run from earnings-related unemployment benefit and earnings-related sickness benefit. But it may well be that even greater vigilance will be required on the part of the Ministry and the Departments of Health to ensure that the earnings-related sickness benefit is not abused.
In one respect it seems to me that the Bill does not go far enough. I regret that the problem of the long-term sick is not touched at all. The earnings-related supplement, both for the unemployed and for the sick, is payable from the 13th day after they become sick or unemployed, for six months only. I can see the argument for this as it affects unemployed, and of course to some extent it is tied up with the industrial
500
injuries benefit. It may be said that to go on paying earnings-related unemployment benefit after six months might tempt a man to remain unemployed and not even to look for another job. In fact, the Bill actually cuts down the maximum period of entitlement to flat-rate unemployment benefit, as the noble Lord said, from 82 weeks to one year. That means that a man gets earnings-related supplement for six months, then drops to fiat-rate benefit (plus National Assistance, if necessary) for another six months or so, and after that goes on to National Assistance.
But what is the logic for the long-term sick? Why should he not receive earnings-related sickness benefit? I found, both as a Member of Parliament and as a Minister, that among the most poignant cases that came my way were those of young married employees with families: men earning good money, who were suddenly smitten by some totally incapacitating accident or illness. Would it not have been relatively simple to include them? Their average earnings in the base year could have been adjusted in line with a rise in the cost of living, as is done, for example, I believe, in the Canadian Social Security Scheme.
I know it will be said that this is a Bill to deal with short-term benefits only, but it need not have been, and in my opinion should not have been. Sickness benefit does not at present discriminate between short-term and long-term sickness. Having paid 156 contributions—that is to say, after three years of uninterrupted employment—one is entitled to sickness benefit, I believe, for the rest of the normal working span of one's life, if one needs it. But the Bill discriminates, for the first time under National Insurance, between the short-term and the long-term sick; and, if anything, the needs of the long-term sick are greater, especially of the breadwinners.
Why have the Government done this? I believe it is largely because one could not have a long-term sickness benefit that did not cover the self-employed, and the self-employed are not covered at all by the earnings-related sickness benefit. Do they not earn, too? Are the Party opposite indifferent towards the self-employed? Have they tried to find a way of including the self-employed for earnings-related sickness benefit? Surely

501
it would have been possible to have two or three stages of flat-rate contributions, and to collect them by, for example, an addition to the weekly stamp.
The Minister of National Insurance has described the scheme in this Bill as "an interim scheme". It is not clear whether she was referring to the scheme as a whole or to the method of collecting contributions. At the last Election, "Labour was ready", said the manifesto, "poised to swing its plans into instant operation". Well, my Lords, after fifteen months, and just before the next Election, it swings into operation a plan which was initiated three years ago by the Conservative Government, and which it now describes as "an interim scheme". The plans which they said they had ready at the last Election are now emerging in a torrent of White Papers at the pull of a lever signalling the next General Election. One should perhaps be thankful that in all this cascade of Bills and White Papers we find something to agree with, and I can say that I agree with most of this Bill. It is not what it includes, but what it fails to include that worries me.
I think it was right to apply the same principle to widowhood as to unemployment benefit, and to allow widows to draw earnings-related supplement based on their husband's earnings for the period of widow's allowance. I think it is right to double the period of widow's allowance to six months. I think it is right to double the thirteen-week period of temporary allowance for widows of severely disabled war pensioners—a point which I am not certain that the noble Lord mentioned. Of course, this would not be done by the Bill; it would be done by the Royal Warrant. I am glad that this is being kept in line with the widow's allowance, and I myself take particular pride in having played some part in getting this allowance for widows while I was Minister of Pensions.
I also think it is right to implement the McCorquodale Committee's recommendations in their application to industrial injuries under this Bill, as well as to war pensioners, through the Royal Warrant. I think it is right to amend Section 20 of the National Insurance Act, as the noble Lord explained, in relation to days of suspended employment. I was grateful that he gave that explanation to us. I am not entirely clear why such a long
502
transitional period as three years is necessary, but the noble Lord has said that the matter will be looked at in eighteen months to see if progress has been satisfactory. I think it is also right to fuse the two tribunals—those dealing with National Insurance and Industrial Injuries.
While I warmly support the principles of the Bill, I am not so sure about all the ways in which it is proposed that these principles should be put into effect. I have already referred to the limit of six months for the payment of sickness benefit. There is also the limitation at the start. Neither earnings-related sickness benefit nor earnings-related unemployment benefit is to be paid for the first two weeks. Whatever other justification may be pled for this Bill, the basic reasons are obviously purely administrative. I quite appreciate that, as a matter of administration, it may not be possible to pay the supplement until three weeks after the day when the unemployment or sickness began; but that is no reason in itself for not recognising the entitlement from the day it begins. After all, if the grocer or the coal merchant or the banker knows that earnings-related supplement is going to be received in the end from the day when unemployment or sickness begins, he will be more ready to allow the man who falls sick or loses his job to run up a bill or to get credit.
I quite realise that a man who has been in his job for two years or more will get at least two weeks' pay on redundancy. But it seems a bit hard to grab back, as it were, the benefit conferred by the redundancy payments scheme in this way. Besides that, under the "last in, first out" rule many men may be made redundant before they have completed two years, and so will get nothing. What about them? As for sickness, I understand that more than half the periods of absence from work on account of sickness are for less than two weeks. Those away for three days or less are already not covered for flat-rate benefit. I wonder whether the noble Lord has considered this.
Would not the right thing to do have been either to make it compulsory for employers to make up National Insurance to normal wages or salary, or at least

503
a high proportion of it, for the first fortnight (there might be marginal difficulties; there might have to be some exemptions in certain trades, but that would be one alternative to cover this fortnight), or, alternatively, to pay earnings-related sickness benefit from the start of the period of sickness, if sickness exceeds three days. It seems to me that these are real alternatives. I am not saying that it can be paid right away. Of course, a period for investigation and the like is needed. The question is: from what point should the entitlement run? This is a mutual insurance scheme to which employers and employees are each to contribute ½ per cent. of their earnings between £9 and £30. The first two weeks—apart from the first three days—of unemployment or sickness are clearly an insurable risk. There is no Exchequer contribution towards this scheme. Even administrative costs, as the noble Lord said, are repayable out of National Insurance funds. That, also, I believe to be right. How much would it cost each side, I wonder, to cover this risk for the first fortnight? I wonder whether the noble Lord has those figures.
The noble Lord referred to one feature of this scheme, which is that nobody is to receive by way of flat-rate benefit, plus earnings-related benefit, more than 85 per cent. of his earnings. The minimum guarantee has been discarded, and is replaced by a maximum income guarantee—the income "stop". I understand the reasons for this, but I hope that the noble Lord will say that this is going to be operated with considerable sympathy and comprehension. I want to ask him whether Clause 2(8)(b) is to be used to give relief in marginal cases. For example, take the man who has been earning much more at the time he falls sick than he earned in the previous year. It may not be just a question of promotion or a higher wage: he may have been sick in the previous year, or unemployed in the previous year, and his average in the relevant income tax year might have been depressed by a period of sickness or unemployment. Yet still he would be subject to the income "stop" related to his earnings in the relevant income year, and he would be subject to it despite his family commitments—and it is really only the men with
504
big family commitments who are likely to encounter this income "stop".
I hope the noble Lord will be able to give me some information about this, because it is important. It is important that we should always be seen to be aiding those who most need it. It is one thing to ease the lot of someone who is earning £30 a week and who drops suddenly to £4 a week—that is in itself a good thing to do—but it is much more important to ease the lot of the man earning relatively low wages, who has a large family, and falls out of employment or becomes sick.
To conclude, my Lords, I welcome this Bill. Apart from the doubt about the average level of unemployment assumed, it seems to be based on sound contributory principles. But I very much regret the failure to provide for the long-term sick. I believe that a great opportunity has been missed to do something for people who are among those most in need. I also regret the way in which this Bill is being rushed through Parliament. It is not a rates Bill; it breaks new ground and should not have been treated as a rates Bill. Of course, it is true that the sooner the Bill becomes law the sooner benefits will become payable; but if the Government wanted benefits to be payable this autumn they ought to have introduced the Bill sooner and given it a longer run in Parliament, so that Parliament could have examined it more closely. I am quite sure that, had we been in power, a Bill to introduce earnings-related benefits would already have been on the Statute Book.
5.2 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, on the matters which have been before your Lordships' House this afternoon the Government have come in for a fair amount of congratulation and, if I may say so kindly, for some feint praise by the last speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. It is perhaps invidious for me, bearing in mind where I sit in this Chamber, to congratulate the Government, but, in all sincerity, I do think that they are to be congratulated on introducing such a Bill as this at a time when the country is facing grave financial difficulties—and, I would remind your Lordships, difficulties which were not of the Government's making. The noble Lord, Lord Drumablyn, has said that, had the

505
Party which he represents been in office at the present moment, a Bill such as this would probably have been before your Lordships much sooner. But he did say earlier on that the Conservative Party had similar plans for such a Bill three years ago, which means that they had two years before the last Election.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me for intervening? I am sure that he does not mean to misrepresent me on this. What I said was that we started to consider this three years ago. I do not think the noble Lord should be under any misapprehension as to the time it takes to bring this kind of Bill to completion. All I said was that we would have introduced it sooner. I think we would have introduced it sooner, but one has to take into account that it would probably have taken at least two years to prepare.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. He has made my point for me. If it could not be done within two years, then I think the present Government have done pretty well to do it in sixteen months. However, I feel that this Bill is a further example of promises made in October, 1964, having been honoured by the present Government, although that is not the main matter so far as I am concerned. I think it is further evidence of this Government's determination to make adequate provision, so far as our financial position will allow, for those sections of the community most in need.
If there is one thing that stands out so far as I personally am concerned, it is that this Bill marks the beginning of a new process in social thought—the kind of social thinking which will become more and more essential and more and more important within the foreseeable future. I refer in particular to the scheme for wage-related sickness and unemployment benefits. This Bill, if it is passed, will remedy a really grave social injustice, and one which has been going on for many generations: that people, when they fall sick, become elderly or are widowed, or when society is unable to provide employment, are faced with serious financial crises which not only threaten but in fact make a serious attack upon the standard of living of the individual and the family.
506
I am sure that many of your Lordships will feel it is quite surprising that in our so-called civilised society this situation has been accepted and allowed to exist for so long. I think that this Bill must be welcomed by all who feel a real sense of responsibility for those in the community who are less fortunately placed than many of us. By associating ourselves with it—and everyone has done so far—I believe that your Lordships' House will be clearly indicating and demonstrating that we are in the vanguard of social thinking, and are really concerned with human welfare. As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, quite rightly stated, the Bill is not perfect—I doubt whether many Bills, if any, ever are—for there still remains much to be done if we are going to provide adequately for the family in all circumstances.
I should like to call the attention of my noble friend Lord Bowles to one omission, and, while I am not asking him at this stage—let me be quite fair about this—to give an assurance that it will be put right immediately, because I know it cannot be, I do ask him to indicate, if he would be good enough, that the matter will be considered. I refer to the claim of a comparatively new voluntary organisation known as the Disablement Incomes Group—" D.I.G. ". It is an organisation with which I have no connection and in which I hold no office, and I am not their spokesman. This organisation asks—and here I want to quote:
" for the provision by the State of a modest basic income with special supplementary allowances for all disabled persons ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom whatever the cause of the disablement and irrespective of previous National Insurance contribution ".
In other words, it asks for financial benefit to be available to all severely disabled persons, of either sex, whether they have been State-insured or not.
It is not necessary for me to remind your Lordships, because your Lordships will appreciate the fact, that long-term chronic disablement can be, and is for many people, very expensive. I speak to your Lordships as a sociologist. Much of the poverty revealed in a report called The Poor and the Poorest,by Abel-Smith and Townsend, occurs in the homes of disabled persons. The husband with a disabled wife cannot get any financial help in respect of his added financial liability. My information—though it

507
may be wrong—is that the husband can claim income tax relief only if help has to be brought into the home, not to look after the wife but to look after the children. If there are no children, my information is that relief cannot be granted, even though it may still be necessary for him to have someone in the house, probably full-time, to look after his wife when he is at work. Wife disablement is a very serious matter for the ordinary wage earner. I know, and I appreciate the fact, that the Minister is undertaking a review of social security, and I should be content if my noble friend Lord Bowles would undertake to mention this matter to the Minister, pointing out, when he does so, that both Norway and Denmark have made such provision already. I think I am right in saying that Australia has had a simple invalid pension scheme since 1910. Perhaps the schemes of these three countries could be looked at with a view to providing what I am asking for.
5.12 p.m.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, as I listened to the noble Lord on the Opposite Benches I was wondering whether I was in fairyland. I remember the time when he was a Minister of this Department in the House of Commons. Never once did I hear him argue in the House of Commons for the chronic sick. This matter has been raised by the noble Lord to-day only as a result of this Bill. I remember that for thirteen years we pleaded in the House of Commons for the "ten-shilling widow's" pension to be increased to 30s. but we always got a rejection, and it made me wonder when I heard the noble Lord speak about what his Party would have done if they had been in power.
I should like to congratulate the Government on introducing this Bill, despite the financial difficulties they have faced in the last eighteen months. In our Election Manifesto we outlined plans for social security for a five-year term of office and not for a Government that have been in office for only sixteen months. But in that sixteen months the Government have given the highest increase in old-age pension since 1946. They have given the same increase to sickness and industrial injuries and war disability pension benefits. The National
508
Assistance scales have also been given a high increase. The earnings rule for widows was abolished only two months after the Government came into power. The "ten-shilling widow's" amount was increased to 30s. per week. The workers have been given redundancy payments when they lose their jobs, and thousands of disabled workers under the old Workmen's Compensation Act have all got increases. The physically broken man in industry and the war pensioner will now get, under this Bill, £3 a week extra.
I put it to your Lordships that this is a record of which any Government can be proud: that in the difficulties they have faced they have not forgotten the needy of our society. It was outlined last week in the welfare debate in another place that a general review of the whole field of social security is taking place. As the noble Lord knows, this Bill stems from that review. This is an interim measure. It will be a part, in the future, of the social security scheme that is envisaged by the Government. The Bill is to pay an earnings-related supplement on unemployment, sickness and widows' benefits. The provision for an earnings-related unemployment benefit is complementary to the Redundancy Payments Act and will play a big part in promoting the mobility of labour and the economic and technological changes of the future.
I welcome the earnings-related supplement in sickness cases and in widows' benefits. When a person becomes ill, his standard of life drops considerably, and the same applies when he becomes unemployed. It is tragic also for the widow who loses her husband; because her standard of life takes a very hard knock. In all these cases real hardship is endured and there are great worries for those affected. As the Minister said in another place, we are at the beginning of reshaping in a generous way our social security, and are now taking the first opportunity to make improvements. In my working life in the mines I have seen men trailing to work when they should have been at home in bed. They had to do it because they were afraid of the financial effect on their family of staying away from work.
In the last twenty years this tendency has practically disappeared. I am confident that in time this Bill should eliminate it entirely. There has been an

