Sitting of 23 July 1968

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) (No. 2) BILL
    BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
      BRITISH RAILWAYS (MERSEY RAILWAY EXTENSIONS) BILL
      Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
MEDWAY WATER (BEWL BRIDGE RESERVOIR) BILL [Lords]

  PORT OF LONDON BILL [Lords]
  [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]
  Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL [Lords]
[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]
Read the Third time and passed without Amendment.

MID-GLAMORGAN WATER BILL [Lords]
Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

GREATER LONDON (VAUXHALL CROSS IMPROVEMENT) BILL [Lords]
As amended, considered;
Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended.—[The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.] [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords]
As amended, considered;
Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended.—[The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.] [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown and the Duchy of Lancaster, signified.]
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

FOREMEN AND STAFF MUTUAL BENEFIT SOCIETY (APPLICATION OF RULES) ETC. (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 15th October.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Historic Buildings Council (Town Schemes)
    Dr. Grayasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement on the numbers of town schemes under the Historic Buildings Council now in operation or planned.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Niall MacDermot): Eight schemes are in operation. Arrangements are nearing completion for a further five, and seven, others are under discussion. I will, with permission, circulate a fuller statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT, naming the towns and giving details of the allocation of grant.
    Dr. Gray: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on what is being done, but will he say whether the ancient town of Great Yarmouth has a scheme, and also whether there is a scheme for the City of Norwich?
    Mr. MacDermot: No, neither of those towns is on the list. It is open to any town with a historic area or a number of historic buildings to apply for a town scheme, which will then be considered by the Historic Buildings Council.
    Following is the information:

    TOWN SCHEMES

    1.Schemes in operation

    Annual Allocation by Minister

    Minister

    Percentage of costs payable Local Authority

    Owner

    £

    Bath

    …

    …

    10,000

    50

    25 (County Borough)

    25

    Bradford on Avon, Wilts.

    2,000

    25

    25 (County and U.D.C. jointly)

    50

    Brighton

    …

    …

    1,000

    (Equal parts Minister and County Borough)

    Various

    Cheltenham

    …

    …

    5,000

    25

    25 (County and Borough Council jointly)

    50

    Faversham, Kent

    …

    …

    500

    25

    25 (Borough Council)

    50

    Harwich

    …

    …

    2,000

    16·⅔

    83·⅓ (All buildings owned by Borough Council)

    —

    Winchester

    …

    …

    4,000

    25

    25 (County and City Council jointly)

    50

    York

    …

    …

    7,500

    25

    25 (County Borough)

    50

    32,000

    2.Schemes where arrangements are nearing completion

    Berwick upon Tweed (County and Borough Councils).

    Bewdley (County and Borough Councils).

    Leamington Spa (Borough Council).

    Salisbury (County and City Councils).

    Stamford (County and Borough Councils).

    3.Schemes under discussion

    Abingdon (County and Borough Councils).

    Bocking, Essex (County and Urban District Councils with co-operation of Civic Society).

    Chatham (Borough Council—and possibly Civic Trust).

    King's Lynn: Revival of earlier scheme (County and Borough Councils).

    Lincoln (County Borough Council).

    Shepton Mallet, Somerset (the U.D.C).

    Thaxted, Essex (County Council and Dunmow R.D.C.).

    Areas of Natural Beauty (Designation Orders)
    Mr. W. O. J. Robinsonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many orders designating areas of outstanding natural beauty he has confirmed within the last 12 months; and how many are at present under consideration by the National Parks Commission.
    Mr. MacDermot: My right hon. Friend has confirmed three, relating to the Hampshire Coast, the Norfolk Coast and the Kent Downs.
    The National Parks Commission is preparing three orders designating the North Wessex Downs, the Suffolk Coast and Heaths, and Dedham Vale and has
    244
    several others at an early stage of consideration.
    Mr. Robinson: My hon. and learned Friend is to be congratulated on the progress already made in this important matter, but may we hope that the impetus will be stepped up in the future?
    Mr. MacDermot: Yes, Sir. The Commission is keeping this matter actively under consideration. The statutory provisions are thorough and, in consequence, somewhat lengthy.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Cannot the Minister do something to prevent areas of beauty being covered by gigantic electricity pylons?
    Mr. MacDermot: That is another question. There are procedures for considering that matter as well.

