Sitting of 21 July 1966

Preamble
The House met at half-past
Two o'clock

PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  WALES

    Plan for Wales
    Mr. Andersonasked the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest estimate of the date of publication of the Plan for Wales, the formulation and implementation of which was assigned to his Department in the original allocation of responsibilities in November, 1964.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. George Thomas): My right hon. Friend has extended the field to be covered by this Plan and does not now expect to have it ready for publication before the end of the year.
    Mr. Anderson: Does the Minister not recognise that there must be many business decisions and local authority decisions awaiting the forecasts and recommendations to be contained in this Plan, and that there is an overwhelming case for speeding up the publication of the Plan under the present uncertainties?
    Mr. Thomas: It is essential that every care should be taken in drawing up this Plan. At least 15 Government Departments have to be consulted, as well as the Welsh Economic Council, the University of Wales, both sides of industry, the Welsh Tourist Board, and others.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in the National Plan last year, the Government said that 140,000 agricultural workers should come from the country as a whole, of which, I understand, 5,000 are to come from Wales. In view of the necessity for maintaining confidence in the farming industry, will the right hon. Gentleman see
    840
    that a realistic figure is put in any Plan for Wales?
    Mr. Thomas: Just on a point of information, Mr. Speaker, I am not yet a Privy Councillor, but I am quite willing!
    As regards the figures for which the hon. Gentleman asked, we will, of course, bear in mind the need for confidence in the industry.
    Mr. Hooson: Is the Plan to be revised in the light of the Prime Minister's announcement yesterday and in the light of the current economic situation? If so, what changes does the Minister of State expect?
    Mr. Thomas: The hon. and learned Gentleman must not be too pessimistic. This will be a realistic Plan holding out good opportunities for the Principality.

    Cwmbran Development Corporation (Houses)
    Mr. Abseasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many houses were completed by the Cwmbran Development Corporation for private sale during the last 12 months; how many of those completed now stand vacant; what are the price range and ground rents of the vacant houses; and what research into potential consumers' needs and financial means took place before these houses were built.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ifor Davies): In the last twelve months 60 houses have been completed for sale of which 37 are vacant. Prices range from £3,800 to £4,450 and ground rents from £20 to £27 per year. The Corporation's decision to build was based on inquiries received by it.
    Mr. Abse: Is it not somewhat disappointing that so many houses should be vacant, in view of the fact that private builders in the area have no difficulty in disposing of their houses? Is it not necessary that a warning should be given to the Corporation to make certain that it is investigating in depth the nature and type of house which should be put up in the area?
    Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend will appreciate that there is always an element of risk in building houses for sale. The Corporation made the best assessment

    841
    that it could, according to the demand. If houses cannot be sold, they will be available for letting.
    Mr. Abseasked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the present programme of the Cwmbran Development Corporation for future building of houses for sale; at what maximum price and maximum ground rent it is intended to offer houses for sale; and whether the programme is being reviewed, in view of the tardy sales of Cwmbran Development Corporation houses so far.
    Mr. Ifor Davies: To provide a balanced community and to meet demand in the area, the Corporation has plans for building 118 higher-income group houses for sale. As a first stage it has proposed building 29 houses at prices of about £8,500 and ground rents of £52 per year and my right hon. Friend is considering this.
    Mr. Abse: Would the Minister consider that, in Monmouthshire, we are in an ocean of obsolescent housing and that to cater for income groups of this kind is having an odd sense of priorities, particularly when he has already indicated that there are houses of very much less value unable to be sold in the area?
    Mr. Davies: The Corporation is confident—and I share its confidence, following a recent visit—that industrial development in South Monmouthshire will give rise to a demand for houses for business executives, and it would be in the interests of the new town to meet some of the demand. Having regard to the reference to tardy sales, it is only fair to recognise that the total number of houses built for sale by the Corporation since its inception is 276. Of that total, 239 have been sold.

    National Assistance Recipients (Rates Rebates)
    Mr. Gowerasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is aware that persons in Wales who are in receipt of National Assistance are thereby disqualified from any rates rebates; why this is; and what steps he will take to improve the scheme.
    Mr. George Thomas: My right hon. Friend has nothing to add to the reply which the hon. Member received from
    842
    my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government last Tuesday.
    Mr. Gower: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there seems to be a good deal of misunderstanding about this on the part of the recipients of National Assistance who have heavily rated houses? They seem to think it strange that persons of such small resources should derive no benefit from a scheme of this kind.
    Mr. Thomas: Whoever has the misunderstanding, the hon. Gentleman ought to understand that when full provision for the rates is made in the assessment of the Board's weekly allowances it would be wrong to make further provision again.

    Road Schemes
    Mr. Gowerasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the local authorities whose urban road schemes on which forward planning and preparation could start in the near future which have a total value of approximately £81.5 million, together with the approximate value for each authority.
    Mr. George Thomas: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has written to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Gower: While appreciating some of the difficulties of the Minister's Department, may I ask whether he can give some assurance that every attempt will be made to expedite the provision of the details?
    Mr. Thomas: We will move with our customary speed.

    Forms and Documents (Welsh Language)
    Mr. Elystan Morganasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will arrange for a survey of public forms and documents in current use in Wales to be made with a view to their translation into the Welsh language as soon as possible.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave him on 1st July, 1966. I hope to have the result of this investigation some time next month.
    Mr. Morgan: Can the right hon. Gentleman give some indication of the nature of the documents and forms to be translated and of the numbers involved?
    Mr. Hughes: It is not possible to give this information until the results of the survey are available. I will have discussions with my colleagues who are responsible and, following this, it will be possible to determine what forms can be translated in advance of legislation and to assess which of them are in fair demand.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman contemplating a Welsh edition of Erskine May?
    Mr. Hughes: No, Sir, but if such an edition were to be published, my hon. Friend would not be able to read it.
    Mr. Forrest: Is it not possible that in less than an hour from now this issue will be tied up?
    Mr. J. Idwal Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether, in circumstances where it is necessary to await legislation to validate the use of certain forms and public documents in the Welsh language in Wales, he will authorise the preparation of adequate and suitable translations of such forms and documents in anticipation of such legislation.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I will certainly bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind, but I cannot at this stage anticipate the extent to which the many Ministers who issue forms in Wales will find it practicable to do so in Welsh.
    Mr. Jones: I appreciate the complexity of this matter, involving as it does the mass of legislation passed since the Act of Union of 1542, but can my right hon. Friend give us any information about when this legislation is likely to be introduced?
    Mr. Hughes: As my hon. Friend said, this is a complex issue, but good progress is being made, and I hope that it will be possible to introduce the Bill during the next Session, and before then to make some of the administrative changes recommended by the Committee.
    Mr. Hooson: May I take it from that that the Government intend to bring in a permissive all-embracing Bill to give effect
    844
    to the Hughes Parry Report, which is supported by all parties in this House?
    Mr. Hughes: Our purpose is to introduce a Bill in due course, and work on the Bill is now proceeding. I cannot give details at this stage, but it will be on the basis of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths) in the Welsh Grand Committee on 14th December last.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: Will the Secretary of State accept from this side of the House that we shall certainly support the Government in any legislation which they bring forward with regard to equal validity in law of the Welsh language? We will not go as far as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) has gone and support everything in the Hughes Parry Report.
    Mr. Hughes: It is the principle of equal validity which has been accepted by the Government.

    Housing
    Mr. E. Rowlandsasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many houses in tender have been approved by his Department to the latest convenient date this year; how this compares with the corresponding period last year; and how the estimate for 1966 compares with last year.
    Mr. Ifor Davies: Up to 16th July, 4.604 public sector houses have been approved compared with 6,304 in the same period of last year. But a number of very large schemes are on the point of being approved and my right hon. Friends expects the total for 1966 to exceed that for 1965.
    Mr. Rowlands: Does my hon. Friend consider the target for this year to be sufficient for Wales? Wales not only has a lot of old property, but needs more houses for workers coming in because of new office development and industry.
    Mr. Davies: The initial estimate for the number of houses in the public sector under construction at the end of June was 13,553, compared with 12,287 in the same period last year.
    Mr. E. Rowlandsasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many housing

    845
    loans have been granted by local authorities in Wales this year; what is the total amount; and whether he will extend the categories of applicants for loans in order to stimulate the sale of houses generally.
    Mr. Ifor Davies: During the first four months 822 loans, totalling £1,272,000, were granted. My right hon. Friend is ready to consider any representations that authorities may wish to make about the categories of persons who may apply for loans.
    Mr. Rowlands: Will my hon. Friend consider extending the category of applicants to those who wish to buy houses built between the wars, which is excluded at the moment?
    Mr. Davies: My right hon. Friend will be pleased to give every assistance in this matter, and paragraph 4 of Circular 16 of 1966 gives an assurance that special circumstances will be considered.

    Economic Planning Councils
    Mr. Andersonasked the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements exist for co-operation on matters of common concern between the Welsh Economic Council and the South-West Regional Economic Planning Council.
    Mr. George Thomas: The two Councils exchange information regularly and have undertaken co-operative action on the Severn Bridge study. In addition, my right hon. Friend, the First Secretary of State ensures that there is full exchange of views and information between all Planning Councils.
    Mr. Anderson: In the light of the Severn Bridge, with the increased trade links between the two regions, and in the light, too, of the Severnside announcements which will straddle both regions, would not my hon. Friend agree that there is a need for more formalised links between the Welsh and South-West Economic Regions? Will my hon. Friend consider the establishment of a standing committee, composed of representatives from both regions, so that there can be co-operation laterally, rather than always going to London under the aegis of the Department of Economic Affairs?
    Mr. Thomas: I am satisfied that there is good co-operation between ourselves
    846
    and the South-West Economic Council, just as there is between Wales and the West Midlands, and between Wales and the North-West. If the proposal recommended by my hon. Friend is thought wise, I shall not hesitate to follow it.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: Will the hon. Gentleman do everything that he can to make his Welsh friends co-operate with my West Country friends?
    Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that cooperation is a characteristic of the Welsh.

    Welsh Tourist Board
    Mr. Gibson-Wattasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will publish as a White Paper the account of his latest meetings with the Welsh Tourist Board.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I met the Chairman of the Welsh Tourist Board on two occasions recently, when representations were made to me about the position of the Board and I am considering these in consultation with my colleagues.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: In view of the bad effect which the Selective Employment Tax will have on tourism in Wales, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this is a matter which he proposes to discuss with the Welsh Tourist Board?
    Mr. Hughes: I have already had discussions with the Board. The hon. Gentleman chooses to overlook what is being done to help tourism in Wales. As he knows, the industry will be eligible for substantial assistance under the Industrial Development Bill, under which most of Wales will now be scheduled. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday when he announced a new scheme under which development loan assistance can be offered for the building, expansion, or modernisation of hotels which can show that they cater for overseas visitors.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large part of the North-West of Wales is outside a development area and, therefore, will not benefit from some of the things which the Government are doing? Will he also realise that at the present time the Welsh

    847
    Tourist Board is most upset about the whole position with regard to the future of tourism in Wales?
    Mr. Hughes: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Board is as upset as all that. Certainly it has points to make, and it has made them to me, and I am considering them in consultation with my Ministerial colleagues. I shall be meeting the Board again very soon for further discussions.

    Mid-Wales New Town
    Mr. Birchasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will publish as a White Paper the findings of the technical survey for the proposed Mid-Wales new town.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The report of the consultants engaged to advise on the location and feasibility of a new town in Mid-Wales is expected to be published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office on 28th July, 1966.

  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Commonwealth and Colonial Students (Private Institutions)
    Mr. Moyleasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will introduce legislation to increase his control over the setting up of privately-owned institutions for adult education, particularly where such institutions offer courses to Commonwealth and colonial students.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): No, Sir, and I do not think that in any case it would be practicable to distinguish between institutions according to whether they might offer courses to overseas students.
    Mr. Moyle: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but is he aware that there are a number of tutorial institutions in this country which are attracting Commonwealth and colonial students here on the basis of prospectuses which do not match performance. is not this bad both for Commonwealth relations and for education? Will he consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to see whether increased surveillance can be exercised over these institutions?
    Mr. Roberts: I have no evidence to suggest that the large majority of private institutions which operate in this field have abused their position, but I will most willingly consult my right hon. Friend on the point that my hon. Friend has raised.
    Sir E. Boyle: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that there might be a good case for saying that the provisions of Part III of the 1944 Act, which is concerned with the registration and inspection of independent schools, should be extended to a number of institutions which cater for pupils above school-leaving age?
    Mr. Roberts: I do not agree, as of now, with what the right hon. Gentleman says, but certainly my right hon. Friend and I will take advice on it.

    University Teachers' Pay (Negotiation Machinery)
    Dr. Grayasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress he has now made in the establishment of new negotiation machinery for reviewing the pay of university teachers.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Anthony Crosland): I am in touch with representatives of the parties concerned, and hope to reach a decision soon.
    Dr. Gray: Does my right hon. Friend intend to give the same status to the appropriate trade union—the Association of University Teachers—as he will give to the University Grants Committee when the new machinery is established?
    Mr. Crosland: I am aware that my hon. Friend is an active and notable member of the union to which he has referred. Nevertheless, I ask him to await the proposals I am putting to the A.U.T., Vice-Chancellors and the University Grants Committee. I shall be doing this in a week or two. In fact, I am meeting the A.U.T. on Monday.

    Secondary Education (Transfer Age)
    Dr. Grayasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his policy of allowing local education to fix the transfer age at 11 years or 13 years from junior to senior schools was shortand long-term in its aims.
    Mr. Crosland: My decision to allow an age of transfer other than 11 was explained in Circular 13/66, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.
    Dr. Gray: Is my right hon. Friend aware that considerable anxiety exists in the minds of many local authorities in case the Plowden Council should recommend a universal transfer age? Further, will he consider writing to local authorities and advising them how to iron out the difficulties that will arise when one authority chooses 11 years and another 13 years and they make mutual or one-sided use of each other's educational facilities?
    Mr. Crosland: On the first point, we had better wait and see what the Plowden Council recommends. Certainly nobody would want to take a decision about a new national age of transfer until the Council has reported—which will not be for some time. The second point is precisely the sort of point that we shall look al: whenever proposals are put to us for middle schools.

    Elstead Church of England School
    Mr. Maurice Macmillanasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will sanction the minor building project requested by the managers of Elstead Church of England, Aided, Primary School and by the Surrey County Council for the purpose of providing places for all the children on the roll, presently 200 increasing by 1969 to over 250, other than the 140 sub-standard places now available.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Edward Redhead): Directly a site is obtained.
    Mr. Macmillan: May I have two assurances from the Minister—first, that the lending of further mobile classrooms to accommodate the overspill pupils will in no way prejudice the speed at which sanction is granted, and, secondly, that there will be no question of any delay as a result of the statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister? The hon. Member will be aware that a site has been obtained.
    Mr. Redhead: I am aware that the local education authority is negotiating this purchase, and I think that the hon. Member can be assured on both points.

    Local Authorities (Departmental Correspondence)
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps by legislation or otherwise to ensure that local education authorities consider letters from his department.
    Mr. Crosland: No, Sir.
    Mr. Tilney: In view of the importance of the Minister's views and his change of attitude about the three-tier system of comprehensive education, may I ask him whether he is aware that the Socialist chairman of the Liverpool Education Authority deliberately suppressed letters from his Ministry? Is this not another example of the split personality of the party opposite?
    Mr. Crosland: I am aware of nothing of the sort. It would be wrong and foolish of me to try to instruct local education authorities how they should deal with correspondence coming from my Department. They are quite capable of making that decision for themselves. As for the letters to which the hon. Member has referred, these were not formal letters addressed to the authority but informal letters from one of my officers to an officer in the authority, and I have no complaint of any kind about the way in which the authority chose, in its own wisdom, to deal with those letters.

    Comprehensive Education
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make sure that he receives the considered views of the local education authority of Liverpool on middle-schools' schemes for that city before giving his consent to any plans for the reorganisation of secondary education in Liverpool.
    Mr. Russell Johnstonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further action he proposes to bring to the attention of Liverpool City Council the possibility of basing its comprehensive reorganisation upon transfer to secondary school at 12 or 13 years of age.
    Mr. Crosland: It is for the local education authority to decide on its proposals

    851
    for the reorganisation of secondary education on comprehensive lines. I shall consider the authority's proposals with an open mind.
    Mr. Tilney: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that a three-tier system of comprehensive education might he very appropriate for the City of Liverpool and would be likely to save money in this time of economic crisis?
    Mr. Crosland: I have no intention of trying to dictate to the Liverpool authority or any other authority what type of comprehensive reorganisation it should submit to me in its plan. It is well Known, if only from Circular 13/66, that I am prepared to consider transfers at ages other than 11; and as to the scheme they choose to submit to me, they arc the people to judge, and I have no intention of influencing their decision.
    Mr. Johnston: I accept the Minister's view on this, but is not this an example of communication failure here, and if there are similar communication failures elsewhere it may make it less easy to put forward acceptable comprehensive schemes?
    Mr. Crosland: I do not think that there has been a failure of communication here; on the contrary, what has happened in this case is what I am extremely anxious to encourage in all cases, namely, that before authorities submit schemes there should be the greatest possible degree of informal consultation between officers of the authority and officers in my Department. That is what happened in this case. As far as I am concerned, there was no impropriety of any kind on the part of the authority, and I make no complaint of any kind against its behaviour.
    Mr. Fortescue: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the incident of these letters caused considerable public scandal in Liverpool and led to a great loss of confidence in the local education authority?
    Mr. Crosland: There is no question of the suppression of any letters. A letter addressed by one of my officials to the chief officer of an authority can be dealt with by the authority in any way it chooses. There is no question ,of some formal communication of mine
    852
    to them having been suppressed. It is up to the authority to decide how it deals with correspondence of this kind.
    Sir E. Boyle: Is not there a special circumstance in this case, namely, that the Minister had to deal severely with the Liverpool scheme when it was put forward last year? Is it not, therefore, especially important that those in Liverpool who are concerned with making the best possible plans for the future should be properly informed about the full range of possibilities open to them?
    Mr. Crosland: They are perfectly fully informed without the contents of this letter necessarily having to be revealed. This letter was a letter from one of my officials in reply to an informal request for views about the possibility of 9–13 schools. This possibility is well known to the authority, and educationists in Liverpool, from the terms of Circular 13/66. There is no mystery of any kind about this.
    Mr. Tilney: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he proposes to take to ensure that those local authorities which submit middle school organisations for comprehensive education maintain the spirit and philosophy of the present junior school.
    Mr. Crosland: I hope that middle schools will develop a spirit and philosophy of their own. This will be mainly a matter for the local education authorities and teachers concerned, but if I feel that guidance is necessary I will give it.
    Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister aware that there is very real concern among primary school headmasters, particularly where an 8–12 scheme is envisaged, that some of the opportunities for self-expression which at present exist in the primary schools will be lost and that the children will join the "rat-race" much sooner?
    Mr. Crosland: No, Sir, I do not think that this view is very widely held. I

    853
    believe that most people in the educational world who favour either 8–12 or 9–13 schools would think that these schools cannot be the same as junior schools. They are catering for a different age range and it is, therefore, important that they should become a type of school in their own right. I do not think that any experiments in this direction will lead to the ill consequences which my hon. Friend described.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local education authorities have refused to submit proposals for comprehensive education; and what action he intends to take.
    Mr. Winnickasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local education authorities have now submitted plans for the reorganisation of secondary education; how many authorities have now asked for an extension of time; and if any authority has chosen not to reply at all.
    Mr. Crosland: Replies from the 162 local education authorities to Circular 10/65 are still coming in. It is therefore too early to give a definitive answer. But I shall make a detailed announcement before the House rises.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is it not the case that a very small minority of local education authorities are deliberately seeking to defy and refuse to accept the policies of the democratically-elected Government of the country? What powers has he to bring them into line? Will he give a firm assurance that he will be prepared to use them if the authorities do not conform to national policy?
    Mr. Crosland: I should like to emphasise how very small this minority is. So far, only three authorities have declined to submit plans and a tiny handful of other authorities are submitting plans patently based on the retention of selection. This is a very small minority. I should not like to take any view on whether further action is needed, and if so of what kind, until I have been able to take stock of the full response to the circular, which I hope to announce to the House before we rise.
    Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in many areas where the local
    854
    education authority is refusing to submit proposals for going comprehensive, there is a good deal of concern and anxiety amongst the parents that the local authorities are behaving in such a stupid and reactionary manner? Is he aware that, for example, there is deep concern in Croydon that the local council is refusing to cooperate with the Department?
    Mr. Crosland: I am well aware of the facts which my hon. Friend has mentioned. It is true that, both in the very small number of areas which have declined to submit plans and even more in areas like the one which he has in mind, which have submitted plans which are patently not comprehensive, there is strong feeling, not only among parents but also very often among the teachers, at this failure to accept the policy of Circular 10/65.
    Mr. Frederic Harris: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that such a progressive education authority as Croydon, which is often taken as an example for education throughout the country, is well capable of taking decisions for its education for the future, and that he should see that such authorities are entitled to do so?
    Mr. Crosland: I understand that there is a certain amount of disagreement in Croydon as to what should be done, but I propose to make no statement on the Croydon position as no Croydon scheme has yet been formally submitted.
    Sir E. Boyle: Will the right hon. Gentleman repudiate the lack of regard—indeed contempt—shown by his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) for the legitimate concerns of democratically elected local authorities?
    Mr. Crosland: I will certainly not repudiate him. What he was saying is what has been long accepted in this country—that there is an expectation that, in educational policy, when there is a declaration of national intent, this will be carried through by central and local government in co-operation.
    Mr. Winnick: In view of the deep concern in my constituency about this matter, may I give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment as early as possible?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that notice will be given in the conventional fashion.
    Mr. McNamaraasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied with progress being made with development of comprehensive education in the East Riding of Yorkshire; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Redhead: Yes, Sir. There are already two comprehensive schools in the East Riding and two others are being provided in current building programmes. The authority are expected to submit their proposals under Circular 10/65 by the end of this month.
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on schemes for the comprehensive development of secondary schools in the area of the Inner London Education Authority; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Crosland: The Inner London Education Authority has published Notices of nine reorganisation schemes since it came into being on 1st April, 1965. Representations have been received in four cases. Three proposals have been approved and I hope to reach a decision on the fourth shortly. There is still a month to run during which representations can be made to the Department in respect of the other proposals.
    Mr. Hamling: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, when he receives representations criticising these proposals, that there is a great number of inarticulate people who want comprehensive education in London?
    Mr. Crosland: I will bear that in mind, and I am happy to say that all those who want this are by no means inarticulate.

    Universities (Industrial Research)
    Mr. Wallaceasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science to what extent universities in the United Kingdom are assisting with industrial research.
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts: In many different directions and on an increasingly wide scale. The universities are aware that the Government greatly welcome this development, of which I am sending my hon. Friend further particulars.
    Mr. Wallace: Would not my hon. Friend agree that in this field the new redbrick universities are playing an invaluable part?
    Mr. Roberts: I certainly agree. Indeed, the newer and the older universities are taking an increasing part in research projects undertaken directly for industry, and at a regional level they are taking an important part in the deliberations of regional economic planning councils.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Would the hon. Gentleman recognise that the more work the universities do on industrial research the more important it becomes that there is an adequate relationship between the Ministry of Technology and his Department in this respect? Is he aware that there is a growing uneasiness that the present set-up is not right?
    Mr. Roberts: That is not so. There are the happiest and most fruitful relationships between my right hon. Friend's Department and that of the Minister of Technology. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology and the research stations for which he is responsible place important industrial contracts with universities. In the last year, the value of such contracts has more than doubled.

    Preliminary Teacher-Training Courses
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with technical colleges and colleges of further education on preliminary teacher-training courses.
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts: None, Sir. There is already extensive provision in technical colleges and evening institutes for G.C.E. and other courses leading to qualifications accepted for entry to teacher training.
    Mr. Hamling: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind the need to encourage schemes for teacher-training for mature students with very little formal education behind them and particularly the need of such schemes for financial assistance to such students?
    Mr. Roberts: Where there is a demand, local education authorities are normally able to provide G.C.E. and other courses

    857
    for prospective student teachers of the type my hon. Friend described, including, of course, married women during the day and those in employment in the evenings. In addition, colleges of education may, if the area training organisation agrees, admit exceptionally to teacher training, exactly the kind of aspirants whom my hon. Friend mentioned.

    Children's Theatre
    Mr. Scottasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make it a condition of grants to the Arts Council for next year that the Council earmark a sum of money to support the children's theatre.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Jennie Lee): I share the hon. Member's concern for children's theatre, and welcome the fact that the Arts Council has out of the current year's allocation already offered grants towards three of our children's theatres, the Theatre Centre, the Unicorn Theatre and the Westminister Children's Theatre. The whole question of financial support for such enterprises in the future is now being examined.

    Marriage Guidance
    Mr. Winnickasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to encourage schools to accept visits from the Marriage Guidance Council.
    Mr. Redhead: It is for the local education authorities and the schools to decide whether to avail themselves of the Council's help. I am glad to note that many already do so.
    Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that this organisation does a tremendous amount of good work when it is allowed to go into schools and give pre-marriage courses? Is he also aware that a number of local education authorities seem most reluctant to allow the Marriage Guidance Council to go into schools, even though the headmasters may be in favour?
    Mr. Redhead: On the first point, I am of course, aware of the work of the Council in schools and other educational establishments, and I recognise that it helps to meet the needs expressed in the Newsom Report. It must be emphasised,
    858
    however, that as my right hon. Friend does not direct what the schools shall teach or how it should be taught, he must leave it to the local education authorities and schools to decide, in the light of their circumstances, the extent to which use is made of the Marriage Guidance Council.
    Mrs. Knight: Would the hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that by no means all of us are happy about tiny teen-age mini-marriages, which are so frequently followed by early twenties divorce? Would he further note that the Marriage Guidance Council more properly has a two-pronged action—partly for engaged couples and partly for those whose marriages have gone on the rocks, neither of whom one would hope to find in schools, whose pupils can be more properly guided by the schools' medical officers?
    Mr. Redhead: What the hon. Lady says adds point to the fact that this is very much a personal and local business, to be determined in the light of the judgment of the local authority.

    Student Teachers (Grants)
    Mr. Deanasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will increase the amount of dependant's income which is disregarded in assessing the amount of grant payable to students training to be teachers.
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts: No, Sir.
    Mr. Dean: While not expecting to receive a particularly favourable reply now that stop-go has been replaced by stop-stop, may I ask the Minister to bear in mind the fact that the f100 disregard for a wife's income has not been increased since 1962? Will he consider this, particularly for mature students, who often find that they have a substantial drop in their income when they become student teachers?
    Mr. Roberts: The grant arrangements for teacher training students generally are the same as those for all other students in higher education. My right hon. Friend and I appreciate the difficulties of the older student, the married man with family responsibilities, who is living on a grant. However, whereas his previous income was appreciably in excess

    859
    of the total grants, he may be paid an additional grant of up to £100 a year.

    Direct Grant Schools
    Mr. Huntasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will now state his policy regarding the future of the direct grant schools within the Greater London area.
    Mr. Crosland: My policy for direct grant schools, which applies to those in the Greater London area as to those in the rest of the country, is explained in Circular 10/65 of which I am sending the hon. Gentleman a copy.
    Mr. Hunt: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he has very special responsibilities towards these schools? Will he reject the political prejudice of his hon. Friends— [Interruption.]—both in this House and across the road in County Hall, and recognise that these direct-grant schools have a unique role to play in our educational system and that they should be supported rather than suppressed?
    Mr. Crosland: There is no doubt that there is a good deal of prejudice on all sides in respect of this kind of argument. The policy for direct-grant schools is perfectly clear, and I have no doubt that it is the right one. I have asked the authorities on the one hand and the governors of the direct-grant schools on the other to get together and consult about how these schools might play their part in a system of secondary reorganisation. There are a number of parts of the country where this is occurring, and I am sure that this is the right way to proceed.
    Mr. Hamling: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative Party does not help these matters by publishing confidential documents in Conservative newspapers?
    Sir E. Boyle: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is very deep concern felt by many people who are not unsympathetic in principle to a measure of secondary reorganisation—deep concern about the future of these schools, which are mostly of very high academic standards and to which admission is in no way dependent on accident of birth? My hon. Friends and I, also, are greatly concerned about these schools.
    Mr. Crosland: I believe that all hon. Members are deeply concerned about the future of these schools. That is not in dispute. However, there is no possible single national solution to the problem of the direct grant schools. They differ so much within themselves. I am sure that the right way to proceed is to leave this matter for local negotiation between the schools and the local authorities.

    Agricultural College for Wales
    Mr. Elystan Morganasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement with regard to the establishment of an agricultural college for Wales.
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts: As my right hon. Friend made clear in his reply to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) on 16th December of last year, this is now a matter for the Welsh Joint Education Committee, which has not yet put a proposal to him which he could consider for a building programme.
    Mr. Morgan: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask his Ministry to give every encouragement and leadership to the deep and widespread feeling in Wales that such a national institution should be established in Wales? Can he give an indication of whether it will be centrally situated and what negotiations are taking place between the Welsh Joint Education Committee and the Department?
    Mr. Roberts: My Department is always very ready to assist this Joint Committee in everything it undertakes. Assistance is now being given to the Committee on this project. As to the proposal centrally to site this proposed college, I take my hon. Friend's point, but it must be part of the building programme as a whole. I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that the Welsh Joint Education Committee is due to have a meeting with the other bodies concerned on 25th July—
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Roberts: I am delighted that this pronouncement should receive such universal approval—or is it because my

    861
    right hon. Friend the First Secretary has taken his place on the Government Front Bench? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister must complete his answer quickly.
    Mr. Roberts: I was saying that the Committee will meet other bodies on 25th July, and officers of my Department will be there as observers.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (CENTRAL PURCHASING AGENCY)
  Mr. Dickensasked the Prime Minister if he will consider setting up a central purchasing agency for the public sector of the economy.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I know of the proposal to which my hon. Friend refers, which is being examined. I have yet, however, to be convinced that its advantages outweigh its disadvantages as compared with the present arrangements for co-ordination.
  Mr. Dickens: While I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I draw his attention to the fact that a central purchasing agency could play a vital part in mobilising purchasing power in the public sector? Is he further aware that, in view of yesterday's statement, many hon. Members on this side of the House regard this as a vital and urgent matter?
  The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will be aware, there is already central purchasing for very many items which the Government buys. To take one example, there is the Ministry of Technology, which now organises the whole of computer purchases on behalf of the Government as well as, more widely, for the public sector. An interdepartmental co-ordinating committee also exists to standardise, as far as possible, Government requirements in a way to help technological advance.

  NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON PRODUCTIVITY
  Mr. Dickensasked the Prime Minister when he proposes to call the National Conference on Productivity; and if he will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister: On Tuesday, 27th September, Sir.
  Mr. Dickens: May I welcome this announcement and indicate to the Prime Minister the fact that many hon. Members on this side of the House are very glad to see the Government taking a positive initiative in this sphere?
  The Prime Minister: This activity has been going on continuously through the various Departments concerned and through the economic development committees for individual industries. It has been thought desirable that we should now call together the leading representatives of both sides of industry to consider what further can be done to give a drive throughout industry to technological advance.
  Mr. Jopling: In view of the Prime Minister's public commendation of the increased productivity of the agriculture industry, will he set up talks immediately with the leaders of that industry to increase production in view of the assistance that that could be to the present balance of payments crisis?
  The Prime Minister: There have been a series of talks. In fact, I have had talks myself with the N.F.U. on this subject. As I have indicated previously, it is intended that the agriculture industry will be represented at this joint conference.

  THE PROFESSIONS
  Mr. Whitakerasked the Prime Minister whether he will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the professions.
  The Prime Minister: I am not aware of any widespread desire for such a Royal Commission.
  Mr. Whitaker: Would my right hon. Friend reconsider the matter in the light of Early Day Motion No. 144—" Royal Commission on the Professions "—which has been signed by the members of many professions? Is it not very hard to defend the fact that a House of Commons which is disproportionately full of professional people—elected mainly on the votes of trade unionists is concerned exclusively with restrictive practices in trade unions?
  The Prime Minister: It is certainly a fact that there are restrictive practices, not to say very intensive demarcation arrangements, within certain of the learned professions, and I have myself commented on the suggestion that some of the professional men who are actively concerned in promoting demarcation and restrictive practices should be asked to settle the restrictive practices in industry, but I am not sure that the appointment of a Royal Commission would be the way to deal with this question.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (PRESS INFORMATION)
  Mr. Goodhartasked the Prime Minister when he will publish the report of the inquiry into the leakage of secret information from Government Departments to the Press.
  The Prime Minister: I cannot yet add to my reply of 14th July to a supplementary question by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
  Mr. Goodhart: Will the Prime Minister now expand this inquiry to cover all channels and procedures for giving advance information and guidance to the Press, in view of the considerable damage that was done to the economy last week by conflicting and incorrect guidance given at the highest levels?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about this-[Interruption.] I have made it clear on a number of occasions that there are cases-and this has been a continuous problem, I would say, since the war-involving the leakage of secret information, but that there is appropriate machinery for dealing with this.
  Mr. Heath: As it is now five weeks to the day since the Prime Minister told the House he had instituted an inquiry into the alleged leak about E.L.D.O., can he now tell us what the conclusions are?
  The Prime Minister: As I told the right hon. Gentleman-I think a week ago-an interim report has been received suggesting a line for further investigation. This is now being pursued, and I expect a report on it within the next day or two,
  864
  and, as I then said to the right hon. Gentleman, I will get in touch with him right away.

  PRICES AND INCOMES
  Mr. Goodhartasked the Prime Minister whether he will designate one senior Minister to be responsible for enforcing the implementation of the recommendations of the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Goodhart: Is the Prime Minister aware that the failure to take action on this matter is as obvious and pathetic as was yesterday's demonstration of disagreement by his right hon. Friend the First Secretary?
  The Prime Minister: The position about the recommendations of the National Board for Prices and Incomes Recommendation has been made clear in the House. Inevitably, a number of Ministers are concerned particularly when one thinks of all prices—agricultural as well as industrial. Industrial prices are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, but my right hon. Friend the First Secretary is in charge of the general co-ordination of policy on prices and incomes—[Interruption.]—and is pushing ahead very actively— [Laughter.] Laughter from right hon. and hon. Members opposite[Interruption.] —who talked about prices and incomes all the time they were in office and did nothing about them, is really— [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend will be having urgent talks now with the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. about the implementation of the policy that was announced yesterday.
  Mr. Frederick Harris: But does not the Prime Minister's statement of yesterday virtually nullify the work of this Board for the next six months at least?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. It makes the Board's work a great deal more important.
  Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the First Secretary is worth a dozen of those in opposition?
  The Prime Minister: I should have thought that that was a very serious underestimate.
  Sir C. Nabarro: In view of the Prime Minister's statement yesterday of a wage and salary freeze for six months, followed by severe restrictions for the next six months, how does he propose to secure adherence to such a policy which is only pious aspiration unless there is some means of enforcement? And what does he propose to do with his right hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Cousins) who is already defying that policy?
  The Prime Minister: The policy that was enunciated yesterday is essential for the economic recovery of this country. Many have talked about these policies in the past; we have taken action over the last 18 months— [Interruption.] We have had many disappointments [Interruption.] No one thought[Interruption.] At any rate, we have been dealing with it and not just talking about it. Whilst it is easy for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to laugh about it, we should like to see a little more support for that policy.
  Mr. Corfield: Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is saying that he enunciated a policy yesterday without previously having the consultations upon which all depends whether it is possible to implement that policy?
  The Prime Minister: There have been continuous discussions with both the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. on all questions of prices and incomes policy. These have been going on now for 18 months. I think that all the problems are known, but someone had to take a decision. We announced the decision yesterday, and we shall discuss with those organisations how best to implement it.

  DRUGS (ADDICTION)
  Mrs. Reneé Shortasked the Prime Minister what administrative arrangements exist to co-ordinate the responsibilities of the Minister of Health, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Secretary of State for Education and Science, and the social services in order to tackle more effectively the
  866
  problem of drug addiction, especially among young people.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave on 24th May to a similar Question by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes).
  Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is a very unsatisfactory reply? Is he aware that there is very serious concern about the lack of Government activity in this matter since the publication of the Brain Report last November? Is my right hon. Friend aware that while the Government are doing nothing children of 11 and 12 are getting "hooked" on hard drugs? Does he not think that this is a matter of very grave concern and one on which action should be taken'?
  The Prime Minister: I agree that there is very widespread concern on the question and that there is every reason for that concern, but it does not mean that because of that concern we should proceed to get the wrong answer in terms of inter-departmental co-ordination. Obviously, in their different spheres, all three Departments are concerned with the problem, and we are considering whether any changes in inter-departmental arrangements are required. The projected Medicines Bill will affect the distribution of some of the functions, and we shall then have to decide whether any changes are needed.
  Mr. Hogg: But is not the Prime Minister aware that the real key to this problem lies in legislation, both on the control of drugs and on the unlicensed clubs where the drugs are peddled? Will he not undertake to find Government time for this legislation, even if it means squeezing out some of his more controversial Measures?
  The Prime Minister: I agree that this is partly a question of legislation, and hon. Members on both sides in this Parliament, the previous Parliament and the Parliament before that have been particularly concerned about the inadequacy of control over clubs. Many of us have said that in our debates on these clubs. Certainly, legislation is needed, certainly it will be introduced on the first possible occasion, but there is a lot of other action that has to be undertaken, too.

  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (SPEECH)
  Mr. Blakerasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Secretary of State for Defence at a meeting of Socialist Commentary in London on 25th June about the present peacekeeping capability of the United Nations represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend made no statement of policy on this subject on that occasion.
  Mr. Blaker: Is the Prime Minister not aware that it has been reported that his right hon. Friend said on that occasion that there is no chance at present of the United Nations being able to carry out the task of a policeman east of Suez? If that is so, who will be responsible for helping with the defence of South Arabia if she needs help?
  The Prime Minister: What my right hon. Friend actually said was that there was no chance at present of the United Nations being able to take over the policing or peace-keeping task which we have been carrying out in pursuance of our Commonwealth and other obligations. This is not a statement of Government policy, as asked for in the Question, but states the fact.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not think the Prime Minister has quite faced up to the quotation from his right hon. Friend's remarks. If the British Government are to give up their obligations to defend South Arabia and the United Nations, according to the Secretary of State, is incapable of taking them on, on whom are the Southern Arabians to rely?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend was not referring to the situation in South Arabia. I have quoted what my right hon. Friend was actually saying on the occasion. The position is, as we have said many times in this House, that this country cannot take on unilaterally the role of world policeman in South Arabia and the rest of the world. We have to do whatever we can within our resources, without overstraining them, for the United Nations, the Commonwealth and our allies.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: But does the right hon. Gentleman say that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not use the words that there was no chance at present of the United Nations being able to carry out such a task?
  The Prime Minister: I have quoted the exact words used by my right hon. Friend as he has told them to me, and I do query the accuracy of what, I think, is the Sunday Times report from which the right hon. Gentleman is quoting. The words I have quoted are the words used by my right hon. Friend.

  OFFICIAL CAR (USE)
  Mr. Patrick Jenkinasked the Prime Minister who gave authority for the use of official car, registered number 919 CLD, on Friday 1st July to convey Professor T. Balogh and a lady from Hampstead to the West End of London; and why an official car was put at Professor Balogh's disposal on this occasion.
  The Prime Minister: The use of this car to bring Dr. Balogh to the Cabinet Office had been authorised under the normal rules governing the use of official cars. The lady who travelled in the car on this occasion was another member of the Cabinet Office staff, who travelled with him in order to discuss necessary official business.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the Prime Minister confirm—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear the supplementary question.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the Prime Minister confirm that there has been no change in the list of persons designated in a very long reply on 3rd December, 1951, by the then Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, of the people who are entitled to use official cars for personal use on the grounds that they require police protection?
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had not withdrawn this morning the Question he had intended to put, he would have had a full answer to the effect that the rules regarding the use of official cars are exactly the same as those carried out by our predecessors. As for Dr. Balogh, as the House knows, he had a very severe heart attack last year—

  869
  [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite, I know., are capable of sinking pretty low on occasion. In accordance with the rules, he was authorised to be brought into work by car. I suggest to the hon. Member, who boasted to the Press that he had followed this car around in his own car for mile after mile, that if his hobby is collecting motor car numbers he would be better employed consulting my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), who could teach him a lot about numbers.
  Mr. C. Pannell: Is the Prime Minister aware that it usually falls to the incoming Minister of Public Building and Works to look into this matter and advise the incoming Prime Minister? Will he accept my assurance that the rules under which we moved and under which the car was assigned were not at all different in the rake-over in 1964 from those of the last 13 years? Is he also aware that our conduct and control of cars will stand up very favourably compared with that of our predecessors? I state that from personal knowledge.
  The Prime Minister: It is a fact that my right hon. Friend did give me the advice required on these occasions. His advise was followed. There was no change in the practice which has been followed exactly by this Government as under the preceding one, but we have not used back-benchers to drive round London to spy on the situation.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin rose—
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. A little quieter, please.
  Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order. Is it necessary to carry on with this squalid exercise?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid the House must leave the control of Questions to the Chair.
  Mr. Shinwell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you not think it desirable in the circumstances that the Leader of the Opposition should repudiate his hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin)?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not without Parliamentary
  870
  experience and knows that that is not a point of order.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin rose—
  Mr. Manuel: Go back into the sewers.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the Prime Minister accept that, in the light of his reply, of course I withdraw any possible accusation of impropriety in this case? Will he also accept that, so far from following this car round the streets of London, my journey in this case happened to coincide with it but that it diverged when I took the direct route to this House?
  The Prime Minister: I read the statement which the hon. Member rushed to make to the Press when he put this Question down and also his account of the particular journey he undertook on that occasion. I am sure the whole House will be glad to welcome his apology, which gives me the opportunity of saying that I believe it is contrary to the practice of this House for hon. Members to put down Questions attacking people who cannot defend themselves, but so long as there are any hon. Members left to follow that practice they will be answered with all the rigour of which we are capable.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Herbert Bowden): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 25TH JULY—Second Reading of the Iron and Steel Bill and of the Malawi Republic Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Order.
TUESDAY, 26TH JULY—Debate on Economic Affairs [1st Day].
Thereafter, Second Reading of the Lesotho Independence Bill [Lords], and of the Botswana Independence Bill [Lords].
Lords Amendments to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, the Overseas Aid Bill and the Ministry of Social Security Bill.

871
WEDNESDAY, 27TH JULY—Supply [4th Allotted Day]: Committee. Debate on Economic Affairs [2nd Day].
At the end of this debate the House will be asked to take decisions on the Motion on the Surcharge on Revenue Order and on the Opposition Prayer on the Hire Purchase Order.
THURSDAY, 28TH JULY-Third Reading of the Finance Bill.
At seven o'clock, opposed Private Business.
Remaining stages of the Malawi Republic Bill [Lords], the Lesotho Independence Bill [Lords] and the Botswana Independence Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY, 29TH JULY-Motions on the White Fish and Herring Subsidies (Aggregate Amount of Grants) Order and the (United Kingdom) Scheme, the Police Pensions Regulations, the Double Taxation (Finland) Order, and the Immunities and Privileges Order.
MONDAY, 1ST AUGUST-The proposed business will be: Selective Employment Payments Bill.
Completion of the Committee stage.
I think that I should say a further word about the rising of the House for the Summer Recess. I am now hopeful that it will be possible to propose that the House should adjourn on Tuesday, 9th, or Wednesday, 10th August. The exact date must depend on the progress of business.
Mr. Heath: Will the right hon. Gentleman note that we deplore that he should be providing a day on Monday for the Second Reading of the Iron and Steel Bill and that concerning the debate on economic affairs, on Tuesday and Wednesday, we shall be tabling today a Motion of censure on the Government for their economic incompetence?
Mr. Bowden: I note both those points.
Mr. Lubbock: May I ask the Leader of the House two questions? In connection with the Botswana Independence Bill, may we take it that a full statement will be made about the aid which will be given by Great Britain to Botswana after independence, on which discussions have recently taken place with the Prime Minister?
872
Secondly, following the right hon. Gentleman's announcement of the likely starting date of the Summer Recess, can he say at this stage when it is likely that we shall reassemble after the Recess, in view of the number of visits to Corn-wealth countries planned by hon. Members for late in the autumn?
Mr. Bowden: I cannot this afternoon state the proposed date of our return after the Recess. I shall try to help the House by making an announcement on Thursday next week. On the other point, I shall consult my right hon. Friend to see what can be said.
Mr. J. Hynd: Can my right hon. Friend tell us when the White Paper on transport is now likely to be introduced and whether there will be a debate on it before the Recess?
Mr. Bowden: I cannot give the actual date for production of the White Paper. I think that I am right in saying that it will be early next week, but there will not be time for a debate before the Recess.
Mr. Braine: Can the Leader of the House say whether, in view of the fact that the Brain Committee on Drug Addiction made recommendations as long ago as last November, and ever since the medical profession has been urging the Minister of Health to set up treatment centres—which does not require legislation, but firm decision—can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Minister of Health will be making a statement on this subject early next week?
Mr. Bowden: I cannot say, but I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to that question.
Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend answer two questions? In view of the fact that the Selective Employment Payments Bill may be declared not to be a Money Bill, will he sponsor, support or give Government sanction to the Bill which I introduced to remove the delaying powers of another place? Adding point to that, is it not the case that the Iron and Steel Bill is likely to be fairly controversial and that it is important, therefore, to take steps to cut the powers of the other place?
Mr. Bowden: My hon. Friend will be aware that there was contained in the

873
Queen's Speech a reference to the delaying powers of another place.
Mr. MacArthur: Is the Leader of the House aware that important Amendments dealing with selective employment payments in Scotland are unlikely to be reached today because of the harsh timetable he has imposed on the Bill? Will he now provide some extra time so that these vital questions can be discussed?
Mr. Bowden: No. We debated this at length on Monday. It was a decision of the House that the Bill should be time-tabled. The choice of Amendments to be discussed is very largely in the hands of the Opposition.
Mr. Hooley: Has my right hon. Friend noted Motion No. 135? If so, will he give time to debate the political consequences of the recent decision of the International Court of Justice on South-West Africa?
[That this House, while recording its deep appreciation of Her Majesty's Government's support for the principles of self-61etermination and civil rights as expressed in its policies towards Rhodesia, Bechuanaland, Swaziland and Basutoland, believes that the need to guarantee the genuine independence of states with African majority rule and the possible implications of the forthcoming judgment by the International Court of Justice on South-West Africa necessitates co-ordinated social economic and strategic planning by Her Majesty's Government towards Southern Africa as a whole.]
Mr. Bowden: I cannot promise time. My hon. Friend might take the usual opportunities during the Adjournment debate for the Summer Recess or on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Sir D. Renton: During the debate on the economic situation will the First Secretary of State be given an opportunity to say why he offered to resign and the Prime Minister an opportunity to say why the offer was not accepted and the First Secretary of State a further opportunity to say why the offer was not persisted in?
Mr. Bowden: It is not for me to say what will be in order in the economic debate, but I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with
874
me when I suggest to him that he should never even offer to resign.
Mr. Atkinson: Would not the Leader of the House agree that the business he has announced is a great deal of domestic trivia? In view of our experience on the Second Reading of the Prices and Incomes Bill, when back benchers were allowed a mere two and a half hours in which to put their point of view, has not the time arrived when we should revert to the previous practice of devoting two or three days to the Second Readings of all major Bills brought before the House?
Mr. Bowden: This would reduce the amount of legislation.
Sir C. Osborne: As to Monday's debate on the Iron and Steel Bill, will the Leader of the House give an assurance that full details will be given as to how the take-over is to be paid for, since it will cost about £600 million, and the 2½ per cent. Daltons issued in 1947—
Mr. Speaker: We cannot go into the merits of the debate.
Sir C. Osborne: No. I am asking for an assurance as to how the finance is to be raised.
Mr. Speaker: This is a point which I believe will arise on Monday.
Sir F. Bennett: Further to the question asked by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), and without going into personalities, can we be told by the Leader of the House whether the expected statement on the future of the Department of Economic Affairs is to be made separately next week or during the course of the economic debate?
Mr. Bowden: It would be quite in order to raise this during the economic debate.
Mr. Hector Hughes: As the Iron and Steel Bill is likely to be highly controversial, will the Leader of the House introduce a timetable to prevent the Opposition from wasting time, as they did last week on other Bills?
Mr. Bowden: Perhaps we ought to make a little progress with the Bill and then decide what we should do later.
Mr. Hooson: This may be an appropriate day to ask when the annual debate on Welsh Affairs is likely to take place.
Mr. Bowden: During the current Session, probably a little later.
Mr. George Jeger: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Veterinary Surgeons Bill [Lords] went through the procedure yesterday of receiving its Second Reading in the new Second Reading Committee? Would my right hon. Friend say when the Bill will be brought before the House for its further stages?
Mr. Bowden: I cannot say at this stage, but it will come before the House. I am glad to know that the Second Reading procedure is working so well.
Mr. Biffen: Will the White Paper promised to us during the course of the Prime Minister's statement yesterday be available to the House before the debate on economic affairs next week?
Mr. Bowden: I cannot make a firm promise, but I will certainly look at this question.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to Motion No. 148, entitled "Needless National Expenditure on the Polaris Programme"?
[That this House, while welcoming all reasonable steps that Her Majesty's Government is taking to deal with the financial crisis and to restore national solvency, regrets that no proposals were made by the Prime Minister to end the heavy and needless expenditure on the Polaris submarine programme and for abandoning of the Polaris base at Faslane.]
Is my right hon. Friend aware that, owing to the urgency of the Iron and Steel Bill, we are not asking for a day to discuss the Motion next week, but will he keep it high on the list of priorities when the next instalment in cuts in national expenditure comes along?
Mr. Bowden: Without commenting on the second part of my hon. Friend's question, it would be quite in order to raise during the economic debate what he referred to in the first part of his question.
Mr. Stratton Mills: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Bill to deal
876
with pirate radio will be published before the Summer Recess and, further, that the White Paper on the future of broadcasting is not to be published till after the Summer Recess?
Mr. Bowden: The Bill will be published before the Summer Recess. There will be no time to make further progress on it. I still cannot give a firm answer about when the White Paper will be published.
Mr. Monro: Does the Leader of the House realise that this reply to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) was not good enough? Will he give more time to Scotland?
Mr. Gwilym Roberts: In view of the various claims for legislation, would not the Leader of the House agree with me that it is now high time for the Government to introduce, unilaterally, reform in the procedure of the House so as to speed up legislation by cutting down the time allotted to speeches and, therefore, being able to get more debates in?
Mr. Bowden: In reply to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), the Selective Employment Payments Bill is subject to a timetable. The timetable Motion was discussed on Monday of last week. The Scottish aspect of it comes within the timetable.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts), reform in our procedure is very largely a matter for the House. I wish that a method could be devised of restricting the length of speeches. Then we might make more progress.
Sir A. V. Harvey: Will a day be allotted for a debate on civil aviation before we rise, because it has been suggested that tens of millions of pounds may be spent in North America on buying civil aircraft which could be made in this country?
Mr. Bowden: There will be no debate in civil aviation in Government time before the Summer Recess, but the hon. Gentleman might take the opportunity of raising this subject on the Adjournment or on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Mr. G. Campbell: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his reply on the important question of the adverse effects

877
of the Selective Employment Tax on Scotland, because the fears which I expressed last week before the timetable Motion was formulated have been realised?
Mr. Bowden: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would consult his Front Bench and arrange to divide the time between them.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the Leader of the House aware of the very real confusion which has arisen in Scotland as a result of the Prime Minister's reference yesterday to the 6 per cent. electricity price increase to come into effect on Monday? Will he arrange for the Secretary of State or for the Minister of Power to make a statement, or answer a Question on Monday, saying whether this 6 per cent. increase will come into effect?
Mr. Bowden: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would ask his question during the economic debate on Tuesday or Wednesday.
Hon. Members: It will be too late then.
Mr. Evelyn King: Has the Leader of the House noted Motion No. 143, in which a number of hon. Members draw attention to the imprisonment of a distinguished British journalist in Africa on charges which many of us think to be bogus and which offend equally against the liberty of the individual and the freedom of the Press?
[That his House, nurtured in the tradition of a free Press, notes that the Government of Sierra Leone, which is in receipt of economic aid from the British Government, has imprisoned Mr. David.Loshak, of the Daily Telegraph, who in the course of his duties reported the fact that the Sierra Leone Government now has £33 million of short-term debts and was in his view in economic difficulty; recalls that over the last 18 months 10 British newspaper correspondents representing a wide variety of political opinion have been expelled from Commonwealth countries; resents any attempts which may be made to censor dispatches intended for British newspapers, and calls upon Her Majesty's Government in Great Britain to take strong action to secure the release of any British subject who may be wrongfully detained in an African prison.]
Would the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the Motion? In considering this request, will he bear in mind that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations may well wish to explain what action he has taken and why he has so far expressed no sympathy for Mr. Loshak?
Mr. Bowden: It is not possible for me to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend in reply to a Private Notice Question.
Mr. Kershaw: Is there likely to be time next week for a statement on the doctrine of Ministerial responsibility, since the right hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Cousins) was for a long time, and the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) is still, in a Cabinet with whose policy they both entirely disagree?
Hon. Members: Answer.
Mr. Mawby: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to Motion No. 152?
[That this House congratulates the right hon. Member for Belper on his very wise decision in offering his resignation from the Government.]
In view of the bewilderment throughout the country caused by the blowing hot and cold of the First Secretary of State, can the right hon. Gentleman provide an early day to debate the Motion?
Mr. Bowden: Nothing arises from that question for me on the subject of business.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Ts the Leader of the House aware that his treatment of Scottish affairs is utterly deplorable? Is he further aware that, in the debates on the Selective Employment Payments Bill, Scottish Members are virtually gaged. with no opportunity to explain on behalf of their constituents the severe effects of the tax in Scotland?
Mr. Awdry: In view of the Prime Minister's appeal yesterday for national support for his measures and the obvious need for that national support, will the right hon. Gentleman think again about having the Second Reading of the Iron and Steel Bill next week, in view of its controversial nature?
Mr. Bowden: No Sir. The date of Second Reading has been annnounced by me on three occasions. It is on Monday of next week.
Mr. Onslow: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Minister of Aviation is likely to make, before the House rises, any of the number of important statements due from him on various projects?
Mr. Bowden: If the hon. Gentleman will specify the particular project he has in mind, I will consult my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Ridley: Will a statement be made before the Recess on the result of the First Secretary's soundings as to whether the United Kingdom can negotiate for membership of the Common Market?
Mr. Bowden: I would like to consult on that Question. Perhaps I can write to the hon. Gentleman.