509
argument in the House of Commons by the Conservatives that this Bill will increase absenteeism and encourage the malingerer. Anxiety has been expressed about the high ceiling for sickness benefit and the danger that absenteeism will be encouraged. But, my Lords, we cannot legislate on such a basis; one cannot judge a field of wheat by one or two bad ears. On the other hand, there is the argument that the 85 per cent. ceiling is too low in the cases of the lower-paid workers. I should like, therefore, to examine these arguments. Absenteeism is caused, in the main, by the person who takes one or two days off work; it means that that person, for no good reason, does not go to work.
How will such a person fare under this Bill? He will not attract the flat rate benefit. He has to serve three waiting days after proving his sickness or unemployment before he is entitled to benefit. Neither will he get the supplement embodied in this Bill, because there are 12 waiting days which are not repayable. Furthermore, before a person can get benefit, evidence of incapacity must be produced by a doctor's certificate or he has to register at an employment exchange if unemployed and be available for work. And benefit can be stopped where a man refuses suitable employment. Again, if a man does not go to work, it would reduce his yearly income; so that when he is sick it will be reflected in any supplementary for the next year.
My Lords, this Bill, instead of encouraging absenteeism, does the reverse. There are systems of controls to check those who are "swinging the lead" in their claim for sickness benefit. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions in another place gave us the figures in this respect. In 1965, 818,000 sickness and injury benefit claimants were examined by independent medical practitioners, and 476,000 were visited at their homes. Of 21 million people insured for sickness benefit, 70 per cent. make no claim during the course of the year; 20 per cent. claim only once in the year, and while 10 per cent. claim more than once, only a third of these claim three or more times and most are genuine claims for benefit. Therefore I hope that those who think that the British worker is always looking to take advan-
510
tage of increased social benefits will regard these figures as sufficient criteria to prove that the great majority of workers fulfil their responsibilities and obligations to the industries in which they work and to the nation at large.
I do not for one moment believe that there is a problem in this argument of absenteeism. Of malingerers, there are a small number, but there are sufficient checks on them. They are investigated and checked as to their incapacity for work, and it must not be assumed that they all get benefit every time they claim. However, we cannot have penal legislation on the vast majority of decent people simply because of a few "bad eggs" in our society. While the risk of doubtful claims has to be borne in mind, I think it would be wrong to think that the supplement embodied in the Bill, with its twelve waiting-days period and 85 per cent. ceiling, will create a problem for us. Where the spell of unemployment or sickness is less than twelve days, there will usually be other sources of income to add to the flat rate of benefit—earnings for the last week at work, and in many cases an income tax refund. It is when unemployment or sickness has lasted a fortnight that the fall, from earnings to the flat rate of benefit starts to be most important. In fact, by not paying the supplement for the first fortnight it is possible to make it available for up to six months of sickness or unemployment thereafter. It ensures that the additional money being provided through the National Insurance Fund is concentrated on people whose loss of earnings has been appreciable.
What the new supplement will do is to provide benefit in cases of longer-term absences from work than now applies. Clause 2 of the Bill provides that the supplement shall be paid to employed contributors over eighteen years of age and under pensionable age, who are entitled to the flat rate of unemployment or sickness benefit. The figure, which the Minister has stated, is of one-third of the average weekly earnings between £9 and £30. So the maximum supplement on a £30-a-week man will be £7 a week on his flat rate. I think that there can be no objection taken to this, as the object is to ensure that claimants are generally not better off than they

511
would be if they were at work. The 85 per cent. ceiling is based on gross earnings and not on net earnings. It takes into account the fact that gross earnings are subject to deductions for P.A.Y.E., National Insurance, and other deductions from pay.
The other feature about the Bill is that it provides for help also for the early period of widowhood. The widow's allowance at present is a special benefit paid at the rate of £5 12s. 6d. a week for thirteen weeks during the difficult period after her husband's death, provided that the husband had not retired or the widow is under 60 years of age. The provision in this Bill will increase the period to 26 weeks, or six months, and will provide an earnings-related supplement similar to that which would have been provided with the husband's employment or sickness benefit, if he had lived. In this way, both the amount of money and the period for which it can be paid will be greatly increased.
In the field of social security for widows and widowed mothers, the Government have done well. I have good reasons for saying this to my noble friend, in the light of his speech. I have here a booklet,All the Answers,issued to Conservative candidates in the last Election by the Conservative Research Department. There would have been no abolition of the earnings rule for widowed mothers, if the Conservatives had been returned to power in 1964, because this is what they said in that booklet:
" Difficulties would occur on changing from widowed mother's allowance to widow's pension if the earnings rule was abolished for all widows; a similar difficulty would arise when widows changed from widow's pension to retirement pension at the age of 60. Either course would substitute new problems for existing ones."
So there was no intention in the last Election to abolish the earnings rule for widows, and it says much for the Labour Government that all the difficulties the Conservatives saw in this Election booklet vanished in two months, when this Government abolished the earnings rule.
It is also pleasing to note that the Minister has given wide terms of reference to the National Insurance Advisory Committee to have a full examination of the working of the earnings rule as applied to pensioners. This has not been
512
looked at since 1956. The cost of all the earnings-related supplement is to be met by a new ½ per cent. graduated contribution payable by employer and employee. This at least maintains the contributory principle under which insured persons and their employers pay towards the cost of National Insurance benefits.
In the Commons last week, there was great pressure by the Conservative Party for contracting out of the supplement in this Bill on the basis of occupational schemes of sickness pay. I hope that the Government will not accept this for one moment. Great difficulties would ensue from this. Not all those who have contracted out of the graduated pensions scheme have a sick pay scheme. To accept contracting out would mean four different types of people. We should have those who were contracted out for pension and sickness benefit. We should have those contracted in for both. We should have those who contracted out for pension but not for sickness benefit; and we should have those contracted out for sickness benefit but not for pension. This would mean four different rates of contribution and would create problems for the employer, apart from the administrative problems that this would be bound to cause.
An employer could seek to evade his contracted-out obligations by sacking his employee when he was ill or by discharging him when he appeared to be ill. There would be no safeguard at all for the man in a situation like that, if he were contracted out of this scheme. In many industries where there is an occupational sickness scheme they are interested to take into account the National Insurance benefit, and I hope that the Government will see to it in this Bill that at least the employers do not take the supplement for which the man is paying. Since its inauguration, the National Insurance scheme has been based on the pooling of risks. Contracting out of the supplementation scheme would be most attractive to those industries where the incidence of sickness is light, and to allow it would hit at the principle behind this Bill, and also at the basis of National Insurance over its whole lifetime.
The Bill, as I understand it, is to provide extra benefits for people. Therefore, it must be judged as a first major stage of the changes in National Insurance

513
which are likely to be needed in the future. The effect of the Bill in relation to the National Industrial Injuries scheme is one of great importance to men who work in mines and factories, as well as to old people who were disabled fighting for this country. It has long been accepted that there should be special provision for people who suffer from industrial accidents or diseases. At present, the Industrial Injuries scheme provides higher rates of benefit and special forms of provision for these people.
First, there is the provision of short-term benefits. At present, injury benefit payable for up to the first six months of incapacity for work caused by an accident at work, or an industrial disease, is £2 15s. a week higher than the standard rate of sickness benefit of £4 a week, which is payable to a person who is incapable of work through non-industrial causes. Under this Bill, the new earnings-related supplement of sickness benefit will be payable on top of injury benefit to a person who qualifies for injury benefit instead of sickness benefit. This ensures that the measure of preference for the industrially injured still remains part of our social security scheme.
I should like at this stage to support my noble friend on the Front Bench and pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, who was Chairman of the Committee on the assessment of disability, and also the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, who sat on the Committee. They did valuable work on this Committee, and I am pleased to note that their recommendations as affecting the exceptionally severely disabled men of war and industry are implemented in this Bill. Under the Industrial Injuries Act the highest assessment is 100 per cent. There are, however, many people who not only have an industrial disability which qualifies them for 100 per cent. pension, but also suffer from other industrially caused disability. These people will he entitled to constant attendance allowance under the Industrial Injuries Act, because they require someone to care for their personal needs. There was no way in the previous Acts in which their personal benefit assessment could take account of their exceptionally severe disablement. This Bill now provides, as the McCorquodale Committee recommended, that such exceptionally dis-
514
abled people who need constant attendance will qualify for an additional personal benefit of £3 a week. The number may be small, fortunately, but it is right that attempts should be made, so far as this is at all possible, to take account, in monetary terms, of their terrible injuries. This is also to apply to war pensioners with the same degree of disablement, and this will be done through the Royal Warrants.
There are many matters in the Bill that I have not touched upon, like the three waiting days in sickness, which I hope some day will go. There is also the question of manipulation of short-time working to get around the benefit rules, as is done in certain industries. The Minister, I am pleased to note, has given notice that the short-time working condition of eligibility for unemployment benefit is to go in three years' time. Probably we shall be able to say something in Committee, but I think the Minister is on the right track. All industries who retain their employees on a short-time working basis ought to give their employees a guaranteed week agreement.
Therefore, I welcome the Bill. The fight we face is to eradicate poverty, which still exists for many people, and the hardships experienced by our old people. Not only are Governments involved in this crusade, but the whole nation. It is when the nation as a whole decides that it is their responsibility, that Government will be able to banish poverty from our midst. The Government in sixteen months have most certainly done their best to eradicate much human suffering and poverty, but there is still a lot to be done. I hope that this Bill will be a further step in that direction, and I await the full organised plan for the future security of our people.
5.37 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate, and I thank noble Lords for the kind things they have said about the Bill and the way in which the Government have acted. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, raised the question of whether the Government Actuary's figure of 2 per cent. was right. The position is, as he will remember, that the Government tell the Actuary to work out certain numbers, figures or facts. So he was instructed to take 2 per cent. as the

515
rate of unemployment, and that is why he worked on that percentage.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, the point I was asking was why this had been done. I was wondering why it is that the Government have taken this level of 2 per cent., in view of the fact that, as I said, if the Government's policy of getting more mobility, and so on, is going to work, we may have more transitional unemployment.
LORD BOWLES: I appreciate that, and had it in mind. I thought the noble Lord made himself quite clear about that. I am just saying that this figure was taken. When the Redundancy Payments Act has been in operation for some time, we may give another estimate to the Government Actuary on the percentage of unemployment.
As regards the 12 waiting days, the noble Lord said it is estimated that about half the successful claims for sickness benefit and unemployment benefit last less than 12 days (although in some cases the period may link with an earlier period for benefit purposes). Payment for all or some of these days will therefore mean, when allied to the extra administrative costs, either a significant increase in the proposed contributions or a reduction in supplement paid to longer-term unemployed and sick. It is estimated that the cost of paying earnings-related supplements after three days—that is to say, the same waiting period as the flat-rate benefits—would be about £6 million in a full year for the extra unemployment benefit supplement plus the extra costs of administration. This estimate is based on the assumption of a 2 per cent. level of unemployment, which is used by the Government Actuary, on Government instructions, in estimating future costs of unemployment benefits.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, also raised the question of sick pay supplements. The fear has often been expressed that sick pay supplements run by employers may lead to over-compensation when their benefits are added on to those of flat-rate benefit and the new earnings-related supplement to-gather. The Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance reckon that there are some 10½ million people who are en-
516
titled to sickness benefit who will also be in the field for the supplement and to some extent will also be covered by sick pay schemes. The number in sick pay schemes is higher than this because of people not entitled to sickness benefit, in particular married women who have opted not to pay flat-rate contributions. The size and duration of payments made under sick pay schemes vary greatly. In many cases National Insurance benefits are taken into account automatically—. that is, deducted from sick pay. In such cases the new supplements will cause the scheme's benefits to be adjusted so that no problem should arise. In other cases it will be up to the employers to renegotiate the provisions of their schemes with their employees.
My right honourable friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance said during the Committee stage of the Bill in another place on this point:
"… the present sick pay benefit schemes vis-á-vis the provisions made under the Bill will be matters for the usual negotiations between employer and employee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 724 (No. 49), col. 1343, 16/2/66.]
She went on to say:
" Private employers have already taken into account benefits paid now under the National Insurance Scheme. No doubt employers will want to discuss with their employees what they will do as a result of the provisions of this Bill and this seems to me to be the right way of going about the matter."—[Col. 1351.]
Then the noble Lord rather regretted that provision for the long-term sick and chronically sick was not in the Bill. As I explained in my opening speech—I dare say the noble Lord had his notes and was sticking to them, in spite of what I had to say—the Government have in mind the position of the long-term sick as part of the general review of the social security scheme. The problem of the long-term sick is, however, different from that of short-term sickness. In effect, long-term sickness is a form of premature retirement, and it would not be proper or fair to base benefit for the long-term sick on average earnings in the last complete income tax year, as is proposed in the Bill, for the supplement. It would mean that a long-term benefit depended on what a person's earnings happened to be at one particular period.

