Sitting of 24 April 1968

Preamble
The House met at hall-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  SCOTTISH LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.
PETITION

  Sunday Entertainments Bill
  Sir C. Black: I beg to ask leave to present a Petition on behalf of 367,312 persons living in various parts of the British Isles. The Petition has been signed by 221,691 persons in England, 59,243 persons in Wales, 50,726 persons in Scotland and 35,652 persons in Northern Ireland.
  The terms of the Petition are as follows:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The humble Petition of the undersigned electors of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
  SHOWETH
  That whereas the Sunday Entertainments Bill presented by Mr. William Hamling would permit amusements, entertainments and sporting events upon a large scale on Sundays, and whereas the Bill would open Sunday to extensive commercial exploitation, and whereas it would cause many workers to lose the opportunities which Sunday gives for family life, rest and worship, and whereas the Bill would seriously jeopardise the spiritual life of the nation, and whereas it would be a grave departure from the moral law of Almighty God.
  Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that the Sunday Entertainments Bill be rejected.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  BOARD OF TRADE

    North-West Region
    Mr. Fletcher-Cookeasked the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy towards the grant of industrial development certificates in the North-West of England outside development areas.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Crosland): An extremely liberal and flexible one. No I.D.C.s have been refused in the North-West Region outside the Greater Manchester area since 1966. In 1967 I.D.C. approvals in the North-West Region outside the development areas amounted to over 6 million square feet.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Could the President of the Board of Trade say what the rate of applications for I.D.C.s in the areas outside industrial development areas is now? The impression in my constituency and in similar constituencies is that people simply are not applying for I.D.C.s owing to the magnetic effect of the new towns and the nearby development areas.
    Mr. Crosland: Unemployment in the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency is, I am glad to say, below the national average, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows. As to the rate of application for I.D.C.s, this has been low for the past 18 months or so, in my view largely because of the recession through which the country has been passing. I would expect the rate of applications to rise markedly now as the economy moves towards a much fuller level of employment.
    Mr. Arthur Davidson: What my right hon. Friend says is most encouraging, but would not he agree that just as important as encouraging firms to develop in the area is dissuading existing firms from developing outside the area? What steps is he taking in this matter?
    Mr. Crosland: It is not part of our intention to dissuade firms from expanding in the development areas if it is their commercial judgment that that is the right thing to do in the light of the financial incentives the Government offer.

    201
    I think that what my hon. Friend has in mind is what is now more and more accepted, that the present division merely between development and non-development areas has become rather too crude. It is because we take that view that we set up the Hunt Committee.

    Finished Manufactures (Imports)
    Mr. Hordernasked the President of the Board of Trade by how much imports of finished manufactures increased in 1967 compared with 1966.
    Mr. Crosland: The information is available at Table 15 of the articles on United Kingdom Trade in 1967 published in the Board of Trade Journal on 9th February, 1968 (page 394).
    Mr. Hordern: Does this information not show, loosely, a very sharp increase in manufactured imports? Does the Minister appreciate that this increase occurred last year at a time when production scarcely rose at all? Does he not think that this is a firm indication of the lack of confidence existing in industry and the disastrous effect of the Government's economic policy?
    Mr. Crosland: If the hon. Member knew that that was what the information showed, I do not quite see why he put down the Question. As to the facts of the case, it is well known that in 1967 there were two special influences at work. One was the removal of the import surcharge at the end of the previous year, the other was the effect of devaluation on import prices in the last two months of the year. These were the two special factors making imports exceptionally high in that year. They were much too high for the long-term good of the economy, and this was one of a number of reasons which caused the Government to take the decision about devaluation.
    Mr. Dickens: Would my right hon. Friend agree that so far this year the trend shows a quite alarming rise in the import of finished manufactured goods, and if so why does he not reintroduce selective short-term import controls? Have we given some private undertaking to the I.M.F. or the O.E.C.D. not to do so?
    Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. This is not a matter of undertakings. My hon. Friend
    202
    is quite right when he says that the trend is not yet going the way we want, but he must remember, and the House knows, that of these imports of finished manufactures two-thirds consist of capital goods, not consumer goods, and capital goods orders cannot be switched from imported sources of supply to home sources at all quickly.

    Manufacturing and Service Industries (Investment)
    Mr. Hordernasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the percentage change in capital investment by manufacturing industry in 1967 compared with 1966; and what was the percentage change in such investment by the service industries in those years.
    Mr. Crosland: Taking fixed investment, measured at constant prices, a fall of 5 per cent. and a rise of 3 per cent. respectively.
    Mr. Hordern: Does this not show, conclusively, a complete lack of confidence existing in manufacturing industry and the complete uselessness of S.E.T? What is the Minister's latest information on the level of investment in the machine tool industry, which is an indicator of the level of investment in our industry generally?
    Mr. Crosland: These figures show nothing of the sort that the hon. Gentleman has suggested. They show that the fall in investment in this cycle was a great deal less than at comparable periods of previous cycles. As to machine tools, if the hon. Member will put down a Question I will try to answer it. As to the future prospects for investment as a whole, if we take the last Board of Trade survey of industry's intentions it shows that there will be a rise in 1968 over 1967 of up to 7 per cent. I regard this as a highly encouraging result.

    Aluminium Smelters
    Mr. Laneasked the President of the Board of Trade when he now expects to announce the Government's decision about the proposed construction of aluminium smelters.
    Mr. Wileyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a further statement on the location of an

    203
    aluminium smelter works in the Northern Region.
    Mr. Crosland: The Government have not yet concluded the confidential discussions with the companies concerned, which cover a number of important issues, including the location of the smelters. I cannot yet say when an announcement will be made.
    Mr. Lane: When the Minister does make his announcement, will he spell out in detail any Government financial help involved, direct or indirect? Meanwhile, does he stand by the Prime Minister's statement in mid-November, that there would be neither an Exchequer subsidy nor an increase in the cost of electricity to other users?
    Mr. Crosland: The answer to both parts of the question is "Yes".
    Mr. Willey: In his continuing consultations and discussions about this, would my right hon. Friend pay particular attention to the importance of this development to the North-East?
    Mr. Crosland: Yes, certainly. It is well known that one of the companies concerned, Alcan, has agreed to consider the possibility of a site in the North-East. I will certainly bear my right hon. Friend's point in mind.
    Mrs. Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the great hopes of employment in the Invergordon area created by this project? Will he also bear in mind the fact that it is a widely held belief among many responsible citizens, including county councillors, that if the project does not go there there will be a mass exodus of population?
    Mr. Crosland: I take note of what the hon. Lady says.

    Prototype Equipment (Investment Grants)
    Mr. Corfieldasked the President of the Board of Trade what claims for investment grants have been received under the provisions of subsection (8) of Section 1 of the Industrial Development Act, 1966, concerning prototype equipment; how many payments have been made; what is the total sum disbursed; and what has been the average
    204
    period between receipt of claim and payment of grant.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): 128 claims have been received and eight payments totalling about £103,000 have been made. The average period between receipt and payment of those claims where payment has been made has been four months.
    Mr. Corfield: But how long have the others been outstanding? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are considerable complaints about the delay which has been experienced by industrialists and complaints about the inability of the regional officers to help in these matters?
    Mr. Dell: I appreciate that there have been such complaints, and there has been delay, which has been due to establishing appropriate criteria in this field. We have now established them. I therefore hope that there will be little further delay in making the payments.
    Mr. Nicholas Ridleyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet defined the criteria for prototype investment grants.
    Mr. Dell: Yes, Sir. To qualify for an investment grant a prototype must be built in order to undergo rigorous testing as part of a programme of scientific research. It must incorporate in its design an extension of knowledge in the field of natural or applied science. The mere production of an improved model of an existing machine or vehicle does not qualify.
    Mr. Ridley: Can the hon. Gentleman say how it came to be that he kept the country waiting for two and a half years from the date of the introduction of investment grants before deciding the principles on which these prototype grants were to be based? How could his Department have been so incompetent and slovenly?
    Mr. Dell: The establishment of these criteria has obviously involved consultation with a number of people, and has involved examination of claims made under this section of the Industrial Development Act. We have now decided upon the criteria, and we hope that the backlog of applications will be speedily settled.

    Inertia Selling Campaigns
    Mrs. Joyce Butlerasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take powers to control inertia selling campaigns.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dun-woody): Under the law as it stands, the recipient of unsolicited goods is under no obligation either to pay for them or to return them. I do not think that further legal safeguards would be practicable.
    Mrs. Butler: Would my hon. Friend look a, this matter again and, in the meantime, make it clear that she deplores this exploitation of inertia sales promotion which not only annoys many people but causes others to buy goods which they do not want and often cannot afford because they do not know their right?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: The Consumer Council has published an excellent booklet telling people their rights in this matter I hope that people will very firmly reject anything which comes within this category. Difficulties are caused for people who are subject to inertia selling and I realise that it causes great irritation.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Did not the Molony Committee recommend that steps be taken to deal with this growing evil? Would the hon. Lady say whether she has any proposals to make to deal with another growing evil, namely, that relating to bogus guarantees attached to goods which remove rather than increase people's rights under the Sale of Goods Act?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: We are looking at the question of bogus guarantees. We realise that it has a great many implications.

    Yorkshire Regions (Industrial Development Certificates)
    Mr. Alisonasked the President of the Board of Trade in how many cases in each of the last three years he has refused to issue industrial development certificates in the West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, and Yorkshire coalfield regions, respectively, as defined in the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council's review.
    Mr. Crosland: No industrial development certificates have been refused in these areas in the last three years.
    Mr. Alison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fairly satisfactory employment figures in Yorkshire as a whole reflect a very unsatisfactory rate of net migration from the area, and that something more than negative help and industrial development certificates is required? Positive assistance is needed to offset the discriminatory help given to areas outside Yorkshire.
    Mr. Crosland: I recognise that in this area, as in other areas, such as North-East Lancashire, the unemployment figures are not the only figures which we should consider; we should also look at the outward migration from the area. But the entire problem of what are known as the grey areas is being considered by the Hunt Committee, which expects to report in the autumn. Until it has reported, I do not think that any major change in Government policy would be justified.
    Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Could my right hon. Friend say what is the difference between this Government's attitude to these areas and the Tory Party's attitude to them during its last few years of office? Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, if it were not for the drift of manpower from many parts of the Yorkshire-Humberside region, unemployment in these areas would make it necessary for them to be scheduled as development areas?
    Mr. Crosland: I am very conscious of this problem. I know this area because my constituency is situated in it, although not in the coalfield part. But it was because of the problem of the intermediate areas, or grey areas as they have come to be called, that we set up the Hunt Committee to recommend what should be done about them. It would be wrong for the Government to adopt a major change in their regional policy some months before the Hunt Committee is due to report.

    Development Areas (Non-manufacturing Activities)
    Mr. Alisonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to encourage investment in non-manufacturing activities in development areas

    207
    where the proportion of employed persons qualifying for regional employment premium is lower than the national average.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the proposed hotel investment incentives scheme which my right hon. Friend outlined to the House on 20th March and to the proposals for refund of S.E.T. to hotels in certain rural parts of development areas published in the Finance Bill. These measures should encourage investment in non-manufacturing activities.—[Vol. 761, cols. 103–6.]
    Mr. Alison: Does the hon. Lady appreciate that, while this is a very small, though rather discriminating, step in the right direction, there is a crying need to diversify employment in many parts of the country into service industries, thereby raising activity rates and increasing the environmental attractiveness of areas to manufacturers?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: The important thing surely is to create jobs. The problem is that we do not know how best to assist the intermediate areas and that is why we are waiting upon the Hunt Committee report.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: When does the President of the Board of Trade expect to introduce the legislation to make these grants payable, and when would he expect the first grants to become payable?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: There is a Question later on the Order Paper about the hotel incentive scheme.

    Investment Grants (Analysis)
    Mr. Hall-Davisasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make available an analysis of investment qualifying for investment grant, showing qualifying expenditure in each economic region, and for each economic region the expenditure incurred within development areas.
    Mr. Dell: This information will be provided in the Annual Report which will be published later this year.
    Mr. Hall-Davis: Does the Minister recognise that investment grant applica-
    208
    tions can provide a source of valuable information to the Hunt Committee about the level and nature of investment taking place in the districts that it is considering? Will he see how detailed he can make that information and ensure that it is up to date and available in time for consideration by the Hunt Committee before it reports?
    Mr. Dell: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is a considerable job of analysis of about 80,000 claims running into many millions of pounds of investment. But I can assure him that the analysis, when published, will go well beyond what he appears to require in his Question.

    Industrial Buildings and Advance Factories
    Mr. Hall-Davisasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the total square footage of new industrial building approved in development areas for each economic region in 1967, the square footage of advance factories completed in each economic region in 1967, and the square footage of those advance factories unlet in each economic region at 1st March, 1968.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Hall-Davis: Will the President of the Board of Trade consider whether in certain areas of particular difficulty it might be more effective to increase or extend assistance for purpose built factories to individual concerns and make the information known, rather than to put up general purpose factories in the hope that they will suit the requirements of someone who may be looking for an extension?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: The Board of Trade takes particular care to assist manufacturers who want to go into areas by asking whether we can help them in making tailor-made factories to their requirements. There has been a sharp increase in the number of applications for advance factories and the number of allocations in the last quarter.
    The Following is the information:

    Development Areas in:

    (1) Square footage of new industrial building approved in 1967

    (2) square footage of advance factories completed in 1967

    (3) Square footage of (2)unallocated at 1.3.1968

    Northern England

    7,936,000

    448,967

    150,000

    South-West England

    1,165,000

    —

    —

    Merseyside

    5,110,000

    25,000

    —

    Scotland

    9,786,000

    319,850

    164,000

    Wales

    4,853,000

    315,000

    190,000

    Foreign Earnings
    Mr. Patrick Jenkinasked the President of the Board of Trade what increase in the volume of visible exports he estimates will be necessary in the second half of 1968 in order to achieve the same level of foreign earnings as was achieved in the second half of 1967, adjusted for the effects of the dock strikes; and what increase he is now anticipating.
    Mr. Crosland: The answer to the first part of the question would depend on how much our export prices fall in terms of foreign currencies. As to the second part, an estimate of the likely increase in the volume of exports between the second half of 1967 and the second half of 1968, adjusted for the effects of the dock strikes, was given in Part III of the Financial Statement. I have nothing to add to this.
    Mr. Jenkin: Is the President of the Board of Trade telling the House that he can make no estimate of the volume of exports required to come up to the level of last year? How can he possibly support the forecast that there is to be a turn around of 500 million in our visible trade if he does not know the figures?
    Mr. Crosland: Part 3 of the Financial Statement gives an estimate of the amount. It gives the range—not a single estimate, but two possible estimates—of the amount by which the Government think that the turn around is likely to increase in the second half of this year over the second half of last year.
    The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question would mean making a precise estimate of the amount by which export prices were likely to fall
    210
    in terms of foreign currency, and that would be a foolish thing to do at the moment.
    Mr. Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend join with me in deploring the reasons for and the economic effects of the dock strikes which took place in London yesterday and today which seem to many of us to pander to the bottomless vanity of the hon. Member for Worcestershire. South (Sir G. Nabarro) and some of his hon. Friends?
    Sir G. Nabarro: Answer.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not called the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South. Sir Cyril Osborne.
    Sir C. Osborne: Apart from the question of dock strikes, will the President of the Board of Trade look at the prices of imports and exports? Since devaluation export prices have increased by only 4½ per cent. whereas import prices have increased by 9½ per cent., which means that our position is getting considerably worse. [Interruption.] Those figures are from a responsible paper, the Economist. When does the President expect the position to start to get better as a result of devaluation?
    Mr. Crosland: The figures come not from the Economist but from the Board of Trade and were quoted by the Economist. They are, of course, correct. The hon. Gentleman will know that the whole object of devaluation was to get a smaller increase in export prices than import prices. This is what the whole thing was about to a considerable extent.
    As to when the trade figures will improve, I have consistently said that I would not suggest any firm certainty of an improvement before the second half of this year. I would not predict that next month or the month after they will necessarily get better, but I strongly believe that in the second half of this year we shall see a marked improvement which will carry on well into 1969 and thereafter.

    Tourist Trade
    Mr. Patrick Jenkinasked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the increase in the volume of the tourist trade of Great Britain necessary to offset the effects of

    211
    devaluation; and what increase he is anticipating in 1968 over 1967.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): Having regard to their country of residence, it is estimated that an increase of about 14 per cent. in visitors' expenditure, in sterling terms, would be needed to earn the same amount of foreign currency as before devaluation. I hope that devaluation will give an additional impetus to the continued growth of tourist earnings and that the increase between 1967 and 1968 will be at least as great as this.
    Mr. Jenkin: Is the Minister of State satisfied that the capacity of the tourist industry will be sufficient to accommodate this increase? When, if I can put the question to him as the Parliamentary Secretary was unable to answer it, is the legislation providing for the grants to be introduced, and when does he expect the first hotel grant to be paid?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I believe that there is a question on this later. The White Paper, which will give the full details of this scheme, will be published shortly and legislation will be introduced early next Session. I imagine that the first grants will, therefore, be payable, subject to the approval of the House, in 1969. In the meantime, I think that the capacity of the tourist industry is equal to the great influx of tourists.
    Mr. Lomas: Will the Minister indicate what action his Department is taking to increase the number of camping and caravan sites in this country? Is he, as a Yorkshireman, doing all he can to encourage tourists from abroad to go to Yorkshire?
    Mr. Mallalieu: The Yorkshire Travel Association has been doing brilliant work in showing off the virtues of that great county.
    The British Travel Association has selected 12 possible sites for new camps in key positions and we hope, through the operation of the Countryside Bill, that it will be possible to develop them fairly shortly.

    Entertainment Industry
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the President of the Board of Trade, having regard to the links between Electrical and Musical Industries, the Grade Organisa-
    212
    tion, Associated Television, the Associated British Picture Corporation, the London International Agency, London Artists, London Management, Elstree Distributors, Ivy Productions, Bernard Delfont Management and Enterprises, and other companies in the entertainment industry, whether he will refer this situation to the Monopolies Commission.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: We are always ready to consider evidence suggesting that it would be in the public interest for the Monopolies Commission to investigate any sector of this industry in which the statutory monopoly conditions exist.
    Mr. Jenkins: Will my hon. Friend look at The Times of 6th March where, under the heading "Show Business is Big Business", the existence of statutory monopoly conditions is spelt out? Is she aware that even greater detail is easily obtainable?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: We shall be interested to see any evidence that the conditions in this industry are working to the detriment of artists and employees who are part of it.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the President of the Board of Trade having regard to his decision not to refer the merger between Electrical and Musical Industries and Associated British Picture Corporation to the Monopolies Commission, whether he will consider requesting the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation to acquire the cinema interests of the Associated British Picture Corporation
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I see no reason in the public interest for such a request to be put to the I.R.C.
    Mr. Jenkins: Will my hon. Friend congratulate Lord Aylestone on doing what apparently nobody else was willing to do and preventing this merger from coming about? Although the merger is off, will my hon. Friend ask the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation to acquire the cinema interests of Associated British Pictures so as to provide an independent outlet for British cinema films?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: The Board of Trade said that if there were any increase in the holdings of E.M.I. it would be prepared to consider the whole situation

    213
    again, but any such request to the I.R.C. would have to come from the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs.

    Company Names (Registration)
    Mr. Tilneyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will introduce legislation to allow him to reverse a decision when a mistake has been made by his department, following the complaint of a company well within the satutory period against a very similar name being granted registration to a different company.
    Mr. Dell: No, Sir. When objection to a company's name is taken on grounds other than harm to the public, I think it right that there should be a definite date, at present six months from the date of registration, after which the company cannot be directed to change its name.
    Mr. Tilney: As the Board of Trade, well within the six months, allowed to be registered "Compton Organs" when there was in existence a company known as Compton Pipe Organs, are not the names so similar that the public are bound to be misled?
    Mr. Dell: In this case, in respect of which the hon. Gentleman has had correspondence with my predecessor, there is disagreement on the facts. The Board of Trade took the view that this was not a mistake, and that it was right to register this name. What the hon. Gentleman is really asking is whether, after a company has had a name for six months, and no harm is being done to the public, the Board of Trade should compel the company to change the name if it feels that there has been a mistake. I do not think that that would be right.

    South-West Region
    Mr. Dobsonasked the President of the Board of Trade how many industrial development certificates have been issued for the South-Western Region in the last four years; how many have been refused; how many have not been taken up; and how many inquiries are currently under consideration.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Industrial development certificates for 892 projects were issued in the four years to the end
    214
    of 1967. Of these it is now known that 90 projects are unlikely to go ahead. It is not the Board of Trade's practice to give figures for I.D.C. refusals for those regions which include areas where applications have to be examined critically. No I.D.C. has however been refused in the south-western development areas. Twenty-two applications are under consideration.
    Mr. Dobson: Does my hon. Friend agree that those are reasonably good figures? May I ask for a special effort to be made to encourage more firms to go to the South-West, particularly to the development areas? Does my hon. Friend agree that this could be done by re-combing the list which she has to see whether, with the new grants that are available, firms can be persuaded to go there?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: We are very worried about the problems which the South-West is facing, and has faced for a considerable number of years. We shall do everything that we can to bring more employment into the development areas.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: As Ministers have said today that no I.D.C.s have been refused in the South-West or in the Yorkshire and Humberside regions, is not there now a case for abolishing the need to go through the whole rigmarole of applying for I.D.C.s in areas where none will be refused?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: That is not so. I.D.C. applications in the South-West development areas have not been refused, but we still look critically at some parts of the South-West around Bristol, where we believe we should not allow too much development to go ahead having regard to the special difficulties still faced by development areas.

    Office Development, Frimley
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the President of the Board of Trade why he has refused to grant an office development permit to a firm of builders in New Malden to authorise the erection by them of offices at Frimley on a building site being developed by them and required for the purpose of accommodating their office staffs close to the building work being undertaken by them.
    Mr. Dell: A permit was refused because the applicants failed to satisfy the Board of Trade that it was essential for them to build new offices of the size which they proposed.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not odd that the Board of Trade was not satisfied with a proposal which would have enabled the builder to keep down his costs by having his office and operations on the same spot? Is it not Government policy to encourage, as this move would, the move of offices outwards from London?
    Mr. Dell: In this case there is alternative office space in the area of Frimley. Secondly, the proposed development is larger than is required for the firm itself and its associated activities. Thirdly, we have asked the firm to put in another application for smaller premises, and this we will consider when we receive it.

    Cranes (Investment Grants)
    Mr. Ridleyasked the President of the Board of Trade at what rate investment grants are payable to crane hirers in development areas, and to manufacturers in development areas who purchase cranes, respectively.
    Mr. Dell: The present rate of grant payable to a manufacturer who provides a new crane for use for at least three years in a development area is 45 per cent. The same rate is payable to a person who provides a crane for hiring out to a qualifying lessee for use in a development area for a minimum period of three years. Under the special short-term leasing provisions of the Act, the current rate of grant payable to a crane hirer for the construction industry is 25 per cent.
    Mr. Ridley: Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that he will make sure that there is no discrimination between people making cranes and people wishing to buy their own cranes? At present, the crane hirers are given far the worst of the bargain, since they get a 25 per cent. investment grant compared with the 40 per cent. grant which the other people get. This is an intolerable piece of demarcation.
    Mr. Dell: But this was a special provision of the Act, precisely to help plant hirers. In the normal case, the Act
    216
    limited investment grant to leasing for periods of three years. Normally, in the case of cranes, the period of leasing is very much less, and this provision was inserted specifically to help these people.

    Agricultural Machinery and Power Generators (Exports to United States)
    Mr. Moyleasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what study he has made of the potential market for exports of British agricultural machinery to the United States of America;
    (2) what study he has made of the potential market for exports of British power generating machinery to the United States of America.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Our commercial officers in the United States of America are continuously sending back a large volume of information about the market there for agricultural machinery and power generating machinery. The Board of Trade makes this available to the industries concerned through the Board of Trade Journal, the Export Service Bulletin and by direct contacts.
    Mr. Moyle: Surely my hon. Friend can do better than that. Is she not aware that the Government studied all possible alternatives to the Common Market before applying to join? Therefore, can she not give me the figures which must have been in the national study on these subjects—or was no study made?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: We would find it difficult to give exact figures at present, but my hon. Friend will know that there are many openings in the American markets for agricultural machinery and particularly for power generating machinery. Exports of the latter are about £46 million a year.
    Sir C. Osborne: But since the Americans have sold to us in every year since the war goods worth over £100 million more than those which they have bought from us, and in some years have sold over £200 million worth more than they have bought, should not the Board of Trade examine this particular market to see whether the exports and imports cannot be better equalised?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: We are anxious to correct our trade balances with many countries and we do all we can through export information centres to stimulate our manufacturers to enter these markets.

    Cotton Textile Industry
    Mr. Robert Howarthasked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the effect on the level of trade in the cotton textile industry of the proposals contained in the Budget.
    Mr. Crosland: One cannot isolate the effect of the Budget from other influences. But I would expect the recovery of production in the cotton textile industry to continue in the post-Budget period.
    Mr. Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the upturn in the industry started only late in 1967, and that it would be a disaster if the Budget were to push it down once again into a trough of inactivity?
    Mr. Crosland: I would certainly agree with that, but the upturn started as early as last September. The latest figures show that the recovery in production which then began is being well maintained, and that order books are still lengthening against the seasonal trend. I would expect this pattern to continue.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Would the right hon. Gentleman arrange to have the by-elections at Nelson and Colne and Oldham, West before the trade falls off again?
    Hon Members: Answer.
    Mr. Arthur Davidson: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that this might be a suitable time to look again at the whole system of imports in the cotton textile industry?
    Mr. Crosland: No, I have made it clear more than once to the House and to the industry that I do not propose any serious change in our import policy until I have seen the results of the Textile Council's productivity and efficiency study—and I must sick to that.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to receive the long-delayed report of this deep analysis, which many in the industry think can produce no new facts, since all the facts are already known?
    Mr. Crosland: The report has certainly been delayed more than I or people in the industry would like, but we must be clear about one at least of the reasons for that, which is the failure of a large number of firms in the weaving section of the industry to answer the questionnaire sent out by the Textile Council. We expect the report by the end of the year. As to whether it will show anything new, the answer is clearly, "Yes." It is already obvious that it will show a number of new facts and trends which are not available from the existing published figures.

    Footwear Industry (Investment Grants)
    Sir C. Osborneasked the President of the Board of Trade why he twice refused the British Footwear Manuturers Federation's request that investment grants should be made available on knives, lasts and dies as sets, and not as individual items, since separately they cost under £25 each, and therefore do not qualify, whereas they represent 50 per cent. of the British footwear industry's expenditure on plant and machinery, and are always bought in sets.
    Mr. Dell: The reasons for this decision have been fully explained to the Federation. These items are loose tools which are used individually and as such are subject to the minimum value rule.
    Sir C. Osborne: In view of the fact that the industry has a very good export record and that it feels that there is a serious grievance here, would the President of the Board of Trade himself see a deputation from the Federation if I could arrange for one to visit him?
    Mr. Dell: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be willing to consider that. Meanwhile, the Federation's request has been brought to the attention of the Investment Grants Advisory Committee, which has been invited to report to the Board of Trade on the working of the minimum value rule.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: But is it not a fact that the High Court has declared that the minimum value rule was a misuse of the powers of the Board of Trade under the Act? What reactions has the President of the Board of Trade had to the judgment of the High Court in the British Oxygen case? Are they going to defy

    219
    that judgment, as they have sought to defy other judgments?
    Mr. Dell: I see that the hon. Gentleman, who is a lawyer, is very confident of the implications of that case for the general position. We have only just received the transcript of the judgment and are studying it, and we will consider its general implications.

    Transport and Distribution Costs
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the Confederation of British Industry and other trade organisations and associations to bring about a more common practice to add transport and distribution costs to goods delivered from factory to consumer, customer, or ports as a separate charge on each invoice or quotation rather than absorb transport and distribution costs in the final selling price of the product.
    Mr. Dell: None, Sir.
    Mr. Osborn: But will not the Transport Bill raise transport and distribution costs to manufacturers? Does this suggestion not appeal to the President of the Board of Trade as a way of avoiding direct price increases and the pitfalls of prices and incomes legislation at this particularly important time?
    Mr. Dell: Of course, increases of costs attributable to the Transport Bill have been greatly exaggerated. Meanwhile, if the hon. Gentleman or anyone in industry thinks that it is right for individual companies to treat distribution costs in this way on their invoices, there is nothing to stop them.

    Cotton Textiles
    Mr. Mappasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what is the extent of the increased import quotas of cotton textiles by the United States of America and the European Economic Community countries as agreed in clause 24 of Command Paper 3347 dated July, 1967;
    (2) what is the extent of the quota reductions of cotton textiles into this country following upon the increased quotas taken by the United States of America and the European Economic
    220
    Community countries as agreed during the Kennedy Round negotiations.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Information published in the Federal Register suggests that the United States have agreed to increase their quotas—which are less comprehensive than ours—by at least 5 per cent. in each of the next three years. The E.E.C. countries have also agreed to increase their quotas by 1970 to at least 154 per cent. of the 1962 figure. There has never been any question that our quotas would be reduced when other quotas were increased.
    Mr. Mapp: Will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of the liberalisation of trade which is promised in those figures having an effect on Lancashire? Does he contemplate, first, a reduction in quotas in the 'seventies and, secondly, at least an immediate step to dispose of the 1 per cent. growth factor in the present quota arrangements?
    Mr. Mallalieu: The increased quotas in the E.E.C. countries and the United States may have the effect of relieving some of the pressure on Lancashire. As my right hon. Friend said earlier, we cannot make any change in import policy until we have this report.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that the present cotton import policy of Her Majesty's Government seems specially designed to injure Nelson and Colne, Oldham and the other cotton towns of South Lancashire?
    Mr. Mallalieu: The present import policy is designed to provide a much greater measure of protection for Lancashire than was provided by Conservative Administrations.

  SHIPPING

    Normandy Ferries Ltd. (Safety Conditions)
    Sir R. Russellasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied with the safety conditions laid down by Normandy Ferries Limited, under which cars and passengers are carried on its cross-Channel routes, as printed on the tickets issued to passengers; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Yes, Sir. Ships on these routes are required to meet

    221
    Board of Trade and international safety standards and nothing in a contract of carriage affects the shipowner's legal obligation to maintain a seaworthy vessel.
    Sir K. Russell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the House will be relieved to hear that Answer? Is he further aware that one of the conditions laid down on the back of the ticket is that the vessel supplied will not necessarily be fit to carry the passengers' baggage and vehicles? Is this merely legal mumbo-jumbo and, if so, should it not be abolished?
    Mr. Mallalieu: It sounds to me very much like legal mumbo-jumbo. All the ships have to have a Board of Trade certificate of seaworthiness.

    Shipping Companies (Foreign Competition)
    Mr. McMasterasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to place British shipping companies in a position to match competition from foreign shipping companies which enjoy special tax advantages extended to them by the countries in which they are registered.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: This is a very far-reaching proposal and I would certainly want to await the report of the Rochdale Committee before considering it.
    Mr. McMaster: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that because of the heavier burden of taxation on them, British shipping companies are placed at a considerable disadvantage compared with certain of their overseas maritime competitors? Will he take steps to consider the position as soon as possible?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I think that that is true of ships sailing under flags of convenience, but it is not necessarily true of others. It is a complicated question, and one which the Rochdale Committee is considering.

    Furness Shipbuilding Yard
    Mr. Leadbitterasked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications have been received since 1962 for grants for the purposes of modernising and re-equipping the Furness shipbuilding
    222
    yard; and how many have been accepted and rejected, respectively.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Applications from individual companies for assistance under the Local Employment Acts are confidential and it is not our practice to disclose any such details.
    Mr. Leadbitter: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is more difficult to get information out of the Government than it is to get it from the firm itself? Is she aware that I am informed that the amount of grant given to this company by the Government is between £2 million and £2½ million? Since there is a closure notice on this firm and about 3,000 men, who are taxpayers, may lose their jobs, they are anxious to know what the Government will do to protect their money and their interests. Will she discuss the matter with her right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology, who is dealing with it, so that this aspect can be examined with great care?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: We are, of course, concerned that a modern yard should have to close, with this loss of skilled workers, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the right of recovery is a question which the Board of Trade takes great care to study when the grants are given.
    Mr. Michael Shaw: Is this not one further example of the disadvantage of the present system over the alternative system which was in force when we were in power, namely, the investment allowances, under which grants were given only when the profits were made?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I am afraid that I cannot possibly agree with the hon. Gentleman's views. There is no doubt in my mind that the investment grants system is working very effectively in many places. We are extremely sorry that this yard should be the one which is closing, but I do not believe that either the system of investment grants or that of investment allowances would materially have altered the present situation of the Furness yard.

  AVIATION

    British European Airways (Re-equipment Programme)
    Mr. Martenasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the details of the calculations made in

    223
    arriving at the subsidy to be paid to British European Airways for operating Trident 3B aircraft.
    Mr. Fortescueasked the President of the Board of Trade whether compensation terms have yet been agreed between his Department and British European Airways in respect of the Corporation's aircraft re-equipment programme.
    Mr. Robert Howarthasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the negotiations with British European Airways over the amount of compensation it is to be allowed in consequence of ordering certain aircraft.
    Mr. Crosland: As I indicated during the Second Reading of the Air Corporations Bill, negotiations are proceeding, and I will tell the House the outcome as soon as possible.—[Vol. 762, c. 632–701.]
    Mr. Marten: That is not quite an answer to my Question. What I really wanted to know was if the Minister would publish the calculations upon which any subsidy is based? That is the important point, that it should be seen openly how the Government arrive at a rate of subsidy.
    Mr. Crosland: When we do make the announcement I will certainly give the House a very full explanation of the financial agreement that we have reached.
    Mr. Fortescue: Could the Minister tell us whether these negotiations are delaying the negotiations on the purchase by B.E.A. of the Trident 3B? Is he aware that on the London-Paris route Air France is already flying Boeing 727s, which was B.E.A.'s original choice. Is he further aware that this plane will undoubtedly take a lot of traffic away from B.E.A. until the Trident 3B is inserted?
    Mr. Crosland: I do not think that the effect of these negotiations will delay what is the important thing, the date of delivery of the Trident 3B. It is fairly clear by now that B.E.A. is to buy the Trident 3B. B.E.A. has been engaged in discussion with Hawker Siddeley about the Trident 3B. I am trying, independently of these compensation negotiations, to get an agreement about the exact number of Trident 3Bs B.E.A. will wish to buy. Once we have the number we
    224
    can agree on the price, so I hope there will be no delay in consequence of this, in the delivery of these aircraft.
    Mr. Robert Howarth: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that the negotiations cover two aircraft—the BAC 111 and the Hawker Siddeley Trident—and that urgent attention should be given to this, as it seems to be endangering the delivery of the Hawker Siddeley 3B to B.E.A.?
    Mr. Crosland: I am extremely anxious to bring these negotiations to a successful conclusion. On my hon. Friend's specific point, they go beyond any particular aircraft because these negotiations are being undertaken in order to fulfil the Government's pledge given in August, 1966, that B.E.A. can operate as a fully commercial undertaking with the fleet that it acquires.

    Ministers and Senior Officials (Aircraft)
    Mr. Onslowasked the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to review the number of aircraft operated by his Department.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: This matter is kept under regular review and subject to financial considerations it is the intention to modernise the fleet and thus to reduce the number of aircraft required.
    Mr. Onslow: Is the Minister satisfied that there is no conflict at present between the requirement to carry out calibration flights for internal communication purposes and the use of some of these aeroplanes as taxis for Ministers? Is it not particularly extravagant to have used one aircraft to take the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to Basle in September last year and to bring her back from Strasbourg later? Why could this not have been done by a civil flight?
    Mr. Mallalieu: There is no conflict whatever about the use of one particular aircraft for journeys by Ministers and senior officials where the timing of the journey or the routeing does not make it possible to do it by scheduled services.
    Mr. Marten: On the other hand, having been in the hon. Gentleman's office, would he not agree that this can increase the efficiency of Ministers—if they do get around quickly to various jobs?
    Mr. Mallalieu: Any Minister who has had this job knows how very important it is not to waste time.

    Air Safety (Report)
    Mr. Onslowasked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to publish the results of his departmental inquiry into air safety matters.
    Mr. Dobsonasked the President of the Board of Trade on what date the report of the departmental inquiry into air safety will be published.
    Mr. Crosland: On 13th May. Copies will be placed in the Library.
    Mr. Onslow: Will the Minister give the Horse an assurance that we can have an early and full debate on the subject after the publication of this report? would he say why he is now stopping the recruitment of air traffic control officers, who play a pretty important part in air safety matters?
    Mr. Crosland: The question of a debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I would naturally welcome one. I do not follow the second part of the hon. Member's Question. If he would put it down separately I will look into it. I will write to him when I have made inquiries.
    Mr. Dobson: It is very welcome news that the Department's report is coming out. If action is to be taken upon it, may we be assured that it will be taken very quickly indeed because of the summer pressure?
    Mr. Crosland: Yes, certainly.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the interest in this inquiry is much greater today than it would have been a fortnight ago? It would seem that the publishing of the results of the inquiry should be followed by an early debate to allay the general feelings which surround it.
    Mr. Crosland: I am very much aware of the anxiety which exists. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have gone well beyond the assurance given by my predecessor in deciding to publish the whole report and not simply the conclusions. I would welcome a debate, but that is a matter for the Leader of the House.

    London Airport (Landing Fees)
    Mr. Fortescueasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the nationalised Air Corporations, or any other British airlines, were consulted before the landing fees at Heathrow were raised with his consent.
    Mr. Crosland: All airlines were given notice in January that the proposed increases would take effect on 1st April. I received representations from the Chairmen of both B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., and, as I told the House on 29th March, I replied explaining why, in my view, the increases were justified.—[Vol. 761, c. 346–7.]
    Mr. Fortesare: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House details of the present position regarding the payment or non-payment of the increase in fees by foreign airlines?
    Mr. Crosland: As far as I know—I speak subject to correction—there has not been a non-payment, although there has been a good deal of talk about possible non-payments.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that what he has done is a very bad example to the rest of industry in Britain, taking into account the fact that, apart from the air control, which is excellent, London Airport has some of the worst conditions of any international airport in the world?
    Mr. Crosland: No. What we have done is in no way inconsistent with the advice which we have consistently given to industry, which is that when a firm is already selling all that it can sell abroad at its existing price in foreign currency it should not reduce that price because if it does so it merely loses foreign currency for the country. We have taken exactly that attitude with the British Airports Authority.
    Mr. Robert Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Heathrow is probably the premier international airport and that the charges at London Airport are lower than at a number of the important European airports?
    Mr. Crosland: The matter of charges is very complicated. It depends whether one considers Heathrow in isolation or

    227
    all British airports. But the charges at British airports are mainly dictated by the obligation which Parliament has laid on the British Airports Authority and some other airports that they must operate economically and are not to be subsidised.
    Mr. Lubbock: Would the Minister confirm that there has been no sign whatsoever of foreign airlines moving away from London Airport as a result of the increased charges, contrary to the prediction made by the Tory Opposition in the recent debate?
    Mr. Crosland: It would be highly unlikely that foreign airlines would divert their traffic from Heathrow to airports outside this country because of the increase in charges.
    Mr. Onslow: The fact that this was done without consultation is scarcely likely to attract increased traffic to this country; but, on the right hon. Gentleman's own argument, would he support the raising of harbour dues at British ports?
    Mr. Crosland: It sounds as though the hon. Gentleman has foreign airlines in mind when he talks about traffic being diverted from British airports to other countries. But there is no reason why foreign airline operators should lose anything, because they will continue to pay exactly the same in foreign currency as they pay today. They have no cause for legitimate complaint at all. The only ones with a legitimate cause for complaint are British airline operators who will be paying more; but the extra amount which they will be paying at Heathrow will be infinitely less than the revenue which they will receive as a result of, quite rightly, increasing fares after devaluation.

    London Airport (Noise Regulations)
    Mr. Martenasked the President of the Board of Trade how many airlines have broken the noise regulations at London Airport in the last three months; which three airlines are the main offenders; which are the three main offending aircraft; and what action he has taken against the offenders.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: During the three months to 29th February, out of nearly 13,000 monitored movements there
    228
    were 35 infringements of the requirements. Fifteen airlines infringed, but only Pan American, B.O.A.C. and T.W.A. infringed more than twice. The aircraft most concerned were Boeing 707s, VC1Os and DC 8s. Each infringement is discussed with the airline concerned to find out why it happened. Action can, of course, be taken against operators or pilots who persistently offend without justification. But thanks to the co-operation of the airlines, there have been none such so far.
    Mr. Marten: Can the Minister say whether the number of offences has increased, whether they have been largely at night, and whether they have been consistently with one particular pilot?
    Mr. Mallalieu: On the last question, consistently with one particular pilot, no. I would like notice of the other questions.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that there has been a slight improvement in the noise level at Heathrow recently, and will he do his best to ensure that this is maintained during the summer months?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I am astonished and delighted that my hon. Friend has found some improvement. I will certainly endeavour to do what he asks.
    Mr. A. Royle: Is the Minister of State aware that his answer is unsatisfactory? There are many aircraft breaking the height regulations over Richmond. Will he tell the House what action he has taken against offending pilots, and will he in future report to the House any disciplinary action taken by his Department?
    Mr. Mallalieu: Action which can be taken would be to stop an airline from using a particular airport if it persistently offended, but there has been no case of persistent offence so far. On the height regulations, we monitored over Heathrow nearly 1,100 approaches in the last three months and there were only two infringements.
    Mr. Russell Kerr: Is the Minister aware that there is still widespread feeling among residents in the areas surrounding London Airport that the Government are insufficiently aware of the predicament they face daily and nightly?

    229
    Will the Minister give further attention to doubling the allowance for soundproofing?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are fully aware of the predicament of residents near airports and in the glide path. We have no possibility of avoiding our knowledge of that fact because of the continual representations which have been made. We are looking at the soundproofing scheme again.

    Military and Civil Aircraft (Exports to United States)
    Mr. McMasterasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total value of military and civil aircraft, aircraft engines and aircraft equipment imported from the United States of America in 1967; and what is the total value of British military and civil aircraft, aircraft engines and aircraft equipment exported to the United States of America in 1967.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Information in respect of aircraft and parts and of aircraft engines and parts is given on pages 88, 100, 204 and 247 of the Overseas Trade Accounts for December, 1967. Figures for other aircraft equipment are not separately distinguished in the trade statistics.
    Mr. McMaster: What steps is the hon. Gentleman taking to allow the British aircraft manufacturing industry to match the success of Rolls Royce by selling British designed and manufactured aircraft as well as engines to the United States?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I think that the industry has been doing extremely well.

    Leeds and Bradford Airport (Noise Level Survey)
    Mr. Hileyasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will carry out a noise level survey at the Leeds and Bradford Airport.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: No, Sir. This is a matter for the airport authority, the Leeds and Bradford Airport Joint Committee.
    Mr. Hiley: There is a good deal of anxiety and confusion in the district due
    230
    to the conflicting statements of the various parties interested in the problem of noise. It would greatly assist many of us, including local Members of Parliament, if we had some information which would help us to decide what our attitude should be.
    Mr. Mallalieu: I think that the information could best come from the Airport Authority, but the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that there has now been formed a local association for the control of aircraft noise, which is doing a useful and persistent job.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The hon. Gentleman says that this was a matter for the Leeds and Bradford Airport Authority, but what is the statutory obligation on that authority to carry out aircraft noise tests when it is not willing to do so?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I cannot believe that a consortium of local authorities, as the elected representatives, would not take note of the representations of their constituents who live in and around the district.
    Mr. Onslow: Will the Minister give an undertaking that if a local authority wants to carry out such a survey he will help it?
    Mr. Mallalieu: If a local authority wants to carry out a survey, we will give it all the help that it wants.

    Air Traffic (Growth)
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslopasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will initiate a review of the estimated growth of passenger and cargo by air to and from the United Kingdom during the 1970s, and the change in airport facilities required to accommodate this growth; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Forecasts of air traffic to and from major airports in the United Kingdom are reviewed from time to time. As my right hon. Friend informed the House on 22nd February, the siting of the third London airport is to be the subject of an inquiry. Most airports elsewhere can cater already for a substantial increase in traffic and I am confident that owners will continue to provide adequate capacity.—[Vol. 759, c. 667–74.]
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am grateful for that reply as far as it goes. Does the hon. Gentleman adhere to the 15 per cent. general assumption in the increase in passenger traffic, and what percentage increase is the hon. Gentleman working on for air cargo taken overall trans. atlantic?
    Mr. Mallalieu: The forecast given in the White Paper over the next 10 years was, I think, from 7 per cent. to 12 per cent. per annum. That included both passengers and cargo. I do not think that any distinction was made between them.
    Mr. Robert Howarth: There is now considerable concern about the delay in announcing the details of the Stansted Inquiry. How soon does my hon. Friend expect to be able to make that announcement?
    Mr. Mallalieu: There really is a Question on the Order Paper about that one.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Mr. Hastings: On a point of order. I understand, Mr. Speaker—although I was not in the Chamber at the time—that the President of the Board of Trade made reference to Question No. 50 in response to another Question about London Airport. I wonder, in those circumstances, if the right hon. Gentleman is now prepared to answer it.
  Mr. Speaker: I have had no such request from the Minister.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order. I think that it will be within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that both the Minister of State and the Parliamentary Secretary said in answer to earlier Questions that they could not reply to a Question about investment grants in the hotel industry because there was a later Question on the Notice Paper on the subject. As far as I can see, the only Question relating to this subject is Written Question No. 7, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell). Have you had any indication, Mr. Speaker, that either Minister intends to answer this Question at the end of Question Time?
  Mr. Speaker: I have not had a request from the Minister to answer Question No. 7 at the end of Question Time.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: Further to that point of order. It appears that, perhaps inadvertently, the Minister misled the House on two occasions when it was indicated that an important Question arising out of the Questions which had been reached would be answered later. Is it possible for that later Question to be called?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dun-woody): Further to that point or order, and since I was one of the Ministers involved, it might be helpful if I explained that there was a Question on the Order Paper tabled by the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), but that was not asked because the hon. Gentleman was not in his place to ask it.
  Hon. Members: Where is he?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I am sorry if I inadvertently said that it was a later Question which would be answered. I am not sure at what point in the proceedings I said that, but, in any event, I beg the House's pardon if I put the matter the wrong way round.

RHODESIA
Sir Alec Douglas-Home Sir Alec Douglas-Home (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he will make a statement on the resolution which Her Majesty's Government have submitted to the United Nations Security Council on Rhodesia.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): As the House is aware, our Permanent Representative at the United Nations, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Caradon, yesterday presented a draft Resolution on Rhodesia to the Security Council. I will circulate the text of that Resolution in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained our general position on these matters to the House in his statement of 14th March and in his speech in the debate on 27th March. The draft Resolution put forward by Lord Caradon follows the lines indicated by the Prime Minister.
The first operative paragraph of our draft Resolution requires all member

233
State of the United Nations and other countries to whom the Resolution applies to place the same prohibitions on trade with Rhodesia as we have applied to our own trade. This paragraph of our draft specifically catches imports of Rhodesian goods even if they are only in transit or in what are called "free ports"; this is designed to block some methods of evading sanctions which experience has shown to be of importance.
The second operative paragraph similarly requires other countries to take measures similar to those which we have been applying through our exchange control system.
The parts of the draft Resolution dealing with travel requires States to deny entry to persons relying on a Rhodesian passport as well as to known sanctions breakers and active supporters of the illegal régime. The main point which I would wish to make here is that many countries would find it impossible to deny entry to their own citizens, and we would not propose to do so except in the closely defined circumstances in the draft Resolution. The House will note that several of these provisions contain exceptions on humanitarian grounds.
The remainder of the draft Resolution is concerned with the implementation of the proposed decisions which I have just described. The Secretary-General of the United Nations is charged with a wider supervisory rôle than under the existing resolution and a Committee of the Council would be set up to evaluate his reports.
As has been made clear on many occasions our objective remains the achievement of a just and honourable solution of the Rhodesia problem. I believe that the adoption of this Resolution by the Security Council will be a valuable and important step to that end.
When a Resolution has been passed by the Security Council Her Majesty's Government will introduce to Parliament any legislation, probably in the form of an Order in Council, required to give effect to it so far as this country is concerned. There will, of course, then, as on previous occasions, be an opportunity for Parliament to express its view on that legislation.
I assure the House that, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the debate on 27th March, we are
234
"…prepared to have talks with any responsible persons in Rhodesia who are prepared to discuss with us a settlement on the basis of our agreed principles—people, that is, who can be trusted beyond the letter of a legal agreement to make these principles effective. We shall be prepared to talk, be it soon or later, when those conditions exist ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1968; Vol. 761, c. 1567.]
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman said in the wording of his statement, can he say whether it is the purpose of Her Majesty's Government to induce a moderate frame of mind in Rhodesia, as the Prime Minister declared, so that they may move towards a settlement with this country, or whether it has the vindictive objective of destroying the Rhodesian economy? If it is the latter, do not the Government realise how futile this is so long as the South African and Portuguese supply routes are open? Do the Government realise that if there are any victims they will be African labour, the people we are trying to help?
If the ultimate purpose is to bring Rhodesia back into legal relationship with Britain, can one imagine anything more psychologically stupid than to try to stop people from travelling to and fro? The Government's proposal will, I suppose, have to go forward, but will the right hon. Gentleman at least instruct Lord Caradon to take these travel provisions out of the U.N. Resolution?
Mr. Stewart: To answer the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary, I will not instruct Lord Caradon to take the travel provisions out of the Resolution. On the general issue, there is nothing vindictive about this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If the right hon. Gentleman remembers the policy announced by the Leader of the Opposition he will recall that it was to continue sanctions while negotiations were proceeding, whatever the basis of the negotiations. Is it now to be the policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite that they want to continue sanctions, as their Leader said, but that they do not want loopholes in the sanctions to be closed up and do not want other nations to carry out those sanctions in the same manner as we do?
Mr. Faulds: Will my right hon. Friend take cognisance of the fact that a committee of the U.N. has recommended that

235
moral and material support should be given to the Zimbabwe Freedom Fighters? Will he take action along those lines?
Mr. Stewart: That is no part of the proposals which we have put to the U.N.
Mr. Hastings: Is it not certain that these new measures, if adopted, will fail just as utterly as sanctions have failed up to now? Will not the automatic result be to drive white Rhodesians further into their laager and further towards South Africa? Why will not the right hon. Gentleman answer the question asked by my right hon. Friend and accept that those who will suffer in the long run will be the African people, whom he professes to defend?
Mr. Stewart: It is true that the carrying out of a policy of sanctions will involve hardship for all the inhabitants of Rhodesia. This is something we had to take into account when we decided on a policy of sanctions, and I presume that the Leader of the Opposition took it into account when he said he wanted sanctions to continue. I think that in the light of the tone of some of these questions it should be clear exactly where the Opposition stand on this. The Government's view—[HON. MEMBERS: "Resign.]—I will go on when hon. Members are ready. The Government's view—[Interruption.]
Mr. Winnick: It is the Rhodesian Lobby.
Mr. Stewart: The Government's view is that sanctions should continue. That is the official view of the Opposition. In the light of that it is reasonable to put before the Security Council a Resolution which, first, will make sanctions more effective than they are now and, secondly, will impose on other countries the kind of obligation we ourselves are now fulfilling.
Mr. Thorpe: Since this House, without a Division, agreed to the initial application of sanctions by this country, is the Foreign Secretary aware that, apart from those who are so naive as to think that there is any possibility of successful political talks being held with the present men in Salisbury, this move will be welcomed as logical and long-overdue as an extension to bring down the regime
236
which is a threat to the whole multiracial Commonwealth?
Mr. Stewart: One of the reasons for taking this matter to the United Nations was that it is one which affects the whole of mankind and the peace of the world. I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman that anyone who believes in the policy of sanctions at all must regard this as a logical extension of what we have already done.
Mr. Bellenger: May I ask my right hon. Friend what he hopes to achieve by these proposals? Is he aware that one of the principal sufferers if this resolution is carried will be Zambia? If so, do Her Majesty's Government propose to compensate her?
Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend will find that in paragraph 6 of the Resolution there is reference to the special position of Zambia and certain other landlocked States. We are aware of that. As to what is to be achieved, on the illegal régime's own figures their exports have already been cut down by one-third. Further, I think that an important result that anyone with the narrowest regard for the economic interests of this country should have is that it will require Governments and businessmen in other countries to observe the same restraints as we already observe.
The third thing which I think one would want to achieve is that, while this may be a long task, I believe that it is of vital importance to make quite clear to the whole world that, however long it takes, the illegal régime in Rhodesia will not get recognition, investment or support, but will continue to attract the hostility and detestation of mankind.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Will not the right hon. Gentleman and the Government recognise the difference between economic sanctions Government-to-Government and the restrictions on individuals that are to be imposed through travel, since it is more important than ever in this situation that the relationships as between individuals should be kept open and communications clear so that better relationships can be evolved?
Mr. Stewart: Broadly speaking, the position on travel will be this: people from Rhodesia who are actually citizens

237
of the United Kingdom, whether in addition to Rhodesian citizenship or citizens of the United Kingdom by itself, will be able to come here unless they are known sanctions-breakers or supporters of the illegal régime. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do not know whether hon. Members opposite suggest that known supporters of the régime should have the same freedom of movement as law-abiding citizens. If that is their view I shall be interested to hear it argued on a later occasion at greater length.
People who have only passports issued by the illegal régime would not be able to come here unless, for humanitarian or special reasons, they can show good cause. I must remind hon. Members that, whatever view may be taken of the Rhodesian question, this is a rebellion and there ought to be a return to legality that where a situation like that occurs there are bound to be personal restrictions.
Mr. Orme: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members opposite who have been criticising the lack of effect of the present restrictions should welcome the proposals that Her Majesty's Government have now made? Is he aware that the tobacco growers are showing great restiveness about the Smith régime and that this is an indication that if we step up the sanctions now we can bring this régime to heel?
Mr. Stewart: Yes, what my hon. Friend says about the tobacco growers is certainly true. I agree with him also that one would have expected the party opposite, unanimously I think—some of them do—to regard this as a logical extension of the policy to which officially they are committed.
Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman has been asked several questions about the purpose of these measures. Can he confirm so that we can be absolutely clear that the Government's intention now is to use these measures, in the words of the Leader of the Liberal Party, to bring down the régime? Is it also clear from what the: Foreign Secretary said that the Government do not contemplate any further negotiations whatever with the present régime, but are solely concerned to bring them down?
Mr. Stewart: That would not be a correct formulation. As has already been made clear on the Question of any further consultations, the Government's position was made quite clear in the passage of the Prime Minister's speech which I quoted and to which I referred. If these measures cause such a movement of opinion in Rhodesia as to make possible consultation within the terms of what the Prime Minister said, so much the better, but if, in Rhodesia, there is nothing but a flat refusal to consider the six principles, then does the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else want the illegal régime to be successful in that defiance?
Mr. Shinwell: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there has been any indication recently by so-called moderate elements in Rhodesia—to use the language of right hon. Gentlemen opposite—or any other element seeking to enter into negotiations with Her Majesty's Government with a view to an honourable settlement on the basis of the six principles? Has there been any such indication? In the absence of any such indication, what alternative is there for Her Majesty's Government than to proceed with the Resolution in the Security Council?
Mr. Stewart: I must agree with my right hon. Friend that there have been no indications of that kind. The illegal executions and the publication of what is called a draft constitution but what is, of course, in law, merely a statement by some private persons, do not encourage one to believe that there is at present a mood of moderation.
Mr. Turton: Before drafting the Resolution did the right hon. Gentleman have any consultations with those countries which are at present evading sanctions? Does he not realise that without their co-operation his policy and he himself are becoming a laughing-stock?
Mr. Stewart: As is usual, indeed almost invariable, in the drafting of any important Resolution for the Security Council there were consultations with practically all those concerned.
Mr. Ronald Atkins: With regard to the continual flouting of the sanctions policy by Portugal, is my right hon. Friend aware that the only reason we have suffered the Portuguese alliance for

239
so long is that Charles II married Catherine of Braganza? Is there any reason whatsoever why we should take his marriage any more seriously than Charles II did?
Mr. Stewart: Much as I admire the terms of my hon. Friend's question I think that they carry it a bit wide of my statement, but on the point of substance we recognise that our Resolution does not envisage—and deliberately does not envisage—a direct and complete confrontation with certain countries in breach of sanctions. I think that to be right, because I have always taken the view that while, in the United Nations, we must do all we can to support the international rule of law, we ought not to advocate or vote for things we know we cannot do. This Resolution in its present form goes as far as we believe at the present stage we can possibly go, but it is a substantial advance on the previous situation and, as I said, I believe it is a valuable step in getting a just and honourable settlement.
Braine: If the House is to accept from the right hon. Gentleman that the object of these new, stringent regulations is to persuade the Rhodesians to return to the path of legality, how can that possibly be so by making it difficult for Rhodesians of any kind to visit this country? Is not that policy not only inhumane but politically inept and, in fact, self-defeating? Will not the right hon. Gentleman heed the advice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) and instruct Lord Caradon to delete the reference to this particular sanction?
Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. As I made clear, the Resolution does not prevent Rhodesians of any kind from visiting this country. I made clear in a previous answer in what circumstances it would or would not be possible for Rhodesians to visit this country. If it were a question of somebody who genuinely and sincerely came here to try to promote a just and honourable settlement within the principles, there is nothing in the Resolution to preclude that.
Mr. Whitaker: First, why were not these minimal measures taken a long time ago? Secondly, if individual companies such as the Portuguese or South
240
African airlines violate the United Nations Resolution, will retaliatory boycotts be introduced at the United Nations?
Mr. Stewart: I must give a negative reply to the last part of that question, in line with the reply I gave just now to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Ronald Atkins). As to why a Resolution in this form was not introduced earlier, all hon. Members who have experience of the United Nations will know that the process of getting agreement and gradually substituting in the world the rule of law for the mere private wish of each nation is a laborious process. It does not always proceed by logical steps. It has to be handled according to what can be achieved at each stage.
Mr. Fortescue: In his original statement the Foreign Secretary stated—I quote—"We do not propose to deny entry of our own citizens". How can the House believe a word of that when as recently as last February the Government took hasty legislative action to do exactly that in respect of the Kenyan Asians?
Mr. Stewart: The House debated that issue and decided to give support to that Measure, for reasons which were explained at the time. I made it clear in answer to a previous question that people who possess citizenship of the United Kingdom will not be denied entry by virtue of this Resolution, unless they are known sanctions-breakers or supporters of the illegality.
Mr. William Hamilton: Were the views of the members of the Commonwealth either sought or given on the terms of the Resolution? Further, can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will reject with contempt the advice offered by those with a long record of appeasement, white racialism and anti-United Nations sympathies over the years?
Mr. Stewart: I certainly find coming from some quarters opposite criticism of the Resolution which is evidently based on dislike of international action of any kind through the United Nations and on sympathy with the objects of the rebellion. All I can hope is that those

241
views are not generally shared by the Opposition. There were consultations with many countries, both within and without the Commonwealth, before the Resolution was drafted.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: To put the record straight, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Opposition voted against the extension of mandatory sanctions. This is a fact which he will find if he looks up the record. We made the proposal that sanctions and U.D.I. should run concurrently, in the context, though, of a negotiation genuinely pursued. This is where the Government are falling down.
Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman says "a negotiation genuinely pursued". Does he feel that what has recently been said in Rhodesia about a draft constitution gives any support to his hopes that there is a desire to pursue genuine negotiations? Does not he remember, as I have said, that his Leader wanted sanctions to continue? What I find difficult to understand is why, if they really believe that, they object to a Resolution which makes the sanctions more effective and which will require business interests in other countries to be as restrained by them as are business interests in this country.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.
Following is the text of draft Security Council Resolution tabled by the United Kingdom:
THE SECURITY COUNCIL,
Recalling and reaffirming its resolutions 216 (1965) of 12th November, 1965, 217 (1965) of 20th November, 1965, 221 (1966) of 9th April, 1966, and 232 (1966) of 16th December, 1966.
Noting with great concern that the measures taken so far have failed to bring the rebellion in Southern Rhodesia to an end,
Deploring the recent inhuman executions carried out by the illegal régime in Southern Rhodesia which have flagrantly affronted the conscience of mankind and have been universally condemned,
Reaffirming that, to the extent not superseded in this resolution, the measures provided for in resolutions 217 (1965) of 20th November, 1965, and 232 (1966) of 16th December, 1966, as well as those initiated by member states
242
in implementation of those resolutions, shall continue in effect,
Reaffirming its determination that the present situation in Southern Rhodesia constitutes a threat to international peace and security,
Acting in accordance with Articles 39 and 41 of the United Nations Charter,

1. Decides that States members of the United Nations shall prevent:

(A) The import into their territories of all commodities and products originating in Southern Rhodesia and exported therefrom after the date of this resolution (whether or not the commodities or products are for consumption or processing in their territories, whether or not they are imported in bond and whether or not any special legal status with respect to the import of goods is enjoyed by the port or other place where they are imported or stored):

(B) Any activities by their nationals or in their territories which promote or are calculated to promote the export of any commodities or products from Southern Rhodesia: and any dealings by their nationals or in their territories in any commodities or products originating in Southern Rhodesia and exported therefrom after the date of this resolution, including in particular any transfer of funds to Southern Rhodesia for the purposes of such activities or dealings:

(C) The shipment in vessels or aircraft of their registration or under charter to their nationals or the carriage (whether or not in bond) by land transport facilities across their territories of any commodities or products originating in Southern Rhodesia and exported therefrom after the date of this resolution:

(D) The sale or supply by their nationals or from their territories of any commodities or products (whether or not originating in their territories but not including medical supplies, educational equipment, documents, books, periodicals, newspapers, cinematograph films containing only news or other informative or educational matter, television films containing only such matter, other material for cinematograph, television or radio purposes containing only such matter or, in special humanitarian circumstances foodstuffs) to any person or body in Southern Rhodesia or to any other person or body for the purposes of any business carried on in or operated from Southern Rhodesia: and any activities by their nationals or in their territories which promote or are calculated to promote such sale or supply:

(E) The shipment in vessels or aircraft of their registration or under charter to their nationals or the carriage (whether or not in bond) by land transport facilities across their territories of any such commodities or products which are consigned to any person or body in Southern Rhodesia or to any other person or body for the purposes of any business carried on in or operated from Southern Rhodesia.

243

2. Decides that states members of the United Nations shall not make available to the illegal regime in Southern Rhodesia or to any commercial, industrial or public utility undertaking in Southern Rhodesia any funds for investment or any other financial or economic resources and shall prevent their nationals and any persons within their territories from making available to the regime or to any such undertaking any such funds or resources and from remitting any other funds to persons or bodies within Southern Rhodesia except payments exclusively for pensions or other humanitarian, educational or information purposes.

3. Decides that states members of the United Nations shall:

(A) Prevent the entry into their territories, save on exceptional humanitarian grounds, of any person travelling on a Southern Rhodesian passport, regardless of its date of issue, or on a purported passport issued by or on behalf of the illegal regime in Southern Rhodesia:

(B) Take all possible measures to prevent the entry into their territories of persons whom they have reason to believe to be ordinarily resident in Southern Rhodesia and whom they have reason to believe to have furthered or encouraged or to be likely to further or encourage the unlawful actions of the illegal regime in Southern Rhodesia or any activities which are calculated to evade any measures decided upon in this resolution or in resolution 232 (1966) of 16th December, 1966.

4. Decides that states members of the United Nations shall prevent airline companies constituted in their territories and aircraft of their registration or under charter to their nationals from operating to or from Southern Rhodesia and from linking up with any airline company constituted or aircraft registered in Southern Rhodesia.

5. Calls upon states members of the United Nations to take all practicable measures to discourage their nationals from emigrating to Southern Rhodesia.

6. Decides that all states members of the United Nations shall give effect to the decisions set out in operative paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this Resolution notwithstanding any contract entered into or licence granted before the date of this resolution save that landlocked states of Southern Africa shall be obliged to carry out those decisions only in so far as their position permits.

7. Calls upon all states members of the United Nations to carry out these decisions of the Security Council in accordance with article 25 of the United Nations Charter, and reminds them that failure or refusal by any of them to do so would constitute a violation of that article.

244

8. Urges, having regard to the principles stated in article 2 of the United Nations Charter, states not members of the United Nations to act in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 1 to 6 of this resolution.

9. Calls upon states members of the United Nations or of the specialised agencies to report to the Secretary-General by 1st June, 1968, the measures each has taken in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 1 to 6 of this resolution.

10. Requests the Secretary-General to supervise and report at regular intervals to the Council on the progress of the implementation of resolution 232 (1966) of 16th December, 1966, and of this resolution, the first report to be submitted not later than 1st July, 1968.

11. Calls upon each state member of the United Nations or of the specialised agencies to report to the Secretary-General the quantity and value of its trade in such commodities or products as may be so indicated.

12. Requests the Secretary-General to seek from any state member of the United Nations or of the specialised agencies such further information regarding the trade of that state, or regarding any activities that may constitute an evasion of the measures decided upon in this resolution, as he may consider necessary for the proper discharge of his duty to report to the council in pursuance of this resolution.

13. Calls upon all states members of the United Nations or of the specialised agencies to supply such further information as may be sought by the Secretary-General in pursuance of this resolution.

14. Decides to establish a committee composed of all members of the Security Council which shall, for the purpose of enabling the council to secure full implementation of resolution 232 (1966) and of this resolution:

(A) Consider the reports made to the Council by the Secretary-General in pursuance of those resolutions:

(B) In consultation as appropriate with the Secretary-General, evaluate the information contained in the Secretary-General's reports (including reports of cases where states have failed to supply information requested by the Secretary-General) and assess its significance for the implementation of those resolutions:

(C) In the light of its consideration of the Secretary-General's reports, advise the Secretary-General with respect to the further exercise of his functions under those resolutions:

(D) Report from time to time to the Council on the discharge of its functions under this paragraph.