NEW MEMBER SWORN
Gwynfor Richard Evans, esquire, for Carmarthen.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE (WELSH LANGUAGE)
Mr. Gwynfor Evans Mr. Gwynfor Evans On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have leave of the House to take the Oath now in the Welsh language?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) for indicating to me that he might make this request this afternoon. I have had time to consider it.
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that as Speaker I am bound, as he now is, by the practice and rules of the House. He is fully entitled to raise this matter, as he has done, at once, and he has done it courteously. I sympathise with his desire to speak in one of the great languages of the United Kingdom, especially as both my father and my mother were Welsh. What I am going to say, however, is in line with the Ruling giving by one of my predecessors, who himself spoke fluent Gaelic, but who, like myself, was bound to observe and uphold the rules of the House.
880
The rule is that hon. Members must address the House in English. The hon. Gentleman will find it in Erskine May, on page 441. The purpose of the rule is not to elevate the English tongue above others, but to ensure that the valuable contributions to debate which all hon. Members make can be understood by the others. My predecessor, when he was asked to permit a speech in Welsh, reminded the House of the words of St. Paul in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter 14, verse 9:
"…except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken?"
The rule is also based on practical considerations. The OFFICIAL REPORTERS in the Gallery are not required to have any knowledge of the Welsh language and it would make their task infinitely more difficult if hon. Members were to speak in languages other than English. I hope, therefore—and I speak most sincerely—that the hon. Gentleman will understand that, in ruling against his request, I am not doing so in any sense of rebuke or of any disrespect to a very noble language, but I must rule as I have ruled.
Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I say that this Parliament is the only Parliament that Wales has, that Wales is a nation with a national language that has been spoken there for nearly 2,000 years and that the people of Wales will regard it as an affront if that language cannot be spoken now in this House at least to take the Oath?
In view of the great national awakening in Wales, may I ask you again to allow me to take the Oath in Welsh?
Mr. Speaker: I appreciate—
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. One of the rules of order of the House is that when Mr. Speaker is on his feet hon. Members remain seated.
I appreciate the utter sincerity behind the remarks of the hon. Member for Carmarthen but, as I have said, I am bound by the rules of the House.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. While I respect your Ruling, could not the difficulty of the OFFICIAL REPORTERS be got

881
over by employing a tape recorder, which does not understand English or Welsh?
With regard to precedent, are you aware that your predecessor, in ruling on the question of the Oath in the time of Mr. Charles Bradlaugh, frequently made mistakes and that sometimes there is a need for discarding precedents? Are you also aware that when this House goes to another place the Queen's Assent is in the language of Norman French—" La Reyne le veult." I respectfully submit that the commonsense thing in these circumstances is to make a new precedent.
Mr. Speaker: The House is bound not only by precedent, but by its rules and its orders. I have a duty to the House to keep it to the rules and the orders. I am frequently invited to
"Wrest once the law to your authority ".
The answer I must always give is that
"It must not be …
'Twill be recorded for a precedent;
And many an error, by the same example. Will rush into the state: it cannot be."
If the House wants to change its rules and its orders it can do so, but I must carry out the rules.
Mr. Hooson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand, the request of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwnfor Evans) is not that he should address the House in Welsh, but that he should take the Oath in Welsh. While I appreciate your Ruling with regard to the practicality of this, in that we must understand each other across the Floor of the House, nevertheless, as this is the on!), Parliament in the United Kingdom for those who are Welsh speakers, English speakers or Gaelic speakers, surely they are entitled to take the Oath in their own language. That is surely a different matter.
The hon. Gentleman has already taken the Oath in English and has thereby shown that he acknowledges that English is a common language for us. Nevertheless, as the Welsh language is his language, as it is mine, surely it is a perfectly reasonable request that he should be allowed to take the Oath in Welsh. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am being addressed on a point of order.
Mr. Hooson: It is my recollection that the late Sir Winston Churchill used Welsh in the House and was not thereby called for a breach of order. When the Office of Secretary of State for Wales was set up by the last Labour Government, Welsh words of acclamation and congratulation were used in the House by hon. Members who were not called out of order.
I quite understand that English is the language of the House, but do I understand that, from the precedents, your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, is that the hon. Member cannot take the Oath in the Welsh language? This is a matter of the greatest importance to us in Wales. If this is to be the Parliament of the United Kingdom, at least we have the right to be heard. I ask for your Ruling. I respectfully submit that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to take the Oath in Welsh.
Mr. Speaker: I have heard the hon. and learned Gentleman at length because I have a deep feeling for the hon. Member for Carmarthen, who desired to take the Oath in Welsh, and I appreciate all the deep issues. I am aware of all the factors which the hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned. I have made the Ruling. He must accept it.
Mr. Elystan Morgan: Without challenging your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) has taken the Oath in the English language and is, therefore, a sworn Member of the House. As I understand his request at this stage is that he should translate that Oath into the Welsh language, which is his first language, as it is for many of us.
Mr. Speaker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I understood what the new hon. Member was seeking to do and that the House understood. The House knows that he has taken the Oath in English and I rule as I have ruled.
Mr. Bence: On a point of order. Am I to assume from your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that if a Welshman, born in a remote part of Wales and learned only in the Welsh language, was duly elected to the House, as he could not speak English, would not be eligible to serve in the House?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows that the Chair never rules on hypotheses. The Ruling is as I have stated.
Mr. Stainton: Further to that point of order. I hope to make my observations quite objectively and humbly, but it struck me that your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, was very much tilted within the terms of a discourse or debate in the House. I could not myself relate it with a Ruling or precedent on taking the Oath.
Mr. Speaker: When an hon. Member asks to take the Oath, he has to speak to take the Oath. In this case, the hon. Member wished to speak in another language. Erskine May lays down that hon. Members must address the House in English.
Mr. Heffer: I am not a Welshman. May I respectfully ask whether the Leader of the House will consider sending this matter of taking the Oath to the Select Committee on Procedure so that it can consider the taking of the Oath in Welsh or any other language which is acceptable within the United Kingdom Parliament?
Mr. Speaker: It is always in order for Parliament to change its own rules and procedure. It is not in order for Mr. Speaker to do so. If the House chooses to decide otherwise, it can always do so.
Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: As a Gaelic-speaking Highlander, I welcome the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans). Wales has made history today by sending the hon. Member here. The point is abundantly clear. I am sure that it is the wish of the House that he should be able to take the Oath in his own language. That is entirely different from addressing the House. Speaking as one who acquired English as a foreign language, I consider that any hon. Member taking the Oath should be able to do so in the language of his heart.
Mr. Speaker: I have as profound a sympathy with the Gaels as with the Celts, but I have ruled on this issue. The House may choose to debate it at some time, but it must accept my Ruling. We must get on with the business.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Herbert Bowden): With respect to yourself and your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, which every hon. Member understands perfectly well, I think that a valid point
884
is at issue and that it may be an advantage for a Select Committee to consider this matter, if that is the wish of the House. If an hon. Member has taken the Oath in English, and would like to take it in another of the great languages of the country, perhaps he should be allowed to do so. I understand that there is provision for a Member to affirm if he does not wish to take the Oath on the Testament and there is probably also a provision somewhere—I will check this—for a Member who might be a Hindu or Parsee, for instance, to take the Oath in his own way. Perhaps this is an issue which we can consider sympathetically.
Sir D. Renton: Surely the important thing about taking the Oath is that it should bind the conscience of the hon. Member. If the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) feels in his own mind that his conscience will be more greatly bound by taking the Oath in Welsh, having already taken it in English, I humbly submit that he should be given the opportunity of taking it in Welsh.
Mr. Speaker: I am surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should question a Ruling of the Chair. I want the House to understand that the Chair has ruled. It is in order for the House to change its rules at any time and if it did so it would obviously take into consideration the various arguments and the various factors which have arisen in today's rather important discussion. I must ask the House now to accept my Ruling and to get on with the business of the day. Mr. Grimond.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond).
Mr. Grimond: On a point of order. Without in any way wanting to dispute your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, may I, through you, ask the Leader of the House what steps he has in mind for carrying out what most of us would regard as a very desirable reform? There are many hon. Members who feel that addressing the House in Welsh is totally different from taking the Oath in Welsh, which is a personal matter for the hon. Gentleman.

885
We are greatly encouraged by the right hon. Gentleman saying that he will consider this matter, but what form will that consid2ration take?
Mr. Bowden: There has not been much opportunity as yet to give this matter a great deal of thought, but I think that the right thing to do is to look at the precedents, to consult the Clerks and the Chair and to talk about this matter through the usual channels in the first place.
Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order. The Oath is governed not by Mr. Speaker, but by Statute. There would have to be a new enactment to alter the Oath.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. Are we to assume, after all, that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) has now made his maiden speech?
Mr. Speaker: This is something on which the Chair might be given discretion. I rule that he has not made his maiden speech. I end this matter by saying that I am sure that the House will want to welcome the new hon. Member and to congratulate him on raising an issue, on which he rightly feels keenly, with such dignity and courtesy.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SELECTIVE EMPLOYMENT PAYMENTS BILL
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 20th July].
  [Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

  SELECTIVE EMPLOYMENT PAYMENTS BILL

    Clause 2.—(SELECTIVE EMPLOYMENT REFUND.)
    Amendment proposed: In page 2, line 23, at the end, to insert the words:
    "(2) This section applies to the employment of any person who is registered as a disabled person in any establishment or activity not mentioned in sections 1, 3, 4. 5, 6 of this Act, or in other subsections of this section ".
    Question again proposed, That those words be there inserted.
    4.10 p.m.
    The Chairman: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I indicate how the provisions of the Guillotine Order will operate today.
    The time which has elapsed between 3.30 p.m. and the beginning of the consideration of the Bill is 40 minutes. The result is that proceedings on Clause 2 will be brought to an end at 7.10 p.m.; the proceedings on Clauses 3 and 4 will be brought to an end at 9.40 p.m; and the proceedings on Clauses 5 and 6 will be brought to an end at 12.10 a.m.
    Mr. Raymond Gower: I wish strongly to support the Amendment, which was moved so clearly, cogently and effectively late last night by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley). I also wish to speak to my Amendment, No. 130, in page 2, line 38, at the end to insert:
    (c) the establishment employs among its employees at least 5 per cent. who are registered disabled workers.
    which you kindly ruled, Sir Eric, will be discussed at the same time. That Amendment specifies that an establishment has among its employees at least 5 per cent. who are registered disabled workers. In both of these Amendments we are not referring to all the people who suffer from physical disabilities. We have restricted the Amendments to those persons coming within the category of registered disabled.

    887
    As the hon. Member for Cheadle pointed out, this class of people is easily identified, which destroys the force of so many of the arguments which have been advanced by Treasury Ministers in rejecting similar appeals on behalf of the employment of part-time employees and other categories in earlier debates.
    I would like to emphasise that we are now considering the interests and welfare of a large number of people. There were, unfortunately, as many as 459,000 persons on the Disabled Persons' Employment Register last February, the last month for which I have been able to obtain figures. Of that figure, 47,000 were unemployed, that is, more than 7 per cent. of the total. By May the number of registered disabled unemployed had fallen to about 44,000. I hope that the Minister will not seek to minimise the difficulties and problems of the registered disabled.
    From his professional experience the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cheadle has explained how employment is often much more precarious for these people than for fit people. I would like to emphasise the very real difficulties there are in many cases for those who do the valuable work of placing such people in suitable jobs. Sometimes disabled people have great difficulty in keeping these jobs.
    4.15 p.m.
    If, as the Prime Minister anticipates, unemployment is likely to increase, even to the sort of figure which he had in mind, the employment of registered disabled seems certain in some cases to become more precarious. It has been claimed that many of these people are employed in sheltered employment with various organisations, particularly Remploy Ltd. That is true, but very many persons are in less sheltered occupations and there is a lot of evidence that most disabled persons seem to be less adversely affected by their disabilities when they work alongside other persons who are not similarly disabled.
    It will not be an answer to our plea to say that the employment position of agencies such as Remploy might be expanded. That is of undoubted value but the most desirable thing is to place as
    888
    many of these unfortunate people as possible in general employment, in all kinds of jobs where they will be working alongside others who are not disabled. We want them in the general manufacturing industry, the service industries, the hotel and catering industry, office and shops. We want them everywhere, where-ever they can be usefully employed. it has been claimed that some of the registered disabled are protected by the quota of 3 per cent. fixed by earlier legislation.
    This is true, but I would remind the Committee that a very large proportion of these people work in establishments where enlightened and sympathetic employers have long exceeded this quota. I can cite from my own experience many factories in the trading estates in South Wales—and I am sure that other hon. Members can give examples from other parts of the country—where employers, some of whom came here as refugees from Hitler's Germany and Czechoslovakia, have done a magnificent job in exceeding this quota. Often this has been in quite small undertakings. Where more than 20 people are employed, and they are bound by the quota, sometimes the percentage of disabled persons employed has been as high as 4 per cent. or 5 per cent.
    It is for this reason that if the Government cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cheadle I have put my Amendment down in more narrow terms. I merely suggest that in an establishment there shall be at least 5 per cent. registered disabled. That is going far beyond the 3 per cent. quota and would be a very reasonable requirement. Such an establishment should be in no way inhibited from continuing such splendid work.
    Others work in smaller establishments where the quota is not binding. Again, it would be unfortunate if we had to compel the employment of disabled persons in such establishments. I ask the Minister, "Why pass legislation now which will make it harder for employers to sustain numbers of registered disabled in excess of their legal requirements?" Why make it harder for the smaller establishments to give useful employment to numbers of these unfortunate people? Many of the registered disabled find it easier to obtain employment in the service industries than in the great manufacturing industries in some parts of the country.
    In many of the development and rural areas the only employment available in any volume for these people is in the service industries. In the North, Scotland, Wales, and the South-West of England, in particular, there are many large rural areas with very little manufacturing industry where the only employment available for disabled people on a big scale is in service industry.
    For that reason, too, I plead with the Minister to consider this matter with sympathy. I beg her not to let technical difficulties inhibit her in making the legislation more humane. The approach of Treasury Ministers to the problems of similar categories of people like part-time workers was singularly heartless. But how much more heartless it would be if they were to adopt a similar approach towards the partially disabled. I beg the Government not to let such technical difficulties prevent them from doing the right thing.
    The right thing to do in this case is to iron out the roughness of this legislation, which has been described by Ministers as having a sort of rough justice. I suggest that it has a lot of roughness and little justice. Let us iron out some of the roughness by including such a deserving category of people as this.
    Mr. Ron Ledger: I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) yesterday. It was such a break to hear a speech made with sincerity and from a great deal of knowledge. I intervene only because I was given to understand this morning in discussions that I had with people in my constituency that part of his speech might be misunderstood.
    I have the greatest sympathy with the case which the hon. Gentleman made. I am not saying that I would carry that sympathy too far, for a number of reasons, but the hon. Gentleman was very sincere in what he said. In referring to disabled people and their difficulties, he drew a conclusion drawn by a number of people, namely, that as a result of the Bill employers may say, "If I have to get rid of people, it will be the disabled who suffer first". The hon. Gentleman said that a number of employers made special conditions in employing disabled people and that this added weight to his
    890
    belief that if there were a surplus of labour these people would go first.
    I checked this morning with a number of disabled people in my constituency, some of whom have special provision made for them and some who, despite their disability, do a normal job. I gathered that if the conclusion which the hon. Gentleman drew was the main reason for his Amendment he was drawing the wrong conclusion, because I firmly got the impression that employers who made special provision for disabled people certainly would not adopt such a heartless attitude to them.
    The other far more important point is this. I gathered that when special provision had been made many of these people were at least as skilful, if not more skilful, than those who had no disability. Therefore, in the event of redundancy, there is no certainty that the disabled people would be made redundant. Even when special provision has not been made, the skills of disabled people are often greater. They know that this is their one chance. Care has been taken to ensure that they can do a job for which they are fitted, in view of their disability. Because they know the limits imposed on them, they apply themselves more to the job and become more skilful.
    I do not want to take anything away from the speech of the hon. Member for Cheadle, but I am sure that he would agree that we want disabled people to know that we understand that, with their skills, they can often hold their own with people who are not disabled. I do not support the Amendment because I do not believe that it would necessarily be disabled people who would suffer from redundancy.
    Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I am greatly obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his support of my case, limited though it is. What he says is very largely true. But it is also true that in many cases one has to take very strong action to get employers to employ disabled people. I have pleaded with managements to take on people who, to be frank, will not be very much use to them. Managements have done this. I accept that many disabled people do very good work. But he must also accept that there is a number, albeit perhaps a small number, of disabled people who do not do good

    891
    work. Let us not assume that because the number of people involved is quite small they do not matter. I should not have thought that that was the philosophy of hon. Members opposite. Surely they do matter.
    Mr. Ledger: I am glad to have been able to give the hon. Gentleman a chance to clarify his position. I am certain that my right hon. and hon. Friends who introduced the Bill have this point very much in mind. If it is necessary, I am sure that the appropriate action will be taken, as it can be taken, under the Bill.
    4.30 p.m.
    Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: I listened carefully to the very able speech of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) and to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). I do not think that I have ever heard a stronger case, and I beg the Government not to treat this matter lightly.
    There is an overriding argument for making the concessions requested. I can think of no reason on economic, social or humanitarian grounds for not making this concession. If there is one golden rule about the problem of disablement it is that hardly any two disabled people are exactly the same. They may suffer from the same disability, but in different degrees. What is certain is that we cannot generalise about the disabled. The problem is to find the right sort of work in the right sort of industry or occupation for a disabled man or woman in the light of his or her disability. This involves finding a number of round holes to fit a number of round pegs.
    My experience in my constituency and elsewhere is that anyone who has had anything to do with the Ministry of Labour knows perfectly well that that Department goes to enormous trouble to find occupations for disabled people. The same goes for the various ex-Servicemen's organisations. They are in close touch with the Ministry of Labour all over the country. One knows of firms and individual employers who lean over backwards to employ a particularly hard luck disabled man or woman. On the other hand, there are firms and individual employers who take a little bit of persuading to do this because sometimes the employ-
    892
    ment of disabled people is what I might call only marginally economic.
    Once the Selective Employment Tax is applied to the employer, whether it be a firm or an individual, of a disabled person, what up to now has been what I call marginally economic is marginally economic no longer in view of the 25s. a week which has to be paid. It becomes uneconomic. I think that the hon. Gentleman said that there are 200,000 disabled people in the service industries alone in respect of whom, unless the Government accept this series of Amendments, there will be no repayment. Quite a number of those people will be discharged. With the best will in the world, they must be. What will happen? They will be unemployed and they will receive full unemployment benefit.
    4.30 p.m.
    But it is not only that that matters. The point is that they will have nothing to do, and anyone who knows anything about the problem of the partially disabled knows that one of the great merits of finding a disabled man or woman a job is that it produces an occupation for them, it takes their minds off their disability.
    Therefore, every man and woman who can no longer be employed, owing to S.E.T., because it is marginally uneconomic to employ him or her, will receive the full unemployment benefit. He or she will not have anything to do, and the Government will lose the 25s. a head per disabled unemployed. This does not seem to me, whether on economic, social or humanitarian grounds, to be very sound policy. In fact it is thoroughly unsound under all three headings.
    I very much hope that the Government will see the strength of the argument of this group of Amendments moved from this side of the House.
    Mr. Eric Lubbock: I wish to deal with two points raised this afternoon, one of them by the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), who said that he hoped that in her reply the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary would not dwell on the technical difficulties. In his powerful speech last night, my bon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) demolished the arguments previously advanced by the Financial

    893
    Secretary concerning these technical difficulties. They do not exist. The existence of the Disabled Persons' Employment Register means that the employers would not even be required to submit any separate returns, for the amount of money to be paid in refund to be calculated. The returns already have to be made on a periodic basis.
    The hon. Lady will no doubt confirm that this information is available in her Ministry. She shakes her head, but I have discussed this thoroughly with experts, who assure me that it is so, so I will not accept any technical arguments against the implementation of my hon. Friend's Amendment, whatever the hon. Lady may say.
    I hope that no one on the Government side of the Committee will rely on the technical objects which were mentioned previously by the Financial Secretary. That would be an extremely poor argument. The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Ledger) had a superficially better argument, but I point out to him—and this is the second reason why I rose—that according to the figures given by my hon. Friend yesterday evening there are 48,000 people unemployed from the Disabled Persons' Employment Register, out of a total of 650,000.
    As the hon. Gentleman can sec with very little arithmetic, this is a very much higher percentage of the total than the national average. Therefore, if he says that he cannot support us on the Amendment because my hon. Friend failed to prove that the employment difficulties were greater for the disabled, I ask him to consider these figures before he finally makes up his mind on how to vote on the Amendment. I also ask him to consider the point that there are companies which employ only disabled persons and exist for that purpose, because they know that those persons will find it relatively difficult to get a job in an ordinary commercial firm.
    The British Legion Attendants Company Ltd. was formed by the British Legion to give employment to ex-Service men who find it difficult to compete in the ordinary labour market. In spite of the tremendous shortage of labour, it is still found necessary by the ex-Service men's ori,anisations to provide this service for people who have done well for their
    894
    country. I am told by the chairman of the Orpington women's branch of the British Legion that the company employs 801 people. She writes:
    "…one does not have to be a mathematician to see how much this tax will affect the company. If we have to close the company what is to become of these people, who could not be absorbed elsewhere? If they were just pensioned off, this is not good for any man's self-respect "—
    and, she rightly adds:
    " and why should we have to? ".
    The hon. Lady could not possibly have considered the effect of the S.E.T. on an organisation such as this company. If she takes time to reflect, she cannot help but accept the Amendment which was so ably moved by my hon. Friend yesterday evening.
    Mr. F. J. Bellenger: Generally speaking, I support the Government on the Selective Employment Tax, but, as hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have pointed out, there are many anomalies. There are the classes of persons for whom hon. Members have pleaded that should be exempted from the Bill. As the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) said, many ex-Service men are dependent for their work to a certain extent on charity, but they are also doing valuable work, and they will be left high and dry if the S.E.T. applies to the industries or employers engaging them.
    I remember very well that after the First World War the King's Roll was set up especially to enable employers to get the benefit of being put on the list of contractors for public departments if they guaranteed to employ a certain percentage of people disabled as a result of the war. I should look askance if those people were particularly penalised, when so much public and charitable money has been spent on creating employment for those classes. In my constituency, there is a Remploy factory. I do not know whether it will be exempt. I do not suppose that it would be exempt as a charity, but Government money has been spent in large amounts in setting up these establishments all over the country, and, to say the least, it would be a bad policy to rob Peter to pay Paul if they were to come under the tax.
    I well understand that my hon. Friend cannot give a general reply on the points

    895
    raised by the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). The tax his been introduced to raise revenue and also, to use the Prime Minister's phrase yesterday, to "shake out" certain people from services to production. This legislation has been introduced very quickly, without perhaps, mature consideration, and it will, therefore, have to be considered again by the Treasury at some time in the future if we are to get a proper and fair balance between one class of employer and another. I hope that my hon. Friend can tell us today that, once the tax is working, the Government will look at these anomalies and at least exempt some classes, in the same way as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done wholesale in the case of those bodies that can prove that they are charities or charitable organisations.
    That is all I say to my hon. Friend. I do not expect her to accept the Amendment, but I make a plea for the various people to whom hon. Members have referred. Let us see that we temper our justice, as it were, with mercy. It would be unmerciful to put any class of disabled persons out of work merely because the Chancellor wants to raise more taxation, and it would deny the good work which has been done by successive Governments and by organisations such as the British Legion which extensively employ men who were disabled in doing their duty to their country in two world wars. I hope that my hon. Friend will give us a sympathetic reply.
    Mr. Bernard Braine: I support the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) and supported by several of my hon. Friends as well as by the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) in a set of closely reasoned and compelling speeches.
    It is disgraceful that responsibility for this tax on the disabled has been put upon the Minister of Labour. It runs completely counter to everything which his Department has tried to do ever since the passing of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944. The Committee will recall that that Act had two purposes, to promote and facilitate the rehabilitation and training for employment of persons handicapped by injury, disease or
    896
    congenital deformity, and to enable such disabled persons to obtain employment or undertake work on their own account.
    Over the years the Ministry has worked nobly in this task. It has established 17 rehabilitation centres. About 12,000 men and women pass through them every year. Their purpose, according to a Ministry handout,
    " is not to give training—that may follow in a Government Training Centre or elsewhere—but to improve or restore the faith of men and women who pass through them in their ability to do a job of work, and once again to become useful members of the community."
    But the final test is not that. The final test is in getting disabled men and women into jobs and keeping them there. This has meant, in the words of the Tomlinson Report which pioneered the disablement Acts, finding jobs which enable the disabled to secure employment on their merits and to keep it in competition with other workers. The task has never been easy. it has meant ceaseless endeavour by dedicated disablement resettlement officers. These officers have had a good deal of success, as many of us know from our constituency work, but they have also had some heartbreaking failures.
    How can the Minister of Labour ever have accepted responsibility for this iniquitous Measure, which is bound to make more difficult the employment of a good many disabled persons and make impossible the placing of many others? The Minister himself, who is not present at the moment, is a kind and courageous man. He has the respect of this side of the Committee, and I know his qualities well, because he was my predecessor in South-East Essex. I refuse to believe that in his heart he accepts this betrayal of everything for which his Ministry has hitherto stood in relation to the disabled and handicapped.
    It is worthwhile remembering just how vulnerable the disabled are. We have heard the figures-659,000 on the Disabled Persons' Employment Register, that is, one in 40 of the employed population, with 47,000 of them unemployed in February—perhaps fewer today. Those figures show that the registered disabled have a rate of unemployment four times greater than the national average, and this at a time of acute labour shortage.
    But those figures, as the hon. Member for Cheadle pointed out last night, well

    897
    may also be an underestimate, because there are many disabled people not on the register. In this context, it is pertinent to ask why they are not on the register. Any disablement resettlement officer will tell the hon. Lady why. A good many will not register because they believe that it means recognition of their disability and, therefore, prejudice in finding a job.
    4.45 p.m.
    So far, there has been no sign from the Government of awareness of these difficulties, or, if they are aware, no sign that they care. I hope that the hon. Lady—I know that she cares—will dispel that impression. The Committee will recall that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) sought, on the Report stage of the Finance Bill, virtually to exempt the blind from the tax, the Financial Secretary, in a most unhappy and, if I may say so, uncharacteristic speech for him, said that because employers had sympathy with the blind they would not discriminate against blind employees, and for full measure he added that, after all, not very many people were involved.
    The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Ledger) was quite right when he said that a good many blind and deaf persons have a highly developed sensibility in other ways. They develop special skills, and they are assets to their employers. But this is not always so. Acute difficulty is encountered by social welfare officers working with the D.R.O.s in placing deaf school-leavers, for example, especially those with limited educational attainment. Unhappily, training facilities for boys are very limited, and they do not exist at all for girls.
    It is also extremely difficult to place those whose mobility is restricted or who suffer from epilepsy. Yet we all know that for such people having a job is absolutely vital to their well-being. It is part of the business of enabling them to overcome their disability, to come to terms with life. It is often forgotten that the physically disabled suffer physical pain and discomfort, and are invariably at a serious disadvantage socially and psychologically. The effects of disability upon personality and upon educational and emotional development are immeasureable.
    898
    What will happen if small employers are forced to reduce their staffs? This is the purpose of the Bill. Employers in service industries are being required to reduce their staffs. Inevitably, in many cases it will be the disabled, the awkward, the slower worker, and, in the case of the epileptic, the man who occasionally causes difficulty, who will go first.
    Dr. Winstanley: I entirely endorse the list which the hon. Gentleman has given, but will he add to it that disabled persons in employment have a bad sick absence record? They are liable to be absent from work fairly frequently.
    Mr. Braine: I entirely agree. The hon. Gentleman speaks from direct experience, but I know that to be so. Let me take the matter further. What are the chances of a disabled person dislodged from employment by this means of getting another job? A disabled person has a much reduced choice of job, anyway. He encounters difficulties at every turn. He cannot travel very far. He is limited in the work he can do. This is particularly true of the deaf, for whom there are, obviously, problems of communication. He gets no tax relief by way of compensation.
    It is not just a question of disabled people being the first to be displaced by the tax. Having been displaced, they are far less able than ordinary workers to find alternative employment. They will be consigned simply to the scrap-heap. It is inconceivable that a Labour Government should have brought in a Measure of this kind.
    On the other hand, exemption from the tax may make all the difference when an employer comes to decide whether to retain a disabled worker. If the Treasury Ministers do not understand that, I am sure that the Minister of Labour does. Indeed, the present Minister has gone out of his way to thank employers for the co-operation that he receives. He made a number of speeches on the subject last year. But, in these circumstances, will employers go on co-operating?
    We ought to try to answer the question realistically. Why should employers in service industries continue to retain disabled workers in this situation? The Government tell us that one reason for the tax is to move workers into manufacturing. To use the Prime Minister's

    899
    elegant phrase, there is to be a shake-out in jobs. Why should employers in the service industries be taxed on workers who, in some cases, may not be doing the work of a fully healthy worker because of some disability, when the Government are subsidising manufacturing employers to retain their workers? There is no economic sense in this, and I have demonstrated that there is no social sense in it, either.
    We on this side, and I am perfectly certain that in their hearts hon. Gentlemen opposite as well, are deeply concerned about the social consequences. The Committee is entitled to know whether the Minister consulted his Department right the way down to the disablement resettlement officers about this shabby proposal. What was the considered view of his advisers who, for 20 years, have been engaged in the humanitarian work of trying to help the disabled to fit into employment?
    When the Parliamentary Secretary replies, may I ask her if she will tell us whether the Minister's National Advisory Committee for the Disabled was consulted, and the country-wide system of district committees as well? Did they express any view once a decision was taken? Was any disablement resettlement officer consulted? I think that I know what the answers will be, but the Committee is entitled to hear the Parliamentary Secretary reply on this subject.
    It has been said that the tax puts a premium on inefficiency, on the hoarding of labour and that it is a positive disincentive to economy in manufacturing. That is true. It has been said that the tax is confusing and contradictory in the sense that it will be inflationary in manufacturing industry at a time when the rest of the Government's measures are supposed to have a disinflationary effect. That, also, is true. In its social consequences, the tax will be wholly bad, and one of its more pernicious effects will be to penalise the disabled, the elderly and the wife who works part time to keep together a family that may have lost the father or where the husband is sick or completely disabled. All these will be disadvantaged, while the premium is to be paid in respect of workers in manufacturing who so far have failed to re-
    900
    spond to the Prime Minister's woolly exhortations to raise production.
    So it is that the first casualties of Socialist failure to inspire the nation to greater efforts are the weakest elements in our labour force. Thus, the tax reverses in deed and in spirit everything that successive Governments have tried to do for the disabled. I myself would support discrimination in favour of the disabled, as I have always said. But we are not asking for that. The hon. Member for Cheadle made it plain that we are asking for far less. By definition, the disabled worker starts off with an inbuilt disadvantage. All that we ask here is that he shall not be disadvantaged further by this clumsy and singularly unselective tax.
    Here is one case where the excuse of administrative difficulty cannot be made. Most of the disabled can be identified, because they are already registered. They can remain on the register only if medical evidence is given that they are disabled. In the case of part-time workers, the Financial Secretary said—and I give him credit for it—that he was prepared to look at the matter again. The case for doing so on this Amendment is even stronger. I beg the Government to relent, to reverse their policy, and do so with dispatch.
    Dame Irene Ward: I wish to reinforce very strongly what my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) has just said and, first of all, I want to follow up one important point.
    I, too, would like to know from the hon. Lady whether the National Advisory Committee and the district and area disablement resettlement officers have been consulted, and I have a particular reason for asking that question. I would not have raised the matter had it not been for the speech of my hon. Friend, but he set off a spark in me, because I happen to have fought and won a battle with the hon. Lady affecting women.
    My hon. Friend mentioned the National Advisory Committee for the Disabled. We also have a Women's Consultative Committee which advises the Minister of Labour, and it is only an advisory committee. There was a meeting of that committee when the Selective Employment Tax was announced. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the meeting, but

    901
    I was horrified to hear that certain of my friends on the Committee had tried to raise the matter with the idea of finding out what advice the Committee wished to tender for consideration by the Minister, only to be slapped down on the understanding that another Department was dealing, with it.
    I went into battle over that, because I do not sit on consultative committees for the purpose of being overriden when the occasion for using the advice of the committeee arises. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary, who chairs the Committee—and I realise that I am being a little unfair, because she had just taken over the chair at the time—whether we could have a special meeting. The hon. Lady's reply was against a special meeting. Being a rather naughty and long-experienced Member of the House, I put down a Parliamentary Question immediately, and that won the battle.
    The meeting will be held next week, and the Minister will be able to consider the advice. It may be that the Committee will support the Minister and the Government. I do not know. But to wipe out the opportunity of a consultative committee giving advice in a time of crisis and when part-time workers, women worker; and the disabled are involved, does not strike me as straight, honest dealing.
    I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised the problem of the disabled. If the National Advisory Committee has not been consulted, I hope that the hon. Lady will hurriedly take steps to call it together, because there is still time to do something about this before the Report stage, and here is the field wide open. I may say to the hon. Lady and to the Government that I do not appreciate being double-crossed out of my democratic rights. I like to have every opportunity available.
    I will not go over again the points which have been admirably expressed in support of the elimination of the disabled from the Selective Employment Tax. They have been more than adequately made.
    5.0 p.m.
    I listened to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Ledger) who talked about this matter from the Government side. What always happens when a case is
    902
    argued by those who support our views on the imposition of the Selective Employment Tax in respect of part-time and disabled workers, is that the Financial Secretary and the Chief Secretary deal with the case in general terms. They never argue that it is the right of this House to protect the individual, and not only in general terms the community.
    The Amendment has been moved in support of the rights of individuals. The Prime Minister talked about a shakeout. I thought that it was a shake-out, and not a shake-up, but, whether it was a shake-up or a shake-out, the object of this tax is to transfer workers from service industries to manufacturing industries. But this is a lot of nonsense, because if the Government can introduce a Bill making charitable organisations liable to the tax, that must be absolutely batty. Fortunately they were forced out of that position very quickly.
    The disabled have received a great deal of attention from the Ministry of Labour. The Ministry has done a lot of hard work to get them employment and to keep them employed. Nobody in his senses can believe that it is possible to bring the disabled worker into the open market. It is absolute nonsense. I am a very suspicious person, and I can see the whole build-up. The hon. Lady, whom we all admire, is put on the Government Front Bench to answer the debate. It is not the Financial Secretary, it is not the Chief Secretary, it is the hon. Lady who is left to answer the arguments, and I think that it is wrong of the Government to put this responsibility on her in view of her Department's past history.
    One can argue one way or the other on the general question of the disabled. One can talk about the arrangements which have been made for special cases, about the attempts which have been made to help them, and about the work which has been done by the hon. Lady's Department, but the point remains that if this House agrees to this tax on the disabled the psychological effect will be to make people say, "What a Parliament. What a democratic approach to the disabled. They could not even in their hearts find it right to make a special concession for those whom they have always argued they were so interested in." It is

    903
    the overall psychological approach which will be so damaging to the disabled.
    Many of them know only too well the efforts which have been made by employers to help them. Some employers are much more ready than others to respond to those who need help, but, taking them as a whole, people are out to do what they can to help those who have had an unfortunate deal in life. I am glad to say that one of the developments in our national life is that people are becoming more conscious of the need to help those who have had a bad deal in life. It will be a terrible thing if the idea grows that this Committee is not prepared to help the disabled who cannot possibly fall into the category of workers which the Bill seeks to transfer from service to manufacturing industry.
    Surely even this Government, at this time, do not need to tax the disabled. Disabled people cannot be regarded as part of the inflationary pressure which has built up in this country. Wherever the inflationary pressure may have come from it cannot have come from the employment of the disabled. Are the Government proposing to send out word from this House of Commons, the central part of our democratic system, that they are going to tax the disabled in this way?
    Mr. Braine: The majority.
    Dame Irene Ward: I agree that it will be a majority, because many people will vote against this proposal, but the fact remains that it will have this bad psychological effect. People do not always examine the Division lists, nor do they always read the Press, nor listen to wireless or television broadcasts. This proposal cannot be in the interests of building up the morale of the disabled. Surely no one wants to destroy that? They have enough to cope with already.
    With all the power at my command, I beg the hon. Lady to repudiate this proposal. Somebody said that she could not give a pledge today. I am not taken in by Ministers saying that they will be able to do something in the future. There is no need to deal with this in the future. It can be dealt with today and I hope that the hon. Lady will do so quite firmly. The Deputy Prime Minister was "in-ing" and "out-ing" yesterday. I am sure
    904
    that the hon. Lady would "out" in a good cause. If she "outed" in this case —I realise that it is not her decision, it is the Government's—she would win a great victory, and I am sure nothing would give her greater pleasure than winning a great victory for the disabled of this country.
    Mr. Harold Finch: I spoke on this problem of the disabled during our discussions on the Finance Bill. I want for a few moments to plead with my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to make some concession in respect of disabled people. I support the Government's general policy, and I support their prices and incomes policy, but I feel rather embarrassed sitting here listening to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite speaking on a subject which I know is of great importance to many disabled men and women.
    Employers in service industries will have to pay 25s. a week for every man in their employment. This applies to both fit and disabled people. If we strike the slightest recession—and I want to look at this as optimistically as I can—I do not say that employers will get rid of all disabled persons merely because they have to pay 25s. per week for them, but it is likely that the disabled will be the first to be dismissed. Many disabled people are employed in sedentary jobs. Many are crippled, some are ex-Service men, and some, having come out of the mining industry, suffer from pneumoconiosis and have to gasp for breath and can hardly walk.
    I know that some employers employ more than 3 per cent. of disabled people. I have pleaded with them to take on additional disabled people, men who have been unemployed for years, because it is impossible to gauge the happiness which a disabled man finds when at last he has a job to do. I have been to employers and asked them to take on perhaps just one more disabled man. An employer often says, "We are employing 3 per cent. already", and we say, "Take one more". He may then take another one. Now we are imposing on such an employer the penalty of paying 25s. a week for each of these men.
    I support the main object of this legislation, but I cannot support this burden being placed on the disabled. These men

    905
    and women cannot properly help themselves. An able man who becomes redundant can find a job somewhere else, but once a disabled man is out of work he finds it very difficult to obtain another job. do not follow this part of the Government's policy. If a man is unemployed for a long time he ceases to be eligible for unemployment benefit. I believe that the benefit expires after 17 or 19 months, at most. At the end of that period the only help he can obtain is from National Assistance.
    Many disabled men who have spent a lifetime in the mining industry and who find themselves unemployed as a result of this provision will have to resort to National Assistance. I do not think that my right hon. Friends intended this, but that is what their policy will do. I do not understand the attitude of the Ministry of Labour. Its resettlement officers find employment for disabled people. They are paid for it, and they have done their job very efficiently. We can now close the door on the service industries, because these resettlement officers will not be able to get any help from them.
    Why is it necessary to bring in the disabled? My right hon. Friends say that difficulty arises in establishing the number of people who will have to pay contributions. It seems a simple matter to me; it is for every employer to tell the Ministry the number of disabled he is employing. We need not have all these complications concerning pensions and contributions. The employer merely has to state that he is employing so many disabled people, and supply their names, addresses and the amounts of their contributions. His return can always be checked. I cannot see how any difficulty can be caused.
    The State will not derive any financial benefit from this provision, because the people who become unemployed will go on to National Assistance and that will be a burden on the Exchequer. The Coal Board has done a good job for the disabled, but it cannot do more. These men are not mobile. They may be able to obtain work in manufacturing industries but I still do not see why the door to the service industries should be closed to them.
    In my opinion the Ministry is frustrating the work of its own officers
    906
    because it is going to create a situation in which there will be little point in rehabilitation and training for the disabled. I am embarrassed with the Ministry in this respect. Over the last 18 months or two years we have made a drive to obtain more work for the disabled, and it distresses me to have to stand here this evening and plead with my own Government on their behalf. I hope that the Ministry will reconsider this proposal, because it is more important to me than all the other aspects of the policy behind the Bill.
    I am fighting for men and women who cannot help themselves. Many of these people have given a life's work to industry, and they are going to find themselves unemployed, with the door closed to further employment, by the action of the Ministry of Labour.
    5.15 p.m.
    Captain Walter Elliot: I know that all my hon. Friends find themselves fully in agreement with the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) who asks what the point of this provision is. The trouble in the first place is that the economic and financial policies of the Government are in such a state of indescribable confusion that it is extraordinarily difficult to decide what the point of any impost is. The task is made even more difficult, because the emphasis changes from week to week.
    Three reasons have been put forward for the imposition of the Selective Employment Tax. First, it is said to be revenue-raising; secondly, it is said to have a deflationary impact, and, thirdly, it is supposed to aid the redeployment of labour. Let us examine those three reasons. We have heard that over 200,000 disabled people are employed in the service industries. The financial cost of relieving them of this burden would be very small. It would be particularly small if we take into account the Prime Minister's statement of yesterday, when he said that he was clawing in another £500 million from the staggering populace. I cannot see any justification for imposing this tax on the disabled simply to raise revenue.
    What about its deflationary effect? As the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) said, vast sums of public money have been spent in setting up

    907
    retraining establishments for the disabled, in order to fit them for new jobs. If we are blunt and honest in using the expression "deflation" we have to admit that we are envisaging another 400,000 unemployed. After all the money that we have spent in retraining the disabled we do not want to see them unemployed. That is ruled out as a reason.
    The third reason, concerning the redeployment of labour, is inextricably bound up with retraining. However willing the disabled are, and however good, it is difficult to retrain them. We do not want to redeploy these men and women into other jobs, and have to waste a lot of time in retraining them. Therefore, that reason also seems to be out. We have been told that the administrative problem involved in relieving them from this burden would be very small, and the Government cannot rely on that argument.
    We have been very disappointed with the lack of support from the back benches opposite. Everyone admits that the mainspring of the Socialist Party in the past has been its streak of idealism, in seeking to help the blind, the lame and the halt. We are not putting forward these Amendments for any party purpose. We have heard hon. Members opposite speak in support of our arguments, but we have received no support from them in the Lobby. Surely, in Committee, nothing is more calculated to spur a Government than a healthy defeat on some minor point. It could not bring them down, so surely we could expect some support from the back benches opposite on this issue.
    I am slightly encouraged to see that, apparently, the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour is to reply. The Chief Secretary and the Financial Secretary must be tired out. I do not know where the Chief Secretary is today: I hope that he is away having a rest, because in the last few days he has put forward the most extraordinary arguments. When he wound up the guillotine debate, the thesis he propounded was that the more complicated and controversial a Measure was, the more important it was to stifle discussion. When he wound up the debate on concessions for the blind, he proved entirely to his own satisfaction that in
    908
    obtaining employment it is a great advantage to be blind.
    The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Ledger) came near to arguing that to be disabled might not be a disadvantage. We should reject that argument completely. The disabled are only a certain percentage efficient—perhaps 50 or 70 per cent. They have grave disabilities, so that I hope that that argument will not be put forward by the hon. Lady.
    Mr. Ledger: Most hon. Members here did not understand that from what I said. I said that so many who are disabled overcome their disability and acquire skills equal to those of people who are not disabled. This was my point, that they would not automatically lose a job because they were disabled, because their skills might be so great. I hope that the interpretation which the hon. and gallant Member made was for his own purposes and that he is the only one who would make it.
    Captain Elliot: I take the hon. Member's point, that, because these people are disabled, there are no grounds for a concession. That was the argument of the Chief Secretary for the blind. I hope that it will be rejected.
    Mr. Ted Leadbitter: Hon. Members opposite have talked a great deal about their concern for the disabled, which is admirable. I do not doubt that they and hon. Members on this side are greatly alarmed about the effects of the Selective Employment Tax on the disabled. I do not doubt the genuineness of what hon. Members have said, but when we try to translate expressions of concern in terms of political performance hon. Members opposite have a dismal and miserable record.
    I can remember pleading for concessionary fares for old people, the disabled and the blind in my maiden speech in 1964. I recollected then that over a period of years hon. Members opposite had opposed such a Measure to help the kind of people for whom we are pleading now—
    Mr. Braine: Would the hon. Gentleman also recollect that the same question has been put to the present Government and that they, too, have declined?
    Mr. Leadbitter: The first Bill with which I was happy to be associated was that which provided for concessionary fares. Happily, this is being operated now by many authorities—
    Mr. Braine: Not for the old people in my constituency.
    Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Member represents a constituency which I cannot judge. He is a Conservative Member, and I challenge him to show that he has ever pressed his local authority to implement the Travel Concessions Act.
    Mr. Braine rose—
    Mr. Leadbitter: The point I want to develop—
    Mr. Braine: The hon. Gentleman has just made an assertion that, in a certain matter, I have not pressed the interests of my constituency. I made an earlier intervention because I have been in correspondence with the present Government and have received a dusty answer.
    Mr. Leadbitter: My point simply is that in this matter, concerning disabled people, hon. Members opposite have a very unhappy record. However, I am not making a case that any hon. Member is less concerned than I am about disabled people. I respect their views. It is not a good test to have recriminations about political performance—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Oh"] It is not a good test. The test is whether we are concerned that relief should be given to this section of the community, to whom these matters are of grave importance.
    I am sometimes concerned to see political opportunism in a debate on an attempt to reform our tax legislation, which is bound to have anomalies. I would be the first to say that the Selective Employment Tax is half-baked, half-thought-out and hurriedly introduced and that it might be wiser if my Front Bench bore in mind opinions expressed in this House rather more than the opinions given by their advisers. I am satisfied that every hon. Member returning to his or her constituency sees there the social consequences of legislation. This is more frequent than the Ministry's advisers think.
    I am alarmed that there are so many anomalies in this half-baked and half-
    910
    thought-out Measure and that we cannot yet get a nod from the Front Bench to signify that the Government will think of introducing reliefs where they are most needed. I will not go so far as to say that the S.E.T. is not necessary. It is very necessary. However, it would have been more effective if it had been considered in the coming year and then introduced, when all the consultations with and advice from those concerned with communities like the disabled might have been far more helpful in producing a tax with the degree of selectivity which the Title of the Bill implies.
    5.30 p.m.
    I hope that the Government will accept that on both sides of the Committee there is genuine concern—in my case it is anger—that S.E.T. is to be applied in cases where it will do harm. I go so far as to say that my anger about this form of tax is such that unless I can be otherwise persuaded I will feel disinclined to support the Government in this matter.
    The hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) has talked about courage. I would be the last person to minimise the courage which she has displayed in Parliament over the years, even if a large part of it might come under the heading of stubbornness. I must make my case as a back-bench Labour hon. Member and that is why I say that unless I receive a nod of approval from a member of the Government to convince me that my remarks are being heeded, I will feel disinclined to support the Government on this issue.
    All hon. Members must examine their conscience in whichever part of the Committee they sit. Having done so, I have some simple questions to put to the Government. They are simple because I have removed them from the area of political recrimination. They are questions which have to do with ordinary people and I trust that I will be given an ordinary and straightforward reply. Do the Government really believe that they will help the disabled by the imposition of S.E.T.? If so, will they explain in simple terms to what extent it will be helpful? Is S.E.T. likely to be harmful to the disabled? If so, to what extent will it be harmful and on what advice have they determined the degree of harmfulness?

