Sitting of 11 July 1967

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL
  Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
  THE CITY UNIVERSITY BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.
  METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  UNIVERSITY OF BRADFORD BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  RHYMNEY VALLEY SEWERAGE BOARD BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TECHNOLOGY

    Cross-Channel Hovercraft Terminal
    Mr. Rees-Daviesasked the Minister of Technology what progress he has made in his study regarding the need to provide a suitable cross-Channel hovercraft terminal in south-east England; what are his conclusions; and whether he will publish them now in suitable form.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Dr. Jeremy Bray): We are not conducting such a study, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has reopened his inquiry into the use of Pegwell Bay for a hovercraft terminal.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that this is a matter upon which he is undertaking some study, because of the great technological importance of the development of the hovercraft industry? Does he not agree that it is an integral part of any such study which should be going on to consider appropriate types so that we do not lose in the race against the United States of America to capture this valuable and important advance?
    Mr. Speaker: Questions must be brief.
    Dr. Bray: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, but I think he will agree that the issue in the immediate inquiry is fairly clear. Both operators and the manufacturer of the hovercraft will be giving evidence, and this covers the technical problem from all sides.

    Hovercraft (Pegwell Bay)
    Mr. Rees-Daviesasked the Minister of Technology whether he has assessed the suitability of Pegwell Bay as a site from the point of view of the technical operation of hovercraft; and what is the result of this assessment.
    Dr. Bray: The Department has made no assessment of the suitability of Pegwell Bay, and it is not for it to do so.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that it is essential from the technological, quite apart from the planning, aspect to consider which are the areas which would be most appropriate for the development of this industry? Will he undertake to do so forthwith?
    Dr. Bray: As I just said, the immediate issue in this inquiry is a matter for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The technical evidence will come quite rightly from the two operators, who have different views about where to operate from, and from the manufacturers of the hovercraft.

    Government Contracts
    Mr. Ellisasked the Minister of Technology what cases of overcharging on Government contracts he is investigating.
    Mr. McMasterasked the Minister of Technology when he expects the results of the inquiry into the costing of the preliminary Seacat missile contract to be completed; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): The only case of possible overcharging now under investigation relates to the Seacat missile.
    Mr. Ellis: How far has my right hon. Friend got with this investigation? We know very little about it so far and there is a great deal of public concern about what is happening at Short Bros. Can we have more information?
    Mr. Benn: There are later Questions about Shorts. I will report to the House or this investigation as soon as I can.
    Mr. Barnett: Is it not something of an academic point whether there is overcharging, because under the present system is not the only way in which we can obtain a refund to give a subsidy to the company?
    Mr. Benn: I would rather not comment on this question for the reason which I have given, that this is only a possible case of overcharging. I would rather not comment until I am able to make a full statement.
    Mr. Onslow: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the total number of contracts let by his Ministry?
    Mr. Benn: Not accurately without notice, but it is about 20,000 a year. Until we have equality of information and post costing we will not be absolutely certain that this sort of thing does not happen.

    Concord Aircraft
    Mr. Ellisasked the Minister of Technology what arrangements are being made to finance the production of the Concord aircraft for airline service; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Onslowasked the Minister of Technology when he expects that arrangements for financing Concord production will be completed.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Technology (Mr. Edmund Dell): The firms have been given all the authority they need at this stage to get production started. Discussions with the firms and our French partners on the means of financing the whole production phase should be completed later this year; meanwhile there is no delay to the programme.
    Mr. Ellis: Is the firm completely happy that there is nothing to stop production from going ahead and that financial agreements have been arrived at? Earlier this year the firm said that in about the middle of the year it would want to know what the financing situation was.
    Mr. Dell: I must emphasise what I said in my reply—that there is no hold-up in the production phase of this aircraft and, so far as I know, the firm is not concerned about the present position.
    Mr. Onslow: Will the Minister accept that the men are certainly very concerned, that they are tired of seeing the great shop at Weybridge B.A.C. works filled with empty jigs on which no work is going on? Is he further aware that they believe that this is adding to the cost, and that time is being lost? Will he not at least stimulate production?
    Mr. Dell: As I say, there is no delay whatever in the production of these aircraft. It does not help the situation very much for the hon. Member to suggest that there is.
    Mr. Brooks: In view of the pronounced reluctance of the contractors to contribute either to the development or production costs of this aircraft, could my hon. Friend assure the House that this reluctance will be reflected in profit margins permitted?
    Mr. Dell: I am not able to say on what terms production finance will be provided until the negotiations are concluded.

    Data Transmission Techniques
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Minister of Technology what research and development work he is sponsoring in connection

    391
    with data transmission techniques and the establishment of a computer grid; and what is the rôle of the Computer Centre at Manchester in this field.
    Dr. Bray: The National Physical Laboratory is studying the data transmission needs of computers connected by a communications grid. The Department is also supporting the development of a multi-access computing system at Edinburgh University, which will contribute information needed in the design of information computer grids and data transmission facilities. The Department is working closely with the Post Office, which is actively engaged in this and allied fields. The National Computing Centre will be concerned with the development of application software needed in the operation of a computer grid.
    Mr. Osborn: Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that the techniques for fast data transmission will be developed to fit in with the Bill recently passed through this House?
    Dr. Bray: Yes. My reply gives clear evidence that this is being attacked from many different points of view, and the different workers involved are closely in touch with each other.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Has the Department any evidence that the absence of any industrial development grants for the sort of peripheral equipment needed to make use of a computer service bureau is likely to inhibit the development of these very valuable techniques?
    Dr. Bray: I will look into the point raised by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Leadbitter: Is my hon. Friend in a position to inform the House of any urogress made in this direction by the nationalised industries? In particular can he tell the House of any development concerning the National Steel Corporation?
    Dr. Bray: The Post Office will be a major nationalised industry, and is the prime operator in this area. I have no information regarding activities of the National Steel Corporation in this connection.

    Hovertrain
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Minister of Technology what has been the outcome of his consultations with the Minister of Transport on the proposals of the National Research and Development Corporation to develop the hovertrain; whether Hovertrack Limited is to be set up; and what is to be the capital of the company.
    Mr. Benn: I hope to be able to make an announcement about this proposal shortly.
    Mr. Osborn: Is the Minister aware that we get the impression that he has been dragging his feet? It is three months since we had a debate on this subject. This is an important matter, in which the French are making considerable progress. Will he consider Anglo-French co-operation in this matter?
    Mr. Benn: The second question will not arise until we have decided the main question. I would not accept for a moment that for the last few months our work on hovercraft has been held back. This is a very large proposal, involving substantial investment in a new form of rapid transit, and it is not only reasonable but right and necessary that it should be examined with great care.
    Mr. David Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman in considering this question not allow the very successful work going on at British Railways Research Centre at Derby, on the high speed train using conventional track, to inhibit his consideration of the prospects of the hover-train principle, which many of us see coming in as the next generation after high speed trains?
    Mr. Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those observations. Certainly one has to consider the development of all rapid transit systems, and try to see them equally, but the hovercraft principle as applied for train purposes has undoubtedly a very big potential.

    Farnborough Air Show
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Technology what action he will take to emphasise the international aspect of

    393
    aviation development and achievement at the next and subsequent exhibitions at Farnborough.
    Mr. Benn: I have discussed the arrangements for next year's Farnborough Air Show with the S.B.A.C. Exhibitors of any nationality will be able to display their aircraft provided they contain a significant proportion of British equipment.
    Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that Answer is welcome as far as it goes? Is it not the case, however, that this arrangement will prevent the Russians from showing any of their aircraft, and will also limit what the Americans show? Is he aware that the exhibits of both countries attracted enormous attention at the Paris Show?
    Mr. Benn: As my hon. Friend knows, S.B.A.C. broadened its criteria for admission in 1966, and is proposing to broaden it again in 1968, in the way that I have indicated. Looking beyond that, because it is too close to make any changes for next year, a number of considerations are in mind, and the ones that my hon. Friend has raised are among them. I cannot give any undertaking a, to which way the decision might go.
    Mr. Emery: Would the right hon. Gentleman elucidate a little further on his phrase "… a considerable proportion of British equipment"? This is a terribly vague phrase, and it does not give the House much information. What does he mean by this? Does he mean a majority, or just the radar equipment? What is in his mind?
    Mr. Benn: Is is not what is in my mind because the word was not "considerable", It was "significant". It is easier to define "significant" than "considerable" and if that gives any comfort to the hon. Gentleman, I offer it to him. This is a decision for the S.B.A.C.

    Industrial Efficiency
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Technology if he will publish the report, prepared at the request of his Department by members of the staff of the Atomic Energy Authority Weapons Group, on the rôle that Government research and development establishments
    394
    could play in promoting industrial efficiency.
    Mr. Benn: A report was prepared by a team including a member of the staff of the Atomic Energy Authority following a quick pilot survey of the problems of small firms, mainly on a trading estate, and was not specifically directed to the rôle that establishments might play. It contains information on firms given in confidence, which cannot therefore be published.

    Hovercraft (Research and Development)
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Technology what plans he has to extend hovercraft research and development designed to produce fast 4,000 ton-plus hoverships for trans-ocean transport of passengers and freight.
    Mr. Weatherillasked the Minister of Technology what steps he now proposes to take to accelerate the design or production of large hoverships in excess of 1,000 tons weight.
    Mr. Chichester-Clarkasked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a further statement about Government assistance in the development of hovercraft.
    Dr. Bray: My right hon. Friend recently appointed a Director of Hovercraft and announced the formation of a National Physical Laboratory Hovercraft Committee. One of its immediate tasks will be to examine the hovership proposals as part of the hovercraft research and development programme. Government support will be considered in the course of this review.
    Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister aware that some other countries are spending vast amounts of money on the development of hoverships of up to 5,000 tons, with the aim of carrying bulk freight across the oceans in a matter of a few hours? Will he couple hoverships with the assurances that he has given on hovertrains, so that Britain will not be left behind in this direction either?
    Dr. Bray: My hon. Friend has run ahead of events. Other nations are not spending more money on larger hover-ships than we are. The SRN4 is the

    395
    biggest hovership under construction in the world.
    Mrs. Knight: Does the Minister not recognise that for a Government, which three years ago promised to have Britain sweltering in the white hot heat of technological advance, it may be said that they are dragging their feet disgracefully in these matters?
    Dr. Bray: On the contrary, we are skimming the waves.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: As a practical step, would the Minister ensure that we go ahead with development of the 200 and 300-ton class of hovership, and will he ensure that we can get a market for these ships, because without that, they will not be worth making?
    Dr. Bray: The hon. Member is right. He has taken a close interest in this and other technological developments of the fast ship. He will appreciate that the Government need to examine very closely the wide variety of possible markets for this development.

    Undersea Research and Development
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Technology what plans he has to promote international co-operation on a European basis in the technology of the development of the sea-bed; and what reply he has made to the representations he has received from Dr. Wenk, President Johnson's adviser on the development of the marine environment on this subject.
    Mr. Benn: There is already considerable international co-operation in many aspects of the technology of the sea-bed.
    I discussed this with Dr. Wenk during his recent tour of Europe and when I was in Washington in May. Further discussions will be held.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are all convinced of the good will and drive of the Government in the matter of marine science? Is it likely that by the time Dr. Wenk comes again in October there will be a clearer indication of Government intentions?
    Mr. Benn: We are making good progress. This concerns a number of Departments, as my hon. Friend knows. I
    396
    would not want him to think that it is only when I meet Dr. Wenk that I give consideration to this question. A great number of subjects, from the Channel Tunnel to natural gas and a number of other aspects of seabed technology, are under active study and development, and we hope to carry this a stage further.
    Sir J. Eden: Would the right hon. Gentleman make sure at this stage that oceanographical research study and development does not reach the same situation as did the development of outer space, due to the lack of a single Ministry in charge of the programme? Would he say which Minister will tackle this problem?
    Mr. Benn: This is a quite separate question, and I believe that the hon. Gentleman has got one down to me later on a related matter.

    Scotland
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement indicating the effective development of technology in Scotland, the organisation and increase of staff in the Industrial Liaison Centre established at Aberdeen, the scope of its work and the industries affected by it and its plans for the future.
    Mr. Dell: Action by the Ministry of Technology is contributing to the technological development of Scottish industry across a very broad front. The future of the Industrial Liaison Centre at Aberdeen is under discussion with the Scottish Education Department. My right hon. Friend is not yet able to make a statement.
    Mr. Hughes: Is not one of the aims of the Industrial Liaison Centre to increase trade, industry and commerce in Scotland? If so, will my hon. Friend specify what his plans are in that direction?
    Mr. Dell: Certainly one of the objects of the Centre is to assist industry in Scotland. What we are considering is the future staffing and financing of the Centre. The Government are doing a great deal about technological development in Scottish industry, a recent example being the foundation of the Institute of Machine Tool Design.
    Mr. Lawson: Is my hon. Friend aware that a number of my hon. Friends recently saw some of the work being done by his Ministry in Scotland and were very much impressed? May we press him to continue to develop that work?
    Mr. Dell: I am very grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. We have had a number of very important successes—for example, with the low-cost automation clinics al Paisley and Edinburgh.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Alfred Morrisasked the Minister of Technology when it is intended to publish the White Paper on technology in the context of British entry to the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Benn: There is no present intention to publish a White Paper on technology.
    Mr. Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware of reports, including reports to the House, that very detailed proposals have been put to General de Gaulle on this question? Does he not think it wrong that the House should take second place to General de Gaulle in a matter of this kind?
    Mr. Benn: I think that my hon. Friend misunderstands the position. One of the most powerful arguments for deciding to apply to enter Europe was that advanced technology depends on the scale on which we operate. This is a matter which is very closely linked to industrial collaboration and the search for markets referred to earlier. These are not matters which ate suitable for publication in a White Paper of the kind published on agricultural policy.
    Mr. David Price: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree, in pursuance of his argument on the concept of the minimum critical mass, that there is little hope for a technological community outside a political and economic infrastructure?
    Mr. Benn: Although it is tempting to follow the hon. Gentleman's question with an interesting answer, I do not think that I will go further than I have gone.

    Hawker Siddeley and B.A.C.
    Mr. Barnettasked the Minister of Technoloy what action he now proposes to take to bring about the merger between
    398
    the airframe and missile interests of Hawker Siddeley and the British Aircraft Corporation.
    Mr. Benn: Negotiations with the two companies are proceeding. Discussion of the future of the companies guided weapon interests forms part of these negotiations.
    Mr. Barnett: I assume that my right hon. Friend agrees that a merger is essential. As it has been clearly shown that the pricing system is, to say the least, difficult, would he not consider it worth while looking into the advice given to him by the admittedly very Left-wing magazine the Economist that we might take this industry into public ownership?
    Mr. Benn: There has been a lot of public discussion over the years about what should be done with the aircraft industry. The Government announced their decision last year. While the negotiations are in progress, I think that it would be wrong for me to say more.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: I appreciate that these matters take a very long time to negotiate, but is the Minister aware that the long delay has a very unsettling effect on the staff and scientists whom we want to retain in this country? Unless he does something to assure them about their future, we shall lose more than ever.
    Mr. Benn: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, but it is the programme of work rather than the pattern of ownership which decides the matters to which he refers. In negotiations of this kind there are, by definition, three parties, and delay is not always attributable to one.
    Mr. R. Carr: Since the right hon. Gentleman has just said, so truly, that it is the programme of work which matters, are negotiations being suspended until the Government know what they are going to make?
    Mr. Benn: That is a separate question. I understand that there is to be a debate on the matter later this week. I do not think that what the right hon. Gentleman says arises on this Question.

    Space Efforts (Government Support)
    Mr. Martenasked the Minister of Technology if he is satisfied with the apportionment of Governmental support

    399
    as between Great Britain's scientific and commercial space efforts; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Benn: This is a matter for the Government as a whole to decide and I am satisfied with the apportionment made.
    Mr. Marten: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the growing feeling that not enough encouragement is being given to the commercial aspect of space and that it is from the commercial aspect that the real dividends will be paid to the people of this country? Would it not be better if we had one Minister in charge of space?
    Mr. Benn: The difficulty about the hon. Gentleman's argument is that, short though it was, it internally contradicted itself. If it is the commercial aspect which matters, obviously the Post Office, which is a user of the satellites, should have a very large part to play in the development of Government policy; and similarly defence and other users should as well. This is the difficulty about the hon. Gentleman's argument—that if we attach it to the users of space this operates against the idea of a central Minister, exactly as we do not have a Minister in charge of land, in charge of the sea, or in charge of the sea bed.

    Computers
    Mr. Ian Lloydasked the Minister of Technology whether he will name the computer manufacturing companies with which he has discussed, and from which he has obtained, tenders for the construction of a third generation large computer; and whether he will give details of any contracts which have been placed by his department.
    Mr. Benn: My Department has had discussions with several computer manufacturers about their plans for large machines. So far I have not invited tenders or placed contracts for such machines.
    Mr. Lloyd: Would not the Minister agree that it is time that some accelerated effort was put into this project? Could he give the House some idea of what is in the Government's mind on the technical configuration of this computer? Is it to
    400
    be a scientific machine, a commercial machine or possibly a machine orientated to the Government's own data processing services?
    Mr. Benn: A great deal of work is going on on this problem, although it is not absolutely clear whether the phrase "third generation computers" refers to the present generation, integrated circuit computers or the next generation after that. But in view of the discussions going on with the firms, I would rather not say more about that, although we shall be making further statements about this before very long.
    Mr. J. H. Osborn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there are existing computers which will be satisfactory in implementing the Post Office (Data Processing Service) Bill? In dealing with the third generation of micro circuits, what acceleration is the right hon. Gentleman giving to the programme to make the idea behind that Bill operative and make them function properly?
    Mr. Benn: As I was involved with that Bill before I transferred to my present Department, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that point was very carefully looked at.
    Mr. David Priceasked the Minister of Technology whether he is aware that the need for a universal general purpose computer language capable of handling both scientific and commercial programming has been established; and what measures his Department will take to ensure its proper development.
    Mr. Benn: Contracts are being negotiated with computer companies for a study, jointly with the National Physical Laboratory, of this matter.
    Mr. Price: In dealing with this problem, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the need not only to try to get common standards in this country, but to try to get them on an international basis? This will be essential both for our export effort and for making general sense to the users of computers.
    Mr. Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Member for saying that. I wholly support it. International standards in these and other matters are essential if we are

    401
    to make the most of technology, particularly in this direction, where a cybernetic Tower of Babel would be the least justified of all.

    Uranium-235
    Mr. Brooksasked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a statement about the current use of British research into the centrifugal method of separating U-235.
    Dr. Bray: Though the Atomic Energy Authority has devoted some effort to the investigation of this possibility, it is too early to make a statement.
    Mr. Brooks: Is my hon. Friend aware of the persistent rumours that the Chinese have perfected a cheap and reliable method of preparing the fissile material necessary for thermo-nuclear explosions? In the light of the implications of this for nuclear proliferation and the cost of our own programme, could not my hon. Friend prosecute this research more urgently?
    Dr. Bray: I note what my hon. Friend says, but I can only repeat that I am not in a position to make a statement.

    Anglo-French Variable Geometry Aircraft
    Mr. Brooksasked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a statement about the scope of the French technological contribution to the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft.
    Mr. Benn: The French technological contribution to the AFVG up to the time of their withdrawal centred on the M45 engine for the aircraft, on the design of which the French firm SNECMA was in the lead.
    Mr. Brooks: I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. Is he aware that many of us are curious about the extent of the exchange of information which took place between the British and French interests on this matter? May we assured that the French have not gained our trade secrets on the cheap?
    Mr. Benn: Inevitably when one aims for collaboration and to develop collaboration, even in the early stages there will be an exchange of information. If one undertakes this type of project, one
    402
    must expect that this collaboration will be mutually beneficial.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: As the Russians seem already to be flying a swing-wing aircraft, would it not be better to open negotiations with them?
    Mr. Benn: Like my hon. Friend, I was very amused by the attitude of the Morning Star to the swing-wing aircraft once it discovered that one already existed in the Soviet Union.

    Departmental Report
    Mr. David Priceasked the Minister of Technology whether he has yet decided to present an annual report of his Department's affairs to Parliament.
    Mr. Benn: No, Sir. The amalgamation with the Ministry of Aviation has raised new factors which I want to consider further.
    Mr. Price: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a year ago, when I asked a similar Question, he said that he would consider the matter sympathetically? In the light of the amalgamation with aviation, would he consider producing a report at least on the non-aviation side? I realise that aviation is a rather separate question, but a report would be of benefit to hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    Mr. Benn: I am still attracted by the idea, but all our establishments, including the Atomic Energy Authority and the N.R.D.C., publish annual reports. Since the hon. Gentleman tabled his last Question, we have published "New Technology" which conveys regularly information about what is happening. I have also to consider the load on the Civil Service in requiring it to publish another annual report. For these reasons, I have not yet been able to reach a firm decision.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: Surely the right hon. Gentleman must agree that we have absolutely no instrument which collates Government policy and which gives their attitude towards the various projects which are being dealt with by bodies like the N.R.D.C. There is nothing by which the public can be thoroughly informed of the Minister's policy. Leaving aviation out of it, surely my hon. Friend is right about that.
    Mr. Benn: I did not answer the specific question about the non-aviation side, but the way in which the new Ministry of Technology is growing will ultimately blur the old differences which divided the two Departments. There is an internal integration which is growing in the Department, and that was intended. Other agencies like the A.E.A. and the N.R.D.C. are co-ordinated, and they are part of my responsibility.

    Research Establishment (Northern Region)
    Mr. Bob Brownasked the Minister of Technology what plans he has for the siting of a Government civil research establishment in the Northern Region; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Dell: There is no present national requirement for a new Government civil research establishment. Were another to be required the claims of development areas would be given special consideration.
    Mr. Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is a very unsatisfactory answer for the Northern Region, that we are the only region without such facilities, that we are taking more than our fair share of the economic ills of the country and that we consider that the provision of such an establishment is long overdue?
    Mr. Dell: I am sorry that my hon. Friend is disappointed, but we cannot establish a new civil research establishment merely to put one in the North-East. I suggest that perhaps a better way of thinking about the problem would be if industry in the North-East approached the Ministry of Technology with schemes for research and development with which we could assist. That would certainly assist my hon. Friend's object more rapidly.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is not my hon. Friend aware that private research establishments in the North-East have been pressing this line for Government support for some time and have justice in their claim that they have not had all the good will that they could reasonably have expected?
    Mr. Dell: If my hon. Friend is referring to a certain research establishment in the North-East, I assure him that we are doing everything we can to give
    404
    that organisation research contracts and that we have had some success.
    Dame Irene Ward: Will the Minister bear in mind that we keep on asking for things for the North-East, such as for notice to be taken of the port of the Tyne, but that we were greeted with very frosty responses? Am I to take the Minister's charm towards his hon. Friends as meaning that the Government will now change their views and will help us on the North-East with regard to the Tyne?
    Mr. Dell: The hon. Lady will, I think, agree that we are helping the Tyne a great deal. One of her particular interests—for example, Tyne shipbuilding— is likely to gain very great assistance from the recent passing of the Shipbuilding Industry Act.

    European Airbus
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a statement on the European airbus.
    Mr. R. Carrasked the Minister of Technology whether he has now received the report on the work by the industrial consortium in connection with the production of a design for a European Airbus based on two Rolls-Royce RB207 engines.
    Mr. Benn: On 25th July, my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be meeting Ministers from France and Federal Germany to decide future action in the light of the report which the industrial consortium has just submitted.
    Mr. Hastings: What precise steps will the Minister take to ensure that the disaster which befell the AFVG is not repeated in this project? How will he tie up the contract?
    Mr. Benn: It is of the nature of international collaboration that one cannot tie up international colleagues absolutely firmly. We are, however, optimistic about the airbus discussions and we have insisted that the RB207, the European engine, will be part of it.
    Mr. Carr: Does not the Minister realise, even now, the dangers which he is running on the country's behalf? Will he not look backwards on the Concord agreement and say whether, in the light

    405
    of the hindsight which he now has, we were not wise to make that sort of agreement?
    Mr. Benn: If the right hon. Gentleman were to look back at the aviation past of his own colleagues, he would find very little to help us in the problems which we have to face.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend accept our best wishes for 25th July? Is it roughly correct to say that if the project comes off, it will keep 10,000 people in the aircraft industry employed for roughly four years? Are these figures approximately correct?
    Mr. Benn: I do not know the exact figures offhand. It depends on the market. The important thing about this and every project which we now take on should be that we are sure that the market is available for the aircraft in question.
    Mr. Lubbock: Have the French and Germans accepted our insistence that the P B207 twin-engine configuration should be selected for this project? Can the Minister assure the House that a further statement will be made before the House rises for the Recess about the results of the meeting on 25th July?
    Mr. Benn: I cannot say very much about the French and German position until after the meeting on 25th July. On the assumption, however, that the House is still sitting when the meeting has been completed, I see no reason why we should not be able to make a further statement if it is required.

    Air Freight Traffic
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Technology what studies he has made of the likely expansion of air freight traffic; and what encouragement he will give to the British aviation industry to compete in this field.
    Mr. Dell: The forward projections of air freight traffic indicate a rapid increase and I shall welcome proposals from the industry designed to secure its proper share of the business that will be gerated by it.
    Mr. Hastings: Is it not a fact that in the last three years this traffic has increased by no less than 20, 27 and 18
    406
    per cent., respectively? Is not this very good business indeed? Does the Minister's statement indicate that he is prepared to support a project for an air freight aircraft, which we would have had if the Government had not cancelled the Hawker Siddeley 681?
    Mr. Dell: It is certainly true that air freight has been increasingly rapidly over recent years, but the Government's primary rôle in this matter is to give launching aids to promising civil developments. No proposal has recently been received from the industry for Government assistance in launching a new civil freight aircraft.

    Industrial Modernisation
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Minister of Technology what further powers he will be seeking to assist in the modernisation of industry.
    Mr. Benn: My Department was set up to establish a sound working partnership with industry. If this were to necessitate further powers I should have to seek them.
    Mr. Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that technical mergers of the kind which we have recently seen between English-Electric and Elliot Automation need to be increased and that there seems to be a gap between the encouragement offered by the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation and the power which my right hon. Friend possesses? Can he suggest how he can close this gap?
    Mr. Benn: The I.R.C. is a matter for my right hon. Friend the First Secretary. As to the rôle of the Ministry of Technology in mergers, we are, of course, engaged in major discussions involving the aircraft industry, on the one hand, and, in the case of shipbuilding, by the use of an industrial board for the purpose. I said in the debate on the Shipbuilding Industry Bill that I thought that the development of a board for that sort of purpose might prove to be interesting.

    British Graduates (North America)
    Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Technology what proposals he has to co-operate with the director general of the National Economic Development Council to recruit British graduates now working in North America.
    Mr. Dell: The Ministry already maintains close contact with the National Economic Development Office in these matters.
    Mr. Biffen: Since a recent Parliamentary Answer revealed that, so far, Mr. Fred Catherwood had been unable to recruit one graduate to come back from North America to work for the National Economic Development Office, can the hon. Gentleman say whether, as a result of this co-operation, he has had from Mr. Catherwood any indication of why he considers that his mission was so singularly lacking in success?
    Mr. Dell: There is no evidence yet that Mr. Catherwood's mission has failed. Mr. Catherwood is responsible for his own missions to recruit his own staff in Northern America if he considers that the right thing to do. Certainly, if the National Economic Development Office would like to use the channel which we have recently set up through M.S.L., we would be delighted.

    Shipbuilding
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a statement on the progress of grouping arrangements in the shipbuilding industry.
    Mr. Dell: Four Tyne companies have announced their intention of merging their shipbuilding activities on this river. Working parties are studying the organisation on the Upper Clyde and Wear, the first covering six yards and the second five yards. The Shipbuilding Industry Board has been and is cooperating with the firms concerned as well as with others who are still conducting confidential discussions about mergers.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: In welcoming the lead given on the Tyne in making use of the valuable proposals contained in the Government's Shipbuilding Industry Act, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he can say anything about the marine engine industry in particular as part of the grouping facilities and whether any statement can now be made about it?
    Mr. Dell: I certainly welcome the lead which has been given by the Tyne shipbuilders in the matter of grouping. The question of marine engines is under consideration by the Shipbuilding Industry
    408
    Board and I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a recent report has disclosed that the Japanese shipbuilding industry, which has been building ships of 150,000 to 200,000 tons, is now expecting to have surplus capacity in this range fairly soon, and has initiated work on new yards to build ships in the 500,000-ton range? Is he going to make ure that we do not join the wrong race?
    Mr. Dell: Certainly it is of the utmost importance that we have a shipbuilding industry which knows the market it is concentrating on, and that it concentrates on that market. This is one of the objects of regrouping, that the industry will be able to make marketing arrangements which can make decisions about exactly that sort of problem.
    Mr. Heffer: Can my hon. Friend indicate to the House what progress has been made with regard to grouping the shipyards on the north-west coast, particularly in relation to Cammell Laird and Vickers?
    Mr. Dell: Grouping of shipyards on the north-west coast is not a matter of high priority, although one would expect that in the second stage of development that, too, will be an area in which groupings are likely.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Would the hon. Gentleman say something about the progress on Clydeside? Is he aware of the concern on Clydeside that the very valuable work being done among the upper reaches firms may preclude the possibility of mergers along both the upper and lower reaches?
    Mr. Dell: I would personally hope that it would not preclude it, but with any of these groupings it may be necessary to have two stages of development. I do not think myself that the grouping of firms on the upper Clyde, for example, or of firms on the lower Clyde would later preclude a group for the whole of that area.

    Variable Geometry Aircraft (United Kingdom)
    Mr. Fortescueasked the Minister of Technology what plans he has for the development in the United Kingdom of variable geometry aircraft.
    Mr. Benn: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said on 5th July.—[vol. 749, c. 1825–1834.]
    Mr. Fortescue: Is the Minister aware of the considerable public concern that this British invention, brought to an operational state by the United States, by France and by the Soviet Union, has made apparently absolutely no progress in this country? Will he assure the House we are not going to be left behind in this race?
    Mr. Benn: I am aware of the considerations which the hon. Member mentions. We are to debate this very fully on Thursday. Meanwhile, there is nothing further I can add to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said.

    Aircraft Construction Industry
    Mr. Fortescueasked the Minister of Technology what aircraft will be the core of the British aircraft construction industry in the 1970s.
    Mr. Benn: A wide range of civil and military aircraft will be under construction in the 1970s. It would be difficult to single out any one of them for special mention.
    Mr. Fortescue: Does the Minister recall that on 30th November, 1966, the then Minister of Aviation said, when asked what would happen if the AFVG project failed, that the Government were well advanced with contingency planning and that an announcement would be made also immediately if the project failed. Would he now give the House a technological definition of "almost immediately?"
    Mr. Benn: 5th July is not very long ago, and Thursday is the day after tomorrow. If that does not do for the hon. Gentleman, I do not know what will satisfy him.
    Mr. Hastings: Does the Minister really think there is no connection between AFVG cancellation and the existence of the Dassault Mirage 3G?
    Mr. Benn: My right hon. Friend made a statement on this point, referring to what M. Messmer had said to him, and
    410
    we shall have a full opportunity of discussing this. It is certainly not for me to comment.
    Mr. R. Carr: But does the right hon. Gentleman's answer a moment ago, referring to all the other work being undertaken, and which has been going on for some years, mean that the Government think a core is no longer needed for this apple?
    Mr. Benn: I do not think that I can do better than refer the right hon. Gentleman to the various projects which are to be developed in the 'seventies. This is what the Question is about. The percentage of work, for different aircraft, I am prepared to give to the House, if the right hon. Gentleman wants it, but on the civil side, of course, the largest project is Concord.

    Short Bros. and Harland
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslopasked the Minister of Technology how many people were informed of his decision to terminate the services of the chairman of Short Brothers and Harland, before the chairman himself was informed.
    Mr. McMasterasked the Minister of Technology what decision he has made concerning the appointment of a successor to the present chairman of Short Brothers and Harland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Minister of Technology if he will announce the name of the new chairman of Short Brothers and Harland.
    Mr. Barnettasked the Minister of Technology if he will now make a statement on the progress made on the reorganisation of Short Brothers and Harland.
    Mr. Ormeasked the Minister of Technology if he will make a further statement on the future policy of Short Brothers and Harland.
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Minister of Technology what progress has been made with the reorganisation of Short Brothers and Harland.
    Mr. Benn: With permission, I shall answer Question No. 33, together with Questions Nos. 35, 37, 38, 41, and 45, at the end of Question Time.

    Magnetic Compasses
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslopasked the Minister of Technology what research is being undertaken to establish the degree of distortion in the reading of magnetic compasses resulting from ferrous deposits in the ground.
    Mr. Dell: No such research is being undertaken by the Ministry of Technology.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: If it appears that this was a contributory factor to at least one of the accidents—at Perpignan—would the Minister have an investigation in order to see that unnecessary navigational accidents of this kind do not recur?
    Mr. Dell: If the inquiry which is going on into that accident reveals that this was the cause, then that will create a new situation which will have to be considered.

    Computer Technology
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Minister of Technology why National Research Development Corporation support is being withheld from the company, Computer Technology.
    Dr. Bray: I understand that N.R.D.C. did not feel able to support a particular proposal put to them by Computer Technology. The firm has no manufacturing capabality, and the Department has suggested to Computer Technology that the best course might be to seek an association with a well-established computer manufacturer.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Minister aware that this project has been assessed by a private firm of consultants, Cambridge Consultants, and that some people are gravely concerned that the money going into computers is going into the big companies and no support is being given to the small ones and that we are very disturbed that Parliamentary accountability is not given to N.R.D.C.? Can we have a debate on this?
    Dr. Bray: N.R.D.C. gives a very full report of all its activities and is very ready to answer questions directly regarding them. In computer manufacture there
    412
    is advantage in scale. We have encouraged this firm to get in touch with well-established computer manufacturers.

  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION
  Mr. Blakerasked the Prime Minister if he will now invite the Heads of Government of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries to a conference to discuss new methods of collectivising their nuclear defences.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): No. Sir.
  Mr. Blaker: Is the Prime Minister aware that his right hon. Friends have told the House that the terms on which our Polaris submarines are to be assigned to N.A.T.O., like the terms for the V bombers, will permit their withdrawal? Will the Prime Minister confirm that this degree of internationalisation was intended by the pledges in the last two Labour Party election manifestos?
  The Prime Minister: I think a valuable step has been made with the report of the McNamara Committee. As to further internationalisation where Polaris is concerned, this will have to be the next subject for discussion, but I think there is nothing very urgent about it, nor very much desire in N.A.T.O. at this time to consider it.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: Does the Prime Minister stand by the previous declaration that there should be no German finger, direct or indirect, on the nuclear trigger? Does not the printed Question, as supported by Mr. Strauss, conflict with that vital declaration?
  The Prime Minister: I am not aware of any West German statement which is in any sense contrary to the doctrine that countries which are not at present nuclear Powers should not seek to become nuclear Powers. This has been very clearly stated by the West German Government.

  CHINA (H-BOMB)
  Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the consequences of the explosion of an H-bomb by Communist China

  413
  in relation to the search for agreement on a nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
  Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Prime Minister what further action he proposes to take in order to get agreement on a non-proliferation treaty, in view of the recent explosion of a nuclear device by China.
  The Prime Minister: We regret the continued Chinese atmospheric tests, which underline both the dangers of proliferation and the urgent need for a nonproliferation treaty. I am sure that our best course is to persevere with the effort to get an agreed treaty on the table at Geneva as soon as possible.
  Mr. William Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the explosion of China's H-bomb makes the maintenance of world peace immeasurably more precarious? Can he say what consultations have taken place between the Government and Commonwealth countries such as India and Australia on the implications of this development?
  The Prime Minister: I have had discussions myself with the Prime Minister of Australia. With regard to consultations with India and other Commonwealth countries, this is one of the most important questions lending urgency to the Geneva Conference. We are in close touch with the Indian Government, both bilaterally and at the Geneva Conference.
  Mrs. Renée Short: Does my right hon. Friend not think he should now be arousing world opinion and putting pressure on the President of the United States to ensure that China is admitted to the United Nations in pursuance of Labour Party policy? Further, will he make it crystal clear to all our European allies that in no circumstances will we tolerate any opposition under the pretext of signing a non-proliferation treaty?
  The Prime Minister: On the first question, we have consistently done everything in our power to get recognition of China's right to sit at the United Nations table. In my speech to the General Assembly, and in the speech by my right hon. Friend also to the General Assembly last year, we pressed this point, both of us, very strongly indeed. So far as nonproliferation is concerned, I have nothing to add to previous answers, but I think
  414
  that I have made it clear to the House how very desirable it is to get a nonproliferation agreement signed at the earliest possible moment.
  Mr. Bessell: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the apparent instability of the Peking Government, this does not take on a very serious complication, and whether some effort should be made to act on the lines suggested by the original Question?
  The Prime Minister: One does not need to indulge in speculation about the internal situation in China to be well aware of the tremendous dangers of proliferation by other countries fearing that they might be threatened and seeking to become nuclear Powers themselves. That provides sufficient urgency without further discussions about it. The answer must be sought at Geneva and, when China is in the United Nations, there as well.
  Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the changed world situation created by China in testing of the hydrogen bomb, he will now seek to convene a summit meeting of world leaders to discuss disarmament.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. We continue to believe that the best way to make progress towards our arms control and disarmament objectives is to persevere in the present negotiations, in the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee at Geneva.
  Mr. Roberts: Does not the Prime Minister agree with me that one of the greatest threats to world peace is the isolation of the Chinese leadership, accentuated particularly by the attitude of the Americans at the United Nations? Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what active steps the Government have in mind to integrate China with the community of nations?
  The Prime Minister: I would not under-rate the difficulties presented by the challenge in the last few words of my hon. Friend's question. As for bringing China into her rightful place in the United Nations, my right hon. Friend and I—indeed, all of us—have pressed at successive Assembly meetings for China to be seated. We have spoken, pressed, organised and voted to that

  415
  effect. However, there is not yet a majority in favour of China's admittance. It is not a case of just one country being against it.
  Mr. Longden: Since, in spite of the efforts of the present Administration and the previous one, China is not a member of the United Nations, how can the Prime Minister think that she will take any notice of any agreement which lays on the table at Geneva?
  The Prime Minister: As I said earlier, I think that the first step is to get the non-proliferation agreement settled. This, after all, will provide some guarantee against other nations feeling that they must themselves become nuclear Powers in order to face any threat which may come from China. The second matter is to get China into the United Nations, and then the problem can be transferred to the United Nations forum for settlement.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Since the first nuclear bomb in history was dropped by white men on yellow men, is it not one of the most colossal pieces of impertinence and hypocrisy for the white people to reprove the Chinese before doing something themselves by chucking away their own weapons?
  The Prime Minister: While not associating myself with those words, it is certainly the policy of Her Majesty's Government—and this is what we are working for—not only to stop proliferation among other non-nuclear Powers but to get progressive nuclear disarmament by those who have nuclear weapons at present.

  RHODESIA
  Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the talks between Lord Alport and representatives of the illegal régime in Rhodesia.
  Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Prime Minister what report he has had from Lord Alport in the matter of the Rhodesian problem; and if he will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present nothing to add to the Answers I gave to
  416
  Questions on this subject on the 6th of July.—[Vol. 749, c. 1987.]
  Mr. Hamilton: Is the Prime Minister in a position to assess the worth of the claim that those who hold the real power in Rhodesia at the moment really want genuine negotiations on the basis of a return to constitutional rule? Further, can he explain in rather more detail than he did at the time the remark which he made on 13th June as to the need for a substantial change in the circumstances before the concept of N.I.B.M.A.R. was either abandoned or modified by Her Majesty's Government?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I am not in a position to make an assessment of the strength of the desire on the part of various interests in Rhodesia for meaningful talks. Ideas were put forward in the House about this. We had varying reports about how far they were willing to engage in meaningful discussions and, of course, that was the purpose of Lord Alport's visit. Until he comes back, it is not possible to answer this question.
  Mr. King: Is it not a fact that Lord Alport will return at the weekend, and, if it be so, may we hope for a statement from the Government next week?
  The Prime Minister: I think that his present plans involve a return either at the weekend or early next week. As soon as my right hon. Friend and I have heard from him and considered what he tells us. I hope that we can make a full statement in the House.
  Mr. Heath: Does the Prime Minister have it in mind to publish a White Paper setting out Lord Alport's conclusions? If a Minister had gone, of course, he would naturally have come to the House to say what his conclusions were. What does the Prime Minister propose in this case?
  The Prime Minister: We had better consider this when Lord Alport returns. Certainly it will be the intention of either my right hon. Friend or myself to make a statement in the House about the Government's position based on what we have been able to learn.
  Mr. Whitaker: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the members of the Commonwealth, including not only the black countries but also, in particular, Canada,

  417
  are unanimous that N.I.B.M.A.R. must be adhered to?
  The Prime Minister: So far as the Commonwealth is concerned, its position was clearly and unequivocally stated by every Commonwealth country at the last Commonwealth Conference.
  Mr. Sandys: Does not the tragic racial conflict in Nigeria, which is rapidly going the way of the Congo, emphasise the danger of trying to force the pace of African political advance in Rhodesia?
  The Prime Minister: I join with the right hon. Gentleman in the feeling which the whole House has about the tragedy that has overcome Nigeria. Of course, the Nigerians' step forward to self-government, which was some years ago, and the very real progress which they made, was taken with the desire of the whole House by the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member. But I think that it would be dangerous to draw too many analogies between that country and any others. The big tragedy of Rhodesia is that, over all the years, Africans have not been given a steady progress towards greater participation in government and, of course, what steps were made in 1961 have not been adequately honoured and have not been followed up by the régime.
  Mr. Rowlandasked the Prime Minister what consultations he had with the President of Zambia prior to the despatch of Lord Alport to Rhodesia; and what steps he is taking to keep him it formed of the results of the visit.
  The Prime Minister: No other Governments were consulted over Lord Alport's visit; but steps were taken to inform those Commonwealth Governments chiefly concerned—including Zambia—before the announcement of the visit. Her Majesty's Government will of course continue to keep in close touch with our Commonwealth partners over Rhodesia.
  Mr. Rowland: Can the Prime Minister say why no special consultations and special steps have been taken to keep informed the other Commonwealth country which is most directly concerned with the Rhodesia situation? Can he explain why there now seems to be a real lack of imaginative understanding by the
  418
  British Government of the strains and problems facing President Kaunda?
  The Prime Minister: There is no lack of understanding about the strains and problems facing President Kaunda. We have shown that very many times, not least by the remarkable economic assistance that this country has provided to Zambia, and I very much regret that he did not feel able to come to the Commonwealth Conference last year. So far as consultation is concerned, it has been part of the Zambian case against us that they regard Rhodesia as a purely British problem, and they condemn us for not settling it in the way in which they feel it ought to be settled, namely, by the use of force. This is still the Zambian feeling and the reason why we have had these disagreements with them. President Kaunda was just leaving for China on the day that the announcement was made in the House, and steps were taken to see that the message reached him before he left.
  Mr. Thorpe: In view of the fact that President Kaunda has alleged that the initiation of the "Tiger" talks and the dispatch of the Alport mission were first heard by him on British broadcasts of news, does the Prime Minister not think that there is some scope for the improvement of communications between the two countries?
  The Prime Minister: There was one occasion about which he heard on the radio—I forget at the moment which one it was—and he and I had some communication about that later. In this case, I was particularly anxious that he should hear about it direct through the diplomatic channel. I understood that he had left for the airport, so we went to some lengths to see that the message reached him before he left for China.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Are not the political difficulties of President Kaunda and the economic difficulties of Zambia due to the prolongation of sanctions, upon the duration of which the Prime Minister misled President Kaunda?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir, the difficulties which Zambia face and have faced continuously, feeling as strongly as they do about the treatment of their fellow Africans in Rhodesia, are due to the

  419
  existence of an illegal régime south of the Zambesi. This is the whole cause of the difficulties. If illegal action had not been taken, and if some hon. Members did not support the continuance of that illegal action, it might have ended a long time ago.

  ADEN AND SOUTH ARABIA
  Mr. Francis Noel-Bakerasked the Prime Minister what steps he will take to co-ordinate the work of the various Government Departments concerned with policy towards Aden and South Arabia.
  The Prime Minister: I am satisfied that the work of the various Government Departments concerned with policy towards South Arabia is already well co-ordinated.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Will my right hon. Friend put it to these Departments that it has become impossible for the British Government at one and the same time to suppress a Nationalist uprising and negotiate with the Nationalist leaders? Will he therefore withdraw from negotiations altogether and allow the United Nations to handle them, and accelerate our departure from Aden?
  The Prime Minister: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is quite wrong about this. It is the duty of the Government, as long as we have a responsibility for Aden, to deal with violence and subversion and the loss of life which results from that. This is not incompatible with seeking to get a broadly-based Government, and, as my right hon. Friend explained, this we are doing.
  With regard to what my hon. Friend said about the United Nations, I welcome the fact that a representative of F.L.O.S.Y. has gone to New York to have consultations with the United Nations Mission. We shall facilitate this, and my noble Friend, Lord Caradon, on our behalf will help to try to get those talks further advanced.

SHORT BROS. & HARLAND
The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): I will, with permission, now answer Question Nos. 33, 35, 37, 38, 41 and 45.
420
As the House knows, Shorts has been through some difficult years. After close and detailed re-examination of its programme and prospects I have authorised the company to go ahead with the production of wings for the F28 and F228 aircraft and to enter into a contract with Rolls-Royce to supply pods for the RB203 engine. I have also decided, as the House was informed on 27th June, to support the continuation of the promising Skyvan aircraft.
These projects give Shorts a clear forward programme of aircraft work.
With regard to the future, while the Government cannot themselves undertake to maintain the company as designers and producers of large new aircraft, they will be prepared to consider, on the same criteria as apply to any other aircraft company, launching aid for promising projects. The company's immediate task now is to make a real financial success of its current programme.
This requires a thorough internal reorganisation designed to increase productivity. It will also require a financial reconstruction, the details of which will be worked out with the Board in consultation with the other shareholders, and announced later. Meanwhile, subject to Parliamentary approval, the Government will continue to provide interim finance.
I now turn to the question of the chairmanship. The present Chairman has held the post for six years and in this time has had to deal with many problems and difficulties, including the substantial loss on the Belfast project which was started before he took up office.
As I have indicated, a major reorganisation must be carried out to put the company back on to a profitable basis. This reorganisation, which has already begun, can, I believe, best be carried through under the leadership of a new chairman. Mr. Wrangham has, therefore, tendered his resignation, but he has kindly offered to continue as Chairman until his successor takes over.
With its new programme of work, and with the reorganisation of its resources, I believe that the company can look forward to continuing to play a useful part in the aircraft industry.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has not said a

421
word in answer to Question No. 33, which he said he would answer after Question Time? Will he now be good enough to answer it?
Mr. Benn: I decided that it was right to make a change in the chairmanship of Shorts, and since it is not customary to discuss in the House advice which a Minister takes inside his Department I thought it right not to answer it specifically.
Mr. McMaster: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the need for further substantial aircraft construction work? Will he say how many of the present 7,000 employees he expects to be employed by this company for the next two years?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the valuable work which has been done by the present Chairman, particularly in promoting sales of the Skyvan and Seacat missile? Does the right hon. Gentleman not deplore the fact that the manner of publishing this decision on the chairmanship was by way of a Chapman Pincher leak?
Mr. Benn: It was not a leak. The definition of a leak is that something inside gets outside. What appeared in the papers bore no resemblance whatsoever to what was going on inside. The report said that I had an argument with Mr. Wrangham about whether Shorts should be in the aircraft industry, and had decided to sack him. This is not the case. There was no argument with the company whatsoever about the development of Shorts within the aircraft industry, and this was not, therefore, a leak. I am glad to associate myself with what the hon. Gentleman said about Mr. Wrangham's work in the past.
I expect the productive labour force to remain at about the same level for the moment, but future employment by Shorts de lends on the company's success in making this aircraft at a competitive price and finding a place for it in the markets of the world.
Mr. Barnett: Is not the situation somewhat farcical in that the Government own 69 per cent. of the shares while the remaining 31 per cent. are worthless without the Government's financial contribution? Will it not be at least worth treating this firm in its true light, and not
422
as a private firm, as we are pretending to do?
Mr. Benn: The history of Government participation in Shorts is a long one. We shall have an opportunity during discussions about the financial reconstruction not only to think about it ourselves, but to discuss it with the other shareholders. I shall bear in mind the point made by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Kitson: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what terms of compensation have been arranged for the Chairman?
Mr. Benn: The terms and conditions of the appointment were laid down in a letter of appointment more than six years ago, and, of course, will be fulfilled completely.
Mr. Maxwell: Will my right hon. Friend say what were the difficulties about getting the Chairman to resign his office? If these difficulties arose out of a contractual obligation between the Minister and the company, would not my right hon. Friend agree, representing as he does the majority shareholder, that arrangements should be made whereby, when a Minister asks a chairman to tender his resignation, this is obligatory, without involving either the Ministry or the company in the kind of discreditable wrangles which have gone on, caused by the Chairman of this company?
Mr. Benn: There were no difficulties at all in this sense. What happened was that a totally inaccurate story appeared in the papers. It bore no resemblance to the issues which were currently under discussion. I would like to take this opportunity of saying that in my dealings with Mr. Wrangham there have been no difficulties whatsoever about this.
Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all those hon. Members who have had anything to do with Mr. Wrangham during his term of office have formed the highest impression of his dedication and enthusiasm, and the energy which he has put into getting Shorts back on to a profitable footing? Can the right hon. Gentleman say further how many new jobs will be created in Short Bros. by the work on the F28 wings and RB203 pods?
Mr. Benn: Future employment in the company will depend on the markets for

423
the aircraft in which the pods or components or wings will be placed.
As to the first part of the question, this view about Mr. Wrangham's rôle was, of course, represented to me very fully by the Board of Shorts.
Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that although some of us have not always agreed with the policy of Shorts as aircraft manufacturers, nevertheless, as the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) said, Mr. Wrangham has done an outstanding job, against endless difficulties, in constructing the Belfast ordered by Mr. Aubrey Jones? How can the right hon. Gentleman condone the sacking of this man, or his resignation, when the entire Board of Shorts is with Mr. Wrangham?
Mr. Benn: I have given the reasons. The hon. Gentleman may not agree with them, but I have to exercise a responsibility as the representative of 69½ per cent. of the shareholders, and it seemed to me, looking at the company now, and the very substantial reorganisation which will have to be carried through, that it was right to have a new Chairman, and I stick by this.
Mr. R. Carr: May we get it clear that it was the right hon. Gentleman who asked Mr. Wrangham to resign, and not Mr. Wrangham who desired to do so?
Mr. Benn: I made it clear to Mr. Wrangham during our discussions, in exactly the same way as I have made it clear to the House, that it seemed to me that the time had come to make a change, and following this he tendered his resignation.
Mr. McMaster: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

NIGERIA
Mr. Tilney Mr. Tilney (by Private Notice) asked the Commonwealth Secretary whether he will make a statement about the safety of Britons in Nigeria and British interests there following the outbreak of civil war.
The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Herbert W. Bowden): There appears to be no immediate danger to United Kingdom nationals. Those living in the area of the fighting along the northern border of Eastern Nigeria have been advised by our High Commission to move to Enuga, the eastern capital.
We are watching the situation carefully, but there is no question at this stage of advising any general evacuation of United Kingdom nationals. It is too early to say what effects the fighting will have on British commercial interests.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State, in Lagos on Saturday last, sought and obtained from General Gowon the assurance that the lives of British residents and the safety of British property would be safeguarded during hostilities.
Mr. Tilney: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any request for aid of any kind has been received from the Federal Government? Considering what is now at risk for all parts of Nigeria, is it, even at this twelfth hour, not possible for some Commonwealth mediation?
Mr. Bowden: As the hon. Member is probably aware, offers have been made at a number of different levels to mediate in this dispute, directly through our representation, through a number of African countries, and particularly by General Ankrah, of Ghana, but without success at this stage.
On the question of the help that may be given, we are prepared to do all we can at any given moment, but it is difficult to see what can be done now. There are now probably about 2,000 British nationals left in the Eastern region. Many women and children came out a month ago. There was contingency planning for them to be brought out in case of need.
Mr. Winnick: Can my right hon. Friend explain the position concerning The Guardian correspondent, Mr. Schwarz, who is, apparently, being held by the breakaway State of Biafra? If this is true, does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely outrageous that Mr. Schwarz is having this difficulty? Can the most urgent representations be made so that he can be released within the next few days?
Mr. Bowden: Mr. Schwarz was arrested on 5th July by the Eastern secessionist group when crossing the Niger. Representations have been made on his behalf by our High Commissioner, so far without success.
Mr. Robert Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate what may be the fate of British subjects in Eastern Nigeria if we were to intervene in some way on behalf of the Federal Government?
Mr. Bowden: The position of British subjects in the whole of Nigeria is very much in our minds. What has to be remembered is that they are distributed over a very wide area. A month ago we advised British women and children to come out of the area, and many did so. If the remaining 2,000 want to come out at any time—400 are employed by Shell-B.P.—contingency plans have been made, and they can be brought out.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.
As the House will already have seen from the Order Paper, the business for today has been rearranged so that after the debate in Supply on the Care of the Elderly consideration of the Prices and Incomes (No. 2) Bill will be resumed, followed by the Motion on the Prices and Incomes Act, 1966 (Commencement of Part II) Order.
Consideration of the Greenwich Hospital Bill is being postponed.
Mr. Heath: Would it be true to say that the Leader of the House has got into something of a muddle over business as well as over the Government's policy on prices and incomes? When the right hon. Gentleman announced the business last Thursday I warned him that it was impossible to get it yesterday. He then revised on Friday, made his notorious speech on Sunday, and issued a fresh version on Monday. As a result, the House sat for 19 hours 10 minutes and he still has not got his business.
Would it not be more sensible, instead of persisting in having an all-night sitting
426
tomorrow, to rearrange business for tomorrow afternoon so as to take this Bill at a sensible hour and have the Companies Bill later—which can be done perfectly well?
Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that he is putting an intolerable strain on all sections of activity in the House with morning sittings, all-day sittings and all-night sittings? We are to have another all-night sitting tonight and another on Thursday. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the strain on you, Mr. Speaker, and other occupants of the Chair, as well as upon the servants of the House and hon. Members, is rapidly becoming unreasonable?
I ask the Leader of the House not to persist in this folly, but to rearrange business sensibly and to take this Bill tomorrow.
Mr. Crossman: Naturally, I always consider carefully the suggestions of the Leader of the Opposition. The House has a clear choice. A great effort is being made—and I think it can be done—to get the House up for the Summer Recess in a reasonable time. It would be possible to change our plans and to take an extra week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] That is something which we will consider. What I say to the Leader of the Opposition is that this week—because, for special reasons, we have to get the Prices and Incomes Bill through rapidly—we must abide by the business that we have decided upon.
Mr. Heath: It is plain that if the Leader of the House wishes to get the Bill through rapidly the question' of sitting into August, for another week, and extending business does not arise. It would be quite possible to take this business tomorrow afternoon and to take the Companies Bill after the Recess, if necessary. It has been through the Lords, and can be completed in the spill-over before the new Session. Why not allow the House to be sensible and take the Prices and Incomes Bill at a reasonable hour tomorrow, as I am sure most of the right hon. Gentleman's back benchers want, because most of the Amendments to the Bill are in their names?
Mr. Crossman: The right hon. Member knows that if we were to do as he suggests,

427
and postpone business it would possibly mean having to sit a week later. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] The right hon. Gentleman knows more than some back benchers about the organisation of business. Therefore, I say that on the whole, because of special reasons concerned with the Bill, we must get on and finish it as soon as possible.
Mr. Woodburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a general impression that the custom of the House is changing and that on Report hon. Members are insisting on putting down and rediscussing Amendments which were fully discussed in Committee. That was done on the Agriculture Bill and on other Bills. They are making a farce of the Report stage by repeating the Committee stage all over again.
Mr. Crossman: I am aware that recently the Report stages of Bills have tended to take a long time. Nevertheless, I would have thought that that was something which hon. Members on our side were at least as responsible for, on this occasion, as hon. Members opposite.
Dr. Winstanley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the debate which is to precede tonight's all-night sitting, namely, the debate on the care of the elderly, is not without relevance to some hon. Members? Is he not sensible of the intolerable strain to which he is subjecting some of those hon. Members by insisting on their taking part in four all-night sittings this week?
Mr. Crossman: It is not a question of four all-night sittings this week. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is"] It is not. I am aware of the strain. I realise that we have this strain every July. This July we have a very great strain, because we are getting a great deal of business through—and we are determined to get it through.
Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. In view of the reflection cast upon some hon. and right hon. Members, may I say that the elderly are quite capable of taking care of themselves?
Mr. Speaker: Order. When reference was made to the elderly I did not think that it referred to the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell).
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Although the right hon.Gentleman may be indifferent to public criticism of his personal reputation as Leader of the House—on the no doubt justifiable ground that it stands so low already that it cannot go lower—does not he appreciate that something much more—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions should be reasonably brief, with a brief preamble.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that something much more important is involved, namely, the tendency to bring all business of the House of Commons into disrepute if it is carried on in this muddled and unbusinesslike way?
Mr. Crossman: We ought to look at this summer in perspective. We have had the Finance Bill through, for instance, I think without a single all-night sitting. Before I came to the House this afternoon I looked at the list of sittings during the last year of Conservative Government, in 1963, which showed that, after June, they had 11 late-night sittings—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No morning sittings"] We are getting the facts about all-night sittings now. They had 11 late-night sittings at that time and we shall be very unlucky if we have as many as 11 this time.
Mr. Fowler: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, whatever his recent successes in arranging business, many of the Government's most loyal supporters regard the arrangements for this week as quite unsatisfactory? Many, if not the majority, of us would much rather go a week into August.
Mr. Crossman: This is certainly something which we shall take into consideration in arranging business, but we must ensure that we fully understand what this implies.
Mr. Longden: Is it not a fact that one of the major objects of morning sittings was to get us to bed earlier, and that, since we began them, we have sat later and more often than ever before?
Mr. Crossman: The answer to the first part of that question is "Yes", and to the second part "No".
Mr. Leadbitter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, of the number of hon. Members shouting at the moment a very large proportion was not here last night, and that at about one o'clock this morning, he himself noticed that only about 200 hon. Members were keeping the business of the House going, and that we are, therefore—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a resume of last night's proceedings. The hon. Gentleman must be brief.
Mr. Leadbitter: —Is he therefore aware that hon. Members who have not been in bed since Sunday night are quite prepared to stay here, and that the Leader of the Opposition is talking humbug?
Hon. Members: Where was he?
Mr. Crossman: I am well aware of what my hon. Friend says and I know that the vast majority of my hon. Friends are determined to complete our business as we planned.
Mr. Dance: What arrangements has the right hon. Gentleman made to relieve the intolerable burden of these long hours on the staff of the House of Commons in respect of this week's business?
Mr. Crossman: The arrangements being made by the Serjeant at Arms will be the same for the all-night sittings, if we have them, this week as they they were last week.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while hon. Members on this side want the Government to get their business and private Members to get theirs, there are two ways of doing this and that the way of extending this part of the Session into August might perhaps be the best way—
Hon. Members: No.
Hon. Members: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Noise is no help. We all have emotions about the end of term.
Mr. Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that, although there is no unanimity on this view, it is one which he should consider, because it would have the additional advantage of enabling me to complete the passage of the Employment Agencies Bill?
Mr. Crossman: I am aware of my hon. Friend's eagerness for that Bill, but I hope that he observed from the noise how impossible it would be to plan business according to the amount of disturbance made by hon. Members.
Sir T. Beamish: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an all-night sitting on Thursday night could be avoided if be would accept the excellent advice contained in Motion No. 599, supported by hon. Members—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not the normal Business question time, but the arrangement of business for today.
Mr. Biffen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the somewhat protracted discussions on the Report stage of the Prices and Incomes (No. 2) Bill yesterday arose partly from speculation on both sides of the House on what the right hon. Gentleman actually said on Sunday? In consideration of this evening's business, and with a view to facilitating it, will he therefore undertake to participate in the debate?
Mr. Crossman: I am, of course, aware of the interest aroused in the House by my speech at Shrewsbury, but, if the hon. Gentleman asks me whether, on the Report stage of the Bill, we can stage a debate on what I said in that speech, I can only answer that it is for Mr. Speaker to declare what is and what is not in order.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we have a little business ahead of us today.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Crossman.]

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS
Matters of the Reports of the Committee on Scottish Salmon and Trout Fisheries and the Report of the Highland Transport Board on Highland Transport Services, being matters relating exclusively to Scotland, referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for their consideration.—[Mr. Crossman.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [25TH ALLOTTED DAY] [2nd Series],—considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Charles R. Morris.]

CARE OF THE ELDERLY
3.55 p.m.
Miss Mervyn Pike: I should, first of all, apologise to the House in case my voice goes at some stage in the debate. I have been unable to withstand the severity of this hot weather and have a bad cold, but I will do my best.
We are to have today an important debate on the care of the elderly. We would all accept that the mark of a civilised society lies in the contribution which it makes for its old people and that the mark of a compassionate society lies not only in the quantity but in the quality of this service. I hope, therefore, that we can discuss this problem without too much party political self-justification. What is in question is our ability to plan ahead realistically and to use our already overstretched resources to provide adequate services for a section of the community which is growing both in numbers and requirements.
In any case, this is a question in which we must all declare an interest. Whether we like it or not, we will all grow more dependent—unless some of us die in the attempt—and most of us will reach this stage at a time when our provision for the elderly and infirm is bound to be under tremendous pressure.
There are now over 6 million people in the country over the age of 65. On present expectations, a man of 60 will live another 15 years, a woman normally a good deal longer, and medical science is constantly increasing our ability to keep people alive. Between 1966 and 1986, the population is likely to increase by over 6 million, although the working population will increase by only about 800,000.
In just over 30 years, therefore, by the year 2001, the elderly population will have increased by 30 per cent. to a little over 7,500,000, yet the fact which we must face is that, during the next 10
432
years, the total spending on the social services will have to rise by more than 60 per cent. to keep pace with current policies. Even if—at present, it seems a very big "if"—the economy grows by 3 per cent. a year, the total national wealth will grow in the same 10-year period by less than 40 per cent.
There has also been considerable change in the post-war years in people's attitude to their elderly relatives. I am afraid that we are all much more prone to take the attitude, especially when "dad" and "mum" can no longer manage for themselves, that it is high time that they went into an old people's home, where, we tell ourselves, they will probably be much happier and much better looked after. Also, the changing pattern of society has made it more difficult for families to look after their elderly relatives. Today, there are fewer single women. The maiden aunt—I am one—is a vanishing species and it is the maiden aunt who has borne the brunt of looking after elderly people.
Society is also becoming much more mobile and volatile, with all that that means in the break-up of family ties and neighbourhood responsibilities. We must also take into account the fact that old people have, in the past, tended to set their standard of requirements very low. They have, of course, applied the yardstick of their past experience and not that of what will be the future practice and, therefore, have, on the whole, asked for far less than, possibly, modern resources would facilitate.
But more and more a society such as ours, which has lived through very rapid change and rapid social progress, will inevitably demand higher standards and far better provision for old age. By present standards, we must all admit, our provision for the elderly is proving quite inadequate, and I think that most of us would admit that the desperate need at the moment is for more money, for more staff and for more buildings.
It is against this background that we must look at what hope there is for any dramatic improvement in the years that lie ahead. The problem falls into three main groups. First, there is the provision for those who, by reason of physical or mental infirmity, must be cared for in hospital. Secondly, there is provision for those who by reason of physical or mental

433
frailty and family circumstances should be cared for in residential homes or in sheltered housing. Thirdly, and by far the largest group, there are those old people who, with the aid of supporting services and properly planned accommodation, are able to live independent lives in their own homes.
In the first group there are those who must be cared for in hospital. The aspect of this problem which at present is uppermost in our minds is probably that so vividly portrayed in the recent book by Mrs. Barbara Robb, "Sans Everything". A.; this book shows, all too often people are, existing in huge old-fashioned, overcrowded institutions, and that many people are in mental homes not because they are psychiatric cases, but because there is no room for them in old people's homes or in the geriatric units of general hospitals. On the other hand, some of those at present in the geriatric wards should be care for in mental homes. Many old people are enfeebled and incontinent, and the overcrowded accommodation, unsuitable buildings and staff shortages inevitably lead to intolerable conditions for both patients and nurses.
These circumstances are inevitably self-perpetuating, because bad working conditions are driving away staff, so that sometimes unsuitable and untrained staff are overworked in institutions which receive few visitors and become isolated from the rest of the community. It is in these circumstances that undoubtedly there are some cases in which old people are treated with callous inhumanity. If we turn our backs on those facts and try to pretend that they do not exist, we must bear the guilt not only of our own inhumanity, not only of the suffering of these who are being ill-treated, but, not least important, we are guilty of doing a grave disservice to the overwhelming majority of nurses and doctors, who are giving devoted and tireless service, often in impossible circumstances.
Our immediate reaction is to say, "It cannot be true". I know and appreciate the Minister's very great difficulties. In the post-war years there have been tremendous improvements in conditions in our mental homes and our institutions, and there lave been great advances in our treatment of mental illness and of age and infirmity. When I was studying for a degree in psychology I saw for myself
434
conditions in institutions which personally I shall never forget—conditions and forms of treatment which would be quite unthinkable today. We all recognise that this steady improvement is still gaining momentum. But what is needed is not just a plausible reassurance or an apologia but, something on which I think we all agree, determined action probably on two fronts.
First, we must face the problem of setting up the proper machinery for hearing complaints. I have great sympathy with the views expressed by Professor Brian Abel-Smith, who suggested in the book which I have mentioned a hospital commission which would be responsible for investigating complaints. This Commission could be part and parcel of the Ombudsman procedure. We on this side of the House have long thought that if there were to be a Parliamentary Commissioner he should not be debarred from investigating complaints in the hospital and health service. I hope that the Government are prepared to reconsider this matter because it is this kind of impartial investigator which is needed.
I also agree with Professor Abel-Smith that we should again consider the idea of an inspectorate. I know that we do not like the name, but we can change the name and probably find a new one. We should consider an inspectorate on the lines of the school inspectorate, which would cover both hospitals and the health and welfare service. This type of inspectorate has worked pretty smoothly in education, and I see no reason why it should not be equally valuable in health and welfare.
I have been asked to put certain questions to the Minister and I believe that my hon. Friend will repeat them. They fall into three headings. First, will the chairman have the assistance of nurses and doctors in the inquiry which the Minister is to set up? Secondly, will the Minister ensure that the people he chooses have no connection with the regions and the hospitals in respect of which the complaint is made and that there is no question of intimidation? Those are important questions which I know the Minister will be anxious to answer in winding up the debate. Secondly, we must make a much more determined effort to deal with the present

435
overcrowding and to cut down the long waiting lists for hospital beds.
I was glad to see that only last Thursday the Minister was urging a greater priority for geriatric beds—when he was opening a new geriatric wing. At the same time he was, as The Guardian put it on Friday, 7th July:
"indulging in some sustained slapping of his own back "
in the Ministry of Health Report for 1966. No doubt we shall hear more in the same vein today and we shall be told how much better he is doing in hospital building. I hope that some of my hon. Friends will take up this theme later in the debate. The fact remains, however, that when all the costs and statistics and the plans are analysed, his hospital building programme is substantially the same as our own building programme was. Perhaps I am not being quite fair. In any case, he shakes his head. But as an article in New Society on 2nd June shows, as a result of the Minister's present programme hospital building, as a proportion of total gross fixed investment, would grow more slowly in the next five years than it did in the last three years of Conservative Government.
However we look at the figures and analyse them, the truth is—as we all know—that we should be spending more on our hospitals. At the same time, the shortage of beds and pressure on resources is being aggravated by the fact that too many old people are having to be kept in hospital and mental home beds because they have nowhere else to go. No one will deny that we need many more homes for old people who, because of physical or mental frailty or family circumstances, need to be cared for in residential homes or sheltered housing but who do not require the highly skilled nursing attention which they are getting in hospitals.
The Minister no doubt will be able to quote statistics showing rising trends of expenditure on the care and welfare of the elderly. But we all know from our constituency experience that in far too many cases there are long waiting lists, inadequate and unsuitable buildings and untrained and overworked staff.
The Report just published by the National Council of Social Service, under
436
the title "Caring for People," has a good deal to say about the Cinderella of the social services. This Committee, under Professor Lady Williams, which, for more than four years, has been studying the staffing of residential homes, has found that 80 per cent. of the staff in old people's homes are untrained and that the staff turnover is about one-quarter a year. This high turnover is not surprising when we find that a 70-hour week is fairly normal, a lack of personal privacy usual and salary rates little better than those of the domestic assistants who help them. We all recognise that residential care is a complex undertaking calling for people with special skill, understanding and training. Willingness and a warm heart are not in themselves a sufficient qualification—and I agree with the Report when it calls for a two-year training course and also for the provision of courses at university level.
The Report also poses another important question. Does the work for people whose circumstances require residence necessarily involve the employment of resident staff apart from the minimum of resident personnel for both safety and good care? Personally, I feel that the answer is that in most cases the staff are better to have a life away from the institution. I feel sure, also, that, as with teaching, there is considerable scope here for the employment on a part-time shift basis of married women whose children are at school all day. There is also much more scope for the use of voluntary help under the supervision of properly trained staff. Many of us know of the wonderful scheme at St. Thomas's Hospital where a great many volunteers are working under the supervision of trained staff. I think that this should be extended, particularly in our residential old people's homes.
Equally important as staff selection and training is the need for something to be done as quickly as possible about the depressing state of many of these homes. We all accept that proper care of the elderly requires a combination of tact and compassion, patience and understanding. Old people are not constantly grateful. Many of them in the homes undoubtedly feel neglected. Many even feel rejected by their families. They do not always look forward to being in a home for the rest of their lives, often a

437
home not of their own choosing and amongst people they have not chosen to be with.
Therefore, it is all the more important to create decent, attractive surroundings so as to ensure that old people retain self-respect and do not feel that they are being a nuisance to anyone. This is not jug a question of devoting a larger proportion of our resources for the provision of homes and staff, but also of using a great deal more thought and imagination.
In the recent report by the Building Centre Trust on its excellent exhibition, "Building for Old People" Mr. Edward Mills stated:
"Few of the schemes appeared to offer potentially satisfactory social solutions to old people's needs; they were to institutional. In such homes there appears to be little provision for residents to determine how they will spend their days, and no allowance made for residents partly capable of caring for themselves to be independent if they wished.… Too many welfare authority schemes appear to be influenced by outdated conceptions of welfare … These solutions may have been aprropriate 50 years ago but they may be serious liabilities in 20 years time".
It is worth noting that some of the best schemes were those of voluntary organisations and that there is great scope for voluntary private provision to supplement provision by local authorities. In your private capacity, Mr. Speaker, you are President of a Rotary Club and will be aware of the magnificent scheme which has been got going by Southampton Rotary Club for sheltered housing, where old people have their own flatlets. This is an example of a project initiated and cart led through by local people giving their time and their skills and it is something which could well be the prototype for voluntary participation in the care of old people.
But it is difficult to estimate how far residential facilities fall short of needs. On the one hand, waiting lists are long. On the other, part at least of the need is due to roverty, poor housing and inadequate domicilary services. Professor Townsend claims that over half of those newly admitted to residential homes are capable of leading independent lives and that, for a quarter of them, loss of accommodation was the main cause of admission. It is estimated that about 90 per cent. of elderly people live in their own homes and that more than 10 per cent. of this group
438
is housebound because of illness or infirmity.
By far the largest part of this problem must always be concerned with those who are able to continue to lead useful lives in their own homes. Dorothy Wedderburn says in the December, 1966, Quarterly Bulletin of the National Old People's Welfare Council that her researches lead her to believe that
"… we could quite easily double our expenditure on domicilary services and on other services like special sheltered housing without there being any danger of over providing."
What is the present position? The Government promised the expansion of virtually all health and welfare services and I am sure that this is what they would like to do. But as a result of last July's freeze they have brought in still more cuts in local health and welfare and amenity spending. The Daily Telegraph local government correspondent, writing on 30th December, 1966, said:
"Many authorities have already had to cut back on their original development plans because of this year's squeeze. Now some projects which survived this process are having to he looked at again. Especially hard hit are such plans as those affecting old people's homes, children in care, and rehabilitation centres."
This is bound to have a serious effect on future expansion.
In the circumstances, one of our main aims must be to make the best possible use of our resources, inadequate though in many respects they are, and we are not always doing that. A report on community care cases referred by general practioners to local authorites which appeared in last month's edition of Social Work concluded that
"… the line of communication between the local authority and the G.P.s certainly merits more serious examination than it has hitherto received.
The report noted the small number of cases in which the G.P. seems to refer his patients to make use of the community car services. Why is this so? Perhaps he is too busy. Perhaps he is just unaware of how he can get help.
Whatever the reasons, we must try to get this right. I think that it is partly due to the present separation of the three main branches of the services and partly to the fact that far too many doctors have still not joined group practices and as a result too many are overworked.

439
In fact, although we are short of doctors in proportion to our population, we are no more short of them than many other countries in Western Europe. But we need to give more encouragement to group practices and to health centres where doctors can have available all the ancillary aids to do their job. Secondly, we should move towards a Porritt solution, by which all the major branches of the services are brought under one authority on an area basis.
A recent article in the British Medical Journal argued that a unified health service should be fitted in with any reformed local government structure. I hope that both the Seebohm inquiry and the Royal Commission on Local Government have this idea very much in mind. Much can be done, also, to prevent overlapping in the local authority services. I have no doubt that the Seebohm Committee is considering the idea that there should be a social work department of the local authority to provide a wide range of social services including the provision of support and assistance to old people.
We also need to think increasingly of the need for what may be termed " day hospitals " for the elderly, where services such as physiotherapy, occupational and industrial therapy, hairdressing, chiropody and various recreational activities are available. This is the pattern at the psychogeriatric unit and Severalls Hospital, Colchester, where the majority of patients are transported to and from the hospital by the local authority ambulance services. The hospital also operates a system, I believe, whereby patients can board for a while so that their families can get a rest and go away for a holiday.
Very often it is the length of time of strain without a break or a holiday for those who are looking after old people in their own homes which forces them to allow the old people to go into care. By relieving strain on the family, many more old people could be kept in their own homes, in the community as a whole.
Sometimes, however, old people have to go to residential homes because of the sheer shortage of space in many modern houses. But in a number of cases families might be more prepared to look after their elderly relatives if they were given
440
some encouragement and help from the Government to do so.
For example, if a young married couple are to take in an elderly parent the house may well need conversion in some form—perhaps to provide a separate kitchenette or an additional bedroom or lavatory, or perhaps certain aids to make it easier for an elderly person to get about the house—handles for getting out of the bath, etc. But all this is expensive, and even if these people undertake the conversion themselves, one result is that their rates go up, which is hardly an encouragement. What we should seriously consider is whether we could devise a system of grants to encourage people to adapt their houses for this purpose.
That, then, is the picture. It is that of a chain reaction which begins among the 90 per cent. or so of the elderly people who should be able to stay in their own homes. Because of inadequate family and housing provisions and insufficient domiciliary health and welfare services, pressure builds up on the already overburdened residential homes for old people. At this point, shortages of money, of buildings and of staff serve to increase the pressure at the next stage, thereby aggravating the shortages of geriatric and mental accommodation. This pressure again shifts the burden on the already overstrained hospital services.
This becomes a vicious circle, but, nevertheless, we all know that great progress has been made and is being planned. Much of our provision for the elderly is first-class and many more old people are enjoying the dignity and security of good community care.
As I have said, we need more encouragement and help for those families willing to make sacrifices to look after their elderly relatives, sensible spending priorities throughout the social services in a determined drive to rid the country of antiquated old people's homes and hospitals, an end to the separation of the different branches of the health services, a proper system whereby complaints can be impartially and objectively investigated without fear or favour, and a determined drive to make full use of the vast amount of good will and compassion that exists among all sections of the community.
We all know that there is much that can be done to improve matters, and I

441
am sure that all in this House are anxious to see them done. We know that better research can lead to clearer understanding of the problems. Considerable savings can be made by adopting sensible spending and charging priorities, by closer coordination, and by employing a unified strategy of social security. Advances can be made by using new techniques and new methods. But, when all these things have been done, there will still remain a severe shortage of money, manpower and accommodation.
We are deluding ourselves if we imagine that we can meet the inevitably escalating demands of the future by relying on steeply rising taxation to pay the social welfare bill. This is a debt that can only be met if we have the courage and the imagination to reorganise ald reorientate our system of health and welfare provision. Professor Miller tells LB that an extra £500 million a year is needed to bring our National Health Service up to the best standards abroad.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson)indicated dissent.
Miss Pike: I see that the Minister shakes his head, but, equally, I am sure that he will accept that a very large sum 431' money is needed if we are to have the sort of health service all of us in this country want.
In face of the present difficulties, the B.M.A. has decided to plan an alternative health service. Here, in Parliament, most of us on both sides of the House surely realise that the time has come to take a good hard look at the alternatives to our present system. Most of us would, I think, agree that charges on the lines advocated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and his allies probably offer us the best hope for attracting the essential money and resources into the National Health Service without making the burden on public expenditure intolerable.
So much for the Health Service. But what about the social welfare field? Here, increasing numbers, acceptable design and building standards and higher requirements for staff, and the selection and training of staff, will inevitably lead to greatly increased costs.
442
These costs can only be met if we plan to make use of what I am sure is our tremendous reservoir of voluntary participation and voluntary service.
There are already schemes in operation throughout the country that point the way to what can be achieved in this field. Hon. Members will know of schemes in their own constituencies, and other schemes in the country as a whole, but I think that very often not enough publicity is given to them. There is not enough, as it were, cross-fertilisation and knowledge of what is going on in this sphere. Every locality differs in its problems and in its opportunities. Every locality differs in its resources in terms of leadership and of people. The best must be encouraged, and the laggards must be helped. For myself, I am determined to stimulate discussion and action at local level so that local communities will be spurred on to make the effort to find the best ways of supplementing and extending the statutory provision.
Community service and good neighbourliness do not only serve to increase the quantity of the help that is given, essential though that is but, in themselves, enrich the quality of life. The dominant theme of all our policies and ideas must be care and compassion. But those are hackneyed words. Unfortunately, they have become trite, because very often we use them as pawns of our own prejudice, and sometimes as alibis for honest thought.
Care and compassion are words that have embodied different principles to different people and different generations, and if their interpretation is exhausted by one generaltion they become meaningless to the next. But with fresh attitudes of mind and new techniques of medicine and science we can charge those words with a richer, fuller meaning so that they remain the genuine expression of human aspiration at its most admirable.
Efficiency, political ideology and argument all have their place, but in this field we shall probably be judged by the quality of the care and compassion we show in dealing with this problem.
4.24 p.m.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I welcome the opportunity that this debate affords to discuss the

443
problems associated with the care of the elderly, and I would pay my tribute to the hon. Lady the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) for opening the debate in a way that was generally constructive and, if I may say so, unsensational.
This is a vast subject and, let us face it, it is a vast and growing problem, as the hon. Lady made clear. There is a sense in which it is almost a problem of our own creation collectively as a society, and it is also a problem that will demand more and ever more of our resources, particularly in the health and welfare services, at any rate as far as the end of this century.
It is a commonplace to repeat the statistical fact that the proportion of old people in our society has increased and will continue to increase. The advances of medical science have conquered many of the diseases which used to kill off large numbers of the population in infancy, in childhood and maturity. As a result, there has been an increase in life expectancy, though not to any very great extent measured in terms of years from birth. What is much more significant, and more relevant to our subject, is the greatly increased expectation of reaching old age.
The effects of this phenomenon can most easily be seen in any comparative study of the incidence of different kinds of disease or, indeed, of causes of death in the population as a whole today as against, say, 25 years ago. Gone, or dramatically reduced in their incidence and effect, are many of the killing diseases prevalent when I was a young man, but they have been replaced, inevitably, by the degenerative diseases of man, the diseases associated with old age. Thus, not only have we a steadily increasing proportion of the elderly in our midst, but this growing block of the population is by its very nature more in need of and makes more demands on medical health services of all kinds.
But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is more than a matter of demography. Increasingly, we as a society—and I think that the hon. Lady made this point—are looking to the State, to the public authorities, to provide residential accommodation of one kind or another for our old people. It is no doubt in part due to changing
444
social habits, in part to our growing inability or, perhaps, unwillingness to cope within the family with our obligations to the older generation. But it is also a reflection of the improved standards we demand, and rightly demand, of institutional provision and residential care. As we raise the quality of accommodation—as, indeed, we have been doing—more old people are prepared to face the prospect of going into it, and more of us are prepared to see our parents and grandparents cared for in such an environment.
To put it simply, when we replace the grim ex-Public Assistance institution by the small and modern and friendly old people's home, designed and built to be a home in the proper sense; as we replace the cheerless, out-dated, long-stay hospital annexe with the modern geriatric unit, we ourselves stimulate the demand for such provision. The fact that everyone, whatever their social status, used to do everything in their power to avoid the stigma and misery of "ending up in the workhouse" itself acted as an effective limitation on demand.
This tragic restraint has, happily, gone, and gone for good, but it is in this sense, too, that I said at the beginning of my remarks that this vast and growing problem of caring for the elderly is largely one of our own creation. This development, let us not hesitate to assert, is to the credit of our society and of our generation. But let us not underestimate the demands it is making, and will increasingly make, on our manpower and other resources.
I should like to devote most of what I have to say to hospital provision for old people. This is, of course, only one facet of care, even if an important one, and my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio will, in winding up the debate, direct more of his remarks to the community aspects of care for the elderly.
Hon. Members may recall that in 1965 I requested regional hospital boards, when reviewing their capital programmes, to give geriatric and psychiatric services what I called a due and early share of the additional resources being made available. In other words, I asked not only that boards should make certain that the proportion of available money spent on geriatrics in the next 10 years reflected realistically the importance of the care of the elderly among the many services

445
provided by hospitals, but that the necesry money should be provided earlier rather than later in the 10-year period. Thus, I aimed to strike as quickly as possible, a position of balance which was not, in my view, struck in the earlier Hospital Plans.
There is already some evidence of progress in this direction. In 1966, there were 59,186 geriatric and chronic sick beds. Regional hospital boards estimate that in 1970 there will be 63,048, an increase of 7 per cent., which will keep pace with the very large rise expected in the elderly population.
This increase is coming about through the provision of new geriatric units in redeveloped district general hospitals and adaptations to existing hospitals. Existing geriatric wards are also being improved. With a good deal of imagination and ingenuity some of the old institutional buildings are being almost transformed so as to make them tolerable until such time as they can all be redeveloped or replaced.
Along with improvements in physical accommodation, geriatric medicine is developing very satisfactorily in many areas. This, I am sure, will be true of all areas as soon as more geriatric physicians are forthcoming. There has already been a considerable strengthening in the medical staffing of geriatric hospital departments and units. The number of consultants specialising in geriatrics has risen by nearly 40 per cent. from 115 in 1964 to 156 in 1966. Other hospital medical staff, including medical practitioners responsible for the treatment of the elderly, have also increased in numbers.
Geriatrics as a medical specialty is evolving all the time. The modern geriatric unit, with its assessment and rehabilitation wards, is designed to enable the elderly patient to receive the correct treatment for his condition. After further treatment in the rehabilitation ward many will return to the community where, supported by the domiciliary services, they will be able to spend happy and useful years. A small minority, of course, will fail to respond to treatment and will require long-term hospital care.
The day hospital plays a very important part in rehabilitation. Day hospitals provide for the elderly sick who are in need of hospital care, but who do not require to be in-patients. The pro-
446
vision of day hospital facilities is increasing rapidly and it is clear that our hospital authorities are fully aware of its value. The number of attendances by elderly people at day hospitals increased from 61,450 in 1961 to 310,000 in 1966. Thus I think we can say that the concept of the elderly patient condemned, bed-ridden, to years of inactivity is fast disappearing. What one now sees more and more is the elderly person, albeit a little infirm, who with the aid of physiotherapy, occupational therapy and the help in some cases of simple appliances, can still play an active part in community life.
Geriatric medicine does not seem in the past to have been as attractive to the young doctor or nurse as most other specialties. This somewhat out-dated attitude is beginning to fade as the challenge of this specialty is more widely appreciated and this should be helped by a new development in the teaching hospital field. Most of the London undergraduate teaching hospitals have recently undertaken to provide—or propose to do so--full hospital services to their local communities, including provision for geriatric patients. This will mean that geriatric care will not only be part of an integrated hospital service, as it is elsewhere, but will benefit from the stimulus of a large teaching hospital. It will also mean that the medical students will have better opportunities to learn about the care of old people.
This will be of twofold benefit. Many of the students will become the family doctors of the future, and they will be that much more alive to the needs of their elderly patients and to the appropriate methods of meeting them. Other students will undoubtedly be attracted to this specialty and will provide the much-needed geriatricians of the future, without whom we shall be unable to make the most of many potentially excellent geriatric units. I am, incidentally, glad to note that the Royal College of Physicians has recently recognised the value of this important specialty by setting up a geriatric committee.
Similar considerations apply in geriatric nursing, which also calls for special skill. Much is being done, I am glad to say, to raise the prestige of geriatric nursing in the profession. For example, geriatric experience is being included in many of

447
the educational programmes for student nurses. Attitudes change as the geriatric ward is seen to be a place where there is something to be learned both in theory and in practice. There is more satisfaction to be obtained from geriatric nursing now that successful rehabilitation enables the nurse to see the practical results of her efforts.
Gone are the days when nurses did no more than tend patients who would spend the rest of their days in bed. Geriatric nursing is now looked upon as a specialty requiring extra skills rather than as routine nursing requiring less skill. Geriatric units are now among the show pieces of the Health Service. They may not always be housed in new buildings, but much has been made to upgrade the old. Several geriatric units are run on the lines of progressive patient care and can in this respect give a lead to some general acute hospitals. The transition I have described has been taking place very rapidly and geriatric services are now included in the planning of new district general hospitals, as a matter of course.
I should like to say a word about a still more recent development, the psycho-geriatric assessment unit. Medically, it is often very difficult to separate mental from physical infirmity in old age. This is one of the facts which may lead to the situation described by the hon. Lady as misplacement of patients. It is essential, therefore, to find ways of assessing that minority of patients who cannot clearly be distinguished at the outset as suffering either from a predominantly geriatric or a psychiatric condition. Such an assessment should, ideally, be conducted in the patient's own home and the initial visit of the consultant could well reveal a number of social and medical defects that could, if properly remedied, obviate the need for hospital admission. When a domiciliary assessment is not possible, or fails, then the effective alternative is assessment in a psycho-geriatric assessment unit, in a general hospital.
The psycho-geriatric assessment unit prevents misplacement of patients, with all its consequences, and leads to more effective use of geriatric and psychiatric services. Its function is to enable a more precise diagnosis to be made, to initiate
448
treatment, and to make the most suitable arrangements for further care when necessary.
Some patients will fail to respond to treatment started in the assessment unit and will need continuing institutional care. It may be provided, according to the patient's condition, in the wards of a psychiatric hospital, or the wards of a geriatric department, or in a residential home. Needless to say, to be effective this service calls for close links between the geriatric and psychiatric departments and between the hospitals and the local authority services.
Where both hospital and local authority services for the elderly and chronic sick are well developed there is little, if any, difficulty in ensuring that patients are cared for in the way that is best for them. But where services are deficient on either or both sides, it is inevitable that there are difficulties such as misplacement, blockage of hospital or welfare beds, waiting lists to both hospital and residential accommodation and delays over urgent cases which need transfer. My Department gave fresh guidance on the care of the elderly in hospitals and residential homes in a memorandum issued in September, 1965. It contained a section on joint planning and operation and emphasised that although the various health and welfare services for the elderly were not administered by one authority, their purpose was to provide what is essentially a single service for each individual needing it.
In most areas, hospitals, local authorities and general practitioners are making great efforts to establish on a firm basis that co-operation which is so essential for this purpose. One of the fruits which can be derived from this co-operation is the joint appointment of a geriatri, physician with his main responsibility in the hospital service, but with some of his duties lying in the local authority field. Extension of this area of co-operation should ensure that in future there can be less opportunity for any breaks in the continuity of care between the hospital and the local authority services. One doctor will be in a position to judge the possibilities of both services and to ensure, as far as physical facilities allow, that the most appropriate form of treatment and care