517
The noble Lord also asked me about Clause 2(8)(b). The noble Lord said that this enables the 85 per cent. benefit ceiling formula to be varied. The powers will be available for cases where the amount of flat rate benefit in payment is less than the standard rate: for example, where there has been a contribution deficiency, or a claimant is subject to a hospital in-patient deduction. The paragraph does not enable major variations to be made in the 85 per cent. rule, but will ensure that it can be applied to special groups, such as those in hospital, as generously as possible.
My noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell— I thank him for his welcome of the Bill and my speech—referred to the disablement income group, and also mentioned the particular problem of disabled wives. I can assure my noble friend that my right honourable friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance has the questions which he has mentioned very much in mind as part of the review of the social services. Then there was the speech of my noble friend Lord Blyton. The Government thank him for his congratulations. I should like to say what an interesting speech he made, as he always does. The only question he put to me was the question of not allowing any further contracting out. The Bill does not allow any contracting out so far as short-term benefits are concerned. I am grateful for the reception which this Bill has received, and I only hope that whatever the news may be—I have not been out of the. Chamber for three or four hours—this Bill may become an Act of Parliament before the next General Election.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned during pleasure and resumed by the LORD CHANCELLOR.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
5.45 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I wish to make a Business statement. In view of the announcement made by my right honourable friend the Prime. Minister earlier this evening, the Business for the remainder of this Session has been rearranged through the usual channels as follows. The Business for Tuesday and Wednesday of this week will be as
518
planned, and as appears on the Order Paper. On Thursday, March 3, we intend to take the Committee and remaining stages of the National Insurance Bill, and the Second Reading of the Rating Bill, and then the debate on the development of Oxford, on the Motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Segal, will be held as arranged. On Friday, March 4, the House will meet at 11 a.m. in order to consider the Farmers' Machinery Syndicates Grants (Extension of Period) Order 1966; the Payments in Aid of Agricultural Schemes (Extension) Order 1966; the Universities (Scotland) Bill, Committee and remaining stages; the Local Government (Pecuniary Interests) (Scotland) Bill, Committee and remaining stages, and then we intend to take the Committee and remaining stages of the National Health Bill and the Committee and remaining stages of the Rating Bill.
On Monday, March 7, the House will he asked to consider the Draft Police Pensions (Amendment) Regulations Order, and to give a Third Reading to the Air Corporations Bill. It is intended to follow this with the Committee and remaining stages of the Post Office Savings Bank Bill, and the Third Reading of the Abortion Bill. On Tuesday and Wednesday, March 8 and 9, the House will debate the Defence White Paper on a Government Motion. On Thursday, March 10, it is intended to hold a Royal Commission for the approval of Bills, followed by the Prorogation of Parliament. On that day the House will meet at 2 p.m. That is the end of the Statement.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord the Chief Whip. Your Lordships will observe that the announcement of the date of the Election came almost as much as a surprise to him as it did to every one of your Lordships, judging by the detail which he had worked out. I think the programme looks all right, although perhaps I ought to say that the passage of these Bills must obviously be conditional upon the attitude which the Government take to any suggestions that we may have to make during the course of the remaining stages of those Bills.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I say that we on these Benches agree with what the noble Lord has said and are very

519
willing indeed to adopt the proposed programme.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question: whether it is possible to take the Report stage of the Abortion Bill, as there has to be a Report stage before the Third Reading. The noble Lord has not mentioned the Report stage, and we are now back in Committee again. We shall have to have a Report stage. When are we to take that—on Friday?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am most grateful for the welcome which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, have given to this Statement. I must admit that the cause of this came as much as a surprise to me as it did to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. In regard to the Abortion Bill, I note that the Third Reading is down for next Monday. As the noble Viscount will know, Standing Orders will have been suspended. It will be for my noble friend Lord Silkin and the House to decide whether to take the Report and the Third Reading on that day. I think we could leave any further arrangements to the usual channels and to my noble friend Lord Silkin.
I had a whispered complaint from my noble friend Lady Summerskill, in regard to the Matrimonial Homes Bill. This Bill has not yet received a Second Reading, and even with the greatest good will of noble Lords opposite and their friends in another place, with Prorogation next week I do not think it will be possible to get that Bill through this House and the other place for the Royal Assent next Thursday. But perhaps my noble friend will see that such a Bill is put down for a First Reading at the first moment of the next Session, when we, on this side of the House, will certainly support her in it.
LORD CARRINGTON: The noble Lords will then be on this side of the House.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I am not as simple as my noble friend thinks. Before I whispered in his ear, I had made other enquiries, and if he likes to pursue his enquiries further he may find that we shall have time on Tuesday. I am sorry to appear to be a
520
little enigmatic, but that is a woman's privilege.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should not have the courage to suggest that the noble Lady is simple, but the fact is that there would not be much point in proceeding with that Bill at this stage, particularly with the heavy weight of business. However, as I have said, in not so many days' time the noble Lady will have the opportunity of moving that Bill.

ABORTION BILL [H.L.]
5.51 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the House to be put into Committee (on Recommitment).
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I beg to move, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Silkin.)
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, what his intentions are in regard to this Bill. If we go into Committee on this Bill it is perfectly apparent, from the programme of Business for next week, that there is not the slightest possibility of this Bill, even if it has passed through this House, being considered at all in another place. It is bound to drop, and I would ask the noble Lord whose Bill it is whether he would explain to us what point he thinks there would be in continuing long debates in Committee on this Bill to-night. If he wishes to, it will be open to him, as it will be to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, to introduce a new Bill on the same subject early in the next Parliament. I am merely seeking to find out the noble Lord's intentions.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has suggested to me that we might merely take the non-controversial Amendments to-day and leave the Bill in that form. I have thought about it and consulted some of my friends, but the fact is that quite a number of noble Lords have come here in the belief that we are going to discuss this Bill this afternoon and this evening. They have gone to some inconvenience, and I feel that, without

521
consulting all of those who are here for that purpose, it would be unfair if I were merely to accept the noble and learned Viscount's suggestion.
So far as I am concerned, I should welcome the opportunity of an early evening, and I quite realise that this Bill cannot become law between now and March 10. Nevertheless, I think we should be serving a useful purpose if we could get this Bill through its Third Reading in this House, and it would simplify proceedings in the next Session of Parliament, when I intend to introduce another Bill. So I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will not hold it against me if I say that I feel that we should go on this evening as far as we can.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, it may be a matter for the House to decide whether we do proceed with a Committee stage which can produce no useful result. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, may want to get this Bill read a third time for propaganda purposes, but I cannot see that it is likely to simplify the process of legislation in the next Government. In view of the news which has been announced and which noble Lords who came here did not know was going to be announced (at least, many of them would not have known: some of the noble Lords opposite may not be like Mr. George Brown, and they may have had some information), I should have thought that to ask us to spend long hours tonight discussing a Bill which cannot get any further would not be as good a procedure as for the noble Lord to withdraw his Bill now. Whatever takes place in debates on this Bill between now and Dissolution cannot affect the ultimate position.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, nothing that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said induced me to believe that he wished to get a Third Reading of his Bill for propaganda purposes.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, it seems to me to be highly discourteous to the House. Not only has by noble friend done a great amount of work throughout the week-end, trying to meet all the points raised by noble Lords, but I see that the noble Lord, Lord Molson, is sitting there with a large tome open by his side. He has obviously
522
done a great deal of work, and it seems to me curious that at this last moment, after the debate has been announced, noble Lords should now be told that the noble and learned Viscount does not wish to proceed with the Committee stage.
LORD CARRINGTON: Dissolution.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, as to the Dissolution, we all knew, of course, that some announcement was going to be made.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I think a number of noble Lords have come here prepared to debate this Bill. The Committee stage is one that ought to be gone over carefully. There are many issues which could be debated with great advantage, on the various Amendments which have been put down, and I see no reason why we should not proceed with it. I had not expected my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne to defer so abjectly to the decree of the Prime Minister as to call off the business in this House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Medical termination of pregnancy
1. Subject to the provisions of this Act it shall be lawful for a registered medical practitioner to terminate a pregnancy:
Provided that two registered medical practitioners, being either the pregnant women's regular doctor and a registered medical practitioner employed in a hospital under the National Health Service or two registered medical practitioners so employed, certify in writing that in their opinion the termination of the pregnancy is necessary on the ground that—

(a) the continuance of the pregnancy would involve serious risk to the life or grave injury to the health whether physical or mental of the pregnant woman whether before at or after the birth of the child; or

(b) the child if born would be likely to suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to deprive it of any prospect of reasonable enjoyment of life; or

(c) the pregnant woman is a defective or became pregnant when under the age of sixteen or as the result of intercourse which was an offence under section 128 of the Mental Health Act 1959 or section 97 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960 (relating to sexual intercourse with patients).

LORD SILKIN: A good many of these Amendments which I have put down are an improvement on the existing drafting, and in most cases (I think perhaps in all) they do not affect what was intended in the Bill. This particular Amendment is to a large extent a matter of drafting. It ties up what is proposed in the present Bill with the position as it is at the moment. It also reintroduces the concept that the practitioners have to act in good faith. That was not in the Bill as it left the Committee, but I am advised that it is essential for it to be incorporated, and I have so incorporated it. I know it was represented that it might be discourteous or offensive to the medical profession to suggest that they have to act in good faith, and I was quite happy to omit those words, but it has been represented to me that those words ought to go in as a matter of proper procedure and therefore I am quite happy to include them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 5, leave out from (" this ") to end of line 12, and insert (" section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence or crime of abortion by reason of the termination of a pregnancy by a registered medical practitioner if the practitioner is of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the termination of the pregnancy is necessary on any one or more of the following grounds, that is to say—").—(Lord Silkin.)
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I hope the noble Lord will explain why he has put in these words "formed in good faith". It is surely not enough for him to tell the Committee he has been advised that it is a good thing to do. Knowing the noble Lord, I am quite sure that he asked why it was a good thing to do, and that an explanation was given to him. Therefore I hope he will give your Lordships, and me, the explanation and the reason why he accepted the advice given to him.
I must say that I find it difficult to see that the addition of these words adds anything to this Bill. Presumably the words "formed in good faith" have been inserted to enable a prosecution to be launched should the prosecution be in a position to prove, which seems to me extremely improbable, that the opinion was not formed in good faith; that is to say, that it was not the doctor's honest opinion. And if it was not the doctor's
524
honest opinion then in truth it was not his opinion. I do not see myself that the addition of these words really adds anything to the Bill. If it is not in truth the opinion of the medical practitioners, then the procedure laid down by the Bill will not be complied with. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, even at this hour, could explain fully why it is that it is thought necessary to insert these words. Certainly we may have a further opportunity of considering this.
6.2 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): support my noble friend, Lord Silkin. The Government feel that these words are necessary and the Amendment has been drafted on the advice of Parliamentary Counsel. On the precise point put by the noble and learned Viscount, I would explain our views in this way. The present draft of the Bill makes it lawful for a pregnancy to be terminated provided that two doctors certify in writing that it is necessary on one or other of the grounds specified in the Bill. The effect of this in practice would be to make the legality of the abortion depend only on the issue of the two certificates. That is an unnecessary invitation to abuse. The Amendment now moved by my noble friend, coupled with a later Amendment, provides that a pregnancy may be terminated if two doctors are of the opinion, formed in good faith, that it is necessary on one or more of the grounds specified in the Bill and if they so certify in writing. This places the legality of the abortion on the doctors' opinion formed in good faith. The doctor may be wrong in his opinion, but so long as the opinion was honestly formed he would be protected by the Bill. In other words, in the event of a prosecution, the Crown would have to prove bad faith on the part of the doctor in forming the opinion on the certificate.
The noble and learned Viscount suggested that, without the Amendment, a prosecution could lie only if it was not the doctor's honest opinion, but that is by no means as certain as he appears to think. It seems, therefore, desirable to make the position clear, as the terms of the Amendment, in our view, make it clear; because, first, it accurately reflects the true position, that the legality of the operation depends on the opinion of the

525
doctor; secondly, it safeguards the position of the doctor who has made an honest mistake in diagnosis; and, thirdly, it follows the precedent of the existing case law in the Bourne case and another case, where it was held that it was not unlawful for the doctor to carry out the abortion if the act was done in good faith to preserve the life or physical or mental health of the mother. In other words, at this point the Amendment moved by my noble friend will simply implement what is the existing case law, which is already in terms of good faith, and there is, therefore, nothing new in the concept put forward by my noble friend.
This Bill deals with a special situation. It relates to an act which, if certain conditions are not complied with, is a criminal offence, and the circumstances surrounding it are therefore different from the circumstances surrounding most of the operations doctors are called upon to perform, where there is no question of any criminal offence being involved. Her Majesty's Government regard this as an Amendment which should be commended to the Committee.
LORD SEGAL: I should like from the noble Lord some information on what I regard as a very important matter. If this Amendment is carried, and if Amendment No. 8 is carried, the phrase "formed in good faith" will occur twice. Would any imputation of bad faith possibly arise against the doctor if it could be proved that a very large pecuniary consideration has entered into the carrying out of the operation? And, further, if he used the expression "large pecuniary gain" what figure would be involved? It is a most important point which I believe has not entered into the consideration of this Bill. I should be glad to have his opinion on what constitutes "in good faith" where large financial gain is involved.
LORD STONHAM: My noble friend did not himself specify what he meant by "large financial gain". I would point out that later Amendments to be moved by my noble friend Lord Silkin will specify the place of the operation, that is the hospital or equivalent of hospital approved by the Minister of Health; and will specify the standing of the doctor who will perform the operation. I should not have thought that the pay-
526
ment of a fee to the doctor, if it was done other than in a National Health hospital, would enter into it at all. The question of good faith or bad faith would rest entirely on whether or not the doctor or doctors had observed the conditions under which the termination of pregnancy would not be an offence, and the question of whether or not a doctor received a fee would not, in my view, affect the matter of a doctor's professional honour.
LORD CONESFORD: I am bound to say that I support this Amendment. I, think it is certainly an improvement on the wording of the Bill. While I appreciate the point made by my noble and learned friend, I think I can also see the argument the other way, and I am certainly firmly of opinion that the words inserted in the Amendment could not reasonably be taken as insulting to the medical profession. I think that what was said in the Bourne case and the way it was reported is sufficient to show that putting these words in the Statute, whether or not they are strictly necessary, cannot be injurious on the ground that they are insulting to the medical profession. On those grounds, I hope the Amendment will be accepted.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am not by any means satisfied that these words are really necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in beginning his reply, sought to draw a distinction between the wording of this Amendment and the Bill as it is at the present time. Under the Bill two medical practitioners have to certify in writing that their opinion is so-and-so, and here again they have to give their opinion; in both cases we are dealing with matters of opinion, and I should have thought that under the Bill as it stood there was no question of prosecution if an honest opinion was given, even if it was wrong. But while I do not think these words really add anything of importance to the Bill, if the noble Lord wants them and thinks them important, I certainly shall not resist it. I am not suggesting that their addition is insulting. I think just to say they follow the Bourne case is not really enough. I should have thought they were unnecessary; but if the noble Lord wants them, I do not oppose it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SILKIN: I beg to move this Amendment, which the noble and learned Viscount will be glad to hear has been put down to meet a point which he made. It makes quite clear that the two factors, the life of the mother and the health of the mother, are independent, and that on either ground an abortion may take place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, after (" or ") insert (" of ").—(Lord Silkin.)
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I think this is a desirable Amendment. If it had not been made the clause would have run:
"….involving serious risk to the life or grave injury to the health.…"
That is a heavy burden for doctors to be satisfied about, that it would involve "grave injury to the health". I am sure it was the intention of the noble Lord to provide that it would either involve serious risk to the life or serious risk of grave injury to the health. The insertion of this word "of" makes provision for that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.11 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in paragraph (b), to leave out "the child if born would be likely to" and insert:
"there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would".
The noble Lord said: Paragraph (b) of subsection (1) deals with the child who, if born, would be likely to suffer from physical or mental abnormalities, and so on. In the earlier stages there was some discussion as to the meaning of the words, "likely to suffer." The noble and learned Viscount took them to mean that the probabilities were that the child would suffer—that is, as he now says, that there was a greater chance than otherwise that it would suffer these abnormalities and defects. I did not myself understand the words to mean that. I understood them to mean that there would be a substantial risk of a child being born with the defects, and I understand a "substantial risk" to mean that, while the odds may not be in favour of its happening, there is a strong likelihood of its happening. It is difficult to define it more closely, because I think we all understand what "substantial risk" means. Therefore I am moving the
528
Amendment to include the words "a substantial risk" of these things happening, instead of its being "likely". In my view, it is a clarification of what I had intended by that word. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 17, leave out (" the child if born would be likely to ") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Silkin.)
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, to leave out "there is a substantial risk" and to insert instead "it is more probable than not". The noble and learned Viscount said: The noble Lord has put down the words that he understood were the real meaning of "likely". I am afraid that I differed from him in the interpretation of the word "likely". I did not think that something was likely to happen unless the chances were that it would happen. I think it is most important that he has raised this question. I hope that your Lordships will not accept this formula. We are seeking to alter the law and to make it clear and certain. There can be nothing more uncertain than what constitutes "a substantial risk". Who is going to interpret what is "a substantial risk"?—members of the medical profession in different parts of the country, and with no guidance at all from this Bill, and no guidance from the noble Lord. What exactly does he mean by "a substantial risk"?
On February 1 the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter made a powerful speech on the Bill, as it was, on paragraph (b) thinking, as did the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that it was intended to cover the case where the odds were against a child being born who would not have any prospect of reasonable enjoyment of life. What does the noble Lord regard as "a substantial risk"—one chance in 4, one chance in 10, or in 7 or in 25? I think we ought to ask the noble Lord to say what he means by this, because if he means that there is one chance in four of a child of this character being born, that means that, if you allow termination on that ground, you will be allowing termination of pregnancy which would result, in three out of four cases, in the birth of a perfectly normal person. That is what is covered by this phrase "substantial risk". In the other cases, where you regard a one-in-seven chance as a substantial risk, it means that in fact