15. Decides to keep this item on its Agenda for further action as appropriate in the light of developments.

RHODESIA
Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely,
"the decision of Her Majesty's Government to instruct Lord Caradon to submit proposals to the United Nations in order to extend sanctions against Rhodesia in a way which can only injure innocent people without in any way achieving anything constructive or helpful in healing the breach between Rhodesia and the United Kingdom."
The instruction is at present only in draft. If it goes beyond draft and becomes a clear instruction, it will be too late for the House to express its views upon the matter. In those circumstances, I suggest that this is a matter which justifies the Adjournment of the House so that the House can debate the matter.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House wider Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely,
"the decision of Her Majesty's Government to instruct Lord Caradon to submit proposals to the United Nations in order to extend sanctions against Rhodesia in a way which can only injure innocent people without in any way achieving anything constructive or helpful in healing the breach between Rhodesia and the United Kingdom."
The House will remember that under revised Standing Order No. 9, agreed to on 14th November, 1967, Mr. Speaker is directed to take into account the several factors set out in that Order, but to give no reasons for his decision. In the light of the new provisions, I now rule that the hon. Member's submission does not fall within the provisions of the revised Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

LAND COMPENSATION
3.58 p.m.
Mr. Richard Body: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to compensation for land acquired compulsorily.
The object of my Bill would be to ensure that everyone whose house or land is taken away compulsorily should receive fair compensation in the form of the full market value, that market value to be assessed on the basis of a willing purchaser paying a willing vendor. More than 1,500 authorities now have the power of compulsory purchase. One of them is the Land Commission, potentially the most powerful of all.
This Parliament has clothed the Land Commission with authority to acquire any land which, in its own opinion, is suitable for building. We on this side look forward to the abolition of the Land Commission and that power, but we agree, none the less, that the principle of compulsory purchase must continue. Indeed, if it did not, there could not be motorways, and neither could there be slum clearance.
It is in respect of slum clearance, however, that great hardship is caused to thousands of individuals, many of them owners and occupiers of poorer properties. There can be scarcely a constituency where there are not at least some such individuals affected. At present, as the House knows, site value only is paid in compensation, plus a small "well maintained" allowance if a house is kept in good repair, but this allowance cannot be more than twice the rateable value. Thus, it can often happen that someone who has purchased a house for £2,000 in an area which becomes subject to slum clearance will receive only 10 per cent., and sometimes even less than that, of the purchase price when the property comes to be compulsorily acquired.
In such circumstances, it is impossible for an owner to purchase another similar property in the area. Moreover, if his house was acquired on mortgage, as such houses usually are, there is real hardship for him in repaying the money once he has lost his house. Thus, the owner-occupier is often driven to become a local authority tenant, and sometimes he is

247
driven also to receiving Supplementary Benefit.
The Housing Acts of 1957 and 1965 have gone some way to alleviate the position, and yesterday, spiking my guns today somewhat, the Government published their White Paper "Old Houses into New Homes", in which they propose that full compensation should be given to owner-occupiers of property becoming subject to compulsory purchase order yesterday or thereafter. It is proposed in the White Paper also to double the "well-maintained" allowance. This is an improvement, but it still would not enact the principle that, if someone's house or land is taken away compulsorily, he should receive full market value. In my submission, there should be no exception to that rule.
In every case, when a citizen is deprived of his home, he should receive not a penny less than full market value for the property. Any compensation less than that cannot be just, and for that reason I ask the House to give me leave to introduce my Bill.
4.5 p.m.
Mr. Julius Silverman: I oppose the Motion, but I do not intend to divide the House against it. For many years, under several Governments, I have pressed for more adequate compensation, especially for owner-occupiers. There are many anomalies and injustices, some of which the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) has outlined. He was not quite right in describing some of the features of our compensation provisions. For example, it is not merely site value now, but is annual gross value, and people who bought their houses between 1940 and 13th December, 1955, are entitled to full market value as compensation. None the less, many injustices remain. There is the question of the basis of assessment of site value, which may be completely different in the case of the individual owner-occupier from that in the case of someone who owns a block of property. There are other questions, too.
I am glad that the Government intend to tackle all these problems, as they have stated in their White Paper. Paragraph 46 of the White Paper specifically——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must oppose the Bill.
Mr. Silverman: I am opposing the Bill, Mr. Speaker, on the ground that it is now unnecessary in the light of the Government's White Paper, and it is for that reason that I wish to refer to paragraph 46:
"The Government consider that the site value basis of compensation should be retained as a general rule. But they propose that additional payments should be made to owner occupiers of unfit houses dealt with under slum clearance powers, subject to the conditions indicated below; in the case of unfit houses acquired for clearance, this will have the effect of bringing the total payments up to full market value".
That, I understand, is what the hon. Gentleman wants. It is what I have sought for a long time. It has always been my view, however, that this is not a proper subject for private Member's legislation but that, in view of the financial implications for both local authorities and the Government, it should be dealt with by the Government. I have pressed the Government, as other hon. Members have, to introduce suitable legislation. According to the White Paper, the Government intend to introduce such legislation, and it will, so far as I can see at present, meet all the demands for adequate compensation which we have made over the years.
The Government go on to say in the White Paper that,
"unfit tenanted houses should qualify for larger payments".
This will not merely be of benefit to the owners, but can be of benefit to tenants as well, though I must say that there are certain anomalies still outstanding in the present legislation which we shall have to go into when the White Paper is debated.
In the circumstances, as the Government are proceeding with the matter, I hope that it will not be necessary for the hon. Gentleman to introduce his Bill, especially as the legislation, when introduced, will have retrospective effect, operating in relation to any clearance order initiated as from yesterday. I hope that this will be an element of retrospective legislation which all hon. Members will accept.
In so far as the hon. Gentleman's Bill is a propaganda effort to bring the injustice to owner-occupiers before the

249
House, I applaud it. But I applaud still more the measures proposed in the Government's White Paper, which will, I hope, remove a long standing injustice to owner-occupiers and small men who have invested their life savings in property.
Although there has been a good deal of publicity about the Government's proposals generally as set out in the White Paper, Old Houses into New Homes, with particular reference to the renovation and improvement of our older areas, many newspapers have not noted the important and radical alteration in the law relating to compensation to which I have referred. I welcome it, and I hope that it will never be necessary for the hon. Gentleman to introduce his Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at the commencement of Public Business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Body, Mr. Eyre, Mr. Percival, Mr. Gurden, Miss Quennell, Mr. Grieve, Mr. Biggs-Davison, Mr. J. E. B. Hill, Mr. Clegg, and Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine.

LAND COMPENSATION
Bill to amend the law relating to compensation for land acquired compulsorily, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 1st May, and to be printed. [Bill 134.)
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  FINANCE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.10 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Roy Jenkins): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I do not propose to go through the Bill Clause by Clause, describing every nuance in relentless detail. The subsequent proceedings will provide opportunity for detailed discussion of this kind. I therefore propose this afternoon to concentrate on the Bill's main themes and in this review briefly to discuss some of the more important proposals and the main lines of criticism that have been developed since I made my Budget statement five weeks ago yesterday.
  The main purpose of the Bill is, of course, to enact the proposals contained in my Budget speech for finding the very large amount of additional revenue that I thought it essential to raise in present circumstances. We debated the general aims and structure of the Budget during the four days of debate that followed my statement, and there is little I could add so soon after the Budget to the general review which I then gave to the House of our economic situation and prospects and the requirements with which they faced us.
  What I think I can fairly claim is that while there has naturally been a good deal of criticism of individual proposals there has been a wide measure of acceptance both inside and outside the country that the total effect of the Budget measured up to the needs of the situation.
  I start with the main revenue-raising measures, although not in immense detail. I described them in my Budget speech and they were extensively discussed in the Budget debate. I should like, however, to deal with two aspects which have attracted perhaps rather more critical attention than others. First, it has been suggested that I was too hard on the motorist and, therefore, on the motor industry. It must be borne in mind that the motorist is now a very large section of the community. Moreover, the increases bear at any rate some relation to capacity to pay, in that by definition

  251
  they fall directly only on those who can afford to run cars.
  The petrol duty falls heaviest on those who can afford to run more powerful cars, and the total effect of the increases can be exaggerated. A motorist who has a car that does 40 miles to the gallon and who drives 7,500 miles per year will be paying, on average 4s. extra a week. That is not a negligible amount, but it is not a demonstrably unfair share of the additional burdens I have had to impose.
  Similarly with the Purchase Tax. For a car selling at a retail price, including tax, of £600 before the Budget the additional tax will be about £24. If it is bought on hire purchase, there will be an extra £8 on the deposit, with an extra 14s. on each monthly instalment. Those are not insignificant amounts, particularly for people on modest incomes, but they are not out of reason.
  Those increases may no doubt lead to a slight reduction in domestic purchases of motor cars. But it would be exaggerating this out of all proportion to claim it as a threat to the prosperity of the motor industry, particularly provided the great advantages which that industry can be expected to reap in overseas markets from devaluation are fully exploited. I was encouraged to see that production for export totalled 93,000 cars in March, easily the highest on record, and more than twice as much, allowing for seasonal variation, as in the month before devaluation. Confidence about export prospects is very firm right across industry, according to a recent Financial Times Survey of Business Opinion. It was a major element in my Budget strategy to make room for the realisation of those prospects.
  The other main criticism of the revenue-raising aspect of the Budget has centred on the proposed increase in the Selective Employment Tax, which is covered by Clause 46. I think that my Budget speech made it clear that I approached the prospect of an increase in S.E.T. with some reservations. But I could not in the present circumstances forgo the additional revenue the tax was capable of yielding, and in all the discussion I have seen too little attention paid to the tax's merits, which certainly
  252
  exist, as with all taxes, and too much to its demerits.
  First, it clearly is a major source of revenue—£325 million in 1967–68 and getting on for £500 million in a full year with the proposed increase——
  Sir Harmar Nicholls Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough) rose——
  Mr. Jenkins: I have hardly started on my speech.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware of the contradiction between himself and the President of the Board of Trade on the hotel industry? The grants to be given will be more than outweighed by the disincentive the extra tax will give that great industry. From the hotel point of view, we shall be worse off.
  Mr. Jenkins: That interruption indicates the unfortunate effect of interrupting too precipitately, because I have something to say about the hotel industry. It will come more appropriately at that stage. The hon. Baronet might have guessed, as I was about to say a few things about S.E.T., that I was not leaving the subject after my first sentence.
  Second, S.E.T. is a tax on services, which escaped very lightly, compared with goods, before the tax was introduced. S.E.T. broadens the base of taxation and is more progressive than most of our taxes on expenditure on goods. Even at the new rates its incidence can hardly be regarded as exorbitant. The rates of Purchase Tax on goods vary from 12½ to 50 per cent., and the duties on spirits and tobacco are much higher still. By comparison, even after the Budget increase, S.E.T. will represent only 5 to 6 per cent. of expenditure on services. It cannot be alleged that I have subjected services to a disproportionately high rate of tax.
  Third, recent figures of unemployment in the distributive trades, in miscellaneous services and in the construction industry suggest that the tax has encouraged the more effective and economical use of labour in those sectors, and the resulting improvements in productivity should release resources for deployment in other sectors of the economy.
  Fourth, the existing system of collection may seem cumbersome. Indeed,

  253
  when is possible I should like to get away from it, but it is undoubtedly cheap. The estimated cost of the administration of the tax at the new rates will be 0·4 per cent. of the net yield in a full year. This compares with just under 1 per cent. for Customs and Excise duties and just under 1·4 per cent. for Inland Revenue taxes.
  There have been complaints of anomalies and problems of classification. Complaints of this kind are to some extent the inevitable result of any attempt to be selective, but in fact the tax has worked surprisingly smoothly. Nearly 250,000 establishments have been registered for premium and refund, and the number of appeals against refusals to register particular establishments has been about a half of 1 per cent.—one appeal for every 200 registrations.
  There has also been criticism of the alleged effect of the tax on the cost of living. In fact, the net effect of introducing the tax on the price of various direct services to consumers was around 1½ per cent., which means, in terms of the general index of retail prices, an increase of less than 0·1 per cent. There may also have been a small effect on the price of goods sold, but this could hardly have been very significant. Taking into account the yield of the tax, this means that the effect of S.E.T. on the cost of living has been only a small fraction, perhaps less than one-fifth, of the increase caused by indirect taxes, such as Purchase Tax or Excise duties, giving an equivalent yield.
  It is too often forgotten that the real comparison should be not between Selective Employment Tax and no tax, but between Selective Employment Tax producing a substantial net yield and any other indirect tax producing a similar yield. It is accepted that in present circumstances tax has to be raised. The only question is which is the best way of raising it.
  I have suggested that S.E.T. works reasonably smoothly, broadens the base of indirect taxation, has probably helped to improve productivity in the industries on which it falls as a net burden, costs one-third the amount of other taxes in administration, and has one-fifth the effect on the cost of living. The onus
  254
  is on those who have criticised the increase in the tax to suggest another way of raising a similar amount of revenue that can match these advantages.
  That does not mean that I regard the tax as it stands as perfect or immutable. As I told a group of my hon. Friends representing the Co-operative movement who came to see me the other day and argued a case with great force, I shall approach Mr. Reddaway's report, which I hope to receive during next year, with an open mind and great readiness to listen to any constructive criticisms and suggestions which may come from his inquiry.
  During the Budget debates hon Members showed considerable interest in the concession of a refund of S.E.T. to hotels in certain rural parts of development areas, for which provision is made in Clause 47 and in Schedule 17 of the Finance Bill. I am sure that the House will wish me to say a word or two about this. We have proposed this concession for two reasons. First, we have been alive to the fact that, while our regional policies, and, in particular, the regional employment premium, do a good deal to promote industrial expansion in the development areas, the response may be much slower in areas which do not have a very strong industrial base.
  The second reason for the concession is that whereas all other service industries cater to a greater or less extent for the local population the hotel industry mainly brings money into an area from outside. An improved hotel industry can thus at the same time stimulate local employment, increase incomes and improve what I can perhaps describe as the regional balance of payments.
  We have, however, thought it right not to extend the S.E.T. concession to the more industrial parts of the development areas, where we can look to expansion from manufacturing industry and where R.E.P. is of substantial importance. Nevertheless, hotels in these areas will benefit from the proposed hotel development incentive scheme, under which there will be a higher rate of grant for development areas as a whole.
  Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: I have listened carefully to the arguments of the Chancellor, some of which I accept. Does he not recognise

  255
  that he has left out of account areas, particularly in the South-West, which were hard hit by this tax, and that there is no countervailing advantage?
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: The same applies to the Midlands.
  Mr. Jenkins: I am aware that there are difficulties of this sort. It is for this reason that I have made the hotel concession to which I have just referred. The hotel concession applies to the less developed, the less industrial, parts of development areas, including a substantial number of employment exchange areas in the South-West Region.
  Apart from the main theme of raising revenue, I should like to identify three other subsidiary schemes in my Budget proposals, which are each reflected in the Finance Bill. The first is that of reducing tax avoidance. Every Finance Bill within my recollection has contained some provision to close loopholes which ingenuity has discovered in tile tax law, but this Bill, I believe, contains more than most.
  One example is to be found in Clause 22, which imposes a charge to tax where a taxpayer chooses to accept a scrip issue instead of a cash dividend. Hon. Members will be aware that some companies have in recent months offered these so-called stock dividend options to their shareholders. A shareholder opting to take the scrip was enabled to avoid Income Tax and Surtax, and the benefit was usually split between the company and the shareholder, with the Revenue as the loser. The Bill provides that from Budget day onwards the taxpayer who is offered the choice of scrip or cash, and who takes scrip, will be treated for tax purposes as though he had taken the cash.
  Another example is to be found in Clause 28, which withdraws the exemption for short-term gains on British Government securities within the so-called "neutral zone". The reason for withdrawing the exemption is that it has been grossly abused. Taxpayers of means were buying large holdings of securities in the neutral zone. By buying stock ex-dividend and selling cum-dividend just under six months later, they obtained six months' interest in tax-free capital form. It was not reasonable to allow
  256
  this to continue. I repeat what I said in my Budget speech, that the similar exemption for long-term capital gains is not affected.
  I ought to say something more about the new provisions for groups of companies in Part II of Schedule 12. In moving the Second Reading of last year's Finance Bill, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary mentioned the possibility that advantage might be taken of provisions enacted for the convenience of groups of companies. Cases have now arisen in which these provisions have been abused, and we propose to take remedial action.
  The devices that concern us take broadly two forms. One of these consists, as a first step, in either transferring an asset between members of a group or carrying out a share exchange scheme by which the asset passes from one company to another. The shares in the transferee company are then sold outside the group. The other device is to drain a group company of its assets and claim a loss on the realisation of the shares in the drained company, although nothing has been lost so far as the group as a whole is concerned.
  Paragraphs 14, 16 and 17 of Schedule 12 are directed against the first type of device, paragraph 18 against the second. Broadly, their purpose is to ensure that a gain to the group is not diminished or an artificial loss created for capital gains purposes.
  The second subsidiary theme of the Budget and hence of the Bill is that of improving the administration of the tax system, with benefit to the taxpayers and the tax collectors alike. For example, Clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill, the principle of which I did not mention in my Budget speech, provide the legal framework for a new system of Customs clearance of passengers and their baggage, and are a contribution to efficiency, combined with economy in manpower, in the Customs and Excise Department.
  At present, the basis of Customs control over incoming passengers is that each individual is questioned, however briefly, by a Customs officer. It is a straightforward and effective system for the restraint of smuggling, and I make no claim that we have found a magically better system. As passenger traffic grows,

  257
  and it is growing very quickly, the system of individual questioning means that either the number of Customs officers has to grow or else the queues become longer; and we want to avoid both of these consequences, without opening the door to rampant smuggling.
  We therefore propose to adopt the general principle of a "self-selection" system, under which a passenger who has something to declare goes through one channel and a passenger with nothing to declare goes through another channel, where he will be liable to spot checks.
  Clause 6 places the obligation upon the passenger to "select himself" by declaring what he ought to declare. Surprisingly enough, the existing Customs taw does not include this obligation, but only an obligation to answer questions. We do not, however, want to oblige passengers to declare the small quantities of goods that are traditionally allowed duty-free; so Clause 7 enables these allowances to be legally defined and taken outside the scope of the arrangements to be set up under Clause 6. We also propose, in Clause 7, to give legal effect to the flat-rate system that the Customs have been using for the last few years to collect the amounts due from passengers where they exceed the allowances by only a moderate extent, instead of making detailed and time-consuming calculations of duty and Purchase Tax.
  I should emphasise that the selective system regrettably cannot be introduced immediately. Besides the legislative framework, a good deal of physical preparation is needed by way of alterations in the layout of Customs halls, and so on. But I hope that the House will welcome this step towards modernisation of administration in a field that affects a large and increasing number of people.
  Another example of this kind of administrative improvement is to be found in Clause 26, which exempts from Capital Gains Tax—though not from the short-term tax—gains of £50 or less in any year. The exemption will apply to individuals, but not to companies or trusts. In the case of married couples the exemption will apply to their combined gains. There is a marginal provision to taper off the exemption where the gain is a little in excess of £50. These small cases have caused a considerable amount of work both to the accountancy profession
  258
  and to the Revenue, and the proposed exemption should yield a significant saving of effort.
  The third of the subsidiary themes in the Finance Bill to which I wish to draw the attention of the House is that of equity. This has obviously not been a year in which I could propose major reliefs of taxation, but I have thought it important to try to make the tax system itself somewhat more equitable in certain respects, and to spread the incidence of additional taxation as fairly as possible.
  One positive relief did seem to me to be justifiable even in the circumstances of this Budget. I refer to the proposal in Clause 14(1) which will help elderly people living on comparatively small incomes by raising the income limits for the age exemption for people over 65 from £401 to £415 for single persons, and from £643 to £665 for married couples. This will carry further what was done in last year's Finance Act, when the age exemption limits were raised to their existing levels to take account of a part year's increase in basic National Insurance retirement pensions.
  What we are proposing with regard to the taxation of the investment income of minors and for life assurance will, in my view, make the tax system more fair.
  Clause 15, together with the provisions in Schedule 8, implements my proposal that the investment income—that is to say, all income other than earned income—of minor children should be aggregated with their parents' income for tax purposes with effect from the year 1969–70. The basis for this proposal is that of equity between families. The family is a spending unit, and it makes no difference for tax purposes how any investment income that the husband and wife may have is divided between them.
  My proposal will mean that the family as a whole will not gain a tax advantage by reference to the way the family's investment income is divided between parents and children. We say, in effect, that where a child has investment income it is part of the family pool of income in very much the same way as the parents' investment income, and it is fair to treat it as part of the parental income when determining the tax to be borne by the family.
  It follows that the parent/child aggregation will continue only until the child reaches the age of majority or he or she

  259
  marries when, in effect, a new taxable family unit is set up. Aggregation will also cease when the child ceases full-time education and starts to work full time. This will avoid the sort of problem which was raised by the hon. Member for Wan-stead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) in the Budget debate of taxing as the parents' income the investment income of a child who had left home and was earning substantial amounts on his own.
  My proposals in Clause 16 for life assurance are also designed to produce a fairer result by limiting the tax reliefs for life assurance policies to the field that they are meant to cover. Life assurance is the established way by which people with little or no capital of their own can build up resources for the support of their families on retirement or death and, for that reason, it has long and reasonably enjoyed special tax reliefs. But these tax advantages have attracted the attention of people who see them as a means to build up what is nothing more than ordinary investment with the help of tax relief—in this case, by the addition of some life cover—at little cost to anyone but the Revenue. I will not spend time in describing these schemes, for their promoters have been blatantly frank in their advertisements.
  This had to be stopped, but we have no desire to hamper genuine life assurance. What we have done, therefore, is to set out further conditions to which a policy must conform if it is to enjoy tax reliefs. Hon. Members will find the conditions set out in detail in Schedule 9 to the Bill. Apart from pure term assurances, the essentials are that the term of the policy must be at least 10 years, and the premiums must be paid annually or at shorter intervals and with a reasonably even spread. Moreover, in the case of an endowment assurance with a benefit on death, the death benefit must be a capital sum of at least 75 per cent. of the total premiums payable under the policy.
  Where the policy does not satisfy the prescribed conditions, the broad consequence will be that it does not qualify for Income Tax relief on the premiums, and the net proceeds of the policy—that is, the payments made on maturity, surrender or any other chargeable occasion, less the premiums paid—will come into computation for the purposes of a Surtax charge.
  260
  Clauses 18 and 19, with which Schedule 10 goes, remove another long-standing anomaly by bringing into tax liability what are described as post-cessation receipts. Certain professional people—not only barristers—have been able to escape tax on earnings of their profession received after they ceased to practise, which were not taxed when they were earned because their accounts were drawn up on a cash basis. These are not necessarily the final year's earnings: they may be more, or they may be less, depending on how quickly the bills were sent out and paid. They will now be taxed for the year in which they are received, which will not necessarily be the first year of retirement. Some payments may not come in until a later year.
  Clause 19 provides a measure of relief in relation to this charge for those who are now aged over 50. When first announced, this proposal for relief appeared to be regarded by some of my hon. Friends as over-generous, and others have since thought it inadequate. That does not prove that we have got it completely right, but it does not prove the contrary, either. However, I would emphasise that the relief is of a transitory nature only. It is the age now and not the age at the date of future retirement which counts, and only those who are now over 50 will benefit.
  I believe that very many people will regard these proposals as a reasonable way of correcting a very long-standing defect in our tax laws. I do not think that they can fairly be criticised as ungenerous, even by those who have—perhaps a little unwisely—relied on the defect remaining for ever.
  In the realm of Estate Duty, also, we have pursued the principle of fairness by seeking to put more reasonable limits on the way in which people can reduce the tax burden on death by disposing of their property in their lifetime. In Clause 30, for example, we propose to extend the gift period from five years to seven years. But we have thought it right not to deprive gifts made before Budget day of reductions in liability for which they had already qualified. Therefore, the Clause does not apply to gifts made more than five years before Budget day and provides that gifts made more than two years before Budget day, which have qualified for a percentage reduction

  261
  of the charge under the existing law, shall retain the benefit of that reduction.
  Similarly, we have proposed in Clause 33, to put an end to the benefit which attaches at present to policies of insurance effected in such a way that the proceeds on death form a separate estate and are not aggregated with the rest of the property passing on the death for the purpose of determining the rate of duty. In 1954, Lord Butler placed some modest restrictions on this rule of non-aggregation. However, since then the rule has been exploited increasingly in order to gain Estate Duty advantages on a scale which can no longer be accepted. Accordingly, Clause 33 provides, in effect, that such policy moneys should be fully aggregable with the deceased's own estate.
  Our proposals here have no effect on the ordinary straightforward case where a man takes out a policy in favour of his wife, paying premiums of modest amounts within his income over a number of years. I must emphasise that, because there has been a good deal of misunderstanding about it. Policies of that sort ordinarily do not give rise to any claim for Estate Duty on the husband's death, nor will they do so under the new rules. This is because of the limitations to the Estate Duty charge which nave existed since 1959. The charge is limited to the proportion of the proceeds attributable to the premiums paid in the gift period before the death, but excluding premiums which qualify for exemption under the rule for normal and reasonable gifts. Premiums of reasonable amounts paid out of income will have qualified for exemption under that rule and, if paid after 19th March, 1968, will continue to qualify for exemption under the new definition of normal income gifts in Clause 32. Therefore, the great majority of policies will continue to enjoy the same protection as at present, apart altogether from the special concession to which I shall come later.
  For policies which are chargeable to duty, the Clause provides, in general, that the new rule of aggregation shall apply in the case of a death after Budget day, regardless of when the policy was taken out. This has been attacked strongly by some commentators and, also, was attacked in the House in the Budget debate as retrospective taxation. It is not
  262
  so. It is simply the application in this instance of the well-established rule that liability to Estate Duty is determined by the law at the date of death and not by the law existing at the date when the deceased entered into the relevant transaction.
  In applying this rule, I know that I can rely on the support of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), who defended it powerfully in 1954 when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury in connection with this very question of the aggregation of insurance policies. In case he has forgotten his words, powerful though they were, and in case some hon. Members who have joined our counsels more recently have never heard them, for the benefit of the House perhaps I might repeat them.
  In a totally analogous situation and in reply to an allegation that the legislation was retrospective, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  …this is not retrospective legislation. It is a fact, if one troubles to look back over the precedents, that in the field of Estate Duty, broadly and generally, though I would not say without exception,"—
  the right hon. Gentleman is always very accurate—
  "the date of the death has been treated as the operative date for such purposes as this. That goes back to the earliest days of Estate Duty, to the Finance Act, 1894, which applied in the case of all deaths not taking place before the Act came into force…
  "I would ask my hon. Friend"—
  some of them were being difficult about this issue even then—
  "to appreciate the difficulty that one gets into if one adopts as a general principle the contrary argument and suggests that all arrangements that are made on the basis of the existing law cannot be altered and only future arrangements can be made. It would mean that any form of tax evasion or avoidance which was discovered by human ingenuity—from time to time human ingenuity does exert itself on this diverting pastime—could be checked only in respect of new arrangements. I must remind the Committee that not only would that interfere seriously in the operation of the tax, but it would really be contrary to the practice which has generally been adopted for a good many years by Governments of all political colours."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th June, 1954; Vol. 529, c. 967–8.]
  Mr. John Hall: But would not the Chancellor agree that a Treasury argument does not get any better by repetition?
  Mr. Jenkins: I was about to say that, although the argument has had the benefit of repetition since 1894 in various cases, because of the respect I have for the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames and because of the burdens which I know a Financial Secretary to the Treasury carries in defending proposals, I would not propose to leave him in complete isolation. I therefore wish briefly to remind the House of what the noble Lord, Lord Dilhorne, then Attorney-General, also said, this time in 1962.
  The noble Lord said:
  "It is claimed that any person who enters into a transaction would be entitled to have the Estate Duty law frozen for his benefit as it stood at the time of the transaction. That, I think, is a startling proposition, and I find it difficult to believe that anyone entering into such transactions really expected that to be the case. Nor do I think it would be reasonable for them to have expected it to be. I am sure that their qualified advisers would warn them of the possibility that the law might be changed."
  I am not sure whether he was referring to himself or not—
  "I do not feel that a case can be made out for exemption from such legislation on the grounds that they got in first and bought when Estate Duty was not leviable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1962; Vol. 658, c. 1348.]
  I do not rest primarily on such distinguished precedents, which I know do not altogether impress my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). I am not resting on the words of anyone, but on the common sense of the matter. To say that changes in the law relating to Estate Duty can become effective only when all existing arrangements have run out would mean that reforms would take 20, 30, even 50 years before they became fully effective. This would virtually rule out any approach to lower rates and fewer loopholes. I do not believe that any Chancellor would accept such a situation and I certainly do not.
  But the Government recognise that there may be some cases where policies have been entered into in the past and the premiums would not fall within the rules for normal gifts. In these cases, there would be an increased burden under the new provision for aggregation in cases where it might be said that the provision for the wife and children was nevertheless comparatively modest and
  264
  that a charge operating on all deaths after Budget Day would work too harshly. To take account of this, we propose to maintain the old rule for pre-Budget policies in cases where the total value of benefits secured under all pre-Budget policies within the charge to duty on the death does not exceed £25,000.
  In view of these arguments and the substantial concession I have made, I am sure that the great majority of hon. Members will admit that the fears expressed about this provision have been entirely misplaced.
  Mr. Michael Shaw: Would the right hon. Gentleman comment on the differential in relation to the amount of benefit arising under such a policy—the amount chargeable to Estate Duty—which is very much smaller in most cases than the total amount of the policy which is coming into the £25,000 limitation? It seems to me to be a somewhat harsh differential.
  Mr. Jenkins: It is only the proportion of the proceeds attributable to premiums paid in the gift period, and, in those cases, only those where the premiums exceed a reasonable amount, that will come into charge. However, this is a detailed point which perhaps we can pursue in Committee.
  Mr. Joel Barnett: At present, one-sixth of total income is treated as an amount allowed for premium purposes. Is this the figure my right hon. Friend has in mind as being treated as "normal"—as coming out of income?
  Mr. Jenkins: In certain cases relating to these policies it is slightly more complicated than that. It has to be shown that it is a reasonable provision which the man could make out of his income and that there is provision for a reasonable basis of assessment by the Inland Revenue. That is different from where the one-sixth is laid down rigidly. However, should I prove to have misinformed my hon. Friend about this, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will clear the point up later.
  The imposition of the special charge, dealt with in Clauses 36 to 45, also reflects the need to establish a measure of

  265
  fairness in the distribution of the burden of additional taxation. The increases in indirect taxation represent a considerable, although in my view not excessive, burden on wage and salary earners in the coming year. The burden on those who can supplement their incomes out of capital is relatively less severe and it is equitable that they should be called upon to make some additional contribution.
  The special charge, which will be payable only on investment incomes of more than £3,000, and will become substantial only above about £5,000, will be a tax on those who, generally speaking, have a substantial amount of capital behind them. There is no doubt that people in this position have long been favourably treated by the tax system. The relative position of the big owner as against the big earner has greatly improved over the past 50 years.
  There have been suggestions that the special charge will discourage savings. Even if this were likely on general grounds—and it seems rather improbable as regards the amount of savings as opposed to the form in which they are paid—the fact that, as I said in my Budget speech, the charge could not be repeated except at long intervals means that the normal propensity to save is unlikely to be affected.
  It is not unfair to raise an additional contribution from those with substantial capital assets, and the means by which I have chosen to raise it, given that the charge is for this year only and is not a permanent addition to our tax system, are equitable and will not I believe have damaging longer term effects.
  These, then, are the main themes of the Finance Bill—raising a substantial amount of revenue, reducing tax avoidance, and making improvements in the convenience and fairness of the tax system. The Bill includes a number of other provisions, including that for increasing the prize money on Premium Savings Bonds, and also a Clause removing the existing statutory impediments to a national lottery, which will enable hon. Members to decide the case in principle for or against a national lottery. I do not propose to anticipate the detailed discussion of these other provisions which will take place at later stages.
  Mr. Iain Macleod: The Chancellor has said that the Clause relating to the national lottery will enable the House to come to a decision on a free vote. It is the intention of the Government to take the Committee stage of the Bill upstairs. There is no debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part…" during a Report stage. Is he envisaging a special debate, with a free vote, on this issue, quite apart from the other proceedings on the Bill?
  Mr. Jenkins: I am anxious to have a reasonably full debate and I think that it should be on the Floor of the House and not upstairs. There will certainly be a free vote on this side of the House and I imagine that that will also be the case on the benches opposite. I would be happy to discuss with the right hon. Gentleman, as I would certain other matters, how we can conveniently arrange such a debate, either by Recommittal or on Report. It is my intention that the issue should be debated to the greatest convenience of the House as a whole.
  To sum up——
  Mr. John P. Mackintosh: Before my right hon. Friend sits down, would he say a little about Clause 47 and the basis of the selection of employment areas for Selective Employment Tax refunds for hotels, because this is a problem being actively canvassed and the basis of his argument would help? Perhaps he has already done so?
  Mr. Jenkins: I know that many of us often attend parts of debates and hear parts of speeches, but I began my speech by dealing with this issue and trying to explain to the House that we made the selection essentially on the basis that we could not rely on expansion of industry to supply employment in such areas, and we endeavoured to draw a distinction between areas with some reasonable industrial base which would, therefore, benefit from the R.E.P. and those which would not.
  I do not claim that it is a perfect distinction. Whenever one makes a concession of this sort one creates anomalies. I do not think that that is a reason for not making a concession when there is a reasonable case for so doing.

  267
  To make my third attempt to sum up, this is a Bill which gives legislative effect to a hard but necessary Budget, and I have no hesitation in commending it to the House for a Second Reading.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, can he tell the House whether he is aware that, despite the charming way in which he has moved this Second Reading, he has introduced a Budget which is the heftiest kick in the teeth that the taxpayers have had?
  4.52 p.m.
  Mr. Terence L. Higgins: The House will appreciate the courtesy of the Chancellor in moving the Second Reading of his own Finance Bill—a somewhat unusual course but one which I am sure is appreciated. It will not go unnoticed that, while he began by saying that he would not deal with the Bill Clause by Clause, in the event he covered quite a number of Clauses. There are still some of those Clauses for which we shall have no satisfactory explanation before Committee stage, because there is no Explanatory Memorandum attached to the Bill. None the less, this kind of explanation is always useful when a Bill is to be considered in Committee.
  On this occasion as never before, we find ourselves in a situation when a majority of the House at the Committee stage will be concerned with what I think the Americans would call a spectator sport. It will not be able to take part. The maxim that there should be no taxation without representation has been eroded by the way in which we find ourselves forced for the first time, to consider a Finance Bill in Committee upstairs.
  This will place a very great burden on those who have the privilege, and it must be regarded as such, of serving on that Committee. At the same time, it makes it very difficult for Members of the House of Commons to put forward the views which their constituents represent to them individually. This is something which we clearly ought to point out at this stage and to stress that it is not, in our opinion, a satisfactory position, particularly as we are still to have only one day for this Second Reading debate. It does not look as though there is any real prospect of matters being fully discussed on Report.
  268
  This brings me to the point which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in his closing words with regard to the position of the lottery Clause. We do not find the explanation which he has given on the procedural side very clear. As we understand it, there is already a Clause in the Bill—Clause 50—but it would not be possible to debate that Clause as such on Report because there will be no "stand part" debate. Are we to understand that the Government, having put this Clause in the Bill in the first place, are now to introduce a further new Clause on Report? Are we to be given additional time to debate the lottery Clause, presumably a full day, because it raises important points of principle, on which a free vote is to be held? Will this time be in addition to the time already expected for discussion of other Clauses? I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to clarify this point for us in his reply.
  Given that the Committee stage is to be upstairs, this debate assumes an unusual importance. It is right and proper that we should put the detailed points which the Chancellor has mentioned in a broader context than he did. We are concerned effectively with the principles of the Bill. In one sense, this is not so much a Finance Bill which is a script of Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark as Hamlet without the ghost, because inevitably behind the Budget judgments which the Chancellor has made we have the shadow of the incomes policy.
  We still find ourselves, when asked to judge whether this is a reasonable Finance Bill, unaware of what the Chancellor's quantitative estimates have been with regard to the effectiveness or otherwise of the prices and incomes policy. Despite the clarion call which he made about his much-vaunted forecasts, we still do not have any estimate of what he thinks is likely to happen either to money incomes or prices. It is very difficult for the House to judge what weight it should give to the Chancellor's arguments. There was some disappointment, given that he had chosen to open the debate, that he looked at the whole matter in such a narrow context. I hope that even at this late stage, we may have some answer on this point from the Financial Secretary.
  I want now to consider a minor question of incomes policy which affects the basic principle which all Chancellors

  269
  have adopted, namely, that a Finance Bill shall embody what is the law. It seeks to put into legal format what the actual position is over company and personal taxation. I must say as strongly as I can that it is very unfortunate indeed that something which has become a nasty habit of the Department of Economic Affairs, namely, to create the impression that what was the Minister's wish was the law, seems to be extending into the Treasury with regard to dividend restraint. A few days ago we saw a rather remarkable letter in The Times Business News from the Fnancial Secretary which began as follows:
  "In his letter you printed on April 17, Mr. Turner asked for an explanation of the Treasury's rulings on the dividends of Rio Tinto and Senior Economisers."
  He went on:
  "Both decisions were in line with the guidance given by the Chancellor…"
  A situation is created now with regard to dividend restraint where Treasury Ministers are giving the impression that what they are saying is legally binding. [Interruption.] I have looked at the words very carefully and, while they are framed in the disarming manner which the Financial Secretary invariably adopts, the letter is headed "Rulings" and his opening sentences refer to rulings. There is no legislative basis for the Government doing this. There is no dividend control in the 1966 and 1967 Prices and Incomes Acts, as the hon. Gentleman above all others will remember, having chaired that particular Committee. Yet the Government are seeking to give this impression.
  It should be made as clear as possible that it is an area in which the Treasury does not have legal authority or authority from this House, and it is very undesirable indeed that the Treasury, which must rely on people looking at the Finance Acts as they stand, looking at this Finance Bill as it stands, should suddenly create an impression that they have have powers which they do not in fact possess.
  Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: Would my hon. Friend agree that not only is the Treasury trying to exert some sort of legal responsibility which it has not obtained from the House, but it is also trying to exert it in a most extraordinary manner? We have had cases
  270
  where one company, Pergamon Press, has been alloyed to increase its dividend over and above the permitted limit, and another company has been refused permission, although in each case both companies had forecast that they would increase their dividends. There has been no legal basis for this whatever. Is it not urgent that we should end such abuses?
  Mr. Higgins: I entirely agree. I do not want to go into too much detail, but the inconsistency of the Treasury wishes is important. None the less, in this Bill, we are discussing matters specifically set out in legislation which fulfil the traditions we expect of Treasury Ministers.
  There were very good reasons why the Government did not include dividend restraint in the two previous Acts, because it strikes at a very important point with regard to principle. Clearly, it is merely window dressing, because if the profits are not distributed the shares tend to increase in value, and it is possible to take a profit by selling them anyway. It is undesirable that the Government should be discouraging distributions when distributions may go into new investment in other areas where there is growth and higher profits and, very likely, in present circumstances into firms making exports. We are moving towards the position which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, when discussing the effects of Corporation Tax on distribution, described as the survival of the fattest. This is an unfortunate development in the context of this Bill.
  Mr. Barnett: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that in the context of the present economic situation we should allow unlimited dividend distribution and at the same time restrict wage increases, or is he arguing that we should allow unlimited wage increases, dividend increases and price increases?
  Mr. Higgins: The hon. Gentleman knows my views perfectly well. I do not propose to go into this matter in detail now. It is perfectly true it is a mistake to suppose that the prices and incomes policy has any element of fairness in it. To distort the allocation of resources in the economy by dividend control in such a way that all incomes

  271
  will be lowered, simply in order to provide window dressing and secure support for the Government's prices and incomes policy is absurd. Statistics clearly show it has failed compared with the policy previously followed on a voluntary basis.
  I turn to the basic principle which underlies the Budget and the Bill. We accept that the object of the Bill must be to balance aggregate supply and demand in such a way that the economy is kept on an even keel. But, in practice, the application of this principle this year means that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is determined to reduce consumption. The object of his exercise is to reduce the standard of living of the people to achieve his economic ends.
  It is important to spell out why we are confronted with the kind of Bill we are considering today. First, there is the question of timing. The hallmark of the Government's economic policy has been the way in which they have mistimed the application of economic measures, dating back to the original Declaration of Intent and the failure of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer to take deflationary measures in time, to the abortive 1966 measures, the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year clearly let the economy get out of control, the way in which he adopted an optimistic attitude, his "Sunny Jim" speech which led us into the tragedy of devaluation, and all the cuts which have followed.
  I will not weary the House with recounting the kind of speech which we were hearing this time last year, although I find it strange to see the Chief Secretary sitting on the Government Front Bench, having listened to all the optimistic views of the Chancellor last year and finding himself obliged to justify all the measures necessary to correct the mistakes made at that time now.
  On the question of timing, I want to pose a very serious set of questions to the Chancellor. There has been some change, although the right hon. Gentleman did not recognise it today, between the economic situation at the time of his Budget and his latest statement. We have had some additional figures on the trade side and the unemployment side.
  272
  On the trade side, the kind of headlines which we get from The Times is, "Ominous or just disappointing?" The right hon. Gentleman will concede that the figures are certainly disappointing and possibly ominous. On the unemployment side, the kind of headline which we read is "Unemployment rise puzzles the analysts".
  Looking at the forecast which the Chancellor has published, we have, on the one hand, an estimate that productivity will rise by about 3 per cent. and, in the main forecast, an estimate that output is likely to rise by about 2·7 per cent., which would suggest, contrary to what the Prime Minister said yesterday, that the trend in unemployment would be rising. It is possible to rationalise the Prime Minister's view by saying, "We will keep the productivity figure at 3 per cent. and take the other more optimistic forecast of output which the Chancellor has published, a 3·3 per cent. as against a 2·7 per cent. rise in output. That will give us a figure showing that unemployment is falling." This is what the Prime Minister is saying, and I presume that the Chancellor agrees.
  But, if that is so, the Prime Minister is making also taking the optimistic forecast about exports. It is possible that he is right. It could depend to a large extent on the view that one takes about the prospects of world trade.
  It could also be that he is now taking an optimistic view about the rise in productivity. If that is so, we need to ask what will happen to the level of unemployment if we make the same assumption about growth, but feel that capacity will grow faster because of the increase in productivity. This means that the level of unemployment will rise still further. If we consider both points and the Government are proved over-optimistic about output but we are in a situation in which productivity increases faster than expected, the prospects for unemployment are very serious indeed.
  The House would generally concede that it was not possible, from the Prime Minister's answers yesterday, to ascertain precisely the Government's views, and it is irrational to take part of the main forecast and part of the optimistic forecast and marry them together. I hope that we shall have from the Financial

  273
  Secretary a clearer explanation of the Government's view. If there is one danger which the Government have been in time and again it is in not doing the right thing because they have taken too optimistic a view of this or that economic indicator.
  The second reason why we find ourselves confronted with this Bill is concerned with the question of money supply. It seemed from one of the remarks which the Chancellor made in his Budget speech that the reason why he conformed to the borrowing requirement imposed by the I.M.F. was, not because he was determined to do so for reasons of policy, but because the credit of this Government was so bad that they had great difficulty in borrowing. This raises the whole question of money supply and the Government's commitments.
  The third reason why the Government confront the House with the Bill concerns the question of Government spending. It is not possible to divorce the Finance Bill, which is designed to raise revenue, from the question of what the revenue is to be spent upon.
  When speaking in the Budget debate on 25th March, at columns 928–9, the Chief Secretary pointed out that public expenditure rose by an average of 4·6 per cent. a year in the last five Tory years, and that it will rise, he expects, by an average of 4·4 per cent. a year in the five years of Labour Government. What he did not say was that, in the same five Tory years to which he referred, the economy grew by 4 per cent. a year and personal savings, in real terms, practically doubled. This subsequently appears from a Government reply, whereas in the five Labour years economic growth seems certain to be scarcely more than an average of 2 per cent., even on the optimistic assumptions which the Government are now making, and personal saving has tended to stagnate. In the absence of any further encouragement to saving, which is a substitute for taxation—and we are not likely to see much increase in saving in the present inflationary situation—this brings out that we cannot have effective social policies or firm priorities if our economic failure is as bad as the failure of the present Government over the last few years.
  Mr. A. Woodburn: When the hon.
  274
  Gentleman talks about public expenditure, does he mean that the Government are spending that money on consuming goods and labour or is he including in public expenditure the transfer of private spending to spending through the Government? In the latter case, there is no increase in spending. It is simply a transfer of spending by the private individual to spending by the Government.
  Mr. Higgins: I will deal with the question of aggregate demand later. The point I make is that much of the spending that has been going on has been uncontrolled. We pointed this out at great length in the debate on the Votes on Account. The points which we made on that occasion were valid. I was glad to see that this was picked up in the Press, particularly by Mr. Peter Jay in an article in The Times of 4th April this year headed,
  "Now let us take Mr. Diamond by the hand hand (gently)."
  We have the greatest respect for him. I think there is some case for going into this point in some detail and quoting a few passages from that article. Mr. Jay quotes from Mr. Diamond in HANSARD of 25th March:
  "'The next question asks why we have failed to control public expenditure, in the sense that we have allowed it to grow faster than intended. The short answer is that we have not; we are precisely on target. In two years' time I expect to be announcing that we have hit the bull's eye (and later)…we are, I repeat, back on target—on our original target.'"
  Mr. Jay goes on to say:
  "Attack may well be the best form of defence; but this is ridiculous."
  I think I should stress that the reason why we have a Finance Bill of such severity today is largely because of the way in which public spending has not been controlled. Mr. Jay goes on:
  "What, after all, were all those agonising cuts about, if at the end of the day the total is still quite untouched? 'On target' seems scarcely the mot juste for the solution to an equation whereby the National Plan minus July 27, 1965, minus July 20, 1966, minus July 24, 1967, minus November 20, 1967, minus January 16, 1968, equals the National Plan."
  The final point which needs to be made is that all these cuts affect the initial priorities which the Government assessed and, therefore, their overall plan on the social side is grossly distorted. This

  275
  results in a bad allocation of resources that the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) mentioned a few moments ago when he intervened.
  The next point of principle is related to the one that I have just made. The Government feel that there is a fundamental point of principle and a strong case for taxing business more in order to subsidise particular industries in one way or another. This is diametrically opposed to the view which we take. We believe that it is wrong to have what has frequently been described in the House as a Welfare State for Industry. It may be, as the Financial Times has stated on several occasions, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not appear to be against profits. In one sense what is wrong with the Chancellor's policy is that he is not sufficiently in favour of losses. We believe both in the incentive of profits and the effect which threat of losses may have on efficiency. We do not think that the right policy is to increase taxation consistently on all businesses in order to give hand-outs to some businesses. This is the wrong approach in a number of areas. We have stressed on many occasions the importance which we attach to the need for building up infrastructure in regional policy compared with a policy of handouts which is unlikely to have a significant effect relative to the cost, and probably will have an adverse effect, on many intermediate or grey areas.
  Mr. Michael Foot: Can the hon. Gentleman give us some instances of the occasions when he and his party have voted against hand-outs to private industry so that we may judge what may have been the economic consequences?
  Mr. Higgins: The I.R.C. is a clear case in point. I go further and refer to the clear commitment made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), that we do not believe that expenditure on S.E.T. premiums or on regional employment premiums is the most effective regional policy. I do not want to go into details now, but we made a clear stand. We are not prepared to see a constant increase in taxation so that the Government can allocate money in the way in which they
  276
  think would produce the right pattern of industry. We are convinced that the right way to allocate resources is by the encouragement of profits, because that is likely to reflect the wishes of the consumers. This is not the same as a welfare state for individuals. It is right and proper that inefficient firms which make losses should, if necessary, go out of business.
  Mr. Woodburn Mr. Woodburn rose——
  Mr. Higgins: I do not wish to give way to the right hon. Gentleman again. I invariably give way, but I appear to be going on far longer than I anticipated, and, of course, we have only one day for the debate.
  I want to make one other point about tax increases on which I hope we shall have an answer from the Financial Secretary. It is not insignificant to note that the proportion of taxes, rates and contributions as a percentage of G.N.P. has been rising very fast under this Government. The figure for taxes, rates and contributions as a percentage of G.N.P. in 1964 was 32·8 per cent. and the figure in 1967 was 38·2 per cent., which is a very substantial increase. Could the Financial Secretary in his reply tell us what the figure will be after the proposals in the Finance Bill have been implemented? This is a very important point.
  Mr. James Dickens: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that this rise in the proportion of G.N.P. taken up by taxation is characteristic of all advanced industrial countries over the past five years? Whereas in Great Britain there was no significant increase in the decade until 1964, in other countries there was. We have recently caught up with them in this respect.
  Mr. Higgins: I would be inclined to say that we had gone back to their position rather than caught up with them. The percentage figure is radically affected by the growth in G.N.P. That is a major reason why that percentage has gone up so much under the present Government.
  I turn now to the effect on the cost of living of the Government's proposals in the Finance Bill, because there is no doubt that their attitude towards prices is ambivalent. If we look at the figures it is significant that the Index of Retail Prices rose by nearly half a point between

  277
  February and March this year to a new peak of 122·6. The index shows an increase of 1·8 per cent. since devaluation November, 1967; of 5·1 per cent. since the freeze began in July, 1961; and of 13·6 per cent. since October, 1964. We now confronted with a situation where devaluation will continue to have a very considerable effect.
  It is important to point out, when considering the Finance Bill and the need for it, that the Government made a conscious decision to ensure that the effect of devaluation was asymmetrical. As a result of the Revenue Act its effect in encouraging exports was less than its effect on imports. It is the Government's clear policy to make devaluation work through an increase in the imports and the cost of living, rather than by an in crease in exports. It introduced an element of asymmetry which was not necessary in the first instance. As a result of the Bill we shall see a further increase in the cost of living, and I hope that we shall be given a clearer indication than we have previously had of exactly what estimates the Government have made of that.
  I find it difficult to ascertain any principle in relation to some of the specific measures. For instance, the special levy which will have, the wrong effect on aggregate demand, in regard to married women's property, and the aggregation of minors, where the confusion is still considerable despite the explanations which we have had. None of these seems to have been based on a clear point of principle, unless it be to bolster up support for the incomes policy by appealing to the Left wing, and to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. In terms of economic policy these measures seem devoid of any rational whatsoever. This is something which we will need to consider during the later stages of the Bill.
  On the question of Purchase Tax, I think it is significant that, apparently on a point of principle, the right hon. Gentleman has decided to increase the number of rates and to widen the spread of the bands. As Mr. Brittan said in an article in the Financial Times shortly after the Budget:
  "This is in sharp contrast to the whole direction of changes under previous Chancellors, which was to reduce the number of bands, narrow the differences between them… The aim was to transform the Purchase
  278
  Tax gradually into something more like a general sales tax."
  He went on to say, and this is an important point of principle:
  "Other things being equal, a uniform rate of taxation is preferable on goods. A wide spread means that the State is interfering with consumer choice by pushing it artificially in certain directions; and in extreme cases it can be very unfair between two people of identical incomes but different tastes."
  It is unfortunate that the Chancellor of it, the Exchequer should have adopted this principle.
  There are other more detailed points. The Chancellor will no doubt have seen that some of the technical Press has suggested that Clause 22 seems to have been misdrafted, and perhaps the Financial Secretary will comment on this. Mr. Davenport in the Spectator this week said that Clause 33, as far as the aggregation of minors and insurance policies was concerned, was likely to have unfair effects.
  It is unfair that we should be presented with a Budget which places increasing stress on the S.E.T. It is not necessary to set up the Reddaway Committee to abolish the tax. The anomalies which pervade it have been clearly set out in the House time and time again. We on this side of the House are clear that the S.E.T. is a mistake, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West said, we intend to abolish it at the earliest possible moment.
  Mr. Barnett Mr. Barnett rose——
  Mr. Higgins: I would rather not give way I am coming to my peroration.
  It seems that the principles on which the Chancellor has based his Finance Bill are open to very severe objections indeed. I have endeavoured this after noon to list what I believe are the right principles which should be adopted, but the fact is that the severity of the Bill is due almost entirely—indeed, I think entirely—to the mismanagement of the economy over the last three years, and the persistence of the Government in pursuing certain policies in the field of taxation and redistribution, particularly on the company side. We believe that the Government's policies are likely to result in lower economic growth and greater inefficiency. We do not believe that this policy of high taxation which

  279
  the Government are adopting, partly because they have to, but partly because it fits in with their view of economic affairs, is likely to result in the well-being of this country in the future. For that reason, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will join me in opposing the Bill which we do not believe is based on right principles, and which does not provide any solution to the problems of this country.
  5.25 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Foot: I had not intended to participate in the debate, but the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) has provoked me. I should therefore like to make some comments upon what he said and some comments too, on the Budget and the Finance Bill which is now before us.
  Compared with the atmosphere in the House yesterday, the situation is somewhat placid. It may have been noticed by some hon. Members that it is impossible for the House to maintain emotional tension at a high peak for more than 24 hours at a time. That possibly accounts for the low temperature in this debate, but I think that it would be wrong for the Government or the House to think that the matters which we are debating today arouse less controversy and feeling in the country than those which we debated yesterday. In many respects I regard today's debate as of even greater importance than the emotionally charged matters we discussed yesterday, and I hope, therefore, that we shall have a debate in which we range over the whole field of economic policy, even though the Chancellor of the Exchequer started his speech by confining his remarks to the specific matters in the Bill.
  I approach the matter in that sense not because I wish to criticise the Chancellor in particular. As I have said to him before, I bear him no ill will whatsoever. It is true that occasionally he has strayed from the strict path of Socialist rectitude, but that hardly makes him a marked man on the present Treasury Bench. I therefore approach him with at any rate as much comradely feeling as I have towards the rest of them. It is in that spirit that I shall come to him in the course of my remarks.
  In his peroration at any rate, the hon. Member for Worthing purported to
  280
  say that he was presenting an alternative policy. The major criticism by his party refers to the whole question of the scale of public expenditure, and the charge that public expenditure is out of control. If we were to remove that part from his speech, and that part from the case put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite, they would have very little left. I do not say that they would have nothing left, but they would certainly have very little.
  That has been the major part of their case. They say that the principal reason why we have got into these difficulties is that public expenditure has got out of control. According to them, if measures had been taken earlier for controlling public expenditure we would not have had a Budget of this severity. I do not think that it is straining the facts to say that the principal argument of the Opposition relates to this question of the scale of public expenditure.
  Their argument is based on the fact that the Government drew up plans for the future scale of public expenditure on such items as pensions and education on the basis of an expansion in our economy of 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. per annum over a number of years, and when they discovered that they could not get that rate of expansion they took no sufficient steps at an early enough date to cut back the level of expenditure. I do not think that that is a misrepresentation of at any rate a considerable part of their argument.
  If that is the case, the Opposition have a responsibility to say how much they would lop off in each of these categories. If that is so, they would have to cut much more than the Government proposed in their January measures from the education and health programmes and the rest.
  That certainly divides us from hon. Gentlemen opposite, because my criticism of the measures for controlling public expenditure was that, in some respects, particularly as they referred to prescription charges and the raising of the school leaving age, they were too severe. I do not criticise the Government because, having discovered that the pace of expansion was not proceeding as fast as all of us desired, they still went ahead with their public expenditure programmes. They were right to do so. They might have said more plainly that

  281
  they might have to raise taxation to do it and it would have been wiser it they had never made statements before the election about not raising taxation. I made no such statements, because I thought that they were unwise when made in the 1959 and 1964 elections.
  As a Socialist, I believe that it is right to alter the balance between private and public expenditure. In proceeding with their original plans for expenditure in many of these fields, the Government have acted correctly, although they did not have the desired scale of expansion. But for hon. Gentlemen opposite to talk about cuts is to ask the House and the country to accept something which they have not tried to argue.
  In the debate yesterday, they demanded, often justly, more items of public expenditure. I too, would like to see more expenditure on housing and other facilities in the Midlands and other areas with a heavy immigrant population, but that demand came from hon. Gentlemen opposite. It would add to public expenditure and put it more out of control, if that is how to describe these matters. But it is an improper description, because the proper definition is not public expenditure being out of control, but the amount of expenditure which the House decides to devote to these social purposes.
  We are prepared to defend to the limit the Government's proposals for increasing the proportion of public expenditure. The Government do not have to apologise to us for that. They have to apologise for much, but not for that. Therefore, I hope that, when the Opposition think again of protesting against the programmes of public expenditure, they will present detailed estimates to the House of what cuts in the social services and social provision they think would be necessary to put their proposals into effect.
  I suggest that neither the House nor the country should listen again to any Opposition spokesman, however eminent, saying that public expenditure is out of control, unless he performs this exercise and fulfils this condition.
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): Knowing my hon. Friend's feelings and views and knowledge of the facts, I feel sure that he will
  282
  not leave that point without referring to defence expenditure, where the party opposite made it clear that they would spend much more than we proposed.
  Mr. Foot: My right hon. Friend has anticipated what I had in mind, and I shall have something to say to him on this topic as well as to those on the other side of the House. There is one field of which it might be said that public expenditure is out of control or is being gradually brought under control—on the advice of this quarter of the House——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. We are discussing the Finance Bill and not the question of general public expenditure. Even in the Second Reading debate, it is customary to make some reference to the Bill.
  Mr. Foot: I should have thought, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that every word which I have uttered so far was strictly in order, particularly after——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. With great respect, it is not in order to continue, in a Second Reading debate on the Finance Bill, a general debate on public expenditure. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to say what he has said because the subject was raised by the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, but, in the interests of order, we must debate the contents of the Finance Bill.
  Mr. Iain Macleod: Further to that point of order. I rarely leap to the defence of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), but this is a matter, I am sure you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of the general interests of the House. We are discussing a Finance Bill, which is the legislative clothes for the Budget, which depends, almost more than anything else, on the level of expenditure planned by the Government, on which there can be different opinions. With great respect, surely arguments about public expenditure must be in order on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have just said that, to some extent, it is relevant, as the last two speeches have shown, to refer to the general level of public expenditure, but, on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, it is customary to refer to the contents of the Bill rather than to

  283
  allow the debate to become a general debate on public expenditure.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. That Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to some extent restricts us in doing our duty. Unless they can relate the Finance Bill to the whole economic situation, the Opposition cannot explain the damage which this Budget will do.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I appreciate that, but a number of hon. Members will presumably wish to debate the contents of the Finance Bill.
  Mr. Foot: I will do my best to abide by your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I must urge one point. I believe that, in previous years, the debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill has gone almost as wide as that on the Budget itself. Indeed, one of the purposes, surely, of the Second Reading debate is that the debate on the general direction of budgetary policy can be resumed after four or five weeks, during which the House and the country have considered their implications.
  If the question of the scale of public expenditure or of detailed items in which it might be suggested that economies should be made were ruled out, all that would be left for debate is the revenue-raising part of the Bill, which would make the discussion entirely lopsided. However, I am sure that, if I stray again, you will pull me up——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. With respect, the hon. Gentleman is not correct in saying that, in previous years, the debate on Second Reading of the Finance Bill has been as wide as the general debate on the Budget Resolutions. It never has. However, this is a matter for the House, and, as I have said, references to the general level of public expenditure may be made, but I should not have thought that the whole debate should degenerate into a debate on that subject, because other hon. Members will wish to debate the contents of the Finance Bill.
  Mr. Foot: I will confine myself, in dealing with expenditure, to the one matter to which the hon. Member for Worthing and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary called my attention. There is one field in particular in which more
  284
  severe economies are possible than the Government have already made, and which would enable them to introduce a Finance Bill whose revenue-raising provisions would therefore need to be less severe than those of this one. I refer, of course, to defence expenditure.
  Many of us are very glad that the Government have taken steps curtailing defence expenditure east of Suez and in the Middle East, but I was extremely concerned to hear the Prime Minister say in a speech only a few days ago that we should look for no further relief from defence cuts as a contribution to the solution of our economic problems, at a time when we are still burdened with the consequences of the pledge about the maintenance of huge Armed Forces in Germany until the end of the century. This pledge imposes on the finances of this country a huge burden in diplomatic circumstances entirely different from those which prevailed when the pledge was originally given. It was an absurd pledge to give, and it is wrong that the Government should pursue the policy laid down by the Prime Minister of thinking that no further substantial cuts in the level of defence expenditure can be sought.
  A second argument was raised by the hon. Member for Worthing and is an issue of great importance, affecting the verdict which we will have to give on this Finance Bill. I mean the whole question of the level of unemployment which the Finance Bill is supposed to envisage. I suggest that one of the main parts of the reply which the Government give at the end of the debate should be devoted to this subject. It is of paramount importance.
  Most of us in the Labour Party, at any rate, and many hon. Members opposite have, ever since the Full Employment White Paper of 1944, held it to be a principle of financial policy that the level of unemployment is one of the chief criteria in deciding whether a Budget is right or wrong. We have said that the level of unemployment and employment which a Budget or a Finance Bill seeks to secure is probably the major test about which we are concerned.
  Discordant views about this matter have been presented from different quarters. We want to know what level of unemployment over the next 18 months the Government have envisaged in these

  285
  proposals. Do they still take the same view about the desired level of unemployment as the Governor of the Bank of England? I hope that they will tell us. The Governor of the Bank of England pronounced this Budget first-rate. I feel that it is a little patronising of Governors of the Bank of England to speak in such terms. I think that they should keep their mouths shut, particularly as they have given such bad advice in the past which has so often been taken by previous Chancellors of the Exchequer, and particularly as this Governor went on in this instance to give some comfort to the Opposition, who obviously did not think that the Budget was first-rate, or, if they did, had tried to conceal it.
  Having given a bouquet so gracefully to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, the Governor of the Bank of England gave a bouquet to the Opposition and said that all these measures should have been taken earlier. The Governor of the Bank of England should not speak in this tone, particularly as the previous speech by this Governor had attracted much attention oil precisely this question of the level of unemployment. The Governor holds the view that we should have a level of unemployment over the years to come considerably higher than the one we have had from about 1945 onwards. He expressed that view at the conference to which he went in September, 1967, in Rio de Janeiro. He said that it had been agreed by the Government that there should be a higher level of unemployment and a higher margin of unused resources than we had had through previous years.
  The Governor said this at a time when there was a level of unemployment of more than 2 per cent. throughout the country and in some constituencies, such as mine, heavy, persistent, serious unemployment at a level of 4 per cent. and 5 per cent.—and, in some of my towns, even more grievous than that. That is why some of us regarded that speech as outrageous. It was a speech in which the Governor appeared to be condemning—I shall come to the question of development areas in a minute or two—areas all over the country to heavier unemployment than we have known in the past. That is why many of us raised the question in the most direct manner with the Government at that time. We received
  286
  what we thought was a form of repudiation from the Government of the Governor's pronouncement. It was not as direct a repudiation as we wanted, but at any rate the Government did not give 100 per cent. support to the Governor of the Bank of England.
  We want to know now whether the Governor of the Bank of England has changed his view of last October about the appropriate level of unemployment. Has devaluation changed his estimate of what should be the proper level of unemployment? If so, why does not he make a speech about it? He is a very garrulous Governor who does not suffer any inhibitions about making speeches.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Governor of the Bank of England must keep his mouth shut when £923 million worth of budget is being inflicted on the nation? Is not the Governor an expert witness? Has he not got advice which should be taken into account?
  Mr. Foot: I am not proposing to lock him up because he has made a speech. I am saying that the speech of the Governor, especially in his references to the Budget and to the Chancellor, was extremely patronising and superfluous. I am trying to turn now to his more serious remarks about unemployment. I want to know whether the views of the Governor about the appropriate level of unemployment have changed since devaluation. Despite his garrulity and despite his eagerness to lay down the law to successive Governments, the Governor has not made any fresh statement. Does he approve of the Budget on the basis that it will maintain unemployment at the level he considered appropriate last September and October? We want to know the answer and whether the Government now repudiate, following devaluation, the level of unemployment which was accepted by the Governor of the Bank of England at that time.
  This is not a trivial or secondary matter in any sense. We think that it is of absolute, paramount importance that the Government should declare to the country what is their expectation about the level of unemployment over the next 18 months and tell us how soon they think that they can get the unemployment level down to a level which we in

  287
  the Labour Party would think acceptable. Let there be no mistake: the present figure is far above what we in the Labour Party consider tolerable. That applies to the country as a whole. It applies even in Lewisham. It applies even more to development areas.
  Many of the policies that the Government have pursued about development areas deserve every support. I have often said so in the House, in my constituency, and elsewhere. That is one of the reasons why I asked the hon. Member for Worthing about his attitude towards the so-called hand-outs to private industry, in case he might be opposed to it. We in the development areas want to know what the Tory Party's proposals are. I have the answers from the hon. Gentleman. One of his answers is that he would reduce the amount of advantage that is given to the development areas. The hon. Gentleman says that he does not think that it is appropriate that we should have the assistance that many of the areas have at the present time under the discrimination in the Selective Employment Tax. So we have that clear.
  It has always been my case—I believe that the facts prove it irrefutably—that a proper expansion in the development areas will never be achieved in a time when the country as a whole is stagnating or expanding at an extremely restricted rate. There will never be for the development areas the full advantage of the discriminatory taxation arrangements that the Government have properly made until we get the boom. When we get the boom, it is all the more essential that the Government should maintain all the directions and all the dykes to prevent excessive expansion from taking place in the Midlands, London and elsewhere, so that we guide the next boom properly into the development areas.
  I have never believed that we shall be able to solve the problems of the devlopment areas in a period of stagnation. That is just another reason why I want to get out of the stagnation as fast as possible. This is why I am critical of the Bill, because I do not think that it gets out of this recession anything like fast enough. Indeed, as far as I can see, although we have not had the figures yet—I think that we should have the figures before the Bill goes any further—the
  288
  Government are reckoning on the maintenance of levels of unemployment which we in the Labour Party consider to be unacceptable during, say, the next 12 or 18 months. If that is to be the position throughout the country as a whole, I do not see much prospect of our solving the unemployment problem to a sufficient degree in the development areas.
  As far as my constituency goes, it means that the situation will continue in which hundreds of people are tramping the streets unemployed—unemployed in conditions in which we are preventing those areas from carrying through the recovery which they so passionately desire. Therefore, my main criticism of the Budget, of this finance policy, and of the policy of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is that he is proceeding much too slowly with the expansion of the economy and thereby condemning resources to be wasted in the development areas, as well as in the rest of the country, for far too long.
  This is not only my case. It is the case which many of my hon. Friends have been advocating for a long time and it is the case which to a great extent has been approved and adopted—I do not say in every detail, but generally—by the Trades Union Congress. This is quite a change in the alignment of forces in the country. I think that the Government should take into account the fact that in, shall we say, seven points out of ten the policy advocated by the Left wing of the Labour Party has now been approved by the executives of the trade unions. It is now incorporated in the document on the economic situation which the trade unions have published, a document which is acknowledged to be of first-class importance. Most of the arguments we have advocated for years have now been approved in that document.
  Central to that document is the argument that we should go for expansion at a much faster rate than the Government envisage. It is suggested that the rate should be 6 per cent. and the trade unions say that we could get that rate if we went for it. We might have to have more intervention in the economy and to take steps to prevent ourselves being held up again by another run on the £. So much the better. Those on these benches, as opposed to the rest of

  289
  the House of Commons, are in favour of making this country independent in that sense, at the earliest possible date.
  We do not wish this country to be at the mercy again of the kind of run on the £ we have had ever since 1951. We have, therefore, proposed that we should liberate ourselves from restrictions imposed on us by our international creditors. This is the third policy. The Prime Minister talks as if there are only two policies, of restriction, limitation, slow expansion as advocated by the Government, on the one hand, or the policy of much more serious deflation advocated by the Opposition and the full laissez faire doctrine with which they support it. We say that there is a third policy and the kernel of that policy is to secure the support of the mass of the trade union movement.
  The Government are not going the right way to secure that support. Although, of course, I cannot discuss it in detail now, the Chancellor could not possibly deny that a central feature of his policy, a policy which will involve a headlong clash between the Government and the trade union movement. That is the road upon which the Government are travelling. The passivity of this debate must not conceal the seriousness of the situation.
  We are facing a situation in which a bigger gulf is being dug between the trade union movement and the Labour Government than at any time in my memory, a gulf which the Government will not be able to bridge by the pace of their expansion and by saying that the alternative is much more severe unemployment. The Government must alter their course. I do not expect them to do so immediately, for they have already committed themselves so heavily. Some of us have tried to warn them for months past that if they committed themselves to a prices and incomes policy of this rigid nature they would head for these difficulties. They have risked a showdown with the trade union movement and an industrial clash whose consequences cannot be foreseen.
  The industrial clash the Government will gel into under the financial provisions of this Bill is one of which they cannot themselves determine the exact circumstances. No one could tell in
  290
  1966 that it was likely to be the seamen's strike which would set off the controversy. It looks today as if there will be a clash with engineers or that some other circumstance will set it off. Therefore, even at this late hour, I urge the Government to reconsider their major economic stategy. Let them seek a course which is one of reconciliation with the trade union movement even if it involves a clash with our international creditors.
  If we have to clash with our international creditors we shall have to have many other economic measures to protect ourselves, of course. But, if the Government make that choice, they would have a fighting chance of seeing the economic recovery we certainly all hope for, the economic recovery which devaluation gives us a chance to secure. If we see the opportunity of that economic expansion being used to introduce Socialist policy, it will be understood by the mass of working people. The present policy will not be understood. Despite all the expert skill, efficiency and agreeable manner of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what he proposes is a continuation of the policy we have had in the years before. Indeed we have had it for decades.
  The policy which is collapsing is not a Socialist policy. The Opposition Front Bench has every interest in pretending that it is a Socialist policy which is collapsing, but the Governor of the Bank of England does not call Budgets first-rate when they are Socialist Budgets, nor do those who have acclaimed the Budget of my right hon. Friend. It is a continuation of Conservative policy. This country is suffering from continuous doses of "sound Conservative finance". We have to escape from thinking that we can expand the economy only at the miserable snail's pace which the Treasury and bankers at home and abroad think desirable. It is not only creditors abroad, the Treasury and the City which believe in these rigid terms, but most of the newspapers of the country also. Cecil King and Co. preach this defeatist doctrine also. This country has got into a state of morbidity about its economic prospects and difficulties. In fact we are one of the strongest economic nations in the world. We have huge resources.
  Compared with before the war, we have enormously increased exports, far more

  291
  than we have increased imports. Compared with before the war we have multiplied exports ten-fold and imports by only six-fold. We have turned our nation from a debtor nation, mainly due to the war effort, into a creditor nation. We can now use the advantages we have as a creditor nation if only the Labour Government would recognise that it is better to go into battle with our friends than burdened with the legacies of the policies of our enemies.
  Therefore, I urge the Government in the period between Second Reading of this Bill and the introduction of the prices and incomes policy to reconsider their strategy. I hope the Cabinet will reconsider it at the highest level and come forward with proposals for a reconciliation with the policy of the trade union movement. This is the real leadership for which the country is waiting.
  5.58 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: As this is the first occasion on which I address the House, I wish to pay tribute to the previous Member of Parliament for Acton, Mr. Bernard Floud. We were political opponents, but that did not prevent us from being good friends and he always treated me with characteristic kindness. In Acton, he was liked by people of all parties and his death came as a great shock to his many friends.
  Acton has a unique political record, because four former Members of Parliament live there. There is my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland), his predecessor whom some hon. Members may remember, Mr. Sparks, and before him, Mr. Henry Longhurst, the golfing correspondent, who won the last by-election in Acton in 1943, and also the Member who represented the constituency from 1918 to 1929, Sir Harry Brittain. It will not have escaped the attention of hon. Members that of those four, three are Conservatives, which I find a satisfactory proportion. I can assure hon. Members that the political volatility in Acton is at an end.
  I am glad to have been called to speak on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill and I want to make two comments on it. First, I believe that the Chancellor has misread the economic signs. I agree with some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael
  292
  Foot). I believe that the Chancellor has over-deflated the domestic economy. To take out £600 million this year and £929 million in a full year is overdoing it and I am as disturbed as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale about the rising trend in unemployment. If this trend continues for the next two months the Chancellor will have to take urgent action to reflate the economy and mitigate the harshness of the Budget. This is, after all, the most harsh Budget we have had in peace time. In the 13 years of so-called Tory wasted rule—a period which is rapidly assuming an aura of a golden age—we never had to introduce a Budget even half as harsh.
  My second comment is that, having read the Finance Bill, I feel a tremendous sense of disappointment. I am disappointed that yet another opportunity has been lost to start the long and necessary work to revitalise and reshape our entire tax system. The most important job on the domestic front for any Government, irrespective of party, in the next five to 10 years is to reshape our tax system. Our present system is the most complicated in the world. Daedalus could not have made for King Minos a more confusing and obscure labyrinth. Each year we witness a struggle between the cleverness of Treasury officials and the cleverness of an army of private accountants. It is a struggle which is usually fought to a draw—it is a battle without honour, a war without blood and a devastating waste of human intelligence.
  Our tax laws are so complicated that in the Finance Bill 16 of the 50 pages are given to blocking up loopholes, although the Chancellor in his speech today seemed to be proud of that. But when we must spend one-third of the Finance Bill blocking up loopholes he must agree that the system which we are trying to shore up is suspect.
  The system which I would like to see is one based primarily on a sales tax whereby spending rather than earning is taxed. The system which we have at present is the one which we inherited largely from Gladstone, subject to the pressure of events over the years—mainly the pressure of two world wars—and it would be surprising if such a system were appropriate to the conditions of today. It certainly is not. I would therefore like to see a system based on a sales tax.