    911
    Do the Government genuinely believe that disabled people employed in industries which may be affected by the announced shake-up will not suffer; that redundancy will not occur to the disabled people seeking employment in the service and distributive trades? To what extent will they suffer in this way, and will they have to seek employment in other trades? If so, do the Government believe that they will be considered for employment? To what extent will this tax on the disabled produce any sort of revenue return? Is it possible, considering the technicalities involved in collecting S.E.T. for the Government to think in terms of introducing some reliefs or creating allowances for the disabled employed in the service industries?
    The Government have an opportunity tonight to say to at least one hon. Member on the Labour side—although I am not the only one on these benches who feels deeply concerned about this—that they are willing to examine the imposition of S.E.T. again so that I and my hon. Friends who feel the way I do may feel able to support the Government, remembering that an expression of sympathy from the Government Front Bench would show that the Government share the anxiety that has been expressed on both sides of the Committee.
    I wish to make it clear that I feel equally strongly that the Ministers concerned have not looked at this matter as clearly as have hon. Members who have criticised it. Nevertheless, I am dreadfully concerned about a process that has been and is going on in government and which is worrying back benchers on both sides of the Committee. It concerns the power and influence of Parliament. Various arguments may be adduced from one side of the Committee or the other, but they are being lost because of the weakening power of the House of Commons.
    Having stated that the Ministers responsible have, I am sure, shown concern about the problem of the disabled, I would like to know to what extent their minds have been preconditioned by the advice given to them by people in other Departments. If that has happened, it is time that the Departments concerned—the Treasury, the
    912
    Ministry of Labour and any individual or individuals who have sought to advise in those Departments—were put in their proper place, because it is only after a brief has been written that the argument starts.
    I hope that before the Division bell rings a member of the Government Front Bench will tell me that I have reason not to feel disinclined to support the Government on this issue.
    Sir Tatton Brinton: I am in deep agreement with the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter). I only regret that he felt it necessary to begin his speech with a great deal of political recrimination, which he rebuked in other people although he might have applied it to himself. However, the remainder of his remarks were delivered with great conviction and I hope that his words will carry some weight with the Government. So far everything that we have said seems to have fallen on deaf ears.
    I have listened to many speeches on this subject from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee and have been convinced, as any humane and logical person must be, that the issue we are discussing should be the subject of exemption from Selective Employment Tax. How can anybody justify taxing the employment of disabled people?
    I do not wish to spin out the debate and I will, therefore, make only two points. First, it is precisely in those services which bear the tax that it is most difficult to employ disabled people. It is easier to find places for them in manufacturing because manufacturing units tend to be larger than distributive ones and, where dozens or hundreds of people are employed, it is obviously easier to find round holes for round pegs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radcliffe) pointed out. The Government are putting a tax on those enterprises which find it more difficult to employ disabled people, namely, the service industries.
    Secondly, what is the administrative difficulty about accepting the suggestion we have made? In the amazing encumbrances of the Bill it has been decided by the authors that those who are to receive the premium must first pay

    913
    the tax and claim their money back later. Why cannot any employer of any kind, whether in a service or manufacturing industry, also make a claim on one or another of the multifarious Ministries which are to administer the payments—making his claim in the same way as a qualifying manufacturer will make his claim?
    The qualifying manufacturer has to establish a good deal of evidence to back up his claim. He must prove that more than 50 per cent. of his people are manufacturing and that he is on one side of the street and not on the other. He has to show how many of his people are filling in forms for the Government, and how many are actually making goods. How much more difficult would it be for the Government to enable the service industries to recover the tax by making claims in respect of the disabled people they employ? Could there be any difficulty the Government could not overcome?
    I submit that where it is a matter of extracting large quantities of tax from the public, even at great difficulty, the Government can always find a way, but that when it is a question of forgoing a relatively small sum for a humane object we are told that administrative difficulties will not permit it. I hope that we shall not have that argument thrown at us again now, particularly in respect of such a humane object as we have in mind.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mrs. Shirley Williams): In the course of this debate the whole argument has moved from a position marking the real concern of hon. Members—and there is real concern on both sides—to one that has become to a large extent distorted. I will state the facts as quickly as I can, then look at the incidence of the tax, and then remind hon. Members about one or two things already said in the debate which seem to have been forgotten.
    First and foremost, this tax has been represented by a number of hon. Members on both sides as a tax on the disabled, but they might call it a premium for the disabled, because both statements are true. Let us look at the general facts. The Selective Employment Tax is, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out more than
    914
    once, basically a tax intended to balance up the general level of taxation on the service industries vis-à-vis the general level of taxation in the manufacturing industries with, in the middle, a neutral section upon which refund is payable.
    There are in the manufacturing section of industry some 300,000 disabled workers, on every one of whom the premium will be paid. If I may say so, at an earlier stage of our debate there was a long discussion in which hon. Members opposite perfectly legitimately argued that the premium could lead to labour hoarding, though I do not think that I have heard one of them argue that the premium would mean that in certain cases manufacturers would hold to their disabled labour, which must be the case if the argument is that the premium is an incentive to hoarding labour in manufacturing.
    A further 100,000 disabled persons fall into the refund category. The sum of money payable on them will therefore be neutral, so we trust that their employment will not be affected. Finally, approximately 200,000 disabled are in the service sector. They are largely employed by firms which take them under the quota system. Under that system, which arose from the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, they cannot be dismissed "without good cause". That means, quite straightforwardly, that there is a major barrier in the way of the very thing about which many hon. Members on both sides have, with due sincerity and real concern, worried themselves.
    The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), for instance, referred to British Legion car park attendants, but British Legion car park attendants, like all car park attendants in that group, and like all electric lift attendants in that group, are in employments that are listed as being open only to the disabled, so that no one not disabled can hold a job in those sectors. That means that if anyone loses his job in that sector, another disabled person will have to be employed. That is the case there—
    Mr. Lubbock: Some people will do without attendants at their car parks—that is what will happen.
    Mrs. Williams: This occupation is listed as limited to those who are disabled.
    Dr. Winstanley: I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that the description "car park attendant" is misleading. It is merely the name given to a company operated by the British Legion which supplies employment to all sorts of occupations. If one looks it up, one finds that many of them do other things, and to the cost of hiring them out to other commercial undertakings will now be added the Selective Employment Tax.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mrs. Williams: I do not deny the hon. Gentleman's argument, but merely say that it is not the case in this type of employment that disabled people will be displaced and other persons taken on. It is my duty to try to answer on the basis of fact. I will come later to the general concern that all hon. Members rightly feel on the subject.
    Consequently, two-thirds of the disabled fall within the premium or refund categories. Half of the disabled will have refund paid for them, and one-third will not, but, of those, some come under quota, and therefore cannot, under the 1944 Act, be dismissed without good cause. These are the facts of the matter.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) referred with deep feeling to those groups which largely concern themselves with providing sheltered work. Again, to the best of the knowledge of my Department, Remploy will come within the premium category, which means that it will be easier, and not more difficult, for it to carry on and reinforce its excellent work. Local authority workshops will be covered by the repayment provisions of Clause 4. And workshops run by voluntary bodies are almost all in the manufacturing sector and for the most part are also charities.
    I will not deny that hon. Members on both sides have a very real concern for those whom this Measure might affect—if there were one person it would be too many—but we must get the argument in proportion, and recognise that a large part of the Opposition's case under the general head of a "tax on the disabled "is, if I may say so, intentionally or not, a highly distorted way in which to approach the subject, and does not help anyone.
    I turn to the second point. There are certain administrative difficulties, but I make it clear that administrative difficul-
    916
    ties should never be allowed to stay in the way of something necessary as well as right. We shall argue in a moment whether or not this is necessary. We do not yet know. Let us look at the difficulties to be overcome. During the Committee stage of the Finance Bill the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), to whose real knowledge of and concern with this subject I wish to pay tribute, said about some employers—and he may or may not have been right about this; it is difficult to judge:
    " They evade the Act by seeking to get on to the register many people whose disablements are more imaginary than real. There is the type of employer, who, to bring the total number of disabled persons up to the appropriate figure, will seek to get people, probably a mild diabetic, who have not been substantially disabled, to go on to the register so as to keep his figures up."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1966; Vol. 730, c. 1866.]
    That may occur in some cases. I am sure that we will agree that in most cases it does not, but it points to the difficulty, and it is a real difficulty.
    I believe that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is right that the terms and conditions for being on the disabled register should be generously expressed, and so they are—as he will know, because he is an expert in this field. One of these terms covers anyone who, by reason of disablement, may find it difficult to get new employment in less than 12 months. This is as generous a provision as exists anywhere else in the world, and it is probably more generous. It takes care, among others, of the short-term disabled who may, as we hope they will, later return to full health.
    But the hon. Member will recognise that the terms and conditions of the disablement register, expressed broadly, as they are so expressed, as to make available the services of the Ministry of Labour to as many people as may benefit are, by that very token, very widely expressed so as to try to give reality to the disabled, of whom he knows there are many thousands, who are not on the register. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, there are some on the register who are certainly less disabled than others who are not on the register. So the first difficulty is that the register itself is a bad guide to the whole of the disabled community. It is a guide to

    917
    some, including some very severely disabled, but it excludes many who are disabled, and may include some who are more lightly disabled than others outside it. This is a genuine difficulty for anyone on either side of the Committee who wishes to be as fair as possible.
    There is the further administrative difficulty constituted by firms with fewer than 20 employees who do not have a quota. Most of those firms in the service industries—I stress the service industries —under the Bill would make no returns whatever of employment or establishment and would put in no claims for repayments. So immediately there would be a great many firms in this small group of whom we have no clear record as to whom they employ because they have no record of numbers of disabled whom they employ.
    If it is necessary to do this, it must be done. Now I come to the third part of my argument. Having argued the difficulties, the Government are reluctant to bring in this machinery unless it is necessary. My hon. Friends the Members for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) and Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) have done a great deal in the field of disablement. They are both worried about the effect on the disabled, but I point out to them that on Second Reading of the Finance Bill, in Committee on the Finance Bill, and again in Committee on this Bill, the Government have pointed out, not once or twice but on a number of occasions, that, should there be any sign of it being necessary, they would be prepared to undertake this quite difficult administrative action—and so indeed they should.
    I shall not listen—I do not think it would be right to listen—to the siren voices, however attractive, from the other side which ask me and my hon. Friends to resign on hypotheses. If these hypotheses are correct and there is a savage effect on the disabled, of course the Government would do something about it, but I point out that under this Government the proportion of disabled unemployed is lower than it has ever been since 1960. Not only is it the lowest, but it is 25 per cent. lower than it was in the final full year of Conservative Government. This Government have embarked on four new industrial rehabilitation units which are now due to be built. Those who are knowledgeable on the subject of disable-
    918
    ment know that the courses offered in those units and the work of disablement resettlement officers are to a great extent directed to where vacancies aries.
    This tax is not a tax on the disabled. It is a tax which admittedly has an effect on the disabled in the services sector, but it is a tax on the services. Arrangements exist to make sure that disabled persons who come forward for resettlement shall be directed towards and trained for places which are available for their employment. The premium is available to all in manufacturing industry, which is half, and the refund is available for a further sixth, while Remploy and the like attract premium or refund. In consequence, while fully recognising the full concern which is felt and recognising the strong arguments put forward, I say that they are arguments which would carry a great deal more legitimacy if they were arguments about an effect and not—as they are—about an hypothesis which I believe cannot be sustained for the reasons I have pointed out.
    If there should be evidence of a sharp effect on the disabled, of course we shall have to act despite the administrative difficulties, but if there is no reason to act, there is no reason to embark on a course which presents so many administrative difficulties.
    Mr. Braine: The hon. Lady is resting her case on facts. I am sure that she would not wish to shelter behind the fact that the number of disabled has fallen steadily and sharply through the years. Would she not acknowledge that this is almost entirely due to the disappearance from the labour market of men who served in the First Great War and of some of the disabled from the Second Great War?
    Mrs. Williams: Of course the hon. Member is right. That is why he must play fair with me, and he is generous with both sides of the Committee. It is fair to point out that this is a percentage figure. Had I given a complete, absolute figure it would be misleading. The percentage is lower on an admittedly lower total, but the absolute figures would have shown a dramatic fall which would not be fair.
    Mr. Finch: Why is it necessary at all to bring in the disabled? What purpose

    919
    is it serving? It is not serving any purpose. Perhaps it is not appropriate for me to put this question to my hon. Friend and it should be put to the Exchequer, but I cannot see what the point of it is as it does not serve any purpose.
    Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend knows a great deal about the training of the disabled. He is asking why it should be necessary in any way to affect disabled people in the employment sector? I point out that the tax is a tax on services. It is a tax which gives a premium to manufacturing. He will know that there is no attempt to single out the disabled, but the tax falls on those disabled in the service industries. They are treated like everyone else. I pointed out the reasons why it is very difficult to exempt this group in the community. They are not definable from the point of view of National Insurance, and the register presents difficulties, but I assure my hon. Friend that those difficulties must be overcome if it is necessary, although the Government rightly say that it is not necessary to do so and if there is not an increase in the number of those unemployed among the disabled.
    Mr. Leslie Spriggs: My hon. Friend says that disabled people are not definable, but surely medical evidence provided by the medical profession would make them definable?
    Mrs. Williams: I am not for a moment trying to suggest that the disabled cannot be defined. All I am saying is that the machinery which exists to define them is machinery which would have to be established and which it would be relatively complicated to establish. If it has to be done, it will be done, but if it does not have to be done and the Government argue that two-thirds of the disabled will not suffer through the tax but will gain from it, it is beside the point to establish the machinery.
    There is no closure on this debate, and hon. Members who wish to speak later can do so, but I have argued it several times and hon. Members must allow me to finish my speech. If they had given me an opportunity, I would have finished it a few minutes ago. I sum up by saying once again that those in the sheltered workshops will benefit from either a
    920
    premium or a refund, local authority workshops will benefit from the refund, and two-thirds of the disabled come within the premium or the refund category, but, should it be necessary, the Government have made clear on many occasions that action will be taken.
    Miss Mervyn Pike: I apologise to the Committee that my voice is rather weak as I seem to have been rendered almost speechless by the events and announcements of yesterday, but I will do my best. In any case, I do not wish to detain the Committee for very long because many of the arguments have been put very sincerely and thoroughly. I do not want to go over them again, but I wish to comment on what the hon. Lady said.
    She rested all her case, if I understood it rightly, on the fact that this tax is not a tax against the disabled. That, of course, we accept. It is not a tax against the disabled. Although we brought out in all our speeches and arguments the fact that the tax will hurt a large section of the disabled, we accept that it was not primarily a tax against the disabled. Of course, those in the manufacturing industries will have the premium and they are on all-fours with able-bodied workers. People in the category in which there is a refund are on all-fours with able-bodied workers. It is only the small percentage in the service industries with whom we are concerned in this Amendment. It is those whom we are trying to help.
    6.0 p.m.
    The hon. Lady and I approach this question from totally different angles. I want to weigh the scales slightly in favour of the disabled. It would be only very slightly and marginally, but we are in very difficult economic circumstances. We are in circumstances where the disabled in any case, even if they are in full employment in a sheltered industry, are at greater risk than any other section of the community. They have to have transport. This is to be more expensive. They have higher laundry and cleaning bills, often because of the nature of their disablement.
    From the beginning we want to weigh the scales in favour of protecting people. I have been an employer of labour. I hope that I was a humane and compassionate employer of labour. We had

    921
    some difficult times in the immediate post-war years when I took over the management in my industry. I know that one must be ruthless when balancing who to employ. There are many occasions when one must say, "I must make my head govern my heart", as the hon. Lady has done today. If the hon. Lady had followed the dictates of her heart, she would not have adduced the arguments which she presented to the Committee. She would have given way immediately.
    Employers who are trying to get through a stringent economic situation and who are fighting for every penny of a very narrow profit margin will have to look harshly at those on their labour roll, if the Government measures are to work, as they must work if the nation is to pull itself out of its present difficulties. The firms which must make such an appraisal will be the small firms. The big firms can carry one or two extra people. I am not so much worried about them. I am worried about the disabled who are employed by small firms. Such firms may well have to say in this economic crisis, "X who is legless, is inflexible, because he can do only one job ". Last night reference was made to the fact that a badly disabled cashier behind a cash desk could not help in a shop because of his disability.
    All known factors have to be weighed. The sickness record is very often weighed in the balance. We all know that in bad weather it is often impossible for disabled people to get to work. Therefore, an employer of disabled workers has to have a bigger margin.
    I approach this question on the basis that, if social justice and compassion mean anything at all, this is an argument which should weigh very heavily with us, particularly at this time. It was relevant when this tax was introduced, but it is even more relevant today, because we are discussing the tax in a new set of circumstances, when we know that, if the Prime Minister's "shake-out" is to mean anything, it will mean difficult circumstances for many people and it will mean unemployment.
    The hon. Lady has said that these people can be retrained and brought back into employment. Of course they can. I
    922
    know that the hon. Lady appreciates the agonies of mind which people undergo through having to be retrained and rehabilitated. It is easy to say that somebody who has been dismissed from an undertaking in, say, Melton Mowbray can be retrained, that there is probably a vacancy in Loughborough in a manufacturing industry which such a person can fill.
    However, it is not only a question of retraining. It is a question of moving the person and of all the difficulties of rehabilitating him in different circumstances. I hope that hon. Members will take the opportunity of visiting the exhibition presently being held in the Central Hall, which I have visited. It is organised by the World Federation of Occupational Therapists, and people from all over the world are showing aids they have thought out to help people in their everyday lives. What struck me was the excitement which the disabled feel when some little extra help is provided which enables them to go into employment or to lead a fuller life.
    Other hon. Members have said how essential it is for these people to be employed. It is essential that they should not be unemployed. The disabled so easily give up hope. After a few months of unemployment, during which they are waiting for a retraining scheme, these people often give up hope and sink back into the lethargy that working in the community does so much to dissipate. First and foremost, the argument here is not an economic one, nor even a logical one. It is one of social justice and of compassion.
    If it is such a small number of people involved, who may or may not be hurt by the tax, surely at this moment in time we have an extra duty to look after this very small residue. I cannot accept the hon. Lady's assurance. She used the words, "if there is any savage effect". I do not hold the word "savage" against the hon. Lady. She does not mean that. She means that, if she finds the problem building up, she will take action. The word "savage" may be the right one, although I do not hold it against the hon. Lady in any context.
    We must not wait until the problem has arrived and people have been hurt by the tax. Large masses of people are not involved. Those involved will not

    923
    be easily identifiable. The hon. Lady gives us the assurance that she will wait to see what effect the tax has. What provision is she now making to discover what effect the tax will have? I would guess that no work was put in before the tax was brought in to find out what effect it would have. We have constantly asked what sort of consultations took place and have tried to find out what opinion could be given. These are matters of opinion. We have constantly asked what efforts Ministers have taken, whether it be the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Social Security or the Government as a whole. We have had no answer.
    The truth is that the tax has been introduced without any consultation and no steps have been taken to ensure that we can quickly tell what the effects will be. When the hon. Lady arrives at her Ministry tomorrow morning, I have no doubt that she will put things in train. That is not good enough. We want to know what consultations have already taken place and what steps are in train to discover what effect of the tax will be if we fail to carry our Amendment.
    Mr. Peter Bessell: The hon. Lady has referred, I am sure inadvertently, to this being her Amendment. It is a Liberal Amendment.
    Miss Pike: I apologise. New Clause No.4is being discussed with this Amendment. My mind was directed to the new Clause in which we asked that those who are on the disablement register be exempted from the tax.
    The hon. Lady also said that it was not easy to discover the numbers on the disablement register, because the terms were drawn very wide and there was doubt whether some people would get on to it. She said that perhaps there would be some dishonesty. The burden of her case was whether there could be some dishonesty in people getting on to the register to get the repayment, therefore bringing the whole matter into disrepute.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: I should not like it to be thought that I was imputing dishonesty, but, rather, that there would be many cases of people who would be likely to apply to get on the register,
    924
    whereas people more severely disabled than them were not on it.
    Miss Pike: I recognise that, but, in reality, there could well be loopholes for dishonesty. I was, of course, taking the case to the extreme. I would not accept it as a valid argument, although there may well be some cases where people will try to get on the register who are not as worthy to be on it as those who are already on it. One of the great advantages of the Amendment would be that more people would go on to the register.
    All those I have talked to about this are concerned that so many people will not get themselves on to the register because, particularly in days of overfull employment, they can get jobs without recourse to the register. All the organisations trying to do things for these people know that there are far more disabled than they can account for on the register. One of the side effects of the Amendment, and a great advantage, would be that people genuinely disabled would get on to the register.
    I hope that I have dealt with the majority of the hon. Lady's arguments, but it is primarily an issue of social justice. There is, of course, the economic factor as well. For example, disabled people are less a charge on public funds when they are in work and they themselves are better off in work. If unemployed, they are more expensive to retrain. They are far more liable to go on to National Assistance and stay there. There is a reasonable economic case for trying to keep them in work.
    I ask the hon. Lady to look at this again. It is not good enough for the Government to say that they will take action once the crisis has arisen, the damage done and suffering caused to these people; once they have been shown to be unemployed and it has been proved that our arguments were right; and once it has been shown that, in a difficult economic situation, with labour becoming more fluid, the disabled are a risk. What we ask is that the Government shall take action on behalf of these people here and now and weight the balance slightly in their favour so that, in the difficult months ahead, they will feel that they have security.
    Mr. Bellenger: I wonder if the Committee will bear with me for a moment. It

    925
    is true that the Amendment is not from the principal Opposition but, in view of the support given to it from both sides of the Committee, notably on this side, I hope Vat the sponsors will feel disposed not to press it to a Division.
    My reason is that the arguments that I put have, in large part, been met. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour has shown a sympathetic attitude that is not always the condition of the Government after a debate of this kind. She has tried to show that she sympathises with the purpose of the Amendment and has given an assurance that the Government will take steps, during the coming year of the working of the tax so far as the disabled are concerned, to remedy any anomalies or defects that occur.
    My hon. Friend met the important point that I was concerned with about anomalies. Hon. Members opposite may be concerned with something wider. If the sponsors do not withdraw the Amendment, as they might well do, I shall support the Government in the Lobby against them. I have had my say about the anomalies and my hon. Friend has done her best to meet me. I hope that those of my hon. Friends who have spoken in the same terms will also vote with the Government on this matter.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Bessell: We have just heard the most extraordinary argument. The Liberal Party put down an Amendment which, Sir Eric, in your wisdom you selected and which has been supported forcefully by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. Now the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) suggests that, because his particular argument has been met—not the arguments put forward by the Liberal Party or by Conservatives or even arguments put by his hon. Friends—the Amendment should be withdrawn. We have listened to some strange arguments in this Committee but none more extraordinary than that audacious suggestion.
    We know in this Committee that, when Amendrients are discussed on various Bills, the answer has already been decided. The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) made this point effectively in a very good speech in which he said that the decisions were made, alas,
    926
    not by Ministers but by those who are supposed to be their servants.
    One suspects that, all too often, the answer which has been decided long before the debate takes place is one about which the Ministers themselves may have doubts. I am certain from my experience in this Committee and as a Member of the House over the last two years that there have been a number of occasions when members of the Government have been very unhappy with the briefs they have had to read.
    But I do not think there can have been many occasions when we have witnessed a member of the Government more obviously unhappy and uncertain of her ground than the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour in her reply a few minutes ago. We know that, quite often, decisions are made in advance, but it will be a sad day if this Committee is not able to persuade the Government to change their mind on an issue of such importance as this. The hon. Lady said that the whole proposition is based upon a hypothesis that some disabled persons may suffer but that there is no evidence of this. She also indicated that if evidence could be shown the Government would change their mind. I propose to put a case before her as positive evidence and I hope that it may persuade her that it is necessary to fulfil now and not later the pledge that she will change her mind.
    Yesterday morning I went to my barber. I found that the man who usually cuts my hair was away and in his place was an assistant whom I had not previously met. During the haircut he told me he had suffered a second thrombosis six months ago and that as a result of a visit to hospital the day before he had been advised that he must now cease full-time employment as a barber and become a part-time employee. He emphasised that it was important that he should continue to do some work but the only job for which he has been trained—and he is in his sixties—is hairdressing.
    He put his problem to his employer, who is a very humane man whom I have known for some years. The answer was, "I am sorry but I cannot continue to employ you. If I keep you in my service I must inevitably engage another part-time barber. That means I will have to

    927
    pay the Selective Employment Tax twice whereas, if I dispose of your services, I can have one man to do the job and I will pay the tax once only." The hon. Lady has asked for a concrete example. Here is an example, a man who will definitely lose his employment even though he could register tomorrow as a disabled person.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond)indicated dissent.
    Mr. Bessell: The Chief Secretary shakes his head. I will gladly give way if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene.
    Mr. Diamond: The hon. Gentleman said that he would give evidence, but he is putting forward a hypothesis of what might happen in future and has not told us what other full-time employee the barber will get. Perhaps he will tell us that when he next gets his hair cut in six weeks' time, or whatever it may be. He has not said whether the man will get another job elsewhere.
    Mr. Bessell: The Chief Secretary has made his point and I will follow it through. He suggests that the effect will be that the employee to whom I have referred, upon losing his employment, will be able to get another and part-time job. That is another hypothesis. The barber will not be able to dispose of his services, because he will not be able to get a full-time barber's job. That is a second hypothesis. I am dealing with the fact and the fact is that the barber to whom I have referred will lose his job and is now physically under notice to quit. The hon. Lady has said that she is not prepared to give way because we are dealing with a hypothesis. I am dealing with fact and it is the Chief Secretary who is dealing with hypotheses and if she is to be logical, the hon. Lady must now change her mind.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: Perhaps I should not cross swords with the hon. Gentleman about logic, but I shall try. The case which he has described arises directly out of an Amendment which we discussed yesterday and which was concerned with the effect on part-time workers. It does not arise on this Amendment which affects the registered
    928
    disabled. The gentleman he has mentioned is not registered disabled and, I am afraid, would not be likely so to be, if the reason is that which the hon. Gentleman gave—that he has had a heart attack and in consequence is ill rather than disabled.
    Mr. Bessell: It is very difficult to cross swords with the hon. Lady, but I am assured by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), who is an expert in these matters, that in fact the barber in question would have no difficulty whatever in being put on the register as a disabled person upon application and that it would be a perfectly straightforward matter for which there would be many precedents.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: He is not on the disabled register and in this Amendment we have been discussing people who are disabled and the effects on them, so that I think that my contention stands.
    Mr. Bessell: I appreciate the hon. Lady's care and the fact that she is trying very hard to argue her case, but the fact remains that, having been told by his doctor that he may now work only as a part-time employee, because of the disablement which he now has and from which he has not previously suffered, he is entitled to be registered as a disabled person. That being so, if this alleviation were given, he could continue in his employment and his job would be safe and the suffering of a man who has now to suffer because the Government have not taken account of these cases would be prevented.
    Mr. Lubbock: If our Amendment were accepted, the employer would have the incentive to employ two people who were disabled, because he would then get the premium twice.
    Mr. Bessell: That is true and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to that.
    I turn from that positive case to another. The hon. Lady is concerned not with hypotheses, but with facts and it is therefore best for me to deal with factual cases. Last Saturday night, I had a meeting with a group of sub-postmasters in my constituency. If I had been able to speak last night on the Liberal Amendment dealing with part-time employees,

    929
    I would have elaborated their problem, but I will confine myself to one difficulty raised by a sub-posmaster who employs a disabled person.
    As we all know, the sub-postmasters are not able to pass on the cost of the Selective Employment Tax. Unlike the Post Office itself, they are in a special position and will suffer acute difficulties as a result of the imposition of this tax. The sub-postmaster to whom I am referring is a man over 70 and his wife is very nearly the same age. They employ one part-time assistant who is disabled and who is registered as a disabled person. The tax will be paid on that person's services.
    As this is a rural post office in a small village, the sub-postmaster will find it impossible to retain the services of that disabled person. I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that in the villages of Cornwall and other parts of the British Isles there is no possibility of finding alternative employment and there is no chance of going into industry. In Cornwall, as in the rest of the West Country, we have thousands of people seeking employment in industry and available on the labour market. There is no chance of a disabled person, working part-time in a sub-post office, finding new employment. All that will happen will be suffering to the disabled person and to the elderly couple who run the sub-post office and, consequently, to the community which will get a much poorer service than would otherwise be the case.
    I have put two positive examples to the Committee. The hon. Lady has given an assurance that if the Government can be shown that these arguments are not hypotheses but are based on fact, they will reconsider their position. The hon. Lady must therefore agree that she has no alternative but to accept the Amendment and to ensure that disabled persons employed, not in industry—I accept the argument about that—but in small shops and hotels and catering establishments and a whole variety of trades and services throughout the country which are not covered by her arguments, will be allowed the peace of mind and the absence of suffering which would result from accepting a simple Amendment which would cost the Government a negligible sum of money and which would immensely increase their stature in the country.
    930
    There have been many occasions when my hon. and right hon. Friends and I have had cause to criticise the Labour Party and the Labour Government. Although it may be argued, as I have sometimes argued myself, that they seem to lack head, I do not think that the worst enemy of Labour could say that they lack heart. The great tradition of the Labour movement throughout its long and honourable history has been always to seek to uphold and to help those who are under-privileged and those who are suffering from no fault of their own, those upon whom the burden of life falls hardly instead of happily.
    This Amendment would go a little way towards alleviating the suffering of mind of many people, including my barber of yesterday, and I ask the hon. Lady to look at the matter again. If she will undertake to examine the question again and herself to introduce an Amendment on Report, I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends would be willing to withdraw the Amendment. If not, we must press it to a Division.
    6.30 p.m.
    Dame Joan Vickers: I shall say only a few words at this late hour of the time for debate on this Amendment because I am particularly interested, and have been for a long time, in working for the disabled. The hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary, in her well-argued speech, gave us a flurry of figures. I am hoping that, as I got a partial nod yesterday from the Financial Secretary in respect of another Amendment, he may consider the idea that I wish to put forward. In the figures, as I understand them, there are 300,000 people who will get the premium, and 100,000 who will get a refund. There are 200,000 in the service industries whose employers will have to pay the tax.
    I suggest that we wipe out the idea of the premiums, which we had argued the employers do not need. As these figures balance out, it would not cost the Government anything at all. They would be saving money, if they act on my suggestion, because the only thing that would happen would be that they would not get their interest-free loan. I would like the hon. Lady to consider this point, because it could be worked out. I would also like to quote a case, not from my constituency, of a man owning a small car

    931
    hire firm, employing three drivers and a crippled telephone operator. The owner told me that he would have to get rid of the telephone operator because he could not afford to employ the three drivers and the operator and asked me if I could get him another job. He said that he would have to ask his wife to undertake the telephone operator's work. This tax will put somebody out of employment, and there are other cases which can be cited.
    Mr. Ledger: I am trying to follow the hon. Lady's argument. I gather from what she has said that she is not arguing for the removal of the payroll tax from the disabled person because that was not the point that she made. She said that the disabled person would be put out of employment because of the other four people in the firm. This is not in the Amendment.
    Dame Joan Vickers: The operator does not pay the tax, but it is a tax upon his services, and it has to be paid by the employer. People are being put out of employment because the employer cannot pay. This has been one of the themes of the argument, and why these disabled people are worried, because it is difficult for a disabled man to get another job.
    Mr. Ledger: Is the hon. Lady arguing that, if the telephonist was not disabled, he would not have been given the sack? I cannot see the connection between paying the payroll tax on four people who are not disabled affecting one man who is disabled. This is not in the Amendment.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): I do not know whether the hon. Lady is under a misapprehension, but I think that in the case she has instanced, of the car hire firm, she will find that it is in the refundable category.
    Dame Joan Vickers: That is very interesting. We are still more confused now, because we do not know what is refundable and what is not.
    Mr. MacDermot: It is all laid out in the Bill. It will be found that it falls under Clause 2(3,a,i) referring to
    "—any heading in Order XIX (which relates to transport and communication) other than heading 709; ".
    932
    The hon. Lady will find that car hire is covered by this Order.
    Dame Joan Vickers: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. This points to the difficulties in understanding how this will work.
    Mr. Braine: We are in some uncertainty as to the numbers of disabled who may be affected. This is conceded by the hon. Lady, I think. Even if there are a substantial number of disabled who are not disadvantaged by this tax, it is clear that a substantial number will be. Would my hon. Friend not agree that no case has yet been made out for applying this tax to any of the disabled?
    Dame Joan Vickers: That was the point I made.
    I have tried to point out the way in which this could be administered quite easily, by taking the whole category, whether receiving premiums or refunds, out of the Bill altogether. I would have thought that that would have been a fairly easy move. Anyone who holds a blue card and is genuinely disabled should be counted out. This is a distinguishable group. If some of the persons mentioned previously by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), who have not got a blue card, could be encouraged to get one, this difficulty could be overcome.
    I am putting this forward as a serious argument. During the war we encouraged disabled people to come into jobs which were broken down for them. This was true of the blind who went into engineering firms to work special machines. It has been agreed by all parties that there should be special legislation for the disabled, and I do not see why we should not have a special category for these people. It was said in the Piercy and Tomlinson Reports, which went into this in detail, that the young disabled, ex-Service and blind, paraplegic and spastic, epileptic and deaf needed immediate attention and the chance to work in a factory.
    The Reports said that the term "rehabilitation", in its widest sense, signified the whole process of restoring a disabled person to a condition in which he or she was able, as early as possible, to resume or lead a normal life. All that we are asking for is that these people

    933
    should be able to continue in normal life, as they have struggled to do so in the past.
    In Plymouth, there is a very big association doing excellent work, and its motto is, "Help Us to Help Ourselves". Here, we are doing exactly the opposite. We are doing what we can to prevent people helping themselves if we allow this to go through without the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cheadle. I wish that hon. Members could have been here a fortnight ago and seen nine disabled people pushed round the Chamber and the House of Lords.
    They had saved up their money from their earnings in order to travel to London from Plymouth. There were 29 of them. These people are making every effort to lead a normal life and if their livelihood is taken from them, as it seems may happen, then one is doing a great disservice not only to the individuals, but to the country as a whole. I would like to make a strong plea in support of the Liberal Amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that the administrative difficulties are too great. Everyone would agree that there is considerable anxiety among these people. They are afraid of losing their jobs. When we have experts such as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cheadle, with personal experience of these matters, we ought to follow the lead set by them.
    I hope that all hon. Members who are worried about the situation will join the Liberals in the Division Lobby tonight.
    Mr. Gower: The Parliamentary Secretary used all her skill in an endeavour to show that this was not perhaps such a large problem as some of my hon. Friends implied. We do not consider that everybody who is disabled is affected. However, after advancing that argument, she admitted that a sizeable problem remained affecting a considerable body of people. The rest of her argument boiled down to this, that the technical difficulties were of such an order that the Government would rather not introduce the necessary Amendment now.
    Why are the Government building up these technical difficulties so enormously? Surely a simple certificate by an employer, who would, if he put in a
    934
    wrong certificate, be committing a serious offence, stating that he had in his employment a certain number of people who were on the register of disabled people, would be sufficient.
    The hon. Lady went on to say that perhaps additional people would get on the register. If people who should be on the register get on it, all the better. I should not have thought that that was a barrier. The argument that these technical difficulties should postpone what I believe to be a necessary Amendment is not valid, and it comes surprisingly from the hon. Lady and the Government.
    Dr. Winstanley: As the mover of the Amendment, I think that I should make clear our attitude to the arguments put very lucidly by the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary. I am bound to say that I do not accept them.
    I find surprising her overall attitude to meeting the problem. She said that there might be a problem, but that we should wait to find out whether there is a problem and whether the things that we predict come to pass. In other words, when all the horses have bolted she will run round and ask the Government to lock the stable door. I should have thought that the business of government and politics was to predict the effects of legislation. Like hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, I assure her that what we said will happen will come to pass.
    The hon. Lady must be aware of individual cases. It is unfortunate that she is unlikely personally to come across the barber of my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), but she will come across many people who are in this predicament. We are not dealing with the global total of disabled people. The hon. Lady spent some time discussing the 300,000 people who will get the premium. We are not talking about them. She spent some time talking about the 100,000 people who will get the repayment.
    We are not talking about them. We are talking about the 200,000 who work in service industries and the 48,000 registered disabled people who are unemployed. We are wondering what figure will have to be added when this tax is applied to the service industries and what will be the added effects of

    935
    unemployment which is likely to result from other measures about which we have heard.
    6.45 p.m.
    This will be quite a large problem. If the hon. Lady consults her officers in the regions who have to deal with disabled people, and plead with managements to take on people who are not always very useful, she will understand the problem. We are not talking about the useful disabled people, or disabled people who compete with fully fit people —and there are many of them. We are not talking about the blind, who may have developed other compensating abilities which are of great value to their employers. We are talking about people who are not very useful whom we have to ask managements to employ as a favour and find a use for them. They find some use for them, but it is a marginal use. These are people who do not earn the wage which they are paid. They are often paid a small wage. The addition of 25s. a week to a small wage represents a very large percentage increase in the cost of the employee to the firm.
    I cannot accept the Parliamentary Secretary's arguments. I cannot accept that there are difficulties. The hon. Lady said that it was possible that there would be evasion and that people would seek to add their names improperly to
    the register. She quoted some remarks which I made in an earlier debate. I was referring to people getting on the register who had no need to do so and, therefore, had not bothered to do so, but who might, in certain circumstances, be encouraged by their employers to do so. This is not illegal. These people are entitled to be on the register, and the hon. Lady concedes that.
    The problem may turn out to be greater. The number of people on the register may increase. That would be a good thing. When the Parliamentary Secretary has had more time to consider this aspect of her Ministry she will find that her officials believe that it will be a good thing and that it is important that many disabled people who are not on the register should be on it. It is possible that this Amendment will have that effect.
    For these reasons, and for other reasons admirably expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, I believe that we should be wrong to accept the Parliamentary Secretary's assurances, limited though they were. Therefore, unless we have further assurances, I shall feel bound to advise the Committee to divide on the Amendment.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 233, Noes 293.

    Division No. 139.]

    AYES

    [6.47 p.m.

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N—M)

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Buck, Antony (Colchester)

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Astor, John

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Drayson, G. B.

    Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n — M'd'n)

    Campbell, Gordon

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Awdry, Daniel

    Carlisle, Mark

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Baker, W. H. K.

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

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

    Balniel, Lord

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Eyre, Reginald

    Batsford, Brian

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Farr, John

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Clark, Henry

    Fisher, Nigel

    Bell, Ronald

    Clegg, Walter

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Cooke, Robert

    Fortescue, Tim

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Foster, Sir John

    Bessell, Peter

    Cordle, John

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

    Biffen, John

    Corfield, F. V.

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

    Costain, A. P.

    Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Blaker, Peter

    Crawley, Aidan

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Body, Richard

    Crouch, David

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Crowder, F. P.

    Glyn, Sir Richard

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Cunningham, Sir Knox

    Gopher, Rt. Hn. J. B.

    Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Goodhart, Philip

    Braine, Bernard

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Goodhew, Victor

    Brewis, John

    Dance, James

    Gower, Raymond

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)

    Grant, Anthony

    Bromley-Davenport,Lt.COL. Sir Walter

    d'Avigdor-Goldamid, Sir Henry

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Bryan, Paul

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. B. J.

    Gurden, Harold

    McMaster, Stanley

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Maddan, Martin

    Robson Brown, Sir William

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Maginnis, John E.

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

    Roots, William

    Harrison, Brian (Malden)

    Marten, Neil

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Mathew, Robert

    Royle, Anthony

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

    Maude, Angus

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Hawkins, Paul

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Scott, Nicholas

    Hay, John

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

    Sharpies, Richard

    Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh — Whitby)

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Helseltine, Michael

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Smith, John

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Stainton, Keith

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Monro, Hector

    Steel, David (Ruxburgh)

    Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Mere, Jasper

    Stodart, Anthony

    Hogg, Rt.Hn. Quintin

    Morgan, W. G. (Denbigh)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

    Holland, Philip

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Tapsell, Peter

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Hordern, Peter

    Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Taylor,Edward M.(G'gaw,Carthcart)

    Homby, Richard

    Murton, Oscar

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Teeing, Sir William

    Hunt, John

    Neave, Airey

    Temple, John M.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Nett, John

    Tilney, John

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Onslow, Cranley

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Johnson Smith, C. (E. Grinstead)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Jopling, Michael

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Walker, Peter (Worcester)

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Pardoe, John

    Walters, Dennis

    Kimball, Marcus

    Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

    Ward, Dame Irene

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Peel, John

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Kitson, Timothy

    Percival, Ian

    Webster, David

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Peyton, John

    Whitelaw, William

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Pounder, Hatton

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Lloyd,Rt. Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Longden, Gilbert

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Worsley, Marcus

    Loveys, W. H.

    Pym, Francis

    Younger, Hn. George

    MacArthur, Ian

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross—Crom'ty)

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Mr. Lubbock and Dr. Winstanley

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Macleod, Rib Hn. lain

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    NOES

    Abso, Leo

    Brooks, Edwin

    Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

    Altaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey

    Andritt, Walter

    Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)

    Delargy, Hugh

    Allen, Scholefield

    Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Proven)

    Dell, Edmund

    Anderson, Donald

    Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch — F'bury)

    Dempsey, James

    Archer, Peter

    Buchan, Norman

    Dewar, Donald

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

    Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

    Ashley, Jack

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Dickens, James

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Dobson, Ray

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Cant, R. B.

    Doig, Peter

    Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

    Carmichael, Neil

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Driberg, Tom

    Barnes, Michael

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Dunn, James A.

    Barnett, Jail

    Chapman, Donald

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

    Beaney, Alan

    Coe, Denis

    Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th — C'b'e)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

    Coleman, Donald

    Eadie, Alex

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Concannon, J. D.

    Edelman, Maurice

    Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

    Conlan, Bernard

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Binns, John

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Bishop, E. S.

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Ellis, John

    Blackburn, IF.

    Cronin, John

    English, Michael

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Ennals, David

    Boardman, H.

    Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Ensor, David

    Booth, Albert

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Boston, Terence

    Dalyell, Tam

    Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Darling, Rt. Hn. George

    Fernyhough, E.

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert

    Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

    Finch, Harold

    Boyden, James

    Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Bradley, Tom

    Davies, Ednyyfed Hudson (Conway)

    Floud, Bernard

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Foley, Maurice

    938

    939

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

    Ford, Ben

    McCann, John

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Forrester, John

    MacColl, James

    Robinson, Rt Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)

    Fowler, Gerry

    MacDermot, Niall

    Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

    Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

    Macdonald, A. H.

    Roebuck, Roy

    Freeson, Reginald

    McGuire, Michael

    Rogers, George

    Gardner, A. J.

    Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

    Rose, Paul

    Garrow, Alex

    Mackie, John

    Roes, Rt. Hn. William

    Ginsburg, David

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

    Maclennan, Robert

    Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

    Gourlay, Harry

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Ryan, John

    Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Sheldon, Robert

    Gregory, Arnold

    Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

    Grey, Charles (Durham)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Shore, Peter (Stepney)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    M anal ieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)

    Short, Mrs. Renee (W'hampton,N.E.)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

    Manuel, Archie

    Silkin, John (Deptford)

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Mapp, Charles

    Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Marquand, David

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Hamling, William

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Hannan, William

    Mellish, Robert

    Small, William

    Harper, Joseph

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Snow, Julian

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Millan, Bruce

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Hazen, Bert

    Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Molloy, William

    Stonehouse, John

    Henig, Stanley

    Morgan, Elysian (Cardiganshire)

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Hilton, W. S.

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Hooley, Frank

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Swain, Thomas

    Homer, John

    Morris, John (Aberavon)

    Swingler, Stephen

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Moyle, Roland

    Symonds, J. B.

    Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Taverne, Dick

    Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

    Murray, Albert

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Howie, W.

    Neal, Harold

    Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Hoy, James

    Newens, Stan

    Thornton, Ernest

    Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Tinn, James

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Norwood, Christopher

    Tomney, Frank

    Hunter, Adam

    Oakes, Gordon

    Urwin, T. W.

    Hynd, John

    Ogden, Eric

    Varley, Eric C.

    Jackson, Colin (B'h'se — Spenb'gh)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

    Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

    Orhach, Maurice

    Walden, Brian (Ali Saints)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Orme, Stanley

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Wallace, George

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Owen, Dr. Davis (Plymouth, S'tn)

    Watkins, David (Consett)

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Owen, Will (Morpeth)

    Weitzman, David

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

    Padley, Walter

    Wellbeloved, James

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Whitaker, Ben

    Judd, Frank

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    White, Mrs. Eirene

    Kelley, Richard

    Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

    Whitlock, William

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter — Chatham)

    Pearl, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Williams, Alan Lee (Homchurch)

    Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

    Pentland, Norman

    Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

    Lawson, George

    Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Ledger, Ron

    Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

    Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

    Probert, Arthur

    Winnick, David

    Lee, John (Reading)

    Purley, Cmdr. Harry

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Rankin, John

    Woof, Robert

    Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

    Redhead, Edward

    Wyatt, Woodrow

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Rees, Merlyn

    Yates, Victor

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Loughlin, Charles

    Richard, Ivor

    Mr. McBride and Mr. Fitch.

    Luard, Evan

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Mr. Iain Macleod: I beg to move Amendment No. 303, in page 2, line 23, at the end to insert:
    (IA) This section applies to any employment whether in any qualifying or non-qualifying activity which is employment by an employer carrying on by way of business a trading organisation concerned wholly or substantially with one or more of the following activities,

    (a) exploration for shale oil, crude petroleum or natural gas;

    (b) extracting shale oil, crude petroleum or natural gas;

    (c) refining and processing of shale oil or crude petroleum;

    (d) blending mineral oils or greases at refineries or in association with the refining of shale oil or crude petroleum;

    (e) importation by ship or pipe of shale oil or crude petroleum or natural gas or of hydrocarbon oils;

    (f) bulk storage and bulk transportation by any means, or bulk distribution of shale
    940

    941
    oil, crude petroleum, natural gas or hydrocarbon oils other than at or from depots or establishments which are outside the curtilage of any refinery and which are wholly or substantially engaged in supplying hydrocarbon oils by retail to non-industrial and non-agricultural consumers;

    (g) research development education or training relating to any of the foregoing activities;

    and section 1 of this Act shall not apply to employment by any such employer.
    I do not propose to spend any of the remaining 12 minutes or so in talking about the absurd restriction under which the Committee is now operating. The list of Amendments that could be discussed, amounting to 98 on this Clause alone, is sufficient evidence of that.
    Yesterday, we had a situation that was so lunatic that it almost defies comment. Immediately after the Prime Minister's statement, we came to an Amendment on which we were begging Ministers on the Treasury Bench not to spend £133 million. This was urged on them from both sides of the Committee by members of all three parties, but they insisted that it was their bounden duty, as Treasury Ministers, to waste this amount of money, which they promptly proceeded to do.
    Today, we have an Amendment concerning the oil industry, on which I genuinely believe that the case is unanswerable. I do not know who will reply, if there it time for a reply—probably not—but I wish to put the case as moderately as possible and I am glad that the Minister of Power is here to listen to it.
    The last line of the Amendment would remove from the oil industry the benefit of the premium, if benefit it be, under Clause 1 of the Bill. That is understood and accepted by the industry. Of course, some firms would benefit from that more that others.
    7.0 p.m.
    The purpose of the Amendment is clear. It is designed to put the oil industry on the same footing as the other providers of energy in the fuel and power sector by treating the industry as though it were included in Schedule 1 as a body to which refund of payments should be made. That is wholly in accord with the White Paper. The very first effective paragraph of the White Paper on the Selective Employment Tax says:
    …it will improve the structure of the tax system by redressing the balance between ser-
    942
    vices and manufacturing. Services, including distribution, have hitherto been lightly taxed as compared with manufactured products, which are subject to excise duties and the Purchase Tax."
    Whatever the merits of that argument may be, it can have no conceivable relevance to the oil industry, which is most viciously taxed and which has been taxed again as a result of yesterday's measures.
    The next paragraph in the White Paper says:
    " In this way, the tax will provide a means of restraining consumer demand without again hitting severely those industries upon which indirect taxation is at present concentrated ".
    Once again, the two main premises of the White Paper argue for the case which I am putting. No less than £773 million was taken in receipts from oil duties in the calendar year 1965, so I am informed, and no one can argue that that is not an enormous burden, which, as I say, was added to by yesterday's proposals.
    Thus, if the Government believe their own precepts in the White Paper, they must accept the Amendment, which would provide that the whole of the oil industry should be nut into the neutral zone.
    There are two ways in which I can shortly illustrate the discrimination which arises for the oil industry as compared with the publicly-owned sector of fuel and power. First, the activities under the heading of miscellaneous transport services are excluded from the provision for refund, but these activities are an essential part of the oil industry's operation, and —this is the key point—corresponding activities in the public sector qualify for a refund. Plainly, it would be monstrous not to treat the oil industry in exactly the same way.
    Second, in the interests of overall efficiency in what is an extremely efficient industry, the bulk of employees are concentrated in offices away from the actual manufacturing or operating points. This is inevitable in the way the system is run. We all know of a great building not many yards from here which houses many hundreds of employees of the industry, but they are excluded from the refund provisions. On the other hand, locking the other way, to Hobart House, the headquarters of the National Coal Board, the head offices of the public sector there qualify for refund. It is impossible to justify this distinction.

    943
    There are other Amendments on similar matters with reference to electricity and gas showrooms, and so on, if we can come to them at an appropriate stage. All I say at this stage is that it quite impossible to justify this sort of distinction between a great private enterprise industry and the publicly-owned industries operating in the same field and in direct competition.
    There are many other anomalies which arise for this complex and vital industry. Often the difficulties come, as so many of our difficulties will come under this Bill, from the simple fact that we are taking what is basically a statistical measurement—nothing more than that—and making it the basis of our assessment of industry. It has nothing whatever to do with industry in the sense of what is really being done. It is entirely for the backroom "boffins" in the Ministry of Labour and elsewhere to count heads —nothing whatever to do with industry in the real sense of the word.
    In this connection, I mention the question of storage. I am grateful to the Minister of Power for coming to hear this short debate, and I hope that he will at leisure carefully examine the points which are made. I know that he will. The storage of oil products either in bulk plants or in terminals, that is, prior to the delivery to the customer, is comparable to the end storage in an ordinary factory which would be a qualifying activity for the calculation of refund and the rest.
    In the oil industry, it is a matter of efficiency and group convenience whether or not these bulk plants or terminals are operated by the refining company, by another group company or in some other way. Because they do this on the basis of efficiency, they should not be penalised by the haphazard methods provided in the Bill, which, in many cases, will put a direct premium upon inefficiency. I am sure that the oil companies could rejig their system all through in order to get some of the benefits, but that would be an absurd way of going about things when a great industry is already organised in what it regards as the most efficient way.
    My final point on transport is that I am not sure that the Government Amendment No. 230, in page 3, line 10, to
    944
    leave out from "709" to the end of line 22 and to insert:

    (aa) activities by way of the extraction of coal from open-cast workings;

    (ab) activities by way of the operation of road transport for the purposes of another establishment which is both an associated establishment and an establishment such as is mentioned either in section 1(2) of this Act or in subsection (2) of this section;

    (ac) activities, research or training such as are mentioned in section 1(2)(a) of this Act, or a combination of such activities, research or training and any activities such as are mentioned in paragraph (a) or (aa) of this subsection;

    really helps in this connection. I do not think that it does. The point here is that the transporting of the product to the customer can be carried out in half a dozen different ways, by the refining company, by the storage company or by an independent contractor, and it can be done by road, by rail, by water, or even, conceivably, sometimes by air.
    Since the independent transport undertakings of British Rail and the rest are to have the tax refunded, it seems only fair that the oil industry's own transport fleets, whether they consist of road vehicles or rail tank cars, should be regarded in the same way. More than half the total volume of these products is delivered to industry, and they are an essential raw material for industry for power and heat and in some cases an actual raw material in the manufacturing process itself.
    Inevitably, I have had to gallop through the argument, but the case I have put to the Committee is unanswerable. I do not ask for a reply now—let us leave that, if we may—but I hope that the Government will be ready sympathetically to look in some detail at this case. I have been into it with as much care as I can, and I believe that the argument for the whole oil industry being taken out of these different parts of the Bill and treated wholly for refund is completely unanswerable and should be accepted.
    Mr. Diamond: I gather that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod) did not necessarily want to go straight on to the next Amendment, and that an answer, however short, is better than no answer.
    The main points in the answer will be these. First, at least one half of the products of the oil industry are not in direct

    945
    competition at all. The Amendment proposes a variation affecting the whole oil industry. and it must fall in the first place on that major ground, that at least half are not involved at all.
    Second, if he looks more closely at the new Government Amendment No. 230, the right hon. Gentleman will find that it is very helpful. I do not want to go into it now. I merely direct attention to it. My hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary, who would have handled the Amendment himself, will be only too glad to discuss the matter with the right hon. Gentleman or write to him about it.
    Thirdly, it is not the case that the refunds to the nationalised industries are based on considerations of the classifi-
    cation, or anything of that kind, but merely that nationalised industries do not have to have the same consideration with regard to economy in the use of labour or a variety of other things—
    The Chairman: Order.
    It being ten minutes past Seven o'clock (the House having resolved itself into the Committee at ten minutes past Four o'clock), The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Order [18th July], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
    Question put, That the proposed words be there inserted:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 234, Noes 303.

    Division No. 140.]

    AYES

    [7.10 p.m.

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

    Hunt, John

    Astor, John

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Atkins, Humphrey (m,vn — M'd'n)

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Awdry, Daniel

    Doughty, Charles

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Baker, W. H. K.

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. sir Alec

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Balniel, Lord

    Drayson, G. B.

    Johnson Smith, C. (E. Grinstead)

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Batsford, Brian

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

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

    Jopling, Michael

    Bell, Ronald

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Bennett, sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Eyre, Reginald

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Farr, John

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Bessell, Peter

    Fisher, Nigel

    Kimball, Marcus

    Biffen, John

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Birch, Rt. Hn, Nigel

    Fortescue, Tim

    Kitson, Timothy

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Foster, Sir John

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Body, Richard

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Boyle, tat. Hn. Sir Edward

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Lloyd,Rit. Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'ne'dfield)

    Braine, Bernard

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Brewis, John

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Longden, Gilbert

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Glyn, Sir Richard

    Loveys, W. H.

    Bromley-Davenport,L t. Col.Sir Walter

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

    Lubbock, Eric

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Goodhart, Philip

    MacArthur, Ian

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Goodhew, Victor

    Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross—Crom'ty)

    Bryan, Paul

    Gower, Raymond

    Maclean, Slr Fitzroy

    Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N—M)

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain

    Buck, Antony (Colchester)

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    McMaster, Stanley

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Campbell, Cordon

    Grimond, Rt. Hn.J.

    Madden, Martin

    Carlisle, Mark

    Gurden, Harold

    Maginnis, John E.

    Carr, Rt. Fin. Robert

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Marten, Ned

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Mathew, Robert

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Maude, Angus

    Clark, Henry

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Clegg, Walter

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Very

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Cooke, Robert

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

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

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Hawkins, Paul

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Cordle, John

    Hay, John

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Corfield, F. V.

    Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

    MisCampbell, Norman

    Costain, A. P.

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Heseltine, Michael

    Monro, Hector

    Crawley, Aldan

    Higgins, Terence L.

    More, Jasper

    Crouch, David

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Morgan, W. G. (Denbigh)

    Crowder, F. P.

    Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Currie, C. B. H.

    Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Dalkeith, Earl Of

    Holland, Philip

    Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Dance, James

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Murton, Oscar

    Davidson,Jarnes(Aberdeenshire,W.)

    Hordern, Peter

    Naharro, Sir Gerald

    d'Avigclor-Godsmid, Sir Henry

    Hornby, Richard

    Neave, Airey

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Tilney, John

    Nott, John

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Onslow, Cranley

    Robson Brown, Sir William

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. s.

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

    Roots, William

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Royle, Anthony

    Walker, Peter (Worcester)

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Walters, Dennis

    Pardoe, J.

    Scott, Nicholas

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

    Sharpies, Richard

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Peel, John

    Shaw, Michael (Se'b'es — Whitby)

    Webster, David

    Percival, Ian

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Peyton, John

    Smith, John

    Whitelaw, William

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Stainton, Keith

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Steel, David (Roxburgh)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Pounder, Rafton

    Stodart, Anthony

    Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Tapsell, Peter

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Pym, Francis

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

    Worsley, Marcus

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Younger, Hn. George

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Testing, Sir William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Temple, John M.

    Mr. Blaker and Mr. Grant.

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Gregory, Arnold

    Albu, Austen

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Grey Charles (Durham)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Alidritt, Walter

    Dalyell, Tam

    Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

    Allen, Scholefield

    Darling, Rt. Hn. George

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Anderson, Donald

    Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Archer, Peter

    Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Hamling, William

    Ashley, Jack

    Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

    Hannan, William

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Harper, Joseph

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

    de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Delargy, Hugh

    Hazell, Bert

    Barnes, Michael

    Dell, Edmund

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Barnett, Joel

    Dempsey, James

    Henig, Stanley

    Heaney, Alan

    Dewar, Donald

    Hilton, W. S.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

    Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

    Hooley, Frank

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Dickens, James

    Homer, John

    Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

    Dobson, Ray

    Houghton, Rt. Hn, Douglas

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Doig, Peter

    Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

    Bruns, John

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

    Bishop, E. 8.

    Driberg, Tom

    Howie, W.

    Blackburn, F.

    Dunn, James A.

    Hoy, James

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

    Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

    Boardman, H.

    Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th — C'b'e)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Booth, Albert

    Eadie, Alex

    Hunter, Adam

    Boston, Terence

    Edelman, Maurice

    Hynd, John

    Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Edwards, Robert (Ralston)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Jackson, Colin (B'h'se — Spenb'gh)

    Boyden, James

    Ellis, John

    Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    English, Michael

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Bradley, Tom

    Ennals, David

    Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n—St.P'eras,S.)

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Ensor, David

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Brooks, Edwin

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W)

    Finch, Harold

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

    Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Proven)

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch — F'bury)

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Buchan, Norman

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Judd, Frank

    Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

    Floud, Bernard

    Kelley, Richard

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Foley, Maurice

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

    Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter — Chatham)

    Cant, R. B.

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Ford, Ben

    Lawson, George

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Forrester, John

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Fowler, Gerry

    Ledger, Ron

    Chapman, Donald

    Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

    Coe, Denis

    Freeson, Reginald

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

    Coleman, Donald

    Gardner, A. J.

    Lee, John (Reading)

    Concannon, J. D.

    Garrow, Alex

    Lester, Miss Joan

    Conlan, Bernard

    Ginsburg, David

    Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, 8.)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Cronin, John

    Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Loughlin, Charles

    948

    949

    Luard, Evan

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

    Small, William

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Owen, Will (Morpeth)

    Snow, Julian

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Pulley, Walter

    Spriggs, Leslie

    McCann, John

    Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

    Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    MacColl, James

    Palmer, Arthur

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

    MacDermot, Nista

    Pennon, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Stonehouse, John

    Macdonald, A. H.

    Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    McGuire, Michael

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Swain, Thomas

    Mackie, John

    Pentland, Norman

    Swingler, Stephen

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

    Symonds, J. B.

    Maclennan, Robert

    Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

    Taverns, Dick

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Thornton, Ernest

    Mahon, Peter (Preston, s.)

    Probert, Arthur

    Tine, James

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Tomney, Frank

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

    Rankin, John

    Urwin, T. W.

    Manuel, Archie

    Redhead, Edward

    Varley, Eric G.

    Mapp, Charles

    Rees, Merlyn

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

    Marquand, David

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Walden, Brian (All Saints)

    Marsh, Fit. Hn. Richard

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Maxwell, Robert

    Richard, Ivor

    Wallace, George

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Watkins, David (Consett)

    Mellish, Robert

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Weitzman, David

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Roberts, Gwllym (Bedfordshire, S.)

    Wellbeloved, James

    Millan, Brute

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kerineth(St.P'c'as)

    Whitaker, Ben

    Mitchell, FI, C. (S'th'pton, Test)

    Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

    White, Mrs. Eirene

    Molloy William

    Rodgers, William (Stockton)

    Whitlock, William

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Roebuck, Roy

    Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

    Morris, Alf red (Wythenshawe)

    Rogers, George

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Rose, Paul

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

    Morris, John (Aberavon)

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

    Moyle, Roland

    Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Mulley, Fit. Hn. Frederick

    Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

    Williams , W. T. (Warrington)

    Murray, Albert

    Ryan, John

    Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

    Neal, Harold

    Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Newens, Stan

    Sheldon, Robert

    Winnick, David

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Norwood, Christopher

    Shore, Peter (Stepney)

    Woof, Robert

    Oakes, Gordon

    Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

    Wyatt, Woodrow

    Ogden, Eric

    Silkin, John (Deptford)

    Yates, Victor

    O'Malley, Brian

    Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)

    Zilliacus, K.

    Orbach, Maurice

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Orme, Stanley

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Mr. McBride and Mr. loan L. Evans.

    Oswald, Thomas

    Skeffington, Arthur

    The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to the Clause and the further Question necessary to complete the Proceedings on the Clause.
    Amendments made: In page 2, line 30, leave out "(b) and "and insert" to ".
    In line 33, leave out
    " for the purposes of the "and insert" in any employment in, or carried out from, that ".
    In line 35, leave out "normally so employed" and insert:
    "so employed wholly or mainly".
    In line 37, leave out "normally so employed only" and insert
    "so employed wholly or mainly".
    In line 41, at end insert:
    "or in training relevant to any activities mentioned in that paragraph or in paragraphs (a) to (ab) of that subsection, or the establishment is certified by the Minister of Technology to be engaged in scientific research relevant to
    any activities mentioned in the said paragraphs (a) to (ab)".
    In page 3, line 8, after "quarrying)", insert
    " heading 602 or 603 (which relate to electricity and water supply) ".
    In line 10, leave out from "709 to end of line 22 and insert:

    (aa) activities by way of the extraction of coal from open-cast workings;

    (ab) activities by way of the operation of road transport for the purposes of another establishment which is both associated establishment and an establishment such as is mentioned either in section 1(2) of this Act or in subsection (2) of this section;

    (ac) activities, research or training such as are mentioned in section 1(2)(a) of this Act, or a combination of such activities, research or training and any activities such as are mentioned in paragraph (a) or (aa) of this subsection;

    In line 30, leave out from "to" to "the" in line 31, and insert:
    " any activities other than activities falling under minimum list heading 703 in the Standard Industrial Classification ".
    In line 39, leave out "paragraph (a) or (b)" and insert:
    " any of paragraphs (a) to (ac)".—[Mr. Diamond.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 3.—(PAYMENTS TO CERTAIN PUBLIC BODIES.)
    Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: I beg to move Amendment No. 68, in page 4, line 26, at the end to insert:
    Provided that no such payment shall be made to any employer to whom this section applies in respect of any person normally employed wholly or substantially in building operations or works of engineering construction.
    The Chairman: I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if, with that Amendment, we discussed also the following: No. 354, in line 26, at end insert:
    Provided that the payment which may be made by the designated Minister may not exceed the payment which would have been made if the employer had qualified for a payment within section 1 or section 2 of this Act.
    No. 258, in line 38, at end add:
    (5) Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this section the repayment payable in respect of employees of nationalised industries shall not exceed that payable for employees engaged on competitive work in private industry.
    No. 74, in Clause 4, page 5, line 32, at end add:
    Provided that no such payment shall be made to any employer to whom this section applies in respect of any person employed wholly or substantially in activities falling under the minimum list heading in the Standard Industrial Classification, namely, Order XVII heading 500 (which relates to Construction).
    No. 179, in line 32, at end add:
    Provided that no such payment shall be made to any employer to whom this section applies in respect of any person employed wholly or substantially in activities concerned with the maintenance or repair of land or buildings.
    No. 289, in line 32, at end insert:
    Provided that no such payment shall be made to any employer to whom this section applies in respect of any person employed wholly or substantially in activities concerned with the provision of meals, refreshments and hotel accommodation.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: Most of the Amendments in this group deal with
    952
    direct labour contract departments of public and local authorities, and I intend to confine my remarks, in the main, to this, although I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) may seek to say something about some of the others.
    I begin by emphasising what I said on 19th May, that we on this side of the Committee are not opposed to direct labour in certain sectors. What we are opposed to is any unfair advantages for direct labour, whether on its maintenance or new construction side. We hold this view because of the lower output statistics for employees of direct labour departments against those for employees of private contractors which we discussed on 19th May, and on many occasions since then.
    I imagine that to dilate on that at this stage would incur your displeasure, Sir Eric, and would be out of order, but I hope for an early opportunity to come back to this subject, especially in view of the question-begging speech of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government on the Adjournment debate in the early hours of last Tuesday morning, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples). On that occasion I was denied the opportunity of intervening.
    We believe that direct labour departments should be exposed to the check of competition in the proper way, as when the one in three rule operates. We believe, too, that they should be on the same basis of taxation as private contractors in all their spheres of activity. This is a fair position, and within that compass we believe that direct labour departments can do useful work without causing harm or ruining the ratepayers.
    As drafted, the Bill empowers the Minister to refund the Selective Employment Tax to the authorities mentioned in Clause 3 in respect of the operatives employed in their works departments, and to refund, or even give a premium, in respect of Clause 4 authorities. I think that I have the position correct there.
    However, since the Second Reading of the Bill the Minister of Housing and Local Government has made a statement in which his intentions become a little

    953
    clearer, and any clarification would be an improvement on Clause 4(2) which seems to give the Minister power to hand out money almost like Father Christmas.
    On 24th June the Minister of Housing and Local Government told the Urban District Councils Association:
    " Construction workers employed by local authorities who are engaged on maintenance will be treated in the same way as other local authority employees. But an exception will be made for direct labour staffs employed on new construction whether of houses, schools, or any other new construction. They will be treated in the same way as employees of private contractors and will not rank for reimbursement."
    That could be said to be a fairly major change of policy, and perhaps we might be forgiven for wondering why on a Bill which had its Second Reading in this House, it was not announced from that Dispatch Box rather than in a public speech in the north of England. On 30th June I asked the Minister where and when he had made this announcement. I was told, but I received no hint of apology for the fact that he did not make the announcement in the House, where it ought to have been made.
    The Minister's change of policy came in page 3 of a hand-out which dealt with an entirely different subject. It did not even get the heading of the hand-out and it was barely noted. To put the matter right, the Minister of Housing seems to have called in the Lobby correspondents, because news of the repayment appeared in the Sunday newspapers on 26th June as though it was a new story—a fresh Ministerial leak. Ever since then I have been trying to decide whether something went terribly wrong or whether something went terribly right with that psychological warfare. I find it difficult to know which it was.
    7.30 p.m.
    Despite the Minister's lapse in this matter, we are a little wiser about Government policy in respect of local authority employees, but the position still remains dark about Clause 3 authorities. Judging by what the Minister of Labour said—or did not say—in the Second Reading debate, it looks as if the tax will be refunded in full to the works departments of such bodies as the Central Electricity Generating Board and one or two others. But the right hon. Member made no reference to these Clause 3 authorities in
    954
    his speech of 24th June, so we do not know. If he had come to the House of Commons, as would have been proper, and had given us a statement, we could have asked these questions and would not now have to waste time in doing so.
    Let us, first, deal with the direct labour departments of public bodies. Here I am bound to refer to some figures which are relevant to the question. It appears that of about 375,000 operatives in Great Britain described in Part II of the National Plan as "operatives employed by public authorities" about 215,000 are employed by local authorities and the remainder—about 160,000—by public authorities proper.
    Of those public authorities, the main direct labour employers are the Central Electricity Generating Board, the gas undertakings and the British Railways Board. Statistics concerning direct labour as a whole and direct labour work for public authorities in particular, are hard to come by, but it seems that at least 75 per cent. of such operatives are employed in maintenance work, and that the balance are engaged upon new work, such as the construction of electric pylons.
    In 1965, about 14.3 per cent. of the total construction output, at current prices, was carried out by public authorities, including local authorities, to the value of £549 million. On the basis of a 50–50 split between public proper and local authority direct building, I calculate that the output of public authority direct labour works departments in 1965 was about £250 million. Even if the tax were charged in full on new construction only, and refunded on maintenance, there would still be an output of about £190 million, and about 120,000 men engaged on work in respect of which the tax would be refunded, while private contractors were having to meet it in full. My hon. Friends and I regard that as a grossly unfair form of competition—if competition is the right word—and that is certainly the way in which the industry regards it.
    A much more serious question arises in connection with the refund in respect of local authority direct labour department operatives. The direct labour work of local authorities alone is running just under £200 million per annum, at 1958

    955
    prices. If we look carefully at Bulletins of Construction Statistics and related publications we find that it is possible to estimate that repairs and maintenance represent about 75 per cent.; housing new work, about 13 per cent., and non-housing new work, about 12 per cent. I am advised that there are sharp regional variations in the division between maintenance and new construction. I also estimate that the division of the labour force in this sphere is about 81·9 per cent. on repairs and maintenance, 7·9 per cent. on new housing work, and 8·4 per cent. on non-housing new work.
    In short, of the 215,000 or so local authority operatives, 72 per cent.—or about 176,000—will not bear this tax. So we are talking of an annual refund of millions of pounds—perhaps about £10 million in a year—in respect of maintenance operatives, while contractors will have to pay the tax in full.
    Some say that that is a small price, and some have even argued that the figures are so small that it is difficult to see what contractors are worrying about. My hon. Friends and I totally reject that view. We also totally reject the attitude which one builder told me, "appears to be an article of faith in the Ministry of Housing ", that local authority maintenance work is not in competition with private contractors.
    The Minister of Housing went on television recently—his television appearances appear to become more and more frequent as time goes on, and housing figures slump—and said that he had ruled that where labour departments were in direct competition with private enterprise they were
    " to be put on a par in the Selective Employment Tax. Where there is no direct competition, they should not '.
    The obvious inference was that competition did not take place in the maintenance sector. We must obviously reject that argument, just as the construction industry has already rejected it. One builder after another has told me that he regards the right hon. Gentleman's so-called concession as of so little value as to be barely worth discussing.
    I wish that I could say that we are grateful for small mercies, if that is
    956
    the way in which to describe the position, but it would be difficult for anyone to believe that if he had heard the speech of Mr. Pearson, the President of the N.F.B.T.E. when he opened the recent N.F.B.T.E. conference on 28th June. He completely dismissed the right hon. Gentleman's argument about no competition, and said:
    " We believe that Mr. Crossman has taken as illogical decision in exempting direct labour personnel engaged on maintenance work. This decision has implications which constitute a savage blow to the thousands of small building firms who normally rely on local authority maintenance work for a large part of their turnover. They will now be placed at a financial disadvantage in tendering and, clearly, there will now not be that competition on equal terms with private enterprise which the Minister hmself regards as right in principle'."
    Could there be a clearer statement on behalf of the industry than that, with its reference to "a savage blow", "thousands of small builders", and "a large part of their turnover"? In all seriousness, the Minister, through his hon. Friend, should take this opportunity to think again, and he should think again pretty quickly. For one thing he will be meeting the builders in the very near future. The date previously fixed was deferred, incidentally, showing fairly clearly that on the right hon. Gentleman's original date he had no knowledge whatsoever what the Prime Minister was going to say yesterday. So much for carefully prepared packages. He should think again before that meeting.
    The other argument that the right hon. Gentleman has put forward at different times is that he could not apply the tax to direct labour maintenance only, for administrative reasons. Mr. Pearson says that when he told the Minister about the industry's attitude to the refund of S.E.T.
    " Mr. Crossman said that there were administrative difficulties in the way of applying the tax to direct labour maintenance and I told him they must be overcome because the exemption of maintenance was most unfair to private firms and would be another factor contributing to the lack of confidence among smaller building firms that he says he is anxious to remove."
    He has said that, and we hope that we shall see him set out on that course before long. No administrative problems of this kind ought to stand in the way of the proper treatment of small builders who, beyond anyone else, need an injection of confidence at this moment.

    957
    I would have thought that the complications would come in trying to exempt maintenance from the repayment provisions rather than vice versa. Local Government experts will tell us that calculating which operatives were engaged upon maintenance and which upon new construction would be difficult. Anyone who studies reports of Question time in the Greater London Council will see that this is borne out by the questions, and the answers given to them. That task would be extremely difficult to undertake, and could be done only on a rough and ready basis. The experts had hoped that local authorities would be permitted to work out their numbers of operatives at least on a monthly basis before advising the Ministry of their tax liability. But they now fear that they will be asked for calculations on a weekly basis and that they will have to certify their numbers based on the number of operatives on the roll on any Monday morning.
    It seems to be obvious that a man may be engaged—this figure also emerged from the Greater London Council question and answer period—on maintenance one day and on new construction the next. I suspect that, in the end, the Government will simply have to ask local authorities to produce what one might call "vaguely accurate" figures and rely on checks by district auditors. It would be much simpler if all direct work operatives paid the tax in full. That would be much fairer.
    I have already set out my attitude to direct labour. Of course, the whole situation was changed by the issue of Circular 50/65 on 16th November last year. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and I and many of my hon. Friends expressed ourselves in the House and outside to the effect that this circular was a gross example of unfair competition. That is the way in which I still regard it. It has contributed considerably to the serious loss of confidence among builders Surely by now the right hon. Gentleman has discovered that. Now, on top of that, comes this tax.
    I believe that the Minister must relent a great deal further. He knows that his housing programme—even he must acknowledge that certain parts are in a mess—is in a considerable predicament because of the loss of confidence. The
    958
    payment of this tax in full by direct labour departments would go a little way towards restoring that confidence. It might not be much, but it would be something and it would also held the Chancellor to withhold some more revenue from the S.E.T.; not many of us would complain about that.
    After yesterday's statement by the Prime Minister, I should have thought that the Government could ill-afford to hand out revenue in one of the few areas where such a concession will do harm rather than good. The Government's timetable has prevented us from moving certain other Amendments which we wished to move, so as to draw attention to the general discontent through which the building and construction industry is moving, but this one goes nearly to the heart of confidence in that industry.
    The Minister is to have this August meeting with the builders. If he does not want to go to that meeting naked or without a shred of credit and, much more important, if he wants to retrieve his housing programme, which is now faced with total collapse, he had better cover his tracks and accept the Amendment either in fact or in principle. If he does, he will take a real step towards restoring confidence.
    Mr. H. P. G. Channon: My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) made an unanswerable case for Amendment No. 68. We are discussing a number of other Amendments with it and it is that I should like to talk about.
    One of our major criticisms of the Selective Employment Tax is its inequity. It is not only a bad tax, but an unfair tax. Clauses 3 and 4 and the Amendments to them are directly relevant to this point. They are the Clauses which authorise the repayment of the tax to certain public bodies and local authorities. This power should be exercised with great care so as not to prejudice private people who may have been caught up in what may turn out to be the unfair workings of the tax.
    Something worth attention is the point raised by the Roller Owners Association. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the association is extremely perturbed since its members are mostly engaged in the hiring out of road rollers and other plant, they have substantial

    959
    repair and maintenance sections, and they undertake the bulk of their work for local authorities, which also own and operate rollers. In a letter to his right hon. Friend, the association said:
    " It would seem to us illogical for the authorities to obtain a refund of the tax for the drivers they employ whilst our members must bear the full tax on their drivers."
    This is just one example of how the tax may affect an industry unfairly. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will deal with this point.
    I hope that he will also deal with the important point about the competition which many people will face from the nationalised industries. I refer him, in particular, to the electrical installation contractors, who are regarded, for the purposes of the tax, as part of the construction industry. Hon. Members will have had a vast amount of correspondence from people who are badly hit by the tax because of the wording in Clause 3. I understand that it is the Government's intention that nationalised industries should not receive refund of the tax for establishments comparable to private industries which are not entitled to a refund.
    7.45 p.m.
    I understand that that is the general principle which governs the Government's intentions, although their execution of it has not matched up. Therefore, in dealing with the problem of the private electrical contractors, we must go back to the Electricity Act, 1947. I would remind the Committee of the agreement reached at that time, and of the summary of principles governing the conduct of electrical contracting and retailing which was accepted by the area boards and the Electrical Contractors' Association. One was:
    " In general, trading activities will be conducted on fair and unsubsidised commercial lines."
    That has been the basis of the competition in those years between the electricity boards and the private electrical contractors.
    I hope that when we consider what is to happen in the operation of this Act, these will still be the principles which govern it. It would be most unfair for them to be abrogated for no reason purely because the Government have introduced a new tax without thinking out the con-
    960
    sequences. I am certain that when they introduced the tax they had no intention of deliberately setting out to penalise private electrical contractors—[An HON. MEMBER: "I am sure they did."] My hon. Friend may be right, although I hope that he is not.
    If they did not, it is a question of bad judgment rather than of bad faith. If it is, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to clear up the anomalies. He will be aware that, under the Electricity Act, 1947, private electrical contractors are entitled to undertake this form of electrical contracting. They are entitled to sell fittings and appliances by retail. The electricity boards are also entitled to sell fittings and appliances by retail. They are thus in direct commercial competition with private enterprise.
    Nevertheless, it is clear, from Clause 3, that the nationalised electricity industry will obtain a refund and private contractors will not. In this case, private contractors may be driven out of business by the Selective Employment Tax. They will have no way to recoup their funds. The profit margins are already extremely small in this industry. They are faced with very tight competition from the nationalised industries. I do not complain about that, but I do complain about the fact that this competition will now become unfair. I hope that the Government will seriously consider that.
    It would be a breach of the original agreement and contrary to the intentions of the Government if, as a result of S.E.T., there occurred, instead of economy of labour in the public electricity supply industry, an encouragement to employ more labour in an industry in which, I believe, the Chancellor wants to save labour. I therefore hope that the Chief Secretary will say what the position will be for the private electrical contractor and how he will be able to compete with the extra handicap which this tax will place on him.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry pointed out that one of the Amendments we are discussing deals with the effect of Clause 4 on public, as against local, authorities, particularly from the point of view of direct labour. My hon. Friend gave some figures indicating the number of operatives employed, not by local authorities but by other public

    961
    bodies such as British Rail, gas undertakings and the Central Electricity Generating Board. I hope that the principles which have governed, or which I have understood have governed, the introduction of S.E.T.—that competition should not be unfair—will be repeated for public bodies as well as for local authorities.
    Although we have had a partial concession for direct labour employed by local authorities, nothing has been given to public boards. I am delighted with the small concession given so far by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, although I regret that we have not had an opportunity to question him in Parliament. There will be no refund in respect of those employed in direct labour on new construction, but I submit that if they are engaged on maintenance work they will be severely affected. The Government have given the clear impression that the only reason why they will not extend this concession to direct labour engaged on maintenance work is for administrative reasons.
    When the Minister of Labour introduced the Bill he admitted that it would be unfair in its operation, that we would have to see how it worked, and that we would have to iron out some of its roughness. He went on to say that he hoped that by this time next year it would be less unfair. I submit that it is already known that there will be unfair competition and that only for administrative reasons has this injustice not been sorted out. Before introducing S.E.T. the Government should have considered the administration of the tax more fully. They should certainly now explain why they are not prepared to make this further concession.
    Mr. A. P. Costain: My hon. Friend will have noted that although the Minister said that there will be this concession, the Bill does not say so.
    Mr. Channon: I hope that my hon. Friend will develop that point if he has a chance to speak.
    Perhaps the Chief Secretary will explain how the concession will be implemented in the operation of the Bill. A host of difficulties have presented themselves in our consideration of the implementation of S.E.T., and particularly its application
    962
    to the building and construction industries. We have had little chance to debate these anomalies. Indeed, we have had only 10 minutes in which to discuss the whole building industry. I am sure that the Chief Secretary regrets this and that before imposing a tax of this magnitude he would have liked to have justified it to the Committee.
    Time does not allow me to go into the many other anomalies that exist. There are a series of problems connected with fixed-price contracts. Is there really to be some concession for private contractors who have fixed-price contracts with nationalised industries? I do not know whether the Government have made a statement to that effect. What sort of rates of concession will apply to contractors who have fixed-price contracts with Government Departments and local authorities? The Chancellor gave us to understand that the money will not be totally recouped. What will be the principles guiding recoupment? These questions are directly relevant to the Clause and we are entitled to some straight answers.
    Innumerable examples have been given to show that the Bill is unfair. It is the duty of the Government, these anomalies having been shown up, to remedy these shortcomings and to ensure that the tax is not only fair but is seen as one charge on the building industry and as part of a package of extra matters about which we heard yesterday from the Prime Minister. Blow after blow has been struck on the building and construction industries, although we have been told in the past by the Government that the one thing they would never do would be to make the construction industries a regulator when the economy was in difficulty. So incompetent—
    The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Reginald Prentice): Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I suggest that any one who makes a fair analysis of yesterday's statement will say that it was a severe statement which involves sacrifices being made across the board, including sacrifices in the building and construction industries. However, it would not be fair to say, if one judges the package as a whole, that those industries are having to bear a disproportionate share of that. To say that is

    963
    leaving out of account all the other things in the package.
    Mr. Channon: That is a matter of opinion. The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to express his view. We cannot debate the matter now without being out of order. What happened yesterday, even though it may be necessary in the national interest, represented a direct refutation of everything the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor said to the building and construction industries, as well as being a refutation of what the President of the Board of Trade said when introducing the Bill to control office building.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: My hon. Friend will also no doubt recall the statements made by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to the effect that the building industry would never be used as an economic regulator.
    Mr. Channon: Yes, although if I develop this theme I shall find myself out of order.
    Mr. Prentice: Statements have been made to the effect that the construction industries would not be singled out as economic regulators. I claim that the statement made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirmed those statements. It has never been said that the building or any other industry could be contracted out of the economic situation of the nation.
    Mr. Channon: We will have two days in which to discuss these important economic measures next week.
    In view of the extremely far-reaching nature of the measures announced by the Prime Minister yesterday, and the widespread effect of them on the building and construction industries, it is all the more important that S.E.T. is realised for what it is—a tax which represents yet another burden on the building industry. It should be seen to be fair and the anomalies and injusticies which have been proven to exist should be ironed out before it is imposed. That is why the Government have a duty not to allow S.E.T. to be imposed until these anomalies have been cured. If they do not accept that duty great harm will be done, and that is why I support the Amendment.
    Mr. Costain: In accordance with the custom of the Committee, I will at the outset declare my interest and say that I am connected with the building industry.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) have so adequately dealt with the problems of the building industry from the point of view of S.E.T. that there is no need for me unduly to develop their arguments further.
    Since the General Election the Labour Government have introduced a number of Measures which have been nasty doses of medicine. Each one has contained a provision giving the Government special dictatorial powers to completely take over should the occasion arise. And when the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Public Building and Works said, a few moments ago, that only part of the building industry would be sacrificed, he must realise why we are expressing fears on this subject. It is because of these fears that I tabled an Amendment, which, I understand, I may discuss. I fear that, once the economy gets worse, there will be a tendency to throw something more to satisfy the Government's Left-wing wolves—and private enterprise is a very tasty morsel when it comes to appeasing those who have not yet been satisfied.
    8.0 p.m.
    My Amendment is straightforward and I submit that the Government's attitude towards it will show quite clearly whether their intentions are honourably designed to follow what the Minister of Labour said on Second Reading, or whether this is another catch-clause of a party that got into power on a manifesto that said one thing and does another. If the latter is the case, we must expect the same thing to happen in legislation unless we on this side watch very carefully.
    In the Second Reading debate on 23rd June, the Minister of Labour said:
    " Those parts of the nationalised industries which are engaged in manufacturing activities directly comparable to those undertaken in the private sector are listed in Part III of the First Schedule. These will attract premiums. Those parts which are engaged in service activities directly comparable to the private sector are listed in Part II of the First Schedule. These

    965
    will not attract any refund."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1966; Vol. 730, c. 938.]
    That statement was taken by the House to mean that private enterprise and the nationalised industries would be equally treated, but when we study this in Committee we find quite another situation. In Clause 3, we get this extraordinary statement:
    …that Minister with the consent of the Treasury may determine, a payment of an amount appearing to that Minister to correspond …."
    to certain things following. There is no catch in my Amendment. All I seek to add is:
    " Provided that the payment which may be made by the designated Minister may not exceed the payment which would have been made ir the employer had qualified for a payment within section 1 or section 2 of this Act."
    That is what the Bill does not say.
    If anyone has any doubts about this, let me go further. In any legislation related to the nationalised industries the Minister is ultimately the referee. What we have to do is to see that the rules are properly drawn, and that they cannot be altered by the Minister, in innocence or otherwise.
    Part I of Schedule 1 makes interesting reading. It sets out those industries to which this Clause applies. Among them we find the National Coal Board—that is thet normal sort of industry, and the Electricity Council. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) has made the point that that is a hybrid organisation, but I seek to amend Clause 3 because it gives such organisations greater power than they would have if they were private industries. I will not weary the Committee with anything further from Part I—it is all the same all the way down, and anyone can see the point quite clearly.
    Par III deals with organisations that get a premium, which we are asked to empower the Minister to give them. It is headed:
    " Parts of undertakings qualifying for premium ".
    The first is
    " The Brickworks Executive of the National Coal Bcard."
    I took the trouble to visit the Library to find out just what the terms of reference of the Brickworks Executive are. They are:
    966
    " To develop and improve the Board's manufacture, supplies and sales of bricks "—
    That is manufacture—clay work—and I have no complaint there. It has also
    " …to make best use of materials and facilities possessed by Board and services of other Departments of the Board, and to foster technical and other research in this field."
    Sales are also included, but the fact is that a manufacturer with a sales office in another area could not get a premium.
    This is a wonderful list. The next organisation mentioned is
    " The Coal Products Division of the National Coal Board."
    Then we have:
    " The London Transport Railway Overhaul Workshops at Acton."
    No private enterprise can get a premium on an overhaul workshop. We go from bad to worse. The Minister is taking more power over the
    " Workshops of the British Waterways Board which are wholly or mainly engaged in manufacturing or repairing waterway equipment."
    " The Engineering and Maintenance Division of the British Overseas Airways Corporation."
    If those were private enterprise they would not get a premium, but we are here asked to give the Minister a right to give these little morsels out as he thinks fit.
    All my Amendment seeks is to try to persuade the Minister to tell the Committee what is meant. If the Minister argues that my Amendment is wrong because of a slight technical error—and a Government always have the last word on that matter—I would willingly say, let them put down an Amendment on Report. We should have a right to ask for fair play between private enterprise and the nationalised industries and direct labour. They should compete as equals.
    One of the factors of our present economic troubles is lack of confidence. How can private enterprise develop new industries in new areas if there is always the threat that the nationalised industries and local authority direct labour will get a special bonus premium because, as long as the present Government are in power, those bodies happen to be the "favourite kids", and get that little bit extra in a competitive world that helps them to compete unfairly? This Amendment seeks fair play, and I suggest that if the Minister does not accept it he does not intend to allow fair play in the future.
    Mr. R. W. Elliott: Bearing in mind the rigours of the Guillotine, I will not expand at any great length on many of the points I wished to make, as these have been excellently covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), but I should like, in emphasising a few of the points he made, to refer to Amendment No. 258, which refers to the privileged position in which the nationalised industries are being put as a result of what is called in many of the letters that a number of us have received "this iniquitous Measure".
    In particular, I would refer again to the position of electrical contractors. As he always is, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West was very generous—he has a generous spirit in suggesting that the Government had, in innocence, through the terms of this Bill, put the nationalised electricity industry in a privileged position over individual electrical contractors. I am unable to share my hon. Friend's generous out-look—
    Mr. Channon: In this debate, my hon. Friend and I will find out who is right. If the Government give way, I shall be right; if not, he will be right.
    Mr. Elliott: One comfort that those of us living in these troubled economic times have is the knowledge that members of the Government are also Members of Parliament. In their constituencies, there are high streets, and in those high streets there are premises occupied by electrical contractors. If members of the Government, particularly those responsible for the promotion of this Bill and its passage through the House, have not been receiving letters from the electrical contractors in the high streets, their experience has been different from those of us on this side of the Committee. We have received many letters from individual businessmen and from the ranks of private enterprise objecting to the fantastic preference that has been given to the nationalised industries. If this Clause is not designed to drive small businessmen out of existence—which seems to be the aim of the Government—I do not know what it does.
    No one objects to the boards being in competition with private enterprise. As my hon. Friend said, no one objects
    968
    to local authority direct labour being in fair competition, but it is out of all proportion that employees of nationalised industries should receive the payment for installing plants while small businessmen are not to receive the repayment The small businessman is to have hi's tied hands tied behind his back by this Measure. We can whole-heartedly condemn it. We suspect the Government very strongly indeed of desiring to give preference to nationalised concerns and wishing to drive the small businessman out of business.
    Mr. R. B. Cant: With some reluctance I follow the precedent of yesterday and oppose this Clause in detail while supporting it in principle. I do so for different reasons. Like hon. Members opposite, I have had more correspondence on Selective Employment Tax than on anything else. A large proportion of it has come from electrical contractors and the Co-operative movement.
    The Government, by departing from the White Paper on the Selective Employment Tax, have introduced an element of injustice. They have introduced an element of discrimination in favour of nationalised industries. I am thinking particularly of electricity showrooms. I am opposed to this, not because I believe it will drive out the small businessman—although, obviously, it will have an effect on him—but because I think it extremely undesirable, speaking as a Socialist, from the point of view of the electricity undertakings themselves.
    The electricity undertakings are extremely progressive and efficient. The gas and electricity industries have done a very great deal to promote the technical advance of their industries and they have been responsible for many administrative developments. I do not like to think that they are in a sense to be subjected to the indignity of this sort of treatment which offers them this sort of subsidy. As a Socialist, I should like to think that these industries can stand on their own commercial feet without fear of favour.
    In Schedule 1(2) the retailing activities of the National Coal Board are excepted when the depots are outside the curtilage of any colliery and wholly or mainly engaged in the retail domestic trade. Speaking rather parochially, I think that in some

    969
    areas, certainly in North Staffordshire, we have a situation in which the depots are almost exclusively out of the curtilage of the National Coal Board.
    I confess that I am not quite clear about die situation in which the N.C.B. handles wholesale sales to other distributors a very high proportion of which are for domestic use and whether this creates a situation in which the National Coal Board depots are, in the meaning of the Schedule,
    " wholly or mainly engaged in supplying coal …to domestic consumers "
    both directly and indirectly. Quite obviously, in an area such as North Staffordshire the Coal Board would be exempt and the Co-operative movement and private retailers will be at a disadvantage. I make those two points and hope that I shall have a reply to them.
    8.15 p.m.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: I expected that when we reached this group of Amendments we would have some keen and informative argument from my hon. Friends, and we certainly have had it. What has disturbed me was the intervention of the Minister of Public Building and Works during the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon).
    I had the honour to serve in that Ministry for some time and I looked upon the right hon. Gentleman who is now Minister as the right type. He has vigour and an independent outlook. I felt that, if we had to have a Socialist Government, in that Department he would be as good a Minister as one could find, but he disturbed me tonight. What we expect from a Minister of Public Building and Works is that he should look after the interests of the building industry. We expect him to look at the great problems of the industry and to be prepared to argue within Treasury committees on behalf of the industry.
    I could have understood the sort of intervention he made if it had come from a Treasury Minister. I could have understood it coming from the right hon. Gentleman who will reply to this debate. I could have understood his wanting to slide over the obviously well-based criticisms of my hon. Friends, but I could not understand it coming from the Minister of Public Building and Works,
    970
    and I was disturbed that he should have done it. This is an occasion on which his silence would have been eloquent and helpful to the building industry, but his intervention showed that he is complacent and does not feel that the industry has much at which to grumble.
    The right hon. Gentleman had to admit that the industry is having its fair share of restrictions, but he suggested that it had no more than its fair share. I should have expected him to know, more than anyone, that in the whole package squeeze the building industry and industries which go with it have more than their fair share. They have had a rough road. If we look at the loose wording of the Bill we find that not only are they to have a rough road, but they are in a hazy position and cannot see their way through. I should not have minded his silence if that meant he was battling for the industry, but now he seems to have put himself into the position of suggesting that the industry is all right. I hope that I have misjudged his intervention—
    Mr. Prentice: Misinterpreted it.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: I am glad to know from that intervention that the Minister is battling within the Government to try to get better treatment for the industry. I give up the Minister of Housing and Local Government. He gets so excited and arrogant that I do not think he is a good representative of this great industry, but I am disturbed about the Minister of Public Building and Works.
    I do not think that there is any doubt that these Amendments—certainly two of them—should be accepted by the Government, if only to clear up the present hazy situation. I support particularly Amendment No. 354, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). If the Government meant what was said in their name on Second Reading they must accept these words, because the words are merely confirming in an unequivocal way what was then said. There cannot be much doubt that that Amendment should be accepted.
    The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) was eloquent in support of the point of view of electrical contractors. It was not easy for the hon.

    971
    Gentleman to say what he said, because he had to be critical of the Government he supports. He is not an old Member of the House, although I can see that he will be a useful one. It is not easy for one to criticise one's own Government, particularly when they are in such trouble. In face of all these troubles, an hon. Member does not want to be labelled as a "Brown man".
    However, the hon. Gentleman took the risk, because he knew from his own postbag and from his observations in North Staffordshire—the heart of England—that the Government's course of action is wrong. He knew that private enterprise electrical contractors will be in an unfair position when competing with nationalised industries.
    The hon. Gentleman said that he would like to feel that Socialist-run industries did not need this sort of help. I assure him that they do need it they would not go far without it. That is why the Treasury Bench is giving it to them. In this instance, fair play should supersede doctrinaire views. I hope that the Treasury Bench will, when considering the Amendment, make it clear that it is not their intention to provide that private enterprise electrical contractors should be in this invidious position and that they will not allow such a provision to remain in the Bill.
    The brick industry is another industry which will suffer as a consequence of this haziness and disturbance. My first job when I was at the Ministry of Works was to go round almost all the brick works, including some in North Staffordshire, urging them to invest a lot of money in the industry so that kilns could be built and there could be an upsurge in the output of bricks. I told them that this was essential if they were to meet the needs being made on them by the Government at that time. The records of the Ministry will show that on every occasion those concerned gave impressive figures to show that the capital investment which would be needed to build up the supplies of bricks which we said that the nation needed would put them at great risk, unless we could guarantee outlets for their products.
    Those concerned in the brick industry said that they had been faced with stop-
    972
    go so often. I believe that it was the brick industry which first made use of the phrase "stop-go". The industry had been encouraged to build up. Then it was faced with a slump and so it was left with all its capital invested. Because of Government action—it was not always a Labour Government—from 1947 onwards, clamps were imposed which affected the production of bricks and the industry was not able to get a return on the money which had been invested in new kilns, money on which, if obtained on bank overdraft, heavy interest payments had to be made.
    The industry responded to the appeal that the then Government made and invested a lot of money, perhaps more money than the judgment of those concerned would have led them to make. They did this to ensure us the supply of bricks which got us through that period when so many houses, hospitals and schools were built.
    Now the industry is back in its old unfortunate position. The large amount of money which has been expended is now reflected in the bricks piling up in the yards. The industry has to contemplate getting rid of some of its work-people. The kilns are standing idle. This is the result of the clamp which has again been imposed on the industry. Because of the economic problems now facing us, part of the restriction may be necessary. I do not agree or disagree with the statement made yesterday that we are in a mess and that we must all work hard to get out of it. However, it is not necessary for the position to be left hazy and unsettled for the building industry.
    I plead with the Government to look favourably on this group of Amendments which, if they do nothing else, state in clear terms what the Government have already said they want to do and in every instance bring into being the outlook expressed by the Minister of Public Building and Works. I hope that these final words of mine will reach his heart. I should like to feel, as I did feel before I heard the right hon. Gentleman intervene earlier tonight, that the building industry had, in the new Minister of Public Building and Works, a man who will fight hard on its behalf and who will ensure that the miserable Treasury does not

    973
    once again get away with imposing these restrictions on it.
    I am on the side of the Minister of Public Building and Works, especially if he lives up to the picture I have of him. My picture of the Treasury is nothing to do with the picture I have of the right hon. Gentleman, but he seems to enjoy doing the dirty work which the Treasury so often foists on him.
    Mrs. Jill Knight: I rise to speak on behalf of the people of whom we have heard quite a lot today, namely, private enterprise electrical contractors. I do so on a slightly different ground, speaking as a consumer. All of us know full well that one reason why area electricity boards have competitive prices is that they have had to face the competition of small private enterprise electrical contractors. From the consumer's point of view, this is an excellent thing, because it enables us to obtain a service much more cheaply than it would otherwise be. Therefore, anything which would operate to end this state of affairs would be against the consumer's interest and would be bad.
    I want to speak on behalf of these people, partly because I have tabled an Amendment on this subject and partly because I conceive it to be my duty to represent here the grievances and upsets of those who sent me here. One letter I have received bears quotation, because it sums up the grievance that these people feel they have:
    " With reference to the …."
    Selective Employment Payments Bill, says this employer, who is in a very small way of business—
    " we would urge you to demand that the Bill should be for Selective Employment and not for selected employers.
    In our case, we would have to pay the tax for men sent to a factory to carry out installation and maintenance work. The Electricity Board will be entitled to a refund for the same work. Men on the payroll of a factory doing the same job would not only get a refund but also a rebate.
    Our main concern, naturally, is the unfair advantage given to the electricity boards" by the Bill.
    These people feel—it is natural that they should feel this way—that they are being forced to pay a tax to help their
    974
    competitors against themselves. It is no wonder that they feel a very deep grievance.
    I hope that the Government will not use a false argument in replying to the Amendment. One argument likely to be used against the proposal that area electricity boards should not receive a refund in respect of their contracting and retailing staff is that it is not possible for boards easily to discriminate against employees engaged on retailing and contracting and on other work.
    I hope that we shall hear no nonsense of this sort. Each electricity board produces annual accounts which are published by the Stationery Office and which, inter cilia, give specific figures in respect of their contracting and retailing activities.
    There is no argument about this. If it is possible for an electricity board to produce accounts showing the profitability of its contracting and retailing activities, the contracting and retailing staff are already separated and recorded as such. Surely no difficulty could arise in ensuring that such staff did not attract a refund of the tax. Surely arguments that are reasonable must be accepted and it must be recognised that private enterprise firms of electrical contractors have a real grievance, as do the consumers. In putting this viewpoint to the Government, I beg them to consider it very carefully.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. F. V. Corfield: In intervening I have no intention of bringing the debate to an end but I want briefly to add to the arguments so ably deployed by my hon. Friends the Members for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott), and Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) about the position of the electrical contracting industry vis-à-vis the nationalised electricity boards. Interested as I was in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston, I do not share her belief that reasonable arguments will be accepted by the Government. This has come over me in the last few nights and I am no longer optimistic.

    975
    Time does not allow us to deploy the whole argument. The tax has been calculated to add between 9 per cent. and 10 per cent. to the labour element in the contracting industry. If the Chief Secretary doubts these figures I am willing to give him the calculations on which they are based. We must presume that even this Government recognise that this gives an enormous advantage to the nationalised electricity boards and we hope that they recognise it as a grossly unfair advantage—unless, of course, they contend, on the eve of the Iron and Steel Bill, that the nationalised industries are inherently so inefficient that private enterprise can catch up on a 9 per cent. lead.
    I understand that the private electrical contracting industry employs about 36,000 electricians and about 20,000 apprentices and installs plant, appliances, etc., to the value of about £150 million per annum. It is obvious that this work offers very little scope for automation or mechanisation. Similar conditions apply to the selling side of the board's activities to showrooms and so on.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West pointed out, the irony lies in the fact that the Socialist Minister at the time of the nationalisation of the electricity supply industry lent his name to the agreement drawn up between the Electrical Contractors' Association and Lord Citrine, the first Chairman of the Central Electricity Authority, as to the clear trading terms. It is clear that this agreement, like so many other Socialist promises, is to be torn up and thrown out of the window for some doctrinaire administrative convenience.
    It is also clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston said, that there is no difficulty on the part of the electricity boards in identifying the people employed on this side of their activities. As she rightly said, their accounts contain separate accounts of the selling and contracting activities so that there is no difficulty in identifying this branch of their operations. But the agreement is to be torn up, I understand, not—and this is to their credit —because the nationalised boards particularly want it done or because they are unable to identify the labour concerned but solely because they are in competition with the nationalised gas in-
    976
    dustry which does not keep these separate accounts.
    Thus we have the absurd position of a Government dedicated to nationalisation of the heights of the economy unable apparently to sort out the systems followed by the gas and electricity industries, preferring to leave this grossly unjust anomaly vis-à-vis the private enterprise contracting industry.
    The result is that we have this gross discrimination, discrimination which is unfair from a Government which is always prattling about social justice until that has become an absolutely meaningless phrase. It is discrimination which condones a thoroughly inefficient form of accounting and an inability by the Gas Council and the gas boards to differentiate their labour. It is a discrimination which yet further, if that is possible, discredits the integrity of the Socialist Ministers of the past.
    I challenge the Chief Secretary to dissociate himself from this form of discrimination and to say that he will put this matter right on Report.
    Mr. Diamond: I have many questions to answer and while I do not want to delay hon. Members opposite, for I know that a Guillotine is operating and they will want me to speak as rapidly as possible, I have been asked so many questions, from road rollers onwards, that if I am to reply, I shall have to take a little time. One hon. Member opposite became so excited that I was rather worried and almost felt that I must ask him to sit down and relax.
    I must, firstly, say that the Government's attitude to private enterprise and public enterprise is what has been many times stated from the Dispatch Box—we have, and we are likely to have as long as any hon. Member present is alive, a mixed economy; we want it to work and we think that we know what makes the public sector work and we think that we know what makes the private sector work, and certainly hon. Members opposite would claim that; we want to give every inducement to the private sector to be enterprising and energetic and to use all the emotion and drive which hon. Members have been putting into supporting the Amendments. On that first score hon. Members opposite can relax.