449
is offered to elderly people at the time when they need it.
Although I have spoken at some length about modern hospital care for the elderly, the first objective of our complex of services for old people is, of course, to keep them out of hospital if possible and for as long as possible. Services in the community provided by local help and welfare authorities are themselves every bit as important. As I said, my right hon. Friend will say something about this in winding up the debate, but I should like meanwhile to say a word about residential accommodation in the community, the parallel provision, so to speak, to the hospital geriatric unit.
Mr. Nigel Fisher: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to refer to the "Sans Everything" issue, which has arisen so recently?
Mr. Robinson: I will not ask the hon. Gentleman to be patient for very much longer.
There has been a dramatic advance in recent years in both quantity and quality or residential accommodation which is not sufficiently known and appreciated. For example, during the last 20 years local authorities have provided 1,764 homes, of which 724 were purpose-built. Despite the limitations which had to be placed on the total loan sanctions in 1965, 130 new homes were opened in 1966, providing for nearly 5,800 residents, compared with 106 for only 5,000 people the year before and with 87 for 4,300 people in the last four years of government by the Party opposite. Local authorities were providing a total of 93,000 places for elderly people in March, 1965, and they plan to provide 152,000 by 1976.
These net figures do not wholly reflect the size of programme required, since, to their great credit, all but a few authorities plan to get rid of their remaining accommodation in old workhouses and other over-large and obsolescent buildings in which good welfare is difficult and often impossible. Replacement of this obsolete accommodation requires building for up to 20,000 more old people, but I am hopeful that the whole of the programme—both expansion and replacement—can be realised.
I have sometimes, however, to ask those authorities who are relatively well
450
provided to hold back as patiently as they can while leeway is made up elsewhere, where the need is more clamant. We must recognise that replacement of outworn buildings is essential, if all those who spend their last years in residential homes are to do so decently. As I said in reply to a Parliamentary Question yesterday, I shall, for my part, not be content till all the old Public Assistance institutions are gone.
The part of the general practitioner in the care of the elderly is, of course, vital, and I should perhaps mention that the new scheme of remuneration for general practitioners now provides a higher capitation fee for patients over age 65–28s. a year instead of the normal 20s. in recognition of the additional medical care which may be necessary for the elderly. Furthermore, the strong incentives which we have introduced to form group practices or to practice in health centres and to employ supporting ancillary staff will do much to improve general practitioner care of the elderly.
However we improve our organisational arrangements—and I think that I have shown that we have done much in the last year or two—what matters, above all, is that our old people, under whatever form of care they find themselves, should be treated at all times with kindness and sympathetic understanding. The hon. Lady used the words "care and compassion". I have no doubt whatever that in general they are. The quality and dedication of our nurses is as high as can be found anywhere in the world.
I believe that the House would assent to this, and accept that nursing old people, many of whom are incontinent and confused, is one of the heaviest tasks the nurse can be asked to undertake. Hon. Members will, therefore, wish to put into perspective the sort of allegations of ill-treatment and gross neglect of elderly patients at the hands of nurses, which have received such eager publicity in the last few weeks.
These allegations, contained in a book called "Sans Everything", are for the most part made pseudonymously. I have made it clear in the House, in answer to Questions, and my Department has made it clear to the Press and to the editor of the book, that any specific complaint or evidence put forward in a way

451
which makes inquiry possible would be investigated, and searchingly investigated; but that general unsubstantiated allegations cast unfair suspicion on large numbers of hospital staff who devote themselves to the care of elderly patients, and can only cause distress to patients' relatives.
I therefore wrote to AEGIS when I had seen the book, expressing the hope that, on reconsideration, they would agree to make available to me the identity of the complainants and the patients and staff involved, so that a full inquiry could be held; and that if they remained unwilling to do that, they would at least inform me in confidence of the identity of the hospitals. This would not enable full inquiries to be made into the allegations of ill-treatment of individual patients, but it would make it possible to carry out independent investigations into the situation at these hospitals.
I am glad to say that I have been given the names of the hospitals concerned and I have now asked for sufficient particulars to relate each hospital to a specific section of Chapter 3 of the book so that the hospital board chairmen can arrange for inquiries to be carried out by a legally qualified chairman from outside the National Health Service, assisted by other persons unconnected with the hospital concerned.
More generally, all chairmen of regional hospital boards and boards of governors are aware that if particular cases cannot be dealt with by investigation, everything possible must be done through management. I have asked the managers of all hospitals, through their senior staff, to make searching inquiries into the possibility that any form of inhumanity, particularly in the treatment of elderly patients, might exist in any of the hospitals for which they are responsible.
I am not, of course, attempting to prejudge the outcome of the investigations which are being undertaken. No one at this stage can say with certainty that any of the allegations is either true or untrue. Should it prove that even a single charge of brutality or inhumanity is substantiated then, of course, I welcome its exposure.
452
But the other side of the balance sheet should not be overlooked. The method of presentation of the case, in a series of anonymous charges against unidentifiable persons in unnamed hospitals, has also caused immeasurable distress and anxiety, not only to nursing and other staff, but, what is certainly no less important, to the relatives and friends of patients, both present and future, and, indeed, to those who themselves are likely to need geriatric or psychiatric care in hospital in the near future.
This type of generalised attack on the quality of care given to the elderly in hospital can hardly assist nurse recruitment, on which continued progress must depend. I sometimes wonder if the ready credence that seems to be given in so many quarters to allegations not yet proved, may not be a reflection of a deep collective guilt we feel at having transferred to public authority something we instinctively still regard as a private and family responsibility.
If malpractices of the kind alleged in this book exist, it is inconceivable that they are in any way widespread. To believe this would be to accept that there is in many of our hospitals not only a conspiracy of silence among the nursing staff of all grades, but, indeed, a conspiracy against the patients, and especially the weakest and most helpless patients. Does anyone, do the authors of "Sans Everything", does the editor of the Nursing Mirror, really believe this?
There have been suggestions that nursing staff and others are afraid to come forward with complaints for fear of reprisals against themselves or against the patients. My first reaction was to dismiss this possibility out of hand. I have, however, since seen the questionnaire on this subject in the Nursing Mirror of 16th June, and a selection of the replies has been published. They have convinced me that such fears do exist, at least among a small minority of nursing staff.
It is, as hon. Members will appreciate, extremely difficult to deal with apprehensions of this sort, but I am considering what may be done to dispel them. Senior officers of my Department have already discussed this with the President of the Royal College of Nursing, and we

453
shall be considering what further action would be appropriate. We have discussed with the Royal College of Nursing the wider aspects of this whole subject, to explore what action the Royal College and we can take to encourage more widely the modern, positive approach to geriatric nursing and the care of the elderly generally.
Before leaving "Sans Everything", I should like to make one further point which may be not without significance. The gentleman who has the task in Chapter 4 of commenting on the anonymous nurses' allegations is said to have had 15 years of nursing experience, yet he states that he has never personally witnessed any case of ill treatment of patients.
To sum up, I have no evidence that any patients are deliberately ill-treated as alleged in "Sans Everything". I am ready and anxious to investigate anything which can be investigated, and I am determined that, if there are malpractices in any hospital, they shall be uncovered and eliminated. I know that there art difficult conditions in some psychiatric and geriatric hospitals, due to unsatisfactory buildings, overcrowding or shortage of staff. That is one reason the more for paying tribute again to the staff who give devoted care to patients while having to work in those conditions.
Mr. Fisher: I am sorry to interrupt again but there is one point which the Minister did not mention in talking about "Sans Everything". Could he categorically confirm that he will give the protection of complete anonymity to any nurses—he referred to the Nursing Mirror and the information which he had had on the point—who are, apparently, genuinely afraid to come forward without that protection?
Mr. Robinson: If they will come forward and give me their names, I shall, to the very best of my ability, give them all the protection that I possibly can.
I hope that I have left the House in no doubt of the scale of the effort being made by both hospital and local authorities to cope with this great problem not only of caring for our old people, but of enabling them to live as full and as useful lives as possible. We have not
454
yet achieved all along the line the high standard which we have all set ourselves, but our best is as good as anything in the world. Of course, there is still antiquated provision, but we are fast getting rid of it There may well be personal failings here and there, and, if this be so, we must, as I said, make searching inquiry to identify and eliminate them.
In the meantime, whatever anxieties we may feel about a handful of them, let us pay our tribute to all those who devote themselves unstintingly, week in and week out, to the care and treatment of the older generation.
4.55 p.m.
Mr. Philip Goodhart: I echo the warm tribute which the Minister has just paid to those who devote their lives in hospitals and homes to the care of the elderly. I am glad that he is taking seriously the allegations which have been made in the book "Sans Everything" and will investigate any specific allegations which are made. I hope that he will look carefully into the idea put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Miss Pike), who opened the debate so ably, of an inspectorate on the lines of Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools.
I agree with my hon. Friend when she says that the problem of the care of elderly patients does not fit into a tidy or convenient shape, for, as everyone knows, some people preserve their full mental and physical powers until a late age. I think, for example, of my parents. They have a house outside Oxford, a little more than half a mile from the nearest post box, which is at the top of, to me, a fairly steep hill. I always drive up it to post my letters.
Last year, however, my father, at the age of 75, decided that he would make a practice of running up to the post box and back whenever he had a letter to post. I hope that, if I reach his age, I shall be at least half as vigorous. I think, also, of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who so often entertains the House, but I know many constituents who have, regret-ably, sunk into senility 10 years or so earlier than his 82 years.
Most hon. Members agree with the general proposition that need increases with age. I have been one of those who

455
have advocated over the years that the basic pension rates should go up as age increases. I am sure that social historians of the future will be staggered to note that 185,000 of the oldest inhabitants of this country are deliberately excluded from the pension system because they are too old, because they were past the contributory pension age by the time our present system was introduced.
If the Government are determined not to do anything about the pension rights of these 185,000 people, at an average age of 85—alas, there will soon be many fewer of them—I hope that they will at least consider a drastic transformation of the supplementary benefit limit on capital and income for those over 80.
Another group of the aged who have not received very good care in recent months comprises those who seek to remain at work in the community. A number of us have been pressing that employers of those of pensionable age should be relieved of liability to Selective Employment Tax. It is difficult to find out statistically the impact of the tax on those old people who wish to seek part-time employment, but we know that it must be great. A constituent, a grocer, has written to tell me that because of the tax he has had to sack his own father from part-time employment. I hope that in their approach to the care of the elderly the Government will give them a concession on this in the future.
But, meanwhile, I regret to say that they appear to be moving in the opposite direction. I am glad that there has been an improvement in the earnings rule, but, at the same time, there has been a particularly mean withdrawal of the Income Tax concession. A constituent of mine has lost the whole of the pension that was payable to him because of the removal of the concession. He writes:
"I have now received notification from the local office of the Ministry of Social Security that they have retained my order book as I no longer have any pension due. This supports my contention that the publicity attached to the announcement by the Government of the increased earning allowance was a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Up to the present I have received £1 4s. per week, but with the increase of the earning allowance I should have expected an increase in this amount, and not a decrease. My earnings per week after deduction of Income Tax of £4 8s. are £7 2s., which means that for a full-time
456
job I get £7 2s. a week and the Government benefit by £8 8s. a week".
It seems to me that the withdrawal of the concession will hit a small group of not very well off pensioners who are trying to make a contribution to the community and who I do not believe have received a fair deal from the Government.
The Minister said a great deal about the geriatric units and the work of the specialists in hospitals. But he did not tell us much about the work going on here on the development of drugs to combat senility. When I was in America recently, I had an opportunity of talking to the director of the Worcester Institute of Experimental Biology, which has done notable work in many fields. He told me of some of the exciting work being undertaken in the development of hormones to push back the onset of senility.
I hope that the Minister can say something about the work that is being done in this country when he replies, for this is a sphere in which we should not lag far behind the Americans.
5.5 p.m.
Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: I join the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) in congratulating the hon. Member for Melton (Miss Pike) on the way in which she opened the debate. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on the very useful information he has given us today.
My right hon. Friend referred to the growing problem of old people in the community, which we all recognise. That recognition may not be reflected in the attendance here this afternoon, but perhaps last evening and the evening yet to come have something to do with the sparseness of our numbers. I am sure that it does not show that we are not interested in problems of this kind.
As my right hon. Friend said, the numbers of elderly are growing. It is also important to bear in mind that over the past decade or two we have lived a much more sophisticated life in what is known as the affluent society, and the break on retirement is now all the sharper for the elderly as they have enjoyed higher standards of living. These are the special problems that we must deal with in the 1960s and 1970s that we did not face in the 1920s or 1930s.

457
It is important that the House should consider how we can best channel the tremendous amount of good will on both sides and in the country into dealing with this very serious problem. I am sure that we are all impressed by the number of people who tell us how we should help old age pensioners. They say, "I do not mind paying an extra 2s. on my stamp or a little more in Income Tax". But, unhappily, when the day of reckoning comes, and the deductions are made at the end of the week or the month, we sometimes hear rather a different story. When we can release more resources for the important problems of the elderly it should not be just a question of increasing the country's wealth, the share remaining the same, but increasing the percentage available for the elderly from the increase that we hope to have over the next two or three years. This is the real test of our sincerity on the problem.
The first amount of extra money we think of spending should go automatically on the individual. Much has been done, which I am sure is appreciated, in the abolition of prescription charges, better allowances, rent rebates and so on, but a great deal more can be done.
My right hon. Friend is under a great deal of pressure at present from various pressure groups within the House and outside which suggest that more money should be spent on other needy groups. Some of them have a great deal to say for themselves, and I sometimes fear that in all the noise about a particular group the problem of some of the old people, although it will not be forgotten, might slip a place or two in the list of our priorities. I am sure that no matter what is said by some of our learned journals and newspapers and some of our sociologists the vast majority of the people in the community would want the care and maintenance of old people to be the Government's first priority.
Secondly, more of our resources should be spent not just on individuals—which we all want to see—but on the study of the problems involved in growing old. A great deal of gratuitous advice is given to Ministers and others concerned with the problem by a number of people, perhaps including myself, who know very little about the technical problems involved in growing old—loneliness, specialised hous-
458
ing for old people and the work that they do in retirement. I was encouraged by my right hon. Friend's comment that there was a new interest by the Royal College of Physicians and some of the teaching hospitals, particularly in the South—I am sorry that it is not so in the North—in the problem of geriatric medicine. In the North, we have only one chair of geriatric medicine in one of our universities, and throughout the country we have no institute of geratology.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will think about these problems. Some very important work in this area was done by the Royal College of Physicians in Scotland a number of years ago. I referred to this in a debate two years ago. The Report of the Royal College began with the obvious comments. The first was that we should sustain people in independence, comfort and contentment in their own homes and that when independence begins to wane we should support them by all necessary means for as long as possible. The Royal College also dealt with the problem of alternative residential accommodation, particularly for those who because of age and infirmity lack a home. Thirdly, it talked about hospital provision for those who are either physically or mentally ill. I suggest that this is a document worthy of my right hon. Friend's attention.
As to the comment that people should continue to live in their own homes we take this to be axiomatic in the problem of dealing with the aged in our community. Most of us accept that it is something that they want to do. We also accept that the Minister of Health would want to keep these people in their own homes in contentment and comfort as long as possible if only to enable him to release hospital beds for more urgent cases. But it is not as simple as is sometimes made out by those who write on the subject. There are far too few old people with families who can help sustain them in their own homes. Many of us have been troubled by recently published statistics showing the number of single and widowed people who have no family assistance. So I hope that when we think of keeping people in their own homes we shall do what we can to coordinate the efforts of general practitioners, social workers and local authority officers.

459
If we want to keep people in contentment and comfort in their own homes we must provide them with decent houses. Unfortunately, this is something that we just do not do. There are far too many old people—I am not putting this on the shoulders of my right hon. Friend; it must lie on the shoulders of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite—who are still living in near slum conditions. This is not because the local authority is not anxious about them, but perhaps because it has given priority to people with larger families, and so on.
A great many old people do not particularly want to leave the area in which they were born and have grown up and have reared their families. They may have lived in the centre of a community for a very long time. When redevelopment of slum areas occurs we push the old people out to the suburbs, to an area which they do not know, understand or like. Therefore, in our redevelopment schemes we should make a place for the aged in our midst.
A great many solutions of this kind have been offered, such as flats for single persons, the building of a group of old people's houses together, or dispersing them among people who have families. For a long time before I came to the House I served as a member of a corporation planning authority. While I think we meant very well in planning provision for old people's houses, frankly we did not know enough about the problem. Our local authority planning officers would have been well advised from time to time to consult people with special knowledge about how old people want to live, particularly in houses of this kind.
Another problem about old people living in their own homes is not just the sort of house that they have, but whether or not they are going to find sufficient occupation. In this respect, we pay tribute to the voluntary societies which try to relieve the boredom of people who find themselves cut off from work after a very long time. They have worked all their lives, and when the break of retirement comes it is very difficult for them to adjust themselves.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) said that the Selective Em-
460
ployment Tax was depriving a number of old people of employment. I have noticed that while this may be true in some parts of the country it is not true in others. However, we have far too many advertisements appearing in newspapers suggesting that a particular type of part-time job is suited to an old-age pensioner. My father, who is nearly 70, is an old-age pensioner, and he applied for one such job. The job started at 9.30 in the morning and finished at 4.30 in the afternoon, for which he was to be given the princely sum of £4 10s. per week. Happily, he had a local authority pension and turned down the job because he could afford to have principles in the matter.
If one does not have a local authority pension, or some other form of assistance beyond one's old-age pension, one cannot afford principles of this kind and so takes such jobs. Perhaps what we need in 1967 is a Shaftesbury for old-age pensioners. The use of old-age pensioners in this way is a growing problem. I am sure that the old-age pensioners take the work because they want a little extra money and wish to relieve the boredom associated with retirement. Nevertheless, I hope that my right hon. Friends the Ministers of Health and Labour will keep an eye on the problem and cut out exploitation of this kind.
Further in connection with the problem of living at home, I wonder whether it is possible to extend the domestic help service. It is an excellent service in many parts of the country, but the difficulty seems to be that there is not enough of it and that there is insufficient weekend care particularly for single people.
Another problem is that of the consultative health centre. My right hon. Friend dealt with residential accommodation, as did the hon. Lady the Member for Melton (Miss Pike). I was encouraged to hear of the increase in the number of people specialising in geriatric medicine in hospitals. However, I suggest that we need some means of channelling the expertise of local authorities and that this can be done only through the centres that my right hon. Friend mentioned. In Rutherglen we have one of the few consultative health centres in the country. The work done there by the medical officer of health

461
in co-operation with the Western Regional Hospital Board and the Departrment of Geriatric Medicine in Glasgow University is a model well worth being copied.
Unhappily, just not enough copying is being done and the point which the two doctors concerned have often made to mo—that we should as best we can, bring families and the old people into these centres in order to be given some education—is not given enough consideration. I do not want to detain the House further on this point, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will, in reply, refer to the problem of consultative health centres and whether or not we can expand them.
The Report of the Royal College of Physicians for Scotland emphasises that old age is not necessarily a time of ill health, disability and particularly of misery. I hope that this is the attitude we shall adopt and I trust that my right hon. Friends will give their attention.
5.21 p.m.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: In taking part in this debate, we must all remember that we are not talking about old people generally, or about the elderly as a whole or even the great majority of old people. What we are really concerned with are those whom we can call the defeated, who, by themselves or with their families, are not, for one reason or another, able to cope with life after reaching retirement age and beyond.
That in a way meets the point put by the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) in considering the priorities that are given to old people and to other deprived the mentally or physically handicapped. We are dealing in each case with only one group of people—those who, through no fault of their own, can no longer cope by themselves and who therefore must be a charge to some extent upon their neighbours, whether those neighbours be the immediate family or the community as a whole.
It is in this context that Mrs. Robb's book has made such an impact. In discharging this collective responsibility, we may not yet have totally eliminated the workhouse and the workhouse mentality. Whilst bearing in mind what the Minister of Health has said, we should be grateful to Mrs. Robb because she has, as he himself suggested, perhaps pinpointed a sense of guilt in ourselves, inasmuch as that
462
we are relying more on other people to discharge responsibilities in which, in our hearts, each one of us knows should be discharged by ourselves.
I am sure that all hon. Members will have shared my own experience of listening to a constituent deploring that the old-age pension is so low with a passion which probably stems from the fact that he is not using his own capacity to help the old person concerned. In other words, it is the sense of guilt at what he is not doing which motivates the venom with which such a person attacks what the State is doing.
I welcome what the hon. Member for Rutherglen said in suggesting that we should extend the study of gerontology. One of our most pressing needs in dealing with the care of the elderly is to prevent as many as possible from becoming defeated and to enable them to continue more or less normal lives. We should be doing a great disservice to Mrs. Robb and those who worked with her—who, I am sure, were sincere and compassionate and determined in their approach—if we assumed that what she has written about concerns only a few cases of scandal which require some sort of administrative clean-up and that we do not need to probe further into community services looking after old people.
I am convinced, like the Minister, that what Mrs. Robb found can only exist in a minority of cases and that the vast majority of those looking after the old do so with care and compassion and selfless devotion that is remarkable to see. But we should probe further into our Welfare State as an organised body as well as into the facts with which the book is concerned. If, as the right hon. Gentleman says—and I am prepared to believe him—this sort of conduct only affects a tiny minority of people, why are we so worried? We are right to be worried, as he said, if only one case of cruelty is discovered. But our sense of worry goes rather further. I think that we are worried in the same way that we are worried by a Welfare State which has produced family poverty and the terrible conditions under which some of the disabled are forced to live.
We should examine not only our care of the elderly but the mounting evidence that we are tending to weaken and control the strong without in any equivalent

463
way helping the weak. Indeed, in some cases the reverse is true. We tend to claim for the State too large a proportion of the responsibility which should rightly be that of the individual and in doing so we are failing to enable the State to discharge all those responsibilities. At the same time we are preventing the individual from discharging fully his own resposibilities and are enabling him to salve his conscience by pretending that it is all nothing to do with him anyway because nowadays the Government do it.
The care of the elderly has been called a collective responsibility. I reject the idea that it is merely a collective responsibility. It is not. That is the kind of responsibility that one has towards animals on a farm or units of output in a factory. The responsibility is really much more what one might call a universal individual responsibility, in the sense that, if the individual cannot take care of the elderly himself, then it is at least his personal and individual responsibility to see that it is done for him in the community. After all, that sort of idea is a truism among more primitive people who know this sort of problem very well.
I do not think that this is even a question of "private affluence combined with public squalor"; because in the care of old people, even in public responsibility, there is essentially a private aspect, covering not only the relationship of old people with the apparatus of the community in which they live—the institutions, the local authority services and the government, national or local, in the many ways it impinges on the elderly—but also with the other people, individuals, who live in that community too.
Of course, in this House and in this debate, we are concerned with the public aspects. The statistics show that, whatever the possibility is of increasing private responsibility and of affluence, enabling people to do more themselves for their elderly relatives, the care of the elderly will make increasing demands upon the health and welfare services. In some ways, improved medical science cancels itself out, for, while it enables people to live longer, it does not necessarily keep them in better health. Moreover if we are to solve our economic problems, social and geographic mobility must in-
464
crease, which again must put more on the health and welfare services for the retired and the elderly.
I want to make it plain that when I attack the Government in the course of this speech I am not referring to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues only, I am referring to the governmental machine and the tendencies which it demonstrates no matter which political party is in nominal charge of it.
There are four main types of institution which deal with elderly people: first, the ordinary acute wards in general hospitals; second, the psychiatric wards or mental hospitals; third, the geriatric wards in general hospitals; and, fourth, local authority and private homes.
The main tenor of the debate and of my hon. Friend's opening remarks is the danger, in the present complexity of methods of dealing with old people, of the wrong methods being used in individual cases. As the Minister said, old people change very fast, they become confused, they require psychiatric treatment, they require varying sorts of help relatively quickly and it is not easy to keep pace with their needs. However, there is no doubt that the wrong use of the facilities available is leading in some cases to waste of effort and the sort of abuses that "Sans Everything " described. Even if the accident is pardonable, leaving an ordinary elderly person in a mental ward for any length of time inevitably tends to make him more confused. Equally, it is sometimes difficult to get the right psychiatric treatment for people in ordinary geriatric or acute wards or local authority homes.
There is a genuine difficulty in the cooperation between the various authorities which are involved, although I would thank the Minister for the careful description he gave of the methods that he is proposing to constantly improve these techniques.
There is also genuine difficulty in getting people to come forward to undergo training for geriatric work. One must admit, in discussing this problem, that nursing old and incontinent people is not easy and is sometimes unpleasant. Old people themselves are frequently very difficult and even rather nasty. I do not wish to weaken my argument in any way, but this

465
is something which has to be admitted in trying to cope with the institutional problems involved.
Most of all we need to look constantly and carefully at the capacity of the institutions which we now propose to develop to help elderly people remain in the community. This particular consideration demands the most flexible arrangements and the widest possible number of different sorts of treatment available in the same area, or at least close enough together, to avoid having to move old people far away from their habitual surroundings to get them into the right sort of home or get them the right sort of treatment.
I have one or two positive and constructive suggestions to make. There is a lot to be said for what might be called the three tier system; that is to say, an old people's home for those who cannot live outside an institution; with, nearby, and staffed from the old people's home, bungalows or flats with a certain amount of supervision and the possibility of communal meals, but with private kitchenettes available; with, roundabout, bungalows in the community for those who can live on their own, with a modicum of supervision from the centre. The hon. Lady the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) will probably recognise this as a description of institutions which are in existence in her constituency.
The second sort of unit which I would like to see developed further is the type developed at Colchester at the Severalls Hospital where regard is paid to relieving the relatives of old people from the burden of looking after them for at least some period of the year. The work done at that hospital, on the concept of "month in, month out", makes it much easier to make the transition between hospitalisation and living fully in the community, as does the concept of a day hospital and the other methods used to supplement home life.
There is a great deal more work to be done in considering the rôle of the family doctor, group practice, and the health centre in integrating geriatric care with the rest of the community care which is being developed. Incidentally, I think we are at the moment begging the whole question of whether we will move to-
466
wards a family doctor service based on the individual or a family doctor service based on what might be called community care and a more public health or preventative aspect of medicine.
There are one or two other relatively minor acts which could be done which are relevant to this problem. I should like to see the whole level and incidence of tax relief given to people for dependent relatives looked at again. I should like consideration to be given to the question of whether grants could be paid to individuals on the lines of the proposals of the Disablement Income Group to enable old people, who might not otherwise be able to live at home, to continue to do so; grants which would therefore not be a net charge on the Exchequer. I should like consideration to be given to grants for conversion of housing to enable old people to live on their own or with their relatives.
In this matter and in the Welfare State as a whole we must consider the action of the State as enabling people to help themselves rather than merely as taking over responsibility for them. The tendency of the community to replace individual action and responsibility is inherent in our modern world with its complexity, technology, and in the increasing gap between those who are living on a normal average income and the poor —the poor getting poorer as the average gets higher. This increases the problem and in some ways the tendency to hand over more and more to the State is beginning to add to the problem which it is ostensibly solving.
I think it also partially explains the obduracy of institutions, the difficulty of getting complaints heard, and of getting those in authority to listen. When one comes forward with complaints of one sort and another, it is almost as if authority, anonymous and impersonal, was saying to each of us that by abandoning our individual responsibilities we have in some sense abandoned the right to complain about the treatment of those whom we have handed over to the State. We must ensure that that responsibility is accepted by us individually, even if we have to devise a mechanism for its discharge.
For these reasons, I should like to have the whole question of the accountability of our various institutions looked at

467
again. Who is in ultimate control of hospitals? Can the Minister order or only advise? Will the sort of inquiry he is making actually get to the root of the matter? I could not help feeling, as he was speaking, that he showed in some sort the complacency of the machine—that here we had the brave new world solution to the future, but not much hope of getting matters deeply looked into in the present. He used the words "psychogeriatric assessment unit" as if it was a sort of old people's 11-plus. I have no doubt that he was right, but it did seem extremely dehumanised.
I am not really criticising what he said, nor the progressive and practical ideas which he put forward, but rather wondering whether we are not tinkering with the problem and whether it is a problem which is especially acute for old people only because they are especially weak. More and more in the modern State the individual's importance is lessened and shaken in face of the demands of the machine. More and more we are isolated in the society in which we live according to our category in the administrative machine—child of school age, student, productive worker, old person—seeming real to the machine only in so far as it acts on us as a member of such a group.
When the Minister was speaking I wondered why I almost automatically believed Mrs. Robb's allegations, and I came to the conclusion that it was because they were merely an extreme example of the harshness of the impact of the State on the individual. In housing cases, in child welfare cases and in other matters of which each of us has experience in handling constituency cases, authority as such is callous.
In considering the special problems of the old, we must bear in mind that callousness is becoming normal in our society and that it is an attitude of mind which is as important as any institutional change or plans for the future, an attitude of mind which it behoves each of us to eradicate in ourselves, not at some time in the future, but now.
5.43 p.m.
Mr. Alfred Morris: The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) made in interesting speech. It is not my inten-
468
tion to follow his arguments, except to say this about his reference to the occasional nastiness of some elderly people. Some of our elderly are people whose lives were soured by long years of unemployment in the 1930s and many of them now have to exist in institutions —I shall not call them welfare homes—which were called Bastilles when they were built in the 19th century as workhouses under the so-called New Poor Law. These are elderly people who can crave some indulgence for any occasional nastiness they may show.
My first concern in the debate is to emphasise the importance of a topic which has not yet been mentioned, but which I regard as fundamental in any discussion of the welfare and well-being of the elderly. This is the need for much more attention to be given to the problems of preparing to retire. It is a new experience for our community to face the fact that more than 12 per cent. of the population is fit and lively and yet over retiring age. Every month, active people are having to give up work and are losing status and being driven into loneliness and isolation because of our rules about compulsory retirement. Happy are those with money, outlets and interests to keep them occupied when they retire from full-time work, but for many life loses its meaning when they have to retire.
The problem is made worse by the current trend towards retirement at the age of 60. In the world of modern technology, many people, from management to machine tool operators, are unable to hold their own after the age of 55. The farewell handshake may come suddenly or according to schedule, but, unless it is planned for, it can be disastrous.
It is now being realised that retirement raises entirely new problems and responsibilities for individuals, for the firms for which they have worked, and for the community. We still know very little about the adjustments involved in moving from employment to retirement. If the social and economic stability of our community is to be maintained, much more detailed research into this problem is urgently needed. To prepare for other phases of life we go to primary schools, secondary schools, training colleges, technical colleges and universities. Advice is eagerly sought from many different

469
sources. It is the duty of the House to create a climate of opinion in which it will be as natural to train for retirement as it now is to train to start work. This involves the Government, both sides of industry and the local education authorities, as well as the voluntary organisations.
How bad is the problem? My attention was drawn recently to an excellent statistical survey undertaken by the Workington College of Further Education. Its results show that of 149 men between the ages of 50 and 55, 93 did not know what their retirement income would be; 99 had not considered how they would manage on their retirement income; 104 did not know to what benefits they would be entitled in retirement; and 94—this is the figure in which I am particularly interested in this debate—had no new interests or activities to take up after retirement. The results obtained in the Workington inquiry would, I am sure, be repeated in similar inquiries in other areas throughout the country.
One may well ask what is being done to meet this very important problem? First, there is the Pre-Retirement Association, an organisation which is doing extremely valuable work in helping people to adjust from employment to retirement. It runs many advisory courses and has performed a most useful service in killing the idea that training for retirement should be regarded as old people's welfare. Many of those whom the Pre-Retirement Association is helping are people who just happen to be in their sixties and who want to enjoy life and to continue to make a useful contribution to society.
Moreover, keeping people happy in their own homes would certainly save some of the public resources now devoted to medical care. The Pre-Retirement Association recognises all this. It has set itself the task of making these points commonplace among all who are nearing retirement. Nationally, and through its regional committees, the Association is providing a remarkable service which I should like to be acknowledged by my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio in his speech tonight.
Secondly, a great deal of useful work is being done by employers and trade unions in emphasising, to those who are nearing retirement, the difficulties that
470
will have to be faced and the adjustments that will have to be made. I am particularly pleased that some of the nationalised industries have given the lead in this sphere. For some time I worked as a national officer with the electricity supply industry and had experience of courses organised by local joint consultative committees with the purpose of enabling people to take up new interests following retirement age.
I particularly recall courses which were organised in association with the University of Wales. Men who had lacked any previous opportunity to take an interest in arts and crafts became very good at some art or some craft as a direct result of these pre-retirement courses. I know that many private employers also help by paying fees for their elderly employees' attendance at educational courses and in phasing retirement from work. Thirdly, the local education authorities as well as the universities, are making an important contribution.
I am happy that in the City of Manchester, part of which I have the honour to represent, there are some of the best pre-retirement courses to be found anywhere in the country. Mr. Donald Garside, the Warden of Holly Royde College in South Manchester, has done particularly outstanding work, and much valuable work has also been done by the Lower Mosley Street Adult Education College.
The Pre-Retirement Association, employers, trade unions, the universities and the local authorities are doing excellent work. But it is for this House to emphasise that very much more needs to be done. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) referred to the University of Glasgow. Some hon. Members will recall the speech made at last year's annual conference of the National Association for Mental Health by Professor W. Ferguson Anderson, the professor in geriatrics at the university. Professor Ferguson Anderson was in fact the first professor of geriatrics ever appointed anywhere in the world. He has carried out a very interesting study to which he referred at last year's conference. The paper convinced me that one important factor responsible for emotional disturbance in the elderly is compulsory retirement. He emphasised that if people are to be

471
saved from mental ill-health, it is as essential to train them to retire as it is to train them to begin work.
We are not behind other countries in this connection. Much has been written about this in the United States, which may have the lead upon us in terms of precept. They have thought more than we have about the problem of adjustment from work to retirement, but in terms of practice we are doing as well as any other country. I would like to see us doing still more and leading the world because this involves something of the deepest possible human interest and importance. The ideal is that each person should have a genuinely free choice between working and retirement, within the limits of his ability and health, and that when retirement arrives it should be fully prepared for.
"What is this life, if full of care,
We have no time to stand and stare?"
So said the poet, but he was writing for a generation other than ours. One of the problems today is not that people lack some opportunity to stand and stare and reflect. The problem too often now is that people are forced out of work even if they are lively, active and healthy people. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has emphasised the importance of this problem, and I hope to hear some reference to this in the Government's reply to the debate.
Some years ago the Co-operative Party published a document called "Care of the Aged" which included many recommendations which have awaited implementation for a very long time. I hope that the Minister, who will be aware of this important document, will give, as it were, a progress report on the recommendations it contained. The document said that in the view of the Co-operative Party:
"…the division of responsibility between the hospital board and the local authority in providing for old people can cause unnecessary hardship to some who are 'marginally' sick or who are convalescent. A problem also arises in providing for the chronic sick who are kept in special wards of hospitals or alternatively of welfare institutions because there is nowhere for them to go. If one authority were responsible for meeting the needs of old people who require care and attention of any kind, the many facilities that are available could be readily co-ordinated, transfers effected, and
472
special provision made to meet any need, all with the minimum of inconvenience or delay."
I am reminded by this recommendation of the reference in a book called "The Social Services of Modern England". Its author, Miss Hall, instanced the case
"of a Manchester firewood seller who, after being turned away from hospital because he was not sick, and from the local authority because he was, returned home to die…"
This question of co-ordination is one of widespread concern and is of the greatest importance. Another recommendation from the Co-operative Party's document says:
"Most old people suffer from foot ailments of varying degrees of severity. Mobility in old people is a condition of their happiness and comfort and keeps them from being cut off from their neighbours and much social activity."
The document recommended that a chiropodist service be provided free to old people as part of the National Health Service. I hope that we shall hear of the progress being made in this direction.
I would now like to say something about the work done in the city of Manchester in many of the spheres referred to in this debate. This is a forward-looking and compassionate authority, which has given a lead to many other local authorities. In Manchester we have attacked with all our resources the problem of improving the quality of the lives of the city's elderly people. We have humanised large institutions by breaking them down into smaller ones and building welfare homes for small groups of elderly people in which they can live together as families.
I am pleased that in my constituency there are many of Manchester's new welfare homes which are the pride not only of Manchester but of the north of England generally in the facilities which they provide. I am particularly glad that we have a home called Weylands in the Baguley area of my constituency which is for those who have spent much of their lives in mental institutions. They are recovered mental patients but are unable to return to their families—in many cases because they have no families— and have been provided with a welfare home by the City Corporation. I should like my right hon. Friend the Minister to note the importance which we attach

473
to Weylands and to hear from him how many other local authorities are being advised to follow Manchester's example in providing welfare homes for mentally recovered patients. What progress is being made in this respect?
I should like also to hear what is being done to help more the voluntary organisations which do so much to provide the meals-on-wheels service and in extending the facilities of luncheon clubs which we have in Manchester and in some other local authorities. One of our problems is to improve the quality of life of elderly people by treating them more as people and not forcing them into retirement when they are still fit to work, by helping them to train to retire and by providing the best social services whenever they need help from the community.
6.2 p.m.
Dr. M. P. Winstanley: We seem to be enjoying an unaccustomed amount of agreement and unanimity today. I hope that we can preserve the same degree of accord in suggesting positive steps which should be taken on this important question rather than merely talking about it.
I join in the general congratulations given to the hon. Lady the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) for the way in which she introduced this subject and the responsible way in which she approached various aspects of the problem. I join, too, in the thanks which have been offered to the Minister of Health for the way in which he gave certain extremely important undertakings about the investigations arising from the "Sans Everything" document. I agree substantially with almost everything said by hon. Members.
I might quarrel briefly with the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie), who appeared to place too much emphasis on further research into and further consideration of methods of dealing with the problem. We all know enough about quite a lot of things. I could take the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that he could take me, to old people's homes which are entirely satisfactory. I could take him, and he could take me, to geriatric wards and units carrying on an extremely high standard of work and which cannot be faulted.
474
Therefore, there is ample evidence that we have institutions which are satisfactory, but there is also evidence that we do not have enough of them and they are not always in the right places. I hope that we shall get on with doing what we have shown we can do rather than spend too much time thinking about other possibilities.
As has been said, this is an immense and growing problem. The fact that it is growing has particular relevance for the medical profession. Perhaps I can remind the House that the human body was never intended to endure for the length of time which it is now fortunately enduring. I do not wish to put the clock back; I am glad that we can look forward to a much greater expectation of life. But for a great many years the human body was expected to last for only about 35 years. It should therefore come as no surprise to hon. Members when they find that they are losing their teeth at that age and that the connective tissue begins to disintegrate and they develop various infirmities.
What this means to the medical profession is that it is becoming more monopolised by a growing section of the population, not for the treatment of active disease, but for measures to prevent or slow down degenerative processes. The Minister referred to this matter. It is of significance and we must consider it in any solution at which we arrive.
In this country we are very much dependent for our attitudes to the old on purely personal convictions—how we happen to feel as individuals about our relationships with others. When we turn our eyes to the Eastern and Oriental countries, we find that the care of the aged has become embedded in religious and social customs to such an extent that the force of tabus ensures effective care. That does not happen in this country. There is no doubt that in Eastern countries neglect of an old person would be regarded in something like the same light in which we in this country tend to regard aberrational sexual behaviour. I mention that, not because there is a connection, but to show how highly emotive a question care of the aged can be and how looking after one's parents or grandparents is deeply embedded in the culture pattern of some

475
societies. In this country, it is not so embedded. We must therefore think very deeply about how we should deal with the problem.
I recall a quotation which made a great impression on me. It made such an impression that I regret that I cannot remember who said it, but I should still like to quote it:
"The care of the aged, irrespective of their medical, mental or social disability, is a measure of the dignity and culture of a country".
Those are important words. We should consider what we have done so far and what we hope to do in the future with that kind of attitude in mind.
There are many aspects to this problem, but I prefer to concentrate on the health aspects with which I have more personal contact and merely to make passing reference to the more general matters. But it is important to emphasise that the care of the elderly is not specifically an urban problem. There is a tendency for people to think that difficulties regarding the aged arise only in what we generally look upon as slums and in heavily populated areas. There is a tendency too, particularly for urban dwellers, to regard conditions in the country as being inevitably satisfactory. Because there are cottages with roses round the door, it is presumed that everything within is similar.
May I remind hon. Members of a book called "The Ageing Countryman", produced by Dr. Miller, which points very sharply to some of the very special problems of the elderly in country districts. They are separated from the sources of help. Often they have a degree of loneliness which is much greater than that of people in the towns. Sometimes they are exposed to great dangers merely by being in the country. Often they do not have social services or even council services. The water supply and sanitation may not be of the same standard enjoyed by people in the towns. It is, therefore, worth remembering that this is not exclusively an urban problem.
I mention this in no spirit of criticism of the Minister, but he referred to his hopes for the development of community care, with the bringing in of local authority services to general practitioners and their combination in some kind of health
476
centre arrangement. I agree with him entirely about this. But we must not forget that this could never solve the very special problems which cover large areas of the country and in which old people will always have to be the responsibility of an individual rather than an institution.
Of the other general aspects to which I would like to have referred, but will make only passing reference, the first is finance. We have to think again about our pensions policy, and we have in the end, I hope, to arrive at a situation in which retirement pensions are automatically linked to current earnings, so that there is not inevitably a delay before adjustment is made. This is relevant to the care of the aged.
I agree very much with what the hon. Member for Manchester Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) said about the whole process of retirement. Many of our taxation and pension policies, and even our social attitudes, tend to create too much of a situation of sudden retirement whereby people go from full work to full rest in a highly traumatic fashion.
I remind the Minister who is to reply of the recent conference at the council of Europe at Strasbourg at which the British representative paid lip-service at least to the principle of trying to phase retirement and make it into a gradual process over a period of years rather than a sudden one. The hon. Member for Wythenshawe made this point and I will not elaborate it further, save to say that the earnings rule still has an unsatisfactory effect. Again, however, it would not be proper to go too far into that.
The various angles which should be examined concerning housing include the question of social attitudes. The tendency towards the philosophy of living in little boxes has produced special problems for elderly people and tended to have a divisive effect on families, because couples automatically assume that they must live in a little box, a very small one, which is only just the right size, and they do not have room for older relatives when the time arrives. I do not wish to see a return to the old clannish days when a family remained together almost always and the departure of one of them was regarded as regrettable. Nevertheless, we have, I think, gone a little too

477
far in the other direction. This should be thought of when considering housing programmes and when local authorities and others consider the kind of housing which should be provided in a modern society.
I do not want to go into consideration of the size of the problem—we all know how big it is—but will go straight to what I regard as a more important or more relevant matter, namely, health considerations. In particular, one has to consider where the various old people should be cared for. Hon. Members have dealt with the question of their remaining at home. I agree that the more we can do to assist families to keep their elderly relatives at home, the better. There is no doubt about this.
Some of this depends upon housing. If the house is inadequate one cannot necessarily arrive at that kind of solution, but there are other things that we can do. I recommend to the Government, and to the Minister of Health in particular, the establishment of training courses for relatives of elderly people to assist them in looking after old people. I have seen many cases in which the difficulties appeared to be much greater than they were merely because those responsible for the old persons, who frequently might be people who were sick, had no kind of training or experience in how to handle and look after them. There would be great merit in the establishment here and now of courses for the training of relatives and friends in the care of the elderly and of the chronic sick. If that was done, it would take some of the load off the official sources—the district nursing service, home helps and the rest—and it might even take some of the load off the hospitals.
A further need is the availability of equipment of one kind or another. We all know of the many new gadgets and inventions to assist old people who may be partially handicapped to live at home, but the availability of these items in our society is patchy, to say the least. In some areas they may be readily available, but in others they are not.
A crucial point in the whole problem of the care of the elderly is the existing situation of divided responsibility. An individual doctor can find himself with an elderly patient for whom he is respon-
478
sible. He has to provide the medicine and general care and make periodic visits. The same patient may be under the care of a hospital clinic for a specialised condition for which occasionally there is supervision. The patient may from time to time come under the care of the medical officer of health in dealing with hygiene problems or infections. There are many ways in which the medical officer of health or the divisional medical officer may be brought in. The patient may be getting meals on wheels through the R.W.V.S. and a clean linen service through an entirely different voluntary organisation.
There may be a loan scheme operated by the Red Cross to lend out bed pans or other items which may be necessary for the old person at home. Frequently, wheel chairs and items may be borrowed from hospitals. To borrow other appliances, the old person may have to go to a separate hospital or clinic from the original one. In addition, the health visitor or district nurse might be visiting the patient. When one adds to that the involvement, which is not inconsiderable, of the Ministry of Social Security, one finds that the elderly person may be getting help from a whole number of totally different sources.
It has always been my view that where so many people are responsible, there is a tendency for none fully to accept responsibility. There is, therefore, a fairly urgent need for the appointment in each local authority and local health authority area of a person or official who would be called an old persons' officer. We already have an appointment like this with the children's officer, so that there is precedent for it. The children's officer system is not necessarily wholly analogous, but we need some kind of official whose sole duty is to make himself or herself aware of the size of the problem in the area, to identify the people and to ensure that all the various sources of assistance and health are integrated.
In doing that, great assistance would be provided to the general practitioner. Even the most knowledgable G.P. frequently has difficulty in knowing where to get various things. He does not always know what is available, he sometimes does not even know that something is available and, therefore, he does not

479
try to find out where it can be obtained. If we had somebody who was responsible for integrating all these services and for being aware of what was available in the area, this would be of help to all those working with the elderly and also to the elderly people themselves.
Next on this theme we must speed up the end of the tripartite system within the National Health Service and the nonsensical arrangement whereby people who all do the same work, and who should be working co-operatively in some kind of partnership, may be employed by entirely separate authorities—the general practitioner, for example, by the executive council and all the local authority services by the local health authority, in addition to all the various hospital services, and never the twain shall meet. If we persist in having these organisational divisions, we will never get the kind of integration that we want.
I think that the Minister of Health shares that view. I have heard him in this Chamber say that he was looking forward at least to experiments towards integration of the Health Service. I hope that he will speed them up, because while we continue these divided services we will tend to miss things out and not make economic use of our resources, which we do not have to excess.
There are a number of things to be thought about immediately concerning elderly people who live in homes on their own and not with relatives. First in importance is visitors. This has particular reference to what I have said about the ageing countryman. It is essential that elderly people should be visited. All sorts of systems of visiting are operated through the local authority, voluntary organisations and others, but unless we make one person responsible for seeing that it happens and finding out to whom it should happen, inevitably people will be missed out. The fact that they are missed out is amply evidenced by recent publications about deaths from hypothermia—the figures which Dr. Taylor has published showing that perhaps thousands of old people die merely because they are cold, and who would not die if they were visited by people who realised the situation and the importance of supplying help at the right time.
480
We have to supply better methods of keeping them living on their own, and at the same time keeping them in contact with other people, perhaps by the installation of the telephone and perhaps, if I may say so, the introduction of modern science and new methods—radio equipment, and so on. We have seen it done by the hostel type of arrangement, the settlement type of arrangement, whereby people living in little flatlets on an old people's estate are connected with the warden's flat by radio communication, so that an old person can, at least at night, when he or she goes to sleep, switch on and have the feeling of security that somebody will hear if he or she should call if something goes wrong. This is one way we should make much more progress, and we need, too, the establishment of more wardens to look after these people.
We ought to look, too, more and more at old people's transport problems. I agree that we have a concessionary fare system in so far as old people are living in an area which is served by local authority transport, but it is surely high time that we provided some arrangements in those areas which are served not by local authority transport but by private transport.
One could go on on these matters for a very long time, and I do not wish to do so, but I would emphasise once again the conditions of old people living on their own, and that brings us back again to the importance of increasing and integrating the services, and of speeding up, what I hope is not far away, the end of the tripartite structure of the National Health Service.
Much of the discussion so far has been about the old people in hostels or in hospitals, and I want to join in the general tributes which have been paid to the staffs and their dedication to their work in those hospitals and in those hostels. I have had intimate experience of many, of some local authority establishments, some private, and some joint, and I have seen the excellent work they do with skill, knowledge, compassion and good humour, and I, too, would regard it as very regrettable if the criticisms which have been made tend in any way to throw doubt on the standards of hostel

481
accommodation in general. The fact remains that many of these hostels do operate under very great difficulties, and they are likely, I think, to operate under greater difficulties as staffing problems increase.
This applies to geriatric units as well. I think that sometimes, when we begin to congratulate ourselves on the provision of hostels, that we have provided geriatric beds, that we are doing better because we have got more, we should remember that we should not be wise to rely on the present demand as being necessarily a true indication of what is the actual demand, for the fact remains that the general practitioner does not seek accommodation in a geriatric ward for patients if he knows perfectly well he is not going to get it. I have myself visited patients whom I should have liked to get into a hospital, and I have known that I could not because I had two or three others whom I regarded as having a higher priority. What I am saying is that however much the Minister increases the amount of accommodation, the general practitioners will fill it, and they will keep on filling it till he increases it by very much more than he has in mind at the moment.
I want to come very briefly to these allegations regarding ill-treatment, cruelty and so on. I, too, have had discussions with Mrs. Cross, the editor of Nursing Mirror as, indeed, have other hon. Members, and I think there is some merit in her suggestion of some kind of an independent standing committee which could hear complaints from nurses, because I have been impressed myself—I think the Minister has himself been impressed—by the number of nurses who have written to her to say that if they were aware of conditions of this kind they would be in great difficulty in reporting this as they would feel they were, perhaps, in jeopardy of the possibility of recriminations. There is one thing which Mrs. Cross said which I should like to quote:
"I do not believe that witch hunts against junior personnel serve any lasting purpose."
I entirely agree with her, and I would suggest that if anything valuable is to come out of this there must be a full investigation into all the conditions which can result in these sorts of things happening, or in the suspicion that they are
482
happening, or in allegations that they are in fact happening.
I ask the House to believe that quite compassionate people can sometimes be cruel and be neglectful when they are subject to intense pressures—I saw it myself during the war years—perhaps in an understaffed hospital when there is a great deal of night duty and a nurse is looking after a very large number of patients and there is an inducement—not to ill-treat; there is no desire to do violence—but an inducement, perhaps, to behave in a way which she would not normally do. The inducement can in some circumstances be a very strong one.
I should like to mention in this connection that it should not be forgotten that many cases of cruelty to old people arise not through nurses, not through people who work in hospitals, but from the relatives themselves. I, too, have seen relatives—children who, perhaps, have been with their parents all their lives—and who are fond of them, but in conditions which are beyond their own control they have treated those patients cruelly, sometimes even dangerously. It is rather parallel to the battered baby syndrome, in which the parents do not wish to hurt the child but sometimes act in a way which causes injuries. These are people who need help and understanding, and the kind of help which they need is the kind of help which the staff in these geriatric wards and hospitals need in terms of beds, of additional staff, and resources generally.
I should like to quote a letter which I think important and which comes from a consultant geriatrician in my own constituency, Dr. Tweedy, who wrote to me about a constituent when he had certain difficulties in getting this patient into a geriatric ward. In his letter he says:
"I have made official representation to the regional board that I do not consider we can meet our obligations on the geriatric line until the Group has more beds. Last year, for instance, 190 patients died before we were able to admit them to hospital, and this was out of a total admission rate of about 1,130 in a year."
Is this not serious? And it is confirmed by my own personal experience, that some 16 per cent. to 20 per cent. of old people die while on waiting lists, and they are only on waiting lists if there is a very good reason for them to go into hospital—if they have not got somebody

483
to look after them at home, for instance. There is a percentage something like this of people who die while waiting to go into these places, and Dr. Tweedy refers to this point in this unfortunate case; he says that that patient needed nursing care but it was difficult to get her into hospital because there was someone in the house
"to provide for her bodily needs although she unfortunately has to be left alone all day long as the daughter has to earn her living."
There is nothing special about that particular case; it is typical of cases all over the country: the facilities we have at the moment are just not adequate.
We can talk for a long time—perhaps I have talked for a long time—about all sorts of aspects of this problem, but it comes down to one thing and one thing only: money. We have got to spend more money on the provision of resources for the care of the elderly, and unless we do spend more money no amount of talking will do any good at all.
The hon. Lady quoted from the book prepared by the National Institute for Social Work, "Caring for People", and I should like to quote some of the conclusions there. For instance, on page 191 we read:
"We realise that the establishment of training courses, improved accommodation, shorter hours of work and the other changes in staff conditions which we have recommended will cost money. But unless this money is spent there is no hope of any significant improvement in the numbers and quality of the staff who enter and remain in residential work; and unless there is significant improvement in these respects it is not possible to provide the amount and quality of care that is needed The happiness and welfare of the hundreds of thousands who must be cared for in residential Homes depend on our willingness to spend this money. We do not consider the extra costs excessive in relation to the amount of human happiness involved."
Nor do I consider the amount excessive, and I venture to say to the right hon. Gentleman that his job is not only to reply to this debate but to do what he can, in the face of many competitors, to obtain more resources for this section of our social activity. If he does that, I suggest that the care of the elderly will prove in time to be very much more relevant to the real needs of the people than many of the activities which at present get greater priority.
6.30 p.m.
Dr. Shirley Summerskill: The subject of health receives far too little prominence in this House and for that reason I welcome this debate.
It is significant that the Opposition have chosen their 25th Supply Day for a health debate. Presumably, they do not consider that the National Health Service is too badly run by this Government, having chosen it as their Supply Motion at the very end of the Session. In moving it, the hon. Member for Melton (Miss Pike) accused my right hon. Friend the Minister of sustained slapping of his own back. Certainly it seems to have had its effect, in that the general tone of the debate has not been highly critical of the Government, considering that it is a Supply debate.
Many of the lessons which we can learn from studying the care of the elderly can be applied to other branches of the National Health Service. There was a danger that today's debate would end in a series of generalisations and perhaps be based solely on the book "Sans Everything". But I am glad that it has developed into an occasion for a reappraisal of both domiciliary as well as hospital care of the elderly, at the same time examining the faults in the National Health Service as a whole.
All those hon. Members who have spoken so far have finished their speeches by asking where the money is to come from. I should like to start with that question, because we are all aware of the shortages, deficiencies and the various needs which are inherent in the Health Service, particularly in the care of the elderly. In my view, the money should come entirely out of the national income, and we should spend much more of the national income on health. It is quite clear that the Government do not give health a very high priority as a social service when it comes to spending money. They have admitted that housing is their top social priority. We are not here to argue the merits of schools, houses, hospitals, pensions, and so on, but anyone who is interested in the Health Service should keep up the representations to the Government that far more of the national income should be spent on it than at present, because every time that a National Health Service problem is raised, it comes

485
back to the same point. We know what the problems are. The only solution is to find more money.
When he comes to reply to the debate, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio will say how he thinks the money can be found. Is it his view that it should come out of the national income? There has been a tendency on the part of hon. Members opposite in speeches and comments both in the House and outside and in newspaper articles to say that money for social benefits should come not from the tax payer but perhaps from the private individual. In the course of the debate, we have heard the word "State" used as if it is a rather impolite expression, and we have heard continual references to the responsibility of the private individual.
I should like hon. Members opposite to clarify their position. Do they really want people to pay for their National Health Service treatment at all and, if so, can they say for what aspects of it they wish them to pay? In this debate, when we are discussing retirement pensioners, we have heard it suggested that even they might make some contribution to their upkeep.
Do members of the Conservative Party support the latest British Medical Association proposals that we must tend towards payment in a National Health Service? Even more important, we should like to know whether the Government support those proposals, or whether they dissociate themselves completely from them. Everything which is said about the matter is exceedingly vague. The idea is put out as a suggestion or proposition, but I feel that it will prove to be the great issue of the coming year and perhaps even the great issue between the two political parties at the next General Election. How much of the Welfare State is to be provided by the taxpayer, or is any of it, and how much, to be provided by the individual? It is a volcano that is bubbling under the surface, and I should like the Government to come out and say what they feel about it.
When we are considering the care of the elderly, perhaps one of the reasons why we do not see a huge turn-out of hon. Members is that the subject has no glamour. If a miraculous cure for old
486
age were discovered, geriatrics would achieve some sort of glamour in the eyes of the nurses who take it up and the doctors and other people who look after the aged.
I refute the suggestion that relatives are not caring for their old people as much as they used to. Last year, some research was carried out in Edinburgh. I will not go into detailed statistics, but it shows clearly that relatives still care for their old people as much as before. It has nothing to do with the Welfare State or with any other explanation. They are as keen as ever to see that old people are cared for as well as possible, be it in their own homes or in local authority homes.
It is not easy for relatives to get rid of old persons who are in their homes. According to some hon. Members, a relative can simply ask his family doctor to put his father or mother in a geriatric bed or in an old people's home. Everyone knows that family doctors themselves find it increasingly hard to obtain a geriatric bed or a place in a home for an old person. They have to persuade the authorities that perhaps there are no relatives to look after the old person, and the greatest chance of getting someone into one of these places is if he or she is living alone. Such a person comes at the top of the list.
We really should think more of the difficulties of the relatives themselves, and that is why I give my strong support to opportunities for relatives to go on holiday and take a rest from looking after old people by more beds or places in homes being made available for old people for two weeks in the summer.
The burden of this care is always on the woman. Except for the doctors who look after old people in hospitals, it is invariably the woman in the home who does this job. It is the female relative in the family who has this burden, and quite often it is a single woman. We have debated the problems of single women with dependent relatives, and, fortunately, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been able to help. It is the women who are the home helps, the health visitors, and who, as members of the W.V.S., run meals-on-wheels services. In the hospitals, the job is carried out predominantly by female nurses.
Dr. David Kerr: Would not my hon. Friend agree that she is doing a grave injustice to a large number of male nurses, in both geriatric and mental hospitals, who look after old people, and many men who, as devoted sons, make themselves responsible for their parents? I allow my hon. Friend 99 per cent. of her case, but I hope she will pay tribute to the remaining 1 per cent.
Dr. Summerskill: I still say that it is predominantly the women who wash their relatives, keep them clean, change the sheets, and do all the work in the home. I said that it was predominantly the women nurses who looked after old people in hospitals.
Here I put in a word for their pay and conditions of work to be improved. This is perhaps a matter for disagreement, but one tends to think that because they are women, they can be exploited in some way. The average wage of a woman is only just over half that of a man, and I ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether an increase in remuneration would not make a great difference to recruitment to all these services which care for the elderly.
I support my right hon. Friend's suggestion to set up psychogeriatric units, and I would like to mention a figure which perhaps he was not able to give to the House, namely, that 24 per cent. of old people were misplaced in mental hospitals in the sense that their illnesses were mainly or entirely physical, while 34 per cent. were misplaced in geriatric units because their illnesses were mainly or entirely mental. Here we have a situation in which, at the beginning of their treatment, they were put into the wrong category, and therefore an enormous difficulty was created at the beginning.
I have dealt shortly with the tremendous shortage of all the local authority services which old people so desperately need, but nobody during the debate has mentioned a great factor among old people, and that is loneliness. However many meals on wheels and home helps they have, however hard-working the health visitor, old people living alone, or even with relatives, can be exceedingly lonely, and only human company can overcome this. I am glad that there
488
is a movement among young people nowadays to try to alleviate this loneliness. Many of them are making a point of visiting old people—and adults, too, are doing this—because this is a great problem among the elderly.
As my right hon. Friend, and also my predecessor, now the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan), told the House, many old people's homes have modern amenities unlike the institutions about which one reads in Dickens' books. In Halifax there are homes in which each old person has his or her own bed-sitting room. An old person can have complete independence and privacy when he requires it, and there are facilities for light cooking. When he wants company, he can go downstairs and sit in a general common room which is equipped with television, and there is a warden who runs the home. It is this sort of thing which has removed the fear of many people about old people's homes. If, even 10 years ago, it was suggested to a patient that he should go to a home, it was obvious he would almost prefer to die in his own home than go away. But now the whole atmosphere of these homes has altered.
There are growing up in the country many private homes for which the State has no responsibility, and, just as we are concerned about children in care, so we should be concerned about old people in care, because it is possible that these private homes are inflicting deprivations on, or neglecting old people without us knowing anything about it. Perhaps some registration or inspection of these homes should be enforced.
Mr. K. Robinson: I think my hon. Friend has overlooked the fact that two or three years ago the House passed legislation which gave local authorities the power of inspection in private nursing homes of this kind.
Dr. Summerskill: A further point to which I would like to draw my right hon. Friend's attention is that not every area in the country can be considered in the same way when one is trying to decide how many geriatric beds are required. For instance, in the West Riding of Yorkshire there is a far larger percentage of people of retirement age than there is in many other parts of the country, and this must be taken into

489
account when deciding how many beds are necessary. Similarly, in the West Riding, of which I am speaking particularly, a far greater number of women go cut to work than do in many other parts of the country, and if we say to someone, "I want you to try to look after your relative yourself", we must remember that the factors involved vary from one part of the country to another.
I conclude by making a few recommendations which I hope will be considered. I think that there is a good case for a hospital Ombudsman. I do not regret that hospitals are not included among the duties of our present Ombudsman, because this would perhaps be too great a burden for him to carry along with his other duties, but a man, or woman, whose sole responsibility was to act as a hospital Ombudsman would I think, be a great help in settling the doubts, the fears, and the inquiries which so often arise when we are considering the National Health Service.
We all want to see an improvement in the status of nurses, doctors and everyone connected with geriatrics. I think that the Government will improve the situation by means of the recommendations which were made at the beginning of the debate. I do not at the moment support the idea of inspectors of hospitals, on the same lines as factory inspectors, who would just drop in at any hour of the day or night and presumably walk round inspecting the premises, but it may be that some other method of inspection can be found. A great deal of criticism has been levelled against the National Health Service, both in the Press and in speeches, and there has been a tendency to imply that because the Health Service is free, people take it for granted and try to exploit it. The Health Service should not be afraid of this criticism, but I would like to see more people patting themselves on the back because we have this Service, and giving more support to it than is the case at the moment.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that we can call everybody who wishes to catch my eye in this debate if speeches are reasonably brief.
6.50 p.m.
Mr. Airey Neave: The hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) accounted for the rather poor attendance in this debate by saying that the subject had not very much glamour. I agree, but it is one of the most important social subjects of our time. It is a difficult subject for hon. Members who have no practical experience of the problems of the old and do not have the professional qualifications for dealing with their medical problems. On the other hand, it is important for all hon. Members to know something about this matter and to be able to deal from time to time with cases in their constituencies.
I welcome the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) that there should be old people's officers. In a large, mixed rural or industrial constituency like mine this would be very helpful. From time to time one hears complaints about old people living alone in circumstances which cause one a certain amount of anxiety, and it would be helpful to be able to contact an old people's officer in an emergency.
For example, as they gradually decline some old people become rather eccentric and even rather dangerous. Some are a danger to themselves and other people because they are apt to light fires. There are examples of old people throwing paraffin on fires, to the constant danger of other people in a row of cottages. These cases are difficult to deal with if someone is not present who specialises in them.
We might also compile a register of people over the age of 85 who have no pensions from the State. The right hon. Gentleman knows about this question, and he will also know that I shall take the opportunity to pursue it on every occasion. It is a disgrace to the country that there should be so many people who have no form of social benefit from the State.
In my view it is not merely a question of allowing old people to be sent to hospitals and homes because there is no other place for them. I support what has been said by other hon. Members, and especially what the hon. Member

491
for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) said about the work of voluntary organisations. My constituency contains several voluntary organisations which run old people's homes. One of the problems facing them at the moment—and it seems to be a substantial problem—is that the buildings themselves are often placed in areas which present a certain amount of danger from traffic. In my constituency, near Wallingford, there is a dangerous corner which old people have to use in order to go to the post office to draw their pensions—if they are allowed to do so, being under the age of 85.
I spoke to the Ministry of Transport today and discovered that there are no regulations prescribing signs concerning old people. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will draw the attention of the Minister of Transport to this fact, because we are reaching a stage at which something must be done about the problem. We have prescribed signs for racehorses and level crossings, but when very old people are crossing roads at what are known to be dangerous points it is very difficult for county councils to obtain permission from the Minister of Transport to erect any kind of sign, even a warning sign. We have signs for blind and crippled people crossing the road, and I should like to know whether it really is not possible for somebody to think up an eye-catching sign to warn motorists that there is an old people's home in the vicinity of a dangerous corner. This is not a constituency point; it must occur in many parts of the country. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consult the Minister of Transport about it.
I want to refer to the book, "Sans Everything". It is important that we should be objective about the statements made in the book. I want first to deal with the suggestion of an inspectorate of mental hospitals. We should be told a little more about this. The hon. Member for Halifax said that it would not be much good if we had inspectors going round at odd hours of the day, as factory inspectors do. The suggestion has been made in a letter to the Sunday Times that officials could go round disguised as patients and stay in these places for a month in order to discover what happens in them. I thought that that was a slightly
492
frivolous suggestion, and that it is was not likely to provide very good results. But some form of investigation system is required in the event of information being supplied to the Minister which gives him reason to believe that there is cause for inquiry. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will deal with that point.
I was pleased to hear the Minister's assurances with respect to nurses who had made complaints. I am glad that they will be protected. It is important that nurses should not inhibited from supplying the names of persons complained about. Apparently they have not been satisfied with the National Health Service inquiry procedure on this point. I wonder whether there is a need for reform. I should think there is. It is important that the Minister should be able to ensure that anybody who makes a complaint which is found to be justified should not suffer on that account.
I should like to know what form of inspection takes place at present. Under the Mental Health Act the commissioners used to go round. Perhaps the Minister can say something about that.
Mr. K. Robinson: The hon. Member may recall that it was his own Government who abolished the board of control which used to carry out this function before the passage of the Mental Health Act. The responsibility lies with the managers of hospitals, regional hospital boards and hospital management committees. The responsibility was transferred by this House under the hon. Member's Government.
Mr. Neave: Is that an answer to my questions? There are many old people's homes about which one could make no complaint. I hope that the effect which the Minister fears will not lead to any lessening in recruitment, because the provision of these services will be more important in the future. Much more emphasis should be placed on the independence of old people and the prevention of hospitalisation. In this connection I support the idea of the conversion of houses and the need for a system of grants and tax reliefs. It should be possible to convert houses for this purpose and to devise a system whereby relatives can apply for a grant

493
for the purpose. This would be widely welcomed.
It is not true that all families want to drive out their elderly relatives. It is often a question of physical space, or family economics. In certain European countries it has always been the custom for the old people to live with their families. There again, any problem that has arisen has concerned the physical space available to the family. In our future house building programmes we should make serious provision for this.
In general, I agree that this will need a great deal more money, and there is no question that this extra money should be provided. The immediate problem is to investigate conditions in old people's homes and to deal with some of the constructive suggestions made from both sides today. This will lead to alleviation of conditions, but the long-term policy must be to help relatives to house old people and to provide hospital and home places on the basis of physical or mental need rather than simply providing accommodation.
7.1 p.m.
Mr. Laurence Pavitt: One of the disadvantages for hon. Members with a special interest in health matters is that we get few opportunities to discuss them, but one of the advantages is that whenever we do a lively sympathy and understanding is shown in all quarters of the House and this debate has been no exception.
The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) drew attention to the very important subject of the siting of residential homes for the elderly. Unfortunately, it is not always possible to retain the amenities even if one is selected which is convenient for those who will occupy it. In my constituency there is one of the first-class types of residential accommodation mentioned by my hon. and qualified Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), called Ellerslie, which is in an ideal situation. It is in a quiet road but this very factor has encouraged driving instructors to use it for training learner drivers thus causing hazards for elderly people crossing the road and for traffic.
My right hon. Friend dealt with the question of inspection raised by the hon.
494
Member, and I would underline the point he made. The hospital management committees have a responsibility not just to attend meetings but also to be fully aware of what happens in their hospitals. Nowhere is this more essential than in the geriatric wards. I would commend to hon. Members the Christmas visit to a geriatric ward as one of the heart-warming experiences which gives considerable pleasure, especially to elderly ladies, particularly if, like the hon. and qualified Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), one takes one's bedside manner and a little mistletoe. This can give comfort to the people there. May I say that the hon. Member's experience was reflected in his very constructive speech.
One of his points which the Minister should consider related to the training of people who have domiciliary care of their elderly parents. There is every facility through the local education authority, under the Further Education facilities, for such courses and there is no reason why that should not be done. The facilities and opportunities are there and I hope that, as a result of the hon. Gentleman's welcome suggestion, my right hon. Friend will discuss this with the Secretary of State for Education in order to plan this provision.
Another theme of the debate has been the problems created by tripartite administration of the National Health Service, which in this field and that of mental health is at its most awkward. The care of the elderly comes under three administrations, which means that one cannot consolidate or move freely from one sector to another in the way which we would like in this day and age. We all welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that it is now possible to appoint a geriatrician to the local health authority and the hospital service on a joint sharing arrangement, but this is not half enough.
At the last census, more than 4,000 elderly people in my borough each lived alone in one room. All these people are under the care of the general practitioner and there is, therefore, an urgent need to develop combined operations between the G.P., the local health authority and the hospital geriatric services, if there is to be effective coverage of the needs of the elderly. I would welcome a little experimentation by my right hon. Friend in this regard.

495
Surely it is possible to try out not just the co-ordinating and liaison services which already exist in many areas, but to have prototypes of a service for the elderly to which all three sectors would contribute, but with more freedom and autonomy, away from the controlling influence of each, to see whether a service for the elderly would be possible drawing comprehensively on all three, which at the moment are administered and financed separately.
I agree with my right hon. Friend that the new charter for general practitioners facilitates the provision of the necessary ancillary help for the family doctor. Under the present load of work, G.P.s cannot do all the visiting and give all the time that the elderly people on their lists need. Only with ancillary medical aides and social welfare workers attached to G.P.s can the necessary coverage be given. I urge my right hon. Friend to go further than the present provision which encourages a G.P. to employ ancillary service and ask him positively to promote the "extra pair of hands" which are so urgently needed to cope with the personal services of a family doctor to all his patients, the elderly as well as the young.
On the subject of loneliness, I would commend the system which exists in some towns but which was pioneered in Cambridge, known as "Fish", whereby people of good will are able to know, by means of a sign in the window, that the elderly need help perhaps to collect medicine, have errands run and even just to be talked to. People see the sign of the fish and knock on the door and ask if they can help. In Cambridge they have developed a large group of voluntary workers to do this. It is mainly elderly people who need to be visited because they are most in need of that kind of care. I would commend this scheme to people of good will who want to help and ask them to organise it.
The tragedy of the pockets of unhappiness and loneliness in our Welfare State is that no one knows. One hon. Member referred to the "little boxes" in which we live, and it is true that there may be more misery for one elderly person living alone in a road and about whom no one knows than in previous days when misery was more widespread. After the cold spell two or three years ago, an elderly
496
lady was brought in to my local hospital after she had been dead for several days with a temperature of 72 degrees. This can happen not because people are heartless or unwilling to help, but because they just do not know. They pass by the house and the door is closed. I hope, therefore, that the attention given to this subject in the debate will result in a little more organisation of good will and voluntary service.
The excellent work of the meals on wheels service has been mentioned. I had the privilege of going out with the W.V.S. in my area and calling on the elderly people using that service. But still in my area we cannot give a comprehensive service. We give a service on so many days a week only. It should be possible today to give a comprehensive service so that at least one hot meal a day is provided for every elderly person living alone and needing it.
I pay tribute to the tremendous amount which has already been done. In the past year, an increase of 1 million more meals is recorded in the report to the nation for 1966 by the Ministry of Health. Last year, a total of 7,300,000 meals for elderly people living at home, and a further 1,400,000 meals were served in lunch clubs. A great job is being done.
I have every sympathy for my right hon. Friend in his task as Minister of Health. It always seems that good news is no news. But the moment that something comes up which gives an opportunity to have a slam at the Health Service, to have a slam at the hospitals, at the nurses or at anyone else, it makes headline news. The fact remains, however, that tremendous advances have been made—I commend to hon. Members the 1966 Report, which has only just been issued—and all manner of services have been stepped up and enlarged in spite of the financial difficulties which the nation has faced.
Last year, 128 new homes for elderly people were provided, giving accommodation for a further 5,777. It is not enough, of course, but at least we are making an inroad into the problem. Some commendation should be given for the tremendous work which is going on, and thanks should be offered to those who take part in it.
Through "senior citizens" clubs, the local health authorities are doing a great

497
deal in giving a looking-forward approach to elderly people rather than living in the past. I have no doubt that this has made a tremendous difference in the lives of many people in my constituency. They look forward to going out and to meeting people next week instead of just dwelling on the past, and this gives a further lease of life to many elderly citizens. Perhaps I may tell the House, as an example, of the sort of incident which warms my heart. At my "surgery" a few weeks back, I had to listen to one of the usual marital problems about which Members of Parliament are consulted. Most hon. Members have to hear about these things. One listens. One cannot do very much, but at least one gives a sympathetic ear. After I had been listening for about twenty minutes, the lady who was telling me of her trouble said, "You must realise that we are not geting any younger. It is true that my husband is running after this other woman, but I am 69 and he is 72, so that it is a very difficult circumstance for me". I am delighted that, in 1967, we have reached a stage when people can look forward to a bit of "chasing"—even if it is not something in a mini-skirt—and at that sort of age people are not losing their interest in all that, perhaps, makes life a little attractive.
A great deal has been done for the hard-of-hearing, which is of particular benefit to the elderly. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the provision last year of 48,224 more hearing aids. We are nearly reaching the million mark now in the provision of hearing aids free of charge to people who need them. Credit should be given to the Department for this. Incidentally, last year another 4½ million pairs of spectacles were issued under the National Health Service. This sort of news gets no headlines, but, when we recall how elderly people used to go to Woolworths to get their spectacles, we can appreciate how important the service is and take real pride in it.
I urge my right hon. Friend to take up with the Postmaster-General the question of providing elderly people who need them with transistorised telephones. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that I have managed to have installed in this building 12 transistorised telephones for the benefit of hon. Members who, like my-
498
self, have a hearing disability. I am surprised to find how many of my elderly colleagues do not know where they are. But they are here. This simple provision in a home which has a telephone and where there is an elderly person who is hard of hearing can make all the difference to the contact which the elderly person can make and keep with the outside world. There is no point in elderly people having the telephone installed if all that they can get out of it are crackles and bangs every time they try to listen and to talk to their friends. This apparatus is available, and we could provide it.
The previous Government, under a certain amount of pressure from my right hon. Friend who is now the Minister and myself, brought down the extra charge for these telephones. I believe that it would be possible to bring the charge down even further, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will make representations to the Postmaster-General in that regard.
There has been some advance in the chiropody service, but it is still not wide enough. The idea of foot trouble always seems a little ludicrous—one remembers the jokes in Punch about old people and their corns—but, in fact, the chiropody service can make all the difference in whether a person goes out instead of staying indoors. If their feet are "killing" them, elderly people do not go out. The way in which the local health authorities have laid on the provision of this service and the way in which the chiropodists themselves, through their professional association, have raised standards has been a great help. I hope that the Ministry will give thought to expanding the service and giving more incentives to it in order that it may become comprehensive.
The hon. Member for Cheadle feels that there is no need for further research into the subject of care itself because we know the problems, we know the hazards, and we know the way in which the organisation can be improved in order to give our elderly citizens the best possible life in the community. Nevertheless, in my view, the Medical Research Council gives insufficient attention to the whole subject of gerontology. The more we can do in this field to prevent the ageing process, the more we shall be

499
able to relieve my right hon. Friend of a great many of the problems he has to face in meeting and treating the conditions which develop after the ageing process sets in. Unfortunately, the Medical Research Council seems to concentrate on financing favourites. If it has a line of inquiry which seems likely to yield results, it gives priority of expenditure to that. So far, the subject of gerontology has not received the attention which it deserves, having regard to the large proportion of the community which can now be classed as senior and the way in which, over the next five or ten years, the number of people falling into that category will phenomenally increase.
The debate has docussed attention upon one of the problems which we all accept as our responsibility. This is not a job which we pass on to this or that Department, to the local health authority or to the medical officer of health. The problem is ours. We have done our duty today in all parts of the House in directing the maximum amount of constructive thought and attention to the problem and bringing the maximum pressure on the Government to provide the extras which are needed. But more must be done if the job is to be really effective. If we are to regard ourselves as a civilised nation at all, we must devote a greater proportion to our resources, our time and our effort not just in the institutions and organisations but in the streets and apartments in which we live. This is where care of the aged starts, where they are. This, I know, is the task to which hon. Members who have taken part in the debate today will give their best endeavours in order that it may have the attention which it deserves.
7.18 p.m.
Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: I wish to direct attention to this subject somewhat from a constituency standpoint, and to tell the House of a personal experience which has a great bearing on it. The House always appreciates personal experiences.
My interest in hospitals started when I was a member of the Ipswich Borough Council and when, in my twenties, I was chairman of the mental hospital committee. I speak here from experience in a large and scattered rural constituency.
500
The great change I have seen in the post-war years has been in the way we have been able to make enormous improvements to old-fashioned buildings.
There are three old people's hospitals in my constituency, two of which would once have been called the Union or a Poor Law institution. When I first went round them 20 years ago they were very unpleasant-looking buildings, and one was very nearly condemned. If we have not built all the new general hospitals we need, we have certainly so modernised these old people's hospitals in my part of East Anglia that they are now very good. It is a joy and almost a pride to see them. Lifts have been installed, floors, ceilings and walls have been renovated from scratch, and a great deal of money has been spent. The hospitals' whole condition has changed out of all recognition.
Thanks to the science of geriatrics and the doctors, the average age of the old people in those hospitals has risen by seven to 10 years since I first went round them. Possibly we fell into a misconception when the National Health Service was introduced and our hospitals were taken over in thinking that the State would do everything. This has been proved entirely wrong. It has never been more necessary than to have Leagues of Friends, the W.V.S. and other voluntary help in our hospital service. Like the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), I make visits to the hospitals at Christmas, when the wards are all decorated, and I should like to think that my visits have the same tonic effects as his.
The shops on wheels service may not matter so much in the towns, but to a hospital in the country a long way from shops it is very useful. Another problem when a hospital is some way from a town is that it is often very difficult for relatives to visit patients except by car. I often spend time in trying to get patients moved from a hospital in one part of my constituency to another, perhaps 30 miles away, so that they are nearer their relatives, because visiting is good in helping them to enjoy the remainder of their lives. In days gone by it would have been true to say that old people went into hospitals thinking that they could lie comfortably in bed until they were

501
gathered to another life. But this is no longer so.
I too pay tribute to the male nurses in the hospitals. I am very impressed by what they do and their sympathetic attitude, as well as by the younger girl nurses. They carry out their work with great enthusiasm, but it is an additional strain to have to get the old people up and dress them.
When old people are looked after at home I try to encourage them to go into a hospital or old people's home for three or four weeks in the year to give their relatives a break. In East Suffolk we have now started three old people's homes for elderly people who are not sick enough to go into old people's hospitals. This is carrying out our duty to the elderly.
But I am not so satisfied on the private side. We have a long way to go, and there seems to be an enormous gap between what the State does and what the private nursing homes do. I believe that they relieve the State of the burden of a certain number of older people who would otherwise have to enter State hospitals when we are short of space. In the future we shall have to consider making some form of grant to private homes. Perhaps it should not be so much as the cost of keeping a patient in the State home, but it should perhaps be £5 a week where the total cost is £10, £12, £15 or £20 a week.
The personal experience about which I should like to tell the House concerns the will of an uncle of mine who was a clergyman in the Church of England with no children. He died in about 1930 and left £4,000, after various relatives had received a life interest. About three years ago I had to distribute that money among the poor of London and Northampton under the terms of the will. My uncle was once a curate at Northampton, but he spent a lot of time abroad.
The first problem was that poverty no longer existed in this country in the sense that he had known it early in the century. I therefore decided that roughly anyone who received what was then National Assistance would qualify to receive some of the money. Some societies tried to get me to give the £4,000 for a home, but I did not think that that was my uncle's intention. He wanted to help a large
502
number of people. I had heard in the House of generals' widows living on National Assistance, but when I inquired from their societies about these wives and widows of clergymen in that position, I could not find any that were in real need.
Then I had what I thought was quite a bright idea. I wrote to the officers in charge of National Assistance in certain parts of London and in Northampton, and I received invaluable assistance from them. I asked if they could prepare for me a list of people who had been good citizens, craftsmen and so on, who were now retired, perhaps prematurely owing to sickness but largely because of old age, and who were now having a difficult time. They prepared the lists and I agreed with them what would be a worth-while sum that would not affect the amount the recipients drew under National Assistance. We came to the conclusion that it would be right to give £35 to a married couple and £20 to a single person.
I visited a large number of these people and there was no doubt, as hon. Members have said, that loneliness was their worst difficulty. They were not necessarily short of food, although perhaps their diet was a little dull. Most of them had a wireless, if not a television, and more often than not the television had been given by some of their children.
I learned a tremendous amount. It was a humbling experience to go to all their homes. Many of the people concerned were rather fearful when I knocked at the door. They did not get many visitors; some told me that they had not had a visitor for six months or longer. I explained most carefully, in order not to upset them, that I was trying to help. I had to ask them certain questions, such as whether they had lived in London or in Northampton most of their lives and could be called citizens of those places. Having established that, I found that the amount of money proposed was a real godsend to them.
I also came to the conclusion that a married couple who had lived together for years and had had their happy times and, perhaps, argued at least had each other to talk to or shout at if one was deaf, or read to if one was a little blind.

503
At least they had each other's company. The person for whom I was most sorry was the person living alone—the elderly widow or perhaps even more the elderly spinster. A man living alone seems more able to go out. I think particularly of elderly persons who are incapacitated and hardly able to move. They may have a help coming in to clean up and perhaps cook for them, but when the door shuts on that person no one else comes to talk to them.
I always felt after that experience that I might at some time be able to say in this House that we should do all we can in future for the person living alone. Married couples have larger pensions and supplements—not exactly double—but I feel that a person living alone needs a little extra spending money simply because he or she is alone and has no one visiting. This is where the meals-on-wheels service plays a part, because the old people like to see those bringing their meals. My wife is one of those engaged in this voluntary service, and I have heard her speak about it.
There are more lonely people in London and the bigger cities than perhaps in the rural parts of my constituency, and in respect of these people it is the voluntary side that matters so very much. In our legislation we must always think of the person who is alone. One of the things that strikes me these days is the kindness of people visiting old persons. One of the delights of the present age is the new spirit of the young, who give up a year or two years at the beginning of their career, perhaps after leaving university, to do voluntary service helping the old or sick in this country and other countries abroad.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to say, as I have always wanted to say, what a great experience this was. I was very embarrassed at times as I was thanked, but it was my uncle and not me who deserved the thanks. I was also struck by the tremendous honesty of the old people. Many of them asked whether the grant would affect their National Assistance allowance; I was always able to reassure them. One might think that people getting a gift like that would not wonder whether they had to report it or not. But I was struck by
504
the very great honesty of the old people, many of whom had perhaps been treated a bit hardly during their life in that they were earning at a time when wages were lower and their savings had been hit by inflation.
7.32 p.m.
Mr. A. H. Macdonald: I agree very much with the remarks by the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison). I am sure that he is right in pointing to loneliness rather than poverty as one of the severest problems that we have to deal with. It is seldom that I find myself applauding remarks made on the other side of the House. So perhaps I may take this rare opportunity to say that I also agreed with some of the remarks in the earlier part of the speech by the hon. Lady the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) when she referred to our attitude towards the problem of the elderly. What she said was just and true.
I have two things to say about concessions to the elderly, and I am afraid that both of them are critical. First, I would refer to the relationship, or, as it seems to me, lack of relationship, between the basic pension granted to our senior citizens and the concessions of one kind and another available to them. There does not seem to be any just balance between them; from time to time when one goes up the other seems to go down.
The other day I had a letter from a constituent whose name is Wilson. I mention that because in a moment I shall be referring to something that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, and, though my constituent has the same name, he does not have the same views. My constituent wrote a letter headed "This is a complaint." He noted with pleasure the Government's proposal to effect an increase in the pension that he is receiving, but he noted with a great deal of displeasure that at almost the same time he received a note saying that the charge made to him for home help service would be increased by 1s. an hour. The effect of this is that the forthcoming increase in pension will half disappear before he gets it. My constituent finds this sort of attitude inexplicable, and I do not well know how I can justify it to him.
Next, I question whether some of the concessions are entirely desirable. The

505
Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport have made arrangements in some cases to provide travel concessions for elderly people, and there has been a great deal of applause for that. But I wonder whether they are aware that concessions are not always entirely well received by the old people for whom they are intended. In recent months, I have visited old people's clubs in my constituency and have always taken the occasion to ask as I move around what their reaction is to the concept of concessions for elderly people.
The reactions vary. Some old people certainly welcome concessions. But on the whole the reaction has been adverse. Statements made to me indicate that old people would rather have the value in cash than a concession made available to them on production of a pension book because it appears to them that there is some detraction from a man's dignity if he has to produce a pension book for a concession. They would rather be able to stand on their own feet and pay the full charges on equal terms with other people without any detraction from their dignity through having to appeal for a concession. After I had spoken on this subject at one club an old man told me that I was the first person he had heard who really understood what he felt about the concept of travel concessions.
I wonder why we are inclined to provide concessions for elderly people in this way as though our senior citizens were something separate from us. They are us and we are going to become them. What is this blindness that seems to afflict us and make us suppose that old age is something that will happen to somebody else and not us? We should do well to remember that we shall all become old. We shall become crotchety, frail, confused and incontinent. The people to whom these things happen are not a separate race; they are us.
I regret the increasing tendency to try to solve the problem of elderly people by packing them away in old people's homes. The Minister of Health referred to the feelings of guilt that we may have about putting people away in that fashion. He may have something there. But I do not think that the provision of these homes is enough.
506
Of course we need to provide them, and indeed, should go further and provide more. I am among those who think that greater and additional provision for our senior citizens is desirable and that those financial provisions should have a greater degree of priority than they do. But I do not think that money in itself is enough. My hon. Friend the Member for for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) and the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) suggested that money was the problem. I agree that it is a problem but I am not sure that it is the major problem.
At present we are providing more and more funds for the police forces and yet it is no great exaggeration to say that we are encountering more and more lawlessness. I suspect the reason to be that the provision of police forces causes people, when they see hooliganism or vandalism, to turn aside and pretend that they do not see it because it is up to the police to deal with it. I submit that there is a parallel danger that, the more old people's homes we provide, the more callous our society may become by thinking that the problem of old people is something to be dealt with by the authorities or at any rate by someone else and not by us. I am not sure how it comes about that we have this society in which there seems to be no place for our senior citizens.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, in rebutting the point of view I am putting forward, remarked that it is not easy to find a place for an old person in an old people's home. I think that is true. But the point is that, in many cases, old people are not living with their relatives but are living alone and, as the hon. and gallant Member for Eye said, the problem of loneliness is one that we must deal with.
It must be a condemnation of our kind of society that there seems to be no place for our senior citizens in it and that relatively little value is placed upon their lives when they reach retirement. In many cases they have nothing to do but to sit around waiting for the end. If I am not using too harsh a phrase, this is the problem of the "redundant grandmother". There are many laidies, not necessarily in poverty, who are living alone.