  293
  The introduction of such a system would mean that direct taxation would be cut substantially but that indirect taxation would rise substantially, and also—those of us who advocate this course must face this fact—that those who are less well off in the community would be adversely affected. Thus, at the same time as introducing such a reform, I would like to see a complete reform of the social security system; and these twin reforms would, I submit represent real progress.
  It is exciting to think that we have got to the threshold of achieving these twin reforms because they are dependent so much on technological advance and the use of computers. I therefore suggest that before the right hon. Gentleman introduces any more tax changes—although it is not up to me to say whether the party opposite will have another opportunity of doing so—he should pay considerable regard to three principles which I believe should underlie any tax system.
  The first principle is simplicity. Taxes must be simple and understandable to ordinary people. Our taxes are not. Some research done at Glasgow University about 18 months ago showed that of a sample of factory floor workers and executives hardly any knew what rate of tax they paid and what their marginal rates of tax were, that rate being of particular importance, it being the rate they would pay on any increases. It would be interesting to know how many hon. Members could answer those two questions. I wager that very few of them could. But I would also wager that anybody asked those questions would feel that both rates are too high.
  A further example of complexity is provided by the Income Tax returns which are now being dropped through our letter-boxes. It has become the custom for even ordinary people to hand these returns to professional advisers because ordinary people do not know how to fill in these forms. Again, it would be interesting to know how many hon. Members fill in their own tax returns. I think that the answer would be very few. Does the Chancellor fill in his own, or is this one of the domestic duties which he pushes over to someone else at the breakfast table?
  294
  The second principle is that of equity. Taxes must not only be fair but must be seen to be fair. I feel that there are many instances of inequity being perpetuated by the Bill. For example, it is inequitable to aggregate the income of husband and wife. I should have thought that it was unnecessary to debate the pros and cons of that in this, the 50th anniversary year of women's suffrage. The Bill goes further because now the investment income of infants is to be aggregated with that of parents. This is inequitable. The Treasury is turning the family into a sort of financial pudding in which the separate identity of the ingredients is lost. There are cases involved in this aggregation which will lead to real injustice. I have in mind a case where money has been settled on a child as a means of compensation when one of the parents has died. I hope that in Committee the Treasury Ministers will look carefully into cases of this kind. A further example of inequity is the present Estate Duty. This tax is paid only by the miserly, the eccentric, or the unlucky. I would like to see it replaced by a legacy duty coupled, possibly, with a gift tax.
  Another example is the distinction in our tax system between earned and unearned income. There was a time when such a distinction was valid but I question whether it is still valid. Unearned income arises, after all, from capital which in one way or another has been taxed. If it has been inherited, there is Estate Duty. If it has been gained during one's lifetime, there is Capital Gains Tax. If it has been saved out of earnings—and that is the most unlikely circumstance of all—there is Income Tax. It seems grossly unfair to penalise the income arising from this capital by a higher discriminatory rate of tax, particularly since it bears most heavily on people of modest means who have put money aside for their old age.
  The third principle which I recommend to the Treasury Ministers is that taxes should not hinder the production of wealth, which is just what our present system does. It is almost impossible for people today to save out of their incomes. Yet in the final analysis the expansion of private industry—the better machines, better factories and more employment which we all want to see—comes from private savings; but this

  295
  Budget does little to encourage that. Hon. Members who have looked at the Japanese economic miracle will have seen that between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. of incomes are saved, whereas in this country the figure is just over 5 per cent. The Bill does nothing to encourage savings, and this is a major omission.
  The Bill also does nothing to relieve the extremely high rates of personal direct taxation which, I believe, are a major disincentive in our society. Far too many of my contemporaries have already left this country for good, and still the trend goes on. About 42 per cent. of newly qualified engineers leave each year and about 23 per cent. of scientists leave upon qualification. They take this step because they cannot earn enough here and because they cannot keep a high enough proportion of what they earn. I hope that, as a matter of urgent attention, the direct taxation rate will be reduced.
  Following this Budget the British taxpayer is the most heavily burdened taxpayer in the world. The burden is too great. I feel that our position as individual taxpayers is rather like our position as a country. It was summed up well in a couplet by Robert Graves, who wrote:
  "In the midst of life we are in debt,
  Here to pay and gone to borrow."
  That is the position in which we find ourselves as individuals and as a nation. That is our position after three and a half years of Socialist misrule. The Bill is the monument to those three and a half years and one hopes that it may be the tombstone as well.
  6.10 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: The whole House listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker). One of our happy traditions is that hon. Members making their maiden speeches usually refer to their predecessors, and I know that the House heard with pleasure the generous remarks which the hon. Gentleman made about his predecessor. Sharing that same spirit of generosity, perhaps I may follow another tradition and remark that the hon. Gentleman kept just within the tradition of maiden speakers in being non-controversial.
  296
  The hon. Gentleman spoke of tax reforms. It may well be that, as a result of his speech, he will find himself a member of the Committee on this Finance Bill. If he does, I shall hope that his obvious enthusiasm will survive the long and weary hours and that he will accept his labours as part of the way of getting one's views across. The hon. Gentleman's ability is obvious. The whole House looks forward to hearing him again. For my part, I look forward to disputing with him on some future and more controversial occasion.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the number of loopholes in our tax law and the measures taken in this Bill to stop them. In this connection, I shall quote from "Essays on Economic Policy". Volume I, by a certain Mr. Nicholas Kaldor. I suggest that this passage is relevant and ought to be considered. In 1957, Mr. Kaldor wrote:
  "Thinking mainly of the degree of consent or toleration on the part of the community towards a particular system of taxation, the voluntary or loophole-ridden system is as good as you can get, because those who are particularly upset about the taxes they are called upon to pay have some outlet and do not have to pay so much, whereas other people who do not feel so strongly about it can go on paying more. The law creates a safety valve which prevents the infuriated minority from becoming thoroughly recalcitrant members of the community."
  Strangely enough, I had not heard that quoted before, but I came across it and thought it an interesting aside on some of our discussions about loopholes. I do not think that anyone could seriously accept the view which Mr. Kaldor expresses because the stricken payer of tax nowadays does not show his feelings by his own ingenuity but, rather, by the ingenuity of his tax consultant.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that that interesting quotation may well explain a good deal of what went on when the learned gentleman who wrote those words was closely associated with the present Government?
  Mr. Sheldon: No. It shows what a fertile mind he has and what a great value it is to have a fertile mind; but the obvious corollary to having a mind like that is the ability to extract from it those things which can be nut to practical use and to leave aside those which cannot.

  297
  I regard this special Finance Bill as fully worthy of support, even though it is rather severe. I am particularly pleased to support it in general, despite its severity, because of its unique character. This year's Budget has to deal with the consequences of devaluation. It calls for sacrifices, which cannot be repeated, but on this occasion I feel that they ought to be accepted. The Chancellor has made great efforts to be fair and to make sure that the tax load is shared equitably. I accept the examples which he gave as showing the principles of fairness which permeate the Bill.
  Yet we know that it will be very difficult to obtain true equality of sacrifice. It will be difficult because for one thing, to ask for a curb on profits in our present system is to ask for something which cannot really be done. One of the essential purposes of profits is to form a basis for future investment, and we cannot separate those profits which are to be used for investment which is valuable to the community from those which will not be so used.
  Second, we cannot have price control—the impossibility of it is now beginning to be accepted—because of the massive bureaucracy which it would entail, the difficulty of controlling quality or changes in quality, and the other effect which I have already mentioned in connection with profits. Once one controls prices, one in effect controls profits and then, very largely, one controls investment in a way which cannot be accurately determined.
  The real choice left to the Chancellor at the end of the day is to reduce consumption. By reducing consumption, he can free factories and get them to change their outlets for goods, putting them into exports. Purchase Tax is one of the important ways by which this can be done. But, whatever the Chancellor does to this end—I accept that he has acted fairly—and however ingeniously he operates through the medium of the Finance Bill, those who are worse off will be most affected.
  Those with high incomes will not be affected to anything like the same degree because the characteristic of people with high incomes is that they are able to put the lop portion of their earnings into savings. They can take a long view,
  298
  taking an average of the bad years with the good. The well-to-do have this enormous advantage over those who spend all they earn and whose reduction in consumption is easy to achieve.
  For those who spend all they earn week by week, any increase in Purchase Tax, even if it be matched or exceeded by increases in the rate of Surtax or in the higher rates of taxation, will mean that there is not equality of sacrifice. People at the lower end of the scale cannot take the long view. They cannot do other than spend what they have each week.
  Therefore, as fair as he tries to be in trying to bring about the true equality of which he spoke, the Chancellor will need to move towards a higher rate of growth, not only for the increased prosperity which it will bring but because it is an essential condition for a fair distribution of the tax burden and a fair distribution of wealth in the community.
  In my view, this Finance Bill marks the end, or what I hope will be the end, of a great period of adjustment. Over many years now, this country has undergone some fundamental changes to which it has had to adjust, and realisation of these changes has come only in the last year or so. Two great factors have changed against us. The first is exports to the Commonwealth. Throughout the 1950s, our exports to the Commonwealth, excluding South Africa, amounted to about 40 per cent. of our total exports. Last year, they amounted to about 25 per cent. These markets have grown but our exports to them have increased only slightly, while in proportional terms they have fallen considerably.
  The reduction in exports to the Commonwealth has meant a readjustment in the living standards which we had assumed. In earlier years, we controlled the tariffs of the Commonwealth countries because they were, in the main, Colonies. We controlled their trade agreements largely in our favour. We had people in the Commonwealth who controlled the buying decisions, who bought from firms in this country which they knew and from which their background came. Then there was the massive surge towards independence, particularly in Africa, and we lost heavily. I compute

  299
  the loss in our exports at between £500 million and £1,000 million in foreign exchange per year. This was the massive drop occurring from 1960 onwards.
  Second, there was the great change in Government expenditure overseas. Between the war, over the whole period 1919 to 1938, it amounted on average to less than £3 million a year. Last year, it amounted to £450 million.
  Whereas, before the war, Commonwealth countries paid for their own defence in various ways, for their embassies and High Commissions and for a number of other factors, defence and diplomatic representation are now paid for very largely by us. We have had to reconsider our whole defence rôle and shall now have to think about reconsidering the amount of diplomatic representation suitable for a country of our size and our type of growth. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will turn his attention to this in due course. We have had those two major factors possibly resulting between them in an adverse change of about £1,000 million or more for which adjustment will have to be made, and is having to be made right now.
  The hon. Member for Acton talked about the golden years. They were not golden years of Tory prosperity. They were the prosperous years in one sense because we were still living on our past, and that past came to an end in the early 1960s. By a process of delay we are only now beginning to realise fully the consequences for us as a country of what happened in those years. Now, if we want a new kind of prosperity, we shall have to accept certain fundamental changes, and appreciate their magnitude, because factors that operated so very much in our favour no longer operate.
  Because of this, the Bill will mean at least a pause in the improvement of our standard of living. I normally believe that a Finance Bill should work roughly on the principle enunciated by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), that the economy should be organised to operate at a very high level of demand. I am vehemently and most strongly an anti-Paish man. He believes that there should be a margin of unused capacity which prevents the overheating of the economy by making
  300
  sure that there are always machines to fulfil demand and, what is much worse, that there are always men to fulfil demand as it comes along. That is a principle to which I am emotionally completely hostile and, judging from the workings of the economy, I profoundly believe that it is wrong. I believe that it is when the capacity of the country is under pressure that one gets true increases of productivity. It is when the demand comes to the factory floor and the message goes out to produce the goods that new methods are devised, new machines are installed and new processes tend to be produced.
  The one difficulty about the very high level of demand is that there is a concomitant increase in imports. But I believe that this can be cured by other means. Before devaluation I was in favour of import quotas, until it became obvious that they would be only a prelude to devaluation, and I considered that devaluation would do the job that much better.
  I believe that productivity is crucial to the country's prosperity, that it is the result of demand and that it is through the very pressure for production that one gets increased production, which comes at job level. I do not think that one can ever legislate for productivity. I do not think that one can ever think in terms of having conferences and discussions on it. We cannot have increases in productivity in a vacuum. Productivity takes place at the factory floor when the demand is there and the pressure is on.
  I do not deny that productivity agreements have a useful place, but most people would agree that the major productivity agreements since 1960 have been small in their effect compared with the regular improvements that go on day after day as the demand for different products takes place at job level. These daily improvements, each small, are massive in their cumulative total. They come as a result of demand, and the productivity on the job comes from that pressure of demand. The need for production that comes in this way has a greater effect than all the productivity conferences, discussions and whatever else may be thought up to deal with this problem.
  Normally, I am in favour of this very high demand, and I was in favour of

  301
  import quotas. I was in favour of a withdrawal from east of Suez and in favour of devaluation to sustain our balance of payments position faced with this higher level of demand. But now the situation is very special and, I believe, unique this year in the Finance Bill before us.
  If it is to work, devaluation must lead to fundamental changes in industry. When the shift in resources has taken place I shall resume my demand for the kind of economy which makes people work flat out and keeps the factories and machines fully occupied. But there is at present a need for that shift, and so for a short while longer I shall be prepared to accept the Government's policy on this matter.
  I have recently heard some voices from respectable quarters which said that we can solve the balance of payments problem but that it is likely that we shall have to endure a long period of very low growth rates. The argument is that growth economics" does not exist and that because of this the Government should opt out of control of the economy. These quarters say that when the theory of economic growth comes to be formulated the Government will naturally move in and put it into practice.
  I am strongly against this. I believe that Government can never opt out of control of the economy. I consider that this issue was settled once and for all in 1959 in the "never had it so good" General Election. The Government at that time claimed credit for the economy, and after that all Governments will have to accept the blame when the economy turns down. If the Government are held responsible, as they are, for the closure of the A.E.I. factory at Woolwich, for example, and for the "Torrey Canyon" affair, matters which no one would have held Governments responsible 10 to 15 years ago, then Government equally will be held responsible for control of the economy, which affects the living standards of us all.
  If the Government are to be responsible, they must be successful. I do not believe that the people of the country will accept low rates of growth by comparison with other countries. There is a dangerous air of disillusion in the country, part of which we saw yesterday in the Race Relations Bill. To a very large
  302
  extent the country has lost power. It has lost prestige and it has lost its empire. Our natural feelings of self-confidence and self-assurance might be in jeopardy. Neither the country nor the House should accept so humble a view of our economic future.
  If our balance of payments expectations are only marginally to be met, if the present high level of imports, particularly manufactured imports, prevents us from obtaining the full benefit of increased exports, then rather than see the continuation of deflation and low rates of growth for years to come, I should accept import quotas and even some parts of the siege economy suggested by some of my hon. Friends.
  If the choice is deflation and low growth, or certain aspects of the siege economy, I know where I stand. But these things are not before us. I hope these things will never come before us, I believe the Chancellor has done what is right. I hope that exporters will make use of the massive opportunities they have to profit themselves, their companies and the country.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Donald Williams: I would ask the indulgence of the House on this occasion. I wish to take the opportunity to pay a tribute to my predecessor, who held the seat of Dudley for over 22 years as Mr. George Wigg, a man who was well known on both sides of the House. Now, as Lord Wigg, I hope that he is enjoying his life in another place, and is finding more time in which to indulge in his hobby. May his horse, or horses, run faster in the future than they have in the past.
  I would suggest, with some diffidence, that I recently had the experience of finding out from the wonderful people of Dudley and Stourbridge exactly how they feel about the breaking of promises which they have accepted in good faith. I have reason to believe that their voices were very clearly heard by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  I regret that in this Finance Bill we again appear to be breaking faith with people who, acting within the law, had policies of insurance under the provisions of the Married Women's Property Act of 1925, only now to find that the benefit for Estate Duty purposes, if any, from

  303
  their lawful action is to be taken away from them, but only if in aggregate the total of such policies is more than £25,000. So, apparently, some people are to be more equal than others since 19th March.
  I confess that the Bill appears to confirm the worst fears of those who had hoped to see the tax system made less complicated. Here we have 111 pages, including 20 Schedules, many of which raise the problem of legislation by reference. At this stage, it would be reasonable to make a plea for the district and senior inspectors of taxes, a body of men for whom I am sure we all have the highest respect. One of their main tasks has been to review cases and to bring pressure to bear on any case where they have suspected evasion. Today they are almost overwhelmed with the additional work of Capital Gains Tax and Corporation Tax with which they are involved, to the advantage, I would say, of those who are evading their dues.
  Even if appeals for the simplification of the tax law go unheeded, may I express the hope that the Postmaster-General will instruct the Department of Inland Revenue that its mail will go second-class. At least the harrowing assessments and demands may then be delayed for 24 hours or more.
  We read in Clause 15 and Schedule 8 of the Bill how it is proposed to aggregate the investment income of infant children with that of their parents for Income Tax and Surtax purposes, but this aggregation is not to apply to earned income, or even to unearned income, if the infant is also regularly working or is married. Perhaps it is the intention to discourage full-time education and encourage earlier marriage. Schedule 8 also introduces further complications where parents are not living together or are not married. One can see further problems for the appeal commissioners in trying to resolve the settlement of matrimonial disputes.
  Clause 29 is just, and only just, the shortest Clause in the Bill, but it merely introduces Schedule 12, a Schedule of 13 pages of amendment to earlier legislation. I would suggest that it would help the understanding of all of us if full details could be given re-enacting the legislation as amended.
  304
  I am sure that most people will regret that there is nothing in the Bill to encourage people to work harder, earn more and produce more. In fact, the only real encouragement is to gamble, with the State as the stake-holder, to try to win prizes free of all taxes. It is perhaps ironical that this comes in a Bill providing for a special charge which aims at defeating the purpose of those who have saved. I hope that someone at some time will explain the difference between this special charge and the once-for-all special contribution introduced by one of the Chancellor's predecessors.
  I hope that the result of the Bill will not be to produce too great an element of the law of diminishing returns. It may do so as regards the sale of spirits, but I am afraid that the reaction of many people may well be to work and produce less for the rewards that they now secure.
  I have one major regret, that there is no review and overhaul of the Corporation Tax provisions relating to close companies. There is a real case for the raising of the level of award and reward allowable to directors. I hope that one day such rewards can have a relationship to overall profitability and to the true capital employed in the business. Perhaps it is not too late to ask for some further thought to be given to this, and to the simplification of the short-fall provisions.
  6.38 p.m.
  Mr. A. Woodburn: I am sure that the whole House will join me in congratulating the hon. Member for having surmounted the obstacle of a maiden speech. He obviously gives great thought to his speeches, and when it comes to further debates I have no doubt that he will meet argument in regard to his propositions. In the meantime, we all sympathise with the purposes of his speech in trying to stimulate people to produce more to help the country in its need, and not do this entirely on the grounds of how much they can make out of it. We hope to have further guidance from the hon. Member in the conduct of the Budget debates and of the Finance Bill.
  If I may turn to discussion of the Finance Bill itself, it is, as always, a necessity, to meet the conditions in

  305
  which the country finds itself. Governments do not have money of their own. They do not spend money of their own. Every Government collect money from one section of the public and transfer it, on behalf of the public, to another section of the public. Therefore, when, as has happened today in this debate, we have a long dissertation about public expenditure, we get confusion. We are not talking about public expenditure. We are talking about Government expenditure, and it is very difficult to draw the distinction between Government expenditure and public or national expenditure. We can increase Government expenditure without increasing national expenditure.
  For instance, if we transferred the Health Service back to private patients paying their doctors individually, we would reduce Government expenditure by more than £1,000 million quite easily, but that would not make the slightest reduction to national expenditure. Indeed, national expenditure might increase, because private patients might have to pay more both for drugs and for medical services than they pay through the agency of the State.
  The same thing happens with local authorities. Water, gas and all kinds of other supplies provided by local authorities would have to be provided by the private individual perhaps at greatly increased costs if we did away with that expenditure, in that case by public bodies as distinct from the Government.
  A great deal of confusion is caused by the continued discussion of an expansion of public expenditure. When the Government came into power in 1964 they came in with a programme which they knew would result in extra Government expenditure. They proposed to increase the development of factories and of education, the provision of more schools and universities, more houses, more industry in different parts of the country by the diversion of industry from the congested areas, the building of research establishments and, not least, they intended to provide a better Health Service in the way of building more hospitals. In addition, a number of developments were promised. Old-age pensions were to be increased and redundancy payments and wage-related benefit schemes were to be introduced.
  306
  That was a programme which had to be met by the Government collecting funds to pay for it. If that is what the Opposition criticise they should say so. In their own programme they made a great many promises in relation to education and hospitals and, therefore, they also proposed to increase Government expenditure to that extent. Both parties based their election promises on the optimistic estimate of an increased production of 6 per cent. per annum—[An HON. MEMBER: "No."] In fact, I think that the Conservatives worked on 5 per cent. However, if any such increase in production could have been secured, there need not have been any increase in taxation.
  If the 1964 Government committed any fault, it was to go ahead with their programme of social reform and development without getting the increase in production which was necessary to pay for it. Failing that increase in production, the Government had to get it by transferring income from the rest of the population for the purpose of developing these services. That meant increasing taxation and contributions and imposing extra taxes on such items as petrol.
  The public never likes giving up anything in the way of taxation, and it refused largely to co-operate in getting the necessary increase in production. Having failed to get an increase in production, there had to be restraint on the consumption of the rest of the people. If old-age pensioners were to get more, obviously there could not be the increases in wages which could have come from the normal increase in production.
  I am sorry to say that, almost to a man, the trade unions refused to co-operate in any restraint. They came forward with the usual demands for increases. Wages and other incomes went on increasing, with the result that the country was spending more than it was earning. If any country does that, it can only result in inflation or in getting into deficit with other countries. The inflation took place, and one of the most stupid things in our financial understanding is to think that we can go on increasing money incomes unless we get increased production without causing inflation.
  The 1964 Government met the snag of having a deficit in overseas payments of about £800 million. In addition, overseas confidence was shaken when that fact

  307
  became known to the world just after the Election. Naturally enough, other countries doubted whether in all this increased social expenditure, the Government would not increase rather than reduce the deficit in our balance of payments. The Government took the necessary steps to try and correct the deficit, but they did not convince countries abroad.
  This is where I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who talked about defying other countries and standing up to the financiers of the world. Other countries are not bound to send us goods if they suspect that we cannot pay for them. They are not bound to increase our standard of living at their expense. Whatever we may think about other countries, we have to deal with them on the basis of confidence in trade. That cannot be done on a cash-and-carry basis, because trade would come to a standstill if we could not deal with other countries in credit so that, when we bought goods, people knew that they would be paid for them and, when we sold goods, we knew that we should be paid for them. We have to live in a world of commerce and trade where confidence is vital.
  Even the trade union movement cannot dispute that this country must pay for what it buys and must sell enough goods and services abroad to be able to do it. The Government have to try to bring our economy into such a state that we give confidence to people abroad and, at the same time, balance our books at home so that we do not consume more than we earn.
  Voluntary restraint having failed, the Government had to try to get a prices and incomes policy and to impose other restraints. One of the tragedies of developing production is that it cannot be developed without increasing people's spending power. Even the larger incomes arising from overtime increase spending power. If the spending power of the people is increased, whether it is by industries buying goods from abroad, or whether it is by increased dividends and wages, once that spending power passes the point where we are able to produce the goods to meet it we tend to reach inflation.
  Cutting down or restraining spending power may involve a slackening of de-
  308
  velopment, because any increase in development itself increases spending power. To save the economy, development has to be restrained to the speed at which it can be achieved without inflation. That is a delicate operation, and any Government do their best to keep the car running at a level rate. If they push down the accelerator too violently, it causes a boom. If they apply the brake too violently, it causes a slump. The whole manipulation of Government finance is to keep the balance about right.
  At one stage, it appeared that we were nearly achieving that balance. I think that the overseas deficit was down to about £33 million. Then we got involved in two major industrial disputes which not only threw us back in our exports, but also affected confidence abroad. Then, latterly, we have become involved in General de Gaulle's war on the Americans.
  There is no question at all that devaluation was very largely a by-product of this controversy between General de Gaulle and the Americans, and the General's desire to return to what he calls the Gold Standard. The Americans are now suffering from the same problem that we had, and they have still to solve it. We may not be out of the woods if America does not settle its problem in a reasonable way. There are a great many complications which have nothing to do with the particular Government in power. This Government had no responsibility for their inheritance of the Rhodesian problem, which is causing the loss of a great deal of money, nor for the Arab-Israeli war, which has inflicted an additional burden. It is quite ridiculous to talk about this in the party terms so often used because it misleads the public as to the real nature of the problems.
  The Government have the task of getting increased production and productivity. I am sure that not even the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) could point to any negligence in this Government's efforts to do so. We have established research and development organisations, we have given increased assistance to industry, which seems to be objected to by his hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). Both previous Governments and this Government have given

  309
  inducements to divert industries to development areas with a view not only to increasing production, but also with a view to balancing out development in the country, so that one does not have booms in the Midlands and slumps in Scotland, South Wales and the North-East Coast. There has never been any criticism of these measures, and the party opposite, when in power, did its best to stimulate development in these areas in the latter part of its reign.
  The Opposition, in dealing with the problem of the Finance Bill, ought not to confuse themselves and others by irrelevant matters such as what they call the increase in public expenditure. Government expenditure is the result of decisions by this House. It is necessary to carry out programmes of improvement in the standards of our people, for example, in the standards of our old-age pensioners and in the development of industry, hospitals, schools and universities. If the Opposition are suggesting that these things should be curtailed or restrained, they should say so. More than half the Government expenditure is on defence, past and present, including interest on the War Loan, and, therefore, the area on which other reductions can be made is not so great that it could bear all the reductions implied in the suggestions of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  The Government have to face the position as it is. The trade union movement is not entirely willing to accept the responsibility of a voluntary restraint on wages. The country is not willing to accept this. While 90 per cent. of the trade union movement has co-operated with the Government on both occasions in trying to establish this voluntary restraint, and has co-operated in the proposals for a prices and incomes policy, there are rogue elephants in the movement, as in other movements, who would break down this co-operation by running out on their own and selfishly using their own stronger position to improve their incomes at the expense of everyone else.
  We have had examples today, when Members were suggesting that people would not develop industry or help the country because they cannot get more dividends and profits. If the taxation is not to come from these profits and high incomes, and from the people earn-
  310
  ing money, it is up to the Opposition to suggest how the Chancellor is to get it. One cannot spend money on education, or old-age pensions, without first collecting it. If the Opposition do not intend collecting it by S.E.T. and similar taxes, it is up to them to produce the facts and figures for a reasonable alternative.
  I gather that S.E.T. is one of the easiest taxes to collect in a way it is a kind of sales tax. It brings in a very large amount of money. What other tax will do this? Will cigarettes, beer, whisky—the usual recipients of a Chancellor's enthusiasm in the past? What expenditure is to be cut, and if none is what is the alternative to the S.E.T.? I would be interested to hear from the right hon. Gentleman what are the alternatives to the taxes being proposed.
  Most people regard the Budget as fair. No one likes a Finance Bill that imposes taxes, and no one, I gather, likes taxation. That is part of the way in which we pay for services by the Government. We may think that the Government are extravagant and waste money on defence. It is our business to find out ways of making defence efficient and reducing the expenditure by efficiency. If we want to reduce other expenditure, then we ought to point out what it is. If there is any waste, it is our duty to cut it out, and the Government are entitled to be criticised if they waste money. If they do not, and this is the minimum required to carry out the services which Parliament wants people to have, and for the financing of the country, then we have to find the money in the fairest way possible.
  The general public does not like direct taxation, which is the fairest and most equitable taxation in the world. It prefers to be taxed indirectly, which is the most unfair way of taxation. Chancellor's therefore comply with the general wish of the public that it should be taxed indirectly and not directly, according to an individual's income. We are told that this deprives people of incentive. The workers, we are told, will not work overtime because they have to nay extra tax. We are told that people will not develop their businesses because they will be taxed.
  All right, if the suggestion is that there should be no income tax at all, where does the money come from to enable the Government to provide these services?

  311
  This is what the Opposition must answer. They must put forward alternative suggestions if it objects to the present methods. My view of the Bill is that it has produced a very fair, well-balanced distribution of the sacrifices, if that is the right word, necessary to do the job. I would be very pleased to support it, with whatever Amendments may be made to meet certain cases. I would be only too willing to consider them if I had anything to do with it.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Worthing quite clearly objected both to the previous Government and this Government spending money diverting industry to development areas. He practically said that industry should go where it was most profitable, that it should not be directed either by inducements or any other method from its most profitable centres. That means that we would go back to the pre-war position, where industry would gravitate from every outlying area, down to the Midlands, London and the South-East Coast.
  Mr. Michael Shaw: The right hon. Gentleman is completely misrepresenting what my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr Higgins) said. My hon. Friend said nothing of the sort. He said that aid now given through the Regional Employment Premium and the Selective Employment Tax should be given in better ways.
  Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Michael Shaw) did not listen properly to the hon. Member for Worthing, who said much more than that. He also said that it was quite wrong to divert the economic processes of industry and that people should be allowed to produce where it was most profitable and where it was most effective and that other industries should not be bolstered up.
  The last Government sent the B.M.C. to Scotland with a very large subsidy to get started there. They also supplied a considerable amount of money to Colvilles to build a steel plate mill in Scotland and helped another firm to produce paper from pulp in the Highlands. They also sent another car firm to Renfrew-shire. They deserved every credit for their help, and to have them condemned now for doing what they did to relieve
  312
  the terrible conditions for Scotland which arose during the 10 years of Tory rule is quite wrong.
  The present Government have continued that policy. They have built a large number of advance factories and have induced American industry to go to Scotland, South Wales and the North-East of England. If the Opposition are now denouncing that policy, as the hon. Member for Worthing did, they should make it clear to the public that they are going back to the policy of every man for himself in industry and "devil take the hindmost". A return to such a policy would create a desert of Scotland, Cornwall, South Wales and the North-East of England. If the coal mines, shipyards and other industrial activities as they close down are not replaced by new injections of capital in those areas and the introduction of other industries, there will be disaster for the country from which it will never recover.
  We must be clear that the Government are not going back on the policy of inducements for industry to be distributed throughout the country in order to balance up the level of employment, so that we do not have a situation in which the level of unemployment in Scotland is double what it is in the Midlands of England. We should be clear about this. I deplore the hon. Member's suggestion that this policy should be abandoned. I hope that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West will make his party's position clear, because we have plenty of trouble in Scotland now without its being made worse by a threat of this kind.
  7.3 p.m.
  Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: It is a significant sign of the times that maiden speeches nowadays are both always good and always made from this side of the House. This is a practice which will continue so long as by-elections continue in this Parliament. I would like to add my congratulations to those tendered to my hon. Friends the Members for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker) and Dudley (Mr. Donald Williams).
  My hon. Friend the Member for Acton referred to the longevity which, with the unfortunate exception of his immediate predecessor, whom we all miss, has marked hon. Members for Acton—above

  313
  all, that most senior of his predecessors, Sir Harry Brittain, now a gay personality of 94. I thought, too, that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley steered with great skill over the somewhat delicate question of his reference to his immediate predecessor. I do not think that anyone could have more tastefully dealt with that rather difficult topic. I hope that both my hon. Friends will take part often in our debates. I believe that, already, the awful threat is hanging over them of their being sent to the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill.
  The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) made what I would describe as his usual speech. First, he suggested that our economic troubles were nothing to do with the Government but were the fault of General de Gaulle and Mr. Ian Smith and the weather and all sorts of extraneous circumstances. He said that it was unfair to blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer for them. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will live up to that statement. When the Labour Party puts out its next election manifesto, its future pledges will no doubt be hedged with the qualification, "President de Gaulle, Mr. Ian Smith and the weather permitting."
  It was an astonishing observation of the right hon. Gentleman's that questions of public expenditure were largely irrelevant to the debate. Does not he realise that the Chancellor felt bound, in part at least, to impose this unprecedentedly heavy increase in taxation because he had to balance very large increases in public expenditure? So far from public expenditure being irrelevant to this debate, it is the explanation of most of the disagreeable features of the Bill.
  Does the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire, after his years in Government, ready think that any Chancellor would regard as irrelevant the increase in the Estimates, revealed in the Vote on Account, of £921 million, or 10 per cent.? Does not he understand the connection between that immense, uncontrolled and apparently uncontrollable increase and the Chancellor's increases in taxation by a sum only slightly in excess of it—something over £1,000 million?
  As always, the Chancellor was very much more adroit than the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire, and I thought that, in his agreeable speech, he,
  314
  though rather more delicately, took the same point as the right hon. Gentleman. The Chancellor made a delicate speech. I hope that he will not mind my expressing the view, since he is a man of great literary distinction, that his longest quotation, as English, stood up very well against the surrounding context.
  But the Chancellor said that, if hon. Members objected to his increases in taxation, they should suggest an alternative. I do not accept that. I have suggested an alternative. It is the alternative of not increasing public expenditure so much. What the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot)—I am sorry that he is not in his place—said about us on this side of the House does not apply to me. He suggested that we were shy in putting forward positive suggestions for reductions in public expenditure. I made a speech on the Vote on Account in which I spelt out a number of directions in which economies could be obtained and public expenditure substantially reduced. I do not think that even the Chancellor would dispute the fact that, had he reduced expenditure under these various heads, he would not now be asking for all these increases in taxation. I think that that is beyond dispute.
  I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. I thought it had rather a pathetic, nostalgic ring. He was saying what right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite used to say until they got on to the Front Bench opposite. They do not say it now. Their attitude is much more refined and restrained and sophisticated. But the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale still goes on saying things which right hon. Gentlemen opposite said in order to get into office until they got into office. His speech had a pathetic ring of the Socialist past about it. But I thought that the frankness with which he admitted that Socialism as he saw it would mean ever-increasing taxation compared favourably with the attitude of the Prime Minister in his pretence that the Socialist programme would not result in or involve increases in the general levels of taxation.
  This Bill is in itself a reflection of the failure of the Government to control expenditure and it has a fatal defect in that it does nothing whatever positive to increase the economic efficiency of the

  315
  country, whether by the giving of incentives or by the encouraging of savings or by anything else. The proof of the pudding is, to some extent, already in the eating. It is five weeks since Budget day. Is the Chancellor prepared to say that the effect of his Budget on the economy has been very encouraging? Is he preared to suggest that this grave and drastic Budget, at the end of the speech introducing which he sat down with hon. Members opposite wildly waving their Order Papers, has given any indication that it is remedying the fundamental evils which affect our economy?
  Is not the indication that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) so well said, the economy is in a worse condition and is getting worse rather than better since a Budget in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer prided himself of having put in everything and of having perhaps over-killed in a determination to right the problems of the economy? The Chancellor would not be the intelligent man that he is if he were not desperately anxious to find that, having made this tremendous effort, as he thought, it does not seem to be having satisfactory results. Some of us told him so at the time. Some of us told him that further increases in direct taxation, which was already too high, would discourage rather than encourage the development of the economy in the way that he wants to see.
  I wish to direct my remarks to one or two aspects of direction taxation which I have particularly in mind. The Chancellor will know better than us something of the direct cost of this increasing elaboration and load of taxation and the increasing cost of collection. He may recall—he will be aware of the figures—the Answer which the Financial Secretary gave me the other day to the effect that the Inland Revenue staff increased by 2,304 in the last year to the astonishing total of 63,228 and, that, despite that, they were working 1¾ million hours overtime.
  These figures in manpower and finance are not negligible. They are part of the cost of seeking to operate a level of taxation which is so high that people are given every incentive to find loopholes in it. The right hon. Gentleman used a very agreeable expression in his Budget speech. He said that his disposition was
  316
  towards lower levels and fewer loopholes. He has undoubtedly done his best to close the loopholes, but has done nothing whatever to produce the lower levels. He has, in two significant respects, raised the levels. May I deal with those two respects?
  I deal, first, with the provision in Clause 15 for the aggregation of the income of children with that of their parents. I referred to this during the Budget debate. When I did so, the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) shouted, "A Committee point". I am inclined to agree with him. But he did not understand why it is that Committee points must now be raised on the Floor of the House. The great majority of Members, and, indeed, all of us who have responsibilities for Select Committees, will be denied the opportunity of participating in the Committee stage of this Bill. If we are to put any points at the formative stage of our discussions, we have to do so in the Budget debate or during the Second Reading. The hon. Gentleman did not appreciate that.
  I want to put one or two points about this provision. First, can the Chancellor clarify what he means by "an infant"? At the moment, this is a person of under 21. We were told the other day that it is the Government's intention to reduce the age to 18. Do I take it, therefore, that the Inland Revenue will be instructed to take no preparatory steps to aggregate the income of children between the ages of 18 and 21 with that of their parents? I should be grateful if the Financial Secretary would deal with that point.
  Then there is this very curious provision that there is no aggregation if the child is in regular work but there is aggregation if the child is undergoing full-time education. This is a very odd fiscal device. It reverses previous fiscal policy, which was to give financial encouragement to parents to keep their children in education for as long as possible.
  But what about the children who constitute the biggest difficulty in the way of this provision, the children who will never work? The Chancellor of the Exchequer will know that one reason why a child sometimes has unearned income is that it results from damages paid to the child for very serious injuries. The classical case is that of the thalidomide babies. I

  317
  understand that the claims of some of them have been settled—and none of us would think it too high a figure—at £40,000. At the present level of interest, that would produce an income of perhaps £3,500. Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention that that income should be aggregated with that of the parents, thus involving the parent in Surtax and indeed, if he has any unearned income, in the special surcharge?
  Every day the courts deal with cases concerning children who have been knocked down on the road and so maimed that they will never work. I was talking to a solicitor friend the other day who is handling such a case. He may well settle the case for £40,000. The parent is a warrant officer in the Armed Forces with an income of £1,500. The question of proper provision for the child will be made enormously difficult if aggregation is to take place in this case. I wonder whether, without prejudice to the general issue, the right hon. Gentleman would accept an Amendment to the effect that when the source of the child's income is capital derived either from damages given by a court or from the settlement of an action the income shall not be aggregated with that of the parent.
  There will be the greatest difficulty about defining what is meant by "regular work". This morning I had a letter from a gentleman whose daughter is a novice in a nunnery. She has a small unearned income. Is an unpaid novice in a nunnery to be treated as being in regular work, or is her investment income to be aggregated with that of her parents? There are real and difficult problems about this matter, and I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to clear them up.
  I take the other cause of difficulty, the special surcharge. This is a very bad proposal. It is a very unfair proposal. It is in form a charge on income producing the unprecedented rate of 27s., 3s. in the £ on certain tranches of certain incomes, unprecedented even in Socialist fiscal legislation. Of course, it is intended to be, as the Chancellor said, a tax on capital. But as such it is a very unfair tax. The very rich man who is more interested in capital appreciation than income and who will take perhaps 2 or 3 per cent. on his large investment comes off a great deal better under this
  318
  provision than the less well-off man with heavy commitments who is concerned to get income from his investments and to invest his money in a way which will bring him 7 or 8 per cent. Two people with the same capital will, under the Chancellor's capital levy, pay wildly different amounts. That is unfair.
  There there is the question of a life interest and property in trust. I understand that, as in the case of Sir Stafford Cripps' capital levy, the trustees will be authorised to realise capital to pay the tax, otherwise the life tenant could not live. Would the right hon. Gentleman reflect on how unfair this is? The life tenant, say a widow, may have a substantial income from the trust of £4,000 or £5,000 and, on the Chancellor's argument, be liable. When she dies, the estate may be divided among 10 or 12 children and grandchildren. None of them will get very much, particularly after Estate Duty has been paid. Is it not very unfair to evolve a tax which, in practice, will be paid by children and grandchildren who, as a matter of definition, have very modest means?
  What about the man who buys an annuity? I appreciate that under the first subsection an annuity bought under a will is not treated as investment income; it is outwith the calculation. As I understand, if a man buys an annuity to provide for his old age it is treated as investment income. Take the case of a man who sells his small business when he wants to retire and invests the lot in an annuity. This is his sole means. How will he pay this levy? He has no capital. The insurance company will not find it for him. As I see it, his only recourse is to go bankrupt and let the Revenue claim in the bankruptcy. I suggest that apart from the foolish general concept of this charge, there are real difficulties which have not been thought out.
  Taxes of this kind on capital are very easy to suggest. I thought that there was a curious change in the tone of the Chancellor's Budget speech when he came to this part of it. The smooth suaveness changed to a certain vindictiveness of tone. It was rather curious in the idol of café society. It is an unsound tax. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that he could not repeat it. If he were to give an incentive to people to invest their money to get less income rather than

  319
  more, he would disrupt the whole capitalist system.
  But he went out of his way to say that he was contemplating other means of taxing capital. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel able to reconcile that approach with encouragement to people to save? Does he not appreciate that he has given to ordinary citizens an incentive to spend their money and get some fun out of it rather than to save it, as in the public interest they should, and so increase their tax liability for the next ingenious device for taxing capital which the Chancellor and his advisers might evolve?
  There was an incident the other day on the reading of a will. The family solicitor, reading the will to the assembled relatives, read out the words, "And so, being of sound mind and disposition, I spent every damn penny before I died". The right hon. Gentleman does not really want to encourage that attitude, but this is what he is doing. I suggest that if he is serious in wishing to encourage saving and if the rather platitudinous tributes in his Budget speech to the National Savings Committee really mean anything, he must restrain himself from a tax on capital of this nature.
  This brings one to the central dilemma of a Socialist Chancellor. He does not like accumulation of capital, he does not like profit, he does not like the capitalist system. Yet he has to operate it. He has to operate a system which is still predominantly free enterprise and capitalist. I suggest that we are here close to the explanation of the failure of every one of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor Socialist incumbents of that office. We are close to the point that they do not like the system that they have to operate. They are not prepared to operate it in the way in which we know it can be successfully operated with a reasonable opportunity for profit, with incentives to increased effort, and with incentives to investment and saving.
  If the right hon. Gentleman, who is a historian and understands these matters as well as anybody, is not strong enough to resist the pressures, such as those applied by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, he will fail as Chancellor just as irretrievably as his Socialist predecessors have all failed.
  7.24 p.m.
  Mr. A. H. Macdonald: I am glad to be called immediately after the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) because until he spoke I had begun to fear that in some mysterious way under our procedure it was out of order to talk about the Bill. I should like to offer a few thoughts about the Bill, but before doing so I want to comment on the thundering denunciations that we heard from the right hon. Gentleman and also from the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) about the level of public expenditure.
  There are few economic matters on which I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), but I agree with him that we ought not to be ashamed of public expenditure, nor should we be ashamed of stating that it has to be paid for and, therefore, revenue has to be raised for this purpose. The denunciations which we have heard today come with something of an ill grace from a party that on many occasions during the year has called for increases in expenditure in particular while at the same time demanding reductions in expenditure in general.
  I recall that during the debate on last year's Finance Bill there were innumerable Amendments from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite calling for particular reductions in taxation, all no doubt worthy in themselves but a little difficult to reconcile coming from a party which has expressly said that it wishes to increase particular areas of public expenditure. I recall that more particularly, because among the Amendments calling for reductions in taxation in particular there was one—my one—that called for an increase in a particular sphere of taxation. I may mention that it had the support of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). I am not sure whether that was beneficial to my Amendment. In any event, it was not called. But I am delighted to say now that in substance my Amendment has been accepted and appears in the Bill.
  Turning to the Bill, Clause 4(1) does almost exactly what I suggested to the Government last year ought to be done, namely, that they should increase the

  321
  betting taxes. I am also in support of subsection (2) which effects a similar increase in taxation on gambling. I am delighted to see these two proposals.
  I see something of a decline when we turn to subsection (3) which refers to taxation of casinos. However, I have never understood why we go about it in the way that we do. Relating it to rateable value seems to have very little to be said in its favour. I suppose it is a simple tax to administer when it is constructed on that basis, but I cannot think of any other argument. In particular, a tax based on rateable value of casinos bears no necessary relationship to the ability of casinos to pay. Furthermore, I suspect that in practice it may stimulate casinos to adopt certain devices—for example, to move into inferior premises or part only of the premises that they occupy—to avoid paying part of the tax. But this cannot assist the satisfactory running of a casino which, in the Gaming Bill, we are anxious to ensure.
  I acknowledge that the proposal in the Finance Bill for the taxation of casinos introduces something more of a graduated scale than was there before. However, I cannot welcome it on that ground, because it seems to me that what was there before was essentially bad. By making this relatively trivial improvement in something that I regard as essentially bad, I fear that we reduce the stimulus to toss it aside altogether and replace it by a more reasonable and equitable way of raising money from casinos.
  I hope that at some time my right hon. Friend will consider introducing a more equitable way of raising money from casinos, because in his Budget speech he said:
  "It would be premature to undertake any fundamental revision or sweeping increase of this duty while the House is still considering the major changes proposed by the Gaming Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March 1968; Vol. 761, c. 278.]
  I infer from that that he feels that changes should be proposed at some future time. That much I welcome, but I cannot follow his reasoning, because I think that when we are introducing a more equitable and more effective method of control over the running of casinos, that is the very moment at which to introduce an
  322
  effective and equitable way of raising revenue from them. I see no reason why one needs to wait until the other has been completed, and indeed every reason why the two should march happily together. I hope that in Committee opportunities will arise to press this matter more strongly on my right hon. Friend.
  I have welcomed Clause 4, at any rate in principle, despite my criticisms in detail of subsection (3), and I should like now to refer to something which is quite different, although it touches on the same aspect. I refer, of course, to Clause 50 which proposes to introduce a national lottery. I do not want to argue against the Clause from a hostility to gambling, although I confess that I have some hostility to it. I do not think that it would be proper for us to proceed on the basis that we want to forbid something which we dislike, because gambling is clearly a matter for private judgment and people should be allowed to exercise their private judgment whether to gamble or no. If they gamble, clearly taxes should be levied, because there is no good reason why productive enterprises should be taxed while unproductive gambling is not.
  I am all in favour of taxing gambling, but it seems to me that there is all the difference in the world between raising revenue from taxes on gambling, and running a lottery, just as I see a difference between raising revenue by taxing smoking on the one hand, and on the other making a cigarette. To tax people's vices is one thing. To encourage the practice of those vices is another, and I regret that we are now at the beginning of a course which will cause the social services, the amenities, and indeed the defence of this country to depend on the proceeds of a lottery. I think that if we wish to have these things we should pay for them. If we do not want to pay for them, we should do without them.
  On that topic perhaps I might refer to a quotation from HANSARD of 18th April, 1956, where it says:
  "…what a commentary it is on the financial stewardship of the party…Now Britain's strength, freedom and solvency apparently depend on the proceeds of a squalid raffle… They will be fighting the next election on 'Honest Charlie always pays'.
  I say this in all seriousness to the Chancellor. There are hundreds of thousands of people in this country who will be outraged

  323
  by this proposal…it is one thing to support the legislation of these small charitable lotteries. It is quite another to erect a great State machine—with goodness knows how many bureaucrats—to use the resources, power and prestige of the State for such a purpose…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th April, 1956; Vol. 551, c. 1026.]
  That is a quotation from remarks offered to the House during the Budget debate of that year by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I thought that they were wise words, and I am sorry that the Government's policy has apparently changed. I read the reports of that Budget speech with interest to see whether my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had had anything to say on this subject. He spoke during the debate, but I am sorry to say that he was silent on this subject.
  I hope that when my hon. Friend replies to the debate he will tell us more about when the free vote which we have been promised on the subject of a national lottery will take place, because though I shall be glad to go into the Lobby in support of the other proposals in the Bill, I shall be sorry if it is taken from that that I support this proposal. I had understood, mistakenly I now gather, that there was to be a separate vote on this Clause tonight. If this is not to be, I should like to know when a separate vote will be taken. I presume that it can only be when the Bill comes back to the House for its Third Reading. The proposals will then have become cut and dried. It seems a little late to allow a free vote at that stage on a fundamental matter of principle, and I hope that we shall have a clear and unambiguous statement that a free vote will be allowed at an early date.
  I am willing to support the S.E.T. proposals. I had better say that because few other hon. Members will support something that is conventionally disagreeable. I think that the S.E.T. is a cheap and effective way of raising revenue, but I am a wee bit regretful that no closer attention has been paid to the question of our invisible exports. Houses in the City of London have to bear the S.E.T. A great deal of cogent and forceful argument on this subject is to be found in the Report on the Kleinwort Committee on invisible exports, which I understood Ministers on the Treasury Bench had
  324
  studied with close attention and interest. That report argued cogently in favour of some relief from the payment of the S.E.T. by firms engaged in invisible exports, and I had hoped that something more forthcoming would appear on this subject.
  The taxes which I have mentioned so far I suppose count as indirect taxes, and those are the only indirect taxes which I should like to approve. In his Budget Statement my right hon. Friend advanced certain arguments in favour of indirect taxation, saying that it was a tax on spending, that it offered the taxpayer a measure of choice, and that it did not involve too much disincentive. I suppose that in a sense that is true, that faced with indirect taxes on articles which a taxpayer wishes to purchase he has the choice of not buying them and saving his money, but I think that this is rather a clumsy way of encouraging saving, simply by encouraging to save what is left after he has spent, because if we increase the price of articles, there is a real danger that there will be less left rather than more.
  I should like the Government to encourage saving, but I cannot feel that embarking on a policy of increasing indirect taxation is the most effective method of doing that. Surely the only real way in which to encourage saving is to check the process of inflation? The only way in which we can effectively check the process of inflation is to make sure that the Government do not embark on public expenditure before they have acquired the money for it. I am in favour of high public expenditure, but I am clear that it has to be paid for at the time and not in the future. Encouraging savings when interest rates are high means an increased burden on the Government because of the higher rates which they will have to pay. I am not in favour of running the country as "Great Britain Ltd", but there might be something to be said for the Treasury operating as a business, and most businesses would be reluctant to borrow more than they needed when interest rates were high.
  Since the Chancellor has embarked on raising money by indirect taxes, I would express some regret that he has also widened the bands. I am a little suspicious of this, because he is imposing

  325
  his own judgment on the public, encouraging them to buy what he thinks they should buy and deterring them from buying what he thinks they should not. I question whether the Treasury has any business doing this. They define luxuries and also open the way for comic queries of the sort which the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South was so distinguished in putting.
  On page 56 of the Bill, we see that a toothbrush will be exempt, whereas a toothpick will bear a Purchase Tax of 33⅓ per cent. and that "other requisites", which are unspecified, will bear 50 per cent. "Requisites" is an odd word, because I thought that that meant something which one was required to have, and not a luxury. Once the bands are widened, one is trying to draw lines where none can or should be drawn.
  Once again, I express my annual regret at the Bill's proposals to plug loopholes. Every year, there are proposals to rectify anomalies and admirable arguments are always advanced. No one can dispute the proposals m this Bill, but it would be worth while to accept anomalies and loopholes for the sake of stability. I would like a tax structure as stable as possible, with people allowed a clear run, and with a big, bumper Finance Bill every four of five years, plugging many loopholes. I make this plea every year, but no Chancellor ever pays any attention.
  Can I hope for an explanation, perhaps in Committee, of Clause 21, subsection (2)? Subsection (1) refers to the buying of know-how, a phrase which has crept in, rather to my regret, and about it being written down. Subsection (3) refers to the know-how being sold and the business ceasing to trade, and about trading receipts as payment for good will. But subsection (2) refers to the sale of know-how and to the business continuing, in which case that sale would be treated as a trading receipt. I am not sure that that is consistent with the proposals in subsections (1) and (3). Perhaps the Chief Secretary will favour me, to use his favourite phrase, with a litle "accountancy exercise" in private to explain that.
  Clause 22 deals with taxation where there is an option to take a scrip issue or payment in cash. After having thought a great deal and with some reluctance,
  326
  feeling that I am going against my principles, I can see no merit in this Clause. I cannot feel that the proposal is proper, because I do not see that distribution of shares should be taxed in this way. The shareholders who receive additional shares will not be better off as a result of any action of theirs. If all the shareholders exercise the option to receive shares and none receives cash, none will be any richer. Therefore, if some exercise the choice and receive cash, the shareholders who preferred to receive shares are to that extent better off, because they own more of the company, but only through the action of those who decided on cash. I do not see how it is equitable, therefore, to tax them because of someone else's action. Perhaps I am missing something in the Clause; I should be grateful if my hon. and more expert Friends can explain it.
  7.48 p.m.
  Mr. Nigel Birch: The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) began with casinos, of which I know nothing, so I cannot argue with him. Where I profoundly agreed with him was, first, about Purchase Tax and the number of bands and second, on his great blinding glimpse of the obvious that, if one spends money which one has not earned, one quickly gets into Queer Street. I hope that he will give some special instruction in these matters to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot).
  I believe that it is unheard of for a Chancellor to move the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. Normally, if they speak in the debate at all, Chancellors wind up, mostly about the economy. I thought that, when the Chancellor elected to open, he would talk about the economy. But he did all the lavatory work normally done by the Financial Secretary in explaining the Bill and had nothing new to say.
  It would have pleased the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale if he had said something about economics. The hon. Member attacked his right hon. Friend strongly, but I do not want to intervene. When Lytton Strachey was had up before a conscientious objectors' tribunal during the First World War, he was asked the usual question, "What would you do if you saw a German trying to rape your sister?" He replied, "I would try to

  327
  get between them." I have no wish to get between those two rather unappetising types on the benches opposite.
  We should consider where we have got to now. Many financial journalists, though by no means all, favoured devaluation and, when it came, felt that they could celebrate something to which they might have contributed. Therefore, there was much talk about the "economic miracle" and what-not, but very little about some of the other consequences. I want to say something about these now.
  First, the confidence of the sterling area has been very badly, perhaps mortally, shaken. We promised them so often that we would not devalue, but then we did it. There are now signs of the disintegration of the system. This is dangerous, because all the money is quick money; in other words, it can be drawn at sight and already it is being withdrawn. The Australians are already diversifying, buying dollars and gold, and I understand that the New Zealanders are doing the same. The position is shifting in Hong Kong and Malaysia and, from the financial point of view, the sheikhs are on the move. Burma is already out of the sterling area.
  There is no question but that during the gold crisis the heavy sales of sterling against the dollar arose, in part, from sales by members of the sterling area in an effort on their part to change their pounds for dollars and then to change their dollars into gold. The sterling area, having in some ways been surprisingly stable, is now on the move. It is rather like living near a coal tip which has just started moving; a disaster has not yet occurred but one is living in an awkward spot.
  The next important consequence is the general increase in the loss of faith in money—in the stability and value of money—and this is proved in many ways. It happened in the spending spree just before the Budget, and that spree is still to a large extent going on. It can be seen in the present rush into unit trusts—indeed, into anything that is a real asset. It is at the back of the problem facing the building society movement.
  The other day the chairman of the Building Societies Association said that one reason why building societies were
  328
  losing so many deposits was because depositors were putting their money into houses. It appears that they have realised that the real mugs are not those who borrow from the building societies but those who lend to the societies. Once that view gets across to the country the consequences will be serious. There has been a further blow to the market in Government securities, but I will return to that later.
  In addition to all this, another consequence arises out of the incredible ineptitude, both before and after devaluation, on the part of the Government, and the immense debts which we have piled up as a result. First, there is the sterling area, which must still represent several thousand million pounds. But in addition to that we have built up enormous debts. The Government do not say precisely to what they amount, but I would not be surprised—taking into account the sterling balances, which are quick balances, the I.M.F. credits, loans from the central banks, the Swiss, and so on—if they amounted to something like £6,000 million. We must constantly bear this in mind because our reserves are only about £1,100 million, so that when the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale talks about our being a creditor nation, he should be careful.
  Let us consider what will happen if two years' hard slog succeed and all the Chancellor's expectations are fulfilled. We will still have solved only a tiny part of the problem, because much of this money has already gone and will never return. Indeed, much of it cannot return. After all, the £531 million deficit on our balance of payments last year cannot come back. That money must be earned.
  Mr. Michael Foot: As the right hon. Gentleman is obviously an expert on the subject, would he say whether or not Britain is a creditor nation? I claimed, on all the figures presented to us, that if a final balance were made we would be a creditor nation. If the right hon. Gentleman has figures to disprove my argument he should present them—otherwise he should not make grave charges which could be extremely damaging and which, I suggest, do not bear any relation to the facts.
  Mr. Birch: I assure the hon. Gentle man that they do. I was talking about

  329
  our liabilities for five years and less. The Chancellor has produced various figures making up our balance sheet to show a long-term surplus, although not a big one. If we are in a mess we will not get far by trying to flog a tea garden in Assam. A great many of our foreign assets are not easily realisable, particularly in the short term. This is disabling to us. It is no good saying, "But we have a tea garden", because to make that sort of remark does not make sense in that context.
  Whatever the Chancellor may say about his predecessor, I have considerable respect for the present Home Secretary. He is a good politician and his heart is in the right place, although he is a bad guesser. He was sunk through the creation of the Department of Economic Affairs. We said at the time of its inception—we said it from the outside with foresight—that it would be fatal. I was interested to read an article by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) in the Financial Times the other day in which, writing from the inside and with hindsight, he confirmed our fears and what we predicted—that this division of control had meant that no firm grip on the situation had been taken and that things had drifted on and on.
  We still have the Department of Economic Affairs. We are told that it has been strengthened and certainly we have another Minister, as has the Treasury. It is a comment on inflation that now that the Treasury is split eight Ministers are doing what two Ministers used to do when we were solvent. The only thing to do with the Department of Economic Affairs is to do away with it completely and have the building scrubbed and fumigated. For greater certainty, a team of rodent operators should be instructed to go through it to ensure that nothing is left, for it has been a total disaster.
  What are the prospects of success for the present Chancellor? He will almost certainly get an increase in exports. Indeed, he must. We must have a substantial increase to make up for the change in the terms of trade against us. We must do more to start repaying our debts and rebuilding our reserves, although that task is a long way off. However, I believe that he will get this increase, certainly in the medium term.
  330
  The right hon. Gentleman's real failure lies in the fact that although he made a genuine effort in January to control expenditure, that effort did not come off. In fact, the reductions in expenditure, in so far as they were genuine—and a lot of them were not—were overtaken by the extra expenditure caused by, for example, the Transport Bill, the Transport Holding Commission Bill, and the Industrial Expansion Bill. As the Governor of the Bank of England, Sir Leslie O'Brien—who is not very popular on the benches opposite below the Gangway—pointed out, if Government expenditure soars inexorably upwards, and we get into difficulties, the whole of our adjustments, monetary and fiscal, must be made in the private sector. The Government's efforts are self-defeating simply because the prospects for growth lie in the private and not in the public sector, a fact which they have failed to recognise.
  The Chancellor therefore failed in what really mattered. One thing which he has done is to make an enormous increase in indirect taxation. There is a school of thought, to which I belong, which holds that it is a good thing to shift taxation to a certain extent from direct to indirect taxation. What we mean by that is that direct taxation should go down in parallel with the rise in indirect taxation so that savings and investment are encouraged. Here, however, we have had a colossal increase in indirect taxation combined with an increase in direct taxation—which will reduce savings. For this reason I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman's theory can work.
  We are, in effect, talking about Boyle's Law. Hon. Members who were in the House in the 'fifties will recall that when we increased indirect taxes at one period the right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister was extraordinarily scornful and dubbed our action "Boyle's Law." It was a favourite joke of his. He used it for four or five years. People tend to say that the Prime Minister is unreliable, but in some respects he is not. Birch's second law about the Prime Minister is that if the right hon. Gentleman says that something is wrong, and he will not do it, and if he says thirty times or more that it is wrong and he will not do it, one can be certain that he will do it. This is Boyle's Law

  331
  cubed. It is designed to reduce consumption, but it is very difficult to reduce consumption.
  A distinguished pamphlet was produced by Professor Hicks last year. It was called "After the Boom", and in it he traced this matter with a wealth of statistics. It is very difficult indeed to get people to reduce consumption. One can inflict some sufferings on the old and the poor, but most people who can protect themselves do so. They go in for more wages and, if that is stopped by legislation, they run down past savings or reduce their current savings in order not to cut their standard of living which they have come to accept as being their due and to be normal. In a year when the Government have calculated on the cost of living going up 7½ per cent., and it is almost certain to go up by at least 9 per cent. according to Professor Alan Day, this will not work.
  The last theme I have is on the inflation caused by this high expenditure and what can be done about it. Lord Cromer, speaking in 1966, pointed out that as a result of this very high expenditure we always have a borrowing requirement or overall deficit. In so far as one cannot finance the borrowing requirement or the overall deficit by genuine savings and genuine borrowing, inflation results, "quasi-automatic", as he put it. He illustrated this by the example of 1965 when the money supply increased by 7½ per cent. whereas the national product increased by only 2 per cent. This went on last year according to figures given by the Financial Secretary when the money supply went up by 8 per cent., whereas the national product went up by only 1·6 per cent. We get this inflationary element all the time because we cannot borrow.
  During the last three years the overall deficit has not been financed in any way by genuine borrowing. It has been financed by printing notes, minting coins, borrowing money overseas and running down reserves, and by recourse to the banking system. This produced devaluation, rising prices, debts and the rest. It is no wonder that Pierre-Paul Schweitzer was so insistent that we should control our overall deficit. I am glad that the Chancellor has reduced it, although I am a little sceptical about the
  332
  figures which have been given. We were told that the estimates last year were very tightly drawn and I strongly suspect that they are more tightly drawn today. There are other things, such as the financing of the steel industry, where I rather mistrust the figures.
  We have the difficulty that we have not been able to finance overall deficit by genuine borrowing. Why not? There are two reasons. One is the slaughter of the market in Government securities. The other is the large sums borne on the Budget for capital expenditure of local authorities and nationalised industries. On the gilt-edged market, it is not unnatural that the difficulties are so great. Take what happened to the Treasury's 2½ per cent.s, commonly known as "Daltons". Lord Dalton introduced them in 1946 at 2½ per cent. at 100 and now they are just over one-third of that price. Meanwhile, the value of the £ has decreased by more than 10s. in the £. A man who saved £100 in 1946 now has, in 1946 money, just over £16. He has been getting interest meanwhile at 2½ per cent. less tax.
  We cannot wonder that people are losing their nerve. The rate of interest is not attractive if the cost of living is going up by 9 per cent. What can we do? In local government borrowing there have been a number of changes since the middle 'fifties. Then the policy, which I think was correct, was that local authorities could go only to the Public Works Loan Board as a lender of last resort and they had to pay the full rate. Now the policy has gradually shifted and local authorities can go more and more to the Public Works Loan Board and get a privileged rate. This puts a large amount of money on the Budget. If we make local authorities borrow on their own credit and fish around for the money, as many successfully do, we ensure that the capital expenditure by local authorities is matched by genuine savings, whereas, if it comes from the Budget, or is raised as much, as scandalously, as it has been by the supply of seven-day money lent by the gnomes at up to 10 per cent. interest or whatever it may be, this is not matching expenditure to savings.
  As to nationalised industries, the thing is not to nationalise things but to de-nationalise where we can. Incidentally, the nationalisation of steel has put an

  333
  appalling burden on the country. The steel industry is not likely to earn the interest, or anything like it. It has been financed entirely on the money market. The whole industry has been monetised with three-year borrowings. Some is in the issue department of the Bank of England, the rest is in the money market, and this has to be coped with in two years' time. We have these nationalised industries and the Government have to finance them as best they can. It is no good saying we shall issue gas stock or electricity stock unless we can sell those stocks. They are harder to sell than straight Government securities.
  It all comes back to the point that if we are ever to get taxation down and savings up and be able to finance our overall deficit, we must get people to buy in the gilt-edged market again. This is a very difficult thing to do. The only way I can suggest of getting it started is by the Government giving some degree of fiscal privilege to those who invest in Government securities. This exists in many countries, and to some extent here. The first suggestion I make is that gilt-edged securities should not be subject to Capital Gains Tax.
  I raised this question as a matter of equity some years ago and I was partially successful, but a quite incredible result was produced—no doubt by Professor Kaldor—that some stocks were totally free of tax, some were partially free, and some were wholly subject to tax. That was not a logical situation. I suggest that we should go the whole hog. I cannot believe that the Government have been so foolish as to think that they would get any Capital Gains Tax to speak of out of the gilt-edged market.
  The next point might cost more, but I think it would be far more effective. As a result of Professor Kaldor's introduction of Corporation Profits Tax—why is he not a Life Peer?—the holder of gilt-edged securities is worse placed than he used to be in the sense that the income from gilt-edged securities is not deemed to be franked investment income. If an institution bought a preference share it would be deemed to be franked investment income because the company of whose capital it was a part had already paid Corporation Tax. We get the ludicrous situation that preference shares yield less than war loan and Government securities. We could introduce a
  334
  privilege either in whole or in part that the holder of gilt-edged securities would be held to be holding a franked investment income.
  My last suggestion is this. There are a number of tax concessions on savings movement securities, such as savings certificates, Defence Bonds and Development Bonds. It is for this reason that the amount any one person can hold is, I think in all cases, restricted. Chancellors have often increased the amounts that can be held. I think that I am right in saying that the Chancellor did that in this Budget. I believe that one of the few ways in which people's appetite for gilt-edged securities could be increased is by providing that the holdings of these privileged securities in the National Savings Movement could be very much larger than is now permitted. These privileges would do something to reduce interest rates and—much more important—they would reduce inflation by getting the bonds sold, instead of having to print the money. This is the way in which we shall check inflation.
  I have made a few suggestions. I think that our situation is dangerous. I do not think that it will blow up yet, but the sheer length of our financial crisis is what worries me. The sterling crisis started in November, 1964. Now, in April, 1968, it is still continuing and, in some ways, is rather worse. The Chancellor made a good speech, but that is not quite the same as actually succeeding. I do not think that he has broken out of the vicious circle. I do not think that he has got out of his strait-jacket. We shall have to wait with breathless attention to see what happens. I am afraid that my peroration about him will have to be the same as it was about his predecessor: I believe that the job can be done, but I very much doubt whether he can do it.
  8.12 p.m.
  Mr. Clifford Kenyon: The right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) always makes most interesting speeches on finance. It is always a pleasure to listen to him. I could not, if I wished, follow him into the ramifications of finance into which he went. My mind goes back a few years to when the present Lord Thorneycroft, the right hon. Gentleman, and his colleague, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton,