    977
    Secondly—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) is more capable of debating than of persuading; it is not necessary for him to offer insults every time he rises to speak, or even when he is sitting down. I hope to deal with the debate and to do so fairly and I shall certainly not be put off by any words which I regard as less than praiseworthy. I want to deal with the arguments on their merits.
    The second point is the distinction between private enterprise and nationalised industries in the application of the tax. We are anxious, for the very good reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant)—and I am glad that he gave them—that, so far as is consistent with sensible administration and organisation, there shall be fair competition. We do not take the view that the nationalised industries have to be coddled—quite the opposite. We give them their profit targets and we believe that they are capable of carrying out their industrial and commercial activities with the same efficiency as, or even more efficiency than, private enterprise and that they should be judged in that respect by that criterion.
    I have carefully referred to commercial and industrial activities, because, of course, the nationalised industries often have their social responsibilities in addition which should be separately accounted and measured. We approach all these Amendments on the basis that we want fair play between private enterprise and nationalised industries and we are doing everything we can to encourage both the public and private aspects of the economy.
    I will now deal with what the Bill provides for the nationalised industries. Perhaps I should start with the local authorities, because that is much simpler. Local authorities are to get a refund of the tax which they pay, with one major exception—directly employed local authority employees on new construction —not maintenance, but new construction.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: The right hon. Gentleman talks of a major concession, but does he not realise that he is talking about less than 10 per cent.?
    Mr. Diamond: I was trying to make it simple for the Committee. I am sure
    978
    that the hon. Gentleman is fully aware of the details, but I am not quite sure if everyone else appreciated them. Local authorities are to get a refund of the tax paid, with the exception of those employed in new construction. Broadly, nationalised industries are to be dealt with on the basis of being neutral, neither getting a premium nor being net payers of the tax.
    As is said in the first Schedule of the Bill there will be a premium paid in respect of those employees of nationalised industries who are employed on some ancillary activity directly competing with private industry. This is set out in Part III of the Schedule. There will be no repayment in respect of those set out in Part II of the Schedule where there is again direct competition in respect of ancillary activities with private industry, when private industry receives no rebate or premium. They are being put on exactly the same basis as private industry, wherever one can seek it out in respect of their ancillary activities, either receiving a premium or nothing as the case may be.
    That is the background, and I will now apply the general principles to the detailed questions put to me. On the question of construction there is the distinction between new work and maintenance work. I gather that there is no complaint about unfair competition between local authorities and private contractors on new work. If there is the Committee should bear in mind the words of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing. I think that I have made it clear that there will be no refund in respect of local authority employees engaged on new construction.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: The important question is what proportion is the new work of the whole?
    Mr. Diamond: It does not matter what proportion it is. We are talking about whether competition is fair or unfair. Building work falls into two accepted categories, new work and maintenance.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: And what proportion is new work of the whole?
    Mr. Diamond: I do not know what proportion new work is of the whole and I do not think I ought to know. It is totally irrelevant and I would not dream

    979
    of asking the Box for it. It does not matter whether it is 1 per cent. or 91 per cent. On all new work there will be fair competition in the way that I have indicated.
    Dealing with maintenance, there will not be an attempt to go into the various categories so as to divide them up between those categories of maintenance carried out by a local authority which are possibly competitive with private industry—this is a very small part of local authority maintenance—and the rest of local authority maintenance, concerned with sewerage and a host of things like that, where there is no element of competition with private enterprise. In short there is a very small area in which it might be held that the local authority maintenance work was being carried out in competition with private enterprise.
    It is administratively impossible to sort out as between the men engaged on one kind of maintenance work one day and another kind of maintenance work another day. Very largely, it is not put out to tender. In that respect it is not administratively possible, and it is not relevant in terms of magnitude, that we should ask local authorities to accept the impossible task of trying to ascertain which members of their maintenance staff have been engaged for parts of a day or week in doing work which conceivably might have been held to be competitive with private enterprise. To that extent, therefore, it is a rough edge.
    Mr. Costain: I want to point out how very weak the right hon. Gentleman's argument is. We have pointed out that 90 per cent. of the building work done by direct labour is maintenance work. We are talking about the livelihood of about 70,000 small builders who rely on maintenance work. The Minister is saying, "We want a special advantage over these people at 7s. 6d. a man a week when they are repairing a sewerage system". What the right hon. Gentleman said does not hold water.
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. Diamond: The hon. Gentleman is wrong, and he should not get excited—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman was not listening. He was talking with his hon. Friend on the Front Bench. I did not want to interrupt him.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: It would not have profited me if it had been on a par with what we have had so far. The time was rapidly coming, if it were not for the Guillotine, when we should have had to ask the Minister of Public Building and Works to bail the Chief Secretary out, because he does not know what he is talking about.
    Mr. Diamond: That may be. I am trying to answer the questions put to me. I am trying to demonstrate to the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) that this rough edge—and I admit that it is a rough edge—is of tiny proportions. I go further: I shall be always at the hon. Gentleman's service to receive from him representations about local builders who have evidence that they are meeting unfair competition and losing their livelihood as a result.
    Mr. John Brewis: Would not the right hon Gentleman agree that this is leaving the door wide open for local authorities to increase the number of men they have on maintenance work?
    Mr. Diamond: Hon. Members opposite are expressing unnecessary anxiety. According to them, the whole world will turn round once this tax is put into force and small builders will be turned out of work and will go bankrupt. I assure the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) that there is no reason to fear anything of that kind. Small builders will be likely to be doing the same share of the work that they have done in the past. To meet their reasonable point of view we have deliberately taken steps to ensure that there is fair competition on all new construction, which is the relevant part.
    I was asked about the Government's attitude to fixed-price contracts. You, Mr. Irving, were good enough to allow the matter to be raised, so perhaps you will permit me to reply to what was said as I dare say there is considerable interest in this matter.
    The instructions to Government Departments which will very shortly be issued provide that in the case of Government contracts for construction works—I am not talking about term or service contracts—Departments may agree to pay up to 90 per cent. of the ascertained extra cost to the contractor resulting from his his Selective Employment Tax payments

    981
    in respect of personnel employed on the construction site only. So far as term or service contracts are concerned—that is, contracts which can be terminated at relatively short notice by either side and which are usually for building maintenance work—Departments will be authorised to pay up to 100 per cent. of the extra costs to the contractor resulting from that part of his Selective Employment fax payments which can be attributed to work on Government contracts. What I have been talking about is Government contracts, and I expect—I can go no further than that—that public enterprise and local authorities will bear in mind what the Government are doing and may well fashion their attitude on that. The question of contracts as between contractors and private customers is not a matter For the Government at all.
    Mr. Channon: Will the Chief Secretary consider, if necessary, giving the nationalised industries a general direction to ensure that they do so?
    Mr. Diamond: I shall of course consider, but what I shall consider is whether my right hon. Friend has any such powers. and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will consider whether he wants nationalised industries to be run on a string so that they are given orders by Ministers from day to day on what they shall do. I have explained what the Government are doing and that I assume that the nationalised industries and local authorities would take due note of what the Government thought was appropriate action in regard to the present circumstances.
    I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wants me to go into questions of steam-rollers at this hour, in view of the fact that the debate is guillotined. Perhaps it would be simpler if I wrote to the hon. Gentleman.
    The situation concerning electrical contractors is not quite as the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) describes it. Here again there is a very small rough edge. [Interruption.] I am not here to deny what exists. I am here to explain how one cannot improve on the present provision. I have stated the principles to which we shall try to adhere. If anyone can suggest
    982
    methods by which we can improve the application of those principles of fair play as between private and public enterprise, we shall be only too glad to listen. We are taking powers in the Bill to vary the arrangements so as to permit that.
    The majority of the work carried out by electricity undertakings is not competitive. Because it is not competitive, they do not get the same beneficial treatment that the electrical manufacturing contractors would get. For example, being a utility company, they would not get the premium in cases where they would otherwise get it. The gas and electricity manufacturing plants, which must run into hundreds of millions of £s, do not attract the premium that they would attract if they were under private enterprise because it would be manufacturing. Similarly, it is being treated broadly as a nationalised industry and is neither bearing the tax nor receiving the premium. That is the main philosophy.
    Mrs. Knight rose—
    Mr. Diamond: If the hon. Lady could relax, as I have suggested that the hon. Gentleman should, we should all be so much happier.
    Mr. Hector Monro rose—
    Mr. Diamond: The hon. Gentleman can come in if he wants to afterwards. This is the Committee stage and I shall listen to him with interest.
    The intention is neither to give nationalised industries the premium nor to charge them with the tax, and therefore one cannot start to make a direct comparison. If a direct comparison were sought, the hon. Lady would be inviting me to say that the nationalised industries that carry out major manufacturing activities should get a premium in respect of them. They would then be getting more substantial sums, which would be unfair in terms of competition, and therefore we do not propose that.
    All that we propose, in terms of fair competition, is that this should be treated quite separately, as I have explained. This would give an advantage to the private electrical contractor in the sense that there is a small element, a quite tiny element, in which the private electrical contractor is competing with a nationalised industry. The electrical contractor

    983
    starts off here with a considerable advantage, if he has manufacturing plant—some have and some have not—but we disregard that, inasmuch as one cannot separate not contracting from retailing but contracting of one kind from contracting of another kind.
    What the electricity undertaking is concerned with mainly in contracting is the laying of mains and that kind of thing, and this is in no sense competitive. That is the major activity. On the other very minor proportion, the work might conceivably be competitive.
    Mr. Corfield: How much in a year?
    Mr. Diamond: I shall give way in a minute. I do not know why everyone is so impatient. I have been asked for information and I want to give the answer. The answer is that there is a very small area in which there is competition, and, although there would be advantage to the electrical contractor because he gets the premium in certain cases and the supply company does not, it is not possible to make an exact comparison and to give that same premium to the nationalised industry, for the reasons I have explained, or to separate out the hours a particular man might spend in one day doing contracting of one kind or contracting of another kind.
    For these reasons, I cannot recommend the Committee to accept the Amendments.
    Mrs. Knight: We must tell the right hon. Gentleman quite frankly that that is the most blatant example of double-talk we have ever heard. We have listened most carefully to his reply, given almost with tears rolling down his face, assuring us that he wants to be absolutely fair to private enterprise as opposed to the nationalised industries.
    The point seems so simple. A nationalised industry sends a team along to wire up a house. A private electrical contractor sends along a team to wire up a house. They are in direct competition, and one of them is getting an unfair advantage over the other. If the right hon. Gentleman wants it like that, we recognise that he has a majority to have it like that, but what we cannot accept is that he is sincere in what he says
    984
    at the beginning if that is how he finishes at the end.
    Mr. Monro: The right hon. Gentleman has talked about a fair balance between the nationalised industries and free enterprise. It is surprising that in Schedule 1 there is no mention of the State management districts, the public ownership of hotels, restaurants and public houses, and the State brewery in Carlisle, Gretna and Ross and Cromarty. In view of the great importance of this matter to free enterprise in those districts, I should like the Chief Secretary to explain briefly why they have been omitted whereas, for example, British Transport has been included in the other part of Schedule 1.
    I warmly support what my hon. Friends have said about the electrical contractor. Nothing that the right hon. Gentleman has said has alleviated our fears. I stress this particularly from the point of view of electrical contractors in Scotland, who have written to me and, I am sure, to all hon. Members who have such interests in their constituencies, expressing grave concern at the most unreasonable state of affairs now created by the Bill. I emphasise the point all the more from the Scottish point of view because we have had no time whatever to deal with our Amendments in Committee.
    I hope now that after further questioning from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) and myself, the Chief Secretary will at last tell us that he sees our points of view and will agree to our Amendment.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. David Mitchell: I am very glad that among the Amendments which we have been allowed to discuss in the limited time available it has been possible to include No. 258. Having heard the Chief Secretary's reply to the general discussion, I wonder why it is that he cannot accept the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to be fair and equal as between the nationalised industries, local authorities and private enterprise. In Amendment No. 258, we ask precisely that. To quote the Amendment, we ask that
    " the repayment payable in respect of employees of nationalised industries shall not exceed that payable for employees engaged on competitive work in private industries."

    985
    That is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman said was his intention. If it is his intention, I ask him to accept the Amendment. If he refuses to accept it, we can only assume, perfectly reasonably, that this is another example of the double talk of the present Government, where one thing is said and another thing is done.
    I listened attentively to the right hon. Gentleman's summing up, and I want to make two specific points. The first one concerns local authorities. As he said, the competition between local authorities and private builders is, in part, involved in new construction, and there is no complaint about that. However, the other part is concerned with decoration and maintenance, and here there is constant direct competition between local authorities and private industry. The point which I want to stress is that it is not big private industry, but the small private firm which is affected.
    When dealing with maintenance and decoration, one does not find the giants of the business involved, with respect to Costain's and other great firms. One finds the small village or town builder involved in it. If my researches are right, there are about 70,000 firms of this nature. and they are the people who will be put in the position of direct unfair competition when they have to quote against a local authority which does not have the weight which they have tied round their necks of having to pay Selective Employment Tax.
    That is a point which the Chief Secretary has not answered, and it is one on which I feel that the Committee ought to hear an explanation, if there is one—I suspect there is not—of how he is to give effect to the meaning of his words, "equal and fair".
    My second point is to join with my hon. Friends in their argument about the nationalised industries in relation to electrical contracting and other types of industry. A good example is railway track maintenance, where there is direct competition between the railways' costings in the use of its own labour for maintenance and the bringing in of contractors to do the wok. The contractor will have to pay; the railways will not. That is a direct case of firms being put at an unfair
    986
    disadvantage where the Minister said that he intended it to be fair and equal.
    The Chief Secretary talked as if, in electrical contracting, it was a non-existent problem. It so happens that I have just moved house, and I find that the electrical installation in my present house needs a good deal of rewiring. The obvious thing to do is to get a local electrical contractor and the L.E.B. or South-Eastern Electricity Board to quote for the job and give it to whichever is the cheaper. In future, the one will pay S.E.T. and the other will not; the one will have a competitive advantage and the other will not.
    To return to the private builder doing decorating and repair work, another point which should be stressed is that it is the small firm which is involved. It is not the giants of the business who are involved. It is all very well for the Minister to talk about electrical manufacturers who have contracting departments who will receive 7s. 6d., but they are not the small firms, they are the giants of the business.
    It is the small man who will be driven to the wall by the unfair competition provided by the Bill, which the Minister pretends, unless he accepts Amendment No. 258, it is his intention not to have. It must he unfair. It is blatantly and plainly unfair, and unless he is prepared to accept the Amendment, I can only assume that he knows it, and is not prepared to be fair.
    The constant dripping attack on the small private firm seems to be a continuation of a highly unsatisfactory trend by which we are seeing the transference of a growing amount of power and of trade from private firms, and particularly small firms, to the State. This concentration of power and wealth in the hands of the State, which is the fundamental mark of a Socialist Government, is in direct contrast to what we believe in, which is the spreading of power and wealth as widely as possible throughout the community. Small traders, small builders, small decorators, and small electrical contractors are the people on whom competitive industry is built up, and the Bill is driving a knife into the opportunities available for the small firm to prosper.
    Has the right hon. Gentleman any excuse to offer to these people? I ask him to accept Amendment No. 258, which embodies the phraseology which he used

    987
    to describe his objective in an earlier speech.
    Mr. Ian Percival: I endorse all that has been said by my hon. Friends since the Minister sat down. The Minister said that the figures for contracting work could not be separated; and that in any event they represent only a small proportion of the total contracting work done by the electricity board. The second part of that is quite irrelevant and I believe that the first part is incorrect, because I have here the annual report and accounts of the Electricity Council for 1964–65, in which these figures are specified.
    I wonder whether the Chief Secretary could pause to decide which way he should nod his head, instead of automatically nodding it that way? I can see that it may be possible for there to be some work of a different category in these contracting figures, but it cannot be anything like as big as the right hon. Gentleman says. In any event, the other figure given is the figure for sales of fittings, which is a comparable figure of sales carried out in direct competition with private enterprise, and the total of these two figures is no less than £80 million.
    To suggest that this is a small matter is utter nonsense. It is £80 million, compared with a turnover of £150 million by private enterprise in the same field. Thus, if my arithmetic is correct, it is one-third of the total expenditure in these two fields, and I suggest to the Chief Secretary that it is an insult to the Committee to present an argument like he did.
    The second point has been dealt with very fully by my hon. Friends that there is one other aspect which I want to mention. This argument that the people about whom we are concerned will get a premium under the Bill is the biggest nonsense that any of us has ever heard. If the right hon. Gentleman believes it, let
    him come to Southport as my guest and meet my electrical contractors. If he can find one who will be given anything by way of premium to balance what he will lose by reason of this competition, I will give him as long a holiday as he likes in Southport. The right hon. Gentleman will realise that I make that offer not particularly because I want to see a Socialist Minister in my constituency—they are doing enough damage there already—but because I have considerable confidence in the wager.
    The Minister says, from his comfortable position, that he knows that what he says is true. I do not put it as definitely as that, but I do say that if he really thinks that he must have been misled by someone; and if he does believe it I invite him to come down to earth and speak to some of the people whose views we are putting forward, and to hear what they say about it.
    Mr. Costain: If the Chief Secretary thinks that, will he name a single firm that will benefit?
    Mr. Percival: That is another challenge that he might like to take up at some time.
    My hon. Friends and I are thinking of small businesses who have a difficult enough job as it is to compete with nationalised industries without having this extra burden placed upon them. It is quite untrue to say that this category will obtain any benefit under the Bill. They will not. It is all one way. That is why we feel so strongly about the Amendment, and about what I suggest to the Chief Secretary are the bogus arguments he has advanced—bogus in the sense that they are based on false premises, whether or not he knows it.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 229, Noes 295.

    Division No. 141.]

    AYES

    [9.10 p.m.

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Brewis, John

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Astor, John

    Bessell, Peter

    Bromley-Davenport,Lt.Col.Sir Walter

    Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n — M'dn)

    Biffen, John

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Awdry, Daniel

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Baker, W. H. K.

    Blaker, Peter

    Bryan, Paul

    Balniel, Lord

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N—M)

    Batsford, Brian

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Buck, Antony (Colchester)

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Bell, Ronald

    Brains, Bernard

    Campbell, Gordon

    Carlisle, Mark

    Hiley, Joseph

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Hill, J. E. B.

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Pardoc, John

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Holland, Philip

    Peel, John

    Clark, Henry

    Hobson, Emlyn

    Percival, Ian

    Clegg, Walter

    Hordern, Peter

    Peyton, John

    Cooke, Robert

    Hornby, Richard

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Pounder, Rafton

    Cordle, John

    Hunt, John

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Corfield, F. V.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Costain, A. P.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Irvine, Bryant Cadman (Rye)

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Crawley, Aidan

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Crouch, David

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Dalkeith, Earl of Dance, James

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Davidson ,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)

    Jopling, Michael

    Ridsdale, Julian

    d'Avigdor-Geldsmid, Sir Henry

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Robson Brown, Sir William

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Roots, William

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Kimball, Marcus

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Doughty, Charles

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Kitson, Timothy

    Scott, Nicholas

    Drayson, G. B.

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Sharpies, Richard

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh — Whitby)

    Eden, Sir John

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Stainton, Keith

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

    Longden, Gilbert

    Steel, David (Roxburgh)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Loveys, W. H.

    Stodart, Anthony

    Eyre, Reginald

    Lubbock, Eric

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

    Farr, John

    MacArthur, Ian

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Fisher, Nigel

    Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross—Cromity)

    Tapsell, Peter

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Fortescue, Tim

    Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

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

    Foster, Sir John

    McMaster, Stanley

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Teeling, Sir William

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Maddan, Martin

    Temple, John M.

    Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

    Maginnis, John E.

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Marten, Neil

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Mathew, Robert

    Tilney, John

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Maude, Angus

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Glyn, Sir Richard

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

    Mawby, Ray

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Goodhart, Philip

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

    Goodhew, Victor

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

    Walker, Peter (Worcester)

    Gower, Raymond

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Walters, Dennis

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Gurden, Harold

    Monro, Hector

    Webster, David

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    More, Jasper

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Morgan, W. G. (Denbigh)

    Whitelaw, William

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

    Harrison, Brian (Malden)

    Murton, Oscar

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Harrison, Cot. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

    Heave, Airey

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Worsley, Marcus

    Hawkins, Paul

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Wylie, N. R.

    Hay, John

    Nott, John

    Younger, Hn. George

    Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

    Onslow, Cranley

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Mr. Pym and Mr. Grant.

    Heseltine, Michael

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    NOES

    Abse, Lee

    Barnes, Michael

    Booth, Albert

    Albu, Austen

    Barnett, Joel

    Boston, Terence

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Beaney, Alan

    Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Alldritt, Walter

    Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert

    Allen, Scholefield

    Bence, Cyril

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Anderson, Donald

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Bradley, Tom

    Archer, Peter

    Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Armstrong. Ernest

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Brooks, Edwin

    Ashley, Jack

    Binns, John

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

    Bishop, E. S.

    Brown,Bob (N'c' tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Blackburn, F.

    Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

    Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Boardman, H.

    Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch — F'bury)

    990

    991

    Buchan, Norman

    Horner, John

    Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

    Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Palmer, Arthur

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney C.)

    Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

    Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

    Cant, R. B.

    Howie, W.

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Pentland, Norman

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Hunter, Adam

    Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

    Chapman, Donald

    Hynd, John

    Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

    Coe, Denis

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

    Coleman, Donald

    Jackson, Colin (B'h'se — Spenb'gh)

    Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

    Concannon, J. D.

    Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

    Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

    Conlan, Bernard

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Corbel, Mrs. Freda

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Probert, Arthur

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n—St.P'cras,S.)

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Crawshaw Richard

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Rankin, John

    Cronin, John

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Redhead, Edward

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

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

    Rees, Merlyn

    Dalyell, Tans

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Darling, Rt. Hn. George

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

    Judd, Frank

    Richard, Ivor

    Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter — Chatham)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

    Lawson, George

    Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

    Ledger, Ron

    Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)

    de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

    Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

    Delargy, Hugh

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

    Rodgers, William (Stockton)

    Dell, Edmund

    Lee, John (Reading)

    Rose, Paul

    Dempsey, James

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Dewar, Donald

    Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

    Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

    Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

    Dickens, James

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Ryan, John

    Dobson, Ray

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

    Doig, Peter

    Loughlin, Charles

    Sheldon, Robert

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Luard, Evan

    Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

    Driberg, Tom

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Shore, Peter (Stepney)

    Dunn, James A.

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

    McBride, Neil

    Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

    Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th — C'b'e)

    McCann, John

    Silkin, John (Deptford)

    Eadie, Alex

    MacColl, James

    Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)

    Edelman, Maurice

    MacDermot, Niall

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Macdonald, A. H.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    McGuire, Michael

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Ellis, John

    Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

    Slater, Joseph

    English, Michael

    Mackie, John

    Small, William

    Ennals, David

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Snow, Julian

    Ensor, David

    Maclennan, Robert

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Fernyhough, E.

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Stonehouse, John

    Finch, Harold

    Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

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

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Manuel, Archie

    Swain, Thomas

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Mapp, Charles

    Swingler, Stephen

    Floud, Bernard

    Marquand, David

    Symonds, J. B.

    Foley, Maurice

    Mason, Roy

    Taverne, Dick

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Ford, Ben

    Mellish, Robert

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Forrester, John

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Thornton, Ernest

    Fowler, Gerry

    Milian, Bruce

    Tinn, James

    Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Tomney, Frank

    Gardner, A. J.

    Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

    Urwin, T. W.

    Garrow, Alex

    Molloy, William

    Varley, Eric G.

    Ginsburg, David

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Walden, Brian (All Saints)

    Gourley, Harry

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

    Morris, John (Aberavon)

    Wallace, George

    Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Moyle, Roland

    Watkins, David (Consett)

    Gregory, Arnold

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Weitzman, David

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Murray, Albert

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

    Neal, Harold

    Whitaker, Ben

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Newens, Stan

    White, Mrs. Eirene

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Whitlock, William

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Norwood, Christopher

    wigg, Rt. Hn. George

    Hamling, William

    Oakes, Gordon

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Hannan, William

    Ogden, Eric

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

    Harper, Joseph

    O'Malley, Brian

    Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Orbach, Maurice

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Hazell, Bert

    Orme, Stanley

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Oswald, Thomas

    Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

    Henig, Stanley

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'ton)

    Wilson, William (Coventry, 8.)

    Hilton, W. S.

    Owen, Will (Morpeth)

    Winnick, David

    Hooley, Frank

    Padley, Walter

    992

    993

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Yates, Victor

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Woof, Robert

    Zilliacus, K.

    Mr. Walter Harrison and

    Wyatt, woodrow

    Mr. Grey

    Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Sir Keith Joseph: This Clause is a thoroughly distasteful one to my hon. Friends for several reasons, some of which have been spelled out in a series of trenchant speeches by my hon. Friends which, I understand, have been thoroughly inadequately replied to by the Government.
    I will draw attention to two major defects in the Clause. The first is that, once again, it provides us with an example of taxation by discretion. In line 15 the word "may" appears—the Minister is given power, discretion, to refund the tax to the payers. This is a thoroughly unsatisfactory method of taxation, even if in this case the bodies paying the tax are public enterprises. We deplore taxation by discretion wherever it may appear and it is another example of the Government's hasty imprecision in introducing the Bill, so that they did not have time to work out exactly how the tax would fall.
    Our second major objection to the Clause is that its effect on the nationalised industries is so damaging to the public. If we consider Schedule 1, with which Clause 3 must be considered, we find that a number of the nationalised industries to which it refers are akin to services. If these were private enterprises, the employers would bear the tax without any refund, and without, of course, any premium, but because they are nationalised, and because a number of them are already bearing heavy losses —which are transferred straight to the taxpayer—the Government cannot trust them 10 bear the tax, as it would fall straight back on the Government and on the taxpayer.
    The nationalised industries are not subject to any competition. They have no incentive to minimise the burden of the tax, to absorb it where possible. Since the taxpayer is the ultimate supporter of the nationalised industries in those many cases where they are making losses, the Government have had to refund the tax, or give power to the Minister to refund the tax, to those nationalised industries providing the service, when the private service industries are the very ones that bear the tax.
    994
    These are the main objections we have to the Clause, and if there were time, which the Guillotine denies us, we would ask the Government to spell out in some detail exactly how the discretion in subsection (2) will be used. I hope that, if there is time, the Minister will be able to answer that question, but because I know that a number of my hon. Friends want to make their views known I now simply register the fact that we find the Clause most distasteful, and will want to move the Committee against its standing part of the Bill.
    Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), because I have received a number of letters from constituents, both in Macclesfield and in Congleton, who are electrical installation engineers. They are mostly very small firms—the Chief Secretary laughs, but what is the joke'?
    Mr. Diamond: There is no joke at all. I am listening very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I was smiling only because this is a matter that we have just debated at some considerable length.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is convinced by the arguments. He would be if he were running a small firm in Macclesfield or Congleton, with one or two men, with only very limited capital on which to draw, seeing his costs go up right, left and centre in every sphere of the business, and then having this tax imposed while having to compete with nationalised industries which have almost unlimited capital. The nationalised industries never have to worry about capital—it is there for the asking, as we have seen since the war. I object very strongly to this Clause, because these men are getting a very raw deal.
    The Government went to the country in March and made all sorts of promises about looking after small men and small businesses, but all we see is that those men and those businesses are being penalised to the hilt. But the Government's sins will find them out, and the country will awaken to how they have been misled by the Labour Government.

    995
    What is being done is shameful and disgraceful.
    Sir Douglas Glover: I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) about discrimination against the small trader in favour of the nationalised industries, but a far greater constitutional issue involved here is that the Government are again taking permissive powers to do something without the control of the House of Commons.
    Hon. Members opposite seem to have very quickly lost in their minds the reason why they were returned here. They were returned to consider legislation, to debate it, and to pass on to their constituents what is the law of the land. How can any Member of the House of Commons pass on to the electorate what the law is when we allow permissive legislation to go through? The right hon. Gentleman has never explained, and I do not suppose that he will explain now, what will happen under this permissive legislation.
    What steps will be taken? How favourable will be the position of the nationalised industries vis-à-vis the private traders? We are giving permissive legislation to the Government just when, in fact, the House of Commons ought to be trying to get a grip on the Executive. We have heard speeches from the other side. Learned dons come here and teach us how to run our affairs, saying that it is a waste of time for Members of Parliament to try to control the Executive. It would not be a waste of time if the back benchers were determined to control the Executive.
    9.30 p.m.
    If hon. Members opposite had enough spunk in their bones to try to control the Executive this sort of legislation would never be brought to the Statute Book. They are returned with the idea that so much of our procedure is archaic and out of date and that it is a waste of time to have a debate. They know that, whatever happens, they will vote for the Government, however they disapprove of the Government's actions. When we were debating the Resale Prices Bill in the last Conservative Government, back benchers on the Conservative side showed a totally different approach to the
    996
    problem than that shown by hon. Members opposite now. That was a very good thing for Parliament. It was back benchers doing their job. On one occasion when we had as big a majority as hon. Members opposite have, the Government won by one vote. There was no pulling of punches then. People who felt deeply about the issue were prepared to go into the Lobby to support their view.
    We have not had a speech from either side of the Committee this evening supporting even lukewarmly the Government's proposals. Hon. Members opposite know that again they are allowing the Executive to pass legislation giving the Executive an increase in power to decide, after this Bill has left the House, what the Executive are to do.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Does my hon. Friend recall that during the long debates on resale price maintenance the Prime Minister never spoke once and hardly appeared in the Chamber?
    Sir D. Glover: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I thought it was obvious, not only to this side of the Committee but to the other side, that the Prime Minister has treated the House of Commons with complete contempt. He is quite convinced that with his majority and with his elan he can get away with murder. Perhaps it is a good thing that we abolished capital punishment—[An HON. MEMBER: "You voted against it."]—Of course I voted against the abolition.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: My hon. Friend wanted to hang the Prime Minister?
    Sir D. Glover: In social justice I cannot think of anything better for the nation than to do what my hon. Friend has suggested, but I do not want to be carried away, Mr. Irving. You must admit that I have been under some provocation. I was not certain whether it was the Prime Minister or I who was being guillotined. Parliament has the opportunity, if it desires to use it, to control the Executive. It only needs back benchers to have the courage for what they believe in. This has been done many times while I have been in Parliament, but it appears that on this occasion hon. Members opposite are completely gagged by their Whips. They are pusillanimous, have no backbone and

    997
    are not prepared to stand for what they believe. The result is that they are allowing the Executive to get more and more power.
    We had an example this afternoon of an hon. Member saying that he would like to do something, but the precedent in this House was contrary to what he would like. Once Parliament allows permissive legislation—[An HON. MEMBER:" What has this to do with the Clause? "]— It has a lot to do with the Clause. Once Parliament allows permissive legislation in this way in the next Parliament, which may be with a Conservative Government—
    Mr. Robert Cooke: May be? Withdraw.
    Sir D. Glover: I willingly withdraw—it will be. Hon. Members opposite will be worried because the Executive will then be using the precedent established by this Bill for more permissive legislation. That is exactly what we were sent here to stop.
    Mr. John Hall: My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) has, as usual, put his finger on the point that matters. He has drawn attention, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), to the unacceptable and abhorrent aspect of the Bill, which enables the Government to indulge in permissive legislation. When I am showing constituents round the Palace of Westminster, as many hon. Members on both sides do, I draw their attention to the pictures to be seen in the Lords Corridor, which show some of the incidents of the Civil War. I point out that this was a time when there was a struggle between Crown and Parliament, a struggle which Parliament won.
    Today there is, as I point out to them, a struggle between Parliament and the Executive, and it would seem that, if we have many more Bills like this, it will be the Executive which will win. This is something which the House of Commons should oppose with all the force at its command. We should not allow this to pass without the strongest contest.
    I pass from that to what is, by comparison. a small point. Like many hon. Members on both sides, I have received
    998
    letters from small traders and others who are worried about the possible effects of the Bill. I have picked out one of the many hundreds of letters that I have received. It is from a firm of electrical contractors. I quote two short paragraphs. My constituents say:
    " It has been suggested that the retailing departments of the area electricity boards should receive a refund of the tax on their sales and contracting work. Healthy competition is good for any business, but if a refund is made to the electricity board and not to the contracting businesses, this could bring about the closure of many small firms."
    Is it the Government's intention to give a refund to electricity boards? If the Chief Secretary cannot give an answer, if it turns out to be the fact that nationalised industries will be at an advantage in competition with the smaller contractors throughout the country, this will undoubtedly cause considerable dismay to many people who are engaged in private enterprise and who have, over many years, in face of great difficulty, built up businesses of considerable value to the country as a whole. This is a most unfortunate and reprehensible Clause. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East has advised the Committee to divide against it.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: I would willingly give way to the Chief Secretary if I thought that he had anything new to say in reply to the argument which has been adduced. However, I feel that he has not. Therefore, in the short time that remains, I will speak up on behalf of many of my constituents who find themselves in a hopeless position because of the provisions of the Clause.
    One of the things that the Government have always said that nationalised industries should have is effective competition from private enterprise, that nationalised industries should not be in a privileged position. If, as a result of the Clause, private enterprise is completely destroyed, there will be no competition and no efficiency. The Government should address their minds to this problem.
    Under the Clause, taxation can be imposed by discretion. We have had nothing like an adequate reply from the Government on this vital matter. We are told that the Minister may, if he feels so inclined, or if he thinks it is justified,

    999
    remit the tax or make payments back. This is thoroughly unsatisfactory to our point of view and to the Committee as a whole. It is just like the building controls which are being imposed without any statutory force whatsoever. This is government by decree. Permissive powers are being given to the Government to use as they like long into the future.
    Then there is this messy little Schedule containing a long list of people who are
    to receive favoured treatment. I am prepared to wager the Government
    It being twenty minutes to Ten o'clock [the House having resolved itself into the Committee at ten minutes past Four o'clock], The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Order [18th July], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
    Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:
    The Committee divided: Ayes 303, Noes 230.

    Division No. 142.]

    AYES

    [9.40 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

    Honig, Stanley

    Albu, Austen

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Hilton, W. S.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

    Hooley, Frank

    Alldritt, Walter

    de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey

    Horner, John

    Allen, Scholefield

    Delargy, Hugh

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Anderson, Donald

    Dell, Edmund

    Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

    Archer, Peter

    Dempsey, James

    Howarth, Robert (Belton, E.)

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Dewar, Donald

    Howie, W.

    Ashley, Jack

    Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

    Hoy, James

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

    Dickens, James

    Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Dobson, Ray

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

    Doig, Peter

    Hunter, Adam

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Hynd, John

    Barnes, Michael

    Driberg, Tom

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Barnett, Joel

    Dunn, James A.

    Jackson, Colin (B'h'se — Spenb'gh)

    Beaney, Alan

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

    Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

    Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th — C'b'e)

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Bence, Cyril

    Eadie, Alex

    Jager, George (Goole)

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Edelman, Maurice

    Jeger,Mrs.Lena (H'b'n—St.P'cras.S.)

    Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Burns, John

    Ellis, John

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

    Bishop, E. S.

    English, Michael

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Blackburn, F.

    Ennals, David

    Jones, J. Idwal (W rex ham)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Ensor, David

    Judd, Frank

    Boardman, H.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Kelley, Richard

    Booth, Albert

    Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Boston, Terence

    Fernyhough, E.

    Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter — Chatham)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Finch, Harold

    Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Lawson, George

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Bradley, Tom

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Ledger, Ron

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Floud, Bernard

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

    Brooks, Edwin

    Foley, Maurice

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

    Lee, John (Reading)

    Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Beiper)

    Ford, Ben

    Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

    Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

    Forrester, John

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch — F'bury)

    Fowler, Gerry

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Buchan, Norman

    Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

    Freeson, Reginald

    Loughlin, Charles

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Gardner, A. J.

    Luard, Evan

    Butter, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Darrow, Alex

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Cant, R. B.

    Ginsburg, David

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

    McBride, Neil

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Gourlay, Harry

    McCann, John

    Chapman, Donald

    Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

    MacColl, James

    Coe, Denis

    Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    MacDermot, Niall

    Coleman, Donald

    Gregory, Arnold

    Macdonald, A. H.

    Concannon, J. D.

    Grey, Charles (Durham)

    McGuire, Michael

    Conlan, Bernard

    Griffiths, David (Pother Valley)

    Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

    Mackie, John

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Cronin, John

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Crosland, Rt. Hn.

    Hamling, William

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Anthony Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Hannan, William

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Dalyell, Tam

    Harper, Joseph

    Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

    Darling, Rt. Hn. George

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

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

    Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

    Hazell, Bert

    Manuel, Archie

    Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Mapp, Charles

    Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Marquand, David

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Mason, Roy

    Probert, Arthur

    Swain, Thomas

    Maxwell, Robert

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Swingler, Stephen

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Rankin, John

    Symonds, J. B.

    Mellish, Robert

    Redhead, Edward

    Taverne, Dick

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Rees, Merlyn

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Millan, Bruce

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Thornton, Ernest

    Mitchell, R.C. (S'th'pton, Test)

    Richard, Ivor

    Tinn, James

    Molloy, William

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Tomney, Frank

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Urwin, T. W.

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, s.)

    Varley, Eric C.

    Morris, John (Aberavon)

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

    Moyle, Roland

    Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)

    Walden, Brian (All Saints)

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Robinson W. 0. J. (Walth'stow E.)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Murray, Albert

    Rodgers, William (Stockton)

    Wallace, George

    Neal, Harold

    Rogers, George

    Watkins, David (Consett)

    Newens, Stan

    Rose, Paul

    Weitzman, David

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Norwood, Christopher

    Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

    Whitaker, Ben

    Oakes, Gordon

    Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

    White, Mrs. Eirene

    Ogden, Eric.

    Ryan, John

    Whitlock, William

    O'Malley, Brian

    Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

    Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

    Orbach, Maurice

    Sheldon, Robert

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Orme, Stanley Oswald, Thomas

    Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

    Shore, Peter (Stepney)

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

    Owen, Will (Morpeth)

    Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

    Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

    Padley, Walter

    Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Page, Derwt (King's Lynn)

    Silkin, John (Deptford)

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)

    Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Winnick, David

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Pearl, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Slater, Joseph

    Woof, Robert

    Pentland, Norman

    Small, William

    Wyatt, Woodrow

    Perry, Erntst G. (Battersea, S.)

    Snow, Julian

    Yates, Victor

    Perry, George H. (Nottingham,s.)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Zilliacus, K.

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

    Steele, Thomas (Durbartonshire, W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Mr. Charles R. Morris and

    Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

    Stonehouse, John

    Mr. Walter Harrison.

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. C. R.

    NOES

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Cordle, John

    Grant, Anthony

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Corfield, F. V.

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Astor, John

    Contain, A. P.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n — M'd'n)

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Awdry, Daniel

    Crawley, Aldan

    Gurden, Harold

    Baker, W. H. K.

    Crouch, David

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Balniel, Lord

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Batsford, Brian

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Dance, James

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Bell, Ronald

    Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Bessell, Peter

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

    Biffen, John

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Hawkins, Paul

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Doughty, Charles

    Hay, John

    Blaker, Peter

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Drayson, G. B.

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Heseltine, Michael

    Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

    Eden, Sir John

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Brains, Bernard

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Haley, Joseph

    Brewis, John

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

    Hill, J. E. B.

    Brinton, Sir Talton

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.Col. Sir Walter

    Eyre, Reginald

    Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Farr, John

    Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Holland, Philip

    Bryan, Paul

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N—M)

    Fortescue, Tim

    Hordern, Peter

    Buck, Antony (Colchester)

    Foster, Sir John

    Hornby, Richard

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

    Hunt, John

    Campbell, Gordon

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Carlisle, Mark

    Giles, Rear-Adml. Morgan

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Irvine, Bryant Coffman (Rye)

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Glyn, Sir Richard

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Clark, Henry

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Clegg, Walter

    Godhart, Philip

    Jopling, Michael

    Cooke, Robert

    Godhew, Victor

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Gower, Raymond

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    1002

    1003

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Murton, Oscar

    Stainton, Keith

    Kershaw., Anthony

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Steel, David (Roxburgh)

    Kimball, Marcus

    Neave, Airey

    Stodart, Anthony

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

    Kitson, Timothy

    Noble, Rt. Hn.

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Michael Nott, John

    Tapsell, Peter

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Onslow, Cranley

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

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

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(SutinC'dfield)

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Teeling, Sir William

    Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Temple, John M.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Loveys, W. H.

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    Lubbock, Eric

    Particle, John

    Tilney, John

    MacArthur, Ian

    Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross—Crom'ty)

    Peel, John

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Percival, Ian

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain

    Peyton, John

    Wainwright, Richard (Coins Valley)

    McMaster, Stanley

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Walker, Peter (Worcester)

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Pounder, Rafton

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Maddan, Martin

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Walters, Dennis

    Maginnis, John E.

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Marten, Neil

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Mathew, Robert

    Pym, Francis

    Webster, David

    Maude, Angus

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Whitelaw, William

    Mawby, Ray

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

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

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Worsley, Marcus

    Monro, Hector

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Wylie, N. R.

    Morgan, W. G. (Denbigh)

    Scott, Nicholas

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Sharpies, Richard

    Mr. More and Mr. Younger.

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh — Whitby)

    Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Sinclair, Sir George

    The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at twenty minutes to Ten o'clock, including the Questions on Amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to Clause 4.

    Clause 4.—(PAYMENTS TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES, ETC.)
    Amendments made: In page 5, line 40 after "Act", insert
    " entitled to claim in respect of those persons under the said section 5 ".
    In page 6, line 1, leave out "a local authority" and insert
    " an authority such as is mentioned in subsection 1(a) or (b) of this section ".
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 5.—(REFUNDS TO CHARITIES.)
    Amendment made: In page 6, line 32, leave out "subsection (2)" and insert "subsections (2) and (4)".—[Mr. Mac-Dermot.]
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move Amendment No. 146, in page 6, line 34, to leave out
    1004
    "Minister of Labour "and insert" appropriate Minister ".
    The Deputy Chairman: It would be for the convenience of the Committee if we took with this Amendment No. 147, in page 6, line 36, at end insert:
    (2) For the purposes of this section, the appropriate Minister in relation to any charity shall be, for English charities the Minister of Labour, for Scottish charities, the Secretary of State for Scotland and for Welsh charities the Secretary of State for Wales.
    (3) For the purposes of this section, the nationality of a charity shall be determined by the law applicable to it, and whether its governing body usually meets in Wales.
    Mr. Campbell: I was one of the six sponsors, headed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham), who put a Motion on the Order Paper soon after the Selective Employment Tax was announced. That Motion sought to exempt charities from the tax. There followed a period when the Government made it clear that they were intending that charities should pay the tax. We heard arguments from the Front Bench opposite to the effect that charities had to pay indirect taxation and Purchase Tax and they would have to pay this tax.

    1005
    Eventually, the Government gave way and we welcomed this.
    The way in which charities were to be exempted was that they would receive repayment under this Bill. To that extent we welcome Clause 5, although we are sorry that they have to make a forced loan to the Government for about five months. The part of the Clause which we seek to change with Amendment No. 147 is that relating to the Minister of Labour being the Minister to make repayments in Scotland and Wales. Instead we seek to make the Secretaries of State perform that duty.
    You will know, Mr. Irving, that we deplore the fact that the Guillotine has made impossible to speak on the major adverse effects of this Bill on large areas of Scotland and its very heavy impact because of so little in the way of repayments coming back in refunds and premiums to those areas. This will lead to depopulation and emigration. We believe that the premium for charities should be carried out by the Secretaries of State. I understand that in England charities are registered officially. In Scotland there is a different system, based on recognition by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Presumably subsection (4) of this Clause is there for that reason, because it stipulates that the Minister of Labour may not make a repayment without the Secretary of State for Scotland certifying that a charity is a charity.
    In that case, why should not the Secretary of State carry out this whole operation? It would much tidier and would ensure that charities recognised by the Secretary of State for Scotland, which is the equivalent of registration, were fairly treated and were entitled under the Bill to the repayment of the tax. Likewise, when the governing body of a charity meets in Wales and it is clearly a Welsh charity, the Secretary of State for Wales should be responsible for the repayment.
    Under the Guillotine, this is the only Scottish point in the Bill likely to be considered. In view of the heavy impact that the taxes will have in large areas of Scotland, we consider that this is deplorable. However, we hope that the Government will meet the limited point which we make in these Amendments.
    Mr. Ian MacArthur: I very much hope that the Government will accept the Amendment which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell). I join him in condemning the Government for gagging Scotland in the consideration of this Bill. This is the only opportunity which we have to discuss one limited aspect of the Bill's application to Scotland.
    I hope that the Government will agree to introduce the Secretary of State as the Minister responsible in this Clause. I must confess that I do not always have the greatest regard for the right hon. Gentleman, but I believe that even he is more familiar with the problems of Scotland and with the needs of charities in Scotland than the Minister of Labour, who is specified in the Bill as the responsible Minister. Moreover, the Secretary of State has a very much greater knowledge of life in Scotland generally and the need for charitable action in relieving poverty than his colleagues in the Government. It is he, more than anyone else, who will be able to identify charities.
    The Secretary of State knows the harsh effect which this tax will have on many industries in Scotland, on agriculture and on areas such as the Highlands and Islands. We were precluded earlier from debating the problems of the Highlands and Islands by the harsh and vicious timetable introduced by the Government. By the Amendment the Government have an opportunity to meet many of their own declared objectives relating to Scotland and the Highlands in particular. Earlier, we had an Amendment which was selected, but not called because of the timetable, whereby the Selectiye Employment Tax would have been repaid to areas within which the functions of the Highlands and Islands Development Board might be exercised.
    I have no doubt that had we debated that Amendment the Government would have accepted it because it was entirely in line with their declared aim of providing a job for everyone in the Highlands and everyone wanting to return to the Highlands. The establishment of the Board has not been sufficient to achieve this very desirable aim, and emigration continues. The effect of the tax will be

    1007
    to accelerate this drain of manpower because alternative employment in manufacturing industry for those at present in the service industries in the Highlands simply does not exist. The position will be made worse by the shake-out on which the Prime Minister has embarked.
    Recent Questions tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn tried to discover what the effect of the tax would be on the Highlands. The reply showed that 18 per cent. of the gross yield of the tax would be returned to the Highlands in repayments compared with 68 per cent. in England. This illustrates how the tax will impinge most severely on the Highlands. I will at once relate my argument to the Amendment, as I see a sign of impatience in your eye, Mr. Irving.
    So far, the Government have failed lamentably to achieve what they promised for the Highlands. I want to help by supporting the Amendment, which opens the way for the Government to do for the Highlands what they pretended before the General Election that they wanted to do. If we are suggesting that the Secretary of State should be responsible for charities in the Clause, we must be clear—
    It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    Committee report Progress.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting, at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Charles R. Morris.]

  SELECTIVE EMPLOYMENT PAYMENTS BILL
  Again considered in Committee.
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. MacArthur: I was saying that we have to be quite clear what the definition of charities is within the Amendment. The law governing the definition of charities in Scotland is, I understand, somewhat different from the law of England.
  1008
  I am a layman in these matters, so I am on a par with the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues who do not have the advantage at the moment of advice from a Law Officer.
  I have turned to what I believe is a recognised authority in these matters, "Gloag and Henderson's Introduction to the Law of Scotland". This is only an Introduction, but it is the sixth edition, and I presume that it has a certain authority in Scots law. It refers to the definition of charity, and declares on page 596, paragraph 6:
  " There is no precise definition in the law of Scotland of the words ' charity ' and ' charitable' ".
  It goes on to say, as the right hon. Gentleman will know:
  " In Baird's Trust versus the Lord Advocate, in which the question was whether a certain trust was charitable within the meaning of the Income Tax Acts, it was laid down that in their popular meaning the words were confined to the relief of poverty ".
  I understand that this definition, "the relief of poverty", is critical in the establishment of any charitable trust or foundation in Scotland. It follows that if one is to determine what is a charity within the meaning of the Amendment one must be able to determine what is meant by the relief of poverty. I therefore turn to another authority. [Laughter.] This is no laughing matter. It is a very serious argument.
  In Volume 13 of the Oxford English Dictionary poverty is equated with the old Scots word, "poorith", which means
  "the condition of having little or no wealth or material possessions or a deficiency, lack, scantiness, dearth, scarcity and smallness of amount".
  All of these are words which describe the effect that this tax will have on the Highlands of Scotland. It will lead to deficiency, to lack of employment, and a lack of people, to a scantiness of opportunity, to a dearth of our population, and to smallness of amount in terms of the new prosperity for which we all hope for the Highlands of Scotland. The word also means, according to the dictionary:
  " deficiency in the proper or desired quality."
  It was just these considerations which encouraged the Government to introduce their Highland Development (Scotland) Bill. On the Second Reading of that Bill, on 16th March, 1965, the right hon.

  1009
  Gentleman called attention to the particular problems of the Highlands. He ref: rred to the "land hunger" and to the past when the people of the Highlands had to ' scratch a living".
  I therefore submit that it is quite reasonable, in the context of the Amendment, to suggest that any form of employment, any industry, any branch of agriculture, any board, anything, in short, to help the people of the Highlands, will be for the relief of scarcity, dearth, and scantiness, all of which are defined in the dictionary as poverty.
  It follows, therefore, that it would be possible to include under this Amendment any form of employment in the Highlands. By accepting the Amendment, and by using the good offices and occasional wise judgment of the Secretary of State, it would be possible to define as a charity, a body acting for the relief of poverty, a hotel, a laundry, a small retail electrical establishment, a farmer or any of the bodies in the Highlands which are now under the most enormous threat because of the Bill which the Government have introduced without any regard whatever to the problems of the Highlands and the outlying areas and which they have prohibited us from debating in Committee by their vicious timetable.
  There is here the means for the right hon. Gentleman to meet the objectives which he has over and over again declared, but which he has by his actions over and over again denied. I call on him now to accept the Amendment, to extend the definition of charities and so get rid of this monstrous tax from the Highlands of Scotland.
  Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: I am delighted to support this Amendment, which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) in a most remarkable speech. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Right hon. and hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite may applaud, but they should study his words with care. The effect of the Bill will be to reduce large parts of Scotland to a condition of dependence on Government
  1010
  charity, and this is a situation which we should all deplore.
  My hon. Friend gave us a most useful and valuable definition of the meaning of "charity" and how it is to be interpreted under the law of Scotland. He explained how the Amendment could be used by the Secretary of State to save many of the areas of Scotland, particularly the Highlands, but also the North-East and the Borders, from the vicious effects of the tax. He reminded us, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn, of the way in which fix tax discriminates against parts of Scotland which are already suffering depopulation and a level of unemployment substantially higher than the national average.
  If the Government will accept the Amendment, as I feel satisfied they will, they can take a small step to mitigate the injustices perpetrated by the Bill on the people of Scotland. I join my hon. Friends in complaining at the disgraceful way in which we have been treated. This is the only Amendment dealing with the effect of the Bill on Scotland which the Government, by their guillotine procedure, have allowed us to discuss. I am a little surprised that the Secretary of State has the nerve to show himself in the Committee after the way the Government have treated it and, in particular, Members from Scottish constituencies.
  I can see no good reason why the Government should reject the Amendment and I am confident that they will accept it. Perhaps there is one reason why they may feel a little worried. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire told us that one of the meanings of charity is "deficiency of the required quality". I am afraid that that would apply to the whole Government Front Bench, and it may be that they would be reluctant to accept this Amendment for fear of themselves standing condemned by it. However, the people of Scotland would feel that the condemnation was entirely justified, particularly after the events of the past 24 hours.
  It is somewhat depressing that we can have only this brief discussion on a limited aspect of the Bill, which impinges so heavily and so harshly on our

  1011
  constituents and all the people of Scotland. If the Government would accept this modest Amendment and recognise that in this case at least the Secretary of State has some responsibility and duty to answer to the people of Scotland and that it is not entirely to be left to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, it would be a very small concession in the right direction.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire, I am bound to say that I sometimes wonder whether we are better off with the Secretary of State than with the Minister of Labour. Clearly neither of them appreciates anything of the problems which Scotland faces as a result of the actions of the present Government. Certainly, if the Secretary of State appreciated them, he would not be sitting on that Front Bench at the moment.
  He has a responsibility, and it is a responsibility which is defined in subsection (4) of this Clause, as my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn pointed out. I suggest that that responsibility should be extended to the whole of the Clause. A number of my hon. Friends wish to press the point, because it is one of not minimal importance to the people of Scotland—[Interruption.] The Financial Secretary laughs. He has a Scots name, but he knows nothing of the mood and temper of the people of Scotland.
  Mr. MacDermot: For the information of the hon. Gentleman, I have not got a Scottish name.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: That explains a great deal. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is an Irishman, it explains many of his attitudes throughout the sittings of this Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am delighted to realise that we do not have a renegade Scot committing these offences against the people of Scotland.
  Mr. Thomas Steele: I am not sure whether or not the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) was educated in Scotland—
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): He was not.
  Mr. Steele: Those of us who were educated in Scotland are not concerned whether it is the Minister of Labour or the Secretary of State who gives us the money, so long as we get the money.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: All that I can say to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) is that if he seriously thinks that Scotland is going to get the money under the Bill, he had better look at some of the exchanges which we have had on the matter.
  Mr. Steele: Like some of his hon. Friends, the hon. Gentleman is not dealing with the Amendment at all. He is dealing with the Bill.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. J. C. Jennings): Order. That is an implied criticism of the Chair, and, having himself been in the Chair many times, the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) should know it. Until now, there has been nothing out of order, although hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee have tended to get on to the fringe. I am listening very carefully, and I think that we ought to get away from the fringe and back to the meat of the Amendment. I would remind hon. Gentlemen that we are dealing with the second Amendment, No. 147, as well. That allows us to deal with these Scottish problems. Can we now get on?
  Mr. Steele: I apologise to the Chair. I am the last person in the world to criticise the Chair. When I was in the Chair this morning upstairs, I had to draw the attention of the hon. Member for South Angus to a similar point. May I pay tribute to hon. Members for being on the fringe?
  The Temporary Chairman: It is a qualified regret, and I accept it as such.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I think that we have all learnt something from this exchange, because the important point is that there is a great deal of indignation among my hon. Friends about the way in which Scotland has been treated throughout the discussions on this Bill, and this inevitably leads some of us to approach the margins of disorder in trying to discuss the Amendment.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite continue to regard this as a joke. They may find

  1013
  that it is regarded as a good deal less of a joke by their constituents, and by the people of Scotland as a whole.
  Before the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West tried to lay down the rules of order, I was saying that a number of my hon. Friends wished to address the Committee on this Amendment. I feel that we need to stress how important it is that the Government should at least give some sign of understanding the deep feelings and deep resentment which have been built up throughout Scotland as a result of this Bill, and this tax, by making the small concession of granting us this Amendment.
  Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: One of the saddest results of the Government's handling of the Bill is that this Amendment provides the only chance which Scottish Members on this side of the Committee who care about the effect of the tax on Scotland have to discuss the position at all. It is not through any wish to stray on the fringes of order that some of my hon. Friends have made some of the points which they have been forced to make. What we are concerned about is not so much how Scotland is treated in this debate, but the effects of this tax on Scotland.
  Mr. Archie Manuel: The hon. Gentleman is usually very fair. Would not he agree that because most of the time on previous Amendments has been hogged by his English colleagues, there has not been enough time to bring in the Scottish Amendment?
  Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: The hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends spent until about 6 o'clock the other morning making sure that we would not have sufficient time to discuss these Amendments.
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. Let us forget past debates, and deal with this one. I must ask the hon. Member to keep to the Amendment.
  Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I just wanted to say that the Amendment comes after the measures announced by the Prime Minister in the House yesterday, as a result of which we in Scotland find ourselves in a difficult situation. To all intents and purposes Scotland is a de-
  1014
  velopment area. The Prime Minister said that the only exemption to be made to these measures in Scotland was in respect of building control.
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. So far, I have been very generous with the interventions of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I wish that they would remember what the Amendment is about. It substitutes "appropriate Minister" for "Minister of Labour". The hon. Member can show ingenuity in making his various points if he relates them to those words, but he is straying far wide of the mark in talking about building controls and yesterday's speech by the Prime Minister. I hope that he will address himself to the two Amendments and to the words "appropriate Minister".
  Mr. MacArthur: I do not want to question your Ruling, Mr. Jennings, but my hon. Friend has referred to the scarcity of buildings in the Highlands under the Government. Is it not in order for him to do so, as an extension of the argument which I advanced, without any question of control at all, about the definition of the word "poverty" and its application to the Amendment, which deals with charities in Scotland?
  The Temporary Chairman: I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but by no stretch of the imagination can I regard building control as a charity.
  Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I was merely trying to point out that if these measures are put into effect the whole of Scotland will be in need of charity, and in that event the validity of my argument becomes all the more obvious, because who can we expect to administer such charity, apart from the Secretary of State? That is his job. I am sorry to have to leave that point, because I believe that the Prime Minister misled us seriously in respect of the earlier Measure. Now we come back to the Selective Employment Tax, which will affect development areas in Scotland to a far greater extent, in proportion, than it will other parts of the country. That is the real reason for the feeling that exists on this side of the Committee about the Measure, and that is the reason why we are using any opportunity we can to bring the situation to the attention of the Committee.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: How significant it is, on this one occasion we have of discussing a narrow Amendment, to see the Secretary of State for Scotland almost deserted by his hon. Friends while on this side, as usual, almost every Scottish Conservative Member is standing up and fighting against the empty Government benches in support of the real interests of Scotland. This is a narrow Amendment, concerned only with the question whether we shall transfer certain functions from the Minister of Labour to the Secretary of State for Scotland—
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) call my hon. Friend a liar. Is this Parliamentary language?
  The Temporary Chairman: I was certainly very deaf, and I can sincerely say that I heard nobody use the word "liar."
  Mr. Taylor: Many Members on this side of the Committee—[Interruption.]
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. Let us get on with the debate in a seemly fashion. I cannot hear what is said.
  Mr. Taylor: Hon. Members opposite may wonder why Members of the Scottish Unionist Party suggest transferring certain functions from the Minister of Labour to the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of that right hon. Gentleman's appalling record. He is a Secretary of State under whose leadership we have a slump in house building, savage reductions in educational building, an increase in petrol tax and vehicle licence duty—and now the Selective Employment Tax, which hits Scotland particularly hard, and especially those areas in special need.
  Considering the Amendment, hon. Members will ask themselves why we are suggesting giving more power to this person, this Government, who have brought so much trouble to Scotland and who promise to bring so much more in the future. Even if we consider the narrow question of emigration, we see that the Government, who pleaded with us to try to stop the drift of people from Scotland, in their first year in office have caused a dramatic increase to 43,000, with the promise of an even greater figure in the future.
  1016
  Hon. Members will ask themselves, why do we propose further to extend the powers—
  Mr. Ernest Armstrong: On a point of order. Would it not assist the Committee if the hon. Gentleman told us to which Amendment he was speaking and whether he is in favour of it or not?
  The Temporary Chairman: It is quite clearly defined which Amendment we are discussing. If the implication is that the hon. Member it out of order, I must say that he is not. He has related his last five sentences to one immediately preceding them on the question of the Secretary of State for Scotland being an appropriate person. At the moment, he is in order.
  Mr. Taylor: I am addressing myself to the Amendment which deals with this specific point.
  We may be asked why we propose to transfer more power to a Secretary of State who has wreaked such havoc in Scotland in so short a time. We have the new problem of investment grants which are far less favourable in Scotland than the old investment allowances. Time and time again—
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. There is no relation between this sentence on investment grants and the premise which the hon. Gentleman enunciated about six or seven sentences ago. Investment grants on this occasion are out of order.
  Mr. MacArthur: On a point of order. May I call your attention, Mr. Jennings, to the fact that 40 Scottish Labour Members are absent?
  The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that one. It is a bogus point of order. Time after time, hon. Members have been told not to raise such points of order to gain party points. I hope that there will be no repetition of this practice.
  Mr. Taylor: This is, of course, a very serious Amendment and I will stick strictly to it.
  There are many such examples when we consider the Amendment. If we are considering the possibility of transferring