507
I wonder how far this may be due to the great emphasis placed nowadays on rights to the exclusion of duties. When I was small, my mother looked after me. It was her duty and my right. Now she is old, I should look after her. That is her right and my duty. Rights and duties go together, and we have a duty to look after our elderly people. I accept that rights are inherent in each of us but it should constantly be remembered that rights are meaningless without duties.
I believe that I am right in saying that this particular problem, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), is not found to the same extent in other countries because, there, grandmother or grand- father is still a valued member of the family and is still found living with the family and not alone because the children have moved away.
I had the pleasure of visiting an old people's home on Christmas day. It is a purpose-built home, well built and with a friendly atmosphere. The old people living there each have their own little room with a small stove on which they can "brew up". There is a communal dining room and a communal living room. The warden and his wife are pleasant, friendly people and everything possible that could be done was clearly being done. Yet there was one old man whose grand-nephew was due to call for him at 1 p.m. to take him away to spend the rest of Christmas with the family. At noon the old gentleman was ready, fully dressed and with hat and coat on, waiting outside because, however nice the home, it could not compare with being with his own family. He could not wait inside. He had to be outside for his relatives when they came.
I am sorry that we seem to have a society where elderly people are no longer with their relatives, as they used to be. I wonder whether this is a problem not only for the Ministry of Health but also for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. How nice it would be if houses were built in such a way that elderly people could live in a partly detached or semi-detached flat in the same building as their family so that they would be separate yet close to the family in case assistance was needed. I should
508
like to see this sort of thing develop but we do not seem to build houses in that way.
Elderly people can be a great nuisance, but so can babies. It is accepted that babies are a nuisance and we do not feel it necessary to stash them away somewhere else. I regret that we seem to find it necessary, however, to put our old people away in old people's homes. I hope that it is not too harsh a phrase but I wonder whether this debate would not be better answered by the Department of Education and Science rather than by the Ministry of Health because, I wonder whether we have not a great deal to do in educating ourselves to accept the fact that old age is something that we must accept and which we cannot just shuffle off on to someone else to deal with; because it is something which will happen to us all.
7.47 p.m.
Sir John Eden: The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) spoke with a great deal of feeling and, as he proceeded, I found myself agreeing in full with the philosophy he was expounding. When he ended by suggesting that perhaps education was called for and that the Department of Education and Science might be involved, I felt that he touched on a very valid point. But what I think is needed perhaps more than education is a development of consideration for others, and it is this lack of consideration, which is so manifest in the treatment of old people that one finds at almost every turn, which is one of the regrettable factors of the present day.
I do not know whether it is more so than it was before, but it is certainly so today. On almost every turn, people do not show enough consideration for other people's feelings, other people's particular whims or the situation in which they may happen to find themselves.
The Minister of Health was right to approach this question of the book "Sans Everything" with a great deal of objectivity. He is right to be cautious about the generalised nature of the charge. But I hope that he will not allow this caution to lead to a whitewashing operation. Perhaps I can emphasise, even overemphasise, the other side to this in drawing attention to my hope that he will not brush these charges under the carpet.

509
It is easy for all of us to say, "This sort of thing cannot happen. People are not as inhuman as all this", and because we cannot find a specific charge or have the evidence brought to us of a particular case, believe it cannot exist. I beg the Minister to treat these charges very seriously indeed, because I can well understand how this sort of situation can arise.
I know of no special case which I would wish to instance and which would warrant further detailed examination, but I understand the sort of circumstances which could lead to situations such as are described in this book. It often starts with the necessary firm handling in a nursing home or hospital where the staff are caring for elderly people. This firm handling is necessary, in the first instance, to give assurance to the people in the home, but it could sometimes so easily become bossy and unnecessarily harsh and, unless the person in the position of responsibility is extremely careful, it could become a considerable form of tyranny. I emphasise again that I do not know of instances where it has happened, but I believe it can happen. I take this book very seriously indeed and I hope that the Minister will, too.
It is very easy for people who live and have to work with it to become callous of any sort of human failing or physical ailment. For those of us who come to it from outside at the odd moment in our lives it is horrifying and upsetting and we are completely dismayed and put off our stroke by what we see, because we do not know how to deal with the situation. However, those who see this daily become acclimatised to the pain, grief and agony of particular situations and— I do not know—it is just possible that on occasions they may go over the boundary and become unnecessarily bar, callous and insensitive in their treatment.
This is something that needs to be examined. I do not know how the Minister will go about it. Sometimes when a great person, such as the Minister, visits a particular hospital or home he is given the red carpet treatment. I can 'quite understand that. I remember that when I was in the Army we went to the extreme of white washing lumps of coal to make them attractive and smart. Things used to be cleaned up which had never been touched for years.
510
Yesterday I went with the Minister of Transport on a very pleasant inaugural trip, which took rather longer than we expected, on the new electrified line to my own constituency, Bournemouth, West. That station was beautiful—the whole place was swept, there were pots of hydrangeas, and all the rest of it—and it was quite right that it should have been, because this was a great and special occasion. The visit of the Minister, apart from anything else, was an important event.
I am sure that the Minister is too old a hand at this game to allow that sort of thing to kid him. Therefore, I hope that a process of inspection will be arranged which will not be the much trumpeted and much heralded approach of the "big noise", but will be the unannounced, almost back door, visit of someone who knows what to look for, knows how to see through the veneer and facade, and will be attuned to the situation that he or she is examining.
I am glad that we are discussing the care of the elderly, as it is called, because the number of old and retired people is increasing annually. This is something that we have to face up to, and an increasingly serious matter is how we will be able to find sufficient resources in the years ahead to provide for the needs of the growing number of people who will become dependent upon that amount of wealth generated by the proportionately smaller band of productive workers.
In many respects this is a good debate to follow on the one which concluded in the early hours of this morning when, on the Prices and Incomes Bill, we were talking about the need for productivity and how to identify productivity wage increases; Only through increasing productivity will we get increasing national prosperity out of which we will be able to, finance the increasing, demands of services such as .those we are considering today.
I agree with the hon. Member for Chislehurst who said that money is not everything. How right he is. Money directly applied to the individual is not everything, but money spent sometimes in a different form—in the provision of central facilities—can be of considerable value. In this regard I refer to the

511
establishment of a day centre in Bournemouth. This is a new event for my constituency, though it is by no means new for the country as a whole. There are other comparable centres in other parts of the country which have already been introduced, although not exactly identical.
Three weeks ago, at a cost of £25,000, Bournemouth introduced its first day centre. This is in addition to the 17 residential home for elderly people, which it already provides, giving a total of 700 beds. The Minister of Health was a very welcome visitor to Bournemouth not so very long ago and I know that he will endorse what I say about it, because I would not like it to be thought that this is a wholly biassed testimony on my part.
This day centre is a tremendously important advance, because people have gone out of their way to be imaginative in the provision which has been made for the needs of elderly people. Interestingly, it is designed primarily not for old people —this might sound like a contradiction—but with the needs of the younger families in mind. It is designed with the thought that there must be some means by which the working couple or the individual is enabled to carry on working in the sure knowledge that the elderly dependent relative is being properly cared for. This is a slightly different emphasis from that which has been given. So far we have been dealing with the laggard child, the son or daughter-in-law, who is not fulfilling his or her responsibilities, and, as a result, the elderly relative is neglected and lonely. For example, a school teacher may not feel happy about carrying on her job teaching in a school if, in doing so, she has to leave her elderly mother completely alone at home. The establishment of this centre gives her the opportunity to take her elderly mother, or whoever it may be, to this place for the daytime while she herself is at work. She can know that her relative will be properly cared for and looked after. It is interesting to see how much is being done.
The main thing is that proper meals are provided. Elderly people left on their own often cannot be bothered to go to all the trouble of making a meal, but with the establishment of this day centre meals are available for which old people pay half a crown a time for a full meal and less for snacks in the course of the day.
512
This is an important factor in the avoidance of malnutrition, which is one of the dangers attendant upon old age.
The second most important thing is that the establishment of the day centre helps to keep some elderly people out of hospital and out of old people's homes. Were it not for the existence of a centre such as this, I have no doubt that some would have to go earlier to old people's homes or even to hospital than will now be the case.
The centre is a place not only to eat, but to meet. There is also entertainment, which meets the factor of loneliness, about which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) spoke. I want to stress this aspect of entertainment. I have been around many homes outside as well as within my constituency and I have seen the difference of approach in some outside Bournemouth which have not made such progress because they have not studied the subject with such care.
One sometimes sees a roomful of elderly people seated in a semi-circle and almost immoveable and there is no doubt that there is colossal boredom. Many of the people to whom I spoke emphasised how desperately bored they were. There may be all kinds of medical reasons and I recognise that, because of advanced years, some people may find it difficult to provide their own forms of entertainment and to interest themselves sufficiently with books or other activities of that kind to escape from boredom. But the fact remains that boredom is one of the great drawbacks of old age, although it is not necessarily associated with loneliness, and it can often be found in homes and institutions. It is absolutely necessary that in places like this there should be not only the sort of activity in which the individual can indulge—dominoes, draughts, the use of a library and so on—but also communal entertainment.
This entertainment is valuable when it can be provided by other organisations in the town where the home is established. A great deal of encouragement is given to youth clubs to help in the provision of entertainment for elderly people who gather in the newly opened day centre in Bournemouth. This is a first-class and imaginative development which ought to be reflected throughout the country.

513
The test of this centre will come in the winter months. It is easy to talk about centres such as this in weather such as we are now having when it is gloriously warm and everybody wants to wander out and when it is a nice cosy trot across the street, but it is quite a different proposition in the bleak winter months when the wind is howling and it is raining or snowing or worse. I am glad to be able to say that the management of this project is already thinking of the provision of transport and will do its level best to ensure that those who wish to use the centre are not kept from it by fear of inclement weather.
This day centre offers a major opportunity for the future and there are already plans for opening another three in Bournemouth in the next six months and a further eight on top of that. The only snag is that they cost money and in these hard times money seems to be increasingly difficult to come by.
Much has been said about the difficulties in which people find themselves when they become old. One of their worries is that they are embarrassed by their own old age and by their own infirmity and by the condition in which they find themselves. As a result, they become nervous and confused and in their nervousness and confusion they say wholly idiotic things which they would not wish to say and do things which they do not wish to happen, so that the situation becomes worse and almost a vicious circle. This is when intolerance or impatience can make life an absolute misery for the individual.
There is also a feeling among many old people that when they reach a certain age they become something of a burden on the family and that they ought to hide themselves away. It is not always right to blame the family, which is sometimes quite ready to help, but the old person is not prepared to be helped, and I know all too well how obstinate old age can become.
One other problem is the difficulty of finding old people living by themselves, the problem of actual location. In Bournemouth the authorities have concentrated on this problem. The health, welfare and housing departments cooperate extremely closely and when a problem arises within the departmental
514
influence of one, it is immediately reported to the others so that there is a joint operation to try to help. It is not only just the authorities, to call them that, but also the voluntary and religious organisations who work together.
I was extremely interested by the suggestion of the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) about what could be achieved by visiting. I have not before heard of the fish symbol in the window, but there is no doubt that teams of visitors can be valuable in helping to discover where elderly people live.
There is here a major rôle for the younger members of the community. So often we hear, possibly to the point of nausea, certainly in my case, of the extravagances of youth, of its wildness and profligacy, how inconsiderate and how curiously dressed young people are, and so on, but, as hon. Members know, young people often form clubs of whatever description the primary purpose of which is to help others in the community, and to my certain knowledge they concentrate on the needs of the elderly.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye quite rightly emphasised the voluntary factor in this way. No matter that there is a great and glorious State provision it is the voluntary organisations which can really identify individuals, which can be closely sensitive to the peculiar circumstances of the individual. It is this which should receive every positive and possible encouragement. Where there are teams of visitors, or whatever they may be called, working for this purpose in towns and boroughs, having visited a person they should make a habit of following it up. It should become a regular sequence of visits not just the occasional hit and miss affair, because once hope has been aroused it would be cruelty indeed to let it fall away.
8.10 p.m.
Dr. David Kerr: I have remarked before, though not publicly, the difficulty of expressing in this Chamber new and rather technical ideas and problems, be they scientific or social, educational or foreign affairs. We tend always, and I apologise if I sound irritatingly condescending, to rehearse accepted ideas. Today has been no exception. Anyone listening to this debate,

515
with any profound knowledge of the problems of the old, could be forgiven if they left the Chamber convinced that all that Members of Parliament knew about the care of the old was that they were lonely and had meals on wheels.
I am aware that this is a rather shorthand representation of what has been a good debate. None the less it has been a debate which has expressed more about our attitudes to growing old than about the relevant facts for the care of the old. We wrap the old up in euphemisms and expect them to stay warm in the winter. We call them senior citizens. With all respect to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden), he spent a long time describing an admirable provision, the day centre, which is nothing new. It has been going on in many other areas of the country and has been explored and examined and found to be valuable, as he said.
It is a pity that this House cannot throw up more exciting and adventurous ideas. I had better be a little iconoclastic and say that if we were really expressing what I believe so many of us feel it is that old age is a squalid nuisance. That is an idea that would be accepted by anyone below the age of 105. One the one hand, old age becomes a burden to the family at a time when the family is less able to bear it comfortably. The parent becomes old as the children become middle-aged, with the problems of their own children going through a rather critical age. This is the inevitable, predictable and axiomatic result with the problem of old age, and it does something to explain why today the family finds it so difficult to contain its older members.
Why have we to confine consideration of these problems to what we call for want of a better term "the elderly"? What do we mean by elderly? Does anyone here imagine that what is written on our birth certificate has any relevance to this? Does "old" mean the same to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) as it does to an inmate of some old people's home in my constituency? Of course it does not. To talk about the elderly is to omit to say, to forget, that we are dealing with a whole mass of problems which are generally applicable to the
516
housebound and the dependent in a variety of ways; to the chronic sick, mentally or physically; to the mentally sick, be that due to a mental breakdown or to the mental illnesses which so often accompany old age.
We pay homage to old age, aware that we must either in the end submit to it or else face the other rotten alternative of dying young. These are some of the things that we ought to be saying about the care of the elderly. These are some of the things that we should have at the back of our mind. When we are talking about things like meals on wheels we should recognise that they represent the inadequate provision by the community, the inadequate sop to its conscience through services which fall sadly below what is needed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) talked glowingly of the provision of over 5,000 new places in old people's homes last year. He omitted to refer to the fact that the number of people aged 65 and over increased last year by more than 5,000 so that mathematically we are falling behind in the provision of places for old people. We are not winning this race.
Mr. K. Robinson indicated dissent.
Dr. Kerr: My right hon. Friend shakes his head, but on the figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West this would appear to be the fact.
It is on community attitudes that there is so much more to say. The first thing is that if the community really bends itself to the care of its older members it is no use beginning once they have reached the age or state of dependency, because that comes at so many different ages. What we should direct our attention to is the fact that the care of the aged begins when the person reaches the age of 60, be he a Member of Parliament or a dustman. The whole problem of geriatrics has been touched upon by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West and the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison). The problem is that of case discovery. How does one discover a person who is in need of help, when inevitably the process of ageing leads to that very process which some

517
have rather narrowly referred to as loneliness, but which, more specifically, should be regarded as the problem of isolation?
Loneliness can happen in a great crowd of people, but isolation is essentially a cutting off, which may result from the plain physical disability of arthritis, which prevents the old person leaving his [pine arid going shopping. We recognise too rarely the therapeutic value of being able to go shopping. So many people ho are house-bound become cut off from the community activity of going to the local supermarket. It is a very damaging experience indeed and results from sheer physical incapacity.
It is isolation that we should be talking about, and the problem which the community ought to be facing is that of discovering those who are isolated. The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) brought up a suggestion which we are too timorous to follow up. We should try to devise some way of registering a person with the local community services as they register for their retirement pension.
We do not think twice when we register babies and pass on the information to the local health visitor so that they can go round and check up that the babies are being properly looked after, fed, vaccinated and so on. Why do we not do the same for an even more helpless class of people, namely those over 65? Not all of them are helpless, but if we know who is over 65, if we were to organise our health visiting services to engage the attention and support of people over 65 in the same way as they engage the attention and support of mothers and young babies, we would go a long way to recognising and identifying, preventing the problems of isolation as they occur among older people. This is done in some parts, in my own constituency for example. But preventive geriatrics, to coin a phrase, involves a process of education.
It has been said that the relatives of old people should have some education. Already plenty of attempts are made—and some of them are successful—to create classes in local evening institutes for home nursing, but they are generally rather badly attended. They form precisely the sort of educative effort needed to equip the relatives of elderly people with the kind of information of which
518
they could make most effective use in caring for elderly relatives, yet not much use is made of them. I hope that it is not proposed that such courses should be compulsory. That would be a new departure. It is not a question of creating them: they are in existence and advantage can be taken of them.
The process of education begins with the person growing older. One of the most interesting recent developments in places like Manchester and London is schemes for training for retirement so that people when they retire do not become vegetables and isolated. These training courses equip them with the opportunity to broaden their horizons and to accomplish some new creative activity.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West spoke about entertainment. I do not accept what he says. It is not entertainment but occupation which older people require. Perhaps one of our biggest failures is the difficulty which we put in the way of the man over 65 and the woman over 60, or perhaps even younger, in occupying themselves, not necessarily gainfully, but most advantageously gainfully. After all, this is the natural function of the human being —to do something creative, even though it may be repetitive and simple. The idea of a person producing something is an essential part of living. But we make it difficult for older people to do this.
We disadvantage the older people regarding their pensions and by making it more difficult for them to gain access to means of occupation. If the community is intent upon helping old people, it should make provision in the form of sheltered workshops and other forms of occupation rather than entertainment. I want people to enjoy the right to work but not to be forced to work because their incomes are low or their pensions inadequate. They should enjoy the right to work and be given the opportunity to create which we are busy denying to them. This is one respect in which we can go a long way to preventing the breakdown of individuals. Again it is a question of community attitudes, which we have been expressing today, to some extent.
Reference has inevitably been made to "Sans Everything" by Barbara Robb. It is a dramatic book which expresses

519
a community attitude—a mixture of concern for things which go wrong and of hope and confidence that things may one day go right. I do not go along with the suggestion that there should be a hospital commissioner. The value of the book, if it has a value—and I believe that it has—lies in the message which is implicit throughout that the whole hospital system should be thrown open to public gaze. There is no better way of ensuring that the dreadful occurences described, I am sure with absolute accuracy, would not occur if the public have the sort of access to old people's institutions and the kind of interest which should be encouraged in old people's institutions which they have, for instance, in the more dramatic acute hospitals. Old people's institutions are a bit boring and forbidding.
That brings me to another point. If the community is to do anything useful for old people, it must learn to contain them and not extrude them into a new form of ghetto. Several hon. Members have referred to Christmas visits to old people's home. I go to visit old people at Christmas, and a more depressing experience it would be hard to find. I do not share this enthusiasm for such visits. One sees a group of old men sitting round in a situation which I can only say is characterised by the word "non-communication". They are all isolated from one another—why, I do not know. The women in the women's wards are all chirruping like magpies, but the men seem to be incapable of creating this kind of community.
Why do we have to shut up old people in one building simply because they are over 65? That is nonsensical. Local authorities which have responsibility for institutional provision should have the imagination to see that if they are to create a community it must be a mixed community. Local authorities, with very few exceptions, pay some kind of attention to this principle in their children's service. The provision of family units in the children's service whereby there are children of different ages in one group is almost axiomatic wherever one goes in the country. But when it comes to old people we are still back in the 19th century. The attitude is: "Over 65—in you go".
520
Instead, the imaginative local authority should be providing residential accommodation which houses not only old people but young people who need some kind of local authority provision—for example, the unmarried mother, the civil servant who has been moved from one part of the country to another and does not have his family to support with him, and perhaps even Members of Parliament in London who want accommodation, which would be eminently suitable to be provided by a local authority. It would be good for some of us to share with some of those lone individuals. It would provide a spread of age, interest and contact and would create in the institution a community.
That community cannot always house the incapacitated elderly person. Reference has been made to the tripartite nature of the service. I go a long way with what has been said about the division of provision. I do not like a tripartite service. Anybody who thinks about it, however, recognises sooner or later that one comes up against a boundary wherever it is drawn. If it is not drawn in the National Health Service dividing it into three, it is drawn between the National Health Service and the housing service, and sooner or later one trips over the boundary.
One of the difficulties is the conflict between the local health authority provision for old people and hospital provision for old people. On the one hand, the hospitals, and the mental hospitals particularly, are crowded with elderly people who occupy the beds and deny to the mental hospitals their proper function of caring for the mentally sick who are treatable and are subject to some kind of improvement as a result of treatment.
On the other hand, old people's homes are similarly overcrowded with people who require hospital care and who could benefit from hospital treatment. The local health authority or the welfare authorities are resentful that hospitals do not take their cases. On the other hand, the hospitals are resentful that they have cases which should be in local welfare authority accommodation.
There is an argument for much closer working and for a greater ironing out of boundaries. It is largely true that in many parts of the country those

521
boundaries have been swept away by the sheer commitment of the local authorities concerned. We should see much more of this. I hope that my right hon. Fiend who replies to the debate will think carefully about ways of helping local welfare authorities to get their patients into the hospital service, where they could be rehabilitated, and help the hospital service to empty some of its mental hospital beds of patients who could well be in local health authority care and who simply need the kind of supervision or terminal care which is not properly the responsibility today of the mental hospital service.
I emphasise my ardent support for the view which my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) expressed so cogently. It is clear that there is a growing ferment of demand for selectivity in the social welfare services. If ever a situation proved beyond peradventure that selectivity is out, it is the care of the elderly. We should make it plain from these benches that we do not accept the principle of selective care in our welfare services. Universality must be axiomatic, because without universality we cannot begin to plan the services, let alone all the other more humane and less pragmatic reasons for accepting universality as the basis for welfare.
In the care of the elderly, the introduction of some kind of payment would be unacceptable, not only to us on these benches, but to the electorate as a whole.
Mr. Bernard Braine: Is the hon. Member aware that in our hospital arrangements the only people who have to pay for their hospital care are long-stay pensioners?
Dr. Kerr: I am, of course, aware that that wretched principle was introduced by a Conservative Administration, very much against my wishes at the time. It is my grave disappointment that we have not yet found it possible to remove it. I take it the hon. Gentleman is referring to the reduction in pensions which followed admission to hospital for more than eight: weeks. I do not accept that this is in fact a particularly fair or equitable way of dealing with them.
Mr. Braine: I am not disagreeing with the hon. Gentleman. On the contrary, I
522
agree with him entirely. I think that where the elderly are concerned, this is a category of people in need and there should be no charges. I was merely remarking that it seemed somewhat odd that in our enlightened Welfare State these were the only people who suffered a diminution of income. For the rest of us, we get free hospital care.
Dr. Kerr: Yes, I accept entirely what the hon. Gentleman says, and I hope very much that in the course of time this, too, will disappear, in the way prescription charges have disappeared. I may add, in parenthesis, that if one group of people has benefited from the removal of prescription charges it is certainly the elderly, and if this Government make no other contribution to the care of the elderly this has been a most important one. I speak in a professional sense rather than a political one.
I wanted just to turn for a moment to a point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Eye when he was referring to the provision of private care for old people. I have spoken a great deal of community attitudes, and it is an unfortunate fact that the lack of community provision for the care of the elderly has provided a wonderful provision for the care of the elderly has provided a wonderful stamping ground for a number of —not all—nursing homes which are doing very well indeed out of the need of the community to find somewhere for elderly people to go who are incapacitated and cannot find hospital beds.
I do not want anybody to be under a misapprehension: there are a number of private nursing homes which are taking in old people and which are doing a marvellous job and not extracting from their families or the estates of the old people an extravagant amount of money, but I regret to say that there are a number of such homes which are doing a deplorable job, in which the conditions are disgusting, in which charges are extravagantly high, and which are a disgrace, and which, with all respect to my right hon. Friend, do not seem to have improved as a result of the Measure to which he referred earlier today, and which was passed through this House, giving inspection rights to local health authorities. The fact is that age is also a matter for exploitation.

523
I have spoken repeatedly about our attitudes, our own attitudes, towards approaching our own old age. I remember that many years ago, when I was a house physician, in charge of a geriatric ward, I stopped at one bed in which there was an elderly lady as I was going on my round, and the sister in charge of the ward said, "Dr. Kerr, this is Louisa. It is her birthday today." I said, "Many happy returns, Louisa. How old are you?" To which she replied in a quavering voice, "I am 92 today. I always wanted to live to a ripe old age, but I do not know whether I shall." This, I think, is something entirely characteristic of our own attitudes both to other people's ages and to our own. I venture to hope that we shall be able to approach that age in which—if I may for a brief second speak professionally—the idea that we have only three score years and ten, or proportionately less, it seems, if we are Members of Parliament, is seen as totally inadequate by any computation. We ought to be able to lead a productive and independent existence, certainly to well over 100 years of age. I would hope that my right hon. Friend's best endeavours will be directed to ensuring that before the Labour Government may be supplanted by any other Government at all they will at least have guaranteed to us this 100 years of productive life.
8.35 p.m.
Dame Joan Vickers (Plymouth, Devon-port): I am very glad to have the opportunity of taking part in this debate, but first of all I want to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for not being here when he made his contribution. I was attending a meeting of a Select Committee, of which I informed Mr. Speaker.
While I have not the great knowledge and experience of the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr), he made one comment which I did not like when he said that we thought of old people as a squalid nuisance—
Dr. David Kerr: I would not like the hon. Lady to think that I said that about old people. I said that old age was squalid nuisance, not old people.
Dame Joan Vickers: Whether that is so or not, most people still revere the elderly.
524
In one part of his speech, the hon. Gentleman dealt with the training of old people, and I agree entirely with him that we should do all we can to prepare people for retirement. I understand that there are certain firms which run retirement courses, and one of them has a weekend course designed to bring husbands and wives together who, in many cases, live rather separate lives in their everyday work. It is an idea which has worked very well, and I should like to see it continued. Now that people have a shorter working week, they have more time to take up hobbies which will provide them with interests later on. We have an excellent example of this in Plymouth where every year we have an exhibition called "Skilled Hands". It is amazing what beautiful and useful pieces of work people produce, which obviously give them tremendous pleasure.
The hon. Gentleman told a story about an old lady of 92 who, despite her circumstances, was obviously enjoying life. I do not think that it matters about age as long as one is in fairly good health and still has one's mental faculties. We are thinking today mainly about the distressing cases of old people who lose their faculties.
I have just returned from a conference of the Council of Europe in Copenhagen. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that one of the subjects discussed there was that of retirement and provision for old age. Very many corn plimentary things were said about the United Kingdom, and I was amazed at the knowledge of some of the delegates and how they had studied what we do in Great Britain. They think that we have found a great many answers which they have not, which is rather cheering for us when we wonder whether our services are efficient.
On the other side of the picture, I have three constituents over 75 on retirement pensions who have gone abroad recently, one of whom had never even been to London. Her daughter sent her some money, and she has gone to Bermuda for three months, another has gone to Australia, and the third has gone to the Continent. I think that that underlines the fact that we have to bring people into the community before they retire so they do not age so quickly. A lot of them are not in the community when they are

525
working but simply travel to and from work, but if we bring them into the community before they retire, there is far more chance of keeping them there. I want to pay tribute to the National Old People's Welfare Council and to the Salvation Army. They have done a tremendous amount to bring these matters to the notice of various local authorities and hon. Members of this House.
Hopes have been expressed about the likelihood of extending the expected life span, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could send some of his people who are engaged in research work to see the people in the centre of Russia who seem able to enjoy life at 110 years of age.
Recently, there has been much publicity given to the book "Sans Everything", and I hope that this book will stir up the consciences of people. However, one point about the book which worries me is that there is no attempt to compare conditions in good and bad hospitals. Neither the hospitals nor the contributors are named in the book, and it has had a disturbing effect. I dare say that other hon. Members as well as I have had letters from constituents wondering if their relations might be in one of the hospitals referred to in the book. I am glad that we are having this debate, because it provides the right hon. Gentleman with an opportunity to say how unfair the book is to the good hospitals, which I am sure are in the majority. An example of a good one is the Moorhaven Hospital, near Plymouth, which is open to visits by members of the public. One thing that I am sorry is happening in the West Country is that house committees are being closed down, because these were of great advantage both to the patients and to the staff.
During the last 10 years there has been a tremendous increase in the number of patents over 65 who have been admitted to Moorhaven Hospital. Ten years ago they represented 19 per cent. of the population of the hospital. The figure is now 23 per cent., and this makes matters more difficult.
I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what powers the General Nursing Council has, because I believe that it has the right to inspect hospitals at least once every five years, and as its members are trained for this job and they
526
have great knowledge of hospital management and might be able to advise the Minister concerning action in the future.
When someone visits a hospital, he can easily fall into the trap of feeling sorry for a patient after talking to him. This happened to me only last Saturday. A charming old boy came up to me and asked whether I could find his wife. It was a pathetic tale. He wanted her to come down from London, and I said that if he gave me her address I would see what could be done. On making inquiries, however, I found that he had been out in the car with his wife only that afternoon. They had been for a very pleasant drive, and she was proposing to return the following day to visit him, but he had forgotten all about it until reminded and this is what can happen to people who visit patients from time to time, I was not very impressed by "The Diary of a Nobody". I think that there are better ways of tackling these problems.
Having lived overseas for some time, I often had the mothers of friends of mine to stay with me, when they needed looking after, if they could not get back from leave. On one or two occasions I had to find homes for them. It is not easy to find such places, but there are many good ones, and I am glad that voluntary homes are on the increase. They usually cater for a fewer number of people, and I am pleased that the total number has increased by 50 since the last Ministry Report, but it will always be difficult to find the right home for elderly people because they are individuals and need a terrific amount of understanding.
What provision is there for patients or staff to make complaints if they wish to do so? I was a Member of the Committee which considered the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill, and one reason why hospitals were not included within the Parliamentary Commissioner's duties was stated to be the circular sent by the Ministry of Health to all hospital committees, which said:
"An independent lawyer or other competent person from outside the hospital should conduct an inquiry set up for the purpose whose membership shall be independent of the parties concerned and should include a person or persons to advise on professional and technical matters. The complainant or any other person who has such a complaint should have the opportunity of hearing and cross-examining the witnesses and should be allowed to

527
make their own arrangements to be legally represented if they so wish."
Are the details of this circular known to the nurses and to the matrons, and is a notice displayed in hospitals telling the relatives of patients what rights they have?
Mr. K. Robinson: Perhaps I can help the hon. Lady here. The circular sets out methods of dealing with complaints by, or on behalf of, patients. It details a number of suggested methods, if I may use the phrase, graded according to the seriousness, or apparent seriousness, of the complaint. The procedure which the hon. Lady has detailed is for the more serious type of complaint. I think it would be fair to say that the normal channel of complaint for a member of the nursing staff is through his or her superior officer. Clearly, if she or he did not get satisfaction in that way an approach to the chief administrator of the hospital management committee or the regional hospital board would be open.
Dame Joan Vickers: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that information. These points should have been known but evidently could not have been known to the writers of this book, because they did not adopt what I would have considered the normal processes.
The hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central talked about the registration of people when they retire, and I agree that this is extremely important. I had hoped that this would have been done some time ago. If people on retirement were sent a form they could fill it in, voluntarily, and at the same time they could be told of the advantages of the Welfare system in their district and the machinery that exists to help them.
I was interested to find that in an excellent book on "The Social Needs of the Over-80's" it was said that 8 per cent. of men and 5·5 per cent. of women in the survey conducted had no knowledge of the various services available. Ten per cent. of the over-eighties did not know that there was a chiropody service. I would have thought that this system of registration was a very good way of bringing to the attention of the individuals concerned the facilities that exist. We would know where the old
528
people were living and the old people would know what was available.
I do not want to say anything against the meals-on-wheels service, which is excellent, but I am worried about the nutritional value of some of the meals. I should like the Minister's assurance that the service is providing the right type of meals, especially in hot weather. I would have thought that it could have provided a better standard of diet. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman issues guidance and advice to the R.W.V.S. and the Red Cross, who do this excellent work, as to the type of meal that is most advantageous. The question of malnutrition is very important in this respect, as it is not always caused through not having enough to eat; sometimes it is caused by not eating the right things to keep fit, especially if a person is unable to have much exercise.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will press his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing to continue with what I think is one of the best forms of housing old persons, namely, little flatlets with their own kitchens, and with warders available to help the occupants. This enables them to be on their own but also to be secure in the knowledge that there is somebody to look after them.
Then there is the question of boarding out. Special arrangements for this are made by Exeter and Plymouth. These social security authorities pay £3 15s. to persons who are willing to take old people, in the same way that a child is fostered out. It is clear that the old people will go only to good homes, because nobody will take in somebody for that small sum of money if he is not anxious to take in that person. Over 100 people in Plymouth have been boarded out in this way.
At one time the idea was that old people should always live in mixed communities, and it is a great advantage if they can have their little flatlets in a block of flats. However, tremendous success has been obtained by Miles Mitchell Trust with villages for old people. We have a village in Plymouth where the people have their own hall and shop, and their own community centre. They have their own "get-togethers", and also where they can work at their various interests. They do their gardening. The scheme has proved to be an enormous

529
success, and there is a long waiting list. This system goes against our previous ideas which proves there is room for all types of organisations and I should like consideration given to this type of scheme, because it has been going on now for about ten years and has proved very helpful.
I turn finally to the question of holidays. Many seaside towns give special off-season terms. Perhaps old people could register at a central place like the town hall to gain knowledge as to going on holiday and receive details from the local authority. A holiday away from home breaks the monotony for old people as they meet other people. We should encourage local authorities to show the various centres where these facilities exist, although they need not make all the arrangements. Married couples too should be kept together in old people's homes if possible and the two sexes should not be divided. Both should live together, as this is the natural way of living.
8.50 p.m.
Mr. Leslie Huckfield: We cannot dismiss the seriousness of this problem. By 1975, 10 million people will be over 65. At the moment, there are 6½ million, 90 per cent. of whom Lye with friends or relatives, which means that 10 per cent. are not wanted or cannot be looked after in this way. The debate has concentrated on this 10 per cent., but I am also concerned about part of the 90 per cent. Although older people, who have been euphemistically called "senior citizens" may be looked after by friends and relatives, here too there may be serious problems. When an old person lives with a younger family with different habits, customs and traditions, there may be difficulties, despite statistical evidence that they are well looked after.
We are told that only 50,000 beds are available for such cases. In Warwickshire, where my constituency is situated, the county council has had to say that only the very serious cases, with no immediate friends or relatives, can be admitted to such hospitals, which increases the percentage of families who have their relations living with them despite difficult problems. Although a large percentage may be looked after by their
530
relatives, we must remember these problems of shortage of geriatric beds.
The publication "Sans Everything" goes about this in the wrong way, because it should not only give serious examples and quote speeches and comments to give a headline effect. One of the better methods is to propose action to improve matters. I would have liked more suggestions of this kind in the publication. We accept that there are serious difficulties, but want to know some of the ways of dealing with them.
Much depends upon where the particular senior citizen happens to live. My constituency of Nuneaton has a first-class record of care for the elderly. I pay tribute to the people who are responsible for this first-class record, and I shall tell the House of one or two things which my borough does which could, I feel, be copied with advantage by others.
The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devenport (Dame Joan Vickers) emphasised the need to have a wide choice of accommodation available to our senior citizens. It is no good thinking that, if we build an old people's home, that is enough. It is no good thinking that just one kind of provision is sufficient. Many people, after reaching retirement age, still want to live what is basically their own life they like to keep their own house and things together. This is why the flatlet schemes developed in my constituency are so valuable.
In such flatlet schemes, which are now being favoured by many of the more progressive local authorities, not only is there a warden but there is also a community hall and other facilities actually within the centre. This encourages old people to carry on living their independent lives, should they wish to do so, and it also permits them to get together of an evening to play dominoes, to watch television and so on, and, what is more, to have their relatives visit them not only in their individual dwellings but also in the communal accommodation.
A further and most enlightened development is the siting of flats and dwellings for younger couples either as part of the old people's centre or very near to it. Quite a few such developments are now going on in various parts of the country to make provision for individual and communal living by our

531
senior citizens and younger citizens as well. In my view, this is a line of development which should be encouraged. One only has to compare the situation in an old people's home and in a flatlet scheme running side by side. Very often, the people have gone either into the flatlets or the home purely by choice, but what has struck me on my visits to these schemes is the comparison between the way of life of people living in the flatlets, where they are more often the independent and sturdy type of person, the person who takes pride in being allowed to carry on his or her own existence, whereas on the other hand, the people who have been put into the home very often become dependent and, as we have heard in this debate, they reach the point when they have difficulty in communicating and more and more has to be done for them. I urge, therefore, that we encourage the development of centres which permit senior citizens to pursue as much of an independent existence as they possibly can.
In spite of everything we may do through the local authorities, and in spite of everything which we may choose to do within the community, as society becomes more affluent, it becomes more callous. Although we may have a greater number of centres and a greater number of old people's homes, if there is not the right kind of attitude within the community itself, a lot of that will be not just wasted money but money that could be better spent if there were more community participation.
In this connection, I applaud the work of the old people's welfare committee in the Borough of Nuneaton, which not only provides the usual facilities provided by old people's welfare committees such as laundry, information services and the like, but, more important, has a visiting subcommittee composed of people willing to devote their mornings, afternoons or evenings, on a rota system, to going round to visit senior citizens wherever they happen to live. This is tremendously important. The greatest misfortune which old people have to combat is so often not physical ill health or the difficult conditions in which they live but sheer loneliness.
Many local authorities throughout the country still think that by providing old
532
people with flatlets, bungalows or homes they have solved the problem of the elderly, but while old people still have loneliness and are without visitors that problem still very much exists. The old people's welfare committee at Nuneaton has managed very successfully to involve not only its own members and those who come to the occasional lecture and to see what the committee is doing but also many local clubs and societies, and particularly the schools. When I was at school we used to run a record evening at one of the local hospitals for the old patients over the "intercom" system. This is still being done in my constituency, and it is the kind of thing that should be encouraged. In many respects I am a very fortunate Members in that, if I have problems concerning those over 65, I know that apart from the centres, institutions, homes and local authority facilities which are freely provided for senior citizens in my constituency, the old people's welfare committee involves the rest of the community in its work.
I, too, wish that I had been here for the whole debate, and I apologise to my right hon. Friend for not having been here all the time. In forming conclusions on the debate we must bear in mind that whatever we do from the local authority and public expenditure point of view, if we do not have the involvement and participation of the local community and a very active background of voluntary activity from it, much of the money will not be spent as well as it could be.
9.2 p.m.
Mr. Bernard Braine: The debate has been somewhat unusual in two respects. We have had a series of exceptionally thoughtful, sensitive, informed and constructive speeches, all of which have indicated a deep and lively concern for the more vulnerable of our old people. Unlike what happens in most of our discussions, and what will no doubt take place in our discussion later tonight, a very clear consensus has emerged.
Both my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) and the Minister have reminded us that the problem of caring for the elderly is growing. It is a sobering thought that the number of those over the age of 65 is expected to increase by no less than 20 per cent. between 1965

533
and 1976, which I understand is about twice as fast as the rate of growth of the total population. But we need to keep this changing pattern in perspective. Thus I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) and the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) that we do not help the elderly by treating old age itself as a problem. We have only to consider our colleague, the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), to realise that age is a matter of attitude, a state of mind.
Indeed, it is one of the more encouraging features of our society that the age at which most people feel that they are getting old is tending to rise all the time. It is astonishing to me how youthful grandmothers seem to be these days—and grandfathers, too, but I take greater notice of the grandmothers. It is a good thing that they should be, because life is meant to be lived to the full. It has been my observation that very few old people seem to lament the passing of their middle years. Dean Swift was very near the mark when he said:
"No wise man ever wishes to be young."
Moreover, most old people enjoy reasonable health. About half of them over the age of 65 are living with their spouses and normally are in contact with children or friends. About 96 per cent. live in their own homes. But this does not mean that all those living in their own homes are enjoying a comfortable, independent existence. Far from it. About a quarter have no surviving children, and about one-tenth—my figures are not up to date, but I think that must be at least 650,000—are housebound because of illness or infirmity. Many are desperately lonely. It does not matter very much whether one calls it "isolation" as the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central did, or "loneliness". Many of them are desperately lonely and feel cut off, neglected and unwanted. For some, unhappily, help comes only when they have had a complete breadown in health, and often then it is too late.
Listening to the speeches, it seemed to ma that we were all agreed that if we are to ensure a decent and dignified existence for all our old people we must meet
534
two basic requirements. The first requirement for all old people is a home of their own where they can lead, or be helped to lead, an independent existence for as long as humanly possible. The second is that our health and welfare services should be designed not merely to treat sickness and infirmity when these occur, but to promote positive health and welfare.
The truth is that by any test our present arrangements make it difficult to meet these requirements as we would wish. I have felt this for many years. I felt it when I was at the Ministry of Health, and I feel that it is still true today. Where the system works satisfactorily it is not because of its inherent virtues but despite them. It is not because the administrative structure of our health and welfare services is specially designed to meet the needs of the patient but because the kind of people engaged in the service—the family doctors, the geriatricians, the nurses, the hospital secretaries, the medical officers of health, the welfare officers and social workers, and one might add the lay people in hospital administration and local authorities—are trained, responsible and dedicated.
Where in any area there is a good consultant geriatrician, effective liaison between the family doctors, the hospitals and the local authority services, adequate home nursing and home help, domiciliary physiotherapy and a well organised meals on wheels service, although all these no doubt require a greater outlay of money in the first place, there is a quicker turn round of beds, a more economic use of resources and less danger of a patient after having been restored in health and discharged coming back to hospital because of neglect in the home. In such circumstances the system works very well indeed. All of us know areas where one can point to this happening with justifiable pride. But all too often the system does not work very well, and there are some areas where it hardly works at all.
The reason is that there are two basic defects in our social provision for the elderly. First, there is not enough of the various kinds of accommodation necessary to safeguard the health and preserve the independence of old people for as long as possible. Secondly, there is no one authority charged with the

535
responsibility either for finding that accommodation or providing the care, and as a consequence there is imperfect co-ordination of services.
These two defects interact one upon the other. The outcome is often an administrative muddle, frustration of staff, damage to the best interests of the patient and a waste of resources. So we have far too many reasonably fit old people eating their hearts out in local authority welfare homes—admittedly, first class accommodation in many cases —simply because not enough small dwellings are provided by housing authorities.
So there are far too many frail old people needing care but still in their own homes for whom no welfare accommodation will be available until after their health has finally broken down and they have had to go into hospital. So there are far too many old people in hospitals who cannot be discharged because they have no home to go to or because there is no one at home to care for them. I have heard it suggested, and never denied, that there may be as many as 25,000 old people in psychiatric hospitals who could be discharged tomorrow if there were someone at home to care for them.
It is important to ask ourselves why these people are in psychiatric hospitals. Doctor Stephen Horsley, whom I have had the pleasure of meeting and who is quoted in "Sans Everything", believes that
"Perhaps 80 per cent. of elderly patients in mental hospitals have mental symptoms entirely attributable to untreated physical ailments."
It is a serious indictment of the National Health Service that there is still much misplacement of elderly patients within the hospital service. Perhaps one quarter of the elderly in psychiatric hospitals should be in geriatric units and one-third of those in geriatric units should be in psychiatric hospitals. This situation is not new. I am not attacking the right hon. Gentleman. This has been going on for a long time and we are all seeking year by year to remedy it.
But such a situation has more serious consequences than the layman would suppose. During the investigation to which I am referring, which took place some
536
years ago, Dr. Kidd found that the mortality of misplaced patients was significantly higher than among the correctly placed patients wherever they were and, secondly, that the discharge rate of medical patients was slightly higher if they were correctly placed in geriatric rather than in psychiatric wards. He concluded:
"It is difficult to imagine any more drastic consequences from admitting old people to the wrong hospital than that so high a proportion of them should die, and that of those who survive so few should be discharged."
I would like to think that a lot of that has changed. No doubt there have been improvements but I have been told by consultant geriatricians that misplacement still exists. My first question, therefore, is what is being done about this? As the right hon. Gentleman told us in his very interesting speech, the ideal is, of course, the establishment of psycho-geriatric units under the joint care of a geriatrician and a psychiatrist, to which all old people would be admitted for short-term assessment, diagnosis and treatment and for decision as to further care. How many are there of these units?
As for these old people discharged from hospitals, their capacity to keep fit despite a functional disability depends very much on their general environment and the availability of the domiciliary services. It is not surprising that, while less than one-third of those who have someone to care for them at home go back to hospital, about half of those living alone return to hospital.
I come now to the first defect in our provision for the elderly—the insufficiency of the right kind of accommodation. Although great strides have been made in recent years in the provision of purpose-built welfare homes the recommended level of 20 beds per 1,000 population over the age of 65 is still inadequate in a good many areas. In any event, I suggest that the ratio is unrealistic unless it is related to the provision of special housing for the fit elderly, on the one hand, and to adequate geriatric beds, on the other. But we know that here the provision varies considerably from area to area.
Coming to the geriatric provision there does not appear to be much scientific basis for the recommended level of ten beds per 1,000 of the population over 65. That ratio is based on the decision that

537
the Conservative Government took in 1962 in their long-term Hospital Plan. They looked at the existing provision, which was 10.8 per 1,000 persons over 65, and said, "This will be roughly right for the next ten years or so and we will base the plan on this, especially as we can expect improvements in active treatment in the hospitals and in the rehabilitation services outside".
We recognised in the Hospital Plan, however, that knowledge and experience would not stand still, and that the hospital authorities would be alert to modify the proposals and to bring forward new ones.
Since then five years have elapsed. Despite the glowing picture that was painted by the right hon. Gentleman the provision is still inadequate. In the group of hospitals serving my constituency and Southend-on-Sea there is provision for only five beds per 1,000. The proof that the provision is inadequate, whether it is 5 per 1,000 or 10 per 1,000, is seen in the waiting lists.
It is very difficult to get at the truth. On the same day last week that the British Medical Association warned the nation that the National Health Service was heading for disaster, the Minister issued his annual report saying that he did not accept the criticisms and that the past year had seen "a striking measure of success". There have been successes, there are strains and there are difficulties, and this is not the time and place to go into them. However, tucked into page 55 of his Report was the admission that the total number of persons awaiting admission to hospital was 536,000—an increase of 19,000 or 4 per cent. over 1965. I understand that the geriatric figures show a slight decrease since 1965, but nevertheless an increase of about 25 per cent. over the figures for 1964.
What are the explanations? Is it that there is a persistent overall shortage of geriatric beds or is it that some geriatric accommodation is being used for other purposes? We know that young chronic sick patients are often put in geriatric wards. That is a wrong and cruel thing to do, but we know that it happens.
Is it that the Ministry of Health's standard is now based on the wrong criteria? I think this is a serious question to put to the Minister. We know that it is not
538
so much people between the ages of 65 and 70 who need care and attention as those over 70. It is over 70—of course I am generalising here—when old people are most likely to have lost their partners, are living on their own away from relatives and friends, and are getting frailer in body and spirit.
Is it that there is a shortage of geriatricians—the Minister told us that there had been an increase—or a shortage of geriatric social workers? If so, what is being done to give encouragement to a branch of medicine and social work which will become of increasing importance as the numbers of old people increase?
Is it that there is a shortage of physiotherapy facilities in hospitals? If so, why does the Minister discourage mobile physiotherapy units which make use of married women physiotherapists who are not available for full-time work in hospitals?
Is it that we still have an insufficiency of day hospitals? We had a glowing account from the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) about the new day hospital in Bournemouth. There is no doubt that these are very desirable institutions since they help to prevent old people deteriorating to the point where they must become inpatients.
May I now turn to Mrs. Barbara Robb's book "Sans Everything", which has figured in a number of speeches? Everyone who has read it has been affected by its terrifying indictment of conditions which it is alleged are endured by elderly patients in certain unnamed hospitals. One would hope that these allegations of cruelty and neglect are true of only a very small number of hospitals, but if they are true of only one, this must call for swift remedial action.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham that Mrs. Robb has performed a useful service in one respect —in warning us that we cannot shuffle off our responsibilities for the care of the old and the weak and, to use his term, the defeated, in the belief that now that the Welfare State exists, it will take care of them and we do not have to bother.
I want to say from this side of the House that we are very glad that the Minister has decided to arrange for an independent inquiry. His approach

539
this afternoon to the whole matter was absolutely correct. At the same time, I am sure that he will agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Melton and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West were right to insist that the inquiry should be conducted in a way which would give everyone, both in the hospital service and outside, the fullest confidence in its impartiality and its determination to establish the truth.
The right hon. Gentleman answered two of my hon. Friend's questions. He said that the person conducting the inquiry would have expert medical and nursing assistance and that care would be taken to ensure that the persons who are chosen have no connection with the hospital regions in which the hospitals complained of are located. I must press him for an answer to the third question, which was whether steps would be taken to ensure that no possible pressure could be put on junior hospital staff or patients about the evidence which they gave.
This is particularly important where nursing staff are involved. Because of their involvement and the narrow confines of their relevant experience, patients and their relatives are not necessarily the best witnesses to malpractice or poor conditions in hospitals—I think that we can understand that. Nursing staff, on the other hand, have better understanding of conditions and of their origins in the hospitals in which they serve and are therefore in a better position to make a true assessment of standards of care. I suggest that their evidence should be sought in circumstances which will permit them to speak freely and without risk. Moreover, their evidence should be considered in relation not only to particular abuses, but to the whole administration and atmosphere of the hospital concerned. I say that because my hon. Friend was absolutely right to say that there must be no whitewashing.
But the matter does not end there. Whatever is revealed by the inquiry, I hope that due note will be taken of a suggestion by Professor Brian Abel-Smith and urged by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton that effective machinery should be set up for investigating complaints about hospitals. The present arrangements for investigating complaints are not satisfactory—we all know this.
540
The well-run hospitals have nothing to hide and the dedicated doctor or nurse or hospital secretary has nothing to fear. As every speech in the debate has shown, the rest of us have no right to shelve our responsibility for the sick and infirm in our care.
Mr. K. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman said that the present arrangements for investigating complaints were not at all satisfactory. He ought to substantiate that, because the present arrangements have been in force for only about a year and I know of no evidence whatever on which to base such a general assertion that they are not working satisfactorily.
Mr. Braine: It would probably be unfair to criticise the arrangements which have come into being since the right hon. Gentleman issued his circular. It would be fair to say that these must have time to work out. Nevertheless, most people who have addressed themselves to this question feel that even the new arrangements, like the old, are based on the hospital authorities being judge and jury in their own case. I am not saying that this leads to the suppression of material evidence, or anything of that kind. What I am saying is that it is not always what the facts are that matter, but what people believe them to be.
Just as this House has decided to establish a Parliamentary Commissioner, or Ombudsman, to consider complaints against administrative mismanagement and abuse, it seems that there is a strong case for doing something of a similar nature in respect of the health of the hospital service. All that I am asking is that due note be taken of the suggestions made.
Dame Irene Ward: Would my right hon. Friend press the right hon. Gentleman to give illustrations as to how the anonymity of those who give evidence will be preserved, because this is what is causing great anxiety in the nursing profession? I have had no opportunity of pressing this upon the right hon. Gentleman myself.
Mr. Braine: I have asked the right hon. Gentleman this, and I am sure that he has taken the point. I now turn to the second defect in the system, the fragmentation of the services for the old and the consequent failure to see the problem in

541
the round. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), in a very interesting speech, rightly drew attention to the unsatisfactory structure of the National Health Service, within the centralised political control and divided, tripartite local administration. I agree with every word that he has said.
Whatever one's view about this generally, nowhere does one see that tripartite administration at greater disadvantage, creaking at the seams, than in the care of old people. Talk to any family doctor, geriatrician, welfare officer, or housing manager, and all recognise that a serious problem exists. Each does his own job to the best of his ability, yet each feels frustrated by the lack of effective co-ordination. The family doctor may be driven to ask for admission of a patient to hospital because of the inadequacy of domiciliary services. Having got on the telephone he may then spend a considerable time trying to persuade the hospital to accept his patient because of the inefficiency of hospital admission procedure. This is well known. The geriatrician is often at his wit's end to fir d beds for old people in need of care. He knows, too, that his work may be undone by lack of supporting services in the community.
The basic difficulty is that no one is responsible for identifying the elderly in next of help until after that need has arisen. There is no central responsibility. This is split between four Ministries at central Government level, between county and district authorities and between social work departments within the county authorities. So often the result is lack of continuity in the help and support provided in particular cases. So often the result is the provision of a palliative only because the service providing it is not empowered to go to the root cause of the trouble. So often the result is failure to use social workers who are trained to see the problem in the whole in the most economic and effective way or failure to make the best use of voluntary agencies who are looking for leadership to the statutory services.
There is also the failure stemming from the natural human resistance to taking on unaccustomed responsibility. The Phillips Committee, for example, put the point very well some years ago. It said:
542
"There must be a natural temptation to try to place elsewhere the responsibility for cases which do not fit easily into any of the conventional statutory definitions, and the best interests of the individual old person may therefore not always be served."
No doubt all this is being considered by the Seebohm Committee. But the Government alone can bring order out of this chaos; the Government alone can will the means.
I do not wish to be ungenerous. On this side we acknowledge that certain significant steps have been taken in the last year and we give support and encouragement to them. There is the proposal to set up a new local authority social work department in Scotland, which springs from the recommendations of the Killbrandon Committee set up under the Conservative Government. I shall be interested to know when this proposal will be implemented. There is the extremely valuable experiment in Livingstone New Town, where it has been decided to unify the three parts of the National Health Service, and to make tripartite appointments from the outset. This is excellent. This is real progress. But what is happening in England? Are there any similar experiments planned or under way?
Then there is the welcome trend in some areas towards the joint appointment of consultant geriatrician by hospital authorities and local health authorities. Clearly this ensures much more effective use of beds and welfare homes. This is, a splendid move and we welcome it.
The Minister's task is to co-ordinate all these activities. When my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) asked the right hon. Gentleman on 26th June what he was doing about this, he gave a somewhat vague reply and admitted that he had no staff. I am aware—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity in a moment to explain how he uses other Ministers' staff. I am, however, aware that a great deal of inquiry and research is afoot.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to say something about the studies taking place, for example, in the Nuffield Department of Industrial Health in Newcastle into the care of geriatric patients. I hope

543
that he will be able to tell us something about Professor Peter Townsend's comparative study of the aged in Denmark and the United Kingdom, Professor Roth's study of psychiatric care needs of the aged, and the inquiry into the health and welfare services by Professor Chester at Manchester University.
All this sounds wonderful. I do not know for how long it has been going on. We should like to know when the results will be made known and when they will be fitted into a programme of action. The right hon. Gentleman possesses great qualities of heart and mind, as those of us who have known him for many years can testify, but I hope that he is seized of the fact that reshaping social provision for the elderly is now long overdue. I hope that if he is encountering difficulties about finance or from colleagues whose Departments are reluctant to lose part of their administrative empires, he will have been fortified and encouraged by the deep concern expressed by every speaker in this debate.
There is no escape from our moral responsibility for the old, any more than we can escape, apart from accident or illness, from getting old ourselves. If this debate has shown anything, it is that all of us agree that the real test of the worth of our society is our determination to care effectively for the old, the sick and the infirm.
9.32 p.m.
The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker): This has been a very careful, informed, serious and constructive debate. There has been no, or very little, attempt to make party points. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Melton (Miss Pike) and Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), who opened and closed the debate, and to everyone who took part in it for their constructive and serious attitudes.
One of the results of debates such as this—we have had a number on this subject—is that it has become generally understood, and is almost a truism, how rapidly the elderly population is increasing and will continue to increase. It is probable that by the 1980s there will be about 10 million people over retirement age, and between now and the 1980s—this is a very serious problem for those
544
who have to plan the development of the social services—the proportion of the dependent population—those under school-leaving age, on the one hand, and those over retirement age, on the other—will be rising much more rapidly than the working population, which has to produce the wealth from which we pay for social security.
However, in the 1980s—I do not know whether this is generally realised—as children grow up and enter the labour force this trend is expected to be reversed and from the 1980s the proportion of those in work will increase more rapidly than the dependent population, despite the rapid increase of people over retirement age. But, whatever happens, there will be a large number of people over retirement age as a permanent feature of our society.
I agree very much with what the hon. Member for Essex, South-East said about not treating old age as a problem. There is inevitably a slight tendency to do that in a debate like this because everybody concentrates on the problems, which is right and proper, but there is a very large number of people—and we should never forget it—who can and do look after themselves very well. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) said, it is also true—much more true than is often realised—that many younger people look after their elderly parents and relatives.
There are, however, problems. As the hon. Member for Essex, South-East pointed out, 25 per cent. of retired people do not have children or relatives who can look after them. We have some idea of the proportion of the total number of the retired and elderly who need special care, although we must remember when talking about percentages and categories that the individual people are moving from one class to another all the time. We must not lose sight of the particular problems when talking about general percentages.
I agree with the hon. Member's figures, that about 95 or 96 per cent. of elderly people live at home, perhaps one in 10 is housebound through frailty or sickness, 4 per cent. are in residential accommodation, some of it very old and inadequate, and about 2 per cent.—this is a varying figure—are at times in mental hospitals. Although

545
the proportion of those with special claims for care is not therefore as great as is sometimes thought, the absolute number is very great because a small percentage of a very great number still leaves a large number of people. For instance, 2 per cent. of the 8 million or so who are now over pension age is 160,000. So, although the percentages an not great, the absolute figures make al extremely serious problem.
As the hon. Member pointed out, we have both a self-centred and a moral obligation towards the elderly who need special care. We have a self-centred obligation because we all hope to become old ourselves. Even though my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) spoke about the horrible problem of decay which will overcome us, the alternative, as someone once said, is somewhat less attractive. Some of us, I regret to say, are nearer to retirement than others, but we all look forward to retirement in the sense that it is the best alternative before w. The treatment we can expect from society must be conditioned by the amount of provision we in our own time make for the elderly with whom we have to deal.
Of course, the most powerful motive must be—and it was clear from the debate that it is—the moral obligation and the duty to solace those who suffer and do our utmost to assuage pain, sickness and infirmity. The extent to which we do these things is the measure of the worth of our civilisation. We have to tackle this, as has been made clear by many hon. Members who have spoken, from many angles.
The maintenance of income is, of course, one very vital factor. If affects all on retirement pension and undoubtedly helps large numbers to look after themselves more adequately than they could if they had less income. The recently announced increases in retirement pension, to commence next October, will raise the incomes of retired people by about £160 million. This is not to be ignored as a contribution towards a partial solution of the problems we have been talking about.
We are working on the complex problerns of a new and revolutionary wage-linked superannuation scheme, which we intend to pass into law before the end of
546
this Parliament, and which will help to solve the problem mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) of the sudden drop of income on retirement which creates relative poverty—though not necessarily absolute poverty—often of a very serious kind. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst that cash alone, however generous—and it can never be generous enough—leaves much of the problem untouched.
In approaching these problems we have naturally been very much concerned about the allegations made in the book "Sans Everything." I assure the hon. Baronet the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) that there is not going to be any kind of whitewashing attempted over that. It is slightly insulting to my right hon. Friend the Minister to suggest that there could be any hint, thought or possibility of a whitewash operation.
I was very glad to hear what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Essex, South-East said about my right hon. Friend's remarks on this point. Searching inquiries are being made into these allegations, in so far as it is possible from information which is supplied. The nature and kind of the inquiry must depend upon the nature of the evidence which is produced. The names of the hospitals which are involved may in some cases be enough; in others not nearly enough to enable a searching inquiry to be made. Of course, every step will be taken to see that the witnesses, whether patients, nurses, or anyone else, can speak freely and safely. The report will be published when it is finished, though I think it would probably not be desirable, and I think the House would agree, that all the evidence in these cases should be published. But the finding and the conclusions of the report will be published.
There is one thing I do not like about this book and that is the reiterated implication that my right hon. Friend is a callous and indifferent Minister who tends to put the hospital services before the patients. This is a wholly unjustified calumny of his conduct in this instance or, indeed, in his whole political life. Those of us who were in the House sufficiently long ago to remember it recall that my right hon. Friend, who was

547
then a young back bencher, almost single-handed made it his job to draw to our attention the state of our mental hospitals—and it was not then nearly so popular to do that as it is today. In office, he has been a most active, sympathetic, resourceful and fair Minister, and I am sure that everybody in the House, regardless of party, resents the slurs which have been passed upon his integrity.
Apart from the particular allegations, which, of course, must and will be looked into as far as that is made possible by the provision of evidence, we must remember, as many speakers have said, that there is an underlying problem, namely, that some of our mental hospitals are still so overcrowded that it is really very difficult—or not always easy, shall I say?—to give patients the special care and treatment to which they are entitled.
The numbers in mental hospitals are decreasing. They have been decreasing for a long time, under the Government of the Conservatives and under ours, and, indeed, in other countries, and that is a good thing. It is partly because of less misplacement, and so on, that the numbers are decreasing, and I think we can expect that they will continue to decrease. We have to carry this further. We have got to do everything we possibly can to keep out of mental hospitals and geriatric hospitals elderly people who should never go there at all, which is a misplacement problem, and we have to get out of hospital those who should not be there, so far as this can be done humanely—for there is a great variety of cases.
I listened with interest to the confident figures mentioned by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East. I do not know how true or not they are as to how many can be got out, how many are misplaced, and so on, but if he has any statistical basis for those confident figures I shall be very glad indeed to see it in due course and do my best, with my right hon. Friend, to take it up.
If we are to get this misplacement problem right we have to tackle it simultaneously from very many angles. We have to press on with new ideas and methods, which are springing up in differ-
548
ent parts of the country, and which are designed to ensure re-entry into the community and return to their own homes, of elderly people in hospital. Very great medical progress is being made in this field. There are many examples up and down the country of the excellent work being done by the geriatric hospitals to keep the sick and disabled people to the greatest possible extent in the community.
The example I know best is of a geriatric hospital in my own constituency, Langthorne Hospital, which is a very old Poor Law hospital built about a hundred years ago. Dr. Delargy, who is in charge of it, has introduced many new ideas, some of which he pioneered and some, no doubt, which he borrowed from other people—and which are spreading throughout the country. One of the ideas to which he attaches the greatest possible importance is the visiting of patients before they are admitted, partly to explain to them in their homes what to expect in hospital so that it will not come as a great shock to them, and partly to prepare their relatives to accept them back after they have been in hospital. He calls this. "arranging, discharge before admission." It is a very good approach to the problem. Patients are moved as quickly as possible out of the acute wards.
Then there is another scheme which he has, and which the hon. Member for Melton mentioned in connection with a hospital in Colchester, for elderly people who have incurable disabilities and whose care imposes a great strain on their relatives. Under this scheme they spend alternatively six weeks in the hospital and six weeks at home. By this and other means in Langthorne hospital, a discharge rate of about 130 a month out of a total of 640 patients has been achieved, providing a rapid turnover and availability of beds.
We must do all that we can to find accommodation for the elderly when they grow more feeble outside these various kinds of hospitals. One of the needs is the building of new residential homes and the closure of old and outworn institutions. To some extent, one does not make as rapid progress as one might statistically because these old places are being closed. In the three years 1964–66, 342 homes for the elderly and

549
handicapped people were opened for 16,000 residents and, in that same period, 30 former public assistance institutions were closed. One never makes rapid enough progress, but this is quite substantial.
Another need for which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing is particularly responsible is to provide within our house building programme special dwellings designed to enable old people to continue to look after themselves. Since the war, something like 400,000 one-bedroom and bedsitting room dwellings have been built by local authorities and new town corporations in England and Wales. The vast majority of them have been designed for the needs of the elderly and are in fact occupied by old people. At present, about 25 per cent. of our housing programme is devoted to this end, so that we are making a very vigorous effort to catch up with this part of the problem, which saves us a considerable amount of money in other fields of activity, though it is more expensive than ordinary housing. In addition, many local authorities have produced a number of two-bedroomed dwellings for this purpose.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing has been giving a great deal of thought to the problems involved in the design of housing for the elderly. We are not yet sure what the answers are. We have to experiment and learn from what we do. I know that my right hon. Friend is only too conscious that we are still a long way from knowing all the answers. It is easy to make speeches about these matters, but it is not so easy to get things right. My right hon. Friend has issued a large number of design bulletins for the guidance of housing authorities, and his research and development group has built an experimental block of 24 old people's flatlets on behalf of Stevenage Development Corporation, details of which are set out in a pamphlet. Anyone who is interested and has not seen it will find it an extremely valuable document. It is an experiment, and we want views and judgments upon it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) said, perhaps the highest need of all is to help
550
those elderly people who make up the vast majority of those with whom we are dealing. They are the people who live at home and need help to continue living at home. We have been talking a great deal about services in our hospitals, but services at home concern overwhelmingly the largest proportion of elderly people.
Reference has been made to the meals service. This is spreading. It is an example of a service which was voluntarily pioneered by the W.R.V.S. and which is now being developed by the local authorities. I think that about 12 million meals will be delivered this year, and about 5½ million meals will be served in lunch clubs. Local authority services, which are rapidly developing, cover about 30 per cent. of the field at the moment, and are going forward without the work of the W.R.V.S. falling off.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen asked about home helps. They are of tremendous importance, and although their work is not concerned only with helping old people, it is heavily concentrated on this group. The numbers are increasing, but there are never enough. In 1964 there were 61,800. In 1966 there were 65,300, about 4,000 more. It is not always easy to recruit home helps, and so this rate of progress, if it is continued, will make a considerable contribution.
Many hon. Members have spoken about the problem of loneliness, which concerns particularly those who are living in their own homes, or in houses with other people. To this one must add ignorance of the services, benefits, supplements, concessions, and so on, to which they are entitled. Many agencies help to solve this problem. Where it is in contact with elderly people, the Supplementary Benefits Commission does magnificent work in seeing that they are aware of their rights, and in bringing elderly people into touch with the organisations and authorities which can help them. But the main task naturally falls on local authority welfare services which do indispensable work, and I need not detail it, as everybody knows it.
I come now to one of the points raised by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East about the co-ordination and harmonisation of these services. We have to await the Seebohm Report, and

551
I cannot therefore anticipate it. I can, however, tell the hon. Gentleman that I am very much in favour of the creation of what is sometimes called a family service. How it is to be done, how wide it is to go, and so on, are matters in respect of which we have to await the Seebohm Report. I hope that it will come this year, and that it will give us great assistance in trying to solve this problem.
We are not sure about the integration of the tripartite system, because we do not know exactly how the Seebohm Committee will interpret its terms of reference, but in any case this must, in the first place, be a matter for local authorities. We are watching with great interest and care—the hon. Gentleman gave one example, but there are one or two others—the work that is being done by local authorities to integrate these services, and it may be that when progress has been made, and experiments have been carried out, we can begin to generalise more. But I think it is a difficult problem of organisation. The various experiments that are being tried are still a bit tentative, and it is better that this should be done by forward looking local authorities. We can then learn from what they do, and consider generalising it.
We are increasing the number of trained social workers. It is not only a question of harmonising them, but of increasing their numbers. The number of certificated social workers in training has increased by 350, and the rate is increasing. We hope that this will soon rise to an increase of 500 in training each year. As the hon. Lady said, and I would like to endorse it, voluntary organisations have an enormously important rôle to play in this and other cognate fields. They play a very important rôle in helping to combat loneliness among the elderly, and in helping them with their housework, repairs to their homes, and that kind of thing. It needs to be very carefully organised and co-ordinated.
One of the most encouraging things is the way in which young people are helping, on a really encouraging scale, in classes from schools, and also what are called unattached people, those who are not in schools. It is a rather striking
552
development that whereas attendance at youth clubs, places where they go and amuse themselves, is falling, the number of young people ready to help others is rapidly increasing. This is shown by such bodies as Task Force in London which concentrates on helping elderly people, and there are similar bodies in other parts of the country. We are seeking ways of stimulating this kind of voluntary work. We shall have to find a way of giving help while maintaining the full independence and usefulness of these kind of bodies.
Day centres are a valuable new development. Bournemouth is not the only town that has one, although Bournemouth has a fine one, about which I was happy to read in The Guardian, and to hear described today. These centres make an extraordinary contribution towards combating loneliness among the elderly and making it easier for relatives to keep their old people at home. Often the elderly do not know what to do with themselves during the day, and they do not want to move from their homes if they are a little frail. Day centres contribute to solving many of the problems. Last year there were about 115 day centres—that is the latest available figure—and they are expected and planned to grow in number to about 430 by 1973.
The hon. Member asked what I did about co-ordination. Inevitably many Departments are involved in this work. Unless we have one vast Department we must have the work divided up into matters concerning the Departments of Health, Housing, Social Security, Public Building and Works, in some aspects, Transport and the Scottish Office. It has fallen to my lot to try to combine and co-ordinate the work of these bodies and not to try—as I do not, in any way—to become an overlord. Naturally, proper independence must be allowed to all these Departments. On that their answerability to Parliament depends, and it is important that they should be responsible in their own fields.
Co-ordination proceeds sometimes by consultation on specific points. Sometimes I consult a specific Department or a group of Departments. Often we meet together. I am proud of the fact that I have a minute staff, and I would have thought that hon. Members opposite

553
would have applauded this. I have a staff of three, although I have access to the staffs of other Departments, and of the Cabinet Office. Nevertheless, I am still staffed without having added to the number of civil servants. In my view we manage this co-ordinating fairly well. It is not always an easy job.
On the whole we can claim that we are making progress along the whole front, and that we will advance further. We are not complacent, and cannot be. However much we do there will always be more to do. Indeed, the chief motive power of progress in this field is always to be raising our standards, so that we are always behind what we set ourselves to do. Each time we advance and solve problems we must set new standards and create new problems. This is essential.
554
That is why we welcome criticism, if we do not always regard it as well-informed. We particularly welcome the pioneering work which is done by independent and voluntary bodies, who think up things that we have not thought of. Sometimes we may be shocked by disclosures. The capacity to be shocked is a measure of our moral obligation in this field. However much progress we make I hope that we shall always be capable of being shocked, as a country, by disclosures. However high standards are raised there will always be some people who are below them, and we must buckle down to the never-ending task of raising our social standards ever higher.
Mr. Walter Harrison: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PRICES AND INCOMES (No. 2) BILL
As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 3.—(IMPOSITION OF STANDSTILL AFTER PUBLICATION OF BOARD'S REPORT.)
9.59 p.m.
Mr. Ian Mikardo: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 3, line 33, after 'order', to insert:
'in respect of an award or settlement'.
If I may hazard a guess, I would think that one of the reasons why you have seen fit to select this among all the Amendments which you have selected,
Mr. Speaker, is that it raises a question of principle which has not hitherto been discussed in our proceedings, either in Committee or on Report. That question of principle arises from the fact that this is the first Amendment which seeks to treat an Order in respect of prices different from one in respect of wages—
It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
The House divided: Ayes, 215, Noes, 126.

Division No. 443.]

AYES

[10.0 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

Jones, T, Alec (Rhondda, West)

Anderson, Donald

Eadie, Alex

Judd, Frank

Aroher Peter

Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

Kelley, Richard

Armstrong, Ernest

Ellis, John

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

Ashley, Jack

Ensor, David

Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston, M.)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Evans, Ioan L. (Birmingh'm, Yardley)

Lawson, George

Barnett, Joel

Faulds, Andrew

Leadbitter, Ted

Beaney, Alan

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Bence, Cyril

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Lee, John (Reading)

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Ford, Ben

Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

Bidwell, Sydney

Forrester, John

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Bishop, E. S.

Freeson, Reginald

Loughlin, Charles

Blackburn, F.

Gardner, Tony

Luard, Evan

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Ginsburg, David

Lyon, Alexander w. (York)

Boardman, H.

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. p. C.

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Booth, Albert

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

McBride, Neil

Boston, Terence

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

McCann, John

Boyden, James

Gregory, Arnold

Macdonald, A. H.

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

McKay, Mrs. Margaret

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

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

Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

Mackie, John

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

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Maclennan, Robert

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

Hamling, William

MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

Cant, R. B.

Hannan, William

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Carmichael, Neil

Harper, Joseph

McNamara, J. Kevin

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Haseldine, Norman

MacPherson, Malcolm

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Hattersley, Roy

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Chapman, Donald

Hazell, Bert

Manuel, Archie

Coe, Denis

Heffer, Eric S.

Mapp, Charles

Coleman, Donald

Henig, Stanley

Mason, Roy

Concannon, J. D.

Hilton, W. S.

Maxwell, Robert

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Hooley, Frank

Mendelson, J. J.

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Horner, John

Mikardo, Ian

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Millan, Bruce

Dalyell, Tam

Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

Howell, Dents (Small Heath)

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Howie, W.

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

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Hoy, James

MoHoy, William

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Huckfield, L.

Moonman, Eric

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Morris, Alfred (Wythershawe)

Delargy, Hugh

Hunter, Adam

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Dell, Edmund

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Moyle, Roland

Dempsey, James

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

Neal, Harold

Dewar, Donald

Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Dickens, James

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Norwood, Christopher

Dobson, Ray

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Oakes, Gordon

Doig, Peter

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

O'Malley, Brian

Donnelly, Desmond

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Oram, Albert E.

Driberg, Tom

Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

Orbach, Maurice

Dunnett, Jack

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Orme, Stanley

Oswald, Thomas

Rosa, Rt. Hn. William

Varley, Eric G.

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

Ryan, John

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Palmer, Arthur

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

Watkins, David (Consett)

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

Weitzman, David

Pavitt, Laurence

Shore, Peter (Stepney)

Whitaker, Ben

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

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

Whitlock, William

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

Short, Mrs, Renée(W'hampton, N.E.)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

Skeffington, Arthur

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

Small, William

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Price, William (Rugby)

Snow, Julian

Winnick, David

Rankin, John

Spriggs, Leslie

Winterbottom, R. E.

Rees, Merlyn

Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Reynolds, G. W.

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

Woof, Robert

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Taverne, Dick

Yates, Victor

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

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

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

Thornton, Ernest

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Tinn, James

Walter Harrison and

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Tuck, Raphael

Mr. Charles Grey.

NOES

Baker, W. H. K.

Gower, Raymond

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Grant-Ferris, R.

Neave, Alrey

Batsford, Brian

Gresham Cooke, R.

Nott, John

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Grieve, Percy

Pardoe, John

Bell, Ronald

Gurden, Harold

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Bessell, Peter

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Peel, John

Biffen, John

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Percival, Ian

Biggs-Davison, John

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Peyton, John

Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Black, Sir Cyril

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Pink, R. Bonner

Body, Richard

Hastings, Stephen

Prior, J. M. L.

Bossom, Sir Clive

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Pym, Francis

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

Higgins, Terence L.

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

Holland, Philip

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Hornby, Richard

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Howell, David (Guildford)

Ridsdale, Julian

Buck, Antony (Colchester)

Hunt, John

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Burden, F. A.

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Campbell, Gordon

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Royle, Anthony

Carlisle, Mark

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Russell, Sir Ronald

Cary, Sir Robert

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Sharples, Richard

Cordle, John

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

Costain, A. P.

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Kitson, Timothy

Summers, Sir Spencer

Crouch, David

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Tapsell, Peter

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Dance, James

Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

Taylor, Prank (Moss Side)

Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

Lubbock, Eric

Teeling, Sir William

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Vickers, Dame Joan

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

McMaster, Stanley

Wainwright, Richard (Colne valley)

Doughty, Charles

Maddan, Martin

Walker, Peter (Worcester)

Drayson, C. B.