  335
  South-West (Mr. Powell), resigned from the Treasury. Lord Thorneycroft told the House that Britain was then on the slippery slope. It has been on the slippery slope ever since.
  I cannot understand why men of that ability—we all know that the right hon. Gentleman has great financial ability—did not hold on to that position, even if they could not get their way. They could at least have done something in that position to stop the country from sliding down the slippery slope. Although every Chancellor since the war has had a very difficult time, it was up to those right hon. Members to stand and fight where they were rather to leave it to others.
  Sir Robert Cary: They resigned.
  Mr. Kenyon: I know that they resigned. They should not have resigned. They should have stood and fought.
  In 1964 we reached the bottom of the slippery slope. The Government of the day failed in that, although they knew what the position was, with the country running at a deficit and with little prospect of pulling through, they acted in their legislation as though there were no deficit. What was required at that time was consolidation. They should have consolidated the country on a firm financial foundation without further expenditure; and only when they had got the money should they have ventured out into the procedure which they did. If they had consolidated the position then, we should have been in a far better position now.
  It is not my intention to say anything more on those lines. I want to discuss the Selective Employment Tax, which I have always been against, and show the effect which it has had, and is having, on a service in my constituency. Two years before the tax was introduced the laundry in the Chorley constituency set out to modernise its factory. It modernised half of the factory at a very heavy cost. Two years later the Selective Employment Tax was introduced. The laundry had been able, as a result of modernisation and the consequent saving of labour, to reduce its labour force from 660 to 555.
  The laundry must now pay £20,000 a year in S.E.T. This has prevented it from
  336
  modernising the remaining half of the factory. When the tax was introduced, the laundry was able to reduce the labour force by very little, because it has already reduced considerably and it was making fair savings in wages. The laundry has been held in this position, with half the factory modernised. In September, the Chancellor proposes to add another 50 per cent. to the £20,000 the laundry already pays in the tax. The laundry will then pay £30,000 a year. It is at the moment considering whether it will be able to continue beyond September. If it has to close, 555 people will be out of employment.
  It is not possible for the laundry to increase its charges. This was pointed out in Report No. 20 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, when the Board examined laundry and dry-cleaning charges. In Chapter 8—page 19, paragraph 55—the Board states:
  "We do not consider that there is scope in the domestic laundry industry for the absorption of increased costs through reduced profit margins in view of the need for further investment in modern labour-saving machinery."
  When the company increased its prices because of the Selective Employment Tax, it lost a certain amount of custom. It had to reduce the number of vans from 75 to 60. Any further reduction in trade will mean a further loss, and this at a time when it will have to pay an increase of 50 per cent. in the S.E.T.
  It seems to me that the Government are making this tax a revenue raiser, though when it was introduced the Chancellor at that time put it forward as a tax which would cause the transfer of labour from services to manufacturing and exporting industries. I wonder whether figures can be produced to show that that has taken place? My examination of figures available in my constituency shows that the transfer has gone from services to the unemployment figures.
  In my view, the unemployment benefits which have to be paid should be set against whatever revenue may be accruing to the Chancellor. Also, the tax which companies save as a result of putting down the Selective Employment Tax as a charge against profits should be set against any revenue accruing. Further, I believe that, if the effect of the S.E.T. is properly examined, it will be seen as detrimental to the economy

  337
  and not helping us at all. I am glad, therefore, that the Chancellor has announced that he is arranging for someone to examine the whole effect of this tax on industry. We shall have the result later, and I believe that it will show that the tax has not had the effect which we were told it would have.
  Now, another matter. Clause 8 of the Bill provides for the increase in the motor car licence fee from £17 10s. to £25. There are many motorists who find it a burden to pay for a full year's licence, and £25 will be quite an item for them to meet. They can pay it every four months, of course. When the licence fee was £17 10s., the charge for a four months' licence was £6 8s., an addition of £1 14s. over the full year. Now that the charge has risen to £25, motorists will have to pay £9 3s. each four months, an addition of £2 9s. over the full year. The first addition was 3½ per cent. The second is 6 per cent.
  Why the difference? These are people who are hard hit, and they cannot find the full year's amount all at once. Why should they be penalised? After all, a girl at the post office takes less than five minutes to make out the licence when people go for a new one. Why should they have to pay £2 9s. extra because they go three times a year instead of once? I want the Chancellor to look into this. I could understand a fee of, say, 5s. extra being charged when the licence is taken out every four months instead of once a year, but I cannot understand why a heavy charge of £2 9s. should be imposed when one girl has to make out three licences instead of one.
  I recognise that the Chancellor has had a difficult task. I wish him well in what he has done, though I cannot agree with all of it. I hope that he will be successful in the efforts he is making to bring solvency into our national finances. If he can do that, he will achieve something of which we can all be proud.
  8.26 p.m.
  Sir Fitzroy Maclean: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) began his speech by enunciating the startling proposition that by 1964 the country's economy had reached the bottom of the
  338
  slippery slope. I do not know what he was doing before 1964, but he cannot have paid much attention to what has been happening since. Neither can he have a very realistic idea of what is coming to us next.
  However, when the hon. Gentleman got on to the subject of the Selective Employment Tax, I found myself much more in sympathy with him and I hope that eventually we shall have an answer to the very pertinent questions which he posed about its operation.
  For my own part, I want to touch briefly, as I often have before, on the impact of taxation, and especially of the Selective Employment Tax, on Scotland in general and on the Scottish tourist industry in particular.
  We on this side of the House have made our attitude towards S.E.T. quite clear ever since it was first imposed. We regard it as a thoroughly bad tax. We shall repeal it as soon as we get the chance, and I hope that that chance will come soon. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan), aptly described it as a blunt instrument when it was first introduced, and it has certainly been used by the Government to bludgeon Scotland ever since. Incidentally, it is a pity that the hon. Gentleman, or at any rate some Minister from the Scottish Office, has not been present today. The Treasury has a big say in the fate of Scotland, and when it is having a field day, as it is today, it is quite useful to have a Scottish Minister here to keep an eye on it.
  At present, £20,000 is being paid by Scotland in Selective Employment Tax exery hour of every day, day and night. There is nothing surprising about that, because half the men and women in Scotland are employed in the service industries, which the tax so deliberately and so unfairly penalises. If the Government had only one object in view, namely, to harm Scotland, they could scarcely have devised a more ingenious or more effective method of doing it than by S.E.T.
  The Times—that is, the London Times—once spoke of the Government's "slow retreat" from their original proposals on the tax. "Slow" has been the operative word. But it is true that over the years, by relentless pressure inside and outside the House, we have managed to wring from them a few concessions to common

  339
  sense. The tax's application to agricultural workers, for example, was one folly from which we helped to save them, at the expense of the ridiculous rigmarole which has been going on ever since by which farmers pay the tax and then get it refunded at considerable expense to the taxpayer, and at the expense of giving a free loan to the Government at a time when they can least afford it.
  The latest of these grudging concessions is that contained in Clause 47 of the Finance Bill, which provides for the exemption of hotels in certain parts of Scotland from the effect of the tax. But when we look at it more closely—and this particular gift horse can do with a very hard look in the mouth—its application turns out only to make confusion worse confounded. Just what sort of a gift it is, is well illustrated by the Chief Secretary's Answer to recent Questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), from which it appears that while the estimated amount of the refund in one year will be £300,000, the estimated increase in the yield of the tax from the hotel industry in Scotland will be about £750,000. In other words, the Scottish tourist industry is to be punished to the extent of almost another £500,000 by this "gift". It is a question of giving a little with one hand and taking a great deal away with the other.
  But what has caused the greatest indignation in Scotland—and the Chief Secretary should have no illusions about the violent feelings that the Clause and the relevant Schedule have aroused—has been the geographical application of the exemptions, the arbitrary choice of areas, the invisible line drawn as it were between two hotels lying physically cheek by jowl and operating under similar circumstances. And yet one has been exempted altogether and the other, its neighbour, has been struck by a swingeing 50 per cent. increase in S.E.T. Whatever the Chancellor may say, and I know that there is supposed to be some kind of theory behind this, it does not seem to most people to make any sense at all. No wonder the Scotsman headed its leading article "Incompetent or mad", and proceeded to puzzle out in 1,000 words which it was. My hon. Friends say both, and I think that they probably have the correct answer.
  340
  Naturally, I welcome the exemption from this monstrous tax of hotels in the areas which are exempted. I happen, incidentally, to benefit from it myself. It is, of course, quite right that the Highlands and Islands, the Borders and the South-West should be exempted. This is something for which we have been pressing for many years. I also welcome the belated recognition by the Government that Arran, Bute and Cumbrae are islands and should be treated as such. Again, better late than never.
  What enrages people is that hotels in a whole range of areas constituting major tourist centres, facing most if not all the same problems as their neighbours, should not only not be exempted but should have the tax that they already pay increased by 50 per cent. In my own constituency, Rothesay, Brodick and Mill-port are quite rightly exempted. I am very glad that they have been exempted. It makes one feel that one is occasionally able to achieve something here. But, just across the water, a few miles away in North Ayrshire, Skelmorlie, Large, Fairlie, West Kilbride, Seamill Ardrossan, Saltcoats and Stevenston, all important tourist centres, are hit by an additional burden. On the other hand, in South Ayrshire the area of the Girvan employment exchange, is exempted.
  The same sort of thing has happened elsewhere in Scotland. In the North-East, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) knows full well, and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), the same sort of anomalies exist. In fact, the whole Schedule bristles with contradictions and anomalies.
  And then there is another thing. Even in the exempted areas, teashops and restaurants are not exempted. In Scotland, especially in the areas frequented by day visitors and by motorists—and that applies to most places—hotels and restaurants have an essential part to play. They deserve every encouragement and not just more bludgeoning with a blunt instrument. How otherwise are they to provide the improved service that visitors to Scotland now demand?
  I took a few soundings among the caterers and hoteliers in my constituency last weekend, and I found them literally

  341
  seething with indignation. I know that it has become the fashion nowadays to quote in one's speeches some of the more pungent remarks made by one's constituents on topics of public interest. But if I were to emulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in this respect and quote verbatim to the House what some of my constituents said to me about the Chancellor last Saturday morning, I am afraid that I should at once be ruled out of order, if not worse.
  Does not the Chancellor realise that the Scottish hotel industry, which is one of our biggest dollar earners, is as a whole, seriously short of staff? That it is in fact about 20 per cent. short and that interferes very seriously with the very important job it is doing? That labour should be channelled into it and not out of it? And will the Chancellor, therefore, not take a bold, imaginative step and exempt the whole of the Scottish Development Area, with Edinburgh and Leith thrown in for good measure? That would be a thoroughly sensible thing to do, and it would be even more sensible if he would exempt teashops and restaurants and other catering establishments as well. Even fiscally it would bring a rich return, which I am sure is what he is principally interested in.
  Might I, while I am on my feet, suggest to the Chancellor one other bold and simple stroke by which he could do a great deal to solve many of Scotland's problems? That is, by simply taking half a crown off the standard rate of Income Tax for Scotland. I believe that this would quickly stop depopulation and the brain drain southwards. It would bring prosperity and a steady flow of new industry to Scotland. It might even start a brain drain northwards, if that is possible.
  I ask the Chief Secretary to take this idea away with him and think it over carefully. He will find, I think, that, apart from its boldness and simplicity, it has a lot to commend it. Wherever they have been used—and I do not think that they have been used anything like enough—fiscal inducements have worked very well. They help to prime the pump, and that is what is needed in Scotland. A fiscal inducement such as this on a nationwide scale would give Scotland the added financial and economic impetus which
  342
  she has so badly lacked ever since this Government came to power. It would also have the advantage of encouraging and reinforcing success, which is something we do not do anything like enough. Finally, it could be applied without the employment of one additional civil servant.
  For all those reasons, I hope that the Chancellor will consider it very seriously indeed.
  8.43 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: To judge from the debate so far, Selective Employment Tax has very few friends. I do not pretend to be one myself, and I was glad to hear the Chancellor say that he would set on foot an examination of the effect of the tax, its incidence and, I hope, its anomalies and injustices so that we can have a complete account of the way in which it has worked and what its economic and other effects have been.
  I was in the Government when Selective Employment Tax was introduced. There was a plausible case for it at the time. In its favour, it must be said that manufacturing industries were bearing a fairly heavy load of taxation, with Purchase Tax on a wide range of goods, whereas the service industries were not bearing a similar kind of taxation. The alternative to heaping up the level of Purchase Tax or increasing the rate of direct taxation was to find a new base for taxation and this was the one chosen.
  It was not my choice. I may as well say frankly that I advocated a simple payroll tax of 1 per cent. right across the board. It would have been much more acceptable. I doubt whether it would have had any harmful consequences and it would have produced the revenue. But the case made for the S.E.T. was that it might have some economic advantage in compelling the service industries to economise on labour and so release people for employment in manufacturing industries. That was the theory of the likely effect of the tax.
  I do not think that we have had any convincing evidence that the tax has brought about this switch from employment in the service industries into the manufacturing industries, and certainly the tax has caused a great deal of hardship to many people who have been struggling in business and have been

  343
  economising on staff and devoting a great deal of their own energies to building up their affairs.
  So I think that the S.E.T. now needs very thorough re-examination to see what it is all about and what its effect has been. I do not think that we should take any political stance on this. It was a new tax introduced in circumstances in which it was felt to be justified, and the whole House and the country want to know whether it has justified its introduction and should continue.
  I am glad that one or two right hon. and hon. Members have spoken about some of the Clauses in the Bill. I thought at one stage that those who had spoken were divided into two groups—those who assumed that they would serve on the Standing Committee and, therefore, could talk about the economy on Second Reading, and those of us who were doubtful as to whether we would serve on the Committee and, therefore, might talk about the Bill on Second Reading because this might be our only chance to do so. I am in the latter group, so I am going to talk about Clause 14 and only about Clause 14, which contains three proposals.
  The first proposal has a very strong bearing on our sentiment and the desire we all have to encourage young married couples to start life on a firm financial foundation. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to withdraw the existing concession of granting the full married allowance to the husband and a double set of allowances and reduced rate reliefs to the wife for the whole tax year, irrespective of the date in that tax year on which they got married.
  We have from time to time read accounts of the wedding boom just before the end of the tax year, and some of us have looked for the more sophisticated people who have chosen the early part of October to get married—this from the tax point of view, being more attractive than getting married towards the end of the tax year. I think that the concession has to go and that it is right that it should. It was becoming a little unseemly that clergymen had to complain that it would have been more appropriate if the tax collector had been the witness
  344
  to many marriage ceremonies instead of relatives.
  It would have been more appropriate still if the tax bounty had been paid out there and then. I have heard this step described as mean but I do not think it right that this arrangement should be continued. When I was in the Inland Revenue one had to be qualified at the beginning of a year of assessment. Unless one was married at the beginning of the year of assessment, there was no marriage allowance at all. I have not looked up which Chancellor it was who made the change from one extreme to the other—probably some sentimental, bachelor Chancellor, who thought that he ought to see the younger people off with a bit of tax, something in their pocket.
  Now we are reaching the right solution, because had the Chancellor in those days gone from one extreme to a proportionate basis, everyone would have said that it was fair. Instead he went to the other extreme and it is quite obviously unfair to the Revenue, apart from anything else. Now we are getting it straight, right in the middle. The marriage allowance will be in proportion to the period of the tax year in which the marriage takes place.
  The other two proposals have a fiscal and social significance going rather wider than the appearance of the Clause would suggest. The Chancellor referred, I thought to murmurs of approval, to the proposed increase in age exemptions. He is proposing to put it up for a single person from £401 to £415, an increase of £14 and from £643 to £665 for a married couple, an increase of £22. Marginal reliefs beyond those limits will go to £230, instead of £180.
  The age exemption was increased only last year. The new Clause to increase it was, very unusually, introduced on Report. This was because the Government's announcement of further increases in retirement pensions was made last summer, and it was necessary to increase the age exemption limits in sympathy with the increase in the level of pension, otherwise pensioners would complain of the high marginal rate of tax on a modest increase in their retirement pension. We find that age exemption has been increased in every year except one since 1961–62.

  345
  It rather looks as if every time the pension is increased the age exemption will have to be increased as well, in order to avoid this complaint about the high marginal rate of tax which would otherwise be borne by the increased pension. If this process is to continue without any corresponding tax concession to younger persons, the gap between the fiscal advantage of the elderly and the tax burden of the young will widen.
  At present a married couple under 65 years of age pay £43 tax on a total income of £665, whereas a couple, one of whom only need be over 65 will be completely exempt on a total income of that figure. If one considers the concession given by the marginal relief above the absolute limits of age exemption it means that a retired couple, or a couple one of whom is over the age of 65, can reach a total income of £895 a year before they pay the same amount of tax as a younger couple on the same income.
  This raises the question of equity, and it has a social significance, because this is the measure of what has been described as fiscal welfare for the retired or older people on modest incomes. Yet we read in the newspapers that many old people are not satisfied with complete tax exemption if their total income is below these limits. They want tax exemption on the first £665 of their joint income. That would be a very big and quite unjustified tax concession, and it would widen still further the discrepancy between the burden of taxation on the young and that on the elderly.
  Mr. F. J. Bellenger: Has my right hon. Friend overlooked the fact that the young couple are earning and are in a position to earn, but the retired couple have no chance to do that?
  Mr. Houghton: It is not as simple as that. I concede that most people who have retired are living on a smaller income than they had when they were at work and that many of them are living on fixed incomes. Nevertheless, there are quite a lot of retired people who are getting the benefit of the improved value of equities, of pension increases and, in a number of cases, of some form of employment.
  But we must be satisfied that any gap in the level of taxation between one group
  346
  and another on the same income is fully justified. We have to wonder about two things in this situation. The first is how far increases in pensions can continue to be given across the board irrespective of total income with a continuing extension of tax exemption. We should consider some tapering arrangement of future pensions increases so that we can use the tax system to withhold some of the uncovenanted benefit from those in the higher income groups. In principle, this is no different from the proposal in Clause 14 in relation to family allowances. I am rather surprised that we have not paid more attention to the effect of Clause 14 on the system of family allowances.
  A few weeks ago, we debated the Second Reading of the Family Allowances and National Insurance Bill which proposes to increase family allowances by a further amount in October this year. But we knew that at the same time there would be provision in the Finance Bill to offset part or the whole of the increased family allowances for those in the higher income groups. We know what family allowances are. We know that they are given across the board, that they are given irrespective of means and that they are non-contributory; they are paid for wholly out of taxation.
  There is a legend that taxation takes care of the differences of income and that family allowances are thereby suitably adjusted to the means of the recipients. But the figures do not show that, and that is why the Chancellor of the Exchequer is having to do something more about it. A taxpayer in the top bracket, paying at the standard rate, still keeps 11s. 9d. in the £ of the family allowance in addition to the tax relief which he gets for Income Tax purposes.
  A married man earning £1,200 a year, with two children under 11, will get £59 net gain from Income Tax child allowance this year and if no adjustments were made he would get on top nearly £25 net family allowance. Family support in his case amounts to £84 net a year. A married man earning £14 a week, with two children under 11, paying no tax will get no benefit from Income Tax child relief, but he will get the full benefit of the family allowances, so he will get in total family support £42 net—exactly half

  347
  the net amount of family support given to the man earning £1,200 a year.
  The question is whether a parent paying tax at the top rate needs the extra 7s. in family allowances which began a fortnight ago and the additional 3s. which is due to come in at the beginning of October. The Chancellor says "No". I agree with him. The Chancellor has become a civilised selectivist, because civilised selectivity was the description which he gave to this operation. He said before the Budget that he proposed, by means of tax adjustments, to ensure that the extra 7s. a week went only to those in need.
  I was an advocate of a scheme, which the Government are now introducing, which would have given a 10s. increase in the family allowance with scaling down by reduction in the Income Tax child relief. That was not accepted at the time. Instead the Government introduced a proposal to increase family allowances by 7s.—not 10s.—right across the board without any accompanying tapering arrangement for Income Tax child relief. The Government are now able to do precisely what I said they could do. It can be 10s., and it is to be 10s., accompanied by the adjustments in the tax allowances which are contained in Clause 14. The Chancellor achieves this by the simple device of reducing the Income Tax child relief by £36 for each child for whom family allowance is payable. When hon. Members in different parts of the House were saying on Second Reading of the Family Allowances and National Insurance Bill that this would create an administrative nightmare, I pointed out that it would be almost as simple as A.B.C. and would work like a charm. So it will.
  Mr. Michael Shaw: Would the right hon. Gentleman carry his argument still further to the extent that there comes a range of income when it pays a Surtax payer to dispossess himself of the family allowance?
  Mr. Houghton: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to weep about that. I think that he might, with some justice in society dispossess himself of a little more than the child relief that he does not really need. However, I will reserve a soft spot in my heart for these people.
  348
  As I get older I develop more compassion for the deprived members of the community—and I am sure that they are part of it.
  Mr. Peter Tapsell Mr. Peter Tapsell (Horncastle) rose——
  Mr. Houghton: I must get on. I have just given way to the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Michael Shaw).
  The purpose here is to withhold the benefit of the increases from those liable at the standard rate while those paying at a reduced rate are to benefit only proportionately. Here is the important fiscal significance of what the Chancellor is proposing in Clause 14. The principle of selectivity is achieved by employing the tax system to do more than impose a tax on income. This is what the Chancellor called the break-through, because he uses it to withhold social benefits paid on a universal basis.
  I think that the social significance of the Chancellor's proposal is that family allowance can now be 3s. more for the poorer families than it would have been but for the proposals in Clause 14. I approve of that. The first proposal was for 7s., without any claw back. It is now 10s. with the arrangements in Clause 14.
  Mr. Tapsell: The right hon. Gentleman speaks with more authority on this subject than anybody else in the House. Our criticism is that after both the 7s. and 3s. arrangements have been completed, with all the complications, 250,000 children will still be left below the poverty line, and this seems to be a fundamental flaw in all these arrangements.
  Mr. Houghton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning that, because I was coming to it. The social significance is that by this method we can increase the family allowance for poorer people beyond the point that we would otherwise do it, and at the same time we can save £60 million in the cost of family allowance increases proposed under the other Bill. Socially, fiscally and financially we have a benefit from this arrangement.
  From the point of view of equity as between one parent and another, Clause 14 will have the effect of narrowing the

  349
  difference between the family support given to the better-off family and the poorer family by the combination of tax relief and family allowances. Instead of a £1,200 a year man with two children under 11 getting £84 net family support this year, he will get £69. Of the net gain of £25 which he would otherwise get from the family allowance, £15 will be taken away by the restriction of the Income Tax child relief of £36.
  The Chancellor has said that the scaling down process will apply this year only to the increase in family allowance, not to the basic allowance of 8s. for the second child and 10s. for the third child onwards. There is no attempt to scale down the benefit of the family allowance below the increases, but my right hon. Friend has said that for 1969–70 he is hoping to make a more drastic attack on these allowances being paid to better off people, and that he hopes to introduce what he calls full selectivity for family allowances and to do it in such a way that the people who are not in real need of them will not draw them.
  The objects to the scheme are perhaps threefold, and the hon Member for Horn-castle (Mr. Tapsell) referred to one of them. He said that it does not meet fully the needs of very poor families, that there will still be 160,000 families, where the man is in full-time work, whose total resources will be below those prescribed by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. That is true.
  My first observation on that is that social benefits cannot do everything which a wage system lacks. If social benefits are to underpin low wages and inadequate earnings, then we shall all be on social benefits. Wages must carry a minimum of personal domestic responsibility. But even if that were not so we could make the 10s. family allowance 15s. It can be 20s., accompanied by a similar exercise to that outlined in Clause 14. The restriction of the Income Tax child relief, instead of being £36, would have to be much greater, but it could be done. The paring process could meet any increase in family allowances.
  I believe that, on Second Reading of the Family Allowances and National Insurance Bill, I gave the extreme example that, if one abolished Income Tax child reliefs altogether and used the
  350
  proceeds to improve family allowances, one could give a family allowance of 30s. for each child, including the first. That would make a real attack on the problem of poorer families and we would hear no criticism of that. But the Chancellor has to make a modest start so, for the moment, the combined proposal of family allowance and Income Tax will leave these families in their present unfortunate position——
  Mr. Tapsell: I doubt whether Miss Ellen Wilkinson, when she campaigned for family allowances, would have agreed that they could not meet the problem of the low-paid worker, because that was exactly what she had in mind. Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this method of tying it to Income Tax combined with universal increases in family allowances is a clumsy and roundabout one, and that these 250,000 children in the 160,000 poorest families could be helped more directly and immediately by a means test?
  Mr. Houghton: That brings me to my very next point, that, if the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member suggests that the solution of the problem is to go directly to the target with a means test of the working man with a family, my reply is that that is totally unacceptable. It would be quite objectionable to create a totally new means test for 250,000 men on low wages with family responsibilities. I need not dwell on the consequences of such a step. We know that it can be done through the direct method, and comparatively cheaply, probably at a cost of £14 million or £15 million a year, but what about men who are not interested in overtime or productivity or promotion on the shop floor, where other skilled workers are probably drawing less money, and who say, "The skill you want is the skill of reproduction, because that is how you get your money."? We would see undesirable influences in the attitude of employers who could take on a low-paid man and say that the Supplementary Benefits Commission would make up the difference.
  I hope that hon. Members will understand that it does not matter how many times we go around in circles trying to deal with this matter. We want it

  351
  to be acceptable and not objectionable. The hon. Gentleman asks, "Why give it out with one hand and take it back with the other?". The answer is that this is how it can be done acceptably. Indeed, taxation itself is largely taking back something which has been given out. In a society which has a strong objection, through our unhappy social history, to individual means testing, we have to accept that there must be alternatives which avoid all that humiliation and indignity——
  Mr. Martin Maddan: The right hon. Gentleman is a great authority and has enormous experience and I should not like him to dwell on this point. He said that a minimum wage would be a great contribution to this topic and, ideally, it would, but how would that help the man with a very large family? How could the minimum wage be set high enough to ensure that his children had the minimum standard of life to which we all think that they are entitled?
  Mr. Houghton: I appreciate the question. If all the families who are below the supplementary benefit level were the larger families, the hon. Gentleman would have a good case, but they are not. In looking at the composition of these families we find that a large proportion of them are two-children and some even one-child families. Although many of them are large families, they are by no means the greater proportion of the total number of families living below the supplementary benefit level. One must, therefore, ask the wage system to at least satisfy the reasonable requirements of a man and wife and one or two children, supplemented, as it will be, by family allowances.
  The third objection to this proposal which I have heard is that it will create difficulties and friction between man and wife. The Chancellor said in his Budget speech that 350,000 men would be brought into the P.A.Y.E. system for the first time, because they would have to pay more in tax so that their wives could get still more in higher family allowances. I have been treated at different times to a dramatic presentation of John coming home from work and saying, "Mary, they have taken 9s. from my pay packet in P.A.Y.E." I have heard how Mary
  352
  will reply, "That is all right John. I have another 15s. in the family allowance", to which he will reply, "If I am to suffer from P.A.Y.E. and if you are to have more in the family allowance, we must make an adjustment in the housekeeping budget." Then I have been told that the trouble will start, with Mary saying, "You are a mean man. I knew you were like that when I married you and now you have proved it"—and the rolling pin will come out and the Marriage Guidance Council will be on the premises before one can say Jack Robinson.
  That is a fantasy. As the Minister of Social Security pointed out, most of the parents of young children these days are themselves young. They belong to a different generation. With respect to those who wish to preserve the harmony of married life, I suggest that they need not fear that the Chancellor's proposals in Clause 14 will upset it all that much.
  I make my next suggestion with some hesitation because it may not be fully acceptable to my hon. Friends. I believe that it is time to consider a new method of approaching uncovenanted pension increases. The National Insurance Scheme is a gigantic system of transfer payments financed on a pay-as-you-go basis from joint contributions of employers and employees and from Exchequer contributions. The benefits have no relation to the contributions paid and the contributions are becoming an exaction on the lower-paid workers, who have the uncovenanted benefits of the pensions of better-off workers slung round their necks.
  Total expenditure on pensions is much higher than it need be and I believe that higher benefits for those who need them could be paid for far less expenditure, on precisely the same principle as that adopted for family allowances. For a lower net cost, hundreds of thousands of pensioners could be taken off supplementary benefits and given an adequate pension as of right, with a scaling down of benefits for those with higher incomes. This could be done by an adjustment of the personal tax allowances for married and single persons and those receiving retirement pensions.
  This presents some administrative problems, but they are no more insuperable than the problems connected with

  353
  family allowances. I am, of course, talking about pension increases and I would like this matter considered in relation to the next pension increase so that we could see if we could make it bigger for poorer people and scale it down for the better-off, instead of giving it, as we do at present, equally across the board, inadequate at one end and a surplus at the other.
  Of course, with a contributory scheme one has to maintain the fundamental basis of benefits as of right by reference to contributions. Therefore, a minimum claim to a pension must be clearly established, but when it comes to uncovenanted increases every two years right across the board at the cost of £300 million a year and still have nearly 2 million having to go to the Supplementary Benefits Scheme, there is something radically wrong with the whole system. Therefore, with some diffidence but with profound conviction, I believe that now is the time to begin to consider what the breakthrough of the interlocking scheme of family allowances and Income Tax allowances can do in other branches of the social services.
  9.21 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Grant: I am very pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) because he is one of the vice-presidents of the Wider Share Ownership Movement of which I am a founder-member. I shall not follow him into the intricacies of Clause 14, which he developed in detail and at considerable length, but some of the things I say may strike a chord with him in his capacity as a vice-president of the Wider Share Ownership Movement. Many hon. Members have made a case for a two-day debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill but that is not to be and, as many hon. Members still wish to speak, I shall be brief.
  I regard this as a completely negative Bill enacting a completely negative Budget. It is a Bill which increases taxation by an unprecedented £900 million-odd in a full year. When one recalls the proud boast of the Prime Minister and others in 1964 that they could fulfil their programme without any increases in taxation, the spectacle of hon. Members opposite actually cheering the highest increases in taxation in peace time can only be described as astounding They have become like the lunatic who,
  354
  when asked why he was banging his head against the wall, said that it was because it was so nice when he stopped. If we had not been so mesmerised in recent years, they would be clamouring for reductions in taxation, not cheering increases.
  The cat was let out of the bag concerning the economic mess we are in by the Answer which the Chief Secretary gave to a Question by me on 2nd April when I asked for details of expenditure over the period 1964–67 and the right hon. Gentleman revealed in stark terms that in that period there had been an increase in fixed capital formation in the public sector of no less than 26 per cent. and in the private sector of minus 1 per cent. I thought that revealed the whole reason for our mess and inflation in one single stark sentence which brought the facts into the light of day.
  Devaluation followed as sure as night follows day, but, given the fact that devaluation was a major economic defeat or a giant stride toward Socialism—as my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) said, the terms are entirely synonymous—I suppose it was inevitable that it was necessary to take a substantial amount of purchasing power away from domestic consumer spending. Indeed, many people thought the Chancellor astonishingly weak not to have acted sooner in face of that situation.
  We are faced with an oppressive and negative Finance Bill. In the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker), in a remarkably confident and sprightly maiden speech, it is a gloomy monument to three years of hopeless mismanagement of our economy. It is the last depressing squeak from the punctured Labour Party hot-air balloon. In this Finance Bill the Chancellor, by his negative approach, has missed a great opportunity to encourage the only alternative to increased taxation. I refer of course to savings.
  The Chancellor's predecessor, the present Home Secretary, said in fine ringing tones, either last year or the year before, "More savings mean less taxation". Whenever I have urged the cause of savings on Treasury Ministers, they have fallen over themselves to say what a splendid thing savings are and how good they are for the community. Alas, that

  355
  lip-service has never been translated into action.
  There are three reasons why savings are important in our economy and to our whole way of life. First, by savings a reduction in private consumption can be achieved without extra taxation. Secondly, savings, especially if they are in productive industry, can promote growth in the economy, whereas increased taxation cannot encourage growth in the economy; in fact, all too often it has exactly the opposite effect through being a disincentive. Thirdly, on a more philosophical note, increased savings give people a stake and an interest in their country which they cannot otherwise have through nationalisation and they encourage personal responsibility. Increased savings are a bulwark against the ever-encroaching powers of the State in our society. At present our whole tax system works against savings and thrift, particularly against the small saver.
  I believe that in a number of relatively simple and not too expensive ways small savings in particular could be helped by the Bill. I regret that they are not. First, why not exempt from Income Tax the first £25 or £50 of investment income? This is done in Post Office savings; an investment in the Post Office gets the first £15 of interest tax-free. What is so wonderful about the Post Office? Why not do the same for savings invested in productive industry?
  I believe that the whole of our system of repayment claims for tax deducted from dividends before they are paid is cumbersome and a complete disincentive to people, particularly small investors, to save. All the mumbo-jumbo of having tax deducted at the standard rate and then having to fill up very complicated forms is, to the small investor, a great impediment. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Michael Shaw) will not agree with me, because he may render that useful service.
  I appreciate that to abolish Stamp Duty totally might be a considerable expense. However, in many ways Stamp Duty, particularly on share transactions, is a disincentive and, I have always thought, an absurd and unnecessary tax. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Acton referred to the ludicrous
  356
  artificial distinction which is drawn between earned income and so-called unearned income. He spelled this out very clearly. This absurd anomaly goes back to heaven knows what time. The sooner we get rid of it the better it will be.
  If a reduction in taxation is an incentive for people to work for so-called earned income, even more so is it an incentive to people to invest. People work for reasons other than sheer cash, though that is the main consideration. They work because they like where the job is or they like what they are doing. The only criteria for people to invest is the net money return they will receive. Therefore, if it is wished to encourage savings, regard must be paid solely to the taxation effect.
  The Capital Gains Tax in itself, through the damage it has done to so many small savings, notably to the Investment Club Movement, whose cause I have so often advocated in the House, has been a menace and a drag upon the whole of savings. Clause 26 contains one small grudging concession, in that the first £50 of gain is to be exempt from taxation. I have been advocating this ever since Capital Gains Tax was introduced in 1965. Other organisations in the City—the Wider Share Ownership Movement, the Investment Club Movement—have been pressing the Chancellor to grant this small relief. I moved Amendments in 1965 and 1966, but I was always met with the argument that, although it might benefit a few small savers, it would also benefit many rich people, and therefore it must be wicked. I was told, also, that it was virtually impossible administratively.
  What has changed since then? Why do those arguments no longer apply, and why has the Treasury at last grudgingly changed its mind? Perhaps the reason is the advent of the Financial Secretary to his present office. He is on record in some of the earlier debates, when he sat on one of the benches behind, as sharing my view. Perhaps we have gained something from his elevation to the Treasury Bench.
  Another measure to encourage savings could have been taken in this Bill. I refer to the savings option scheme which my hon. Friends and I have put forward,

  357
  a sort of "Save-as-you-earn" scheme, which merits careful consideration. If the Government had any desire and intention to encourage savings, something along those lines could have been incorporated in the Bill.
  The Government might have applied their minds, also, to giving a concession to company thrift plans. There are such schemes in many countries, for example, Germany, the United States and France. I regard the schemes in the United States as the best. Briefly, they involve a 6 per cent. deduction from the payroll which is invested by the company in Government bonds or company stock, though not more than 50 per cent. in the company's stock. For every dollar saved, the company itself adds 50 cents. This has to continue for five years in order that the employee may have the full benefit.
  We could do the same here, but the difference in Britain is that payments and bonuses made by the employer would be liable to tax as income in the hands of the worker or investor, whereas under the tax concessions in the United States they would attract the capital gains tax which operates there. Again, this is something positive which the Government could do to encourage savings, and I hope that the Financial Secretary will give their views about it.
  Mr. A. P. Costain: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that in Australia, in order to encourage people to buy their own homes, the Government supplement the savings of young people—a savings-for-housing, scheme?
  Mr. Grant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I did not know that, and I am interested to hear it. It is an example showing where Australia is further ahead than we are.
  Now, another scheme to encourage savings which could be adopted within the framework of the present law. I refer to investment sharing schemes which are not stock options. This idea is the brainchild of Dr. George Copeman, of the Wider Share Ownership Movement, details of which have been sent to the Chancellor through the Financial Secretary. Briefly, the idea is that employees are given shares of relatively low yield and with few rights to begin with. After a period, these are converted, as the profit-
  358
  ability of the company increases, so that the workers have a direct interest in the profitability of the company. In due course, the shares become full ordinary shares. This scheme gives employees a stake in the country and associates them with the success of their company. I should like the Financial Secretary to confirm, first, that there is nothing in the Bill, so far as he knows, which would work to the detriment of that idea, and second, that he and the Chancellor are wholly sympathetic to that concept, which would be in the interests of the community as a whole.
  The Chancellor is missing a great opportunity in not doing something to promote savings in the Finance Bill. I cannot do better than quote the words of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition:
  "The country desperately needs a savings policy. …If half the resources devoted to a compulsory wage freeze were transferred to looking for effective ways of encouraging personal savings, I am sure that some practical scheme could be devised."
  Of course it can. It can be devised if the will is there. But will on the part of the Government is lacking, not only on the savings front but in every sector of the economy. The Chancellor is, one might say, the leading escapologist in the House, a greater escapologist than Houdini. He dodged out of the Ministry of Aviation just before it got too hot for him. He ducked out of the Home Office just before all the immigration problems arose. He will find it very difficult and beyond his ingenuity to get out of the dilemma which the mishandling of the economy by the present Government has caused and which has led us to face this wretched and wholly negative Bill. I believe that it represents the complete barrenness of thought of the Government, and for that reason I shall vote against it.
  9.35 p.m.
  Mr. James Dickens: In the course of our debate today we have had an almost endless recital of appeals by hon. Members opposite to the Government to cut the level of public expenditure and the level of taxation. After listening to them I feel that it is about time that hon. Members opposite faced up to some of the stark realities of the economic position that faces the country.

  359
  I begin by reminding the House that we in Britain spend less on public consumption than, for example, does the United States. We have one of the highest rates of private consumption of any advanced industrial country. Our spending on the social services per head of population, as recent I.L.O. and O.E.D.C. surveys estimated, is lower than that in capitalist America.
  In the context of this debate we must see taxation policy as part of the Governmen's endeavours to reappraise Britain's world financial rôle. I want to try to measure the Bill against those terms of reference.
  In his interesting speech this evening, which unfortunately contained some unworthy passages, the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) discussed with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) whether the country is now a creditor nation. Mr. A. R. Conan, in a recent broadcast on the Third Programme and in a variety of articles in learned financial periodicals, has drawn our attention to the fact that we in Britain today can pay for a much higher percentage of our imports from the revenue from our exports than we have ever done. Moreover, British investments overseas before the war totalled about £4,000 million of direct and portfolio holdings. Despite all the effects of the Second World War, despite all the demands the war made on investments abroad, British investments abroad today total over £11,000 million.
  In its admirable Economic Review, the T.U.C. draws attention to the fact that the United Kingdom balance sheet at the end of 1966, the last year for which official information is available, showed our short-term assets as totalling £7,215 million and our short-term liabilities at just over £9,500 million. Therefore, we had a deficiency on short-term account, but a substantial surplus on long-term account, with assets totalling £10,580 million against liabilities of £6,735 million. The overall total, therefore, is that at the end of 1966 this country had assets, short- and long-term, of £17,795 million and liabilities of £16,345 million. That is a position of grave short-term weakness, and none of us should overlook this.
  360
  Taking up points which I and other hon. Members have advocated in the House and in the journal Tribune and in The Guardian newspaper, the T.U.C. argue:
  "While our short-term liabilities as a whole exceeded our short-term assets by nearly £2,500 million at the end of 1966, on the long-term account our assets exceeded our liabilities by £4,700 million. It is obviously dangerous—and not obviously necessary—to remain exposed in a way that no private banker would tolerate for a moment. The right course for Britain is so to arrange her balance sheet as to avoid crises of confidence and their effects on the economic growth on which Britain's real wealth and her real standing in the world depend."
  Significantly, the T.U.C. go on to urge:
  "It would be particularly helpful to the United Kingdom reserve position if more of the private portfolio which constitutes about half the total of £3,200 million at the end of 1966 was acquired by the Government over a period of time and built into Britain's frontline reserves."
  I remember when a number of us in this Chamber advocated this view how much it was ridiculed at the time. Now, we have one of the strongest bodies of opinion in the country moving in our direction and advocating this view. The T.U.C. has also, not merely in its economic review but in its Press comment on the Budget, made some very pertinent observations on the Chancellor's overall strategy. The T.U.C. said this on Budget day:
  "The Chancellor has deliberately and, in the T.U.C.'s view wrongly, set the sights of economic growth well below what Britain could and should achieve. The Budget is not based on an examination of the productive potential of the British economy, which, as the Government has itself recognised, is considerably more than 3 per cent. over the next few years. The Government has obviously been unduly influenced by considerations of foreign opinion—and indeed by the opinions of the most short-sighted of foreign observers—at the expense of developing and exploiting Britain's industrial capacity.
  The Chancellor has as a consequence not only been led to cut personal consumption, but has chosen to do it in ways which bear little relation to people's ability to pay. At a time when speculators have twice in recent months made vast profits out of the country's difficulties, it was time that the Chancellor made a real move in the direction of redistributing Britain's wealth."
  Now the most attractive aspect of the Budget is set out in Part IV of the Bill, dealing with the special levy. One has to look at the special levy against the enormous social inequality that still exists

  361
  in Britain today, In 1938 the top 5 per cent. of our population owned 79 per cent. of all private property in Britain. Professor J. A. Meade has calculated that in 1960, after 22 years of war taxation and welfare economics, the top 5 per cent. still own 74 per cent. of all private property, a modest enough reduction.
  It is true that there has been a more significant decline in private property ownership by the top 1 per cent. In 1938 the figure was 56 per cent. and in 1960 it had fallen to 42 per cent. These figures should be compared with the position in free-enterprise America, where the top 1 per cent. controlled but 24 per cent. of all private property in 1954, the last year for which information is officially available. Thus, Great Britain has a much higher degree of social inequality than America. It has also one of the highest levels of social inequality in Europe.
  It is very doubtful whether the fiscal policies so far pursued by the Government have made much impact on this problem. We have Capital Gains Tax which is yielding useful results. We have ensured that business entertainment is no longer tax-free, except for overseas buyers. The consumption of wines and spirits for business purposes has fallen significantly since that time. But these reforms merely scratch the surface.
  Death duties, for example, are almost a voluntary tax. They could, until the publication of this Finance Bill, be avoided by a gift made five years beforehand. Professor Titmuss has shown how loopholes like discretionary trusts further weaken the effect of death duties, to the point where the available evidence in 1962 suggested that the inequality of incomes had increased from 1949, when the post-war trend towards equality had largely petered out. The return on death duties in 1967–68 was £330 million, only £20 million more than it had been five years before.
  It is true that Income Tax and Surtax do something to reduce the inequality of incomes, especially for the very top 5 per cent. of taxpayers. However, our present tax structure increases the degree of inequality for the great majority of the remainder, because the progressive effect of Income Tax is largely offset by the regressive effect of indirect taxation. The proposals contained in the Finance
  362
  Bill to increase Purchase Tax and other forms of indirect taxation are bound to exacerbate the position.
  In the Treasury journal "Economic Trends" for February, 1968, we had a most interesting examination of the position of families in 1966 at various levels of income and taxation. The journal shows that, in 1966, families in the income range £816 to £988 per annum—that is to say, below average earnings—were paying 38 per cent. of their income in tax, direct and indirect, compared with 35 per cent. paid out by families with incomes of £2,100 per annum and above.
  Social service benefits do not even matters out. It is true that they have a marked effect on raising incomes below about £12 a week and that the position has improved considerably since 1964. But the only families in the income group between £600 and £2,120 per annum to gain substantial net benefits were those on average earnings and families with four or more children. So the redistributive effects of taxes and benefits are thus much greater between families of different sizes than between families of the same size in different income brackets. In other words, it is a horizontal rather than a vertical income redistribution.
  It is the case that the incidence of indirect taxation paid by people with incomes between £600 and £2,100 per annum also has an increasingly regressive effect. In Table D of the February issue of "Economic Trends", it is brought out that indirect taxes, as a proportion of income after the payment of all direct taxation and all benefits, worked out for people below average earnings in 1966 at 20 per cent. of their original income. At £1,750 a year, the figure falls to 18 per cent. At £2,500 and above, it falls to 16 per cent.
  Therefore, the existing tax structure for the great majority of people earning between £600 and £2,500 per annum is currently, before we consider the proposals in the Finance Bill, one in which we have the progressiveness of Income Tax totally overtaken by the regressiveness of indirect taxation.
  Unless my speech tonight gives the Whips cause for further consideration, I understand that I am to serve on the Standing Committee which is to consider the Finance Bill. I give notice that I

  363
  shall oppose the increases in indirect taxation both in the Selective Employment Tax and in the higher rates of Purchase Tax, because they are bound to fall most heavily on those who are least able to bear them.
  I want now to draw attention to the overlying position which the country faces on the central question of the incomes policy. It does not form part of the Finance Bill, but it has been widely discussed in the debate today. I am not one of those who argue for the intrinsic merits of free collective bargaining. I believe that it was and is a massive advance for the British working people against the old master-servant relationship, but I do not believe that free collective bargaining by itself can defend the living standards of the working people. Over the past 10 years, the proportion of personal income going to wages and salaries has fallen, whereas the proportion derived from rent, interest and profit has fractionally increased.
  I want to see the Government, in our consideration of the Bill, looking towards fiscal means to assist the incomes policy. I want to see them considering, as a matter of urgent importance, the introduction of an excess payments tax as a substitute for the present incomes policy. I do not believe in meddling with free collective bargaining or issuing White Papers like the one we are currently considering on the subject. But the Government have a right and a duty to establish a norm for incomes in the sense that they have the right to set out the proportions of increases in the gross domestic product which should go to increases in wages and salaries in any given year. But having set the norm and laid down the social criteria for wage negotiations, the Government should then use fiscal means to ensure that those whose money incomes from any source—earned or unearned—exceed the norm or go beyond the social criteria, should be subject to an excess payments tax at a penal rate. This is, I think, the only fair way to achieve a balanced increase in incomes in the years ahead.
  Seen overall, one cannot regard the Budget as being in any sense radical. It has one distinct radical overtone in the special levy, though this is no substitute for a wealth tax, but the whole
  364
  effect is to carry out in the domestic economy the sort of fiscal provisions that would influence the most reactionary of our foreign creditors. The Government are taking out of the economy not just the sum mentioned by the Chancellor on Budget day and not just the £500 million the Treasury estimates will be taken out to reduce the pressure of internal demand this year. They are taking this out in addition to the proposals, made immediately after devaluation, which were designed to take £750 million to £800 million out of the economy next year, and in addition to the cuts of £325 million announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in public expenditure. The total effect of the post-devaluation measures will be in the region of £1,500 million in the current fiscal year. This is far too severe.
  The Government's overall strategy is designed not to make the best of the tremendous change we could bring about as a consequence of devaluation—which, by any objective examination of Britain's economic problems, was right and desirable. What the Government should be doing is to take the steps that some of us have argued for for about two years—to protect the British economy against the worst ravages of the international financial system by bringing in exchange controls and, as the T.U.C. is arguing, by mobilising the dollar portfolio and taking other measures designed to use the techniques of Socialist economic management to protect our country when the currency and the economy are being unduly put at risk.
  If the Government are not prepared to take these steps, they will face an almost certain clash with organised labour this summer and I make it plain to them that this clash is not of the Labour movement's choosing. It is a clash that this Government seem determined to have, because the only effect of their strategy, at least in the short term, can be to force down money incomes. The trade union movement has given ample evidence that it is not prepared to wear this. I take this opportunity of urging my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench urgently to reconsider their attitude in this respect.
  The Chancellor's declared strategy to achieve a balance of payments surplus in 1968–69 of £500 million is one with

  365
  a chance of success, but the odds are overwhelmingly stacked against this. The condition of the American economy, the extremely precarious two-tier system for the present dollar price of gold, in addition to the long-term endemic weakness of the British economy, plus the fact that we no longer have the resources to support an international trading currency and an international reserve currency, urgently demand a reappraisal of our total world financial rôle.
  This Bill unfortunately takes no steps in that direction. It will have our critical support, but I say to the Government that time is short and we must set about much more ambitiously achieving the goals which I and my hon. Friends have outlined in this debate and on earlier occasions.
  9.58 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Shaw: I have listened with great interest, as one always does, to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens), in his contributions to finance debates. I listened particularly carefully to what he had to say about the union attitude towards this Budget and general financial policy of the Government. I say frankly to him that over these last two years I have been amazed that the trade union movement has continued to work as it has done with the Government in view of the way in which the Government have managed the economy.
  It is all very well for the Government to come along and paint a picture of difficulty and problems facing us all, and then painting a picture of further privation in the near future in the interests of long-term solvency and benefits to come at a later date. One can accept that for the first year; one might accept it for the second year. Then in the third year, when we are told that the worst is over and it is "steady as she goes", halfway through that we have the biggest crisis of all. When, in the fourth year, we get the same old story about the difficulties over the next two years, more hardship and more forgoing of the hopes that we all had for a better future, then one can understand how people can get tired of forgoing their legitimate hopes and aspirations for the betterment of society. This is the effect in the country. People are tired of promises. They want to see some results.
  366
  I was also interested in what the hon. Gentleman had to say about the position of property here and the United States. One will not get a redress of this position unless there is a much greater incentive and a capacity to earn greater incomes in this country. In America, one is not subject to the top tax figure until one reaches £150,000, and that top rate of tax is far less than the figure in this country of over 90 per cent.
  Because people can earn large incomes and can save and invest those incomes to a much greater degree than we can in this country, there is the creation of new wealth and the revolvement of capital and the creation of new capital for the benefit of everybody in the country. This is the sort of society and economy which we want to create for this country.
  Apart from the fact that this is the fourth Budget running which has raised additional taxes, the great criticism of it is that again there is not the slightest incentive in it for greater effort and saving. This is the only country, certainly in the Western world—and I would say in the whole world, because behind the Iron Curtain there are other incentives—which has almost a complete ceiling on the amount of income which one can receive in a year. Above a certain figure, over 90 per cent. is taken away in a normal year, and whenever there is a "once-for-all-tax" it is almost 100 per cent.
  The time is overdue for a complete review of our taxation system, and particularly of the relationship between direct taxation on incomes and indirect taxation. I hope that new taxes or the relationship of old taxes with one another will be considered, not in the secrecy of the Treasury, but in public and fully discussed, so that the nation can lend its opinions to the discussions.
  The way in which Corporation Tax and Capital Gains Tax were introduced was a great disservice to this country. They have created needless harm and anomalies in the economy. Dealing with one tax initiated in a hurry in 1966, I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has so greatly increased Selective Employment Tax. I do not believe that a bad tax is made better by merely making it bigger. I agree with the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) that, had such a tax been necessary, it

  367
  would have been much better to introduce a payroll tax rather than a Selective Employment Tax. Had I felt that such a tax was necessary, I should have believed it right to make it an across-the-board tax rather than have this arbitrary distinction between the service and manufacturing industries.
  Dealing with the specific failures of the Bill, the biggest disincentive lies in the lack of change in the close company legislation. The limits of remuneration allowed for Corporation Tax purposes on close companies are unrealistic, as they were when Corporation Tax was introduced to pay market salaries to directors, other than whole-time service directors in close companies, means today that a substantial portion of their remuneration must bear the additional burden of Corporation Tax at 42½ per cent. In the past, it has been argued that these types of remuneration were the limits that were imposed for Profits Tax purposes. But there is no comparison between Corporation Tax and Profits Tax. If the old system of Income Tax and Profits Tax were enforced today a director's remuneration of any kind would be allowed for Schedule D; in other words, it would have relief against tax of 41¼ per cent.
  However, much of the top end of a director's remuneration now gets no relief from tax when the company is subject to Corporation Tax. Furthermore, there is no allowance for part time directors. A public company can take directors on to its board to assist in various aspects, or even to give general advice, and the remuneration paid to those directors is allowed as a charge against profits. In the case of a private company usually no such allowance can be made.
  In many cases when choosing managers close companies have not only to consider the best man for the job, but how many shares he or his family hold in the company. The difference between paying the man with no shares and the man with shares is that Corporation Tax has additionally to be paid on the salary of the man with shares. His salary will not be allowed for Corporation Tax purposes. What an utter distortion of the needs of industry.
  It is not only in the sphere of Income Tax and Corporation Tax that these dis-
  368
  tortions are so apparent. It is high time that we looked into the question of Estate Duty and the anomalies that arise therein. Each year more loopholes are blocked up. But the matter is being tackled from the wrong end. Estate duty itself should be altered rather than the plugging up of loopholes in the present system. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker)—and I congratulate him on his maiden speech—making such useful and positive suggestions about the type of tax that we should encourage in future.
  One typical anomaly that has been mentioned to me recently—and I expect it has been mentioned to other hon. Members—is the case of the farmer. We are told that agriculture shows a low return on the value of land. Where gifts are made to young farmers to set them up in the farming industry, the moneys given to them, particularly in the early years, show a low return. Yet when gifts are made to young farmers by their relatives, for a period of seven years those young farmers cannot be certain that the money they have ploughed into their farms in various forms of investment will be free from duty under the Estate Duty regulations.
  Surely it would be far better if there were some form of gift tax or legacy duty combined at a moderate rate so that people knew where they stood in this matter. It would be certain and the rates would not be unrealistic. Therefore, people could invest with certainty without having the threat of a sudden death hanging over them resulting in the payment of substantial death duty.
  Perhaps I might take up the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) about the provision in Clause 15 for the aggregation of a child's income with that of his parents from 1969–70 onwards. I dislike this Clause, and if I am privileged—it has been called a privilege—to serve on the Committee I shall vote against it.
  Some things about the Clause are particularly obnoxious. One implication is that when a child leaves school and has to make a choice between going into industry and going on to further education, his need for further education or further vocational training may not be the paramount consideration in working out his

  369
  future career. If, for example, he wanted to become a chartered accountant, he could go to a university and then take his articles, or he could go direct to a firm and take his articles and be paid a salary without going to university. If he went to university, any private income that he enjoyed would continue to be assessed for Surtax purposes with his father's income. If he went straight into a firm and took his articles and was paid a salary, his private investment income would remain his, and would not be assessed for Surtax with his parents' income. I believe that such a consideration should not arise when a child's future is being considered.
  If we must have a Clause like this, it should be limited to the compulsory limit for leaving school, namely, 15. After that age it should be optional, and after that age considerations of whether investment income should rank with the income of the parents should be left aside, because such considerations could cloud and make more difficult a judgment about a child's future career.
  Once a child marries, any investment income that he enjoys becomes his own and is not aggregated with that of his parents. I believe that this will be a bad piece of legislation if it is left like that. Let us suppose that a child has an income of £3,000 a year. If his parent is wealthy, and pays Surtax at the top rate, it will mean that the child's income will be worth 1s. 9d. in the £. It may be said that if he has that much money it will not matter, but it will mean that a child will not see any of his income until he is 21 unless he gets married before then. There will be a great temptation for a child to marry at a considerably earlier age than he would otherwise do, because as soon as he gets married he will be able to enjoy that income in his own right. I believe that it will be ludicrous for the law to place a child in that position. It may mean his marrying in haste and repenting at leisure. I do not believe that the Clause should be worded in that way.
  I hope that the Chancellor will look again at Clause 33, particularly the last three lines, and at the matter of aggregation.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. James Tinn: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens), I expect
  370
  to be definitely a non-candidate for the Committee on the Bill, but, even at the risk of being asked to replace him if his worst suspicions should be justified, I should like to express, as the sponsor of the National Lotteries Bill, my appreciation to the Chancellor for the novel and, I think, unprecedented way in which he has taken up the proposal and given the House the opportunity to decide finally on the principle.
  I welcome the opportunity for the House to have another free vote on this, but I would not accept that the free vote taken originally on the Second Reading of my Bill was any less representative of the opinion of the House than similar votes on Fridays on even more controversial Bills in the recent past. I would ask the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary, who have promised to keep an open mind on the principle and to judge by the opinion of the House, to try to keep an equally open mind on two other points on which they have expressed disagreement with my Bill.
  The first is the matter of "hypothecation", an awful word which simply means the pre-emption of some of the proceeds of such a lottery. This is very important and I would ask the Financial Secretary to attend the coming debate with an open mind on this. If the House should decide in favour of my line of thought and the desirability of at least some of the funds being pre-empted for desirable purposes like medical research, I hope that he will reconsider the other feature of my Bill which he found undesirable—the creation of an independent board. Apart from any revenues which would, quite properly, accrue to the Exchequer, it is desirable that the lottery itself and the allocation of the preempted funds should be in the hands of an independent board.
  I again express my appreciation to the Chancellor for the way in which he has taken the matter up and enabled the House to decide again on a project which can provide substantial, though limited, benefits.
  10.18 p.m.
  Mr. A. P. Costain: We have had an illuminating debate. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens), who has now left, made the most remarkable speech which I have ever heard. It was Communism

  371
  in a new form. If he believes that, by taking away wealth, he will improve the economy, he has shown conclusively why we are in our present economic situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) said that the Bill affected his own constituency very badly and thought that it was designed to do so. I spoke in my constituency the day after the Budget and made exactly the same remark, probably for exactly the same reason——
  Mr. J. J. Mendelson: Oh.
  Mr. Costain: I meant the same remark as my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and not the same as was made by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West. This is probably because we were both speaking in constituencies which depend on the tourist trade, which has been so badly hit by S.E.T. Time is short and I will not delay the House by going into great detail on this matter, but much could be said about the way in which taxation changes will affect those living on fixed incomes.
  The right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) made what one might call a Chancellor's mini-speech, because he went at length into the question of family allowances in an effort to explain how they could be directed to help those in need. I have received many letters from my constituents and they prove that people who are not even paying the standard rate of Income Tax lose as a result of the family allowance changes if they have two children, taking into account the increased cost of school meals, the abolition of free milk, and so on.
  Virtually everybody has spoken against S.E.T. It is the most dreadful tax of all. The right hon. Member for Sowerby was frank when he admitted that when he was at the Treasury he was against the S.E.T. idea and, instead, put forward the payroll tax suggestion. The Financial Secretary, who has great knowledge of these matters, will appreciate the effect that S.E.T. is having on the building industry. It is robbing capital to pay revenue. In its increased form, S.E.T. will be adding about £150 million to the cost of building in Britain. The trouble is that the money, when taken out, is called revenue. The Treasury
  372
  must accept that it is being added to capital and, as it is being passed on to the Government, so it is being passed on to the client. The Government are therefore really cheating. If any private company ran its accounts in this way it would be called to book. The Government are leaving posterity to pay the debt.
  It is regrettable that we do not have more time for this debate. I do not wish to delay you, Mr. Speaker, hon. Members and the staff of the House, and I regret that the Leader of the House has not provided two days for this discussion. This is a dreadful Finance Bill and it affects my constituency very badly.
  10.23 p.m.
  Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: The right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) complimented the Chancellor on being what he called a civilised selectivist. I wish to refer to two aspects of the Budget's proposals which seem to represent selectivism run amok and precisely the reverse of civilised.
  The first is the proposal for what the Chancellor called dividend restraint. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) referred to the Financial Secretary's remarkable letter in the Business News section of The Times last week. As far as I am aware, it was the only guidance the House has received about how this dividend restraint is supposed to be applied. However, even in the context of that letter it does not seem that the adjudications of the Treasury are easily reconcilable with the terms of the letter.
  We have had the astonishing spectacle of the Treasury knights, with their slide rules and scissors, lopping 0·005 per cent. off the dividend of Gratton Warehouses and, in their wisdom, deciding, no doubt after giving the matter due consideration, that Berni Inns may distribute luncheon vouchers, even though that may be over and above the 3½ per cent. limit. Then we have the admirable decision of Sir Halford Reddish, of Rugby Portland Cement, to drive a coach and horses through the whole proposal. What does the Chancellor say to that? He said in answer to me yesterday that he was examining the position very carefully.
  There are two decisions which strike me as particularly in flagrant conflict

  373
  with each other. I hope that when he winds up the debate, the Financial Secretary will deal with these. In the case of Pergamon Press and Rio Tinto Zinc the companies were allowed to exceed the 3½ per cent. maximum because they announced to shareholders before the Budget that they proposed to do so. In the case of Rio Tinto Zinc it was announced when making a take-over bid, but Lex Garages, which made precisely the same announcement at the time of making a distribution of shares last October, was not allowed to carry out the undertaking given when the shares were issued.
  There is a clear case of inequity. It is intolerable that there should be such a case of inequity, not in a Statute nor in an Order accepted by this House, but in a day-to-day ruling by the Treasury. The Financial Secretary has an obligation to spell out more clearly the way in which the system of dividend restraint is to be applied. It is not good enough for the Government to get the Financial Secretary to write letters to the Business News section of The Times referring to Treasury Press hand-outs. This House has a right to know how those proposals are to be applied and on what system of equity they are to be applied.
  That was the first aspect of civilised selectivism I wished to mention. The second is the astonishing business referred to earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) of the selection of hotels to receive repayment of S.E.T. The Chancellor, in his Budget Statement, said that the repayment was to go to hotels in rural parts of development areas. I hope that he will go to the City of Perth, or the City of Stirling, and inquire where in those cities he can indulge in pony-trekking, fishing, caravanning, or any other of the activities one normally associates with a rural area. Yet those cities are to receive a repayment of S.E.T. in respect of their hotels.
  In a genuinely rural area such as the glens in my constituency, Glen Clova or Glen Isla, where hotels are receiving foreign tourists bringing revenue to assist our balance of payments, they are excluded. They apparently are in the definition of cities or industrial areas. I
  374
  gather that we are expected to understand that the choice made by the Treasury in Schedule 17 of the Finance Bill is areas where the receipt of R.E.P. is lowest, in other words, where the proportion of employees in manufacturing industry is lowest. Yet I received an Answer yesterday from the Ministry of Labour which showed that the St. Andrews employment exchange area, to take an example, has a lower proportion of the total population employed in manufacturing than in many areas which are to receive the repayment. It has a high proportion in the catering industry, one of the highest in Scotland, and is not to get the repayment.
  This selection seems to be totally haphazard. The Government might as well have been blindfolded and taken a pin to use on the map of Scotland to make the selection. This has been treated with amazement, total incredulity and deep resentment throughout Scotland. For this will create the most grotesque anomalies. An hotel at the top a glen in my constituency has to pay 37s. 6d. per man per week; an hotel of a wholly similar sort 10 miles away in another glen just in Perthshire will have the amount refunded. It is hard to imagine a greater anomaly than this.
  Of course, it is perfectly true that, however one devises a selection, there are likely to be anomalies. The answer is that we should not devise the selection. The best answer of all is to get rid of the tax as a whole. If that cannot be done, at least it should be taken off hotels in the development areas, and I would say from all hotels generally, in view of the foreign exchange income they bring in.
  There is a particular objection, as I see it, to Schedule 17, the tax procedures devised for this Bill by the former Leader of the House. The Government apparently intend to take this Bill in Committee upstairs. Now, of course, we are not supposed to know which hon. Members will be on the Committee, but we can expect that there will not be more than one Member from Scotland and from this side of the House. How is he to represent the interests and concerns of other constituencies which are either included or excluded by that Schedule? This is the sort of thing

  375
  which has just not been thought out in determining to send the Bill to Committee upstairs.
  I shall be delighted to join my hon. and right hon. Friends in voting against this Finance Bill, not merely because of the two particular grotesqueries to which
  376
  I have tried to call attention briefly tonight, but because of all the other miseries which it imposes upon the people of this country. About the misery of the haphazard selection I have referred to we are entitled to a proper answer from the Financial Secretary before we leave the Bill.
  10.33 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: This is a gloomy occasion, but the gloom has been a distinctive feature of this Government's financial policy all the time. The only moment of euphoria we have had was when the Chancellor sat down after announcing this huge increase in taxation and his hon. and right hon. Friends cheered him to the echo. That, however, was not an emotion which was shared by the country.
  I have thought all along, from the Budget to the Finance Bill which followed, that the Chancellor has missed a great chance. I felt that our country was awaiting a bugle call to saving the nation action. All it got was a bludgeon. This is not the first time that sacrifice and discipline have been required of the British people, and they will suffer sacrifice and discipline willingly if they feel that they are for a worthy purpose; but if they feel that the request is made for inadequate purposes, to achieve which, moreover, they are to be bullied and pushed, they will do less than the minimum with extreme distaste: mediocrity has no popular appeal in Britain, as the Government's present standing demonstrates all too clearly.
  To move very quickly from the generally absurd to the particularly ridiculous I want to deal with Clause 14 and Schedule 17. I can add little to the case which has already been made by hon. Members from Scotland about the Selective Employment Tax as it affects Scotland and particularly the tourist industry. The Tory Party, of course, will abolish the tax as soon as it gets the chance, but, unfortunately, that may not be for another year or two, and in that time still more damage may be done. A line has been drawn across Scotland. On one side of it hotels will escape this tax. I am glad for their sake that this is so. But I ask the Government to spare a thought for those hotels on the other side of the line. Their position is utterly unfair.
  Far be it from me to raise the temperature in any way, but there has not been a more outlandish example of Government discrimination in this country since Hadrian's Wall. Why has that line been drawn? On what basis has it been
  378
  drawn? Is not the whole of Scotland's tourist trade in need of large and rapid development? Why this absurd distinction in the Bill? I trust that the Government will speedily remove it in Committee.
  10.35 p.m.
  Mr. Julian Ridsdale: After the Prime Minister had addressed the Scottish T.U.C. last week, he pulled out his pipe, although there was a "No Smoking" notice on the wall. One Scottish delegate was heard to say to another, "Och, well—maybe he canna' read". When I listen to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and consider his attacks on savings, and when I see the numbers of people who are leaving this country now, I sometimes think that he cannot read the economic portents for Britain. What principle moves the right hon. Gentleman in allowing a poster to be exhibited throughout the country exhorting people to "Put more power into the pound" and, at the same time, to attack so viciously the savings of so many of our best savers? I hope that the Chancellor will tell the country what principles can possibly be behind his attacks on saving.
  I have only two other points to make, and I shall be as brief as I can. I am greatly disappointed that we have not had more time to debate the Bill in the House instead of having this hurried debate now.
  I endorse all that has been said about the unfairness of the Selective Employment Tax, particularly as it affects places like Scotland, East Anglia and my own constituency. In February, our unemployment rate was 6·5 per cent., far higher than in some of the development areas. I notice that there have been Labour Party resolutions calling attention to the position of the lower-paid workers in East Anglia.
  Will the Chancellor look at the position of hotels and boarding houses, especially the smaller boarding houses, and understand the burden which he is putting on people with small fixed incomes, particularly those over 60, who look for employment in hotels and boarding houses? The rebate should apply to seasonal resorts like mine, like Folkestone and the Scottish resorts of which the Chancellor spoke.