529
you would be destroying more potential human life which will be normal to avoid having one child born who has no prospect of a reasonable enjoyment of life.
Whatever else is right, I feel sure that to put in words as vague as "substantial risk" will not do; and for the purpose of discussing this matter I have put down a formula which contains what I intended the word "likely" to mean—namely, that the balance of probability was in favour of the child's being of this character, and of its being born with no prospect of reasonable enjoyment of life. But I am content to go a little further than that, if need be, so long as one gives clear guidance. I should be content if it was "as probable as not" that the child would be so born—that is to say, that it was an "even money" chance. That, I think, would be as far as one can reasonably go. But to say that there is a "substantial risk" is too vague. One could say that there is a substantial risk, I suppose, if there were one chance in 10, or one in 15, of a child being so born. But surely, one could not possibly accept the proposition that, because of that chance, one in 15, 14 pregnancies could be terminated which otherwise would produce perfectly normal, healthy children.
The point is a short one, but an important one. I have put down my Amendment in its present form, but I should be equally agreeable to having the words "as probable as not" instead of "more probable than not". I should be content with that, and would move it in that form, if your Lordships would permit me. But I am absolutely opposed to words which are so vague and indefinite as "a substantial risk". I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
Leave out ("there is a substantial risk") and insert ("it is more probable than not").—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: I think this is a difficult question upon which to come to an opinion. Even if the words "substantial risk" were accepted, and it was taken, as I had imagined, to mean perhaps, three out of ten, or something like that, the fact that we all form our own opinions shows the danger of these words. But I have felt that in the case, for instance, of an ordinary married couple, where there is perhaps German
530
measles, or something like that, in the early stages of pregnancy, there might be a termination of the pregnancy, in the hope that there would be other, more happy pregnancies in the future. In that way I should wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. But we are embarking here, as the noble and learned Viscount has suggested, on a very drastic change in the law. We are entering a realm which is comparatively uncharted. I think that at this moment we might be very wise to follow the Amendment to the Amendment and say that we will embark on this only if, according to our present knowledge, the chance of a child being born with these abnormalities was greater rather than less.
LORD CONESFORD: I agree that this is an extremely difficult matter, but I am not at all happy about the Amendment to the Amendment moved by my noble and learned friend. There are few subjects in philosophy more difficult than the question of probability. I find it very difficult to attach any meaning to the words, "it is more probable than not". What I think they mean is simply, "it is probable". Had the Amendment to the Amendment been moved in that form, we should have the simple question whether we preferred the words, "there is a substantial risk" or "it is probable". I think that is an arguable and a difficult matter.
I have no medical qualifications, and I do not know how far doctors who practise in this sphere can, so to speak, state the odds numerically; but it would not astonish me to hear that in many cases it was quite impossible to do so. Therefore it seems to me that the words "substantial risk", which is the sort of thing that people have to consider in many aspects of life—and one which has to be considered from time to time by the courts—are probably about as good as we could get. I feel very strongly that what we have to choose between is the words of Lord Silkin's Amendment "there is a substantial risk", and the alternative "it is probable".
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has intimated to me that he would like to move Amendment No. 4 in a slightly different form. With the permission of the Committee, I will read out the new form and, if the Committee agrees,

531
that will be the wording before your Lordships. The new form of the Amendment is to leave out the words "there is a substantial risk", and to insert the words "it is as probable as not".
LORD CONESFORD: I should like to say that what I have just said applies equally to the alternative wording.
6.23 p.m.
LORD BRAIN: I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will forgive me if I say that I must oppose his Amendment to the Amendment because it is quite unrealistic from the medical point of view. I should like to give your Lordships some examples of this. To take German measles to start with, when German measles occurs during the first few weeks of pregnancy the likelihood of the child's being born deformed is considerably more than 50 per cent., but as time goes on the likelihood grows less. It would be quite impracticable for any doctor to say at any particular point, "We have passed that point at which it is as likely as not, and therefore the pregnancy ought not to be terminated".
One not uncommon mode of inheritance is such that the chances of a child being abnormal are exactly 50 per cent. I have no doubt it was that fact which the noble and learned Viscount had in mind when he made this slight alteration in his Amendment. But there are other forms of inheritance where the risk is less but quite definitely calculable. There are circumstances in which two parents, both apparently healthy, have a child who is born abnormal and who is known to suffer from a condition the risks of inheritance of which are exactly 25 per cent. Let me give your Lordships an example that came to my own notice.
Two healthy parents had a child who was abnormal and who died paralysed at the age of about a year. The risks of this condition being inherited were exactly 25 per cent. They consulted the doctor about what they should do about having another child. They were told, "The odds are 3 to 1 that your next child will be healthy". Unfortunately, the second child was exactly the same as the first; it also died paralysed at the age of one year. What advice should one give to those parents? Can one reassure them? Can one succeed in
532
relieving them of their anxieties? Do you say, "If you have another child the odds are still 3 to 1 it will be normal"? Or should one, if one accepts the principle of terminating a pregnancy on grounds of foetal risk, say that this is a case where the risk is substantial and therefore they should be allowed to have the pregnancy terminated?
It is problems of this kind with which doctors have to deal. I would say that in every-day practice doctors are quite accustomed to dealing with substantial risks, to saying, "There is a substantial risk that the effect of this operation would be so-and-so". But rarely are they in a position to say that this risk is more or less than 50 per cent. So if we accept the principle of termination of pregnancy on the ground of risk to the child, one had to take into account factors other than those which can be calculated numerically. Very often one cannot calculate them numerically.
There is another factor which is involved. The question is not merely "What is the risk?", but, "Risk of what?". A comparatively slight risk of a very serious disorder has quite different implications from a risk which is much more severe but of a much less severe disorder. I feel that on practical grounds, from a medical point of view, we should accept the principle of a substantial risk, and I propose to vote against the Amendment to the Amendment if it comes to a vote.
LORD SEGAL: I should like to rise to say one or two words in support of the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Brain. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said that there is some doubt as to the interpretation by the doctor of the term "substantial risk". But surely in the Amendment to the Amendment he himself has proposed, is it not a case of confusion worse confounded? Supposing there is a risk, as Lord Brain has suggested, of 25 per cent., or 33 per cent. If the Amendment to the Amendment of the noble Viscount were carried, it would have to be a risk of 51 per cent. before termination of pregnancy could be legalised. He has altered it to a slight extent by making it now 50 per cent. instead of 51 per cent. But if the risk were 49 per cent., the judgment would go against the doctor because

533
through 1 or 2 per cent. he may have put himself on the wrong side of the law. Surely we cannot judge individual cases, where a mother, for example, may already have given birth to one or two or three deformed children, on the basis of the law of averages or probability. Every doctor has to judge the individual case with which he himself is faced.
In principle one must speak against this Amendment. I am totally against this House trying to give advice to a doctor on the way in which he should exercise his particular judgment when he is faced with what is a purely medical problem. When are you going to judge the statistics as accurate? Medical science constantly advances. In the case of a woman who has already had German measles the risk may be 25 per cent. this year, but perhaps in two or three years the risk may be reduced to 15 or 10 per cent. Let us get right away from judging cases of individual difficulty on the law of averages. We have already accepted from Lord Silkin that a doctor must be judged as carrying out this operation in good faith. In my judgment, it is best for the Committee to leave it at that.
6.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: I, too, should like to support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, as supported by my noble friend Lord Brain and the noble Lord, Lord Segal. The fact is that a fifty-fifty situation would be so restrictive as to be, for practical purposes, inoperative. A fifty-fifty genetic risk is extremely high and for practical purposes does not occur. On the question of recessive genes, the maximum risk known at the moment is usually one in four, or 25 per cent., but it might be a good deal lower. Of course, it is likely that in the not very distant future, with analyses of the amniotic fluid, the fluid in which the foœtus is surrounded, it might be possible when there are these recessive genes problems to say that it is absolutely 100 per cent. certain that a child is going to be all right, or, alternatively, that it is 100 per cent. certain that a child is going to be affected. In any case, I should have thought that this would be a substantial risk, and I should have thought, also, that if it were 100 per cent. certain it would come under the category of Clause 1(a).
LORD MOLSON: Three eminent medical Members of your Lordships' House have all spoken against the Amendment to the Amendment. There is one further point that I should like to add. My noble and learned friend spoke as though it were essential for your Lordships' House to lay down exactly what the criteria are to be. But that, of course, is not the way in which this Bill is framed. It is the intention of this Bill that a judgment shall be formed by the two medical practitioners concerned. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable, and I think necessary, that legislation should be sufficiently widely drafted to enable that judgment to be properly exercised. To argue that there would be three pregnancies terminated unnecessarily for every one which prevented an undesirable birth—if it were believed by the medical profession that the statistics were three to one—is, of course, entirely a misunderstanding of the machinery of this Bill. All that the noble Lord's Amendment is intended to do is to widen the discretion and to enable the medical practitioners to form a judgment, without being arbitrarily restricted to some numerical proportion which we are told by the medical profession is without any reality at all. Therefore, for that practical drafting reason, I hope that your Lordships will reject the Amendment to the Amendment, as well as for the reasons which have been advanced by the three eminent doctors who have addressed us.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: The wording of my Amendment was, in fact, taken from a suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington, as the noble Lord, Lord Cones-ford, will probably remember, when we were discussing this provision at an earlier stage. I think he used both expressions: "more probable than not", which I think is now fairly frequently used in the courts, though I do not seek to defend it, and also "as probable as not". I must say that I think the expression "substantial risk" is extremely indefinite in this particular context. I will not remind your Lordships of the speech made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter, who went very thoroughly in that speech

535
into what I understand the medical profession can say as to the prospects or chances.
I agree that in this Bill one has to entrust a wide measure of discretion to the medical profession. One must rely upon them and put faith in them, and I certainly do. But, at the same time, one must see that this Bill does not become a vehicle for abuse of what many of your Lordships would wish to see; and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in moving his Amendment certainly gave no indication of what interpretation he thought ought rightly to be placed upon the words "substantial risk".
The noble Lord, Lord Brain, has pointed out the difficulties about my Amendment, but none of those who have spoken has given me the slightest indication of where he thinks the borderline would come between what is a substantial risk and what is not a substantial risk. Therefore, we are left, if we accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, with a use of words with no guidance as to their interpretation, and which may be widely differently interpreted in different parts of the country.
I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Brain, will agree that, if those words are in, two members of the medical profession in one part of the country may think that one case involves no substantial risk, whereas two medical practioners in another part of the country may regard an exactly similar case as involving a substantial risk. I myself do not think that it is a very happy result if, as a result of this legislation, one can get a wide disparity of treatment. Of course, you cannot eliminate the possibility of doctors taking different views on examination. But I am postulating here two cases which are indistinguishable, and it seems to me that if you just say "substantial risk" and nothing more you are leaving it in such a way that it will not be very satisfactory, because of the widely differing interpretations that can be placed upon those words in different parts of the country.
LORD BRAIN: This is a matter of medical judgment and, inevitably, as the noble and learned Viscount has just said, doctors must be free to exercise their judgment. This was also true under the interpretation of the implications of the
536
Bourne case. No doubt judgments differ. This is inevitable. But the main point is that these are risks which cannot be mathematically calculated.
LORD SILKIN: The noble and learned Viscount is not getting over his difficulty by the words which he is proposing to use. If he says "as probable as not" there may be different opinions on the same set of facts by different doctors. You will never get complete agreement as to what are the odds on an operation. Moreover, this is not a betting transaction, and I do not think you can really lay odds that it is more probable than not, or that it is as probable as not. You must give the doctor discretion in a particular case, having regard to all the facts, to decide whether or not he is prepared to recommend an abortion. After all, there must first of all be the application of the mother. Do not let us forget that every time.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: It is not in the Bill.
LORD SILKIN: It is the mother who makes the application. It is then for two doctors to decide whether her application comes within the framework of the Bill, and they have to form a judgment, as the noble Lord, Lord Brain, and other noble Lords have said, as to what is a substantial risk. I think it is a proper onus to put upon them, because it is something that doctors have to do every day of the week. They are constantly deciding what is a proper risk to take. Therefore I hope that noble Lords will accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I had given way to the noble Lord, Lord Brain. I had not quite concluded what I was saying, but I did not like to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in his further observations upon this clause. It is quite true that there may always be an honest difference of opinion between members of the medical profession; but we are not here dealing quite with that field. We are seeking to give guidance to the medical profession, and whether you are giving sufficient guidance by using such words as "substantial risk" I rather beg leave to doubt. I hope that the noble Lord, when he comes to produce his next Bill, will give further thought to this, because I think there is a case for trying