    Land Commission (Compulsory Purchase Powers)
    Mr. Rossiasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware that developers are continuing to threaten individual property owners with the compulsory purchase powers of the Land Commission; and whether he will take steps to stop this practice
    Mr. Ronald Bellasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he will now take to prevent such misuse of the name and powers of compulsory purchase of the Land Commission as are now commonly taking place and resemble the one recently sent to him by the hon. and learned Member for South Buckinghamshire.
    Mr. MacDermot: A few cases only have been reported. Any owners threatened in this way should report the facts immediately to the regional office of the Commission.
    Mr. Rossi: Does not the Minister deplore the use of an Act as an instrument for blackmail? Does not he consider that this strengthens the case against the extension of the Government's powers by the introduction of the second appointed day? Will he defer that day indefinitely?
    Mr. MacDermot: There is no present intention to introduce the second appointed day. I do not see how that question arises on this matter. I have already deplored the isolated instances of the practice to which the Questions refer, and the Commission will ask professional bodies to make it clear to builders and developers that statements should not be made implying that the Commission's compulsory purchase powers will, or may, be used against particular owners.
    Mr. Bell: Does not the Minister know that the Act, which was intended to be directed against land speculators, is becoming a weapon of oppression in their hands, and that property owners are being bullied even to part with their back gardens by this kind of thing? What remedy will he or the Land Commission have if professional bodies take no notice of the warning he has just described?
    Mr. MacDermot: I do not agree that the Act is becoming an instrument of oppression. One of the functions of the Land Commission is to prevent land hoarding, and it has compulsory purchase powers which can be used for the assistance of the private builder and to ensure that land is brought forward for development. That is perfectly proper. It is not proper for a builder to suggest that he has some way of inducing the Land Commission to use the powers in a particular case. This is a matter for decision by the Commission.

    Trade Effluent (Disposal)
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now take steps to facilitate the co-operation between industry and local government in the development of joint schemes for the disposal of trade effluent.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): Many sewerage authorities already consult local industry when they are planning new or extended disposal works to deal with voluminous or difficult trade waste, and I have urged in a recent circular that this should be the general practice.
    Mr. Wall: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the present situation, in which industry gets grants for this purpose and local authorities do not, is absurd? Would not a joint scheme prove more economic? Should not that attract some form of grant?
    Mr. Greenwood: I do not think that a joint scheme is the way to deal with the problem. Ownership of sewage disposal works must be under one body and not a joint undertaking of the kind the hon. Gentleman suggests. But I appreciate the interest he takes in this problem.

    Alkali Inspectorate
    Mr. Murrayasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what instructions have been given to the Alkali Inspectorate regarding co-operation with local authorities; whether he is satisfied that local authorities are sufficiently aware of the advisory services available to them; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Greenwood: Co-operation between the Alkali Inspectorate and local authorities is most important. Alkali inspectors make two visits annually to each local

    247
    authority whose area includes works registered under the Alkali Act. They visit on request any authority seeking advice upon an air pollution problem outside the scope of the Act. I have no reason to suppose that local authorities who need the Inspectors' services are unaware of them, but I will glady investigate any cases my hon. Friend has in mind.
    Mr. Murray: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but will he give much greater publicity to these services? Is he aware that, although local authorities might not always complain, residents around places like cement works face great difficulty and discomfort because of the fall-out?
    Mr. Greenwood: I sympathise with the point put by my hon. Friend. But, of course, residents ought really to bring pressure on their local authorities. In relation to the publicity angle, I am happy to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the Chief Inspector's Report for 1967 has been laid before the House today. I hope that it will be studied by hon. Members and will receive adequate publicity in the Press.
    Mr. Julius Silvennan: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a good deal of conflict as well as overlapping between the work of these two authorities? Will he consider introducing legislation in the near future to put the work of smoke control and the control of alkali emission under one authority, either the local authority or some other?
    Mr. Greenwood: My hon. Friend has wide experience of these matters. If he will give me information about the overlapping to which he refers and the difficulties to which he believes this gives rise, I will gladly look into the point.