  379
  Finally, I emphasise how mean the Chancellor has been to people with small fixed incomes. I know that the Minister of Social Security has said time and again in the House that the pensioner is 18 per cent. better off than he was in 1964. But when I say that in my constituency, old-age pensioners just laugh at the idea. They know that people with incomes over a certain limit, with between £600 and £800 a year, are the ones who are really having to pay the price of devaluation. They have had only measly relief from the Chancellor in this Budget. I realise that he could not have given very much, because of the follies of Socialism, but he should have done more. If he is considering further relief, will he look particularly closely at this section of people who are just above the old-age pensioner level and who live on small fixed incomes?
  That is all I say at this hour. I apologise for detaining the House.
  10.38 p.m.
  Mr. Iain Macleod: Clearly, we should have had two days for this debate. Many hon. Members, out of deference to the House, have not spoken, and many others have cut short admirable speeches. I can only apologise to the Chair and to the House for this last sad legacy of the reign of the Lord President of the Council as Leader of the House of Commons.
  In many ways, the Finance Bill is different from all other Bills in that the key stages are the Budget debate and the Committee stage. The Second and Third Reading debates are—I do not say less valuable—on a different level from those two major events. I was somewhat surprised and disappointed when first I heard that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not to speak in this debate. To show my complete impartiality, I was disappointed after his speech in opening the debate today.
  He said that there was widespread agreement outside the House that the Budget was fair. It is very dangerous to make remarks of that nature. Two very substantial flesh and blood citizens, new Members of the House, made excellent maiden speeches to contradict him
  380
  —my hon. Friends the Members for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker) and Dudley (Mr. Donald Williams). Wherever the Budget may be thought to be fair, it was not thought fair in Acton, Dudley or Meriden. As the Chancellor knows, because as Home Secretary he succeeded in delaying the elections for a year, it will not be thought fair on 9th May in London when the time comes.
  I had hoped that the Chancellor would deal with two matters that I think the House regards as of great importance in the economic field. I am not talking about the detail of the Budget for the moment, although I shall come to some points about that.
  The first is that one hears too often now, and too freely, I think, on both sides of the Atlantic, words like "1931" being used again. We understand that they are used in America for internal consumption, that they are part of a process of pressure on a reluctant Congress. But words like that rouse echoes and very unhappy memories in this country. The Chancellor himself has, so we are told, used figures of 1 million or 1½ million unemployed if the Government's policies do not succeed.
  That is why I want to spend a moment taking up the points my hon. Friend the Member far Acton made and in particular the points made by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who described this issue as one of paramount importance. I fully agree with that. Yesterday I put a question to the Prime Minister on unemployment, and after the usual introduction I got the following answer:
  "The right hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that unemployment this winter turned out to be less than it was when he was Minister of Labour, eight years after his party took office."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd April 1968; Vol. 763, c. 33.]
  I suppose that one should no longer put serious questions to the Prime Minister. In the four years in which I was Minister of Labour the figures in January were between 200,000 and 300,000 less than at the peak this year, and even in 1959, which I suppose the Prime Minister was referring to, the peak figure in January was about 10,000 less than in January this year. It was my fault. One should no longer put questions of this nature to the Prime Minister

  381
  and expect a serious answer. Nobody in the House will deny that it is a serious problem.
  I put the question in the Budget debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) put it again today, because if one takes the forecasts and the arithmetic of the Government seriously, as one must, and if one translates them through the accepted formula into economic terms, then one would expect unemployment to rise. Winding up the Budget debate, the Chancellor said in response to me after I pressed him throughout the debate that he expected unemployment—and he must have meant seasonally-adjusted—to be falling.
  When the March figures came out one looked at them with some surprise because they reflected a deterioration—not a great deterioration, but an important deterioration—in the trend, rather a checking of the trend. The March figures were not necessarily significant. But the April figures, unless there is a statistical aberration in them, are rather worrying and I should be surprised if the Chancellor does not share my view.
  In the four weeks between March and April, it is true that the number of wholly unemployed, which is the figure to look at, decreased by 11,295, but the seasonally-adjusted figure—which, again, is what matters to us in this House—increased by about 26,300, and that is a very severe jump indeed. Moreover, when one looks at the Ministry of Labour figures for the various regions of England, Scotland and Wales, one finds this increase, adjusted for normal seasonal variations, in every one of them without exception.
  On both sides of the House, these figures are bound to cause a certain amount of concern. As the House knows, I study these figures very closely indeed, partly because of the length of time I was Minister of Labour. We have now completed a year, from the May figures of 1967 to the April figures of 1968 inclusive, in which, in every single month of the 12, the seasonally adjusted figure was over 500,000 wholly unemployed, and the House must treat a situation like that with the utmost gravity.
  As the House knows—I have reminded it before and do so again now—in all
  382
  those 13 years there were only eight months in which it could be said that the figure of 500,000 was exceeded. Now we have had one solid year, without a break, of such figures, and if the evidence of the last two months is true, the position is deteriorating. I do not know whether it is true or not and I am not being the least alarmist about this. I have given the facts to the House. They are consistent and they are remarkable when one considers how much the pre-Budget spending spree was expected favourably to bolster the employment figures so much.
  The other main question on the economics side is whether the Government are once more being too optimistic. We know what the Chancellor said in his Budget speech. He said, with certain qualifications,
  "…I…hope and expect that we shall be in surplus in the second half"—
  of this year.
  "For the future we need, as I have said, to achieve a continuing balance of payments surplus of the order of £500 million a year as soon as we can…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1968; Vol. 761, c. 258.]
  That statement has been translated in some quarters as a hope that we shall reach £500 million in 1969. Even taking all the qualifications that the Chancellor made, I still fear that he may be considerably too optimistic, and if that is so it will be the fourth consecutive year in which this has happened.
  We had to warn the Government in 1965 and again in 1966 and again in 1967 that their Budget estimates were far too optimistic. Every time, without exception, we have been told not that we were being alarmist but that we were being too pessimistic. The House knows the record of what happened as we came to the month of July and eventually the autumn in each of those years.
  I take now the question of whether the exports are going to run as well as the Chancellor hopes. I hope very much they do. I hope that we shall get the big leap in exports upon which everything depends. But I must draw to the attention of the House the performance of exports in recent years and show briefly how our fortunes have been linked with a great surge in world trade and how abruptly they were checked when

  383
  factors, many of them outside our control, were less favourable.
  There is no question that from 1964 to 1966 conditions of world trade were excellent, and we benefited accordingly. Let me give from the National Institute Economic Review the value of exports in billion dollars for each of the quarters in 1965 and 1966. For the four quarters of 1965, the figures were 19·6, 20·5, 20·9 and 21·7. There was a steady, unbroken increase, and we are delighted. For the four quarters of 1966, the figures were: 22·4, 22·7, 23·3 and 24·2—again, an excellent, steady increase, and we are delighted. But in 1967 the picture changed. For the first quarter, the figure was 24·9, which was excellent. Then it was 25·0, practically no change. Then the figures were 24·4 and 24·7.
  On those figures, one is bound to question whether the surge in exports, which I am sure will come—it will not come yet, but it will come, perhaps between the third and fourth quarters of this year—will be as big as we need. Therefore, I say again, not in any alarmist sense, that I believe that the Government and Ministers are being too optimistic. Partly because they carry news management to such a point that they feed these thoughts to the Press, a good deal of that optimism, which I believe is not very well founded, appears in the Press.
  What we are seeing is the ruin of a policy which has been pursued from 1964 to 1968. Nobody on either side of the House doubts this. The only argument left which the Government comfort themselves with is that, Phoenix-like out of the ashes of successive disasters, a new situation will emerge. This is natural enough. All politicians are Micawbers. They go on thinking and hoping that something will turn up. We need not take it to the lengths of the lunatic optimism of the Lord President of the Council, who sees every disaster as a giant stride towards Socialism. But it is natural for the Government to hope that things will improve.
  Let me make briefly the main points which we hammered away at in the Budget debate and which we will resume in Committee. The first failure, which has been so well covered that I need barely touch on it, is the question of public expenditure. The Chief Secretary argued in the Budget debate—and it was
  384
  incredible that a man could do it—that they were on target, and by "on target" he meant that public expenditure was running at the rate foreseen in the National Plan. But the National Plan is dead, and the only thing which lives on is the rate of public expenditure, based on growth rates which are no longer available to this country.
  Since then, when the National Plan gave figures for 1969–70 at 1965 survey prices, I think, there have been cuts announced—some "phoney", but probably most real—amounting to £1,166 million, and when all these are taken off the figure for 1969–70 is not less, as one would expect, by over £1,100 million, or more than that because of the failure of growth, but higher. There is no other explanation for that except that public expenditure has got completely out of control.
  Much of the trouble has been caused by the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer allowed a spending spree to develop, particularly from December until his Budget, and indeed for some weeks after his Budget, while stocks lasted on which Purchase Tax had been paid. He was warned from this Box and by every independent responsible commentator that he was making a very grave mistake. We have to pay the price, in part, of that in the level of taxation taken from us.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) was absolutely right when he pointed to the disastrous effect that this has had upon building societies, because a great deal of the money which has gone from building societies has been in small amounts to finance the spending spree. Now, we have mortgages at 7⅝ per cent., and not only new borrowers, but also millions of existing borrowers, will have to pay that rate for very many years, purely because of the misjudgment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his first big test on this.
  I say one word briefly on our other main criticism, in relation to savings. I know that the Chancellor is to some extent sympathetic in this. I have developed the idea of what I call a S.A.Y.E.—save-as-you-earn—approach. I should like to spend two minutes putting to the Chancellor exactly what is in mind, because this is something which both sides would like to achieve. I am sorry if this sounds like a "commercial"—it is not meant to—for a well-known finance house

  385
  of which I am a director and in which I declare my interest.
  What has convinced me is my study of the behaviour of very small depositors over these few years. I think that Chancellors, of all parties, naturally enough, have been rather too obsessed with the behaviour of the individual big saver. That is why the National Savings proposals that the Chancellor has put forward, valuable though they are in this direction, will not create genuine new savings, because they are switch savings as people take the benefit of a small additional amount.
  What startles me is to look at the figures of the company which I know best over the years when we have been offering considerably lower rates than could be obtained in many other directions, because we follow a policy of rate stability and do not chase Bank Rate up and down although, of course, in general, we follow the trends.
  My conviction from that is that the real small saver whom we want in bulk does not flick about from investment to investment because he can attract another one-eighth or one-quarter of 1 per cent. He saves either with the Post Office, a building society, a finance house or whatever it may be because that is his chosen method of saving. If we could get those people to forgo money which would otherwise go into their wage packet—by which I mean, in my system, voluntarily agreeing to have their P.A.Y.E. coding altered so that moneys could be taken from them with their agreement, and increased by the full amount of the best level, say, of National Savings interest—we might revolutionise the approach to small savings. That is a very brief outline. I will in due course find ways of elaborating what I think we should do.
  I leave those two main points and I come to only one, because of the time, of the collection of points which together make what I can only describe as a policy of envy part of the attack on savings launched by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  I wish to comment on the question of the aggregation of minors' incomes. This is the sort of idea which sounds extremely convincing at, perhaps a Labour Party summer school or the like. One does not begin to realise until one studies it exactly what difficulties lie behind what
  386
  appears to be a fairly straightforward proposal. But nobody who listened to the excellent speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) could doubt the real problems that will be created.
  Incidentally, I am glad that the Attorney-General is here. Let me take two illustrations. First, disaster. Death can strike an individual and in many ways it is appropriate that compensation should be offered to the family, and, in particular, to small children. I will not read the whole of a letter which I have here, but this is one of many and brings out the key point that I wish to put before the House.
  "I was widowed two years ago when my husband, aged 35 years, was killed in the Tokyo air disaster of March 5th, 1966. I was left…with three small children, 1½, 3 and 5 years. My husband's firm generously paid compensation to the value of £12,000, which they set up in trust for the upbringing and education of the three children. This money is invested and the interest, and later the capital, is to be used entirely for the children's welfare."
  It seems absolutely intolerable that a case like that should fall within the proposals made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I really believe, when this point is drummed home in Committee, that everybody will unite—and I hope that they will—in telling the right hon. Gentleman that he must alter the law concerning that kind of case.
  My right hon. Friend illustrated the even more tragic case of the thalidomide babes. But there are other disasters. There are disasters—and this is my second illustration—which can strike a marriage. A marriage may have to be broken up and it is necessary for judges in many cases to decide what the right amount of settlement should be upon the children. The Attorney-General will know, but I think I am right in saying that there have been, or there are being made, protests from the judges to the Government on this point. It seems inevitable that that is so, because judges up and down this country have decided, on the basis of the law as it stands, the provision that they think is appropriate for small children. It is unthinkable that this House should upset those carefully planned arrangements which have been made in recognition of the fact that a marriage has broken down. I say again

  387
  that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot—indeed, he dare not—leave this Clause as it is.
  Quite frankly, there are a lot of party points which we will make in Committee, but I do not want to make this a party point. My own solution as it stands now—I may be able to think of a better one—is that where there has been a settlement—either in recognition of compensation, perhaps because of the death of the breadwinner, or one that has been drawn up and agreed by the courts—the income shall be treated as earned income, in which case it would escape the Clause. The obvious analogy is that a pension is treated in that way, and that is exactly what this kind of compensation is in the illustration that I gave of somebody widowed in the Tokyo air disaster. It is compensation because the breadwinner has gone and all the possibilities of his earnings over a long time have gone. I say, with all the earnestness that I can command, that this Clause must not stay as it is.
  I could take other examples, but I will not. However, this I make clear. We must have an entirely new policy in relation to wealth in this country. I do not believe that it is the business of a Chancellor of the Exchequer to destroy wealth. It is his business to create wealth. It is not his business to try to level down; it is his business to try to level up in this country. We must have a system of taxation which implies important reductions in personal direction taxation which enables a man by using his opportunities and his ability to earn and keep a reasonable amount of his earnings.
  I said earlier that we were studying, as of course we are, the ruins of a policy, and one may ask why. As I am certain they would not accept an answer from me, I shall give a quotation from a lecture given to the Economic Research Council by the Professor of Law at the London School of Economics, Professor Wheat-croft. Discussing the National Plan and its errors, he said:
  "Any competent businessman would have proceeded cautiously and waited to see how first estimates of this kind measured up to reality before committing himself to expenditures which would bring him to the verge of bankruptcy if the estimates turned out to be wildly wrong. But, unfortunately, the present Government contains few, if any, com-
  388
  petent businessmen and administrative civil servants have not been trained in business practices. One of the saddest features of the last four years has been the belief of Ministers and civil servants that they knew how businessmen should run their business better than the businessmen themselves, and their vast proliferation of advice and exhortation to business, unsupported by practical experience, is somewhat nauseating when one sees how badly they have run the country's business".
  That is a first-class contribution from what is often regarded as an impeccable source.
  We will, of course, move otherwise at the conclusion of the debate, but if the Government have their way the Bill will be considered upstairs in Committee. It is disgraceful that a Budget of this kind, the first post-devaluation Budget, levying in a full year sums of £923 million, should be discussed in the line by line detail that it needs by about one-twelfth of the Members of the House. There is no doubt that this Measure should be taken where in by view Finance Bills belong, on the Floor of the House.
  The Financial Secretary is to follow me. He is a very enduring character, even in his new rôle. I remember that three or four years ago in the middle of the night he made one of the most remarkable comments ever made on a Finance Bill when he said that he represented tens of thousands of constituents who were poor and humble, which he was neither—a somewhat patrician observation which would have been widely commented upon if it had been made from this side of the House.
  We will work hard in Committee to improve what we regard as a bad Bill, but I must make it clear now that we do not regard ourselves bound by anything that the Government do. We hold ourselves free to alter, to amend, or to repeal any part of the Bill which we will oppose in Committee. I say in conclusion, without any anger, but simply as a comment of fact—and I believe that on both sides of the House we know this to be true—that this is a Government without authority, without competence, and without purpose, and that it will be a pleasure to divide against them on the Bill.
  11.9 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): As this is

  389
  the first time that I have had the privilege of winding up the Second Reading of a Finance Bill I approach the task with not a little apprehension, but I am fortified by the Chancellor's statement in the House the other day that when a Minister enters the doors of the Treasury he should not leave behind him the views that he held before his appointment.
  I fully accept the spirit of my right hon. Friend's injunction, and although membership of the Government may inhibit the more stimulating irrelevancies formerly enjoyed, I certainly do not intend that it should compel either action or voice contrary to my own deep convictions. So I assure the House that whatever I say will be my opinion on the matter which I am discussing.
  It is true that, some years ago, I humorously expressed the opinion that I was neither poor nor humble, but if I were to believe the criticisms of my right hon. Friend's intentions and if I were a member of the Government which brought them into effect, I should be able to contradict that statement and be both poor and humiliated if I were impressed by the logic of the argument of the Opposition spokesmen.
  The Second Reading of the Finance Bill is always a difficult debate, because it is in. Committee that we get to grips with the details, and a Finance Bill or Budget, more than anything else, qualifies for the platonic platitude that excellence lies in the whole rather than in the parts. But the necessities compel me to deal with some of the details of the Bill itself.
  I would, first, point to the value and reasonableness of a measure which has not been received with unanimous acclaim, namely, the special charge, which has been attacked from both sides. The Opposition have said that it is a spiteful tax expressing class venom, as one of their Front Bench spokesmen in the Budget debate allowed himself to say. The chief argument against it was that it had no economic relevance, in the sense that it did not achieve any significant consumption effect but was merely an act of spite in trying to soak the rich.
  The case for this tax is that a Government who are asking for restraint and self-discipline from the rest of the
  390
  community can hardly fail to invite some contribution and sacrifice from the richest sections of the community. If that claim is to be answered by the charge that it is spiteful class venom because the tax is economically irrelevant, even if I were to accept the charge that it was economically irrelevant, what would follow produces a somewhat interesting situation.
  If the Government were not to tax a man because to tax a really rich man will not significantly affect his standard of life and hence his consumption, and hence the tax would be economically irrelevant, it would follow that, when a man had achieved a certain statutory degree of affluence, we should issue him with a licence exempting him from all taxation, on the ground that any taxation could not have the smallest effect upon his consumption and would be economically irrelevant and spiteful.
  I suspect that this argument, which has a degree of logic from an economist's point of view, would not find universal support among other members of the community not enjoying this particular licence. It is untenable that a very modest charge upon investment income—[HON. MEMBERS: "Modest?"] It is indeed a modest charge and I shall be very happy in Committee to demonstrate in the greatest detail that the weight of this charge is by no means unfair or burdensome in the context of a Budget which exacts so much sacrifice from so many other members of the community. I do not doubt that most well-to-do people have come to accept that this charge is not unreasonable. I do not expect them vociferously to express enjoyment at the prospect of paying it, but no such vociferous enjoyment has been manifested by other persons in a less satisfactory financial position who are called upon to bear burdens imposed by the Bill.
  To dispel any illusions that anybody may have created in his mind or in anybody else's mind that this is a class-motivated and spiteful tax, I remind the House of what the Chancellor said in introducing it. He said that it could not be an annual tax and that it was in the nature of a tax for this special occasion.
  Sir Cyril Osborne: Cripps said that.
  Mr. Lever: I agree that Cripps said it, but that was 20 years ago. By ordinary political standards, once-for-all does not mean once throughout the aeons of history and I suggest that once in a generation is a quite satisfactory fulfilment of that pledge. Speaking for myself, if other Chancellors, of either party, assure me that there will not be a similar charge for another 20 years, I will feel that a pledge has been made.
  Mr. Iain Macleod: The hon. Gentleman made the interesting comment that in his view once in a generation would be reasonable. May we take that as a firm pledge; that as long as the Labour Party remains in office there will be no form of wealth tax beyond what is contained in the Bill?
  Mr. Lever: No. I did not say that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The lesson to be gained from interventions made in the debate is that if only hon. Members would have patience and would not intervene impetuously, a course which Mr. Speaker is at pains to urge hon. Members to follow, we could save a great deal of time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The Chancellor has pledged himself that this cannot be an annual tax. He thinks, for various reasons, that this is not a suitable tax to be introduced annually. He made it clear in explicit terms that he intended to examine the possibility of taking into account the possession of wealth for tax purposes more comprehensively than has been the case in the past. He made it clear that such taxation might
  "…might make it both possible and desirable to reduce the highest rates of tax on incomes".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1968; Vol. 761, c. 300.]
  Those were hardly the words of a class-envenomed, spiteful Chancellor. They give the complete lie to any such ignoble and wholly unjustified suggestion.
  Thus, this is a once-for-all tax. Another wealth tax, if it is introduced, or some variant of it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that comes in will emerge, as my right hon. Friend indicated, as part of a more sensible and equitable distribution of the burden of taxation among the rich themselves, and not by any means as part of some envenomed and spiteful move on the part of my right hon. Friend. It would be unthinkable that the Chan-
  392
  cellor could have introduced this Budget without inviting some contribution of this kind from the best off sections of the community, and any criticism of it is wholly unjustified.
  Indeed, however unpalatable this may be to some, the fact remains that the Budget is conceived, as is the Finance Bill, in terms of a mixed economy in which it is sought to bring about a successful private enterprise sector in combination with advancing social services. A Labour Government running a mixed economy must make available to private enterprise all the incentives that are likely to make for successful private enterprise. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite live in a special world of their own in which they think that the Labour Government are responsible for new and savage taxation on business, in contrast with the famous levelling process that occurred under the Tories.
  Sir C. Osborne: What about S.E.T.?
  Mr. Lever: Considering the burden of tax that must be placed on business, we believe that S.E.T. is a fair and reasonable tax, one which broadens the tax base and which contributes to the Revenue.
  The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) talked about the need to have a different sort of tax policy, one which was not like ours, with high rates of Income Tax and Surtax, but one which presumably levels up and not down. He denied the right of the Chancellor to level anyone's income down. It was with some surprise that I recalled that Income Tax on the highest level of income was 17s. 9d. in the pound when the Tories left office and a mere 6d. different now. That is hardly a statistic which confirms the right hon. Gentleman's claim that no Chancellor has the right to level down incomes. I do not know where so advanced and progressive a member of the Opposition Front Bench gets this extraordinary concept.
  What the Chancellor has to take into account is that he is running a mixed economy and the Finance Bill undoubtedly takes that fully into account. It is a Finance Bill designed not to divide the nation, but to unify the nation with the sense of urgency of effort and

  393
  sacrifice required at the present time. Any hon. Member who suggested that all the taxation should be loaded on the rich exclusively in these circumstances would be rightly stigmatised as one seeking to divide the nation at this crucial time, but the even more preposterous suggestion that the load of taxation should be borne exclusively by the worse-off members of the community is argued as if it were a proposition for unifying the nation. This seems to betray an extraordinary lack of logic or devotion to party doctrine.
  I want to refer to the question of dividends. This point was raised with some acrimony by the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and others. It has been suggested that I have placed myself in the unusual rôle of purporting to exercise powers and the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary have been purporting to exercise powers which legally they have not got. The position on this is abundantly clear. I know that it is interesting amusement and makes a break from more serious consideration of the Finance Bill to pretend that there was the Financial Secretary writing to The Times Business News compelling notoriously unsophisticated gentlemen of Throgmorton Street to believe that Parliament enacted a power which gave him the right to curb dividends. My words were construed, examined and analysed to suggest that I was acting in a Bonapartist sort of way in relation to dividends with a legal power which Parliament had not conferred on the Government. Anything more fantastic is hardly possible to believe.
  The public know perfectly well how the matter stands and the criticism that the public were not informed is absolutely wrong. They were informed in general terms in the Chancellor's statement, which was copiously reported, and by the Chief Secretary in the Budget debate, which was copiously reported. There have been newspaper briefings, the House has been told and the public has been told by the Press, the wireless and in every manner possible precisely what the position is, namely, that no power has been taken by the Government, but it is the Government's intention in the reasonably near future to take a reserve power. In the meantime we hope that industry will co-operate in exercising voluntary restraint.
  394
  I have not the slightest doubt, based on past experience, that industry knows what the position is, I have even less doubt that industry will co-operate, as it always has done, in helping to preserve voluntary dividend restraint. What the Treasury is doing in these circumstances, as it must, is to offer guidance to people who wish to conform to its request. That is all the Treasury has done. It has given guidance on the principles which conform to dividend restraint.
  I will not go into the detail of the guidance, but I shall answer one point made by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne).
  The hon. Member asked why we allow a dividend increase in some cases and not in others. He thought it proper and attractive to single out a company the chairman of which is a Member of this House, and of my party, as apparently being one which is receiving favourable treatment in having its dividend increase allowed, in contrast to another company in identical circumstances—he said—in respect of which such a dividend increase was not being allowed.
  I must tell him—because I am sure that he is a very worthy Member of this House—that he will endear himself more not only to hon. Members on this side but to his colleagues if he will avoid actions of that kind. If he really wants to know about the operation of the dividend policy he will be much wiser—as he will see on reflection—if he will not couple that request with the unnecessary adjunction of a company controlled by an hon. Member.
  I shall be happy to give him chapter and verse of the case of the Pergamon Press—since he referred to it—not today, but in detail at any appropriate time. He will have the common sense to realise that an action no one in the Treasury would be capable of is to make a distinction favourable to a Member of this House, of either party, in relation to one of his companies.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am astonished by the nature of the Minister's attack, because he did not listen to what I said. I mentioned the names of two companies to which the Treasury had given clearance for a higher dividend. One happened to be Pergamon Press and the other Rio Tinto. In both cases the companies

  395
  were treated in a particular way. Another company—Lex Garages—which had experienced precisely the same situation, was treated in a different way. That is the point that I was making, and I hope that the Minister will at once withdraw his disgraceful accusation.
  Mr. Lever: The hon. Member is suffering from a short memory. [Interruption.] I wish that hon. Members who were not present at the time of the incident would wait a little. The hon. Member's first intervention on this subject was precisely in the manner I have indicated. He asked why the Treasury had allowed an increase in dividend in the case of Pergamon Press whereas, in identical circumstances in the case of another company—he made no mention of Rio Tinto in that intervention; he mentioned other companies in his later speech, long after the intervention—it had not been allowed.
  His first intervention was a request to know why the Treasury had allowed a dividend increase for the Pergamon Press whereas, in identical circumstances, it had not allowed it for another company. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the answer?"] The answer is that the cases were not identical. The details I shall be happy to provide in a letter to the hon. Member or in answer to a Question. As a somewhat older Member I was merely expressing my advice to the hon. Member for South Angus—and I shall be glad to accept his assurance that he intended nothing amiss—that he should be more careful not to encourage people to draw an inference of that kind.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I hope at least that the hon. Gentleman will study the record of what I said when it appears tomorrow in the OFFICIAL REPORT. If he finds, as I think he will, that I mentioned Rio Tinto as well as Pergamon Press, I hope that he will make an apology in the House.
  Mr. Lever: I heard the hon. Gentleman's intervention, and whether or not he coupled at that point the name of one other company, I can only say that he ought at least to find out the facts before he makes an assertion in the form in which he made it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh."] The hon. Gentleman made an
  396
  assertion particularly referring to Pergamon Press. I do not want to delay the debate by a discussion at this point. There are hundreds of companies available for examination. This matter has been debated in public and in the Press, including the letter that I wrote. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member made the interjection he did. If, when I read HANSARD tomorrow, I find anything in his interjection which makes me doubt my present view of the taste in which the question was put I shall be happy to apologise to him, but at present my recollection is clear. It would have been much better if his question had been put in a different way.
  I want to deal with the question of the amount of dividend control. This control has been attacked from both sides of the House. The Opposition has said that it is an attack on business, and some of my hon. Friends have said that it is not adequate because its exemptions fritter its effect away, and because, in any case, money that is not paid out in dividend today can be paid out in two years' time. Dealing with the attack on the business aspect, most of the business community recognises that some restraint of dividends must occur in a situation in which one is asking for restraint on wages. It is really not possible otherwise. I can understand if hon. Members say that they are not in favour of an incomes policy, but the Government are. The Government are asking for wage restraint. How could a Government go to the working people asking for such restraint if no restraint was invited from dividend incomes? Most hon. Members and responsible businessmen realise that.
  My hon. Friend said that the restraint is not effective because the exemptions whittle it away. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) said in a speech outside the House that this was so. There is no truth in that. There are no exceptions that whittle away the effect of the dividend restraint. In almost every case, however massive a rise of profit, the maximum permitted dividend must be 3½ per cent. over the previous year, with this exception only, that where the previous year is not a fair basis for comparison, then a previous dividend can be restored. In that case no increase in dividend is permitted. The maximum possible dividend is an increase on last

  397
  year's by 3½ per cent., except when the previous year's did not adequately reflect normality for the company, in which case restoration of a previous dividend is allowed.
  Mr. Higgins: The hon. Gentleman says that he is not seeking to give the impression that he has powers which have not been granted by the House, yet he has now referred to a dividend control and to the maximum possible amount which would be allowed. He does not have those powers, and yet he has again used this phraseology.
  Mr. Lever: Forgive me if I insist on this, but this is bordering on the ludicrous—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Since I have expressly disavowed the possession of this power within the hearing of the House only five minutes ago, this is attempting to put an exaggerated gloss on the words that I have used. In the words of the lawyers, I shall have to "talk like a bloody pleading." [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] I use the expression only because the total expression is the words of the lawyers. I was not meaning it as my own epithet. It was part of the quotation. I cannot accept that the use of words like "allowed" and "ruling" can be misconstrued as a claim to the possession of statutory powers, when I have told the House, and the Government have told the House in unmistakable terms, that we possess no such powers. I cannot be plainer than that. If it does not sink in at this point I can never hope to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman.
  I do not have the power, my right hon. Friend does not have the power, the Government do not have the power—no one has the power to enforce dividend restraint at this time. As I said, we intend to take this power in the not too distant future, as soon as it is convenient. In the meantime, we are entirely convinced that even when we take it, we are not taking it because we think that it is a matter of urgency. We are convinced that dividend restraint will be observed.
  So much for the argument of those of my hon. Friends who believe that the concessions whittle restraint away. It is then argued that the dividend can be paid out in a later year, and this is true. It must be realised that wages are not on all fours with dividends in many
  398
  respects. There are some points favour able to the argument and some unfavourable. The most important respect from my point of view in which wages are not on all fours with dividends is the magnitude. One must get this home. If there is anyone with the illusion that the incomes policy is unfair because it prevents the trade union movement from squeezing out of someone dividend buying power in favour of buying power which could be represented by wage increases he had better come into the later part of the 20th century and study some of the facts.
  The wages and salaries bill last year was £21,342 million. The gross ordinary dividends before tax of all the quoted companies covered by our policy were £1,610 million in the last year. If we deduct payments to pension funds, unit trust funds, insurance policies, and other small shareholders, the relative insignificance of dividends as a claim on the annual production of wealth compared with wages is strikingly apparent.
  It is quite obvious that if one man enjoyed the whole of the dividend income, he would have a strikingly better standard of life than anybody else, but as a source of wealth from which wage increases can be exacted hon. Members must face the fact that the wage bill is £21,000 million broadly, and that the total gross dividend paid out was £1,600 million. Seen dynamically, the picture becomes even clearer. Over the last five years, the increase in wages has been £5,331 million, three and a quarter times the total of the entire gross dividends paid last year.
  Mr. John M. Temple: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether dividends include interest?
  Mr. Lever: No. I am talking about dividend on ordinary shares covered by this restraint. After tax, particularly this year, with the special charge, the difference would be even more striking. If one takes away small shareholders and pension funds and insurance policies one is faced with the fact, much as I would like to look at the consumption of dividend receivers rather than wage earners, that the money simply is not there.
  Mr. Mendelson: Surely the hon. Member realises at least as well as any other hon. Member that if railwaymen, after

  399
  the July, 1966, freeze, did not receive their increase for a period they will never get it back, and nor will members of the fire services, and nor will it count for their service pensions, but that if someone does not draw a dividend he will get his wealth enhanced later and will not lose over the 10 years?
  Mr. Lever: I thought that I had made it clear with the greatest possible definition that when a worker gives up wages it is inevitable that he has lost them, and that when dividend restraint is maintained the shareholder can receive the money later. If that is what my hon. Friend has said, he is 100 per cent. correct. All I am saying is that it may be unfair, but that it is as fair as comparable circumstances can make it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] There is a reputable case to be made against an incomes policy, whether it is voluntary or compulsory, but it is not a reputable or arguable case that an incomes policy cannot be defended because dividends cannot be made to bear the brunt of wages——
  I must ask those who accept that part of the argument: in which other way could we make dividend restraint more fair, more reasonable—[HON. MEMBERS: "Permanent. Compulsory."] Let me make it quite plain that we are not making it compulsory, because we have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of companies will voluntarily observe this restraint.
  Mr. Peter Hordern: On this question of dividend restraint, will the Financial Secretary deal with the question of scrip issues, particularly when those scrip issues have no element of distribution in them whatever? What is the reason for not allowing those?
  Mr. Lever: This is a pure Committee point. I do not intend to deal with it now.
  The last point I want to make—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am perfectly content, if hon. Members do not want their points answered. The last point I want to make on this matter is this. It is true that the dividend owner has a prospect, if we succeed in our economic tasks, of getting increased dividends when the dividend restraint is over. It is equally true, however, that
  400
  much more relevant considerations arise for the ordinary working people if the self-discipline for which the Government are asking results in economic success.
  Let me put it this way. What is absolutely certain, if one compares wages and dividends, particularly under a Labour Government, is that what is in prospect, if we succeed in our economic tasks, is that there will be more crumbs for the poor man's table. The poor men and the workers will be sitting at the board and consuming the overwhelmingly greater part of the wealth which is produced in the country if the Government succeed in their economic and social tasks.
  I want to deal now, briefly, with points from the Married Women's Property Act. The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) said that it was a wicked piece of retrospection which would affect almost every widow insured under the Married Women's Property Act at the present time. Both those statements are not accurate. This provision affects a very small number of people. It is not retrospective. We have got not only the highest Conservative Party authority but even the higher authority of logic for believing that the proposal which is now made is a perfectly reasonable one, which I shall be very happy to defend in Committee when the details of this will be readily discussed.
  Mr. Robert Cooke Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West) rose——
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Robert Cooke Mr. Robert Cooke rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Financial Secretary is obviously not giving way. The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) must resume his seat.
  Mr. Robert Cooke Mr. Robert Cooke rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Financial Secretary is obviously not giving way. Mr. Lever.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: On a point of order, with the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker. The Minister resumed his seat so as to allow me to ask a question on

  401
  this matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and it appeared to us that you prevented——
  Mr. Speaker: Obviously, the Minister was giving way out of deference to Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Lever: I shall try to deal briefly with a number of miscellaneous questions. I was asked by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) what is an infant. It is a person under 21. Next, he mentioned the case of damages received for personal injuries——
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter Mr. Boyd-Carpenter rose——
  Mr. Lever: I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Hon. Members: Oh.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If an hon. Member gives way, that is a matter for him, not for the House.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Financial Secretary has not taken the point. An infant is now a person under 21. The Government have announced their intention to reduce the age of majority to 18. I asked the specific question whether, in those circumstances, the Inland Revenue would be told not to take preparatory steps for aggregating the incomes of children between 18 and 21 at present with those of their parents. Will he now answer that?
  Mr. Lever: The right hon. Gentleman is being his impetuous self, jumping the gun. An infant at present is a person under 21, and we shall act on that basis at present.
  Next, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in relation to aggregation the question of income from damages received for personal injury. It struck a sympathetic chord in my mind, and I have authority to tell the right hon. Gentleman that this and similar points will be looked at in Committee, with a sympathetic eye and with a view to meeting what would be the general wish. There is no question of dragging this out of the Chancellor or any Treasury Minister by some force of coercion. We are anxious to operate this new aggregation provision as humanely and reasonably as it can be. I give an assurance to that effect.
  402
  Now, a sentence or two about the Governor of the Bank of England, which ought to be said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). I want to make absolutely clear that what the Governor of the Bank of England says needs neither confirmation nor repudiation by the Government. He speaks for himself. He is the Governor of the Bank of England, and he is entitled as such to speak for himself. It is entirely for him to judge what he things is appropriate for him to say so long as he is the Governor of the Bank of England.
  I ask my hon. Friends not to use extravagant language in relation to the exercise of this right to speak. My hon. Friends themselves exercise the right of freedom of speech in the widest possible way and would rightly resent any form of execessive discipline being applied to their own freedom of speech. I hope that they will show a similar indulgence to a man who at the present time occupies a position as Governor of the Bank of England, which itself is under the control of the Government. The Governor is open to criticism, but my hon. Friends must bear in mind that the kind of criticisms which he cannot answer are individual comments by individual Members of Parliament in speeches here attacking his right to speak.
  Mr. Michael Foot: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend at this late hour, but this is a matter of great importance. Many of us were outraged when the Governor of the Bank of England said that he was speaking with the authority of the Government when he said that he would favour a higher level of unemployment than we have had in recent years and a higher level of unused resources. What we want to know is whether the Government still hold by that policy which the Governor of the Bank said he was stating on behalf of the Government. This is extremely important. We hope that before the end of the debate my hon. Friend will answer the questions which we have asked about the level of unemployment.
  Mr. Lever: What a night of misconceptions and of touching naivety in all quarters! My hon. Friend, for whom

  403
  I have the greatest affection and respect—I say that, as usual, with sincerity—must know that Government policy is stated by the Government, not by the Governor of the Bank of England. I should be very surprised if that Governor used the words attributed to him, that he spoke on unemployment policy with the authority of the Government. I must ask my hon. Friends to examine what the Governor said before they enter into these criticisms.
  I want briefly to answer the question of unemployment. The whole strategy of the Budget is to release labour for the export trade. There is no miraculous means whereby one can release labour for the export trade at one moment and ensure that at the very next it will be taken up in the export trade. One can only make reasonable assumptions. We are freeing labour for the export trade, and it follows that if it did not take up that labour there would be some increase in unemployment. We are confident that in the situation which has now been created not only will there be an export trade demand but that the labour will be free to take up employment to supply that demand.
  I do not want to be guilty of detailed predictions which no man in his right mind would make. I shall say only that the best expectations we have are that the export trade will surge forward, will take up the labour which will be released as a result of this Budget strategy, and that we shall see a declining level of unemployment over the months ahead. I do not know what interpretation is to be put on the one single month's figure, but I should certainly not put on it the gloomy interpretation the right hon. Gentleman made.
  I think that the moment has arrived when I should be wiser to reserve to the Committee stage the more detailed examination of the points which many hon. Members have made. The Budget and the Bill have been recognised by impartial observers everywhere, except by hon. Members opposite, as being entirely apart from the challenge of the present situation. I therefore have the honour to commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 232.

  Division No. 122.]

  AYES

  [11.54 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Carmichael, Neil

  English, Michael

  Albu, Austen

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Ennals, David

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Chapman, Donald

  Ensor, David

  Alldritt, Walter

  Coe, Denis

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Archer, Peter

  Coleman, Donald

  Faulds, Andrew

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Finch, Harold

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Barnes, Michael

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Barnett, Joel

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Baxter, William

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Foley, Maurice

  Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  Bence, Cyril

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ford, Ben

  Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Forrester, John

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Fowler, Gerry

  Binns, John

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Bishop, E. S.

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Gardner, Tony

  Blackburn, F.

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Ginsburg, David

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Booth, Albert

  Delargy, Hugh

  Gourlay, Harry

  Boston, Terence

  Dell, Edmund

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Dempsey, James

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Boyden, James

  Dewar, Donald

  Gregory, Arnold

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Bradley, Tom

  Dickens, James

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Dobson, Ray

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Brooks, Edwin

  Doig, Peter

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Driberg, Tom

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

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

  Dunn, James A.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

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

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hamling, William

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

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Hannan, William

  Buchan, Norman

  Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

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

  Eadie, Alex

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Hattersley, Roy

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Hazell, Bert

  Cant, R. B.

  Ellis, John

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Henig, Stanley

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

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

  Hilton, W. S.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

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

  Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

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

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Horner, John

  Manuel, Archie

  Roebuck, Roy

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Mapp, Charles

  Rose, Paul

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Marquand, David

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Howie, W.

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Sheldon, Robert

  Hoy, James

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

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

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Millan, Bruce

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Slater, Joseph

  Hunter, Adam

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Small, William

  Hynd, John

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Irvine, Sir Arthur

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

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

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Stonehouse, John

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Moyle, Roland

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Murray, Albert

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Neal, Harold

  Swingler, Stephen

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

  Newens, Stan

  Taverne, Dick

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Norwood, Christopher

  Thornton, Ernest

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Tinn, James

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

  O'Malley, Brian

  Tomney, Frank

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Oram, Albert E.

  Tuck, Raphael

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Urwin, T. W.

  Kelley, Richard

  Orme, Stanley

  Varley, Eric G.

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Oswald, Thomas

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

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

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

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Lawson, George

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Wallace, George

  Ledger, Ron

  Paget, R. T.

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Weitzman, David

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Wellbeloved, James

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Park, Trevor

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Whitaker, Ben

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Lipton, Marcus

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Whitlock, William

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Pentland, Norman

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  McBride, Neil

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  McCann, John

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  MacColl, James

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Winnick, David

  McGuire, Michael

  Probert, Arthur

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn, A.

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Rankin, John

  Woof, Robert

  Mackie, John

  Rees, Merlyn

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Yates, Victor

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Richard, Ivor

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Braine, Bernard

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Astor, John

  Brewis, John

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

  Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Crouch, David

  Awdry, Daniel

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Crowder, F. P.

  Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Balniel, Lord

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Bryan, Paul

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Batsford, Brian

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Bell, Ronald

  Bullus, Sir Eric

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

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Burden, F. A.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

  Campbell, Gordon

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Carlisle, Mark

  Doughty, Charles

  Bessell, Peter

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Clark, Henry

  Eden, Sir John

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Clegg, Walter

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Boardman, Tom

  Cooke, Robert

  Emery, Peter

  Body, Richard

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Cordle, John

  Eyre, Reginald

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Corfield, F. V.

  Farr, John

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Costain, A. P.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  406

  407

  Fortescue, Tim

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Foster, Sir John

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G.

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

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

  Longden, Gilbert

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Loveys, W. H.

  Royle, Anthony

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  MacArthur, Ian

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Gower, Raymond

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Scott, Nicholas

  Grant, Anthony

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  McMaster, Stanley

  Sharples, Richard

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

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

  Grieve, Percy

  Madden, Martin

  Silvester, Frederick

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Gurden, Harold

  Maginnis, John E.

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Marten, Neil

  Speed, Keith

  Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

  Maude, Angus

  Stainton, Keith

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Stodart, Anthony

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Mawby, Ray

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

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Tapsell, Peter

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

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

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

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

  Hawkins, Paul

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Hay, John

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Teeling, Sir William

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Temple, John M.

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Heseltine, Michael

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Tilney, John

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Murton, Oscar

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Neave, Airey

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Holland, Philip

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Hordern, Peter

  Nott, John

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Hornby, Richard

  Onslow, Cranley

  Walters, Dennis

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Orr. Capt. L. P. S.

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Hunt, John

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Webster, David

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Pardoe, John

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Percival, Ian

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Peyton, John

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Jopling, Michael

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Pounder, Rafton

  Worsley, Marcus

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Wright, Esmond

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Wylie, N. R.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Pym, Francis

  Younger, Hn. George

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Mr. Jasper More and

  Lane, David

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Mr. Hector Monro.

  Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]:—
  The House divided: Ayes 223, Noes 291

  Division No. 123.]

  AYES

  [12.5 a.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Cooke, Robert

  Astor, John

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

  Braine, Bernard

  Cordle, John

  Awdry, Daniel

  Brewis, John

  Corfield, F. V.

  Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Costain, A. P.

  Balniel, Lord

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

  Batsford, Brian

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Crouch, David

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Bryan, Paul

  Crowder, F. P.

  Bell, Ronald

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Burden, F. A.

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Campbell, Gordon

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Carlisle, Mark

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

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Boardman, Tom

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Body, Richard

  Clark, Henry

  Doughty, Charles

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Clegg, Walter

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Drayson, G. B.

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Eden, Sir John

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Emery, Peter

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lane, David

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Farr, John

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Fisher, Nigel

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

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

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Fortescue, Tim

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Royle, Anthony

  Foster, Sir John

  Longden, Gilbert

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G.

  Loveys, W. H.

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Gibson-Watt, David

  MacArthur, Ian

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Scott, Nicholas

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Sharples, Richard

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

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

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Maddan, Martin

  Silvester, Frederick

  Gower, Raymond

  Maginnis, John E.

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Grant, Anthony

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Marten, Neil

  Speed, Keith

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Maude, Angus

  Stainton, Keith

  Grieve, Percy

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Stodart, Anthony

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Mawby, Ray

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

  Gurden, Harold

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Tapsell, Peter

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

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

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

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

  Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Miscampbetl, Norman

  Teeling, Sir William

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Monro, Hector

  Temple, John M.

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Tilney, John

  Hastings, Stephen

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Hawkins, Paul

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Hay, John

  Murton, Oscar

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Neave, Airey

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Walters, Dennis

  Hiley, Joseph

  Nott, John

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Webster, David

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Holland, Philip

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Hordern, Peter

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Hornby, Richard

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Hunt, John

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Percival, Ian

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Peyton, John

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Worsley, Marcus

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Wright, Esmond

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Wylie, N. R.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Younger, Hn. George

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Jopling, Michael

  Pym, Francis

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Mr. Jasper More and

  Mr. Timothy Kitson.

  Noes

  Abse, Leo

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Albu, Austen

  Boyden, James

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Alldritt, Walter

  Bradley, Tom

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Archer, Peter

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Dalyell, Tam

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Brooks, Edwin

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

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

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Barnes, Michael

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

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Barnett, Joel

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

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Baxter, William

  Buchan, Norman

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

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

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Bence, Cyril

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Cant, R. B.

  Dell, Edmund

  Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Dempsey, James

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Dewar, Donald

  Binns, John

  Chapman, Donald

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Bishop, E. S.

  Coe, Denis

  Dickens, James

  Blackburn, F.

  Coleman, Donald

  Dobson, Ray

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Concannon, J. D.

  Doig, Peter

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Driberg, Tom

  Booth, Albert

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Dunn, James A.

  Boston, Terence

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  410

  411

  Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

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

  Pentland, Norman

  Eadie, Alex

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lawson, George

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Ellis, John

  Ledger, Ron

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  English, Michael

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Ennals, David

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

  Probert, Arthur

  Ensor, David

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Rankin, John

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Richard, Ivor

  Finch, Harold

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

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

  Foley, Maurice

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

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

  Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  McBride, Neil

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  McCann, John

  Roebuck, Roy

  Ford, Ben

  MacColl, James

  Rose, Paul

  Forrester, John

  MacDermot, Niall

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Fowler, Gerry

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Freeson, Reginald

  McGuire, Michael

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross & Crom'ty)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Gardner, Tony

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mackie, John

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

  Ginsburg, David

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Gourlay, Harry

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Slater, Joseph

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Small, William

  Gregory, Arnold

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

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

  Stonehouse, John

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Manuel, Archie

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Mapp, Charles

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Swingler, Stephen

  Hamling, William

  Marquand, David

  Taverne, Dick

  Hannan, William

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Thornton, Ernest

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Tinn, James

  Hattersley, Roy

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Tomney, Frank

  Hazell, Bert

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Tuck, Raphael

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Mikardo, Ian

  Urwin, T. W.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Millan, Bruce

  Varley, Eric G.

  Henig, Stanley

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Hilton, W. S.

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Horner, John

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Wallace, George

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Moyle, Roland

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Murray, Albert

  Weitzman, David

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Neal, Harold

  Wellbeloved, James

  Howie, W.

  Newens, Stan

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Hoy, James

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Whitaker, Ben

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Norwood, Christopher

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Whitlock, William

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Oram, Albert E.

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  Hunter, Adam

  Orme, Stanley

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Hynd, John

  Oswald, Thomas

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Irvine, Sir Arthur

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

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

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

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Paget, R. T.

  Winnick, David

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Palmer, Arthur

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

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

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Jenkins, Flugh (Putney)

  Pardoe, John

  Woof, Robert

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Park, Trevor

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Yates, Victor

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

  Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Kelley, Richard

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).>

MR. EDWARD BLACKMAN (STOLEN PROPERTY)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]
12.18 a.m.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Mr. Speaker, you have been good enough to give me the opportunity to raise the case of my constituent Mr. Edward Blackman. He collects antique weapons as a hobby. He buys and sells them regularly. In March, 1966, he bought a house in Manchester, furnished it, and lived there with his mother. The house is in his mother's name. He later obtained a flat in Putney as his business as a motor car dealer is in the South, and he spent part of the time there.
Mr. Blackman insured the Manchester house and its contents first with a London office, and when this policy expired in March, 1967, he insured it with the Co-operative Insurance Society in Manchester. In Manchester, he kept about half his collection of antique weapons. Of the total of about 40, 23 were in Manchester, and about 20 were in Putney. He included the antique weapons in the insurance with the Manchester house. They were inspected by the society, and the proper premium was paid.
The weapons in Putney were not insured. He decided that they should be, and in June, 1967, he took them to Manchester to be added to the insurance cover there. They were seen by the company's representative, but the cover was not concluded because he had decided to sell the Manchester house. So he brought the 20 or so weapons back to Putney, intending to insure them there after the move from Manchester. A buyer for the Manchester house was found, but, before the move took place, on Saturday morning, 16th September. Mr. Blackman's mother telephoned him from Manchester to say that the 23 antique weapons there had been stolen. This was at once reported to the police and the insurance company.
More than a fortnight later, on 3rd October last, at seven o'clock in the morning, five men who said they were police officers demanded entry to Mr. Blackman's flat, saying they had a war-
414
rant. He asked what they wanted and they said they were looking for counterfeiting material. My constituent, who is a mild man, was greatly alarmed and produced some gold counters which the police took, together with the Putney part, 20 or so, of his antique weapons collection.
They insisted that he must accompany them to Putney Police Station and he was kept there in considerable concern for three hours, much against his will. He asked whether he was being arrested and was told that he was. Mr. Blackman could prove his ownership of some of these guns and he produced receipts and auction catalogues. Some of them were purchased after the theft of the weapons from Manchester, and others were among those which had been taken to Manchester for valuation and brought back: this also was proved.
When he was released, the police retained his property and told him that if he wanted it back he would have to go to New Scotland Yard. He did so promptly, which shows, I think, that he is not likely to be guilty of any misdemeanour, but the guns were still not returned to him. He then wrote to the Home Office, with no result. Finally, on his solicitor's advice, he came to see me, and, on 20th December, I wrote to the Home Office asking for the return of Mr. Blackman's property, for an apology and for compensation.
The Under-Secretary did not reply until 19th February. He said that the police,
"…acting on information in their possession, applied to Bow Street Magistrates' Court on 29th September, 1967, for warrants to search a flat at 12 Earnshaw Place, Carlton Drive, S.W.15, an address in Peckham and also a house in Manchester from which Mr. Blackman had reported to the Manchester Police the theft of 23 antique firearms. The applications were granted and on 3rd October the flat at 12 Earnshaw Place was searched in the presence of Mr. Blackman and the police took possession of a number of antique pistols and revolvers and some coins and cartridges."
He added:
"The Commissioner tells me expensive inquiries have been necessary, both here and abroad, in connection with claims about the ownership of those firearms; and the police have at no time assured Mr. Blackman that they were satisfied that the firearms were his property. The inquiries are still not complete and the Commissioner regrets that he cannot at present agree that the firearms should be returned to Mr. Blackman. As you will

415
appreciate, this is not a matter in which the Home Secretary can intervene."
In parenthesis, perhaps I may congratulate my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary on what is, I believe, his first reply to a debate from the Front Bench. I hope that he will rise to the occasion and will not stick entirely to the brief which he has undoubtedly been given.
Since when have the police been entitled forcibly to remove property and to require the owner to prove ownership as a condition of return? Mr. Blackman believes that he did prove ownership, but still his property was kept from him.
I then put down a Question, and on 8th March it and the Answer read as follows:
"Mr. Hugh Jenkins asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the flat of Mr. Blackman, a constituent of the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Putney was search by the police on 3rd October, 1967; why Mr. Blackman was arrested and detained for three hours; and why the police forcibly removed Mr. Blackman's property and refused to return it to him."
I received this reply:
"Mr. Taverne: These are matters for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. I am informed that the flat was searched under warrant to seek some property which had been reported to be stolen and that Mr. Blackman voluntarily accompanied the police to the police station to help them with identification and other aspects of their inquiries. The Commissioner has now decided not to institute proceedings in connection with the articles of which the police took possession and they have been returned to Mr. Blackman."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 185.]
It is noteworthy that Mr. Blackman's property was not returned to him until that Question was tabled and that the then Under-Secretary did not say, or perhaps did not know, that not all of Mr. Blackman's property was returned. The police kept two guns, and they still have them.
What, then, is all this about? Mr. Blackman does not know, but he tells me that he can guess. Twenty or so weapons were stolen from Manchester. They had been insured with the Co-operative Insurance Society less than a year before. Soon after, Mr. Blackman was seen in London with about the same number of guns. Did the insurance company and the police assume that Mr. Blackman had stolen his own property
416
and was seeking to make a fraudulent claim? It seems likely. But, if that was the case, why all the drama?
Why did not the insurance company simply refuse to pay and see whether Mr. Blackman sued? If he did not sue, then, after a period of time—without all the dramatic business of taking him to the police station in the early hours of the morning—the assumption might reasonably have been made that something was fishy. If, on the other hand, he did instruct his solicitors to go ahead, the police would have seen, without this business of waking him up at seven o'clock in the morning, that they might have been mistaken. Mr. Blackman is not only short of the property stolen from Manchester, but is also short of two guns which are still held by the police.
Perhaps the truth of the matter is that the police have been rather attracted by the vision of themselves as portrayed in some television programmes—seeing themselves as the tough guys in "Softly Softly" and "Z Cars"—and, instead of going through the painful and fiddling process of detection and proof, they like to be the important men who knock on doors in the early morning and take flabbergasted citizens down to the station for questioning. We in this country do not like to feel that that sort of thing goes on. Whatever "Inspector Barlow" may say, it is to be hoped that our police will not adopt that attitude. Oscar Wilde pointed out long ago that life imitates art and that when it is good art that is not too bad. But to have the police imitating the "telly cops" is past a joke.
I hope that my hon. Friend will say that the police will return the remainder of my constituent's property, will apologise to him and will offer him some reasonable compensation. I have advised my constituent that unless he receives that degree of assurance, he should now do what he should have done long ago, and that is to ask his solicitors to issue proceedings, for I am advised that he would be likely to succeed at law.
I greatly admire the police and they should not all be blamed because a few of them have an over-developed sense of drama and are perhaps rather too ready to jump to conclusions—any more than 10,000 demonstrators should be blamed because a few of them mistakenly think

417
that one can stop violence with violence. But there has been rather too much of this lately and we must be vigilant about it. Perhaps a course of "Dixon of Dock Green" rather than "Barlow" would be a good remedy for our policemen friends in future.
The basic strength of the police is that they are still looked on as friends by most of us. Any action which prejudices that position is a loss to them, and a loss to all of us. Perhaps Bow Street magistrates might think twice before issuing writs too easily.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to raise this matter tonight and I look forward to my hon. Friend's reply. I hope that he will enable me to feel in my heart that I was fully justified, before hearing his reply, in expressing congratulations to him on his appearance on the Front Bench.
12.30 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) for his generous remarks. I can assure him that I have every intention of adhering to the basic facts of this case rather than to any set brief. I have no intention, like my hon. Friend, of referring to popular television programmes or Oscar Wilde or anyone else.
My hon. Friend has put his case with skill and fervour. In the debate tonight and in correspondence with my predecessor, the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne), he has put forward certain criticisms of the police in relation to Mr. Blackman. The main criticisms are as follows: first, he has criticised them for delay in returning the property which they took into their possession; secondly, he suggests that the length of time for which Mr. Blackman was detained at Putney Police Station was unreasonable; thirdly, he has cast doubts on the adequacy of the arrangements made by the police in handling the property; fourthly, he has challenged the propriety of the reason set out in the search warrant; and he has also challenged the right to have taken the guns from Mr. Blackman's flat.
Before dealing with each and everyone of these issues in detail, I should like to
418
give the House a brief summary of the main facts of the case. On 29th September last, following information they had received, officers of the Metropolitan Police Criminal Investigation Department applied for and obtained warrants to search three properties, two in London and one in Manchester. Mr. Blackman had a connection with each of these. The reason set out in the search warrant for this search was that they were searching for counterfeit coin and counterfeiting instruments contrary to Section 11 of the Coinage Offences Act, 1936.
The three warrants were executed more or less simultaneously on the morning of 3rd October last. Mr. Blackman was present at his flat, 12 Earnshaw Place, S.W.15. From those premises there were taken a number of articles, including 59 coins, 24 antique pistols and revolvers, one packet of 12 bore cartridges, one packet of 4/10 cartridges, one canister of black powder, a cheque book and two lists of firearms. The officers who attended the flat requested Mr. Blackman to go with them to Putney Police Station to assist them particularly in the identification of the firearms. He was at the police station from 9 a.m. until 12 noon. The officers arrived at his flat at 8 a.m., not 7 a.m. as stated by my hon. Friend. Substantial inquiries followed and a further visit was made to 12 Earnshaw Place and police officers took away on 5th October four muskets and six bayonets.
Mr. Blackman wrote to my right hon. Friend on 27th November asking for the return of the firearms and on 20th December my hon. Friend wrote to my right hon. Friend urgently requesting the return of the whole of Mr. Blackman's property. The police continued with their inquiries but no charges were preferred. On 6th March the firearms, with the exception of the two mentioned by my hon. Friend this evening—and I was not aware that they had been withheld—were returned to Mr. Blackman's mother at Manchester in accordance with his instructions. The police are anxious to return the whole of the remaining property with the exception of the cartridges and the black powder and case which Mr. Blackman says he does not wish them to return.

419
They have on various occasions sought to contact him to arrange an appointment with him so that proper arrangements can be made for the return of this property, but so far they have not been successful, and although officers have called on Mr. Blackman on many occasions they have not succeeded in making contact with him on most of those occasions.
I now come to the specific allegations. First, on the question of delay, it is conceded that there is a high duty on the police to return to the rightful owner any property that they have seized for the purposes of investigation in circumstances where charges are not preferred and where it is proper and necessary that such property should be returned.
In this case the investigatory efforts of the police, as can be imagined, turned in the main around the firearms. These were antique pieces, not bearing registration marks, and the difficulties involved in tracing them were very much greater than they would be in the normal case, with more modern weapons. There were as many cases for separate inquiry as there were individual firearms.
The investigations which deal with the matters mentioned by my hon. Friend were rather wider in scope than he suggested, and they ranged over a wide area. They also necessitated inquiries being made abroad. The volume of activity involved was considerable, and the matter should also be looked at against the background of the general duties of the Metropolitan Police Force and the other concurrent duties of the officers concerned.
The second matter mentioned by my hon. Friend related to the length of time for which Mr. Blackman was kept at the police station. He attended Putney Police Station following the request of the police officers to accompany him there. He drove in his own car in the company of one of those officers. He expressed complete willingness to help the officer concerned to identify the firearms which had been taken from his flat. The House will remember that there were 24 guns, and each was dealt with in turn. I understand that Mr. Blackman was very co-operative and that he went to some lengths to show the officers how the various pieces worked.
420
Mr. Blackman was at this time told of the searches which were contemporaneously taking place at No. 383 St. Margaret's Road, Twickenham, and No. 124 Stamford Street, Stretford, Manchester. He raised no apparent objection to these developments, and after he had been at the police station for some time the officers there received a telephone communication from police officers at Manchester, who reported that they could not find a key to allow entry into the Manchester premises. Mr. Blackman very kindly gave them the name and address of a solicitor from whom a key could be obtained. There were subsequent telephone calls, and the Manchester police ultimately reported to say that they had visited the premises and had not taken any property therefrom.
I stress these events to show that some time was consumed by such matters, and that at no time between 9 a.m. and 12 noon, when he left Putney Police Station, did Mr. Blackman give any indication that he was objecting to his presence there, nor was any suggestion made that he would be kept there contrary to his will.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I have a letter from Mr. Blackman here to say:
"I was detained against my will for three hours."
It may be that Mr. Blackman thought that since the police were apparently suspicious of him in some respects, it was in his interests to co-operate with them, and I should have thought that his behaviour was entirely consistent with that of an innocent man.
Mr. Morgan: I have ample evidence, from the statements made by police officers present at the time, to say that no attempt was made to detain Mr. Blackman against his will.
The point has been made in previous correspondence that the arrangements for the keeping and storage of these guns were not adequate. In this matter the police exercised every possible care. When they were removed from the flat, each firearm was individually wrapped and placed in a suitcase produced for the purpose by Mr. Blackman. At Putney Police Station they were carefully laid on the charge-room table. Detective-Sergeant Potter directed that the firearms should only be handled by him,

421
Mr. Blackman and Detective-Sergeant Seymour.
After Mr. Blackman had left, the guns were carefully re-wrapped, replaced in a suitcase, and taken to New Scotland Yard, where they were again, with every care, placed in a metal cabinet specially allocated for that purpose. Criticism has been made concerning the way in which the warrants were obtained. I believe it right that the House should know that information by way of a signed communication was received by the police in late August. No action was taken until 29th September. In the meantime the police made all reasonable efforts to check the accuracy of the information contained in the correspondence.
It was as a result of these checks that applications were made for the three search warrants. On the matter of the propriety or otherwise of taking the guns under a warrant, which, on the face of it, dealt with a possible offence under Section 11 of the Coinage Offences Act, 1936, the House should remember that the officers, in deciding whether to take the guns, were aware that Mr. Blackman had, a short while previously, in September, reported a case of breaking and entering at his mother's premises in Manchester. As a result of that, property belonging to him, namely antique guns, had been stolen. Being aware of this, and also of the matter alluded to by my hon. Friend, namely the taking out of the insurance policy—which incidentally was taken out, not in March 1967, but on 15th September 1967—a few days before the breaking and entering, the police decided that it would be proper for them to take possession of the firearms.
As a general proposition, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would submit that unless police officers entering premises on the strength of a warrant take property in respect of which they have a reasonable suspicion that a serious offence had been committed, then their task in the appre-
422
hension of criminals would be made infinitely more difficult than it is at present. I plead that in relation to these guns they had that suspicion and that they acted reasonably and prudently in the circumstances.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins Mr. Hugh Jenkins rose——
Mr. Morgan: I cannot give way. I am racing against time, as I am sure my hon. Friend realises.
I would remind my hon. Friend that following the making of the complaint and under the procedure of Section 49 of the Police Act, 1964, this matter was referred to the Commissioner of Police for report and careful investigations were made. They took a considerable time, hence the delay in replying to my hon. Friend.
On the question of damages, it is not for me, on behalf of the Home Office, to say whether Mr. Blackman can claim them in this case. It is a matter which he must take up with his legal advisers. When Mr. Blackman visited Wandsworth Police Station some time ago he told a Detective Sergeant Roberts there that he had not made any complaint and in a message to Detective Superintendent Williams, on 16th January, he said that all he wanted was his guns back. He did not want to lodge a complaint against anybody at all.
I believe that this case illustrates the conflict which often occurs between the necessity, on the one hand, to respect a subject's property and, on the other, the need for police officers to carry out their duties with initiative and imagination. It is regretted——
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twelve minutes to One o'clock.

Second Reading Committee
Wednesday, 24th April, 1968
[MR. VICTOR YATES in the Chair]

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Mr. Victor Yates (Chairman)

Archer, Mr. Peter (Rowley Regis and Tipton)

Miscampbell, Mr. Norman (Blackpool, North)

Atkins, Mr. Ronald (Preston, North)

Molloy, Mr. William (Ealing, North)

Boardman, Mr. Tom (Leicester, South-West)

Owen, Mr. Will (Morpeth)

Page, Mr. John (Harrow, West)

Clegg, Mr. Walter (North Fylde)

Parker, Mr. John (Dagenham)

Crowder, Mr. F. P. (Ruislip—Northwood)

Percival, Mr. Ian (Southport)

Perry, Mr. George H. (Nottingham, South)

Forrester, Mr. John (Stoke-on-Trent, North)

Rawlinson, Sir Peter (Epsom)

Grant, Mr. Anthony (Harrow, Central)

Roebuck, Mr. Roy (Harrow, East)

Grieve, Mr. Percy (Solihull)

Irvine, Sir Arthur, Solicitor-General.

McCann, Mr. John (Rochdale)

Williams, Mr. W. T. (Warrington)

Mr. G. S. Ecclestone, Committee Clerk.