Marten, Neil

Wall, Patrick

Eden, Sir John

Maude, Angus

Webster, David

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

Mawby, Ray

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Emery, Peter

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Errington, Sir Eric

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

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Eyre, Reginald

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

Farr, John

Miscampbell, Norman

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Woodnutt, Mark

Fortescue, Tim

Monro, Hector

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Montgomery, Fergus

Mr. Anthony Grant and

Glover, Sir Douglas

More, Jasper

Mr. Bernard Weatherill

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
Mr. Mikardo: I feel a bit like the Sorcerer's Apprentice. A few moments ago you were good enough to call me to move the Amendment, Mr. Speaker. I began to address the House in my usual tones of dulcet moderation, but before I had said a dozen words a number of hon. Members opposite became very
558
excited and started shouting "No". Bells started to ring and our proceedings were upset.
However, now that we have resumed I repeat that the Amendment raises a new question in our discussions on the Bill. It is the first which seeks to apply different treatments to an Order made in respect of a wages award and settlement—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have the Amendment discussed against a background buzz of conversation.
Mr. Mikardo: The Amendment seeks to apply different treatment to an Order made in respect of an award or settlement of a wage claim from that of an Order which imposes a standstill on prices. Hitherto in all our discussions such changes as have been sought to be made in the Bill have applied equally to Orders about wages and Orders about prices.
Therefore, I think that I am under an obligation to explain why my hon. Friends and I seek to make this differentiation. The subsection puts some limitation upon the time within which an Order shall be made after a reference to the Board. It is not necessary for me to go into great detail, because the subsection is very clear, unlike some others. The effect of the Amendment would be to apply that limitation to an Order made in respect of an award or settlement without its being applied to an Order made about prices.
In our debates on the Bill a number of my hon. Friends have criticised the Government's prices and incomes policy or, as we said last night, its so-called prices, productivity and incomes policy. I say "so-called" because productivity has been carefully excluded from the Bill by the Government's own action.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I, too, know the Sorcerer's Apprentice. The hon. Gentleman must keep his broom inside the Amendment.
Mr. Mikardo: I shall try to do so, Mr. Speaker.
A number of my hon. Friends have criticised the policy which the Bill seeks to put into effect on the grounds that whereas it is called the Prices and Incomes Bill, as was its predecessor, and the policy is ostensibly one for the control of incomes and prices, in our opinion the Government's action over the control of incomes has been more widespread, more comprehensive, more thorough and more direct—
10.15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to take note of what I said. We are not discussing the Prices
560
and Incomes Bill. We are discussing an Amendment about the differential in certain time limitations.
Mr. Mikardo: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, that is precisely my point, to explain why it is that those of us who are responsible for the Amendment think it right to invite the House to treat Orders about prices differently from Orders about wages. The reason is that we feel that under the father of this Act, some of which is enshrined in its son, the present Bill, the action taken in implementation of the provisions about prices has been more thorough, more direct and more effective than that taken about incomes. Therefore, we seek to have the Amendment in order to redress this imbalance. The Clause speaks of references made and Orders made about prices and incomes—
Mr. Stanley Orme: Surely my hon. Friend means that his emphasis is on the fact that the Act as it is at present operated is being more effective against incomes than against prices?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have managed to get the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) back into order. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) must not tempt him to get out of order again.
Mr. Mikardo: I can always deal with my enemies. I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Speaker, from my friends. We have had—as you know, Mr. Speaker, because you have stayed up late with the rest of us on more than one occasion—many debates in the House after 10 o'clock at night about Orders made under the parent Act under the provision parallel to the one that we are now discussing in Clause 2 limiting wages. We have had only one such Order limiting prices, and that a totally ineffective one—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair never seeks to cramp debate as long as the debate is in order. If the hon. Gentleman will look at his Amendment he will see that he must address himself to the question of the differentiation between the two groups that he is talking about so far as the six months

561
is concerned. We cannot discuss the whole attitude of the hon. Gentleman to the Bill. [Interruption.]
Mr. Mikardo: I thought that that was precisely what I was doing, Mr. Speaker, and in all humility I still think that that was precisely what I was doing. Notwithstanding the neanderthal belly-rumblings of the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport), I still think that that was what I was doing. If I may recapitulate, the purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that Orders about prices are treated differently from Orders about wages in one respect which I need not detail. If it had been—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to help the hon. Member. It is the one respect that matters. This is what we are discussing.
Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: Keep in order.
Mr. Mikardo: Very well, Mr. Speaker. Since you insist, I will spell it out. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that, whereas there is a limitation of six months in the time after a reference in which an Order can be made about prices, there will be no such limitation in respect of any Order made about wages.
The effect of the Amendment would be to make it easier for the Government to introduce orders about prices than orders about wages. We seek this objective in order to correct the imbalance which has existed in the opposite direction. I hope that, in spelling it out I have kept, as I believe I have, within the rules of order. There has been an imbalance and the contrary imbalance we seek to introduce by the Amendment is designed to correct it.
Mr. Peter Emery: I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar (M r. Mikardo), because there is obvious difficulty in propounding the arguments for the Amendment without going into greater length than might be implied by the wording. The point of the Amendment is to do exactly what was brought out under your guidance, Mr. Speaker, in the final passage of the hon. Gentleman's speech. It is to give a specific
562
and different aspect in the treatment of orders affecting prices from the treatment of orders affecting wages.
The problem is that the hon. Gentleman presupposes, without any specific argument, that there has already been a differentiation between prices and wages and that it is the wages aspect which has suffered. I do not believe this to be so. Many people consider that there has been as much, if not greater, activity—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot rebut that part of the argument of the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) which was out of order. He must now come to the Amendment.
Mr. Emery: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. But I was rebutting that piece of the hon. Gentleman's argument that you suggested he should put. I hoped that might be in order. In other words, it concerns the argument that the Amendment is needed because of the different treatment there has been between wages and prices. The Amendment can only be logically argued if there has been differentiation. If there has been no differentiation, the Amendment should automatically fall. I am trying, on this narrow point, to stay in order.
If there is no differentiation, the Amendment would create a specialised class. I therefore want to ask a number of questions of the Government about the possibility of a specialised class. Do the Government accept the argument that there is this differentiation?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must be fair to both sides of the House. The argument before us is whether the six months restriction in the passage which it is sought to be amended shall apply to one group rather than to both groups. The hon. Member must address himself to that.
Mr. J. J. Mendelson: On a point of order. If you, Mr. Speaker, insist on making it impossible for hon. Members trying to take part in the debate to point to any experience that there had been a heavy concentration on the control of wages and far less on the control of prices, the debate would become impossible.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) can address himself to the Amendment without discussing his opinion of the whole Bill.
Mr. Emery: Mr. Speaker, I accept your direction. If it appears that I was getting out of order I will start from the initial steps again. The position on the Amendment is whether there should be a differentiation between two classes of people. The argument is that there is a stronger case for this proposal than there is for prices. I am sorry if I mention prices, but it is the only other aspect in the Bill.
Do the Government consider that this legitimate argument is based on enough reason for the Amendment?
Mr. Mikardo: Of course they do not.
Mr. Emery: I thought I knew the views of the hon. Member for Poplar before he gave them to me.
Would not the Minister agree that the aspects of the control of wages are much easier to control, whether the six months period applies or not, than those affecting prices? This Amendment, is a means to try and create a specialist class because of the difficulties in the minds of certain people on the control of prices.
Supporters of the Amendment nod. However we are not in complete agreement about the action which should be taken, but I am propounding the Amendment as they would wish. Therefore, it is right and proper to ask the Government whether they consider that the argument propounded by the hon. Member for Poplar is sufficient to create the specialist class. That is a fair question to put before anybody comes to a decision about this proposal. Although the wording may not be the exact drafting that the hon. Gentleman would want, but would he consider including a reference to productivity in an Amendment which he might draft to meet the point? I will not go over the whole of the arguments which we had previously.
Mr. Speaker: It would not be in order to go into them. We have dealt with that subject.
Mr. Emery: I will demonstrate how I can stay in order by mentioning pro-
564
ductivity. If there is no productivity aspect to the Amendment, it must be defeated, and that must be the strongest argument for defeating it, but if it would give special treatment to a special category because of productivity arrangements, that must be a strong argument for it.
10.30 p.m.
The Amendment deals with a differentiation between two classes and creates a specialist section. I would support the Amendment only if it could be shown that the benefit resulting from any increased productivity would accrue to the whole community, and the Bill is an attempt to benefit the whole community. If it could be shown that would happen as a result of increased productivity—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must try to keep to the Amendment. The Amendment separates two classes; it does not separate them at all in respect of productivity.
Mr. Emery: Of course I realise that, but—
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman cannot keep to the Amendment according to the rules which I have laid down, I must ask him to sit down.
Mr. Emery: May I continue with the Amendment, Mr. Speaker, because it is important? I suggest that it creates two classes. It is impossible to argue that we should create a specialist class without referring to the other. If that is not in order, I do not know what possibly can be in order in this debate.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mere noise does not affect the Chair at all. What the hon. Gentleman has just said is a statement of fact.
Mr. Emery: At least I can be in order by stating fact.
Mr. Tom Driberg: Not all facts are in order.
Mr. Emery: That may be so.
The Amendment can be supported only if it is shown to be necessary to create a specialist category, and the only reason for doing that would be to produce an increase in productivity which would

565
benefit the whole community. I do not want to refer to any further reasons for propounding support of the Amendment.
The second question is whether greater imbalance between the two sections, one would now be made a specialist section, would result from the Amendment? If it is the Government's view that the imbalance would be greater, that would be relevant to considering whether to support the Amendment.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if we have come into conflict. That is the last thing that I would want to do. I have attempted, as much as is humanly possible, to pose two specific questions on this Amendment, because I earnestly and sincerely believe that without the answers we cannot come to a decision. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour can give me these answers.
Mr. Orme: As I see this Amendment, and I appreciate the difficulty of the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) in keeping in order, its purpose is to place the emphasis on prices as opposed to incomes. We seek to delete the effect on incomes but to leave the powers in respect of prices. We do that, and this is where we differ from hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have seen eye to eye with us on occasions, because we are of the opinion that prices should be dealt with separately.
Many of us are in favour of punitive Clauses against prices, but not against incomes. Let us state the facts as they are. During the whole of our proceedings we have spoken frankly on this issue. Our argument is that when one is dealing with prices, one is dealing with commodities, whereas with incomes, one is dealing with individuals. That is the basic difference.
We would like the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour to tell us the number of orders issued against prices in the previous Act, as opposed to incomes.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I can understand the general statement that the hon. Gentleman has made. He must now come to his own Amendment, which seeks to make a specific differentiation between prices and incomes on the one hand
566
and awards or settlements on the other in respect of the six months.
Mr. Orme: The effect of this Amendment in relation to the six months is to throw the emphasis on to prices, as opposed to incomes. It would delete six months in relation to incomes, but retain it in relation to prices. It is on that basis that I support the Amendment.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I will certainly do my best to speak to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). I can understand the Amendment. [Interruption.] Whether I can make the Chair appreciate that I understand it and keep in order is another matter. This Amendment makes it clear that its supporters wish to keep prices down and allow wages to rise. This is an incredible economic philosophy, even for hon. Members opposite. There are people who are in favour of a prices and incomes policy with a certain amount of compulsion, there are those in favour of a policy which is mainly voluntary, and there is the Leader of the House with a prices and incomes policy that is almost all compulsory.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Member is now embarking on a general discussion of prices and incomes. He cannot do that on this Amendment. It is concerned with six months' policy in relation to prices on the one hand and salaries and wages on the other.
Mr. Lewis: After the Rulings given when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair, you will now understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if we were uncertain when we started to speak on this Amendment we now completely understand what we are supposed to be speaking about. If I have to make a case against the Amendment, I must attempt to persuade the House of what would happen if it were passed. This is important because we have to vote either for or against the Amendment. If it is passed it will be in the Bill and we have to know what will happen if it is included in the Bill.
I have the word of hon. Members opposite to the effect that if it is in the Bill prices will be dealt with much more harshly than wages. There will be a

567
position in which wages are allowed to rise for six months without any let or hindrance, whereas prices will be kept down.
Mr. Mendelson: This is the background of a voluntary wages policy as organised by the Trades Union Congress.
Mr. F. A. Burden: Will my hon. Friend give way—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must take one intervention at a time, Mr. Lewis.
Mr. Burden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend gave way to me. In those circumstances, with great respect to the Chair, I am sure that the Chair will agree that I have a right to be heard.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It has not been the practice of the Chair to allow two interventions at the same time, with great respect to the hon. Member. He may make an intervention later. I am sure that his hon. Friend will allow him to make it in due time.
Mr. Lewis: I shall be happy to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) in due course. In answer to the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) we cannot accept a blank cheque. We do not know whether the voluntary system will work either on prices or wages. I certainly hope that it will, and all of us on this side of the House are agreed that this is the system we prefer. If this Amendment is included in the Bill, three things will happen. First, if we allow wages to rise and keep down prices, inflation will become rampant. Hon. Members opposite may want this, but the country will very soon be in a very serious balance of payments situation.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that what the hon. Member is saying may be important, but it has nothing to do with the Amendment, which is that in one case orders must be made within six months and in the other they may be made after a longer period.
Sir Edward Brown: On a point of order. Because of the difficulty over this Amendment and the debate which
568
will follow, could the Chair give some guidance as to how wide or narrow the debate may be?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Chair has been striving to indicate very definitely in the last 20 minutes that the scope of debate on this Amendment is very limited indeed.
Mr. Burden: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the difficulty of the House in understanding this Amendment shows what an absolute nonsense the whole Bill is?
Mr. Lewis: I would not cavil at that. Within the limits, and I am trying to keep within the limits, I have to project what would happen if this Amendment were carried and included in the Bill. I have said that inflation would be rampant. I go on to the next result of the Amendment being included in the Bill. The next result would be that profits would disappear. Hon. Members opposite may think that this is a very good thing.
10.45 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: This has nothing to do with whether an order is made within six months or not, which is the only purpose of the Amendment. I am afraid that Mr. Speaker was quite definite in his Ruling, and I think it would be very unfair to other hon. Members who have not been allowed to widen the debate if the hon. Member were allowed to do so. If he does not speak to the Amendment I am afraid he must resume his seat.
Mr. Lewis: If because of this Amendment there is a situation where prices are kept down, which is the wish of hon. Members opposite and the purpose of the Amendment, but wages are allowed to rise—which is what hon. Members opposite want, which is what they have themselves said—then wages can come only out of profits, because they will not come out of rises in prices.
Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Gentleman has not read the Clause and has not begun to understand the Amendment. May I just tell him that, far from what he said, if the Amendment is carried as many orders can still be made against wages as against prices, and just as tough; they just have to be made a bit quicker, that is all.
Mr. Lewis: That is the time difference which would create the kind of situation which I have suggested hon. Members opposite wish to secure through their Amendment, and whether they wish to secure it or not, this, at any rate, would be the result. If profits disappear, then, of course, the Chancellor does not get his money; the Revenue suffers; taxation then has to go—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must insist that the hon. Member comes to the Amendment. What he has just said has nothing to do with the Amendment at all.
Mr. Lewis: If I may conclude, this Amendment seeks, as we understand it, to create a difference between the treatment of wages and the treatment of prices. I cannot think that such an Amendment would be of any assistance in improving the position of the workers, quite apart from an improvement in the general prices and incomes policy, and I hope that we shall have a better case than has been made up to now for the Amendment, because I am beginning to wonder whether hon. Members opposite understand their own Amendment. We had two very short speeches on this Amendment, and since you have been so restrictive in allowing us to develop our arguments, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not the Chair which is restrictive. It is the Amendment which is restrictive. I hope the hon. Member will conclude his remarks.
Mr. Lewis: In so far as we have been confined within the narrow limits of this Amendment, it would help us if we had a better explanation that we have had hitherto from hon. Members opposite.
Mr. John Biffen: This obviously is an Amendment which does cause a certain amount of concern and possibly equivocation in the minds of hen. Members, perhaps in all parts of the House, and therefore I should like to offer my interpretation of it, perhaps to find that there may be some broad, unexpected agreement between myself and the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), if for possibly different reasons.
570
This Amendment seeks to amend a Clause which has as its title
"Imposition of standstill after publication of Board's report."
The subsection to which the Amendment applies reads as it now stands:
"… nor shall an order be made as aforesaid more than six months after the date of publication of that reference. …"
The reference refers to the action of the Minister assigning the task of an investigation into a price or an income to Mr. Aubrey Jones, and there is the widespread assumption always that the answer will come up within the six months' period, anyway, because the standstill will be automatic during the period while the proposed change is under investigation.
As I see it, one consequence of the Amendment would be to say that, by inserting
"in respect of an award or settlement",
hon. Gentlemen opposite rightly question the ability of the National Board for Prices and Incomes to conduct the kind of detailed investigation which very often the determination of an income requires within a period of six months. This is not a false proposition, because we have much experience of the time taken by the Board in the case histories which have been established already, and the whole kernel of this Amendment concerns time.
There are one or two past references to the Board which help us to understand the validity of the arguments of the hon. Member for Poplar. The pay of industrial civil servants was gazetted on 26th October, 1965, but it was submitted to the Minister only on 17th June, 1966. That involved a period of seven months. What every hon. Member has to ask himself is what moral pressure will be brought upon any employer or trade unionist not to anticipate the findings of the Board and go ahead with an agreed claim, notwithstanding the fact that the six months' standstill period has expired because the National Board for Prices and Incomes has not yet reported. I believe that the Amendment has a very real bearing on the problem, and the silence of the hon. Member for Poplar confirms that my interpretation is correct.
When one thinks of complex issues such as the pay of those employed in the

571
retail drapery industry, one is right to have a lively sympathy with the Amendment. But I ask my hon. Friends not to be too generous in their charity to hon. Members opposite, because, by including just the words
"in respect of an award or settlement",
they assume that the complexity in determining the problems of an increase in income in some way is easier than that of determining an increase in price. Again, reference to the case histories established by the activities of Mr. Jones and his consultants tells us that this is a false distinction.
The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said that, under Part IV, there had been only one order laid against prices, and, of course, that was in respect of laundry and dry cleaning charges. But that is an interesting case, because it was one of the price increases which were put to Mr. Jones and his aides. The date of gazetting was 7th January, 1966. It was submitted to the Minister on 5th September, 1966. A period of eight months elapsed there.
That is not the only one. I have here the distribution costs of fresh fruit and vegetables. It was gazetted on 6th October, 1966, and submitted to the Minister on 20th April, 1967, again a period of just over six months. Therefore, though I have every sympathy with the motives which have prompted the hon. Member for Poplar to move the Amendment, in as much as he rightly sees that the time which has been allotted to the Board may create a situation in which, inevitably, the Board will take longer than the standstill period of six months, I think that hon. Gentlemen are being unfair to seek to confine their good intentions to awards and settlements. Although they are right in saying that this legislation contains penal provisions against wage increases, there is scope for retrospection in wage increases, as agreed in the article in the New Statesman. I do not want to pursue this any further, because I have kept in order so far, which I think is miraculous. Throughout all these proceedings there is instinctively a desire to try to ensure some parity of misery. There is only one answer to the Bill—its total repudiation.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Roy Hattersley): I hoped that I could begin the debate without going through in any detail the consequences of the Amendment, because I understand very well that the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) is to debate a system whereby the treatment of prices should, might, or could, be different from the treatment of incomes.
I think that the nature of the debate makes it essential that I spend at least two minutes saying what I think—indeed I know—the Amendment means, because there has been a good deal of confusion about its meaning. If I thought that there was any need for clarification, I was confirmed in that view by the speech of the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen).
Mr. Biffen: Every word that I said was in order, and therefore it cannot have been totally irrelevant.
Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that every word he said was in order, but, equally, every word that he said was wrong, and I want to explain why. Not even that early intervention will prevent me from saying what I wanted to say from the moment the hon. Gentleman sat down, namely, my sincere conviction that if he got the details of the Amendment wrong there is some obligation on me to clarify it to the House, because I understand his interest in and understanding of these things.
The hon. Gentleman knows, and I am sure that the House does too, that the Clause refers to a standstill which comes about after a reference has been made to the Board on voluntary terms, and where the increase in price or wages has been implemented in a way which is not in conformity with the Board's report.
That standstill, put into operation under those terms, is limited by two precise qualifications. First—and this is the point which totally invalidates everything that was said by the hon. Gentleman—the Board must, under Section 19(1) of the 1966 Act, report within three months. If the Board does not report within that time, the standstill cannot go ahead. I am sure the House will understand, therefore, that any argument based on the principle that the

573
time for submitting reports will be more protracted than three months is irrelevant, though in order.
The second qualification, which is relevant to the point my hon. Friend seeks to make, is that the Order must be made within six months of the reference to the Board.
Mr. Biffen: The burden of the case which I argued, if not at great length this evening, certainly on other occasions, is that the whole power of so-called moral persuasion will be to oblige trade unions or employers to standstill their prices if the Board is unable to meet the deadline of three months, or even of six months, so that point stands.
11.0 p.m.
Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Member does well to refer to the speeches he made on other occasions rather than the one he has made this evening. I shall try to meet those points as I reach the end of what I hope will be a comparatively short speech. The Amendment simply seeks to alter the powers, in terms of date, whereby the reference can be made to the Board. My hon. Friend, by wishing to add the extra words, qualifies it in such a way that an Order can be made in relation to a Board report which is made prior to the Clause coming in to operation, and because of the nature of the Amendment—because of the words he seeks to insert—the net effect would be that an Order which refers to prices could be backdated indefinitely. The House will understand that in a sense we are discussing the potential powers of retrospection that the Clause involves.
The results of the successful amendment of the Bill, in terms suggested by my hon. Friend, would be that a question referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes during any time since the passing of the parent Act—during the time since 12th August, 1966—could now be the subject of an Order. If the Amendment is not carried a reference to the Board would have to be dated, in terms relevant to the Act now under discussion.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: The Bill now under discussion.
Mr. Hattersley: If I did not say "the Bill now under discussion" I should have done. Hon. Members will be aware
574
that other Clauses enable the Bill to be made operative from the time the Bill passes through this House. Therefore, the distinction that my hon. Friend seeks to draw is that whilst references to the Board, in terms of wages, earnings and incomes can be made into standstills if those references were made between the period of enactment of the Bill and the end of its life, references to the Board which concern price increases could be turned into standstills and used for prolonged standstills when references to the Board had been made at any time since 12th August, 1966.
That is why I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety to talk about Orders made during the time he seeks to make retrospective powers apply to the Bill. I understand why he wants to extent the powers of the Bill not forwards but backwards in time. He seeks to extend them backwards because he feels that there have been omissions and deficiencies during the period which he now seeks to extend. I understand that the omissions to which he refers are those which he believes will be apparent when the House or when he or the Government review the omissions during the retrospective period to which the Amendment is related—omissions which he believes are revealed by comparisons between Orders relating to prices and Orders relating to incomes.
Last night I was invited by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) to concede on other Amendments that the purpose and intention of putting them down was honourable, sensible and intended no more than to draw the attention of the House to the legitimate fears and interests of the hon. Gentlemen whose names appeared against the Amendments. I am glad to make that concession—if it is a concession. I am glad to acknowledge that state of affairs once again and to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar that I understand very well that his argument on the Amendment is not only serious but totally consistent. One of the happy events last night was the sight of my hon. Friend hurrying into the Government Lobby in order to support the Government's belief that the powers under this Bill should be concerned with retail prices as well as with many other matters which it is designed to control. I think

575
that our happiness would have been complete had the hon. Gentleman actually managed to vote with the Government instead of being locked out two moments before his attempts to come to our aid in our time of trouble would have been successful. However, he was frustrated by the rules governing our procedures.
I hope that the consistency which he has shown will be reflected in the attitude of the hon. Gentleman when he comes to speak about the Amendment.
Mr. Iain Macleod: Stop lecturing the House.
Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Gentleman is enough of a didactic Member, and, now that he been good enough to arrive—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman has told me that, if he wants to sit here till tea-time, he will. I hope that the House understands that decisions about the Bill and as to the time we should take in considering it ought to depend on a rather more objective criterion than whether or not the right hon. Gentleman is temporarily annoyed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting a little away from the Amendment.
Mr. Hattersley: I return to the point I was making. The hon. Gentleman is entirely consistent in his attitude towards prices and in his enthusiasm for making sure that, during the period which he now wishes to cover, the retrospective period stretching from now back to 12th August 1966, parity between the Government's attitude to prices and their attitude to incomes should be achieved. The Government's contention is that, while we sympathise with his point of view, and while we understand it perfectly well—
Mr. David Webster: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am finding it difficult to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. He keeps referring to my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) as the hon. Gentleman, and I understand him also to refer to the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) as the hon. Gentleman. I thought that he was his hon. Friend the Member for Poplar. Is he not?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is an intervention, not a point of order.
Mr. Hattersley: The Government believe that, while my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar is right in expressing some concern about maintaining parity during the retrospective period under review, the Amendment is unnecessary and inappropriate. In our view, during the retrospective period under review, parity or equality has, in fact, been maintained. In examining the retrospective period under review, one should examine it not in terms of Orders made during that time but in terms of prices held down as opposed to wages held down. Throughout the twelve months to which the Amendment refers, it has never been the Government's case that judgment of our success in terms of holding either wages and incomes or prices should be, or could be, measured in terms of the Orders which were made formally to limit them and the Prayers made against those Orders and debated in the House.
Mr. Mikardo: Or the number of Orders withdrawn.
Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend knows that 14 Orders were made restricting wages or salaries during the retrospective period which he seeks to cover, and, equally, he knows that only one Order was made against prices during that period. But I hope he knows also or, if he does not, I hope that he will begin to remember—that during the same period my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy has been successful in holding down prices in a rather less obvious or visible, but no less important, fashion.
On at least 170 occasions, my right hon. Friend, by his intervention, has persuaded manufacturers or retailers—
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we have your guidance as to whether the hon. Gentleman is in order? The speech of the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) in moving the Amendment did not discuss retrospective Orders at all. He said in terms that he wanted to redress the balance in the months to come over what had happened in the past. The Parliamentary Secretary is now dealing with the past and with retrospective Orders which are not relevant on this Amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understood that the hon. Gentleman was addressing his arguments to why these should be treated similarly, and that is the purpose of the Amendment. Nothing that the hon. Gentleman has yet said has been out of order, although I was listening to him very carefully.
Mr. Hattersley: I sincerely apologise to the House for my constant reiteration of "during the period referred to by the Amendment", but I do it to remind myself that it is that period to which I must refer, and that it is that period that keeps me in order.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar will recall that only a moment ago I told him that very many price stabilisations have occurred during that period through the personal intervention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and his predecessor, and they have come about in a way which, while not as obvious as the Orders which have limited wage and salary in-et eases, has nevertheless made a significant contribution towards stabilising the cost of living and to achieving the right balance of incomes and prices policy.
It is our essential contention that if the prices and incomes policy is to work the two elements—prices and incomes—must he treated equally, that it is not possible to organise a successful policy which does not offer the same equality of treatment—what the hon. Member for 03westry chooses to call "equality of suffering"—of prices on the one side and wages on the other.
Mr. Biffen: As the hon. Gentleman has referred to "the right balance", are we to assume from his argument that the right balance—the one that he at any rate accepts as right—has been the upward movement of retail prices as measured by the Retail Price Index over this period and the almost flat, if not downward, movement of wage earnings as measured by the Ministry of Labour over the period? Is that the right relationship which he hopes to perpetuate in future?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ought to say that I think the hon. Gentleman will get out of order if he goes into an analysis of price and wage movements in that period.
Mr. Hattersley: The right balance certainly is to preserve equality of treatment. It is to make sure that any manufacturer understands that he is subject to the same rules, regulations and penalties, which, if not the same, are intended to produce the same element of deterrence, as any trade unionist, any individual and any executive who chooses to increase his wage or salary in defiance of the prices and incomes policy.
Therefore, while we principally suggest that the retrospective element contained in the Amendment which allows us to make Orders against price increases stretching back to 12th August, 1966 is unnecessary because we have been just as keen to hold down prices as wages—perhaps in some ways we have been a good deal keener to hold down prices than wages—the other argument that we put forward is that it is not possible to advance during the next year on terms which would clearly make our policy directed much more solidly, severely and determinedly against price increases than against wage increases. If the prices and incomes policy is to be a success, it will be because it has twin arms doing the same jobs simultaneously in a way complementary to each other. It must be visibly the case that we are operating the same rules, compulsion and holding operation against prices as against wages.
Mr. Mikardo: Tell that to the G.L.C. electors.
Mr. Hattersley: I understand very well that there have been occasions when my right hon. Friends and I and the Government as a whole have not done as much as we should do in making clear how successful our intervention in the prices field has been. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that one of the new aspects of our policy—
Sir E. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I rose to question with you how wide and narrow the debate should be, and you gave me some very clear guidance, that, while you could not express an opinion on the Amendment itself, the debate was narrow in respect of it. I respectfully remind you that at the present moment we are listening to a wide dissertation on the Amendment by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am trying to apply the same rules to all hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman will probably have seen me sitting on the edge of my seat, about to intervene in the Minister's speech. The Minister was getting rather wide of the Amendment.
Mr. Hattersley: It may happen that one of the changes in the policy will be for actions against prices to become more obvious. However, the Government could not contemplate a change which invoked making our attitude towards price increases different from our attitude towards wage increases. Since the essential element in this policy is one of equal treatment between the two arms of the policy, and since the Amendment would discriminate in one specific respect, I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.
11.15 p.m.
Mr. Higgins: This has been a remarkable debate. Anybody who thinks that the ordinary man in the street, employer or trade unionist, will know for what he is volunteering, is not aware of the realities of the situation. Seldom have I heard the Parliamentary Secretary less comprehensible.
There was some discussion between the Parliamentary Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) about how long we were likely to proceed with the Bill tonight. I wish to make it abundantly clear that my hon. Friends and I will continue to debate each Amendment and provision in detail, as we have done throughout the Bill's stages and as we did when debating the parent Measure last year. The House has a duty to examine the complexities of this type of legislation and to stress the ambiguities in it.
The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that 14 Orders had been made under the 1966 Act. I remind him that four of them have been nullified as a result of the bad drafting of that Act, caused by the House being pushed into discussing the Measure, like this one, at great speed. It is difficult for the House to give this sort of legislation the attention it needs when faced with the time-table introduced by the Leader of the House, whose disorganisation has placed Government business in this mess.
580
With respect to the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), his explanation of the Amendment was not all that good. He did not illustrate the detailed complexities of this matter and he failed, where my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) succeeded, to get to the crux of the problem, which is the timing. Instead, he sought to make a distinction between the Government's attitude to price and wage increases. Certainly there has been some imbalance, as the figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry, and a number of Orders made under the Act, revealed. But does this mean that we must alter the emphasis at present placed on the two arms of the policy? My hon. Friends and I are totally against the policy, on both arms, because it introduces discrimination between the two sets of increases.
Even the side-head to the Clause is not accurately worded. It reads:
"Imposition of standstill after publication of the Board's report",
but a later subsection refers to the imposition both before and after, so it is not surprising that consideration of the Amendment has been difficult.
The Clause introduces retrospection, which we oppose, as we do other aspects of the policy. The period of retrospection for wages as against prices should not be altered, because this would suggest that the Board would take longer to reach a decision on one than on the other. This is an odd Clause for the hon. Member for Poplar and his hon. Friends to use to mount a major attack, and this would not be a sensible Amendment. We completely oppose the policy, but to amend the Bill in this way would make it an even greater nonsense. Whether this would be better or worse, I leave to hon. Members, but I hope that my hon. Friends will not support the Amendment.
Sir Douglas Glover: There is a great difference between wages and prices and totally different criteria apply. If the Board decided that a manufacturer could not raise prices, he could stop production because it was no longer profitable, but if it said that a wage increase was unjustified, that would have to be accepted, because wages are what a man lives on. This significant difference has not been made sufficiently clear by right

581
hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. One is a necessity and the other an argument. The argument is about whether it is profitable to continue production because of a Board decision on prices, but workers must accept the refusal of a wage increase because their future depends on that income. Under the Amendment—[Interruption.]
Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Order. Keep quiet.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will leave the question of order to the Chair.
Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: I could not hear whether you were reproaching me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They were talking deliberately and I could not hear my hon. and gallant Friend.
Sir D. Glover: I never have any fears when addressing the House when you are in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you will always give me a fair and proper hearing. If I might say to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport), the hon. Member for Ormskirk has never been gallant. I have never been returned to this House as a gallant Member. I have never wished to take credit for something which happened just because there happened to be a war on. I have always been returned as Mr. Glover, or later as Sir Douglas Glover.
Hon. Members opposite may be as rude as they like, but they are not being rude to an hon. and gallant Member.
All of us find the Bill technical and difficult to understand. We are trying to assess what is going to happen to prices, incomes and people. With the exception of the hon. Members on the third bench below the Gangway, there are only a few hon. Members here tonight, or who were here last night, who realise that we are talking about people. We are talking about people and their incomes and their standards of living, about what they are going to do and how their families are going to get on.
Sir E. Brown: Would my hon. Friend agree that the test of sincerity of the seven wise men who put down the Amendment is whether they are prepared to go into the Lobby to support it.
Sir D. Glover: I do not think that that is a test of sincerity. Most of us are old Members of Parliament and know that it takes a good deal of courage to oppose one's party when it is the Government. I have enormous admiration for the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and some of his hon. Friends.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that it would be a test of sincerity of all hon. Members if they listened to the debate.
Sir D. Glover: I have great admiration for the hon. Member for Salford, West, and the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). It takes a great deal of courage to oppose the Government when one is supposed to be a Government supporter. I speak as one who has been in the House for many years, much of the time on the Government benches. I do not criticise any hon. Member who does not carry his opposition—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We would all share the hon. Member's sentiments, but I am afraid that they do not come within the scope of the Amendment.
Sir D. Glover: I accept your rebuke, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it was necessary for me to make some remark of that kind.
As hon. Members opposite, probably as a Parliamentary operation, have broken the tenor of my speech, I suppose that they are happy. If I go on for a considerable time collecting the threads, they have nobody to blame but themselves.
11.30 p.m.
I have much sympathy with the attitude of those hon. Members opposite who have moved a number of Amendments, because I do not like the Bill and believe that it is based on a false premise—for in a free society we cannot do these things by legislation. Those hon. Members opposite are nearer to my views than are the Government Front Bench. It is therefore with some hesitation that I say that I cannot support the Amendment. I say that because the Amendment introduces an element of retr6spection, and I have always opposed retrospection in legislation. If the Government have made a mistake, they ought to stand by it and not try to put it right retrospectively by an Amendment introduced a year later. Although in this case there

583
may be some sympathy for the proposal that we should go back over the ground, it would be a dangerous precedent and would make it more difficult to resist retrospection in other matters about which we felt strongly.
I believe that the original Bill was a nonsense. In this Bill the Government are trying to create order out of chaos, and I am afraid that the Amendment would create less order and more chaos.
Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: It is with some diffidence that I enter the debate at this stage. My reason for doing so is that I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) saying that a matter of substantial principle was involved in the Amendment, but not having had the benefit of serving on the Standing Committee on the Bill, even though I listened as diligently, I think, as did any other hon. Member, it was not until the Parliamentary Secretary intervened that I understood the purport and effect of the Amendment. May I comment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if hon. Members who move Amendments are to be restricted by the rules of order in saying some of the things which they feel they are entitled to say, it will be easier for those who have not served on the Standing Committee if the effect of the Amendment is explained clearly at an earlier stage than on this occasion.
It seems to me that three questions of principle are involved in the Amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the issue of principle on which the Government took their stand was that the two arms of the policy—prices and incomes—should be evenly balanced. This was a clear declaration of Government policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) queried the validity of that principle on the ground that it was possible that the examination of the two aspects—prices on the one hand and wages and awards on the other—might take different lengths of time. Having produced interesting factual evidence of the operation of the Board under the Bill, he refuted the argument on the ground that, in both cases, it could be shown that a greater period than six months was involved.
584
In his turn, the .Joint Parliamentary Secretary refuted my right hon. Friend's argument on the basis that this would not arise under the Amendment. I have been waiting for one of the supporters of the Amendment to reinforce the argument of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who always speaks with good Lancashire clarity and directness on these matters. The point of principle he raised was that we were not comparing like with like, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary suggested, and that to compare prices and wages as being like with like was to compare a commodity with a human element.
If I were in any sympathy with the Bill and inclined to try and improve it, I would feel happier if an Amendment on these lines were acceptable to the Government so that they could indicate that there was some difference in their attitude towards the rewards of individuals, which represent 100 per cent. of the sum of happiness of the family, and prices of commodities, which represent a management problem for a commercial undertaking but are a minor element in the budgets of a great many citizens.
The substance of the Amendment is that it shows at least that here one is not dealing with a whole series of cyphers in mathematical calculations but that the Bill affects prices and the rewards of human labour and the return enjoyed by a family. I hoped that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, admittedly beset by rather wide arguments, would indicate the reasons why the two arms of the policy—affecting commodities and commercial transactions on the one hand and the reward of human effort and total disposable family balances on the other—would balance to the same degree throughout the Bill.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the Amendment. He is getting into a general debate. He must confine himself to the question of the six months.
Mr. Hall-Davis: I will not trespass further, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The case for the six-month period is that the family must have a term put to uncertainty but that it should not necessarily be as short as the term of uncertainty to which commerce is exposed. I believe that I have accurately assessed the

585
feelings of the supporters of the Amendment and am happy to leave the argument at that point.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. Higgins: I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 3, line 34, to leave cut from 'reference' to the end of line 38.
We have already had some discussion as to the exact purpose of the Clause. However, it may help to focus the debate on the Amendment if I refer to what tie right hon. Gentleman said on Second Reading. Outlining the Bill, after dealing with Clause 1, he said that it was possible under Clause 2, which we discussed List night, for a price or wage increase which had been made to be set back to tie level prevailing before the Government took action. He went on:
"A similar situation could arise, dealt with by Clause 3, where, to begin with, possibly the parties have proceeded in a voluntary manner, have notified the increase and it has been referred to the Board, but then, either before or after the Board has reported, the increase has been put into effect despite the fact that it is not supported by the Board's report. In these circumstances, also, the Government will have power under Clause 3 to put the price or wage back to what it previously was."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th June, 1967; Vol. 748, c. 331.]
That was the conclusion of the right hon. Gentleman's exposition of Clause 3. It would be helpful if we could have a little more elaborate explanation. This is an extremely complex Bill and this is a particularly difficult Clause.
We have had a number of debates on prices and incomes Orders in which hon. Members on both sides of the House have taken part. I understand that one of the functions of the Clause is to facilitate a particular aspect of that policy under Part IV. In essence, what the Government have sought to do under previous Orders has been to ensure that the Orders would not only freeze prices or wages for the same six months' period to which they hoped others would agree voluntarily, but actually to claw back, as the jargon which we have evolved has it, some of the additional payments which had been made.
Therefore, the Orders have not extended for only the six months' period which would put the particular case on a comparable basis, as the Government would have it, with that of voluntary
586
cases, but also provided that the freeze should be continued for more than six months, so that the increase which had been paid could be drawn back and so that those who had gone against Government policy should be put on what the Government regarded as a fair basis.
Sir D. Glover: Does this mean that if a wage or price increase has taken place and an Order is then issued, there will be power for that wage or price increase to be rescinded?
Mr. Higgins: This is a fairly difficult point. It did not actually happen with price increases, for the only Order concerned with price increases was that dealing with laundries and dry cleaners. It therefore applies only to some specific wage increase. But it is not, as in Clause 2, a matter of lowering a wage increase which has taken place. It is rather that instead of merely freezing the increase for the period covered by the Order, for six months, the Orders which we have had under Part IV have been for rather more than six months, so that the amount which those concerned have received has been clawed back.
This has been the basic principle of a number of Orders. There are, for instance, the Orders concerned with Birmingham Corporation Transport Department supervisors, Thorn Electrical Industries, the Metropolitan Police, draughtsmen and a number of others which were not taken to court.
11.45 p.m.
Some of these cases have been affected by the fact that the Government have lost cases which have gone to the Court of Appeal and therefore the Government have not succeeded in achieving the objective which I have outlined. In other cases the Government clearly did not have sufficient powers under Part IV of the 1966 Act to achieve that objective, and therefore there is a follow-on period, when they feel that they must take powers, under this Bill, which would enable them, if necessary, to freeze events for six months.
This is the one point covered by the Clause. The object of this Amendment is to delete a particular part of the Clause which says:
"… this section shall apply notwithstanding that the Board's report was made, or the relevant increase of prices or charges or

587
implementation of the award or settlement took place, before the coming into force of this section or the passing of this Act."
As we understand it this means that, even though this House has not yet approved this Bill, nor even approved this Clause, none the less it will be possible for the Government, under this Clause if the Bill is eventually approved, to apply this Clause to impose a standstill after the publication of the Board's report on particular increase, where the Board's report was made, and the increase in prices took place before this Bill came into effect?
We seek to remove those words so that the retrospective aspect of the Clause shall not have effect. It has been a major point of principle in our debates on this Bill that we feel that the element of retrospection introduced by the Government is not merely becoming an unfortunate lapse from time to time, but is becoming a nasty habit. It is an essential part of this policy that the Government seeks to impose action retrospectively with particular wage or price increases. It is particularly because we object to the element of retrospection involved in this Clause that we move this Amendment.
I hope that the House will feel that this is something which is not an unreasonable restraint on this policy. Many of the cases covered by that policy have already been over-ruled by the courts. The whole idea that the Government's policy is universal, fair and equitable has been shown, because they have failed to produce any statistics on the subject, be-because of the decisions of the courts and because of the anomalies created by Clause 2, to be false. To ask for retrospective powers of this kind in order to keep up the pretence, and to maintain the facade that it is universal seems unjustified. For this reason I hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will support this Amendment.
Sir D. Glover: The House ought to be very suspicious and doubtful about any aspect of retrospective legislation. The State today is a very powerful body and the individual citizen is always at risk. I am not saying that there may not be some particular case where, perhaps in
588
the interests of national security, or something of that sort, retrospection would not be justified.
The whole of the Government's policy is not bound up with retrospection. The basic aims of the policy in this area will still proceed, more or less unscathed if the Amendment is accepted. There is not only a danger to our democracy and the individual, but in the long run there is a danger that Parliament and our system of democratic government will lose their status when citizens feel that, quite arbitrarily, the Government can decide to put a mistake right—this is particularly so in this case—by retrospection, by deliberately acting against the interests of a small segment of the community.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour will understand that I am speaking with sincerity. I could understand the Government refusing this Amendment if accepting it meant that the whole pattern of prices and incomes policy would fall to pieces, but that is not the case. As a result of accepting the Amendment one or two people might get through the net, but the fact that one or two people or organisations got through the net would be far less important than that the public should see us prepared to use the power of the State arbitrarily to alter something which they thought perfectly legitimate and suddenly discovered that by this Clause the law was retrospectively altered. This is a dangerous field of expansion of power of the Executive over the ordinary citizen.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will view the Amendment seriously and realise that there is a constitutional element in it. The State should not go back on its previous pattern whereby ordinary citizens who have done something which, however right or wrong, was at the time within the law and then, because the Government decide that it is convenient to alter the law retrospectively, it is made unlawful.
That is very much adverse to the influence and status of democratic government. In the long run it is detrimental to the status of the House of Commons. I do not think that a very vital principle is at stake, but the status of the democratic assembly is heavily

589
involved. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.
Sir Derek Walker-Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), in the very clear and cogent observations he has addressed to the House, said that this Amendment raises important constitutional implications, and so of course it does.
It is a prime consideration of English Statute law to seek to avoid retrospection. Over the years I have been in this House I have on several occasions raised my voice, right through the days of the Attlee Government, against proposals to introduce a retrospective element into our Statute law. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) will probably confirm that it was rarely done so blatantly in the days of the Attlee Government as in the four lines which this Amendment seeks to remove from the Bill. I have rarely seen retrospection proclaim itself so nakedly and unashamedly as in this Bill as drafted. The Government should have regard to the violence they are doing to well-established principles.
It rests, of course, on very basic and elementary considerations, the feeling that we do not, in English Statute law, or British Statute law, legislate retrospectively. In the first place, it offends against the doctrine of certainty. In this country people are presumed to know the law—an increasingly irrational presumption, in some ways, considering its growing complzxity—but nevertheless it is still a maxim, Ignorantia legis haud excusat. If there be not certainty in the law, then that maxim goes, because nobody can be presumed to understand that which is not fixed but is still liable to be changed against him hereafter.
The other reason is that it does great violence to the doctrine of the sanctity of contract and of accrued rights, and so on. This is put very clearly in the leading textbook on the interpretation of Statutes, Maxwell on the "Interpretation of Statutes", page 204 of the eleventh edition:
"Upon the presumption that the Legislature does not intend what is unjust rests the leaning against giving certain Statutes retrospective operation."
590
There then follows a very telling sentence in Latin which at this late hour and in the absence of the Attorney-General, who seems to have withdrawn for the time being, I will not—
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Would my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that if the Minister without Portfolio could be woken up he might understand it?
Sir D. Walker-Smith: My right hon. Friend is quite correct. The right hon. Gentleman has a distinguished academic background, but he was, as I have reason to know, a history don and not a classical don at Christ Church in the days when my right hon. Friend and I were seeking to assimilate knowledge.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: He is also asleep.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: My right hon. Friend is tempting me into fields of retrospection, and even his persuasiveness must fall short of success in that.
But I therefore endorse what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk, that there is a very considerable constitutional point here, and that it is very sad and serious that the Government should progressively take it for granted that they can introduce these retrospective provisions into Measures such as this, dealing, as they do, with people's incomes and with prices which they pay, things which touch very nearly the heart of our social and economic existence. I would warmly second what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk, that the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Government, should think again, and, in order to expedite our progress in this rather wearisome night, think again quickly.
Mr. John M. Temple: This is the first time I have spoken on this legislation. When I have come in and listened I have found myself more and more baffled, but I had, with the Minister responsible for this legislation, considerable correspondence only recently about retirement pensions and the effect on retirement pensions of the prices and incomes standstill. As I have listened this evening to the proposals of the Government, which would, of course, be amended if my hon. Friend's Amendment were accepted, so that the retrospective action

591
of this Clause would be taken out, I immediately thought, what would be the effect on retirement pensions which had already been agreed, which were already linked to a particular pay settlement, if there were a piece of retrospective legislation which affected the incomes of persons and the relationship of the retirement pensions to those incomes which those persons had hitherto been having? This was brought to my attention in some recent correspondence with the Minister responsible about a case affecting a certain number of railway pensioners.
12 m.
The Prime Minister had promised an overall increase of 5 per cent. which was to be implemented in two parts. One of the unfortunate retirement pensioners with whom I was in correspondence retired during the period when the first part of the pay increase had been implemented. However, the second part was held up. As a result, my constituent's pension was linked only to the 1½ per cent. increase. The effect of the standstill was that he did not get his full entitlement by way of retirement pension, and I understand that he will never get it.
Sir D. Glover: When we were debating this last night it became clear from both sides of the House that the difference could be anything from £13 to £100 a year for the rest of a pensioner's life.
Mr. Temple: In the case of my constituent, it amounted to 8s. a week, which would be under £25 a year, but my hon. Friend underlines the point that I am trying to make.
I would like the Minister to clear up the position of the retired person whose pension had probably been agreed but who, due to the retrospective action of this Clause, would be denied the retirement pension which had been awarded him. This is becoming a more and more thorny problem, and the Government must face up to it. People are already suffering grave injustices. I do not think that either side of the House would wish the injustices to be perpetuated, and they will be made substantially worse if the Clause is not amended.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Like my hon. Friend the
592
Member for City of Chester (Mr. Temple), this is the first occasion on which I have ventured to dip a toe into the chilly waters of this legislation. As I have listened to these debates, I have been struck with the utter futility of any Government attempting to try to interfere with the highly complex matters by which men govern their affairs in the way that this Bill sets out to do.
The lines of the Clause with which the Amendment seeks to deal are an example of the sort of measures to which the Government have recourse in an effort to try and close every loophole in their efforts to control the wages and prices which are paid for services and goods.
I endorse everything which has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) about retrospective legislation, but I want to draw attention to a curious anomaly which contrasts with the efforts that the Government are making by the closing words of Clause 3(2). They are attempting to impose retrospective legislation in order to catch a recommendation which may have been made before the corning into force of this Act. Yet they are leaving the parties free, retrospectively and by agreement, to adjust any agreement which may have been made to compensate themselves for the delay which has been introduced by reason of the reference of the increase to the Board. My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) drew attention to this in Committee when he quoted from an article in the New Statesman of the 9th June, which said:
"Having delayed a wage bargain for seven months while it is investigated by Mr. Jones' team, the Bill leaves it entirely open to the bargainers to arrange retrospective payment to make up for the delay. Retrospection, Ministers blandly admit, could wreck their whole scheme; yet their Bill makes retrospection a respectable trade union objective in every wage dispute."
When commenting on that, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said:
"The point that he is on is one of real substance. Probably it comes under Clause 4(2) better than here, but in examining which powers we should seek it was of course possible that we would have asked that there should be no retrospection. This would have meant far more stringent powers than we are asking for."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A; 29th June, 1967, c. 217.]

593
The point which I am seeking to make is that the Government, by the right hon. Gentleman's admission, recognise that it is impossible to take account of every variation, every vagary in human behaviour, as it would affect the matters covered by the Bill. They have therefore k ft the parties free to compensate themselves, or for the employer to compensate the employees, retrospectively for any delay which may be occasioned by the reference of the matter to the Board, yet here they seek to introduce legislation which will have a retrospective effect on any recommendation made by the Board before the Act comes into force.
This seems to be an utterly ludicrous distinction. Why should the one be left, and the other be attacked? How can it be said that the few cases—and there cannot be many—in respect of which the Board makes a recommendation before the Act comes into force are very important and more worthy to be legislated against than the very much larger number of cases which could arise in which, after seven months have elapsed, the parties could agree to compensate themselves for the delay by making retrospective payments?
This seems to be a curious and utterly illogical anomaly which, as strongly as any of the other constitutional arguments which have been pressed on the House, establishes that the Amendment most assuredly ought to be carried if we are to avoid retrospection.
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) prefaced his remarks by saying that this was his first intervention in these debates. Alas, I cannot say the same for myself, but I am very pleased to speak in support of the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), and eloquently endorsed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith).
My right hon. and learned Friend was generous enough to say that it was still a principle that we were presumed to know the law, but the Bill proceeds on an assumption that we are presumed to know the intended wishes of the Government's White Paper, and it is precisely this potentially devastatingly dangerous distinction which lies at the heart of so
594
much of the opposition which unites certain elements on both sides of the Chamber, although the unity is never consummated in the Division Lobby.
I support the Amendment. [Interruption.] It may be distasteful to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), but at least my remarks about his interjection will ensure that one comment from the Liberal Party is recorded.
Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I assure the hon. Member that the matter to which I referred as being distasteful is not the matter to which he has just referred. This is not the only occasion on which I have been present to hear the debates on the Bill. I had the pleasure of hearing the hon. Member make the same speech last night.
Mr. Temple: As many hon. Members did not have the pleasure of hearing the interjection, may we know what interjection has been referred to?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be wiser if the House did not go into that.
Mr. Biffen: After that unexpected squall I should like to return to the point of considerable substance which arises from the Amendment, not in the general principle but in the very likelihood of its application. Already two or three references are before Mr. Aubrey Jones, and may well be the subject of a Board's report before the passing of the Measure. There are two, in particular, to which I wish to refer. The first is that concerning the fabrication of Aluminium Semi-Manufacturers which has been before the Board for some time. The House is entitled to ask itself whether the manufacturers would have co-operated so willingly with the consultants who were appointed for the subcontracting work had they known that this report might be used as a regulatory value by the Government for controlling prices for the next 12 months. They undertook commitments and promised co-operation for a situation which clearly they did not foresee, and could not have foreseen, because the point of time of this reference was so far back.
The second was the recent reference to the Board of the prices of Fletton and non-Fletton bricks. This took place on 26th May, 1967. Some hon. Members

595
might argue that the Board cannot conceivably produce a report before the passing of this Measure. This can only be supposition on our part. It must depend on the skill and amplitude of the consultants at the disposal of Mr. Aubrey Jones.
But so much of the case of the Government has been based on the supposed voluntary co-operation of these very manufacturing interests. The House might be interested to know of a report mentioned in a Financial Times of mid-June to the effect that
"A deputation from the National Federation of Clay Industries, which represents manufactures of non-flettons, complained to the Minister"—
that is, the Minister of Public Building and Works—
"yesterday that his recent reference of brick prices to the N.B.P.I. had been made without consulting the industry, although it had cooperated in the early warning system".
So much for the much-vaunted voluntary contact which the First Secretary is always anxious to assure the House exists between him and his advisers and the representatives of trade associations. If a report is published "before the passing of this Act", it will have resulted from a reference in regard to which, certainly in the eyes of the trade association, the expected consultation did not take place, and that report of the Board could become a matter of price standstill.
Those are specific examples of the kind of retrospection which could flow from this legislation unless the Amendment is made, and I cite them in support of the principle which has been elaborated with such force by my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East.
12.15 a.m.
Mr. Hattersley: It is with genuine trepidation that I essay the task of arguing with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) on the constitutional proprieties of the Bill, and I hope to postpone my Armageddon a little by speaking first to the point made by the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) in regard to what he described as "clawing back."
596
One of the many achievements of the hon. Member for Worthing in our debates has been his insinuation of the term "clawing back" into our vocabulary. It is his term, not ours; but, though it does not adequately describe the position, I cannot pretend to invent anything which trips so lightly off the tongue, and I shall, therefore, remind the House of what clawing back means when the hon. Gentleman uses that term, with pejorative intent, to describe our actions.
Clawing back during the period of Part IV of the 1966 Act has had one purpose and intention: where, by one means or other, a party to either a price increase or a wage increase has somehow frustrated the purpose of the prices and incomes policy by avoiding a period of standstill, on the voluntary principle, the Government have chosen to operate an Order which lasts for an equivalent length of time. It is clawing back, in the sense in which the hon. Gentleman uses that term, because it is not necessarily for the actual period for which a voluntary standstill would have been appropriate. It may not be the six months of the period of severe restraint; it may overlap by six weeks. But it is an equivalent period in time, and it is intended to compensate by means of a compulsory Order for the exact amount of time where there should have been a postponement of implementation on a voluntary basis.
The hon. Gentleman asked how that principle will operate in terms of this Clause. He knows the principles on which the Clause itself operates. My right hon. Friend, having seen a wage or price increase which is not in conformity with a recommendation made by the Prices and Incomes Board and which stems from a voluntary standstill which precedes, or perhaps runs at the same time as, the examination of the case by the Board, is then entitled to make an Order which can last for a period of six months. But, the hon. Gentleman is right to imply that if a voluntary period of standstill has operated in a series of ways, it is conceivably possible for the Order, when added to a period of voluntary standstill, to produce a situation in which a party had its price increase or wage increase limited for longer than is the intention. I emphasise that this is possible only if one element

597
of that limitation is a voluntary element. It is not possible if the entire operation were one organised under Order. The life of the Order there is circumscribed and limited. But, if there is a voluntary element at the beginning of the Order's life, it is conceivable than the limitation might go on for rather longer than the clawing-back principle—to use the hon. Gentleman's term—would justify.
I give an absolute assurance that, if that situation does arise, the only purpose and intention of the Government is to equalise the period to make sure that the compulsory standstill only lasts as long as the voluntary standstill would have done had the parties chosen the path of voluntary co-operation. I am sure that he understands that within the terms and principles of the Bill if we are able to make Orders against people who, once having had their case referred to the Board on a voluntary basis, then choose to implement an award which does not conform with the recommendations of the Board, we must have the ability to operate an Order which lasts for the full period. But I hope that he w ill accept my absolute assurance that if there is a voluntary element of standstill to be added on to it it is certainly not our intention to allow it to operate in such a way that one of the parties will suffer more than the compensatory period warrants.
I turn to the points raised by three hon. Members about the retrospective elements in the Clause. I suggest—I do not do more than suggest—to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the retrospection which appears in the Bill is perhaps not retrospection in the normal sense of the word. Any Order made under the Bill cannot become operative until 12th August. None of the penalties —if that is the word that hon. Members would choose to use—that stem from the operations of the Order could possibly be operated until after 12th August. The retrospective element refers not to the powers but to the datum periods on which the powers are based.
The retrospective element simply refers to the dates on which the prices are increased. It simply refers to the dates on which references to the Prices and Incomes Board are made. The Bill
598
makes plain that if on the basis of the date the wages or prices were increased and the date of reference to the Board it seems appropriate that an Order should be made, the Order cannot be operative until 12th August, and it is operative simply for the period to which it refers in terms of the original intention, not in terms of its operation. There is a substantial distinction there. It is a distinction which is much more substantial than that between retrospective operation and the alternative in the Amendment discussed before this one. There the retrospective element would have gone back a good deal further and included some of the elements that the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the vice of retrospection and the reason why it is normally considered to be incompatible with our statutory position in this country, is that it applies a state of law to something that has already happened which was not the state of law at the time that it happened? That is the vice of retrospection, and that is in the Bill.
Sir D. Glover: Would the hon. Gentleman allow—
Mr. Hattersley: I must, with respect, try to deal with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point first. I understand very well the point that he is making. He is too kind to give this example. There is little distinction between saying "While it is not a capital offence at the moment to commit offence A, B or C, the element in the Bill is not retrospective because we do not execute you till after 12th August." I understand that point and accept the force of it.
The distinction between the two cases is that there are already a substantial amount of powers available to the Government under Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act. All we are doing is organising a transition between the operation of Part IV and the operation of Part II. All the people who might contemplate between now and 12th August putting up their prices or implementing a wage increase must know that the prices and incomes legislation, including Part IV, is in operation, and although they may not until they

599
consider the deliberations of the House tonight understand that they will be subject to a reference to the Board and an Order made after 12th August, they should know that they are liable to the operation of Part IV. All that the Clause is doing, and all that the words that the Amendment seeks to delete are doing, is organising a reasonable transition from one element of compulsion to another. The accusation of retrospection is in some ways mitigated by my suggestion that already many of the powers that the retrospective element suggests, perhaps in a more violent or a more positive form, are available to the Government and that all we are doing is changing them.
Mr. Eric Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman's remarks puzzle me because if all these powers are contained in Part IV, and if Part IV continues in operation until 12th August, what is the purpose of the Clause?
Mr. Hattersley: This provision is necessary because Part IV lapses on 12th August. We are now trying to organise a sensible transition period between the old and the new powers to ensure that we move smoothly from the period of severe restraint—when there existed very much more substantial powers than those we are discussing—to the period when the powers are considerably less substantial. This transition must be organised on a sensible basis.
For the sake of this argument, let us assume—as one must assume in these circumstances—acceptance of the Government's policy and the need for orders occasionally to be made to change, prohibit or postpone wage increases. Suppose that there is a wage or price increase, or a reference to the Board, on 10th August. I should have thought that, in terms of having a sensible incomes policy, it was absolutely right for us to apply the same rules, regulations and obligations on those increases and references as on similar increases and references if they occurred three days after that date.
If the Government wanted to be devious about this, references to the Board might, in certain circumstances, be postponed until after 12th August. But the Government have no intention of getting round the Measure in that way. We want,
600
fairly and clearly, to operate Part II and to organise a suitable run-up arrangement which will enable us to have a reasonable and sensible transitional period.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin Mr. Patrick Jenkin rose—
Mr. Hattersley: No. I have given way a great many times. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite would rather make their own speeches, rather than listen to me for too long.
I wish to underline the point I have made in relation to the remarks of the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), who asked what sort of assurances and information had been given to the consultants and staff of the Board who are examining the two reports to which he referred. He asked if they realised that they were producing a report which might possibly have the effects outlined in the Clause. While it is unlikely that the powers contained in the Bill were known to the Board—to the consultants who carried out the investigations, if consultants did that work—they knew that they were producing a report which could be the subject of Part IV orders, involving a system of wage and price restraint a good deal more positive than the system we are now discussing. There is no suggestion that they were inveigled into carrying out an operation which they would regard as unattractive. They were engaged on the production of a report, on the basis of which the Government could make decisions about the prices and incomes policy and, I hope, on the basis of which we are organising a smooth transition from the powers of Part IV to those of Part II after 12th August.
Mr. Temple: The hon. Gentleman has said not a word about wage-related retirement pensions.
Mr. Hattersley: I did not comment on the hon. Gentleman's remarks because this does not operate in the retrospective way he suggested. The period of literal retrospection, between now and 12th August, will not operate in the way he described and will not work detrimentally for pensioners.
Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): The Parliamentary Secretary made an extraordinary speech.

601
I am sorry for him because, on an issue of this importance, the First Secretary should have answered the debate. This topic raises issues which are even more important than the general issues raised by the Bill. The hon. Gentleman did his best, but it was not good enough.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that this is not the normal sort of retrospection—by which, I suppose, he meant that it was not the normal sort of retrospective legislation produced by the present Government. All that the provision did, he said, was to date transactions back to certain dates before the Measure came into force. It is the essence of retrospection to make something an offence which was not an offence when it was done. For him to say, "This is all it does," shows that he does not appreciate the enormity of the Government's actions. The argument that it does not not matter because it will not happen until 12th August could apply to almost any grouse because it will not be shot until then. It is on about the same level as the argument of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), that the Minister without Portfolio could not understand Latin because he was a historian. Even the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was a don at Christchurch does not justify so damaging an attack. However, as the Minister without Portfolio was asleep when my right hon. and learned Friend spoke, I will waste no more time on the Sleeping Beauty of the Government.
12.30 a.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary did not give us the practical reason for these words. He is no doubt assuming—I do not know whether he is right—that, despite the incompetence of the Leader of the House, the Bill will soon be law. If so, how many cases would be caught by the Bill which would escape without these words? The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that he is asking the House to do something which in principle is repugnant to most of us—
Mr. Hattersley: I want to help the House in what I admit is a difficult issue for me. An answer is not possible, because it depends on a number of variables, one of which is the wage or price increases which might be implemented up to 12th August. Unless we can predict these increases by reading many minds, it is
602
not possible to say how the powers over the retrospective period might or should be used.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is a curious answer, because a Minister at the Ministry of Labour should have some idea. Under a Conservative Government, Ministers at that Ministry had some idea what claims were coming forward and which were likely to be met in the limited period of a week or two. But now a Minister at the Ministry of Labour whose duty it is to be in touch with these matters—and never more so than now, when wage restraint is of the greatest importance—has not the faintest idea. If that is how the Ministry is being conducted now, one begins to understand how the wages problem has got out of hand and why the Government think that they have been driven to the crude expedient of compulsion. His answer would have been reasonable had I asked about the next year, but I did not.
I hope that he realises now that he is seeking unusual powers of retrospection, even under this Government. Yet he blandly tells us, with a helpful smile, that he does not know what he wants them for or whether there is a serious number of cases. The Government blunder on with this proposal, without knowing whether it has any justification. It is absolutely typical of the blundering incompetence with which the legislation was conducted last year, which got the Government into the mess which the Court of Appeal showed up the other day, and which, if the Government go on trying to force through legislation at the last minute and late at night, they will get into again. I hope it will be noticed outside that this has been said. We have a provision which must seem offensive to all who care for the rule of law and the proper regulation of these matters. It is now being put forward without the Minister concerned being able to tell the House that there is a single case that would be better handled if the Government had these powers.
This is quite an extraordinary position. I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary, for all the glib assurance of his manner, has understood why it is that so many hon. Members who are not necessarily concerned with the prices and incomes policy are here and opposed to this proposal for retrospection.

603
It is a serious thing for the House to decide that an act or acts which were lawful at the time they were done should be made unlawful by subsequent Act of this House retrospective to that date. No one is saying that when there are grave matters of public security or safety it should not be done, but surely we all agree that it should only be done when there is a proved necessity for it. Now we know from the Parliamentary Secretary's unhappy intervention that he does not know if there are any cases at all.
This is the wrong way to legislate. It leads to what I hinted at a moment or two ago—a situation in which the First Secretary has to come to the Box and, in reply to a question of mine, say that because he had been seeking to exercise powers which he did not have he had had to withdraw four Orders he had purported to make. This will again be the position if the Government go on in this way. The Courts were rightly critical in the Thorn case, when it was said that it must be clear that Parliament intended it, for the Government to be empowered to interfere with agreements already made. The Government are now asking for the same power and they have produced this ill-drafted and obscure passage with no justification for it. They do not know of a single case which will be affected by it, yet they come forward with a proposal which is plain and blatant retrospection of a kind the House has always opposed, save on proven grounds of real public interest.
This is bankruptcy of Government. It is an appalling attitude for a Government to take and to seek to do it under the cover of night in the hope that it will not be reported is an indication of bankruptcy not only of economic policy but of the morals of the Government.
Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I have one serious reservation about the Amendment. If it is passed it may save the First Secretary from embarrassment. It will be within the recollection of the House that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) was sacked by the Prime Minister for coming to the House and offering similar retrospective powers to the House. If the Amendment were carried it might save the First Secretary from suffering
604
a similar fate at the same hands. That is the only disadvantage which I see in the Amendment, which has been so excellently advocated.
The Bill has been sold to one section of the community as giving, broadly speaking, equal justice by applying equally to prices and to incomes. Does it do so? How can the retrospective part of it be applied to prices which have already been paid? Unless every shopkeeper notes the name and address of every person who makes a purchase in his shop, and also notes the price increase paid, how is it possible to apply the Bill with the same vigour, retrospectively, to sales as that with which it has been applied to people who have received pay increases and whose names, by definition, are known? I offer that as an example of the way in which a false prospectus is attached to the Bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary muddled the words "prices" and "incomes" as a sort of formula of respectability, but he has given no evidence that the prices side of it can be applied effectively with retrospection. The point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) is very fair. If the Minister asks for retrospective powers, particularly powers which affect the criminal as well as the civil law, surely he has an obligation to quantify to the House the necessity for these provisions, and no such quantification has even been attempted.
How much better it would be if the Parliamentary Secretary or the First Secretary had the grace to say that he knew of no reason for believing these powers to be necessary and that therefore he would accept this entirely reasonable Amendment? Would it not be better for them to say that they know of no reason for needing these powers, which possibly by oversight or possibly through some more sinister reasons they have written into the Bill? We are entitled to a much more convincing reason from the Government for accepting what many hon. Members on both sides of the House feel to be a fundamental breach of principle, and one which attracted such severe censure not so long ago on the right hon. Gentleman who endeavoured to put it over in the House that he was dismissed from his office.
Mr. John Peyton: My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) is a very powerful debater and the House has just listened to a very powerful speech by him. But I am sure that, on reflection, he, would agree that he was perhaps slightly unfair to the Parliamentary Secretary, who is doing his best with an impossible case. The attack which my right hon. Friend delivered with such eloquence would really have been aimed at other targets. The Parliamentary Secretary has been cast by the Government in the rôle of Sisyphus, alone, in absolute solitude, in almost eternal disappointment, pushing the stone of the prices and incomes policy up the hill, usually deserted by his right hon. Friends. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will not think that I am detracting from the skill and accuracy of his speech when I make this rather lame attempt to defend the Parliamentary Secretary.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My hon. Friend will recall that in my observations I said that it was wrong for the Parliamentary Secretary to be entrusted with an Amendment of this importance. I think that it is the First Secretary's duty to address the House on the subject, and I still nourish the hope that my hon. Friend's eloquence will get the First Secretary to his feet to take the responsibility which rightly lies on him.
Mr. Peyton: That is the very point on which I differ from my right hon. Friend and on which I believe that he is unfair. It is the Parliamentary Secretary's skill and practice which has won him his place at the Dispatch Box tonight, and the two right hon. Gentlemen sitting beside him—and even the presence of the President of the Board of Trade—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member will not be out of order if he comes to the Amendment.
Mr. Peyton: I accept that the mention of the President of the Board of Trade was a grotesque and unforgivable irrelevancy on my part.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It was jaywalking.
Mr. Peyton: My right hon. Friend says that it was jay-walking—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I said lightly but now seriously that the hon. Member must discuss the Amendment.
12.45 a.m.
Mr. Peyton: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has made the best of a bad job, and I am sorry that neither of his right hon. Friends was here to give him moral support, which is the only support they could give him. We were told that this was not retrospection in the normal sense of the word in that it does not refer to the powers but to the dates. Then the hon. Gentleman confessed that all that was being done by these innocent words was to organise a transition between now and 12th August, that mystical date which for some reason has got written into the prices and incomes policy. I want to laugh about it, but I should hate to introduce any note of flippancy into this grave matter.
It is odd that we should not be given any estimate by the Government as to how many cases are affected by these words. They are taking an unusual step and it is their duty to justify it. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary's speech was the best that could be made by any Minister, let alone a junior Minister, in such circumstances. I have conceived a healthy respect for his ability. He has justified again and again the totally unjustifiable and it would be wrong not to give him credit for it.
The hon. Gentleman was concerned to show that there is really no distinction between the results which attend the voluntary and the compulsory. We have got into an extraordinary argument about semantics. Apparently, under the Socialist Government, the words "voluntary" and "compulsory" are coming to mean much the same thing. It is not only confusing but a dangerous confusion and we ask the Government to think again.
Now that the First Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are here, I hope that one of them will feel stirred to claim his place in history by accepting that these intolerable words should be deleted from an intolerable Bill, which would thereby become slightly better. It would be a worthy achievement on his part.
Mr. Webster: I share my hon. Friend's slight doubt about my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames

607
(Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). I was disturbed when he mentioned a difference of value between historians and lawyers.
Mr. Speaker: Can the hon. Gentleman speak up? I want to hear whether he is in order.
Mr. Webster: I shall endeavour to speak up, Mr. Speaker, but I hope that if there is any trouble with the transmission arrangements, it can be put right.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames will not make pejorative remarks about historians who are constitutional people and who have taken a great deal of care about the retrospective situation here. I support his request to the Parliamentary Secretary for figures. I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary, who has been very courteous to the House, has not sent for those figures. How many people are expected to be affected between now and 12th August? How many trade unions are expected to be affected? I am glad to see that a Parliamentary Private Secretary has been sent to the Box.
Mr. Hattersley: I am anxious to preserve what I hope has been my courtesy to the House and it will be even better if I deal with that matter before the message returns. The reason why I have not been able to give a quantitative answer to the question put to me is that no quantitative answer is possible. The hon. Gentleman understands very well that for an Order to be made in the circumstances laid down by the Clause a number of things have to happen. One is that reports must have been requested from and made by the National Board for Prices and Incomes. The second thing is, after a period of voluntary restraint, for the recommendations of the Board then to be flouted and an increase given over its head. The hon. Gentleman will understand that while it is possible to say how many references are in the hands of the Board at any one time, it is impossible to say what the reaction of the parties will be when the reports are finally made to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Speaker: The Parliamentary Secretary will have an opportunity to speak later; interventions must be brief.
Mr. Webster: What the hon. Gentleman is saying is that he does not know how many citizens who do not now believe that they are breaking the law might be found to be breaking the law later. It is these people whom the House must protect. What percentage of the gross national product will be affected? By what percentage will the cost of living be increased in this mammoth exercise between now and grouse shooting day? These are matters about which the hon. Gentleman ought to be able to give a good deal of clarification. There is no justification at all for these extraordinary words in five different lines of the Clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) spoke with great learning. He seems to be the greatest living expert in the House on the extrusion of aluminium.
Mr. Biffen indicated dissent.
Mr. Webster: My hon. Friend shakes his head. He is an expert on the extrusion of aluminium, on various processes on aluminium, on the inert gas fabrication of aluminium by various processes, and then he got on to the obiter dicta of Mr. Jones, to bricks, and then again to the conflict between voluntary and compulsory.
In this Amendment we are dealing not only with retrospection, but with the difference between voluntary and compulsory and throughout the whole of the Bill and the activities of the D.E.A., the distinction between voluntary and compulsory seems to be blurred. This is another constitutional matter which the House would do well to think about.
We are told that if restraint is not voluntary, it will be compulsory. This is sheer blackmail of the most dangerous order, and if the House lets this go through without another thought from the First Secretary, we shall have created a very dangerous precedent. This is another of the now frequent examples of law-abiding citizens finding themselves brought into conflict with the law for reasons which they do not understand, about matters which bewilder them and which concern their livelihoods, and these are dangerous matters which the House should consider before deciding whether to accept the Amendment.
Mr. Higgins: The answers which we have had from the Government Front Bench during what has been a very distinguished debate, especially as regards the contributions of my hon. Friends, are not in the least adequate. The Parliamentary Secretary has certainly given the impression of trying to be helpful, and I believe that he has genuinely tried to be so. He assures me on "claw-back" that it is not the Government's intention under this Clause to do more than equalise the period of other people whom he considers, volunteered for the Government's prices and incomes policy.
He must be clear that this assurance will mean that the Government will be proposing to make orders which we regard as having a discriminatory element of compulsion and which we have been consistently against throughout these debates. It also involves a considerable element of retrospection. When we came to the debate last night we had some metaphysical distinction from the First Secretary about whether something was voluntary or fully voluntary. We now seem to be in a position where some things are fully voluntary, and others are merely retrospective.
The position put forward very clearly indeed from this side of the House is that we regard the whole of this retrospection, and its use as a normal tool of government—as against an exceptional event—as something to which we should be totally and utterly opposed. The second point is that the Parliamentary Secretary has said that there needs to be a reasonable transition period between the operation of Part IV and the operation of Part II. It is still a reasonable transition between the two periods which we regard as singularly unfortunate. In both periods there is still a very considerable element of compulsion. The fact that the transition from one period to another is regarded as reasonable by the hon. Gentleman does not make us feel, that this is a reason for withdrawing the Amendment.
We come to who is likely to be affected by the Clause if the Amendment is not accepted. The hon. Gentleman has again given the appearance of trying to be helpful, and said that it would depend on how many references have been made. He does not attempt to specify which references have been made and which are likely to fall within this Clause. This is
610
an unfortunate lapse, and I hope that the First Secretary will intervene briefly to give us this interesting information. If not we are forced into the position, pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) of feeling that the Government have not the remotest idea of who is affected by the Clause.
If this is so, a very important consequence follows. Effectively, what the Government are doing is to take retrospective powers which will enable them to impose all the restrictions which they had under Part IV in the case of actions that took place when Part IV prevailed. In other words, what they are really doing under this Clause, is to perpetuate Part IV of the principal Act. They can impose the full weight of their policy as it was under Part IV, retrospectively on price or wage increases which took place in the period covered by Part IV. This is really the point which emerged from what the Parliamentary Secretary said, even to my surprise, and I have become a little cynical about the Government's policy.
The Government are perpetuating Part IV, which this House was assured last year would not be perpetuated beyond the mystical date of 12th August. On these grounds I very much hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will vote with enthusiasm for this Amendment. I hope that before we do so we may have some reply from the First Secretary about the actual references.
1.0 a.m.
Mr. Hall-Davis: I wish to reinforce the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) that the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs should clarify the position. It appears that the words which the Amendment seeks to leave out would perpetuate Part IV, about which specific pledges were given a year ago that there would be a definite term limit to this Section.
As I have listened to the debate I have come to the conclusion that unless these words are omitted the impression will be given—which I think will be accurate—that at a time when the Government are saying that they are moving to a voluntary phase of prices and incomes policy in fact we see a strengthening and continuation of the powers ruling under the

611
1966 Act. I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary's explanations. It seemed clear that up to 12th August the position must be covered adequately by the 1966 Act and that there can be no reason to think that for this period of 20 or 21 days the Act is inadequate. By putting in what appears to be a retrospective Clause relating to the period of the 1966 Act, the Government are in effect extending the Act itself.
I do not regard the Bill as at present before the House as a tapering-off measure. The addition of these words giving retrospective power to the Government is not a tidying up or transitional phase to a voluntary policy, but a direct extension of certain powers in the 1966 Act to which strongest exception was taken by us a year ago. I think it fair to say that many hon. Members opposite would have pressed their opposition much more strongly if they had not felt able to accept assurances given by the Government that these aspects would lapse on the specific date to which the powers referred in the Bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that it is impossible for him to judge how many breaches may occur because he does not know what the course of price and wage adjustments may be, but by looking at the Act he must know how many more reports are likely to come before 12th August. It would appear from what he said and the fact that he feels unable to give an indication, that he is taking powers to refer not only price increases and wage increases which may follow a report published between now and 12th August, but to continue powers to take action in respect of reports which may be published at a very much advanced stage subsequent to that date. Many of these reports take a very long time.
Two questions are involved. One is the question of retrospective legislation, to which many hon. Members have taken exception. There is also the clear extension of the powers of the 1966 Act, not just the ability to take action which should have been taken in the last two or three days which it was not possible to take. Unless this Amendment is accepted, these words amount to a breach of the
612
undertakings of a year ago on the powers of the Act under the guise of being a retrospective power as if this were a transitional and minor matter.
Mr. Iain Macleod: I am by no means certain whether the First Secretary wants to make progress or not. We are quite prepared to fall in with him either way. A request has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) for a reply on a matter which we regard as of very great importance indeed. By this Amendment we seek to leave out of the Bill four lines which offend, as we see it, the principle that there should be no retrospective legislation except in the case of proven public or national need. I would have thought the case had been most formidably made by people of great experience—for example, in the law—by two of my right hon. and learned Friends, and by many other people on this side of the House, and yet we have had only a very cursory answer from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, an answer which we found entirely unsatisfactory.
I understand, of course, his difficulty in this matter, but I cannot understand why he says he has either little or no knowledge of how many wage claims there may be, how many breaches there may be, between now, when we are getting on to halfway through July, and the classic date of 12th August, which is looming ahead. I simply do not understand it, because I know very well from my experience of his Ministry—and I imagine it is the same still—that every fortnight there is a schedule prepared of all the wage claims at whatever levels they may be, right from their inception, which may be months before the date of a settlement.
The inception, as we know, is very frequently at the Easter or Whitsun conference of the union concerned, and, as many people on both sides of the House will be aware—I do not think I am giving away anything which I ought not to —it is made available to Whitehall, to the Ministries which are concerned. I simply do not understand how the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour of all Ministries can say he has no knowledge of what may happen in this very critical field between now, 11th July, and one month away, 11th August, before the axe comes down.

613
I would ask the First Secretary whether he would like to reply—or, indeed, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, if he wishes, by leave of the House, for I have no doubt leave would be given him to dc so. I would say seriously to them that we have been discussing this Amendment longer than I thought we would, because we found the answer of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary absolutely trivial in response to some extremely cogent and well argued speeches by my hon. and right hon. Friends. I hope that the Treasury Bench will treat the representations which we make with rather more seriousness as this night wears on, otherwise we shall not make very much progress.
I make this quite clear to the Government. If they want to make progress, well then, they must listen to and answer the serious points which we put forward. I do very much hope that either the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, by leave of the House, or the First Secretary, who does not need leave to speak because he has not spoken yet on this Motion, will answer some of the points which have been made from this side of the House, because we do regard these four lines with very grave suspicion indeed. We see no reason why the Government should wish to retain them in the Bill. As we have made clear, we wish to remove them, if we possibly can.
The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): I rise in direct response to the request of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod). I did not do so earlier because one of his hon. Friends rose and I did not wish to interfere with anything that he might wish to say.
I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the speech of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, since his hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) emphasised that, in his view, the Parliamentary Secretary made as good a reply as the facts warranted. What is it that the right hon. Gentleman complains of? Does he complain that he does not like the Clause, which is one thing, or does he complain that my hon. Friend did not treat the House seriously in his reply? Quite clearly, the hon. Member for Yeovil does not make that complaint—
Mr. Peyton: I congratulated the Parliamentary Secretary upon his gallant attempt to defend the totally indefensible, and, of course, I reflected upon the fact that the First Secretary had the discretion to absent himself from the unpleasant task of explaining this intolerable Bill. It was—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions must be brief.
Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman now seems to be contradicting himself. I gathered that he thought that, in view of the nature of the Clause, the Parliamentary Secretary made a good reply.
Mr. Iain Macleod: No.
Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman does not think so. It is a matter of opinion. But I do not accept his strictures on my hon. Friend's reply.
On this use of the word "retrospective", it is true that orders can be made under this Clause to have effect after 12th August which suspend price or pay increases which were implemented before that date. This is an entirely valid reason for saying that it is not retrospective in the sense in which the term is commonly used, because those price or pay increases would have been made in contravention of recommendations by the Board which were available before that date.
There is no question of people acting in complete ignorance of what was expected of them, and then being told afterwards that they were expected to do something different. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) must accept that what we have here is not the same as saying suddenly that something which a person had no reason to suppose would be called in question is now to be called in question—
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Surely there is still the basic objection that something which is lawful at the time that it is done is made unlawful by legislation passed subsequently.
Mr. Stewart: Now the right hon. Gentleman is repeating what he said earlier. He is not attempting to contravert the point which I have made, that

615
the price or pay increases under discussion would have been made at a time when there were clear recommendations making it clear to those who made the increases what the position was.
Suppose that a price or pay increase is made on 20th August. It seems to me that the case for being able to act upon it, if it is in conflict with the report, is basically the same whether that report was made on 1st, 12th or 13th August. Similarly, if a report is made on 1st August, it seems to me that one ought to be in a position, in justice and common sense, to take the same action whether the increase in price or pay in contravention of the report is made on 10th or 16th August. I give those dates as particular examples.
The effect of the Clause is to produce that result. The effect of the Amendment would be to upset it and produce a far more anomalous situation than the one which prevails in the Bill.
1.15 a.m.
On the question of the quantity, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend we cannot give an absolute quantitative answer. There are only three references to the Board so far which have been made at a time which will enable the powers in this Clause to be exercised after the enactment of the Bill, on the assumption that the Board takes three
months to reply. There could, of course, be other references to the Board before the 12th August. Further, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend, this question of the number of references cannot, by itself, fully describe what the quantitative scope of the Clause might be. It will depend on the reactions of the parties to the reports.
I have dealt with the two main points which were raised, the question of what we mean by retrospection, and the question of the quantitative operation of the Bill. If the Amendment were made, we would get a result which was more anomalous, more inconsistent, and gave less coverage than any reasonable person might expect, than if we leave the Clause as it is. It is for this reason that I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.
Mr. Higgins: Is it not a fact that the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's argument on this depends on the word at the end of line 35 being "and", whereas in fact the word is "or"?
Mr. Stewart: I cannot accept that point.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Silkin)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Silkin) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 150, Noes 121.

Division No. 444.]

AYES

[1.18 a.m.

Anderson, Donald

Dewar, Donald

Hazell, Bert

Archer, Peter

Dobson, Ray

Heafey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Armstrong, Ernest

Donnelly, Desmond

Henig, Stanley

Ashley, Jack

Eadie, Alex

Hilton, W. S.

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Hooley, Frank

Barnett, Joel

Ellis, John

Horner, John

Bence, Cyril

Ensor, David

Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

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

Howie, W.

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Faulds, Andrew

Huckfield, L.

Bidwell, Sydney

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Bishop, E. S.

Ford, Ben

Hunter, Adam

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Forrester, John

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Boston, Terence

Galpern, Sir Myer

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Boyden, James

Gardner, Tony

Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hul1, W.)

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Ginsburg, David

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

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

Gourlay, Harry

Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir EIwyn(W.Ham,S.)

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

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

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

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Cant, R. B.

Gregory, Arnold

Kelley, Richard

Chapman, Donald

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

Coe, Denis

Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

Concannon, J. D.

Hamling, William

Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Hannan, William

Ledger, Ron

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stratford)

Harper, Joseph

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

Haseldine, Norman

Lee, John (Reading)

Davies, Ifor (Cower)

Hattersley, Roy

Lever, Harold (Cheatham)

Luard, Evan

Palmer, Arthur

Small, William

Lynn, Alexander W. (York)

Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles

Snow, Julian

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Pavitt, Laurence

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

Macdonald, A. H.

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Taverne, Dick

McKay, Mrs. Margaret

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

Maclennan, Robert

Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

Thornton, Ernest

MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

Price, Christopher (Perry Bar,)

Tinn, James

McNamara, J. Kevin

Price, William (Rugby)

Tuck, Raphael

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Rankin, John

Varley, Eric G.

Mendelson, J. J.

Rees, Merlyn

Walden, Brian (AH Saints)

Mikardo, Ian

Reynolds, G. W.

Watkins, David (Consett)

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

Richard, Ivor

Whitaker, Ben

Moonman, Eric

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

Whittock, William

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

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

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Moyle, Roland

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Neal, Harold

Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

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

Ryan, John

Winnick, David

Ogden, Eric

Sheldon, Robert

Yates, Victor

O'Malley, Brian

Shore, Peter (Stepney)

Oram, Albert E.

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Orme, Stanley

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Oswald, Thomas

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Mr. Harold Walker and

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Skeffington, Arthur

Mr. Neil McBride.

NOES

Awdry, Daniel

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Baker, W. H. K.

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Neave, Airey

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Glover, Sir Douglas

Nott, John

Batsford, Brian

Goodhart, Philip

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Grant, Anthony

Pardoe, John

Bell, Ronald

Grant-Ferris, R.

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Gresham Cooke, R.

Percival, Ian

Bessell, Peter

Grieve, Percy

pike, Miss Mervyn

Biffen, John

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Biggs-Davison, John

Hall-Davis, A. C. F.

Prior, J. M. L.

Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Pym, Francis

Black, Sir Cyril

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Body, Richard

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Bossom, Sir Clive

Hastings, Stephen

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Heard, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

Higgins, Terence L.

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Holland, Philip

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Hornby, Richard

Royle, Anthony

Bunk, Antony (Colchester)

Howell, David (Guildford)

Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

Campbell, Cordon

Hunt, John

Sharpies, Richard

Carlisle, Mark

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Sinclair, Sir George

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Summers, Sir Spencer

Cary, Sir Robert

Jones, Arthur (Northante, S.)

Tapsell, Peter

Cordls, John

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Costain, A. P.

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Temple, John M.

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

Vickers, Dame Joan

Crouch, David

Lubbock, Eric

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)

Macfeod, Rt. Hn. Iain

Wan, Patrick

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

McMaster, Stanley

Webster, David

Drayson, G. B.

Macmillan, Maurice (Famham)

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Maddan, Martin

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Eden, Sir John

Marten, Neil

Winstanley, Dr. M, P.

Elliott,R.w.(N'c'tleupon-Tyne,N.)

Maude, Angus

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Emery, Peter

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

Woodnutt, Mark

Eyre, Reginald

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Worsley, Marcus

Farr, John

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

Fletcher-cooke, Charles

Mltchell, David (Basingstoke)

Fortescue, Tim

Monro, Hector

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Foster, Sir John

Montgomery, Fergus

Mr. Timothy Kitson and

Gibson-watt, David

More, Jasper

Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

Question put accordingly, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

Division No. 445.]

AYES

[1.28 a.m.

Anderson, Donald

Barnett, Joel

Bishop, E. S.

Archer, Peter

Bence, Cyril

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Armstrong, Ernest

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Boston, Terence

Ashley, Jack

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Boyden, James

The House divided: Ayes 141, part Noes 121.

Bray, Or. Jeremy

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

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

Henig, Stanley

Pavitt, Laurence

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

Hilton, W. S.

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

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

Hootey, Frank

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

Cant, R. B.

Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Howie, W.

Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

Chapman, Donald

Huckfield, L.

Price, William (Rugby)

Coe, Denis

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Rankin, John

Concannon, J. D.

Hunter, Adam

Rees, Merlyn

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Reynolds, G. W.

Dalyell, Tam

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Richard, Ivor

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

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

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

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

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

Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir E1wyn(W.Ham,S.)

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Delargy, Hugh

Jones, T. Aleo (Rhondda, West)

Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

Dewar, Donald

Kelley, Richard

Sheldon, Robert

Dobson, Ray

Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

Shore, Peter (Stepney)

Donnelly, Desmond

Ledger, Ron

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Dunnett, Jack

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Eadie, Alex

Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

Skeffington, Arthur

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Small, William

Ellis, John

Luard, Evan

Snow, Julian

Ensor, David

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

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

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Taverne, Dick

Faulds, Andrew

Macdonald, A. H.

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

Ford, Ben

McKay, Mrs. Margaret

Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

Forrester, John

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Thornton, Ernest

Freeson, Reginald

Maclennan, Robert

Tinn, James

Galpern, Sir Myer

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Tuck, Raphael

Gardner, Tony

Mitchell, R. c (S'th'pton, Teat)

Varley, Eric G.

Ginsburg, David

Molloy, William

Walden, Brian (AH Saints)

Gourlay, Harry

Moonman, Eric

Watkins, David (Coneett)

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Whitaker, Ben

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Whitlock, William

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Moyle, Roland

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

Neal, Harold

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Hamling, William

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

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Hannan, William

Ogden, Eric

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Harper, Joseph

O'Malley, Brian

Winnick, David

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Oram, Albert E.

Yates, Victor

Haseldine, Norman

Oswald, Thomas

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hattersley, Roy

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Mr. Harold Walker and

Hazell, Bert

Palmer, Arthur

Mr. Neil McBride.

NOES

Awdry, Daniel

Eyre, Reginald

McMaster, Stanley

Baker, W. H. K.

Farr, John

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Maddan, Martin

Batsford, Brian

Fortescue, Tim

Marten, Neil

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Foster, Sir John

Maude, Angus

Bell, Ronald

Gibson-Watt, David

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Bessell, Peter

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

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

Biffen, John

Glover, Sir Douglas

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Biggs-Davison, John

Goodhart, Philip

Monro, Hector

Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

Grant, Anthony

Montgomery, Fergus

Black, Sir Cyril

Grant-Ferris, R.

More, Jasper

Body, Richard

Cresham Cooke, R.

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Bossom, Sir Clive

Grieve, Percy

Neave, Airey

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Nott, John

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

Hall-Davis, A. C. F.

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Pardoe, John

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Buck, Antony (Colchester)

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Percival, Ian

Campbell, Gordon

Hastings, Stephen

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Carlisle, Mark

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Higgins, Terence L.

Prior, J. M. L.

Cary, Sir Robert

Holland, Philip

Pym, Francis

Cordle, John

Hornby, Richard

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Costain, A. P.

Howell, David (Guildford)

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Hunt, John

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Crosthwalte-Eyre, Sir Oliver

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Crouch, David

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Jones, Arthur (Northants, SO

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire, W.)

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Royle, Anthony

d'Avigdor-Goidtmid, Sir Henry

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

Drayson, G. B.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Sharpies, Richard

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

Sinclair, Sir George

Eden, Sir John

Lubbock, Eric

Summers, Sir Spencer

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

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Tapsell, Peter

Emery, Peter

Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

620

621

Temple, John M.

Webster, David

Woreley, Marcus

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Vickers, Dame Joan

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Wainwright, Richard (colne Valley)

winstanley, Dr. M. P.

Mr. Timothy Kitson and

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

Wait, Patrick

Woodnutt, Mark

Clause 4.—(MODIFICATION OR CLARIFICA TION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF PRICES AND INCOMES ACT 1966.)
Mr. Norman Atkinson: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 5, line 8, at the end to insert:
(5) Subsection (4) of section 16 of the Prices and Incomes Act 1966 shall cease to have effect.
Section 16 of the 1966 Act contains punitive provisions and states, among other things:
"If any trade union or other person takes, or threatens to take, any action, and in particular any action by way of taking part, or persuading others to take part, in a strike…he shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, and

(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine which, if the offender is not a body corporate, shall not exceed five hundred pounds."