    Householders (Multi-Storey Garages)
    Mr. Worsleyasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he is taking to encourage garaging associations by means of which house-owners in cities can co-operate in the provision of multi-storey garages for their own use.
    Mr. MacDermot: None, Sir. Perhaps the hon. Member would care to let me
    248
    have fuller details of what he has in mind.
    Mr. Worsley: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply and I will take him up on it. Is he aware that there is great advantage to be gained by off-street parking? Will the Department do what it can to help?
    Mr. MacDermot: If, by that, the hon. Gentleman means financial assistance for private parking, then I foresee difficulties. But, of course, we realise the importance of trying to use planning and other procedures to facilitate parking arrangements.

    Land Commission (Midlands Division)
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if, in view of the few land acquisitions and attenuated operations of the Midlands Division of the Land Commission, he will state what economies and operational advantages are to be achieved by amalgamating the division with the adjoining divisions with a view to abolition by 1970.
    Mr. MacDermot: No operational advantages would be gained by amalgamation of the West Midlands with other regions.
    The acquisition programme in the region is building up. Four draft compulsory purchase orders relating to 325 acres have now been published and the region is investigating further sites extending to over 6,000 acres.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the Midlands Division is a quiescent, slumbering body grossly under-employed? In the interests of Government policy for increasing productivity at every level, notably in bureaucracy, would not amalgamation as a precursor to extinction be the proper recourse?
    Mr. MacDermot: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman's description is quite inaccurate. Perhaps he would like to visit the offices some time and see for himself.
    Mr. Molloy: In order to bring some sense into this discussion, will my hon. and learned Friend tell us how much land the Commission has acquired?
    Mr. MacDermot: So far, 28 sites totallying over 1,100 acres have been acquired or are subject to exchange contract or draft or confirmed compulsory purchase orders.

    Land, North Worcestershire (Development)
    Mr. Danceasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is the present position regarding Birmingham Corporation's applications to develop land in North Worcestershire; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. MacDermot: I understand that Birmingham City Council and Worcestershire County Council have recently agreed on sites to take 11,000 houses on the Worcestershire boundaries of Birmingham in the Frankley-Rubery and Hawkesley-Moundsley areas: and that applications for these will shortly be made by the Birmingham City Council.
    Mr. Dance: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply. Will he give me an assurance that the cost of the services resulting from this development will be borne by the City of Birmingham and not by the ratepayers of Worcestershire?
    Mr. MacDermot: We had better await the application and what is said about it.

    Land Commission Act (Schedule 5)
    Mr. Neaveasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will seek to amend Schedule 5 of the Land Commission Act during the current Session of Parliament.
    Mr. MacDermot: No, Sir. It was not found possible to include an amendment in this year's Finance Bill.
    Mr. Neave: As the Minister has already had to make two extra-statutory concessions to people of small means who have suffered hardship, why cannot this matter be rectified by legislation without delay?
    Mr. MacDermot: The fact that the original concession has been extended, as is reported in this morning's Press, shows that there has been no disadvantage in the slight delay in legislation. No one suffers from it. The fact that the concession is in operation as an extra-statutory concession has been reported to the Public Accounts Committee.
    Mr. Rippon: Is the Minister of State aware that there is great anxiety on this point and that we should like to have amending legislation as soon as possible, at any rate before we repeal the Act altogether? For the avoidance of all doubt, will he confirm that the concession announced yesterday contradicts and overrides his reply of 7th May, which indicated that the concession would not apply to non-residential land?
    Mr. MacDermot: I do not know about contradicting it. The original reply was correct. The original concession did not apply to non-residential land. The extension is that it now applies to non-residential land to the extent indicated.