CIVIL EVIDENCE BILL [Lords]
10.30 a.m.
The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): I beg to move, That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Civil Evidence Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.
This Bill introduces a number of important reforms in the law of evidence. It is based on the recommendations made by the Law Reform Committee in its reports on hearsay evidence in civil proceedings and on the rule in Hollington v. Hewthorn and on privilege in civil proceedings. We are concerned with three reports of the Law Reform Committee. I begin by paying a tribute to the work of the Committee. It consists
424
of a number of very distinguished lawyers who have devoted a great deal of their valuable time to considering important matters of law reform. The Government and, I am sure, all right hon. and hon. Members, are most grateful to them for their assistance.
The Bill relates to the law of evidence, which is, in the jargon applied to these things, lawyers' law and, as such, is a technical subject. It is certainly not a party political matter.
The law of evidence in civil cases was referred to the Law Reform Committee by the Conservative Administration in September, 1964, and the recommendations which the Committee has made have largely been taken up by the present

425
Administration in the Bill. The Government are most anxious that these important matters should receive the fullest possible consideration so that what eventually appears on the Statute Book will represent the most satisfactory solution to a number of problems which have been bedevilling the law of evidence for a long time.
The Bill is a technical one, but this does not mean that it is either an unimportant one or a Bill without interest to the layman. The technicalities of the law of evidence have been a source of confusion and delay to litigants in many instances, and the Bill tackles a number of them.
The principal matter dealt with is the law relating to hearsay evidence. At present, under existing law and practice, the evidence of what somebody said cannot be given in court unless it falls within one of the exceptions to what is called the "hearsay rule". The hearsay rule, as is well known, is based on the principle that if one wants to prove a fact which one's opponent denies, one must call the witness who saw it happen and not rely on what that eye-witness told somebody else about it. There have been recognised to be a number of obvious exceptions to this rule, despite the apparently sound principle on which it is based, and the application of it has undoubtedly given rise to many difficulties.
The Law Reform Committee found the rule to be unsatisfactory in certain respects and criticised it in paragraph 5 of its Thirteenth Report, where it said:
"The hearsay rule in its present form, with its numerous exceptions, in our view lacks rational basis, results sometimes in injustice and often in avoidable expense, and introduces much unnecessary complication in the preparation and hearing of civil actions."
The courts have sometimes been equally outspoken about the rule and its exceptions. I give, as an example of that, what I think is an interesting passage in a judgment of Lord Justice Hamilton in the case of Ward v. H. S. Pitt & Co., reported in 1913 2 Kings Bench Division, page 130, at page 138, where, dealing with the matter of admitting evidence of declaration against a deceased person's interest, the learned Lord Justice said:
"The case is exceptional, not to say anomalous. The evidence thus admitted is hearsay and the person on whose credit it rests is
426
beyond cross-examination and is not even seen by the jury. The ground is that it is very unlikely that a man would say falsely something as to which he knows the truth, if his statement tends to his own pecuniary disadvantage. As a reason this seems sordid and unconvincing. Men lie for so many reasons and some for no reason at all; and some tell the truth without thinking or even in spite of thinking about their pockets, but it is too late to question this piece of eighteenth century philosophy."
In addition to dealing with hearsay at large, so to speak, the Bill takes account of technological developments which have occurred since the rules of evidence were formulated. It deals with such practical and up-to-date matters as computerised and microfilmed records. It can, therefore, be said to do more than merely simplify a difficult branch of the law in that it brings the law up-to-date with modern current commercial practices.
The Bill is in two parts. Part 1 deals with the law relating to hearsay evidence and, as I have indicated, is based on the Thirteenth Report of the Law Reform Committee. Part II deals with the existing rule that a previous conviction cannot be used in subsequent civil proceedings as evidence that the person concerned committed the crime of which he was convicted. That is what lawyers call the rule in Hollington v. Hewthorn. This part of the Bill is based on the Fifteenth Report of the Law Reform Committee. Part II also deals with the law relating to privilege, but not the law relating to Crown privilege, which was the subject of a recent and far reaching decision of the House in the case of Conway v. Rimmer.
By your leave, Mr. Yates, I turn now to the detailed provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 abolishes the common law exceptions to the hearsay rule by providing that hearsay is to be admissible only if it is made admissible by the Bill or by some other statutory provision or, of course, by the agreement of the parties. This is cardinal. The test of the admissibility of hearsay is to be applied by discovering somewhere a statutory provision either in the Bill now before the Committee or in some other Statute. It is to be either in that context or by agreement between the parties.
Clause 1 is designed to implement the recommendation which is contained in paragraph 44 of the Thirteenth Report

427
of the Law Reform Committee where it says that
"…no evidence of fact, other than direct oral evidence by a person having personal knowledge of the fact, shall be admissible save as provided in that Statute giving effect to the recommendations "—
that is, the recommendations contained in the Committee's Report—
"or any other statute or in rules or court."
That is the recommendation which has the effect of substituting the proposed statutory provision for the common law exceptions. The Bill does not, therefore, affect the existing statutory exceptions in any way. In future the only exceptions will be those contained in the Bill or in some other statutory provision.
Clauses 2 to 5 of the Bill make provision for the admissibility of hearsay which is wide enough to supersede nearly all the common law exceptions to the rule. Those exceptions which are not superseded by these general provisions are expressly superseded by virtue of the terms of Clause 9. Accordingly, the relevan hearsay evidence becomes admissible under the Bill and not at common law.
Clause 2(1) makes what I may call first-hand oral or documentary hearsay generally admissible. This is the nub of the Bill. It is this provision which makes the hearsay admissible. It does so subject to rules of court, which are dealt with in Clause 8. I refer to Clause 8 out of numerical order because of its importance. It provides that under rules of court, first, the party seeking to rely on hearsay must give notice of it and, secondly, that his opponent can by counter notice insist on the maker of the statement being called as a witness, but at his own risk as to costs if he so insists without good reason.
Reverting to Clause 2(2), that sub-section imposes conditions on the admission of an out-of-court statement made by a person who is called, or is intended to be called, as a witness by the party seeking to put the statement in. It is clearly an arguable point, no doubt, that a statement should not be put in evidence by virtue of this Clause where a party has called, or intends to call, as a witness the person who made the statement. As I say, it is an arguable point. The position taken up in the Bill, which
428
I recommend as the correct one, is that the court should have a discretion about it. The leave of the court is required before the statement is given in evidence.
Clause 2(3) provides that, where a statement is made otherwise than in a document, it can be proved only by the direct evidence of the maker or a person who heard or otherwise perceived the statement being made.
Clause 3 deals with the matter of the previous statement of a witness. Under existing law and practice the previous out-of-court statements of a witness can be put in with a view to discrediting him or where they are contained in a document which he has used to refresh his memory, but they cannot be put in as evidence of facts stated in them. That may be regarded as a rather odd feature of the present position. Clause 3 provides that these statements are to be admissible as evidence of any fact stated in them of which the witness could have given direct oral evidence.
The adoption of this principle is in accordance with the view of the majority of the Law Reform Committee, as expressed in paragraph 37 of its Report, where, in relation to an eye witness's statement made shortly after the event, it is said:
"…whether consistent or inconsistent with his oral evidence, the majority think not only that it may sometimes be a useful aid in assessing the probative value of the latter, but that also it may possess in its own right a higher probative value than the so-called 'best evidence' with which it is inconsistent. They would expect statements made while the witness's recollection was still fresh to be freely admitted by the judge as evidence of the facts which they tended to establish."
Clause 4 makes documentary evidence more readily available as evidence of facts stated therein in cases where, broadly, the document is a record compiled by a person acting under a duty.
Clause 5 makes admissible in civil proceedings, subject to the conditions specified in the Clause and to rules of court, a statement contained in a document produced by a computer used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of activities regularly carried on during the period of such use. The safeguards spelt out in this Clause are technical in a double sense, because they have regard to what can be called

429
technicalities of the law of evidence, and also to the peculiar features which attach to these computers and modern instruments.
The Law Reform Committee's Report does not expressly deal with computers, but its publication in May, 1966, led to a considerable amount of interest being shown in its applicability to computerised records, and it has been thought right to frame the legislation implementing the Report in such a way as to make it possible to adduce such computerised records in evidence.
The greatly increased use of computers for the keeping of records is a development of which we are all aware, but there does not appear to be any authority on the admissibility of their products as evidence. It seems that in some cases the courts have been willing to look at what is called a "print-out" from a computer and accept it as evidence of the facts stated, but in others they have been unwilling to do so. It seems that in strict law such a "print-out" cannot be brought within the terms of the Evidence Act, 1938.
Clause 5(1) makes information contained in a document produced by a computer admissible, subject to rules of court, as evidence of any relevant facts stated therein, provided that a number of conditions specified in the following subsection are satisfied. The first of these conditions embodies the cardinal feature of the Clause, namely, that it is the regular and routine use of a computer which makes its products reliable enough to have substantial probative value attributed to them.
The second condition is that over the relevant period there must have been regularly supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of the activities in question information of the kind contained in the statement. The third condition is that the computer must have been operating properly throughout the material part of the relevant period, or that any defect in its operation must not have been such as to affect the production of the document or accuracy of its contents. The fourth condition is that the information contained in the statement in fact reproduces, or is derived from, information supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of the relevant activities.
430
Thus, we endeavour to keep the law of evidence up to date with these technological advances, and I am bound to confess that, for my part, for a satisfactory consideration of the merits, if they be merits, of Clause 5 it would be desirable to have a good deal of knowledge not only of the law of evidence but also of computer practice, technique and science.
Clauses 6 and 7 contain provisions supplementary to Clauses 2 to 5, and Clause 8, to which I referred earlier, provides for the necessary rules of court. Clause 9 makes admissible under the Bill certain categories of hearsay evidence which are at present admissible at common law. These matters are safeguarded. As I explained earlier, Clause 1 abolishes the common law exceptions to the rule against hearsay. These exceptions in the common law which it is desirable to preserve to fit into the pattern of the Bill are required to be set out somewhere in statute form, and Clause 9 fills what would in its absence be a gap in the process. Clause 10 contains a number of necessary definitions, including that of a document, and a film, which includes microfilm.
Part II of the Bill, as I mentioned earlier, implements the two other Reports of the Law Reform Committee, the Report of the Committee on the rule in Hollington v. Hewthorn, and the Report on privilege in civil proceedings. Clause 11, in accordance with the Committee's recommendation, reverses what is known as the rule in Hollington v. Hewthorn. Under this rule a conviction by a criminal court is not admissible in subsequent civil proceedings to prove that the convicted person had in fact committed the offence of which he was convicted. By reversing this rule Clause 11 makes a previous conviction in a United Kingdom Court admissible in civil proceedings to prove that the person convicted committed the conduct on which the conviction was based. The Clause does not make a conviction conclusive evidence, let it be observed, but the burden of proof is placed on the party who wants to dispute the correctness of the conviction.
Clause 12 makes a finding of adultery in a matrimonial court, or an adjudication of paternity in affiliation proceedings, admissible in subsequent civil proceedings as evidence that the person concerned committed the adultery, or, as the case may be, is the father of the

431
child to which the finding or adjudication relates. At present a wife can divorce her husband on the ground of his adultery with a Mrs. X, but when Mr. X tries to divorce his wife on the ground of the same act of adultery he has to prove it all over again. The Bill will alter this, and in doing so make its contribution towards simplifying our divorce procedure.
In that connection I mention that the House is at present considering proposed changes in the law of divorce. As I understand it, the appropriateness and effect of the proposals in this Bill under the head with which I am now dealing will not be diminished by changes which are contemplated in the law of divorce in a Measure now under consideration elsewhere.
Clause 13 makes proof of a previous conviction conclusive evidence in the special case of subsequent defamation proceedings that the person convicted committed the offence in question. It therefore goes further than Clause 11, by making proof of a conviction in defamation cases conclusive. In doing so it implements the recommendations in paragraph 29 of the Law Reform Committee's Report. Here one is concerned not only with the probative value of the evidence, but also with the question of policy, and the question of policy is whether a convicted person ought to be allowed to use libel actions as a means in effect of reopening criminal proceedings. The Committee, rightly in my view, came to the conclusion that this ought not to be allowed, and Clause 13 accordingly prevents it.
The Clause does not extend to acquittals. There are two views on whether a person should be entitled to say with impunity that an acquitted person was really guilty. The Committee took the view that he should not be so entitled, and there is, as one will readily appreciate, much to be said for finality in these matters. On the other hand, it could be greatly in the public interest that a rogue lucky enough to have got off should be publicly exposed. This argument seems to me to be the better one of the conflicting arguments on this point. The high standard of proof in criminal proceedings, essential though it is, provides sufficient safeguards to the rogues who go free, and the Bill, rightly in my
432
opinion, comes down firmly in favour of giving no conclusive evidential effect to an acquittal.
Clauses 14 to 17 give effect to the Law Reform Committee's Report on Privilege in Civil Proceedings. Clause 14 extends the privilege against self-incrimination to cover a witness's spouse. As the Law Reform Committee says in its Report, there is something distasteful about compelling a man to incriminate his wife. Though some may say that there are arguments that there ought to be no privilege against incrimination at all for anybody, whilst such a privilege exists I think that it should extend to the spouse, and I invite the Committee to indicate its agreement with that point of view.
Clause 15 confers legal professional privilege on communications with a patent agent made for the purpose of proceedings under the Patents Act, 1949, before the Comptroller of Patents or the Patents Appeal Tribunal.
Clause 16 abolishes various obsolete privileges whose abolition was recommended by the Law Reform Committee. The only one which I need mention is perhaps the right of a witness in some cases to refuse to answer questions tending to show that he had committed adultery. The privilege was needed, it may be thought, when adultery could be severely punished. This is not the case today, and the privilege is no longer thought to be necessary.
Clause 17 makes a number of consequential amendments relating to privilege, and Clause 18 deals with interpretation and certain other matters. As the Bill applies only to England and Wales, Clause 19 makes it clear that the Parliament of Northern Ireland can enact corresponding legislation. Clause 20 deals with commencement and other matters. It is proposed that the provisions relating to previous conviction, to defamation proceedings, and to privilege should come into force at once. The remainder will come into force on appointed days.
So that the matter may be dealt with compendiously, I think that I should mention two respects in which the recommendations of the Law Reform Committee have been departed from. The first is that the Bill applies to magistrates' courts. That point was dealt with in paragraph 48 of the Committee's Thirteenth Report, where it reminds us that

433
although the great bulk of the magistrates' work lies in criminal law, their courts also exercise jurisdiction in a wide assortment of civil matters. Many of these, such as licensing matters, and various kinds of local government, public health, and planning matters, differ considerably from ordinary civil litigations inter partes, but the work of the domestic court is of the same character as civil litigation in the High Court, or the county courts. The Report goes on to say that it recognises the desirability of applying the same rules of evidence in civil cases irrespective of the court in which they are litigated, but at the conclusion of paragraph 49 the Committee says:
"After close consideration, we have reached the conclusion that the new statute which we have recommended should not apply to civil litigation in magistrates' courts."
Rightly or wrongly—I hope the Committee will think rightly—having weighed the pros and cons in that matter we have arrived at the conclusion that it is desirable that the Bill should apply to magistrates' courts.
The second respect in which the recommendations of the Law Reform Committee have been departed from is that the Bill brings courts-martial into its provisions where the rule in Hollington v. Hewthorn appears. This is contrary to recommendation (5) of the Law Reform Committee's Fifteenth Report. The arguments for and against this treatment of the matter are set out in the Report. They have had the consideration of the Government and it is thought desirable that courts-martial should be brought into this part of the Bill. These two instances of departure from the recommendations of the Law Reform Committee must be added to the departure to which I referred earlier, from recommendation (9) of the Fifteenth Report, which reads:
"(9) in defamation actions, where the statement complained of alleges that the plaintiff has been guilty of a criminal offence, proof that he has been convicted of that offence and that the conviction has not been set aside should be conclusive evidence of his guilt "—
this is the point where we have thought it right to depart from the recommendation—
"and proof that he was acquitted of that offence should be conclusive evidence of his innocence…"
434
This is a technical Bill and I am grateful to the Committee for listening to me with such apparent patience. The Measure deals with important and difficult aspects of the law of evidence. I know that hon. Member will give it the most careful consideration and I hope that they will conclude that this is a valuable piece of law reform which can make a useful contribution towards the process of rationalising, simplifying and improving our law.
11.3 a.m.
Sir Peter Rawlinson: I thank the Solicitor-General for his careful and clear explanation of what he called a technical Bill. To my ears every word was magic, but I thought of the unfortunate Members who are not technical lawyers and wondered what would have happened had the Second Reading been taken on the Floor of the House. Some hon. Members may have thought that they might have been elsewhere—perhaps engaged in more useful activity.
The Solicitor-General said that this is the first time that he has been a member of a Second Reading Committee. I have had this experience on one occasion previously. When one is faced with a technical subject such as this one must accept that as it may be of wide importance legally it is vital that those with technical knowledge should be able to make useful contributions. Would it not have been more sensible to hold this Committee at another time, perhaps in the evening when practising lawyers might have been present? That was done when the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was Home Secretary and was handling the Criminal Justice Bill. It was taken at a time in the evening when practising lawyers could attend, and that was a useful exercise. As the Solicitor-General has said that he wants the Measure to be given the most careful consideration I trust that he will bear this suggestion in mind.
I join with the hon. and learned Gentleman, on behalf of my hon. Friends, in paying tribute to the Law Reform Committee. I was glad that he had the grace to comment that this matter arose from the reference to that Committee by the Conservative Administration in 1964. I have always felt that the kernel of all practical law reform rested on

435
alterations being made in the law of evidence. At the heart of improving our practice and procedure generally lies an improvement in the law of evidence, resulting in the shortening of proceedings, a reduction in costs and the giving of greater confidence to those who are taking part in the administration of civil justice.
In the past the sound basis of best evidence has always been the confrontation of a person giving evidence with his adversary in court before a tribunal to assess the value of that evidence. The confrontation principle has proved a sound one, and it has stood the test of time. However, it required exceptions to be made. Many exceptions were made in the 19th century, as the hon. and learned Gentleman indicated, but there came a time when the judges felt that they could not make any more law in the form of exceptions.
I remember that in the case of Myers, when I was appearing before the House of Lords as counsel—it was a case of receiving motorcars and the numbers on engine blocks were required to be given—the House of Lords felt that the power of extending exceptions had ended and that a statute was needed to do it. This Bill, based on the recommendations of the Law Reform Committee, ensures that statements made by persons with knowledge should prima facie be admissible, with safeguards, and this seems a sensible improvement. First-hand hearsay, which is an extension of the Evidence Act, will be of great assistance. In other words, what the soldier said will be evidence.
This still would not make better evidence the statement of a witness who declared, "He said he sold the ducks", to which Mr. Justice Holmes said, "You mean he said 'I sold the ducks'", to which the witness courteously replied, "No, he never mentioned your Lordship's name at all". However, it is sensible that we should be able to introduce into the admissibility of evidence matters which are statements and which may reveal the truth of the matter much more than the presence of a witness.
I share with the Solicitor-General a sense of awe at the mention of computers and other technological matters. It is
436
obviously essential that these matters are taken into account. The irony will be that businesses which use computers will be assisting their adversaries if they engage in litigation. This Bill will facilitate the investigation of such matters. I understand that tapes and various other matters must be produced on discovery, and that they can be computerised by the adversary. But what if these matters have not yet been transcribed, and if they are not intelligible without a transcript? This question has been posed and we shall have to consider it further.
With the increased use of microfilm records, and so on, it may be that the "print-out" will not be intelligible without the assistance of some other document. We will have to consider this further, although, under Clause 5, that computer "print-outs" may not be directly involved. There seems to be a considerable amount of uncertainty about the standard of evidence that must be given of the material that is fed into a computer, and I have particularly in mind the provision which refers to information supplied "in any appropriate form". I am not clear about this, although I do not expect the hon. and learned Gentleman to answer these somewhat complicated questions now. I am merely pointing to some of the difficulties which appear to arise.
We must not make respectable, merely by using the word "computer", any "print-out", document or film which comes from one of these machines unless we can be satisfied that what has been fed into it is accurate and reliable. Nevertheless, in reviewing the law of evidence we must have a Clause dealing with the matter of statements produced by computers, and I am glad that such a provision has been included in the Bill.
I agree with the Solicitor-General that in considering the rules of court it is important that residual discretion should be with the court itself. The rules of court are important. This is the only controversial matter I wish to raise. From recent experience, I am not content to leave such matters to the Rules Committee. I would prefer Parliament to do the work and that Parliament should spell out exactly what the rules should be. I appreciate that we must have the advice of the Rules Committee and that,

437
when that Committee sets out what it believes the rules should be, Parliament should give such advice every consideration. But let us ensure that the Rules Committee carries out the powers delegated to it by Parliament. We do not want any muddle or Ministerial veto.
I note that the Law Reform Committee suggested that these rules should be in a Schedule to the Bill. The Solicitor-General referred to two differences between the Bill and the Law Reform Committee's Reports. We must remember that the Committee suggested that the rules should be included, and I note with concern the rejection of its proposal that the rules should be set out in a Schedule. I appreciate that this would be a considerable task. Nevertheless, it could have been done in the case of the rules for the High Court. At some stage these rules will be brought before the House of Commons and no doubt we will wish to debate them. Would it not have been better to include the rules in the Bill so that we could see exactly what powers we are giving and what rules are to be laid down?
I hope that it is not in any distrust of Parliament that these rules are not in the Bill. I invite the Solicitor-General to consider, during the passage of the Bill, tabling an Amendment which would set out exactly what rules of court are proposed. I am glad to say goodbye to Hollington v. Hewthorn. I read the remarks of a noble Lord in another place who was a counsel in the case, and I am glad that the matter should have gone.
Can we be told at a later stage—as I pointed out, I do not expect answers to these questions today—whether conviction is to be conclusive? Would not such a course save considerable time and expense? Clause 11(2)(a) is to be welcomed in regard to defamation. It is an excellent revision and I am glad that no effect is to be given to an acquittal. I agree with what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about this matter.
I am not so sure about Clause 12, because it refers to a man being found guilty of adultery in a matrimonial proceeding. At this moment some of our colleagues down the corridor are removing from the divorce law the matter of guilt in matrimonial proceedings. We may have to think about that; it depends which wins the race—the Divorce Law
438
Reform Bill or the Civil Evidence Bill. I think that we shall win the race, because there will not be quite so much controversy as there is at the end of the corridor.
The Law Reform Committee was absolutely correct with regard to privilege. We must limit and control the extent of privilege. Although it is a matter of needing a balanced decision, the privilege of the Crown is now being reduced. I hope that at a later stage in the consideration of the Race Relations Bill the extent of privilege will be reduced with regard to complaints. The Law Reform Committee was quite right not to extend privilege—to maintain it as it is and not to give privilege to persons who should not have it. My points have been a hotchpotch, but it is impossible to avoid this in a Bill dealing with such matters as these.
We have had a careful and clear explanation from the Solicitor-General with regard to the language of the Bill, but to our unfortunate colleagues who are not technicians the language will be complex. It is a complex subject, but is it not possible to put the Bill into more comprehensible language? In the carefree days when the Solicitor-General sat on this side of the Committee and the House, I remember that the world was going to be set to rights in the near future, and that all would be work and honey and violets. There was great talk then about law reform, the new drafting of Bills and the recruitment of more Parliamentary draftsmen. We all know that Parliamentary draftsmen are born and not made. It is a tremendously difficult task, and I appreciate that the more complex the subject the more difficult it is to draft a Bill extremely clearly.
The Bill is a difficult one. It will be important to many practitioners, quite apart from the customers at the receiving end. I appreciate the enormous amount of work that has been done in another place. I should like to extend my thanks, through you, Mr. Yates, to the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General for the assistance that has been given to me by the Lord Chancellor's staff. Undoubtedly great improvements have been made in the Bill through the movement of various Amendments by a noble and young Member of the House of Lords, who, as a hereditary peer, may not be there, when

439
the House is reformed. In dealing with the Bill in Committee we shall be greatly assisted by what has hitherto been done.
I welcome the Bill. It will be a considerable improvement on the present position. I am therefore very glad that it has been brought forward as the fruit of the labours of the Law Reform Committee. I commend the Bill to the Committee.
11.18 a.m.
Mr. Roy Roebuck: I want to refer to the extraordinary suggestion made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the sittings of the Committee ought to be altered to suit the convenience of practising lawyers. That is a suggestion of the most appalling impudence. I do not believe that when persons become hon. Members of the House they should give up their profession or trade activities, but surely their duties as Members of Parliament must be paramount. The right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to reconsider very carefully his suggestion that the convenience of hon. Members' non-Parliamentary work should come first. He has, perhaps unwittingly, given a misleading impression.
I do not believe that the law should necessarily be made by lawyers. Many difficulties in the courts arise precisely because the law has been made by lawyers. The right hon. and learned Gentleman touched on this subject when he referred to the language in which some of our laws are written. I should like the Department of Parliamentary Counsel to recruit a complement of subeditors from Fleet Street, in order to simplify the language in which many Bills, perhaps including this one, are written.
I welcome Clause 11. After the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman one feels, as a layman, that one has no right to be here, but in recent years, in my simple layman's way I have observed a number of cases in which there has been a great deal of confusion. A bank sought to freeze the deposits of a customer because he had been convicted of stealing money from the bank. In order to do that the bank had to go through a lengthy and expensive procedure in order to prove all over again
440
that the man had taken money which did not belong to him. Newspapers have recently been involved in a number of cases in which they have described a man as a robber because he has been convicted, and when that person has taken umbrage and started a lengthy and expensive court procedure. The Bill rationalises and simplifies the law, and I wish it a speedy passage.
11.21 a.m.
Mr. Ian Percival: I have four points to make. It is extraordinary how some of our colleagues are capable of misunderstanding the quite civil and practical suggestion from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson). If the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) had made some contribution on the technicalities of the matter there might be something in the first point that he made. Most of what the Bill deals with is concerned with what happens in court during the hearing of a case. It is difficult enough for one who spends most of his days doing it, and, therefore, the people who are in the best position by their experience to comment on it are the people on both sides of the House who spend a lot of their time in courts. The more time a person spends doing this kind of law, the more helpful and useful his observations will be to us in Committee.
As I understand my right hon. and learned Friend's suggestion, it is not a question of priorities, but a suggestion that ex-hypothesi, if consideration of a Bill such as this can, without undue inconvenience to the Committee, be fixed for a time like 4.30 p.m., we may have the benefit of the views of the people from both sides of the Committee who have to put this sort of thing into effect.
Mr. Roebuck: The point that I was making is that at 4.30 p.m. I and other hon. Members might like to be in the Chamber, where we do not often see the hon. Gentleman's learned colleagues. If members of the legal profession who are Members of the House feel so passionately about the state of the law they should abandon some of their fat fees and come here to assist us in our deliberations.
Mr. Percival: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has introduced these emotive terms. That is the sort of outburst——
Mr. Roebuck: It is not an outburst.
Mr. Percival: Whatever the hon. Gentleman calls it, it is the sort of thing that does not help. If practising lawyers were to abandon their practices they, too, would not be in a position to express opinions about matters of this sort.
Mr. Roebuck: Stuff and nonsense!
The Chairman: This issue is not before the Committee. This is the Second Reading of the Bill. The question of meetings is one which is to be determined by Committees. I know that the question has been raised, but it would be better not to pursue it further.
Mr. Percival: It was not my intention to pursue it very far, Mr. Yates. I had really finished. But when what one is suggesting in a helpful spirit is met with what I call an outburst, and is described as stuff and nonsense, the temptation to meet these wholly unwarranted criticisms is almost irresistible. I am quite sure that what my right hon. and learned Friend and I have said was offered in a spirit of helpfulness, merely expressing the hope that on future occasions, when there is a highly technical Bill like this, a practice adopted in the past by both sides may be followed, of seeing whether it is convenient to the Committee, as selected, to meet at a different time.
I agree with the Solicitor-General that the difficulty about the commuter—I mean computer—provisions is that two technical sides are involved, the legal technicalities and the computer technicalities. I hope at some time that we may hear what expert advice on the technical side has been obtained, and what view is taken of it.
A very good paper has been produced on this problem in a non-contentious spirit by the Society of Conservative Lawyers, after consultation with those engaged in the manufacture and design of computers. There is a very lively legal department of International Computers and Tabulators, with at least two members very interested in the combination of technicalities.
It might assist us in dealing with the Clause in Committee to know a little more about the other technicalities involved. For instance, how is anybody to know whether the machine was working properly all the time? If I am repre-
442
senting the defendant and the plaintiff wants to produce a print-out from a computer, what happens? Must the plaintiff file a certificate saying that the three provisions of Clause 5 are satisfied, or am I to have the right to send someone along to look at the computer to discover for myself whether it was working properly all the time? I would like to hear a little more about considerations of this sort before we part with the Clause in Committee.
I support what my right hon. and learned Friend said about the rules. The rules have to be drawn up at some time. Why cannot they be drawn up and added to the Bill in Committee, as a Schedule? Then we can consider them and express our views. What is lost by doing that? It merely means that someone has to do it a little sooner than he otherwise would. Surely that is a very small price to pay for giving Members an opportunity to look at the rules and express their views. At the end of the day the Government may say, "Those are the rules, and if you feel strongly enough about it you can have a debate on them, but we will vote for those rules." If that is done we shall have been allowed to perform our function of expresing a view about them, and there can then be no question afterwards of their having been vetoed by an individual Minister.
If we take exception to that and the Government use their majority, as they are quite entitled to do, to say, "You are wrong, and those are the rules," then the thing has been done constitutionally, and there can be no possible complaint afterwards. I earnestly ask the Solicitor-General to consider that. The rules have to be drawn up some time. What possible objection is there to drawing them up now, tabling an Amendment, and adding a Schedule consisting of those rules?
I am not sure whether the Bill contains power to amend the rules, but if the Solicitor-General fears that if that course were taken somebody might be committed too soon to rules which might in practice prove not to be right in every detail, the possibility could be covered by including—if it is not already included—power for the rules committee to amend the rules. But let us get the basic rules fixed where they ought to be fixed, in the House of Commons.

443
My last point is a considerable point of principle. I very much hope that the Government may have second thoughts about it. It concerns the second of the three points on which the Government have departed from the recommendations of the Law Reform Committee. I refer to the conclusiveness of a conviction or an acquittal in the case of a libel action. The way in which the Solicitor-General put it to us, elegantly, in pleasant language, was almost convincing, because it makes it nice and neat and tidy if one is speaking from the point of view of authority or the Establishment.
It may be very convenient to have a situation in which, if a man is convicted, that is that; but if he is acquitted there is always the chance of saying that he has been lucky. That is upside down. I was brought up to believe that if a man was acquitted that was that; there could be no question of his leaving the court with some sort of grey shadow over his head, and that even though he might have been lucky, in the eyes of the law and the whole community he was regarded as innocent. If a man is convicted, in the criminal law that is conclusive—save that he has certain rights of appeal. However, if he can establish his innocence by other means, should he not have the right to do so? Is there anything worse than thinking that an innocent man has been convicted? I would like to think that a man finding himself in that situation would be given every opportunity to reverse the decision.
The Law Reform Committee recommended that both a conviction and an acquittal should be final. I can see an argument for that. There must be some end to litigation and the canvassing of an issue. It seems justifiable on that ground, if it applies to both situations. However, I still feel that in the event of a conviction no one should be deprived of an opportunity to establish that there was some doubt. I can see the argument, provided it applies both ways. I can see no argument—except administrative convenience—for making conviction conclusive and acquittal not conclusive. That is standing on our heads and reversing a number of principles which I thought were well established in our law. Certainly they are some of the most useful principles which the layman would wish to see observed.
444
There is a good deal of law which no layman can understand; indeed, many lawyers cannot understand it. But there are certain principles in which the layman is interested, and this is one of them. The principle in this case is applied the wrong way round. It is the voice of authority and administrative convenience speaking. We should not allow it to do so, and I hope that the Government will think again about it and at least go back to the recommendation that acquittal shall also be conclusive.
Mr. Roebuck: I am not insensitive to the hon. and learned Gentleman's point about a man having all sorts of opportunities to redeem a conviction, but can he cite an instance in which, by using these procedures in a libel action, a wrong has been rectified?
Mr. Percival: I have no doubt that all this springs from the case of Hinds. No doubt he was a shocking nuisance to a lot of people. Whether the Hinds decision resulted in the rectifying of an injustice I do not know.
Mr. Roebuck: I do not think that Hinds was pardoned; nor was his conviction altered.
Mr. Percival: No, but that is the only recent case which comes to my mind of anyone challenging a conviction through the laws of defamation. It did not lead to a pardon, but the jury in the defamation action came to the conclusion that the offence was not proven and awarded damages. He got to the stage of saying that another jury had heard the evidence and had taken a different view. He established in the minds of some that there was a doubt about his conviction.
If I had to single out one point it would be that an acquittal should be final. It sticks in my gullet that a conviction is to be final but an acquittal is not. It does not matter whether anyone thinks that an acquitted man has been lucky; if he walks out of a British court having been acquitted of an offence he must be regarded as innocent.
Like my right hon. and learned Friend, I do not expect any answers on these points. In fact, I would rather not have them. The opportunity of speaking in a Second Reading Committee is to give advance notice of points which one would like looked into further. I would rather

445
not have them answered now, because it is always the "No" answer which comes quickly. The "Yes" or "Perhaps" answer takes a little longer. I hope that it will be thought that there is some force in the points that I have put forward and that the Solicitor-General will later be in a position to make some concessions. With those comments, I, too, welcome the Bill.
Mr. Peter Archer: I did not want to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument on more important points, but does he agree that his confusion between a computer and a commuter is understandable? The definition of both words is something which begins at one point and ultimately arrives at another, with ample opportunity for going wrong in the intervening journey.
Mr. Percival: I have no quarrel with any part of that.
11.38 a.m.
Mr. Walter Clegg: I rise to speak for two reasons. The first is one of sentiment, because I remember that you and I, Mr. Yates, served for three months on the Committee which considered the Criminal Justice Bill, and I wanted to say a few words, if only for old times' sake.
My second reason arises out of the intervention of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck). I am quite used to hon. Members who are not lawyers saying rude things about us. It is part of the web of life here, and one gets used to it. However, at times hon. Members go too far. The hon. Gentleman went too far in talking about fat fees. The National Board for Prices and Incomes said recently that my branch of the profession should have a rise of 55 per cent. for our work in the county courts. In other words, rather than earning fat fees we are seriously underpaid.
I was a little alarmed to hear the Solicitor-General say that the Bill will simplify divorce procedure. It may in one respect. However, he said later that these are important and difficult aspects of the law of evidence, and we shall be dealing with them when we come to the question of divorce, because changes in the law of evidence will have a serious effect on the divorce aspects of our practices. We are pouring on to the heads
446
of lawyers a cataract of legislation which, if we understand it, makes our fees even better earned.
The hon. Member for Harrow, East talked of the complications of language and said that it would help if we had some Fleet Street editors to help the parliamentary draftsmen. The Parliamentary draftsmen are not the villains in this case. The politicians are the villains. It is they who say to the draftsmen, "Here is a situation. You put it into words." The Land Commission Bill is one of the best examples. It was a most complex Measure, and the draftsmen were given an impossible brief. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that they may be born and not made, and I suggest that it is time that they started reproducing at a faster rate.
To some extent I share the worry of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), about an acquittal not being final in the way a conviction is. I appreciate the reason advanced by the Law Reform Committee—that the standard of proof in a criminal court is different from that in a civil court, and that the two matters do not match up—but what gives me cause for concern is the possibility of someone going through a trial lasting three or four weeks, being acquitted, and then being faced with the strain of civil proceedings of an equal length, let alone the burden of costs which he may face.
I have in mind a case which might arise where a man is acquitted of a murder charge and then attempts to prove the will of the dead person. There could be a trial in the Probate Division, which substantially would be a second murder trial. After the verdict of the jury the judge in the Probate Court would have to decide, on the balance of probability, whether the acquitted man had killed the person concerned, because obviously that would have a bearing on whether he could benefit under the will.
That is not too fanciful; my own firm was involved in a case some years ago where there had been a prosecution for murder and where, after the jury disagreed, the Attorney-General entered a nolle prosequi. Just such a situation then arose in the Probate Court. The action was later settled, but on that occasion we were faced with a second murder trial. I would have thought that it might

447
be possible to amend the Bill so that an acquittal under certain circumstances—possibly certified by the judge—could be treated in the same way as a conviction. It is a difficult technical point, but it is worth considering in Committee.
I echo what my right hon. and learned Friend said about the noble Lord, Viscount Colville of Culross, and the efforts that he has put into the Bill. It would be a great tragedy if the services of young men such as he were wasted.
Then there is the point which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport made about the rules of court. It may be that this House should look at them and, if necessary, amend them. When they come before the House on a Prayer it is impossible to amend the Prayer.
Finally, I express my deep disappointment at the Solicitor-General's speech. I had expected that in relation to the Schedule of Consequential Amendments he would point out the significance of the Hop (Prevention of Frauds) Act, 1866.
11.45 a.m.
The Solicitor-General: I have listened with the greatest care and interest to the points that have been made. I think that it is generally agreed that most of them can be usefully considered in Committee. But for one circumstance I would gladly have fallen in with the agreeable and possibly unprecedented suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) that a reply of any kind, on the whole, was not to be desired. Even applying the standards of judgment on the points which the hon. and learned Gentleman adumbrated I thought it right to indicate my view upon the treatment of the rules of court, because it may be useful in considering how best to develop matters in Committee.
It is true—it was useful of the hon. and learned Gentleman to draw our attention to it—that the Law Reform Committee, in its Thirteenth Report, spelt out the proposition in paragraph 46:
"It would, we think, be a convenient course to incorporate the initial rules of court for the High Court and county courts in schedules to the statute, as was done with the original Rules of the Supreme Court in the Judicature Act 1873. The rules so scheduled would be cap-
448
able of amendment from time to time by the appropriate rule-making authority, in the light of experience of their operation."
That is in the body of the Committee's Report. Although it uses the expression,
"It would, we think, be a convenient course",
it is true, and it should be recognised, that in Recommendation (19) it spells that out:
"The initial rules of court, both for the High Court and county courts, should be scheduled to the amended Evidence Act but made capable of being amended by the rule-making authority."
What strikes me on this rather important point—and this is what I should like the hon. and learned Gentleman and hon. Members to consider—is that it would be of doubtful use to schedule Supreme Court rules only, when the Bill also applies to county courts and magistrates' courts. If the Bill were to contain, in Schedules, rules to cover all these jurisdictions it might be thought to be a large and unwieldy Bill. I put that point forward for consideration, because that is how my mind reacts to the proposals.
I suggest that there is a little more to it than that, because these rules—and this Bill will apply to the rules of the High Court, county courts and magistrates' courts—will in many instances have to be fitted in with, and grafted upon, the existing fabric of rules for each court. That would be a difficult drafting exercise, and might involve a complexity of cross-reference that it would be desirable to avoid. These are my reflections upon the recommendation that has been made in the debate, but we can give further thought to that subject in Committee.
In conclusion, I am grateful for the welcome which has, by and large, been afforded to the Bill by the Committee.
Mr. Roebuck: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could deal with the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) about a convicted person having another bite at the cherry? This is a matter of considerable importance. The hon. and learned Gentleman raised the case of Mr. Hinds. I do not think that the Committee has heard the full story about that case, because it would seem——
The Chairman: The hon. Member cannot make another speech.
Mr. Roebuck: May I ask for some clarification? It appears to me that all

449
one has to do under the existing law is to get some helpful newspaper to libel one, and then one can have another trial.
The Solicitor-General: I take note of what my hon. Friend has said on this point. I do not think that it is desirable that I should add to what I have already said on the point in my initial observations. However, my hon. Friend will appreciate that we will have later opportunities to consider this in Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That the Committee do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Civil Evidence Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.
The Solicitor-General: Mr. Chairman, the most pleasant duty of all is that I

THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:

Yates, Mr. Victor (Chairman)

McCann, Mr.

Archer, Mr.

Owen, Mr. Will

Atkins, Mr. Ronald

Percival, Mr.

Boardman, Mr. Tom

Perry, Mr. George H.

Clegg, Mr.

Rawlinson, Sir P.

Forrester, Mr.

Roebuck, Mr.

Grant, Mr.

Solicitor-General, Mr.

now have the opportunity of thanking you for your great, though not unexpected or surprising, skill and ability in the conduct of the proceedings of this Committee.
Mr. Rawlinson: May I, for the second time in a few weeks, Mr. Yates, second the Motion moved by the Solicitor-General. I would merely add that you are going to know more about the law than any lawyer in a very short time.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. As a layman who has been present on a number of occasions when lawyers have been considering questions, I found this morning a great exercise in patience. I am obliged to right hon. and hon. Members for their co-operation.
Committee rose at eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.

BOARD OF TRADE
  Development Areas (Government Assistance)
  Development Areas (Government Assistance)
  Distributive Trades (Employment)
  Distributive Trades (Employment)
  Coastal Resort Towns (Investment)
  Coastal Resort Towns (Investment)
  Hotel Development (Grants and Loans)
  Hotel Development (Grants and Loans)
  Consumer Protection
  Consumer Protection
  United Nations Commission on Trade and Development II
  United Nations Commission on Trade and Development II
  Marine Forgings
  Marine Forgings
  Retail Price Increases
  Retail Price Increases
  Transport Bill
  Transport Bill
  Fish Processing Plant and Machinery
  Fish Processing Plant and Machinery
  Pea Processors (Investment Grant)
  Pea Processors (Investment Grant)
  Guarantees
  Guarantees
  Exports and Imports Prices
  Exports and Imports Prices
  Employment, Scotland
  Employment, Scotland
  Generalised Preference Scheme (O.E.C.D. Discussions)
  Generalised Preference Scheme (O.E.C.D. Discussions)
  Advance Factory, Sunderland
  Advance Factory, Sunderland
  Advance Factories, South-West
  Advance Factories, South-West
  Exports
  Exports
  United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
  United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
  Industrial Development Certificates, Portsmouth Area
  Industrial Development Certificates, Portsmouth Area
  Door-to-Door Magazine Salesmen
  Door-to-Door Magazine Salesmen
  Board of Trade Advisory Committee (Applications)
  Board of Trade Advisory Committee (Applications)
  Films Council Report
  Films Council Report
  National Film Finance Corporation
  National Film Finance Corporation
AVIATION
  Brough Airport
  Brough Airport
  Third London Airport
  Third London Airport
  Munich Air Crash Inquiry (Assessors)
  Munich Air Crash Inquiry (Assessors)
SHIPPING
  Shipping Industry (Committee of Inquiry)
  Shipping Industry (Committee of Inquiry)
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
ROADS
  Needwood Crossroads, Bebington (Traffic Signals)
  Needwood Crossroads, Bebington (Traffic Signals)
  Road Safety
  Road Safety
  A625 Road, Harewood Bridge— Pool-in-Wharfedale
  A625 Road, Harewood Bridge— Pool-in-Wharfedale
PORTS
  Maritime Industrial Development (Stranraer-Cairnryan Area)
  Maritime Industrial Development (Stranraer-Cairnryan Area)
SCOTLAND
  Distilling Industry
  Distilling Industry
  Transferred Hospital Patients (Clothing)
  Transferred Hospital Patients (Clothing)
  Violence in Scottish Cities
  Violence in Scottish Cities
  Housing
  Housing
  Public Investment
  Public Investment
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Invisible Exports (Selective Employment Tax)
  Invisible Exports (Selective Employment Tax)
  Purchase Tax Increases (Hotel Industry)
  Purchase Tax Increases (Hotel Industry)
  Rugby Portland Cement (Dividends)
  Rugby Portland Cement (Dividends)
  Lesney Limited (Share Issue)
  Lesney Limited (Share Issue)
  Customs and Excise Staff (Holiday Tourist Traffic)
  Customs and Excise Staff (Holiday Tourist Traffic)
  Overseas Capital Investment
  Overseas Capital Investment
TECHNOLOGY
  European Common Market (Machine Tool Industry)
  European Common Market (Machine Tool Industry)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Shackleton Aircraft (Accidents)
  Shackleton Aircraft (Accidents)
  Shackleton Aircraft, R.A.F. St. Mawgan
  Shackleton Aircraft, R.A.F. St. Mawgan
  Forces Family Pensions (Widows)
  Forces Family Pensions (Widows)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Regional Seats of Government
  Regional Seats of Government
POST OFFICE
  Deliveries (Two-Tier System)
  Deliveries (Two-Tier System)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  London Bridge (Sale)
  London Bridge (Sale)
  Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments (Protection)
  Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments (Protection)
  Government Whips (Official Transport)
  Government Whips (Official Transport)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester
The Viscount Ingleby—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

LICENCE DUTY ON REFUSE VEHICLES
2.35 p.m.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider exempting refuse collection vehicles used by local authorities from the payment of licence duty.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, exemption from vehicle excise duty is restricted to vehicles used for humanitarian purposes, highway maintenance purposes and vehicles with a minimal road use. Exemption of refuse collection vehicles would inevitably involve an undue extension of these categories.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether I am right in thinking that fire engines and ambulances are exempted from the payment of duty? If so, would not the collection of refuse also be regarded as an essential service, and therefore worthy of being placed in that category?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right in his first belief, but those vehicles come under the category of "humanitarian purposes", not essential services. I quite understand that there is a case for saying that a road refuse vehicle is an essential vehicle used by local authorities; but somewhere in these matters the line has to be drawn, and at the present time it is thought that the line is drawn correctly.

THE SUEZ CANAL
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what has been their response to the offer of the Government of the U.A.R. (Egypt) to clear the Suez Canal, if a guarantee is given that this will not be hampered by Israel.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORDreply, may I ask whether he is aware that the Government of the United Arab Republic have offered to clear the Suez Canal if a guarantee is given that this will not be hampered by Israel. On April 10 the official spokesman of the United Arab Republic stated that the Canal would not be reopened as long as occupation forces remained on its East bank.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that informal proposals, with which I am familiar, have been made by the U.A.R., and that these modify the statement to which he has referred? And would it not be much simpler to try to solve this problem of the blockage of the Canal which now has only three obstacles, rather than await a complete solution of the problem between Israel and the U.A.R. and the Arab countries?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I do not know to what informal offers my noble friend is referring. I can only say, so far as the original wording of his Question is concerned, that we are aware of no offer of that kind. I should be grateful to have any information which my noble friend has at his disposal. So far as the broader aspect of the Question is concerned, the opening of the Canal we believe to be a fundamental part of the settlement of the situation in the Middle East. The representative of the United Nations Secretary-General is there now, trying to find steps towards a settlement; and it would be foolish to say anything that might prejudice Mr. Jarring's Mission and the possibilities of its success.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether Her Majesty's Government have pointed out to the U.A.R. Government that the longer the Canal is closed the less important it will become, and consequently the less economically important and of benefit it will be to Egypt?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am entirely in agreement with what the noble Lord has said, and I can assure him that this aspect has been pointed out to the Government of the U.A.R. Of all the damage that has been done by the closure of the Canal. I suppose the greatest damage is being done to the economy of the Egyptian Government itself.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that the Canal could have been opened long ago in its entirety, if only the U.A.R. had adhered to the terms of the United Nations' resolution some 15 years ago to open the Canal to the passage of shipping of all countries, including Israel?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am in sympathy with what my noble friend has said, and the position of Her Majesty's Government is, of course, quite clear on this matter. We believe that the Canal should be open to unimpeded passage by ships of all nations.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while endorsing everything that my noble friend has said in this matter, may I ask him whether he would be receptive of the information which I have, which indicates that irrespective of the wider issue, there is some solution of the Canal problem?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, as I have already said, I will study with great interest the information which I understand my noble friend will send me.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether there is any likelihood or possibility of the owners of British vessels locked up in the Suez Canal getting any compensation from the Government of the U.A.R. or anyone else?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, that is another question. So far as compensation is concerned, that will be a matter
626
for the Government of the U.A.R. Certainly it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to offer any compensation in this particular case.

THE ARMED FORCES: RELEASE RIGHTS OF JUVENILES
2.42 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Inter-Departmental Committee of the Ministry of Defence has reached a decision on the recommendations of the Latey Committee that juveniles in the armed forces should have the right of release within three months after their eighteenth birthday.]
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lads, the studies on this difficult and complex problem are not yet sufficiently advanced to allow a decision to be taken.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is now exactly a year since an all-Party deputation went to the Minister on this matter, and that we were promised a decision within eight months of the publication of the Latey Report last August? How long is it going to be before the Ministry of Defence comes to a solution on this quite elementary human right of boys of 18 to decide their future?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we have debated this subject in this House at considerable length, and it is a measure of my noble friend's success in pressing his case that the matter is being examined and re-examined. I should make clear at this stage that it is not just the Ministry of Defence which is examining the subject. The examination is being pressed forward with a sense of urgency, but it is difficult to reconcile opposing requirements and it is important that the work should not be done hastily. The decision which the noble Lord might have got within the eight months might not have been one which he would have liked very much.

IMPORTS AND BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
2.44 p.m.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have an import control policy ready for use in the event of export expansion proving inadequate to cover the import bill and other exchange commitments.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): My Lords, the Government must of course be prepared for contingencies of many kinds. We are, however, confident that the measures we have already taken will put our balance of payments on a sound footing.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his answer, even though it was a bit "dusty". I expected it, and I understand. May I ask him whether he has any comment to make about the prospects for achieving our exports targets in the latter half of this year?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government we do not feel that there is the prospect of achieving any balance of payments in the latter half of this year. We believe that we shall move into that kind of situation in about the middle of 1969, so far as our optimistic hopes lead us to believe.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Government thought that there would be no need for devaluation and that U.D.I. would be "cracked" in weeks rather than in months, would not the noble Lord agree that there is also a case for contingency planning in this matter?
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I put a question? Would the Government consider whether, if they have to have a contingency plan, it would not be better to restore the export rebates rather than to go in for a policy of further restrictions on imports?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, discussion of various measures of contingency planning by Her Majesty's Government is not a matter which it would be productive for this House to go into because it always concerns hypothetical situations. The question asked by the noble Lord is a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper, and perhaps he would put down another Question.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, have Her Majesty's Government had any conversation with the National Farmers' Union regarding the possibility of producing here far more of the food which we consume in this country?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I feel that that is another question. I am sorry to appear a little unwilling, but this Question could so easily lead to a general debate on export prospects, and I think that it would be better reserved for a proper debate on this subject, if the House feels that to be necessary.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, did not the Minister say in his original Answer that the Government "must … be prepared"? Is this not an astonishing change of policy?

RHODESIA
2.46 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords. I beg leave to ask the Question of which I have given Private Notice.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if they will make a Statement on the resolution of the United Nations Security Council on Rhodesia.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say that my noble friend Lord Shepherd will be making a Statement in answer to this Question at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Lord Morris of Kenwood to advance the Second Reading of the Wills Bill from Tuesday the 30th to Monday the 29th instant.—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

UNIVERSITY OF SALFORD BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

THE STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT
2.48 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN LORD GLADWYN rose to call attention to the present system and structure of government and its relationship with Parliament: and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the subject before us to-day is vast and complicated, and I know very well that if in the short time at my disposal I make any proposals for reforms, still less for far-reaching reforms, I am likely to be accused of being simpliste, and unaware of the real difficulties. To this accusation I must, I am afraid, plead guilty to some extent. But it still seemed to us on these Benches a good thing that we should from time to time try to survey the whole of our system of government and concentrate, as it were, on the wood rather than on the trees.
I assume, in any case, that noble Lords taking part in this debate will be familiar with the classic works on the subject—indeed, much more familiar, I regret to say, than I am—and that they are no doubt also aware of the present controversies involving such well-known figures as Professors Crick, Beloff and Chapman, and Messrs. Mackenzie, Mackintosh, Butt, Grimond and Humphry Berkeley, all of whom have expressed their views in the Press at considerable length. Some of these experts feel that criticisms of our present régime are probably provoked only by what might be called the present "winter of our discontent" and that, on the whole, there is little or nothing the matter with our institutions. But, rightly or wrongly, most of them seem to think that there is something radically wrong with our present system of government which ought to be rectified. Therefore, we on these Benches felt that there was reason to stage another debate following that which was inaugurated so
630
well some four years ago by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton; and we are most gratified that the noble Lord will now be able to give us his views after three years in office and be able to say whether they have indeed changed at all.
We are also gratified that so many other highly-qualified noble Lords will intervene as well. After all, Members of Parliament form their views on this subject largely, and rightly, on the basis of their own individual experience. Consequently, what we on these Benches should like all those Members of the House with experience in the whole field of government frankly to say is whether they are happy about the present state of affairs, and, if not, why not.
May I say at the outset that I hope we can all agree not to touch on the reform of this House itself which, after all, is presumably sub judice. I imagine it might also be thought wise, on the eve of the publication of the Fulton Report, not to examine in any depth the possible reform of the Civil Service. The merits of regionalism and of some marked devolution of the powers of the machine in Westminster have for long been advocated by my own Party, and they are becoming increasingly appreciated. So beyond saying that we on these Benches regard some sort of Home Rule for Scotland and Wales, and the establishment in England of directly elected provincial assemblies—which were recently proposed in the Liberal document called Power to the Provinces—as absolutely essential, I do not intend to focus the debate on this particular aspect of governmental reform, either.
Nor do I even myself propose to raise the question of the desirability of a reform of the electoral system which, in any case, will be dealt with later in the debate by my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley. Also, I doubt whether at this point in time it would be desirable to embark on a discussion of the merits or demerits of televising Parliament. Finally, I shall not touch on the difficult question of the role of the Ombudsman. All those matters are very relevant to the issue before us to-day, but I suggest they might with advantage be considered in relation to what I would call the major theme.
So I hope that your Lordships will express yourselves chiefly on the following

631
issue: is it believed that the present power of the Prime Minister, at the head of an enormous and rapidly increasing Civil Service, is exorbitant and should be subjected to a greater measure of democratic control? If so, is it thought that the right answer is somehow to increase the power of Parliament, in which context I naturally mean, of course, the power of the House of Commons? I know that some might say that it is wrong to raise this great matter in such a general way, or even to raise it at all. But if the House of Commons can consider the present state of the House of Lords, then I do not see why the reverse process should not be acceptable. Incidentally, we have the advantage of having in this House some very powerful ex-Members of the House of Commons.
It is our habit, of course, to let our institutions develop as they will and to patch them up only when it is obviously necessary, and bit by bit. We are rightly proud of them, just as we are proud of our excellent and irreproachable Monarchy. We must surely improve what we have, rather than abolish and start anew: and that, I think, is common ground. Equally, some may feel that the present power of the Executive has certain very real advantages. The Government can, of course, act instantly in a crisis. They can devalue the pound. They can change our whole defence policy at short notice. They can manufacture the atom bomb in secret. They can spend many millions on some special project or other. They can commit the country, as in 1956, to war. They can decide to apply sanctions against Rhodesia. And—yes, my Lords—they can even impose a statutory limit on wages, with little or no real trouble with the House of Commons.
Their actions may be wrong, but there is no doubt that when our incoming Prime Minister comes into No. 10 he can, with the aid of the powerful Cabinet Office and a Parliamentary Party that is, through his power of patronage and his right to precipitate another Election, almost completely under his control, at least act if he wants to. And if he is a strong and determined man who can dominate his advisers, such as Sir Winston Churchill, we therefore, whether
632
we like it or not, do get strong government.
In principle, it is a good thing that we should have strong government, and until recently, at any rate, our method of achieving strong government without recourse to dictatorship was the admiration of all foreigners. The British are an easily governed people, we were always led to suppose, and I think that is true. I think it is also true that they like a firm hand on the tiller. Far be it from me to suggest anything which would alter the basic principle—and I think it is the basic principle—that Parliament should throw up a Leader who can clearly be expected and enabled to lead.
And yet, as I have said, there seems to be an increasing feeling that something is wrong somewhere with the machine, and that it may even to some extent have seized up. It is not only some Members of the House of Commons who, we are told, feel frustrated; it is the whole people who are coming to think that Government has little or nothing to do with them. There is thus no sense of participation in the legislative process. This applies to the various interests, too. It applies to the C.B.I.—I heard them talk on the subject; to the unions, I think; to the farmers, certainly; to the doctors, to the teachers and so on. Moreover, there is some reason to suppose that our rulers, who are necessarily Parliamentarians, are perhaps losing their old authority and their stock is steadily falling. In particular, they are accused of never carrying out their election pledges, which are consequently increasingly disbelieved. Perhaps that feeling is more noticeable among some young people who, I am afraid, are tending to be somewhat anarchic, if not apolitical. If it deepens the effects might well be serious. All this is not seriously disputed.
More specifically, perhaps, there is a feeling that the present system, which, after all, is less Parliamentary than plebiscital, is gradually being taken over by a vast and, however efficient, largely uncontrollable and perhaps even unanswerable bureaucracy; that the Parties—or, at any rate, the two major Parties—are merely rival groups who, when they come into power, pursue largely identical policies that (if I may have the attention of the Conservative Front Bench) are, in fact, prepared by the bureaucracy itself; and that the alleged

633
ideological conflict between them is not really more important than that which provoked the great fight between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. I do not say that this feeling is entirely justified, but I do suggest that it is becoming increasingly widespread. Cynicism about politics is often the precursor of some dictatorship. We must certainly pray that nothing of the sort ever happens here, but of course it might. The British have no special immunity against the dictatorial disease.
Your Lordships may say, nevertheless, that all this is exaggerated and even alarmist. Your Lordships may think that the House of Commons can to some extent, by occasionally raising awkward issues and through the Question Hour, keep the Government on their toes, as it were. The useful role of the rebellious Back-Bencher has been duly noted, though I would have thought rather over-emphasised, by Mr. Ronald Butt. In any case, nobody who has looked through the 1965–67 Reports of the House of Commons Select Committee on Procedure organised by Mr. Crossman, or who has followed the debates to which they gave rise, can have anything but admiration for the ingenuity and devotion with which the House revises its own customs and for its determination to make the existing system work within the limits of the possible. But it is surely possible to believe that three new "specialised" (as they are called) Committees, organised on Party lines, and rather more time made available for topical and urgent debates, go only a small way towards solving our problem of what might be called governmental "credibility"; and, so far as I can make out, this is the feeling of the author of these salutary reforms himself. Are these small reforms indeed a pinnacle, or only just the foothills leading towards some further reform? We just do not know.
Your Lordships may point to Crichel Down and to the stay of execution on Stansted Airport; but these are really exceptions. Save in 1940, when we were almost at death's door, the House of Commons as such has for many years had little or no effect on the course of events in the sense of inducing the Government to modify a decision which they had already, in secret, arrived at. If this were the objective, there might as well not have been any debates or any Divisions at
634
all. The fact is that the Executive is not really at the moment controlled by Parliament. If it is controlled at all, it is only ultimately controlled by the electorate. Indeed, it really is not cynical to suggest—and I certainly am not the first to suggest it—that Commons debates often seem to be held for the principal purpose of persuading the electorate to throw out, or alternatively to retain, the group in power at the quinquennial Election, although both sides really know that, whatever they may say, they will do much the same thing if they are favoured by the people.
This judgment seems to be borne out to some extent by the opinion polls, which record the apparently increasing fury of the electors at the actions of the present Government coupled with the increasing unpopularity of the Leader of the Opposition. I certainly do not say that the voice of the people as recorded in these polls is the voice of God. For instance, I personally believe that the Government, whatever their responsibility for the present mess, are right to adopt a strong policy, and I only hope and trust that they will stick to it. But the fact is that indignation at the present plight of the country may, unless we are careful, vent itself against our whole present system of government. It is possible; and it is just no good our living in a sort of splendid Parliamentary ivory tower and congratulating ourselves on how clever and civilised we are and on the excellence of our secular traditions. We should at least be conscious of a gathering storm.
What should we do? Tinkering with the existing Committees and procedures of the House of Commons, though of course good in itself, is not going to change anything very much. Nor is any "streamlining" of the Cabinet, though the idea of a small group, a sort of Politburo, that would assist the Prime Minister to take the major decisions is, as I think Mr. Lloyd George himself suggested way back in 1935, surely right, and if adopted, it would fit very well into the system that I shall shortly be outlining. Not even a considerable reform of the Civil Service is likely to affect the present system materially, though I still believe myself, as I suggested in the previous debate four years ago, that it might be a good thing if the Cabinet Secretariat and its attendant committees were run by

635
an outsider who would change with the Government. And though I do not want to go into the reform of the Civil Service now, perhaps I might just say this: there seems to be little of what might be called "management" in the Service, and no real encouragement for initiative and risk-taking. It may be said that this is impossible, but it is not so. Certainly there is little attempt at what might be called "management accounting"; and, over and above this, except in some top appointments I believe that the hand of Buggins is heavy on the whole machine.
Now if things get really rough and the policy of the Prime Minister has obviously failed, he may, it is true, be in danger of being turned out by some Cabal within his own Cabinet, or even by Parliament itself. But the chances of this happening before an Election are remote—very remote, I think—and probably only conceivable in the event of grave illness or, as in 1940 and 1956, of a national disaster. In other words, only a radical change in the structure of government is likely to produce an appreciable change for the better in our political life—that is, on the assumption that any change is held to be desirable. But, on this assumption, how could we arrive at a new and, as I should think, healthier form of democracy—always within the framework of our ancient institutions, of course? How could we retain strong government—because that we must have—but at the same time temper it and make it more acceptable by people in difficult days? I will attempt to outline a way, if only to give your Lordships something to fasten on in this debate and to denounce if you will.
This is my plan. Let us assume that we continue to have quinquennial elections, or more frequently if the Government no longer enjoy a working majority. Let us assume, too, that there will continue to be Parties, for short of a one-Party State, which nobody wants, there will always be tendencies which will crystallise round one set of proposals or one personality rather than another. When Parliament meets, after the election of a Speaker, why should it not be agreed that the new Parliament should, by a majority vote, designate one of their number, who would then automatically be sent for by the Queen and appointed her First Minister?
636
This man might be—indeed, in the early stages of this new system he almost undoubtedly would be—the head of the Party commanding a majority. But if, as might happen, no Party commanded a majority, no matter. He would have to be designated by a majority vote just the same, if not on a first then on a subsequent ballot. Incidentally, this would not occasionally place the Monarch in the embarrassing position of having to choose between two rival candidates, as has happened in the past.
The Member selected, as I think, should then form his Government, preferably much smaller than it now is, but—and here is the essence of my proposed reform—he would form it from outside Parliament, he alone remaining the physical link between the Executive and the Legislature. Naturally he could, and doubtless would, select certain Members of Parliament for posts in the new Administration, but if he did they would, if Members of the House of Commons, have by law to resign, and, if Members of your Lordships' House, cease for the time being to receive a Writ of Summons from this House. This may strike your Lordships as a revolutionary idea, but it is adopted in some admirable democracies, such as Norway, Denmark and Holland. Incidentally, we might recall that up to as late as 1922, I think, it was still necessary for a Member of Parliament here who was appointed a Minister of the Crown to resign and fight a by-election. That was a relic of an ancient practice. There is surely, therefore, no inherent reason why the principle should not be accepted in this country, provided always we believe that our present system is not working satisfactorily.
A variant could be—and this is obviously a possible variant—to say that the top five places in the Cabinet should be reserved for elected Members of Parliament, who would then not have to resign their seats. These might then form that inner Cabinet, that sort of Politburo, to which I have been referring, which would supervise all the various Departments of State.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me for a moment? Is he now advocating that it would be possible under his proposals for Ministers not to be Members of Parliament?
LORD GLADWYN: Of course, my Lords. If the noble Lord will follow my argument, he will see that that is precisely what I am suggesting.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I could hardly believe it.
LORD GLADWYN: I think there is a lot to be said for it; as there is in Norway, Denmark, Holland and other democracies. It may be that the noble Lord thinks those are not democracies; but it is possible to adopt this system. I have said that a variant would be for a limited number of M.P.s to be in Government—but only a limited number. These might form a sort of inner circle. The Government would consist of men chosen by the Prime Minister from among those he thought best qualified to carry out the policy with which he had won the General Election. No one would have any particular security of tenure. At this stage I can hear a number of noble Lords, and certainly the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, saying that this would be intolerable; that we should not want to be governed by mere experts, however efficient; that it is much better sometimes to have inefficient Parliamentarians, who would nevertheless be conscious of the desires and feelings of their constituents.
But, my Lords, wait a moment. Confronting a Government of all the talents, as it were, there would be a vastly different House of Commons, preferably reduced substantially in numbers to about 400 or so, which could form itself into committees covering all the major spheres of our national life; foreign affairs, defence, finance, social policy, labour relations and so on. In particular, Parliament should attempt to revise the whole present system of governmental accounting so as to exert some control over expenditure at an earlier stage. More use, in addition, might be made of Select Committees on matters which the Government now tend to remit to Royal Commissions and to departmental committees. If all Members of Parliament were available for committee work and were no longer in great part either in the Government or in some way working for the Government, there should be no question of ability to staff such committees or any question of lack of Parliamentary time—certainly not if the Liberal proposals for devolution of a
638
great deal of present legislation were adopted as well.
These committees, I think, should have the power of calling on Ministers and civil servants to give evidence in support of policies which they proposed to pursue. Ministers would thus have to be capable of defending themselves against criticism; and it might be that junior Ministers with some past Parliamentary experience would often be considered the best persons to assume this particular role. The committees should be provided with adequate staff, accommodation (no doubt across the street) and information, and should be allowed to see at any rate some categories of restricted papers. Legislation would normally be referred to them unless for any reason was considered best to set up a special committee for a particular Bill. Their officers should be suitably remunerated and invested with dignity, and it seems likely—although I do not know wherher the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, would agree to this—that the ambitions of many Parliamentarians would consequently lean towards becoming one of the officers of these great committees rather than becoming a Minister of the Crown.
The sittings of the committees would normally be public. In the initial stages they might be composed with reference to the strength of the various Parties in the House of Commons; but gradually the simple habit of electing them might prevail. Indeed, the whole purpose of the reform would be to reduce the power of the Whips and to revert to something much more like Burke's view of the House of Commons; namely, a reflection of some general interest rather than a machine for enforcing the alleged will of a simple section of the population. And let it not be said that, for instance, a foreign affairs committee would be just an intolerable nuisance to the Foreign Secretary and to the so-called Foreign Office "mandarins". Anyone who saw the recent interrogation of Mr. Rusk on Vietnam by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Senate, as I did, conducted as it was by able and informed politicians, can only have come to the conclusion that here was a democratic system which really worked in that it provided a check on a great machine and on the enormous vested interests behind it. If I were Foreign Secretary I should welcome an exchange of views at such a level and with such men—and there

639
would be no need for it always to be held in public.
In this way the decisions of the Government would no longer be taken only after long discussions inside the bureaucratic machine of Cabinet and inter-Ministerial committees and then, after rather perfunctory discussion in a large and overworked Cabinet, flung at Parliament for endorsement, usually after one or, at the most, two days' debate. They would rather be arrived at after genuine consultation with the representatives of the people, and the force of public opinion consequently brought to bear on them at a far earlier stage. Naturally, the Government would not have to accept a majority view in any committee of the House of Commons. If there were a real clash they would bring up the matter in full debate and, if necessary, put the question of confidence. In any case, no doubt the House would insist on major issues being finally debated on the Floor of the House rather than upstairs in Committee. Were the Government then defeated when the question of confidence was put, the Prime Minister would resign and the House of Commons would either nominate a new Prime Minister or, in the event of there being no majority for this purpose, there would have to be new elections.
Needless to say, Members of the Government would attend the House of Commons as required in major debates and at Question Time; although they would not vote. Only the Prime Minister himself or perhaps, under my variant scheme, four or five colleagues, would be Members both of the Government and of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister would himself represent the whole Executive and be vested by Parliament with the responsibility of governing. Members of the Government would also attend, as necessary, debates in this House also, although equally without the right to vote. The business of both Houses would continue to be settled by the Leader of the House, who really would be a Leader of the House, in consultation with the Prime Minister and the Opposition. Existing Standing Committees and the Committee on Nationalised Industries might well continue. The whole system would indeed represent a new and healthy
640
dialogue between a reformed Executive and a reformed Legislature.
My Lords, it is not as if I propose the abolition of our Party system. All I suggest is that we should attempt to extricate ourselves from what I believe to be the present tyranny of the Party system whereby, I am afraid, the Party often comes first and the nation second. Imagine for a moment a Prime Minister whose tenure of office did not depend almost entirely on a quinquennial plebiscite, but rather on a House of Commons which did not consist largely of place-men. He would still have his Party supporters in the House but he might, as now, sometimes offend them. Would he then necessarily be thrown out? No, I do not think so; because he might well receive the support of the Opposition, or of some of them. Besides, as a result of discussion in the committees of such a reformed House, and in the House itself, it might well be that the policy of the Government would be modified in some respects, with the result that the Prime Minister would not have to put the question of confidence at all.
You may say: "Is not the proposal one substantially to adopt the American system?" There would be features in it which would not be dissimilar to some features of the American set-up, but essentially it would be quite different, in that we should not be accepting in any way the principle of the division of powers and the fate of the Executive, the fate of the Government, would really be in the hands of the Legislature, which is not the case in the United States.
The great Bagehot, in his classic work, said this of the House of Commons:
"The House of Commons is an electoral Chamber; it is the Assembly which chooses our President".
Later on in the same paragraph he said:
"The House only goes where it thinks in the end the nation will follow: but it takes its chance of the nation following or not following; it assumes the initiative and acts upon its discretion or its caprice."
We have come a long way since these words were written over 100 years ago; but we might I think with advantage now come back to Bagehot's fundamental thought. It is true that the Cabinet is no longer, as he envisaged, a mere committee of Parliament. We can draw the logical conclusion from this and at the

641
same time provide that the Prime Minister is Parliament's instrument. In any case, it is right, I feel, that we should now at least contemplate some far-reaching reform in the structure of government. We live in dangerous times, and we ought to provide for the possibility that, to quote Mr. Roy Jenkins, Hell rather than Heaven may be round the corner.
It would have been different if by this time we had been members of the Common Market; indeed, if we had been we should not, I think, have been witnessing the distressing events of the last few days which are basically the result of a feeling of national humiliation coupled with a real fear for the economic future of these islands. But for the time being we must just put up with things as they are, and in so doing I think that we must attempt, if we can, to clear the decks for action. On this, my Lords, if you will give me another two minutes, I would say one word, in conclusion.
Professor Max Beloff, if I may be allowed to refer to my very distinguished fellow Liberal, has recently given eloquent expression in The Times to the pretty widespread feeling—widespread, that is, outside the Palace of Westminster—that our present system of government is outdated and incapable, by its very nature, of functioning properly. His remedy is a Coalition which would put in hand the necessary reforms. My Lords, I should not myself be opposed to that in all circumstances, but on one condition. Before it is formed, it seems to me, the Coalition should be agreed on the broad lines of the governmental reform which it would propose to initiate.
In theory this should be easy. You have only to find a political leader who would have a coherent plan of his own and who would then get at least 316 M.P.s from among all the Parties to support it. The House of Commons could then adopt this plan by way of a Resolution, and the reform would go through. It is as simple as that. Under our system we do not need to have any formal change in the Constitution which, as we all know, is unwritten. If, as we are always told by the lawyers, the House of Commons can, legally, change a man into a woman if it wants to, there is no doubt that it could, if it wanted to, change its whole relationship with the Executive
642
by a simple act of will. For instance, a reform on the general lines of the one I have outlined could be enforced without any appeal to the electorate, though I suppose that an Election would be necessary before it was put into effect. It would not even be necessary to break up the present Parties. Provided that there were enough adventurous spirits in all of them, they could carry on, as Parties, under the new dispensation, even if they came together to some extent to see it through. What there would be would be an end to the stranglehold of Party on our Parliamentary apparatus; an end to the virtual dictatorship between Elections of an embattled Administration; an end to Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
My Lords, where is the parliamentarian who will advance from the shadows and give the necessary lead? Shall we have to await the arrival of some British de Gaulle, a kind of new Cromwell? God forbid! But what I do say, my Lords, is that unless our Parliament can discover a new working relationship with what the French call "le Pouvoir" and unless "le Pouvoir" can emerge as an acknowledged authority which is nevertheless seen to be controlled by and representative of the people, our democracy will be in increasing danger. Your Lordships may think that my own solution is impracticable. Very well. But in that case let us be told what the workable alternative is. That is, my Lords, if you are at all persuaded that something should be done over and above what is now being attempted. I beg to move for Papers.
3.24 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the structure of government seems to be an ideal subject for discussion in your Lordships' House because there are a number of your Lordships who have unrivalled experience in administration and politics; and not least among them is the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, who was a distinguished Chief Whip in another place and a distinguished Minister. In advance of his maiden speech I should like to say how much I am looking forward to hearing what he has to say.
My Lords, the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, as well as the speech to which we have just listened, leaves us greatly in his debt. He chided me at one point for not listening, but in point of fact I was discussing with my

643
noble friend one of the points that he made, so I was not as guilty as he thought. It is a subject which needs airing and I have no doubt that the speeches to which we shall listen this afternoon will contain many constructive suggestions about how Parliament and Government may be made more effective. Yet I wonder whether in some quarters there is not an excessive concern about the present state of affairs. I am not altogether persuaded that things are as bad as they are said to be, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has said. I do not know of any system of government more suited to the British people than the one we have. I do not think that the American system of democracy is better for us than our own. Nor do I think that in that Constitution the divorce between the Legislature and the Executive is satisfactory.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I did not say that I thought that the American system of democracy was superior to ours in any way. Also I said that it was based on fundamentally different principles.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am not going to devote my entire speech to criticising the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. I was discussing generally whether or not there were better Constitutions for this country. I was casting no aspersions on the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, but since he has raised the subject, it seems to me, though I shall study what he said with great care, that his proposals for reform did precisely separate the Legislature from the Executive and copy all the worst features of the American Constitution. Nevertheless, I will have another look at it, though it seems to me a very unsatisfactory way of doing things. To take one example, in the United States at the present time almost every economist and every informed person, including the President himself who has proposed it, feels that an increase in taxation is essential, but Congress has refused to sanction it, and that is that. An Executive incapable of action is, I should have thought, something that we should not hurry to copy.
Nor do I wish, as I have seen mentioned in some rather lighthearted quarters, for a strong man, such as
644
General de Gaulle, to govern this country. I do not like dictators or dictatorships, even if they are euphemistically called "strong men". Nor am I persuaded that a businessman's Government would be the answer to our problems. Being a successful businessman is not at all the same thing as being a successful Minister, and vice versa, as many successful Ministers have discovered, and a number of successful business men may perhaps admit. In any case, I do not understand on what basis this businessman's Government is to be appointed, or by whom. On balance, it seems to me that the system which we have in this country suits us very well. With the years we have adapted it, and it has kept up to date with modern developments and has served us well.
The question is, I think, whether or not at the present time we have fallen behind in this process of adaptation, and it may be that in some respects we have. I hope I may be forgiven for making what may seem to be a Party point—I suppose that in a way it is a Party point. It is that when Governments are successful one does not hear very much about whether the system is good or bad; it is only when things go wrong that people call into question the machinery as well as the people who operate it. In the first year of the Labour Government we did not hear much criticism of the structure of government, and it has really been only in the last two years that this criticism has become so widespread. I am afraid the truth of the matter is that a very large number of people in this country have become thoroughly disillusioned with politics and politicians because, as they see it, of their failure to solve our problems; and the disillusion embraces not only personalities but institutions. After all, that was the basic reason for Hitler's rise to power, and also Mussolini's and indeed General de Gaulle's; and though we have not yet, I trust, reached that stage, I am convinced that much of the discussion and questioning about our Parliamentary system is directly attributable to the lack of success the Government have had in overcoming the problems of the day. If the Government should regain its popularity and be successful in reversing the economic failures, then your Lordships