537
to give some further guidance as to what exactly is intended here. If no further guidance is given, then many people may think that this particular provision is going far too wide.
The noble Lord will remember that I supported this particular provision at an earlier stage when it was being much criticised, and I support a provision of this kind now for this reason. I think that the German measles cases can ordinarily be dealt with under Bourne'scase—I quoted some cases where they had been—and could, therefore, be dealt with under paragraph (a). But this particular provision is here only for the case where the condition of the child is not likely to cause a serious risk to the health of the mother before, at or after birth—and that I think will be a very exceptional case: it will not often arise. I shall not press my Amendment now, but I hope that the noble Lord will give some further thought to this because I think that, if he does not, he may find that a number of their Lordships and others will think that this is opening too wide a door, and a wider door than is intended.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.41 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved to leave out paragraph (c). The noble and learned Viscount said: This is an Amendment which I think is of some importance and which I hope will not be misunderstood. At an earlier stage the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, made a powerful speech in respect of young women who became pregnant when they were under 16. I think we all of us agree that it really can be a tragedy, and usually is, when that occurs. It is always a mother unmarried at the time of pregnancy, although, of course, in a great many of these cases the confinement, if it were allowed to take place, would take place many months after the mother's sixteenth birthday. So I start from this position: that we are not here concerned with the tragic character of the pregnancy of someone under 16. That is not the question. We can all agree upon the fact that it is a very sad thing to happen.
LORD SILKIN: I do not want to interrupt the noble and learned Viscount unduly, but could we not discuss Amend-
538
ments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 together?—because the real issue is only this question of the mother being under 16. On the face of it we are discussing merely No. 5 but if the noble and learned Viscount will agree that we can talk about Nos. 5, 6 and 7 together, I am quite happy that he should continue.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am in the hands of the Committee. I am afraid I had put down my Order Paper, and I thought I was speaking on Amendment No. 7. It is my mistake. But certainly that is all I should wish to discuss upon this, and we can take Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 together. I was saying that, so far as this is concerned, there is nothing between any of us, I think, in that it is terribly sad when someone under 16 becomes pregnant. But the issue here is whether such a young woman should be given a particular right to have her pregnancy terminated on the ground of her age.
The way I ask the Committee to look at it is from the point of view of the interests of no one else except the girl. When we were in Committee last time I quoted a letter I had received from an eminent gynecologist who had had something to say on this question. I will quote again, if I may, from his letter:
" As to the girl under 16—and I see many in my practice—nothing in my experience would justify a legalised, dangerous surgical assault on her on grounds of age alone. I do not believe it would serve her better than sympathetic and understanding obstetric care, and the provision of adoption for her child. Certainly there is to-day little social stigma left to burden her."
I mentioned last time some information I had been given—I cannot say whether it is right or wrong—about the dangers of this operation, and the risks involved. I will not remind your Lordships of what I said then.
If we do not have this particular provision in this Bill, what will the position be? The person under 16 who is pregnant will go to her medical practitioners, and the issue will be whether or not she comes within paragraph (a). There is no question of excluding her from that. It will then be for the medical practitioners to say whether or not they think in the interests of her health—and they will be weighing it up—that this particular pregnancy should be terminated. I should like to see it left in that way,

539
because I can see that if by this Bill you appear to give a girl, just because she is under 16, a right to such a termination, you will be putting some medical practitioners in an extremely difficult position. She will say, "Here is this Bill. I am under 16. Here is my birth certificate. That is a ground for terminating the pregnancy." Whatever we put in this Bill, the doctor will have to consider the interests of her health, and whether it is really in the interests of her health that she should run the risk of this dangerous operation, or whether it is not really better for her, having regard to her age, to have the baby without an operation and to have it adopted.
I do not profess to judge on that, but I do feel that it is undesirable to give this special right to persons under sixteen, not depending on their health at all but depending simply upon their age. I think it would be better if such cases were dealt with—and they are dealt with now, I understand—under the decision in the Bourne case, which would be covered, and indeed is expanded, by paragraph (a). I move this Amendment for those reasons, and I hope it will not be represented that I am in the least degree unsympathetic to those who, at this age, find themselves pregnant.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 20, leave out paragraph (c).—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: I feel I have to say two things about this Amendment, and I am afraid they seem rather contradictory the one to the other. I feel I ought in honesty to say, first of all, that I know that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and many other Bishops strongly support this particular Amendment, but I have thought a lot about this and the opinion that I have formed, I hope in good faith, is that I cannot support this particular Amendment. But I feel I must briefly explain the reasons which have led me to that opinion.
In a country like our own we have in many matters postponed the age of responsibility to far beyond the age of puberty, and this, I think, imposes a duty on society to deal very sympathetically with these cases when they arise. I cannot think that in all cases there would literally be a grave risk to the
540
health of the young pregnant mother, but what I do think is that there would be a very grave risk of a serious interruption of her education and normal development to maturity. Whether we have an abortion or whether we have an adoption, there will probably be in both cases some traumatic experience, but, for myself, I feel that the shorter of two processes is more likely to be beneficial than, or at any rate not so harmful as, the longer. So, with a great deal of regret on this particular point—and I think this is the only one in the list of Amendments to which this applies—I feel I have to differ from the noble and learned Viscount.
6.50 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I should like to welcome the speech which we have just heard. On other occasions I have been highly critical of some of the right reverend Prelates, but on this occasion I am delighted to have heard the speech to which the Committee has just listened. We have already debated this question, and, as the noble Viscount quite rightly said, I have already made a contribution, which I am reluctant to repeat. But this is such an important Amendment that I think we must give some time to debating it.
I would remind the Committee that we are now discussing the plight of girls of under 16—and next year girls of that age will still be schoolgirls because, as I have said before, we are raising the school-leaving age to 16. If we were debating this next year we should be saying: Should we give a schoolgirl the right of abortion? There is no compulsion here; no girl is compelled to have an abortion. Should we give the under-16 (and some girls are now having babies at 13), the 13, 14 or 15-year-old girl, the right to abortion? I should like to remind your Lordships of Alec Bourne who risked his whole professional career when he aborted a girl of 14. One cannot say that when that happened the country was condemnatory; on the contrary they admired the courage of that man who was prepared to risk the whole of his career, rather than see a little girl of 14 made a mother—the mother of an unwanted child—many years before her time.
I feel that this Amendment is punitive; for unless the girl's life is in danger she

541
is condemned to carry the burden of an illegitimate child all her life. I cannot agree with the noble and learned Viscount when he says that there is no stigma. We know that many of these young mothers are hiding themselves in London and the big centres of population. Why do they do that if there is no stigma? Why not remain, say, in Ireland? I say this because we have had to send a special officer from the G.L.C. to Ireland, in order to arrange the adoption of some children, born here, of Irish girls. If there is no stigma, why do they hide in London? If there is no stigma, why does a landlady refuse to accept a girl with a fatherless baby in her arms? It is nonsense for the noble and learned Viscount to say that there is no stigma. The stigma is as great now as it was in the last century, and in the century before that.
The right reverend Prelate mentioned school. I have said that this Amendment is punitive. Let us see how it affects the girl of 13, 14 or 15 who is to have her baby next year, when it will be compulsory for her to stay at school until she is 16. Will she be denied further education? What is to happen to the baby? I am not being frivolous when I ask, what is the girl to do with the baby? Is she to push it to school, and perhaps try to get it into a nursery in the neighbourhood, as perhaps her mother, and other working mothers, do with their babies? And has this little girl to make all these arrangements for herself and for her child? We must he realistic and think in terms of the child, born in poverty-stricken circumstances, who has this baby and is compelled, while herself still a child, to make all the arrangements for it.
The noble and learned Viscount said that he had consulted a gynecologist. He read out a letter from a gynecologist. Gynaecologists are concerned only with the mechanics of obstetrics. No doubt the gynecologist is right in saying that the pelvis of the average girl of 14 or 15 to-day will permit a normal confinement. The reason it will permit a normal confinement is that she has been adequately fed, and there is very little rickets in the country. Rickets is a nutritional disease. In the old days it was very serious, and a rickety mother often had difficulty at confinement. The noble and learned Viscount was told by the gynæcologist,
542
who is there to assess all these possibilities, what are the chances of a girl surviving the confinement. He knows the chances are quite high.
But are we here only to discuss the anatomy of the girl of 13, 14 or 15 and the details of her delivery? What of the immaturity of the girl's mind? The right reverend Prelate has already mentioned that she is not granted by the State any of the privileges which are given to her older sisters; and that she will not even be able to vote until she is 21. We are here discussing motherhood. Are we treating this child as an animal bearing its puppies or are we concerning ourselves, as we should, with her psyche and her ultimate welfare? Are we going to say, as the noble and learned, Viscount had just said "Let her have a baby; let it be adopted." I could scarcely believe that I heard that phrase from the noble and learned Viscount.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: The noble Lady has attributed to me personally a quotation that I read, to the effect that there was to-day little social stigma. I do not mind the noble Lady attributing to me views which I had not personally expressed; but I ought to make it clear that I was quoting from a letter.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: The noble and learned Viscount and I have considerable experience in both Houses. Neither I nor he would quote a letter in support of a case if we did not believe what the letter said. We have been told, in the letter by the gynecologist and by others, that the thing to do is to let the child of 13, 14 or 15 produce a baby and then get rid of it as quickly as possible. Only a man could say that—only someone who has never been pregnant. The maternal instinct, the desire for procreation, in a woman is so great that to tell her that all she has to do is to produce a child and then to give it away is really the acme of cynicism.
I ask the Committee's forgiveness for becoming a little impassioned on this question. This argument we have heard to-day would be paralleled by asserting that every youth of 14 or 15 who is capable of sexual intercourse is fit to assume parenthood—that he is fit for

543
parenthood, with all its attendant responsibilities: to find a home at 15; to earn sufficient money to ensure his and his child's present and future wellbeing. Would the noble and learned Viscount like to see his child, a boy of 15, saddled with a baby which he had to find a job to keep, and so be denied his education? Yet this is the treatment to be meted out to the girl. She is expected to carry this burden: to find a home; to keep the child.
I ask noble Lords to envisage the picture. When the noble and learned Viscount was speaking, I felt that he could be thinking only of a girl from a poor home, a girl accustomed to hardship. That is why he argued that she is used to a tough life, she is used to poverty, she is used to hardship and she will manage to weather this. I would ask the noble and learned Viscount whether, if a 15-year-old girl in an expensive boarding school were to be impregnated by some lout hanging about the school, he would be equally happy about the situation. I know exactly what would happen to her. She would be whisked away to a discreet nursing home where the pregnancy would be terminated. But the friends of some of the less well-off girls, these 14 and 15-year-olds of whom we are speaking, may be equally solicitous and would busy themselves with finding a back-street abortionist for her. Last week, after being passed by a free vote in this House, the original paragraph (c) was deleted. Last week's vote was manipulated. Never before, in the whole of my Parliamentary career, have I seen a vote manipulated as was the vote last week, after the paragraph had been deleted by a free vote, with a majority of 25. By accepting this Amendment to-night we should ensure that the evil we have sought to eliminate—the back-street abortion—was still with us.
7.1 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I wish to support my noble friend's Amendment No. 6, and to speak against the Amendment to the Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. However physically mature a girl of sixteen is, I do not believe that it is desirable that she should become a mother unless she wants to. The Amendment to the Amendment further weakens the Bill,
544
which is a very small advance towards liberalising our attitude to abortion. In fact, it would put on the Statute Book only what is current medical practice to-day.
I have not spoken in this debate so far, because I should have liked to see a very different Bill passed in your Lordships' House. I strongly hold the view that the decision as to whether a woman should or should not have a child is not only the woman's right, but her birthright. The noble and learned Viscount has said that such a Bill would not have a chance of being passed in this House. That may be so, but it does not reflect any particular credit on this House. The reasons are purely biological. If the sex ratio of men and women in your Lordships' House were reversed, I believe that such a Bill would stand a very good chance. I am a fairly mild feminist. I should not wish to die on a battlefield for equal pay. But I hold the view on the use of all contraceptive methods, including abortion, in the early months, when it is necessary, and if done under proper medical conditions, that it is the woman's right to decide. Of course, I do not speak of those whose religion precludes them from all this.
The noble and learned Viscount has enlarged on the risks of abortion generally. But the right of decision for a woman also includes the right to take the risk, if she so wishes. After all, one may consider that a pregnant woman risks the life of an unborn child when she goes for a ride in a car these days. Listening carefully to all the arguments about the sanctity of human life, I still found them a little hollow. Quite apart from the fact that we are often so profligate about sending men to be killed in a war, I do not believe that society gives its blessing either to the unmarried mother or the illegitimate child. They are still the outcasts of our society and all we do to help the mother is to try to take the child away from her. So, as this Bill does not go really very far to humanise and civilise the law on abortion, and whilst I think that it will not do very much to stop back-street abortions, I am against any Amendment which will further weaken the Bill and I do not support the Amendment to the Amendment.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: I hope that I may be useful to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, if I tell the Committee of a solution which has not yet been mentioned, and which is by no means uncommon in the country village. In these communities, if a girl has an illegitimate baby, especially if she is very young, it is customary for the grandmother of the child to take the child and tell the village that it is her own youngest child. The village is not in the least deceived, but being right and sensible people, the villagers accept the convention and the mother of the child helps her mother to bring up her child, which she calls her little brother or sister. I have known this happen in a highly educated family, whose daughter became pregnant while at boarding school. I do not think that that solution is practised as much as it should be, but it is the humane and good solution in all these cases.
On this question, I wonder whether we could have some survey of psychological opinion. I am informed by authorities I trust that many psychologists consider that the termination of pregnancy in such a girl will have a bad psychological effect. The school girl who gets into trouble is frequently a girl who suffers from personality defects. She is the unsuccessful girl, who has never made much success of her schooldays. She is now going to produce something. It is held by some that the final discouragement of the termination of her pregnancy—saying to her that this is one more failure on her part—might have a discouraging and had effect on her psychological future. I do not know whether psychological opinion is much represented in this House, but I hope that before the Bill is re-introduced there will be an opportunity to find out what psychologists say of the effect of termination upon such a girl.
7.9 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: I do not wish to intervene on the main question here, but I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, made some comments which should not go without any reply. She said, about an Amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, and argued at great length in this House and decided by a Division in a very full House, that the issue was manipulated. That is an accusation against this House. Had it been made in
546
another place, it would have been wildly out of order, but I do not think that even in this House it should pass without protest.
I have on occasions supported the noble Lady. I respect her deeply. I know with what sincerity she speaks. But I would suggest to her that she should do what all of us have to try to do—that is, credit with humanity and sincerity those who take views different from those we take ourselves. I am one who opposed the inadequate mother clause, both on the Committee stage and on the Report stage. I thought that there were overwhelming reasons against it, which I endeavoured to put to the Committee and to the House. But there were a number of noble Lords who voted one way on the Committee stage and another way on the Report stage. One perfectly honest reason may have been that they were actually convinced by the reasons advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger. This House is not manipulated if it listens to the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger. Many of us believe that she is one of the people supremely worth listening to.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: When the noble Lord says that I could not possibly say it in another place, he knows as well as I do that such a thing could not have happened in another place.
LORD CONESFORD: Indeed it could. I had some twenty years in the other place, but I do not know whether that was as long or longer than the period when the noble Baroness was there. But I assure her that it could happen. It is not at all unknown there for something decided in Committee to be reversed on Report.
7.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: Not for the first time I feel in some difficulty here, because I do not want to be more out of order than the noble Baroness has been accused of being; but I comfort myself with something that the Leader of the House once said: that it is almost impossible to get out of order in this House. As there have been some very general issues raised in this debate, I would put myself in your Lordships' hands and ask whether I might make some comment on those issues, which I think are important,