The Amendment, if accepted, would remove those punitive provisions from the parent Act.
My hon. Friends and I propose this course because we were led to believe that this process of dismantling the compulsory powers applying to wages—the dismantling process announced by the Prime Minister and other Members of the Government—would take place. We were promised that, in Committee, the 1966 Act —and particularly Section 16—would be amended. Unfortunately we were not allowed to take part in the discussions in Committee. Nor have we seen any proposed change in the Measure to suggest that the promises made to the T.U.C. and other trade unionists—who had asked for these punitive provisions to be amended—are being kept. This is the first opportunity we have had to state our case and to explain why Section 16(4) should be removed.
These provisions are not only bad economics but are morally wrong and politically disastrous; and tonight I shall demonstrate why they should be removed. They have lost support for th.3 Labour movement—more so than any other part of the Measure—and while
622
the Government have said time and again that they will not use these powers, we want them removed once and for all.
These measures have been included for two reasons. The first, a simple one, has often been discussed here—that it used to be erroneously believed that clouting the trade unions was a vote winner. Five or six Members of the Cabinet, I understand, thought this, but it has been disproved, particularly by the local election results, and my party no longer believes that it has anything to commend it electorally. The party opposite have long advocated being tough with the unions, but I hope that they will do so no longer, and that the Leader of the Opposition, after his speech last week, will reflect that it is not an electoral winner; although, if they did continue in this vein, it would ensure our success.
There are other political lessons to be learned. One must be critical of the Government's case for these measures. The Cabinet do not have the "feel" of the grass roots of industry and opinion in the unions. Hon. Members opposite lack this totally and are largely irrelevant: I am speaking to my own comrades and my friends in the Government. They do not understand that the one issue which the lads in industry constantly fight for and discuss is the wages question. The wages of sin may be death, but the wages of the British worker are a very near second. These are the kind of jokes which dominate life in industry.
The Government's cold-handedness has got them into trouble with the unions, who find the situation produced by this legislation difficult to comprehend, because of the way the unions were born and injected into industry. People in industry try to measure the qualities of our mixed economy and recognise that people are honoured because they are successful profit-makers. The people in another place, the people with knighthoods and the people in the Birthday Honours List, are those who have been successful in making tremendous profits.
1.45 a.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I must remind the hon. Member that we are not on Second Reading but Report stage and he should confine his remarks to the Amendment.
Mr. Atkinson: Thank you for that observation, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to set the scene and point out why these measures are included in the Bill and to show why there is misunderstanding throughout the country. It is the basis of our case that workers in industry see success measured in terms of profitability. On the other hand, with great sadness in their hearts, the leaders of the working-class movement have supported policies which restrain wages. The one thing they see which is valued is profit and they compare this with the restraint on wages. That is why the bitterness exists, particularly when there is a Clause of this kind directed against trade unions. The Clause spells out in detail that this part of the legislation is concerned with trade unions and no other section of the community.
Experience over the past few months has proved that this is anti-trade union legislation, not because the Government are anti-trade union, but because wage negotiations are carried on collectively and organised by the trade unions. Of necessity this part of the Bill must be anti-trade union. My comrades in industry recognise this. Whatever methods are used to maintain the economy, they see the difference between stimulants given to industry and deterrents on wages. They see this written into the legislation. They know that to achieve economic success there must be stimulants given to the profit motive which is the motive force in industry, and they see deterrents to deter people from having much more than the Government believe to be the workers' share.
These are the values which exist in industry today and the reasons for the bitterness which is brought about when legislation of this kind is passed, particularly by a Labour Government. That is why we are concerned in the wage struggle to understand the grass-roots and the thinking in industry. It is noticeable that there is only one member of the Cabinet with any background in industry. That is the Minister of Labour. There is no one else, so far as I know, who
624
has a background of this sort and a feel of industry. I know that there is the Minister of Power, but he was a professional trade unionist and did not work with the tools. Something is missing and there is a failure to understand our case. That is why we attach such importance to our case.
There is a second and probably more complex reason why the Clause was included. Since 1964 the Government have established as a first priority the maintenance of the £. Having said that all these actions were related to maintaining the value of the £, we can see a little more clearly why we have these punitive measures. If my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) were invited to join the Cabinet, there would be an immediate run on the £. If they were pursuing the kind of policy which we have heard from them, there would be an immediate run on the £. It is fair to say that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It may be an interesting speculation, but it is hardly relevant to the Amendment.
Mr. Atkinson: I use that as an illustration. The purpose of the inclusion of this Clause was to satisfy financial interests which had a great interest in maintaining the value of the £.
Much has been written about what happened from the summer of 1965, when the present Foreign Secretary, then First Secretary of State, was negotiating with the T.U.C. and when the Government were also negotiating for additional support from American and European sources. Various members of the Government and one or two senior civil servants were commuting to the United States in an attempt to get some extra support for the £. The major discussion taking place was whether we should have an incomes policy with teeth in it. The Americans were then demanding that there must be teeth in the incomes policy. All this is common knowledge.
The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) was then telling the trade union leaders that he must have their agreement to the kind of incomes policy which we now have in order to get support from the Americans. Sufficient time has elapsed for these facts to be put on

625
record. We saw the birth of this policy, which every member of the Government was reluctant to accept. I am convinced that both the Prime Minister and the present Foreign Secretary fought tenaciously against the inclusion of measure5 of this kind in the Bill but their view was outweighed by the necessity to maintain the value of the £.
People in industry recognise this and understand why the Government decided to take the measures which they announced. Hon. Members who have signed the Amendment do not believe that we should ever have been in the position of having to bargain with the Americans in that way and of having to include such punitive measures. People in the factories understand the problems of imports and the balance of payments and the necessity for the Government to have a broadly based policy. They understand the meaning of deflation and of price regulation. They can see that a deflationary policy and the cutting back of imports mean a reduction of imports.
But in all this they resent the fact that a Labour Government have been forced to underwrite their policy by using measures of this kind, by threatening our people with tremendous fines and prosecutions. The resentment is there and that is why this policy will be defeated at the T.U.C. and at the annual conference of the Labour Party. People began to lose faith with the Government because the Government started to lose faith with our workers. One certainty is that one cannot seek voluntary co-operation with the Government by our people in terms of economic growth by threatening them with massive prosecutions. The Government say, of course, that they will never use this power, and we accept that. But the threat is always there, and we want it out of the Bill.
The way ahead is clear. It is the responsibility of the Government to announce to the country that they have confidence in the workers and the T.U.C. and its voluntary policy, believing that it will have some effect in bringing about economic recovery. This is an emotive subject but, in view of the time, I now ask the support of the House for this Amendment, which would take from the prices and incomes policy these terrible
626
punitive measures against our trade unions.
Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) wishes to remove from the 1966 Act the infringement on the right to strike —that is to say, the gross, punitive measures, as he calls them, imposed on trade unionists and others who strike in contravention of the Government's policy. He wishes to remove those measures, and so I do and all my right hon. and hon. Friends.
The interesting thing about this debate is that if he is really serious in his intention he could achieve his objective, for it is clear from the figures in the last Division that if he and his hon. Friends —ten or a dozen of them—are serious about this matter, they can achieve their objective. I hope that before we hear any more heart-throb speeches from that group on this matter, they will realise that it is deeds and not words which count in this. Perhaps they will take courage from what Mr. Frank Cousins did last year when the Prices and Incomes Act was going through. He sought to remove these powers from it and he had the courage of his convictions, for he voted. He did not merely abstain. That is a good tradition and one they might observe.
The First Secretary of State has suggested throughout these debates that he is moving from a period of terror, of iron grip, into a wider, ampler and better ether. This has been the burden of his speeches, the theme-song throughout, that we are gradually moving, perhaps rapidly moving, from the prison to the full flight of freedom, that we are in a transitional stage. One would have thought that the removal of the vitally important provision was a symbol of that progression. If the right hon. Gentleman believes in that progression, why does he not remove that symbol as an earnest of his intentions? It does not do him much good and we know from experience that he does not intend to use it.
2.0 a.m.
We have the example of the Long-bridge car delivery men who had an Order made against them. The car delivery men

627
came to an agreement with their employer a long time ago and the Government made an Order forbidding the implementation of that agreement to increase their wages. Presumably, the Government examined that agreement and decided that it did not come within the exceptions to the freeze or the period of severe restraint and was not a productivity agreement which could be allowed—or, otherwise, they would not have made an Order.
The Government having made an Order and the employers having observed it, the trade unions or other persons concerned clearly took action in the hope of persuading others—
"with a view to compel, induce or influence"
their employers to implement the award. Nobody disputes that. What did the Government do? Nothing. All they did was to say that they wanted evidence about the original agreement, and they have been asking for that evidence for weeks and months.
They must have known the facts of that agreement before they made the Order. Otherwise, it was a very tyrannical thing to do. They must have known months ago whether the agreement was a genuine productivity agreement, but they have delayed on the excuse that a genuine productivity agreement, but they wanted more evidence about whether it was, and these sanctions, these punitive measures which the hon. Member for Tottenham so rightly dislikes are a paper tiger, and if there is one thing worse than a proper tiger it is a paper tiger.
Great damage has been done to the law merely for the purposes of propaganda. This provision is mere propaganda. It is a sort of proclamation, an in terrorem, a façade with nothing behind it, because it is clear from their actions that the Government do not intend to use it. Why, then, do they leave it in the Bill? Why do they soil their immortal souls for a paper tiger? Why for such a tiny mess of potage do they go on putting in this retrospective provision, this punitive provision, bringing the law into great disrepute for very little advantage?
One could understand it if they were villians on a great scale, disfiguring the Statute Book with this sort of provision
628
for an object worth having, but in fact these objectives are tiny, they are phantoms and one cannot understand why the Government persist in this line of argument. It disfigures our Statute Book. It is a gross breach of a basic human right, the right to strike, and it is for very little purpose.
I hope that, since it is such a tremendous breach of this basic human right, which is protected by various conventions, international and otherwise, and enshrined in our law since the days of Disraeli, who introduced it in the great Administration of 1870, that it will not now be disfigured in this way. [Interruption.] I hope that those who seek to interrupt me will at least have the courage of their convictions and join us in the Lobby.
Mr. Michael Foot: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) began and ended his speech by saying that if those of us on this side of the House who had backed this Amendment were seriously sincere in our intentions we could prove it by voting for the Amendment at the end of the proceedings. That was a perfectly proper point and I will try to answer it at the end of my remarks.
As a first comment upon his speech, I was deeply touched by his suggestion that the Tory Party had always fought in the cause of trade unionism. I almost expected him to say at any moment that the original martyrs in the cause were all members of the Todpuddle Conservative and Unionism Association. He did not go as far as that, but he did suggest that he was deeply moved, on trade union grounds, and that he shared our views in that respect.
I agree with him in his appeal to the Minister and the Government. In his earlier replies to some of the Amendments the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that each of the Amendments would be considered by the Government on their merits, that they were eager to accommodate the proposals if they could. I would suggest that this is the Amendment which they could select for acceptance. If they do so it would be a graceful act, and one for which they would get quite considerable credit.
In views of the events of the last few days, it would be a great asset for

629
the Government if they were to accept the Amendment, because the suggestion has been made that there could possibly be permanent legislation along the lines of this Bill and that next August there might be another similar Bill introduced. The Government are eager to disabuse us of that impression, and nothing could prove it better than for them to make a concession of this character. They would show the country that, so far from wishing to continue and strengthen such legislation, they were proving by deeds their eagerness to remove the most offensive parts of this Bill from the Statute Book.
I hope that they will seriously answer our proposal and consider acceptance of the Amendment, both in our interest, in the country's interest, and in their own interest. It has been part of the Government's claim, and they have a case for it, that this Measure is weaker in many respects than last year's Bill. It represents a modification, or a retreat, from the previous Measure they say. No one could deny that. As the hon. and learned Gentleman put it, why not confirm the retreat by removing the punitive Clauses? It would be a very sensible course for the Government to take on every ground.
The Government may argue that in the debate of a year ago it was claimed that it was possible, under that Act, for trade unionists to be sent to prison. This has net happened, they will say, and will ask why should we be so afraid of the continuance of this Clause? They might say that the fears expressed by some of us in that debate have not been proved correct, and should not lead to a revival of fears on this occasion. But because the Act has not been operated or been invoked, or this part has not been resorted to against trade unionists in the last 12 months, does not mean that it might not be in future.
I remember discussions we had a year ago when Part IV was recommended partly on the ground that it was never likely to be introduced. That was the major argument presented to us; that was the long-stop. The whole suggestion in July last year was that Part IV was extremely unlikely ever to be operated. Precisely because it was not going to be operated, the Government thought the House should vote for it. Yet, against
630
all their prophecies and all the likelihood they seemed to suggest, Part IV was brought into operation. It is therefore not beyond the bounds of possibility that even these long-stop powers of penal action against trade unionists could be invoked.
I shall describe one of the reasons why that is conceivable. I do not wish to create scares. Many of us want to see this legislation removed from the Statute Book. We think it offensive that such Measures should be on the Statute Book and we would like them removed in any case. There are possibilities in which this power could be used. One of the most powerful arguments which the Government employ whenever we have a major debate on prices and incomes which I heard the Minister in charge of the Bill using in the debate yesterday, is that if we do not have this Bill with all its sanctions and paraphernalia we are in danger of a free-for-all which would involve injustice and a situation in which some selfish trade unions might be able to grab advantages over the others.
This is the primary case on which the Government present their plea for the Bill and command their major support. This case was put powerfully a year ago by the present Foreign Secretary and it is put equally powerfully by the Minister in charge of the Bill at present. But the Government never seem to understand that one of the implications of that case is that trade union officers and leaders who might be expected to put in claims for higher paid workers are required not to do so for a considerable time during the operation of the Bill, and maybe for a considerable time ahead. The whole case is that the minority who could get the advantage in this free-for-all must not do so.
If that is applied in practice to trade union officers and leaders in some areas where they could command higher wages they are required to do the exact opposite of what a trade union leader does. He has to spend his time telling his members the reasons why he should not put in wage claims. That is bound to happen and that is what has happened to some extent. It is the Government's grievance against Mr. Clive Jenkins to some extent that, they say, he is going ahead and fighting for the members of his union, which is almost a criminal offence. If it

631
is not a criminal offence, it is a very offensive attitude for him to take.
The Government may for a short time be able to sustain a situation where leaders and officers of trade unions are invoked by Government or patriotic appeals—call them what we will—to do something which is absolutely opposed to and in defiance of their nature as trade union officers, but the Government cannot do that for very long because people will not do it. What is to happen in those unions? What will happen in those unions which can claim higher wages? They will not stand for it. Because the officers of these unions must carry out the obligations to their own unions, and one of the obligations is to work for higher wages for their members.
2.15 a.m.
If the Government go on saying to them "You must not do that", what will occur? Either the leaders of those unions will be forced into an open clash with the Government, or they will lose members. Or they will find people will say, "It is not worth being a member of a trade union." They may have studied the debates which we have had in the House of Commons on these Orders, and they may say, "There is a positive disadvantage in being a member of a trade union, because one is more likely to be penalised by Orders issued by the Government than if one is outside a trade union". I do not think that anybody who has listened to the debates we have had on these Orders can deny that that is a possible situation.
So we have the situation that for the period of this Bill, for the next 12 months, the anguish which trade union officers have had to endure will be intensified. We are going to have a relaxation of the wages pause, we are going to have a 6 per cent. increase of wages, according to the Government's calculation, by the end of the year, and we are saying to certain trade unions that if they persist in pressing their demands outside the procedure laid down by the Bill they may get into trouble.
I admit that there are many operations to go through before we reach this result, but eventually we shall reach the situation that trade union officers engaged in their normal business of trying to campaign
632
and work for wage increases to which their members are entitled will come up against this Clause. If it is not possible for them to come up against it, the Clause is superfluous, but if it is possible for them to come up against it, it is more likely that that will happen in the next 12 months than it was likely to have happened in the last 12 months, precisely because we are to have a relaxation of the wages pause in certain spheres, and that will intensify the pressure on different trade unions to press forward with their wages demands, and they may be pressed in circumstances which are against the provisions laid down by the Government.
The Government may ask me, "What is your alternative?" If I were to try to answer that in this debate I should be out of order. Many of us, on other occasions, have sought to explain what are our alternative economic measures for dealing with the Government's very real dilemma. What we are saying about this Clause is that we do not accept that this is a tolerable alternative. We do not accept a provision which would impose an economic policy of this nature, with such sanctions as these. We do not accept this as being a tolerable alternative to the economic difficulties.
It is not merely that we think that this is opposed to Labour principles and Socialist principles, but, as I have tried to explain, because it will, in my belief, become increasingly unworkable, because the provisions of this Bill are fundamentally opposed to what is the natural instinct of trade unions and those who are conducting trade union business. For that reason, too, I think the Government, in their own interests, would be very wise to withdraw this subsection. It would be very satisfactory for the Government to know that there would be no possibility of any action having to be taken against any trade union leader in the next 12 months. If we got to the situation in which the Government had to take action against a trade union leader or officer we should be in a parlous state indeed.
It would be very much better that the Government should not have the temptation. If they were to remove it, they would get the credit for their generosity; they would get credit for having listened to the debate; they would get credit from us for having improved the Bill. And

633
as far as I can see, they would not suffer any disadvantage whatever, particularly as the Government have said that it is unlikely that there will be a resort to this kind of measure.
They can argue, of course—and this is the old long-stop argument in a different guise—that if they remove the deterrent, they do not know what the terrible trade unionists will get up to. But that cannot he argued successfully at the same time as they appeal for co-operation from the trade union movement. I do not think that the trade union movement itself would desire that such reserve powers should be kept for use against a so-called selfish minority among its numbers, but would prefer the powers to be wiped away altogether.
I come now to the point which has been made about the vote. It has been said that the vote is very narrow, and if those of us who have abstained on previous Amendments were to vote against the Government on this occasion, it might be that the Government would be defeated. I am not saying that there are not occasions when that would be the proper course, but I do not think that it would be on this occasion, and no one has the right to suggest that we are insincere in moving this Amendment if we do not follow that course.
I regard votes in this House as a serious matter. The way that an hon. Member votes is a test of him in the last resort. I understand that, and I do not wish to apologise for any vote in that sense. What those of us who move this Amendment wish to do is to change the policy of the Government. We do not want to change the Government. We do not want to remove a Labour Government. We do not want to put in the other lot. We want to change the policy of the Government and, with respect to the hon. and learned Member for Darwen, or even to his more distinguished or less distinguished leaders on the Front Bench, we may know better how to influence our Front Bench than they do. It may be that the very worst way to try and influence them to do anything would be to get into too guilty an association with hon. Gentlemen opposite. If we were to do so, we might destroy such influence as we have, and therefore—[Interruplion.] I have just been told that if I Went into the Government, it would cause
634
a run on the £. I have often wondered why it was that I was left out. Now I know the reason.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite may jeer at us and say that we have no influence, if they wish. Of course, we should like to have more influence than we have, but what we have the right to do, along with every other hon. Member, is to see how best, by associating with those of us who have similar views, we can exert our influence on the Government of the day. As hon. Members on all sides know, that is not a matter to be decided solely on the way in which people vote in one Division. It is a matter to be decided on how they vote over a large number of occasions and how they exercise such influence as they possess in different quarters.
I do not think that many hon. Gentlemen opposite have the right to accuse my hon. Friends and myself that we have been lacking in valour, to adopt the word which was used about the Leader of the House, in the way in which we vote in the House. We have a perfectly creditable record on these matters.
The very fact that this appeal has been made and that some of us will not be taunted into indiscretion or folly by hon. Gentlemen opposite should underline to the Government how slender is the ice on which they are skating with this Bill. It is true that their majority is getting smaller and smaller. I do not think that they have very strong backing from this side of the House either for the Measure as a whole or for this Clause.
I think that in the trade union movement they have even less backing for this Measure as a whole than for the Clause. I hope that the Government will draw some lessons from the debates of the last two nights and will recognise that they have not been able to prove the case for their economic policy as a whole.
Many of us bitterly opposed, and fiercely denounced, the measures which the Government introduced on 20th July last year, of which this is one of the children, to use the most polite phrase that will be used about it. Many of us prophesied what would be the result of those policies, and anyone who looks to see what has happened can see that our prophesies, rather than the Government's,

635
have tended to be confirmed over the last twelve months.
It may be too much to ask the Government to reconsider the whole Bill, but if, by deeds, they wish to assure the country that they wish to get this Bill, and this Clause, off the Statute Book as quickly as possible, they should get rid of this Clause tonight. This would be an assurance that they want to get rid of the whole Bill as soon as they can.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Like everyone else in the House, I have always regarded the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) as an effective and persuasive Parliamentarian. I particularly so regard him when he makes a speech with which I agree as to the greater part of it, but I was sorry—and I hope that he will take this from me with sincerity—that he devoted his great gifts to a very skilful argument in favour of the proposition that he and his hon. Friends should not carry the Amendment, and their powerful arguments for it, to what most hon. Members regard as the logical conclusion in the Division Lobby.
The hon. Gentleman said that he had other methods of influencing his right hon. Friend. It would perhaps be indiscreet to inquire too closely into what they are but they have not been very successful so far. And I say with great diffidence that the hon. Gentleman was guilty of an error in Parliamentary tactics when he made it quite clear, at this early stage of the proceedings, that under no circumstances was he prepared to back the Amendment in the Division Lobby.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's attitude about the Government being defeated, but if he wants concessions by the Government he enormously weakened his tactical position to apply pressure by announcing in advance that under no circumstances, however inadequate, or indeed however provocative, might be the reply, would he and his hon. Friends vote against the Government. It may be that he had decided he was not going to anyway, but it would have been wiser to have left the Government in a little doubt about this. Might that not have induced, as these situations do, as anyone who has served in the Government knows, a certain mood of conciliation? Might there not have been a hurried meeting in the little room behind the
636
Chair in which the Departmental Ministers would be induced to make a gesture? I thought that the hon. Gentleman was letting down a serious point by taking the line that he did.
Both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) talked a good deal of sense on the merits of the matter. I have always had the gravest doubts about the introduction of the criminal law into industrial negotiations. It has been tried but has hardly ever worked.
What puzzled me during the speech of the hon. Member for Tottenham was his rather lengthy reference to the Honours List. Left-Wing Governments tend to cause these to proliferate. The Prime Minister has created more peers than anybody in history in a comparable time, and it was, after all, the great Lloyd George whose creations caused the City of Cardiff to be known generally as the "City of Dreadful Knights".
2.30 a.m.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale made a fair point when he reproached my hon. Friends. I am not saying that I am necessarily in favour of softness in the legal treatment of trade unions. In all honesty and frankness I must say that, on the civil side, the immunity enjoyed by trade unions from action by a person aggrieved because of events occurring during a trade dispute is something that should be looked at. But this is different. This is not a question of the civil side of the law; it is a question of criminal penalties. It is not a question of putting trade unions in the position of everyone else. There is much to be said for that in civil law. This is a case of singling out trade unions for special and adverse treatment under the criminal law.
It is quite consistent for people, like me, who have often expressed grave doubts whether it is right that trade unions should be allowed to have privileges in civil litigation—which were rightly given to them when they were small and weak and poor sixty years ago but which sit rather ill on them today, when they are rich and powerful, and can sometimes do injustice to individuals who are denied their normal right of access to the courts—to say, on the other hand, that to single out trade unions, as the Government did last year, for worse treatment than other people

637
under the criminal law is wrong, and that the provisions that allows this should go, even though, on other occasions when we should be in order in doing so—though I doubt whether we should on this occasion—we may argue that their immunity, on the civil side, from persons aggrieved requires consideration.
What makes this so artificial is that it is conceded that there have been no cases. Does the First Secretary seriously expect that there will be any? If not, surely it is wrong to have this provision on the statute book. Surely it is wrong o have criminal penalties enacted if there is no reasonable likelihood of using Item? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that in a year's operation of this provision it has never been invoked, and will tell us whether he thinks there is the slightest possibility that he will need to invoke it during the currency of the present Measure.
Secondly, I should like to know whether, if this Clause continues to operate, it will affect hon. Members. Orders made under last year's Act are highly political in their effect. The right hon. Gentleman knows that my hon. Friends have voted against every Order that he has made. If outside the House hon. Members make speeches saying that it is absolutely monstrous that these Orders should have been made and a strike follows upon our speeches, will we be held to have taken steps to persuade others to take part in that strike? Is it really suggested that what in my view would be legitimate political action by hon. Members might involve them in criminal penalties? The right hon. End learned Attorney-General was in the Chamber earlier on, but he has now gone. The House should be clear on this point.
Let me come down to brass tacks. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I took a very strong line against what I regarded as the mean little Order that he made against the increase which the employers of the limb fitters at Roehampton—Messrs. Hangers—had agreed to give those men who do a vital job for the war disabled and other limbless. I took tie view—and I hold it still—that it was a mean, petty little Order, which had nothing to do with the national economy. I; the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that he could invoke the criminal law
638
against me if I said that in my own constituency in the neighbourhood of Roehampton and a strike followed? I make no pretence to great persuasive powers, but, on a case as good as that, it is at least possible that some of those concerned might be inclined to take action. In the particular case to which I have referred, I should deplore it, because of its consequences for the injured, but it could happen if one were to stress the attack which I then made, and still make, on the Government for their mean and shabby conduct.
Whether the right hon. Gentleman likes it or not, these are political issues. Every Order has been a political issue. The Opposition have firmly opposed them all. If we go on opposing them in speeches which attack the making of them as unfair and unjust, are we not at least getting near this subsection? Is it right that we should be exposed to that for expressing a legitimate view, a view which, moreover, is held by 90 per cent. of the country? Would speeches outside or even inside the House be within the scope of the criminal penalties? I put the question to the right hon. Gentleman, because it is a vivid illustration of the mess he gets into when he brings criminal penalties into the matter.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) pointed out that we have here an opportunity to take this provision out of last year's Act, thanks to the sensible action of the hon. Member for Tottenham and his hon. Friends in putting down the Amendment. This is a responsibility of the House. If hon. Members follow their views on the bare merits of the matter, there will be an overwhelming majority saying that it should be taken out. Hon. Members opposite, apparently, are not prepared to follow the logic of their argument to a conclusion. That is their business. But, if the right hon. Gentleman were to accept the Amendment, he would be giving way to the general view of the House and of the country, and he would be doing no more than taking off the Statute Book a provision which has never been invoked and which he will not say is ever likely to be invoked.
Nothing but obstinancy can cause the right hon. Gentleman to resist the Amendment. The Act was pushed

639
through last year without proper discussion, shoved through in the middle of the night, with its major part introduced in Committee. Those circumstances have already involved the right hon. Gentleman in embarrassment and difficulty. He now has the chance, at relative leisure, to look at one subsection of it. He does not need that subsection. Can he not rise above Departmental narrowness and personal obstinacy and take it out now?
Mr. Orme: It is twelve months since we debated the original Act and the provisions of Part II, which were never implemented because they were superseded by Part IV. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said that the Government had not used it; they have not been in a position to do so, and not until the end of this debate when Part II is activated for the first time will they be able to use it.
The debate on these provisions in the original Bill was led on this side by the then right hon. Member for Nuneaton, Mr. Frank Cousins. It was a memorable debate. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) was leading for the Opposition at the time. It was a rather unique debate; all the participants were from this side of the House but for the right hon. Gentleman, who made a small contribution, though I acknowledge that the Opposition voted against the Clause at the end. Mr. Cousins moved the deletion of the Clause. First and foremost, our objection was a moral one to this form of legislation, an objection in principle to legislation against trade unions as such. We believe that this is wrong. It is wrong that in a free, democratic society there should be punitive legal sanctions for what we consider to be the legitimate practice of trade unionists in obtaining better wages and conditions for their members. If we have to resort to this we are giving up one of the basic tenets for which we stand. We are not prepared to countenance it. So we opposed it on that occasion.
We were told then that the legislation would be implemented only in extreme circumstances. But we have seen what has happened in relation to Part IV. I remember a Minister telling me "We have had one Order. I think that per, haps we shall not now have any more
640
Orders, or at least it is hoped that we shall not have many more Orders." But we went on to have 14 Orders. In the end they were coming out like confetti. If it had not been for Mr. Clive Jenkins, who suddenly put a stop to it, we might have had more.
Mr. Jenkins was following legitimate trade union practice in going for wage increases for higher-paid workers, particularly justified in a society where one sees rewards going out in all sorts of ways. Why should not people who are using their hand and brain in the interests of increased productivity and our industrial effort get a fair return? I am not a member of Mr. Jenkins' union, and I know that he has been a thorn in the side of the Government, and I also know that he does not carry the full support of the trade union movement or the T.U.C., but I consider that he has been a very valuable instrument in opposing this legislation and in proving some of it to be bad legislation. He has played a very democratic part in our democratic society, and I think that we should acknowledge that. I do not agree on all aspects of policy with Mr. Jenkins, and perhaps in the finality of his conception of an incomes policy, but I think that on this issue credit should go to him and his union.
What worries me is that there is no saying that if we pass this legislation the Government might not see fit to try to take out the thorn in relation to implementing Section 16 of Part II against that union or its members. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) said that the Government would not use it. But we have no categorical assurance. If they are not going to use it, there is no need to have the provision and it can be deleted.
As we have said, this is a longstop. In relation to the incomes policy and the longstop, we had a most articulate and erudite explanation from my right hon. Friend last night about what was meant by "voluntary" and "fully voluntary". It would make good reading in Punch, but not in HANSARD. Either the system is completely voluntary, or it is not voluntary.
2.45 a.m.
If my right hon. Friend wants a voluntary system, let him say so and let the

641
Bill be framed accordingly. I recognise that we must not have a tree-for-all, but a voluntary system means that it must be completely voluntary, with the trade union movement accepting certain responsibilities. I assure the Government that the trade unions are aware of the nation's economic difficulties and the need to increase productivity. Nobody can accuse the British trade union movement of being irresponsible, certainly since the war. Indeed, in certain cases the unions might have used their power to get better wages and conditions for their members.
The T.U.C. is opposed to the implementation of Part II. This was made clear at the executives' conference. They expressed themselves against any further legislation along the lines of Part IV, and they are opposed to Part II. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said last night that this is a weaker form of the earlier legislation and that compulsory powers are fading out, but is this true? Part II is now considerably stronger compared with the legislation of July of last year, since the period of delay has been extended from four to seven months. This is, therefore, an even stronger Measure, backed by punitive provisions. It might he said to be weaker than Part IV, but that gave the Government unlimited power for a limited period of 12 months. As I have shown, this legislation is really stronger.
In the disagreements we had with the Government about the incomes policy, we really got bogged down on the question of punitive provisions. We had this out time and again with the First Secretary's predecessor, now the Foreign Secretary, and I repeat what we said then that the trade unions resent this type of legislation and are not prepared to accept it, from this or any other Government. With co-operation from our well-organised and highly sensible trade unions, the Government could obtain economic growth and development without these punitive provisions. Why threaten the unions in this minimal way? We have been challenged over voting, but few hon. Members opposite have acted as we have over our principles in this Parliament, but we will make up our own minds.
642
I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider the Clause. It will be a sticking point for the trade union movement and it will be returned to again and again: I will not be satisfied until it is deleted.
Mr. Higgins: This has been a fine debate and it is sad that it should be taking place at this time of the morning, when it will receive limited Press coverage. The Government have been "trigger-happy" in moving Closures of these debates, and I hope that if they do so on this occasion we shall have the support of hon. Members opposite.
The debate stems from one in Committee on 2nd August last year, when two Amendments were moved by the then right hon. Member for Nuneaton, Mr. Cousins, and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). Mr. Cousins said that the First Secretary, who is now the Foreign Secretary,
"… having repeatedly mentioned his associaton with my own organisation, will realise that this Clause must send shudders down the spine of all those trade unionists who read it. It makes a criminal offence of normal trade union action."
These words were echoed in the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), who used the expressions "bad economics", "morally wrong" and "politically disastrous". This is the Clause of the parent Act which hon. Members want to remove from the Bill and it is helpful to consider the Amendment in the light of last year's events.
Mr. Cousins last year said:
"I have very little hope that we shall get trade unionists to understand that if an employer refuses more money, and refuses under instruction from a Government, and they then get round to the stage of saying they will take action in the normal way, they would then be guilty of committing an offence punishable by law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 2nd August, 1966, c. 371, 374.]
But the Government have taken no action under these penal provisions. The Clause will be a temptation to them and there is no guarantee that they will not act under it. The Government are not retreating, as they said they would, from Part IV to Part II but are perpetuating Part IV, especially in this case.
Yesterday, I asked a Question about the Birmingham car delivery case. We

643
still do not know if the Government propose to do anything in that case, although the ostensible reason for including the Clause is in some sense an illusion. We believe, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) pointed out, that it is a paper tiger. Nonetheless we are opposed to these actions and this Clause in particular, because it is distasteful.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East said last year that we proposed to support Mr. Cousins and added:
"We dislike intensely these sections, the penalty on trade unions and all the impact of the Bill as a whole on employers and employees".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 2nd August, 1966; c. 375.]
It is abundantly clear to hon. Members that the reasons why we might go into the Lobby are considerably divergent. It would be wrong for us to suggest that we do not believe that there are radical needs for a reform of the law on trade unions. But we do not believe that this kind of legal action should be taken.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) pointed out that this brings in the criminal law rather than the civil law, and this makes a fundamental difference to the whole approach of the Government to the Bill. We realise that hon. Members opposite will make up their own minds on the Amendment, but they certainly oppose, as we oppose, the element of intimidation and compulsion. We feel that this is contradicting fundamental industrial relations and, for that reason, I hope that my hon. Friends will join me in the Division Lobby.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Stewart.
Mr. Mendelson: On a point of order. Several of us have been here since ten o'clock and have listened to the whole of the debate. It would be most unfair if we did not have an opportunity to speak on this major Amendment, which is the most important of all.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member will appreciate that that is not a point of order. The Chair does its best in selecting hon. Members who rise to take part in the debate.
Mr. M. Stewart: We should notice that the Amendment relates to what are described as the penal sections not merely of Part IV or in relation to the Bill. It would have been possible to frame an Amendment saying that any actions of this kind arising out of any standstill powers in the Bill should not have penal sanctions applied to them. But the Amendment goes wider than that and we must discuss it on the understanding that we are not now simply concerned with the special provisions of the Bill and Part IV. We are concerned with a proposal that the penal section of Part II should disappear permanently. I want to make clear what is at issue.
It should also be made clear that the Government are moving from a position of greater legal powers to a position of lesser legal powers. I do not think that that can be seriously disputed. The point of the Amendment is that even if there were no Part IV or lesser powers in the Bill, the supporters of the Amendment would still object to the existence of the penal Clause in Part II.
Let us analyse what Part II does. It provides for a standstill for a lesser period than was provided for and solely for the purpose of having the facts of the matter brought in for examination by the Prices and Incomes Board. The principle in Part II is very much more limited than that of Part IV. This is a process of asking the parties to halt while the whole question is examined. Moreover, if people hold a wage increase for that very limited period and for that purpose, there is nothing in Part II to prevent them from getting the pay retrospectively after the standstill is over.
3.0 a.m.
One should therefore notice the very limited and circumscribed position of the powers under Part II. It is entirely open to hon. Members to say that despite the limited nature of Part II they do not believe that for that period—even for that limited period—and even with the possibility of retrospective payment thereafter, there ought to be even that temporary standstill on wages in any circumstances at all. But that does not seem to me to be a reasonable position to take up in all circumstances.
Further, Part II can never be in existence unless the House by affirmative Resolution has brought it into existence,

645
and once that has been done, it can exist only for a maximum of 12 months. I stress how limited the whole situation is. For these penal Clauses to come into action, the House must have decided that it is legitimate to activate Part II—and that cannot be done for an unlimited period but only for a maximum of 12 months at once. Even when that is done, it is still possible to impose the standstill only for the limited period and for this limited purpose.
If a standstill comes into existence in these special circumstances we might have this position: an employer has been precluded by law from paying a wage increase for this limited period. If the Amendment were passed the employer would be precluded by law from paying the increase, but people who took strike action against him in order to try to compel him to do something which he could not do without breaking the law could do so with impunity. I state that because it seems to me that if we accept the proposition that it is reasonable to have a standstill in the first place, then I do not think it can be maintained that it is reasonable to put an employer in that position.
The argument for the Amendment, therefore, must be that it is wrong, even for the limited period and the limited time of Part II, to have a standstill at all. I do not believe that a difference of opinion on the question whether it should ever be right to have a standstill for this limited time and purpose can be regarded as a fundamental difference in principle about the rights of trade unions. This is a difference on a matter of judgment as to the management of the prices and incomes policy.
Mr. Biffen: What would be the position of trade unionists who struck to persuade employers to make a retrospective wage increase after the period of standstill has expired? The strike takes place during the period of standstill, the demand being that the retrospective payment should operate at the end of the period of standstill.
Mr. Stewart: It is clear that they were not trying to induce the employer to break the order, and therefore they would not be committing a criminal offence. That is fairly plain. I think that a certain degree of obstinacy must
646
be encountered on both sides—employer and trade union—before a situation of that kind could conceivably arise.
I have been asked what is the likelihood that this power would be used at all. The Government as such have some influence on the extent to which this power might come into play in so far as it is they who decide what orders to make. It is not, of course, the Government who decide whether in any particular case a prosecution should be launched. That, as always, is not a matter for the Government but for the Attorney-General acting in his judicial capacity. The influence of the Government in the matter lies simply in the orders they make.
The Government have demonstrated throughout the currency of Part IV that they do not make orders recklessly. I further assert that, during such time as Part II is in force, they will exercise similar caution and commonsense in any orders they may make.
The question of the use of this power comes down to this: One first has to accept that the situation has so developed that Parliament approves the activation of Part II. Then the Government have to decide that, in the exercise of their powers under Part II, they will make certain orders. Then one has further to suppose that, all this having happened, some group of people tries to compel an employer to break the law, to do something that the order forbids. One must further suppose that, the facts having been drawn to his attention, the Attorney-General considers it right to launch a prosecution.
Having loked at all these steps, the reply I give to the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and to those of my hon. Friends who raised this matter, is that it is extremely unlikely that this power would be used—extremely unlikely. I am then asked, "Then why have it in at all?". But the House frequently passes laws containing certain provisions about which one could say that it was extremely unlikely that anyone would so behave that they would be held to be in breach of the law. We never pass laws which say that people who break them will not be liable to any penalty. I hope that the House will not regard this as a flippant example, but some years

647
ago we passed a Statute requiring the directors of the Tate Gallery to do certain things and in my innocence, not being a lawyer, seeing that there did not appear to be a penal clause, I asked what would happen if they did not do these things. I was assured that they would be guilty of a misdemeanour in common law and might be sent to prison for two years. Of course, this was highly unlikely to happen.
It is highly unlikely to happen in this case but it would be impossible for any Government in any Statute to say, "Here is something required by law but we undertake in advance that literally in no circumstances whatever will anyone be prosecuted." That would not be a enable position. For the reasons I have advanced it is extremely unlikely that such a situation would arise in this case. The Government, by the exercise of their order making power, would always endeavour to ensure that they did not behave in a provocative and silly manner.
Mr. Mikardo: One can understand that there must be circumstances in which the Government must legislate for the odd, exceptional case. But does my right hon. Friend think it worth while to do that when the legislation that might never be used is so offensive to a very large section of the community that it destroys the possibility of the voluntary co-operation that the Government want? Is the game worth the candle in this case?
Mr. Stewart: Clearly, on a matter of fact, my hon. Friend is wrong. The trade union movement has made it perfectly clear, that despite its differences with the Government about what statutory powers there ought to be, it does not regard those differences as a reason for refusing voluntary co-operation. That has been made clear over and over again.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames raised what I am bound to regard as the bogey of hon. Members who oppose these Orders, possibly in violent language, not in the House, being subsequently prosecuted. The right hon. Gentleman is a distinguished lawyer and will surely accept that there is an enormous difference of principle between saying that this is a bad, unjust, wicked law and inciting people to break it. If
648
there is not that distinction, then a great deal of what we call democracy is in peril, because one of the basic ideas of a State which proceeds according to the rule of law in anything approaching democracy is that citizens should be prepared to say, "We obey the law and do not incite people to break the law made by a democratically elected Parliament, but we reserve our right to say that we think that this is a scandalous law and we will rouse public opinion to get it changed in the proper constitutional manner."
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: What the right hon. Gentleman has just stated is impeccable. What is in issue is its applicability to this provision—
"or persuade others to take part in a strike".
If an hon. Member makes a speech deeply critical of one of these Orders and does so in an area where the employees concerned live and a strike follows, including among those taking part people who have listened to that speech, might it not be said that he had persuaded them to take part in that strike?
The right hon. Gentleman said that prosecutions would take place only on the authorisation of the Attorney-General. Will he confirm that that is so under this provision?
Mr. Stewart: Yes. Prosecutions under this provision require the consent of the Attorney-General.
I must remind the House how wildly hypothetical we are now getting. For a prosecution to succeeed, it would have to be shown that the person making the speech was at the very least persuading. To say, "I regard this as a scandalous law" cannot reasonably be held to be the same thing as, "I urge or persuade you to break it". The two propositions are not the same. [Interruption.] Surely my hon. Friends accept that. Were there not many instances during the years of Tory Government when we said at meetings that we regarded this, that or the other law as infamous? Could it be said that on each occasion when we did that we were deliberately inciting people to break the law? I do not think that that can be so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) mentioned the Education Acts. This was some long

649
time ago, but the people there concerned did what they did deliberately, knowing, and making no bones about it, that they were persuading. My hon. Friend was concerned simply about people making a speech to say that this was a bad law and being told afterwards that they were inciting others to break it.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman keeps referring to a bad law. The law is not at issue. What is at issue is a bad individual action of the Government in making a particular Order. That is very different.
Mr. Stewart: That is quite right. I should have said a bad Order, but the point is the same. The Order would have the force of law, but there is an enormous difference between saying that it is a bad Order which ought not to have been made and persuading people to break it.
3.15 a.m.
There must be a difference between being able to express one's opinion as to whether a law is good or bad, and persuading people to break it. If my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) has any doubt about this, is he to maintain that saying that the law is bad is the same as persuading people to break it? If he persuades people that this is true he will put a large number of his hon. Friends in danger for speeches that they have made during the years of Tory government. The two things are not the same. I must dismiss the bogey conjured up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod).
Mr. John Lee: My right hon. Friend still has not got the point. Is it not a fact that the wording of this section is so widely drawn that the use of the words "compel, induce or influence" provides for the inclusion of even the most mild form of persuasion to be brought within its purview?
Mr. Stewart: No, because all those words follow after taking action that is intended to have that effect. There must be the intention to put the employer in a position where he has to break the law. We need not pursue this point further, because it is common ground that the circumstances in which any prosecution could arise are very few indeed. The House wants to be assured of that. What I cannot accept is the further argument that because the circumstances are very
650
few, no penal sanction should be there at all. That is not a proposition that one could accept in the making of a law. We make a great many laws and we hope and expect that the number of occasions when they will be broken and when criminal prosecutions will follow, will be very small. We should not say that for that reason we should make laws without penal sanctions.
I want to take up the wider issue of principle involved in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), who moved this Amendment. He said that Government policy was to provide stimulants for people who make profits, and deterrents for wage earners. That is a totally incomplete picture. One of the things that we have sought to encourage by the prices and incomes policy is the promotion of productivity agreements. This is one example of a clear stimulant to people who earn their living by wages and salaries.
Mr. Mikardo: It should be in the Bill.
Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is a good enough Parliamentarian to know that a thing can be of full force in a Bill even if one has to dig out in the Schedule the reference to it. He will know that in an Act regulating the form of worship in the Church of England the whole of the Book of Common Prayer is a Schedule to the Act.
Mr. Mikardo: May I give my right hon. Friend the most categorical assurance that I did not know that.
Mr. Stewart: The number of interesting things that we learn from one another during these debates is quite remarkable.
The reason why last night we rejected the Amendment about productivity agreements was that there is already in the Bill, via the Schedule, a part encouraging productivity agreements. Last night's Amendments would actually, although the movers did not realise it, have circumscribed the Minister's powers to promote productivity agreements.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must keep to this Amendment.
Mr. Stewart: I beg your pardon. I was taking up an interjection by my hon. Friend. This matter arose from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for

651
Tottenham, who said that we were providing nothing but deterrents for workers, and stimulants for those who made profits. I was saying that part of the nature of the prices and incomes policy is to point continually to the connection between increased productivity and the possibility of increasing real wages through increased productivity. This is a stimulant. In general my hon. Friend tried to argue that the Government's approach to wages was wholly oppressive. What I think he has not noticed is that what matters in the end to wage-earners is real wages rather than money wages. What matters to all people who have incomes is the real purchasing value of those incomes and not the amount in pounds, shillings and pence. One purpose of having a prices and incomes policy is to protect the level of real wages.
My hon. Friend presented what I am bound to regard as a fascinating but inventive story of bargains between this Government and foreign Governments about what is to be in the statute. We need not pay much attention to that; it belongs to the astrology column. It must be apparent to any Government that the health of its economy and the strength of its currency are closely bound up with the relation between two things—the growth of its real wealth and the growth of its money incomes. If the latter outstrips the former seriously, real trouble will arise which will affect everybody.
The aim of this policy is not as my hon. Friend seemed to think, to repress wages, but to get that correspondence between money income and the growth of real wealth on which everyone's prosperity depends. All aspects of the matter, including the one we are debating, have to be considered with that in mind. I ask the House to notice that the nature of this Amendment—which relates not simply to this Bill or Part IV but to Part II of the statute—is such that it would remove a penal sanction which, if the circumstances in which we had Part II and Orders made thereunder had arisen, it would then be not unreasonable to have and which should not give rise on any reasonable interpretation of events to the rather alarmist pictures which have been sketched on both sides of the House. That is both the common sense of the
652
matter and, I think, the lesson of the experience during the time that Part IV has been in operation.
Mr. Mendelson: I intervene in this debate to refer to the point which is involved and which is of great concern, particularly to those who represent constituencies in which there are large numbers of trade unionists. My right hon. Friend, in the speech he has just made, has given those of us who are called to speak after him an opportunity to concentrate heavily on the decisive points in his arguments. Before doing so, I wish to say how very pleased I am that the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) in his contribution made the assertion that he was in favour of serious amendments of the law which would deal with trade unions.
We are debating tonight the introduction in this Bill of the same principle that was applicable to the earlier legislation and many objections are being raised to it. I suggest that we must concentrate clearly on the actual provisions. In general accusations of this Government being concerned to circumscribe the activities of trade unions would be beside the point. I leave that by merely saying that I have far greater fear of the plans in the minds of the right hon. Member and of the Leader of the Opposition, judging by past performance of the party opposite and what they want to do with the trade union movement, than any fear I have of the plans of the First Secretary of State for Economic Affairs. I think that is very important and should not be overlooked when we have these high-flown speeches from the other side.
My right hon. Friend concentrated on the actual provision to which many of my hon. Friends object, but I think he underestimated the strength of feeling at the present time in the trade union movement on the application of the criminal law to trade unionists who are in pursuit of ordinary trade union activities. I do not believe this point has been made in just those words in the debate so far.
We are not dealing here, as my right hon. Friend well knows, with borderline activities which have been subject to the criminal law for a long time—for instance, how people behave in a picket

653
line. I need not labour the point because most hon. Members have had experience of the problems which arise during a strike. What we are dealing with here is the application of the criminal law for the first time for many years to industrial relations and industrial legislation and to what are normally perfectly legal industrial activities. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames referred to many aspects of this.
But the first case we have to consider is one which has nothing to do with politics, nothing to do with divisions between various parties of Members of the House of Commons. What the Bill seeks to make illegal is the attempt by a group of workmen to persuade their employer to adopt a different course on a wage bargain. This is by far the most serious aspect of this part of the legislation, and, as I understand it, that is the main burden of my hon. Friend's argument in seeking to delete it by his Amendment. To this point my right hon. Friend has given no reply at all.
Nor do I believe that he was accurate in his assessment of trade union opinion on this matter when he replied to a point made previously by my hon. Friend who, he said categorically, was wrong in his assessment of trade union opinion.
Mr. Mikardo: Of course, my right hon. Friend completely misunderstood my intervention. He may get members of the General Council not to object to the Clause, but the point is that the first time any trade union leader is proceeded against under the Clause—and my guess is that none will pay a fine, and that will put the Attorney-General on the spot a; to whether to put him in prison—the first time a trade union leader or a shop steward is put in prison under this, the Government's policy has gone for a Burton.
Mr. Mendelson: That is precisely the pint. That was the vital import of the intervention.
Mr. M. Stewart: The intervention which my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) has made now, although a very interesting one, is quite a different one from the one he made in my speech.
Mr. Mendelson: I think we will have to leave to HANSARD and history the accuracy of that particular statement, but let us take my hon. Friend's intervention as he has now made it. Maybe it is the mark 2 version of his original intervention. Let us take the last form of the intervention, and take it as the basis for debate.
If we take it in this way, then the point which my right hon. Friend and the Government have failed to face so far is this. It is all very well to say they hope this legislation will never have to be used, particularly all these stages which have to be gone through, but there is here a major difference between Part IV and this Bill. Part IV was meant to apply a general standstill for a period of immediate emergency. Here we have a position where there are going to be value judgments given as to what is a reasonable claim. It will not be a simple matter of saying that no claims can be allowed. It will be a matter where passions may be aroused, particularly as we move out of the period of standstill and the period of severe restraint. Groups of workpeople may be convinced that, having waited so long, their claim is one which is fully justified, and they may, therefore, easily come to the conclusion that they are entitled to apply ordinary methods of persuasion to their employers.
3.30 a.m.
What my right hon. Friend has failed to reply to is the profoundly important point that arises. If such groups of work people are trying to persuade their employers and, as so often happens in the course of conversation across a table, they mention that they are so convinced that their claim is right that, unless agreement is reached, there might be enough feeling among the men whom they represent for strike action to be decided upon, will my right hon. Friend apply the law and say that a criminal offence is being committed under this Clause? It is important for us who represent many trade unionists and work people in our constituencies to worry about this much more than the point which worries the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. We have little concern for the position of Members of Parliament. They can look after themselves.
What we have reason to inquire into before the legislation is passed is whether

655
this Clause, without the Amendment, would not seriously endanger considerable numbers of work people who are acting quite innocently and in the belief that they are pursuing normal negotiations with their employers. It is to this point that no reply has been given. Because no reply has been given, it is all the more essential that the Government should accept this Amendment.
Mr. Biffen: If the House of Commons were an educational establishment, one might reasonably call this discussion "The Frank Cousins Memorial Debate". It is almost exactly a year ago that precisely this Amendment to delete Section 4 was moved in Standing Committee on the Prices and Incomes Bill, at six o'clock in the morning of 2nd August—
Sir D. Glover: Another two and a half hours.
Mr. Biffen: It is not for me to say how long it will go, but my contribution will not be long.
The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) made some comment which I thought was slightly disparaging to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) about the nature of any penal legislation which might flow from Tory Party policy. However, in moving precisely this Amendment, Mr. Frank Cousins said a year ago:
"I would suggest that this is likely to do more damage to the relationship between … trade unionists and their employers, than anything that has happened in my lifetime, inclunding the 1926 Act."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, Standing Committee B, 2nd August, 1966; c. 374.]
I believe that those words are the most formidable indictment of the significance of the legislation which the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) is seeking to delete by his Amendment.
There is no doubt that, when it was first ventilated a year ago, it was in the context that it will never be used. Indeed, a year ago the proposition was that Part II was never likely to be invoked, and again one needs no more evidence than the remarks of Mr. Frank Cousins during that debate, when he said:
"It is a nice sounding phrase that says 'I do not intend to put Part II into effect. I hope the voluntary system will work', but the auto-
656
matic response is What if it does not work?'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 2nd August, 1966; c. 373.]
We know that the culmination of tonight's debate will be an Order invoking Part II of the prices and incomes legislation. The fear is that there is an element of drug addiction on the part of the Treasury Bench, and that right hon. Gentlemen opposite have been hooked into some form of continuing intervention. Although the argument may be that the Amendment is not necessary because the Order will lapse after twelve months, bearing in mind the experience of the last twelve months, does anyone doubt that there will be another Bill twelve months from now?
The third point which I would like to make is one which has been made several times. It relates to the sheer practicability of the legislation. A number of hon. Members have made the point that the legislation is very loosely drawn. These arguments were made last year. Between last year and today we have had the experience and advantage of seeing what Mr. Clive Jenkins and a bevy of lawyers can do to ill-drafted legislation. This should be a constant warning and reminder to the House that, for the sake of its own good name and reputation, it should ensure that the legislation it passes can stand the test of examination in the courts. If it cannot, it should not be proceeded with, and the Amendment seeks to delete a thoroughly ill-drafted piece of legislation.
The hon. Gentleman has an obligation on two counts. First, if the Amendment is not pressed to a Division, and he does not vote with us, there is a likelihood that this indifferent legislation will go through and remain on the Statute Book, to the discredit of Parliament. Secondly, this is not so much a paper tiger, with respect to my hon. Friends, as a potential Trotskyites' charter which will undermine every responsible trade union leader, and place a tremendous power in the hands of every shop floor agitator. It is wrong to say that employers may be at some marginal disadvantage if the Amendment is passed. If the Amendment is passed, it will curb the activities of shop floor wreckers, and I hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. George H. Perry), who, on an identical Amendment moved twelve months ago, was prepared to march through the Lobbies with the Tory Party,

657
at least vocally, as it was in Committee upstairs, will take the stand that he did then, because nothing that has happened since then can convince him that the Government have moved towards the position advocated by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot).
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is the doyen of radicals, corrosive in debate, charming in style, but without a formidable record when it comes to the use of power and influence. Have the Government really moved so much towards his position that he can advise his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South to behave in a totally different way this evening from what he nobly did twelve months ago?
Mr. Robert Carr: I am sorry if I am in any way keeping out some hon. Members opposite. It is difficult for me to comment on this. Patronage Secretaries of all parties and Governments sometimes take on a suspicious look, and I had a feeling that unless .I stake my claim to wind up at the Dispatch Box now I might be too late. I hope that hon. Members opposite will realise that I have not kept them out.
We cannot let the debate come to an end without protesting strongly at the nature of the reply which we have had from the First Secretary. At one time, towards the end, his speech degenerated into a general knowledge class. After the first few moments of his speech I could not help wondering whether he had not got his brief mixed up. It seemed to have nothing to do with the substance of the Amendment.
In his opening remarks he addressed himself to the Amendment. His argument seemed to be designed to stress how limited were the powers in Part II of the 1966 Act. The only conclusion that we could draw from that was that the First Secretary was telling the House, "A heavy penalty is less heavy if it is applied to a less heavy offence." The only argument of substance that he adduced for resisting the Amendment concerned the employer being protected by law from paying an increase and being subject to pressure by a strike or a threat of a strike from his employees. He said that such an employer needed some protection in that respect. But is this a real
658
protection? As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) said earlier, the Government are paying lip service to fairness. It is only a paper tiger. It is not a real protection. As the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) said, if the Government ever used this power the balloon would go up and the whole policy would collapse. The Government's argument about fairness is a purely theoretical one, which has no practical bearing on the case. The provision does not give any real protection or sense of fairness to employers. It is hypocritical lip service to the idea of fairness.
The remarkable thing about the provision which the Amendments seeks to remove is that it is in Part II of last year's Act, and not Part IV. We are told—and this is the Government's whole case—that the compulsory stage is a temporary one, and the new stage into which the Bill takes us is a move towards voluntary system. But is it, when it has a Clause like this in it? Is it a move towards a voluntary policy when it has a Clause imposing criminal sanctions on trade unionists for doing what several hon. Members opposite have pointed out are in the normal course of a trade unionist's functions and duties to do. How can it create the feeling that we are moving into a voluntary system when we are asked to pass a law which has this criminal sanction in it in respect of trade unionists?
I am sure that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) was right when he said that the Clause is contrary to the whole spirit as well as the practice of the trade union movement. That movement and a Measure with this Clause in it cannot live together for long. One must go. Here is a cardinal example of what hon. Members on this side of the House—and many hon. Members opposite—have been pointing out to the Government, in the Second Reading debate and on various Amendments and Clauses in Committee and on Report.
The Bill is phoney. We have either to have more compulsion than the Bill provides for, or less. The Government claim, in a wishy-washy way, that they are moving towards this stage. I cannot believe it when they refuse to accept the Amendment.

659
3.45 a.m.
The hon. Member for Tottenham said that "being tough with the trade unions" had at first been thought to be an electoral asset and had now been found not to be, and he went on to say that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was making the same mistake because, in a recent speech, he proposed that we should "get tough" with the trade unions. But, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) pointed out, there is all the difference in the world between imposing criminal sanctions and penalties on trade unionists for doing what is not only their legal but their natural job and saying, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition did, that one should have a reasonable framework of law and civil liability within which to operate.
Mr. Mendelson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that, when his party was in Government, several schemes were canvassed which were intended to circumscribe and limit by law the actions of trade unions in their normal industrial relations and in pursuit of their normal industrial activities? My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham was referring to that.
Mr. Carr: We cannot debate it now, but that certainly was not what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was recommending in the speech to which
reference has been made. Hon. Members must realise that, if they do not accept the position under the Bill—and we support them in that—there must be an alternative to it. We believe that the sort of alternatives to which my right hon. Friend referred in that speech are coming more and more clearly to be seen as the only practical ones to which we must turn. It is not contrary to freedom to have to operate within a framework of law and to be subject to normal civil liabilities. But it is contrary to freedom to have the policy of this Bill backed by these penal sanctions. This is why we shall on no account support legislation which contains a provision of this kind and why we shall vote against the Government on it.
Even at this late stage, I ask the First Secretary of State to think again about it and, at least, to respond to his hon. Friends in something more like the spirit in which they have appealed to him. If ever there was truth in what the hon. Member for Tottenham said about having no feeling for what happens on the shop floor, it was demonstrated by the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
Mr. John Silkin Mr. John Silkin rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 139, Noes 111.

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Price, William (Rugby)

Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

Maclennan, Robert

Rankin, John

Thornton, Ernest

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

Rees, Merlyn

Tinn, dames

Molloy, William

Reynolds, G. W.

Tuck, Raphael

Moonman, Eric

Richard, Ivor

Varley, Eric G.

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

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

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

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

Walden, Brian (All Saints)

Moyle, Roland

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

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

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Watkins, David (Consett)

Ogden, Eric

Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

Whitaker, Ben

O'Malley, Brian

Sheldon, Robert

Whitlock, William

Oram, Albert E.

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

Oswald, Thomas

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Palmer, Arthur

Skeffington, Arthur

Winnick, David

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Small, William

Yates, Victor

Pavitt, Laurence

Snow, Julian

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

Taverne, Dick

Mr. W. Howie and Mr. Alan Fitch.

Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

NOES

Awdry, Daniel

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Montgomery, Fergus

Baker, W. H. K.

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E).

More, Jasper

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Glover, Sir Douglas

Neave, Airey

Batsford, Brian

Goodhart, Philip

Nott, John

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Grant, Anthony

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Ben, Ronald

Grant-Ferris, R.

Pardoe, John

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Gresham Cooke, R.

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Bessell, Peter

Grieve, Percy

Percival, Ian

Biffen, John

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Biggs-Davison, John

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Prior, J. M. L.

Black, Sir Cyril

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Pym, Francis

Body, Richard

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Bossom, Sir Clive

Hastings, Stephen

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

Higgins, Terence L.

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Holland, Philip

Royle, Anthony

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Hornby, Richard

Sharpies, Richard

Buck, Antony (Colchester)

Howell, David (Guildford)

Sinclair, Sir George

Campbell, Gordon

Hunt, John

Summers, Sir Spencer

Carlisle, Mark

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Tapsell, Peter

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Cary, Sir Robert

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Temple, John M.

Cordle, John

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Costain, A. P.

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Crosthwalte-Eyre, Sir Oliver

Kitson, Timothy

Wall, Patrick

Crouch, David

Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

Weatherill, Bernard

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lubbock, Erie

Webster, David

Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Drayson, G. B.

McMaster, Stanley

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

woodnutt, Mark

Eden, Sir John

Maddan, Martin

Worsley, Marcus

Emery, Peter

Marten, Neil

Farr, John

Maude, Angus

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Fortescue, Tim

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

Mr. R. W. Elliott and

Faster, Sir John

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Mr. Reginald Eyre.

Gibson-Watt, David

Monro, Hector

Question put accordingly, That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill:—

Division No. 447.]

AYES

[3.58 a.m.

Awdry, Daniel

Body, Richard

Costain, A. P.

Baker, W. H. K.

Bossom, Sir Clive

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Crouch, David

Batsford, Brian

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

Dalkeith, Earl of

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Davidson, James(Aberdeenshlre,W.)

Bell, Ronald

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Buck, Antony (Colchester)

Drayson, G. B.

Bessell, Peter

Campbell, Gordon

du Cann, Rt. Hn, Edward

Biffen, John

Carlisle, Mark

Eden, Sir John

Biggs-Davison, John

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Emery, Peter

Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

Cary, Sir Robert

Eyre, Reginald

Black, Sir Cyril

Cordis, John

Farr, John

The House divided: Ayes 111, Noes 138.

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Fortescue, Tim

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Foster, Sir John

Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Gibson-Watt, David

Lubbock, Eric

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Royle, Anthony

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

Sharpies, Richard

Glover, Sir Douglas

McMaster, Stanley

Sinclair, Sir George

Goodhart, Philip

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Summers, Sir Spencer

Grant, Anthony

Maddan, Martin

Tapsell, Peter

Grant-Ferris, ft.

Marten, Neil

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Gresham Cooke, R,

Maude, Angus

Temple, John M.

Grieve, Percy

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Hall, John (Wycombe)

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

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Wall, Patrick

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Monro, Hector

Weatherill, Bernard

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Montgomery, Fergus

Webster, David

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

More, Jasper

Whltelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Hastings, Stephen

Neave, Airey

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Nott, John

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Higgins, Terence L.

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Woodnutt, Mark

Holland, Philip

Pardoe, John

Worsley,' Marcus

Hornby, Richard

Pearson, Sir Frank (Ctitheroe)

Howell, David (Guildford)

Percival, Ian

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hunt, John

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Mr. R. W. Elliott and

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Prior, J. M. L.

Mr. Timothy Kitson.

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Pym, Francis

NOES

Anderson, Donald

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Palmer, Arthur

Archer, Peter

Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles

Armstrong, Ernest

Hamling, William

Pavitt, Laurence

Ashley, Jack

Hannan, William

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Barnett, Joel

Harper, Joseph

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

Bence, Cyril

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Haseldine, Norman

Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Hattersley, Roy

Price, William (Rugby)

Bishop, E. S.

Hazell, Bert

Rankin, John

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Rees, Merlyn

Boston, Terence

Hilton, W. S.

Reynolds, G. W.

Boyden, James

Hooley, Frank

Richard, Ivor

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Huckfield, L.

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

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

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

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

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

Hunter, Adam

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

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

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Cant, R. B.

Johnson, Carol (Lew-sham. S.)

Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

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

Sheldon, Robert

Chapman, Donald

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Coe, Denis

Jones,Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(W.Ham.S.)

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Concannon, J, D.

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Skeffington, Arthur

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

Small, William

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Leadbitter, Ted

Snow, Julian

Dalyell, Tarn

Ledger, Ron

Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Taverne, Dick

Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

Luard, Evan

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

Davies, Ifor (Conway)

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Thornton, Ernest

Delargy, Hugh

McBride, Neil

Tinn, James

Dewar, Donald

McCann, John

Tuck, Raphael

Dobson, Ray

Macdonald, A. H.

Varley, Eric G.

Dunnett, Jack

McKay, Mrs. Margaret

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Eadie, Alex

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Walden, Brian (All Saints)

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Maclennan, Robert

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Ensor, David

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Watkins, David (Consett)

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

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

Whitaker, Ben

Faulds, Andrew

Molloy, William

Whitlock, William

Ford, Ben

Moonman, Eric

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

Forrester, John

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Freeson, Reginald

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Gardner, Tony

Moyle, Roland

Winnick, David

Ginsburg, David

Noel-BakerRt.Hn.Philip(Oerby,S.)

Yates, Victor

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

Ogden, Eric

Gourlay, Harry

O'Malley, Brian

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Oram, Albert E.

Mr. W. Howie and Mr. Alan Fitch.

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Oswald, Thomas

Gregory, Arnold

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Mr. Iain Macleod: I beg to move,
That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned.
664
The House has a right to know from the First Secretary, or better still from the Leader of the House, if he would wish

665
to tell us, how much longer we are to continue on the road which we have embarked upon because of the proven incompetence of the Leader of the House in his job. He was told some time ago that the task which he had set the House was impossible, yet we find that at four o'clock on the secoind day we are still on Clause 4. We have the rest of the Report stage, the Third Reading, and, in theory, the Order to take.
I would like to put a particular proposition to the First Secretary. He knows that we detest the Bill, and I am not going into those arguments now. I understand the urgency with which the Government feel they must have the Bill and, having embarked on this, I would not be surprised or resent it if the Government felt that they had to push forward to the end of it. But the same urgency does not and cannot apply to the Order. It is treating the House quite wrongly to ask it to take the Order after we have completed the Bill, and this may be many hours ahead. Anyone with eyes to see could tell last night and can tell again today that the strain which we are putting upon the servants of the House is becoming very nearly intolerable. There were small signs of the beginnings —1 will not say of a break down, but of a standard less than that which they delight to provide for us, and that is not their fault but ours—or rather, the fault of the Leader of the House.
Although I would not wish to dwell on the point, and although I am sure that he would not wish me to dwell on it, I think that the burden which we are putting on Mr. Speaker this week is quite intolerable. I do not think that any man should be asked to bear it. Most of us can get one night or perhaps two nights off, but he has to be here morning, afternoon, evening, night. He has to be here for Closures. The additional burden which the Leader of the House has put on the Chair through morning sittings and by moving Supply into the House must be beginning to tell. I leave it there, but I am sure that the whole House must agree that we must do what we can to lessen that burden.
I leave my remarks there and wait to hear what the First Secretary says. It is certainly more than reasonable at four
666
o'clock in the morning that we should ask what the target is, not in vague terms but in precise terms. I have a feeling that if we can move the Order to some other day—even next week, because there is not the same urgency about it as there is about the Bill—we might be able, with that target set, to make more progress. I therefore suggest specifically to the First Secretary that he should make it clear now that we do not intend to proceed with the Order at this Sitting.
Mr. M. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman has put his suggestion clearly and categorically, and if that is—as I think it may be—the view of a considerable section of the House, then I think that it would be right to accede to it. The Government should make it clear that we believe it right to secure the conclusion of Report and Third Reading of the Bill at this sitting. Hon. Members who have been in fairly constant attendance are, as it were, in the swing of the Bill and many of the arguments are closely knit together, and it would be a waste of effort not to get as far as Third Reading tonight. I had the view that there would be advantages in taking the Order at the same time because the subjects are so closely related, but I recognise that it would not be desirable to go ahead with it if there is a considerable section of the House which takes a contrary view.
The right hon. Gentleman and I are therefore in agreement as to how far we should get, and I hope that, with due regard for proper discussion, we may all be able to work together to expedite the achievement of that target.
Mr. Macleod: I cannot in all honesty promise the First Secretary to work with him on the Bill because, as he knows, we loath the Bill. That must be made clear between the two sides of the House. But the First Secretary responded to my suggestion, and I am sure that he has given a sensible answer. It would be madness to embark on the Order. I understand the need that he feels to get the Bill. He has met me fairly on the points that have been made, and, in the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5.—(PROTECTION OF EMPLOYERS WHO HAVE WITHHELD PAY INCREASES BEFORE JULY 1967.)
4.15 a.m.
The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 5, line 17, after 'pays', to insert 'or has paid'.
Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment, the House may discuss Amendment No. 31, standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), in page 5, line 33, leave out from 'and' to end of line 34.
The Attorney-General: Amendment No. 30 is simply a drafting Amendment to clarify the effect of Clause 5(1). This subsection gives protection to employers who have withheld pay increases contractually due before 21st July, 1966, by implying into the relevant agreement for the pay increase a condition that the employer is not legally liable to pay the increase if he pays remuneration at not less than the basic rate—that is to say, in the general case, the rate last applied before 21st July, 1966.
Clause 5(2) applies the protection to the first six months period covered by the agreement, including the case where the agreement included provision for the back-dating of the increase. In respect of the back-dated period, however, it is not altogether appropriate to express the implied condition as subsection (1) now does in the terms that are set out in that provision if the employer pays remuneration at a rate not less than the basic rate, and accordingly it is proposed to add the words "or has paid" as more appropriate to that precise situation.
Mr. R. Carr: Naturally we do not in any way question either your selection of Amendments, Mr. Speaker, or the way in which they have been grouped together. I think you will understand that these two Amendments are, however, of a rather disparate nature and that Amendment No. 31 is both of a different nature and a different weight. It is far from being a drafting Amendment, but it will be understood that, in order to express our view on it, we shall presumably have to vote on Amendment No. 30—unless, of course, as we are ever hopeful, the Government indicate that, in the appro-
668
priate way and at the appropriate time, they will do what we wish in Amendment No. 31.
Clause 5 is very long and has a great amount of detail in it which is almost incomprehensible in large part. It is, moreover, a Clause which in our view highlights one of the most objectionable features of the Bill and the Government's policy, namely, forcing breach of contract. We believe that to force breach of contract in industry is one of the most damaging things that can be done—damaging also, indeed, to the purpose that the Bill seeks to achieve.
The Clause typifies two other features of the Bill and the policy. First, it demonstrates the almost impossible complexity of the whole subject. This was put very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) in Committee, when he said:
"It symbolises the difficulties, the unpredictable complications which arise wherever statutory form is invoked to determine either prices of income."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 29th June, 1967; c. 262.]
Secondly, it demonstrates the results of sloppy drafting because, to some extent, the need for the Clause is to protect employers from some of the results of the 1966 Act arising from the drafting of that Measure, the subsequent court action and the confusion which has occurred.
The Clause requires close scrutiny and, given more time, there would be many Amendments which could be moved to it. We have chosen this because it is directed to an aspect of which we have had practical experience in the past year.
In order to explain what we are trying to do, I must briefly take the House through what we understand to be the position under the Clause. Subsection (1) imports into agreements between employer and employee an implied condition which allows the employer not to pay an increase in earnings which he had undertaken to pay. Subsection (2) then goes on to say that this implied condition shall be limited to remuneration payable for periods not exceeding six months in the aggregate. Paragraph (a), which is the subject of the Amendment, says two things about that aggregate period of six months. It says, first, that the periods covered by the condition may be either continuous or not and, secondly, that it

669
may include periods before the making of the agreement.
Assuming that we have to accept the Clause overall, something which we do not like, we see no objection to the first part of subsection (2,a) which says that the period covered by the implied condition may be either continuous or not, but we take strong objection to what we think is meant by the second part, which says that not only may the period be continuous or not, but it may include periods before the making of the agreement.
It is possible to imagine that an employee, or group of employees, has a long-standing agreement with an employer that his earnings level shall he adjusted automatically at certain periods according to changes in the cost-of-living index. On top of that, at some stage—it would be in the period covered by this policy—the employee might make a new agreement with the employer for a basic increase in his earnings level and the new agreement, jacking up his earnings to a different level, would be superimposed on the old agreement providing for adjustments according to movements in the cost-of-living index. The new and the old agreements would go on together.
In this policy which the Government want us to pass and with which we do not agree it should be clear that the standstill would apply only to the new and not the old and continuing agreement. If Clause 5(2,a) is allowed to stand as it is, it is probable that the old, underlying and continuing agreement will be covered as well.
We say that at least there is uncertainty about it and we believe that that uncertainty has been shown by one or two cases which have cropped up in the last year and which have come before the House in the form of Prayers against Orders. For example, there was the Order about the staff of the Exchange Telegraph and the Press Association. There was an element of the staff receiving increments on a regular basis which was separate from the wage increase which gave rise to the Order. Another Order was that dealing with employees of the Birmingham Corporation Transport Department.
In that case some of those employers affected by the Order were members of
670
N.A.L.G.O. The Order prevented the payment of an increase of 7 per cent. under the award to local government employees, which became payable on 1st February this year, after six months' deferment. It not only deferred that but also deferred the payment of the increase in differentials, to which the Order was specifically intended to relate.
Here we have a case of the Order catching both the negotiated increase and an underlying continuing arrangement for adjustment which was of long standing. It is fair to say that in the end, in both those cases, the Minister of Labour gave permission for the underlying increases to be granted. There was a period of considerable uncertainty about it, and through that uncertainty, harm was done to industrial relations and confidence in the future, without any gain to the Government's prices and incomes policy.
The Government admitted this by the eventual action of the Minister of Labour in saying that those long standing underlying agreements could be honoured. If we accept this Bill we shall be importing into the future the same sort of uncertainty as has caused trouble in the past. If our interpretation of this very complicated, and to many of us, incomprehensible, Clause is correct, we hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.
Mr. Mikardo: At this breakfast hour, I will detain the House for only the length of a sentence or two in order to draw attention to the juxtaposition of what we are doing now and what we were doing a few minutes ago. The Attorney-General, in moving this Amendment, pointed out that what he was doing was to stop up a possible loophole in the protections which the Bill gave to employers. It was making absolutely sure that there were no circumstances in which employers were not protected.
A few minutes ago his right hon. Friend the First Secretary was making absolutely sure of his inalienable rights to put trade unionists, shop stewards, and their leaders into gaol. The contrast could not be clearer or more stark, and could not more directly have been borne out by what was said a little while ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), who

671
pointed out that there was this discrimination between support given to employers by the Government and the attacks which they are making on trade unions.
If ever anything gave the game away, and made crystal clear, not only to the House, but to trade unionists, the bias of discrimination against trade unionists lying in the Government's policy, enshrined in this Bill, it is this.
Sir E. Brown: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). We have previously dealt with a Clause which is restrictive against the actions of trade unions, and we are now dealing with one which offers protection to employers.
This was a subject which gave the Committee a lengthy debate. I can offer hope to the right hon. Friend and his hon. Friends by making it clear that this Clause is another through which Mr. Clive Jenkins could drive a coach and horses. Clearly if an employer refuses to pay, and goes to court in order to protect his right under this Bill, all that needs to happen, and I am not inciting or persuading, is for a group of organised workers to walk out of their factory and say that they will not return until the employer pays up. I defy the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that any action would be taken against them for so doing. This is why the Bill is a complete nonsense. I readily join with the hon. Member for Poplar in his assertion to his right hon. and learned Friend that we have had one lot of nonsense and now we are to have another. If someone wants to obtain something and is organised in a trade union, all he has to do is to withdraw his labour until the employer concedes his rights. Nothing that the Attorney-General can do can stop that except to put masses of trade unionists in prison, and we have already had the assurance of the First Secretary that he will not put anyone in prison.
This Bill is a complete nonsense and I cannot see why we are staying up to this time in the morning putting this nonsense through.
4.30 a.m.
The Attorney-General: The Bill is not a nonsense but a valuable piece of
672
social machinery in this period of our continuing difficulties.
The deferments of pay increases which have taken place since the original Act came into force have been voluntarily accepted in a spirit of public spiritedness and generosity by the vast majority of employees of the country. The purpose of Clause 5 is to remove the basis for any legal action against an employer for the recovery of increases in pay withheld in accordance with the Government's policy for the periods of standstill and severe restraint despite the existence of contractual obligations to the contrary.
Subsection (2) provides that the defence shall be available for only six months in cases where the agreement were entered into before 21st July, 1966, and that this period of six months may include periods before the making of the agreement, that is to say, where the agreement provides for back-dating of the pay increase. That is the consequence of the words sought to be left out. The Amendment would delete the words:
"and may include periods before the making of the agreement".
The effect of doing that would be to remove certainty that the defence is available in respect of these periods of back-dating of the pay increase.
The wording of Clause 5(1) provides that an employer would have
"to pay to the employee for work for any period before July 1967 remuneration at a higher rate".
They imply that the periods to which I have referred would probably be covered by the Clause without the words which the Amendment seeks to leave out from subsection (2,a), but it is thought that it will put the matter beyond a peradventure if those words are retained. It is to deal with that limited situation that the words exist. I do not think they give rise to any of the anxieties of difficulties mentioned by the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr).
I hope that in the light of that explanation he will be reassured about the significance of these words.
Sir E. Brown: What would be the position in the case I outlined where there is this protection afforded to the employer and trade unionists by an official strike came out of a factory and said that they would not return until

673
they got the concession from the employer? Will the Attorney-General tell the House if in that case the Government would prosecute the trade unionists?
The Attorney-General: Obviously after the period of standstill the criminal sanctions will not apply. One hopes that there will be responsible and good relations between employees and employers and that that situation would not develop. Otherwise the benefit to our community would be rapidly eroded and the sacrifice of the last year would have been in vain. I hope that no encouragement will come from this House for taking that kind of action.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke in reply persuasively and moderately, as he always does, and he indicated that the apprehensions expressed by my right hon. Fiend in regard to the effect of the second part of Clause 5(2,a) were not well founded, at any rate in his view. One hopes that that is so, though a point such as that might, perhaps, be more appropriately included at a little more leisure and at a rather different time of day from this; but even if the apprehensions which were voiced by my right hon. Friend are unfounded I am bound to say that some of the observations made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman are really not such as to remove disquiet it relation to that Clause.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) criticised the Clause because, he said, it showed a sort of unreasonable dichotomy of outlook on the part of the Government—what he called tenderness to the employers and oppressiveness towards trade unionists. "Tenderness to employers" I do not think is a very happy description of what the Government are here doing. I do not think they are being tender to employers. What they are doing is to embark on very doubtful expedients in order to support their own policy.
In the Clause we get an amalgamation of constitutional improprieties. On an earlier Amendment I ventured to make some criticism of the retrospective provisions of this Bill. This Clause combines retrospection with inducement to breach of contract, and those really are two things which, even at half-past four
674
in the morning, should not pass in this House of Commons without objection being made. I was a little surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, for whom, as he knows, I have very great respect, both personally and in his professional capacity, should have made a speech which sounded very much as though we nowadays take this sort of thing very much for granted—that we must expect retrospection on this scale in these matters, and that it really does not very much matter if we deliberately provoke breach of contract. If the Government's policy is that these things should be done, then the right way to do it is not to induce breach of contract and give statutory protection in regard to it.
I said this when we were debating the original Measure last year, and I say it again now, because it seems to me that on these constitutional matters we are liable to get on to a slippery slope. Things which last year were regarded as objectionable, or tolerable only for a period of emergency, are now being spoken of as part and parcel of our democratic society.
If I venture longer on that you might think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am addressing myself to the inequalities and iniquities of the Clause, whereas I am taking a somewhat broad view of the terms of the Amendment. I wanted to say that, because it is important, whatever the hour of day or night, that these things should be said in this House.
Mr. R. Carr: With the leave of the House, I wish to press the learned Attorney-General on one or two points. He assured hon. Members on this side that he did not feel that the fears which we have and which I gave as one of the main reasons for this Amendment were justified. With respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that did not ring convincingly in our ears, because we were given that sort of assurance in last year's Bill, yet we had the two Orders; we had the confusion to which I have referred in the cases of the Exchange Telegraph and Press Association and the employees of the Birmingham Corporation Transport Department. These muddles occurred. It is all very well for him to tell us now that he does not think that any ambiguity exists, but we should be happier if he gave us chapter and verse

675
and explained why it will be that, under this Bill, we shall be assured of not getting the sort of muddles which have occurred in the recent past. If he cannot reassure us more on that point, and because of the reasons of retrospection and other matters of principle raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), we shall press the matter to a Division.
The Attorney-General: The Bill is particularly complex, because great care has been taken to try to avoid the emergence of a state of confusion or the kind of difficulties which have arisen in the interpretation given by the Court of Appeal—with which I do not quarrel,

Division No. 448.]

AYES

[4.43 a.m.

Anderson, Donald

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Archer, Peter

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Palmer, Arthur

Armstrong, Ernest

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Ashley, Jack

Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

Pavitt, Laurence

Barnett, Joel

Hannan, William

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Bence, Cyril

Haseldine, Norman

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Hattersley, Roy

Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Hazell, Bert

Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

Bishop, E. S.

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Price, William (Rugby)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Hilton, W. S.

Rankin, John

Boston, Terence

Hooley, Frank

Rees, Merlyn

Boyden, James

Howie, W.

Reynolds, G. W.

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Huckfield, L.

Richard, Ivor

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

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

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

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

Hunter, Adam

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

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

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Cant, R. B.

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Carter-Jones, Lewis

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

Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

Chapman, Donald

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Sheldon, Robert

Coe, Denis

Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Concannon, J. D.

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

Skeffington, Arthur

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Leadbitter, Ted

Small, William

Dalyell, Tam

Ledger, Ron

Snow, Julian

Davies, Dr. Emest (Stretford)

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

Luard, Evan

Taverne, Dick

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

Delargy, Hugh

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

Dewar, Donald

McBride, Neil

Tinn, James

Dobson, Ray

Macdonald, A. H.

Tuck, Raphael

Dunnett, Jack

McKay, Mrs. Margaret

Varley, Eric G.

Eadie, Alex

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Maclennan, Robert

Walden, Brian (All Saints)

Ellis, John

McNamara, J. Kevin

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Ensor, David

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Watkins, David (Consett)

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

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

Whitaker, Ben

Faulds, Andrew

Molloy, William

Whitlock, William

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Moonman, Eric

Williams, Alan Lee (Homchurch)

Ford, Ben

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Forrester, John

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Freeson, Reginald

Moyle, Roland

Winnick, David

Gardner, Tony

Ogden, Eric

Yates, Victor

Ginsburg, David

O'Malley, Brian

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

Oram, Albert E.

Mr. Walter Harrison and

Gourlay, Harry

Oswald, Thomas

Mr. Joseph Harper.

NOES

Awdry, Daniel

Batsford, Brian

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Baker, W. H. K.

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Biffen, John

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Bell, Ronald

Biggs-Davison, John

of course—to one limited but not unimportant aspect of the Act.
I venture to think that, as it now stands, the Clause achieves the purpose to which it is directed, namely, to prevent the erosion of what has been gained by, as I submit, the voluntary withholding of pay increases during the last year. It gives a limited protection to employers who seek to take advantage of it and does so in terms which, to the best of our skill and ability, should hold water. In the light of that assurance, I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed to a Division.
Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 99.

Black, Sir Cyril

Grant-Ferris, R.

More, Jasper

Body, Richard

Greeham-Cooke, R.

Neave, Airey

Bossom, Sir Clive

Grieve, Percy

Nott, John

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Percival, Ian

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Buck, Antony (Colchester)

Hastings, Stephen

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Campbell, Cordon

Higgins, Terence L.

Pym, Francis

Carlisle, Mark

Holland, Philip

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Hornby, Richard

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Cary, Sir Robert

Howell, David (Guildford)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Cordle, John

Hunt, John

Royle, Anthony

Costain, A. P.

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Sharpies, Richard

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Sinclair, Sir George

Crouch, David

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Summers, Sir Spencer

Dalkeith, Earl of

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Tapsell, Peter

Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Temple, John M.

Drayson, G. B.

Kitson, Timothy

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Lloyd, Ian (P'tam'th, Langstone)

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. sir Derek

Eden, Sir John

Lubbock, Eric

Wall, Patrick

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

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Weatherill, Bernard

Emery, Peter

Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

Webster, David

Eyre, Reginald

McMaster, Stanley

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Farr, John

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Maddan, Martin

Worsley, Marcus

Fortescue, Tim

Marten, Neil

Foster, Sir John

Maude, Angus

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Gibson-Watt, David

Maxwelt-Hyslop, R. J.

Mr. Anthony Grant and

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Mr. Hector Monro

Glover, Sir Douglas

Montgomery, Fergus

Mr. Higgins: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 5, line 40, at the end to insert:
(c) the provisions of subsection (1) above shall not apply to a commitment to pay a further increase in remuneration to those in respect of whom an increase in remuneration or a reduction in normal hours of work had already been deferred under sections 28 or 29 of the Prices and Incomes Act 1966.
This is a comparatively short Amendment and one which we can debate at reasonable length. We are seeking to cover the case where a wage increase has been superimposed upon a previously generally accepted arrangement or agreement whereby wages are expected to increase. In other words, a cost of living increase agreement may have been built into a certain series of arrangements between a trade union and an employer and during the period of severe restraint—which is largely the period covered by the Clause—it is found that on top of that an additional increase has taken place which has been frozen by the Government during the period of severe restraint. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the underlying contract prevails.
I understand that in the last debate the learned Attorney-General described the Clause, and the whole Bill, as a valuable piece of social machinery. It is very odd to describe as a valuable piece of social legislation a Clause which, with
678
the Bill as a whole, introduces such elements of retrospection in legal contracts and, in some ways, positive incentives for people to break contracts. But, at all events, it seems only right and proper that the effect should, at the least, not extend to underlying contracts, which may have been fixed for a considerable period ahead.
The relevant section of the multitude of White Papers which has been a feature of the Government's prices and incomes policy is paragraphs 32 and 33 of Cmnd. 3150, dealing with existing commitments. Paragraph 32 reads:
"The operative dates of commitments to increase pay or reduce hours by specified amounts entered into on or before 20th July 1966, which were originally due to be implemented before the end of 1966, should be deferred for six months in accordance with Cmnd. 3073. The operative dates of such commitments which were originally due to be implemented in the first six months of 1967 should be deferred until at least 1st July 1967, unless they are regarded by the Government as satisfying the criteria for the period of severe restraint …"
As I understand the position, if we do not make this Amendment, an agreement which was deferred under that passage in the White Paper may still be covered by the Clause, and, as a result, there would effectively be a double freeze, both on the basic underlying contract—say, a cost of living agreement—and on the individual wage increase covered by the

679
Government's compulsory Order. This would be wrong.
The Attorney-General: As I read it, the result of the Amendment would be to deprive employers of the defence afforded by Clause 5 in cases where an increase in remuneration has been deferred under Section 28 or 29 of the Act. There may be cases where the effect of an Order under those Sections may not have operated over the whole of the six months' period for which protection is given under the Clause.
Subsection (8) of Clause 5 deals with the position where restrictions apply under Section 28 or 29, and the effect of that subsection is to ensure that no employer can take advantage of the restriction imposed by the Sections in addition to the period of six months which is provided for under Clause 5(3). In other words, the maximum period of protection which the employer can have is six months, and that six months' protection in relation to any increase is to be treated as running even during the period when the restriction under Section 28 or 29 applies, so that there will be no further withholding of increases which can be visited upon the employee by reason of a combination—
Mr. Higgins: On the employer.
The Attorney-General: No, on the employee, who will not be able to sue the employer. There will, in other words, be no additional protection given to the employer over and above the maximum period of six months.
I hope that that explains the effect of Clause 5, and that in the light of that the right hon. Gentleman may feel that to accept the Amendment would be inconsistent with the purposes of the Clause and would be to defeat an aspect of it which at the moment seems to be satisfactory.
5.0 a.m.
Mr. Higgins: If I may, with the leave of the House, speak again, I was not entirely clear from what the Attorney-General said whether the Amendment is inconsistent with the purpose of the Clause—throughout we have maintained that we are against the Clause—or whether he was saying that it does not
680
seem to him to achieve the objective that we seek to achieve.
We are saying here that the Clause would seem to give protection if an employer were to withhold a second increase which under the terms of the period of severe restraint would have been allowed. It seems to us—we are open to persuasion by the Attorney-General—to give protection to employers not only in the case of a single increase but also in the case of a second increase which under the terms of the period of severe restraint White Paper, Cmnd. 3150, would have been allowed. We are not clear why the Government feel that this double protection, for the one which would have been allowed and for the underlying one, should be afforded. We should be most grateful if the Attorney-General could enlighten the House on this point.
The Attorney-General: The protection would apply only for six months in respect of the specific increase. It is conceivable that if there were two increases within the relevant period the protection would apply for a period of six months in respect of each of them.
Mr. Higgins: No, not if there were two increases within the period but rather where there was an underlying contract which, so to speak, came into effect automatically and there was the other increase on top of it. I am sorry to intervene in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech. This is a difficult point at this late hour. However, I should be grateful if he would tell us whether the protection would enable the employer to refuse to pay not only the increase covered by the Order but a cost of living increase which he had agreed to perhaps many years before but which came into effect only at this moment.
It may well be that the Government do not intend to afford this protection, but unless we have misread the Clause, which is not difficult to do, the Government are not only protecting the employer where the Order has been made within the relevant period but are also enabling the employer to avoid responsibility for a contract made a considerable period before but happening to come into effect at this point. If this is still obscure, perhaps we could have an assurance that it will be looked at and referred to in another place.
The Attorney-General: I think the position is that all pay increases withheld by reason of the White Paper decisions, whether they are cost of living increases or increases in wages, are included within the ambit of restraint and that an employer who had withheld those increases would be entitled to the protection of the Clause for the period of six months from the date when the increment applied. So it applies to the whole situation.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that it is conceivable that two agreements might both receive this protection; and, in given circumstances, it flows directly from the language of the Clause that this would be so. Indeed, it is not conceivable but inevitable, which is an unfortunate situation because what we have called an underlying agreement is not within the mis-

Division No. 449.]

AYES

[5.7 a.m.

Awdry, Daniel

Foster, Sir John

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Baker, W. H. K.

Gibson-Watt, David

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

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Balsford, Brian

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Monro, Hector

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Glover, Sir Douglas

Montgomery, Fergus

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Grant, Anthony

More, Jasper

Biffen, John

Grant-Ferris, R.

Neave, Airey

Biggs-Davison, John

Gresham Cooke, R.

Nott, John

Black, Sir Cyril

Grieve, Percy

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Body, Richard

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Bossom, Sir Clive

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Percival, Ian

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Hastings, Stephen

Pym, Francis

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Higgins, Terence L.

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Buck, Antony (Colchester)

Holland, Philip

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Campbell, Gordon

Hornby, Richard

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Carlisle, Mark

Howell, David (Guildford)

Royle, Anthony

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Hunt, John

Sharpies, Richard

Cary, Sir Robert

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Sinclair, Sir George

Cordle, John

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Summers, Sir Spencer

Costain, A. P.

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Tapsell, Peter

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Temple, John M.

Crouch, David

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Dalkeith, Earl of

Kitson, Timothy

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

Wall, Patrick

Drayton, G. B.

Lubbock, Eric

Webster, David

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Eden, Sir John

Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

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

McMaster, Stanley

Woodnutt, Mark

Emery, Peter

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Worsley, Marcus

Farr, John

Maddan, Martin

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Marten, Neil

Mr. Reginald Eyre and

Fortescue, Tim

Maude, Angus

Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

NOES

Anderson, Donald

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Dalyell, Tam

Archer, Peter

Brown, Bob (N't'le-upon-Tyne, W.)

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Armstrong, Ernest

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

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Ashley, Jack

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

Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

Barnett, Joel

Cant, R. B.

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Bence, Cyril

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Delargy, Hugh

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Chapman, Donald

Dewar, Donald

Bishop, E. S.

Coe, Denis

Dobson, Ray

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Concannon, J. D.

Dunnett, Jack

Boston, Terence

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Eadie, Alex

Boyden, James

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

chief of what the Measure is intended to cure. This being so, I trust that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will adopt our suggestion and consider the matter in another place. He cannot, in his heart, be happy with this situation.
The Attorney-General: At this early hour—or late hour, whichever way one looks at it—it is difficult to be happy about anything. If the cost of living increase was not contrary to the criteria laid down, it would not be affected. If there is any doubt about the matter, we will certainly look into it, but I believe that the situation is covered by the Clause as it stands.
Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
The House divided: Ayes 99, Noes 134.

Ellis, John

Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

Rees, Merlyn

Ensor, David

Leadbitter, Ted

Reynolds, G. W.

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

Ledger, Ron

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

Faulds, Andrew

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Ford, Ben

Luard, Evan

Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

Forrester, John

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Sheldon, Robert

Freeson, Reginald

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Galpern, Sir Myer

McBride, Neil

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Gardner, Tony

Macdonald, A. H.

Skeffington, Arthur

Ginsburg, David

McKay, Mrs. Margaret

Small, William

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Snow, Julian

Gourlay, Harry

Maclennan, Robert

Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

McNamara, J. Kevin

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg)

Taverne, Dick

Grey, Charles (Durham)

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

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

Molloy, William

Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

Hamling, William

Moonman, Eric

Tinn, James

Hannan, William

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Tuck, Raphael

Haseldine, Norman

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Varley, Eric G.

Hattersley, Roy

Moyle, Roland

Wainwright, Edwin (Deame Valley)

Hazell, Bert

Ogden, Eric

Walden, Brian (All Saints)

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

O'Malley, Brian

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Hilton, W. S.

Oram, Albert E.

Watkins, David (Consett)

Hooley, Frank

Oswald, Thomas

Whitaker, Ben

Howie, W.

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Whitlock, William

Huckfield, L.

Palmer, Arthur

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Hunter, Adam

Pavitt, Laurence

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Winnick, David

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

Yates, Victor

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

Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

Price, William (Rugby)

Mr. Walter Harrison and

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Rankin, John

Mr. Joseph Harper.