  1017
  even more powers to the Secretary of State, hon. Members on both sides will ask themselves, "Why should we support Amendment No. 146 when the Secretary of State has done so much damage to Scotland with the powers he already has?"
  Despite this feeling throughout the Committee, and despite the fact that hon. Members say that we must give no more powers, to this dreadful man, there are compelling reasons for accepting the Amendment. By all means let us take from the Secretary of State his powers over housing, education and finance, but let us at least give him powers in the narrow field of charities, because this is right and proper. In Scotland, the definition of a charity is different under the Income Tax Acts. It is far more difficult to be accepted as a charity in Scotland than in England.
  One real problem which will emerge is the treatment of closed workshops—
  Mr. Armstrong: On a point of order. Would the hon. Gentleman inform the Committee whether, if the Government were to accept the Amendment, he would insist on being paid in Scottish currency? Or would he accept English?
  Mr. Taylor: Our real concern at the moment is whether our British currency has any value at all.
  Closed workshops in Scotland have difficulty in being accepted as charities. They do worthwhile work in providing employment, a real life and hope for the future, in the West of Scotland to almost 500 people who are blind or suffering from epilepsy or other diseases. I hope that at least these organisations will be accepted as charities, even if they are limited companies making profits. They do good work.
  I hope that, with the help and experience of the people in the Scottish Office, who were formerly under the guidance of the previous Conservative Government, these charities will receive sympathetic treatment. So Mr. Jennings, while you and others may say, "Why should we give even more power to a Government who have failed Scotland so disastrously, and, in particular, to a Secretary of State who has personally failed Scotland so abysmally?" I feel that on this narrow point, despite their dismal record, there is a case for approving this Amendment, and I hope that the Committee will do so.
  10.30 p.m.
  Earl of Dalkeith: There is one very important aspect of this Amendment which has not as yet been touched upon. If the Government were to refuse to accept the Amendment, it would be reversing the processes of devolution which have been carried out by Conservative Governments over many years. Instead of giving powers to the Secretary of State for Scotland, they would be insisting that the Ministry of Labour, which is a London-based Ministry, should carry out the process of repaying this money to charities.
  For this reason, I am sure that the Secretary of State—who has not got enough to do, anyway—will be very anxious to persuade the Financial Secretary to accept the Amendment. As I say, the Secretary of State is not over-engaged at the present time, judging by the lack of positive new thinking which is coming out of the Scottish Office.
  On the other hand, let us remember that the Ministry of Labour will be very heavily engaged over the months to come with, I regret to say, the obviously increasing amount of unemployment which is bound to affect Scotland. I therefore urge that, for administrative reasons, there is a very good argument indeed for the Government to accept the Amendment, and I hope they will do so.
  Mr. Gower: It will not have passed the notice of hon. Members that this Agreement refers also to Wales, and seeks to give to the Secretary of State for Wales a power similar to that which is sought to be given to Scotland. I am glad that the Minister of State, Welsh Office is here tonight.
  It is, indeed, a great pity that we are reduced to this very narrow Amendment to express our apprehensions and axieties about the effect of this fearful, dreadful tax on certain parts of the United Kingdom. It is also a pity that we did not have considerably more time in which to deal with the effect on Scotland and Wales. We could have done with three days to discuss the effect on the County of Kent alone, or any other county in the United Kingdom.
  Every argument adduced so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and
  1020
  East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) could be related to the rural areas of North and Central Wales. They apply almost equally, and the effects of this tax in those areas will be very similar to the effects described by him. I agree with my hon. Friend that there will be a dearth, a shortage, indeed a lack of development. There is bound to be. The impact of this tax on those areas is certain to be really serious. I cannot understand why the Government are not aware of this.
  One thing is certain, at any rate. If my hon. Friend's worst fears are realised, in Scotland, and indeed in Wales too, there will be a proliferation of charities. There will be a great need for charities, and I am sure that it would be better if the working of these charities were supervised by the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  Mr. David Steel: I have been deeply touched by some of the speeches that I have heard tonight from Scottish Conservative Members—not least that of one of my constituents, the noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith). [Interruption.]
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. J. C. Jennings): Order. This chit-chat across the Floor of the Committee prevents hon. Members from hearing the debate.
  Mr. Steel: Thank you, Mr. Jennings.
  I was particularly struck by the speech of the noble Lord, the Member for Edinburgh, North, who is usually one of my more troublesome constituents. I propose to invite him at the next election to speak on my platform in favour of Scottish devolution, having heard what he has had to say tonight.
  It is unfortunate that the timetabling of Amendments has meant that we are not given an opportunity to discuss the wider issues of S.E.T. and what it will mean to Scotland. I hope that we may be able to rectify this through the machinery of the Scottish Grand Committee before the end of the Session. In this connection, I asked a Question on 11th July about the effect of S.E.T. on the

  1021
  development areas, remembering that Scotland is mainly a development area. The hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, who I am glad to see in her place, replied:
  " Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to await the discussion on the Amendment to the Bill when it arises?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1966; Vol. 731, c. 961.)
  I have been kind enough to wait and I am still kindly waiting, but that Amendment has not arisen.
  There is a serious intent behind the Amendment before the Committee, an intent which has got somewhat lost in the welter of wider speeches. There is a case for saying that, because of the difference between charities in England and Scotland, this Amendment should be accepted.
  Mr. MacDermot: If any justification were required for the placing on the Order Paper of the procedure Motion in relation to this Measure, I suggest that the last hour's debate provided it. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I will not withdraw. I will justify. It is entirely a matter for hon. Gentlemen opposite how they choose to spend the time available to them as a result of the procedure Motion. It is illuminating to think that they have considered it right to spend one hour on a fringe debate without once adducing any argument in support of the Amendment for which they are supposed to be arguing. That is not surprising, because it is not an Amendment for which one could adduce any argument, for if it were accepted one would be accepting a nonsense.
  Mr. G. Campbell: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was here when I moved the Amendment, but I moved it briefly and very much to the point.
  Mr. MacDermot: It is a free country and every man is entitled to his opinion. I was here. I heard every word of the hon. Gentleman's speech. It was brief, forceful, vehement but, I am afraid, it was not to the point. He did not adduce any arguments to show how one Scotsman or Welshman would benefit in the slightest if we accepted it. I will show why none would and why it would considerably slow up the whole administrative process if it were accepted.
  1022
  To reply to the arguments that have been adduced, I suggest that this seems to have been the most apt kind of debate to have had on the day when, for the first time, we have a Welsh Nationalist taking his seat in the House of Commons, for the arguments have been purely nationalistic, without any reasons having been given to show how anyone would benefit.
  The noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) said that if we accepted the Amendment there would be an administrative advantage as a result of devolution to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales. At least he got to the point, which no other hon. Gentleman opposite did the point being that the Amendment deals with administrative procedure, and nothing else. Many hon. Gentlemen were talking as if the power of deciding what were or what were not charities was being taken out of the hands of the Secretary of State for Scotland and, in some way, being conferred on the Minister of Labour. That shows that they have not read the Clause we are discussing. It is, in fact, expressly provided in subsection (4) that the power of deciding for the "purpose of this section" and of certifying what is and what is not a charity will rest with none other than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur), in his very vehement contribution, suggested that the Secretary of State was the person who was more able to identify charities in Scotland. That is precisely what the Bill provides for, and what subsection (4) provides for, and there is nothing whatever in the Amendment that touches on or deals in any way with the identification of charities.
  It is true that the law of Scotland is different from the laws of England as to the meaning of "charity"—the hon. Member brought some very large tomes with him to demonstrate that—but I am sorry to have to tell him that the fact is that the Scots, being a canny people, have a narrower definition of "charity" than have the English. We, being a charitable Government, therefore thought that it would be right in this case to apply the English definition of "charity", and

  1023
  so ensure that Scotsmen would not be deprived of the benefit of refunds which would be available to Englishmen by being confined within the narrow, strict straitjacket of the Scottish definition of "charity".
  We therefore provided that the meaning of "charity" contained in the Income Tax Act should apply, but in order to ensure that no Scotsman should feel that the English wool was being pulled over his eyes, we provided that it would be the Secretary of State for Scotland who would certify and determine which were the charities which complied with the definition, and it is thereby his responsibility to confer that benefit upon Scotsmen.
  But, turning to the Amendment—if it is not thought improper—to argue the Amendment itself—what the Amendment deals with, and nothing else, is which Minister should be responsible for the refunds to charities in Scotland and Wales —that, and nothing else. In other words, the Secretary of State having decided in Scotland which are the charities, which is the more convenient machinery for repayment?
  I was interested that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), whose name appears at the top of the list of hon. Members in support of this Amendment, has not yet told us—perhaps we shall hear him in reply, and I shall be very interested to hear him—how he, with his experience as a Secretary of State for Scotland, thinks there would be some administrative advantage in accepting the Amendment.
  The fact is that these payments will be made in respect of charitable establishments scattered over different parts of the country—Scotland and Wales, as we are concerned with here. The Secretary of State for Scotland does not have sufficiently devolved machinery to discharge this administrative function conveniently. The Ministry of Labour has. It has not merely regional offices but local, sub-regional offices, and it has the machinery available. It will be dealing in all other spheres with the whole procedure of the premium payments and the refunds. The additional administrative task of examining the applications, examining the claims that are made on behalf of the charities and, when established, making repayments to them, will be a very small
  1024
  addition to the burden which that Ministry will already be carrying in respect of all other repayments—
  Earl of Dalkeith: Will not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Ministry of Labour will be very preoccupied in the coming months with dealing with problems of increasing unemployment? Has this been taken into account?
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. MacDermot: The Ministry of Labour will be dealing with the whole administration of this Bill when it becomes law. There is nothing to be gained when we have one lot of officials who have the necessary local offices all over the country and are making premium payments and refunds already to everyone within the scope of the Clauses we have been discussing, suddenly to single out charities and to say, "Here is a class of refunds for which we shall use entirely different machinery—which does not exist, but we shall have to set it up specially for the purpose". I hope that hon. Members see now why at the outset I was justified in saying that what the Committee is being asked to accept is a nonsense, an administrative nonsense.
  For its application to Wales there is even less argument that can be adduced. Exactly the same administrative arguments apply, but there is not even a question here of a separate law or any need to certify in regard to Wales which are and which are not charities, because the law of Wales is the same as the law of England. There is no problem or difficulty. For those charities which are established there is exactly the same machinery in Wales as for those in England.
  If the Amendment were accepted it would be necessary, as subsection (3) makes quite clear, quite artificially to introduce a definition of what are Welsh charities as opposed to English charities, a definition which is wholly unnecessary for any administrative purpose connected with the Bill and I do not imagine that it would do anything to satisfy any national aspirations which any Welshmen might have. As was pointed out by one of my hon. Friends, once the right to payment has been established, all that they would be interested in would be receiving the refund at the earliest possible moment. No doubt they would do that by using the machinery of the Ministry of Labour.
  Mr. Michael Noble: There was at one time a school of theological thought which debated for a considerable length of time how many angels could sit on the point of a pin. I do not know whether it was the result of this or the kindness of you, Mr. Jennings, or the elasticity of your imagination in the Chair which allowed so many of my hon. Friends to speak with great feeling on a very narrow Amendment. The Financial Secretary, who declared himself to be an Irishman, has used an argument as tortuous as any which he criticised my hon. Friends for using. He tried to argue that this was a perfect example of how necessary it was for a timetable to be imposed on this Bill. He must know in his heart that the only reason why this debate has taken over an hour is that this is the only occasion on which many Scotsmen who feel extremely strongly about this Bill have any opportunity of discussing these points in Committee.
  Mr. MacDermot: I do not follow this argument. Are Scotsmen only to argue in the interests of their constituents if the debate is confined solely to Scotland? Can they not argue the Scottish aspect of all the other matters?
  Mr. Noble: It is perfectly true that Scottish Members can talk for as long as they are able under this very tight Guillotine on problems of agriculture, laundries, Mrs. Mopps, charities and the rest, but—as the Financial Secretary may not have taken the trouble to find —there are several Amendments dealing specifically with the problems of the Highlands and Islands—problems which have come to the Highlands and Islands because of the shipping strike—and other matters which could not have been brought within the rules of order in this debate.
  The whole argument on the benches opposite in this debate was summed up with brutal accuracy by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) when he said that he did not care whether the Ministry of Labour looked after this Scottish matter or any other Ministry so long as they got the money. This is perhaps the greatest failure—and it is being daily shown to be a failure—of the Government if they believe that Scotsmen do not care who looks after
  1026
  them so long as they get the money. We have for many years rightly had the feeling that the Secretary of State for Scotland should look after Scottish matters. If that is not the hon. and learned Gentleman's view he should say so.
  The Financial Secretary went on to say that he did not see that any Scotsmen or Welshman would benefit and therefore the administration should be done by the Minister of Labour. Is it a new theory that it is administratively right for people to be looked after by a Minister only if they benefit from his action? If so, I do not believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman would deny that Scottish universities are of benefit to a great many Scotsmen. In that case, why does not the Secretary of State administer them? The hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is a nonsense and he knows it.
  Then the hon. and learned Gentleman said—and I do not accept this—that the only point of the Amendment is that the Secretary of State could certify what is a charity and what is not, with the Minister of Labour responsible for payment. Is there any reason why Scottish charities, which are not all small—some are big, like the Church of Scotland and the National Trust—should not go to the Scottish Office for payment, which would be very much easier than going to labour exchanges and asking various points.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman said that if the Amendment were accepted it would be an administrative nonsense. The whole tax is an administrative nonsense. In any case, it is an insult for the hon. and learned Gentleman to suggest that something that would be run by the Secretary of State for Scotland would be an administrative nonsense. It need never have been in the days when I was Secretary of State. [Laughter.] I can well understand hon. Members opposite laughing. They have had a very satisfactory run on the Committee stage because they have succeeded in entirely gagging Scottish Members on many things they wanted to discuss.
  I remember that distinguished Englishman, the Minister of State, Scottish Office, using every conceivable opportunity for hours on end in order to press particular points that he wanted—always, of course, with the acceptance of the Chair that

  1027
  he was, as you put it, Mr. Jennings, on the fringe of order. I do not think that any Scotsmen would mind if the Minister of State took part in handling the question of charities, for he is the next down in rank at the Scottish Office.
  It is not for me, perhaps, being without so much personal knowledge, to argue the case for Wales but the Minister of State, Welsh Office, is here. Earlier, when one of my hon. Friends said he believed the Government should accept the Amendment, I heard the Minister of State say, "If you will believe that, you will believe anything."
  I cannot tell what sort of mess the Welsh Office is in. It may well be in a state of administrative muddle which would delight the heart of the Financial Secretary, for that was his only argument for rejecting the Amendment. If that is so, I am sure that the Minister of State is perfectly competent to get up and admit it. He is a frank and honest person of a very charitable nature and if that is the state of the Welsh Office he should tell the House so.
  There are obvious reservations and they were well expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). There were real worries in the minds of several people as to whether it was right to put on the Secretary of State for Scotland the extra work that might be entailed by this comparatively small addition to his many duties. I am a charitable person, too, and I believe that he would just manage to do that without making any great inroads in the period of leisure which he apparently has in dealing with Scottish affairs.
  This has been a serious debate, at least in its underlying tone. The position, which is agreed upon by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, is that Scotland has very real problems in coping with this tax, in addition to all the other things which have happened. I do not not believe or accept one word of the arguments put forward by the Financial Secretary. [Interruption.]I have replied to the only three points he made.—[An HON. MEMBER: "A poor reply."]—It is not nearly such a poor reply as the Minister of State is a poor Minister of State. It is perfectly possible and right for the Government to accept this Amendment
  1028
  and in this small way to demonstrate that they do care for Scotland, because Scotland cares very much about who looks after its interests. If the Government will not accept the Amendment I must ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to divide the Committee.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: I would say, Mr. Jennings, that beyond the fringe was not an unreasonable place to be this evening. I will not delay the Committee for any time, but when I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) stand up and say that this has been a serious debate I thought that it was an appalling statement.
  Mr. Noble rose—
  Mr. Johnston: I will not give way just now. I will give way in a moment, when I have finished the point that I am making. I quite accept the argument which has been put, to the effect that S.E.T. will do considerable harm to Scotland and the Scottish economy. I do not accept that it is a sensible tax and I accept that it is administrative nonsense in many ways. I do not think that the most effective way to deal with this is to pile nonsense upon nonsense, which is what the Scottish Unionist Members have been doing tonight. There is no doubt of this. I will now let the right hon. Gentleman intervene.
  Mr. Noble: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his rather curious way of giving way to me. He has admitted that this is a very serious problem for Scotland. He agrees that we have had no opportunity of discussing Scottish affairs. Is he denying that the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, and his hon. Friends, were not doing so because they wanted to express in a comparatively short time their feelings about this? If this is the only method of doing it, does he not agree that this is right? [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
  Mr. Johnston: I will not withdraw anything. What I complained and still complain about, is that we have gone rather wide on what was said to be a very narrow Amendment and if one goes wide, or towards the fringe, I would have thought that a real attempt would have been made to present the case seriously. Sitting here, looking at the

  1029
  smiling faces of that cherubic pair, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, it was quite clear, as it was to most hon. Members, that the case being made by the former Secretary of State and his hon. Friends, was not being made seriously, and that it damaged the very real criticisms there are of this tax in Scotland. I want no part in this sort of argument or this sort of criticism—[HON. MEMBERS:" Sit down."]—nor
  would I ask my hon. Friends to vote in support of an Amendment which was very rightly criticised as an administrative nonsense. I will not see administative nonsense piled upon nonsense.
  Question put, That the words "Minister of Labour" stand part of the Clause:
  The Committee divided: Ayes 286, Noes 219.

  Division No. 143.]

  AYES

  [11.0 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Dewar, Donald

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  AIWA, Austen

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n—St.P'cras,S.)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Dickens, James

  Jenkins, Rt.Hn. Roy (Stechtord)

  Alldritt, Walter

  Dobson, Ray

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Allen, Scholefield

  Doig, Peter

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

  Anderson, Donald

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Archer, Peter

  Driberg, Tom

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Dunn, James A.

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Ashley, Jack

  Dunnett, Jack

  Judd, Frank

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Cwyneth (Exeter)

  Kelley, Richard

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Dunwoody, Or. John (F'th — C'b'e)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Bacon, Fit. Hn. Alice

  Eadie, Alex

  Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter — Chatham)

  Bagier, Cordon A. T.

  Edelman, Maurice

  Kerr, Russell (Feitham)

  Barnett, Joel

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lawson, George

  Beaney, Alan

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Bellengor, Rt. Hn. F. J.

  Ellis, John

  Ledger, Ron

  Bence, Cyril

  English, Michael

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Bann, lit. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Ennals, David

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

  Bennett, James (C'gow, Bridgeton)

  Ensor, David

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Binns, John

  Finch, Harold

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Blackburn, F.

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Boardman, H.

  Floud, Bernard

  Loughlin, Charles

  Booth, Albert

  Foley, Maurice

  Luard, Evan

  Boston, Terence

  Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert

  Ford, Ben

  McCann, John

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Forrester, John

  MacColl, James

  Bradley, Tom

  Fowler, Gerry

  MacDermot, Niall

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Gardner, A. J.

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Brooks, Edwin

  Garrow, Alex

  McGuire, Michael

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Ginsburg, David

  Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross—Crom'ty)

  Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Proven)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C )

  Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch — F'bury)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Buchan, Norman

  Gregory, Arnold

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, 8.)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

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

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Griffiths, Wills (Exchange)

  Mapp, Charles

  Cant, R. B.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Marquand, David

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hamling, William

  Mason, Roy

  Chapman, Donald

  Hannan, William

  Maxwell, Robert

  Coe, Denis

  Harper, Joseph

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Coleman, Donald

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Millan, Bruce

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hazell, Bert

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Corbel, Mrs. Freda

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, 8.)

  Henig, Stanley

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hilton, W. S.

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Cronin, John

  Hooley, Frank

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Hopson, Emlyn

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Homer, John

  Moyle, Roland

  Dalyell, Tam

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Neal, Harold

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Newens, Stan

  Davies, G. Eifel (Rhondda, E.)

  Howie, W.

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Hoy, James

  Norwood, Christopher

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

  Hunter, Adam

  Ogden, Eric

  de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey

  Hynd, John

  O'Malley, Brian

  Delargy, Hugh

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Dell, Edmund

  Jackson, Colin (B'h'se — Spenb'gh)

  Orme, Stanley

  Dempsey, James

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Rose, Paul

  Varley, Eric G.

  Paget, R. T.

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

  Walden, Brian (Ali Saints)

  Pardoe, John

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Wallace, George

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Weitzman, David

  Pentland, Norman

  Shore, Peter (Stepney)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)

  Whitaker, Ben

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Price, Christopher (Perry Bar)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Whitlock, William

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Slater, Joseph

  Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Small, William

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Probert, Arthur

  Snow, Julian

  William, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  Rankin, John

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Redhead, Edward

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Stonehouse, John

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Richard, Ivor

  Swain, Thomas

  W inriick, David

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Swingler, Stephen

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Roberts, Coronwy (Caernarvon)

  Taverne, Dick

  Woof, Robert

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Thomas. Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Yates, Victor

  Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

  Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow E.)

  Tinn, James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Tomney, Frank

  Mr. Gourlay and

  Roebuck, Roy

  Urwin, T. W.

  Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

  Rogers, George

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hill, J. E. B

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Astor, John

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

  Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n — M'd'n)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Awdry, Daniel

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Holland, Philip

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Doughty, Charles

  Hordern, Peter

  Balniel, Lord

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Hornby, Richard

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Drayson, G. B.

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Batsford, Brian

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Hunt, John

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Eden, Sir John

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Bell, Ronald

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

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

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Biffen, John

  Evans, Gwynor (C'marthen)

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Farr, John

  Jopling, Michael

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Fisher, Nigel

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Blaker, Peter

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Body, Richard

  Fortescue, Tim

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Foster, Sir John

  Kimball, Marcus

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Kitson, Timothy

  Braine, Bernard

  Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Brewis, John

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.Col.Sir Walter

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Lloyd,Rt. Hn. Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Bryan, Paul

  Goodhart, Philip

  Longden, Gilbert

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Loveys, W. H.

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Gower, Raymond

  MacArthur, Ian

  Campbell, Gordon

  Grant, Anthony

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Carlisle, Mark

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  McMaster, Stanley

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Gurden, Harold

  Maddan, Martin

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Clark, Henry

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Clegg, Walter

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Marten, Neil

  Cooke, Robert

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Maude, Angus

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Cordle, John

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Mawby, Ray

  Corfield, F. V.

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Costain, A. P.

  Hastings, Stephen

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

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Crawley, Aldan

  Hay, John

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Crouch, David

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Crowder, F. P.

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Mitchell, David (Basingtoke)

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Heseltine, Michael

  Monro, Hector

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Morgan, W. G. (Denbigh)

  Dance, James

  Hiley, Joseph

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  1032

  1033

  Mott-RadClyffe, Sir Charles

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Tilney, John

  Murton, Oscar

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Ridsdale, Julian

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Neave, Airey

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Wall, Patrick

  Nott, John

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Walters, Dennis

  Onslow, Cranley

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Scott, Nicholas

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Sharpies, Richard

  Webster, David

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Shaw, Michael (S'c'b'gh — Whitby)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Whitelaw, William

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Smith, John

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Peel, John

  Stainton, Keith

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Percival, Ian

  Stoddart-Scott, Col, Sir M. (Ripon)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Pounder, Rafton

  Tapsell, Peter

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

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

  Wylie, N. R.

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Pym, Francis

  Teeling, Sir William

  Mr. More and Mr. Eyre.

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Temple, John M.

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Mr. John Pardoe: I beg to move Amendment No. 285, in page 6., line 36, at the end to insert:
  (2) No payment shall be made under this section to any educational establishment in which more than half of the students are fee-paying.
  The Temporary Chairman: I think that it will be convenient for the Committee to consider with it Amendment No. 265, in page 7, line 11, at end insert:
  (4) The Minister of Labour shall not make any payment under this section to any independent school which does not receive any grant from public funds For the purposes of this subsection a "grant from public funds" shall riot include the payment of the fees of any pupil by a local authority
  Mr. Pardoe: It will be obvious to all hon. Members at the outset that this is really about the public schools. "Faith, hope and charity," said St. Paul, "and the greatest of these is charity." However, the only thing which the public schools have in common with charity is St. Paul. He was a splendid influence on the one and a total disaster on the other. I leave it to lion. Members to work out which applies to which.
  The Government say that there are about 1,100 independent schools which they recognise as being efficient and which are likely to be registered as charities. There are a further 500 independent schools which are, again, recognised as being efficient, which will pay the tax but which will not get the refund. Then there are another 2,000-odd independent schools which are not recognised as being efficient and will not get anything, either. We have a situation in which about 1,100 independent schools will get the refund and about 2,500 will not.
  Some independent schools are to get it and some are not. The ones which do get it will be called charities, and I believe that there is a basic injustice here. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are charities."] I am prepared to accept any terminology which hon. Members like to give. I am making the point that there is an injustice between one kind of independent school and another.
  11.15 p.m.
  I believe that the Government have a straight choice. They should either refund the tax to all independent schools, or, much more importantly and as is suggested in the Amendment, ensure that none of them gets the refund at all. I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Education and Science was not here during the debate on the previous Amendment, because we heard a great deal from Scottish Members about the various definitions of the word "charity" in Scotland, and how it differed from the definition that we know in England.
  I think that I am right in saying—and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that to qualify as a charity a school must show that it is not run at a profit, and it must give its purposes. In Scotland there is a rather narrower definition. It is the relief of poverty, and if one tried to define public schools as being for the relief of poverty, the whole thing would become as ludicrous as it almost is.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: Can the hon. Gentleman give one example of a public school which makes a profit?
  Mr. Pardoe: I am not aware that the House of Commons makes a profit, but
  1034

  1035
  that does not make it a charity. The point about whether public schools make a profit is not relevant. Of course they do not normally make a profit, but what I am trying to show is that if we are to come to some definition of charity, we ought to be clear about whether the public schools come within this definition or not.
  I think that I can illustrate the point best by quoting the purposes which some public schools state as being their charitable intent. Cheltenham Boys' College, which no doubt some hon. Members know, states that it is "providing education for the sons of gentlemen". That is not a charity. The purpose of that splendidly charitable institution at Stowe is "to educate boys of classes above those ordinarily attending public elementary schools". That is a splendidly charitable purpose! [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Then we have Cranleigh, the purpose of which is to provide a "middle class boys' school", and Bramley, the purpose of which is to provide "a middle class girls' school".
  Sir John Eden rose—
  Mr. Pardoe: I have given way once. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Be charitable."] When the last Administration tried to define what ought to be covered by the Charities Act, 1960, it came up against certain difficulties, two to be precise, Eton and Winchester, and these two were excused from declaring either their aims or their incomes because of the extreme antiquity of their origins.
  So much for the purposes for which these educational establishments were set up. I give way to the hon. Member for Bournemouth (Sir J. Eden) now.
  Sir J. Eden: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has heard of the Charity Commissioners, and of the fact that the responsibility for determining what is or is not a charity rests with them? I wonder, too, whether, as a representative of the Liberal Party, which defines as one of its principles the right of freedom of choice, he is not slightly ashamed of hoping to get all his applause from the Socialist benches opposite?
  Mr. Pardoe: I had rather hoped that I was carrying the leader of the Conserva-
  1036
  tive Party with me at least in this matter. I do not intend at this stage to answer that point, because I have it listed in my notes to be dealt with in detail a little later on.
  I now want to draw the attention of the Government Front Bench to the statement of the Secretary of State for the Department of Education and Science on 22nd December, 1965, when he was talking about setting up the Public Schools Commission. He said:
  " The Government are determined that the public schools should make the maximum contribution to meeting the education needs of the country …This implies that the schools should, like other parts of the education system. become progressively open to boys and girls irrespective of the income of their parents."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd December, 1965; Vol. 722, cc. 2107–8]
  That, presumably, is a brief statement of the Government's policy, and I would not in any sense dissociate myself from one word of its excellent sentiments. But the Government already give substantial tax advantages to those who educate their children at public schools. If one manages to find a fairy grandparent to educate one's children it becomes substantially better from a tax point of view. Again, if one sets up an endowment insurance policy one gets all the tax advantage for the premiums.
  I want to take up the point that has been made about freedom of choice. This great red herring is always drawn across public schools debates, and it has been drawn across this one tonight—as it will be again and again and again in the course of this debate. I am not trying to circumscribe freedom of choice; freedom of choice is already circumscribed by the wealth of the parents. It is all very well for Conservative Members to talk about freedom of choice, because many people in this Committee, with the incomes hon. Members enjoy, have the benefit of this freedom. But many people outside never approach the point where they have this freedom for which hon. Members scream so loudly.
  I hope that I shall get some support from both sides of the Committee on that point.
  Sir Edward Boyle: I want to ask the hon. Member one question so that I can see who is to the left of who. Has the hon. Member come across the speech

  1037
  made by the present Minister of Public Building and Works last year at the Headm asters' Conference, when he said:
  " We do respect parents' freedom of choice and it is not our intention to damage the private sector of education."
  I do not think that the hon. Member has come across that.
  Mr. Pardoe: I am not speaking for the party opposite; I am speaking for myself. I regard part of my mission in this House as being to wave the flag of radicalism before the benches opposite.
  This is a very moderate Amendment. I am merely talking in terms of schools where 50 per cent. of the pupils are fee-pay ing. The Secretary of State for Education and Science, in the days when he was a free-thinking author, actually advocated 75 per cent. as the basis on which this should be settled. I do not argue with that figure. I am prepared to go along with that recommendation if the Commission should make it, or even the figure of 100 per cent., if the Comm ssion can adduce a proper argument for it.
  I never set out with the intention that this should be a debate on the value of the independent schools. This is an attempt to bring before the Government one more anomaly in the Bill. I sincerely wish to save the Government from the embarrassment of voting charity relief to the public schools.
  Mr. R. H. Turton: The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) has levelled an attack not on the public schools but on the whole system of boarding education, of which there is a very great shortage. I cannot understand why the manufacturer of candyfloss should be given a bonus, while the manufacturer of character has to pay the tax. There are about 1,100 independent schools in this country, of which about 400 are members of the Headmasters' Conference. The rest are small schools, educating people of all classes and principally people who require a boarding education because their parent; are in the Services or serving overseas. [An Hoist. MEMBER: "Nonsense."] If the hon. Member thinks that it is nonsense, I can give him full details.
  I am President of the Independent Schools Association, and only one of our 500 members is a public school. If the
  1038
  Liberal Party and the Socialist Party are determined to penalise independent education, what will happen? Can the local education authorities supply the boarding education which is supplied by the 1,100 independent schools? That is the challenge. If they cannot, by taxation and the other Measures which are intended, the Government will dry up this source for building up the nation's character. This is a very good thing for the country to know.
  Those of all classes and all levels of income, who sacrifice to send their children to these schools, sometimes paying as much, in the schools in my association, as £30, £40 or £50 a term, should know that the Socialist and Liberal Parties are determined to exterminate this from Britain. Of course a parent's freedom of choice is of value to the country. It is not only the rich who get that. In the schools in my association are the children of parents of very small means, who are making considerable sacrifices because they want their children to have a boarding education.
  Let us now consider the case of tnc very small proportion of children in independent schools who are sent there by the local education authorities because they have difficult backgrounds and require the special treatment which they can get only at a small independent school. Is that practice to be crushed by this tax? Is that what the Liberal and Socialist Parties are attacking? We must be clear on this, because members of my association have not known hitherto what the attitude of the two parties is.
  During the 1964 election we sent a questionnaire to every candidate asking what his attitude was to the independent schools. The Liberal Party candidates replied that they were in favour of independent education. We sent one to Transport House, and the Secretary of the Socialist Party replied that they were out to abolish the public schools but were not against independent education. If anyone challenges that, I can show him the letter.
  I ask the Government to think again about the way this tax will fall. At present, I think that there are in this country, 328 direct grant establishments, of which 141 are to have their tax refunded, and 187 are to get no refund. Where I do agree with the argument of

  1039
  the hon. Member for Cornwall, North is in his belief that there is no sense in this division. I might add that the figures I have just quoted were worked out from an Answer to a Question on 21st June to the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
  11.30 p.m.
  Why, of the direct grant schools, should 141 get the refund, and 187 not get it? Taking the independent schools recognised as efficient by the Department of Education, 758 will have a refund, and 787 will not. What is the criteria which the Government are using? In my view, education is not a matter which should be taxed under the Selective Employment Tax at all. To bring education in any form into this field is not only unfair; it is wrong. Of course, if one wants to exterminate the free choice of parents in the matter of their children's education, then the Government should do it in an above board manner and go ahead. What it should not do is to adopt this underhand way of achieving it.
  The schools are divided into different categories, and not only are the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North wrong, but his argument is wrong as well. His argument was certainly wrong when he said that none of the schools which are recognised as inefficient will get the refund. A number of those recognised as not being efficient are in that category simply because they have not the money for laboratories, assembly halls, and so on, will get a refund, while others will not. This matter requires a good deal of consideration.
  Mr. Pardoe: I gave the figure of 2,000 schools and I should be happy if the right hon. Gentleman could refute that figure.
  Mr. Turton: I have quoted figures which were given to me in an Answer by the Secretary of State for Education and Science on 21st June. I have also checked them with my Association, and if the Liberal Party has other figures, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will check them against mine.
  Under the guillotine procedure we were prevented from discussing the important question of whether educational establishments should all get the refund. Per-
  1040
  sonally, I believe that to be the right answer, but if one is to have this other way of dealing with them under Clause 4 —what we call the charities way—then we have to allow schools which are not profit-making under the charitable trusts regulations, time to get into charitable trusts. It is wrong to have this uneven distribution, where 43 per cent. get the refund, and 47 per cent. do not.
  Mr. Robert Maxwell: The right hon. Gentleman's statement that the Labour Party is interested in exterminating the private schools is quite untrue. What we say is that we should replace the system whereby children who go to them go because their parents can send them with a system whereby the children who go should be those who ought to go to them.
  Mr. Turton: I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy of the Labour Party letter from Transport House during the 1964 election period, in which it is clearly stated that the Labour Party is not against independent education, but is in favour of abolishing the public schools. The hon. Gentleman is putting in quite other terminology what his party is saying here.
  I reject what the hon. Member for Cornwall, North says. We should make it clear that we say that education in this country should give parents freedom of choice.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I am glad to join with the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe)—I do not know whether I should call him my hon. Friend—in supporting this Amendment. As you have pointed out, Sir Eric, there is an Amendment down in the names of myself and some of my hon. Friends about this same problem, in rather different terms. We would go rather further than the hon. Member for Cornwall, North. The only matter that destroys the amity between the hon. Member and myself is that he has already made so many of the points which I had intended to make, but I think they are worth rehearsing because they obviously did not get through to the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton).
  The reason we appeal to the Government to think again about this matter is that this is an act of social justice.

  1041
  In an intervention during the course of Questions on 16th June, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) said:
  "Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, whatever the intentions of the tax, the figures which he has disclosed this afternoon will strike people as representing a completely indefensible anomaly educationally, and that we shall certainly press this matter very hard? "—[0Fricim, REPORT, 16th June 1966; Vol. 729, c 1462.]
  I agree that this is a completely indefensible anomaly, and I want to get rid of it. This is why I suggest that we should either treat all independent schools as worthy of repayment or we should say that none of them should be repaid. I for one would say that none of them should be repaid. I do so for several reasons—
  Mr. Martin Maddan: Before the hon. Gentleman gives his reasons, may I point out that while it may be a good thing to impose justice upon everybody the fact is that the independent private schools which do not qualify under the Bill are not complaining?
  Mr. Lyon: I speak on behalf of all those parents who send children to those schools. They may be complaining. May I set out my reasons for my attitude? During the course of the debates on the Finance Bill and on this Bill the Government have had to set their face against some very powerful arguments on behalf of the disabled, the blind, widows and some part-time workers. Here we are by this Measure giving £3½ million back to some of the biggest bastions of social privilege in this country.
  Mr. Victor Goodhew: Has the hon. Gentleman calculated how much it would cost the taxpayer if he were to abolish these bastions of social privilege, as he calls them, and if all the pupils who attend them were to attend State schools?
  Mr. Lyon: I have made this calculation. I have worked out from the figures which are given in the statistics of education that in this country 8 million school children receive, under the State system, £136, on average, towards their education. The private sector, by means of the fees which are charged, cost their parents £500 or £600.
  1042
  If the policy of the Labour Party were implemented, and these schools were integrated into the public sector of education, they would find that these resources could be funnelled through the State system into these schools. They would also find the benefit of this in their own pockets. But the real case for integrating the public schools is that the amount of concern which those parents would show towards the conditions existing in State schools would be such that there would be a revolution in education. One reason why, under our present system, we cannot get the immense public impetus that is needed to increase the priority of education in our public spending is because so many of the more voluble and vociferous parents are sending their children to private paying schools.
  The cost of accepting the Amendment to parents who send their children to public schools has been worked out by some newspapers. It is estimated that S.E.T.—this tax which the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton described as an attack on the public schools—would cost such parents between £6 and £16 a year. The Ministry has issued figures stating that the average cost would be £7 a year. Meanwhile. the average fees at these schools are between £300 and £550 a year. Can anybody really claim that £7 on £500 a year represents an attack on the public schools?
  Mr. Goodhew rose—
  Mr. Lyon: No.
  Mr. Goodhew: Give way.
  Mr. Lyon: Not until I have completed this part of my argument.
  Mr. Goodhew rose—
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member must resume his seat if the hon. Member who is speaking does not give way.
  Mr. Lyon: I will give way shortly.
  This so-called attack is, therefore, on parents who can afford to pay perhaps £500 to send their children to these schools—remembering that £500 is more than about 7 million of Britain's wage earners earn each year. I suggest that

  1043
  if these parents can afford to pay £500 a year, they can afford another £7 a year.
  Mr. Goodhew: The hon. Gentleman said that the additional cost to such parents of S.E.T. would be £7 a year. Presumably, that would be the cost to the Exchequer of giving relief, if the hon. Gentleman's figures are correct. He also said that the cost to the State of educating each child was £136 a year. Is he not, therefore, really saying that if all the pupils now at public schools went to State schools it would cost the Exchequer twenty times as much as giving this relief?
  Mr. Lyon: The figure of £7 is the sum calculated to cost those parents in increased fees. The figures of £6 to £16 which I mentioned were given by the headmasters of some of the larger public schools when this controversy arose. As the hon. Member for Cornwall, North has said, these schools already get considerable help from the State in meeting their outgoings. Where they qualify as charities, they have a 50 per cent. reduction in their rates. Their endowments are not subject to taxation. Eton gets one-third of its income from endowments, and as a result of various kinds of manoeuvre, many of the fees that are paid qualify for tax concessions. It is estimated in a poll carried out by the Advisory Council for Education, published in February, 1964, that only 11 per cent. of the sample of parents paid the fees out of current income. In order to send their children to these schools most of them resorted to some kind of capital payment device which attracted tax allowance.
  11.45 p.m.
  I have to some extent already dealt with the injustice that would be caused it these proposals went through as stated in the Bill. The situation is even worse than suggested by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North. About 1,100 schools might qualify if they all registered—and some of them are capable of registering, although they have not yet done so—as charities, and there are 500 schools which could not so register as they are at present laid out. In addition, there are 2,205 schools which, curiously enough, attract 160,000 pupils whose parents want the privilege of sending their children to schools that are not efficient. This is the
  1044
  element of choice which the hon. Members opposite are seeking—
  Mr. Robert Cooke: I am sure that the Committee would be grateful to the hon. Member if he would tell us where these children would now go if he succeeded in abolishing the schools to which they go at present.
  Mr. Lyon: They would go to the same schools, but the schools would be integrated into the State system, and the payments would be made out of the funds that would be so readily available when all these poor parents, for whom the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton expressed such grief, all increase their tax to pay for this. Indeed, they would be only too willing to do so, if their children were going to a State school.
  Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I have been listening to the hon. Member very carefully, and have noted his calculations of what it would cost if all children in independent schools were taken over by the State. The hon. Member gave a figure of 500,000 or so. I have been making a calculation. If there are 500,000 children in independent schools, at £136 a head it would cost the State an extra £68 million, which is now being paid for them.
  Mr. Lyon: I do not accept the hon. Member's figure of 500,000, but if there are 500,000 children for whom there is being paid an average of £400 a year, what is left for the outgoings, remembering those parents who would be only too willing to contribute more in taxation to improve the State schools if their children were sent there?
  What is a more serious matter is that when this Measure was first proposed in the Budget I was very concerned about the effect on charities. I have considerable experience of charitable institutions. I know a great deal about the work being done by the Churches, and I was greatly concerned lest this tax might fall on their work. I made representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about these effects, and I consulted public opinion in my constituency and in my own area about them.
  What astonished me was to find that there is increasingly a body of public opinion which is rejecting the whole concept of charity simply because these

  1045
  bogus charities are getting the same kind of allowances from the State as are the genuine charities. On this, I feel very deeply indeed. That is why I have put down this Amendment. Eton was founded for 12 children of the poor and now children of the poor cannot get through its doors. It may have been a charity when it was founded, but no one can say that these institutions are charities today. Some of them have colossal incomes—Marlborough has £350,000 a year, Charterhouse has £340,000 a year, Arundel £320,000 a year, and Wellington £312,000 a year. These are not charitable in any sense of the word, not even in the sense of the word used by the Scottish hon. Member who spoke the debate. Underlying the concept of charity there is—
  Mr. Frank Judd: Does my hon. Friend agree with the headmaster of Marlborough who recently wrote in his book, "The Public School of the Future":
  " The public schools can justly be called a divisive factor in society. This is, in my opinion, not merely regrettable, but morally wrong."?
  The Conservative Minister of Education, speaking in this House in 1961, said:
  " A small minority of children coming from more or less the same kind of homes "—
  The Chairman: Order. An interruption must not run to the length of a speech.
  Mr. Lyon: I find it very helpful. I thank my hon. Friend.
  If we go on with this blurred conception of what is a charity we shall debase the whole conception of charities and public support, which is vital to deserving organisations, will be alienated. The whole trouble stems from the fact that there is no clear definition in English law of what a charity is; there are only general classifications. The Nathan Committee on Charities suggested that there should be a much tighter definition. I regret that the House, when it was passing the 1960 legislation, failed to insert any definition in that Act. If it had done so there would have been an opportunity to separate the good from the bad.
  I have no doubt that the Government will say tonight that it is difficult to draw
  1046
  a clear line between the good and the bad charity and this is why we have to accept public schools. It was difficult enough for me to phrase this Amendment and I am sure that the same difficulty confronted the hon. Member for Cornwall, North, but if we are to preserve the concept of charity in the public mind we must restate the definition as a definition which has underlying it the notion of giving benefit to a wide measure of the public and that is not what the public schools do.
  I have not attacked, I hope, public schools—
  Mr. Armstrong: Why not? It is time that my hon. Friend did so.
  Mr. Lyon: — because I am content to await the report of the Newsom Committee and to make up my mind when I have seen it, but if this tax helps the independent schools to reconsider their objection to integration with the public system, it may have been a very valuable exercise. These schools, which have only 5 per cent. of our children, have 10 per cent., of our teachers. Teachers are one of the scarcest commodities in the country today. One of the difficulties about giving decent standards in the State schools is that we cannot get the number of teachers we want to bring down the staffing ratio. No wonder that the staffing ratio in State schools is 24 and in the public schools 12. Even allowing for the so-called bigger sixth forms—and increasingly the State schools have bigger sixth forms—the ratio in public schools is still only 1 to 16.
  Mr. Gerry Fowler: Would my hon. Friend accept that much of his argument also applies to many of the Oxford and Cambridge colleges, which are also charities in a very peculiar sense, which also receive large endowment incomes and which, according to the Franks Report, pay their staff at a rate much higher than the norm in English universities?
  Mr. Lyon: I accept the point. If it is right—and I have not argued the case —that there should be the privilege of choice in education so that one can choose between the private sector and the public sector, it must be right that those who choose the private sector should pay for it. That is all I ask.
  Sir E. Boyle: We are obviously operating under severe difficulties because of the Guillotine and I want to leave a few minutes to the Minister to reply. I will, therefore, make my remarks a good deal briefer than I would have wished after listening to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) and the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon). I hope that the hon. Member for York will forgive me when I say that, although I have no children either at independent schools or at maintained schools, I do not think that it can be said against me that I have not tried to obtain a rising share of the national wealth for the maintained system.
  Seeing the Chamber so full for this debate on public schools, I hope that we can get something like equal support from hon. Members opposite when we raise the particular case of direct grant schools, which include many children, particularly in the North of England, who would be at public schools if they lived in the South and which also contain able children for whom fees are not paid because they come from poorer families.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: My Amendment would exclude the direct grant schools.
  Sir E. Boyle: I am aware of that. I say that I hope we shall in future get support from the hon. Gentleman for what we have to say about them.
  I am completely in agreement with my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) in objecting to a tax on any form of education. We take the view, as did a former Labour Minister of State, that the nation cannot afford to lose the services of any good school and I was glad that my right hon. Friend pointed out the especially severe effect of the tax on the boarding schools.
  With respect to the hon. Member for York, I tell him that the figure of £7 is completely bogus. It will be a great deal higher for boarding schools. Many examples could be quoted of schools which have pointed out that it will cost them £17 or £18 a head. I cannot see the sense of a measure which discriminates against boarding education at a time when it has been made plain through
  1048
  detailed research that there is a national need, and demand, for more of it.
  We very much hope that the Government will stand by the clear statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the Second Reading of this Bill. Since I have been a Member of the House of Commons, we have never had a taxation proposal benefiting charities which all charities were not allowed to enjoy. To discriminate among charities would be something completely new, and something thoroughly wrong and unwelcome, within our tax system.
  12 p.m.
  There is, moreover, a further point. The Public Schools Commission has been quoted. Having appointed the Public Schools Commission under Sir John Newsom—and I shall have something to say about that later—it must be wrong to suggest discriminating against certain charities which provide education. Having set up the Commission let us not prejudge its results by taking a side-swipe, through the tax system, at the public schools.
  The Labour Amendment is open, apart from anything else, to one very obvious objection. As I read it, it refers to
  " the payment of the fees of any pupil by a local authority."Whatever view we take on the public schools, if we wish to see a wider entry into them it is no good just going back to Fleming, which is what this Amendment seems to do. It seems very curious, having set up the Newsom Commission, for the party opposite to move an Amendment taking us back to the Fleming Report.
  Now I turn to the Liberal Amendment. As I listened to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North who, with his colleagues on the Liberal Bench, were all educated at public schools, I was reminded of Sir Winston Churchill's first speech in this House, in which he remarked that the Member who had preceded him would have done better, instead of making his violent speech without moving his moderate Amendment, to have moved his Amendment without making his violent speech.
  There are many hon. Members who wish to see a widening of entry into the public schools, but I am quite sure that

  1049
  it would be madness, in advance of the report of Newsom Committee, for us to accept any Amendment with a precise figure of the kind contained in the Amendment we are now discussing. That leads me to say a word about the attitude of my hon. Friends and myself on this question of the future of the public schools. I put what I believe is the right point of view when I questioned the Secretary of State on 22nd December last. I asked what was his real objective in setting up the Public Schools Commission:
  " Is it to give a wider range of children the opportunity to benefit from the admittedly good education provided by many of these schools—many people would support that objective—or is it to bring about fundamental changes in their independent status and character ….?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd December, 1965; Vol. 722, c. 2108.]
  That is the question which we continue to ask on this side of the Committee. We recognise that there are many children, who, on an objective test, ought to be getting a boarding education. We shall study with great interest what the Newsom Committee has to say about this when the time comes. Equally, we on this side said in our election manifesto that we believe that independent schools of good standing ought to have the opportunity of applying to be put on the direct grant list. We would far rather see a good independent school applying for inclusion on this list than see a direct grant school compelled by the educational policy of the party opposite to go totally independent.
  Nonetheless, we believe that it is highly important that there should continue to be an independent sector in education. And if the public schools are to be "integrated", whatever the word may mean, in any form, they are surely worthy of integration only if they are allowed to pursue their present form of excellence under new and perhaps wider forms of recruitment. That is to say, it is vital in our view that the independent status and functions of those schools should be preserved. On that point, I agree heartily with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton said this evening. I apologise for having left the Financial Secretary so litte time, but we hope that the Government will stick to the pledge given so clearly on the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. MacDermot: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) for allowing me a few minutes to reply to the debate. I speak for all my hon. Friends when I say that we are very grateful to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) and my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) for what has been, for some of us at least, a very enjoyable debate.
  Having sat here for many hours and days on this Bill and on the Finance Bill, and having had to endure a great deal of what I regarded as synthetic indignation from the other side of the Committee, I found it a great relief for once to see the real thing. The right hon. Gentleman asked if it would be useful to establish here exactly who was to the left of whom, but he does not need to do any struggling to establish his position within his party.
  The question that my hon. Friends will want me to answer is why the Government cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendments. I shall not deal with the drafting defects, but come at once to the substance of the debate which, as the hon. Member for Cornwall, North made clear from the outset, was aimed at the fee-paying schools, as was Amendment No. 265, spoken to by my hon. Friend.
  The simple point is that when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House, during the Second Reading debate on the Finance Bill, that he was seeking a way to deal with charities, the question whether any concession should be extended to all charities had already been raised. Some of my hon. Friends questioned whether all charities should necessarily benefit from the refund.
  That conception was strongly attacked by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod), and, therefore, the Chancellor made it perfectly clear in his speech that he could not regard it as his responsibility, and said:
  " …nor do I want to undertake the task, to judge between the relative social merits of any of these charities. Therefore, it is a case of all in or all out, as far as I can see, with all the implications that flow from that." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th May, 1966; Vol. 729. c. 655.]