    Piccadilly Circus (Redevelopment)
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he estimates the redevelopment of Piccadilly Circus will be completed; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. MacDermot: I cannot forecast a completion date. The proposals are still in their formative stage and have been published now to obtain public reaction to them.
    Mr. Wall: Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the present condition of the hub of the Commonwealth is a disgrace? Will he do his best to see that this is the last of a long series of plans and that redevelopment starts as soon as possible?
    Mr. MacDermot: If I were to affirm that, I should be giving a blessing to a plan which had not even been submitted to the Ministry, and obviously I cannot do so. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's first comment.

    New and Expanded Towns
    Mr. W. O. J. Robinsonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress he has made during the last year with the major schemes for new and expanded towns under the New Towns Act.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): Since last July my right hon. Friend has designated three new towns, Peterborough, Northampton and Warring-ton. Public inquiries into objections

    251
    to the Dawley-Wellington-Oaken-gates and Ipswich new town proposals have been held, and my right hon. Friend awaits the inspectors' report. He is considering the consultants' study of the proposed Central Lancashire new town and its impact on North-East Lancashire. In addition, Milton Keynes new town was designated in January, 1967.
    Mr. Robinson: As so many local authorities can look only to new and expanded towns for the solution of their housing problems, may I ask my hon. Friend to endeavour to improve on the splendid record of the Government in respect of new towns?
    Mr. MacColl: We have started a whole new generation of new towns, with new and varied ideas of how to use the machinery. This is a very valuable experiment with which we want to push ahead as quickly as possible.

    Oil Pollution
    Dr. Grayasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he has taken recently to help local authorities to deal with oil pollution.
    Mr. Loveysasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will make a statement giving details of his recent circular issued to local authorities concerning grants for clearing oil pollution from the beaches.
    Mr. Greenwood: I am sending my hon. Friend and the hon. Member copies of a circular and technical manual sent to all coastal local authorities on 8th July. Copies are also available in the Library. The circular asks county and county borough councils to make schemes for mutual aid; describes arrangements for help from the Armed Services; and says that, pending legislation, the Department will consider applications for a 50 per cent. grant towards the cost of clearance and provision of equipment.
    Dr. Gray: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the steps already taken. Will he say what plans he has for an early warning system to be carried out by fast motor boats, helicopters or in other ways, so that local authorities can be warned in sufficient time that oil pollution is about to take place?
    Mr. Greenwood: I have great sympathy with what my hon. Friend wants, but an early warning system on the scale which he envisages would involve quite disproportionate expense. We do have an early warning system, and I hope that this will be made even more efficient under the new arrangements which I have proposed in the circular.
    Mr. Loveys: While appreciating that the new 50 per cent. grant to be allowed by the Minister will certainly be of help, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider, as local authorities are in no way responsible for the unfortunate occurrence of oil pollution on their beaches, that the grant should be for the full 100 per cent. of the cost of clearance?
    Mr. Greenwood: I have given great attention to the point which the hon. Gentleman raises, because I can understand the attitude of the coastal authorities. I have come to the conclusion that 50 per cent. of the admissible expenditure by the ratepayers and 50 per cent. by the taxpayer is a fair distribution of the burden.
    Mr. Peter Mills: Will the Minister bear in mind the very real worry and concern that many authorities in the South-West have over the transfer of oil from tanker to tanker in Torbay? Is he aware that the result of an accident here could have the most disastrous effects on the South-West beaches?
    Mr. Greenwood: I appreciate the anxieties to which the hon. Gentleman has rightly called our attention. Our best advice at present is that the danger is minimal, but we are keeping the situation under review, and so are the oil companies concerned.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: While thanking my right hon. Friend for the work that he and his Department have done in this area over the last year or two, may I impress upon him that there is a very real problem being faced by the small local authorities in tourist areas through oil pollution? Can he look into the possibility of giving them a little more early warning than they get at present?
    Mr. Greenwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I will certainly look at the possibility of improving the early warning system, but I am pretty confident that this is one of the

    253
    results which will flow from the new proposals we are making to local authorities as to mutual help.