5.15 a.m.
Mr. Higgins: I beg to move Amendment No. 33 in page 5, line 41, leave out subsection (3).
The Amendment is similar to, but not identical with the one we have just discussed. It is to amend the Clause designed to give protection to the employer if he finds himself vulnerable as a result of having complied with the Government's prices and incomes policy.
The purpose of the Amendment is to probe the position when what are called multi-stage agreements are reached. I would point out to the Attorney-General, since one of the points he made on the last Amendment seemed to refer to this one, that there is a distinction between the case where there is an underlying agreement which might run for many years and on top of it a further wage increase is superimposed, and the case where there is no underlying agreement but the wage agreement is implemented in stages. This is a multi-stage agreement.
The protection afforded to employers by the Clause goes beyond what is specified in the White Paper Cmd. 3150. At paragraph 33 it says:
"Where, however, the operative date of a previous commitment for a pay increase or reduction in hours (other than a relatively
684
minor improvement or an increase under a cost-of-living sliding scale agreement) relating to the same group of workers has already been deferred as a result of the standstill, the operative date of a commitment for a subsequent improvement need not be deferred."
It seems that the White Paper says that a single stage of such an agreement can be deferred but both stages cannot be. In these circumstances we do not understand why the Government have included the subsection. It would seem to afford protection for the employer who is acting contrary to the Government's declared policy on multi-stage agreements. For this reason I would have thought that the Government would accept the Amendment.
Mr. M. Stewart: As the hon. Member said, the subsection relates to multi-stage agreements. I will explain the effects of the subsection. Imagine three groups of workers one of which is given an increase all at once; the second gets some now and some later; the third group also gets some now and some later, but in a different form and instead of having an increase of, say, 30s. followed by one of 10s. that group gets an increase of 30s. and this is superceded by an agreement making it 40s. There are only differences in the form of the cases. The effect of the subsection very broadly is that since all these three groups are in substantially the

685
same position, they would substantially suffer the same degree of deferment. Assuming that the employer—and this would be in accordance with Government policy—has at the time carried out such a deferment, he shall not be capable of being sued thereafter for the money so withheld.
So far, I trust, so clear. But the hon. Member raised a further point about the White Paper. The White Paper draws a distinction between some kinds of increase and others which it would be impossible to reproduce exactly in a statute. The White Paper first of all laid down the general principle that the same groups of worker should not suffer a double deferment, but that did not apply in the case of cost-of-living increases and it did not apply in the case of minor improvements. Nor did it apply where workers would receive one increase under a national agreement and then some of them would receive further increases under a local agreement, or possibly one group would receive so much under one local agreement and another increase under another local agreement. In the third case we are not talking about the same group of workers all the time. The local increase which I mentioned would come later than the national increase, and one would apply to one group of worker and one to another. The exact wording of the White Paper is that the same group of worker does not suffer a double deferment. That case is excluded from the White Paper.
The subsection as it stands gets as near to the White Paper as we can in a statute. I must add a general point. We must remember that the whole of Clause 5 refers to things which have already happened. Money has been withheld. The purpose of the Clause is to protect the employer from being sued and required to pay it. It would be impossible to find a case in which money has been withheld other than in accordance with Government policy as declared in either the White Paper on the Standstill or in that on Severe Restraint. He would have done so, and would only have done so, and would have been allowed by his employees to have done so, only if it had been in accordance with the policy. Consequently to give him protection is a reasonable and just thing to do.
686
I hope that the explanation has been clear. I must admit that I had to think for some time before I fully understood what it was all about, but I think that I do understand it. I am sure that the hon. Member for Worthing would not dream of wishing to delete a subsection before he had ascertained what it meant. This is a complicated matter, but I think that the subsection is necessary if we are to produce the result which the whole Clause is intended to produce and which, whatever their views about the Bill, I think that hon. Members opposite would not dispute. Where money has been withheld by agreement with the union concerned—only by agreement, not so far tied up legally—it would not be a reasonable situation for the employer who withheld money in that way to be liable at any time during the next six years to be sued for it.
At some stage we must let everyone, employer and employed, know exactly where they stand. That is the purpose of the Clause. To get as near to that result as we can, we need this refinement of subsection (3) and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be willing to let it remain in the Bill.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his exposition of the esoteric mysteries of subsection (3). He was a little unkind in blaming our Amendment. After all, it seeks to omit this obscure and offending provision. He was clear and cogent, as always but we are left with the extraordinary situation that, on his own admission, it has not been found possible to find words, even in this very lengthy subsection, which will embody the principles of the White Paper in statutory language. The right hon. Gentleman referred to various categories of particular agreements distinguished in the White Paper but not at all distinguished in the language of the subsection and which would not be distinguished as a matter of law.
Then the right hon. Gentleman fell back on the extraordinary proposition—extraordinary even at this late hour—that really it does not matter that the Clause is defective because probably the only cases in which it would arise would be those which were intended to be covered, and in any case he would not visualise other cases arising because, although they

687
come, as matters of law, within the language of the subsection, they would not be allowed to get away with it. What sort of language is that? That is what he said. If what he meant differed from what he said, it is not my fault.
Mr. M. Stewart: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is confusing present and past. What I think is the situation is that employers have not got away with it—that, in the great majority of cases, they have not wanted to withhold money other than in accordance with declared policy. I do not think that they wanted to or, if they did, that they would have got away with it. Whichever way one looks at it, it has not in fact happened.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: They have to withhold increases contrary to the sanctity of contract in accordance with what the right hon. Gentleman calls "declared policy" and what the Attorney-General calls the "requirements of Government policy." But again these are things not written into the Statute. Nor will they be.

Division No. 450.]

AYES

[5.30 a.m.

Anderson, Donald

Freeson, Reginald

McNamara, J. Kevin

Archer, Peter

Galpern, Sir Myer

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Armstrong, Ernest

Gardner, Tony

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

Ashley, Jack

Ginsburg, David

Molloy, William

Barnett, Joel

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

Moonman, Eric

Bence, Cyril

Gourlay, Harry

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Bennett, James (C'gow, Bridgeton)

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Bishop, E. S.

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Ogden, Eric

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Grey, Charles (Durham)

O'Malley, Brian

Boston, Terence

Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

Oram, Albert E.

Boyden, James

Hamlin, William

Oswald, Thomas

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Hannan, William

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

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

Haseldine, Norman

Palmer, Arthur

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

Hattersley, Roy

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

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

Hazell, Bert

Pavitt, Laurence

Cant, R. B.

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hilton, W. S.

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

Chapman, Donald

Hooley, Frank

Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

Coe, Denis

Howie, W.

Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

Concannon, J. D.

Huckfield, L.

Price, William (Rugby)

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Hunter, Adam

Rankin, John

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Rees, Merlyn

Dalyell, Tam

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Reynolds, C. W.

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

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

Richard, Ivor

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

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

Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Delargy, Hugh

Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, central)

Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

Dewar, Donald

Leadbitter, Ted

Sheldon, Robert

Dobson, Ray

Ledger, Ron

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Dunnett, Jack

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Eadie, Alex

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Skeffington, Arthur

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Luard, Evan

Small, William

Ellis, John

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Snow, Julian

Ensor, David

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

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

McBride, Neil

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

Faulds, Andrew

Macdonald, A. H.

Taverne, Dick

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

McKay, Mrs. Margaret

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

Ford, Ben

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

Forrester, John

Maclennan, Robert

Tinn, James

We are in the extraordinary position of being asked to interpret the law of the land in this sort of way. It all arises from the practice which has grown up of government by diktat or exhortation and the like. This subsection, which has properly been put on challenge, is just the last and one of the most striking examples of confusion. The draftsman has done his best in drafting and the right hon. Gentleman has done his best in explaining but, at the end of the day, we have a provision which is inadequate to do what it is meant to do.
Mr. M. Stewart indicated dissent.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: That is the irresistible inference from what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It is inadequate to do what it is meant to do. It is clumsy and will lead to grave complications. It is an illustration of the very unsatisfactory nature of this Bill as a whole.
Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—
The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 98.

Tuck, Raphael

Watkins, David (Consett)

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Varley, Eric G.

Whitaker, Ben

Yates, Victor

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Whitlock, William

Walden, Brian (All Saints)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Williams, Clifford, (Abertillery)

Mr. Walter Harrison and

Mr. Joseph Harper.

NOES

Awdry, Daniel

Foster, Sir John

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Baker, W. H. K.

Gibson-Watt, David

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

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Batsford, Brian

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Monro, Hector

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Glover, Sir Douglas

Montgomery, Fergus

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Grant, Anthony

More, Jasper

Biffen, John

Grant-Ferris, R.

Neave, Airey

Biggs-Davison, John

Gresham Cooke, R.

Nott, John

Black, Sir Cyril

Grieve, Percy

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Body, Richard

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Bossom, Sir Clive

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Percival, Ian

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Powell, Rt. Hn. j. Enoch

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Hastings, Stephen

Pym, Francis

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Higgins, Terence L.

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Buck, Antony (Colchester)

Holland, Philip

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Campbell, Gordon

Hornby, Richard

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Carlisle, Mark

Howell, David (Guildford)

Royle, Anthony

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Hunt, John

Sharpies, Richard

Cay, Sir Robert

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Summers, Sir Spencer

Cordle, John

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Tapsell, Peter

Costain, A. P.

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Temple, John M.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Crouch, David

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Dalkeith, Earl of

Kitson, Timothy

Wall, Patrick

Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

Webster, David

Drayson, G. B.

Lubbock, Erie

Whitelaw,Rt. Hn. William

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

Eden, Sir John

Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

Woodnutt, Mark

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

McMaster, Stanley

Worsley, Marcus

Emery, Peter

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Farr, John

Maddan, Martin

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Marten, Neil

Mr. Reginald Eyre and

Fortescue, Tim

Maude, Angus

Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 7, line 23, to leave out 'two months' and to insert 'one month'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this we can also discuss Amendment No. 36, in page 7, line 23, leave out 'months' and insert 'weeks'.
The Attorney-General: It is a happy thing indeed, at this late hour, to be able to grant a concession, at any rate to my hon. Friends who have moved Amendment No. 36. The circumstances giving rise to this Amendment are the following. Clause 5(7) provides that judgment in breach of contract cases instituted after 5ti June 1967, the date of publication of the Bill, may be set aside, provided that they have not been satisfied in whole or in part—that is to say that money has not been paid over—on the application of the employer within two months from Royal Assent.
The Amendment substitutes the period of one month for the term of two months. Originally it was thought that
690
a period of two months was necessary, but it is felt that an employer who desires to act could do so in a shorter time than a month and to extend the time within which to set aside the judgment unnecessarily might well prejudice industrial relations. Accordingly, my right hon. Friend decided on this Amendment to reduce the period to one month, which I hope will be acceptable to the House.
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The Attorney-General has not gone into this dreadful subsection in any detail. I must briefly explain what it does.
This is the fourth conflicting stage of an unfortunate award or agreement for a wage increase. Four stages are envisaged in the subsection. First, there is an agreement for an increase of wages. Secondly, the Government issue a decree disallowing the increase and the employer does not therefore pay it. Thirdly, the courts say that the decree is invalid and the employer ought to have paid it. Finally, by this subsection the employer is allowed to go to the court and make the court eat its words. If that is not

691
a very dismal state of affairs, I do not know what is. Whether the employer has one month or two in which to do this is not a matter of great moment. That is about all I can agree with in this sorry story.
What is surprising is that the one month concerned, the one month after the Royal Assent, is the month of August—the very month when most employers and their legal advisers, and indeed the courts, are on holiday. It seems rather unfortunate that the Attorney-General has chosen the very month in the whole year in which it is hardest for employers to have time to consult their legal advisers and consider their position. On that dismal note, I sit down.
Mr. Mikardo: I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) that the Amendment is not a matter of great moment. Nevertheless, as one who has said some pretty cruel things to the Government in these debates, and will do so before we have finished them, I feel that in justice I should say a word of thanks for the partial concession which my right hon. and learned Friend has announced. I express my thanks to him personally because I know that it was he personally who got this Amendment placed on the Notice Paper.
I shall tell the House how it came about. It was agreed at an interdepartmental meeting of the First Secretary and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and the Attorney-General. I was not there but I had a blow-by-blow account of what happened by Mr. Chapman Pincher who, by a remarkable acrobatic feat, had his eye and his ear simultaneously linked to the keyhole. My three right hon. Friends had a look at the Amendment which my hon. Friends and I had put down, Amendment No. 36. They discussed what to do with it. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said, "We must give these fellows something. They have put down a lot of good ideas and we have resisted everything. After all, I am a trade unionist myself, or a bit of a one. We need to give them something. This is a pretty innocuous thing. Let us give them this one". Whereupon the First Secretary, in rejoinder, said, "Not on your Nelly.
692
I don't mind making an odd concession to the Opposition every now and then, but as for the lot of Vietcong on the third bench below the Gangway, I wouldn't give them an inch". Whereupon, up spoke the Attorney-General, who is known throughout Government circles as Elwyn the Blessed, because he is the inter-Departmental peacemaker. He said, "Tell you what. We said two months; they ask for two weeks. Let's give them a month". That is how it came about.
On that I say "Thank you very much" to the Attorney-General.
5.45 a.m.
The Attorney-General: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has allowed cheerfulness to break in, even at this late hour, and I congratulate him on his Damon Runyanism, even though the connection between it and the facts is not even, unfortunately, coincidental on this occasion.
As to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), of course there are precedents for what is being done here, and perhaps the most remarkable was in the Wireless Telegraphy (Validation of Charges) Act, 1954, which not only had retrospective effect of the type which is contained in Clause 5 of the Bill but, by virtue of that provision which was enthusiastically supported by the then Attorney-General, Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller, sums paid in respect of any court orders were ordered to be repaid. That, at any rate, we have not done here.
I am glad the Amendment has received the approval of the House.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6.—(SUPPLEMENTARY.)
Mr. Russell Kerr: I beg to move Amendment No. 41, in page 8, line 16, to leave out from 'the' to the end of line 19 and to insert '31st December 1967'.
This is an attempt to limit the effects of the Bill, which my hon. Friends and I have regarded, from the time it was conceived, as not merely discriminatory and anti-trade union in character but, most importantly, as utterly irrelevant to a solution of our basic economic

693
problem. Regrettably, our efforts to persuade the Government of the folly of their ways have so far been unavailing. Despite the persistent and eloquent pleading of my hon. Friends, the Government have persisted in their folly, and this, the second Prices and Incomes Bill, apart from being a watered down version of Prices and Incomes Bill No. 1, is to us confirmation that the Government have no real intention of getting out of the field of industrial negotiation, but instead, in spite of the sobering experience of the first year's effects of this pernicious, class-conscious legislation, hanker after a well disciplined trade union movement grateful for whatever crumbs may fall from the employers' table.
Granted the undeniable wisdom of those observations, the fact remains that the Government remain apparently unpersuaded. Therefore, very much as a second-best, my hon. Friends and I, in a final desperate attempt to minimise the danger written into every line of this short-sighted and disastrous Measure, seek by this Amendment at least to limit in time the application of part of the Act. We believe that restricting the duration of the Act in the way the Amendment suggests will give just enough time to persuade millions of workers throughout the country who had the impression, no doubt erroneously, that this was a Measure only a Tory Government would propose, was quite wrong. Indeed, it might even persuade them that Labour is on their side, though this is an idea rather hard to swallow these days in certain trade union circles.
In the belief that half a loaf is better than none in this instance, I beg to move.
Mr. M. Stewart: The Amendment has been so drafted as to do partly less and partly more than my hon. Friend wanted. If he looks at the exact alteration in the wording which it would make, he will notice that, as the Bill stands, the Sections referred to come to an end on 11th August, 1968, or on any earlier date on which Part II of the Act or the relevant provisions of it cease to be in force. That means that it would be possible to bring the Sections in question to an end at any time by the Government deciding to revoke the Order, which I trust that the House will make before long, to bring Part II into force.
694
Under the Amendment, it would be impossible in any circumstances to bring these Sections to an end before 31st December, whereas under the Bill it would at least be possible to do so. I cannot think that my hon. Friend intended that result.
On the other hand, from his point of view the Amendment does too little. If he wants to impose a time limit, the only sensible thing to do would be to make the relevant date, say, 12th or 31st August. To make it 31st December means that one is saddled with all the labour that we have been through of passing the Bill, and possible administrative difficulties thereafter, for a period of time which, from the point of view of those of us who believe in the Bill, would be too little for it to be of much use and, from the point of view of those who dislike the Bill, would be large enough to cause irritation.
I am bound to say that my hon. Friend has fallen between two if not three stools in the Amendment, and I ask him to withdraw it.
Mr. Iain Macleod: I should like to spring to the defence of the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr), and, if he feels unable to exercise his feet in the Division Lobby, we shall be happy to do it for him.
Of course, I understand the purpose of his Amendment, and I suspect that the First Secretary does, too. He dislikes the Bill and, partly for the same reason and partly for different reasons, so do we. Having been defeated, naturally, because of the composition of the House, not only on Second Reading but on the Amendments as we have toiled through the night, one keeps trying at least to minimise the damage which can be done.
Sections 1 to 3 of the Bill follow on 12th August, 1967, and Amendment No. 41 brings Sections 1 to 3 to an end on 31st December, 1967, including any extra orders, I take it. The First Secretary said, first of all, that that does too much because it removes the possibility of action being taken to bring the Bill to an end at an earlier date. That is possible, but it is so wildly unlikely that I do not think that we need spend time considering anything so ridiculous.
I pass to his second argument, which is that it does too little, which is an

695
odd point of view to put forward, because the hon. Gentleman might have suggested 14th or 15th August, instead of 31st December. That is quite true, as far as it goes. I suggested on an earlier Amendment—and the next Amendment to which we come has some echoes of this—that we might bring the Bill to an end on 11th August, 1968. I should prefer to cut its throat tonight, but one must put something on the Order Paper to act as a peg on which to hang our arguments to say that it should not go on as disastrously long as the Government intend.
I think that the First Secretary is wrong and that the hon. Member for Feltham is right on this. It is true that the 31st December is an arbitrary date, but it is as good as any other, and a darned sight better than the one which will be in operation, if there is such a date, under the Bill. I would therefore advise this side of the House that this is an Amendment, a half loaf Amendment it is true, but a good one for all that, which is worthy of our support.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would like to test the sincerity of the First Secretary's first argument. He objected to the Amendment on the basis that it would inhibit the making of an Order putting Part II out of operation before the 31st December. Legally this is no doubt right, but can the right hon. Gentleman say that there is the wildest chance of the Government deciding to take that step? Is there the slightest possibility of that? What is the right hon. Gentleman contemplating if he is thinking of this?
There seem to be only two possibilities. First, that contrary to all the facts he is expecting a miraculous recovery of the

Division No. 451.]

AYES

[5.58 a.m.

Anderson, Donald

Chapman, Donald

Ensor, David

Archer, Peter

Coe, Denis

Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Vardley)

Armstrong, Ernest

Concannon, J. D.

Faulds, Andrew

Ashley, Jack

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Ford, Ben

Barnett, Joel

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Forrester, John

Bence, Cyril

Dalyell, Tam

Freeson, Reginald

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Gardner, Tony

Bishop, E. S.

Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Ginsburg, David

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

Boston, Terence

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Gourlay, Harry

Boyden, James

Delargy, Hugh

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Dewar, Donald

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

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

Dobson, Ray

Grey, Charles (Durham)

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

Dunnett, Jack

Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

Cant, R. B.

Eadie, Alex

Hamling William

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Hannan, William

economy this autumn. Is he really expecting that, when he knows that everybody who has studied these matters knows how serious the situation is going to be? The only alternative is that he knows the situation will be so bad that he will revoke this because he will be replacing it with the sterner legislation at which the Lord President of the Council hinted the other day. This is no doubt the more probable of the two possibilities.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot be allowed to get away with using the argument that acceptance of the Amendment would prevent a revocation Order, unless he is prepared to say that there is at least a bare possibility of it, and that at this moment the Government contemplate the possibility of that, and they would really want to do this. Otherwise, it is a bogus argument, which I imagine his hon. Friends against whom it was used will find a little irritating, and something of an insult to their intelligence.
Mr. M. Stewart: If I may reply with the leave of the House, I do not think so. I think it wildly unlikely that the Order which we shall ask the House to agree to shortly to bring Part II into operation will be revoked before the 31st December. The only point I was making was that if I were to put down an Amendment, the purpose of which was to indicate that I wanted the Bill to have as short a life as possible, I would not word it in such a way that it would preclude even a bare possibility of it ending earlier than the 31st December. That is all.
Question put, That the words "11th August 1968" stand part of the Bill:—
The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 99.

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Maclennan, Robert

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Haseldine, Norman

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Hattersley, Roy

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

Skeffington, Arthur

Hazell, Bert

Molloy, William

Small, William

Hilton, W. S.

Moonman, Eric

Snow, Julian

Hooley, Frank

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Howie, W.

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

Hucfield, L.

Moyle, Roland

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

Hunter, Adam

Ogden, Eric

Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

O'Malley, Brian

Tinn, James

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Oram, Albert E.

Tuck, Raphael

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

Oswald, Thomas

Varley, Eric G.

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Palmer, Arthur

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

Pavitt, Laurence

Walden, Brian (All Saints)

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

Watkins, David (Consett)

Leadbitter, Ted

Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

Whitaker, Ben

Ledger, Ron

Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

Whitlock, William

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Price, William (Rugby)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Rankin, John

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Luard, Evan

Reet, Merlyn

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Lyon, Alexander, W. (York)

Reynolds, G. W.

Winnick, David

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Richard, Ivor

Yates, Victor

McBride, Neil

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

Macdonald, A. H.

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

McKay, Mrs. Margaret

Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

Mr. Joseph Harper and

Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien)

Sheldon, Robert

Mr. Alan Fitch.

NOES

Awdry, Daniel

Fortescue, Tim

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Baker, W. H. K.

Foster, Sir John

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

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Gibson-Watt, David

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Batsford, Brian

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Monro, Hector

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Montgomery, Fergus

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Glover, Sir Douglas

More, Jaseper

Biffen, John

Goodhart, Philip

Neave, Airey

Biggs-Davison, John

Grant-Ferris, R.

Nott, John

Black, Sir Cyril

Gresham Cooke R.

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Body, Richard

Grieve, Percy

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Bossom, Sir Clive

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Percival, Ian

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Pym, Francis

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Hastings, Stephen

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Busk, Antony (Colchester)

Higgins, Terence L.

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Campbell, Gordon

Holland, Philip

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Carlisle, Mark

Hornby, Richard

Royle, Anthony

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Howel, David (Guildford)

Sharpies, Richard

Cary, Sir Robert

Hunt, John

Sinclair, Sir George

Cordle, John

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Summers, Sir Spencer

Costain, A. P.

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Tapsell, Peter

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Temple, John M.

Crouch, David

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Dalkeith, Earl of

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

Wall, Patrick

Drayson, G. B.

Lubbock, Eric

Webster, David

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Eden, Sir John

Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

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

McMaster, Stanley

Woodnutt, Mark

Emery, Peter

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Worsley, Marcus

Eyre, Reginald

Maddan, Martin

Farr, John

Marten, Neil

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Fletcher-cooke, Charles

Maude, Angus

Mr. Anthony Grant and

Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

6.7 a.m.
Mr. M. Stewart: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
At this stage, it is, perhaps, fortunate in the circumstances that we are required to confine our arguments to what is in the Bill and not discuss the general range of economic conditions in which the Bill is placed. The Bill is concerned with the use of legal powers in the prices and incomes policy, and it is for that reason unwelcome to a certain number of hon. Members. In one of our debates yester-
698
day, I stated what I believe to be the goal which we should have in mind in regard to prices and incomes policy, that is, something which is voluntary but which is not what is popularly called a free-for-all—in other words, acceptance by trade unions, manufacturers and suppliers of the proposition that it is in the general interest that people do not approach every single operation of wage or price fixing with an exclusive concern for what they think will be immediately solely to their advantage.

699
I advance that principle on the ground that, if people do behave in that manner, they do not in the end serve their own interests best. I believe that that principle embodies the real object of our policy, that we want not what is popularly called a free-for-all but a voluntary acceptance of something wiser, shrewder and more public spirited than that.
We are then faced with the question: Is it right in any circumstances whatever for a limited period in an emergency for the Government to have a part in the form of statutory powers? I think it is common agreement that if they have such a part it should be for a limited period, and it should be only if it can be justified by emergency. What is in dispute, I think, is whether in the present circumstances it is right to have the degree of statutory power that is stated in the Bill. That is the main issue on Third Reading.
The Government took the view that this amount of statutory power was right for the following reason. Before July, 1966, the nation was endeavouring to work what I regarded as the best solution, something that was voluntary but not a free-for-all. Last July under the pressure of what I think everyone agreed was emergency we took considerable statutory powers in Part IV. Part IV was activated last October, and that activation was done with the agreement of the trade union movement.
I well remember in the debate on this matter at the Labour Party Conference two remarks made by trade unionists which illustrated very clearly the opposing points of view. There was the remark made by Mr. Sydney Greene speaking for a group of workers who have been far from well paid. He said that he supported what the Government proposed to do
"because my members are sick and tired of having to run and run and always remaining in the same place."
He felt that unless there was some concerted policy which would prevent prices racing away the workers whom he represented were in a position where they could not win. That was one point of view.
The other point of view was expressed by a trade union leader who said, quite simply:
"I can look after myself."
Mr. Orme: That is not true.
Mr. Stewart: It is. I was there and heard it.
Mr. Orme: My right hon. Friend must not repeat a complete untruth. Mr. Jenkins was replying to a retort from the floor. He was not talking about looking after himself in selfish terms of trade union leadership. He was talking about looking after himself in relation to the platform, not in relation to the trade union movement.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is not entitled to say that what I said was untrue. Many of us were there and heard those words used.
Mr. Mikardo: What was the context?
Mr. Stewart: The context is something that everyone can study.
Mr. Michael Foot Mr. Michael Foot rose—
Mr. Stewart: Just a moment. I am replying to one intervention. My hon. Friend—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The debate has proceeded in an orderly fashion. Let it continue so.
Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend can put what interpretation on it he chooses.
Mr. Foot: Will my right hon. Friend give way now?
Mr. Stewart: Yes.
Mr. Foot: Everyone who studies the matter will recognise—indeed it was stated quite clearly by Mr. Clive Jenkins afterwards—that what he was referring to was the attempt by the chairman to deal with interrupters. He said:
"I can look after myself."
He was referring solely to the fact that he did not need assistance in dealing with interruptions. That was made absolutely plain thereafter. It is quite improper for my right hon. Friend to make this allegation, and I hope he will withdraw it.
Mr. Stewart: I hope that the information that my hon. Friend gives is correct.
Mr. Foot: It is correct.
Mr. Stewart: It was not accepted by the audience at the time who heard the

701
words. Perhaps I might draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) to something else. Earlier today he was arguing that trade union leaders representing the interests of higher paid workers were bound by the nature of their job to press for the best bargain they could. I ask my hon. Friend to consider this a little more than when he said it.
If it is to be taken as a general rule that a trade union leader, on finding at any point that the union which he leads is in a strong bargaining position, may decide to exploit that to the full, whatever effect it may have on the general economic situation, then I do not believe that that is the right thing to do. Indeed, I do not believe it to be in the long-term interest of even the members whom he is hoping to serve, and that is the point I am making. If I did an injustice to Mr. Clive Jenkins, I am sorry—[HON. MEMBERS: "Smear"]— but I am bound to say that if words like "smear" are to be thrown about, those who take the opposite view to that of the Government are not particularly nice in their choice of words. People must not be as thin skinned as this when they are being outspoken. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I have got used to hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not mind what they say.
The point at issue is an extremely important one. If every group in society were to say, "We are in a strong bargaining position. It is not only our right, but duty, to exploit it to the full," the result would be disastrous for us all. That is why I repeat that we must work for a policy which is voluntary and public spirited. This problem then arises: does one, at any time, need a degree of statutory power. And the issue is whether, at this juncture, the amount of statutory power in the Bill is right.
The Government hold their present view because, after having had a period of seeking to achieve a really voluntary system, based on the Statement of Intent, we then had the emergency situation of July and, in consequences, the exceptional powers of Part IV; and the activation of Part IV at the time as I have said received the assent of the trade union movement. In deciding, since then, to move away from Part IV and again towards a fully voluntary system, one
702
should consider whether it would have been wise or prudent, in the present difficult situation—and the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) drew attention to how difficult it can be—to make that change completely and in one step. I do not believe that would have been the prudent thing to do.
That, and nothing else, is really the point at issue. I understand the strong feelings that come from very different quarters; those who have a legal background feeling concerned about the attitude towards contracts, those with a trade union background feeling concerned about penal provisions and all of us, as citizens of a free country, always wanting carefully to scrutinise any assumption of powers by the Government. But while we may feel strongly on this issue, we should note the measure of agreement that exists; the almost universal—but not 100 per cent.—agreement that we want a policy that is voluntary, and not a free-for-all. I think that there would be fairly wide agreement that there can be circumstances in which some degree of legal powers can, for a time, be justified.
That leaves us with this point in dispute: is the amount of legal power in the Bill, for the time stated in the Measure, justified at the present time? Having stated the issue, it would be going beyond Third Reading if I tried to argue the economic arguments to and fro—[Interruption.]—the argument which people want to weigh up in order to answer that question. However, I state the question so that it should be clear to the House what is here at issue.
My hon. Friends who disagree with the Government should see the issue for what it is. The charge that the Government are permanently wedded to the principle of legal powers has no foundation. After the time that we have spent on the Bill, no-one can seriously suspect the Government of wanting to make this an annual exercise. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members, whatever their feelings on the Bill, will realise that the Government have made the right decision on legal powers. None the less, not only the Government but the nation are engaged in trying to establish a voluntary policy towards prices and incomes as against letting things slide or work themselves

703
out—but I would stress a voluntary policy, without legal compulsions.
It was inevitable that, in this attempt, which the nation must continue, there were bound to be some false starts and differences of opinion as to whether each part was being properly handled, but I hope that those differences will not blind the nation to the enormous importance of trying to work out the principles of a just, permanent and voluntary policy for prices, productivity and incomes.
6.23 a.m.
Mr. Higgins: I oppose the Third Reading, and do not doubt that I will carry my right hon. and hon. Friends with me. The First Secretary has just told us what he believes a prices and incomes policy should be, and he raised the crucial question of whether this degree of statutory power is needed at present. Our clear contention is that it is not. It is not what he said that drives one to this conclusion, and still less is it the White Paper which is now the Third Schedule to the Bill, on the prices and incomes policy after 30th June, which contains a clear contradiction between the second paragraph and the sixth.
The second says that the measures of last July
"… have eliminated the excess pressure of demand, have freed resources for export production and other essential purposes, and have slowed down the rise in prices and incomes."
The sixth says:
"More immediately the aim must be to avoid any widespread and unjustifiable increases in prices due to pressures which may have been building up during the periods of standstill and severe restraint."
Unless we know which of those statements the Government believe, we cannot judge on their basis whether the Bill is necessary. We do not believe that it is, because the voluntary policy on which it is based is false.
We must consider in this context the statements on television last night—when we were saying that he should have been in the House—by the Leader of the House. In reply to the interviewer, he said:
"Well, I'm not concerned with what the Labour Party said but what I said. That is what really matters; and what I said was 'now look'—I was talking to my own comrades in the party—I said 'Now look: if we can make the wages policy work on a volun-
704
tary basis, good, but if we cannot make it work, then we're back where we were before, with the one thing we are fighting to avoid, which is unemployment'."
Unemployment does not follow from that. That means unemployment the Government are deliberately going to create. It seems that the Leader of the House has jumped from the frying pan into the fire in arguing for going back to Part IV or going back to mass unemployment.
We cannot judge the Bill unless we are clear on the Government's attitude to this essential question. It is perfectly clear that they are going to continue time and time again to renew the statutory powers under the Bill.
In the two-year period from July last year to July next year the net effect of the policy will probably be zero and any restraint exercised will be the result of the July measures and not the prices and incomes policy incorporated in the Bill. Yet the cost of the Bill and the policy is very heavy.
There has been the complete disorganisation of the Government's programme in the House. That is something with which we could bear. In addition, as the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) said, agreements for the improvement of efficiency and productivity have been positively delayed and inhibited by the Bill.
There has been the sad toll in good industrial relations resulting from the Bill and the measures introduced to bring the full weight of the criminal law upon trade unions which do not comply with the Government's wishes. The debate on this was closured earlier. What we are getting, if that Clause needs to be in the Bill, is not free-for-all but free-for-gaol. There is the question of retrospection, which is not an unfortunate lapse but an intrinsic part of the Government's policy. The Government are putting more and more retrospection into legislation as a habit.
There is the question of the abandonment of contracts. The contrast between the speech of the Leader of the Opposition at the weekend and the Government's view is that he said that contracts should be binding. The Bill strikes at the basis of contracts and suggests that they are not important and can be

705
brushed aside. None of the cost is surprising in the context of a policy which is based on intimidation and discrimination rather than any appraisal of the situation.
I want to turn from the pragmatic approach which we had from the First Secretary last year to the metaphysics of the First Secretary this year. He has asked us to distinguish between a fully voluntary policy and a voluntary policy.
Mr. M. Stewart: I made clear last night and again today that I made no distinction between these two terms.
Mr. Higgins: I am glad to know that there is no distinction between fully voluntary policy and voluntary policy. If the First Secretary looks at the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that he changed his ground and drew a distinction.
There are four classifications of the policy. There is a fully compulsory policy which would involve the direction of labour and a centrally controlled economy. Some hon. Members seemed to be verging near this last night. There is a compulsory policy which is Part IV. There is a voluntary policy which would appear to be Part II. Finally, there is a fully voluntary policy where everything goes on all right and everyone is a volunteer. Under the terms of the Bill it is difficult for employers and trade unions or anyone else to know precisely what they are volunteering for. Anyone who took part in the debate with the Attorney-General must be very uncertain about what he is volunteering for.
The essential point is that from beginning to end the right hon. Gentleman has not told us how his voluntary policy or fully voluntary policy towards which he is moving is distinguished from what he called a free for all. It boils down to what has been described as ear stroking. He: says, "We shall have no compulsory powers. We shall just ask eveyone to co-operate". But no one will do so unless he has a guarantee that everyone else will co-operate. Therefore, if we accept the right hon. Gntleman's argument, I do not see how we can get away from an element of compulsion either in terms of Part II or in terms of the Bill. We shall see a repetition of the kind of Bill that we are discussing—
Mr. M. Stewart: The hon. Member argues that what I call a voluntary policy
706
will not work and will be indistinguishable from a free-for-all. Does he take the view that what the T.U.C. are trying to do is useless and doomed to failure?
Mr. Higgins: It is not for me to explain at this stage what the right hon. Gentleman means by a voluntary policy. Time and again he has failed to explain it, and he has had enough opportunities in the last two days to tell us how he distinguishes his voluntary policy from a free-for-all. It may be that if he could implicate the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. in his policy he could reduce us to the Corporate State which we had in certain countries in Europe before the war and have a voluntary policy of that kind. Certainly after the Prime Minister's assurance on television, which has become notorious, it is clear that we are likely to find again and again a Bill of this kind or Part II being repeated over and over again and compulsory powers continuing in existence.
We are absolutely right to oppose the Bill because Government policy has not been universal; it is becoming more and more of a farce to suggest that the kind of discrimination which has taken place under the Bill has been universal. That has not been the case in respect of those cases which went to the courts and were then over-ruled or in respect of the vast majority of non-union labour, because the Bill discriminates against those whom my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) called identifiable or noticeable. It is those it discriminates against.
It seems to us that the policy which the Government say will achieve a social justice is clearly destined to fail because the lowest-paid workers will not gain in the long run from a scheme of this kind which seeks to alter the differentials in such a way that economic efficiency is necessarily jeopardised. There is a great deal of poverty among the lowest-paid workers and the way to tackle that is through the social services. We need a much wider approach to the problem.
We feel that the Bill is utterly reprehensible. We are being asked to suffer for a benefit which has not been clearly demonstrated and I hope that the House will reject the Bill on Third Reading.
6.35 a.m.
Mr. Mikardo: I would not have detained the House for any length of time at

707
this hour except for the fact that, in some of the passages of my right hon. Friend's speech, he said some things which should not go without reply. There was almost a Freudian revelation in his speech. His slip started showing when he revealed the extent to which he hinges the action proposed to take under this Bill and hinges his resistance to the opposition to it round the person of one individual trade union leader whom he spent two-thirds of his speech attacking.
I do not refer here to his quotation of a piece out of context because my right hon. Friend withdrew that under some pressure—which is more than his right hon. Friend who was the author of it has had the decency to do. But my right hon. Friend did err in making his extreme, personalised attack on the opposition to the Bill.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Rubbish.
Mr. Mikardo: My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) has not been with us, but he shouts "rubbish."
Mr. Lyon: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Mikardo: No. I will give way to any hon. Member who has been here for these debates. I have been here for two nights, barring one hour. I will give way with pleasure to anyone who has taken an interest in the Bill.
The fact is that my right hon. Friend is naturally a bit sensitive, because the gentleman to whom he referred has proved that the Government did not know the import of their own Act. There was a difference of view about what was the import of that Measure. Some people said that it meant one thing; the Government said that it meant another. No one wants to be proved wrong.
So I understand my right hon. Friend being sensitive about this matter. I have great respect for him. I should be the last to want to say anything that would hurt him and I say in all friendliness that he will carry more conviction with the trade union movement if he understands that the opposition to his policy throughout the movement is more widespread
708
than one individual or one union. It is widespread in terms both of the numbers of people involved and of the strength of their feelings.
My right hon. Friend should not try to elevate, if that is the right word, Mr. Clive Jenkins into the bogy of the single opposition to the Bill. Mr. Jenkins is the officer of a union. He has to do what his union tells him. [Laughter.] I do not know why my hon. Friend laughs. I happen to have been a member of the National Executive of that union for more than 20 years. I do not know of any other union with a more democratic constitution. The National Executive has been unanimous in its opposition to the Bill.
Moreover, it has submitted its views every year to the union's delegate conference, which has endorsed them by overwhelming majorities. To say, therefore, and to snigger about it, that this is the activity of one man is doing a disservice and is denigrating a very large body of people who give a lot of their leisure time to helping one of our unions.
I remind my right hon. Friend that the activities of A.S.S.E.T. in this respect have been carried out continuously with the co-operation of four other unions—to the scientific workers, D.A.T.A., the Society of Technical Civil Servants and the Cine and Television Technicians' Union. These five unions have worked together throughout. This must not be dismissed as a one-man operation.
If my right hon. Friend thinks that he can isolate one man in this way, he should bear in mind that the union which has spearheaded the opposition to his policy is, as a result, the fastest growing union in the country. When, largely as a result of disillusionment with the Government's prices and incomes policy, most unions are having difficulty holding their membership and are not holding their contribution income by a long chalk, the union which has spearheaded the opposition is growing faster than any other.
I do not say that in order to be vainglorious about it, but in order to emphasise what I have already said, that it is nonsense and self-defeating for my right hon. Friend to try to present a picture of a trade union movement wholly in support of him, except for one man

709
who has to be painted as the villain of the piece. My right hon. Friend does himself and his Government no service by doing that sort of thing.
As I am on my feet, I want now to mike one or two observations about the parts of the Bill which concern the punitive measures against trade unionists and to make one or two observations which I would have made earlier in the night if I had not fallen foul of the moving of the Closure. I tried to make it clear in an intervention, since I could not get in a speech, that the dangerous part about these provisions was that they were a sort of hydrogen bomb, a sort of deterrent which could not possibly be used because it was so powerful, almost an ex act parallel situation with that of the hydrogen bomb.
If the Government ever used these powers, if, as I suggested earlier, one shop steward were to be proceeded against, were to refuse to pay his fine and so be put into prison, then the whole of the policy would be blown sky high. Therefore, the weapon which the Government have given themselves by this legislation is a weapon which, almost by definition, they dare not use.
My right hon. Friend might well ask me why in that case I am worried. We are all worried about nations having hydrogen bombs, even if we feel that they are too powerful to be used. The trouble is that we do not know what sort of Red Guards may get hold of one of them and we do not know how they might get to be used almost by accident. That is why some of us are worried about these punitive powers.
My right hon. Friend keeps assuring us, and did so again in an intervention only a few moments ago, that there is absolutely no intention whatever of making this sort of legislation permanent. Some anxieties have been expressed on that score and some anxieties about it are still felt not only in one quarter. Because of these many anxieties, my right hon. Friend keeps on having to utter these assurances.
There are some who say, but I am not one of them, that the speech of the Lord President of the Council made a justifiable contribution to those anxieties. I wish that my right hon. Friend would get together with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lan-
710
caster in order to agree about whether this legislation is temporary or permanent. I have in my hand the journal of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, the issue of June, 1967, which contains an article headed:
"Straight talk from Brother Lee
A condensed report of his Speech to National Committee."
I quote three paragraphs from this article which are as follows:
"On this count he gave a warning. 'Without it (prices and incomes policy) we can never achieve the economic conditions in which we can give as much as we would like to the Social Services', he said. As an indication of future demands of the economy he indicated that the prices and incomes policy was here to stay.
'The need for the prices and incomes policy … is as great in times of economic solvency as when we are in difficulty ' he said.
'One of its effects will be to assist in the redistribution of incomes, which free collective bargaining can never do, he continued'."
I do not want to overstate it, but there seems to be some marginal inconsistency between what the First Secretary has been saying at intervals during two nights and the statement that prices and incomes policy is here to stay. There seems to be an inconsistency between the First Secretary's argument that this is a temporary measure to deal with economic crises and insolvency, and the observations of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that the need for the prices and incomes policy:
"…is as great in times of economic solvency as when we are in difficulty."
I am sure that both my right hon. Friends will feel some sympathy for the ordinary chaps on the back benches who try very hard to reconcile these conflicting statements, and do not always succeed in doing so.
As is well known, I think that this is a bad Bill. It is irrelevant to the solution of the nation's economic difficulties. While a good prices and incomes policy would be a contribution to that solution, this is not a good policy, and I hope that we shall see the back of this legislation as quickly as possible.
6.47 a.m.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not often find myself in any measure of agreement with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), but what he said in his closing sentences expresses the view of many hon. Members on this side

711
of the House. It is certainly clear from the conduct of this matter that the Government have learned nothing, and, unlike the Bourbons, forgotten a lot. This Bill, the cornerstone of the Government's economic policy, has been taken on Report through two long nights, at the worst possible time for considering detailed and complex legislation and getting it right. We are exposed to this and the Government will be exposed to the consequences of this, for no other reason than the arrogant incompetence of the Leader of the House.
The Government did exactly the same last year with the 1966 Act. It was produced at a very late stage, with every mark of hurry and not subject to the proper process of legislation in this House at a reasonable hour of the day, when it could be examined. The Government paid the price. The hon. Member for Poplar reminded the House that the right hon. Gentleman the First Secretary for nearly a year was purporting to exercise powers which the Court of Appeal found that he did not have, and when this was found out, he had to face the humiliation of coming to the Box and withdrawing no fewer than four of these Orders, for which he had no authority.
We shall have the same process again, because the same causes produce the same results. This is, equally, a horrid, botched-up Bill. It is a Bill full of retrospection, full of awkward, clumsy attempts to tie up with the previous Act. It contains one subsection 5(3), which the right hon. Gentleman earlier in the night admitted did not completely coincide with the policy set out in the White Paper which it was supposed to bring into effect. It was too difficult for the right hon. Gentleman—as near as he could get.
Legislation of this sort, as we saw with the previous Act, can produce the greatest trouble on any subject. When one has legislation of this sort, and in so sensitive an area as our national life as industrial relations, it is an absolutely simple recipe for trouble.
A few moments ago the right hon. Gentleman said that he really wanted a voluntary system. It was this Government, last year, which introduced compulsion for the first time. This Measure
712
carries on a measure of compulsion; to some extent in a different form, but still compulsion. It is a curious way to go towards the voluntary system which the right hon. Gentleman, hand on heart, says that he wants when he brings forward legislation to continue compulsion. It is rather like the epic journey of the poet:
"The night we went to Birmingham by way of Beachy Head."
He is going in the opposite direction with all this apparatus of retrospection and complicated provisions, which as the hon. Member for Poplar rightly said can be invoked against trade unions and trade union leaders who are only doing their duty as they see it—the introduction into this sensitive sphere of compulsion backed by criminal penalties.
Of course the right hon. Gentleman said that it will be temporary, but compulsion in these matters, once introduced, is very difficult to eliminate. I shall not weary the House at this hour by repeating the hints, not only of the Lord President of the Council, but of the Minister speaking in another place, that this was not the end of the road of compulsion. We cannot help remembering that the right hon. Gentleman last year was giving the impression that this was only temporary; this was just for a year and then all would be well.
Here again a badly drafted Bill, a badly constructed Bill is continuing compulsion. I venture to prophesy that it will be continued as long as this Government last. I do not believe that with their liking for compulsion and statutory powers of this sort they will give it up so long as they are in charge of our affairs. They will not want for ample excuse in the disturbed and distressed condition of our economy, which will equally persist so long as they are in office.
So we take leave of this Bill knowing that it will do little good and much harm, knowing that it is a Bill which in their hearts only the Government want, knowing that not only will it not serve the country but that it is a dangerous illusion to think that it is a substitute for sound economic policy.
6.53 a.m.
Mr. William Molloy: There can be little doubt that this

713
Measure has caused a degree of anguish and has upset many supporters of Her Majesty's Government. That is nothing to be ashamed of. The Government are supported by a very sensitive and undoubtedly the greatest democratic organisation in the world. It is something which we should be proud of because what goes on in this House is talked at out, discussed and examined throughout t the entire structure of the Labour Movement.
Therefore when a Measure of this sort, which is very close to the founder part of our movement, the trade union movement, is passed, it is bound to cause feelings of great heart searching, grief and apprehension and to go even further —no doubt to the delight of the Opposition party—and cause grave splits within the British Labour movement. Naturally, the Opposition have had a very enjoyable time. They have had a hilarious evening, but behind this Measure there is indeed a very serious question. I hope to demonstrate in a few moments the grave responsibilities which the Opposition have because of their contribution over the years to creating a situation which called for some form of action, and if this is not precisely the right action, some action had to be taken. I say this in the interests of democratic organisations, and it will wipe the supercilious smiles off some of the faces opposite, because it is an extraordinarily serious issue. The basic argument is about the future economic structure of our nation—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Member is not going back, as I think it is the point he was about to make, to the 13 years of a previous Government.
Mr. Molloy: I was not really thinking of going back to the 13 dreadful years. What I was trying to point out was, that there is a great problem which is afflicting not only our country but, indeed, all Western democracies. Perhaps the problem was best outlined in a speech which the late Aneurin Bevan made in this House on 3rd November, 1959. What he said was this:
"There is one important problem facing representative Parliamentary government in the whole of the world where it exists. It is being asked to solve a problem which so far it has failed to solve: that is, how to reconcile Parliamentary popularity with sound economic planning. So far, nobody on either
714
side of this House has succeeded and it is a problem which has to be solved if we are to meet the challenge that comes to us from other parts of the world and if we are to grout and to buttress the institutions of Parliamentary government in the affections of the population. … I would describe the central problem falling upon representative government in the Western world as how to persuade the people to forgo immediate satisfactions in order to build up the economic resources of the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd November, 1959; Vol. 612, c. 862.]
Now it was this problem which the present Government at least had the guts to face. I have a great deal of sympathy with many of the criticisms which have been made through the early hours of today by many of my hon. Friends, and perhaps in other circumstances I might have been with them totally and completely, but let me say this, that despite all the errors which this Government may have made, or may make in the future, I would much prefer at any time men of their quality and calibre, belonging to the movement they do, to hon. Members opposite in dealing—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot comment on the merits of the observations of the hon. Member, but they are out of order on Third Reading of this Bill.
Mr. Molloy: During the morning hon. Members opposite have had great fun in trying to exploit the embarrassment of the Government Nobody blames them for that; it is part of their job; but what, I am bound to say, I found particularly distasteful was their suddenly revealing their new found sympathy for British trade unionism. Indeed, at one time they seemed annoyed that there might not be the possibility of any more strikes—which they could so successfully exploit, as they have done so often in the past. Whenever there has been an industrial collision in this country members of the Tory Party have never failed to couple the Labour Party with the trade unions.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are on Third Reading of the Bill. On the Third Reading of a Bill hon. Members may discuss only what is in the Bill.
Mr. Molloy: In trying to relate my remarks to the Bill, I am pointing out that, when we are discussing an issue of this importance, the people of this country expect an honest argument. We

715
have not had that from hon. Gentlemen opposite.
With the achievement of a decent economic recovery, we shall be able to put this legislation behind us, so that our trade union movement can play its proper rùle. I hope that that time will not be too long in coming, though that again will irritate and annoy hon. Gentlemen opposite. When it does, this legislation will pass away, having done its job, and then the true function of British trade unionism can be resuscitated.
7.1 a.m.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) charged or, at any rate, averred—I do not know whether it was a charge or a congratulation—that we had had a hilarious evening and a lot of fun. I am not conscious of having had either—
Mr. Molloy Mr. Molloy rose—
Sir D. Walker-Smith: I know what the hon. Gentleman will say, and I accept his point. I was about to add that I was not conscious of having had either, at any rate until the last few minutes, and we must thank him for providing some hilarity and fun to lighten the somewhat sombre scene of the night and the discussion of this important and technical Bill.
Mr. Molloy: The right hon. and learned Gentleman thought that he correctly anticipated what I was thinking. He was wrong. I was thinking that the probability is that he was neither hilarious nor having an enjoyable time because he was probably not even conscious.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: In answer to that intervention, I can only say that it confirms my first judgment, which was that I ought not to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
I regret to say that it is about 15½ hours since I ventured to suggest that this method of conducting business, with all-night sittings, is not really good for the repute of this House in the context of the efficient and sensible running of our affairs. It is right to say that the Bill testifies to that. The Bill and its parent Act are both largely the result, parliamentarily speaking, of all-night dis-
716
cussion, and neither is any credit to the Statute Book.
The right hon. Gentleman prescribed the test of whether the Government had made a proper use of their legal powers by the content of the Bill. I accept the test. The answer is clearly that they have not in the content of this Bill satisfied that test and made a proper use of their legal powers. In saying that, I do not suggest that there is not scope for government in this context, and that there is not perhaps scope for statutory provision. I am conscious that there are lower-paid workers—for example, people doing socially useful but not directly productive work—whom the uninhibited operation of collective bargaining may leave further behind in the incomes race than social conscience ought to accept. I believe that to be true. Therefore, it is an over-simplification to say that all these great matters can be resolved simply by the unfettered mechanism of the market or by uninhibited collective bargaining by the great trades unions with the great employers' organisations. To say that there is a field, or may be a field, for Government activity or statutory provision is certainly not to say that this is it.
At the beginning of the Labour Government's term of office in 1964 I ventured to say that one of their prime faults was following a false syllogism—something must be done, this is something, therefore let us do it. They are still following that false syllogism after nearly three years, and this Bill is another very good example of it.
The Bill does everything, and is everything, which an Act of Parliament should not do and be. Whereas it should be clearly drafted, it is obscurely drafted. Whereas it should be clearly enforceable in its provisions, it is only doubtfully enforceable in its provisions. Whereas it should be equitable, it is in many respects inequitable. Whereas it should adhere to the constitutional proprieties, it does violence to them in many respects, and the two respects in which it mainly does violence to them are those of retrospection and invasion of the sanctity of contract.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he sympathised with the concern of lawyers for these matters. I have served the law for a good many years, but it

717
is not only lawyers who are concerned about these matters. These are the fundamental principles on which our democratic community works, and to invade these principles, as has been done in the Bill, is to derogate from the democratic and traditional basis of our society.
During the discussions on Report we had instances of the retrospective provisions of the Bill. May I remind the House of what is said in the leading textbook which I quoted earlier in regard to retrospection:
"Every statute, it has been said, which takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, of imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in respect of transactions or considerations already past, must be presumed, out of respect to the legislature, to be intended not to have a retrospective operation."
"Out of respect to the legislature", and yet here the legislature is ceasing to respect its own tradition, because we are increasingly being invited to put these retrospective provisions into our Statutes.
The other matter is the invasion of the sanctity of contract. I cannot think that it is right, as a result of Government exhortation, to get people to breach their contracts, and then offer them a statutory defence. This principle is foreign to the traditional evolution of our law, and one out of which mischief may come.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. BoydCarpenter) rightly said that compulsion is liable to grow. It is, to use the modern idiom, a drug of addiction, and all these things which the Government are doing here, their compulsion, their retrospection, their invasion of sanctity of contract, are things which are likely to continue.
The hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) said that there was an inconsistency between Government spokesmen on whether all this was intended to be temporary or permanent. The Rent Acts were intended to be temporary. Income Tax was intended to be temporary. There are few things more permanent than Measures which start out to be temporary, and they have the added disadvantage that, because they are thought to be temporary, they are less fundamentally thought out when they are originally put on the Statute Book.
All this, I respectfully submit, amounts to a very substantial indictment of the
718
Measure that we are asked to approve. I think that the House would be false to its tradition and its duty to the community if it were to do other than deny the passage of the Bill.
7.10 a.m.
Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I have sat through the complete two nights and days of the debates on the Bill and also the whole of the Committee stage. In respect of no Bill which I have ever seen through the House has there been so much inflation of what was originally a narrow piece of legislation. It is an important Bill, and the discussion, rightly, has been probing. It seems to me that we have debated an issue on what was quite a small basis, arising from previous legislation, and have extended it so fine that by the time of this Third Reading debate the impression has been created in some people's minds that the Bill is the whole of the Government's prices and incomes policy, instead of being only part of it.
In our debates mention has been made of the rights of the workers or employees, and the traditions thereof. Strong representations have been made, on behalf of the manufacturers, about the way in which they shall operate, but there no strong voice is raised on behalf of the consumer. There is no consumer T.U.C. which has a voice in negotiations with the Government. The C.B.I. is there, but the consumers are not.
I respect the Government's attempt and accept that the Bill is not perfect. I have never seen a Bill that was perfect. But I believe that my right hon. Friend is endeavouring to do something which has never been done before, namely, to get some planning into our very mixed economy. I hope that as a result of that planning it will be less mixed, and that we shall move more towards a Socialist economy.
If we throw out the Measure we shall have nothing at all to put in its place. We are seeking to get the maximum amount of co-operation throughout the country in order to achieve a measure of justice and to improve standards of living, especially of the lower-paid worker. This can be done only by the intervention of bodies other than those engaged in bargaining on the question of wages or the prices to be charged for goods.

719
I welcome the Bill. I welcome the reassurance that my right hon. Friend has given, not once but hundreds of times, both in Committee and on Report, about the nature of the statutory powers which are to be retained. It has been a source of amazement to me, especially in Committee, to consider the persistence of the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). Time and time again he has asked questions that seemed to me to receive very reasonable answers from my right hon. Friend and yet he has still said, "I am demanding an answer" If I have heard him say this once I have heard him say it hundreds of times.
My right hon. Friend has many failings, but he is not imprecise, nor is he woolly, in trying to answer questions put to him by opponents of the Bill, on whichever side of the House they may be. It has amazed me to hear the hon. Member for Worthing, and sometimes the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr), accusing my right hon. Friend of not being precise in his answers, when my right hon. Friend has, in his usual logical and rational way, given the answers that the Opposition have demanded.
It has been a long session. We are now reaching the end. I apologise for delaying the House. I hope that as a result of the efforts we have made, in spite of the inconvenient times that we have had to sit, we shall succeed in getting the mass of the population behind us in trying to work out a rational policy which will provide more social justice and fairness, and will give more room for the economy to expand, not in a haphazard way but in the kind of way which will give the maximum benefit to our people.
7.15 a.m.
Mr. Biffen: Like the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), I have lived with the Report stage of the Bill for the last 50 hours or more, and I lived with the Bill in Standing Committee too, so that I have almost had enough; but it is such a detestable Bill that I shall vote with enthusiasm against it when the Division is called in a few minutes.
The powers sought under Clauses 1 to 3 and in relation to the new Schedule now to be inserted in the parent Act are designed, among other things, to improve
720
the status, the pay, the relative income of lower-paid workers. On that basis, the Bill has been presented and, to some extent, sold to many reluctant hon. Members opposite below the Gangway. We do not know whether this will happen in fact, but we do know what is shown by the latest figures available in the Ministry of Labour's June 1967 statistics on incomes, prices, employment and production. Between June, 1966, and January, 1967, the differential between skilled manual workers and labourers in engineering widened. It did not narrow; it did exactly the opposite of what this policy is supposed to achieve. My first point, therefore, is that what sketchy evidence there is does not support the oft-made assertion that the policy is assisting lower-paid workers.
Considerable emphasis has been placed on the responsibility of the Government in making references to the National Board for Prices and Incomes, in cooperation with the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. In furtherance of this, Ministers are concurring in one of the least prepossessing of their activities. This is not confined to Ministers; it applies to all politicians. I refer to the tendency to moralise, and particularly to moralise on what is presumed to be an acceptable code of commercial conduct.
This practice often proceeds from certain Governmental assumptions about, for instance, the exchange rate, about military deployment east of Suez, or about the level of internal public expenditure—all of which have certain consequences for the economy—which are not necessarily universally accepted. But there is assumed to be a universal morality which flows from these assumptions and decisions which ought to be accepted by anyone in commerce concerned with deciding a price or an income. In this connection, I read, and endorse, some observations by a distinguished trade unionist, Mr. Harry Nicholas, in an article he wrote on 17th June, 1966:
"No less unrealistic is the supposition that workers will be especially responsvie to what is held to be `the national interest' over wages issues. Once a sense of injustice has been generated—and in this situation there always are some material grounds for such a feeling —no loyalties are likely to prevail over it."
I believe those to be not only profoundly wise and perceptive words but patriotic

721
words, too. When the indicated wishes of the Government are presumed to over-ride what individual choices and preferences are exercised within the framework of law, we move dangerously near a State which was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) as the corporate State. The provisions of this Bill, and of Clauses 1 10 3 in particular, conduce to that situation.
Thirdly, we are told that this legisla1 ion is needed to give the reserve powers for a limited period of time until we can have a system which will be operated by the T.U.C. Operated by the T.U.C. over what? Over wages? Over incomes? But does the C.B.I. operate over prices? Of course not. Nobody in his right mind wants to see manufacturers ganging up to do collective price fixing. We should be moving away from that. So where is the logic in this policy?
Let there be no mistake; the idea of the T.U.C. wage vetting committee is to be the great gimmick of the year. I can quote no higher authority than the Prime Minister in his speech at Greenford on 3rd March:
"Yesterday's acceptance by the Conference of Trade Union Executives of a new and permanent approach to a policy on incomes restraint is, I believe, of historic importance."
He concluded:
"No one would underrate the greatness of this achievement or the formidable difficulties which its fulfilment will involve."
Sure—when 40 per cent. of the workers of the country are not even organised in unions.
Mr. Russell Kerr: Sixty per cent.
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Member is making my case better than I was doing.
The hon. Member for Willesden, West said that the First Secretary was always precise in his answers. All of us who have gone through this tog ether are genuinely appreciative of the way in which the First .Secretary has dealt with what has not been a particularly happy Bill. But there is this to consider. I understood the First Secretary to remark when he was making his Third Reading speech that before July, 1966, we had the best system of all. Are we to understand that the system to which he wishes to return is one whereby the T.L.C. has a vetting control, a volun-
722
tary system, over incomes? We do not know what the corresponding situation is for prices, but we will leave that on one side. Is that what the right hon. Gentleman is working for? Is that what his fully voluntary system is? Let it not be forgotten that before 1966 there were no long-stop arrangements. They came in in the prices and incomes legislation last year.
It would be of great interest not only to the House but to all those who are expected to operate the policy outside to know that it is the final objective of the Government—and presumably in the reasonably near future, because we do not want to go through this charade every year—to have a system where there is no long-stop, where the T.U.C. can be allowed to get on and do the job on its own account. Goodness knows what sanctions it will have against those unions which opt not to volunteer!
Finally, I do not believe that this is the end of the road in prices and incomes legislation. I do not believe for one moment that the economic outlook, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing said, is such that the Government will not be presented with a chance to rationalise their instincts for more intervention and more control. My guess is that it will be blamed upon a deteriorating balance of payments arising out of the crisis in the Middle East.
I should like to indulge in unashamed self-advertisement by quoting what I said in the Third Reading debate on the Prices and Incomes Bill last year. Speaking in the context of what would happen 12 months from then, I said:
"I can imagine that we shall be asked perhaps not to invoke Part IV, but to adjust the standstill periods in Part II."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th August, 1966; Vol. 733, c. 1806.]
That is precisely what has happened. I do not claim any credit for that comment—that view was widely held, even on the benches opposite—and I am as confident today as I was a year ago. I am sure that prices and incomes legislation will still be with us 12 months from today.
7.25 a.m.
Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I am glad of this opportunity to address the House, particularly since I am probably the first Ulsterman to do

723
so on the 12th of July. I rise to support my hon. Friends in opposing the Third Reading.
This is the latest of a long series of Measures we have had since the war designed fundamentally to correct the illness in our economy and the imbalance in our trade. I made several unsuccessful attempts to intervene while the First Secretary has been speaking to ask what he intends to do under this so-called voluntary policy. He made great play about the voluntary element being introduced, but when will the powers in the Bill come to an end?
I share the doubts which have been expressed by my hon. Friends. It is all very well to say that when these provisions cease to have effect—according to the First Secretary, in August of next year—it will be up to the trade unions and the S.B.I. voluntarily to arrive at an acceptable policy, but who will fix the norm? Will the Government no longer plan incomes and prices? If, on the other hand, the Government will continue to control and regulate prices and wages, the much talked of voluntary policy is meaningless.
Like the 1966 Act, the Bill is badly drafted. It is full of holes and anomalies. It will produce far more inequalities than it will cure. Only a week ago one of the main firms in my constituency, Harland and Wolff, was faced with a dispute which had arisen as a result of an Order made under the 1966 Act. Following Court of Appeal decisions, the Minister has revoked the Order, along with a number of others.
The Bill incorporates the theory that the Government know best. The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt)

Division No. 452.]

AYES

[7.33 a.m.

Anderson, Donald

Cant, R. B.

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Archer, Peter

Chapman, Donald

Ensor, David

Armstrong, Ernest

Coe, Denis

Faulds, Andrew

Ashley, Jack

Concannon, J. D.

Ford, Ben

Harriett, Joel

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Forrester, John

Bence, Cyril

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Freeson, Reginald

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Dalyell, Tame

Gardner, Tony

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Ginsburg, David

Bishop, E. S.

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

Gourlay, Harry

Boston, Terence

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Boyden, James

Delargy, Hugh

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Dewar, Donald

Grey, Charles (Durham)

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

Dobson, Ray

Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

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

Dunnett, Jack

Hamling, William

Brown, R. W. (Shoroditch & F'bury)

Eadie, Alex

Hannan, William

wondered why my hon. Friends and I oppose the Bill and say we cannot understand it. He called it a vehicle of social reform and, in using that phrase, he answered his own question. If the Bill is a vehicle of social reform and is designed to correct the anomaly whereby the most powerful unions can, without such a Measure, get more than their share by forceful bargaining, it will not achieve its purpose because it is diagnosing the wrong illness. The Government, faced with a patient who is sick with fever, are exposing him to the cold wind. This legislation is more likely to kill than cure the ills about which the First Secretary spoke. Unions are able to bargain because labour is scarce. If unions can thus demand higher wages than equivalent workers and attract scarce labour, surely the solution is not prices and incomes control but the prevention of these monopolistic practices. We should not seek to regulate the economy by this ill-drafted Bill, which creates anomalies and precludes economic flexibility and productivity, but should increase investment and productivity and thus reduce unit costs. This restrictive policy will never do it.
My main criticism is not just of the Bill but of the First Secretary's protest that it is only temporary and will be followed by a voluntary policy. The burden of the debate has been that the Government intend to plan the economy from now on, and this is but one sign of their interference. It is this type of Socialist interference which will ruin the economy.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
The House divided: Ayes 130, Noes 96.

Harper, Joseph

Maclennan, Robert

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Haseldine, Norman

Molloy, William

Skeffington, Arthur

Hattersley, Roy

Moonman, Erie

Small, William

Hazell, Bert

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Snow, Julian

Hilton, W. S.

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Hooley, Frank

Moyle, Roland

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

Howie, W.

Ogden, Eric

Taverne, Dick

Huckfield, L.

O'Malley, Brian

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Oram, Albert E.

Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

Hunter, Adam

Oswald, Thomas

Tinn, James

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Palmer, Arthur

Tuck, Raphael

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Pavitt, Laurence

Varley, Eric G.

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

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Pentland, Norman

Walden, Brian (All Saints)

Jones.Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,s.)

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

Watkins, David (Consett)

Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

Whitaker, Ben

Leadbitter, Ted

Price, William (Rugby)

Whitlock, William

Ledger, Ron

Rankin, John

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Rees, Merlyn

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Reynolds, G. W.

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Luard, Evan

Richard, Ivor

Winnick, David

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

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

Yates, Victor

Mabon. Dr. J. Dickson

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

McBride, Neil

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Macdonald, A. H.

Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

Mr. Alan Fitch and

McKay, Mrs. Margaret

Sheldon, Robert

Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Shore, Peter (Stepney)

NOES

Awdry, Daniel

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Baker, W. H. K.

Glover, Sir Douglas

Monro, Hector

Batsford, Brian

Goodhart, Philip

Montgomery, Fergus

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Grant, Anthony

More, Jasper

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Grant-Ferris, R.

Neave, Airey

Biffen, John

Gresham Cooke, R.

Nott, John

Biggs-Davison, John

Grieve, Percy

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Black, Sir Cyril

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Bossom, Sir Clive

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Percival, Ian

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

Hastings, Stephen

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Higgins, Terence L.

Pym, Francis

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Holland, Philip

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Buck, Antony (Colchester)

Hornby, Richard

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Campbell, Gordon

Howell, David (Guildford)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Carlisle, Mark

Hunt, John

Royle, Anthony

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Sharpies, Richard

Cary, Sir Robert

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Sinclair, Sir George

Cordle, John

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Summers, Sir Spencer

Costain, A. P.

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Tapsell, Peter

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Temple, John M,

Crouch, David

Kitson, Timothy

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)

Lubbock, Eric

Wall, Patrick

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Weather ill, Bernard

Hden, Sir John

Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

Webster, David

Emery, Peter

McMaster, Stanley

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Farr, John

Macmillan, Maurice (Famham)

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Maddan, Martin

Woodnutt, Mark

Fortescue, Tim

Marten, Neil

Worsley, Marcus

Foster, Sir John

Maude, Angus

Gibson-Watt, David

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

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

Mr. R. W. Elliott and

Mr. Reginald Eyre.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

ADJOURNMENT
Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]
Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eight o'clock a.m.

TECHNOLOGY
  Science-Based Industries (Scotland)
  Science-Based Industries (Scotland)
  Undersea Technology
  Undersea Technology
  Culham Laboratory (Plasma Physics Research)
  Culham Laboratory (Plasma Physics Research)
  Machine Tools (Public Sector Purchases)
  Machine Tools (Public Sector Purchases)
  National Joint Council on Materials Handling (Report)
  National Joint Council on Materials Handling (Report)
  Rootes Motors Ltd. (Factory Closure)
  Rootes Motors Ltd. (Factory Closure)
  Hydrogen Bomb
  Hydrogen Bomb
  Sonic Bangs
  Sonic Bangs
  Hovercraft
  Hovercraft
  Computer Centre, Cambridge
  Computer Centre, Cambridge
  Shipbuilding Industry Act (Marine Engineering)
  Shipbuilding Industry Act (Marine Engineering)
  Atomic Weapons Research Establishment, Aldermaston
  Atomic Weapons Research Establishment, Aldermaston
  Shipbuilding Industry (Report)
  Shipbuilding Industry (Report)
  Cross-Channel Hoverport (Inquiry)
  Cross-Channel Hoverport (Inquiry)
  Development Areas (Departmental Contracts)
  Development Areas (Departmental Contracts)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Nationalised Industries (Legal Proceedings)
  Nationalised Industries (Legal Proceedings)
  Brighton Foreshore (Public Rights)
  Brighton Foreshore (Public Rights)
  Purchase Tax (Waste Disposal Units)
  Purchase Tax (Waste Disposal Units)
  P.A.Y.E. (Computers)
  P.A.Y.E. (Computers)
  Fuel Tax
  Fuel Tax
  Balance of Payments (Oil Imports)
  Balance of Payments (Oil Imports)
  Travel Allowance
  Travel Allowance
  Taxation (Industrial Profits)
  Taxation (Industrial Profits)
  Civil Service Union (Women Cleaners' Pay)
  Civil Service Union (Women Cleaners' Pay)
  Public Service and Armed Forces (Pensions)
  Public Service and Armed Forces (Pensions)
  Defence Expenditure
  Defence Expenditure
  Civil Service (Freemasons)
  Civil Service (Freemasons)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  National Anti-Litter Week
  National Anti-Litter Week
  Pollution of Beaches (Report)
  Pollution of Beaches (Report)
  Civic Amentities Bill
  Civic Amentities Bill
HOUSING
  Rating Assessments (Aircraft Noise Insulation)
  Rating Assessments (Aircraft Noise Insulation)
  Local Authority Schemes (Quality of Materials)
  Local Authority Schemes (Quality of Materials)
  Newham
  Newham
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Sugar (Commonwealth Conference)
  Sugar (Commonwealth Conference)
  Gibraltar (Civil Flights)
  Gibraltar (Civil Flights)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Industrial Reorganisation Corporation
  Industrial Reorganisation Corporation
  Industrial Productivity
  Industrial Productivity
  RHODESIA (DUTCH EXPORTS)
  RHODESIA (DUTCH EXPORTS)
  OFFICIAL HISTORIES
  OFFICIAL HISTORIES
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  STATE VISIT (PRESIDENT OF ISRAEL)
  STATE VISIT (PRESIDENT OF ISRAEL)
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (NUCLEAR DEFENCE)
  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (NUCLEAR DEFENCE)
  CHINA (NUCLEAR TESTS)
  CHINA (NUCLEAR TESTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (DISCUSSIONS WITH KING HUSSEIN)
  PRIME MINISTER (DISCUSSIONS WITH KING HUSSEIN)
  DR. BALOGH
  DR. BALOGH
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Irish Cattle (Imports)
  Irish Cattle (Imports)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Aden (Killed Servicemen)
  Aden (Killed Servicemen)
  Married Quarters, Schools and Recreational Facilities (Overseas Costs)
  Married Quarters, Schools and Recreational Facilities (Overseas Costs)
  Ceremonial Parades (Fainting Military Personnel)
  Ceremonial Parades (Fainting Military Personnel)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Grammar School and Independent School Pupils, Surrey
  Grammar School and Independent School Pupils, Surrey
  Ballet Companies (Grants)
  Ballet Companies (Grants)
  Veterinary Graduates
  Veterinary Graduates
  Public Libraries and Museums Act, 1964
  Public Libraries and Museums Act, 1964
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Stafford Gaol (Rebuilding)
  Stafford Gaol (Rebuilding)
  New Winter Time (Title)
  New Winter Time (Title)
  Prisoners (Handcuffs)
  Prisoners (Handcuffs)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Connections (Standard Charge)
  Connections (Standard Charge)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Local Broadcasting Stations, Wales
  Local Broadcasting Stations, Wales
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Control of Liquid Fuel Bill (Definition)
  Control of Liquid Fuel Bill (Definition)
  Russian Oil (Import)
  Russian Oil (Import)
SCOTLAND
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Dredging Vessel "Dragon" (Replacement)
  Dredging Vessel "Dragon" (Replacement)
AVIATION
  Co-Pilots
  Co-Pilots
  Flight Time Legislation (Revised Proposals)
  Flight Time Legislation (Revised Proposals)
  Air Operators Certificates (Withdrawals)
  Air Operators Certificates (Withdrawals)
  Tees-side—London Service (Appeal)
  Tees-side—London Service (Appeal)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Cotton Textiles (Government Contracts)
  Cotton Textiles (Government Contracts)
  Census of Distribution
  Census of Distribution
WALES
  Welsh Economic Planning Board (Staff)
  Welsh Economic Planning Board (Staff)
  Civil Aviation Services
  Civil Aviation Services

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

TRANSPORT USERS' CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEES
2.36 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have for extending the powers and usefulness of the transport users' consultative committees.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before replying to this Question, may I, on behalf of all noble Lords, say how good it is to see the noble Lord, Lord Cones-ford, back in his usual place.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD SHEPHERD: In reply to the Question, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport is giving careful consideration to the powers and duties of the transport users' consultative committees in connection with the Transport Bill which she hopes to introduce in the next Session. She has already revised the list of the bodies which she consults before appointing members of these committees, in order to secure a wider representation of all classes of rail users. The committees already have wide powers to consider and, where it appears desirable, make recommendations on any matter affecting the services and facilities provided by the nationalised transport Boards. They are being encouraged to ensure that users of these services are familiar with this aspect of their duties.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that most encouraging reply, may I ask him to ask his right honourable friend to try to ensure that these committees are used to improve relations between British Rail-
998
ways and their customers, rather than they should continue to be used, as has been happening, just in order to cushion the unpopular decisions which Ministers of Transport inevitably from time to time have to take?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I would not accept the noble Lord's description that these committees are a "cushion." They were set up under the 1962 Statute to undertake representations and make recommendations when the Railways Board, in their executive capacity, recommend a closure. I take the point of the noble Lord; and, as I intimated in my original Answer, we have widened the scope for representations to these committees by the inclusion of those bodies which might broadly be described as representing the man in the street and the common or garden railway user.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will please take it that I am not being critical of what he has said about the future? But will he impress upon his right honourable friend that the usefulness of these committees should be on a different basis from what has happened in the past? Whether he accepts it or not, the main function of these Committees in the past has been to cushion decisions—and I can see one of Lord Shepherd's noble friends on the Front Bench nodding.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Which one?
LORD INGLEWOOD: No names, no pack drill!
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, if the noble Lord is referring to me, I was nodding for a different reason.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, the noble Earl the Leader of the House is drawing attention to himself unnecessarily. Will the noble Lord please take it that in the past it has happened that these consultative committees have become active only when there has been a proposal, not to reduce the services on a line, but to close it; and that many of us in the country would like to see them given wide powers and being used to consider such things as development of transport in their areas, so that they have a positive and not a negative role?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I will take note of what the noble Lord has said. He may remember that I described to your Lordships what the Government have in mind in regard to the Regional Development Councils—more forward planning for the use of the railways.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, could my noble friend say, in regard to the new thinking which is taking place on the use of these committees, whether it will include an alteration in the way in which they are staffed? That is to say, instead of the personnel being paid officers of the Railways Board, they will be recruited from outside, with a different method being adopted in regard to paying the expenses of these transport users' consultative committees. I feel that that assistance alone would give an additional boost to the new way of thinking to which my noble friend referred.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I take the point that my noble friend has made and will draw it to my right honourable friend's attention.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that, in the event of proposed closures, the consultative committees cannot talk with meaning to the railways unless they are provided with figures? I believe the fact is that they are not provided with figures.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this may be an aspect which the noble Lord should hear in mind when we come to consider the new Bill next Session.

BRIGHTON MARINA BILL
2.42 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, since I put this Bill down last week for Second Reading this afternoon, I have been informed that several noble Lords wish to speak on the Bill, and also that an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred by your Lordships may also be put down. In view of this, I would suggest, for the convenience of the House, and in accordance with usual practice, that Second Reading be put down for a later day; namely, Thursday of next week. I must apologise to any noble Lords who have come to the
1000
House this afternoon intending to speak on the Second Reading on not having been able to give them advance notice of my proposal, but it was only yesterday that I was informed that noble Lords would wish to speak on the Second Reading of this Bill. That is my difficulty. In the circumstances, I do not propose to move the Second Reading this afternoon.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, on a point of Order, I understand from what the noble Earl has said that the Second Reading of this Bill is being postponed so that at a later stage a Motion for an Instruction to the Committee can be debated. This Bill has passed through all its stages in another place, and surely the House is entitled to take the Second Reading to-day as there is no mention on the Order Paper of a debate on an Instruction to the Committee. I suggest that the Second Reading should be taken to-day, and that the Bill should then be sent up to a Private Bill Committee for examination in the usual way. Those of us who have an interest in the Bill may not be able to be present at the future date, which I understand is to be Thursday of next week, when an Instruction to the Committee may be debated.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord may I say that I am, of course, entirely in the hands of the House in this matter. There are, however, several other noble Lords, and I think a noble Lady, who have expressed a wish to speak on this Bill. They have been informed that the proposal is to postpone the Second Reading until next week and they now intend to speak next week. If we were to take the Second Reading now, we should prevent the other noble Lords and the noble Lady from taking part in the Second Reading debate.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords. I know that the Lord Chairman of Committees has a very difficult job to do and that these are difficult matters, but how is it that the other people who wished to speak on this Bill were informed that it was going to be postponed, although my noble friend who was taking the Bill was not informed?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am afraid the fact is that I am able to know whether noble Lords wish to

1001
speak on a Bill only if they inform me. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, informed me until this morning, and that is the reason why I was not able to give him advance notice, which was indeed very short in the case of the other noble Lords. However, I managed to give them advance notice yesterday because they informed me of their intention.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I just press the Lord Chairman of Committees? I quite understand his difficulty about this matter, but it seems to me to be a rather bad state of affairs when there is a Bill down on the Order Paper which the whole House—unless noble Lords happen to have told the Lord Chairman of Committees that they were going to speak on it—thinks is going to be debated this afternoon, and when there does not seem to be any way of letting the House know that something has happened in between its being put on the Order Paper and this afternoon's proceedings. This does not seem to me to be very satisfactory from the point of view of your Lordships, and perhaps it will be possible to look at the position in the future to see whether we can overcome this difficulty.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, of course I will consider very carefully the suggestion which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has made and see whether or not we could alter our procedure in order to find out further in advance if there is likely to be any discussion on the Second Reading of a Private Bill.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, if everybody wishes to be very particular, is it not possible for the Second Reading to be moved this afternoon and then adjourned until Thursday? At the moment there is no Motion before the House, as I understand it.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I think this is the customary procedure of your Lordships' House. Unless there is any strong reason to alter it on this occasion, I suggest that your Lordships have the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill.