547
because the whole point of debating this Bill at the moment is, I think, to shed what light we can on it, even if we say things now which could possibly be better said on Third Reading, if only because it gives an opportunity of their being, knocked down.
What I want to say is that, without being a doctor or a lawyer, I would support this Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, on this ground. It seems to me that doctors in ordinary cases are expected to judge only on questions of health. They may judge right or wrong; but we all put our lives in their hands, and, so far as I am concerned, I do not think I can praise too highly those whom I have known.
But in this case they are also being asked to make a decision on a question of law, and if it is not out of order, or wasting your Lordships' time, I would ask whether anyone noticed a letter which appeared in the British Medical Journal recently, giving the view of a large number of gynecologists who were circulated in the Birmingham area. It appeared on February 5. They were asked by the gynaecologist who wrote the letter whether they approved of the general principles of this Bill; if they thought it would help or hinder in the task of clarifying the law. Your Lordships, if you wish, can of course read the letter for yourselves, but the last but one paragraph of the letter said:
" It seems doubtful whether most British gynecologists would alter their present practice however the laws relating to abortion were to he liberalised, and they would wish to retain the right to be personally responsible for the final decision."
The cases for and against the Bill were set out in that letter, and gynaecologists were asked to give a decision under four heads: whether they were in agreement with the memorandum which was against altering the law, and would have their names used; whether they were in agreement with it, but preferred their names not to be used; whether they were in agreement with it with modifications; or whether they were not in agreement. The answers given in that letter were discouraging to me as to the clarification effected by this Bill, because 3 said that they would like the law to be altered,
548
10 said that they preferred it to remain substantially the same, and 55 said that they did not want it altered and thought it was best as it is. That is not offered as evidence, of course; but I think the letter is worth looking at, if only because, although the noble Lady said they were concerned only with obstetrics, they are the people who, on this subject, want to know what the law is. With respect, I should have thought that the view of lawyers on the point of clarifying the law was worth listening to.
It is difficult in a debate like this, when we have ranged at tremendous lengths over this difficult subject, to cut down anything one has to say. I would only say—and I would not say this if I did not rely on the noble Baroness's maternal instinct; because I think she has a great kindness towards immature and undeveloped people—that it seems to me that a crucial point is raised here which has not been discussed enough. It is that we are not concerned only with the mother. The question is: are we also concerned with another living human being? The general view of many people is that to regard a foetus as a living person with any rights is so absurd that it is not worth discussing. If I were to say that I always understood that the Anglican teaching was that "children and the fruit of the womb are a gift that comes from God", I should be thought to be highly superstitious. If I said that they are something that we do not well understand, and cannot produce ourselves artificially, I think I should be on safer ground. We do not understand our children. We do not understand, if one is killed, how to replace it. If it is said that no scientist has ever suggested that a fœtus is a human being from the word "Go"—and I use the phrase "the word Go" deliberately to mean a word of command from something (whether you call it God or Nature may not matter, any more than whether the noble Lady, who does not believe in the soul, does believe in the psyche) but from the word "Go" something happens which causes the thing to live—then I should like to read to your Lordships three short extracts from a talk that was originally delivered by a scientist who is a lecturer in anatomy at Cambridge. It was delivered to the Newman Society, and was

549
published afterwards in the Month for January, 1964. The seven lines I wish to read are these:
" Of course, if we study the development of the embryo with modern techniques of microscopy, we know that it can properly be called 'human' right from the time of conception …. The fertilised human ovum contains all the genetic instructions, the principle or organisation, of 'form' in the Aristotelian sense, that will result in its developing precisely into Tom and not Harry."—
that is to say, the individual and not merely one of human species.
"The genetic endowment, conferring individuality on the developing organism, survives, in experimental animals, even the transfer of the embryo from the natural mother into the body of a foster mother."
A technique for that is being done. That is not put up as a suggestion of Papal infallibility; it is not presented as a Papal Bull; but what is sauce for the bull is sauce for the bulldozer, and there is a certain tendency to bulldoze your Lordships into assuming that we are not concerned at all with a third party.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, 'has frequently brought' out that this is an extremely serious thing to do—to take a potential life of a potential human being. I do not entirely understand the word" potential". But I feel that some alternative view ought to be given. If an embryo from the word "Go" is not a human being with rights, I should be very interested to know what it is. We have had a view from the noble Lord, Lord Soper. I read it very carefully and I cannot at present say that I have found it very helpful—perhaps because I found it difficult to follow.
The noble Baroness Lady Summer-skill gave a concise answer. She put it in the form of a counter-question. She said: How can you compare a fœtus to an adult educated person? That is the question which I think ought to be answered. I can only answer it in this way. I should compare them in the same way as I compare myself to the noble Baroness. On the face of it, there are a good many differences of opinion; and even when we go into the same Lobby it is often with a different point of view. Certainly we appear to have one thing in common; I believe that we are the only two Members of your Lordships' House who are capable of being shocked by an Anglican Bishop; but as we are shocked in different directions, by dif-
550
ferent Bishops, that in itself is not a sign of resemblance.
On any ground of utility—I was going to say" beautility"—in this comparison I should be left with very much the short end of the stethoscope, or whatever instrument doctors use for these purposes. But the one thing we really have in common is that, so far as I know, we were both begotten by a man on a woman and successfully avoided (in one case deservedly) being aborted. That is something we have in common with each other, and with the rest of your Lordships, but not with an amoeba or a tumour, or an inflamed appendix or an Avocado pear, or any of the other things which the noble Baroness, in full lyrical flight, is so brilliant at bringing out, if I may say so a little unfairly, to discredit the fœtus; because the fœtus is already handicapped, and I am speaking as one who is probably nearer to a fœtus than any of your Lordships, in that I am probably less developed. It is handicapped by its
name.
I mean that quite seriously, because often when we think in terms of words I believe that we are apt to be confused. I should like to give one illustration of that. There is a verse in the Psalms:
"Thy word has been a light unto my feet and a lantern to my ways."
We may think that is nonsense, or sense; but nobody can say that it is undignified or that if one quotes it one is trying to be funny. If I slightly altered one word and said:
" Thy word has been a lantern unto my fœtus"
I should be accused of making a very bad joke in very bad taste; because the word "fœtus" is comic; because it is a scientific word. If one thinks what these two words mean, why should it be comic to suggest that there is Divine guidance for the whole of a human being in an undeveloped state, and not to suggest there should be guidance for a part of it on which it progresses here and there? I think that is a subject for thought which is worth going into.
My feeling is that, as the whole purpose of this debate is to throw light on these things, I will not detain your Lordships any longer because it would take much too long to go into them further. But Light is not only a word

551
which is used in the Bible for Life; it also symbolises consciousness; and that is a kind of light which, as the noble Baroness knows, when consciousness has been" knocked out", can be restored. Light in the sense of Life is a thing that cannot.
" Put out the light, and then put out the light:
If I quench thee, thou flaming minister"—
and I think it is not necessary to remind your Lordships that Othello in Shakespeare's play was not talking to any member of the Venetian Cabinet, but to a candle by the light of which he was proposing to extinguish a life, as he thought on excellent grounds, though he discovered afterwards that the evidence was not good enough.
" If I quench thee, thou flaming minister,
I can again thy former light restore,
Should I repent me: but once put out thy light,
Thou cunning'st pattern of excelling nature "—
LORD STONHAM: May I interrupt the noble Viscount for one moment? Is he aware that we are discussing the somewhat narrow point of whether paragraph (c) should be deleted from the Bill?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: I fully realise that, and I apologise to your Lordships for being carried away by the eloquence of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, on these points. The point of the quotation is that that sort of light-life cannot be put back again.
" I know not where is that Promethean heat That can that light relume."
My Lords, until we know that, we ought to go very carefully indeed.
LORD RAGLAN: I have only one small point in support of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. A young girl under 16 is supposed to be protected by law, and yet we say that she has no right to a remedy if she conceives. I see no point in having one law which is meant to protect, and another law which ignores the damage if that protection fails.
7.23 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I do not wish to express any opinions at all on the matter
552
before the Committee, but in view of some of the things that have been said I think we should get back to a few facts. One is that nothing in my noble friend's Amendment would compel any child to have an abortion. I think it is necessary to say that, in view of the suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, that it might have a bad psychological effect on a child if a pregnancy was terminated, and that she might think that this was just one more failure. No responsible doctor would wish to terminate a pregnancy if the girl did not want it. Another fact is that we are considering children under 16.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: We are considering, after all, a poor little girl who has got herself into a scrape, and who can be made to do what her elders tell her. I do not think the question of the girl's consent is really very significant. We have to act in her interests and consider what the psychological effect would be on her, and not what she wants to do.
LORD STONHAM: That is how I understood the noble Earl's point. The second point I want to make, which has not been made in the debate so far, is that we are talking about children under 16 who are pregnant, and who cannot in law give consent to intercourse or marry. Therefore it is highly probable, if not certain, that they must have been the subject of an offence; otherwise they would not be pregnant. These are the children we are considering in this Amendment. As the right reverend Prelate said, it must have a major effect on the life of such a child if she is going to have a baby.
The noble and learned Viscount rightly said that an abortion is an operation. It could be a very serious operation—one would not dispute that—but I think the figure for the death rate from therapeutic abortions is about one in 1,500, whereas the death rate for all gyæecological operations is one in 300.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I asked the noble Lord on the last occasion if he could give me some figures as to the numbers who had died during this last year from operations in connection with the termination of pregnancies, in National Health Service hospitals.
LORD STONHAM: The number for a period of three years up to the year 1963 were five, and from that we get the average of one in 1,500 of therapeutic abortions. With regard to the termination of pregnancy, that would be for a variety of causes, and the deaths from such operations in 1961 were one in 700 as compared with one in 300 for all gynecological operations. I merely mention this lest noble Lords might think that there is a greater danger to a child in having such an operation than not having it.
One other point should be mentioned. My noble friend Baroness Summerskill assured us that in a child of 14 or 15 her pelvis was such, in these days of better feeding and better health, that she could safely bear a child. The really important thing is not whether she can safely hear a child because, as the noble and learned Viscount has pointed out, if she could not do so she would be covered by paragraph (a). The important thing is whether she, and perhaps her parents, feel that in all the circumstances of her pregnancy and its likely effects on her future life she should have her pregnancy terminated. As I told the House in Committee before, if the House wants a provision on these lines then the Government see no practical objection to it.
There is one last technical point which I might nut to my noble friend Lord Silk in. It is that the words inserted by his Amendment, if they are accented, will not appear as paragraph (c) of Clause l but as a "full-out" provision after paragraph (b). The reason is that the cases of the defective and the under-16 cannot properly appear on the same footing as paragraphs (a) and (b), which are governed by the words in Amendment 1. These are:
" if the practitioner is of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the termination of the pregnancy is necessary on any one or more of the following grounds,".
These words imply that it is a matter of medical judgment whether one of these grounds justifies an abortion in a particular case. But in the case of the defective or the under-16 it is more appropriate that requirement should be that the practitioner should be of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the pregnant
554
Woman is a defective or became pregnant while under the age of 16.
7.33 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: I do not think the House wants to prolong this discussion very much longer. We had a debate on this subject in Committee. On that occasion the noble and learned Viscount put down a similar Amendment but did not press it to a Division. I do not know whether he feels more strongly about it this evening than he did last time, but we went into all the pros and cons of this subject and I do not propose to do so again.
I just want to deal with one point which he made. I gather he was not unsympathetic to the girl under 16 who has conceived having an abortion. What he is objecting to is that she should have it as a matter of course, on demand, simply because she is under 16. But is that so? Even under this Bill as drafted that was not my view. My view was that she should be able to ask for it because she is under 16 but it would still be for the two doctors to decide, and if, as the noble and learned Viscount suggested, there should be grounds why it would be injurious to her health to have an abortion, and the doctors take that view, then they would have every justification for not allowing her to have an abortion. Therefore I do not feel that is in itself a reason for objecting to this provision.
On the last occasion I put to noble Lords a frank personal question. I asked them whether, if this girl under 16 happened to be their own daughter, they would not move heaven and earth to get an abortion somehow, and I pointed out that they would not mind whether it was under paragraph (a) or any other paragraph. I cannot imagine any noble Lord, not even the noble and learned Viscount, if he has a daughter, allowing that daughter's pregnancy to go to term and her giving birth to a child if he had an opportunity of getting her an abortion. I would go further and say that if noble Lords in this House could not get it in the normal way they would use every means of getting it. I feel is is quite wrong to have two different standards: one for what we should do in our own personal lives and the other that we are going to prescribe for other people.

555
If the noble and learned Viscount is not satisfied that the two doctors could refuse an abortion because it would be injurious to her health, I am perfectly prepared to give an assurance that I will consult medical friends and others and see whether some provision of this kind might not be introduced into the new version of my Bill which I hope to introduce at the beginning of the next Parliament, and provide that, in considering this, the doctors have to take into account what would be the effect on the health or mental condition of the girl under 16. As that is the main point raised by the noble and learned Viscount, I hope that with that assurance he may be satisfied that the clause can now go through, as amended by me.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I have listened to this debate, which has covered a wide field, but I really did not think that a speech I made was capable of the gross misrepresentation which the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, gave to it. I am extremely sorry that she did. She introduced a new note into our debates. I hope it will not be repeated. I am also sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has sought to raise personal questions in regard to noble Lords' families. If he really wants to know, I have two unmarried daughters, one under 16. He posed the question whether if she became pregnant I would move heaven and earth to secure an abortion for her. I would say this to him, and this is my approach to this matter: if she did become pregnant I would regard it as a tragedy, and if that tragedy occurred I should certainly want to see that she had the best possible advice and help—but that does not necessarily mean abortion.
The noble Baroness, Lady Summer-skill, speaks as if an abortion was of an absolutely trivial character. She does not have any regard to the psychological consequences to the child. She talks about deprivation and the effect on the maternal instincts if the child is adopted, but she does not talk about the psychological effect if the pregnancy is terminated. Lady Gaitskell's approach was of a very different kind, and I sympathise with, although I do not share, the point of view which she expressed. It is certainly an arguable proposition that a woman should not have a baby unless
556
she wants to. But in assessing all this we must, I think, have regard to the risks involved. What the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said really supported what I said on the last occasion about the risks. There have been, he says, in the last five years, or three years, five deaths, with this operation perfectly properly performed. I think I am right in saying that in the last year alone there have been three, and I am not in the least shaken myself by the knowledge that when there have to be gynecological operations for health reasons the death rate is one in 300. Here we are considering cases of young people who are pregnant and saying they must have the right to run the risk of this operation involving that particular death rate.
But of course it is not only the death rate that is the consequence. The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, did me a great injustice when she tried to represent that I was thinking of a girl from a poor home accustomed to hardship. Then she said that with a 15-year-old schoolgirl we all know what would happen here. That is not my approach at all, and there is nothing I said which would justify that kind of observation, which I greatly resent. My approach is quite different. Here we are concerned with health, and it is a very narrow issue; because the 13-year-old, the 14-year-old and perhaps the 15-year-old would almost certainly come under paragraph (a), where the doctor is required to balance the health of the pregnant woman before, at or after pregnancy against the risks of the operation. In many of these cases of pregnancy before 16, with all the emphasis about how in many cases it will be the result of a criminal offence, the confinement will be after 16 and it will be possible to marry before confinement takes place. But here what is proposed is that this special category should be put in a special position where, on proof of age, production of birth certificate, a doctor can say, "The law says that on that you are entitled to termination"; that is what this particular provision will provide. Think what the doctor's decision is going to be if he is convinced by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and others that this operation really involves no risk to health at all.