645
will undoubtedly find that most of this questioning will disappear.
Nor—and I am sorry to be so negative—am I convinced of the argument advanced in a good many quarters at the present time about the excessive power of the Prime Minister. I have read Mr. Humphry Berkeley's interesting book, and though there is much in it with which I agree, I cannot agree with him in his fundamental argument that the power of the Prime Minister has in recent years grown out of all recognition. I just do not think it is true. I do not think that things have changed all that much. In any event, it depends upon the Prime Minister. Some Prime Ministers are dominant and others are not. It depends on whether the Prime Minister is successful. When everything is going well, the strong Prime Minister has all the power he wants. But if he fails, his colleagues will very soon see that his wings are clipped. Of course Prime Ministers are powerful. Of course Prime Ministers are the most important people in their Governments. Of course Prime Ministers can override individual Ministers. But they always have to take account of the collective view of their Cabinets and their support in the House of Commons.
Prime Ministers always were powerful—none more so, for example, than Disraeli, who was certainly outstandingly so in the days of his premiership. The other day I was reading Trollope's novel, The Prime Minister. Much of it could have been written to-day. There were the same pressures, the same problems, the same groups and almost the same people. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose—with perhaps two exceptions. First, the Prime Minister at that time was much less certain of his majority in the House of Commons. The system of whipping had not grown up and there was much more independence of thought and action. Nobody was beholden to a Party machine for the seat—though I suppose he might have been beholden to a Duke. We cannot go back to that, even if we wanted to. But there is no doubt that the House of Commons is a poorer place because of the strictness—perhaps the inevitable strictness—of Party discipline.
I wonder whether it would not be possible for a greater amount of freedom to be allowed on issues which are not
646
of prime importance. For example, I wonder whether it was really necessary for the Whips to be on in either House on the Decimal Currency Bill. Anybody who has been a Leader of the Conservative Party in this House—I am sure that my noble friend Lord Salisbury will agree with this—will know that he will almost never get the whole Party in the Lobby with him unless it is on a matter of very great importance. And I think that is good for the House, good for the Party and probably good for the Leader of the Party in this House. We do not get very excited about it, though my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn sometimes gets a little peeved. I should like to see more leniency of that kind in another place.
The other difference between to-day and the day of Trollope's Prime Minister was that the Prime Minister of that day had a good deal more time at his disposal. Your Lordships will remember that the Duke of Omnium even found time to complain that he did not have enough to do and that he could no longer pursue his hobby of converting the currency to decimals, since it was now the Chancellor's job. I doubt if Mr. Wilson would echo those sentiments. And Disraeli wrote two of his novels while he was Prime Minister. There was a good deal less going on, and as a result the Prime Minister could sit bask and make his decisions without the pressures now inevitable in an age in which the tempo of affairs has so increased. Well, we cannot change that. That is beyond our power. But the fact is that the Prime Minister was, has been, is and I think should be a very powerful man indeed. I do not see how the Government could operate otherwise. I think that Government by Committee without a powerful chairman would be a truly terrible prospect.
But, having said all that, I think there are a number of ways in which things could be improved. I do not in end to go into them all and I shall not be very long. First of all, there is the Parliamentary side. Here, if I may, in common with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, I should like to pay tribute to Mr. Crossman, because though it may well be that some of the things he did were unworkable and even perhaps undesirable, the fact remains that he has been one of the very few in the two decades who have actually tried to

647
reform the procedure of Parliament, to bring it up to date and to enlarge and modernise its functions. I pay my tribute to him because I think that he was right to try, and I think that some of the things he has done will probably be of benefit.
One of the reforms most usually canvassed is the desirability of setting up Select Committees, and already we have one in regard to agriculture. They may have an important part to play in the reform of our Parliamentary procedure, but I do not think they are so complete an answer to all our difficulties as some would suggest. Certainly they would enable Members of Parliament—I hope of both Houses—to question much more closely both Ministers and officials, and that would be very important. It was very noticeable to me, when I was the head of a Service Department, how badly informed Members of both Houses were on matters of defence. This was in no sense their own fault, for it is impossible when you are not in office and without the day-to-day knowledge which goes with working in a Service Department, and without the help and advice of all those who work in it, to know and to keep up with the rapidly changing factors which govern strategy and weapons.
I suppose that on a good many occasions I was grateful that much of the criticism which I endured was not very formidable, for at times inevitably one is vulnerable. But it was, and is, wrong that a Minister should get away with things because of lack of knowledge on the part of his critics—knowledge which they cannot possibly possess. In this case a Select Committee can play a useful part. But I hope that whenever we get round to setting up these Select Committtees we shall not be told that foreign affairs and defence are unacceptable subjects because of security risks, for I simply do not believe it.
These Committees will be helpful, but they have their disadvantages. They are comparable to the Senate and Congressional Committees in the United States. I do not think that anybody who has looked at American experiences in recent years will say that all these committees have been very useful or have elicited much information, or have prevented some of the more wasteful extravagances of
648
bureaucracy from which they, as well as we, have suffered.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for one moment for interrupting his most interesting speech, may I say that I have heard the Senate and Banking Committee examining the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Mr. William MacChesney Martin, who has recently been in the news, and I could not help thinking at the time that if we had a Financial Committee of Parliament which was capable of summoning the Governor of the Bank of England, for example, in front of it to examine him, it might be a very useful thing.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think it would; but I hope the day will never come when I shall be examined by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby.
I have a suspicion, too, that a really competent defensive player in the Civil Service team could withhold a great deal of information from the Select Committee which would, to a certain extent, make its work less valuable than it otherwise would be. But I think that the Select Committees have a part to play and I am sure that we should pursue the matter.
One of the other criticisms which has been levelled and with which I agree is that in recent years there has been a diminution in the importance of Parliament in the public mind. In recent years there has been a tendency increasingly for important controversies to be pursued on television rather than in Parliament. I see why there is a temptation to do this: one is speaking to countless millions of people on television and only to a few hundreds in either House of Parliament. But government by television is a very bad thing. Some of the more notable performers in that medium are not necessarily those with whom I would entrust my personal and public affairs. The House of Commons, I would say, should think very carefully about their decision not to allow themselves to be televised, because whatever the difficulties and dangers of doing so, and I see them all, there may be even more danger to our Parliamentary system if they do not do so.
I think that there are far too many Government Departments and far too many Ministers. I wonder whether they are all necessary. I do not wish to be

649
Party political and I do not say this in a Party spirit, but I should have thought that we could have got rid of the Department of Economic Affairs. And is this not also true of some of the more established Departments? Do we really need a Ministry of Overseas Development? Is there a full-time job for a highly paid Minister in that Department? Could it not go as one of the functions of the Board of Trade? I am glad that the Prime Minister has decided to amalgamate the Social Security and Health Departments. I am sure that this is right. I am equally certain that it is right to merge the Foreign Office with the Commonwealth Office. But could we not go further than that? Are there not some activities which could be removed from Government Departments altogether and be made public corporations? For example, could not one make a public corporation for building roads? I do not see any reason why road building should be part of the Ministry of Transport. There is nothing political about it. This would be, in a sense, in the same way that the Post Office has been transformed into a public corporation. I suspect that there are other fields of activities in other Departments to which the same principle could be applied. Fewer Ministries would mean fewer Ministers, and that would be a good thing. I am sorry to say this just when the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, has been made a Minister, and I should like to congratulate her on her elevation. Perhaps she is the exception.
It should be possible, I think—though I realise the difficulties—to have a smaller Cabinet. Twenty-one or 22 people sitting round a table is really far too many to undertake discussions of great importance. I think one must be fairly ruthless if one is to change the present system. After all, there are many vested interests. For example, as my noble friend beside me will know, if the agriculture Minister were left out of the Cabinet there would be considerable dismay in agriculture. But those of us who have sat in large Cabinets and have watched this unwieldy body discussing matters of importance, or even worse, trying to draft Statements, must realise the advantages of a small Cabinet, though not, I think, one consisting of people entirely without departmental responsibility. That, I think, would be a mistake.
650
Your Lordships will know that there is at the present time a Royal Commission on the Civil Service under the chairmanship of Lord Fulton, which is to recommend on its recruitment, management and organisation—and so this is obviously not the best time to discuss that matter. But with the admiration for the Civil Service which all of us have, it is open to doubt whether the organisation in some departments is right, and whether the calibre of training of some civil servants equips them to do jobs—for example, in the Service Departments—which would in industry be performed by people with a very different training and background. It is relevant that in some countries which have now gained their independence, but which were formerly administered by Britain, the Civil Service which we bequeathed them has almost become an instrument for not taking decisions. It has been geared to careful, sensible inquiry into administration and finance of whatever its masters decide to do. But it can quite easily get out of hand, and become the master rather than the servant, preventing decisions being taken rather than making it easy to implement the decisions. I do not for one moment say that this has happened here in this country, but the increasing complexity of the role and functions of Government tends to underline the need for quick decisions and skilled professional advice.
There is, my Lords, another field in which I am quite sure that some reform is necessary, and that is devolution from the Central Government. It is obvious to anybody who goes outside London—and not all that far outside London—how very irritated the average citizen is by the dominance of Whitehall. The Nationalist movements in Scotland and Wales are obvious examples. But it goes much further than this, and I have met it much more widely. In Yorksshire, Cornwall and the North-East, and even in the Midlands, there is a sense of being an impotent fly in the vast web of Whitehall. Devolution must be the answer to this.
I am not sure that we ought to make up our minds at this moment whether they should be big regions or small regions, big city regions or much bigger units, because the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, is the Chairman of a

651
Committee discussing local government, and it seems to me that we should wait to see what he has to say before we make up our minds exactly what size each region should be. But responsibility must be given for local affairs in a much wider degree than it is now. Of course, finance is going to be the whole key to this. If the Government retain control of all financial aspects, then no devolution can possibly work. Yet it is going to be very difficult to persuade any Government to give up the ultimate control over finance: there is a most difficult problem indeed to be solved here.
My Lords, it seems to me that these are the lines upon which we should go: a moderate reform of Parliamentary procedure; a reduction in the size of the Cabinet and of the Ministries in Whitehall; a hiving off of some of their functions to corporations; devolution to the regions; and, when we have seen the Reports of the Fulton Commission and the Redcliffe-Maud Committee, the reorganisation of local government and the Civil Service.
But there is one other matter which I have not mentioned. It seems to me that one of the troubles and causes of our troubles is that we have far too much government. I have never believed that the hallmark of a good Government is intensive activity in every sphere of human activity. Of course, in our complicated society intervention by the State is more necessary than it was 50 or 100 years ago. But I do not think it is the job of a Government to interfere too much in the daily lives of the people of this country, or that by doing so they will necessarily improve things or make people more contented. It is the job of Governments to create the conditions in which people can prosper and live a happy life, and then, as far as possible, let them get on with it in their own way. It leaves me cold—I think it really frightens me—when a Government seek to demonstrate their success by quoting the numbers of Bills which have been passed in a particular Session, or the hours and days that Parliament has sat. That is not the criterion of good government.
More and more legislation inevitably brings with it bureaucracy and overloading of the machine, as we have seen in some departments already, and the
652
employment by private firms of large numbers of people to interpret that legislation. Some of our best trained and most useful people are spending their whole time trying to unravel the mysteries and countless complications of our taxation system. The essence of good legislating and good government is simplicity. And so, my Lords, though there are many ways in which we can and should adapt ourselves to changing circumstances, I hope that perhaps we may in the end reflect that the most important of them all is to have good government, and not too much of it.

RHODESIA: SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
3.47 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat a Statement that has just been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. It is as follows:
"As the House is aware, our Permanent Representative at the United Nations, Lord Caradon, yesterday presented a draft resolution on Rhodesia to the Security Council. I will circulate the text of that resolution in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
"My right honourable friend the Prime Minister explained our general position on these matters to the House in his Statement of the 14th of March and in his speech in the debate on the 27th of March. The draft resolution put forward by my right honourable and noble friend Lord Caradon follows the lines indicated by the Prime Minister.
"The first operative paragraph of our draft resolution requires all Member States of the United Nations and other countries to whom the resolution applies to place the same prohibitions on trade with Rhodesia as we have applied to our own trade. This paragraph of our draft specifically catches imports of Rhodesian goods even if they are only in transit or in what are called 'free ports'; this is designed to block some methods of evading sanctions which experience has shown to be of importance.
"The second operative paragraph similarly requires other countries to

653
take measures similar to those which we have been applying through our Exchange Control system.
"The parts of the draft resolution dealing with travel require States to deny entry to persons relying on a Rhodesian passport as well as to known sanctions breakers and active supporters of the illegal régime. The main point which I would wish to make here is that many countries would find it impossible to deny entry to their own citizens, and we would not propose to do so except in the closely defined circumstances in the draft resolution.
"The House will note that several of these provisions contain exceptions on humanitarian grounds.
"The remainder of the draft resolution is concerned with the implementation of the proposed decisions which I have just described. The Secretary-General of the United Nations is charged with a wider supervisory role than under the existing resolution and a Committee of the Council would be set up to evaluate his reports.
"As has been made clear on many occasions our objective remains the achievement of a just and honourable solution of the Rhodesian problem. I believe that the adoption of this resolution by the Security Council will be a valuable and important step to that end.
"When a resolution has been passed by the Security Council Her Majesty's Government will introduce any legislation, probably in the form of an Order in Council, required to give effect to it so far as this country is concerned. There will of course then, as on previous occasions, be an opportunity for Parliament to express its view on that legislation.
"Finally, I should like to assure the House that, as the Prime Minister said in the debate on the 27th of March—and I use his words—we are:
' … prepared to have talks with any responsible persons in Rhodesia who are prepared to discuss with us a settlement on the basis of our agreed Principles—people, that is, who can be trusted beyond the letter of a legal agreement to make these Principles effective. We shall be prepared to talk, be it soon or later, when those conditions exist'."
654
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
Following is the text of the Resolution referred to in the Statement:
TEXT OF DRAFT SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION TABLED BY THE UNITED KINGDOM
"THE SECURITY COUNCIL:
"Recalling and reaffirming its resolutions 216 (1965) of 12 November, 1965, 2 7 (1965) of 20 November, 1965, 221 (1966) of 9 April, 1966, and 232 (1966) of 16 December, 1966,
"Noting with great concern that the measures taken so far have failed to bring the rebellion in Southern Rhodesia to an end,
"Deploring the recent inhuman executions carried out by the illegal régime in Southern Rhodesia which have flagrantly affronted the conscience of mankind and have been universally condemned,
"Reaffirming that, to the extent not superseded in this resolution, the measures provided for in resolutions 217 (1965) of 20 November, 1965, and 232 (1966) of 16 December, 1966, as well as those initiated by member states in implementation of those resolutions, shall continue in effect,
"Reaffirming its determination that the present situation in Southern Rhodesia constitutes a threat to international peace and security,
"Acting in accordance with Articles 39 and 41 of the United Nations Charter,

"1. Decides that States members of the United Nations shall prevent:

(A) The import into their territories of all commodities and products originating in Southern Rhodesia and exported there-from after the date of this resolution (whether or not the commodities or products are for consumption or processing in their territories, whether or not they are imported in bond and whether or not any special legal status with respect to the import of goods is enjoyed by the port or other place where they are imported or stored):

(B) Any activities by their nationals or in their territories which promote or are calculated to promote the export of any commodities or products from Suthern Rhodesia: and any dealings by their nationals or in their territories in any commodities or products originating in Southern Rhodesia and exported therefrom after the date of this resolution, including in particular any transfer of funds to Southern Rhodesia for the purposes of such activities or dealings:

(C) The shipment in vessels or aircraft of their registration or under charter to their nationals or the carriage (whether or not in bond) by land transport facilities across their territories of any commodities or products originating in Southern Rhodesia and exported therefrom after the date of this Resolution:

655

(D) The sale or supply by their nationals or from their territories of any commodities or products (whether or not originating in their territories but not including medical supplies, educational equipment, documents, books, periodicals, newspapers, cinematograph films containing only news or other informative or educational matter, television films containing only such matter, other material for cinematograph, television or radio purposes containing only such matter or, in special humanitarian circumstances, foodstuffs) to any person or body in Southern Rhodesia or to any other person or body for the purposes of any business carried on in or operated from Southern Rhodesia: and any activities by their nationals or in their territories which promote or are calculated to promote such sale or supply:

(E) The shipment in vessels or aircraft of their registration or under charter to their nationals or the carriage (whether or not in bond) by land transport facilities across their territories of any such commodities or products which are consigned to any person or body in Southern Rhodesia or to any other person or body for the purposes of any business carried on in or operated from Southern Rhodesia.

"2. Decides that States members of the United Nations shall not make available to the illegal régime in Southern Rhodesia or to any commercial, industrial or public utility undertaking in Southern Rhodesia any funds for investment or any other financial or economic resources and shall prevent their nationals and any persons within their territories from making available to the régime or to any such undertaking any such funds or resources and from remitting any other funds to persons or bodies within Southern Rhodesia except payments exclusively for pensions or other humanitarian, educational or information purposes.

"3. Decides that States members of the United Nations shall:

(A) Prevent the entry into their territories, save on exceptional humanitarian grounds, of any person travelling on a Southern Rhodesian passport, regardless of its date of issue, or on a purported passport issued by or on behalf of the illegal régime in Southern Rhodesia:

(B) Take all possible measures to prevent the entry into their territories of persons whom they have reason to believe to be ordinarily resident in Southern Rhodesia and whom they have reason to believe to have furthered or encouraged or to be likely to further or encourage the unlawful actions of the illegal régime in Southern Rhodesia or any activities which are calculated to evade any measures decided upon in this resolution or in resolution 232 (1966) of 16 December, 1966.

"4. Decides that States members of the United Nations shall prevent airline companies constituted in their territories and aircraft of their registration or under charter to their nationals from operating to or from Southern Rhodesia and from linking up with any airline company constituted or aircraft registered in Southern Rhodesia.

656

"5. Calls upon States members of the United Nations to take all practicable measures to discourage their nationals from emigrating to Southern Rhodesia.

"6. Decides that all States members of the United Nations shall give effect to the decisions set out in operative paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this resolution, notwithstanding any contract entered into or licence granted before the date of this resolution save that landlocked States of Southern Africa shall be obliged to carry out those decisions only in so far as their position permits.

"7. Calls upon all States members of the United Nations to carry out these decisions of the Security Council in accordance with Article 25 of the United Nations Charter, and reminds them that failure or refusal by any of them to do so would constitute a violation of that Article.

"8. Urges, having regard to the principles stated in Article 2 of the United Nations Charter, States not members of the United Nations to act in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 1 to 6 of this resolution.

"9. Calls upon States members of the United Nations or of the specialised agencies to report to the Secretary-General by 1 June, 1968, the measures each has taken in accordance with the provisions of paragrapns 1 to 6 of this resolution.

"10. Requests the Secretary-General to supervise and report at regular intervals to the Council on the progress of the implementation of resolution 232 (1966) of 16 December, 1966, and of this resolution, the fist report to be submitted not later than 1 July, 1968.

"11. Calls upon each State member of the United Nations or of the specialised agencies to report to the Secretary-General the quantity and value of its trade in such commodities or products as may be so indicated.

"12. Requests the Secretary-General to seek from any State member of the United Nations or of the specialised agencies such further information regarding the trade of that State, or regarding any activities that may constitute an evasion of she measures decided upon in this resolution, as he may consider necessary for the proper discharge of his duty to report to the Council in pursuance of this resolution.

"13. Calls upon all States members of the United Nations or of the specialised agencies to supply such further information as may be sought by the Secretary-General in pursuance of this resolution.

"14. Decides to establish a committee composed of all members of the Security Council which shall, for the purpose of enabling the Council to secure full implementation of resolution 232 (1966) and of this resolution:

(A) Consider the reports made to the Council by the Secretary-General in pursuance of those resolutions:

(B) In consultation as appropriate with the Secretary-General, evaluate the information contained in the Secretary-General's reports (including reports of cases where states have failed to supply information requested by the Secretary-General) and

657
assess its significance for the implementation of those resolutions:

(C) In the light of its consideration of the Secretary-General's reports, advise the Secretary-General with respect to the further exercise of his functions under those resolutions:

(D) Report from time to time to the Council on the discharge of its functions under this paragraph.

"15. Decides to keep this item on its Agenda for further action as appropriate in the light of developments."

3.54 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for having repeated that Statement. As the noble Lord knows, we on this side have always deplored the actions Mr. Smith took in declaring U.D.I., but I do not think that any of us would agree that the problem is a threat to international peace, as was stated by the resolution in the Security Council. Is the noble Lord aware that there are a great many of us who feel that a resolution of this kind can do nothing but harm? It will almost certainly be ineffective; and, if it were effective, it would be likely only to strengthen the determination of the Rhodesians. I, for one, think it a very great pity that this should happen at a time when Sir Alec Douglas-Home's visit, and the news that he brought back from Rhodesia, had made a resumption of talks possible, I think, and probably desirable—indeed, certainly desirable. May I ask the noble Lord one specific question on his Statement? Is the restriction on travel designed to prevent Rhodesians from coming to this country, except in the most closely defined circumstances, and, if so, what are those circumstances?
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, will the Government confirm that a threat to international peace and security in fact exists if the Security Council decides that it does exist; and that, whatever we may individually think, that is the legal position? Does the noble Lord also believe (I believe it is the case) that if this resolution is passed by the legal majority—that is to say, the five Permanent Members and the necessary additional members—it is then legally binding on all member nations? And —point 3— does he really think it likely that the five Permanent Members will all be agreed in supporting this resolution?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I fully understand the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to this very sad problem that we have in Rhodesia. He has always made his point of view, and I think that of most of his colleagues, perfectly clear. I should not have thought that anyone would challenge the fact that we in this world are living to-day in a period of very grave, and increasingly grave, racial strife, and the presence of this illegal régime in Rhodesia has only added in Africa to this racial strife. I think that most of us would agree that many of the countries, if not all the countries, in Africa have shown remarkable restraint in this racial strife and the possibility of bloodshed in their territories between one colour and another. Therefore I do believe, and I think most people would accept, that there is a fear of warfare, struggle, in Africa arising from the illegal presence in Rhodesia.
In regard to sanctions, as the noble Lord will know, his right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition in another place, in speaking about the proposals that Sir Alec Douglas Home had brought to London, did say even, despite those proposals, that in the meantime sanctions would have to continue.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: Existing sanctions.
LORD SHEPHERD: This resolution now makes it possible to apply the added sanctions in regard to travel to all countries within the United Nations, and others to whom the resolution applies—similar sanctions to those that we ourselves have imposed up to this moment on our own people. In regard to travel, the humanitarian reasons I think are generally known. I do not want to specify them out at this moment, but they are well known by those officials at airports and at our ports who are confronted with these problems, and are treated with considerable flexibility.
In regard to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, I think it is true that the Security Council believe that a threat to peace does exist, and that this is their view is shown by the fact that they passed the previous resolution. It is binding on all members of the United Nations and also on those countries to

659
whom, as I say, the previous resolution applied.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, would the noble Lord answer my point about the five Permanent Members?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, that is a hypothetical question. We shall have to wait and see.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister three supplementary questions? I have studied the text of the draft resolution as produced in The Times to-day. I have three questions and it is necessary to read the words of the resolution in order to ask the Minister to give an affirmative interpretation or otherwise. The resolution says that, States members shall:
"Prevent the entry into their territories, save on exceptional humanitarian grounds, of any person travelling on a Southern Rhodesian passport, regardless of its date of issue …".
Does that mean that farmers who emigrated many years ago to Rhodesia and who hold Rhodesian passports would in fact now be prevented from coming back to their home country? That is my first question.
Secondly, the resolution also says that States members shall:
"(B) Take all possible measures to prevent the entry into their territories of persons whom they have reason to believe to be ordinarily resident in Southern Rhodesia and whom they have reason to believe to have furthered or encouraged or to be likely to further or encourage the unlawful actions of the illegal régime …".
Anyone who has voted in support of Mr. Smith's Government can be said to have given encouragement. So how are the Government going to differentiate between what I call the sheep and the goats in Rhodesia: those who will be allowed to come here because they have not encouraged, and those who have encouraged because they have voted?
Thirdly, the resolution says that the Security Council:
"Decides that State members of the United Nations shall prevent airline companies constituted in their territories and aircraft of their registration or under charter to their nationals from operating to or from Southern Rhodesia and from linking up with any airline company constituted or aircraft registered in Southern Rhodesia".
There is at the present time a reciprocal service between Johannesburg and
660
Rhodesia, with Rhodesian aircraft and South African aircraft. Does that in fact mean that B.O.A.C. will at once have to stop flying to South Africa when this resolution is passed, because their services at Johannesburg may be linked up with Rhodesian-registered aircraft?
4.0 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, perhaps I may reply to those three questions before other noble Lords rise to speak. In the case of the passport, if the farmer to whom the noble Lord referred was of British origin and had dual nationality but had been travelling on a Rhodesian passport he could come to this country on a British passport which he would be entitled to obtain because of his dual nationality. He would be able to enter this country, subject to the proviso (to which the noble Lord referred in the second part of his question) that he had not been actively engaged in sanction-breaking or in support of the illegal régime in Rhodesia. I do not believe that a person who had voted would be construed as having encouraged the régime.
A NOBLE LORD: My Lords, is that true of the Labour Party in this country?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, clearly we could not find out how a person voted, even in this country. That is something we can only surmise.
In regard to the third part of the question, if this resolution goes forward countries will be called upon to prevent their airline companies in their own countries from operating to Rhodesia and from linking with an airline company that is of Rhodesian origin. If the resolution were accepted by all the countries in the United Nations it might well be that there would be a total ban on flying into Rhodesia.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Yes, my Lords, but would there be a total ban on flying to South Africa, because South Africa links with Rhodesia? That is my point.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if the noble Lord will study the resolution he will see that we have not put any particular sanction upon South Africa. Whether South Africa will still permit its airline to travel through Rhodesia is a matter for South Africa itself to decide.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may someone from this side of the House put a question? First, while not accepting the view that because the Security Council says there is a threat to peace there is necessarily a threat to peace, is it not the case that the alternative to ending the present minority régime in Southern Rhodesia is the very great danger of guerrilla warfare spreading in Southern Rhodesia itself and over South Africa, leading to a disastrous racial war over the whole southern area of that Continent? Secondly, if the new proposals (which one welcomes) are not carried out by all nations, particularly Portugal and the Republic of South Africa, may I ask what the intentions of the Government are in regard to proposals to the United Nations to see that the decisions of the Security Council are carried out?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in regard to the first question which my noble friend asked, the answer is clearly, Yes. In regard to the second question, we have made it perfectly clear that we do not intend to have a trade war with South Africa or with Portugal, but if the noble Lord will study the draft resolution he will see that countries will be required to make reports to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who will have power to ask for further information, if he so wishes, and those reports will be available to the United Nations.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I believe the House will have noted that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, had considerable difficulty in finding words to justify the view of the Government that a threat to peace is constituted by the existence of the present Rhodesian Government, and I think, too, when he reads his words to-morrow morning he will find them singularly unconvincing. However, I do not wish to carry that matter further because we know that this is an occasion for questions and not for a debate. I want to ask the noble Lord one question. He has said that these new sanctions will require an Order or Orders in Council: will they require the approval of both Houses of Parliament?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if I was unconvincing to the noble Marquess it was due entirely to my inadequacy. I
662
am myself quite convinced in this matter. With regard to the question raised by the noble Marquess, clearly the Orders are for affirmative procedure.
LORD CONESFORD: My Loris, may I put some brief questions to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd? Does he agree that what he has referred to as the "illegal régime" is in fact the only de facto Government operating in the territory concerned? Secondly, does he agree—and I think his statement implied this—that what is now proposed is directed against that de facto Government? If his answer is "Yes" to both those questions, may I take it that Her Majesty's Government will support the request of that régime that they should be heard by the Security Council?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I will answer the noble Lord to this effect: that there is only one apparent Government in Rhodesia but it is illegal in the view of the British Parliament. We are taking action to bring that Government and that country back to legality and constitutional rule.
LORD CONESFORD: My Loris, if I may, I should like to repeat my third question: whether Her Majesty's Government will support the request made to the United Nations by the Government against whom these sanctions are directed that they should be heard by the Security Council. In saying this, I have in mind both what is stated in the Charter and the requirements of natural justice.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the answer is simply "No", because they are not a legal Government and cannot be recognised as such.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I clear one matter? In answer to my noble friend Lord Salisbury the noble Lord said that all these new sanctions will require Affirmative Resolutions to go through both Houses of Parliament. Is it clear that the Government will take no action to impose any new sanction until Parliament has approved by an Affirmative Resolution?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before replying to the noble Earl may I first remind the House that we are to have a

663
debate on May 6 when this matter will be ventilated.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, that debate will not now take place.
LORD SHACKLETON: We are to have a debate on the Orders, my Lords.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I understand from my noble friend that we are to have the debate on the Orders, and perhaps that will be more appropriate.
As to the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, may I say that the new sanctions that we are enforcing will require an Order in Council to be approved by both Houses, but clearly we shall be voting and supporting our own resolution at the Security Council. However, that does not become operative so far as we are concerned until the Orders in Council have been passed by both Houses of Parliament.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend one more question on this matter of the British passport, to which reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. As I understood my noble friend's answer, if somebody living in Rhodesia who is entitled to a British passport claims that passport and comes to this country, he will be allowed to enter. Will he then be free to travel where he likes throughout the rest of the world and then return to Rhodesia, if they wish him to enter the country again, and then repeat the process ad infinitum?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if a person obtains a British passport, all the privileges and obligations that go with it will apply.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that although I am quite certain he has quite honestly persuaded himself that Rhodesia is a threat to the peace, in the opinion of an increasing number of people the real threat to the peace of Southern Africa is coming from the machinations within the United Nations—not from Rhodesia nor from South Africa nor from Portugal.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord is going a good deal wider than the immediate Statement I have made. Clearly my noble friend the Leader of the House can hardly intervene, since I gather he is
664
here to make the next Statement; it might look as if he had a degree of self interest in the matter. We shall have an opportunity for further discussion on the whole problem of Rhodesia. Perhaps we may continue now with this important debate.

THE STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT
4.10 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, perhaps I may now return your Lordships' attention to the Motion which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, moved, in a very interesting speech. We are all very grateful to him for giving us this opportunity to debate the subject again and stimulating me to try to give some coherence and system to my own thoughts on the subject. As he pointed out, it is four years since I introduced a similar debate in your Lordships' House, and he wondered whether my own views were the same now as at that time. I think I can honestly tell him that they are very much the same. Certainly I now have the advantage, which I had not then but which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, had, of experience of ministerial office and the knowledge of how the system works from within the Government. As I say, the views I then formed have not substantially changed.
Having said that, I should add that there is a certain amount of progress to report since those days; and I think it is in any case very desirable that we should look very thoroughly at a question which is of such profound importance. That is why I share the satisfaction of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that my noble friend Lord Aylestone is to make his maiden speech in this debate and that other distinguished noble Lords with a great deal of experience in Civil Service and Government, and elsewhere, are also to speak.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, raised a number of fascinating issues, and I felt that he concentrated his speech perhaps too much on the power of Ministers, and particularly the Prime Minister, and the power of Parliament—though it may be that I missed the balance which I know he had attempted to get into his speech. But I am quite sure—and I think this

665
point was clearly made by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition—that it is impossible to get a proper understanding of all the current discussion on the structure of our institutions if we do limit the discussion. Every time we look at this subject we have, I am afraid, to look at the totality of Government and Parliament and, indeed, to some extent the structure of society.
Discussion on the role of the Prime Minister is, of course, one of the most fascinating topics of all, but it is one that I fear it would not be appropriate for me to go into to-day. When I was in Opposition I read the admirable essays (and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, referred to them) on the functions of the Prime Minister—a subject to which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, also alluded. I feel that, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, says, it is very much what the Prime Minister of the day himself makes of his office. But this is, of course, only part of the questioning of many of our institutions which has been a feature since—I was going to say particularly in the 1960s, but of course it has been going on for a much longer time than that. Indeed, I have never known in my lifetime a period when there has not been a large measure of disillusionment with the Government of the day. I fully take the point made by the noble Lord. Lord Carrington, that this disillusionment is linked to a large extent with the popularity of the Government. But, remembering the unpopularity—and the justifiable unpopularity—of pre-war Governments, the noble Lord may feel that the present Government are justifiably unpopular. However, I do not think this is the whole of the story. We have to look at the fundamentals; to consider, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, did, the Party machines and the Whips and the bureaucracy, on all of which we had hints from the noble Lord.
I hope we shall all agree that there is no subject in regard to which there is a greater degree of myth than there is about Parliament; or, indeed, more controversy as to its real nature. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for the tribute he paid to Mr. Crossman, because Mr. Crossman has not only helped to interpret Parliament and expose some of the myths, but has himself made a very
666
firm contribution, and certainly so far a not unsuccessful one, to improving Parliamentary methods. Bagehot, to whom we always turn, and to whom Dick Crossman also referred, said of Parliament:
"The efficient secret of the English Constitution may be described as the close union, the nearly complete fusion, of the executive and legislative powers".
This is one of those splendid sentences which contains a large element of truth but which is yet not wholly true. The relationship is a much more complex one. Another phrase that has been used is that the relationship between Executive and Legislature is a symbiotic one. Again I do not believe that is wholly true; but as the nature of one changes, so does the nature of the other.
In the eighteenth century the work of Parliament was largely in the spheres of revenue and foreign policy; and so equally was the structure of government, and a high proportion of the Civil Service were revenue collectors. It was not until the early nineteenth century that the nature and content of Public Bills began to change. Indeed, if your Lordships look at the Statutes of two hundred years ago and compare them with the number of Statutes that Parliaments and Governments churn out to-day you will immediately see the difference. Parliament became more concerned with an ever-increasing number of Bills in the field of social legislation—the Poor Laws, factories, public health and so on—and Civil Service reform became an essential parallel development; and in this continuing process of parallel change and development the role of the politician was, and in my view still is, crucial
I should like at this point to enter a defence of the politician. Professional politicians to-day, and indeed those of us in your Lordships' House who do not give our full time to politics, are still the core of our democratic system; and it must remain, in my view, in the last resort, the responsibility of the man who practises politics to bring about the adaptation of our institutions, however much he may be helped by Bernard Crick or Max Beloff, or any of the other admirable sociologists. Incidentally, I sometimes think that they would be even more admirable if they had served in Parliament. As the late Hugh Gaitskell said, in his lecture, "In defence of

667
Politics", at Birkbeck College in 1954 (and I would commend this to any of your Lordships who have not read it), the essential feature of our Party system is the loyalty which members owe to each other. There is at times a hollow ring to this phrase. None the less, this is not only fundamental to our Party system; it is also fundamental to our community. The role of the politician, therefore, does need defending, because it calls for redefinition. But loyalty to collective decisions once taken remains at the heart of our institutions, whether in Party or in Government. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, would have made me a great deal more nervous had I thought that his interesting theories, which were an admirable measure against which to judge our present position, were likely to come into effect.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord for just one second, among the authorities whom I consulted I mentioned my distinguished friend and colleague Mr. Jo Grimond, who is a Member of Parliament. Yet another M.P. was mentioned. Thus there are Members of Parliament themselves who have been interested in this matter.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, certainly. I refer particularly to certain academic sociologists at that moment. There are certainly Members of Parliament who have written on this matter. My friend Mr. Crossman is one. But as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, made clear, Government is not just Central Government. I agree with him, and it is unfortunate so far as I am concerned that in his speech he covered some of the ground that I was about to cover.
We now have a wide-ranging review of the structure of local government. We have already had the Report of the Mallaby Committee, on the staffing of local government and the Maud Committee on the management of local government. The Seebohm Committee on the personal social services in local government and, of course, the main Maud and Wheatley Royal Commissions on the organisation of local government for England and Wales and for Scotland have yet to appear. It seems almost certain that this series of reviews portends
668
a major restructuring of local government in Britain. My right honourable friend the Minister of Health has initiated a review of the structure of the National Health Service. All these are really fundamental to the problems of the structure of government. Then, of course, we await the Fulton Committee Report, and the Report of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, referred to the question of devolution, both legislative and executive, from Westminster. This is a most fundamental question, and I think there is one thing on which there is a measure of general consensus, that devolution in some form or another is highly desirable. But, again, it would not be possible for me to refer to that because we must wait and see the proposals. I think we all have our ideas; indeed, we have studied the views of the Liberal Party, and we wait to see what other views may come about. There is, of course, again in the field of reform, the question of the reform of your Lordships' House. I shall have only one or two remarks to make about that in the course of my speech.
I think all this adds up to a more extensive questioning of the purpose, structure and organisation of our institutions than has been undertaken for a long time—probably since the Gladstonian reforms of the third quarter of the last century. And all this soul-searching has been taking place against a background of great changes in the political, economic and social position, and against the structure of our country. We are still much engaged in a painful adjustment to a new political and economic role in the world. We are facing the fact that it is no longer possible for us to behave as a World Power.
There is obviously a link between the change in our position in the world and this broad questioning of our institutions. There are other difficult political and social adjustments at work in our society. There are certain obvious ones that are in front of Parliament now, or are coming in front of Parliament. There is the question of an incomes policy, which really represents a major development in the role of Government, with its demand lot a change in attitude from trade unions, employers and individuals. Then, of

669
course, there are the problems of race relations, which are putting a great strain not merely on our society but on Government and Parliament to think clearly through these difficulties and to face the strains and deal with them.
Even more so, there is the issue of the ever-increasing dangers in a modern civilisation to our own environment. This has been a theme on which there has been informed Parliamentary discussion ever since the 19th century. While many of the horrors of the 19th century are being mitigated or have been mitigated, such as the worst of the slums, a great many of the consequences of our own unwise interference with our environment still continue, and we are continually creating new hazards and threats of a different kind. It is perhaps unfortunate that the understanding of the environmental factors in our society and the ecological background is still too weak. Again, I do not need to go far to find examples, whether it is noise or industrial pollution or oil pollution or radioactivity or pesticides—all these are hidden threats to man, and indeed to man's freedom. It is ironic that only by increased control can we preserve our freedom from grosser and reckless interference caused by our own unconscious acts. This classically is an area of concern to Parliament. This is an area where Parliamentary vigilance and pressure on the Executive must increase rather than diminish.
Of course, there is the great impact of scientific developments on the methods of government. Indeed, what has happened so far is certainly only a beginning compared with what is to come in the next thirty years. We have already seen, both in Europe and in America, considerable resources being spent on forecasting studies, what the Americans call "the knowledge industry". This represents a vast extension of applied sciences to cope with the problems of planning public services in a society which has developed elaborate machinery for collecting and processing the information available on many of our habits, consumption and so on. This again involves the use of new techniques. Then again there are examples of operational research systems and analyses. It may interest your Lordships to know that, even in the consideration of the reform of the House of Lords,
670
we have had to employ mathematical models on possible composition The essence of these techniques is the evaluation of alternatives and improvement of the basis of choice between them. Then again, the creation of larger Government Departments with functional groupings of responsibilities, such as those held by the Minister of Technology, has made the business of evaluating the competing claims of different projects much easier to effect.
To sumrnarise my argument so far, I would agree that the criticism of our parliamentary institutions represents an important self-questioning at a time when we, as a nation, are faced with great problems of adjustment to change. I believe that we are capable of responding to this. The politician has to define his role. But it would be a mistake to believe—I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, was not going so far as to attack the Party system—that the loyalties which provide the cement of the Party system will no longer be required. Those who advocate government by coalition are really running away from the spirit of our institutions.
There may be some danger through all this self-questioning that there is a loss of self-confidence, both a loss of confidence in ourselves, as a nation and a loss of confidence among Members of Parliament and central and local government officials. We should be quite wrong to lose our nerve on this matter. Indeed, we should note with some satisfaction the extent to which some progress has been made, particularly in the field of adaptation. Lord Gladwyn's speech leaned rather heavily—although he did not go so far as actively to support them—upon models of institutions in countries overseas. I do not like the idea of a system of choosing Prime Ministers which is rather comparable to that under the Fourth Republic. I do not believe that that is a solution which would commend itself to this country or would lead to progress. Indeed, I fear that it would lead to much more instability and a loss of ability to progress.
There has been discussion of the system in the United States and mention was made of the difference in the American system as to separation of powers, and so on. But the important point to make is that under our system

671
in contrast to the American system, the Government cannot survive unless it has the confidence of the majority in the Commons. Indeed, the House of Commons' Committees are themselves a microcosm of the whole House and reflect the Government majority, and to that extent they reflect in large measure the Government view. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, pointed to the unsatisfactory situation in which the United States Government found themselves in regard to tax increases. Therefore we should be unwise to embark too rapidly on moving into another form of government, even if it were remotely possible, until we had examined how far we were capable of adapting our own system.
The nineteenth century system of Select Committees which existed in this country was evolved to meet needs which are now largely dealt with by the Civil Service. But, broadly speaking, despite the early reforms initiated by Lord Shelburne and Pitt, which were followed up later in both Houses, the Civil Service remained an eighteenth century structure, adequate for the demands of the eighteenth century but not adequate for the demands of the nineteenth century. It was to meet those new demands that the reforms of the Civil Service, started by the East India Company and reaching full expression in the Northcote/Trevelyan Reports, became necessary and were achieved. With the achievement of Civil Service reform, Parliament had, by its own insistence on such reform, changed its own functions—indeed, it lost certain of its functions. As the Civil Service grew and became more professional, it became more capable of inquiring itself into the wide-ranging and complicated matters which had at first been handled in Parliamentary Committees. As your Lordships know, Select Committees of Parliament are now often more concerned with the performance of the functions of the Civil Service and less with originating policy or, indeed, with the matters which they have handed over to that Service.
Noble Lords have deplored the strength of Party discipline, but those who study the history of Parliament will know that it is wrong to forget that Party government is not a thing of this century or the latter part of the last century. It extends from the 17th century, and the
672
liberty which we now enjoy in this House (which on occasion the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, may or may not regret, and in regard to which my noble friend the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms also has difficulties) is a far cry from the tight Party political control exercised by the Duke of Wellington, a very under-estimated politician, when there was a system of "pairing". The letters from the Duke to his Chief Whip, Lord Redesdale, show the scrupulous attention paid to Party organisation by the Duke of Wellington, who was a very great organiser. To that extent, Party organisation, Party whipping or Party control are not particular features of to-day. I still remember, as I am sure do other noble Lords, the complaints before the war about the Conservative Chief Whip in the Commons, as to the extent to which he ruled with a rod of iron. The same complaints were being made a hundred years ago, so it is well to recognise that this is not something new.
Select Committees, which were demanded by the interest in social legislation, hit their highest peak between 1830 and 1860, which was a very fruitful period for legislation. It was also a time of unprecedented freedom for Back-Bench Members in another place. There was a political fluidity which is well illustrated in the political novels of Trollope, to which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has referred. That was a situation which some people hold to be the golden age in the House of Commons, but it was a situation which in some ways was comparable to the last years of the previous French Republic, when the tenure of Government was uncertain, often brief, and not necessarily dependent upon the electorate, but more upon the vagaries of individual Members of Parliament as they grouped and regrouped themselves about their political stars. It is backwards towards this freedom that I feel Lord Gladwyn's proposals are tending. For myself, I cannot say that history has shown that the instability resulting from that freedom produced particularly good results.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said that we ought not to confuse dissatisfaction with our institutions with dissatisfaction which really should be aimed at our leaders. I agree that that is a very important distinction to make. What is interesting is that dissatisfaction with the

673
structure of the Legislature, and especially of the Commons, seems to have come in recent years more from the denizens of the House of Commons, from the legislators themselves, than from the electors. Indeed, the dissatisfaction expressed by Members of the Commons is now reflected even more strongly among the electors. One of the reasons for this is that more and more of our legislators have come to devote more of their time to political work, and there has grown up a demand for greater participation in government and in the formation of policy. I also believe that standards in the House of Commons among Members of Parliament—and I hope that it is not a breach of our normal practice to say this—have been steadily rising. I believe that we have as high a quality of Members of Parliament as we have had in the past, and possibly even higher.
How, then, do we strike the balance between enabling the great ability which rests in Parliament to be properly used, and at the same time enabling Government both to continue and at the same time to be brought under criticism? I think that our main role must be to strengthen the critical role of Parliament and to enable it to exercise its role under modern conditions. If I may use this rather horrid modern jargon, which often helps to make one's meaning clear, we have to look at Parliament both at its macro and at its micro level, in its broad sweep of responsibilities and in its detailed activities. It is a place for a broad discussion of the major issues of the day—such a discussion as we are now having, or such issues as our presence East of Suez, our economic strategy, incomes policy, race relations, and so on. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that in certain matters, particularly Defence, our practice of secrecy—from which he was well aware his Government suffered, and from which I am well aware my Government have suffered in regard to defence matters—make it exceedingly difficult to have really well-informed discussions on issues of defence and foreign policy.
It is not for me to-day to say what the solution would be. I think that both Lord Carrington and myself, who have wrestled with this in our time in the Ministry of Defence, made some progress. I remember that we succeeded in giving
674
some information on the number of American aircraft which we had ordered, even if some of them were subsequently cancelled. But those instances were really very small in comparison to the need for greater information. This is part of the great debates which we have and which the Commons have on Supply Days.
At the other end of the scale, Parliament is also engaged in detailed matters. This is, so to speak, the Ombudsman role, recently strengthened by the establishment of the Parliamentary Commissioner. I remember that in our debate four years ago I expressed regret that the previous Government had decided not to proceed further with the appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner. But the Parliamentary Commissioner is now part of our national scene, and that enables the individual Members to bring home to Ministers the effects on the individual of their policies. This I believe any ex-Minister or Minister will regard as one of the most important roles of Parliament. Every one of us who has sat in office, and has been confronted by individual cases, will realise just how important the channel of the Member of Parliament has been in regard to the righting of individual wrongs, and we ought not to forget that this is one of the most valuable parts of our system.
Having said all that, I think Parliament must be wary of trying too hard to participate in the day-to-day detail of policy formation in Government—although there are, of course, exceptions. If Parliament seeks to get back its old role, the role that was exercised by Select Committees before the creation of the Civil Service, there is a real danger that it may slow up the processes of government and divert energy and attention from its own proper critical role. This is not an easy line to draw, but I believe that, if we do not try to draw it, both Parliament and Government will suffer in the long run, and possibly it will be Parliament that will suffer the more.
In tackling the definition of a politician's role in the new situation, we should also remember that Parliament in the past has itself been an oppressor just as much as a defender of the liberty of the subject. Therefore a great deal depends on the good sense and wisdom of

675
the professional—the man or woman in Parliament—who knows what he is actually doing. We operate here under Parliamentary privilege; and, while that is invaluable for giving a great deal of information, it can also be used to damage—perhaps not deliberately, but none the less effectively—the reputations of defenceless people.
I believe that since our last debate a few years ago we have made some real progress, both in terms of procedural reform inside Parliament and in improved management techniques in the Civil Service. Mr. Crossman has shown us both the principles and the application of those principles in a way which I think we should follow. In his speech in December, 1966 (and I commend this to any of your Lordships who have not read it), in which he outlined the procedural reforms, he advocated a systematic beginning to the business of bringing huge tracts of the public sector into the system of scrutiny provided by specialist committees. These reforms represented real advances.
If I may at this point say one word about the reform of the House of Lords, in my personal opinion to-day the case for the reform of the House of Lords rests not solely on ancient political arguments, the question of the in-built Conservative majority, but on the need to strengthen Parliament in its role as a "watchdog" on the Executive. I have mentioned some of the reforms which have come about in the House of Commons, but a strengthened and more effective House of Lords, though preserving all its best qualities, could, I believe, provide a powerful aid to the House of Commons, particularly in the scrutinising and "watchdog" Committees. It is not for me to say whether agreement will come about, but in my view it is not possible to discuss the role of Parliament without mentioning the role that your Lordships' House can play with, I believe, even greater effect in the future.
In the other reforms in another place, we have seen the value of taking the Finance Bill upstairs and of providing for Second Readings in Committee. Outside Parliament, the Civil Service is under scrutiny and it has shown itself
676
very competent to deal with many things. But we shall begin to see the benefits of the increased training not only for the new entrant, but also for the experienced administrator. Some people have advocated that we should replace our system of staffing the offices of Ministers with one like the French ministerial "Cabinet" system. Indeed, I mentioned this in the last debate, before the days when I knew the value of the "private office" network, which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will know about. It is a fact that the "private office" network is one of the most valuable institutions in Whitehall. It smoothes the process of administration and produces the type of smooth-running communication at a horizontal level in Whitehall which would not be possible were there not a unified Civil Service. Although there may be further improvements which could be made, it would be foolish not to acknowledge the enormous advantages of this aspect of the system.
There are many other questions which we could talk about. There is the problem of mobility of personnel between Government, industry and the universities. There are the relations between Government and industry. But I would conclude by saying that, while I am personally very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for initiating this debate. I do not believe we should be right to undertake the particular changes in the relationship between Parliament and Government which he has suggested—changes which in my view appear to be more radical in theory than they would in fact prove in practice. They would to some extent be a return to the less satisfactory system of the past, and would add to the confusion and uncertainty which none of us wishes to extend. There is plenty of room for reform of our institutions, and I believe that the present Government—and again I say this in no Party way, because I think it is very much the personal achievement of the Lord President of the Council—have been second to none in tackling this task. I suggest that we follow his line; that we move systematically in the redefinition of the role of the politician.
We should remember, my Lords, that the spirit of our institutions rests on the need for Government and Parliament to

677
work together. We cannot ask Parliament to run the Government. As the Lord President has reminded us, the making and unmaking of Ministries to-day lies largely in the hands of the electorate. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, whether he thinks that is wrong, or whether he would prefer to strengthen the position of Members of Parliament, but at the expense of those who elect them.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I should prefer the latter proposal, that we should in principle strengthen the hands of Parliament rather than the electorate.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, that would perhaps produce a rather more indirect form of democracy. If we went back and looked at how it worked in the 1860s, we should find a less responsible form of Government and one less responsive to the electorate, and I ask the noble Lord to consider this very carefully. I shall not go more fully into the arguments about what is the role of the electorate; I would only say that if we adopted the system which the noble Lord has proposed it would in fact be less responsive to the electorate. I would also ask him to read Hugh Gaitskell's In Defence of Politics, where he will find a powerful argument for our present system. Indeed, I would say that a Prime Minister would be at enormous risk under the system the noble Lord has advocated. The idea that if his principal political colleagues are not in the Government means that there would be no jealousy between them and that there would be less threat to his survival, seems to me to represent such a degree of optimism as would certainly prevent me from believing it.
It is an essential feature of our system that Government depends on Parliament. In particular, it depends on the Commons, as it has for centuries, for money; and its need to control Parliament still flows from this. Governments have to pass a Finance Bill and a Vote on Account. It is the organisation necessary to secure this which forms the basis of our Party system. This great period of self-questioning through which we are passing should not lead us to forget the heart of the matter. We need politicians, and we ought not to be ashamed of calling ourselves politicians. We should be prepared, with others, to extend professional
678
skills to scrutinise the Executive. This is Parliament's most vital role; and the challenge of our time is that this scrutiny must now cover wider and wider areas of policy, and be more effective than it is. If we can equip ourselves for this task with sufficient good sense to recognise the boundaries between the role of Parliament and the role of the Executive, I believe that we shall overcome the present mood of doubt which I have described.
4.52 p.m.
LORD AYLESTONE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for initiating this debase. He has introduced a vast subject— a subject which would not be exhausted if we all made speeches of an hour's duration for the remainder of the week. As the noble Lord has rightly said, it is a subject which is perhaps not discussed frequently enough in this House or in another place; and it is a subject in which I have been interested for a very long time. I am particularly grateful to him on this occasion, because it enables me to make a maiden speech on a non-Party political subject, for which I now crave the indulgence of the House.
My Lords, I am grateful to and should like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Shackleton, for the kind remarks they made about me. In the television world, these remarks would be known as a "trailer". It is the sort of comment that is often made before the main programme with a view to "selling" that programme. It often fails to succeed. I hope that on this occasion that may not be the experience. To find oneself translated, as I have done, from a seat in the Cabinet to the chairmanship of a public authority and on to the Cross-Benches takes a little time to get used to. Your Lordships will appreciate that to move from an active life in Party politics to a non-Party approach and absolute impartiality also takes a little getting used to; but, of course, I accept it as right and proper. There could be no other way. The chairman of a public authority controlling a medium of information such as Independent Television must not only be impartial but must be seen to be impartial. This is how things have grown up since the days when "steam radio" first started in this country.
In this debate perhaps I may remind noble Lords of something about which

679
I am sure they hardly need reminding, that is, that despite the mass of literature which has been written through the ages about our procedures and our Constitution, there is in fact no written Constitution. In thinking of this, I always remember that although there is no written Constitution, and although perhaps, like Topsy in Uncle Tom's Cabin "it just growed", ours is the system on which most other democratic countries have based their own Constitutions. That is proof to us, at least, that it works. I do not think one should assume that because we have proceeded in that way through the ages—by, as it were, bits and pieces—there is anything wrong with it. However, I have felt for a very long lime that there is a case to be made out for an inquiry into the structure of government and its relation to Parliament. But it requires something more than the periodic "Mr. Speaker's Conference". Members of Parliament, as members of such Conferences, do a very good job in looking at electoral reform and Parliamentary procedure, but if we are going to look at the wider problem, the problem which we are debating today, then in my view it needs something rather like a high-powered Royal Commission composed not only of politicians, civil servants and legal gentlemen learned in the work of legislation and its procedures, but also some private individuals and, may be, constitutional experts. Such a Royal Commission would be sitting for a very long time, and I would hope that it would not get bogged down with minute items of detail, but would look at the main problem.
However, there are certain things which we can do which I feel would not need the work of such a Royal Commission beforehand to make worth while, which could be implemented fairly quickly and which would not require consideration by a body of the sort I have envisaged—and I am going to make one or two suggestions. First of all the size of Cabinets has been mentioned once or twice already in our debate this afternoon. In my view, for a very long time Cabinets have been too large, under different Governments and under Governments of different political persuasions, and if the Prime Minister of the day,
680
whoever he might be, so wished, changes could be made overnight. I do not think for one minute that Prime Ministers are helped in their very heavy, burdensome tasks by having to preside over a large Cabinet—a large Cabinet which is not necessarily always constructive in its deliberations and its final decisions.
As for individual Cabinet Ministers, I would ask your Lordships to consider their position. With the exception of one or two, such as the Lord President of the Council and the Lord Privy Seal, most of them have large Government Departments to run, and in addition to this they are expected to have a fair and reasonable knowledge of the work of the other Departments of Government. They are expected to have this knowledge so that when they reach the Cabinet table they are well equipped to take decisions around that table on behalf of the Government.
My Lords, what happens in practice? Noble Lords who have served in Governments of different political complexions will, I hope, agree that in practice Ministers in charge of Departments often take weeks, maybe months, of careful study and deliberation through their departmental machinery, through their Civil Service advisers, to reach the conclusion which they eventually put to the Cabinet. How can their Cabinet colleagues, having had the relevant documents about a particular problem in their hands for something like 24 to 48 hours, take an objective view and reach a decision which has involved weeks of detailed study within a particular Department? Additionally, the civil servants of a particular Government Department are concerned primarily with the effect of any Government decision, not necessarily in that Department but upon the work of that Department. Therefore their advice to their Minister is concerned very largely with the work of their own Department. So Cabinet Ministers, while they may spend as much time as is available to them, and may burn the midnight oil in studying Cabinet documents, cannot be expected to have the sort of detailed knowledge of their colleagues who are introducing a particular subject before the Cabinet. Is there not a possibility —I put it no higher—that Cabinet Ministers may reject their colleagues' submissions, especially where expenditure is

681
concerned, because of the possible adverse effect on their own Departments?
Let us consider a hypothetical case. If one had to discuss at a particular Cabinet meeting the possible expenditure of half a million pounds by a particular Department, is it not likely—and again I put it no higher—that at least one Cabinet Minister may feel that while there is something in the submission, that this money should be spent in that direction, if he casts his vote (although votes are seldom cast; one collects a consensus of opinion): if the weight of his opinion is thrown on the expenditure of that money in that particular Department he may fail to get the half-million pounds that he wants for some particular use by his own Department.
My Lords, I have a suggestion that is, hardly likely, I think, to be popular anywhere: it is purely my own suggestion, and on one else can be blamed for it. It is in favour of a very small Cabinet indeed; a Cabinet of, say, five or six—a Prime Minister and four or five others. And all of them would be Ministers without Portfolio, having no specific Governmental or Departmental responsibility and no overlordship over a section of the Governmental functions or responsibilities. The Question I would put is this. Would not these Cabinet Ministers without Portfolio have much more time to study departmental papers brought before them, much more time to investigate and, if necessary, question Departmental Ministers? From my own experience, I may say that as Lord President of the Council (although at the time I was also Leader of the House) I found, because the work of the Privy Council Office is not onerous, that I had much more time to consider Governmental papers coming before Parliament than was the case when I became Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs.
It seems to me that four or five such Cabinet Ministers would be able to arrive well briefed and with no Departmental axe to grind at the Cabinet meeting to which the Departmental Minister who is to put his case would be summoned. They would be able to reach their decisions, I believe, on the basis of a deeper knowledge of the problem before them. I am well aware of the criticism that would be levelled at such a Cabinet. It would be called a junta, a cabal, a dictatorship. We should be told that it was not demo-
682
cratic and so on. There may be something in these criticisms. There is something in such a system that could go wrong; but I feel that this is a risk worth taking in the interests of wise and good Government and Cabinet decisions. I believe, too, that a Prime Minister would find that those decisions would come more easily and that it would be possible to approach much more objectively the many and varied problems facing his Government. I am sure that a Prime Minister's burdens would be shared and thereby lightened.
My Lords, I turn now to another point which has been raised. I believe that it is a Government's job to govern. I do not think that any Government car delegate its responsibility to govern. There have been suggestions of government by the C.B.I., or the T.U.C.; and perhaps by the National Farmers' Union, or even the Middlesex Cricket Club. I do not think one can do that. It is the Government's job to govern. Nor can the Government delegate its Executive function to 630 Members of Parliament. Members of Parliament can debate; they can approve; they can reject; they can defeat, the Government. But the Government must govern.
I should like next to consider briefly the composition and powers of both Houses of Parliament. I am aware that there may be a Bill before Parliament during the current Session dealing with the composition and powers of your Lordships' House; and I am aware that we shall be having a Report. Even so, I do not think we can properly debate this subject to-day without mentioning perhaps briefly and casually, one or two points. Although I have been a Member of this House for only a few months I should like to offer one or two personal suggestions. They arise on views which I held before I came to this House and which I would not have changed since. On the matter of the composition of this honourable Chamber, with its great history, I am completely unconcerned (and here I speak for myself) with whether its Members are hereditary Peers or Life Peers. I do not think this makes any difference whatever, so long as the power of Parliament resides where it must; that is, in the elected Chamber. I should feel it to be wrong if, at any time, by the process of whipping-in—about which I know something—Peers were persuaded

683
to attend here either in support of or to defeat a particular Government. Because of the large number of Peers who do not normally attend, this is a possibility; but I would doubt very much, from the way we have progressed over the last few years, whether this would be likely ever to happen.
On the matter of powers, may I say at once that the House of Lords is not elected by public vote and should never be in a position to defeat an elected Government. But I doubt whether this, too, could ever happen again. This House has not for many years taken their opposition to a Commons' decision, whether a Government decision or otherwise, to the ultimate point. Nor has it been necessary for many years to use the sanctions of the Parliament Act.
To make my position a little clearer, may I try to speak of those things that I feel we can and must do well in this Chamber? I regard it as valuable that we should here express our views: Party views by those who are representatives of Parties, independent views by Cross-Benchers like myself—although I must say that one of the greatest surprises I had was to find that the Independents have a Whip. I believe that we should here express our views, debate them and vote on them; but that when we have done that the matter should rest. The Government of the day, whoever they might be, would be well aware of a decision of this House, whichever way it went. I believe it is right that this House, as it now does, should initiate legislation and should act generally as a revisionary Chamber; but that, once the decisions of the elected Chamber are known, when we reach the final stage of Lords' Amendments—so be it! The position rests.
I should like to mention one small point that has worried me for some time. As noble Lords will be aware, the procedure for Private Bills, local authority Bills, is pretty ponderous. There is a great deal of duplication. Local authorities and petitioners against promoters are involved equally in a great deal of expense. I should have thought it not beyond the wit of both Houses of Parliament, to devise a system which could mean an end to some of this duplication
684
where legislation is concerned for Private Bills.
My Lords, may I now turn from this House to offer one or two thoughts on the composition and powers of the House of Commons? I do this with a great deal of fear and trepidation, but I think that it has to be done. I have, I think, said enough already to indicate my view that under a Constitutional Monarchy, in which I fervently believe, power should reside in the elected Chamber; that is, in the Commons. But I have never been quite so sure about the composition of the other place. The Representation of the People Acts 1948 and 1949 did a great deal to improve our electoral system. They did a great deal to end anomalies and, if you wish, to democratise our electoral system. Plural voting was ended, the principle of "one man, one vote" was introduced. But the idea expressed at that time, of "one vote one value" has never been anything like reached.
It may have been that there was a flaw within the legislation of those two years. It may have been something to which the Speaker's Conference, prior to 1945, had not given sufficient thought. But to-day there are 630 Members of Parliament in the House of Commons representing constituencies varying in size from 24,000 to over 100,000. Unless we are prepared—and by "we" I mean we the legislators—to get away from neat geographical divisions; to get away from the idea of Parliamentary constituency boundaries always being coterminous with local authority boundaries, we shall never reach anything like parity in the numbers of constituents.
I understand that there are at present proposals before the Home Secretary from the Parliamentary Boundary Commissioners which once more seek to end some of these anomalies in the size of constituencies. Whether or not Parliament will implement these proposals I have no idea; but I am sure of one thing: that if this is done within the next few months, when the Local Government Commission report—and if their report is ever implemented—the whole jigsaw of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission will be upset all over again. And so it will go on. These upheavals, which we have seen from time to time, upset Members of Parliament, local authorities,

685
political Parties, returning officers and so many other people—and, perhaps more important, the electors, too.
I am going to offer a revolutionary thought. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said that he had a revolutionary idea; and here is another one. I suggest that we might divide up the British Isles into constituencies comprising 72,000 constituents, with perhaps a small percentage adjustment up and down. Taking the figure of 72,000, there are over 70 constituencies in the country now which are larger than that. If we think in terms of a norm of 72,000 it would give us something like 500 Members of Parliament. At the moment there are 630, but there is nothing sacrosanct about that figure.
I am aware that some Members of Parliament would have larger areas to cover geographically, but nothing in comparison with what Members of Parliament in other countries have to cover. In these days Members of Parliament seldom cross their constituencies from one end to the other on horseback. Most of them use cars or trains, or even aircraft, and do not think there is any real difficulty about getting from one village to another. In fact, I should imagine that there is something rather pleasant about doing that. When I was a Member of Parliament I thought how nice it would be to represent a county constituency in which there were a great many villages. My constituency was rather closely knit, which was a great advantage at election times; but at other times I thought it would be a wonderful pleasure to move around a constituency with villages.
Let us look at the figures which would result from my revolutionary proposal for constituencies averaging 72,000 constituents and 500 Members of Parliament. England would have 416 M.P.s, and not 511. Scotland would have 47, and not 71. Wales would have 25, and not 36. Strangely enough, Northern Ireland would come out exactly the same, with 12. We can expect (this has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and others) some devolution of governmental responsibility. I am sure that this is going to happen, and the devolution of some powers, considerable, but perhaps limited, as in the case of Northern Ireland, to Scotland and Wales would be some compensation for the loss of a few Members of Parliament.
686
My Lords, I am aware that this idea of mine is not going to be very popular and that I should find great difficulty in finding a seconder for it. But I think it is something well worth considering. If we go on with the idea of a continual jig-saw we shall get finally to a position which is quite unmanageable. I know that in a maiden speech one should not be controversial, and I have tried not to be; but I am afraid that I have, made many controversial points. But at least may I express the hope, before I sit down, that the House will absolve me of being Party-politically controversial.
5.16 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, we have listened to four impressive speeches, none of them, if I may say so, more impressive than that which has just been uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone. He comes to us with a great reputation for integrity and wisdom and for being able to impose discipline without causing offence. He has introduced a number of ideas which may startle some of the older Members such as myself, but without causing any pain. May we often hear him again in the same happy vein! Indeed, when the noble Lord described himself as a revolutionary I began to wonder whether in every Chief Whip there is a revolutionary struggling to get out, and that may apply to the other very distinguished Chief Whip who is to follow me in a few moments.
In the time available I wish to concentrate on one issue alone, as befits a Back Bencher, and I am choosing the subject of the Prime Minister and his relationship with the Cabinet. This is not the only aspect of Cabinet Government, and we have heard some very interesting aspects raised by other speakers. It is one in which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who has departed from the Chamber temporarily so far as I can see, has clearly taken a great interest, and it is a matter with regard to which I would say a false impression is developing. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, the Leader of the House, who spoke in so thoughtful a fashion, not unnaturally decided not to deal with that particular topic, but, speaking as one who, to quote the poet Swinburne, is now:
"From hope and fear set free".