DARTFORD TUNNEL BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Longford, I beg to move the Motion which stands in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 41 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with for the purpose of taking the Prices and Incomes (No. 2) Bill through its remaining stages on Thursday next.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EXTRA-PAROCHIAL MINISTRY MEASURE
2.47 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Extra-Parochial Ministry Measure he presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I trust that the two brief spiritual items of business which I have to bring before the House will be received as a short, relaxing interlude before the House later turns to more weighty and material considerations. The first Motion which I have to move concerns the Extra-Parochial Ministry Measure. I do not think your Lordships need be detained for more than a moment over this comparatively simple Measure, which was passed by the Church Assembly without a single vote being registered against it. It is, in fact, something which arises from the long process of Canon Law revision with which the Church of England is concerned, and it deals with two cases in which a clergyman exercises a ministry within the parish of another.
The first example is a very straightforward affair. This is where a family is registered on the electoral roll of a church other than the church of the parish in which they live, and the incumbent of

1003
the parish in which they are registered is allowed by this Measure to go into the parish of the other clergyman to perform his spiritual ministrations within that household. I think all will agree that this is perfectly right and reasonable, and it is one way in which under modern conditions the territorial arrangement of the churches and parishes has to be modified to a small degree.
The other purpose for which the Bill is specially intended is to allow a Bishop to license a clergyman as the chaplain of an institution, whether or not there is an actual chapel in that institution. By the Private Chapels Act 1871 the Bishop could do this only when there was an actual chapel in the institution concerned. There are many institutions which need pastoral services under modern conditions, but they do not all have chapels, and this Measure makes it possible for spiritual ministrations to be provided by the Bishop according to need, regardless of the existence of a material chapel. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Extra-Parochial Ministry Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Leicester.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

OVERSEAS AND OTHER CLERGY (MINISTRY AND ORDINATION) MEASURE
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: My Lords, this Measure deals with a difficulty that arises because of the mobility of clergy, not only within a country but throughout the world. We have been working for a long time in the Church of England under the rules of what is called the Colonial Clergy Act. In brief, this means that all clergy, from whatever country they come—whether from the Dominions, from the few remaining Colonies, or indeed from other lands altogether—have to be brought under the umbrella of this Colonial Clergy Act. This is not something that they enjoy. Many of them do not feel that in any sense they come from the Colonies.
1004
This particular Measure makes it possible for the Archbishop to give clergy a licence to serve in this country without this rather anachronistic title; and those who do not belong in any sense to the territories of Her Majesty are to be excused from the oath of allegiance which is normally required from the clergy of the home country. The same privileges are extended to overseas Bishops if they are visiting this country. I can assure the House from personal experience, as well as with the authority of all the requisite bodies concerned, that this will remove a number of very irritating anomalies from the service of the Church. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Overseas and Other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Leicester.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

LEASEHOLD REFORM BILL
2.52 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 4:
Meaning of "low rent"
4.—(1) For purposes of this Part of this Act a tenancy of any property is a tenancy at a low rent at any time when rent is not payable under the tenancy in respect of the property at a yearly rate equal to or more than two-thirds of the rateable value of the property on the appropriate day or, if later, the first day of the term.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "two-thirds" and insert "one-third". The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment to Clause 4 standing in my name. I think it was very useful that we adjourned at the end of the discussion on the previous Amendment. It has given us all an oportunity of studying in Hansard the speeches of

1005
the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, and the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not think it would have been easy for any layman to follow the very close reasoning in Lord Silsoe's speech at the time and to give an immediate reply, and I therefore think it a very great advantage to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should have had an opportunity of looking at it in print and, perhaps, discussing the matter with his advisers.
Lord Silsoe's experience in these matters is, I should say, almost unrivalled, whether as a Church Commissioner, as First Commissioner of Crown Estates or as, under the last Labour Government, Chairman of the Central Land Board. Indeed, I think that we on this side of the House have felt that this very distinguished public servant finds it particularly easy to work with Labour Governments. He takes no part in politics, but he certainly has no prejudice against land reform. It was natural, therefore, that my noble friends and I should not have consulted him about the Amendments which we put down. It is therefore entirely a matter of chance that he should have put down two Amendments and I should have put down one Amendment dealing with this particular matter of how to determine what is a ground rent.
I take what the Parliamentary Secretary said last night, at column 990, as a repetition of what was said in the White Paper and of what has been said by colleagues of his, and I take it as being the firm and avowed intention of the Government. He said:
"Yes, it is only intended to enable people to enfranchise when they have a ground rent. The question is, what is a ground rent?"
A ground rent is defined in Clause 15 of the Bill, and I think everybody will agree that it is an entirely correct definition. It is subsection (2), paragraph (a):
"the rent shall be a ground rent in the sense that it shall represent the letting value of the site (without including anything for the value of buildings on the site) …"
I need not read on, but that is the general outline of it. In Clause 4, for the purposes of Clause 4, the Bill defines a ground rent differently. Even if there are reasons of convenience for having two different definitions of a ground rent in the same Bill, it is important that they shall have approximately the same result,
1006
and it is our submission that that certainly will not be the case if the ground rent is taken to be anything less than two-thirds of the rateable value.
What is rateable value? This goes so entirely to the heart of the whole of this matter that I have looked it up, and I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I read out the relevant words. The Rating and Valuation Act 1925 states:
"'Gross value' means the rent at which a hereditament might reasonably be expected to let from year to year if the tenant undertook to pay all usual tenant's rates and taxes. … and if the landlord undertook to bear the cost of the repairs and insurance, and the other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain the hereditament in a state to command that rent".
That is the definition, in the Rating and Valuation Act 1925, of "gross value". What we are talking about is rateable value. In order to arrive at the rateable value (and for this purpose I have had recourse to the handbook of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors) there is made from the gross value a deduction on a fixed scale which is intended to represent the average cost of annual repairs. The resultant figure is the rateable value. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, at column 993, referred to the close connection that there is between the rent and the annual value.
Now, what is a rack-rent? A rack-rent is the full annual value of the property. So it will be seen that when estimating a rack-rent and when valuing a property for rateable purposes the valuer has in both cases to consider the annual value of the property and make the necessary adjustments. Therefore, at a time when a new rateable valuation is made, the rateable value should be just about the same as the rack-rent. I have obtained independent confirmation—if such were needed; though I did not think it was—of what the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, said, that the working rule for valuers is that the ground rent is approximately one-fifth of the rack-rent. That does not mean, of course, that in every case it is exactly and precisely that; but, taking the country as a whole, an ordinary working rule of thumb is that the value of the site is one-fifth of the annual value of the hereditament as a whole.
If the Government cannot apply the method of valuing that they prescribe in Clause 15, and if they wish to arrive by rule of thumb at what a ground rent is, then for normal purposes they would be wise to accept the fraction of one-fifth. The noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, said yesterday that he thought that some of the hard cases—those which the Government are anxious to take care of—might be left out of the Bill if the fraction of one-fifth were applied. He therefore suggested that the Committee should accept his second Amendment which suggested the fraction of one quarter. That, he said, would cover all the hardship cases.
The Parliamentary Secretary argued at length that a reason for applying annual value in this Bill was that annual value had been applied in the rent restriction Acts. That surely is quite unreasonable for two reasons. The rent restriction Acts of 1920 and subsequently were intended to protect tenants from excessive rack-rents. It was intended to ensure that those people who were paying for the bricks and mortar as well as for the site should not pay too much. The whole purpose of this Bill, as it has been explained to us, is to deal with ground rents and not with rack-rents. Therefore there is no logic in applying the rateable valuation when considering whether the terms of a lease are such as to justify leasehold enfranchisement. So the comparison between this Bill and the rent restriction Acts is entirely a false one.
Later, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in talking about the relationship between fair rents and the rateable value, referred to the fair rents which have been decided by rent officers and by rent committees under the 1965 Act. That again, I suggest, is not relevant to this purpose. In the first place—and I mention this not to score a debating point, but because it is a matter of some importance—the noble Lord referred to the valuation as having been in 1960. That was so in Scotland; but in England, it was in 1963.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD HUGHES): I am not absolutely certain what I said. I know the valuation took effect from 1963, but it was based on values of the year 1961
1008
—which was when they were last obtained. They certainly took effect from 1963. One cannot carry out a valuation on this basis and bring it into operation immediately. It is a fairly lengthy process.
LORD MOLSON: It is a very lengthy process. It was only last year that my appeal against my own rateable valuation in London was settled. But in the case of England it was actually in 1963 when it came into effect. That is a matter of some importance. Those values have not changed so greatly, since the 1963 appeals are still under consideration.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Lord rose to keep the Record straight. For the same reason, I think I should say that the last revaluation in Scotland was not in 1960; it was in 1965.
LORD MOLSON: It is only fair, when I have been able to correct the noble Lord, that he should have the chance of correcting me. I was able to correct him about England and, as is only natural, he is able to correct me about Scotland. But it really is not appropriate to compare these rents. The latest figures I know about were given in a Parliamentary reply in another place to Mr. Blenkinsop; and they were merely samples which had been taken from different areas where the rent officers and committees were hearing complaints. Also, fair rents apply at present only to decontrolled houses. They have not yet been applied to controlled houses; and, in any case, as there is no central appeal the figures vary very much from one place to another. Furthermore, as was mentioned in an article in the Observer about a month ago, the number of appeals that have been made vary very much according to the decisions which are being given.
I suggest, therefore, that if we on this side of the Committee accept the intention of this clause, and if the Government, on their part, wish to include only ground rents—and as has been made plain by the Minister in another place they are most anxious that there should not be a large number of cases where enfranchisement of tenants who have paid large sums of money in order to acquire valuable houses would result in their obtaining a quite unexpected and unintended windfall of capital gain—it

1009
is necessary to look again to determine what is, in fact, a genuine ground rent. If we are able to show, as I think we can, that the definition in Clause 4 (which is entirely different from that in Clause 15) will result in the inclusion of a great many rents which are not ground rents at all but some form of rack-rent, I hope the Government will consider accepting this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 39, leave out ("two-thirds") and insert ("one-third ").—(Lord Molson.)
LORD MITCHISON: I am a little puzzled why we are considering ground rents. This is a clause about low rents; it contains a definition of low rents. It is true that ground rent occurs in another part of the Bill, but in an entirely different connection. Let us, if we can, keep to the language of the Bill.
3.10 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, is no longer in charge of this Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary said perfectly clearly yesterday (col. 990):
"Yes, it is only intended to enable people to enfranchise when they have a ground rent."
The noble Lord did not say "low rent"; he said "ground rent".
LORD MITCHISON: Whatever the Parliamentary Secretary may have said. I prefer what is in the Bill, and the Bill says "low rent". This is a clause to define "low rent", and I prefer that term the more as "ground rent" occurs later in the Bill in a different connection. It is perfectly simple. What is happening here is that the Tory Party are trying to remove yet more houses from the scope of the Bill. Two-thirds was put in for a reason which was fully explained in another place—and there was, let me reassure the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, a Division on this matter. It was put in for the reason that it is the proportion used for the purposes of the Rent Acts to define a type of house which has what I will call an unusually low rent, that is to say, it has not got a rack-rent, and it is possible to find something in between the rack-rent and, if you like, a low rent. But for the purposes of the rent Acts, rent is either rent, or it is a low figure, so low that the houses let at that rent are excluded from the opera-
1010
tion of the Acts. This is an old formula; it has always been there. I agree that any proportion one takes may result in difficulties. I think that is inevitable when one tries, to draw the line in this kind of case. But one-quarter would be no better than two-thirds, except from the point of view of those who want to exclude as many houses as possible from the operation of the Bill.
Yesterday your Lordships had a fine time, if I may say so, fighting in the last ditch. I see no reason why you should not choose another last ditch here. All I can say is that this matter has been decided one way in another place for, I think, a good reason. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Molson, said just now. He quoted the Institute of Chartered Surveyors, and told us what rateable value was. He will also find it defined in the Statute Book. He then talked persistently about something different from what we are now talking about, which is, I repeat, low rent.
LORD SILSOE: I always seem fated to speak when the Tory Party is mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison. I have told him before that I do not care. What I prefer is the present Government's White Paper which refers to "ground rent". The Parliamentary Secretary in charge of the Bill said "ground rent". The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has great experience at the Bar of what are ground rents—more experience in that sphere perhaps than in politics—and he knows perfectly well that two-thirds of the rateable value is not a ground rent.
3.16 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): First, on the point of the apparent discrepancy between the definitions in Clause 4 and Clause 15, the discrepancy is only apparent and not real, since Clause 15 contains instructions about how a modern ground rent should be settled in the future when a leaseholder extends his lease under the terms of this Bill. It is, in other words, telling people what they ought to do in order to abide by the terms of the Bill from now on when they extend their lease. The definition of a low rent in Clause 4 is concerned with a different purpose;

1011
namely, how one should identify a rent which will entitle a leaseholder to enfranchisement or to extend under the Bill. In respect of Clause 15 people will be saying, "Well now, we have to settle a modern ground rent; how do we go about it?". Under Clause 4 they cannot say, "This is a ground rent" or, "This is a rack-rent", or a low rent, or just a rent, because, as I think your Lordships agreed yesterday, existing rents do not have that kind of label attached to them; or at any rate, if there are any that do, they are very few. So in Clause 4 we are seeking to explain how the parties concerned can identify what is clearly a rack-rent, which precludes enfranchisement, and distinguish that from what is clearly not a rack-rent, which would permit enfranchisement; whereas in future we are laying down rules about what they should do to settle a modern ground rent.
I think the question about ground rent and low rent is more a matter of words than of reality. I said "ground rent" yesterday when describing rents below two-thirds of the rateable value. The Bill uses the term "low rent", and my noble friend Lord Mitchison was perfectly right to say that it is what is in the Bill that counts. The words I happen to use in debate are not what count. The purpose of the Bill is to distinguish a rack-rent—and no enfranchisement—from a low rent—and enfranchisement—whether or not you call a low rent "ground rent". One may disagree with it, but at least I claim that is clear. Yesterday I was at times confused—though I hope that I got it straight at the crucial moments—and I expect that other noble Lords also were confused, about the four values with which we are dealing. Trying to keep this straight in our heads is an intensely complicated matter.
First, there is ground rent. At the moment there is no statutory rule about what is ground rent. We have heard that the practice of valuers is, or used to be, to fix it at one-fifth of something, though we have heard different versions of what the something is. Some say one-fifth of the rack-rent; some one-fifth of the gross value and some one-fifth of the rateable value. Anyhow, ground rent has been one-fifth. Ground rent, for the purposes of this Bill, if it is passed without Amendment, will be as defined in Clause
1012
15. The second value we have to bear in mind and distinguish is the rateable value. The third value is the gross value, which is higher than the rateable value, and the fourth value is the rack-rent which may be being charged, or may, hypothetically, be obtainable on the open market. There is also, of course, the fair rent, which is one-fifth; but I do not think we need allow that into our thoughts at the present moment.
The current gross values—that is, one-third of those four values—for rating purposes are based on rental evidence available in 1960–61. When revaluation came into effect is, I think, of secondary importance. The important thing is the time at which the evidence for revaluation was obtained, that is to say, 1960–61; and the rateable values, derived from the gross values by a fixed scale of deduction, can only in the crudest sense be said to be representative of net rents at that time. Moreover, rating is a taxation system tied to a particular definition of rent, and the emphasis is on fairness and equality, within a conservative estimate, of rental value. Fair rents under the 1965 Act are based on a different system which is deduced from gross value, not rateable value; and although helpful comparisons with gross value can be made, the most significant difference between them is that fair rents are up to date.
The noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, asked yesterday from what the figure of the ratio 1·7 to 1 was derived. It is derived from a sample of over 10,000 fair rents fixed by the fair-rent machinery during the year 1966. I would remind the Committee that this 1·7 to 1 is the ratio of fair rents as they were fixed last year, not to the rateable value but to the gross value—the higher sum. Fair rents are not full rack-rents because of the statutory definition of a fair rent, which excludes the scarcity element. As all citizens know to their cost, in our great cities there is a scarcity element which appears in the full rack-rent in open market transactions.
Evidence therefore points clearly to the conclusion that on the appropriate day—namely, March 23, 1965—rateable values were substantially below rack-rents. So if we are talking about a ground rent of one-fifth of the rack-rent (I am not putting a figure on it because I have no firm

1013
data) it is reasonable to assume that a ground rent which is one-fifth of the rack-rent is more than one-fifth of a fair rent, more than one-fifth of a gross value and, by cumulation, very much more than one-fifth of the rateable value.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: In certain cases I think the noble Lord should have said "less" rather than "more".
LORD KENNET: A ground rent which is one-fifth of the full rack-rent in the open market, allowing for scarcity value, is more than one-fifth of those values which are less than the rack-rent. I believe that I have it right. Your Lordships see where we have got to. I expect that I shall carry most Members of the Committee with me when I say that this is a tremendously complex situation.
In saying two-thirds of the rateable value the Government are taking a simple line, which is perfectly defensible, because it is that figure above which we know it is a rack-rent. The Act of 1926 said so. If we say less than two-thirds of the rateable value, with that figure we enter into all these uncertainties of one-fifth of what? Nothing is further from my thoughts than to cast aspersions on professional valuers, but it is obvious that this figure of one-fifth is no more than a tradition in the profession. It is a time-honoured observance. But in legislation we have to have greater regard to Statute law as it stands than to any other factor. The Government's contention is that, according to Statute law as we find it, it is reasonable for us to say that anything below two-thirds of the rateable value is a low rent for the purpose of this legislation.
Although it would be possible to carry this Amendment and say that only rents below one-third are low rents, this would be introducing a third sort of rent into legislation, that is, those between one-third and two-thirds—I do not know what to call them, The adoption of this Amendment, for that reason as for others, would contribute further complication to a situation already sufficiently complicated.
3.24 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: The subject is certainly complicated, but I feel sure that what we all want to do is to achieve justice. It is important to try
1014
to draft this legislation so that all cases of possible hardship shall be covered by it and other cases shall not. I did not hear the noble Lord, Lord Kennet say one word in answer to what the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, said yesterday about there being no ground rents anywhere approaching two-thirds of rateable value. I accept what the noble Lord has just been saying about a distinction between rateable value and fair rents or current rents. One can only argue on the precise proportion of the relationship. But certainly at present fair rents tend to be above rateable values.
The noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, reminded us yesterday that if we pass this Bill as it stands, without either his Amendment or that of my noble friend Lord Molson, we should be envisaging ground rents of up to £133 in England and Wales generally, and up to £266 in the London area. We are entitled to ask the Government whether they will produce instances of anything that can really be called a ground rent at anything like that level. This is really the point at issue. I am prepared to accept what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said about the figure of one-fifth. What has been the right answer in surveyors' examinations for many years, one-fifth, may not for all time and in all circumstances be the right answer, but again what we are trying to address ourselves to in this legislation is the reality of the case. Broadly speaking, one-fifth is a reasonable answer. One-fourth, as in the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, would substantially cover one-fifth. I prefer the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Molson of one-third, because I am anxious to give a wide margin of error or safety, whichever you like to call it, in order that everything that is genuinely a ground rent shall be defined as a low rent in this clause.
References were made to this in the proceedings of another place and the Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Skeffington, said, very reasonably:
"The difficulty is to arrive at a figure which is realistic and fair for ground rents created in the past, those created now and those to be created in the future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 20/6/67; col. 1566.]
This was during the course of a discussion on an Opposition Amendment to reduce two-thirds to one-fifth. At the same time, another Amendment was being

1015
considered, which had been put down by a Government supporter to reduce two-thirds to one-third in certain types of lease. The Government spokesman was not unfriendly to that second Amendment. He simply said that it would make matters rather more complicated and he was anxious to keep the law as simple as possible. We all want to keep the law simple, but it is even more important to make it just. I should like your Lordships to note that this Amendment to reduce the figure from two-thirds to one-third in the case of certain types of lease was tabled by a Government supporter in another place.
The real issue, to my mind, is whether there are any leases involving genuine ground rents which are above one-third of the rateable value. Nobody in the proceedings here or in another place has quoted any of those on behalf of the Government. There may be some, but I know of none; and a far greater authority than I, the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, says that he knows of none and that he thinks it inconceivable that there could be such. If that is so, one-third seems a more appropriate demarcation line than two-thirds, bearing in mind that if we put it at two-thirds we may include certain properties which are not let at a genuine ground rent at all. The Government have repeatedly said—they have said it in the White Paper and in your Lordships' House—that they are anxious to catch under this Bill only leases on genuine ground rent terms. These are the reasons for which, if my noble friend Lord Molson presses his Amendment, I hope my noble friends will support it.
LORD MITCHISON: Since we are in Committee, I should like to continue the passage to which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, referred. I hope that I have the right one; it is the right column at any rate.
"We came to the conclusion"—
said Mr. Skeffington—
"particularly having considered all the other possibilities, that in the case that he is seeking to meet more anomalies would result if we adopted any other formula and that we should have to have a very strong case to upset this very well-established connotation as to what a low ground rent is."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons; 20/6/67, col. 1566.]
He was, of course, referring to the rent Acts.
1016
I listened to hear from the noble Lord, but I did not hear, why one should take a different standard for what we can call, to avoid any difficulty about words, a low ground rent in the rent Acts and here. This is a similar point to the point about the rateable valuation that we had the other day. We are seeking to cover a certain type of tenancy, and it seems to me that we are seeking to do so from one point of view in the rent Acts, as we do now, and from another point of view in this Bill. There ought to be a very strong case indeed to differentiate between the one and the other. But, of course, if the object is to exclude as many houses as possible from the operation of this Bill, then no doubt this is a good Amendment for the purpose.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: If I may reply to the noble Lord, there is a very strong reason why we should legislate differently in this Bill from the rent Acts. The rent Acts are concerned with controlling rack-rents and maintaining security of tenure. This is a Bill primarily concerned with enfranchisement. There is nothing whatever about enfranchisement or compulsory purchase by the tenant in the rent Acts. I quite agree that the noble Lord has quoted from the right column, but what he did not mention was that, though the Government spokesman referred to anomalies, neither he nor any other Government supporter quoted any anomalies at all.
We are being asked to accept two-thirds on no evidence and for no substantial reason, except that it is the figure in the rent Acts; and if we now say that a low rent is something under one-third, what are we to call rents that are between one-third and two-thirds? I do not mind what we call them; it does not seem to be important for this legislation. It is quite possible to invent new names, but the important thing is, for the purpose of this legislation, that we should define a low rent correctly. I consider that one-third would be a reasonable and, indeed, a wide definition.
LORD MITCHISON: I take one sentence to point out to the noble Lord the similarity between this legislation and the rent Acts. In both cases the intention is to prevent, or at any rate to control, the eviction of occupants of all houses from their homes.
LORD KENNET: If I may presume on the patience of your Lordships' for a moment, in his last intervention the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has advanced, I think, only one argument; namely, whoever heard of a ground rent approaching two-thirds of the rateable avlue? Whoever heard of £166 in the Provinces or £233 in London?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: The other way round.
LORD KENNET: Outside London, £166, and £233 in London.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: It is £133 outside London, and £266 in London.
LORD KENNET: I accept the noble Lord's correction. Of course, we have all heard of rents of those sums. If we agree that they are not ground rents—and I willingly agree that the tradition of the valuation trade is that they are not to be called ground rents—should we not call them low rents? If they are not low rents, what are they? Are they moderate rents, or high rents?
I would again remind your Lordships that the clause the possible Amendment of which we are discussing is a clause about low rents. To say that there never was a ground rent as high as that makes no contribution to the discussion whether or not there was ever a low rent as high as that. But if I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, says, that there is no ground rent likely to exceed £266 and £133 now, I should like to ask him and noble Lords in general to cast their minds forward to Clause 15, which we shall be coming to later. Can we imagine a ground rent under that clause which would be as high as those figures—two-thirds—or can we not?
I would remind the Committee of the situation. This is a leaseholder extending his lease and discussing with the freeholder what should be the modern ground rent that he should pay. Should we envisage that it might be as high as two-thirds of the rateable value; that is, £133 outside London, and £266 in London? If we can envisage that, then I do not see why we should boggle at applying the words "ground rent" to existing rents. If we cannot envisage it—and I would ask noble Lords opposite to think seriously about this before going into the Division
1018
Lobbies—should noble Lords opposite not consider introducing an Amendment to Clause 15 which says that the ground rent to be settled on an extension of the lease under this Bill must be the same as that we are carrying into Clause 4; namely, one-third.
LORD SILSOE: On that last point, of course one can picture in these awful days in which we live a ground rent of anything. Heaven knows what may happen! It may be well above these figures. But the point is: will it be more than two-thirds of the rateable value? If ground rents go up to £300—and thank heaven! they have not gone there yet—the rack-rent, the fair rent fixed by the rent officer, will go up proportionately. We are talking about proportion. I cannot tell your Lordships what ground rents will be five or six years hence. All I can say is that if we get into a state whereby the ground rent is two-thirds of the rateable value, then the country is finished.
LORD HENLEY: Before we divide on this Amendment, I wonder whether I might have some guidance on a matter of procedure. Some of your Lordships may prefer the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, in favour of substituting one-quarter, to that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Molson. But it is, in a way, an Amendment to an Amendment. If we vote on Lord Molson's Amendment for one-third, what then will be the position about Lord Silsoe's Amendment? Shall we then have a sort of auction, going one better? Is it not possible to take it in the form of an Amendment to an Amendment. Some of your Lordships may prefer that.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The noble Lord has asked for guidance on procedure, and I think I ought to inform the Committee that if the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, is agreed to, I shall be obliged to call the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, in a form which would substitute "one-third" for the word "two-thirds" that his Amendment proposes to change. The reason for that is that as a result of Lord Molson's Amendment "two-thirds" will have been left out, and "one-third" will have been inserted in its place.
LORD SILSOE: I had hoped that if this Amendment were passed I should be able to move, should I wish, that one-third should be reduced to one-quarter. I cannot see why I should not.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: That is precisely the position.
LORD SILSOE: I am therefore remaining silent until this is over, and then I propose to make up my mind whether I ask permission to continue with my Amendment.
3.39 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: We have had a great discussion about figures, but in his last speech the Parliamentary Secretary brought up again the whole principle upon which this Bill is based. The White Paper and the speeches made by Ministers in another place, and by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, here, and especially by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, whose absence I much regret, all emphasised that the justification for this is that in many cases a small man a long time ago had no option but to take the lease of land, and he then built a house upon it, and at the end of 99 years the landlord acquired the bricks and mortar which he did not build.
On this issue the question of whether it is a low rent or a ground rent is absolutely fundamental. There is no justification in the White Paper, or in anything that the Government have said, for giving to a tenant, simply because he is paying a low rent, the right to acquire the freehold of the house he is living in. The only justification the Government have put forward is that if the rent is so low that, looked at fairly, it can be seen to be only the value of the land, it is justifiable to give him compulsory powers of enfranchisement. For the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, to say, and for the Parliamentary Secretary to repeat, that the words in the Bill are what matter is really unworthy of two Parliamentarians. The Bill is introduced in order to give effect to certain principles, and if the Government are trying to introduce those
principles then they must justify the wording of the Bill to show it gives effect to them.
I am in some slight difficulty about this matter. If my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor were prepared to support the Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, then I should be willing to withdraw my Amendment and give him the opportunity of putting his Amendment to the Committee and obtaining a decision upon that. If that is agreeable to my noble friends on this side of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD SILSOE: I should not wish for that, although it is very kind of the noble Lord. If this Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, is defeated, I appreciate that I am finished. If, on the other hand, it is not beaten, I think I can try again. I may be wrong about the procedure; perhaps I could do it either way; but I should be rather foolish, if the Amendment were defeated, to try again. I hope this particular Amendment will be voted upon. If it is, I will vote for it, but I think I shall be quite free to move again a lower figure after the Division.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: May I inform the noble Lord that, whether or not the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, is agreed to by the Committee, the noble Lord will still be in a position to move his Amendment.
LORD MOLSON: I proposed withdrawing my Amendment only out of regard to the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe. But I will naturally defer to his request, and I will not defer to him, in this matter. I will indeed press my Amendment and ask your Lordships to take a decision upon it.
3.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 90: Not-Contents, 52.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Albemarle, E.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Ampthill, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Airedale, L.

Amulree, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Bessborough, E.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Mansfield, E.

Boston, L.

Grantchester, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Greenway, L.

Milverton, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Grenfell, L.

Molson, L.

Carrington, L.

Gridley, L.

Newton, L.

Clinton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hailes, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Conesford, L.

Hawke, L.

Rea, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hayter, L.

Rowallan, L.

Craigavon, V.

Henley, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Daventry, V.

Hereford, V.

Sackville, L.

Denham, L.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Derwent, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

St. Helens, L.

Devonport, V.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

St. Just, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Salisbury, M.

Dudley, L.

Ilford, L.

Saltoun, L.

Dundee, E.

Inglewood, L.

Sandford, L.

Dundonald, E.

Ironside, L.

Silsoe, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Stonehaven, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Strang, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Falkland, V.

Lambert, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Latymer, L.

Templemore, L.

Ferrier, L.

Long, V.

Thurlow, L.

Fortescue, E.

MacAndrew, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Gage, V.

Mancroft, L.

Vivian, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Granville-West, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Annan, L.

Hall, V.

Popplewell, L.

Archibald, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Rowley, L.

Beswick, L.

Henderson, L.

Royle, L.

Blyton, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Rusholme, L.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Hughes, L.

St. Davids, V.

Brockway, L.

Kennet, L.

Samuel, V.

Brown, L.

Latham, L.

Shepherd, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Leatherland, L.

Snow, L.

Burden, L.

Lindgren, L.

Sorensen, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Listowel, E.

Stonham, L.

Chalfont, L.

Longford, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Summerskill, Bs.

Champion, L.

Maelor, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Chorley, L.

Mitchison, L.

Walston, L.

Francis-Williams, L.

Moyle, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Pargiter, L.

Wise, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Phillips, Bs.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
General provisions as to claims to enfranchisement or extension
5.—(1) Where under this Part of this Act a tenant of a house has the right to acquire the freehold or an extended lease and gives notice of his desire to have it, the rights and obligations of the landlord and the tenant arising from the notice shall inure for the benefit of and be enforceable against them, their executors, administrators and assigns to the like extent (but no further) as rights and obligations arising under a contract for a sale or lease freely entered into between the landlord and tenant;
(8) A tenant's notice of his desire to have an extended lease under this Part of this Act shall cease to have effect if afterwards (being
entitled to do so) he gives notice of his desire to have the freehold.
3.55 p.m.
LORD SILSOE LORD SILSOE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the first "and assigns". The noble Lord said: I should like to speak to Amendments 18, 19 and 20 together because each is dependent on the other. The object of the Amendments is really to inquire into the meaning of Clause 5(1) and (2), which I do not fully understand. This Amendment, No. 18, seeks to omit, in line 11, the words "and assigns", and the two following Amendments seek to omit the words "and assigns" in line 17 and also to omit subsection (2) altogether.
Those of your Lordships who have read subsection (2) will see that it refers entirely to the word "assigns", so that

1023
is really one point. I hope I can speak briefly on this occasion, and I think it is better to read the Explanatory Memorandum attached to the Bill as to what this means. Quite properly, I think, we had no assistance in regard to this small point from the noble Lord who introduced the Bill. The Explanatory Memorandum, however, says:
"Clause 5 sets out the legal consequences of a tenant giving notice of his desire to acquire the freehold or an extended lease: the relationship between landlord and tenant is to be as if a contract for sale or lease had been freely entered into between them, and the notice is to be assignable with, but not apart from, the tenancy."
In other words, it is the notice which gives the right of assignment and not the granting of a freehold or the granting of an extended lease. This grant is referred to in later clauses.
When we come to the question of enfranchisement, we find in Clause 8 the very simple words:
"Where a tenant of a house has under this Part of this Act a right to acquire the freehold, and gives to the landlord written notice of his desire to have the freehold, then …"—
subject to an exception—
"the landlord shall be bound to make to the tenant, and the tenant to accept,"—
omitting some words in brackets—
"a grant of the house…"
If I have read this Bill correctly, there is no limit of time when a tenant can give such notice, subject to termination of his lease.
That is the one limb of this clause. The other deals with extended leases, and one turns right on to Clause 14, where the right to an extended lease is granted, and again one finds similar words:
"Where a tenant of a house has under this Part of this Act a right to an extended lease, and gives to the landlord written notice of his desire to have it, then …"
with certain exceptions—
"… the landlord shall be bound to grant to the tenant, and the tenant to accept, in substitution for the existing tenancy a new tenancy …"
on certain terms and conditions.
The question I am worried about—and there has been nothing about it in any White Paper or in any remarks so far—is why this assignment is granted before the enfranchisement and before the granting
1024
of the lease. I can fully understand that when a tenant has got a new lease he must be entitled to assign it. I am fully aware that if a tenant enfranchises and gets the freehold he must be entitled to sell it. What I cannot understand, and I have not seen any reasons for this anywhere, is why at the stage of a notice, merely a notice requiring these things, all the rights of sale and assignment of lease fall in. I may have misunderstood. I may be wrong, and I am very much looking forward to being told the reason.
It seems to me to be open to great abuses. People will come along as touts and say, "Let me have an assignment of this notice of yours. I will handle this case for you." And the tenant, who is, after all, supposed to be the man whose home it is, longing to stay in it, will leave it to the assignee, and the assignee will make as much cash as he can on it. That may be a very naughty idea of mine, but it seems to me to follow. I should like, therefore, to move the Amendment in order to find out why it is necessary at that early stage to have an assignment. I hope I have made it clear. I am not pressing the Amendment to-day as such, because I may be given a very good reason. At the moment, I cannot see any reason except one which will lead to rather unpleasant transactions of the wrong sort. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 11, leave out ("and assigns ").—(Lord Silsoe.)
LORD HUGHES: I have a little more hope on this occasion of being able to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, that his Amendment need not be pressed, because I think he is misunderstanding the possibility. In the first instance, he said that he preferred what appeared in the Explanatory Memorandum to what was actually in the clause.
LORD SILSOE: I did not say that. I used it to say what the clause meant. I am sorry if I put it wrongly. I merely said it explained what I thought the clause was meant to do.
LORD HUGHES: Even so, it does not alter the point I wish to make. We should be in difficulties if we had an Explanatory Memorandum which confused the situation even more than the

1025
clause in the first place. It is gratifying to know that the Explanatory Memorandum does explain, although not completely. The Explanatory Memorandum—and I think I had better come back to it—points out that
"the notice is to be assignable with, but not apart from, the tenancy."
I think this makes it quite clear that the situation which the noble Lord feared, that a person would assign his rights under the notice to a tout while he confidently thought he would remain Vie tenant, would mean that he could not in fact do so. The tenancy must go with it also. So that if he were to take a risk of this kind he is going to make himself homeless for a part of the proceeds, and I should think that is not a fear which is likely to come about.
Having, I hope, given some explanation in relation to that point, may I say why the Government have brought forward this proposal? It is perfectly true that this goes further than the White Paper. The effect of the Amendments would be to prevent a leaseholder who had served a notice of his desire to have the freehold or an extended lease but had not completed the process of enfranchisement or obtaining the extended lease from assigning his rights if he had to sell his lease, for example on being posted to a new job in another part of the country. The possibility of assigning the benefit of a notice along with the lease is an improvement, the Government feel, on the proposals in the White Paper, and flows from the proposition at the beginning of the clause that the rights and obligations flowing from a notice have the nature of an enforceable contract. Thus, anyone who takes over the tenancy from a qualified leaseholder with the benefit of his notice will be able to compel the landlord to comply with the codes and will, therefore, pay the outgoing leaseholder for the expectation of eventually getting the freehold or an extended lease, whichever was specified in the notice.
It may be argued that this will give rights under the Bill to people who are not qualified by residence. This is true, but the Amendment would only mean that a leaseholder would have to continue his occupation until he had actually acquired the freehold or an extended lease and then sell. Under the residential qualification
1026
as defined in Clause 1(1) of the Bill he could of course do that. The Amendment, therefore, in the Government's view, would not at the end of the day benefit the landlord, but could well prove to be against public policy, in that it would be a very definite hindrance to mobility.
We know how frequently it has been argued, here and elsewhere, with very considerable justification in many cases, how the policy of many local authority of having exceptionally low rents is a hindrance to mobility, because people are reluctant to give up these advantages by moving elsewhere, although it might be very much in their own interest in the long run, and certainly in the country's interest and industry's interest that they should move at a given time. If we do not allow this to happen we should have—admittedly in fewer cases than with the rented properties of local authorities—the same sort of hindrance to mobility. We do not think the effect so far as the landlord is concerned is in any way unfair. It is merely placing him in exactly the same position as if his existing tenant remained for the additional period, irrespective of how unwise this might be in regard to his other interests.
The first two Amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, has indicated, to remove the two words "and assigns", are paving Amendments for the third one removing the subsection. One of the effects of this also would be to remove the landlord's assigns; it would prevent the landlord from conveying a freehold subject to the tenant's notice; so that from both points of view the Government feel that they have improved on the White Paper by incorporated these provisions in the Bill, and I hope, therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, will feel content to let them remain as they are.
4.10 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: I was greatly interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said about the way that this clause would facilitate the acquiring of the leasehold by a non-resident. In reply to an earlier Amendment by myself, suggesting that the person who was to acquire the freehold must occupy the main part of the building, the Government admitted that there was a danger

1027
that the Bill would enable speculators to acquire leaseholds for the express purpose of making capital appreciation. That is exactly what the Party opposite say that they do not want, and the reason that they gave for re-introducing in another place the rateable limitations. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, when he refers to this danger, which he quite fairly and frankly admitted, will bear in mind that one clause after another of this Bill offers an easy path for financial speculators to buy up the end of these leaseholds and to make unwarranted and unjustifiable capital benefit out of that process. The noble Lord has given fair, frank and straightforward answers to the points which we have made from this side, but I hope that he will give thought to that particular point because not only is it one of substance but it is one which will seriously affect the way in which the Bill works.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I had it in mind to say in other words exactly what my noble friend Lord Molson has said. I, for one, appreciate from the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that there is a reasonable point in drafting the Bill as it stands; but there is no doubt that speculators are going to be on the look-out for profits as a result of this Bill; and I hope the Government will give some consideration to the likelihood that some people may decide that there is valuable commercial business for them in making an offer to any leaseholder who is thinking of moving, and for them to say to that leaseholder, "We will take over all this from you. We will give you a figure which you regard as a good figure compared with what your property has been worth up until now; and we will assume all the responsibility and the rights involved in the notice." They will have worked it out professionally and with great care, so that the figure that they offer to the occupying leaseholder will be considerably less than what they will calculate that they can "rake in" from the outcome of the final transaction. I am quite sure that the Government do not want to give any encouragement to that sort of speculative activity. But I hope that, despite the value that there is in the
1028
present wording of the clause, the Government will give further thought between now and the Report stage to any other Amendments which may diminish the risk of that kind of racket growing up.
4.15 p.m.
LORD SILSOE: First of all, would the noble Lord allow me to thank him for telling the Committee what this clause is all about? He has not quite answered the question I put. When you are passing a Bill under which somebody can have an extended lease, it is reasonable that when the lease is extended it should be assignable. It is a nonsense if you are going to grant leases which can be for as long as 150 years (because the 99 plus 50 is 149 years) that there cannot be an assignment when the lease is granted. Equally, when you are passing a law under which the property and the freehold can be purchased, it is a nonsense that the purchaser cannot deal with the property freely.
My point was limited to quite a short period. Why is it necessary to give the rights of assignment after the notice and before the completion? I see no reason for it. I see a lot of dangers in it. May I give an example? When the application is to extend the lease, the lessee, let us say perfectly genuinely and with no funny business, picks on somebody to whom he says, "I have got this extended lease in my pocket. I have served a notice. I want to sell it to you"; and he makes his bargain. Is the landlord to deal with the new man or the old man? The new man may be a complete stranger to him, a man who may never pay his rent.
I cannot begin to see why these things should happen until the whole transaction is finished. That was the object of my question—a small point of time, but one which will help genuine cases and greatly hurt the wrong sort. I am sorry that I did not make that clear. I want to make my question quite narrow, and ask whether there is any real need to do it until the transaction is completed.
LORD HUGHES: I am sorry, but I tried to make it clear that we thought there was a need. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, that we must look at the possibility that

1029
there are a number of people in this country who go about looking for proper or improper ways of turning an honest, or a dishonest, penny. If what we are doing here is going to make it easier for the latter kind, then certainly we should try to tighten up the Bill. But what we are trying to do is to deal with the situation where a man, towards the period when he may properly be thinking for applying for enfranchisement or an extended lease, finds that the prospects for himself and his family are going to be considerably improved by his taking a job in another part of the country. He may be a civil servant posted to another Department. If he has to choose between abandoning the rights which will perhaps accrue to him in a year or so in the ordinary course of events and taking the job, it may well be that the decision he will be bound to take is that he is not going to move at this time, and that therefore he will set out the period during which he will in fact have acquired the freehold or have obtained the extended lease.
Quite honestly, I do not understand Lord Silsoe's point about the landlord having to deal with somebody whom he does not know, because he would be in exactly the same position if that person turned up a year later. Taking it to be an extended lease, if the extended lease had been granted and it is then disposed of to this person, the landlord is in no better position than he would be in the first instance to know whether this third party is going to pay his rent. The noble Lord shakes his head at that, but it seems to me that the fact that this person has appeared on the scene a year later, rather than a year earlier, does not make it any easier for the landlord to assess his ability to pay, or his willingness or unwillingness to pay.
I think the only point that has emerged—and perhaps it ought to be looked at—is how far ahead of the time when the transaction might be completed should it be possible to do this. For instance, we are saying that one of the legs should be five years' residence, or five out of the last ten years. Quite honestly, as noble Lords know, I have appeared on the scene at a late stage and I cannot pretend to know all the thinking that goes behind this. But I should not have thought it was contemplated, for instance, that during the six months of this five
1030
years' period this process should operate, but I should think it would be perfectly reasonable that it should perhaps operate in the last year or in the last six months, and certainly in the last three months, of this period. But one could get down to a period as short as that which might determine that a man had to give up his freedom of movement in order to protect his rights of enfranchisement.
Would noble Lords forgive me if I endeavour to read something which has been passed to me to see if it helps the situation?—unfortunately, it does not help me in the slightest, because I cannot read a word that is written here. Could we leave it on the basis that if there is anything in this note which, when it is deciphered, is of any use to noble Lords, I will give them the benefit of it at the next stage?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: If it would help the noble Lord to have a little time to translate the note, perhaps I could interpose the comment that it does not seem to me as though there would need to be a limit of time here, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has suggested; because, as I read Clause 1 of the Bill, it is not possible to give a notice until the leaseholder has occupied the house for the five years. So that the operations we are now discussing under this Amendment could not start with the serving of a notice until after the present leaseholder had completed five years' occupation of the house. I have made that interjection principally with the object of enabling the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, to translate what is written, and I am not offering it as a very serious contribution to the debate. I greatly hope that Lord Hughes will agree to look at this wording again, in conjunction with Ministers, in the light of this debate, to see whether any Amendment would provide a further safeguard.
LORD HUGHES: I am doubly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, for giving me a chance to read the note. He has by his intervention made it possible for me to understand this in a way which perhaps I should not have done without that interjection, even if the note had been written in brilliant copper-plate style. What I have before me in the note, and what the noble Lord has said, clarifies my

1031
mind, and I hope that it will enable me to clarify the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe. The note which has been given me, and which I think I can now read, is that Lord Silsoe overlooks that the time may be protracted if the price of the new ground rent becomes a matter of dispute and has to be settled by the Lands Tribunal; or, again, if enfranchisement is held up under Clause 19 pending a scheme of management which may take years.
Therefore, this tendering of the notice cannot take place until the tenant has acquired all his rights of completion of the period of residence. It is merely to protect the individual who has this right to acquire his lease but who, because there may be this difficulty of negotiation, may have to forfeit it if he takes up his post in the interval. And he then has the choice of waiting beyond the five years, until all these matters are resolved, and then going ahead and taking his job, if it is still available. On that basis, the possibility which I foresaw, that it might be a matter of buying up the tail end of the residence period, does not arise. The whole of the residence period, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has pointed out, will have been accomplished at the time when the notice is tendered; and the giving of the right to assign the notice is protecting the interests of the individual who at the appropriate time has elected to take advantage of the provisions of the Bill, but who then, through other circumstances, wishes to move before all the procedures flowing from it have been completed.
There remains only the point which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, raised, as to the possibility that somehow or other one of these speculative gentlemen may get to know that X is proposing to sell his freehold or his extended lease because he is moving somewhere else. He goes along and says, "I will offer you £x for it", and the man falls for it, not realising, or not being advised, that if he carries through the transaction in the proper way he will get £x plus £500. We must in those circumstances recognise that few people enter into a major transaction, such as buying or selling a house, without taking
1032
professional advice of some kind. If there are many people who are going to be involved in this way, they acquire their property in a much more lighthearted fashion that we do North of the Border.
LORD SILSOE: Unless any other noble Lord wishes to speak—
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: We were told earlier in the afternoon that the principal purpose of the Bill was to prevent tenants of this particular type from being at risk of eviction. It seems to me that the present point is designed to ensure that if they decide to evict themselves they still get the benefits of the Bill.
LORD SILSOE: I was going to say that, and I am very glad the right reverend Prelate said it. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, read the note on that piece of paper, because matters were going rather well before that. Clause 19 is one of the major worries. Clause 19 provides for proper schemes to be made by the court for well-managed estates. Even in its present form—and still better in the form which I shall propose later on—it will provide, I hope, that people cannot assign their leases just to anybody. No well-managed scheme by the Chancery Court will ever allow complete freedom to assign a 150-year lease to a man of straw. That is one of the great advantages of Clause 19. That is one of the reasons why, if Clause 19 comes into this, these assignments should not take place until the job is finished. Clause 19 makes it quite clear that one can stop these things happening while matters are being considered.
This is a complicated and difficult matter. Although I have not had a very fair understanding of the situation from the noble Lord—and I am sure that a good deal would be gained from another look at this matter, and that one should not give a right just because one has served a letter and nothing else—I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. But unless some satisfactory arrangement can be come to, I shall replace it at Report stage in the same form.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SILSOE LORD SILSOE moved to leave out subsection (8). The noble Lord said: This

1033
Amendment covers a number of other Amendments with the same objective, each of which I can take shortly. It is unfortunate that it comes first, but I shall not need to spend much time on it. Subsection (8) refers to a tenant's notice of his desire to have an extended lease ceasing:
"to have effect if afterwards (being entitled to do so) he gives notice of his desire to have the freehold".
In other words, it is one of many cases where the tenant can readily and completely change his mind in midstream between a new lease and a freehold.
I mentioned the maximum length of time which there can be under this Bill; namely, that if on the appointed day there is a new building lease for 99 years, its extension by 50 would make 149, which I hope I may call 150 for ease. At the other end is a building lease which is finishing, where 50 years is about the limit. So we are dealing with periods of between 50 and 150 years during which, so far as I can discover, tenants may at any time ask for extended leases—I admit that there is some qualification to that remark—or can ask to buy the freehold.
The Government have issued a Paper, which some of your Lordships may have read, of their own thoughts on town and country planning, which I find very interesting and useful. In it they talk about positive redevelopment and many new features which will be debated here very shortly. What worries me about it is that in the accompanying leaflet they use the word "blight", when they are referring to the blight of not knowing what to do because of the possibilities of planning. The Government provide very ingenious ways of trying to minimise this blight which, as we who are tenants or landlords know, has been a curse for many years. But this is another blight.
The blight is going to be that if you own a property and you want to sell it, or you want to keep it, or you want to lease it, or you want to do anything with it, during periods which can vary from 50 to 150 years you may be told on any morning that somebody wants a long lease or wants to buy the freehold. That makes it almost impossible to deal with the property. It is a blight, and I hope that by a series of Amendments
1034
the Government will be able to assist the principles of this Bill by saying that the tenants must make up their minds within reasonable times what they want.
That is not a very strong case here, but it becomes stronger in other Amendments which I am moving. This is a case where the subsection says, quite clearly, that a man who has expressed his desire to have an extended lease can at any time change his mind and say that he wants to buy. There is no time limit. I do not know what is a convenient way of discussing this Amendment, but, having said that, I should like to tell your Lordships that I have down a number of Amendments of the same sort, and it may very well be that this could be left until they are called, or, alternatively, the subject could be discussed now. Perhaps I should move the Amendment to see what is the sense of the Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 3, leave out subsection (8).—(Lord Silsoe.)
LORD SILKIN: Before the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, seeks to reply—
LORD HUGHES: All I want to say at this stage is that the Government would prefer that discussion of this Amendment should stand on its own, because the other Amendments which the noble Lord is proposing to move do not stand or fall by this one. They can stand quite well on their own feet.
LORD SILKIN: I think that what I was going to say is still relevant, because it is difficult to say whether or not there is a case for this subsection as it is hard to understand what it means. Does it really mean, as the noble Lord has said, that at any time—perhaps years after—a person who has exercised his right to have an extended lease can then say, "I want the freehold", or is there some kind of period implied during which he can do it but not afterwards? This is so very vague that whatever happens to this subsection I am sure it will need Amendment by the Government to make its intention quite clear.
LORD HUGHES: One of the disadvantages of coming in at the end is that you receive a brief which you think makes the matter extremely clear, and then noble Lords move Amendments and

1035
ask questions which have the immediate effect of making one begin to doubt the clarity of the explanations which one has already received. The noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, asked the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, "Is it you, or me?" The answer, I am afraid, is that it is both of them. But that is not to be regarded as any defect of theirs. It is perhaps a defect of mine, or of my brief.
But, as I have been given the explanation, the effect of the Amendment would be that a qualified leaseholder who had served a notice of extension would be obliged to go through the whole process of obtaining an extended lease before serving a notice of enfranchisement. This he could do. The noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, embarrasses me considerably by shaking his head at the end of every sentence, and then not getting up and clarifying the position when I have sat down. If the noble Lord wishes to disagree with that statement, I will sit down and hear his disagreement before proceeding any further.
LORD SILSOE: May I do so? I dislike interrupting, but perhaps I should not nod my head.
LORD HUGHES: If the noble Lord had nodded his head I should have been happy. The unfortunate thing was that he shook his head.
LORD SILSOE: The subsection says:
"A tenant's notice of his desire to have an extended lease …"—
it does not say "a man who has an extended lease"; it says "notice of … desire to have an extended lease"; therefore, it is before the time he has got it—
"shall cease to have effect if afterwards … he gives notice of his desire to have the freehold."
We do not want tenants changing their minds every morning, but there is nothing to stop them from serving a notice to have the freehold and then, later on, changing their minds and coming back to having a lease. The word used is "notice"; it is not a lease, not a contract. All I am saying is that surely, with all the good will in the world, these tenants should make up their minds and stick to their decision.
LORD HUGHES: I hope that the noble Lord is wrong in his assumption that there are unlimited opportunities for the leaseholder to change his mind. That is certainly not the intention of the clause, and if we proceed—and I think it is reasonable to do so—on the basis that the clause does what the Government intend it to do, the position is this. A man gives notice that he wishes to extend his lease. Before that has come to fruition he changes his mind—it may be that he has won the pools. His financial circumstances improve, and he decides that he would like instead to acquire the freehold. At this point, as we understand it, that is the end of the matter. He cannot then go back a year later and say, "I have changed my mind again. I want to go back to the leasehold", and then a year after that say, "No; my second thought was the right one. I want the freehold." He will have one opportunity of changing his mind.
If this is what is accomplished by the clause, removing the subsection would have the effect that the only way the man could act would be by allowing the first process to be carried to completion, and then electing to go for enfranchisement, as he could properly do with subsection (8) deleted, provided that he did so before the expiry date. It would merely be a waste of time and money to compel him to do it in this way. I can understand the noble Lord's desire not to accomplish that but to overcome a situation where a man is using the machinery merely to shift from one thing to the other just to be vexatious.
I should point out, in the first instance, that if a leaseholder obtains an extension, the modern ground rent does not begin until the original expiry date of the lease. So the position is not much altered until the original expiry date. Up to then, it is felt, he should fairly be allowed to change his mind. Clause 17(6) stops a leaseholder from vexatiously changing his mind just when the landlord is starting to get an order to resume possession for redevelopment on the original expiry date. Furthermore, Clause 14(2) safeguards the landlord's position to the extent that the leaseholder is obliged to meet all the landlord's reasonable costs which flow from the notice claiming extension, and he is not

1037
excused these costs if he changes his mind and goes for enfranchisement instead. So the man who asks for an extended lease and then changes his mind faces the possibility that he will have some costs to pay. The longer it has gone on the greater these costs may be.
In these circumstances, we do not think it right that a man who legitimately wishes to change his mind should be forced through the time and money-wasting process of carrying through his original intention and then starting to carry through his second choice. It would not help the landlord, and it certainly would not help the leaseholder. The only persons who would benefit would be those collecting professional charges.
LORD SILSOE: If the noble Lord will give me the undertaking, which I think he has given, that every dog can have one bite and not two, three, four or six, I shall be happy. But I cannot find anything anywhere in the Bill which would stop somebody changing his mind every morning. I should be delighted if the Government said, "A person shall opt for one, and shall have one opportunity to change." I should be content to settle for that.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I feel sure that the draftsman has got it right, and in the light of the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, I see the point of this subsection. But I believe it would be helpful to all of us if the noble Lord would just confirm what is going to be the position. Am I right in thinking that when the original lease has expired and the extended lease of 50 years has started, it will no longer be possible for the tenant to claim enfranchisement?
LORD HUGHES: Would the noble Lord be good enough to repeat that, please?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: Am I right in thinking that when the original lease has ended and the tenant has started on an extended lease of 50 years, it will no longer be possible for the tenant to claim enfranchisement?
LORD HUGHES: The noble Lord is completely right in that assumption.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: Again, I have not quite been able to put my
1038
finger on the point in the Bill which establishes that, but I certainly had that impression. It may be that the noble Lord will be able to tell us later exactly which provision ensures that. But I am now considering the case of the man who is approaching the end of his original lease—he has perhaps five or six years to go—who is not in a position to purchase the freehold, who therefore thinks that the sensible thing to do is to go for an extended lease, and who serves a notice. I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, says: that if, before the extended lease has actually been established, his financial position changes, he will be able, as it were, to switch his notice so that it is a notice for enfranchisement and not a notice for an extended lease. But suppose that, five years before the end of the original lease, he is granted an extended lease under this Bill for 50 years, so that he then has some 55 years' security in front of him. Can he, within those remaining five years of the original lease, say that he wants to enfranchise? I think he can, but I am not quite sure about that.
I entirely appreciate that if he does change his mind, and if the process of establishing the extended lease is not complete, it is desirable for him to be able to switch and avoid the useless work of first of all establishing the extended lease and then of making it into a freehold. But if the extended lease has already been established, am I right in thinking—I think I am—that before the end of the term of the original lease he can then say: "I have got my extended lease. What I really want is a freehold, and I will serve a notice in favour of a freehold"?
LORD HUGHES: May I first make it perfectly clear that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, is right—and I think this point was raised by my noble friend Lord Silkin—in thinking that there cannot be a change to enfranchisement once the 50-year extension has been entered upon. Now if the man has in fact got an extended lease in the circumstances described by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor—that is, five years before the end of his current lease—and he then has 55 years ahead of him, and if he decides, during the five years of the original lease which remain, to go for enfranchisement, he is free to do so. But

1039
the elimination of this subsection would not affect that at all. All that this Amendment would do would be to compel a man who had genuinely changed his mind and did not wish to have an extended lease to go through the process of acquiring it, even though at that stage he had firmly made up his mind that he was going to enfranchise.
We can see no useful purpose which would be served by compelling a man who had genuinely started upon the procedure, just because he had changed his mind, to go through with it. I am quite certain it is not the Government's intention to encourage transactions to move about like a yo-yo—enfranchisement to lease, lease to enfranchisement, back and forth. There must obviously be some reasonable limit in the way this is done. What we are seeking to do is to deal with a perfectly genuine situation which is bound to arise and which, if we do what the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, asks the Committee to do, will still be capable of being carried out, but at additional expense and inconvenience to everybody concerned, because it will compel the genuine person to go through with a process which is abortive.
We think that at this stage he should be able to cut his loss and say: "I have changed my mind. I wish to enfranchise. I will stop the proceedings. I recognise I am bound to pay you, the landlord, all the expenses to which you have been properly put in this transaction, and this is part of the price I have to pay for changing my mind". That seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable way of dealing with this situation.
LORD SILSOE: Unless any other noble Lord wants to speak, may I say that I started by saying that this was only part of the story. It is the weakest part of the story. I am prepared to ask leave to withdraw this Amendment provided I can go on and show your Lordships the rest of the story in the next Amendments. Where I do not agree with the noble Lord is when he says that this is different from the others.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Obligation to enfranchise
8.—(1) Where a tenant of a house has under this Part of this Act a right to acquire the freehold, and gives to the landlord written notice of his desire to have the freehold, then except as provided by this Part of this Act the landlord shall be bound to make to the tenant, and the tenant to accept, (at the price and on the conditions so provided) a grant of the house and premises for an estate in fee simple absolute, subject to the tenancy and to tenant's circumstances, but otherwise free of incumbrances
(5) Notwithstanding that on a grant to a tenant of a house and premises under this section no payment or a nominal payment only is required from the tenant for the price of the house and premises, the tenant shall nevertheless be deemed for all purposes to be a purchaser for a valuable consideration in money or money's worth.
4.50 p.m.
LORD SILSOE LORD SILSOE moved, in subsection (1), after "acquire the freehold, and", to insert:
"within two years of the original term date or the extended term date".
The noble Lord said: This is the same point in a different form. These Amendments are all allied. Under Clause 8 there is the right for the tenant to give a notice of enfranchisement—and this Amendment deals only with enfranchisement. Under Clause 14 there is a similar provision in relation to extended leases to which, on reflection I think wrongly, I have not proposed an Amendment.
Coming back therefore to Clause 8, there is a provision in that clause whereby notice can be given of the desire of a tenant with certain qualifications to have the freehold; and the landlord shall then be bound to make to the tenant, and the tenant to accept, a grant of the house. I have said before, when speaking to other Amendments, that as far as I can make out there is no limit of time to when these notices can be taken, made, granted, withdrawn or re-made. This Bill is complicated. I may have missed something; but I cannot see any limit of time to the exercise of the enfranchisement right by a notice. There is no need for a section in an Act of Parliament to entitle a person to withdraw a notice; although I suppose the landlord could enforce in the courts recovery of some expenses to which he had been put. Otherwise there is nothing to prevent a withdrawal. One

1041
does not require a clause in a Bill to say so.
I am not saying that my Amendment provides the best method of dealing with this; and I shall certainly not ask that it be voted upon to-day unless the Committee so wish—for there may be better ways to deal with the problem. What I venture to say is that there should be a limit to the period of time during which the right of enfranchisement by notice may be exercised. Apparently, there is a right to do so at almost any time during the period of a possible 150 years down to 50 years. The limit I suggest in my Amendment is within two years of the end of the existing lease and within two years of the end of the extended lease, if any. It may be that better suggestions can be made; but I submit that it is quite wrong that this unlimited right should exist as a complete blight on the ownership of property. It is an intolerable position that any morning a notice may arrive saying: "The freehold is mine". There should be some limit to the time during which these rights could be exercised. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 34, after ("and") insert ("within two years of the original term date or the extended term date ").—(Lord Silsoe.)
LORD MITCHISON: I am not quite certain whether I understood the noble Lord correctly; but I hope that we are at one on the proposition that where there has been an extended tenancy there is no right to enfranchise—to "acquire the freehold", if I may use those words—unless a notice to do so is given not later than the original term date of the tenancy.
LORD SILSOE: I apologise if I am wrong. Where can I find that?
LORD MITCHISON: I think it is to be found in Clause 16(1)(a). It is subject to subsections (2) and (3) of the clause, but, speaking a little off the cuff, I do not think that they affect the main point.
LORD HUGHES: It had been my intention to draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, to this point. I must confirm what my noble friend Lord Mitchison has said. There is no right of enfranchisement—and this I have already said—once a period of extended lease has been arrived
1042
at. My noble friend was right when he pointed out that under Clause 16(1) this right of enfranchisement is denied during the 50 years' extension. Because of this we were in some difficulty, for we had not really contemplated that the noble Lord had overlooked this. In these circumstances we could not make sense of the insertion in the Amendment of the phrase "extended term date". My first task was to clarify that when the noble Lord spoke of "term date" he was using the phrase in the way in which it is used in the Bill.
LORD SILSOE: I think I had better apologise in regard to the second half of my Amendment. I had not seen Clause 16(1)(a). Fortunately, I said that I had not found everything in this Bill. I agree that the second half of my Amendment is therefore useless; but the first half still stands.
LORD HUGHES: We now come to the first part of the Amendment. The Government think it would be wrong to limit the right of enfranchisement to the last two years of the tenancy. We do not think it would be of any help to the landlord to prevent the leaseholder from clarifying the position by enfranchising sooner. It would be most awkward for the leaseholder in the first three years of the five years before the term date; for the rights conferred by the Bill require a five years' residence. So if the leaseholder had to move in the last five years, having by that time become in a position to exercise his rights, he could not sell the tenancy with any possibility of the new purchasers acquiring the qualifications as he might, in these circumstances, have to stay on for another three years because we had placed this quite artificial and, so far as the landlord is concerned, non-beneficial barrier in the way.
If there is a blight so far as the landlord is concerned, it exists from the fact that there is the opportunity of enfranchisement. It is not going to be eliminated by putting in a limit of two years from the original term date. In these circumstances, I cannot advise the Committee to accept the noble Lord's Amendment. It would certainly be a considerable disadvantage to many perfectly genuine and respectable leaseholders, and we do not see that there would be any corresponding advantage to the landlord.

1043
no matter how equally genuine and deserving he might be.
LORD SILSOE: I apologise for not having mentioned Clause 16(1).
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I do not think I go quite so far as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I see an argument in favour of the right of enfranchisement not being confined to the last two years of the original term. It is during the last ten years of a long lease that property is liable to run down, when people do not spend money on it. It might be that the property would be in danger of neglect if it were not until two years before the end of the present lease that the leaseholder could take any action at all. I did not quite follow the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, about the man who might not be able to sell his property properly, because it seems to me, from our discussions on a previous Amendment, that provided he had lived in the house for five years even if he wanted to sell it quickly he could file a notice, which needs only a 4d. stamp; and after that he would, as it were, obtain all the rights of an enfranchiser which he could pass on to the eventual purchaser. But that is a minor point. I agree with the noble Lord. Lord Silsoe, about the blight. Some of these leases have not two, or five, or ten years to run, but 40 or 50 years—
LORD SILSOE: It may be 98 years.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: It may even be 98 years—and over a period of scores of years there may be complete uncertainty as to what is to happen. There does not seem to be anything in the Bill to avoid that, and I have a great deal of sympathy with the attempt of the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, to try to minimise the period of blight. Nevertheless, I appreciate the arguments of the Government against this particular way of doing it.
LORD SILSOE: All I wish to say is I hope that something will be done. There have been created, before the White Paper was published, building leases of 99 years and upwards; and there are in existence many which are for 999 years. I am very glad to hear that the extended lease after 999 years is not at risk (I cannot feel that is very
1044
"worriting" at the moment), or, indeed, any extended lease. But I hope that the Government will find some way to make an enfranchisement possible at reasonable times during such a long period in which it is almost impossible for the landlord to sell or to manage his property. I must admit that I did not think very heavily before I put down the period of two years, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, is probably right in saying that it is not long enough. It may be that there should be a short period after the commencement of this legislation—I am putting forward all sorts of points which may occur to people—but to leave it open every morning for 999 years is really asking too much. Unless the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, wishes to answer—I am sure he will do what I ask and will think about this—
LORD HUGHES: I think it would be discourteous if, before the noble Lord asks leave to withdraw his Amendment, as I think he intends to do, I did not say that, the Amendment in its present form having been withdrawn entirely, and there being no intention to resubmit it in part (if there were a re-submission it would be something of a different nature) the Government will, in the meantime, think about what their reactions would be to a different period.
LORD SILSOE: I thank the noble Lord, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.4 p.m.
LORD SILSOE LORD SILSOE moved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Lord said: This Amendment is relevant to the proposed Amendments to Clause 9. There is a difficulty about having subsection (5) in the wrong clause. But all the Amendments are relevant and, if I may, I will refer here to Clause 9. Subsection (5) of Clause 8 relates to non-payment or nominal payment for the price of the house, but it is Clause 9 that deals with the price of a house. It is a little difficult to deal with subsection (5) of Clause 8 before discussing Clause 9 and I should like to ask leave to take together my Amendment to omit subsection (5) of Clause 8 with all my Amendments to Clause 9.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The noble Lord may discuss them together if he wishes, but I will put them one by one.
LORD SILSOE: That will suit me. I think that it will save time.
LORD HUGHES: I doubt it, frankly. And that course would have the added complication that I am dealing with this Amendment and my noble friend Lord Kennet with the next lot of Amendments. It would simplify things enormously if the noble Lord would speak to this Amendment which, I may say in advance, the Government consider quite unnecessary.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, will move his Amendment and deal now with Clause 8(5). We could consider that and complete the discussion on Clause 8, and then go on to Clause 9. It would of course, if he wished to do so, be open to the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, after our consideration of Clause 9 and whatever may come of it, to put down this Amendment to Clause 8 again on Report stage.
LORD SILSOE: Certainly. I move that subsection (5) of Clause 8 be deleted, on the ground that it is quite impossible for me to conceive that anybody would buy a freehold for nothing. I say no more.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 29, leave out subsection (5).—(Lord Silsoe.)
LORD HUGHES: We assumed that this was a probing Amendment, and I think that is so from what the noble Lord has said. He is seeking information about the purpose of this subsection. This explanation, I am afraid, is very much lawyers' language, and it may well be that the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, will have a better understanding of it than I have; but I think I gather what it means. I will read the explanation I have exactly as it is in all its best legal verbiage.
The purpose of this subsection is to ensure that although the leaseholder may have to pay nothing, or only a nominal sum, in order to enfranchise, because the value of the freehold is reduced to that level by rent charges and other burdens subject to which the conveyance is re-
1046
quired to be made, he will nevertheless be deemed to be the purchaser for money or for money's worth. This means that he will enjoy the protection of Sections 13 and 17 of the Land Charges Act 1925, by which land charges and local land charges which are not registered are rendered void against the purchaser as defined in that Act. The definition and requirements are not the same from all charges, but the subsection is so framed that a leaseholder acquiring the freehold under the Bill will be protected against all unregistered charges to the fullest extent possible under the Land Charges Act 1925, provided that in the case of local land charges he obtains an official certificate of search under Section 17 of that Act. Having said that, I hope that the noble Lord will feel that he is not doing himself any injustice if he proceeds to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SILSOE: I cannot allow that. Of course, all that jargon is necessary if the price is nil. But it is not necessary if the price is not nil, and I cannot begin to see why the Government have even dared to put into the clause that anybody is going to buy a freehold for nil.
LORD HUGHES: I must resort to the tactics of the noble Lords opposite, and say that if the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, is able to produce evidence that in no circumstances can the charges to which I have referred ever be such as would reduce the value of the freehold to nothing, then he will be justified in asking us to do what he wishes. In legislating in this way the Government are obliged to make provision for the sort of circumstances which may arise; and the Government are advised that there can be circumstances in which there is no money actually passing because the value of the freehold is nil. In such circumstances we should not be able to give the same sort of protection rights as would be conveyed if we have this subsection in.
I do not think it fair or right for the noble Lord to say that he cannot conceive of such a situation arising. I think he would be quite justified in saying that he thinks it unlikely this would happen, or that this would happen only very rarely. But it needs only the possibility that it might happen once to require the Government to give protection to the individual in these circumstances.
LORD SILSOE: I am bound to say that I think it will happen, because Clause 9 is hopeless. That is why I ask for subsection (5) to be taken out. If Clause 9 is made human, then it never can happen. I have made my protest so far as I am able and I will now drop it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Purchase price and costs of enfranchisement, and tenant's right to withdraw.
9.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, the price payable for a house and premises on a conveyance under section 8 above shall be the amount which at the relevant time the house and premises, if sold in the open market by a willing seller, might be expected to realise on the following assumptions:—
(a) on the assumption that the vendor was selling for an estate in fee simple, but subject to the tenancy, and if the tenancy has not been extended under this Part of this Act, on the assumption that it had been so extended;
(3) On ascertaining the amount payable, or likely to be payable, as the price for a house and premises in accordance with this section (but not more than one month after the amount payable has been determined by agreement or otherwise), the tenant may give written notice to the landlord that he is unable or unwilling to acquire the house and premises at the price he must pay; and thereupon—
(b) any further notice given under that section with respect to the house or any part of it (with or without other property) shall be void if given within the following five years.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD STRANG): I have to inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 24 were agreed to, I should not be able to call Nos. 25 and 26.
LORD SILSOE: I have three Amendments to Clause 9, Nos. 24, 27 and 29, which have all exactly the same effect. If it is convenient to the Committee and especially to the noble Lords, Lord Kennet, Lord Brooke of Cumnor and Lord Aberdare, who are moving other Amendments, I should prefer to discuss No. 27, which will save time.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I think that the most helpful thing would be if the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, would move No. 24. I am sure that your
1048
Lordships will give him permission to discuss along with it Amendment No. 27, which deals with a related point, and we may have a general discussion about compensation terms.
5.12 p.m.
LORD SILSOE LORD SILSOE moved, in subsection (1)(a), to leave out all words after the first "tenancy" to the end of the paragraph. The noble Lord said: I think I am bound to ignore the Amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, which would ultimately make what I am proposing unnecessary. I assume that the right thing to do is to take the Bill as it is and ignore the fact that the Government have promised to consider an entirely different code of compensation.
LORD KENNET: May I say, for the Record, that the Government have promised to examine the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin.
LORD SILSOE: The object of my Amendments (and I think that of the three No. 27 is the most useful way of carrying out the same objective) is to ensure that, whatever Clause 9 says, the compensation payable in respect of enfranchisement will never be less than the market value of the site, excluding building but subject to the tenancy. I think I am accurate in saying that "subject to the tenancy" means subject to the existing tenancy and not subject to the extended tenancy. If there is any doubt about that, the word "existing" could be put in, but I am advised that "tenancy" in the Bill as drafted means existing tenancy.
A number of people, including myself, are not at all happy about the fact that enfranchisement should take place at site value and should ignore the value of the building. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is possibly going to move Amendments which will bring in the value of the building, but for the moment I am content to assume that, the Second Reading having been passed, site value is the principle decided so far. I am anxious to be absolutely sure that "subject to the tenancy" means subject to all the charges and encumbrances of the existing tenancy, but not the 50 years extra which has been given as a free gift. I do not think that I need spend time on elaborating the point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 41, leave out from ("tenancy") to end of line 44.—(Lord Silsoe.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I have tabled Amendment No. 25 to which I will speak briefly before the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, replies for the Government. This is one of the controversial clauses of the Bill. I hope that we are all at one in wishing to ensure that the outcome of it is completely fair and just as between landlord and tenant. The noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, has indicated that there is no great difference between Amendments No. 24 and No. 27. I confess that as I read them I thought there was a difference, and I put down Amendment No. 25 partly because I expected that there might be a certain ambiguity in No. 24. I was not sure whether the word "tenancy" on page 13, line 41, if all the rest of the words in paragraph (a) were removed, would mean the tenancy with the remainder of the original long lease or the tenancy with the additional rights conferred under Part I of the 1954 Act. It seemed to me that if there was a question of removing the words after "tenancy" in that paragraph, it would be desirable that the tenancy should be regarded as including whatever rights accrue to the tenant under the 1954 Act.
There are several ways in which one might calculate the compensation due on enfranchisement. The obvious way, which the Government, I regret to say, have rejected, is that the tenant should purchase the freehold reversion at its current value. The Government have rejected that on the assumption that the bricks and mortar belong to the leaseholder and only the land belongs to the freeholder. I suspect that the Government will argue that this is an essential part of their scheme presented to the electorate at the 1966 Election and that it would, therefore, not be right for your Lordships to alter that and restore compensation terms to what were regarded by everybody as just before the White Paper came along.
There are these two concepts. It has always been the concept in law and in the professions that there is a value of the freeholder's reversion, which can be calculated, assuming that the leaseholder has the enjoyment of the house and the land up to the end of the
1050
original lease, and that after that the house and the land revert to the freeholder. That concept was modified to some extent by the 1954 Act in order to ensure security of tenure for leaseholders in times of housing shortage; and I accept that modification.
Had the Government inserted in their plan a proposal that those qualified under the Bill to claim enfranchisement—that is to say, claim to purchase the freehold—should pay the current market value of the freehold reversion, I do not think there would be any difference between us. But they have not said that. They have made the entirely unwarranted statement that the bricks and mortar belong to the leaseholder and only the land belongs to the freeholder, whereas in fact what the leaseholder possesses is a right of enjoyment of both the land and the bricks and mortar for a limited period, and the freeholder possesses the right of the reversion of both the land and the house at the end of the stated term. The Government, however, have submitted to the electorate a different plan. They have proposed, in the words of the White Paper, that
"the land belongs in equity to the landowner and the house belongs in equity to the occupying leaseholder".
This seems to be a most important part of the Government's proposal: indeed, they state it as a principle. Paragraph 4 of the White Paper reads:
"The Government will therefore introduce a Bill to give leaseholders with an original long lease greater security and to enable them to acquire the freehold on fair terms. The Bill will be based on the principle that the land belongs in equity to the landowner and the house belongs in equity to the occupying leaseholder."
That is the principle, and certainly, in my view, your Lordships should see to it that that principle is successfully embodied in this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will be able to help us by giving his authoritative opinion on whether a substantial difference exists in the effect of Amendments Nos. 24 and 27, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe. My own judgment is that either Amendment No. 24 or No. 25 could be held by the Government to be not in accord with the principle that was embodied in the White Paper. But Amendment No. 27,

1051
in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, unquestionably represents what the Government have said is the correct principle to be embodied in the Bill.
I considered, as I have explained, that my Amendment No. 25 was an improvement on Amendment No. 24, and I hope that on that the Government will agree, even though they may not find either No. 24 or No. 25 acceptable. Amendment No. 27 seems to me to be the one to which your Lordships should give special attention, and that is what the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, himself has said. This is to insert the proviso that
"the price"—
that is, the price which the leaseholder will pay for the freehold reversion—
"shall in no circumstances be less than the market value of the site excluding the building but subject to the tenancy."
By "tenancy" in that Amendment I understand the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, to mean the existing tenancy, together with the rights under the 1954 Act attaching to that tenancy, but without the right to an extended lease under this Bill, when it becomes an Act.
There are none of these extended leases at the present time—there cannot be until this Bill reaches the Statute Book—and it would be wholly wrong to bring in the 50 year postponement of reversion of the site to the freeholder in calculating the price that should be paid here and now if the leaseholder wishes to enfranchise. It may be that the Government have sought to draft Clause 9 of the Bill in such a way as to ensure that what the occupying leaseholder will pay, and what a freeholder will receive, is the market value of the site excluding the building. But they certainly appear, on the face of the Bill, to have modified the phrase, "market value of the site" by importing this artificial provision that the site shall not be deemed to revert to the freeholder until 50 years have passed after the ending of the original lease, despite the fact that enfranchisement is to take place at once. Once enfranchisement is under discussion, the whole question of an extended lease for 50 years disappears. The concept of an extended lease for 50 years is obviously at the heart of the relevance of the whole matter when an extended lease is being applied for; but when an enfranchisement is being applied for the
1052
question of extended lease becomes irrelevant.
Therefore, what the Bill should do, if, as I am ready to grant for the purpose of this discussion, the Government have received the approval of the electorate for confiscating the bricks and mortar of the freeholder and giving them to the leaseholder, is to say that the sum which the leaseholder should pay to the freeholder for what has hitherto been known as the freehold reversion is the market value of the site as at the day of enfranchisement, without any sum added for the value of the buildings, subject to the unexpired term of the existing lease, and subject to the tenant's rights under the 1954 Act, but without reference to the possibility that the tenant, instead of applying for enfranchisement, might have applied for an extended lease.
These are complicated matters and I have done my best to explain my approach to them. If there were no question of this White Paper having been before the electorate, I should have said that undoubtedly the price properly payable should be the market value of the freehold reversion. But I am prepared to accept that an obvious injustice has been endorsed by the electorate in removing from the freeholder his right to ultimate possession of the bricks and mortar, and therefore I am arguing on the principles of the White Paper. I cannot see that we here can be doing anything but what is right in seeking to make sure that the Bill which was published after the last Election bears out the principles on which the White Paper, published before the Election, is based. That is the reason why I hope that the Government will give very serious consideration to these Amendments, but particularly to Amendment No. 27, and, if they do not find Amendment No. 27 acceptable, will explain precisely why they have departed from what is stated in the White Paper about the land belonging in equity to the landowner while the house belongs in equity to the occupying leaseholder.
5.32 p.m.
LORD KENNET: This discussion is ranging rather far and wide, and I am reluctant to range equally far and wide, because I fear we shall get confused in divisions which may arise on the three

1053
Amendments which have so far been discussed together. But I think it might assist the Committee in the consideration of this whole group of Amendments if I were to give an interpretation of what subsection (1) of Clause 9, unamended, does. I think that this should answer the main questions put by the noble Lords, Lord Silsoe and Lord Brooke of Cumnor.
Clause 9 is the clause which contains the basic provisions for calculating the price of enfranchisement. It states that the price is to be the open market price, on a willing buyer to seller basis, of the landlord's interest, on the assumption that the leaseholder, if he has not already done so, has obtained the 50-year extension provided for in the Bill. Because the market pays little or no regard to a reversionary interest so far distant as 50 years, this means that in the ordinary case of a house with no potential for redevelopment the price the leaseholder has to pay to enfranchise will be based primarily on the sum required to redeem the ground rent—and modern ground rent—for which he is liable under his lease and its extension. Where there is redevelopment potential, the valuation of the landlord's interest must take account of his right to repossess, under Clause 17 of this Bill, on payment to the leaseholder of compensation for the loss of his rights under the extension provisions. In other words, it can be taken to reflect the full development value of the site with compensation to the tenant for the building. That is what the unamended clause says.
We have here three Amendments, about which I have been asked many questions. I will answer them as shortly as I can. I believe that Amendment No. 24, Lord Silsoe's Amendment, which has been moved, would call into question the basis of compensation as set out in Clause 1. It would not clearly reverse it in the direction which I believe the Conservative Party wants. It would call it into question and leave it unclear. I believe that Amendment No. 25, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, which we are coming to, would clearly reverse the Government's intention and put it on the other footing altogether, and would in effect give the freeholder the right to payment for the full market value on enfranchisement,
1054
including bricks and mortar value. I believe that Amendment No. 27, Lord Silsoe's second Amendment in this group, is very largely unnecessary, because it would not in the normal run of events change the provisions as they are set out in the unamended clause.
May I just say one or two words about the basic issue? I am not quite sure what Lord Brooke of Cumnor's complaint is. If I understood him aright, he agreed that the fair basis of compensation was that the leaseholder paid for site value and paid for development value, but did not pay for bricks and mortar value. These are the three elements. The provision in this clause, with the device about acting as though the extension had already been granted, is simply a convenient and expeditious way of arriving at the knocking out of the third element. It is simply a way to make sure that the enfranchising leaseholder does not pay anything for the bricks and mortar, because, as we know, the present value of a lease which is not going to fall in in 50 years does not in the normal course include anything for the bricks and mortar. I should be happy if we could now proceed to further consideration of, and possibly a Division upon, Amendment 24 only, and discuss more fully, if necessary, the other Amendments if they are called.
LORD SILSOE: I have nothing further to say on Amendment 24.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: If the noble Lord is thinking of withdrawing Amendment No. 24 I should like to say, to put the Record right, that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, inadvertently misrepresented me in saying that I said that I should regard it as fair if the leaseholder paid for the site and the development value but paid nothing for the bricks and mortar. I do not regard that as fair. I appreciate that the Government regard it as fair, and this was why I said, on the Second Reading, that to the minds of normal people this Bill is a piece of legalised stealing. But in this respect I consider that it has been endorsed by the electorate, and, much as I should like to see Amendment No. 24, or No. 25, pressed—I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, will do—I am not proposing to press Amendment 25, for exactly the reason which I have

1055
explained in relation to the position of this House vis-à-vis the electorate.
But Amendment No. 27 is quite a different matter. Is the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, on behalf of the Government, arguing that the words in Amendment No. 27, "subject to the tenancy" mean, "subject not just to the present tenancy but to an extended lease"? I do not take them as meaning that. Quite clearly, whatever happens at the Report stage of the Bill, it must be put absoutely beyond doubt what we are doing here. But I, for my part, if the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, withdraws Amendment No. 24, will not move Amendment 25, solely for the reasons which I have explained. But I hope that Lord Silsoe will press Amendment No. 27, and if there is any ambiguity about what it means I hope he may move a further Amendment on the Report stage to put it beyond doubt that "the tenancy" means "the tenancy" and does not mean another tenancy that has not yet been created.
LORD SILSOE: If I may say so, that is an important point which I mentioned when I spoke on the clause. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has not said that it did not mean that. I have been told that in the drafting of this Bill the words "the tenancy" do not include the extended tenancy. If the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, could say whether he agrees or disagrees on that simple point it might save a good deal of time.
LORD MOLSON: Before the Parliamentary Secretary replies to that question—
LORD KENNET: I wonder if I might ask the Committee whether it would not be to the convenience of everybody if we entered into the interpretation of Amendment 27 when we come to it.
LORD SILSOE: I have been requested to consider whether Amendment No. 24 might be withdrawn. I am in a little difficulty about it until such time as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, says something more. As I understand it, he draws a distinction between Amendments 24 and 25, saying that Amendment 25 is contrary to the spirit of what happened in the Election, whereas he paid me the compliment of saying that Amendment
1056
No. 24 was not. Therefore I am a little dubious about withdrawing it, because he then went on to say that Amendment No. 27 meant nothing whatever and he was delighted to accept it. I am troubled as to exactly what to do. If Amendment No. 27 means nothing I do not particularly want to withdraw Amendment No. 24.
LORD KENNET: If the Committee is worried about electoral pledges not getting in its way, it will accept this clause without amendment.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I strongly advise the Committee not to do this. I have always understood that the function of this House nowadays is to respect the decisions of the electorate on major issues. If that is not our function why did we ever consider the Bill to nationalise steel? Why did it not go through this House automatically, without amendment? The noble Lord knows it did not because this House is perfectly at liberty to examine the details of proposals. I think it is slightly churlish of him, when I have refrained from moving a major Amendment on the grounds that I do not want to infringe the traditions of Parliament in any way, to proceed from that and say that we cannot amend this clause in any respect at all. Really that is to destroy the total utility of your Lordships' House as a revising body. So far as I know not even the most extreme member of the Party opposite has ever maintained here that your Lordships' function as a revising body should be totally abandoned.
If I may venture to offer a word of advice, I think it probably would be helpful to the clarity of the debate if the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, were prepared to withdraw Amendment No. 24. There is still a Report stage to come. I then will not move Amendment No. 25 and we can examine Amendment No. 27 in greater detail.
LORD MITCHISON: I am not quite sure what the dance is. There is a great deal of elegant posturing between the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, who seem to be saying, "Shall we withdraw this Amendment? Or shall we withdraw that Amendment?" It is very nice to watch, but if I could reassure their Lordships I do not believe that in the long run it

1057
will make the slightest difference what they do.
If I may go a little beyond that, I was listening to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor—I always do; I have known him for years and I find him fascinating—and I said to myself: "He will not get through this speech without saying that his own views are fair and everybody else's are wicked". Sure enough, he did. He said that the only fairness was to follow him and the rest of it, though it followed the will of the electorate was (what was it?) legislative thieving or larceny—I have forgotten the exact phrase. He is back in his old form. It is very nice to see that he is not really growing much older. I am so glad about that.
If we are on the morals of this, it was not I who introduced them, it was the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. It is a subject on which he is an authority. He explained that there were landlord's rights which could not be altered. But this is not the first Bill to alter landlord's rights. He dealt with the Rent Acts year after year. They, of course, were a breach of existing law, if one likes to put it that way. What is Parliament for? It is here to break the existing law and to make a new one from time to time, and it does it on principles of justice which go far beyond anything which has ever occurred to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor.
May I remind your Lordships of the sad story of the gas engine? A tenant puts a gas engine into a house, he bolts it to the floor and it becomes the property of the landlord, with what I might call "Brookeian sanctions" allowing the landlord to keep it. If the tenant does not bolt the gas engine to the floor, it remains his property. How much hinges on these two or three moral bolts attaching a gas engine to the floor! What nonsense this all is. This is a matter which, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, himself admitted, has been before the electorate on quite sufficiently clear terms and, more than that, it has been considered by the elected Chamber in considerable detail. I do not for one minute want to interrupt—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh no!
LORD MITCHISON: I do not want to interrupt the very nice dance which was going on when I got up. Perhaps I had better sit down.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD MITCHISON: But if your Lordships wish to take this matter seriously, it is one which must be considered.
LORD SILSOE: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, for giving me such clear advice. If it is the will of the Committee, having accepted the advice which I have had from the Left, I ask leave to withdraw Amendment No. 24.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD KENNET: Perhaps I may preface my remarks on this Amendment by complaining that whenever I urge a given course on the House, noble Lords opposite promptly accuse me of having told the House that it has no right to talk about it at all. Of course I did not mean that this Committee should not discuss anything that the Government introduces in pursuance of election pledges. I was assuring the Committee that if it were to accept this clause unamended it could be sure that it was not falling down on any duty it might have to ensure that the Government honoured its election pledges. Any Amendments within the ambit of Election pledges are as welcome to this Government as any other, but in my submission some of the Amendments before us are not within the ambit of Election pledges.
Amendment No. 26 is a drafting Amendment. As it stands, Clause 9 is open to the possible interpretation that where a lease has not already been extended the right to extend it is to be treated as exhausted. This is pure drafting, and the Amendment removes any possible ambiguity. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 43, leave out ("had been") and insert ("was to be ").—(Lord Kennet.)
5.49 p.m.
LORD SILSOE LORD SILSOE moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that the price shall in no circumstances be less than the market value of the

1059
site excluding the building but subject to the tenancy."
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken on this Amendment, and I only want to say a word about the language of subsection (1)(a), which reads as follows:
"… on the assumption that the vendor was selling for an estate in fee simple but subject to the tenancy, and if the tenancy has not been extended … on the assumption that it had been so extended …".
That is the language that I have used for my Amendment, to make it perfectly clear that it is not the extended tenancy that is referred to. I am not saying that I am right or wrong, but that is why I have done it. If I am wrong in my language, I wish to make it perfectly clear that I intend the existing tenancy and not the long one.
The object of this short and simple Amendment is very different from what I think the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said it was. As I understood him, he said it makes no difference. I will take that risk. I think it makes a lot of difference. I hope your Lordships will take this Amendment to a Division. It seems to me a completely important and essential part, and it deliberately copies what the Government said in their own White Paper and in the election. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 15, insert the said proviso—(Lord Silsoe.)
LORD MOLSON: I should like to ask whether I heard the Parliamentary Secretary correctly. Did I understand him to say that he did not consider that if the Committee accepted this Amendment it would in any way alter the sense of the clause of the Bill?
LORD KENNET: I am advised that, basically speaking, it would not alter the sense of the Bill, since the word "tenancy" as it appears in the Amendment would, because of the surrounding language, be likely to be taken to mean the extended tenancy, the new tenancy. However, I think it would clearly be to the convenience of the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, and the Committee if I were to address myself to the question as he meant to put it. He has told us that he means this proviso to refer to the existing tenancy. What this is doing, if we accept Lord Silsoe's intention rather than the
1060
possible effect of the drafting, is very much the same as what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, proposed to do with the Amendment No. 25, which he did not press to a Division.
This Amendment would have the effect, if I am not mistaken, of knocking out the exemption of bricks and mortar value. It would make the price to be paid on enfranchisement full market price of site value, development value and of bricks and mortar value. This is the heart of the Bill. The whole principle on which the Bill is based is, to quote the White Paper, that:
"The land belongs in equity to the landowner and the house … to the … leaseholder".
I think I should make it clear to the Committee that if we vote on this Amendment we are voting on that principle, always assuming that it would in fact have the effect Lord Silsoe means it to have. But once again I would remind the Committee that I am advised that it probably would not have that effect but would have a very much smaller effect, which politically speaking would be negligible, although it would run us into certain minor difficulties arising out of the drafting.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: We are clearly in great difficulty here. We seem to be agreed that we should discuss this Amendment on the basis that the words "the tenancy" mean what the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, believed them to mean when he put down the Amendment, what I believe them to mean and what they would appear to any unprejudiced observer to mean; that is to say, the existing tenancy and not some assumed tenancy which has not come into existence. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, he has added further to the confusion by speaking as though the words "excluding the building" meant "including the building". I can see that there might be some doubt about the meaning of the word "tenancy", but I cannot believe that there is this dubiety about whether "excluding" means "including". I feel quite sure that this was not a misprint or misinterpretation by the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe; I am quite sure that when he tabled this Amendment he meant to exclude the building. If the effect of the Amendment is not to exclude the building, I think the Government owe

1061
it to the Committee to explain why "excluding the building" will mean, in the eyes of the lawyers who have to interpret this Bill, "including the building".
My approach to this matter is that I accept, for the purpose of this argument, the Government's contention that the freeholder should have no rights over the bricks and mortar. That is what the Government put before the country, and I am not seeking here to argue against that principle. And it would appear to me that the Amendment we are now discussing exactly represents the policy of the Government as stated summarily in the White Paper:
"The Bill will be based on the principle that the land belongs in equity to the landowner and the house belongs in equity to the occupying leaseholder".
Here we are defining the price that is to be paid by the occupying leaseholder, and we are saying that it shall exclude the building. That is precisely what the White Paper says. It will be subject to the existing tenancy, obviously, but it will not be subject to a tenancy which has not come into existence and is only assumed, even by the Government, to be a future hypothetical tenancy.
If indeed there were no doubts about the meaning of these words, "the tenancy", I can hardly believe that the draftsman would have introduced into the Bill those words, in lines 41 to 43, on page 13, after "the tenancy":
"and if the tenancy has not been extended under this part of this Act, on the assumption that it had been so extended …"
or on the assumption that it was to be so extended according to the latest Amendment we have made. It therefore seems perfectly reasonable to consider that the words "the tenancy" did not mean in the Government's view what they are now saying they probably mean. I can prove that by the fact that the Government felt it necessary in the Bill to introduce these additional words in order to ensure that the words "the tenancy" would come to mean what they do not naturally mean but what the Government wish them to mean.
We must surely proceed on the basis that what we are trying to do is to ensure that the leaseholder will be paying for the freeholder's interest in the site but not for the freeholder's interest
1062
in the bricks and mortar, because we are to assume that that interest has already been transferred to the tenant. That is precisely the principle on which the White Paper is based. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, will press this Amendment, because it seems to me that we have had no sort of answer from the Government to the case that I have made out, except the somewhat surprising statement that in the view of the Government "excluding" is to be taken to mean "including".
LORD KENNET: I have fallen into a trap, a pitfall, in addressing my remarks to what the noble Lord said he meant.
LORD SILSOE: Did I lay the trap?
LORD KENNET: I amended the word "trap" to "pitfall", speaking to what I heard the noble Lord say, rather than confining my remarks to the effects of this Amendment. Perhaps I could tell the Committee what the best advice I have concludes about what would be the effect of this Amendment if we adopted it as drafted without paying any attention to the statement of intent given to the Committee by its sponsor.
The Amendment would provide a statutory floor for the price of enfranchisement equal to the reversionary value of the site—that is, the value of the site discounted for the number of years that the lease still has to run. Basically, this is what Clause 9(1) already provides, since in the generality of cases the effect of adding 50 years at a modern ground rent to the existing lease is to limit the value of the landlord's reversion to site value. That is the point I made on an earlier Amendment. Thus, the proviso contained in the Amendment is to a large extent unnecessary.
But the Amendment would seem also to have an effect on the case where there is development value. In that case it may possibly have some operative effect, particularly if the reference to "the site excluding the building" is intended, or can be taken, to mean a cleared site. This is because Clause 9(1) as introduced has the effect (by virtue of the way it attracts the provisions of Clause 17, through the reference to a lease "extended under this Part of this Act") of making the price of enfranchisement reflect the value of

1063
the site for redevelopment as encumbered by the house for which the leaseholder has to be compensated.
The Amendment may therefore have the effect, or be intended, in a case where there is development value, to make the leaseholder pay more than the Bill at present provides because he cannot then claim the residual value of the house. There is thus a clear conflict, though not I may say a major conflict, between the Amendment and the basic principle of the Bill, that the leaseholder is to be credited with the value of the bricks and mortar. Besides this, the Amendment would create an inconsistency in that a leaseholder who obtained an extended lease and was dispossessed for redevelopment under Clause 17 would receive compensation for the loss of the house, whereas one who enfranchised would have no corresponding benefit in the price he had to pay.
6.3 p.m.
LORD SILSOE: It is difficult to follow that explanation, but I think it means, in long words, that "tenancy" means "extended tenancy", and also includes some element of redevelopment. I think that is the effect of what has been read. In order to make quite sure what my meaning was (I still think I am right, but I never like to be my own lawyer), would your Lordships be good enough to look at my Amendment No. 24, which has been withdrawn. Your Lordships will remember that I said I was a little disturbed about being asked to withdraw it because it appeared to offend the Government more than the other one. None the less, I was advised to do it. Had Amendment No. 24 been accepted, paragraph (a) of subsection (1) would read:
"on the assumption that the vendor was selling for an estate in fee simple, but subject to the tenancy."
The words which at present follow:
"and if the tenancy has not been extended … on the assumption that it had been so extended "
would have been removed. It could not possibly be said, I think, that that Amendment made the tenancy the extended tenancy. It is beyond argument. So that I am at least speaking frankly in what my intentions were on this; and, as I say, it is beyond argument.
1064
It was then suggested to me that I should withdraw Amendment No. 24, which was obvious, and proceed with one which we are now told means absolutely nothing. I do not know what your Lordships' think about this. I hope that we shall vote on this matter, because I think it means a lot and I do not think we should be put off by saying that it meant nothing. If, of course, the Government do not vote, that is all right; that is their affair.
I cannot think the view I have put forward is wrong, but in case it is I should make it clear that I am entirely alone on these Amendments. I have had no advice of any sort whatsoever, legal or otherwise. I have done my best. I shall now immediately take legal advice. I hope I shall be given the services of the Attorney General (I think I am entitled to them) as to whether this means anything or not. I do not see why he should not tell noble Lords what it means. I do not think the Government have had the advice of the Law Officers; they have not said so. I personally am fairly happy about this, and I think that if this is said in the House of Lords, at least we should have the authority of the Law Officers behind it. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could assist us on this matter—but I see he is not here. My hope is that we shall pass this Amendment, and that if there is any doubt I shall be encouraged to add the right words on Report.
LORD KENNET: In view of the fact that the main effect of this Amendment, so far as I can make out at the moment, is not to change the effect of the clause as it stands, and in view of the fact that the respects in which it will give rise to anomalies and inconveniences appear to be rather minor ones, I suggest to the noble Lord that he might agree to withdraw his Amendment on an undertaking that, now that we have his own interpretation of what he intended, we should reconsider it in the hope of being able to do something to meet him on this point, possibly after discussion with him, between now and Report.
LORD MOLSON: I thought that the opening remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary prefaced an intimation that the Government were prepared to accept the Amendment. He said that he did not

1065
think it made much difference, and that what difference it made was quite minor. Therefore, the natural conclusion to draw would be that the Government would be willing to accept the noble Lord's Amendment. I greatly hope that the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, will not withdraw his Amendment and that the Government will accept it. If not, I think that we ought to take a decision upon it.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: If I may say something, I am bound to say that I am surprised at the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Molson. When, after a detailed discussion, a Minister says that he is inclined to believe that he will be able to meet a noble Lord at the next stage, in my experience it is almost universal for that noble Lord to say, "All right; let us see where we are on the next occasion". It would be strange for one to say, "This is no good to me. We must vote now or forever hold our peace". I am bound to appeal to the noble Lord to accept what I thought was a rather more than half way offer of my noble friend Lord Kennet.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: In view of what the noble Earl has just said, I wonder whether we could try to get this matter slightly further clarified before the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, takes his decision. The noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, has made it plain beyond all doubt that he thinks the compensation price should be calculated in a way that ignores any extended lease. If that is to be the subject of re-examination, then I can well understand the noble Earl's plea to the noble Lord not to press this Amendment. But if the Government's undertaking is simply to re-examine the wording without any intention of fully and sympathetically considering the noble Lord's proposal that the 50-year period shall be ignored in calculating the compensation price, then I really do not feel that that is a good enough offer to the Committee, and I feel that the Committee would probably like to vote on it.
I personally would be only too pleased to try to work with the Government to arrive at a compensation definition which would genuinely distinguish the lease-holder's interest in the bricks and mortar which the Government say must exclude
1066
the freeholder's interest; and, on the Other side, the freeholder's interest in the site which should be the current market value of the site, excluding anything relating to the bricks and mortar and excluding any assumption of an extended 50-year lease. I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, about the cleared site. That is a minor matter. We do not want the leaseholders to suffer in that respect. But there is a major point of principle between us at the moment—that is to say, whether the possibility of a 50-year extended lease should be included or excluded in the calculation of the price. I do not think that an undertaking to re-examine the words is of very great value unless it includes an undertaking to re-examine that point.
LORD KENNET: I am trying to be as helpful as I can about this. The fact is that this Amendment is not very clearly drafted, and our discussion this afternoon has thrown a certain amount of light on it. My offer is that, if the noble Lord would see fit to withdraw the Amendment, I will take it away and consider it. If we find when we consider it that it does have the effect of forcing enfranchising leaseholders to pay freeholders bricks and mortar value, then when we come to Report I shall uncompromising have to recommend the House to reject it. If, on the other hand, we find it does not have that effect, and that the effects which it does have are only marginally inconvenient or inconsistent, then I have no doubt that, after discussion with the noble Lord, we shall be able to thresh out an Amendment which I would be able to recommend to the House. I hope that makes the situation quite clear. I am not offering to compromise on the principle. I am offering to consider the Amendment because I myself am not quite clear what it says.
LORD SILSOE: My difficulty is that, as noble Lords will know, I have not very great experience in these matters, and I speak rarely. What is worrying me is this. If the clause had the words "existing tenancy" written in plain type, would the Government give any hint that they would receive it favourably? If that were so, I think that there would be something to be said for leaving the

1067
matter over. If it is clear that with "existing tenancy" left in the Government will oppose it, I see no reason why the decision should not be taken to-day. I hope that is a fair suggestion. I ask to be guided for, as I say, I am inexperienced here. What has not been said is whether or not the Government will consider some wording which would include the word "existing" before "tenancy".
LORD KENNET: I thought I made the situation clear. I should not like to enter into a discussion on single words in the drafting because that is precisely what is not clear. If I were to say that it all hangs on whether or not one includes the word "existing", I might find on fuller examination that it did not hang on that at all. I am saying that I hold out no hope whatever to the Committee of being able to commend an Amendment which puts bricks and mortar value on the same footing as development value and site value.
LORD SILSOE: But I did not say bricks and mortar at all.
LORD KENNET: I hope the noble Lord will allow me to finish. If that is the purpose of the noble Lord in this Amendment, and if the Committee is ready to take it as such, I agree that we might as well have the Division now.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: The last thing I want to do is to hold up the Committee, and if the Committee feel like coming to a decision, let us have a decision. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, was saying that this Amendment was actually giving effect to our own intentions. If it really was giving effect to our intentions, we seemed to be close together. If not, I think personally that we ought not to go on discussing it, and if the noble Lord wishes to press the Amendment to a Division, then let us have one.
LORD CARRINGTON: May I say something? I am getting rather confused. I have not taken part in this debate, but I have listened carefuly to what has happened on this Amendment. Did I understand the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, to say, as I thought I did, that he had listened to what the noble Lord,
1068
Lord Silsoe, had said and what Lord Silsoe intended, and that, although when he originally read the Amendment he did not understand what it meant, because it was in his view imperfectly drafted, having listened to Lord Silsoe's explanation of what he intended and meant, he would now go away and see whether or not he could accept the intention behind Lord Silsoe's Amendment as he meant it to be and produce another Amendment on Report? If that is what he seeks to do, it seems to me that he is going quite a long way to meet the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, and that Lord Silsoe should be satisfied with it.
LORD SILSOE: But I have not got it yet.
LORD KENNET: If I gave the impression that I was ready to meet Lord Silsoe in his own interpretation of the meaning of his Amendment—namely, that bricks and mortar value should form part of the payment—then I was wrong. Should we not be better advised, since we are talking about the drafting of an Amendment, about which many of us are confused, to try to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, to withdraw it and to meet and discuss, so that we can find out exactly what its effect would be; and then, if we are going to have a Division, we can have it on another day. If we can make sense of the Amendment together, in a way that mutually satisfies us, then we can agree on another day.
LORD SILSOE: I am grateful to your Lordships. I am not experienced in these matters here. I have now had advice from both sides, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.17 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved, after subsection (2), to insert as a new subsection:
"( ) Where the landlord has an interest in any neighbouring property the price payable for the house and premises shall include such addition as may be just to take account of any additional value which, from his interest in the other property, would have attached to his right under this Part of this Act to terminate an extended lease of the house and premises for the purpose of development."
The noble Lord said: This is the first time I have spoken during this Committee stage. I would declare the interest that I declared on Second Reading: I

1069
own leasehold properties in South Wales and also have an interest in a leasehold property in London. This clause seeks to deal with what is technically known as severance. My noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor has made it quite clear that, as a result of the recent pledges in the Election, we are accepting the basis of the Bill that the landlord owns the land and the leaseholder owns the bricks and mortar. If we accept this basis, we have every reason to be as just and as fair as possible in seeing that the landlord gets what is the correct compensation for the land.
I was very pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, confirm that the enfranchising leaseholder has in fact to pay for the development value of the site. But this subsection seeks to go further than the development value of the site alone and to include the case of a freeholder who owns a large site or area on which there are a number of houses where the compulsory acquisition of one or of several of those houses would injuriously affect the development value of the site as a whole. The Government originally saw the point and were trying to be as fair as possible in such a case when they included this particular provision in the original Bill. I am suggesting to them that this is the just thing to do so far as the landlord is concerned and that this subsection should be reinstated in the Bill.
Severance is a well-known form of injurious affection and one which is normally liable to compensation. One can consider the case of a freeholder who owns a number of houses in a street and when the lease lapses, after the 99-year original lease, the 100-year-old houses would be pulled down as a whole and the site would be redeveloped. If one of those houses is compulsorily acquired under the Bill, then obviously the whole site can no longer be redeveloped and the landlord suffers a considerable loss in development value.
When this provision was withdrawn from the Bill in another place, it was argued that the first house to be developed in such a situation would have to pay more than any subsequent house and the last house would pay the least. But I suggest that this kind of problem could easily be overcome if the development value of the whole site were established
1070
and if it were divided up in proportion to the site area of the houses which comprised it. It was also argued that the leaseholder could not recoup the money which he would have paid in compensation for this severance, but he certainly could recoup it were the site to be developed and were he to sell, and in any other case the value would remain intrinsically in the house.
I can only point out that this form of compensation exists in the case of compulsory purchase by statutory authorities and is included in the Land Compensation Act 1961, where Section 8 includes the words:
"Where … a diminution in the value of an interest in other land has … been taken into account in assessing compensation for injurious affection …".
I cannot help feeling that if it is right that public authorities should compensate a landowner for this kind of injurious affection to development value, the same should apply where there is an individual compulsorily acquiring this interest. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line, 20, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Aberdare.)
LORD KENNET: This Amendment would reinsert in the Bill what was a clause in the Bill as it was originally introduced into the House of Commons. Its purpose was to ensure that the price paid to the freeholder on enfranchisement took account of severance, as the noble Lord has told us. During the Committee stage of the Bill in the House of Commons, certain arguments were advanced which convinced my right honourable friend that the clause was indefensible. I should just like to remind the Committee of what those arguments were.
They were based on the fact that it would produce inequities as between different leaseholders, since the leaseholder who held the key site would have to pay a good deal more for his enfranchisement than his neighbours would. It could never be foreseen how much the amount might be. The amount might be sufficient to deter him from exercising his right to enfranchise at all. The leaseholder who had to pay the high cost of severance might suffer from enfranchising, while all

1071
of his neighbours who did not have to pay severance could get ahead and do it.
It would also produce anomalies between leaseholders in the same block of houses, because unless they combined to enfranchise simultaneously, which is very unlikely, the first person to enfranchise—if he happened to be in the key position or in a key position—would have to pay the whole of the severance value in his price. That is because the first man to go in the middle of a long terrace would have to bear the brunt of the loss to the freeholder of the possibility of developing the terrace as a whole. Lastly, the enfranchising leaseholder who paid a large sum in respect of severance under this subsection would not necessarily be able to recoup it when the area came to be redeveloped, because if it were redeveloped by a local authority or, for example, purchased for redevelopment by the Land Commission using their compulsory powers, which reflect severance, he would have no nuisance value and his compensation would be similar to those of other people in the same block.
When my right honourable friend heard these arguments he accepted them and advised the Committee in the House of Commons to accept them, which they did by 10 votes to 7. In the course of that discussion the Minister said that he would consider further whether there was any fairer method of dealing with the difficulties of severance, and this he did. But he has not succeeded in finding one, and he was advised that one could not deal with the difficulties on any arbitrary basis which would turn out to be even remotely fair, and he has so informed those who spoke in the Committee in the House of Commons to whom he gave a pledge to consider the matter. This is a provision which the Government originally wanted. The Government heard all the objections to it, but have not been able to find a way round them. The subsection is introduced in exactly the same form as it was rejected in the House of Commons, so I would ask the noble Lord to consider whether, having been reminded of the objections, he might withdraw the Amendment. But if he or anybody else can think of another way of dealing with this matter which does
1072
not give rise to injustice, nobody will be more pleased to hear of it than I shall.
LORD ABERDARE: I am grateful for that explanation. I tried in my speech to suggest one way of avoiding the injustice that the first person to enfranchise would bear the whole brunt of the loss of development value of the site. I tried to explain that the suggestion was that it would be equitable for the development value of the site as a whole to be valued, and then when the first house on that site enfranchised causing a severance the leaseholder would pay only the just proportion which his site bore to the site as a whole. That is a proposal which I think would overcome the difficulty. One can even take into account the number of houses on the site so that the first leaseholder to enfranchise does not bear the whole of the severance value.
I do not think I have made myself quite clear, but perhaps when the noble Lord reads my suggestion to-morrow he will see that there may be something in it. I agree that the leaseholder might be paying a sum which he could not recoup, but I think that in this case we are being unjust to the freeholder. This is a form of compensation which he would normally receive for his land if it were taken by a local authority. The leaseholder who is enfranchising is getting a good bargain; he is getting his bricks and mortar free, and I should have thought that this was a form of compensation for the landlord which was fully justified. But at this stage I certainly agree to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.28 p.m.
LORD SILSOE LORD SILSOE moved, in subsection (3)(b), to leave out from "void" to the end of the paragraph. The noble Lord said: This is another Amendment directed to blight. I refer to the various things which can happen during the time of a lease, so that the landlord is prejudiced. Subsection (3) of Clause 9 is a fair subsection, although perhaps slightly harsh to the tenant. It says:
"On ascertaining the amount payable, or likely to be payable, as the price for a house and premises in accordance with this section (but not more than one month after the

1073
amount payable has been determined by agreement or otherwise), the tenant may give written notice to the landlord that he is unable or unwilling to acquire the house and premises at the price he must pay; and thereupon—

(a) the notice under section 8 above of his desire to have the freehold shall cease to have effect, and he shall be liable to make such compensation as may be just to the landlord in respect of the interference (if any) by the notice with the exercise by the landlord of his power to dispose of or deal with the house and premises or any neighbouring property".