  1051
  I and many of my hon. Friends are aware that there are very strong arguments for saying that the time has come when the law of charities and the definition of charities should be reconsidered, but if that is to be done it cannot be done by a side-wind in dealing with a particular relief in one narrow field of the tax law. There is an established field of exemption for charities in our tax law which has wide repercussions, and we are here extending it a little further in respect of this tax.
  If any exceptions are to be made, it would be wrong and invidious to try to make them in relation to this tax alone, and it would impose a wholly unwelcome and impossible task upon my right hon. Friend in drawing the division. Indeed, that difficulty is exemplified by the drafting of the Amendments.
  Amendment No. 265, which did not have the difficulty that it would cover direct grant schools, would also exclude from the refund independent schools for handicapped children, a number of charitable nursery schools, some of the private experimental progressive schools, and a number of other independent schools upon which local authorities rely heavily where they are not able themselves to offer grammar or boarding school places. These are real difficulties that would confront my right hon. Friend or anybody else trying to draw this distinction.
  Finally, a word about the question of direct grant schools which was raised in the debate. There are 179 of these schools, and it is expected that all will qualify as charities. There are 320—
  It being ten minutes past Twelve o'clock (the House having resolved itself into the Committee at ten minutes past Four o'clock) The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Order [18th July], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  Question, That the proposed words be there inserted, put and negatived.
  The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at ten minutes past Twelve o'clock, including the Questions on Amendments,
  moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to Clauses 5 and 6.
  Amendments made: In page 6, line 39, leave out "during any period" and insert: "for any contribution week".
  In page 7, line 11, at end insert: "and includes Greenwich Hospital ".
  In page 7, line 16, leave out "has certified" and insert "certifies".
  In page 7, line 17. leave out "has found" and insert "finds".
  In page 7, line 18, at end add:
  ", and in any such appeal the Secretary of State shall be entitled to appear and be heard MacDermot.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  SELECTIVE EMPLOYMENT PAYMENTS BILL

    Clause 6.—(SPECIAL REFUNDS FOR CERTAIN HOUSEHOLDS.)
    Amendments made: In page 7, line 41, leave out from "person" to end of line 46.
    In page 8, line 16, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
    (5) No payment shall be made by virtue of subsection (2)(c) of this section in respect of any household by reason of its including a child unless either—

    (a) that household includes one, but not more than one, member who is either a parent or the spouse of a parent of that child; or

    (b) that household includes no such parent or spouse but—

    (i) includes a member who appears to the Supplementary Benefits Commission or, as the case may be, to the Appeal Tribunal to be discharging the functions of a parent with respect to that child; and

    (ii) does not include a spouse of that member of the household,

    and in either case that member of the household is normally engaged for more than eight hours weekly in work other than the domestic work of the household.—[Mr. MacDermot.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Then The CHAIRMAN left the Chair report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

WAYS AND MEANS
Considered in Committee.
[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

TEES AND HARTLEPOOLS PORT AUTHORITY
Resolved,
That it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Exchequer and the reissue out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required to be so paid or reissued by virtue of such of the provisions of any Act of the present Session to transfer to the Tees and Hartlepools Port Authority the harbour and dock works of the British Transport Docks Board at the Hartlepools and Middlesbrough as relate to the transfer of debts of the said Board to the said Authority.—[Mr. MaeDermot.]
Resolution to be reported.
Report to be received this day; Committee to sit again this day.

CENSORSHIP OF THE THEATRE
So much of the Lords Message [19th July] as relates to the appointment of a Committee to review the law and practice relating to the censorship of stage plays to be considered forthwith.—[Mr. Lawson.]
So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.
Select Committee of Eight Members appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to review the law and practice relating to the censorship of stage plays:
Mr. Andrew Faulds, Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Emlyn Hooson, Mr. Hugh Jenkins, Sir David Renton, Mr. St. John-Stevas, Mr. G. R. Strauss and Mr. William Wilson:
Leave to hear parties interested by themselves, their counsel, or agents, so far as the Committee think fit:
Power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; and to report from time to time:
Three to be the Quorum. —[Mr. Lawson.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them with such of the said Orders as are necessary to be communicated to their Lordships.

GIBRALTAR
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Whitlock.]
12.45 a.m.
Mr. Patrick Wall: In the last speech which I made to the House on the subject of Gibraltar on 3rd August last year, I stressed that I was a friend of Spain and had no wish to quarrel with Spain, with her people or with their Government. Since that time, the Spanish Government have flooded British Members of Parliament with a lot of expensive propaganda which distorts completely the real situation affecting Gibraltar. Spain cannot, therefore, object if British Members of Parliament now hit back on behalf of their countrymen in Gibraltar.
The House will know that Spain has imposed what amounts virtually to a blockade on Gibraltar since October, 1964. At about the same time, the United Nations Committee of Twenty-four called for Anglo-Spanish talks on Gibraltar in order to find a negotiated solution
" bearing in mind the interests of the people of the territory."
The Spanish Government interpret that request as a rejection of the principle of self-determination for the people of Gibraltar and maintain that the only answer now is to annul Article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht and give Gibraltar to Spain. I maintain that no impartial person could possibly read that meaning into the statement of the Committee of Twenty-four.
If anyone takes the trouble to study the records of the Committee's discussions in 1963 and 1964, he will see that all the representatives, with the exception of those of Venezuela, Uruguay, Tunisia and Syria, supported the principle of self-determination, and all those four countries, with the sole exception of Venezuela, accepted the view put forward in 1963 by the United Kingdom that the interests of the inhabitants were paramount, which is, of course, Article 73 of the United Nations Charter.
The House will recall that the British Government refused to negotiate under duress and, quite rightly, demanded the lifting of the frontier restrictions as a

1055
precondition of negotiation. Rightly or wrongly, in February, 1966, they reversed that decision and announced that talks with Spain would start in May.
As I understand it, at these talks the Spanish proposals were as follows: first, that sovereignty over Gibraltar should be transferred to Spain; secondly, that the British should be allowed to retain a military base in Gibraltar which would be co-ordinated with Spanish defence requirements; thirdly, that a personal statute giving certain guarantees to the present inhabitants of Gibraltar should be offered by the Spanish Government; and, fourthly, that a degree of regional co-operation was envisaged for the whole of the territory surrounding the Bay of Algeciras.
The House will see immediately that those proposals paid no regard whatever to the wishes of the people of Gibraltar, and it is interesting to note that they were made at exactly the same time as the Spanish Government were themselves defending the retention of their own African colonial possessions, including two towns, Ceuta and Melilla, captured, respectively, from the Portuguese in 1415 and from the Berbers in 1470, and both, like Gibraltar, defended in a series of sieges. Also like Gibraltar, they both have a 90 per cent. European population and contain a military garrison.
It was only last month, when speaking of another Spanish colony in Africa, that Admiral Carrero Blanco, a Minister of the Spanish Government, is reported in the Spanish Press to have said:
" No nation has the right to endeavour to revindicate the sovereignty over your territory, and no one has the right to exert pressure over your self-determination!"
The Admiral went on:
" If your will is to remain indissolubly tied to the country which has for so many years protected you, as one of her provinces, then that country will never abandon you."
What I hope is that a Minister of the British Government will give an equally categorical declaration of faith to the people of Gibraltar. I know that a request for a categorical rejection of the claim of Spanish sovereignty over Gibraltar has been made quite a number of times in this House in recent months. Only about a week ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) sought an assurance that there
1056
was no question of conceding sovereignty in any way to Spain over Gibraltar, unfortunately in his reply the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary trotted out that rather hackneyed formula that
" … we have no doubt as to our sovereignty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 731, c. 1015, 11 th July, 1966.]
Of course we have not, but do we intend to fight for our rights and for the rights of the people of Gibraltar?
It is a somewhat interesting reflection that when in opposition, the party now on the other side of the House concentrated on abusing Spain. Now they are in favour, apparently, of appeasing Spain.
I would like to ask these questions. If the talks were to start with the frontier restrictions still in force, why did they not start in 1964? Why have we to wait until Gibraltar has had to endure these restrictions for eighteen months? Secondly, why, since the talks in May, have two Under-Secretaries from the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office, respectively, been sent to Gibraltar to ask if the people wanted regional co-operation and continuation of the talks with Spain? I understand that they received pretty salutary replies to both of these questions. Thirdly, why has the Prime Minister refused to put Gibraltar under the Home Office when the Colonial Office ceases to exist at the end of this month? Is there any truth in the story that in the July talks last week Her Majesty's Government offered to remove all gates and obstacles on the British side of the frontier in return for the lifting of Spanish frontier restrictions?
All of these events lead Gibraltarians to wonder whether the British Government are preparing to do a deal at their expense. I do not suggest that this is so, but I do suggest that if the Government are not prepared to retaliate against Spain, then the Spanish blockade will continue and will intensify. Gibraltar believes that she is getting the kicks in a dispute that is really between London and Madrid. She faces an intensification of the blockade and wants to know what Britain is going to do to help.
I would like to make two suggestions. The first is about the constitution and the second about finance. Under the 1964 constitution, Gibraltar moved a step forward in the process of decolonisation. It

1057
is, however, a temporary and intermediate step, but the people of Gibraltar want a secure future for their children, and this in accordance with a decision of the United Nations, can only be achieved in three ways.
First, independence, which is ruled out as incompatible with Article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht and which is not desired in Gibraltar. Secondly, integration with the United Kingdom, which would give Gibraltar the status corresponding to an English county, probably with representation at Westminster, and certainly with British taxes and welfare services.
The third possibility in accordance with the views of the United Nations is what is termed free association with the United Kingdom. This is something on the lines of, say, the Channel Islands' association with this country, or perhaps a more up-to-date and more apt example is the association devised between New Zealand and the Cook Islands, which I suggest might be a very good example for Gibraltar. This free association would preserve a much higher degree of local autonomy, whilst leaving Her Majesty's Government in charge of international affairs and defence.
Though a new constitution for Gibraltar is the responsibility of this House and of Parliament as a whole, if the right of self-determination is to be maintained, surely only the people of Gibraltar are capable of deciding which of these possibilities they really desire? The Secretary of State pointed out in a recent Answer to a Question by me that the Legislative Council of Gibraltar had expressed satisfaction with the present constitution. I wonder whether this is still the case. Is it not a fact that there is a constitutional committee in Gibraltar at the moment looking into this matter?
It seems clear that it is only under free association, or under integration, that Gibraltarians can have the guarantee of remaining British for as long as they desire. Surely the first step towards this freely e.,s pressed wish of the people of Gibraltar, and, indeed, a testimony of the British Government's good faith, should bt., the transfer of Gibraltar to the Home Office, by which it was administered prior to 1801?
1058
My second suggestion concerns finance. Her Majesty's Government have on a number of occasions recently made play of the fact that during the three years 1965 to 1968 Gibraltar has been allocated grants of £1 million plus a loan of £200,000. Is it not a fact that out of this sum £325,000 was unexpended from previous grants, and that the normal amount of financial aid to Gibraltar over three years would be about £400,000? Is not the additional grant therefore less than £500,000, which is not a very generous amount considering the circumstances in which Gibraltar has found herself during the past two years?
We know that there is a development plan for Gibraltar, and a report on development from the Federation of Commonwealth Chambers of Commerce. Can the Minister assure the House that adequate funds will be made available as they are required to finance this development plan? Would not the Minister agree that even with these development plans every effort must be made to attract both shipping and tourists, and what efforts are the Government making in this direction on Gibraltar's behalf?
I understand for example that United States warships now seldom call at Gibraltar, and that the fact that Gibraltar is one of the only Western Mediterranean ports of call for Soviet merchant ships and trawlers is doing much to assist the commercial life of the city.
I think it is clear that on both sides of the House we wish to see the end of the present quarrel with Spain, which is having an adverse effect on AngloSpanish relations. A number of my colleagues have resigned from the AngloSpanish Group in this House in order to express their solidarity with the people of Gibraltar. My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett), and my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), particularly asked me to mention them in this respect.
I am convinced that neither side of the House would permit sovereignty to be handed over against the wishes of the people of Gibraltar. Indeed, the Minister knows that there would be a hell of a row if any Government ever tried it on. We must, however, realise that the present situation cannot continue. I

1059
think that this is the nub of the problem. If the Spanish Government continue to be unreasonable, and if these talks break down, then I believe that in all honour Britain is bound to retaliate, and we have plenty of means of so doing.
I believe that the people of Gibraltar have expressed their loyalty to this country by enduring nearly two years of frontier restrictions and other Spanish pin pricks. They now demand our help, openly expressed, and freely afforded, and I would like to know what the Government propose to do about it?
12.30 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Stonehouse): The House and the country will be grateful to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) for initiating this Adjournment debate, because it gives us an opportunity of sending good cheer and a message of good will to all Gibraltarians at this time of stress and strain. I have not had the good fortune to go to Gibraltar myself, but I have had the opportunity of discussing the problem of Gibraltar with the Chief Minister, Sir Joshua Hassan, and his deputy, Mr. Isola, and I appreciate, as does my right hon. Friend, the great concern felt in Gibraltar about the state of relations with Spain and the Spanish demand to Gibraltar.
I am glad to have the opportunity afforded by the debate of confirming the attitude of the Government towards the present negotiations with the Spanish authorities. Throughout these negotiations we are considering the real interests of the people of Gibraltar. That is our essential concern, and we are in no way departing from it. I am glad to have this opportunity of sending such a message to Gibraltar tonight. It also gives me an opportunity of sending a message to Madrid to say that although the frontier restrictions are being continued this will in no way deter us in our resolve to continue to regard our negotiations in respect of the future of Gibraltar by that criterion, namely, the real interests of the Gibraltarians themselves. I am glad to give that assurance tonight. I recognise the interest and the background of experience of the hon. Member, and I am grateful to him for initiating the debate.
1060
Talks have been going on for some time—now being conducted by officials. They commenced on 18th May, when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the Spanish Foreign Minister, Senor Castiella. I was present on that occasion and heard the very long statement, since released, made by Senor Castiella. I have it here, as I think the hon. Member has. I agree with him that Members of the House and the Press have been bombarded with this document. We have no doubt about the case which the Spanish authorities have put forward, but there is no doubt in our minds about our reply to this case. We are absolutely firm in our declaration that we have sovereign rights to Gibraltar. We are firm also in our declaration that we are in no way breaking the Treaty of Utrecht, which begins,
" The Catholic King does hereby, for Himself, his heirs and successors, yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and intire propriety of the Town and Castle of Gibraltar, together with the port fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging; and He gives up the said propriety, to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever."
This is our right to Gibraltar, and we are conscious of the fact that over 250 years that right has been more than confirmed time and time again.
In the discussions with the Spanish Foreign Minister, my right hon. Friend made it crystal clear that we held firmly to that position.
The hon. Member raised a number of questions. He asked why negotiations had been started this year and why they had not been commenced two years ago. It is our wish to try to bring the relations between Gibraltar and Spain to a sensible solution, and we felt that by agreeing to negotiations at this time we would help to reach a sensible and civilised solution.
He asked why two Under-Secretaries had been sent to Gibraltar. We are in constant contact with Gibraltar. We are anxious that the people in Gibraltar should have the fullest opportunity of expressing their point of view about the negotiations as they are conducted. I make no apology for the fact that not only have officials gone to Gibraltar but that we have also from time to time invited the Governor and the Chief

1061
Minister to come to Britain to consult us.
We have refused to put Gibraltar under the Home Office because we believe that this would be no real solution to the problem. It is unlikely to satisfy the Spanish. We have to negotiate with them and this device would be no contribution.
We had hoped that the Spanish Foreign Minister's suggestion that the frontier restrictions would be removed during the negotiations would be an opportunity for improving relations between us. I regret that the restrictions are continuing in the way they are. We are giving a great deal of aid to Gibraltar, but, fortunately its economy is not too adversely affected by the restrictions. Although tourism has been affected somewhat, the health of the economy is not absolutely dependent on the restrictions being removed.
I am glad to be able to tell the House that we have given assistance to the Gibraltar authorities in the preparation of a development plan which we hope will help to strengthen the Gibraltarian economy in years to come. Two members of my staff are in Gibraltar at the moment, assisting in the development of the plan. I confirm what the hon. Gentleman said about economic assistance. We are making a million pounds available under the Commonwealth Development and Welfare Acts up to March, 1968, plus loans of £200,000, if required. We have also provided the major part of the cost of the Study Group's report on the development plan.
We gave a special grant of £100,000 in the last financial year for the budget of Gibraltar and further financial help for the period after March, 1968, will be considered in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development nearer that time—
Mr. Arthur Palmer: Is it the Government's intention to continue these discussions with the Spanish indefinitely, even if the frontier restrictions are not lifted?
Mr. Stonehouse: We hope that we will be able to make some real progress during these talks and we do not want to do anything which will exacerbate the posi-
1062
tion. We are bearing in mind the real interests of the Gibraltarians, and if there is any chance at all of reaching a sensible agreement with the Spanish, we believe that we should take that chance. It would certainly not be in the interests of the Gibraltarians if the talks were to break down.
As I said, we stick to certain principles during these discussions with the Spanish and I am glad to have this opportunity of confirming this. We hope that the Spanish will be under no misapprehension in this respect. We do not believe that consideration of any other action we should take is wise at this stage. I know that the hon. Gentleman would like me to announce all sorts of tough action which we should take in order to bring Spain to heel. I think that, on reflection, he would agree that this would not assist the talks which are still in progress. In fact, it would probably mean ensuring that the talks failed. We certainly have to keep the position constantly under review, and I think the hon. Gentleman will realise what that will mean. But I do not wish at this time to say anything —and I am sure the House will agree that it would be unwise to do so—which would embarrass the progress of the talks which are now being conducted by officials.
In conclusion, I should like to say that all of us in the House who have met and discussed this problem with Gibraltarians of all political groups are fully conscious of their anxieties about the future of Gibraltar. We have a great deal of respect for their point of view and a great deal of admiration for the way in which they have matched up to the stress under which they now live. But I think we should advise them that in these circumstances it may not be very wise to look for solutions that are not within the realms of real possibility in the near future. We must ask them to be realistic and sensible. Although this may be difficult for them to do, I am quite satisfied that most Gibraltarians will have the good sense, following the example of Sir Joshua Hassan and Mr. Isola, to adopt that attitude to the problem.
This is not the time to try to find extravagant solutions that cannot actually work out in practice. This is the time for statesmanship and for patience, and we

1063
hope that as a result, a real and lasting solution can be found to the problem of Gibraltar's relations with Spain.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to One o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Birmingham Young Volunteers Trust
  Birmingham Young Volunteers Trust
  Sixth Form Colleges (Rural Areas)
  Sixth Form Colleges (Rural Areas)
  Schoolchildren (Industrial Experience)
  Schoolchildren (Industrial Experience)
  Deaf Students (Higher Education Facilities)
  Deaf Students (Higher Education Facilities)
  Deaf Children (School Places)
  Deaf Children (School Places)
  University Clinical Teachers (Pay)
  University Clinical Teachers (Pay)
  Grant Aided Students (Employment)
  Grant Aided Students (Employment)
  English Language Schools (Inspection)
  English Language Schools (Inspection)
  Primary and Secondary Schools
  Primary and Secondary Schools
  Youth Service (School Premises)
  Youth Service (School Premises)
  Married Women Teachers
  Married Women Teachers
  Social Science Research Council (Postgraduate Awards)
  Social Science Research Council (Postgraduate Awards)
  School Building (Costs)
  School Building (Costs)
  The Arts, Northern Region (Grants)
  The Arts, Northern Region (Grants)
  University Medical Schools
  University Medical Schools
  Educational Building Programmes (Huntingdon and Peterborough)
  Educational Building Programmes (Huntingdon and Peterborough)
  Boy Scout Associations (Grants)
  Boy Scout Associations (Grants)
  Annual Expenditure
  Annual Expenditure
  Polytechnics
  Polytechnics
  All Saints' Junior School, Hastings (Letter)
  All Saints' Junior School, Hastings (Letter)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Provincial Police Forces (Powers of Search)
  Provincial Police Forces (Powers of Search)
  Firearms Act, 1965 (Prosecutions)
  Firearms Act, 1965 (Prosecutions)
  Metropolitan Police (Crowd Dispersal Research)
  Metropolitan Police (Crowd Dispersal Research)
  Alcoholism and Drunkenness
  Alcoholism and Drunkenness
  Wembley Park Underground Station (World Cup Spectators)
  Wembley Park Underground Station (World Cup Spectators)
  M2 (Prosecutions for Exceeding 70 m.p.h. Speed Limit)
  M2 (Prosecutions for Exceeding 70 m.p.h. Speed Limit)
  Prisoners (Notification of Members of Parliament of Appeals)
  Prisoners (Notification of Members of Parliament of Appeals)
BRITISH HONDURAS
  Independence
  Independence
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  National Economic Development Council (Reviews)
  National Economic Development Council (Reviews)
  Insurance Companies (Nationalisation)
  Insurance Companies (Nationalisation)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Monopolies Commission (Colour Film)
  Monopolies Commission (Colour Film)
  Syrian Pipeline (Contract)
  Syrian Pipeline (Contract)
  Polyester Film (Sales to Eastern Europe)
  Polyester Film (Sales to Eastern Europe)
  Aircraft (Duty-Free Import)
  Aircraft (Duty-Free Import)
  Welsh Development Area (North Coast)
  Welsh Development Area (North Coast)
  Companies Act (Prospectus Provisions)
  Companies Act (Prospectus Provisions)
  Convicted Persons (Companies)
  Convicted Persons (Companies)
  Nuclear Equipment (Exports)
  Nuclear Equipment (Exports)
SHIPPING
  Shipbuilding Inquiry Committee (Report)
  Shipbuilding Inquiry Committee (Report)
RHODESIA
  U.D.I. (African Support)
  U.D.I. (African Support)
  Governor (Informal Talks)
  Governor (Informal Talks)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Royal Hospital School, Holbrook
  Royal Hospital School, Holbrook
  Fishery Protection Squadron
  Fishery Protection Squadron
  Chatham Dockyard (Fire)
  Chatham Dockyard (Fire)
  United States Navy (British Tenders)
  United States Navy (British Tenders)
  Long-Service Pension
  Long-Service Pension
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Brick Stocks (Wales)
  Brick Stocks (Wales)
  Dimensional Co-ordination (Studies)
  Dimensional Co-ordination (Studies)
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
  COURTS OF INQUIRY
  COURTS OF INQUIRY
  LIFE PEERAGES
  LIFE PEERAGES
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  PRIME MINISTER'S MOSCOW VISIT (BRITISH JOURNALISTS)
  PRIME MINISTER'S MOSCOW VISIT (BRITISH JOURNALISTS)
  MINISTERIAL POSTS
  MINISTERIAL POSTS
  ECONOMIC CRISIS
  ECONOMIC CRISIS
  SHIPBUILDING (DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  SHIPBUILDING (DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  UNITED STATES LOANS
  UNITED STATES LOANS
  CONCORD PROJECT (ESTIMATES)
  CONCORD PROJECT (ESTIMATES)
  OFFICIAL PAPERS
  OFFICIAL PAPERS
  OFFICIAL ACCOMMODATION
  OFFICIAL ACCOMMODATION
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Research Establishments (Personnel)
  Research Establishments (Personnel)
  UNITED NATIONS (CHINA)
  UNITED NATIONS (CHINA)
HOSPITALS
  Elderly and Chronic Sick, Tunbridge Wells and Eastbourne
  Elderly and Chronic Sick, Tunbridge Wells and Eastbourne
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Agricultural Land and Buildings (Rating)
  Agricultural Land and Buildings (Rating)
  Town and County Planning (Legislation)
  Town and County Planning (Legislation)
HOUSING
  Rating Act, 1966 (Garages)
  Rating Act, 1966 (Garages)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Training Allowances
  Training Allowances
  Unemployment (Bexhill, Hailsham and Rye)
  Unemployment (Bexhill, Hailsham and Rye)
  Unemployment (Great Yarmouth)
  Unemployment (Great Yarmouth)
  Tyne Dock and Albert Edward Dock (Report)
  Tyne Dock and Albert Edward Dock (Report)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Bechuanaland
  Bechuanaland
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Students (Contributions)
  Students (Contributions)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Waiting List (Chiswick, Turnham Green and Isleworth)
  Waiting List (Chiswick, Turnham Green and Isleworth)
SCOTLAND
  Grain Dryers (Grants)
  Grain Dryers (Grants)
  Highland Development Board (Selective Employment Tax)
  Highland Development Board (Selective Employment Tax)
TECHNOLOGY
  British Nuclear Export Executive
  British Nuclear Export Executive
ROADS
  North Orbital Road, Watford (Accident)
  North Orbital Road, Watford (Accident)
  MI Service Centres (Food Prices)
  MI Service Centres (Food Prices)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  West German Offset Agreement
  West German Offset Agreement
  Income Tax (British Pensioner, New Zealand)
  Income Tax (British Pensioner, New Zealand)
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  H.M. Stationery Office (Cash Registers Order)
  H.M. Stationery Office (Cash Registers Order)
  Purchase Tax (Badges)
  Purchase Tax (Badges)
  £ Sterling
  £ Sterling
  British Tourists in Spain (Expenditure)
  British Tourists in Spain (Expenditure)
  Anglo·Soviet Trade (Gold Loan)
  Anglo·Soviet Trade (Gold Loan)
  Selective Employment Tax (Charities)
  Selective Employment Tax (Charities)
  Corporation Tax (Non·Close Companies)
  Corporation Tax (Non·Close Companies)
  Members of Parliament (Broadcasting Fees)
  Members of Parliament (Broadcasting Fees)
WALES
  Mid-Wales New Town (Report)
  Mid-Wales New Town (Report)
  Public Documents (Welsh Language)
  Public Documents (Welsh Language)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Truro

FRONT-ENTRANCE BUSES
3.5 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have received any reports on the working of the front-entrance buses now employed on certain London bus routes, and whether their use is likely to be extended to additional routes.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, responsibility for these experiments rests with the London Transport Board, and my right honourable friend would not expect to receive reports on their working. But she welcomes the experiment as promising various advantages to the public and to the Board.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that limited reply, may I ask whether he would not agree that accidents caused when passengers are alighting from or boarding buses would be entirely eliminated by the more extensive use of this type of vehicle? And would he not agree that the safety factor is the chief consideration in deciding whether its use ought to be extended or not?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I agree completely with my noble friend that these buses have a safety advantage in that passengers cannot get on and off when the bus is moving. Safety is obviously one of the factors that London Transport will have in mind when considering how far they should extend the operation of front-entrance buses. I may say that in the regulations issued on
540
July 1 my right honourable friend has given operators more freedom to experiment in this type of vehicle.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, in view of the fact that some of us have had experience of these buses on route 24, would my noble friend represent to the Minister, and through her to the London Transport Board, that it is greatly to be hoped that they will be made much more comfortable than they proved to be when operated on that route?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, of course the Minister has no responsibility at all for day-to-day management in this matter, but I am sure that such a suggestion coming from such a quarter will be considered by the Board.

SAFETY REGULATIONS FOR CIVIL SUBMERSIBLE VEHICLES
3.7 p.m.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: 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 when it is intended to introduce safety regulations for civil submersible vehicles.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD RHODES): My Lords, if such vehicles were ships they would be subject to the Merchant Shipping Acts. The application of the Acts to such craft would need special consideration when the need arises.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that big developments in civil submersible vehicles are taking place; and can he assure the House that this country will be the first in the field in seeing that there are safety regulations available for such vehicles when produced and in use, in the same way as this country has led the world in seeing that there are adequate safety regulations for ships, mines and aircraft, and in many other directions? Especially is this important in view of the fact that we are a maritime nation and do not want to be behind other countries in this matter.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, yes. I have taken the Question as a helpful and a constructive one, and I went to considerable trouble to find out as much as I possibly could about this matter. We have not much evidence that anything of this sort is imminent, but if the noble Lord has any evidence at all I shall be pleased to receive it.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, would the noble Lord tell us exactly what is a civil submersible vehicle?
LORD RHODES: My Lords, I think in that matter I had better call upon the noble Lord opposite.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a civil submersible vehicle is a vehicle that goes into the water, and on the bed of the water as well? Submarines have been used in the oceans of the world for military purposes, but they are of no use at all for civil purposes. Since water covers two-thirds of the earth's surface, there is a great need for civil submersible vehicles to work for civil purposes in the oceans and on the bed of the oceans.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, I think the noble Lord will agree that if we pursue this subject much further we shall both get into deep water.

TRAFFIC CONTROL ON THREE-LANE ROADS
3.10 p.m.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: 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 progress has been made during the last two years, to the latest available date, in the provision of alternately offset double or single white lines on a straight road of three lanes.]
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, trials with the use of offset double white lines on a number of roads have been in progress over periods varying from one to three years, and my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport hopes to make a statement soon.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that, so far as can be seen, these experiments are highly successful? Everybody who has experienced them wonders why much more rapid progress has not been made in providing these offset double and single white lines on many roads, and in general extending their use. Could this matter not now be hurried up after all this length of time?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I must admit that at one time, when I first saw these lines, I thought completely as the noble Lord does on this point. But the results of these trials have not yet been fully assessed in the Department. So far, it appears that the use of offset lines alternately has not secured a marked improvement at all sites. In some cases there is evidence of an increase, though perhaps not of severity, in the number of accidents, and also of danger at the change-over points. This needs further investigation, but we rather hope that the Minister will take a decision which will be announced shortly.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, can the Minister assure us that, whatever may be done to lessen the danger of such three-lane highways as we now unfortunately have, nothing will lessen Her Majesty's Government's determination to abolish three-lane highways altogether as soon as they possibly can, because they are death traps?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, we are in complete agreement with that. The dual carriageway is obviously the road we shall build in the future.

IMMIGRATION CONTROL
3.14 p.m.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is not desirable that the inflow of immigrants should if possible be so regulated as to remain within the capacity of this country to absorb it, and since the number of dependants of immigrants can at present be neither regulated nor predicted, whether they

543
will consider requiring future immigrants to register the number of dependants likely to join them and then treating this number as a factor affecting the decision whether to grant permission of entry.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, the whole purpose of the control is to relate the total inflow of immigrants, including dependants, to the capacity of this country to absorb them. It is already the practice to require a Commonwealth citizen overseas who is given a Ministry of Labour voucher or an entry certificate for settlement to provide particulars of the dependants entitled to enter the United Kingdom with him or to follow him later. We do not think it right, however, to make the grant of the entry document dependent on the number of entitled dependants.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him whether he recalls that on May 23 last the Home Secretary said outside another place, on a public occasion—and I quote from The Times:
"In present circumstances the Government is bound to contain the flow of immigrants within the economic and social capacity of the country to absorb them."
Does he not agree that this apparently innocuous statement, and numerous others similar to it, must mislead the man in the street by leading him to suppose that a Government which says that it must contain the flow has power to control the flow, which in respect of dependants it most assuredly has not? May I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that in the first five months of the present year—which is not, of course, the season of the main inflow—whereas the intake of voucher holders, which is controlled, was 2,000-odd, the intake of dependants, which is not controlled, was 14,000-odd?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am, of course, aware of the statement by my right honourable friend, but there is no conflict between that statement and the Answer which I have just given. Her Majesty's Government will not, however, accept a policy of separating wives from their husbands and young children from their parents. That is why, when the restrictions had to be tightened, we prefer-
544
red to reduce the number of families by reducing the issue of vouchers, rather than break up families by the method implied by the noble Lord.
With regard to the noble Lord's point about the first five months of this year, he has apparently misunderstood the figures. The facts show that our policy is already succeeding. In 1964, the net inflow of immigration from all the countries of the Commonwealth was 75,499; last year it was 63,819. The process is continuing this year, for which I am able to give the figures for the first six months In the first six months of last year the net inflow from all Commonwealth countries was 49,097, in the first six months of this year it was 34,061. With regard to dependants, what is of even greater significance is that in the first six months of this year, for the first time for many years, they comprise less than the numbers ill the corresponding period of the previous year.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is nothing in the Question I asked which was calculated to promote or encourage the separation of families? The suggestion was merely that in selecting the immigrants some regard should be had to the number of dependants who would be likely to come with them. May I also ask him, in respect of the absorptive capacity referred to in the second part of my Question, whether he has seen the recent statement of the National Secretary of the Indian Workers' Association, to the effect that the Association has no desire to see the integration of Indians taking place since they desire to retain their own cultural traditions and have indeed requested that Urdu, Hindi and Gujerati should be taught in English schools? Is it not equally true of most Muslims and Sikhs that they, too, rightly desire to retain their own social and cultural traditions, rather than to accept ours, some of which they regard, with a certain degree of justification, as highly uncivilised?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am, of course, aware of the desire of many immigrants to preserve their own religious, national and cultural way of life, but the whole of Her Majesty's Government's policy, and the greater part of the White Paper, is devoted to steps for integrating these Commonwealth

545
citizens into the British community. That policy is succeeding very well, and will proceed as energetically as Her Majesty's Government can pursue it.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I do not quite understand the noble Lord's first Answer. As I understand it, he said that a man can be given a voucher to enter, and is then asked how many dependants he has. So there is, in fact, no control over the number of dependants coming in, because he is given the voucher in the first place. Is that correct?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the purpose of completing the entry certificate and stating the number of dependants, either coming in or likely to come in, is to gather statistics and so that we can prevent evasion. We have no control over the number of dependants of a particular voucher holder, either before or after he enters the country.
LORD DERWENT: But if the Government want to control the number of immigrants so that they may be absorbed easily—and that I understand, is Government policy—if they do not limit the number of vouchers for the dependants who are coming in, how can they keep control over the total number?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, certainly did not understand my first Answer, because facts with regard to the number of dependants will influence subsequent decisions on the number of vouchers that will be issued.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware of the immediate and potential difficulties which can arise from the tendency of immigrants to concentrate in well-defined areas? May I ask, also, what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking, or what steps they can take, to effect a dispersal which would facilitate integration into the community?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, we are of course aware of some tendency to concentrate in particular areas, although it is not so marked as is generally supposed. One of the reasons is that many immigrants tend to congregate where their fellow citizens live, and also in the poorer parts of the great cities. The policy of Her Majesty's Government in this respect is to assist local authorities in the provi-
546
sion of amenities and facilities so that such concentrations may be dispersed.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend, quite seriously—I asked him this question last year and he did not answer—how many women dependants designated as wives a Muslim may bring into the country?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I can only tell my noble friend that there have been occasions when we have admitted more than one wife, but not more than two.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is not the case that all those who have studied this problem agree that the arrival here of wives and dependants, whether of white or coloured immigrants, adds to the stability and health of those communities and should be welcomed by this House?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I would entirely agree with the view expressed by my noble friend. If my original Answer did not make it clear, I should add that the figures I have given were for the net inflow from all the countries of the Commonwealth, whatever the colour of the skin of the immigrant, and Her Majesty's Government make no distinction in this regard.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that one African visitor to the Coronation, who himself travelled first-class in a steamship, brought fifteen wives all of whom went steerage?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, in addition to mentioning that discrimination, with which I wholly disagree, the noble Earl should have said that he went back and took all his fifteen wives with him.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question? Would he explain what he means by "families and wives"? I make particular reference to the prevalence in, for instance, Jamaica of what are called "civil law marriages", which have no reference whatever to legality. They are merely arrangements between a man and a woman who decide to live together and have children for so long as it suits them. It is a very prevalent custom in Jamaica, and when such a man comes

547
to England he may in all honesty regard that woman as definable as a wife. But do the Government recognise that kind of union here, where it would be an entirely illegal position?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, with regard to the families which Her Majesty's Government recognise, they are the wife and children under sixteen, with a little latitude beyond that in some cases for the exercise of discretion. With regard to the definition of a wife, we do not attempt a precise definition which will cover all the countries of the world. But with regard to the West Indies, we are aware of the prevalence of what is sometimes called the "common law marriage" and we have admitted, and do admit, some wives of that type who would not have had what we in this country regard as a normal union.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, could my noble friend say whether he considers that the reception arrangements for receiving immigrants into this country are adequate?
LORD STONHAM: No, my Lords, they are not wholly adequate, but they are constantly being improved.

FUTURE BUSINESS
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I make a short Business Statement? As Members will know, we had intended to take the Second Reading of the Finance Bill on Thursday, July 28. Unfortunately, there has been a change in Business in another place, and this Bill is unlikely to be received by us until fairly late on Thursday, July 28. While I recognise that Members are very indulgent—
A NOBLE LORD: Not "Members", but "noble Lords".
LORD SHEPHERD:—and our arrangements are very flexible, I think it would be too late to ask the House to take the Second Reading of the Bill on that day. However, there have been
548
discussions through the usual channels, and it has been decided to recommend to the House that we should have a debate on a Government Motion to take note of the Economic Situation. Perhaps noble Lords who wish to discuss the Economic Situation and the Finance Bill might think next Thursday a suitable day for delivering their speeches, so that when the Finance Bill is taken later in the following week the proceedings will be relatively short.

DERBY CHURCHES (SAINT CHRISTOPHER'S, SAINT PETER'S AND SAINT PAUL'S) BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
3.28 p.m.
Read 3a, with the Amendments.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move an Amendment: at page 18, line 3, leave out from "incorporated" to "this" in line 5, and insert "with".
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 3, leave out from ("incorporated") to ("this") in line 5 and insert ("with").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, could we have some sort of explanation?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Most certainly, my Lords. This is a late Amendment put forward by the Promoters of the Bill, and copies of the Amendment lie on the Table of the House.
LORD CARRINGTON: What is it for?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: It is a verbal amendment of this clause, and for that reason I did not think your Lordships would expect me to advance any arguments in support.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

TELEVISING THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE
3.30 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD)THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD) rose to move, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider how the Resolution of the House of June 15 last, welcoming the televising of some of its proceedings for an experimental period, can best be carried into effect:
That the Lords following with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee:—
E. Iddesleigh,
V. Falkland,
B. Asquith of Yarnbury,
L. Balfour of Inchrye,
L. Birkett,
L. Clwyd,
B. Emmet of Amberley,
L. Ferrier,
L. Haire of Whiteabbey,
L. Harlech,
L. Reay,
L. Sherfield,
L. Silkin,
L. Soper,
B. Wootton of Abinger.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name. As the House will observe, it is identical to the Motion which I brought before this House on Tuesday, and which, with the leave of the House, was then postponed, except that the names of the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, have been added to the list of proposed Members. Your Lordships will recall that on Tuesday the view was expressed by one or two senior Members of the House that those who voted against the Resolution welcoming the televising of our proceedings for an experimental period, which was carried here on June 15, were not sufficiently represented in the list which I was then proposing. Without commenting on the correctness of that view, I hope and believe that the House will feel that that difficulty, in so far as it did exist, has now been overcome by the addition of the two noble Lords I have mentioned.
I should perhaps add that the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, suggested on Tuesday that the higher reaches of the
550
Peerage were inadequately represented, and pointed out that there was no one higher than a Baron or Baroness among those proposed—and we know that they represent the lowest forms of noble life. The noble Duke will now observe that the two names which I am asking the House to add are those of an Earl and a Viscount, and I hope that he will therefore be appeased, although I cannot pretend that we are suggesting any Dukes or Marquesses on this occasion—but no doubt their time will come. I ought to say that, while I feel this may serve to placate the noble Duke, it was not the primary intention of the suggestion, and I should not like it to be taken as a precedent for the future. Nevertheless, I hope that your Lordships will feel that the Motion brought forward in its present form gives effect to the Resolution of June 15, and will therefore approve it. I beg to move.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider how the Resolution of the House of June 15 last, welcoming the televising of some of its proceedings for an experimental period, can best be carried into effect.
That the Lords following with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee:—
E. Iddesleigh,
V. Falkland,
B. Asquith of Yarnbury,
L. Balfour of Inchrye,
L. Birkett,
L. Clwyd,
B. Emmet of Amberley,
L. Ferrier,
L. Haire of Whiteabbey,
L. Harlech,
L. Reay,
L. Sherfield,
L. Silkin,
L. Soper,
B. Wootton of Abinger.
—(The Earl of Longford.)
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl the Leader of the House for withdrawing the Motion last Tuesday and for tabling this fresh Motion, with the additional strength of one Earl and one Viscount. I am sure it will be a much-improved Committee, with the addition of two more Members of this House who did not vote in favour of the original Resolution. If I had voted on that occasion, on June 15,

551
I should have voted for the Resolution moved by my noble friend Lord Egremont; so although, if I had been appointed to the Committee, a considerable amount of weight would have been added, it would have been on the wrong side.
I should like to ask the noble Earl just one question about the terms of reference, merely for the purpose of elucidation. By its terms, the Resolution moved by the noble Lord, Lord Egremont, on June 15, welcomed the televising of our proceedings for an experimental period. The terms of this Motion are to see how that Resolution "can best be carried into effect". I think I am right in interpreting the present Motion as meaning no more and no less than this: that the Committee now being appointed will be able to go into the whole matter from a practical point of view, to see what difficulties exist, what supervision it may be necessary to exercise and by whom it should be exercised; and that, in the end we shall get from this Committee, after they have considered all these matters, including matters of privilege, a Report, which we shall then have before us for consideration before finally deciding whether to go on with televising our proceedings or not.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I should certainly have thought that the points raised by the noble Viscount would come well within the orbit of this Committee. They are not the only points which will need to be gone into, but I should think the noble Viscount need have no possible fear about the range of this Committee, because its terms are so closely tied to those of the Resolution which was actually carried here.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Earl for adding these two names to the Committee. I certainly hope that this is an indication of the way in which he will treat other suggestions that I shall no doubt be making in the next fortnight upon other matters, and that I shall have equal success in getting them adopted by the noble Earl the Leader of the House. I am sure the noble Earl and the noble Viscount who have been added to this Committee will look after the interests of Dukes and Marquesses extremely well.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount and to the noble Duke. I have no idea, of course, what these other proposals by the noble Duke may be. The most positive proposal which I recall his placing before the House was the idea of polo for the masses. It may be that that is what he has in mind.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, I should like to point out to the noble Earl, just for the record, that it seems that the figures are still out of gear. The original figures, as objected to by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, contained two who voted against the Resolution and eleven who voted for it. This Motion now brings the figures up to four as against eleven, and they are still out of gear. It should really be five, at least. It would still be out of gear, even with five. I think your Lordships will agree to that.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I cannot, of course, speak for the rest of the House, but I do not agree with the noble Earl, for the reasons I explained the other day.
LORD REAY: My Lords, this seems to me an important question of principle. On the one hand, the argument has been put forward that the Committee should be composed of Members representing equally those who voted for and those who voted against the general principle embodied in the Resolution as a result of which this Committee is being appointed. On the other hand, there seems to me a reasonable argument that in this instance, such a Committee should contain no Member at all who voted against the general principle of televising the proceedings of the House. I wonder whether at some time we can have some indication as to what is the proper principle to be applied on the appointment of a Committee of this sort.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I think the only answer I can make is that one must strike a balance between the two criteria indicated by the noble Lord.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I think this matter was raised on the last occasion by my noble friend Lord Salisbury. Even on that occasion, before

553
the discussion ended, he expressed complete satisfaction with what the noble Earl the Leader of the House was proposing to do. I think we should really not criticise in any way what he is now doing, which seems to me to carry out what was the desire of this House.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, may I say—and this may help the noble Earl—that my noble friend Lord Dudley may like to know that quite a number of these Members did not vote either way, so eleven did not vote for the Resolution.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, may I ask one more question, just for elucidation? It is probably owing to my own stupidity, but I did not quite understand the noble Earl's reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. Is it the position that when the Committee we are now appointing has reported, it will still be open to the House to decide not to proceed with televising its proceedings?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, if I may say so with great respect, that, I should have thought, was obvious. The Committee will report back to the House, and it will be for the House to say what they wish to do about the Report of the Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.38 p.m.
LORD SALTOUNhad given Notice of his intention to move, That it be an instruction to the Select Committee on Televising the Proceedings of the House that they make no recommendation that is not in accord with the traditional dignity of the House. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the only thing I should like slightly to challenge in what was said a few moments ago is that there are lower orders of nobility. After all, your Lordships are all Peers, and therefore there can be no lower orders. My Lords, I put down my Motion upon observing that the Committee first nominated by the noble Earl consisted very largely of Members who have been in this House a very short time and who could not he expected to know the old traditions of your Lordships' House; and that there were very very few who had had any lengthy experience of the House. In fact, apart from
554
the Lord Chairman, there were only three Members of the Committee who had more than ten years' experience of your Lordships' House. Some of the noble Lords who were nominated to serve on the Committee have expressed very strong and decided views about this House, and it seemed to me that, however much they knew about television, the interests of your Lordships' House should be considered rather more carefully. And I am bound to say that I very much welcome the additions the noble Earl has made in the Committee which has now been approved by your Lordships. I think that to have the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, with his 38 years' experience of this House, upon that Committee is a very great advantage. What I am really saying this afternoon will, I hope, strengthen his hand.
I hope the noble Earl who leads the House will not mind my saying that he comes of a distinguished family. We who can make no claim to such distinction are, I think, to be excused if we reckon a family distinguished which can produce in its history more than one distinguished man in a couple of centuries; and the noble Earl's family has several, as most of your Lordships know. There is one among them who has always been rather a hero of mine. That is Sir Edward Pakenham, a very distinguished soldier of the Peninsula War, who was Adjutant-General of Wellington's Army in 1813 in Biscay, and who was made a Knight of the Bath. On that occasion he wrote to his brother Tom, a kindred spirit and the noble Earl's great-great-grandfather, what he thought about it. In what he wrote he so clearly defined one of the cardinal principles of your Lordships as long ago as history exists that, with your permission, I will use his words and not my own to lay this principle before your Lordships. He writes:
"These College of Arms gentlemen, by way of recommendation, have begged me to allow them to apply for some emblems of victory in the armorial bearings, to commemorate supposed services. I have civilly informed them that I will see them damned first and should they apply to you on the subject, remind them of my determination. Under our happy rules of Government and of society a gentleman is expected to conduct himself with the exertion belonging to principle whatever his calling may be, and perhaps one of a man's first personal attentions should he, by proper restraint, neither to show himself off nor allow other people from folly and sinister motives to do so."

555
That is the Pakenham tradition and that has been the tradition of your Lordships' House, as I hope to show you, for a very long time past. It certainly was the tradition of this House in those days, and I believe it yet to be so. If you look down the history of our House you will find some exceptions—you will always find exceptions to that. I suppose the one that leaps to the eye is Lord Byron and, although I am not sure about him, Lord Brougham might be in the same category. But if you look for exceptions you will find it extraordinarily hard to find them and you will find these rules of behaviour confirmed for very far in the past. I am personally certain, in spite of our own very much swollen numbers and in spite of the fact that a whole generation of your Lordships has lacked the father (who had been killed) to educate them, that if you were to look round the numbers of this House to-day you would find the same principle upheld—with possibly a few exceptions, and those exceptions negligible.
I am open to this argument against me. The noble Earl may possibly say: "This is very nice; but it is only an idea of Lord Saltoun. He has no evidence to show that this really is a principle". I have the fact itself, which is sufficiently notorious and which you can prove for yourselves. It is not a matter in which it is very easy to get written evidence because your predecessors rarely left any documentary evidence and such productions would naturally be tainted. In any case, in the past we have not had the habit, which I am afraid I look upon as a pernicious habit, of perpetually talking about ourselves. But it does happen that I can produce written evidence, and that of the very best quality.
Many of your Lordships will know that in the year 1509, or very shortly after, when Henry VIII first came to the Throne, Erasmus paid one of his numerous visits to Britain. He was the greatest scholar in Europe and was visiting a very cultured and learned Court and a King who probably was the best educated King in Europe. He had a great many friends; he had travelled a lot about England. He had been to Oxford, he had dined at Magdalen,
556
hunted with a pack which I presume was the forerunner of the Heythrop, lectured at Cambridge and his particular friend in England was Lord Mountjoy. He was a very tactful and pleasant companion and very many of your Lordships' predecessors were among his friends and associates. His letters about England and English things have been freely plundered by every student of the history of the time—and very rightly so; because he was an extremely acute and accurate observer.
One of his letters was on the subject of your Lordships and in it he expressed his surprise at the complete absence of any pretension or desire to show off exhibited by the Peers of England. He adds that it makes them the most conversible people in the world; and he also adds that it would be a mistake to allow this easy conversation to betray you into any presumption or impertinence, because they were able to set you in your place more quickly and better than any other people.
That is very good evidence that from the time of Henry VIII, at least, this was a rule of this House, a rule of your Lordships' behaviour. I am bound to say that I think it is a very difficult task that we set our Committee when we tell them to combine the best way of showing ourselves off by means of television, without trespassing on the old, ancient standards of your Lordships' conduct. I do not say it is impossible; but I do think it is a task that requires a certain amount of dexterity; and for that reason thought it important to bring the matter to your Lordships' notice and especially to the notice of the Committee. I hope that it may strengthen my noble friend Lord Iddesleigh in any representations he may feel called upon to make to you; because if our cardinal principle is that a man's
"first personal attentions should be, by proper restraint, neither to show himself off nor allow other people …to do so",
I think the Committee has quite a difficult task.
I would add only one other point, which is this. I have been told that all those old standards have gone; that television is here and we have to make terms with it; that the world is changing every day and we have to make our account

557
with it; that all these old virtues are obstacles to people's careers. Well, I personally feel it is very wrong to think that any virtue obstructs a career. When I look back on my own life I feel it was not too much but too little virtue that obstructed my career. But if your Lordships have changed from that old code, if you have adopted a new code, then I say that a greater change has taken place in this House than has been directly effected by any Act of Parliament. I do not believe it has. I believe that your Lordships are still the same as you always were, and on that account I beg to move.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Select Committee on Televising the Proceedings of the House that they make no recommendation that is not in accord with the traditional dignity of the House.—(Lord Saltoun.)
3.50 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, while I cannot feel that there is any great danger that this very distinguished Committee will be likely to recommend something not in accord with the traditional dignity of this House, I should like just shortly to suggest that the Committee might profitably not be lulled too easily into accepting one suggestion which was made in the recent debate by a very large number of speakers, who seemed to think that something on the lines of the programme "Today in Parliament" could be transferred on to the television screen with separate speakers; and that that would be the answer to this problem. On reflection I cannot feel that, if that course were adopted, there would not he a danger that the traditional dignity of this House might be affected.
To take as an example last Monday's "Today in Parliament", I think that 36 or 37 separate speeches of Members of Parliament and Peers were quoted in the 14 minutes that that programme lasted. If you have a single voice on sound radio quoting excerpts from 37 separate speeches in 14 minutes, the result is a stimulating and interesting programme. But if that presentation were to be transferred on to the television screen, and there were quoted pithy extracts from the fifteen-minute speeches of 37 different Members of Parliament and Members of this House, I believe that the result would be something so far beyond the wildest dreams of the noble Lord, Lord Egre-
558
mont, that it would be a nightmare. I hope, therefore, in view of the many suggestions that were made in the debate that this would be the answer to this problem, that the Committee will consider that suggestion with very great care before they accede to it, because, on reflection, I cannot believe that is the answer to the problem.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I voted for the Motion because I thought we ought to be willing to be "with it". But I think that the labours of the Committee might be considerably lightened if they made it their own task to explore the financial angle, because it costs a good deal of money to televise everything, and it has been suggested to me that the resulting product would be very unlikely to be able to be commercially sold to either of the two organisations who could put it on the air. In fact, I was told that we grossly overvalue our public interest.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, may I support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, in three sentences? As your Lordships may perhaps know, I regard this proposal to televise our proceedings as most undesirable, and I have said so; but, if it has to be done, surely every care must be taken not to cheapen our proceedings, which is something I feel could quite easily happen. I heartily dislike this unholy union of Parliament and television, and I do not think that in the long run it will do us any good. But, at all events, let us hedge round any arrangements that are made with strict and binding safeguards. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, will press his Motion. I cannot believe that any noble Lord jealous of the reputation of this House will oppose it.
3.53 p.m.
LORD REAY: My Lords, despite the cultured and discursive dissertation of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, I must confess that I remain in some doubt as to what this Motion in fact means. If it reflects the opposition of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun—supported by the noble Earl, Lord Arran—to the principle of the televising of the proceedings of this House, surely there are other methods open to him to record his dissent than to require this House to give an instruc-

559
tion to the Committee. If it is simply a general reminder of the respect that is and should be owing to the dignity of this House, I should have thought that this was a moral recommendation which was probably harmless and probably unnecessary, except that perhaps one must make a concession to age, and I dare say that the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, might consider writing letters to members of the Committee who have not had 38 years' experience of this House.
If, on the other hand, this Motion contains a suggestion, however partial or implicit, that the television of any part of the proceedings of this House is undesirable, I suggest that such an instruction would be an improper one to pass on to the Committee, as it would run against the vote of this House on June 15, which favoured the televising of some of the proceedings of this House for an experimental period; and it is for the consideration of how that might best be implemented that this Committee has been established.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I oppose this Motion, not because of a principle, but simply because when you have a Committee of this size and eminence you cannot start by giving it an instruction. This is what the Committee is set up for, to consider all these problems, and we cannot tell them that they must behave themselves in this particular way.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, will not press his Motion. I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Reay, said, that if this is simply a moral exhortation to the Committee not to forget themselves or the traditions of the House, it is unnecessary; and it is in fact a reflection on the Committee, because it really must be assumed that this Committee is not likely to overlook the traditional dignity of the House. I cannot, if I may say so with respect to the noble Lord, accept the idea that a noble Lord who has been here only ten years is incapable of understanding the traditions of the House, whereas one who has been here longer (in my case twenty years) would understand rather better, and whereas some-
560
one like my dear friend the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, who has been here for 38 years, will understand them better still. One cannot weigh the sensitivity of Members of the House to the dignity of the House according to their years of service, so I would certainly reject that part of the argument.
If, on the other hand, it is an attempt to defeat or hamstring the effect of the Resolution of June 15, I would say that it is quite inconsistent with the Resolution which the House passed on that occasion, and to which they have just given effect by setting up a Select Committee. This is not a Party matter, as we all know, but if there are any noble Lords in this House who pay any attention to humble submissions of mine I hope, despite the great esteem we all bear for the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, that they will reject this proposal; though I am bound to say that I hope the noble Lord will not press it any further.
3.58 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am rather surprised at what the noble Earl has said, especially on this question of experience. Does he really mean to suggest that the act of introducing somebody into your Lordships' House causes him to spring, like Athene from the forehead of Zeus, fully-armed, knowing all the intricate customs and habits of your Lordships' House? Is that a kind of sacrament by which we confer such knowledge? I do not think that this is so at all. I think everybody in your Lordships' House remarked, as I did, that as a Committee of this kind it had very little experience of your Lordships' House. I was not sure, and I still am not sure, whether that was not deliberately done by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, because of some of his revolutionary ideas about your Lordships' House, as a means of carrying them into effect. I still am not at all sure about that. He has said nothing at all yet to encourage me on that. I have produced to him what is the ancient tradition of your Lordships' House, and the ancient tradition of his own family, and I think that is a very important thing for the Committee to have in mind.
If the noble Earl, Lord Arran, wishes to divide, I will certainly divide with him. But I am not anxious to press the matter

561
at this time, because I think that when the Committee reports will be the time for any opposition that we wish to make. But I am not at all happy about the attitude of the noble Earl the Leader of the House in this matter, and I shall remain in the hands of the noble Earl, Lord Arran, on whether we divide. I have said what I have to say, and I hope that any representations made in the Committee by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, will receive great attention, because nobody knows better than he does the ancient habits and traditions of our House.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I should like to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, that I do not think he will strengthen the point of his first speech, which I am sure will be read by the whole House, by proceeding to a Division. We have, after all, set up this Committee, and I find myself in agreement with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell. On the whole, if you set up a Committee and believe in it, then, however good the instruction may be, you do not give any instruction, because you credit the Committee with sense. I do not believe it is the desire of this House that we should divide on this point. The noble Lord has given us a most interesting speech; I think he has served us well by so doing, and that he will serve us equally well if he does not press his Motion to a Division, but asks to withdraw it.
On Question, Motion negatived.