557
I am concerned that the doctors in their discretion should give the best possible advice, and I quoted from a letter of an eminent gyæecologist. He, of course, does not rely only on his opinion. It is no use the noble Baroness taking him as if he were concerned only with obstetrics. He has reports from psychiatrists and others upon these people. What I am trying to secure is a proper balance; not that someone will come along and say, "I am under sixteen; here is my birth certificate. Please abort me"; but that the doctor, without any pressure put upon him, shall have the right, as he will have under paragraph (a), to decide and do what is in the best interest of that unfortunate girl under 16. If you leave this Bill with paragraph (a) alone, that he can do, and in many cases he may think it right to terminate; in other case he might think it right and better for the girl to have the baby, and if she cannot bring it up to have it adopted. But each case will have to be separately considered. What I think is wrong is to put a provision in this Bill which prejudices the doctor's decision in favour of termination, because if you put in this para-
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment to the Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[The Sitting was suspended at seven minutes before eight, and resumed at a quarter before nine o'clock.]
graph (c) you are, saying that, by proving her age by production of a birth certificate, that is ground for abortion, taken by itself. I think this matter is adequately covered under paragraph (a), and I shall therefore seek to secure that effect is given to that view in this Bill.
LORD SILKIN: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 25, at end insert (" or that the pregnant woman is a defective or became pregnant while under the age of sixteen ").—(Lord Silkin.)
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
leave out (" or became pregnant while under the age of sixteen ").—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
7.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Amendment to the Amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 26.

CONTENTS

Amulree, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Iddesleigh, E. [Teller.]

Atholl, D.

Falkland, V.

Newall, L.

Audley, Bs.

Ferrers, E.[Teller.]

Oxford, L. Bp.

Barrington, V.

Forster of Harraby, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brain, L.

Furness, V.

St. Just, L.

Conesford, L.

Grenfell, L.

Waverley, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Hereford, V.

Ypres, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Champion, L.

Latham, L.

Silkin, L.

Colwyn, L.

Leicester, L. Bp.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Effingham, E.

Molson, L.

Stonham, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Morrison, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Peddie, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Greenway, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Summerskill, Bs.[Teller.]

Henderson, L.

Raglan, L.

Wellington, D.

Hurcomb, L.

Segal, L.

Winterbottom, L.[Teller.]

Lambert, V.

Shepherd, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

8.45 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to add to the clause:
" ( ) Except in a case where the practitioner is of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the termination is immediately necessary in order to save the life of the pregnant woman (and certifies his opinion in writing either before or after carrying out the treatment), the following conditions must be complied with

559
in connection with any treatment for the termination of a pregnancy, that is to say—

(a) the treatment must be carried out by a practitioner who holds an appointment as registrar or in a superior capacity under a hospital board, being an appointment involving the practice of gynaecology;

(b) the treatment must be carried out in a hospital vested in the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State under the National Health Service Acts, or in a place for the time being approved for the purposes of this section by the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State;

(c) the opinion mentioned in subsection (1) of this section must be certified in writing by the practitioner who carried out the treatment before the treatment is begun; and

(d) another registered medical practitioner must be of the same opinion. formed in good faith and certified as aforesaid, as that specified in the certificate of the practitioner who carries out the treatment.

( ) In determining the matters referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section, a registered medical practitioner may take into account such circumstances, whether past, present or prospective, as are in his opinion relevant to his patient's physical or mental health."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to improve the drafting, but it is partly an Amendment of substance. I think that I can best serve the purposes of the Committee if I go through the paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) very briefly and indicate where they differ from the Bill as originally drafted, or as passed in Committee on a previous occasion. Paragraph (a) is an alteration from the provision that there should be—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I do not know whether the noble Lord would forgive me for interrupting for one moment, but I think, speaking for two out of three Members on this side of the Committee, that there is no issue arising on the earlier part of this Amendment. The only issue arises as to whether Amendments to the Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 should be carried. So if it would help the noble Lord, he might save a little time on that.
LORD SILKIN: If that is the case, I will reserve what I have to say in the introduction to the Amendment, and move it formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 25, at end insert the said subsections.—(Lord Silkin.)
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, to leave out all words from the beginning down to and including "the treatment),". The noble and learned Viscount said: It might be for the convenience of the Committee at this late hour to consider together Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 to the Amendment. No. 9 is to leave out what I might call the emergency procedure provision. I myself have never felt that there was need for that, because I could not visualise circumstances in this country where it would not be possible to get the opinion of two medical practitioners of the character described in the Bill. I do not think it will have any application, but I will reserve. my position with regard to that and, if need be, move a later Amendment.
With regard to Amendment No. 10 to the Amendment, this is one to which the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, and the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and I myself attach considerable importance. This operation is of a very different character from an operation conducted just for health reasons—
LORD SILKIN: The noble and learned Viscount interrupted me and said that what I had to say on the original Amendment was unnecessary. May I say to him that I am prepared to accept No. 10.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: In that case. I beg to move formally.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
Leave out from beginning to (" the") in line 5.—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment to the Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave. withdrawn.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
After paragraph (d) insert the following new paragraph—
( "( ) there has been before treatment an application in writing by the pregnant woman, or, if under sixteen years of age, of the pregnant girl and one of her parents or of the pregnant girl and her guardian for the termination of the pregnancy.")— (Viscount Dilhorne.)
On Question, Amendment to Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRANGE LORD STRANGE moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, to add as a new subsection:
" ( ) Where a registered medical practitioner refuses to carry out treatment for the termination of a pregnancy, he shall immediately notify a female welfare officer, appointed by the local authority, of such refusal, and it shall thereupon be the duty of the welfare officer so far as practicable to secure the physical and mental health and well-being of the pregnant woman and of the child if born."
The noble Lord said: I would explain that, though my Amendment seems very simple, there is an implication behind it which I think is very important to this Bill; and I do not think that this part of the Bill has been touched on before. I shall try to illustrate what I mean by using the figures which have been bandied about at various times in this debate. I know that these figures cannot be accurate, because, of course, abortionists will not employ chartered accountants, and we must therefore assume what are the real facts. We must also assume that all women who require an abortion go to their general practitioners, and first ask them for an abortion before they seek out an illegal abortionist. I do not think that is true at all, but we cannot have any figures on this point and, therefore, we must assume that this is the case. We must also assume that all women go to their local general practitioner and consult him at all times. These assumptions are not quite true, but they are made in order to give an illustration.
The illustration I would give is this. If these assumptions were true, then at the end of the surgery queues throughout the country, on every day of the year, there would be a number of moist-palmed girls with drooping heads, and there would be a number of very worried old ladies who lived in a shoe. They would be waiting till the doctor came, and as the law stands at the moment he would be able to tell between 2,000 and 3,000 of them, "I can help you". If this Bill goes through (and it is very difficult to estimate this, because it is changing somewhat the ones who are going to get through and the ones who are not), all the women to whom it would be harmful to have a child would be given an abortion, and on these assumptive figures that would mean that to about 20,000 women the doctor could say, "I can help
562
you", while about 80,000 women would go out into the street with abortion and suicide in their minds.
My small Amendment introduces another factor into the Bill. The factor is that the general practitioner would be able to tell them, "You will be put in touch with a social officer appointed by the local council, and she will try to help you." I feel that this large number of rejected women who would not come under the Bill could be helped to a great extent by another woman. They could get some sympathy and they could discuss their case. But as things are at the moment, I do not anticipate that the social worker would be able to do very much good. I think that the majority of the women would slip through her fingers and would go off to an illegal abortionist. The only time the social officer would see these unsuccessful women would be when they crawled up to her and asked her to get them a bed to die in. She would not see the majority of them again. However, this would be a step in the right direction and, what is more, it would be a foot through the door for what I think to-day must be done. I do not think the question of the women who will not be qualified under the Bill and who must seek illegal abortion should be left standing, and this foot through the door would open the way to forming one day a legal bridge.
The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, has brought off a unique political double, and her equally brilliant daughter in the other House is pushing forward a Bill which I can honestly describe as a charter for the unmarried mother. If a legal bridge could be built between the Abortion Bill and the charter for the unmarried mother, and if the adoption law could be altered somewhat, I think it would form a flarepath which a great number of these women would accept, rather than seek out the illegal abortionist. They would have something offered them, in any case. But, of course, I cannot suggest this at the moment. I think that if I suggested the idea of forming a legal bridge between two Bills which are not yet law, and of altering an existing law which has given every satisfaction the way it is, the noble and learned Lords in this House might describe my legal bridge as pons asinorum;so I will not suggest it.
I believe in this so much; and I have stayed especially for two or three weeks,

563
not with the idea of keeping and boring your Lordships when you all want to go home, but because I believe in this thing, and I will try to explain what could happen if this legal bridge was ever erected. First of all, the foot through the door, for which I am asking to-day, would be established; and therefore these women would be in touch with female social workers. Such a worker would talk to them and would explain to them, first, what are, I think, the real dangers of abortion. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has given us some very interesting figures about abortion in this country and the effect it had concerning one gynecological ward, but we do not really know. In this country there are no real figures to tell us how effective it is and how dangerous it is. Owing to this lack of figures I think the average woman is inclined to tell her girl friend, "Abortion is just like having a tooth out"; but I do not think that that is the case.
The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, gave us earlier (I memorised the column: it is col. 1194 of Volume 270) a description of abortion in Russia. She visited, I think I am correct in saying, an abortion centre—I do not know how many there were—and according to the figures she gave us an abortion was being performed on a woman every 30 seconds through the working day, presumably, and through the working year. I do not suppose that in the history of the world any other country has ever performed so many abortions and, presumably, kept records of them. One result of it is that the Russians have abandoned or altered their law in connection with abortion. Now the Russians are very tough people. I have read about two people who sold pies which did not have in them the proper meat ration laid down by law, and who were hanged. Therefore, I think that what the Russians have done in altering the law means that it is dangerous. One has got to get it into one's head that abortion is dangerous—that is my view. Anyway, this social worker would explain to these women that it is dangerous and that they are taking a risk. She would then explain to them this legal bridge which I have outlined and which would take them down a sort of flarepath, under the umbrella of what I call the helpful State
564
in which we live, and lead them to adoption.
There is another point that I should make, which I have not heard mentioned in this debate, although it may have been referred to. According to the colonial reports, 10 per cent. of the women, after they had received abortion, were very sorry they had received it. They regretted losing their babies. On these figures, it would mean 10,000 women. I think that if this were put to these women, that they could take a choice of having a baby and having it adopted, a large percentage, especially of "the old ladies who live in a shoe", or some of the tougher of the sweaty-palmed girls, would take it.
But, of course, there would be a small percentage of girls who were terrified of what the neighbours would say, of the shame and so on, and in their cases it would depend on whether they fell among the right type of female social officers. If she was the right type—and this is what I should do if I were she—she would say," We will get you out of this place. We will put you somewhere else. Here is a wedding ring, slip it on and give yourself your own husband". Because so great is the mental torture these women go through that it is worth anything to correct it. So far as the actual adoption is concerned, whether it is good or bad, I would remind you that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, gave us a case history of which she had knowledge, with which she was concerned and which was very effective.
Personally I rather wish that Mr. Charles Dickens could be here, or, failing him, Mrs. Harriet Beecher Stowe or Miss Florence Montgomery or Mrs. Molesworth. They could have written on this subject a wonderful Victorian tale. They could have told how this innocent babe was cast to a brothel-cum-off-licence-abortionist; then that she or he was adopted by criminal parents and turned out to be something like Eric or Little by Little and led these parents into the sunshine outside, reformed, with piety in their hearts, in their Sunday clothes, with prayer books, and baskets overflowing with crusts and stale fish to give to the starving poor. It would have been a wonderful story. Actually it is true—without the stale fish and the crusts of bread.
There is one point which is the wasp in the raspberry jam of my idea of the bridge; and that is that once a woman sees a child, or hears it call, it releases in her a very great number of interlocked hereditary instincts which go right back through our race and into the darkness beyond. Once she has heard the cry of the child she would try to seek it, she would even give her life for the child. So it would be essential that she should not see that child, otherwise she would chase it and probably find it and she would ruin the child's life, the adoptive parents' life and hurt her own. How that could be done is difficult if it could not be done at home. It is certainly very unfair to have it done in a hospital or in a private room.
If my legal bridge could ever be constructed—and I think something should be done for the rejected woman—I feel it would be criticised on the ground that it was a passport to immorality. That is about what it is—a passport to immorality. But we live in an evolutionary society and evolution takes place from time to time in our history and in that of other races. In this evolutionary cycle the automatic are triggered to run down everything established and old fashioned and put nothing in its place. Of course, the laws of morality act on these automatic people like a cloak waved to a fighting bull. They are not satisfied they have the thing down, but in the end they lose their instinct to tear things down and feel rather lost, as if they were trying to play football without rules. Non-automatic people build up the old morality laws much as they were before; but sharper, tighter and clearer. That of course is the object of this exercise, because it moves us another step in the evolutionary ladder.
I dare say people will criticise it on religious grounds, as religion runs through this Bill. It cannot help it. I personally believe that if this bridge were ever constructed, it would be pure Christianity. I trust that the right reverend Prelate will not think I am breaking in where Anglicans fear to tread. I think I may be a fringe Christian: but I think the "Man without a shadow" taught the recognition of moral equality; he recognised not only the established, the lucky, the physically strong, the easy-to-be-good; but also the
566
rejected, the despised and the outcast—the woman taken in adultery, the dying thief, the Pagan company commander, the local whore.
I would give a reason why I have been so persistent in mentioning this addition to the Bill at all. About twelve years ago a doctor friend of mine told me a case history that he thought that might interest me as a writer. You will understand that I am not trying to boast of my books; they are all out-of-date and unreadable to-day. However, the story stuck in my mind. The manager of a large hotel had reports of a girl who was said to be trying to commit suicide. He was a busy man. He turned a psychiatrist loose on her and the psychiatrist put her in hospital. She got the job of mending linen, and was given thread of a suitable colour and a new packet of needles. After a day or two the sister in charge noticed that the packet of needles was empty. After a certain amount of persuasion, the girl told her she had been swallowing them. She informed the doctor, who came and counted the empty tucks in the packet and estimated how many needles she had swallowed. He operated on her and left her in cotton wool until she recovered. The psychiatrist told him that the girl was the only child of a widow, who had been carefully brought up and this was the first time she had had a job away from home. Both agreed that the girl was perfectly sane and they thought she was rather a nice girl. The doctor was able to tell the psychiatrist that she was pregnant and had tried to obtain an abortion by swallowing the needles.
I did not know what to think of this. It was fantastic that in the 1950s a girl should be so ignorant that she did not even know the geography of her own body. Later, being imaginative, it worked in my mind and I tried to put myself in her position. I imagined that I went to an hotel with a man, received flattery which I had never had before, went out to a pub, had a few drinks, pretending to be like the rest of them, and then when the sexual impulse was aroused was unable to resist. Then, when she found out she was pregnant and the young man or old man knew, he probably cleared out. With all that, I can sympathise and understand; but when it came to the final