687
I am uninhibited and shall proceed accordingly.
I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has been much influenced by Mr. Humphry Berkeley, or what might be called that school of thought. I have a great respect of Mr. Humphry Berkeley for all sorts of reasons, which have been added to in recent times, but I am sure that the main conclusion in his book is wrong. I will not take your Lordships through the book again, but he says in terms that the basic defect he sees in the British Constitution is the supra-presidential powers of the Prime Minister; and he feels that these powers, which have much increased, have now begun to exert a very unhealthy control over our political system. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that it is very difficult to demonstrate that the powers of the Prime Minister have increased greatly in recent years. Indeed, in Mr. Berkeley's book we find what Gladstone said about Peel's Administration of the 1840s, and it is clear that no Prime Minister has had a greater power than Sir Robert Peel over a hundred years ago. I will not take the House through our Parliamentary history. It has already been dealt with most conclusively.
I venture to assert dogmatically that the Cabinet system operating under Mr. Wilson—unless it has changed very much in the last three months—is in essentials the same Cabinet system which some of us taught and studied in the 'twenties and 'thirties, and about which, may I say, the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has written a very interesting book. There has been no terrifying increase in the hands of Mr. Wilson or of any other recent Prime Minister. In fact, it is perhaps because he is the youngest Prime Minister for many years, in his personal style Mr. Wilson has been much less autocratic than a number of eminent Prime Ministers who could easily come to mind. I do not suppose that within the whole history of Cabinet Government, Cabinet decisions were ever reached more democratically than those which led, for example, to the cuts of January. As the House knows, I objected to one of those cuts as strenuously as anyone can in public life, but I did not object to the procedure. There
688
was nothing wrong with the procedure, but I objected to that particular decision.
I think it is right for me to say this from my knowledge. It is untrue to say that after devaluation there was some change in this respect. It has been implied that up to devaluation there was something like a dictatorship inside the Cabinet and that afterwards there was a great change. That, I would say, is quite false for the period between September and January. Decisions reached long before devaluation, one of them quite early in the Labour Government, on the TSR. 2, about entry into Europe and the arguments on incomes policy in 1967—all these were just as democratic as the prolonged arguments about the cuts.
In my opinion, it would be rather more easy, if I wanted to be pernickety, to criticise the present Cabinet for having been too democratic in their procedure, and for not always exhibiting the necessary degree of hierarchy, than it would be to proclaim that they are not democratic enough. In his impressive work on the Cabinet published in 1962, Mr. Mackintosh, now a Member of Parliament, laid down that what he calls the "junior members" of the Cabinet—a rather odd expression—are usually absorbed in their departmental work "and seldom contribute unless the subject concerns them." I see the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, close to me, and other noble Lords who have served in Cabinets, and I do not think anyone from recent experience would confirm what Mr. Mackintosh said. Certainly it is untrue of my own experience when I was a member of the Cabinet. If anybody supposes, to take an example, that the right honourable lady Mrs. Castle was restricted in this way, he does not know the right honourable lady very well.
That does not mean that in my eyes all was perfect. How could it be with any human institution? I am certain, for example, that too much psychological insecurity has been imported into this Cabinet by the endless talk of reshuffles. There has always been too much of an atmosphere of musical chairs, with the music always liable to stop. Again, all this emphasis on the precise order of seniority within the Cabinet—the so-called pecking order—is surely somewhat new and unwelcome. The Press and television and radio commentators have

689
done a good deal to create this atmosphere. Whether the source has been in Westminster or in Whitehall or farther afield, it is a bad thing. Our Conservative friends are hardly in a position to cast many stones in this kind of discussion when one recalls the last days of the Macmillan Government, the struggle for leadership at that time and the events which led to the supersession of Sir Alec Douglas-Home.
The Cabinet to-day is clearly too large. I agree with more than one speaker who spoke on this subject, and up to a point with the noble Lord who spoke last. I am not going to agree with him all the way, but I agree with his starting point that the Cabinet is too large. What he said about the difficulty of Cabinet Ministers making an adequate contribution certainly came home to me because, as a non-Departmental Minister, all through those years I found great difficulty through lack of officials. If we are going into that point seriously, without going so far as the noble Lord I feel that we have to consider the whole question of equipping the average Cabinet Minister to make a contribution outside his Department. I feel that this is important, whether or not the size of the Cabinet is brought down.
However, there is a more complex issue with which I should like to deal before I sit down. No one who served in the Attlee Government and in the Wilson Cabinet—I was in the earlier Government but not in the Cabinet—can fail to have noticed one large difference between the two. In the first case there was, and in the second case there is not, an Inner Cabinet. In the heyday of the Attlee Government, Lord Attlee was very much the boss, but he was ringed round by a group of Ministers—Mr. Bevin, Sir Stafford Cripps, Mr. Morrison and, until his resignation, Mr. Dalton, who occupied a kind of mezzanine position between the Prime Minister and the other members of the Cabinet and were even referred to in quasi-official documents as senior Ministers. Rightly or wrongly, there has been nothing of the kind on this occasion—and it is worth pausing for a moment to ask whether there should or should not be anything that could be called an Inner Cabinet.
The whole history of Inner Cabinets up to 1961 has been dealt with by Mr.
690
Mackintosh in his book. He takes us back to the original Cabal, who signed the Treaty of Dover in 1670. In the 300 years that have passed since then, the idea of an Inner Cabinet has waxed and waned and taken various forms. I would offer myself the opinion that the more complex and multifarious become the issues and problems of Government, the more indispensable becomes effective co-ordination in planning and execution; and the more impossible it becomes for one single human being, the Prime Minister, however great a genius, to do this job on his own. Twenty individual Ministers can make their own departmental plans with some success, given proper assistance, but twenty Ministers, however we organise them and service them, cannot adequately draw up collective plans. They are too many. Nor can one man! he is too few.
I rule out the suggestion, which Mr. Wilson has certainly not given effect to, that we ought to build up some huge corps of officials round the Prime Minister and allow him to dominate the whole area. With great respect, I decline to follow the idea of the noble Lord, although it has been tried in two wars, to cut down the Cabinet to five or six "exalted Buddhas", to use the phrase that Sir Winston Churchill used when that idea was discussed in the past. This is too big a question to dispose of in an aside but, of course, if we were to carry out the noble Lord's plan, presumably it would mean that both the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be in this Inner Cabinet, and therefore they would be second-class Ministers. I make that point in passing, but I am afraid I cannot accept the general proposal.
I am left with the conclusion that this function of co-ordination in the widest sense must be shared by the Prime Minister with a handful of colleagues. Two of those, I would submit, are bound to be the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The third should be the Lord President, or some very high Minister of similar status, who should not be burdened with the leadership of the House of Commons (and I pay tribute, in passing, to the work of Mr. Crossman there), but should be used as the co-ordinator in chief over the whole field of home policy; that is apart from

691
the economic field, which should be coordinated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Lord President would certainly need a small but high-powered staff if he was going to do that job effectively—a more high-powered staff than any Minister without a Department has possessed hitherto—otherwise he would be stranded without adequate help. If anyone says that this will add to the number of civil servants, I submit that any coordinating Minister of this kind who was worth his salt would be able to bring about a reduction in the number of officials.
May I emphasise that I am not now talking of committees? The committees of the Wilson Cabinet were in my time, at any rate, perfectly adequate. They have since been added to in a rather mysterious fashion, but that may be explained to us later on to-day or on some other occasion. I am urging that a few leading Ministers should be given, and be seen to be given, sufficient powers in virtue of their offices to enable them to provide a secondary leadership. How the Prime Minister actually consults them must be left to him.
What I am saying has a double purpose. On the one hand, the burden of work, which has now become almost intolerable, would be shared by the Prime Minister with only three, or at the most four, senior colleagues. That is what might be called the business aspect. But there is also a public relations aspect, which is hardly less important. This idea that Mr. Wilson's Cabinet was a one-man band was always a fantasy; but it is a fantasy that has gained a certain amount of credence. I should like to give one small example out of the many that are available. Last October a journalist of unsurpassed reputation, Mr. James Margagh, published a careful forecast on the front page of the Sunday Times of the Government's plans for the reform of this House. Some bright sub-editor put on top the headline: "Wilson to curb the Lords"—and put it on without any justification at all. It was simply assumed, not, I am sure, by the commentator, Mr. Margagh, but by the sub-editor, that anything that sprang from the Cabinet was Mr. Wilson's doing and was likely to be pretty militant.
692
Now this is fine if things are going well. Everybody, particularly those involved in public communications and propaganda, likes to personalise an issue; and few of us in my experience—and I am speaking for myself—resist it when it happens to come our way. We saw the same thing carried even further in the days of Mr. Macmillan. But I am afraid that to-day the expectations of the British public are so high that any Government after a short while is liable to become unpopular. Then the whole flood of hostility tends to descend on the Prime Minister: and Mr. Wilson has indeed been vilified shockingly in recent times in a way that does not help the nation. I believe that some of this could be avoided, quite irrespective of Party politics, if the idea became established of a partnership at the top, in which, of course, the Prime Minister must always remain very much the senior partner.
My Lords, there are many other suggestions that I could offer—and we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for giving us the opportunity. I conclude with the reflection that things seem to be moving in the direction to which I pointed. Whether we are moving towards what might be called an inner Cabinet is largely a matter of words. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seems now to be in a much stronger position, if I am right in thinking that the D.E.A. is now in a much weaker one. The Foreign Office has gobbled up the Commonwealth and Colonial Offices, and this should be satisfactory. The Lord President has been given, so far as I know—I hope it is true—much wider powers of co-ordination than any of his predecessors. The Prime Minister seems to be feeling his way, slowly but surely, to better dispositions of his personnel. And he himself, if I may say this one thing about him in conclusion, commands a much wider following than would be gathered from much of the comment. That is, admittedly, a matter of opinion, but there can be, or should be, no mistake about this: that the overwhelming majority of the Labour Party are absolutely loyal to him and solidly behind him. I know that my colleagues will support that very strongly.
5.36 p.m.
LORD REDMAYNE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the usual channels, which

693
work as beneficiently in this House as they do in another place, for arranging that I should speak first on this side after the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone. He and I of course were opposite numbers in another place for a great number of years on agreeably good terms, and it is a great pleasure to me as Satan to commend sin. I recollect that, when we had both secured our freedom from the Whips Office, on one occasion we spoke on opposite sides of the House on a similar subject to this, and the newspapers inevitably commented that the poachers had turned gamekeepers. I cannot imagine what we should now be called, but I am sure that your Lordships will want to hear the noble gamekeeper Lord Aylestone on any occasion when he chooses to speak. I have scribbled down that the spiritual home of gamekeepers is on this side of the House; but when I did that I forgot that the noble Lord, very untrue to his history, is now a Cross-Bencher, and I must not pervert him. But I enjoyed his speech enormously.
My Lords, I too am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for giving us the opportunity of this debate. He encouraged us to discuss the wood rather than the trees. I must confess that I very quickly got lost in the noble Lord's New Forest. On the whole, I preferred the view presented by my noble friend Lord Carrington, that there is not very much wrong with the system, and that what matters is that it should be intelligently used. I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend that the reputation of the system, and of Parliament and Government, is very much a matter of popular morale and turns entirely on whether or not Government and Parliament are successful in their policies. In this connection I would say one thing which refers back to something said by the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone. In respect of the reform of Parliament, in respect of the reputation of the Commons in the minds of Members of the Commons, one has to recollect that whenever there is a large influx of Members into the Commons there is then automatically criticism of the system. This is either due to the fact that the new Members are wiser than the old, or perhaps they do not realise the benefits of the system until they have had time to learn about, it.
694
I must confess that I was a little disturbed that my noble friend Lord Carrington should be so oppressed by the power of the Whips in another place. He himself has never known either bit or whip. I will not inflict on you: Lordships a splendid monologue called "Dark Secrets of the Whips Office", with which I entertain university students when asked. But I would say that I think it is not sufficiently realised—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, will agree with me—that in fact half the time of a modern Chief Whip is spent in holding a careful balance between free thought and speech and action on the Back Benches on the one hand, and on the other hand the stability of Government and what the noble Lord the Leader of the House called the preservation of collective loyalty. I think it is absolutely right to say that a great number of our institutions, whether Parliamentary, whether social, depend on that spirit of loyalty, and that it is worth preserving. At the same time, of course, one has to confess that the instinct of a Chief Whip is to conceal his liberalism from the public, to conceal the freedom he graciously allows to his members. He might in theory be much wiser to publicise it and gain credit for his Party thereby. But I may say that it would need a very changed attitude in Press and public before that was worth doing.
I have not had the privilege of being a member of Cabinet, but I have sat at the corner of a Cabinet table for a good many years. I think my record of attendance individually is probably better than that of most Ministers, and therefore I naturally have some views on how my masters conducted themselves; and, without any lack of respect, I will now reveal to your Lordships how they conducted themselves. I am perfect y certain, everybody is perfectly certain, except the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that Cabinets are far, far too large, and that there is a perfectly easy solution to that problem.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt? I do think they are too large.
LORD REDMAYNE: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. I was not making any point about it; I just misunderstood him. All it needs is determination in the mind of the Prime Minister that there is no

695
reason at all to include anybody in a Cabinet by virtue of the office he holds—although I agree that one must except the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary. What matters as regards the criterion for Cabinet rank is the man and his capability. In a new Government the Prime Minister would be wise to make it publicly known that he was not going to have agriculture, pensions or education, or any other Department, included simply because it was politically wise to do so. Because, of course, what happens is that if you use the argument, "We must have education represented in the Cabinet", X is then in the Cabinet, so X has the rank of Cabinet Minister. When you come to the next reshuffle he may cease to be Minister of Education, but you cannot remove him from the Cabinet because it would be bad for his reputation. So the thing grows and grows, and in fact in my time it reached as high a figure as 23, which, as my noble friend Lord Carrington said, is quite unworkable by any standards in any Government.
I should like to agree with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, about this question of the pecking order. It is not quite as new as all that. It has, I think, been a practice of the Press to speculate on the order of precedence now for some 10 or 15 years. It is a bad habit. I am told by my elders and betters that in fact in earlier days—and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, for example, would know this perfectly well—nobody worried very much about changing an appointment within a Government and the precedence of one Department over another was such that a man swung quite happily between one and another. Undoubtedly it inhibits a Prime Minister in reshuffling his Government from time to time if in fact he has to consider not only whether a man is of Cabinet rank or not, but whether he is No. 1, 4, 6, 10 or 23 in the list. It would be a very good thing if that habit was dropped. Equally, if Cabinets were smaller, it might then become of less interest.
I have seen it assumed with reference to Mr. Wilson's presumed intention to have an Inner Cabinet that he must therefore use the system of overlords. The system of overlords is an innovation which has never been very successful, and I
696
do not believe myself that it is a necessary feature of a small Cabinet. It seems to me that when the head of a Department is called in for advice on any occasion when it is relevant, the small Cabinet should in fact have the function only of being judge and jury—the judge being the Prime Minister, the jury the other Cabinet Ministers—in respect of any departmental issue brought to them. Certainly I think that the small Cabinet is better than any conception of an Inner Cabinet. I believe that the Inner Cabinet inevitably produces frictions. Of course, a Prime Minister is more intimate with some Ministers than with others; this follows automatically. But to my mind to put the seal of officialdom on the fact that he consults some Ministers more than others is destructive of the unity of Government, and of course it creates in Government not two tiers of Ministers but three. You have the Inner Cabinet Ministers—I think the noble Lord said they were called senior Cabinet Ministers—then those in the Cabinet but not in the Inner Cabinet, and then the third tier, which exists of Minister of Cabinet rank. It seems that the more you subdivide your ranks in the Cabinet, or outside it, the more nonsense it makes of Cabinet responsibility.
It seemed to me, sitting silent for all those years, that the chief fault of modern Government—and I believe that this applies to-day as much as it did five or ten years ago—is that there is always a lack of time for long-term thinking. Ministers immersed in current problems have no time to think ahead, and to my mind, even if you have a large Cabinet, and even if you run it on the present system, some meetings of the Cabinet—once a fortnight, certainly once a month—should be designated solely for long-term thinking and should have nothing to do with the day-to-day problems at all.
I think there is another factor in the structure of Government which would help to find a solution of this problem, the problem of thinking ahead. I believe that the ranking of Ministers as it is to-day, and as it has been for a great number of years, is wholly wrong. The head of a Department is, of course, the one Minister answerable, in the last resort, for that Department. Below him there is the Parliamentary Secretary, who is lower than the angels of the Civil Service—and I think it is time that tradition was

697
dropped. Then there is a modern innovation, the Minister of State. The Minister of State was created only to give a junior Minister status in his traffic abroad. It has no status at home at all. I think I am right in saying that Prime Minister Attlee, in his time, 1950–51, when there was such a small majority, tried to get it established that Parliamentary Secretaries were wholly capable of answering for their Departments, certainly in Committee upstairs. I think that as a matter of fact the Conservative Opposition at that time did not play, and therefore the proposition fell through. But it was undoubtedly a good move that junior Ministers should be accepted as being more answerable within their Departments.
I myself would go much further; that is, scrap the present ranks of Government and have Ministers (heads of Departments) and Deputy Ministers, one or more as the Department requires, and insist, in so far as one can insist—at least it would be a proposition which ought to be acceptable—that Parliament should get used to the idea that the Deputy Minister of a Department was in fact answerable at Question Time or in a debate, as the case may be. There should not be rather silly cries of, "Where's the Minister?" when the deputy is answering. This would take a great deal of the load off a Minister's shoulders and would, by virtue of that, free him for a more constructive job.
Another thing that I would do (I am afraid I am taking rather long) is seriously to consider going back to a seven-year term of Parliament. It is an unfortunate truism that only in the second year of a Government is anything really active and dangerous done. In the first year it is in preparation; in years three and four the Government are already under the shadow of a possible Election. Only in the second year can they really get down to the difficult things. If there is a seven-year term, precisely that same situation applies relatively to it, and the active years in seven will be the second, third and fourth years. Therefore, the electorate will get the advantage in seven years of having three active years of government, whereas now they get only one in five. And sadly, although I know this remark will be held against me, if a Government run for a long time—ten
698
years, or perhaps even thirteen years—the number of active years in accordance with that truism are not very great. I think we should make a much better show of governing this country if we considered that change.
I have read in the newspapers that Mr. Wilson's inner Cabinet—and everything one reads in the papers nowadays one knows to be true because it conics from the Press Office at No. 10—will concern itself with the "Parliamentary and broader political aspects of government". This, of course, is a tardy acknowledgment by this Government that Government exists only by courtesy, first of its Back-Bench support: second, of its Party in the country and, third, of its floating support in the country. It is true that given this three-pronged support, or as much of it as can be mustered from day to day, the Executive is all-powerful. But so soon as the Executive becomes insensitive to this pyramid of power, so soon as Ministers become a separate caste (as they do very easily); so soon as (heaven help them!) they regard themselves as ordained by God to govern, then the Government will lose their touch. If I may say so in this extremely nonpolitical debate, there is no such thing as governing by the seat of one's pants. One governs only by maintaining this pyramid of support throughout the country, and any Government of the future will be wise to learn the lessons of the past in that respect.
I find it interesting that this new setup should be considering Parliamentary and political links because I have so often listened in another place to fierce attacks, even from Mr. Wilson himself, against the Conservative Government for having the Chairman of the Party in the Cabinet and a Minister in charge of public relations. In fact, both seem to me to be sensible precautions against losing touch with the country. At that time, not much was made of the fact that when the Labour Party came into office they would have a number of Cabinet Ministers on their National Executive Committee, and a number of other Ministers as wel1. In fact, I believe, although I am subject to correction, that when Mr. Callaghan was Chancellor of the Exchequer he was Treasurer of the National Executive. He certainly is now. Also, Mr. Wilson, of course, is on it. I do not criticise that at all. I think it is absolutely vital if you

699
are to maintain the strength of your Government, but I am just putting it on record that what is sauce for the Labour goose is also sauce for the Conservative gander.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, made some comments about the functions of the Prime Minister's private office. I absolutely agree that what that office needs is something more than the very efficient and knowledgeable services of three or more private secretaries, which it has by custom. It is not a question of buttressing the "Presidential system". I regard that as just as much nonsense as does the noble Earl. But it is necessary that the Prime Minister should have more in the way of expert advice, for two reasons. The first is so that he may be able to back his own ideas with advice which is only available to him. It is quite wrong that a Prime Minister wishing to think out some problem should have to go to a Department to get the necessary advice. But when he has formulated his own ideas they can be cross checked against the advice available in the Department. Equally, on the other side of the medal the Prime Minister, with independent advice, should be able to cross check the views put forward by Ministers. I can think of one or two instances in which, if that machinery had existed, good might have flowed.
Frankly, I agree with my noble friend Lord Carrington that there is probably nothing wrong with the structure of government. I think there is a great deal that can be done to make a more intelligent use of it. I will conclude my remarks by saying merely this: my noble friend complimented Mr. Crossman on some reforms of Parliament which he has introduced. That was taken up by the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, and by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. Perhaps one should not forget that my noble friend Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, in his time as Leader of the House, introduced a great number of minor reforms arising out of the Reports of the Select Committee on Procedure, and if one scoffs at those reforms and says they were not as drastic as the idea of the Select Specialist Committee, one has to recollect that in fact both the House of Commons and this House reform themselves, if they are wise, only
700
by the slowest of slow degrees. I am not talking about major constitutional reforms but reforms of procedure. These always ought to be slow and well considered, and when the noble Lord the Leader of the House referred in his speech to our having seen the value of taking the Finance Bill upstairs, I had a feeling that he had not read his brief before he produced it in your Lordships' House.
Personally, I am very doubtful indeed whether a specialist committee is ever right, and in this view I have some strong and strange allies in the persons of Mr. Michael Foot and others. Mr. Macmillan, when he was Prime Minister, used to say to me, "The one thing that is wrong with the House of Commons today is that it has no life. Nobody comes into it, nobody listens—they all want to speak all the time. Why do they not listen?" In my view, one of the most worthwhile reforms which could be made in the House of Commons is for means to be found to make attendance and speaking more attractive to Back-Bench Members, and if that had to be in the form of "Redmayne's Parallel Chambers" so much the better. If noble Lords do not know what are "Redmayne's Parallel Chambers", I should be happy to send them the necessary documents.
5.58 p.m.
LORD CACCIA: My Lords, when this subject was put down for debate it seemed to me an intrepid act to take part, for on the one side the reform of the House of Lords itself is under consideration, and that is known even to those who sit in the limbo of the Cross-Benches. Then again, the Civil Service is being looked at by Lord Fulton, so that subject seemed sub judice and not proper for discussion. Finally, I always understood that Members of this House were extremely cautious in regard to any comment they felt able to make about the other place. But as so many of your Lordships have had the courage to lead other speakers over the jumps, perhaps you will allow me to say one or two things briefly on these topics.
I wish, first, to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for initiating this debate. I hope that he and those who sit on the Liberal Benches will not think it in any way a slight if I say

701
that as they themselves can scarcely look forward at the present time to forming a Government they may have to be content if some of their ideas are adopted by one or other of the two ruling Parties. I say this the more so because we on these Benches share their impotence. Indeed, our case is far worse. We do not even set up to be running for Office, and for most of us, rather like the Castrati of the Papal Choir, we can only hope that the occasional charm of our voices may turn the minds and hearts of those who do administer the rites of the Mother of Parliaments. This, of course, does riot apply to those Members sitting on these Benches who speak with the strength of the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, who spoke to us this afternoon in a voice full of authority and meaning; and I am sure your Lordships would like me, from these Benches, to echo what has been said elsewhere: that we hope to hear him again on many future occasions.
Despite what I have said, I think it is fair to say that there is a measure of agreement among us all that all is not completely well with our affairs. If I may take just one point, I should centre my remarks on the questions of consent and credibility. Dr. Joseph Royden has said that the supreme contribution of democracy is that it coats the pill of servitude with the sugar of consent. But in many cases now it seems to me that the consent is more apparent than real; and this, I suggest, comes from the increasing widening in many cases of the credibility gap. Unless something is done in time, too much of our system may fall into disrepute. I would suggest stressing the words "in time". Small doses of remedial medicine to the body politic made soon enough may often avert major surgery later.
Pursuing that thought, what are the root causes of the present discontents? May I briefly take first those arising between the electorate and Parliament, and then those between Parliament and Government. To take only one case of those arising between the electorate and Parliament, I would revert again to a question which I raised in the debate on January 23; that is, whether we should not be strengthened in our institutions if there were some more clearly recognised understanding of the position of Government responsibility and personal account-
702
ability of Ministers. If all we have by way of the power of the electorate is the right to elect a Government every five years, and that Government can stay in office even if it drastically changes its programme, I would say again that this is straining the credibility of the electors that what they do is of value.
Various schemes have been suggested whereby this particular difficulty might be averted. It has been suggested that there might be more regular elections, at more frequent intervals, at least of part of the Members—a sort of mechanical check. For myself, I should have thought that that would be unnecessary and in itself contrary to the general understanding and spirit of the Constitution as we have evolved it. I should rather have hoped that the convention could be strengthened whereby if a Government wished, through the force of outside circumstances or through their own change of conviction, to adopt a course, a policy, in contradiction to the policy that had been advocated at the General Election, they should once again consult the electors and see whether they would wish to continue to support them in those new circumstances. I should not have thought that anything more than a clarification and a strengthening of that convention would be necessary.
Equally, on the point of Minister's personal accountability, if they, through collective Cabinet responsibility, have to be responsible for the changed actions of a Government, once again does it not need some reflection between the main Parties whether, in such circumstances, a Minister should not consider that his personal role was engaged and that he personally should choose the course of resignation? This without any reflection on his standing—indeed, it might increase his stature in the country and with his Party.
In commenting on those points which I made on January 23, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who has a powerful use of adjectives, said that this was very tendentious. I accept the adjective; I think it is right. The question is: which tendency do you prefer? Do you prefer the tendency for a Government to feel some commitment, some accountability, and an individual Minister to feel this personally and act, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, did in fact act, on a point of principle and policy; or are you

703
content with the present spectacle? I would raise this question and hope that the answer would be that you do not want mechanical means to correct such a situation; you need an understanding between the main Parties on how the present Constitution, without change, should be conducted.
To turn to an aspect of the discontents between Parliament and the Government, there has been some talk this afternoon of the system of Select Committees and Commissions, and reference to America and their experience on this head. Of course I agree entirely with what many noble Lords have said: that the American experience, as such, is often totally irrelevant for us. It is irrelevant because their history is different; it is irrelevant because their size is of a totally different order. Take their history. The 13 original States did not set out to agree to a form of government in Washington which would perpetuate the kind of centralised authority they had just escaped from in Whitehall. So the history is different in origin. And, of course, again the mere question of size makes anything of the kind of Parliamentary government we have here wholly unsuitable for them, and per contra the sorts of things they have had to work out for a continent are not applicable here.
Still, I would have wondered, on this point of Select Committees, whether there is not a point from which we might benefit; and that is the power of committees to ask for the attendance—and I speak particularly of foreign affairs and defence—of experts, servants of the Crown, civil or military, to come and give evidence. In those cases, of course, it is absolutely clear that the prime responsibility of the witness is to tell the truth and give his opinion as he knows it. His duty is to his country as a citizen. His duty is not primarily to his Minister, but simply to say that this is the view of the Department. What the Commission wish to know is what he personally thinks, as Chief of Staff or Permanent Secretary, or whatever he may be, whatever position he may hold. I should have thought that this was something which might be of value here and might avert some of the things which I believe weaken the credibility of our Parliamentary system as it stands. I think this in two possible ways.
704
First, of course, Members (and I should hope this would apply to this House, as well as to another place) would be thereby much better informed on matters of foreign policy and matters of defence than they can be nowadays. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, made the point very well, having seen it from the other side. I should have thought that this not only would be of advantage in the debates which subsequently take place in either House, but would also be, and could be, used as a matter of strengthening, not always criticising and weakening, the Government. If they had a difficult case to make, whether on prices and incomes, or on defence or foreign affairs, they might have a chance of putting their case much more effectively if there were a body in the House of all Parties who were fully informed, or very nearly fully informed, being excluded only from the most secret things, of the case at issue.
Secondly, I think that another advantage might flow. We in this country pride ourselves on the way in which Ministers can be questioned in the House of Commons and in this House—Questions and Answers. But I may say, as an ex-writer of the Answers for Ministers, it is quite plain what are the rules of the game. The rules are that the Minister must never be allowed to say anything that is not true—that is absolutely ruled out. But, equally, he is under no obligation to tell the whole truth. In fact, the clothing of words is exactly the opposite of the fancy dress in the rhyme—the petals "do not reveal what they should conceal". Quite the contrary is the process.
Therefore, I should have thought, again, that, if it is not misinformation, at least the risk of a misleading impression arising from Questions and Answers could be put in a better perspective if there were another means of questioning experts, whether they are military or civil servants of the Crown. Equally of course, people from outside should be called, because it is ridiculous to think that all wisdom resides, or should reside, with servants of the Crown or other Members of Parliament.
So I would hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House, having been urged from many sides to consider this, would give some further thought to it and see some possible merit in the

705
extension of a scheme which has already started here. But it has started much more to judge of things that have happened, perhaps in the form of the Public Accounts Committee, rather than things under debate. I should hope thereby that if the Prime Minister were to say, for instance, as has been mentioned this afternoon, that the effect of sanctions on Rhodesia will be felt in a question of weeks rather than of months, and if there were a proper Commission of this character on foreign affairs, they would summon the officials and say, "Show us the figures on which you base all this". If they had in fact misled the Prime Minister, this would be shown up at once, and everybody would be on a much more secure and sensible footing; and rash statements could be brought to book much more readily, wherever they derived from. I think it would be salutary for the officials, when they went before the Commission on oath, to produce factual evidence correctly as their duty as citizens.
As has already been said, this debate has a vast range, and I would therefore offer only these two modest suggestions on the question of obtaining for the Government, whichever Government or whatever Government, the greater and readier consent of the governed by increasing their creditability.
Before sitting down perhaps I may be allowed to say something of the setting as I see it. In many countries I have noticed it as a remarkable and common feature of human society to demand to be effectively governed. In many cases this is a fond illusion. The chances of its occurring are sadly small. In some cases this is unfortunate, but not decisive. One determining factor is the economic basis. If there are abundant resources, an acceptable standard of living can be achieved in the teeth of misgovernment, even of disaster.
Take the most obvious case in point: France, our friend and one-time ally. France can be defeated, occupied by an enemy; but, if liberated and left for a short period of stable and reasonable Government, she can obtain prosperity. She has the resources and the intelligence to put them to the use of a country of her size and her population. But our case stands in sharp contrast. With our present population and the restricted resources of these Islands, we must be sufficiently
706
well governed to achieve an acceptable standard of living. This is the setting for us; and this, to my mind, constitutes the vital importance of the subject for us. This is why I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will continue to recognise the need for change to meet the present discontents, and will show some readiness to consider the suggestions made, not so much by myself as by others, from all parts of the House, who have been prompted by their concern with the health of the res publica to participate in this debate.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I say that I am not quite clear what particular ones he wants me to consider. In my opening speech I covered a large number of the matters which I thought should be considered.
LORD CACCIA: My Lords, the only two that I thought I would urge were, first, the question of whether there should not be a clearer convention recognised by the major Parties of the circumstances in which it is thought proper that a Government elected on one programme should, if it changes that programme, have a further mandate. This, again, is not made as a Party point, but as one to be accepted generally, and widely understood. The second one is the attendance of officials, civil or military, in Committees, either of the House of Commons or of this House, where something of the American system, chosen and also designed to meet our particular circumstances, could be carried through, with advantage to the information both of Members and of the public.
6.18 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Loris, the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, in his extremely interesting and valuable speech, suggested in the words he actually used that "all is not completely well" with our present system. I think we must all agree with that, because, clearly, if we got up and said that everything was completely well we should be guilty of the grossest form of complacency. But I think we must keep this matter in perspective. When on an occasion such as this, any of us get up and voice criticisms or make suggestions for improvement, it does not in any way mean that we think that all is completely ill: we are simply dealing with those aspects of what, to my mind,

707
is an admirable and extremely well working system of democratic Government, in order to suggest ways in which that can be improved.
LORD CACCIA: My Lords, may I with permission say how much I entirely agree with that? I would not wish in any way to suggest otherwise.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am quite sure the noble Lord did not, and I was not suggesting that he did; but I wanted to make my own position particularly clear in this matter.
To-day, I will concentrate solely on one subject, which, somewhat to my surprise, has received but little attention in this extremely interesting debate. I refer to the problem of actual policy-making. When a political Party is fighting an Election it puts forward its policy to the best of its ability, and with the greatest amount of honesty which it is capable of commanding. When it becomes the Government, should it be successful at the polls, it then, in the first place, has the problem of making that policy realistic. Clearly, that needs a great deal of doing, and must entail a quite considerable amount of modification. This is because many of the things which to a Party in Opposition appear desirable, and indeed possible, become, when that Party forms the Government of the country, although still desirable, for the moment at least impossible. So there must be a great deal of time spent in the actual practical policy-making, and, following upon that, the implementation of the policy.
Those who are specifically concerned with the making of policy are not the Members of Parliament of either House but, in realistic terms, they are the members of the Government, the Ministers themselves, and their officials. I am afraid it is a fact that both the members of the Government and the officials, particularly the senior officials, are—I say this without being cynical—so busy doing their best to rectify the mistakes of previous Administrations of some 10, 15, or even 20 years ago, that they have precious little time left over to avoid similar mistakes which their successors in 10 or 15 years' time will have to put right. So one gets into a vicious circle or slide in which there is no time available to
708
those whose job it is to think out seriously the policies which are essential if the country is to prosper in the years ahead and not simply to get out of its immediate difficulties.
In order to overcome this situation, I believe that the Ministry should have a small but high-powered group of officials whose job it is solely to look forward, to foresee problems before they arise and to suggest means of coping with them. I know that there is just such a group in the Foreign Office, which fulfils a very valuable function. I hope that in the Board of Trade there is now such a group, and it may be that in other Ministries there are or will be such groups. I certainly believe that it is an essential part of any Government Department to have such a small, forward-looking group and that there should also be not the head of the Department himself but one of his junior Ministers who should be specially charged with overseeing or co-operating with the small planning group.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, before the noble Lord passes from that very interesting point, may I say that what puzzles me is how such a system would operate. Would this group plan in a void? From where would they get their information, data and statistics to form their planning? The weakness of such a suggestion lies not in the absence of planning machinery, which can always be evolved, but in the fact that under our system of Parliamentary control difficulty arises in getting sufficiently accurate data on which any such group could ever arrive at conclusions which would have any validity over a long period.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for his intervention. There is always difficulty in planning accurately ahead, but it still must be done. I have some personal experience of this system at work in the Foreign Office. What is going to happen in certain Darts of the world in five or ten years' time is foreseen; one knows what the problem will be and what will happen as a result of certain circumstances. The information is gathered in the Department itself, from other Government Departments, from the universities, from such bodies as the Institute of International Affairs, and so on. The

709
information can be obtained, but it needs people with the time, ability and training to study these problems.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, does my noble friend envisage that there would be such a group in the Treasury? I can see difficulties in that suggestion.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, undoubtedly there should be such a group in the Ministry which is responsible for the economic life of this country. Whether it should be in the Treasury, in the D.E.A., in the Board of Trade, or where it should be, I will not say, but I feel that there must be such a group, which will be a most important group, to undertake this forward thinking. This system exists already, but I think it should be considerably strengthened.
I believe that the whole mechanism of policy-making to-day and the form in which it is supposed officially to be made is at fault. It is based on the far more leisurely days of Queen Victoria. It was then possible for Ministers—because they were not overcome by events and because they did not have to run just to keep in the same place—to relax to some extent and, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, even to write novels. It was possible for them also, in between writing novels, possibly even while shooting their grouse or catching their salmon, to think. It is a very important thing to be able to think, away from the turmoil of the actual Government office, whether it be in Whitehall, Downing Street, or Westminster. Those thoughts were brought back by the Ministers to their Departments, were discussed, again with a certain amount of leisure, with their senior officials, and in that way were translated into policy. That was effective and good.
But in the circumstances of to-day very few Ministers have time—and, one must admit, fewer have sufficient background—in which to formulate policy as it should be formulated. Therefore, we have the situation where to a large extent the formulation of policy is left to officials. We all know that officials are admirable people who have many high qualities, but they have not been selected on the basis that they are to be the people who will be the policy-makers. Broadly speaking, they are still selected as they were in the mid-19th century, when their
710
job principally was to point out tie difficulties of any new policies which Ministers might put forward, and, when the policies were finally formulated and adopted, to implement them—but it was not for them to provide new ideas. They were then selected, and they still are, for the job, engagingly described by the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, of preventing their Ministers from saying anything at any time which might prove embarrassing.
Even in those far-off Victorian days officials still had great powers of obstruction. It is wrong to think that it is only to-day that we have the dead hand of bureaucracy upon us and that in the freer days of Queen Victoria all was well. Some of your Lordships may remember that Florence Nightingale wrote to Sir John McNeil about her failure with the then Minister of War, Sidney Herbert, to bring about reforms in the Army. She wrote:
"What strikes me in this great defeat, even more painfully than the loss to the Army, is the triumph of the bureaucracy over the leaders."
Therefore this is no new phenomenon. To-day, when policy is discussed by Ministers, unfortunately the Minister is far too often little more than a spokesman to a Departmental brief, and frequently lie has played little original part in the formulation of the policy to which he is speaking. I have always mistrusted those Ministers who are well spoken of by their officials. I feel far greater instinctive regard for the Minister who is something of a rebel or who is regarded as a difficult man by his officials.
Perhaps the most useful thing to do in this debate would be to present some concrete examples, instead of taking in vague and abstract terms, but that course clearly presents difficulties. If I were to give examples, which I dearly should like to give and of which I have personal knowledge, it might not be considered quite the correct thing to do and might cause a certain amount of embarrassment to people whom I should not wish to embarrass. On the other hand, to talk about something of which one has no knowledge clearly has no value, so I shall try to effect a compromise and give a concrete example from a situation of which I have partial personal knowledge and where the rest is pure surmise. I shall leave it to your Lordships to guess

711
which parts are surmise and which parts are personal knowledge.
During the past few months there has taken place in New Delhi the second United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. That, in my view, was one of the most far-reaching conferences, or should have been, on the international plane that has been held for a long time. It is a matter to which Her Majesty's Government should have given a very great deal of thought, because our action at the second UNCTAD could, I believe, have more effect on the development of the rest of the world over the years ahead than almost any other single action that we could take.
That being so, the Government Department with the primary responsibility here must be the Foreign Office; and in my view, therefore, the initiative for evolving our policy to be presented in New Delhi should have rested primarily with the Foreign Office, in close co-operation with the Commonwealth Office. Clearly, closely allied to those two Departments should be the Ministry of Overseas Development, for very obvious reasons; the Board of Trade, also for obvious reasons; the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, because it has a considerable connection with food imports from the developing countries; and, clearly, the Treasury.
I suggest that the way the policy for the Conference could have been worked out was that in the initial stages Ministers from those Departments, with their officials, should have met together round the table for preliminary talks, and there the general policy outline should have been laid down. Following upon that, each Department should have gone back and examined the implications of the outline policy from its own departmental point of view, always with joint consultations taking place between the Minister in charge of the particular operation and the officials who were dealing with it and who had the expert knowledge. That would ensure a realistic blending of the political ideas of the Government in power—what they wished to do, what they stood for—with the practical possibilities, looked at in the light of the background knowledge which could only be provided by the officials, and a merging of the conflicting interests
712
of trade, agriculture, aid, Treasury and all the rest of it.
Following upon that, there clearly should have been a series of interdepartmental meetings, always, I repeat, with Ministers and officials present, and in that way an agreed policy could have been threshed out which could then have been put before the entire Cabinet. I agree very much with my noble friend Lord Aylestone when he says that it is manifestly impossible for a busy Cabinet Minister, or even for an un-busy Cabinet Minister, if there is such a person, to be able to form a worthwhile view on a subject of this type when he has only 24 or 48 hours in which to read the papers that are put before him.
But, unfortunately, that is not how this worked out, because there is a "T" in UNCTAD, and the "T" stands for Trade. The Board of Trade had been considered the Department primarily responsible for preparing a policy for UNCTAD and the policy was originally worked out at Government level with, undoubtedly, consultation with other Government Departments. But the initiative rested with the Board of Trade, and only at a relatively late stage did the recommendations from the official series of meetings reach Ministers. By then there was not very much time left before the Conference actually took place, and without going back to the beginning and re-hashing the whole affair there was very little that Ministers could do, should they wish to change the policy or to influence it in any way.
I certainly would not for a moment describe civil servants in Shakespeare's words in Measure for Measure,
"… man, proud man,
Drest in a little brief authority,
Most ignorant of what he's most assured",
because I repeat that officials are extremely intelligent people. But, again I repeat, they are not selected for this particular form of policy-making job, and force of circumstance often makes them ignorant of those matters where they have to show themselves assured, because they have pushed upon them jobs for which they are not trained, qualified or selected. I do not believe that policy can be left to people, no matter how eminent or how intelligent, who are not responsible to the electors and who are

713
selected for a job which is fundamentally different from that of policy-making.
The job of the officials—and I hope I am not being felt here to be making an attack upon the officials, because I am far from doing that—which by force of circumstance they are having to do, is primarily one for politicians to do. The dichotomy between politicians and civil servants which has grown up and which exists to-day must cease, and both must work together at all levels and at all stages in the formulation of policy to make sure that the practical implications, the political implications, the conformity to the ideals of the Party in power, and the conformity to the realities of the situation are all properly considered.
I repeat that the fault here, in so far as there is a fault—and I believe that it is a fault of structure and not of personalities—primarily lies with the politicians, with the Ministers, themselves. They have the power to make this present system work, provided that they have the will and the ability to do it. I hope that when my noble friend replies he will be able to assure me that there will be an ever-increasing effort to bring the two sides of the policy-making body—the official side and the political side—together so closely that, from the lowest levels of the beginnings of the embryo of policy formation up until the final birth of the child, there will be consultation between those two essential bodies.
6.38 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I hope my noble friend the Leader of the House will forgive me if I use two of the words which he dislikes so much and say that with some trepidation I enter this macro-debate which is filled with a galaxy of experienced talent, but I promise I will try to keep my contribution as micro as possible. I think it is true to-day, as several noble Lords have mentioned, that there is a feeling of disillusionment with politics and with politicians. I think, however, that there is a positive side to this, because people to-day expect more. They are educated more highly, there is a rising standard of living, and I think they take less from the politicians than they did in the past. They do not see them as rather remote, grand creatures and, with television coming into everyone's home, everyone becomes his own politician.
714
But, unfortunately, few people are activist enough to participate and I think this is where the great frustration comes. We have seen this recently in the demonstrations of protest by young people who, I think, express this feeling of frustration, this feeling of being part of far larger units than young people were many years ago. They have been educated in large classes. If they go to university, the universities are much larger, and they go out to work probably in far larger units. This, I think, creates a barrier between them and what they feel is happening and is being done in their name.
On this point I should like to make one suggestion, and that is that the Government now, having accepted the recommendations of the Latey Committee, turn down the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference and give young people, the vote at 18, which would be in line with the age of majority recommended for other things by the Latey Committee. If one wants people to participate and to show responsibility then I think one must give them the opportunity to be responsible. One must not say, "Just wait", but must let them use their vote and be more articulate by means of the ballot box, even at the age of 18.
Again, I think that much more needs to be done in the way of communication; and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, when he talks of both Houses of Parliament having their proceedings televised. Of course, the speeches of all of us would have to be edited down a lot if we were to retain the attention of the viewers, but it still, I think, would be immensely worth while. If I may say so—and, as a comparative newcomer, I feel sensitive about this, although I have stood as a candidate three times and have been firmly but to varying degrees resisted by the electorate—I think that one of the occupational diseases of Governments and politicians is always to have to prove themselves to be right on every occasion. Since the electorate is not so stupid, and everyone knows that no one is perfect, nobody quite believes this, and would much rather occasionally hear, "I was wrong".
If I may say so, I disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, when he said that the House of Commons has no effect upon Government and that the

715
Executive is controlled by the electorate and not by Parliament. I think Question Time, which we have in both Houses, is an extremely valuable safeguard, and also a great "nudger" of the Government. I think the Adjournment Debates, Private Members' Bills and many other mechanisms in our system, act as pinpricks, which can become very large dagger wounds, on things that the Government are doing to which Parliament objects and to which the electorate, through Parliament, may also object.
Whatever one thinks about the various suggestions that have been put forward to-day and the various kites that have been flown, I think we are faced with more and more legislative work and governmental work, and a tremendous pressure on everybody's time, particularly the time of Members of Parliament. It is perfectly true that as one set of injustices is righted by legislation it highlights more injustices. This is a natural evolution of government and also of our social system. We are faced with the question: what is the best way to allocate the time so that Members of Parliament and the Government can use that time to the best of their ability and to the best purpose? Here I would say that, although I am aware that the M.P. is naturally jealous of his contact with his constituents in the work he does in his constituency, it may well be that we need regional or local Ombudsmen in order to take some of the work off the M.P.; because even if he works 24 hours a day there is a limit to the amount of time that he can give.
When we are discussing this question of trying to stretch time and arrange the work to go round, the reform of the House of Lords is so relevant that really one cannot opt out of it for the purpose of this debate and consider it sub judice. Because, after all, what we are discussing is the effectiveness of Parliament, and we cannot discuss that without discussing both Houses. Whatever is done in terms of composition of your Lordships' House, the two Houses surely must be made complementary in their work, with the Commons as the senior partner because it is the elected body, and with the Lords bringing to their work stability, continuity, security of tenure and independence—which determines the limit of how far they can be "Whipped"—as well as a great deal of expertise.
716
It seems to me that Joint Committees consisting of Members of both Houses could help both to relieve the strain and the quantity of work and improve the quality. If they operated in consensus areas such as education, science and technology, agriculture and social services—and there would probably be other fields in the future—then these Joint Committees would be carrying on work which would be supervisory and inquisitorial at times, and which would cover many of the points raised this afternoon and also raised in other discussions about our legislative process. A Joint Committee of both Houses could also put cases to the Ombudsman. I feel there is no need at this moment, my Lords—and I hope there never will be—to panic into fear of dictatorship or fear of excesses either on the Right or on the Left. We fortunately do not have the sort of Government that we see in other countries. We have a Government and an Opposition—and here I agree with those noble Lords who answered the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, about a Coalition. We do not need to change the concept of our democracy, or alter its foundations, but what we have to do is to find ways to improve it so that it functions in a more efficient way in our modern, rapidly-changing world.
6.47 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, inevitably a great deal of ground has been covered in the debate on this Motion this afternoon, but there have been two central strands which have run through the discussion. The first is the structure or the machinery of government, and the second is Parliamentary control over the Executive. In order to try to draw the debate into rather a narrower focus at this stage I shall concentrate on a brief discussion of economic policy under these two headings. There are two justifications for this: first of all, because the intractable problems of economic policy overshadow everything else in contemporary British national politics; and secondly, because, as Morley remarked when writing about the spirit of Gladstonian finance, it is in this department of affairs that
"words out of relation to fact are most surelexposed".
Incidentally, my Lords, the name of Gladstone has been mentioned several

717
times in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and others. So also has Mr. Humphry Berkeley's book, The Power of the Prime Minister. Mr. Gladstone himself, Mr. Berkeley reports, does not seem to have been so sure about his powers. In 1880 when Gladstone asked Lord Carrington to resign the latter refused, and Gladstone, unsure of his powers, dropped his action for a year. I am sure that even with the diminishing size of the Shadow Cabinet my noble friend will not need to have recourse to historical precedent.
It has been said in this debate and outside—by Mr. George Brown in the Sunday Times, for example—that the Cabinet suffers from a lack of adequate machinery to keep its overall policy under continuous review. It is said that the full Cabinet is too weighted down with departmental Ministers who are preoccupied with affairs of the moment. This is not just a question of mechanics, the argument goes on, but is a feature which directly affects the quality of Government itself.
"The absence of strategic thinking".
a commentator in The Times wrote recently,
"is one of the main reasons why public spending periodically gets out of control."
This was one of the themes of the very notable and authoritative maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, and also the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I hope it is not therefore impertinent for me to question this proposition. It seems to me the sort of short-term diagnosis which is quickly taken up and passed around in our rather inbred political system, and is sometimes accepted too easily.
The problem, surely, is the age-old one, familiar in politics, in business, in social work, in education, or in any other form of organisation where day-to-day work makes heavy demands. What has to be reconciled is the need to run the organisation effectively, while at the same time retaining a perspective, a vision of the future, and how to get there. No one put it more succinctly than Oliver Wendell Holmes when he wrote:
"The great thing in this world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are going."
The desire for a release, for an easy way out of the conflict, discussed this after-
718
noon as on many occasions in the past, is to try to divide responsibility for future planning from the daily despatch of business.
My Lords, let us consider an example which repays careful study, the Department of Economic Affairs. The D.E.A. was set up in 1964. The decision to do so, we are told, was taken by Mr. Wilson and Mr. Brown in the back of a taxi. Since the trip only extended the few hundred yards from the St Ermin's Hotel to the House of Commons it could not have taken them very long. It was argued that a Department of Economic Affairs parallel with the Treasury would be able to concern itself with planning the future expansion of the economy. This would leave the Treasury, suspected of deflationary tendencies and caricatured by the concept of "Stop Go", to occupy itself mainly with financial matters—the control over public spending and control over establishments.
What happened? The first phase, the preparation of a prices and incomes policy, culminating in the Declaration of Intent at the end of 1964, failed. Compulsory methods were thought at the time to be unacceptable; voluntary ones clearly did not work. Moreover the D.E.A., encouraged by the newly recruited Industrial Advisers, had begun to show signs of failing to appreciate the difference between a planning and a coordinating Department, and one that directly coincides with the work of other sponsoring Departments. Later the National Plan also vanished when the economic climate worsened.
Mr. Douglas Jay who has had long experience, almost unparalleled experience perhaps, in the management of economic policy, first as a civil servant and then as a Minister in two Governments, has recently gone on record with a carefully reasoned analysis of why the D.E.A. failed. The main analysis was published in the current issue of the Political Quarterly, and a shorter version of it, also by Mr. Jay, appeared in the Financial Times on April 4. In both articles Mr. Jay reiterated the basic principle of good organisation in government, in business or elsewhere; that is, that responsibility and authority should be clearly established. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, he argued, must also act as Minister of

719
Economic Affairs, as Sir Stafford Cripps did in 1947. That followed a period between 1945–47 when responsibility was divided between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Lord President of the Council who acted as Economic Co-ordinator. According to Mr. Jay:
"In 1947 we at least learnt wisdom after the event. In 1967 we failed to learn it after two. Such has been post-war progress."
I do not make this point in a Party political context—that would be out of place in this particular debate—but rather to show that in this instance dual control of economic policies has not worked. If the rational management of economic policy is to be achieved, D.E.A. functions must be transferred to the Chancellor. Shorn of the Industrial Advisers, the very able permanent officials in the D.E.A. need not necessarily be incorporated in the Treasury. They could form a separate Planning Unit which would report to the Chancellor direct. I do not believe it is either wise or necessary for the D.E.A. to have direct contacts with industry. These tend to duplicate the machinery already there, and confuse what should be the clearly established responsibilities of the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Labour. As my noble friend, Lord Carrington, has said, more government in this field does not necessarily mean better government. Less government can result in clearer lines of communication.
The second point that I can deal with rather briefly—still in an economic context—is Parliamentary control of the Executive, about which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, spoke in his speech. Like other noble Lords I will refer to the House of Commons. It is impossible to talk about relations between Parliament and the Executive without doing so. But I do so in the same way as did the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, in a spirit of inquiry and rational discussion, not intending in any way to aggravate relations between the two Houses of Parliament.
"To say that the power and influence of the House of Commons is founded upon the control of the purse is a constitutional platitude and to add that no representative Chamber in the Western World has at the moment less control over finance than the Commons is almost as platitudinous."
That was the comment, not of a critic of Parliament but of a former Clerk of the House of Commons, after a lifetime
720
spent in the service of Parliament. Sir Edward Fellowes, in his article in the Winter 1967–68 edition of Parliamentary Affairs, points out that over the years Parliament, in its efforts to secure control over appropriation, has become too concerned with counting the trees and in doing so has lost control of the size and shape of the wood.
In a Parliamentary sense the word "control" has a special meaning. It is possible to criticise the lack of Parliamentary control by interpreting the word "control" too literally. As I understand it, Parliamentary control has come to mean the opportunity to debate issues of the day, to amend legislation, and to bring opinion to bear on the Government. All of this is influential, and if the Party system has meant that the classic sanctions of constitutional theory no longer apply, I believe few noble Lords would deny that on occasion Parliament has had, and continues to have, its own form of influence. But in economic policy the occasion for this influence to be applied comes too late.
If the approach to Budget framing is for the Cabinet to take decisions on the overall amount of Government expenditure, and the priorities to be followed, leaving the Treasury to hammer out the details with the Departments, the question that arises is: Should not Parliament have an opportunity to debate the first of these stages and not merely the last of them? Would it not be desirable if, early in the year—say in February—the House of Commons had an opportunity to debate an Affirmative Resolution to the effect that a sum not exceeding the sum of the total requirements estimated by the Government as necessary for the next financial year be granted? This debate, which would be concerned with the overall scale of Government expenditure, could then be followed by a second debate—in March, perhaps—on the Government's proposals to allocate maximum amounts for different categories of expenditure: defence, the social services and so on. The relative priorities lying behind these proposals could also be questioned and discussed. Both these stages would precede the production of departmental estimates and scrutiny by the Estimates Committee. In this way Parliament could make its influence felt

721
at the crucial stage when policy was still relatively flexible, rather than just being presented with the end result of the process and asked to support it as a matter of confidence in the Government.
Finally, my Lords, although inevitably there are differences between the Government and the Opposition Parties on policies, it seems that one area where we can agree is that policies are not being as effectively carried out as they should be. First of all, the Government, which means the Cabinet in this context, or Departmental Ministers in the Cabinet, have to decide what they want to do. As the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, said, the Government must govern. It is not good enough to say that there is insufficient time to do this. The ability to do so is the basic distinction between a wise man (perhaps we should avoid the word "statesman") and a man who limits himself to less than his own potential. But decisions on policy—preferably born out of debate, informed, critical, passionate—must lead to action. Because unless the policies of Ministers can be carried out, the whole process of government will be frustrated.
The facile solution is to say that the Departments must be ready to carry out the policies of the Government once the Government have decided what their policy is. If they do not have enough staff, according to this argument, they should take on some more. The increase in the number of non-industrial civil servants, an extra 59,000 between October, 1964, and March, 1968, suggests that this is sometimes the attitude. But surely in politics, my Lords, as elsewhere, that is not the way to go about it. To ensure that an effective system is built up for the evolution and efficient execution of the whole continuing flow of policy, Ministers and permanent officials must work closely together, so that what the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, has called a common mind within a Department can be developed. Situations in which taxes like the selective employment tax are introduced very much at the last moment, virtually overwhelming the Departments, are an indication of an insensitive and, in the end, self-defeating approach towards public administration. What is needed is a more purposeful system of government, with politicians and permanent officials each knowing
722
where they stand in a relationship of mutual confidence.
My Lords, I suggest that it is only in this way that the pressure of events can be kept in proportion, and a genuinely far-seeing set of policies worked out which are capable of being realised. When things go wrong and Governments and political institutions are criticised, as they are to-day, it is very easy and understandable for politicians to blame events. But in seeking to adapt and improve our institutions we shall do well to remember, as the poet said:
"Men at some time are masters of their fates:
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings."
7.4 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHTFLEY: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for initiating this debate. It has given us a chance to hear a number of notable speeches, particularly that of the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, whose fascinating; but discreet glimpses of life in the Government, followed by one or two other noble Lords, will I think repay careful study in the pages of Hansard, as much as they have repaid us in your Lordships' House to-day.
My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, was very brave to set up, as something on which to hang this debate, the model reform of government. I think that we are all agreed, at least all the speakers in the debate have been agreed, that reform must go carefully in these matters, and slowly; but I do not think we realise quite so much that it is very important to have some kind of vision of where you are going, and to have a working model by which you can proceed. During the course of time the working model will have to be changed as progress is made, but I think that this has been a valuable contribution.
I have been slightly worried by an attitude produced by most speakers, possibly largely because they were following the lead of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, in the scope of this debate, as to the degree of difficulty there is, the degree of unease there is in the country, the degree of alienation there is from the Government. I do not think that this should be blamed merely on bad government, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, at one

723
moment seemed to suggest, or on anything specifically that may pass over. In fact, I think that if one looks at the whole of Western Europe, one will see that there is this alienation from Government. I think it is something which we have to bear in mind, and that is why I was so grateful to hear the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, who brought the debate round to this point again.
I think it is possibly no accident that it was the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who spoke deeply about the question of the feeling in the regions that they are divorced from London, because he, like myself, is an honorary official of the organisation of his Party. He travels round the country and knows what the workers in the field and the ordinary voters over a very wide area feel in these matters. The last five years which I have spent going round with Party workers and meeting members of all kinds of organisations in the country leave me under no illusion that there is a very real sense of alienation. Surely this follows the logic of what one would expect. The more complex and concentrated the issues of government get, the more people will get worried that it is being taken away from them and, therefore, the more need there is to devolve as many decisions as possible. The larger the unit of government the more we want to get into the Common Market; and the more we take part in the United Nations the more need there is to devolve back power in smaller matters to people. The more educated the electorate gets the more say people will want. It is not so much a question that the Government are getting more remote from the people—although they are—but that people, quite rightly in this democracy, want more say in the Government than they have ever had before.
My Lords, there are many ways of doing this. One of them is regional and national devolution to bring the electorate nearer to many decisions affecting their ordinary life. But I should like, even in these last few moments of the debate, before we get, so to speak, to the encores, to narrow it down to a subject which I hope your Lordships will not think too divorced from what we have been considering; that is, the system of
724
election, because I think that this is something which can have a real effect on the relationship between the Government and the governed. We all know the main general arguments, and I do not intend to dwell on them—matters like proportional representation in our present electoral system. We all know the non-senses that there are. For instance, in 1945 the Labour Party had 48 per cent. of the votes and a two-to-one majority in the House of Commons. In 1951 it had 49 per cent. and was out of office; and in 1964 it had 44 per cent. and it was back in office again. This is a ridiculous situation. We also know the arguments against proportional representation. Some of them are superstitions. There is, for instance, no evidence that it leads to an increase in the number of Parties. It certainly leads to government by the consent of more of the democracy.
What I want to look at now is its effect on the electorate. First of all, the bringing in of proportional representation by the single tranferable vote—not the Party lists system, may I emphasise—would do away with the apathy in minority Parties which is very harmful. I am not referring just to the Liberal Party, or to the Nationalists or whatever Party it may happen to be. When I was head of organisation of the Liberal Party I used to look at the Labour organisation in strong Conservative seats and pluck up my courage again about some of the organisations in my own Party. The same is true, as we have seen in recent by-elections, of strong Labour seats as well, where there has been not all that much organisation. This has not applied so much to the Conservatives, because they have always been able to pay for workers in these seats; but in single-Member seats with a large majority for one other of the Parties it is very bad for democracy and participation that small Parties should have little hope. Under proportional representation, they would be able to get in at least one Member.
It is often said that, because of the wider area covered, proportional representation will decrease the contact of a Member of Parliament with his constituents. I do not accept this. In fact, I think there are four ways in which it will encourage closer contact. First, every

725
constituent will be able to find a sympathetic Member to represent him. We all know that Members of Parliament fall over backwards to represent fairly their constituents of all creeds and beliefs. But, even so, there are one or two Members to whom coloured people suffering from discrimination might not be too happy to go to; and this applies in many different ways.
Secondly, the good constituency Member would have more security. Thirdly, there would be more local Members. If you are a Labour supporter living in Suffolk, and want to get into the House of Commons you have to travel outside the area in order to stand a chance of getting a seat. Finally, there would be a real choice between candidates of the same Party on major issues. People would be able to vote not just for a Conservative or Labour Member but, for example, for a Conservative candidate who was in favour of going into the Common Market, or for a Conservative who is against it; and the same would apply on the Labour side. This would bring back more power to the people. It would be a more plebiscidal approach. It would get rid of the apathy and negative voting caused by the present "split vote" system, whether it operates against a Liberal, or in the Twin Cities against a Tory, or in Orpington against Labour. In all those cases it is a bad thing. It would do a lot to weaken the power of the Party Whips, because there would be no question of having the position, in a place like Pembroke, for example, where people have to vote either for the official Party or for the unofficial Party, knowing that they are splitting the Party vote and may allow the other Party to get in.
Lastly, and most important of all, for proportional representation we should have to educate the electorate more thoroughly. Democracy, we are told, is government by explanation. But we do not do nearly enough explaining. I think it is important because, as I know perfectly well, as does anyone who has had anything to do with Party organisation, half the Members of Parliament of this country are chosen by twenty people in a smoke-filled back room; there is no real and wide electoral choice. People in a modern, educated democracy demand either efficiency or real democracy.
726
If they suspect that they are getting neither, they may reject democracy altogether—though I do not wish to raise bogies too high. There is a mood and a move to this all over the Western World. I think we should do well to try to put our house in order before it is too late.
7.13 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, having spoken, I regret to say, rather lengthily at the beginning, I shall try to make up for this by speaking rather briefly now. I was handicapped at the beginning by the consciousness that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, had already made the speech I had intended to make. This is not a sign for the Liberals, who are so inclined to propagate that Labour and Conservative are just the same; it is just that we understand politics rather better, because we both have had experience of office and know what it is about.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, can be gratified at what I believe has been a truly excellent debate, conducted in the best style and with that independence of thinking and freedom from prejudice which usually marks debates in your Lordships' House. I find it almost patronising, when someone like my noble friend Lord Aylestone comes to this House, to say what an excellent maiden speech he has made, because I have known him since he was a Flight Lieutenant in the Air Force in 1945 and I was his Squadron Leader. I think he chose an admirable subject on which to make his maiden speech, and he showed the refreshing independence which conies from ex-members of the Government. We found the same refreshing independence in the speech of my noble friend Lord Longford who, whatever else may have happened to him, certainly has not lost his wit, his capacity and charm of expression. I thought that he walked most delicately and skilfully along a dangerous path. My own experience of Cabinets is rather short, and my noble friend has been a member of Government one way or the other for nine or ten years. I would say only this on the subject of Cabinet government. There seemed to be a certain consensus in your Lordships' House as to the size of the Cabinet. But one thing is apparent to me, and that is, from the experiences

727
that have been revealed, that each Cabinet is different from another. I am only sorry that my old friend the late Lord Morrison of Lambeth, who took part in our last debate and who wrote one of the best books on government, Morrison on Government (he always wanted to be known as "Morrison on Government"), is not here to add in that very characteristic jolly way of his own experience and common sense. Certainly both the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, treated us to brilliant speeches.
I must say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, as to his view of the Whips. He painted an attractive picture. One of the points on which I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, is that I do not want to weaken the Whips. The Whips manage extremely well in difficult circumstances. They are more liberal people than one realises. A great deal of their time is spent in trying to carry on the Government, the collective loyalty, the loyalty which is the basis of the Party system, while at the same time making it possible for people to exercise freedom of conscience. I talked earlier at some length on the Party structure and the Party system, and I will not go further into this matter now.
I should like to take up one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, in his speech—and I apologise to the noble Lord for having missed it. I am told that he chided me about referring to the value of taking the Finance Bill upstairs, and suggested that either I had not read my brief or that I had just read it without clearing it. As a matter of fact, I wrote that part of the brief myself, or at least I put it in. It has, of course, already revealed its value, because it has provided more time on the Floor of the House which is available to Private Members and to the Government (this is perhaps where the noble Lord might disagree) so that they can get even more legislation through. Maybe at this point he would say that although he acknowledges that the results are there, he may not regard them as wholly beneficial.
LORD REDMAYNE: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would agree that it would be wiser to wait a little longer before striking a balance.
LORD SHACKLETON: We will wait for that. It was part of the reforms on procedure which are taking place. Those of us who have been in another place have always been very conscious of the difficulties within that structure. Here is this attempt to try to break out of the straitjacket, but not to break out in a way which bursts it asunder. I was very pleased that my noble friend Baroness Birk referred to the reform of the House of Lords as a contribution to this sort of further freedom for Parliament to exercise the role which I tried to set out perhaps in somewhat elaborate terms. I rather hope that my speech will look better when I come to read it than I felt it was at the time when I delivered it.
I am sorry that a number of noble Lords—my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and the noble Lord, Lord Strang—were unable to take part in the debate, but I still think that it has been a worthwhile and well-balanced debate. Again, one wants traditionally to have the contribution of what I call professional Cross-Benchers instead of purely amateur Cross-Benchers. I regard my noble friend Lord Aylestone as an amateur Cross-Bencher and the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, as a professional Cross-Bencher. I hope that I did not give an indication that, in regard to Committees and the challenging of Government Departments and officials, I was in any way other than in sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Caccia. But we must recognise that the development of inquisitorial Committees (and I am in favour of them) will put heavy demands on Departments. This act alone is likely to add to the number of civil servants if they are going to spend a great deal of time answering questions. But I am sure that this is an inevitable process.
Shocked as I was by the really deplorable picture which the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, gave of Ministers not actually telling lies, but misleading the House, I can only say (and I am very sorry to say this) that he must have been speaking for the Foreign Office in this matter. It may be that anything to do with foreign affairs is always so sensitive that it is never possible to tell the whole story.
But it may well be that we shall be able to find a way for the development of the Committee system. There are difficulties, of course, in overcoming the secrecy

729
question; and there is the problem that it is not possible for the Government ever to dictate to a Select Committee (this is no doubt true of Congress, as well) as to what is to be regarded as confidential and what is not. It is important, both for Ministers and for officials, to distinguish between what is confidential to the national interest and what is confidential merely because it is embarrassing. This is the sort of issue on which anyone with ministerial experience will realise that he will at time be advised: "It will be very embarrassing to give the full story", and at that point a Minister must recognise his responsibility.
Perhaps we have not focused enough on the role of Ministers. We get the Government we deserve, we get the Parliament we deserve, we get the official support that we deserve, very much according to the competence, imagination and integrity of Ministers. Here we have the great difficulty that a large number of Ministers are always in process of learning their jobs. I do not see how we get over this. I have changed my title, luckily without very much change in effect, three times in the last four months. In January I was Minister without Portfolio; in February I was Lord Privy Seal, and now I am Paymaster General. Luckily, the results seem to be more or less the same, provided I am allowed to remain in this country.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Aylestone that at times communication between officials and Ministers does not always work. This is sometimes the fault of officials and sometimes the fault of Ministers. Sometimes it can be formalised. I have attended (I must be careful not to go into too much detail) many meettings and observed different techniques by Ministers in dealing with their officials. But of one thing I am certain; that is, that in any really important issue, in any delicate or difficult subject, and certainly in a negotiation, it is essential that there should be the freest discussion. I cannot, therefore, comment on the tale relating to UNCTAD. I listened with great interest to my noble friend Lord Walston. I should have liked to pursue this to find out what really happened. I have my own view as to how much he was surmising and how much he was reporting. I think there was a certain element of surmise in it. I am not sure how deeply he was involved in all the aspects of this.
730
This question of communication between Departments and officials is an important one. It raises the whole question of Cabinet Committees, which I am not really in a position to discuss. There is no doubt that at some times the system works better than at others, and sometimes it works particularly well thanks to the fact that officials are so good at making sense out of something which has been said in a meeting but which leaves a Minister totally confused as to what has been decided. I think it was Mr. Macmillan who once accused Sir Norman Brooke of falsifying Minutes because he made Cabinet Minutes sound as if a rational discussion had taken place.
My Lords, I will not delay your Lordships much longer. I listened, of course, to what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said with characteristic competence. Perhaps when he has had ministerial experience—I should not like to forecast when that will be, but it will probably come some time, if not in my lifetime, in my son's lifetime—he will in fact take a different view of some of these points. But, none the less, I think it was characteristic, as all the speeches have been, of the very real thought which people have given to this problem, and therefore it is a further contribution to this great study.
If I may refer briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, we listened to his eloquence, the eloquent-like part of his speech, and I must say, speaking entirely personally, that I found certain merits in his arguments. But, equally, they would have all sorts of consequential disadvantages. But on this question which he raised of the disillusionment felt with Government he was absolutely right to point out that it is not confined to this country. In some ways, if one looks at the situation—I am not making a Party point—before the war, with the poverty and unemployment in this country, and indeed the appalling disillusionment with men permanently on the dole, it is somewhat ironic to talk about disillusionment to-day. I think it was my noble friend, Lady Birk, who gave examples and referred to the size of classes. I would not think that the classes to-day were any larger than before—rather the reverse. But all this is a subject to which sociologists and others will give consideration.

731
However, I do emphasise that responsibility rests on politicians, and if I have a message, in conclusion of a debate for which we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, it is that we ourselves must face these responsibilities. And while we must be determined to press on with the reforms, I believe that there is a lot that can be gradually done and, indeed, is going on now. But I hope that we shall still not lose our nerve and our confidence in a system which, on the whole, has stood us in pretty good stead, and I think is capable of adaptation to the future.
7.33 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, before withdrawing my Motion I should like, perhaps for five minutes, to detain your Lordships while I tell you what broad conclusions I myself have drawn from this, I think, excellent debate. In the first place, I think there was very large agreement upon the idea that we ought to have a smaller Cabinet, or at any rate a smaller group in the Cabinet. I suggest that we might call it a Politbureau, consisting of not more than four or five people to assist the Prime Minister. There was a difference of view between the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, in his marvellous maiden speech, and the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, as to how this should be composed. Personally, I rather agree with Lord Redmayne as to how it should be composed. But that was detail. It would be a good thing to have a small group dealing with the central affairs of government.
I think also there was general agreement on the necessity for some kind of devolution. We did not discuss that point in detail, but I had the sense that this House was very largely in favour of it on the broad lines I gave. It may be Liberal policy, but I think it is also largely accepted by the other Parties concerned. I had that impression, and I think it is a very good thing.
I believe that there might be, quite likely there would be, general agreement for the revolutionary proposal of Lord Aylestone that there should be a smaller House of Commons. I myself am very much in favour of the principle. There is only one thing: the larger constituencies would elect Members by some form
732
of official transferable vote, as Lord Beaumont of Whitley suggested. But I should be 100 per cent. in favour of it, and I consider it would be an excellent thing. I think there was large agreement in this House that the Crossman reforms were at any rate a good beginning. Certainly the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said that, and I believe most people would agree, except possibly the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, who shares the views of Mr. Michael Foot to the effect that these are not desirable at all, and that most things should be fought out by the body of the House. I think also that there would be general agreement—and I certainly would not oppose this—that reforms of our system come about in practice by the process of evolution. I would not deny that for a moment. Nevertheless, I myself would say that unless we occasionally make rather way-out proposals, the process of evolution might well be too slow.
That brings me on to my second point, which is that I thought there was much too much complacency on the part of noble Lords in this debate about the whole future of democracy in this country. I thought all noble Lords were very complacent, with the sole exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who, however, we are told, will shortly grow out of these ideas when he has had more experience. Apart from that, I believe there is a real current of unrest in this country, and something must be seen to be done; the impression must be given that something is being done about this machine. I do not know how, but people should have that impression, and unless they do I really believe the situation will be quite dangerous.
That brings me to my final remark, my own proposal, and, acceptable though it may be, it is not accepted by anybody in this House at the present time. Nevertheless, it has been largely, perhaps, misunderstood because it is new. It really reduces itself to this. It is a proposal to limit by law the number of Parliamentarians in the Government. It may be limited to one; that was my original suggestion. It could be limited to five, or to a few more, but the whole point is to limit the number of "place-men" in the House of Commons and get it down

733
from 110—it will soon be 150 absolute place-men, whose only duty is to tramp round the corridors supporting the Government. That is what I think is fundamentally wrong, and that is what I want to change; and I think this fundamental idea may possibly take root and, indeed, spread. I hope it does. In that hope my Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

THAMES VALLEY WATER BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
  GERMAN WAR MEMORIALS
  GERMAN WAR MEMORIALS
  CARE OF YOUNGER CHRONIC SICK
  CARE OF YOUNGER CHRONIC SICK
  DANGEROUS DRUGS: ISSUE OF LICENCES
  DANGEROUS DRUGS: ISSUE OF LICENCES