That is a very good example of what I call blight in this Bill, and in the Government's new plan, of which I have already spoken with pleasure, the same sort of blight occurs.
Then the clause goes on:
"any further notice given under that section with respect to the house or any part of it (with or without other property) shall be void if given within the following five years."
I should like to know from the Government why the man has another chance. I can see, possibly, the case for it. On the other hand, this is another of these instances where, in the case of these long leases, tenants can come in day by day and ask for enfranchisement or for new leases. I have been trying all the time to get accepted Amendments cutting this down to reasonable limits. Once a man has gone through this formula—once he has been told the price, has said that he cannot afford it or will not pay it, and throws it overboard—I cannot really see why he should be allowed to go on doing it every five years, as apparently he can. In most cases the landlord will not have suffered anything very much on this matter, because in most cases the landlords, at any rate of well-run estates, do not go selling their properties every other morning. Probably not a great deal of money will be involved, and it will not be a great hardship to the man to pay up whatever is required. All I am asking, without pressing this point unduly, is whether we cannot get some limitation on this operation, which will go on every five years. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 37, leave out from ("void") to end of line 38.—(Lord Silsoe.)
LORD KENNET: This Amendment would mean that if a leaseholder exercised his right to withdraw from his notice of enfranchisement when he found out
1074
what the price was, he and his successors would have no right of enfranchisement as regards the house concerned, forever.
LORD SILSOE: That is right. I hope the drafting is right this time.
LORD KENNET: I believe it is. But the decision to exercise this right of resilement is a personal one by the leaseholder, and he is going to take it on personal grounds—simply that he cannot afford the price. The Government see no reason why they should, in effect, take the house permanently out of the Bill simply because on a given day the given leaseholder could not afford to enfranchise, after having thought for a moment that he might. After five years the leaseholder may have enough money, and why should he not try again? In any case, why should his successor be denied the right of enfranchisement simply because he himself could not afford it? The successor, after he has done his five-year qualifying period, may be well able to afford it, and it would be unjust to deprive him of the benefits of the Bill simply because his predecessor as leaseholder could not afford it.
It seems to me that the five-year period is long enough to deter leaseholders from exercising the right of withdrawal lightly. They know that if they put in their notice and then decide to backtrack, they are not going to be able to do it again for five years; and this is going to deter them from doing it until they are good and sure that they have got the money to do it. All in all, I think that the Amendment would bear rather harshly on existing leaseholders, whose circumstances may improve; but, above all, on the successors of existing leaseholders who may have tried and failed.
LORD SILSOE: May I add just one word, without pressing this matter unduly? He could, of course, be given an extended lease straight away. Is that not good enough for a man who has had one crack at getting an enfranchisement and has turned it down? Cannot he be content, then, with an extended lease?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Exoneration from, or redemption of, rentcharges, etc.]:
LORD KENNET: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 27, leave out ("(c), (5)") and insert ("(b) and (c)").—(Lord Kennet.)
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Discharge of mortgages etc. on landlord's estate]:
LORD KENNET: This, I hope, is an uncontroversial Amendment. Clause 12 provides in general for the automatic discharge of mortgages and other such charges on the landlord's estate by the very conveyance of the freehold to the leaseholder, subject to the tenant's applying the price payable in the first instance in or towards redemption of the mortgage. Subsection (5) of the clause contains an exception to this general rule. It excludes all charges secured by a series of debentures, so that the tenant is not required to pay the price for enfranchisement to the debenture holders as he would otherwise have to do. The Amendment refines this exception by restricting it to debentures which create a floating charge as opposed to a fixed charge on the assets of a company, being a charge which has not crystallised so as to become a fixed charge. Debentures in the form of a fixed charge, which are not often created as such, are for practical purposes indistinguishable from an ordinary mortgage. Accordingly, the Amendment would leave them to be dealt with under the ordinary rule of the clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 9, at end insert—
("Provided that this subsection shall not have effect in relation to a charge in favour of trustees for debenture holders which at the date of the conveyance to the tenant is (as regards the house and premises) a specific and not a floating charge.").—(Lord Kennet.)
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 and 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Terms of tenancy to be granted on extension
15.—
(2) The new tenancy shall provide that as from the original term date the rent payable for the house and premises shall be a rent ascertained or to be ascertained as follows:—

(a) the rent shall be a ground rent in the sense that it shall represent the letting value of the site (without including anything for the value of buildings on the site) for the uses to which the house and premises have been put since the commencement of the existing tenancy, other than uses which by the terms of the new tenancy are not permitted or are permitted only with the landlord's consent;

(b) the letting value for this purpose shall be in the first instance the letting value at the date from which the rent based on it is to commence, but as from the expiration of twenty-five years from the original term date the letting value at the expiration of those twenty-five years shall be substituted, if the landlord so requires, and a revised rent become payable accordingly;

6.38 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, in subsection (2)(a), to leave out "uses to which the houses and premises have been put since the commencement of the existing tenancy, other" and to insert:
"purposes for which planning consent might reasonably be expected to be granted, other".
The noble Lord said: We have now jumped right ahead to the terms on which a leaseholder may obtain an extended lease for up to 50 years, and one of the things that has to be settled in arriving at those terms is the modern rent. Subsection (2) says:
"The new tenancy shall provide that as from the original term date the rent payable for the house and premises shall be a rent ascertained or to be ascertained as follows:—

(a) the rent shall be a ground rent in the sense that it shall represent the letting value of the site (without including anything for the value of buildings on the site) for the uses to which the house and premises have been put since the commencement of the existing tenancy, …"

There may, of course, be some uncertainty about
"the uses to which the house and premises have been put since the commencement of the existing tenancy,"
because some of the existing tenancies go back a great many years to times very different from ours. But my purpose in moving this Amendment is to ensure that

1077
the development value of the site is taken into account when fixing the modern ground rent.
Now the Government have repeatedly stated that it is their object to ensure that the development value of the site shall be taken into account when fixing the compensation for enfranchisement. Admittedly, it is not wholly simple to see how that is done, but for the purposes of my Amendment I am prepared to accept that that is done by the appropriate provisions relating to enfranchisement. Surely, then, there should be similar provision for taking into account the development value when the new ground rent is to be settled. We are starting afresh with this new term for fifty years; and this is something wholly unlooked for by the freeholder up till now. It may or may not be wholly unacceptable to him, but certainly he will not take it into account in any of his planning. I should have thought that it stood to reason that when one is fixing a modern ground rent for a new tenancy for fifty years, one should take into account the development value of that site and not only the value of the site as restricted to its existing use.
The Government will be aware from other legislation that it is quite a practical course to determine the purposes for which planning consent might reasonably be expected to be granted. Indeed, I had a good deal to do with the 1959 Town and Country Planning Act and spent many hours in company with the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, discussing matters of that kind. So I am not introducing any novel and difficult concept here; nor am I departing in any way from the main principles of the Bill. I am accepting, for the purposes of this Amendment, that the freeholder has no interest in the bricks and mortar and that a genuine attempt is being made to arrive at a modern, fair ground rent for a site which is to be leased, with the existing buildings on it, for a further fifty years. I cannot see that in the Bill as it stands any provision is made for taking into account the development value of the site where it is a case of an extended lease; although I do believe the Government when they say that they are ensuring that the development value will
1078
be taken into account when fixing enfranchisement terms.
Why should there be any difference? That is the first question that I want to ask. Unless the Government can satisfy me that there is a rational case for a difference, then it appears to me that it would be reasonable to accept this Amendment and thus give the freeholder who is forced to grant an extended lease the same right to something by way of development value in the ground rent as would accrue to him under the Bill if he were granted an enfranchisement. beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, leave out lines 17 and 18 and insert the said words.—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
LORD HUGHES: I should not like to disagree in its entirety with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, because it is quite correct that in the first part of the extended lease the rent would be based on the residential use of the property. But in the second half, when the rent was due to be considered, if there had been a change to a more beneficial use that would, of course, be taken into account in determining what the rent was going to be in the second period. Having admitted that, I think I can legitimately put the point that if we accept that what the Bill proposes is not a completely satisfactory way of solving it, what the noble Lord has put forward is a very rough way of dealing with the situation. I think it will be admitted that in only a minority of cases will a dwelling house be changed from its present use to a more beneficial one; in the vast majority of cases the house continues to be used as a dwelling house.
If we accept the Amendment, then in every case where there is a possible change of use—say, from a dwelling house to an office—the ground rent is going to be based on that possible higher value even though the holder has no intention of changing the use and, in fact, never does change the use. I submit that it would be a gross injustice to the leaseholder to say that, because he occupies a dwelling house which, with all the necessary consents, is capable of being changed to become an office or part of a block of offices, he should pay such a

1079
rent as he would pay if its use were changed. From the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has spoken on this Bill, I find it difficult to believe that he would not accept the argument that his Amendment would confer a very great injustice on a large number of people by compelling them to pay a higher value than their site was worth because, potentially, it was capable of being used for purposes of a higher value.
I should not wish to commit the Government to accept anything which was different from what is in the Bill at the present time, but it seems to me that, if the noble Lord wishes to accomplish in some way the object that if at any time during the extended lease there should be a change to a more beneficial use then there ought to be an opportunity of reviving the ground rent to take account of that, there ought to be a fairer way of doing so than seeking to impose this burden on everybody concerned. From that point of view I could not possibly advise your Lordships to accept this Amendment which in the vast majority of cases would be grossly unfair to the leaseholder.
LORD HAWKE: May I ask one question about this? Clause 15(2)(b) says:
"… the letting value at the expiration of those twenty-five years shall be substituted,"
Is it certain that the letting value here is a new letting value, and is not qualified by the definition of "letting value" in subsection (2)(a)?
LORD HUGHES: As I understand the position, at the end of the 25 years when this rent is being revalued the new use will be taken into account in assessing what the ground rent will be for the second 25 years. Therefore, if there were a change of use from a dwelling house to some other purpose which would be regarded as a more beneficial use and which would enhance the value of the ground, that must be taken into account in fixing the rent during the second 25 years.
LORD HAWKE: In other words, the noble Lord's answer is that the definition in Clause 15(2)(a) in no way qualifies the "letting value" in paragraph (b). So long as the lawyers agree on that, I do not mind.
LORD HUGHES: I thought it better to state specifically what was intended, rather than to take time looking up subsection (2)(a) and (b). I should have thought that there was no doubt at all that a change of use of this kind would be taken into account in determining the new rent.
LORD HAWKE: Will the noble Lord make quite certain before the next stage that the Bill interprets what he intends?
LORD HUGHES: From the fact that the noble Lord has referred in this particular way to the paragraphs of this subsection, and from the fact that I am reading the official view of what is intended, the Committee can take it that what he said will be looked at. If it should prove in any way that the wording of the Bill does not accomplish what is intended, it will be altered to accomplish what I have said in relation to the second 25 years. I should be surprised if at this stage the Parliamentary draftsmen had committed a cardinal error of this kind.
LORD MITCHISON: I do not want to take up the time of the Committee, but there is no doubt whatever that the letting value in paragraph (b) is the same as the letting value in paragraph (a).
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: If it is not out of order, I should like to say how much we on this side of the Committee appreciate the careful and conscientious way in which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is replying to these Amendments. I have had a similar experience to his, of being asked to take part in the responsibility for a Bill at very short notice, and my sympathies are wholly with him. I hope he will not think it presumptuous of me if I say that he is doing very well indeed.
To come back to my Amendment, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that I am in no way wishing to do any injustice to the tenant. In fact, however, the tenant is bound to be doing very well, because he is getting an extension for 50 years of his existing lease which, until the advent of this Bill, he had no reason to expect. Under Clause 15 he has chosen to opt for that extension rather than for enfranchisement, which means, presumably, that this

1081
long extension is what he specially wants. Almost certainly it is not what the freeholder wanted. He is not consulted, but he is suddenly required by the Bill to grant a 50-year extension on a site which he had expected to revert to him at the very start of those 50 years. All I am seeking to do by this Amendment is to make the financial arrangements between the two as fair as possible.
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, quite answered my question. If development value is to be taken into account under the Bill where it is a case of enfranchisement, why should not development value also be taken into account where it is a case of an extended lease? I should not have thought it would be very frequent that a building of an entirely new character would be put up within those 50 years. It would seem to be unlikely to be in the interests of anybody to do that. One of the disadvantages of the extended 50-year lease is that it may be freezing the possibility of development. But where the freeholder is compelled to grant a new 50-year lease in respect of a site which has remained residential in an area which has otherwise gone over to commercial or office use, it seems to me very hard on the freeholder that, although he is compelled against his will to grant a further 50-year lease on this site, he should not be allowed to take account of the fact that the neighbourhood has ceased to be used generally for residential purposes and, apart from this particular property, has become commercial.
If it had not been for the new 50-year lease, which was compulsorily imposed upon him, the site would have reverted to him and he would have been able to obtain the development value of the site by ensuring that an office, or a shop, or some other commercial building was erected there. That is what he is deprived of; and if he is deprived of that in addition to being deprived of any right in the bricks and mortar, it appears to me that there should be some form of compensation. I hope this matter may be examined further, because I think that here there is an element of injustice. I am perfectly ready to accept that my Amendment may not be ideally designed or drafted to put the matter right, and in those circum-
1082
stances I am ready to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SILSOE LORD SILSOE moved, in subsection (2), to add to paragraph (a) "which consent has not been given." The noble Lord said: This Amendment relates to a similar point, although I hope a slightly easier one. It stems from subsection (2)(a) where the rent is fixed for the first 25 years. It starts by saying it is the ground rent, the letting value of the site, nothing for the buildings:
"for the uses to which the house and premises have been put since the commencement of the existing tenancy, other than uses which by the terms of the new tenancy are not permitted or are permitted only with the landlord's consent."
I am dealing with a very small point but one which, for some people, is important. When one drafts leases now-a-days it is common form to describe with some precision the uses which are permitted and the uses which are not permitted, and it is very important to contain in the lease the permission only for things which would be allowed under the planning regulations. There is, quite properly I think, a reference to no rental value or where the rental value is to be permitted by the landlord. What has not been dealt with are cases where the landlord has granted permission during the existing tenancy, or during the extended tenancy, for a purpose, and it seems to me to be a slip on the part of the draftsmen. I do not think there is any policy involved, though I may be wrong.
Surely the words I have suggested should be put in. Those uses that are permitted only with the landlord's consent should be omitted, but where consent has already been given they should be included. I take the view that this is a drafting slip, but the noble Lord may tell me it is worse than that. That is the subject of my Amendment. If the landlord gave consent 30 years ago, obviously, although the lease says his consent is required, he ought to get ground rent for it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 21, at end insert ("which consent has not been given.").—(Lord Silsoe.)
LORD HUGHES: Once again I wish to ask the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe to withdraw his Amendment, but on this

1083
occasion I can be a little more forthcoming than I have been hitherto because we think there is a possibility that an adjustment is necessary. At the same time we are not quite happy about the terms of his Amendment, and if he would withdraw it, it would be on the assurance that the Government accept that there is a point here to be considered; that they will consider it and take action if it would seem appropriate at the next stage of the Bill. Alternatively, they will explain to the noble Lord before then why they do not feel they can take action, so that he will be free to come back to the point if he wishes to do so.
LORD SILSOE: I feel so happy that I will do anything. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD AIREDALE): Before I call Amendment No. 33 I should ask the Committee to remember that Amendment No. 33 pre-empts Amendment No. 34, which therefore cannot be called if Amendment No. 33 is carried.
6.58 p.m.
LORD SILSOE LORD SILSOE moved in subsection (2)(b), to leave out all words from "but" to "shall" and to insert instead:
"upon an increase of the rateable value the letting value at the date of the increase".
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment of more importance. It is true—and it may be that because of the truth of it in the old days the Government have been advised to provide for only one rent review in 50 years—that when I was a boy there was no such thing, I think, as a change of rent in 50 years, or 99 years. I do not remember it when I was young. For a time, "for a century" was a phrase. But nowadays this is very out of date. Inflation is with us, and whatever Ministers may say it will stay. People do put in leases nowadays a far more frequent rent-review clause than once every 25 years. I am asking by my Amendment to have a more frequent change, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, is asking the same thing in his Amendment, but in a different way.
I gave consideration to this matter in the light of the way the Bill is framed. Everything stems from rateable value. One thing that is not wanted is a complicated rent review, with a lot of money spent and a lot of argument. Therefore I suggest a rather novel way of doing it, a way which I think will be cheap and will achieve the objective. I suggest that a right to an increase in ground rent could be granted, though not necessarily given, whenever rateable value goes up. And that, of course, is a fact which is known. Unless there is a big change to the property, it cannot happen more frequently than five years (I was corrected on this yesterday, and was told that it is slightly longer), but I suggest that if the rateable value goes up, then the landlord can claim that his ground is more valuable and he can get his share through the ground rent.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, suggests a straight ten years. Fifty years is a very long time. I have occupied my leasehold house for only 20 years and the rateable value is now four times what it was 20 years ago. It is no good talking about 25 years without a change, because things change more quickly than that. If the principle of this is accepted, I will gladly withdraw my Amendment to see if it can be improved. Or the Committee may prefer the way the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has put it. But I do ask that there might be a review more frequently than every 25 years, otherwise there will be grave hardship. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 24, leave out from ("but") to ("shall") in line 27 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Silsoe.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I do not know whether it would be convenient to the Government and to the Committee if I were to speak about this and my subsequent Amendment: they are really alternatives. I do not wish to embarrass the Government, but the point at issue is the same. I am entirely in the Government's hands.
LORD HUGHES: It would be convenient to the Government if the noble Lord did so, because we consider that the same answer meets both Amendments.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I do not quite see how the Government can accept both Amendments. Therefore, it may be for the Committee to decide whether or not they will take identical action on both. I need not repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, has already said. Fifty years is a long time, and 25 years is a long time. Values can change rapidly in that period, both up and down. I am not thinking simply of inflation but also of relative values in different parts of the country. There is no point of principle here. There is no particular reason why we should take the end of 25 years as the period for review rather than the end of 20 or 30 years. This is a detail of the Bill. What we should be aiming at is to see whether, by any Amendment, we can achieve greater justice.
Under this whole extended lease procedure, in the normal case it is the leaseholder who is getting the advantage and the freeholder who is likely to be unwilling to grant a further lease of 50 years, as he is compelled to do. Therefore, we should see whether, by any detailed changes, we can do greater justice to the position of the freeholder and make the general arrangement as fair as possible between both. Whereas the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, has suggested a review of the new ground rent on any increase of the rateable value, I am suggesting a review every ten years. The reasons why I prefer my Amendment are, first of all, that it follows the pattern of the Government proposal. They suggest a review at the end of X years; I am suggesting one every Y years.
The second reason is that I think the occasions when changes in rateable value take place may be too often to be convenient, and slightly irregular. For example, we were to have a new assessment of rateable values to come into operation in 1968. That has now been cancelled, and we are now to expect valuations in 1973, 1978 and 1983. Who is to say that one of these quinquennial valuations will not be cancelled or postponed? It is chancy to make a new ground rent review dependent on whether or not a quinquennial valuation takes place. Moreover, the noble Lord's Amendment, which in many respects I like, seems slightly unfair in that it refers only to increase in rateable value. I think it would be
1086
reasonable to provide for a reduction in the new ground rents, if there were a reduction in the rateable value; and my Amendment would be flexible both ways.
Furthermore, I am doubtful whether every change in rateable value ought to be automatically accompanied by a change in the ground rent. The rateable value is substantially fixed in relation to the demand for property of a particular kind at the time in question. That is how letting value is arrived at. And the site value, which is represented by ground rent, may not necessarily change in strict proportion to the rateable value of the premises as a whole. Therefore, while I regard the noble Lord's Amendment, which we are principally discussing, as ingenious, I do not think that it would produce as great justice as mine. It may compel a change every five years, but I think that that is rather too often. That is why I propose ten years. My Amendment would take into account any variation up or down in the letting value every ten years. That is why I prefer mine.
But, above all, I want to press on the Government that a period of 25 years is too long. In this swiftly changing world, we cannot reasonably fix a ground rent to-day with the slightest assurance that it will appear fair 24 years hence. Surely the experience of the last 22 years since the war bears that out. It would be very much easier to ensure fairness if there were a review every ten years, and I suggest that it would achieve greater justice if my Amendment, when we come to it, were accepted.
7.10 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: I think it would have been more correct if I had said in the beginning that part of the answer which I wish to give would be common to both Amendments, although the main part of the answer, which is that the Government cannot recommend the Committee to accept the Amendment, will be made in each case. The reason why we arrive at that conclusion is, contrary to what has been said by both noble Lords, on a matter of principle. We think what is being suggested, the frequency of change, is something which in fact is more applicable to a rack-rent than to a ground rent.

1087
On the subject of the actual period, whether it be ten years, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has suggested, or 25 years as in the Bill, obviously this must be a matter of judgment. The conclusion of the Government is, as I have said, that a change of this frequency is more applicable to a rack-rent than to a ground rent. We think 25 years is more reasonable, particularly having regard to some of the alterations which were made in the Bill in another place on Report stage, when Amendments were made which provide that charges for service and so on which are not pure rent can be reviewed at any time under subsection (1).
The objections which the Government have to the first Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, are more pronounced, because it seems to be in conflict with the principles which we are laying down in the clause for the determining of a ground rent. This is in subsection (2)(a):
"The rent shall be a ground rent in the sense that it shall represent the letting value of the site (without including anything for the value of the buildings on the site) …".
Yet we are being invited in Lord Silsoe's Amendment to accept the principle that a change in the value of the buildings, which we are specifically deciding should not to be taken into consideration, is to be the basis for a change in the amount of ground rent payable. We should be taking a decision later on in the clause which is quite inconsistent with the principle laid down in subsection (2)(a). In view of this, it would really be a nonsense for the Government to accept that a change should be made, whether frequently or infrequently, on the basis of the changes of rateable value.
Whether or not we argue that 25 years is too long or ten years is too short is, I admit, a different basis from the argument which I have just advanced, that accepting changes in rateable value, whether frequently or infrequently, is an unsound thing to do when we are specifically excluding the value of the buildings on the site as being in the ground rent which is being fixed. For these reasons, the Government can recommend the Committee to accept neither the first nor the second Amendment.
LORD MITCHISON: If I may add a word or two, I think there is a question of principle here, as does my noble friend. I think this is really a case of choosing between the freeholder and the leaseholder, and deciding which of them should be entitled to what. When I first saw the period of 50 years—I had no information as to how it originated; I have no "stable" knowledge—I wondered why that time had been chosen, and it seemed to me it was for this reason. It is quite true that this Bill deals with a great many things other than small houses in South Wales, but that is where the trouble originated. If you take a man who is living in a house at the end of the lease, he has been there for five years and goes on for 50, then you have covered the ordinary case—not the exceptional case—of a young man living in a house and spending his life in it, and the period would be probably about right. That is why it seemed to me that 50 years was put in. It was really a pure leaseholder's point. Once 50 years is in, 25 years becomes natural as the half-way house.
What I feel about this is that these revaluations, if they are to occur, are to be made at the leaseholder's expense. That expense may be quite considerable, and the revaluations are to take place pretty frequently. The object of this Bill, so far as that typical case is concerned, is to give people security in their own home; and that security, as one found on the operation of the 1954 Act, must not merely be a matter of lease, but also a matter of what the man can afford. The 1954 Act did not have the result that the Government of the day hoped and expected from it, because the economic rents in it were too high and prevented people from keeping on their homes in cases where, on moral or on social grounds, they ought to have been able to do so.
Therefore, if one has to choose between dealing with the mischief at which this Bill is aimed, and dealing with it as regards this point in the case of rather smaller houses, then it is right to lean in favour of the leaseholder. When considering these extended leases, I think one always has to remember that the landlord has under Clause 17 the right to come in and redevelop. That is a considerable element of uncertainty. I should not like to see it increased any further.

1089
I hope that I carry noble Lords opposite with me—because on the principle of this there has been a rather greater measure of agreement than we sometimes remember; I am speaking for myself, too—in feeling that in this kind of case it is better to prefer the reasonable security of the leaseholder for a continuation during his life than the exact accuracy of the resulting rent. That is, after all, the principle upon which housing legislation has usually proceeded when dealing with small houses.
I should like to add one other point about this. I am not quite sure at the end of the day how much there would be in this if it were actually applied. It would, of course, depend on the interval between valuations, and so on. I really wonder how much there would prove to be in it. It is impossible to say, because nobody knows what this and successive Governments are going to do about rating matters. I think that is the subject of a Royal Commission at the moment. Therefore, the valuation, or indeed the rental value, of these houses is a rather uncertain matter when one is considering it at small intervals. I think twenty-five years is plenty of time to allow; it is a rough justice, and a justice which will inure to the benefit of those whom we are principally considering in this Bill.
LORD HAWKE: The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, makes the same economic mistake that so many Socialists make. They always assume that the income of the population stays still at a time of inflation.
LORD MITCHISON: How?
LORD HAWKE: By saying that they cannot afford to pay the extra rent even if the time of inflation justified it. But I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, listened to the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, very carefully, because if he had he would have seen that the Government are not "with it" on this Amendment. Admittedly, it was the custom in former years for ground rents to be fixed for very long periods, but Lord Silsoe was saying that in modern conditions—and he is in charge of an awful lot of ground rents—ground rents are now fixed to be changed at much more frequent intervals. I suggest that
1090
the Government, as they so often are, are just not "with it" on this matter.
LORD ABERDARE: I should like to say a brief word in support of the Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, because the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said he thought the period of ten years was more appropriate to a review of a rack-rent. It seems to me—I do not want to cause confusion about the definitions of ground rents or to make confusion worse confounded—that the ground rent in this clause is really a rack-rent of the ground, rather than what we used to think of as an old ground rent. Then the ground rent had with it the reversionary value of the buildings, and therefore many of us accepted a ground rent of a very few shillings a year because in the end the reversionary value was there. Now a ground rent is to be based on properly assessed rent of the ground, and in view of the rapidly changing values of buildings and ground I consider that it should be reviewed every ten years, as is suggested by my noble friend.
The other point that worries me slightly was something that the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, said. I do not think that if it were to be reviewed every 10 years it should be at the leaseholder's expense. If it is reviewed every 10 years I should be quite happy to see that it should be at the expense of the freeholder.
LORD SILSOE: May I add a word on that point, too? I do not see why even the 25 years provision should be on the leaseholder. I did not appreciate that it was; nor do I see that it should be.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: Perhaps between now and the Report stage the question can be clarified as to whether the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, was right or wrong as to where the cost of any revaluation, or negotiations towards revaluation, will fall.
LORD MITCHISON: Line 32, I think, is the answer.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I certainly have no desire to put upon the leaseholder repeated expense for resisting proposals by the freeholder for an increased ground rent, and that point could be cleared up at a later stage.
LORD HUGHES: May I interrupt? There is no doubt at all. If the noble Lord will look at page 25, paragraph 2(c), line 32, as my noble friend said, he will see the words, in brackets:
"(the reasonable cost of obtaining a valuation for the purpose being borne by the tenant)".
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: We might very well look at that again at a later stage of the Bill, if there are going to be more frequent revaluations.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for joining with me in preferring my Amendment to that of the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, although the Government did not much like either of them. As my noble friend Lord Aberdare said, it is not fair to argue that there should be no review at a shorter period than 25 years because generally ground rents are reviewed only at long intervals. I am quite prepared to accept the view of the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, who has probably had more personal experience in all this field than any of us, as to whether ground rents are established for periods of less than 25 years. I should have thought that that did happen nowadays.
But the real reason why one cannot draw any conclusions from the past here is that all freeholders in the past, when they have been granting a ground lease,
have been doing it voluntarily. Here they will be doing it involuntarily. I am quite certain that, in those circumstances, one must be absolutely sure that the terms are fair to the man who is involuntarily compelled to grant a new lease for as long as 50 years. If the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, does not press his Amendment, or if it is defeated on a Division, I should then like to move my Amendment, and then, without further debate, invite your Lordships to decide upon it.
LORD SILSOE: I think I am seconding the noble Lord's Amendment, so I will withdraw mine.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 34.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 25, leave out from ("of") to ("shall") in line 27, and insert ("each period of ten years after the original term date the letting value at the expiration of that period").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
7.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 34) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 52.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Daventry, V.

Mountevans, L.

Airedale, L.

Denham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Albemarle, E.

Derwent, L.

Newton, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ampthill, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Audley, Bs.

Falkland, V.

St. Helens, L.

Barnby, L.

Falmouth, V.

St. Just, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Ferrier, L.

Sandford, L. [Teller.]

Boston, L.

Gage, V.

Silsoe, L.

Brecon, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Somers, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gridley, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Carrington, L.

Hailes, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Clinton, L.

Hawke, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Colville of Culross, V.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Templemore, L.

Conesford, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Vivian, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Ilford, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Craigavon, V.

Killearn, L.

Windlesham, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Lambert, V.

Wrenbury, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Molson, L.

Wrottesley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Brockway, L.

Collison, L.

Archibald, L.

Brown, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Beswick, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Crook, L.

Blyton, L.

Burden, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Bowles, L.

Champion, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Gifford, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Shackleton, L.

Granville-West, L.

Longford, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Shepherd, L.

Greenway, L.

Maelor, L.

Snow, L.

Hall, V.

Mitchison, L.

Sorensen, L. [Teller.]

Henderson, L.

Moyle, L.

Stonham, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Peddie, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Hughes, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Strabolgi, L.

Kennet, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Summerskill, Bs.

Kirkwood, L.

Royle, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Latham, L.

Rusholme, L.

Walston, L.

Leatherland, L.

St. Davids, V.

Winterbottom, L.

Lindgren, L.

Segal, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has intimated that he does not intend to move Amendment No. 34A. The Question therefore is that Clause 15, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
LORD SHEPHERD: I think that this may be an appropriate moment to adjourn the Committee stage until 8.45 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended at 7.36 p.m. and resumed at 8.45 p.m.]
Clauses 16 to 18 agreed to.
Clause 19:
Retention of management powers for general benefit of neighbourhood
19.—(1) Where, in the case of any area which is occupied directly or indirectly under tenancies held from one landlord (apart from property occupied by him or his licensees or for the time being unoccupied), the landlord on an application made within the two years beginning with the commencement of this Part of this Act obtains from the Minister a certificate that, in order to maintain adequate standards of appearance and amenity and regulate redevelopment in the area in the event of tenants acquiring the landlord's interest in their house and premises under this Part of this Act, it is in the Minister's opinion likely to be in the general interest that the landlord should retain powers of management in respect of the house and premises, or have rights against the house and premises in respect of the benefits arising from the exercise elsewhere of his powers of management, then the High Court may, on an application made by the landlord within one year of the giving of the certificate, approve a scheme giving the land-
lord such powers and rights as are contemplated by this subsection.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "landlord", where that word occurs a second time, and insert "Minister". The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 35 is the first of a series of Amendments paving the way for a substantial Amendment, No. 45. These Amendments are 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I explain now why the Government wish to move No. 45, since No. 35 is the first paving Amendment necessary for that. This batch of Amendments deals with a point which was argued in the Committee of the House of Commons and on Report stage there, that it should be possible for a body of tenants of a leasehold estate to apply to the Minister for a certificate under Clause 19 and to the High Court for approval of a management scheme of their own if the landlord fails to take advantage of Clause 19. The particular case which gave rise to the need, in the Government's view, for the Amendment was Hampstead Garden Suburb, in one part of which tenants might possibly have had a stronger incentive than the landlord to maintain high standards of management. In the House of Commons my right honourable friend the Minister of State expressed sympathy with this purpose. Since then he has been able to conduct certain consultations which have enabled the Government to put down Amendment No. 45.
The new subsection (11A) provides that where the Minister considers that in any area a certificate of a well-managed estate should be given on the application of the landlord, he may grant it not only to the landlord but to a representative body of people occupying or interested in property in the area or areas, provided he is satisfied as to the bona fides of the

1095
representative body. The Amendment also provides that the representative body can make its application either alone or jointly with the landlord, who already has a right under the Bill as introduced. When a certificate is granted to a representative body of tenants this body can apply to the High Court for approval of a management scheme, either alone or jointly with the landlord or landlords, although one of the parties may not have made an application. The court would then have power to give rights and powers to the representative body which it would normally give only to a landlord, because they would be of a kind which could normally only be exercised through his freehold ownership; but the landlord must give his consent to this and the representative body must compensate him for loss of his rights if that is appropriate. The court, under this Amendment, could also enable the representative body to participate in a scheme of management by the landlord.
It may be difficult for a representative body of people on an estate to draw up a scheme of management and even to define the boundaries precisely. But even if in some cases this may be so, the provision, it seems to the Government, is none the less useful, because it provides tenants and others on an estate with a useful weapon to, as it were, take up and utilise the rights which the Bill originally gave to the landlord alone but which, for one circumstance or another, he may not wish or may not be in a position to exercise. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 11, leave out ("landlord") and insert ("Minister").—(Lord Kennet.)
8.50 p.m.
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: The noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, remarked yesterday, when dealing with the Hampstead Garden Surburb, that one should look rather closely at any declarations of interest. Therefore I must begin by declaring my interest as a resident of the Hampstead Garden Suburb. I am bound to say, however, that my financial interest, so far as this Bill is concerned, is of a slight character as I have a 999-year lease at a ground rent of a trifling amount, fixed in 1907. But I am bound to say also that I have a personal interest, in this sense: that I
1096
have an interest in the upholding of the welfare of the Hampstead Garden Suburb as a most successful architectural community, and one which I think, as is generally known, has earned the admiration of architects all over the world.
In my view it is most important that we should make sure that, while doing one kind of social justice by this Bill, we do not, so to speak, throw the baby out with the bath water when we come to deal with the administration of well-managed estates. I therefore greatly welcome this Amendment which has now been proposed, though it seems to me that it still has a certain deficiency. I entirely recognise that it aims at filling an unfortunate gap in the previous proposals, because hitherto, before this Amendment was suggested, the notion was that it should be left to the landlord's initiative, and it may be that in some cases, as in the case of the Hampstead Garden Suburb, the landlord might not be disposed to take that initiative. The noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, told us yesterday what some of us I think knew already, that at one time he (of course he was then speaking in a representative capacity) was once the owner of Hampstead Garden Suburb. I hope he will accept it as a tribute that at any rate some of us are a little sorry that he did not decide to retain that ownership. Be that as it may, a change has occurred, and undoubtedly there is this apprehension.
The question the Committee have to consider is whether this proposal is a completely satisfactory one. I would venture to make one or two suggestions in respect of which it seems to me that some further consideration would be justified in order to make this a really workable scheme. Speaking for myself, I have considerable doubts as to whether the idea of a certificate from the Minister first and then an application to the High Court—that is to say, obviously, to the Chancery Division of the High Court—is an entirely appropriate machinery for dealing with this kind of case. I should have thought that this kind of case could be more adequately dealt with, in the first instance, on the administrative level.
Just to throw it out as a random suggestion, I should rather like to see something of this kind: that where a body of interested persons put up a case to the

1097
Minister, the Minister should then, in his discretion, draw up a suitable scheme geared to the particular needs of the area; and if then it is thought that the matter should not be left entirely to the Minister it might well be reasonable to provide for some review of the scheme, say by the Lands Tribunal, or something of that kind. With all respect to those who were responsible for drawing up the present scheme, I feel that this would be a more flexible and workable type of arrangement.
My other doubts about the proposal that appears in the Bill at the moment are to some extent matters of detail, but I feel that certain provisions of Clause 19 are not very adequately expressed. For example, the reference to a "body of persons" leaves it rather unclear as to whether that body of persons has to be a corporate entity, or whether it need be only a mere unincorporated association or something of that kind. This appears to me to be a point which requires further consideration.
Furthermore, the reference in the clause to a "body of persons capable of representing" is also a concept which may give some difficulty. We may find in some areas that there are conflicts of opinion, that there are dissents, possibly rival bodies, and it may be that there is no one single body which is clearly capable of representing the collective body of tenants. There again, I should have preferred a more flexible concept—for instance, something like "any interested body of persons" could invite the Minister to draw up a scheme, and then it would be for the Minister to say whether it was appropriate or not. I apologise for speaking at some length on this matter, but it seems to me a matter of considerable importance, and in principle I warmly welcome the general idea underlying this new proposal. All I am respectfully venturing to ask the Government is not to accept this now as a cut-and-dried scheme, but perhaps to give it a little further consideration and to see whether it cannot be made a little more workable than it seems to be as it stands at present.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, in his remarks. I am not sure whether I need to declare an interest. I was for some 35 years a
1098
resident of Hampstead. The Hampstead Garden Suburb, unfortunately for it, is not comprised in the former borough of Hampstead. Oddly enough, it is in Hendon. I should be very glad indeed if the Government recognised that special provision should be made for tenants of the Hampstead Garden Suburb. I should like an assurance from the Government that this series of Amendments, culminating in the major Amendment No. 45, will not hybridise the Bill. I do not presume that it will, but I do not know of any other case, apart from the Hampstead Garden Suburb, which is likely to be able to take advantage of these provisions. The matter was raised by the Member for South Hendon in another place, and I am sure that he will be pleased that what appears to me to be a substantial advance is contained in this series of Amendments.
Frankly, I must say that I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, that the procedure is too heavy. I cannot really be convinced that it is right under this clause to have this dual machinery: first of all the Minister, then the High Court. I know that Ministers are political animals; but in my experience Ministers, regardless of Party, have great knowledge and understanding of these problems of planning and management control. I must say that I greatly wish the Government could find some means of eliminating from all these provisions—both this group of Amendments and the clause itself—the necessity for getting High Court approval. However, in saying that I may be trespassing on other matters.
These are Amendments to Clause 19, and in the view of many of us this is one of the most significant clauses in the Bill. I think we could do a great deal of modifying and improving this clause, without in any way infringing the main principles of the plan which the Government are seeking to put into statutory form, and I hope that all our discussions can be taken on that basis. Certainly, I should be very sorry, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, would be, if the Committee did not accept this group of Amendments. But I trust that further thought can be given between now and Report stage to what the noble Lord has said, and I hope that both now and in the Amendment

1099
to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, the Committee will give serious consideration to the possibility of simplifying this whole procedure.
The concept of the well-managed estate is one to which I think the whole Committee, regardless of Party affiliations, are favourably disposed. Do not let us put into the Bill, or retain in the Bill, a statutory machinery which is going to be so heavy and so potentially expensive in its working that it may frustrate the purpose. Having said that, I very much hope that the Committee will approve this series of Amendments and I should like to thank the Government for having gone so far as they have gone.
LORD KENNET: Two comments have been made about this clause; first, that the certificate ought to come from the Lands Tribunal and not from the Minister; and, secondly, that the Minister's role in general is excessive and all the provisions are too heavy. I think the Committee will agree that these are objections to the clause rather than objections to the Amendment, and perhaps we can take them later, on the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill, or on some Amendment which is a suitable place on which to raise them.
The history here is quite simple. First of all, the Government thought, "Let freeholders enfranchise", and then they thought "Well, what about well-managed estates?". Then they thought, "All right, let the landlord seek approval for a scheme to maintain the benefits of good management after enfranchisement." Then further persons came to the Government saying, "There may be cases in which the landlord will not avail himself of that right, and there will be enfranchising leaseholders who would like to do so. So can they, please, be allowed to? "This is precisely what the Amendment does. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said that he did not know of any other case except Hampstead Garden Suburb. I have the impression that this Amendment, being drawn as it is, is one which may, as it were, work through the seam and may prove attractive to associations of enfranchising leaseholders in many places. If it does—and I hope especially that it does—in such a way
1100
that they can co-operate with the original freeholder for a joint scheme, then so much the better.
LORD MITCHISON: If I may be allowed to add a word or two, I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said, that this is an exceedingly important clause. If I may make a suggestion, it is just within the bounds of possibility that another place will reject a specific Amendment relating to Letchworth. It was said in all the discussions in another place—where, of course, that question had not arisen—that this clause might meet the requirements of Letchworth. I say no more about that, because for the moment Letchworth is provided for in another clause introduced by your Lordships.
What I want to ask about—and I am directing this inquiry specifically to the Opposition rather than to my own Front Bench—is what is contemplated in the suggestion that the clause should be simplified. It seems to me that a certain amount of complication is inevitable in a case of this sort; and further, that if one omits any of the bodies concerned one then runs the risk of not only doing considerable injustice but also of causing considerable obstruction to the intentions of the clause within the Bill. The persons concerned, as I see it, are, first, the Minister, who has to grant a certificate. I should not have thought that that was a stage at which great complication would be involved. I may be wrong, but I should have thought that at any rate in a good many of the cases it would be fairly clear to a Minister, with his special knowledge in these matters, whether or not a certificate ought to be granted.
Then, in the next case, we come to the landlord or the body of persons representing the tenants on the estate, who have to draw up the scheme. I think this is a very remarkable clause in one way, because as I see it they are really the prime movers in the whole business. The Minister has no doubt got to be asked for a certificate, but the scheme has to be drawn up by the landlord and tenants concerned, and I think it is a real testimony to what has been done in places like Hampstead Garden Suburb—and I can think of one or two

1101
others—that this sort of provision should be put into the Bill.
I now turn to the role of the High Court. I should have thought that the Lands Tribunal was entirely unsuitable for a matter of this sort, and that the Chancery Court was accustomed to giving approval to schemes of various kinds—schemes which are very often, as they may well be in this case, quite complicated. While they have an essential function to perform, I do not think it follows at all that there will necessarily be a long hearing in the Chancery Court, or a variety of conflicting evidence. I would entirely agree with the role of the court in the clause; but I repeat that it seems to me that the essential people in this case are the landlord and the body of persons representing the tenants, who, on the certificate being granted, have to draw up the scheme for the court's approval.
I hope that at some stage in the Bill those who say that this is too complicated will explain what they would like to omit. Would they like to omit the role of the landlord or the representative body of tenants? I should hardly have thought so. Would they like to omit the need of some certificate from the Minister? I should hardly have thought so. And, as to the position of the High Court—or any other court, for that matter—would they like to omit the approval of the court? What is it that is so complicated? I hope the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, will not take it amiss if, before I sit down, I say that I think the most complicated Statute on the Statute Book at present is the Local Government Act, which deals with local government boundaries and for which, if I remember rightly, he, or at any rate his colleagues, were responsible. That is a case where inquiries have been shown to go too far and to take too long. But I cannot see why that should be the case here, and I feel very grave doubts as to what it is that should be omitted. I hope that those who make the criticism will let us know what they have in mind.
9.10 p.m.
LORD ILFORD LORD ILFORD moved, in subsection (1), to leave out, "on an application made within the two years beginning with the
1102
commencement of this Part of this Act." The noble Lord said: This is not an Amendment which I think is likely to arouse any major controversy. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, is there; I think he will not be tempted to rise to his feet. This Amendment deals with the circumstances in which the Court may approve of a scheme for which is called the retention of management powers for the general benefit of the neighbourhood. When this Bill was first introduced, it contained a provision which enabled the High Court to approve schemes for the retention of management; but the jurisdiction of the Court was restricted to schemes in existence when the Bill comes into operation.
If the schemes are for the benefit of a neighbourhood—and the Minister has to be satisfied about the many matters enumerated in Clause 19—there is no reason why the retention of management powers should be restricted to those schemes in existence when the Bill is enacted. This matter was raised at the Committee stage in another place. The Government then appear to have taken very much the view that I was putting to the Committee a moment ago; namely, that if these schemes are of benefit to a neighbourhood, there is no reason why they should be restricted to those estates in existence at the time the Bill becomes an Act. There is advantage in spreading over a much wider area the benefit that the schemes are intended to give.
As a result of the consideration which this Bill received from the Government between the Committee stage and the Report stage in another place certain Amendments were introduced, the broad effect of which was that the courts should have juridiction to approve a scheme if application for the scheme was made within two years of the period when the Bill was enacted. Those of us who are interested in this matter were grateful to the Government for having given way so far. Really, if these schemes are of benefit—as they are said to be, and as they no doubt are—it does not matter whether the estate existed at the time when the Bill was enacted, or two years later, or at any other time: there is no reason why the court should not have power to approve an appropriate scheme at any time in the future. I think it

1103
would be of great benefit if they could. There are local estates which are being formed to-day by the purchase of houses, and I have no doubt that these provisions would apply to local authority estates as well. I hope that, in these circumstances, the Government will have another look at the Bill and ask themselves whether is is necessary to restrict the power to approve of schemes to a period of two years.
I understand that the Government were influenced in another place to arrive at the decision to which they came by the fact that my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce is Chairman of a Committee appointed to report, I think, on the effect of restrictive covenants. No doubt that is a subject which would include the formulation of schemes under this Part of the Bill, and the two years' limitation was, as I understand it, introduced in the hope that my noble friend's Committee would produce its Report within three years, and the conditions which it would recommend would be sufficient to secure the adoption of the comprehensive schemes to which Clause 19 applies. It may well be that when the Report is published it will contain these provisions. It is not certain, but no harm has been done by extending the powers of the High Court to approve of schemes over a longer period.
I urge the Government not to attach too much importance to this delaying factor caused by waiting until the Committee publishes its Report. It does not affect the matter very much whether the Committee reports before or afterwards. If the schemes are good for the neighbourhood, it would be a good thing to spread them as widely as possible. I have no wish to press the Government about this matter now, but I hope they will consider it again before the Report stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 11, leave out from ("landlord") to ("obtains") in line 13.—(Lord Ilford.)
LORD KENNET: As the noble Lord has said, the effect of the Amendment would be to enable the landlords of a leasehold estate to apply for a certificate under Clause 19 not merely within two
1104
years of the commencement of the Act but at any time thereafter. This proposal conflicts with the purpose we have in mind in Clause 19, which is to enable the benefits of management of existing estates under the leasehold covenants to be preserved when enfranchisement began. In short, it is a proposal to preserve what was good about a well-managed estate. It is not a proposal to make provision for preservation if ever benefits should arise in an estate which is not at present well-managed but which, hypothetically, at a future date might become so. In other words what the clause proposes is to preserve existing good things, and the Government took the view that if freeholders had not already created the good things, the fact that they might be spurred to do so by the existence of this Bill was really neither here nor there.
LORD ILFORD: May I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? Of course the conditions upon which the High Court can approve a scheme depend on the terms of the certificate which the Minister is able to give. The Minister must certify that the scheme shall maintain adequate standards of appearance and amenity and regulate redevelopment in the area. So it has to be a well-managed estate to obtain preliminary approval from the Minister.
LORD KENNET: That is the point. It has to be a well-managed estate when the Bill becomes law.
LORD ILFORD: It has to be a well-managed estate at the time the High Court approves of the scheme.
LORD KENNET: I am afraid that I have not taken the point of the noble Lord's intervention.
LORD ILFORD: Perhaps I may make myself clear. The certificate has to relate to the time when the High Court approves the scheme so that, as a preliminary to obtaining approval of the scheme, the applicant has to satisfy the Minister that it will be for the benefit of the general management of the estate.
LORD KENNET: Yes, but in applying for a certificate, which, under the terms of this clause as unamended the landlord has to do within two years, he has to satisfy the Minister that the estate is well

1105
managed. The view the Government took is that it must be a well-managed estate now. It is not going to become well managed in two years. It will take longer than that, as the noble Lord will agree. An estate that is to become well managed in the future should not be taken account of in the Bill.
If any of these estates are collected after this Bill becomes law, it is likely that legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Wilberforce Committee's Report will have been passed to provide satisfactory machinery by which, if enfranchisement takes place, positive covenants—not negative, restrictive covenants—of the kind which secure good appearance and good management under the leasehold system will be able to run with the land and bind successors of the original covenanting parties which, as the noble Lord knows, is what is lacking at the moment. The noble Lord said that the Government should not attach too much importance to this because we do not know what the Report of the Wilberforce Committee is going to be. All the same, I should like to say that the Government attach great hopes to the forthcoming Report in respect of positive covenants binding successors, and hope that this will be enough to look after the situation after the expiry of the two years period.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: May I give the noble Lord a hypothetical example? In his position as Parliamentary Secretary he must know the history of Basildon. Basildon Development Corporation took over some extraordinary property—a lot of little houses and shacks which had been built on pieces of land without proper drainage and water supply. Supposing that property had been acquired by a landlord of the highest repute, let us say by the Church Commissioners—I do not want to make the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, blush but I have to name some independent body—and they had sought to solve the problem by applying good management to it, which it certainly did not receive before, would it not really be desirable that the benefits of Clause 19 should be available to them?
The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Minister would have to be satisfied that it was already a well-managed
1106
estate. But, as I read subsection (1) of Clause 19, what the landlord, present or future, has to satisfy the Minister is that
"it is in the Minister's opinion likely to be in the general interest that the landlord should retain powers of management in respect of the house and premises, or have rights against the house and premises in respect of the benefits arising from the exercise elsewhere of his powers of management …"
It seems to me quite likely, not to say very probable, that the Minister, if wholly unprejudiced, would agree that it was likely to be in the general interest that the Basildon shacks should not revert on enfranchisement to their previous condition, but that the landlord should retain powers of management in respect of the house and premises.
That being so, is it really necessary for the Government to resist this Amendment? Could not further thought be given to it? I know the Government have sought to be helpful over Clause 19, but may it not be found that by resisting this Amendment they have in fact prevented themselves or their successors from doing things which posterity will say in the general interest should have been done? I do not think this is a far-fetched example. I think this situation may arise. I really would put strongly to the Government that one should seek to retain, so far as possible, not only the benefits of the existing leasehold system as they are already proved, but also the potential benefits of the genuine responsible landlords, who are endeavouring to do a good job of work on property that has hitherto been fragmented, and do it in the national interests.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I should not have intervened in this debate but for the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has mentioned the magic word "Basildon". It so happens that I was one of three people who were responsible for conceiving and bringing to birth the new town of Basildon. I remember that in those days I lived in an old rectory just outside the boundary of what has become Basildon New Town, and my noble friend Lord Silkin, the then Minister, came down on more than one occasion to consult with us as to what could be done, and to beat off the local opposition that arose from people who were opposed to the establishment of the New Town.

1107
I was then (I am sorry to be reminiscent, but it is all relevant) the chairman of the finance committee of the Billericay Urban District Council, in which those two shack towns mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, Pitsea, on the one hand, and Laindon, on the other, were situated. In those places we had hundreds of miles of unmade roads; we had no water supply; the people had to dig wells in their gardens and syphon the water off the roofs, there was no sewerage system whatever: it was a disgraceful state of affairs. But the Billericay Urban District Council had no resources with which to remedy those conditions.
At that time, three of us on the council—Joe Toomey, now deceased, the then Clerk of the Urban District Council, Alma Hatt, also now deceased, and myself, the sole remaining survivor of the three—got our heads together, and we said: "The amount of money that needs to be spent on bringing these two shack towns up to a civilised state is far beyond what the Billericay Council can possibly hope to secure. Therefore, if we can get a new town set down mid-way between the shack town of Laindon and the shack town of Pitsea, the sewerage, roads, water, gas and electricity schemes which will be generated to serve that new town will gradually spread wider and wider until the shack town of Laindon in the West, and the shack town of Pitsea in the East, become incorporated in the new town as its suburbs, and the Government, with Government money, financing the new town, will ultimately take over the financing of the modernisation of those two shack towns". Those were the circumstances just after the end of the Second World War. That is how the new town of Basildon came into existence.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, used the word "leasehold" in respect of that part of the county. But there were no leaseholds, or practically no leaseholds, there. The land in Basildon New Town—that is to say, the Pitsea shack town and Laindon shack town—was owned by freeholders. Who were those freeholders? They were East End of London dockers, and similar people, who had bought little plots in Laindon and Pitsea on which to erect little shacks
1108
where they could take their families for the week-end. As time marched on they were bombed out of their homes in Poplar and West Ham, and had to move themselves and their families down to those little wooden shacks, which ultimately became their permanent homes. That was the position, just after the Second World War, in what is now Basildon New Town. There were virtually no leaseholders there. These people had bought their little freehold plots for £20 per time, payable at the rate of 2s. per week.
I want to move from Basildon to a more salubrious part of the country, Bournville. I think this clause is really concerned with preserving the rights of places like Bournville, where a high social conscience has prevailed in the development of the area and where the local trust, or whatever it may be, can very well be trusted to look after the spirit of social conscience such as we have seen hitherto. I think those places which have developed themselves up to a standard of decency so far are deserving of the assistance, the recognition, they will get under this clause of the Bill. As to those places which have not developed themselves up to that standard, do they really deserve the protection, the assistance, the recognition, that is going to be given them under this clause of this Bill? I think not. It may well be that, in the light of this legislation, they will in due course take some steps to raise themselves. By then, as my noble friend Lord Kennet has said, it may very well be that the legislation engendered by the Wilberforce Committee will lead to something being done which will enable them to take their proper position in the town planning and other legislation which will be passed as a result of that Committee. I think we have to take the position as we see it to-day—
"I do not ask to see
The distant scene; one step enough for me".
Those places that deserve this recognition, let them have it; those places that have not yet deserved this recognition should, I think, be denied it under this clause of the Bill.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: If I may return to the Amendment we are discussing, may I ask one question of the noble

1109
Lord, Lord Kennet? Do the words in this clause:
"… the Minister a certificate that, in order to maintain adequate standards of appearance.…"
imply that existing management is the only criteria, and not the future management schemes?
9.34 p.m.
LORD KENNET: It appears that the example of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, was a little wide of the mark. A freehold shanty town is not one likely to be taken over by any landlord wishing to issue leases. I do not know whether he would agree with me on that. This is a Bill to enable leaseholders to enfranchise, in the main; it is not a Bill to facilitate establishment of new leasehold estates. Because in the course of enabling leaseholders to enfranchise the Government became convinced that there was a risk of throwing out the baby with the bath water and losing the advantages of existing good management, they inserted a provision to allow those advantages to continue. That is not the same thing as offering the same facilities to any future freeholder who may come into existence or for the first time begin to manage his estate well.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, asked whether the certificate would apply only to those estates now well managed or to those that looked as if they might become well managed in future. It would apply only to those that are well managed now. That is the purpose of the clause. As to the rest, I think we need not make too much of a meal of this. We have the Wilberforce Report. It is published; it is under active consideration; it is full of positive and hopeful recommendations for achieving exactly the sort of effects about which the Committee are concerned, and the Government would prefer to rest on the legislation they propose to introduce.
9.35 p.m.
LORD SILSOE: The question we are now discussing is a difficult one. I have spent a good deal of time to-day in moving Amendments to suggest that enfranchisement, long leases and everything else should be dealt with at the right time and not all the time. For that reason I have a good deal of sympathy with the Government in suggesting that
1110
these matters should be dealt with quickly, and in my Amendment which follows I have copied the idea of two years.
With due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I take the view that this is a Bill for leasehold reform, not a Bill for enfranchising leases. It is called the Leasehold Reform Bill, and I believe that Clause 19, if it is sympathetically handled, will be one of the greatest reforms in leasehold that could happen. My Amendment will show my view that this clause should apply to publicly owned as well as to privately owned estates. There will be new estates created by private enterprise, and that is what makes the question of whether it should be limited or not limited, difficult to answer. My view is that it should be limited, because anybody who is a leaseholder and who comes under a "well-managed" clause will not be as well off as a man who is in another. Therefore there seems to be a strong case for him to know as soon as possible where he is.
It does not fall within any particular Amendment at the moment, but might not this problem be solved by a compromise? I suggest something on the lines that people who wish to come within this clause after two years should have to apply to the Minister for leave. I see no reason why the clause should not be available to those who want it, after permission has been given by a Minister of the Crown. I throw that out as a suggestion to bridge the gap. I think it is important that new towns, new housing estates should have the right to apply to be included. I am grateful to the noble Lord for mentioning the Church Commissioners, because we might want to buy a new estate, and I think we should have the right to apply for leave to go in. I do not think we should go in automatically.
LORD ILFORD: I confess that I feel disappointed at the reception which this Amendment has received from the Government. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Silsoe for the measure of support which he has given to it. I think that if the purpose of this clause is to ensure that the tenants of houses which are concerned enjoy the benefits of good management we should endeavour (although there may be some objection) to

1111
spread the benefits of good management over the widest possible area. However that does not appear to be the major consideration which the Government have in mind.
LORD KENNET: May I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? I would point out that if the tenants concerned enjoy the benefits of good management it is fully open to the landlords to apply for a Clause 19 scheme within the two-year period.
LORD ILFORD: Not if application is not made within the two years. If the estate is a new estate, it may not be in existence within two years of the passing of the Act. There it is. I said when I introduced the Amendment that I did not wish to press the Government about it, and I am not going to press them. But I am bound to say that I feel very disappointed, and I shall have to consider whether I ought not to raise this matter at some later stage. So far as this evening is concerned, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD KENNET: The next Amendment is consequential.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: On a point of order, if it were acceptable to the Committee that Amendments Nos. 37 to 45 could be put together, I do not see any objection.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Is it the Committee's pleasure that Amendments 37 to 45 be put together?
LORD KENNET: I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 32, line 13, leave out ("obtains from the Minister") and insert ("grants")
Page 32, line 23, leave out ("by the landlord")
Page 32, line 31, leave out ("landlord") and insert ("applicant")
Page 32, line 42, leave out ("landlord") and insert ("applicant")
Page 33, line 20, leave out ("a landlord ") line 21, after ("certified") insert ("a person")
Page 33, line 21, after ("certified") insert ("a person")
Page 33, line 28, leave out ("landlord") and insert ("applicant for the scheme")
Page 35, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) Subject to subsections (11) and (11A) below, a certificate shall not be given nor a
1112
scheme approved under this section for any area except on the application of the landlord.").
Page 35, line 42, at end insert—
("(11A) Where it appears to the Minister—

(a) that a certificate could be given under this section for any area or areas on the application of the landlord or landlords; and

(b) that any body of persons is so constituted as to be capable of representing for purposes of this section the persons occupying or interested in property in the area or areas (other than the landlord or landlords), or such of them as are or may become entitled to acquire their landlord's interest under this Part of this Act, and is otherwise suitable;

then on an application made by that body either alone or jointly with the landlord or landlords a certificate may be granted accordingly; and where a certificate is so granted, whether to a representative body alone or to a representative body jointly with the landlord or landlords,—

(i) an application for a scheme in pursuance of the certificate may be made by the representative body alone or by the landlord or landlords alone or both jointly and, by leave of the High Court, may be proceeded with by the representative body or by the landlord or landlords though not the applicant or applicants; and

(ii) without prejudice to subsection 7(b) above, the scheme may, with the consent of the landlord or landlords or on such terms as to compensation or otherwise as appear to the High Court to be just, confer on the representative body any such rights or powers under the scheme as might be conferred on the landlord or landlords for the time being, or enable the representative body to participate in the administration of the scheme or in the management by the landlord or landlords of his or their property in the area or areas.")—(Lord Kennet.)

9.42 p.m.
LORD SILSOE LORD SILSOE moved, to leave out Clause 19 and insert the following new clause:—
".—(1) Any area which is occupied directly or indirectly under tenancies held from one landlord (apart from property occupied by him or his licensees or for the time being unoccupied) within which the Minister, paying regard to the benefit likely to result to the area as a whole, is satisfied that the area is being and has been well-managed and should continue to be managed by one landlord, whether the present owner or any other owner, and should be redeveloped when required comprehensively, he shall upon an application by its owner made within two years beginning with the commencement of this Part of this Act designate the area as a well-managed area. For the purposes of this section "the Minister" means as regards areas within Wales and Monmouthshire the Secretary of State and as

1113
regards other areas the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
(2) The Minister shall not give a certificate under this section unless he is satisfied that the landlord has, by advertisement or otherwise as may be required by the Minister, given adequate notice to persons interested, informing them of the application for a certificate and its purpose and inviting them to make representations to the Minister for or against the application within a time which appears to the Minister to be reasonable; and before giving a certificate the Minister shall consider any representations so made within that time, and if from those representations it appears to him that there is among the persons making them substantial opposition to the application, he shall afford to those opposing the application, and on the same occasion to the landlord and such (if any) as the Minister thinks fit of those in favour of the application, an opportunity to appear and be heard by a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose and shall consider the report of that person.
(3) Within a well-managed area, whether privately or publicly owned, a tenant of a leasehold house, as defined in Section (1), shall be entitled subject to this Part of this Act to an extended lease but shall not be entitled to acquire the freehold of the house of which he is the tenant.
(4) An application by its owner for approval of comprehensive redevelopment in respect of a well-managed area or a part of such an area shall be referred by the local planning authority to the Minister for his consideration. If the Minister considers that redevelopment should in the public interest be carried out under public ownership he shall not approve the application but shall direct the Land Commission forthwith to purchase that part of the area the subject of the application at its present market value. If the Minister considers that the redevelopment as approved by him should be carried out by the applicant he shall direct the Land Commission to buy and resell to the owner of the area at the present market value any leasehold interest required for the approved redevelopment which its owner cannot acquire on reasonable terms."
The noble Lord said: This is an important Amendment to start at this time of night, and I am very tired. I will do my best. For over 2½ years I personally have been studying the Leasehold Reform Bill or the White Paper which led up to it. I said earlier that I think the Bill is getting better and better. I think this clause is the most important of the clauses which cannot be described as leasehold enfranchisement. I hope that the proper title of the Bill will be remembered, and also that the good this Bill can do goes far wider than that particular matter, and it is quite wrong, in my view, and inaccurate in fact, that the Bill deals only with reform. It deals with leasehold extension,
1114
which is an equally important feature, and it has also now this very important clause. I have been all the time urging and trying to get such a clause put in. I have been doing so with others who have worked with me on other estates, and we thank the Government very much that in the last resort a clause of this sort has been inserted. It has many important features. It accepts the view that well managed estates, or some such phrase, have a special right to be treated separately from others. That is a great concession for which we are grateful.
When it was at one time decided, and may still be decided if one noble Lord has his way, that there is no limit on rateable value in this Bill, I was honoured by being asked to chair a party to the Minister on behalf of eighteen estates because it was quite clear that no one had told the Minister the facts. We went along, a few of us, with the facts of eighteen large estates—coming from England admittedly, and not Wales—and we showed the Minister the facts of what would happen, in the light of this clause. This clause was then before us, as it now is.
At this stage it was a fact that between those 18 estates, spreading over London, Birmingham and the South Coast—all over the place except Wales-51·1 per cent. of all the houses belonging to those 18 estates were immediately purchasable by the lessees; and there was a large number more which would be so purchasable if the lessee took advantage of getting into occupation as soon as he could. Heaven knows! the terms are sufficiently favourable to make everybody try to get in, even if it got so far as the old-fashioned idea of putting in a suitcase so as to try to get married at the right church. All that would have gone on: there is no question about it. I welcome this new clause, so that the tenants can assist, whatever the clause should prove to be in the end; it cannot possibly do anything but good. But even with the help of the tenants and lessees, it could be quite impossible to manage an estate if over half the houses were bought and half belonged to the landlord.
I hope your Lordships will agree with me that land management is not done by committees. That is the world's worst sort of management. It wants a decent

1115
person—preferably one, certainly only two or three; and it is quite hopeless to expect a sort of management committee. It is one of the few matters that I think weaken local authority management. They are few in number, and often they are fine managers, and I hope their estates will come into Clause 19. I see no reason at all why they should not.
Different views were taken, and the Minister was good enough to say that as a consequence of the facts we presented the Bill was amended. We now, temporarily at any rate, have the position that this clause bites only on those leaseholders and freeholders who have rateable limits under the present Rent Act limits. But some of those are most important. It is pure coincidence that in Greater London, for instance, if you own estates in the centre, in the City of Westminster, in Kensington and in a few other places, you are exempt because the rateable value—in other words, the rackrent—is higher per square foot of place. You get high rateable values. In my accommodation I am well over the £400 limit. Mine is a small house in which I am happy. If that house were in Dulwich, which we have heard about, it would not be outside the Bill now. Yet, to all intents and purposes, it is the same house, of the same size, with the same sort of tenant.
Your Lordships heard noble Lords speaking about Dulwich. That provides a good example of the sort of houses which are identical with those which have been exempted. The only bridge is this clause; I cannot see any other. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, may not agree with me on this point, but I do not see that fixing another rateable value limit would cover the matter. Surely it will lead to more troubles. In my view this is the bridge which will bring those people in the same circumstances into the same position.
Why does the present clause not do it? In one way it does. I shall try to show why I think it does not. It was the view of all of us who tried to take as neutral an attitude as we could—quite frankly, we were thinking of our tenants a great deal—that the only way in which the clause could be drafted to do real justice
1116
was to preserve completely the right to security of tenure through the 50-year lease, and to remove the right to enfranchisement. We can see no other way at all. By a stroke of the pen the Government have given that exemption to everybody above a certain limit. And, incidentally, it is being given whether the entity is well managed or badly managed—they have complete exemption. There are people with extremely well-managed estates who ought to have it on the same merits, and as they were kind enough to allow me to be their chairman, I think it is my duty to speak for them—although personally I am in an unfortunate position because I have deprived myself of the right of purchase—and also I have had a fairly good position with the Church Commissioners. I want to see justice here, and those people—and there are a good number of them—are not getting what they should get.
I would also mention a company of which I am a director. It met to-day and I asked what its position was. It is the oldest company in England, dating from James II. It is a small company, with only one well-managed estate within the meaning of this clause; it has not ground leases, except in one place. There is, however, an area that has 12 houses which are well-managed. Do the Committee think that any of that estate of 12 houses held on leases, well managed, which the company wants to keep, can conceivably go through the whole drill that is laid down here, of going to the Minister, having a public inquiry and so on? A letter has been written to us to say that a public inquiry is very expensive. It is a letter written by the Minister, saying that counsel, witnesses and everybody else would have to attend an inquiry and that it would be a very expensive affair. It was an odd sort of letter to receive. It will be a Chancery Division case. It will not come on for two years, although a letter is written by the Minister to say that it will come on within a shorter time. When it does come on, the expense of a scheme, especially if the tenants are coming in with it, possibly disagreeing, will be quite phenomenal. I most earnestly beg the Committee to try to see whether we cannot make this scheme work more cheaply and with a much wider base, publicly owned and privately owned. That is

1117
the object of this Amendment which I am suggesting.
The most important thing to bear in mind in regard to well-managed estates, both publicly owned and privately owned, is the subject of redevelopment—a subject which has not been debated either on Second Reading or during the Committee stage in this House: it has only been vaguely mentioned. The whole point of an estate, as distinct from a number of individual freeholds, is that when the time comes, if good management goes on, when properties become obsolete they should be redeveloped. They may be redeveloped by the public, depending on the Government decision, when the time comes. I entirely accept that that is the time when the public, if they wish to intervene, should acquire the estate and redevelop it. A very fine example of this is the area around St. Paul's Cathedral, where there was a very long discussion as to whether the City or the Church Commissioners should undertake the redevelopment. After discussion, it was finally decided that it should be done by private ownership. It was decided that where private ownership could not acquire the properties they required, comprehensive development should be provided for, and the local authority was specially empowered, and in fact told, to buy the properties. There is nothing new in this. I put this into my Amendment. It is old and it is good. It has been going on for a long time.
Subsection (1) of Clause 19 says:
"… in order to maintain adequate standards of appearance and amenity and regulate redevelopment in the area …"
The word "redevelopment" is there, but it has no teeth. There is no way of carrying out redevelopment under Clause 19. Nothing whatever is written there as to what is to be done about it. There is no power to redevelop. There is no order, for example, that land should be publicly or privately redeveloped. We want to pull it all together into a much shorter clause.
I know that your Lordships want to have a general debate on this. I shall say only a few more words, and perhaps I can have an opportunity of saying more to-morrow. I am sure that we can improve upon this humble effort of mine.
1118
I have had no assistance in drafting this clause, and I dare say I shall be told that it is jolly badly done. I got into trouble this afternoon, or somebody thought I did. But I have done my best on this. It looks all right, and I think people will know what it means. The view which I put is that you cannot run a management scheme for the large estates on this basis, where there are a number of tenants involved. There has to be an exemption, but the exemption ought to be very tightly drawn. An owner who gets this advantage should be put on very strong terms. I hope there will be terms, for example, that he should consult all the leaseholders. But none of that is in my draft at the moment, although I accept all these matters. The case would be overwhelmingly stronger if by any chance, for the fifth time, a decision of no limit at all was made. The Government have said that they will consider it, and I recommend such a decision.
If I may, I will read this clause and comment on it, and then I shall stop. So far as possible, I have used the words in the original Clause 19. I have used the phrase "held from one landlord". The brackets are the same, and then I have used the phrase about the Minister "paying regard to the benefit likely to result to the area as a whole". I have then used the phrase:
"… well-managed and should continue to be managed by one landlord, whether the present owner or any other owner, and should be redeveloped when required comprehensively, he shall upon an application by its owner made within two years beginning with the commencement of this Part of this Act designate the area as a well-managed area."
That is simple.
I believe—and several of your Lordships have spoken about this—that the question of whether an estate is well-managed is quite a simple one for the Minister, and the Minister is much the most satisfactory person to decide. It seems to be nothing whatever to do with the court, and I am perfectly happy to recommend that the Minister—who always acts judicially when he has these duties imposed upon him, to whichever Party he belongs—should be the sole judge. I believe that it is an easy decision, and everybody knows before they start which is which. Then I copied the

1119
certificate, and I copied the idea that there should be a public inquiry if there is a real dispute. Subsection (2) of my Amendment is really exactly the same as subsection (2) of the present clause. Subsection (3) of my Amendment says:
"Within a well-managed area, whether privately or publicly owned, a tenant of a leasehold house, as defined in Section (1), shall be entitled subject to this Part of this Act to an extended lease but shall not be entitled to acquire the freehold of the house of which he is the tenant."
In certain areas, especially in Wales and the various other places which have been mentioned, there is a cry for ownership. I have been trying to sell houses like these to their lessees for years, and have failed. There is not a strong demand on a well-managed estate for lessees to become freeholders, but still there are some. If the terms are fair, there will not be the number that is generally thought by Government speakers. If they are called into consultation and are consulted at all costs, I do not believe that there will be a huge number who will wish to obtain the ownership with all the obligations and the capital involved.
Lastly, we come to redevelopment, and here I most sincerely ask the Government to see that something is put in about redevelopment. It is futile not to provide proper redevelopment at the proper time, and there is nothing in the Bill about that. When I asked about this outside the House, I was told: "We can go on. There are powers", and the Land Commission was vaguely mentioned. When the Land Commission was approached, they said, "Oh! We have not promised", and I very much doubt if they will. I asked the Minister expressly when I saw him—and the Minister of State, who has been in charge of this Bill for so long, was present—whether there was any complaint at all about the 18 major estates on their management, and the answer from the Minister of State was, "No, none". There are no complaints. I have that from the Minister concerned; and I believe, therefore, that we should look at this clause in this form.
This clause says that when an application by an owner for approval of comprehensive redevelopment (which is a well-known phrase in planning; it is in the Act, and everybody knows what
1120
it means) comes up, the Minister shall consider the case and decide whether he wants the property redeveloped by the owner or by the public. If he desires to have it redeveloped by the public, he should order its immediate purchase. If, on the other hand, he decides that it should be done by the private owner, what was done in the St. Paul's area with such success should be brought into force, and the local authority, the Land Commission or some such body should buy the leases which the owner could not get so that redevelopment could be carried out responsibly and quickly.
I am afraid that I have had a long day to-day, and I have talked too much. I have tried to cut down my remarks on this Amendment, but it is very important. I hope very much that we shall not divide or come to any decision on this to-night. I think it should be talked about. I consider it to be very important indeed. My hope is that we shall go on with it to-morrow. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 19 and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Silsoe.)
LORD KENNET: The effect of this Amendment, as the noble Lord has said, is to substitute for the present Clause 19 one under which the Minister's certificate designating an estate as a well-managed estate will deprive any leaseholder in the area covered by the certificate of his right to enfranchise. It would, however, leave him with the right to extend. I shall have to ask the Committee to bear with me while we go through the procedure which this Amendment would institute.
The Minister's certificate would also be a certificate to the effect that the estate should be redeveloped comprehensively when required. Under subsection (4) of the clause an owner who sought approval of comprehensive redevelopment would first seek planning permission from the local planning authority, but his application would automatically be referred to the Minister. The Minister would have to refuse approval if he thought that redevelopment should be carried out under public ownership. In that event, he would be obliged to direct the Land Commission to buy the area at its present market value. When the Land Commission acquires land it

1121
acquires it at the market value but deducts the levy payable on any development value in the price.
It is not clear from the noble Lord's Amendment whether by using the words "at its present market value" he envisages that the Land Commission would not deduct the levy in this single case if, on the other hand, the Minister thought that the owner should do the redevelopment himself he would then be obliged to direct the Land Commission to buy out any leaseholders who were not prepared to sell their leaseholds on reasonable terms. I cannot help feeling that this is a somewhat rigid and complex provision. The clause does not give the planning authority any discretion, either in the granting of permission or in the initiation of redevelopment proposals itself. Again it would make the Minister the arbiter of whether the redevelopment should be done by public enterprise—in which case the Land Commission must be the sole agency to buy the area, regardless of whether redevelopment is a sound financial proposition or not—or whether, on the other hand, it should be done by private enterprise, in which case the Land Commission is automatically sent to the aid of the owner who might be held up because he could not buy in all leasehold interests.
This is putting a great deal on to the Minister; and, frankly, I think it is more than any Minister would be willing to accept. In any event the Government could not accept an Amendment which bound the hands of the Minister in the exercise of his discretion to give directions to the Land Commission. I should repeat that well-managed estates have Clause 19 schemes which will preserve the look of the estate after enfranchisement. They should not have total exemption from the risk of enfranchisement which this Amendment would give them, because that would preserve for them the very property rights that it is the purpose of this Bill to transfer to the leaseholders. I know that the noble Lord and other Lords believe that is not the main purpose of this Bill; and they base themselves on the short title, Leasehold Reform Bill. I should like to remind the Committee of the first words of the Long Title:
"An Act to enable tenants of houses held on long leases at low rents to acquire the freehold or an extended lease; …"
10.8 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: I hope it is not the intention of the Government to ask the Committee to come to a decision on this Amendment tonight. We are sitting tremely late. The Government have made the point that one of the most important clauses of the Bill is Clause 19, the purpose of which is to preserve the very important town planning value of the large estates in London. The noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, with what I think everybody would agree is his unexceeded, perhaps unequalled, knowledge of these matters has put forward a really carefully thought out alternative proposal. I think it is quite impossible for any of us to take in his arguments as they have been delivered. When I made the opening speech to-day I said that I did not blame the Parliamentary Secretary in any way for not having been able on the spur of the moment to give a completely intellectually satisfying answer to a long and technical speech by the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, last night. We find ourselves in the same position tonight. I think it would be an abuse of the procedure of this House if, on a clause of this importance, when the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, has proposed an alternative we were asked to come to a decision tonight. I admit that I have not been in the Chamber during the whole of this debate: but I have not been outside this Palace. I was attending a meeting which I think was not without some public importance—certainly it was not private dissipation. I think that it would be to the advantage not only of those who criticise this Bill but also—I am quite sure this will be recognised when the debate comes to be read in print—to the advantage of the Government, if there were an opportunity for a more complete and satisfactory answer to be made to the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, than the one to which we have just listened.
LORD KENNET: It is late, and we have heard Lord Silsoe's reasons for proposing his Amendment. The Committee have also heard my reasons for opposing it. I believe that the two statements of position are fairly clear. Nevertheless, I readily accept the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, that, since it is so late, we shall be able to take in these complex considerations

1123
with a clearer mind in the morning; and if it is agreeable to the Committee, I should like to move that the debate on Amendment No. 46 be adjourned.
Moved, That the debate on Amendment No. 46 be adjourned.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.
House resumed.

ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (CANVEY ISLAND APPROACHES, ETC.) BILL
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Order made on June 28 last discharged, and Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past ten o'clock.