567
point, I felt that no man could realise the agony in a woman's mind which would reduce her to swallowing needles one by one over a period of days. After thinking it over for a good long time, I came to the conclusion that I could understand it and, for the first time in my life, I realised what the recognition of moral equality really meant.
If a legal bridge can be built one day, I believe that it will be for the first time in over 2,000 years that we have ever tried to put into practice the Christian doctrine of the recognition of moral equality. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for bringing in this Bill, which has brought forward so many interesting and instructive speeches which form a good foundation for the future, and also for allowing me to say my piece. I trust that I have not confused your Lordships with my soap-box oratory on this simple Amendment, that the rejected woman be associated with the female officer appointed by the local committee. I trust that your Lordships will remember that there must be some solution for the women who want abortion and are not included in this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
At end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Strange.)
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I should like to support the noble Lord's Amendment. This is a modification of the Amendment he put down on Committee stage. After our rather heated discussions on who shall and who shall not be eligible for an abortion, this may appear to be a limited Amendment which perhaps does not deserve mention in this Bill. But the noble Lord has spoken about an important category of women who desperately hoped that they would be eligible under the Bill—namely, the married woman who already has a big family living in crowded quarters and with an uncooperative husband; the healthy single girl over 16 who is faced with the difficulties of being the mother of an illegitimate child. She also may go, sincerely believing that she will be eligible. and find that she cannot be accepted; and, as the noble Lord said, she will feel rejected.
We really cannot ignore the end products of this Bill, which is what these
568
women who do not qualify will be. Many of us have said, particularly after paragraph (c) was deleted—I said this in the last debate—that these women would not be deterred but would seek a back-street abortionist. I believe there are about 2,000 legal abortions, but there are 60,000 illegal abortions. These women, finding that they cannot be aborted legally, will, as I say, go to the back-street abortionist.
My noble friend suggests that at this stage these women should be put under the wing of some woman who is sympathetic, understanding and knowledgeable, who not only can be their friend, but can direct them to that particular welfare agency where they might be aided. I think, therefore, that this is an important part of this Bill. We are providing for people who come into the field of operation of the Bill, but who cannot have their needs met. I would only ask my noble friend, as somebody who knows the world, how this welfare officer can be injected into the situation. When the woman goes to her general practitioner, and he says to her, "You do not qualify", will he then reveal the fact that she is pregnant to anybody? She may not want it to be revealed. I want to say to my noble friend that the principle here is right. I cannot at the moment think how the mechanics would work, but the principle is absolutely right, and we should provide for these women who hope that the Bill might meet their case but who find that they cannot be helped.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I am absolutely against this Amendment, because I think it is a gross infringement of privacy. I think that a lot of these women who go to a medical practitioner would not want that medical practitioner to notify anybody about the fact that they want an abortion. If we are to deal with this problem, surely the best way to do it is to proceed as the Swedes do. The stigma in Sweden is less. They have kindergartens and homes for the children. The mothers go out to work. And the mothers often marry again, because there is less stigma attached Is it suggested that we simply notify the welfare officer and allow the welfare officer to have the responsibility of caring both for the mother and for the child. My goodness! welfare officers are so few. Where are we going to get them? And where are we

569
to get those who are really sympathetic to this point of view? I do not know. Personally, I think this is not the way to tackle a problem of this kind.
LORD SEGAL: This is one of the occasions in which I find myself in total disagreement with my noble friend Lady Gaitskell. I cannot for a moment understand why there should be any infringement of privacy if a case of a pregnant mother is referred to a female welfare officer. Surely, these welfare officers are highly trained and highly skilled. They understand the position in which the woman finds herself, and they can be absolutely trusted to retain the confidence when it is made to them. I think it is most important that a pregnant girl, when she finds that she has been rejected by her own medical practitioner, or by a consultant in a hospital, should not be driven to one of two alternatives: either to carry on the pregnancy when she feels deep down that she is no longer able to carry on with it, or going to the back street abortionist.
What is a woman in such a position to do? She will say: "My own general practitioner feels that I have not a case to stand on. In his kindness of heart he has referred me to a hospital, and there the registrar or the consultant has endorsed his view." Surely the woman left in that position will try every means possible to turn somewhere else, to another doctor, perhaps to some other hospital which will take a kinder and more humane view of her difficulty. So what is she to do? To whom is she to turn? I think the opinion of this House and the country is united, at all costs, on trying to undermine the position of the illegal abortionist. Here, I think, is a supreme instance where a pregnant girl, left in this predicament, will find a satisfactory way out.
Let us remember this. Not every general practitioner is compelled to be on the midwifery list. He can often refer one of his own patients who is pregnant to some other doctor, a general practitioner, who may be having special midwifery cases of his own, but who also receives them from other doctors. In the same way, we have to realise that once this Bill is passed it is entirely permissive. There may be a great many doctors who may refuse, on religious or
570
conscientious grounds, to carry the provisions of this Bill into effect. Imagine the predicament of a pregnant mother, in some remote country district, where she has no other doctor to turn to, and where the whole area may be under the medical care of a partnership. What is she to do? There must be some way out for her to avoid recourse to the back street abortionist.
Therefore I earnestly hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strange, will persist with this Amendment and insist on carrying it through to a Division, so that a woman in this position will still have the alternative open to her in the terms of his Amendment. It says:
"… it shall thereupon be the duty of the Welfare Officer …"—
that is a statutory duty imposed upon her—
" so far as practicable to secure "—
I should prefer to say "to assist in securing", because it may not be within her means actually to secure—
" the physical and mental health and wellbeing of the pregnant woman …"
That takes her back to paragraph (a) of Clause 1, so that she does not have to despair if she is turned down by her own doctor or by her nearest hospital. In the same way that certain doctors have their own midwifery list, I hope the welfare officer will have her own list of doctors willing to perform an abortion on humanitarian grounds, where there is some justification for it, so that she can refer the woman to another medical officer who is more sympathetic, who has access, perhaps, to another hospital more in line with the Aberdeen method of approach to this problem, so that she is not left in despair and driven into the mercies of the professional abortionist and there is some way out of relieving her from her own trouble and her own predicament.
9.18 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: I shall detain your Lordships for only a few moments, but there was almost a direct challenge from the mover of this Amendment to these Benches to answer the question whether or not there would be a religious objection. Of course, the opposite is the case. I think there may be some sociological difficulties to be straightened out. I am not absolutely

571
certain whether you can impose on the medical profession this social duty without, at any rate, knowing from them whether they are willing and able to bear it. But as far as the unmarried mothers are concerned, a large number of them are already put in touch with social workers, many of them, though not all, in connection with the Church, and before these laws are enforced at all there are those who are very fully occupied in trying to secure the physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing of those who find themselves in this predicament. I am a little alarmed at some of the things which have been said in the last few moments. The idea of a welfare service existing, so to speak, to make up for the deficiencies of doctors who do not think it right to perform abortions—
LORD SEGAL: If the right reverend Prelate will forgive me for interrupting, I think the implication of my remarks was not in respect of the deficiencies of doctors. The corollary often would be that the woman in this predicament, instead of being left to the single opinion of her own practitioner or of one hospital, would be able to obtain confirmatory advice from other similar sources to enable her to go on with her pregnancy with a much easier mind.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: That is putting it in a less questionable form, but in the way I understood it I thought some doctors might resent it very much if they thought there was a social welfare service to suggest better advice than they considered it right to give.
I think these questions would have to be considered before this Bill became law, but as this is a kind of trial run I think I could bring myself to vote for this Amendment, although I should have been much happier if it had been the duty of the medical practitioner to offer this service to his patients. I think that would be safer. Also I am a little surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, should praise the Swedish example. I believe Sweden is the country with the highest suicide rate, and I think we should ask ourselves whether or not they have found the answer to all the social problems yet.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Divide!
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord, Lord Strange, has cast his spell again, and he has apparently persuaded all my noble friends that his Amendment should be accepted. The noble Lord's evocative imagery is such that at one time I thought I heard him refer to a legal bridge made of raspberry jam with a wasp in it. That is an impossible proposition, I know, but it gives an example of the spell-binding oratory of the noble Lord. I hope he will forgive me if I just examine one or two of the propositions and, as it were, get back to what he said in the Amendment, and not some of the constructions which have been put upon it.
I would agree entirely with what I think are the intentions of the noble Lord. I would agree entirely with what my noble friend Baroness Summerskill said about the predicament of the woman, desperately hoping that she might be eligible and finding that she is not. Then, as my noble friend said, the noble Lord has at least part of the answer, and the principle of what he wants to do is absolutely right: namely, that there should be suitable succour, advice, friendship and help for a woman in these distressing circumstances who finds that she has been refused an abortion under this Bill when it becomes an Act. It does not help her to be told that she does not satisfy the rules and regulations. She is still in such a condition that, as the noble Lord said, she might be driven to swallowing needles in the hope of ending her mental and physical torment.
When we consider these matters it is not a case of deciding intentions. When we put them into the Bill, it is not good enough to have intentions; we have to say what those words would mean if they were put into a Statute I would submit that, however much there is in practice, and there is a very great deal, to be said for a doctor in appropriate cases referring to a welfare authority any woman whose request for an abortion has been refused, there is unquestionably the point, put by my noble friend Lady Gaitskell, that there must be many women in such circumstances who would not wish that to be done as a statutory responsibility, so that whether they want it or not some other person is going to be told.
The noble Lord made some calculations. I was not quite able to follow

573
them all and I did not understand their basis. But it does seem to me that throughout our discussions on this Bill there has been a lack of knowledge of what goes on in our hospitals now. In the latest year for which I have figures, 1962, it is estimated that in our hospitals the rate of admissions for abortions had reached 72,400, which is 78·1 per 10.000 women in this country aged between 15 and 44. Out of that number some 2,800 were therapeutic abortions. Of the remainder, roughly 70,000, it is anybody's guess how many were inevitable abortions occurring naturally and abortions which may have been procured. I mention these figures because this is not something new, and also because our hospitals will be able to cope.
Another figure I may mention is the figure for Finland, where the position is rather more generous than it may well be if my noble friend's Bill becomes an Act. The most recent figures of legal abortions there show a little over 6,000–75·3 per 1,000 normal deliveries; they have about one tenth of our population. So again we get an idea of what might happen in this country.
Coming back to the point of the noble Lord's Amendment, that there shall be a statutory obligation placed on a doctor, when he has refused to perform an abortion under this Bill, to refer the woman to a female welfare officer who shall
"so far as practicable"—
I do not quite know what that means—
"secure the physical and mental health and well-being of the pregnant woman …"
it does not seem to me a statutory starter. Nor does it seem necessary or desirable to make statutory provision for this. Surely it would be better, as I believe the noble Lord wants, for the matter to be left to the discretion of the doctor to take such action as he considers desirable in the circumstances of the individual case, having regard to the wishes and the needs of the pregnant woman. But on the grounds of impracticability, I hope the noble Lord will see that his Amendment, at least as it is framed, is not acceptable either to him or to anyone else. It is not appropriate to make statutory provision in this matter. For one thing, he does not provide in his Amendment any sanction for failure to notify. In all other matters in this Bill we provide sanctions, but he does not
574
provide anything of that kind. May I ask the noble Lord this question? He referred to the doctor refusing an abortion. Would he consider it to be a refusal if a doctor said "Certainly not" when a woman came to him and demanded an abortion which was illegal under this Bill when it becomes an Act? That is what his Amendment would mean.
However much I agree that these women, all women, should be given all possible help by all the social services, and however valuable this discussion may have been because it has shown up a need, I hope the noble Lord will agree that his Amendment, at least, does not meet that need and is not acceptable.
9.30 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: I have great sympathy with the intention of this Amendment, but I do not think it will work. First of all, I think it quite wrong to put an additional burden, a compulsory burden, on the doctor immediately to notify a female welfare officer. Already we are putting considerable burdens on the doctor. We do not say which doctor, but actually in the Amendment there are two. We are already putting sufficient burdens on them. If they carry out an abortion they have to notify it to the medical officer of health, and I think this is putting a burden on them which may act as a deterrent. I am much in favour of bringing the social worker into this field wherever appropriate, and I would not accept the view that it is an infringement of privacy, except if the unfortunate woman is compelled, willy-nilly, to be interviewed by a female welfare officer. I think she herself ought to have some discretion as to whether she wants to be interviewed by a female welfare officer, and should not have it decided for her.
If the noble Lord is prepared to accept my assurance, I should like further to consider in what way we can bring the welfare officer into the picture in appropriate cases. I do not think it is appropriate in all cases. As I have already indicated, it is my intention to introduce another measure immediately after the reassembly, when I should certainly take into consideration the views that have been expressed about the possibility of bringing the female social welfare officer into the picture in appropriate cases. If

575
the noble Lord is prepared to accept that assurance from me, I hope that perhaps he may feel willing to withdraw this Amendment.
LORD STRANGE: I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness who have spoken on this question. I am most sincere about it and would like to press the Amendment. I will tell your Lordships why. When the Bill gets to the
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: As it appears that fewer than 30 Lords have voted, in accordance with Standing Order No. 51 I declare the Question not decided and, pursuant to
576
Report stage it can be altered, and things can be put into it; but I should not like to see it leave the Bill for ever, because I think the idea is basically right. Therefore, I am pressing my Amendment.
9.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment to the Amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:Contents,7;Not-Contents, 10.

CONTENTS

Effingham, E.

Segal, L.

Summerskill, Bs. [Teller.]

Greenway, L.

Strange, L. [Teller.]

Ypres, E.

Newall, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Brain, L.

Molson, L.

Stonham, L.

Colwyn, L.

Raglan, L.[Teller.]

Waverley, V.

Gaitskell, Bs.[Teller.]

Silkin, L.

Wellington, D.

Gardiner, L.(L.Chancellor.)

the Standing Order, the House will now resume.
House resumed accordingly.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before ten o'clock.