SINGAPORE BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

MINISTRY OF SOCIAL SECURITY BILL
4.3 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I do not want to say a great deal about the Bill to-day, but I should like,
562
first, to thank noble Lords in general, on both sides of the House, for the constructive comments that have been made. Particularly, I would thank the noble Lords, Lord Drumalbyn and Lord Windlesham, not only for the way in which they have helped us in the consideration of the Bill at large, but for enabling us to improve its provisions in certain limited, though none the less important, respects.
The purpose of the Bill is one that we must all applaud. The new non-contributory benefits scheme will mean extra benefits for those who are now receiving National Assistance—people who by definition are among the less well-off members of the community. Then the new scheme is to be administered within the Ministry of Social Security, and this will mean an end to the separate and distinct nature of non-contributory payments, so that, in the long run, there will be a single pattern of offices dealing with the whole range of social security payments. Perhaps above all, the new scheme should—and we all hope will—mean that those old people who in the past have declined to accept National Assistance, though they could have had it, will in the future have no reason for holding back from claiming what is theirs by right, because the new supplementary pension to which they are entitled is so clearly set out in the Bill.
This Bill constitutes a thorough job of reform in the field of means-related benefits, but, as I have said, it will be an effective job of reform only if it removes, once and for all, reluctance and prejudice against claiming such benefits when one is entitled to them. This is why the new Ministry will be doing all it can, by means of an extensive publicity campaign in the national Press and elsewhere, to encourage old people to claim supplementary pensions. But Press publicity needs to be supplemented by the personal endeavour of all who are in touch with old people who are not so well off. I would therefore urge noble Lords, in the same way as did my right honourable friend in another place, and as I did at an earlier stage of the Bill, to take every opportunity to explain to the elderly in the months ahead what they can obtain as of right under the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Bowles.)
4.6 p.m.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I hope that I may be pardoned if I use the Third Reading of the Bill to ride a hobbyhorse of mine for a minute or two. I was unable to be present in your Lordships' House during most of the Committee stage of the Bill, and I was not here for any part of the Report stage. Therefore, it is only recently that I came across two words in the Bill that caused me some concern. They are on page 9, at line 33, and the two words are "illegitimate children". I am not concerned this afternoon to go into the principles of the Bill: I am completely convinced, as your Lordships all seem to be, that this is an extremely good Bill; and all of us who have represented constituencies in another place know the great value it will be to many of the poorer people in the community.
But with regard to these two words, my concern is that they are creeping into what will be a new Act of Parliament. My concern is that we continue in our country to use the term "illegitimate child". I have looked up the Oxford Dictionary, and I find that among the definitions of "illegitimate" are "not authorised by law"; "improper"; "abnormal"; "not born in lawful wedlock"; and the last definition, "bastard", has now become a swear word in our ordinary vocabulary. I cannot for the life of me see how, in this enlightened day, we should regard any child in our community as "not authorised by law". It may well be that the actions of the parents have not been authorised in a lawful way, but to tag this term on to any British child to-day seems to me to be a complete anachronism. I see nothing improper in the existence of a child who might have been born out of lawful wedlock.
In recent days we have had the Report of the Committee on the Law of Succession in relation to illegitimate persons. That very distinguished Committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Russell, has indicated that it is desirable, in the case of a test of parents, that illegitimate children shall be considered for the inheritence. I understand that legislation is to be enacted to cover that point. This proves that going through the minds of many people to-day is the thought that we ought to tackle the question of these two words. I read the other day (I think in The Times newspaper) that in one of
564
the Scandinavian countries the term was to be completely abolished in reference to the children of that country. I am concerned about the stigma which is constantly attached to children whom we call illegimate, and I believe that it is wrong that that term should be associated with any child to-day.
I had thought of trying to put down an Amendment to delete these words from the Bill. I confess that I was at a loss to find an alternative. I wondered whether it would be better to use the term, "born out of wedlock". But still that would stick, although I do not think it is nearly so bad as the term, "illegitimate". Because of my failure, which I confess, to find an alternative word, I must content myself, but I would ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the compilation and the drafting of future legislation, where this term might arise, they could search, through the activities of their learned draftsmen, and use the knowledge of Ministers of the Crown, to find some different term, so that these two words may cease to be part of the vocabulary of our country. Your Lordships will forgive me, but I feel rather strongly on this matter. This term, I think, is completely out of date in the second half of the twentieth century and I appeal to my noble friend to suggest to Ministers who may be concerned for the future to proceed along the lines I have tried to indicate.
4.13 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I do not intend to detain your Lordships for many moments this afternoon. But there are one or two matters appropriate, I think, to this stage of the Bill about which I should like to say something before we finally part with it. In a sense, this Bill represents something like a turning point in the administration of this service; indeed, I think it is not too much to say that it represents a turning point in the administration of the social services as a whole. The Bill recognises that it is not possible to administer this service without some form of means test, however disagreeable a means test may be.
Noble Lords on the opposite side of the Chamber, and their friends, long entertained the view that it was possible for a basic scale rate to be adequate to meet the needs of everybody. That was

565
an illusion which we inherited from Lord Beveridge. In this Bill we take leave of Lord Beveridge for good. The needs of individuals vary so widely that it is not possible for a uniform scale rate to meet the needs of all as we expect them to be met today. The scales which were recommended by Lord Beveridge in his Report were, as he said, scales which aimed at subsistence level, and nothing more than subsistence level. To-day, we have moved a long way from that. To-day the public would not accept a basic scale rate which aimed only at a subsistence level. We aim at something—and, indeed, have achieved—a good deal more than that.
But it is not practical administration to aim at something better than subsistence level unless the additional payment is paid after a means test. As I say, everyone to-day accepts the means test as an unavoidable condition of meeting adequately the needs of the poorest section of the population. Our task now, as the noble Lord said a moment ago, is to reconcile the public to the means test. Indeed, I hope that all of us will use such influence as we possess to induce persons who might otherwise be reluctant to do so to apply for the assistance to which they are entitled.
In achieving that result we might, I think, have had more help from some sections of the newspapers than we have had. When I was at the Assistance Board I used to read newspaper cuttings very freely. There was the case of a man who was charged with some trivial offence in the police court, and when the magistrates had convicted him and asked the police for the man's record, the police officer began by saying, "He is receiving National Assistance." It was not surprising that people came to look on National Assistance as something which was reserved for the work-shies, the "corner-boys", and all the rest of them. We did our best to disillusion them, and I think we achieved a measure of success. But it would have been a much easier task if we had had the help and assistance of some sections—and I emphasise "some sections"—of the newspapers. To-day, of course, a means test outside the field of this particular service is a very common thing. I suppose that all of us pass through a means test every year when our income tax is assessed. There is a means test for education
566
grants and, if the Minister of Housing and Local Government has been correctly reported, there will soon be something very like a means test for municipal houses.
I welcome the proposals which the Bill contains for administering the means test. It will be possible for people to make an application in writing, if they desire to do so. No doubt there will be some who will prefer to apply in this way. The present method of obtaining the information by a personal visit was introduced for the express purpose of meeting the difficulties that many people experience in filling up forms. However, there it is; and if it helps to overcome the reluctance to apply for help—and I hope that it will—I think we should all welcome it. Then they may have an interview at the Board's local office. That has always been possible, and many people to-day go to the office rather than have an official call at the house.
If this Bill facilitates applications, it will be a useful contribution to the successful working of this service, but I do not myself believe that it is the application for assistance, or indeed the name "National Assistance", as is so often said, which prevents people from making application. I think the fundamental reason is that the payment is made after a means test. I believe there is some support for my view in the experience which the local authorities are having of administering the rate rebates which it is now possible for them to make. I have been told that the local authorities have found that only about half the persons who are probably entitled to rate rebates have made any application for them. Rate rebates, of course, are given after a means test, and I am afraid that to some extent supports my view that it is the condition of the means test which discourages people from applying for help. I hope I am wrong in this, and I am glad to hear the noble Lord say that the Department concerned—the new Ministry of Social Security—will pursue those methods of publicity which I tried to follow when I was there, and that they will overcome the objection to the means test and perhaps lessen the feeling which I believe to be present to-day among persons who refrain from applying for the help to which they are entitled.

567
I have very little more to say. I would say a word about the survey of the financial and other circumstances of retirement pensions which is being produced by the Ministry of National Insurance with the assistance of the National Assistance Board. I think there is some misunderstanding in people's minds about the numbers of persons who are entitled to assistance but who are refraining from applying. The survey shows that although there are 710,000 households, representing something like 850,000 pensioners who have some title to assistance, they are not all, by any means, without resources or living in poverty. From this figure of 710,000 households there has to be deducted those for whom the gap between their needs and their resources is bridged by some other form of resource. It may be a disregarded source; or it may be, again, that they are living with relatives who supply many of the things which the householder would normally have to purchase himself; or, again, it may be, as the report shows, that many of them possess some small capital resources and are not making application until those resources are exhausted.
When account is taken of all those classes of person, the report concludes that the actual number of persons who appear to be living on the pension without assistance and to have no other resources is only 85,000. Of course, 85,000 is a large number, and we should like to see those 85,000 persons, if they possess no other resources, assisted by the new Ministry of Social Security. But out of the very large number of old age pensioners in the country to-day, I think the authorities have not done too badly if they have reduced the number of those who possess no resources except the pension to a figure of 85,000. All sorts of figures have been mentioned, and I regret to say that when the Election was in sight the number tended to increase. Indeed, I read one speech during the Election in which it was claimed that over a million persons were living on the pension without other resources. That certainly was an exaggeration. I think the noble Lord himself mentioned a figure of 200,000 in the Second Reading debate. It is important to appreciate what this survey has actually disclosed, and I think that, on
568
the whole, the authorities are not to be blamed if the numbers have been reduced to as low as 85,000.
That is all I desire to say. I welcome this Bill; I hope it will succeed. I hope that in the rather dismal forecast which I have made about some aspects of it I shall be proved to be wrong and that this Bill will overcome those tantalising and difficult problems with which I struggled when I was at the National Assistance Board.
4.25 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think the House is fortunate to have the benefit of the advice of the noble Lord who has played such a distinguished part in meeting the need: I refer to my noble friend, Lord Ilford, who for ten years was Chairman of the National Assistance Board. This Bill, of course, spells the end of the National Assistance Board. As the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, has said, the Bill is designed to meet need in a new way, and we welcome that very much indeed.
There have been many lengthy debates on various subjects in the course of the passage of this Bill through this House, and for my part I would only repeat one or two questions which I asked and which, if I may say so, have not been fully answered. The first of them is this. I asked whether Clause 17(3) was still considered to be apt for its purpose. That is the clause which says:
"Where it appears to the Commission that it is necessary for protecting the interests of a claimant or of his dependants that the whole or part of the benefit should be issued to some other person, or where the claimant so requests, they may determine that it shall be so issued."
I gave my reasons for thinking that it might be held that the clause did not cover every case where a payment of this kind might be made by the Board direct to some other person. This arose out of the debate on payments to landlords. The noble Lord gave me an answer then, but I think it was his intention at that time to look further into the matter, and I hope that, after the further consideration which has no doubt been given, he will be able to give me a further reply on that point.
The second point I wanted to raise arose out of the debate which we had at

569
the end of the Committee stage, when we were talking about the payments to be made by persons in residential accommodation. I would ask whether the local authorities have the power to accept voluntary payments from a person in residential accommodation over and above the amounts existing under Section 22(5) of the National Assistance Act and in accordance with Part III of Schedule 2 to this Bill. I have come across cases where people have been anxious, for conscientious or generous reasons or other reasons, to make payments over and above their legal liabilities, and it has been found that such payments cannot be accepted. That is why I asked this question, because I think that in some cases people in residential accommodation who feel that they can afford to pay the full amount might wish to do so.
From those minor points I come to two more significant points. Emphasis has been laid, quite rightly, on the part that the Bill is designed to play in drawing those who are not at present receiving National Assistance although entitled to it into the ambit of National Assistance under its new name. I should like to ask broadly—I admit this is in a way a rhetorical question—whether the measures in this Bill will be effective in getting the great majority of those elderly people who would receive assistance if they applied for it, people who are already past pension age, to come forward and apply for it. This, of course, as I say, is a rhetorical question and a question to which time alone can provide the answer. But I would say it is one thing to confer a right, and it is quite a different thing to get people to exercise it.
We discussed at an earlier stage whether a duty should be laid upon people to take these benefits. I am sure that would not be right. Even if we placed this duty on people, I cannot conceive there would be any means of enforcing it or ensuring that they performed the duty. But there will still undoubtedly be people who, given the other income which can be disregarded, as stated in the report on the financial and other circumstances of retirement pensioners, feel that they can manage on what they have and prefer to do so.
570
The two measures in the Bill that are designed to encourage people to apply seem to me to be, first of all, the change of name of the present National Assistance allowances to supplementary pensions; and, secondly, the consolidation of the discretionary payments for special need into the addition of 9s. to the basic requirements. I think it is right to ask whether these measures will be effective in getting the great majority of elderly people to apply. There are, of course, the administrative steps, one of which my noble friend has referred to, and there are also the single payment books to cover both contributory and non-contributory benefits, and the steps to be taken to ensure that as everyone reaches entitlement age he or she is told of entitlement to non-contributory benefits if their resources fall below a certain level. To that the noble Lord has added this afternoon a statement that there is to be a national advertising campaign when the scheme comes into operation. That I am glad to hear, and I am sure that everyone will respond to his invitation to encourage people to make application wherever they feel they may.
All these steps are well suited to encourage those who have not yet reached retirement age to claim non-contributory benefit if they are entitled to it; but in themselves, apart from the national advertising campaign—and I am not certain how much that will do—they will do nothing to help those already past retirement age to claim if they are entitled to claim. I would say that we still regret that a clear duty on the Government is not laid down in the Bill to seek out such people. The inquiry into the financial and other circumstances of retirement pensioners by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance—if I may correct a verbal slip of my noble friend, I believe he said the Ministry of Housing and Local Government—showed that, of retirement pensioners, over one-third did not know or understand they were entitled to help, and that over one-fifth did not apply because of pride or dislike of charity. The only way, it seems to me, to get such people to apply is to seek them out and explain the situation to them. This has to be done by someone, and of course literature distributed to ministers of religion, doctors and to social workers can help a good deal.

571
At this stage I would refer to the point made by my noble friend Lord Windlesham regarding the literature. One of the most difficult things for people who are very closely associated with the subject is to make a clear statement to people who know nothing about it. This, I think, applies to the staffs of Ministries. It is a good thing for officials in Departments to inform others, intermediaries if you like, expert at dealing with the public, and let them put out the information that they obtain in a manner which can be clearly understood by the public; I commend my noble friend's suggestion to the Ministry. I know this is done to a certain extent, but I think it can be done more than it is.
I would make the point that the people who are covered by the inquiry were all retired pensioners, and I suspect that a much higher proportion of non-pensioners entitled to supplements but not receiving them need to have explained to them that there is no shame attached to an Exchequer subsidy of this kind, especially where their resources have been eroded by inflation. What we have felt, I think, is that not sufficient provision has been made in the Bill to deal with this particular aspect; that is, for those who are not receiving retirement pension, those who are not on the books, of whom there is no record. It seems to me that this is the weak point of the Bill.
The other main question is this, and it is a question which perhaps has not been sufficiently probed, although I referred to it on Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Sorensen had a lot of points to answer, and I do not blame him for not giving me an answer at that time. But do the Government regard the relationship between non-contributory and contributory benefit which the Bill establishes to be the correct one? The noble Lord claimed that this Bill is one step of a series of changes designed to bring our social security system up to date; first, the earnings related benefits for the unemployed and the sick; now this. The noble Lord has indicated that the Government intend in due course to introduce the third step in the trilogy, one which had not been planned by the previous Government, unlike the earnings related benefit for the unemployed—that is, the earnings related pension scheme.
572
In this Bill the Government have raised the basic requirements just above the level of contributory benefit. In practice any pensioner whose resources fall short of basic requirements plus rent will receive a bonus of 9s., as I understand it. I do not think we have ever had from the Government an explanation of why they have raised the non-contributory basic requirements above the contributory level of benefits, or what it portends for the future. I might ask whether they have done it for the same reasons as in the past. National Assistance rates have occasionally risen above National Insurance levels. The reason was that the cost of living had risen since the National Insurance benefits were last increased, and it has often been the practice, in the interval between the increases in National Insurance benefit, to raise National Assistance benefit. That might be one reason. Or do they consider that non-contributory benefits should be above basic contributory benefits? If so, do they intend to increase the disparity in favour of non-contributory benefits, or do they intend to maintain the relationship established by this Bill? Or, quite simply, have they not yet made up their minds?
The Bill throws into relief this question of fixing the level of National Assistance, whatever you like to call it, because under Section 6 of the National Assistance Act it is for the National Assitance Board to prepare and submit to the Minister draft regulations as to the computation of requirements and resources, and for the Minister to make regulations—and I quote:
"either in the form of the draft as submitted, or with such variations and amendments as he thinks fit."
This Bill lays down the requirements and empowers the Minister to alter them by regulations. The effect of the change is, I think, an important one. It is that, at least in form, the calculation of requirements, the fixing of the basic scales, is taken out of the hands of the non-political body and put into those of a politician.
There has in the past been considerable pressure for the minimum living standards to be determined by an outside impartial body in relation to certain price and economic indicators, and of course the same argument has been

573
applied to the National Insurance pension. In practice, the National Assistance level has never varied widely from the National Insurance pension. There was a period, from 1952 onwards, when the National Assistance level was above the National Insurance pension, the National Insurance pension having fallen back in the years prior to 1951. In this Bill the two are brought into line, although retirement pensioners and those who have been out of the employment field for more than two years are, as I have said, given an extra 9s. to cover special needs.
We may disagree about the way in which people should be encouraged or enabled to make provision for themselves in their old age without recourse to the Exchequer, whether through the State-organised scheme or through private provisions of one sort or another. But what I think we all consider a desirable objective is that people should make such provision in some way, and that, to the extent they do so, as time goes on the need for Exchequer supplementation under this Bill should be considerably diminished. What seems important is that we should find some means of avoiding in the future political wrangles as to the level to which increases should be raised by Exchequer assistance. What I am asking is whether the Government consider that the level now reached is the right level in relation to National Insurance, and, if so, how they propose to maintain it. It seems inevitable that for some time to come there should be disagreement about the nature of National Insurance provision, but I believe it to be wholly undesirable that the level of immediate needs should be a matter for vote-catching, because we are all anxious that minimum needs should be met. As standards of living rise, so the living standards should be raised. Surely, in this scientific age we can deal with the problem of that level, and what the level should be at any particular time, in a scientific way.
I would conclude by saying that we have given this Bill a welcome, and we are glad that, despite the economic circumstances, the Government are giving financial help for the poorest and the weakest. I personally still regret that the Government have felt it necessary to do away with the distinction between
574
contributory and non-contributory benefits. I hope that we all share the objective that people should be encouraged to make provision for themselves without recourse to Exchequer supplements. I also hope that we all share the view that those who are unable to provide for themselves a sufficient amount without recourse to Exchequer supplements should not hesitate to have recourse to them. I do not think that the removal of the distinction contributes to that end. I believe that this is a blemish on an otherwise good Bill.
I hope that the noble Lord will be able to deal with these points. I consider that the last point that I have raised is an important one, and his reply on it will give some indication for the future of what are the Government's ideas for the planning of social security services. I have little doubt that, as time goes on, the objectives indicated in our Manifesto, that there should be one broad service looking after social security, to include insurance, other pensions, industrial injuries and health, will all be brought together with suitable provision for their administration. I believe that this is the objective to work for. I believe that the Government are now taking a step in that direction, and to the extent that they are taking that step we welcome it.
4.46 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, we have had a most interesting Third Reading debate, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in it. First of all, may I say to my noble friend Lord Royle, who raised the question of the words "illegitimate children", that, as he knows, this point was raised on Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Soper. The difficulty is that this is a rather smaller piece of legislation than the substantive legislation, and I think it would be quite inappropriate in a Bill of this kind to change the wording, as has been suggested. It needs to be looked at in a much wider sense, and probably some general consolidation legislation may in the future be introduced which would cover the point raised by my noble friends.
My noble friend Lord Sorensen whispered to me that the phrase "natural children" is sometimes used. That might be better and less offensive

575
than "illegitimate children" or "bastards". But that is a matter to which no doubt—and I can promise this—the Government will give serious consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, in his most helpful, useful and learned speech, referred to the means test and compared it with the means test in the old days. I think that if he casts his mind back he will realise that what we really objected to most was the family means test. I dare say the noble Lord will remember that in the old days they used to search around to see whether a person had a sister or an aunt or somebody who could be called upon to keep him, rather than let him have assistance. That is a principle to which we strongly objected, and we still do. But I think we have all come round to the idea that a means test for the individual who is seeking supplementary benefit for himself is at the moment the only sensible and correct test which we can apply and of which I think society as a whole would approve. In those circumstances, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the point. I see that he is nodding assent; he rather agrees with what I am saying.
I was interested that he should have read to us the figures showing the reduction in numbers to 85,000 of pensioners who live solely on their old age pensions. As he said, this shows how thoroughly the work of the officers of the Board has been carried out. It also shows, from the figures I gave, and which he also mentioned, that of 850,000 pensioners entitled to assistance, perhaps one-tenth of the households are living solely on their pensions, which shows that these people are really being sought out thoroughly. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will see in these figures some answers to the points that he has raised and which have been rather worrying him through each of the stages of this Bill. The noble Lord raised the question of Clause 17(3), about which we had a long debate on the last occasion. The Government are satisfied that that subsection is quite appropriate for its purpose. I shall be glad to write to the noble Lord in more detail as to the point he raised about payments to be made to local authorities by people in residential accommodation. I am not at the moment
576
in a position during this Third Reading debate to go into sufficient detail to satisfy the noble Lord's very critical mind.
I must make it quite clear that Her Majesty's Government are as anxious as anybody, and certainly as keen as the noble Lord, to see that the people entitled to supplementary pensions are sought out. In fact, the main objectives of this Bill are first of all to get rid of the words "National Assistance", then to have the one book, and then to get everybody we possibly can to try to draw these matters to the attention of the old people who are not drawing all they are entitled to. We feel that every form of publicity should be given so that they may know their rights, emphasising that there is no shame involved in this and that in fact it is foolish for them not to draw what they are entitled to. The sort of attitude "I am entitled to another 5s. a week, or whatever it may be, but I am not going to take it" seems not like normal human nature. It may well be that in time any sneer or smear in relation to National Assistance will be lost sight of.
I have already mentioned many times the question of publicity; I have drawn attention to the advertising campaign and have made other statements about this at various times. There is going to be a national campaign this autumn; this is the only way we can reach non-pensioners. The noble Lord will be interested to know that it is also intended that every retirement pensioner, whatever his age, shall receive a leaflet in the autumn explaining the new supplementary pension. The explanatory leaflet will be handed over to pensioners when they collect their pensions at the Post Office during a particular week in the autumn.
As to the question raised by the noble Lord about the future relationship between contributory and non-contributory benefits, this raises major questions of policy on which the noble Lord would not expect me to pronounce this afternoon. He made a long speech, and I shall not now try to answer it all in detail. I will write to him on any points that I may have overlooked, because the House wants to get on to other business. But I can assure the House that his speech, as all speeches which have been made from all parts of the House, will be borne in mind when it comes to preparing the next step in the social security

577
legislation. We want to learn from one another in these debates. It does not matter which Party knowledge comes from, whether Conservative, Labour, the Cross-Benches or Independent—whoever it may be, we want as much information, advice and help from noble Lords as possible, so that when we come to prepare the next Bill in the march forward in social security we shall be able to do even better than we have this time.
On Question, Bill read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

THE ESTATE AGENTS' PROFESSION
4.55 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider any, and if so what, steps should be taken to regulate the estate agents profession. The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is indeed an honour that an Unstarred Question should come before the House at such an early stage of the day; in fact, many Members of the House might almost regard it as a half-day. Before I explain my purpose in putting down this Unstarred Question on the control of estate agents, perhaps I should disclose that part of my professional work is connected with estate agency business. Having said that, I should like also to say that the Question is asked wholly at my own instigation, and not on behalf of any of the professional bodies. It is a subject which I believe is in need of the most urgent legislation, and I very much hope that when the noble Lord comes to reply he will, first of all, be able to assure the House that the Government recognise the urgency of the problem; secondly, that the Government accept the responsibility that any legislation which comes forward should be in the form of a Government Bill and not a Private Member's Bill; and, lastly, that they will introduce such legislation in the very near future.
It is no exaggeration to say that the reform of the estate agency profession has been discussed in Parliament for almost as long as the reform of your Lordships'House—and, indeed, if I may say so, it has not had such rapid or such marked success. Over eighty years ago, in 1880, the first Bill was introduced
578
to control the practice of estate agents and was rejected. Since then four Bills have been introduced, namely, in 1913, 1923, 1963 and January of this year, 1966, all of which foundered. On top of that, a Select Committee of your Lordships' House was set up in 1935 to study the existing laws regarding estate agents.
I have studied the reasons why, so far, no legislation has come forward, and I think it comes down to four basic reasons: first, that until January, 1966, no Government of the day would accept the responsibility for any legislation on the matter, taking the view that estate agents should put their own house in order; secondly, that there was a strong suspicion from members outside the professional bodies that any legislation would bring about a "closed shop" and would be for the benefit of the professional members more than for the benefit of the public; thirdly, that the professional bodies themselves, up to 1963, could never agree on the form which any legislation should take, and lastly, and perhaps most important of all, that people considered estate agency not as a profession but purely as a commercial venture which should be entitled to the same amount of commercial freedom as other commercial ventures enjoy.
The House will be aware that the job of an estate agent is to buy, sell, value or manage urban and rural property. It is an immensely variable profession. At one moment one is discussing the sale of a small residential flat, and at the next one might be discussing the sale of the Hilton Hotel. On another day one will be collecting rents, and on yet another day will be valuing a client's reversionary interest in a property. All this requires knowledge beyond just the knowledge of the market value of property. It requires a knowledge of the law of the land, the law of contract, the law of landlord and tenant, the law of town and country planning, and a knowledge of building construction. The estate agent often finds himself in the unique and responsible position of advising on what to most people is the most important investment in their lives, their home. I suggest that the estate agent's job requires the highest integrity, and there is no doubt in my mind that an estate agency can be regarded only as a profession and, like other professions, should be governed by statutory authority. Yet it is well-known to your

579
Lordships that at present there is absolutely no control over estate agency, and the gate is wide open.
There are roughly three categories of estate agencies: first, the members of the professional bodies, such as the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and the Chartered Land Agents' Society, who are bound by their own professional codes. Then, secondly, there are what I call the part-timers—the architects, the solicitors and the accountants. Again, they are bound by their professional codes. Lastly, there is the group, varying from the honest to the dishonest, who are not bound by any code of conduct, and this category of course attracts both the scrupulous and the unscrupulous person, those with or without integrity and with or without any proper knowledge of their work. There are to-day over 30,000 estate agents practising in this country, of which about one-third come in the last category, and it is this body which has brought the profession into such disrepute.
It is interesting to note that complaints against estate agents are to-day very similar to the complaints that were made in 1935, before the Select Committee of your Lordships'House—misappropriation of deposit funds, the charging of unwarrantable fees well over the professional scales, mock auctions and incompetence. All of these occur to-day as they did in 1935 and they will continue to occur, to the hardship of innocent people, until something is done. The only difference now from 1935 is that in 1935 auctioneers and house agents had to take out an annual licence, and the Select Committee then recommended that power should be given to withdraw those licences if there was evidence of malpractice. This recommendation could not be carried out to-day because the licences were abolished in 1948.
Abuses in conduct by estate agents vary from sheer dishonesty to just incompetent practice. The most common dishonest practice, and one about which one reads almost weekly and certainly monthly, is that the agent disappears with the deposit funds of clients. I have not been able to establish an accurate figure of the number of cases of dishonest agents, but I assure the House that the frequency of court cases is very disturbing and perhaps even more disturbing is the number
580
of unknown cases which never reach the courts. On the question of incompetence, the damage that can result from bad or unscrupulous advice can, of course, be immense. By putting money into their house people are often putting at risk their entire life savings, and if they lose part of that capital as a result of poor advice there is usually very little they can do.
There is one point which I should like to raise with the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, to-day, and that is what the energetic Minister of Housing suggested some months ago in regard to local councils setting up their own estate agencies. If this should come about, I believe it will be a most serious infringement of the livelihoods of all those engaged in full-time estate agency. It would open the door, I suggest, to a free service of, say, solicitors and barristers and any other profession one cares to name. It would be a most costly operation to the ratepayers, and altogether thoroughly impracticable. I would appreciate the noble Lord's comments on this, and should like to know whether, in fact, it is the Government's intention to press forward with this idea.
As I said at the beginning, in the past three years, there have been two private Bills on this subject, both introduced in another place and both sponsored by the professonal bodies. The intention of each Bill was to enforce the registration of estate agents, to lay down a standard of competence and conduct, and to set up a compensation fund for the benefit of the public. The first Bill foundered on its Second Reading when it was talked out. The second Bill, considered in January of this year, was amended to embrace the arguments of those opposed to the first Bill, and it duly received a Second Reading in another place. At that time the Government spokesman gave his official blessing with these words:
"that is a subject in which the Government recognise that we have a responsibility to legislate. Indeed, if the Government were not already committed to a very large legislative programme, we ourselves might have wished to introduce a Bill on the subject."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Commons, Vol. 723. col. 627; 28/1/66.]
The Bill then went to Committee, but was lost when the General Election was called. So one might say that, but for Parliamentary procedure, this Bill could well be on the Statute Book now.
It is no secret that the two Private Bills sponsored by the professional bodies have cost those bodies over £15,000 of their voluntary funds, and I would now suggest that it is the Government's turn to take up that last Bill and find time to see it through all its stages. Since the General Election the professional bodies have again been pressing the Government to take action. The latest position, as I have read from a Press statement—and, perhaps, the noble Lord will confirm this later—is that the professional bodies have apparently accepted that there is no room in Government legislation for such a Bill at the present time. So what they have suggested is setting up a voluntary estate agents' council at their own expense, if the Board of Trade will give it its official blessing.
I have lead that the council would prepare a standard of conduct and would eventually issue licences to all its members, and request them to take out fidelity bonds. Members would in turn enjoy the privilege of displaying a Board of Trade insignia to the public, and then, through consistent publicity, it is hoped that the public would be educated to deal only with members of this council. But much as one welcomes this move of the professional bodies, it is surely only an expensive compromise and would merely delay the taking of legislative action by the Government, which is their clear duty. The proposed council, because of its voluntary nature, would have no control over the very fish it wishes to net—that is, the unscrupulous agents—and those agents would continue to go unharmed. The success of the council would entirely depend on the public's reaction and response.
The case for reform of the estate agents' profession has been discussed, as I have said, for over eighty years, and I believe that now the case is undisputed that reform should take place. I would ask the Government to-day why it is, when they accepted responsibility for legislation last January, and when they accepted that it was clearly in the public interest that control should be enforced, they are still dragging their feet. I should be grateful if, when the noble Lord comes to reply, he would give the House a clear indication of when the Government intend to bring forward this legislation, legislation which
582
I submit is both important and long overdue.
5.8 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I rise to add just a few words to what the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has said on this subject, and I am speaking to-day as the Chairman of the Consumer Council. I am going to put to your Lordships' House some of the comments which the Council have made, and I know that in what I say to-day I have their support.
I think the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has made a very strong case for doing something in this very important matter. My Council became involved in this subject only in connection with the Bill which, in another place, was supported very strongly by the members of all Parties, and which was taken a long way in the last Parliament. So far did it get that, as the noble Earl has said, if it had not been for the Dissolution of Parliament I feel fairly confident that the Bill would by now have been law.
In connection with the advice which we were asked to give and the inquiries which the Council made, we consulted a great number of different bodies—the estate agents' societies, of which there are a considerable number; chartered surveyors; and an important survey, made by the Research Institute for Consumer Affairs, known as RICA, which made a survey on estate agents. All that we could discover has been most ably recounted by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and we felt very strongly that the Bill which had been presented in another place was a good Bill. It was one which we should have liked to see go through Parliament, and we think there is a strong case for legislation.
There are just one or two comments I should like to make. The chartered bodies would like a minimum standard of professional competence, and also the registration of estate agents. The Consumer Council was not opposed to the registration of estate agents provided that a sufficient number of the public were members of the registration council. Under the last Bill, the number representing the professional bodies and the estate agents was greatly in excess of the number representing the general public—the consumers, one might say, of the

583
service provided by estate agents. By putting some pressure upon those who were interested in the Bill, we got them to agree to a larger number of representatives of the public on the registration council. This, I think, would have made the registration council an effective and a fair body.
The inquiry by RICA, to which I have referred, showed that among many estate agents there was a lack of knowledge as to the qualifications and standards necessary for the practice of estate agency, and it revealed a number of matters to which the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has alluded and which I think build up a good case for some legislation. On the question of registration, we were concerned that there should be representation of the general public: otherwise we felt we might be creating a closed shop on the registration council which could militate against the public interest.
A question was raised about maximum charges, and my Council, on going into this matter carefully, thought that this would be a mistake, since limiting charges might create some kind of monopoly. As a matter of fact, at the present moment the fees which are charged by estate agents are being reviewed by the Monopolies Commission, and my Council may possibly be giving evidence in this matter. In any case, we were not in favour of maximum charges being laid down, because, in practice, as one knows, maximum charges can very easily become minimum charges, and there may be a certain amount of abuse. It is interesting that in Scotland the buying and selling of houses is often done through solicitors without the aid of estate agents, and with apparent success.
I think that if the Government are interested in this subject, as I hope they are, they will realise that it is one in which the protection of the public is urgently needed. I did not know until I heard the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, how many times legislation had been brought forward in the last eighty years, and how long this matter had been under discussion. To-day, when the buying and selling of houses is done on a very considerable scale, and when, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has said, young people just starting their
584
married lives are probably putting a considerable proportion of their savings into buying a house which may have to last them a great many years, it is very important that they should have some protection from the dishonest members of the house agents' profession.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that we are not saying that the house agents' profession as such is not an honest profession—I am quite sure it is—but there are a certain number of house agents (I think he gave the figure of one-third) whose standards we should not consider to be right or proper, and of whom the public may very often be victims. So I hope that the Government will take this matter seriously and that we shall have some legislation for the protection of the public.
5.16 p.m.
LORD MITCH1SON: My Lords, I am sure we have all listened with great interest and a good deal of gratitude to the speeches of the noble Earl who put this Question and the noble Baroness, who put forward the views of the Consumer Council as well as her own views. My Lords, there was in fact one piece of legislation which did get through. The trouble with house agents has been very largely in the big towns, and particularly in London. Indeed, for some years after the war jokes about house agents almost reached the status of the old music-hall jokes about mothers-in-law and cheeses; and there was a great deal of work which, although one would not call it actually dishonest, was in some cases pretty inefficient and resulted in people paying house agents for something they never got. What they wanted was a house. They may have got many other things, but not that.
In 1953, the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, introduced in another place a Private Member's Bill which finally became the Accommodation Agencies Act of that year. It was introduced as an Act of limited duration, and perhaps the best testimony to the need for it, and to its usefulness, is that it has been continued from year to year; and I think I am right in saying that it is still in force. It has not been a dead letter; there have been occasional prosecutions under it. I refer to the Act because I think it illustrates as well as anything can the sort of

585
difficulty one is in when dealing with this kind of question. I am not going to read the Act out, short though it is, but its Title described it as
"An Act to prohibit the taking of certain commissions in dealings with persons seeking houses or flats to let and the unauthorised advertisement for letting of houses and flats."
I think that indicates the kind of mischief that the Act was intended to meet.
As I say, it seems to have had, within that rather limited field, considerable success, and I think the existence of legislation of this kind raises the question that was behind both the speeches we have just heard: assuming that there is something wrong, who is the right person, and what is the right machinery, to deal with it? In this particular case Parliament itself went into the matter. The Act does not go into any great detail, but it goes into sufficient detail to enable criminal prosecutions to be laid and to enable people to know what they can do within the law. It goes, for instance, among other things, into the question of the solicitor who, whether in England or in Scotland (for the Act applies to Scotland as well as to England), is, in effect, an agent for dealing with houses.
For many years, of course, hairdressers badly wanted to be registered—and they had a case. They said that it was essential to have clean hairdressers. They said: "We ought to be controlled to some extent; and we ourselves are the best people to do it". But such a situation may result—and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, very fairly pointed it out—in those who are already in the profession keeping out others who might be good recruits to it.
I am not saying this in any critical spirit, but the person referred to as an estate agent may be all kinds of person—I think that came out from the speech that we have just heard. He may be a member of a chartered body, with considerable standing, claiming that his, at any rate, is a profession. But there are other people, doing the same kind of thing, as a rule on a smaller scale, and in a different sort of way, whom I think one would hardly describe as professional people; yet they are estate agents. One has to ensure that no useful and honest activity in this sphere, even though it is on a small scale, is ruled out for lack of professional qualifications. I was not greatly
586
impressed by the amount of law that estate agents are supposed to know; because I rather doubt whether, as a rule, they do know it. Whether that is so or not, it is a difficult matter to lay down the right standards.
Then it is said that the profession, or (to use a neutral word) calling, can do it for themselves. I doubt it in a case of this kind. What they tend to do is just what the noble Baroness described. I did not know of the particular case she mentioned; but I guessed that that is what would happen. They wanted to set up a controlling body, with a few members of the public and a great many of themselves. An alternative would be to put in somebody from the Board of Trade, but as a rule the Board of Trade "will not play". I do not know what my noble friend the Minister is going to say about it; but this idea has been tried also in another calling. We have recently had a move by travel agents to get something of this sort done. Travel agents, again, are a very mixed collection of people. Some are much better and more efficient than others; some, I am afraid, have recently been hauled up in criminal proceedings.
My Lords, one cannot expect a body of that very mixed character, whether they are hairdressers, estate agents or travel agents, to deal with the matter for themselves. The question is whether a body with powers to let people into and out of the calling is the right sort of body. All I want to say on this is that in this particular case I think it might prove extremely difficult to get a satisfactory body from within the calling. I notice that Parliament itself, as the noble Earl pointed out, has taken the responsibility of, at any rate, looking into the matter and, in the particular case I have just mentioned, the Act of 1953, laying down some guidance to prevent abuse. That seems to me to be one possibility that might usefully be considered. But I must say to the noble Earl, having spent a certain number of years in another place, that I should not reckon as very high his chances of getting Government time for a Bill of this sort. It is not possible in Parliament as it is nowadays to deal with everything, but there is machinery for Private Members' Bills (of which the 1953 Act was an instance)

587
which enables things to be done in that way where there is a broad measure of agreement.
I do not agree that this matter ought to be kept out of the purview of the local authorities. It seems to me to be a great mistake to try to deal with the changing of hands of houses of one kind in the council office—as they have to deal not only with council houses but also with the other accommodation which almost any council in a big town must have at its disposal—and the dealing with exchanges or sales of houses in private hands. I think, therefore, that while one ought not to say that the local authority is necessarily the one right body to deal with every case it would be an advantage if, as my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing seems to have suggested, there were arrangements at the town hall for something of this sort to be done.
I do not expect to carry the noble Earl with me, but I am sure that he will be the first person to recognise that the more reputable we can make the business altogether, the better, in the long run, it will be for the profession. It seems to me that they will have plenty to do. I do not think the councils are going to take the bread out of their mouths or the fees out of their pockets. The transactions vary, from the sale of a very large house—with which a local authority is hardly likely to be concerned—to the rather small transaction where, again, these estate agents may not be concerned. I am thinking of cases where people may be hunting to find the kind of house they require, and do not know how to do it—the sort of business that depends on advertising in tobacconists' shops, and the like, which we know about all over London.
I hope, therefore, that when the societies and others, and the Consumer Council itself, are considering this matter they will, if I may say so with deference, remember (as I am sure they will) that this is a very human question. It is the sort of thing for which Parliament is bound to have a responsibility and the sort of thing for which the local authority, as a housing authority, is also bound to have a kind of responsibility. Therefore they will not feel satisfied with laying down codes of conduct on their own, or
588
with securing the representation of the public by putting some members of the public on a professional body; because I do not think that that would do what is required. The best representation for a purpose of this kind is the elected representation of a local council. It is very much better than trying to find half a dozen people who may be taken to represent the public.
I must say, speaking personally, that I should be very glad to see something introduced to deal with the abuses which still exist, whether it is done by amending the 1953 Act or by something more. I should also welcome, again speaking only for myself, some sort of council of an advisory character which could advise the local authority and the Ministry. I do not know what my noble friend is going to say; but the Board of Trade have a terrible lot on their plate, as have the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I incline to the feeling that the best way to do this would be to try to give powers to the local council. I hope the noble Earl, to whom I am grateful for raising this matter, will not think me frivolous if I say that that was what the hairdressers always wanted.
5.29 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARO: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to say that I do not think his comparison between the hairdressers and the estate agents was really very apt. It is true that a hairdresser may cut your hair badly, but it soon grows again. He could, I suppose, give you some appalling concoction which would send you bald, but in that case you could always get damages. But an estate agent, if he is a crook, can get hold of some very guillible individual and can run him into an expenditure of very many thousands of pounds. After all, we have a great many qualified professional men who have to be registered. One could as well say, "Why not allow anybody to practise as a chartered accountant? "I support my noble friend. I agree that the Board of Trade and the Government have their hands full at this moment, especially the Government, but that is not really any excuse for not trying to prevent frauds on innocent people.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Viscount? I am grateful that he mentioned chartered

589
accountants, because it reminded me to say something that I ought to have said before. It seems to me that chartered accountants, solicitors and various other professional people have statutory duties. A chartered accountant has, in connection with the accounts of companies, for instance; and solicitors, obviously, have an enormous stautory responsibility. I think that is the difference between that kind of profession and what we are considering here. So far as I know, estate agents have not any serious statutory responsibility.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, they may not have a statutory responsibility, but one responsibility they have is mortgage valuations.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I will not prolong the debate, but I wanted to make that point about comparing hairdressers and estate agents. I thought it was rather a wide comparison.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I would suggest to my noble friend that if his simile with the hairdressers is not to be pressed, perhaps that with the plumbers might more aptly be pressed. I believe they have been pressing for registration for as long as the estate agents have. Parliament has always shown itself extremely tender in this matter, for fear, as the noble Earl has very fairly said, of establishing a closed shop; one which could, and very easily might, exclude eligible people who ought to be admitted to the profession.
5.33 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate and for rising to say just a few words. I do not believe that any noble Lord who has spoken has ever been a member of a firm where estate agency was part of the business. I was, and still am, a member of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution, although I have not practised for a long time and when I was in practice I was not what would, broadly speaking, be called an estate agent; none the less, I probably come a little nearer the profession than most other noble Lords in the Chamber to-day. I therefore hope I may be excused if I take up two or three minutes.
590
I wound up the Second Reading debate for the Promoters of the first of the two Private Bills which have been referred to, which was lost on Second Reading. The Bill was lost on Second Reading because there is a fringe of the estate agents' profession, a fringe of so-called estate agents, who adopt a commercial attitude to the business as against a professional attitude which is the line that the chartered body to which I belong has always taken. This is a difficulty which we have to consider, where to draw the line, because estate agency can be practised in this country by people with no training and no experience, and so at present there in no protection for the public at all.
What I do not think has been mentioned, and it is extremely distressing to the chartered bodies, is that there are those who, for one reason or another, have had membership of a chartered body taken away from them because of a breach of the code of conduct. There is no reason for these people to do anything except to rubout the word "chartered" from their brass plate and carry on the next day doing exactly the same as the day before. That is the sort of situation which we wish to see improved.
One always feels that those who practise the law put themselves on a pedestal when it comes to considering the professions of others. I am not going to pursue that with the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, now, although members of the chartered bodies are frequently cited in Statutes as arbitrators and are given other duties, and so it is not quite right, I think, to suggest that the reputable branch of the estate agents' profession does not have responsible statutory obligations.
In conclusion, may I say that I hope the time is not too far distant when we can find not only Parliamentary time but a way of ensuring a proper standard for the profession, not principally for the benefit of those who work in the profession and follow it for their living, but for the benefit of the public at large and the country generally. I think that important. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, that all of this is best done by some sort of local authority lay help. I think we should approach it from a proper professional outlook and

591
treat it as a serious subject which demands public attention and some Government help before too much time has flown by. Then I think we shall have done something very much for the general benefit.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, would the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, accept from me before he sits down that I did not mean to say, and do not think I did say, "all of this", but "some of this"?
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison. I did come into the Chamber after his speech had started. If I misunderstood him, the fault is mine.
5.35 p.m.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, we have had seven speakers and four have brought in the claims of other professions or industries. It shows the difficulties that surround the subject. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who raised this topic, is in possession of information which I gave to him last Monday when he came to the Board of Trade to seek information, and I am not able to say a lot in reply. I shall divulge the reasons in a few minutes. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, said he was in some difficulty about one part of his problem, but his problem is nothing compared with mine because I am inhibited on this occasion.
I do not think there is any doubt that there is in this House a body of opinion on the question of consumer protection and the interest of the consumer which is unexcelled anywhere else. This House has a first-class body of opinion on this subject. Far from treating the subject lightly, I would treat it with great seriousness. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and the noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury, who is sitting near him, have had experience, as has the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, in another place, extending over many years, and they could not fail to have had this matter drawn to their attention, especially during their interviews with their constituents, because problems of this sort crop up all the time. Hardly any of us who served as Members of Parliament in another place have not come up against this serious problem. I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that he had a good answer from the noble Lord,
592
Lord Mitchison, about local authorities coming into this matter. In any case, I will pass on the comments of the noble Earl to my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
I should like to make one or two comments on attempts to control the activities of estate agents. Reports that discreditable people in this profession have been taking improper advantage of their clients have been advanced to all of us. Until the beginning of this year the subject was the responsibility of the Home Office, but at that time, in view of the responsibility of the Board of Trade for consumer protection and for monopolies and restrictive practices, it was decided that the Board of Trade should take over this matter.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, is quite right. There have been two attempts in recent years to promote Bills to control estate agents: one in 1963, when the Bill failed to obtain a Second Reading, and one earlier this year which lapsed because of the dissolution of Parliament. The latter Bill had more support than its predecessor, having been drawn up with the approval of the ten principal societies representing estate agents. As amended, this Bill would have set up an Estate Agents Council with a number of independent members. The Council would maintain a register of estate agents of good character, and lay down minimum standards of competence required by future applicants for registration. The Council would draw up a code of conduct which would have to be approved by the Board of Trade and would draw up rules about the opening and keeping of accounts for money held on behalf of clients. These were the principal provisions of the Bill. The Government have made it clear that they were in sympathy with the general aims of this second Bill, but with the already heavy legislative programme it is not a matter to which the Government can attach any high degree of priority. I must make that clear now.
This brings me to the noble Earl's question whether the Board of Trade regard estate agency as a commercial business or a profession. First, what is a profession? It is, I suppose, the business of giving for a fee disinterested advice based on certain qualifications and

593
knowledge. But many commercial concerns do this and I could name several. Clearly the line between the two is by no means clear-cut. There is, in my view, little point in trying to make a categorical assessment on this subject. All I can say is that there are clearly aspects of the work of estate agents which fall in both categories.
There has recently been another development of which I might remind your Lordships. The Monopolies and Mergers Act 1965 gave the Board of Trade for the first time power to refer services as well as goods to the Monopolies Commission, and my right honourable friend announced last month that he proposed under this new power to refer to the Monopolies Commission the arrangement by which estate agents and others charge commission at standard rates in connection with the selling and leasing of house property. This will lead to an objective investigation into this question of fees, and the report, when it is published, should give useful guidance both to the Government and to estate agents, as well. I hope that we shall have the Report in a fairly short time.
I have referred earlier to the Bill which lapsed on the dissolution of Parliament. Since then, as the papers have reported, there have been discussions between the ten societies representing estate agents and the Board of Trade about action which might be taken in the absence of early legislation. Here is where I come to the reason for my inhibition this afternoon in not being able to give a full reply to the Question the noble Earl has raised. My right honourable friend hopes to make a statement very soon about the upshot of these discussions, but I cannot, and I am sure your Lordships will not expect me to, anticipate that statement. But I hope that when it has been made your Lordships will recognise that steps are being taken to bring about improvements in this industry or profession, or what you like to call it, that we should all like to see.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—
LORD RHODES: I am afraid not.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I wonder whether I could ask him this question. He has mentioned a statement that is about to be announced, and the question
594
I was asking was whether the Government would take up the Bill that failed this January. I am not asking for a statement, but merely a reply on that point.
LORD RHODES: I suppose, according to what Orders we have in this House governing the rules of procedure, it is out of order.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: No.
LORD RHODES: Thank you very much. I learn every day. I will take up the point and let the noble Earl know.

THE SUMMER RECESS
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, perhaps I should say a further word about the rising of the House for the Summer Recess. I am now hopeful that it will be possible to propose that the House should adjourn on Tuesday the 9th or Wednesday the 10th August. The exact date must depend on the progress of business.
SAINT MARY, EALING BILL
Reported, with an Amendment.
THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
  REGISTRATION OF YACHTS AND BOATS
  REGISTRATION OF YACHTS AND BOATS
  PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC TOWNS AND BUILDINGS
  PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC TOWNS AND BUILDINGS