  HOUSING

    House Prices
    Mr. Murtonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he has now revised his estimate of the increase in house prices that will take place in 1968.
    Mr. MacColl: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 9th July.—[Vol. 768, c.43.]
    Mr. Murton: I understand that that reply told us that costs would rise by 1½ per cent. Does not the hon. Gentleman think that an increase in house prices of 1·1 per cent. already in the first quarter of this year plus the effect of another 1 per cent. when the new rates of Selective Employment Tax come in in September will make a much higher estimate possible by the end of the year?
    Mr. MacColl: In that last Answer I corrected an estimate of 4½ per cent. to about 3 per cent. I have no evidence at present that new house prices are rising at that rate.
    Mr. Rippon: But what evidence is the Minister obtaining and what efforts is he making to find out the facts? Is not he aware that many people consider that house prices will rise by about 10 per cent. this year?
    Mr. MacColl: That is a wild estimate. I prefer to stick to the evidence which we have rather than speculate.

    Improvement Grants
    Mr. Graham Pageasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what estimate he has made of the number of improvement grants to be approved in 1968 as compared with 1967.
    Mr. MacColl: One hundred and thirteen thousand grants were approved in England and Wales in 1967, of which nearly 45,000 were approved in the first five months. The corresponding figure
    254
    for January to May, 1968, was nearly 50,000 but I am not yet in a position to make an estimate for 1968 as a whole.
    Mr. Page: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the number in 1967 was very much less than in 1964–65? Does not he think that there is a danger at present that applications will be held back pending the legislation which the Government have in mind? Can anything be done about that to bring the applications forward now? When will the new grants become available under that new legislation?
    Mr. MacColl: It is because we were unhappy about the rate at which improvement grants were coming in that we propose this very great new change of the machine. A great many improvements can be done under the existing legislation. What the change does is to extend the costs within which grants are available. For many people it is wise to go ahead now, though some might benefit by waiting to see whether they can get an area grant. I cannot say when the legislation will be introduced, but I hope that it will be soon.
    Mr. Julius Silverman: How many of the houses improved are owner-occupied, and how many are tenanted?
    Mr. MacColl: If my hon. Friend wants an accurate figure, perhaps he will put down a Question and then I shall give him the latest.

    Private House Building
    Mr. Allasonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many houses he estimates will be completed in the private sector in 1968 and 1969.
    Mr. Greenwood: It is not possible to make precise predictions for the private sector for as far ahead as the hon. Member asks. In the current year, however, I expect that over 200,000 private houses will be built in Great Britain.
    Mr. Allason: Is not it time the Minister encouraged private enterprise to get on with building houses? Does he recall that 218,000 houses were built in the private sector in 1964, and that in 1964 his party promised more building of private houses?
    Mr. Greenwood: We have already done a great deal to encourage the building of private houses. I shall be only too happy to expatiate on this subject later if I have the good fortune to catch the eye of the Chair.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great feeling of satisfaction on this side of the House at the considerable increase in total house building? That is what we are really concerned about.

    Option Mortgage Scheme
    Mr. Cleggasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what plans he has for revising the publication, "Your Guide to the Option Mortgage Scheme".
    Mr. MacColl: Now that it is no longer necessary to include advice to existing borrowers, it should be possible to simplify the booklet, and my right hon. Friend has put in hand the preparation of a revised version.
    Mr. Clegg: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but would he get on with the job as quickly as possible and include in the new pamphlet the effect of family allowances as given in the Finance Bill?
    Mr. MacColl: The form of the booklet does not involve explaining the details of Inland Revenue legislation, but we shall certainly include a warning that people should look ahead for possible tax changes.
    Mr. Rippon: Will it go further and warn people that as a result of the record level of interest rates it will now be very unwise to enter the mortgage option scheme without taking a great deal of advice?
    Mr. MacColl: I am sorry if the right hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to underestimate the value of what has been a great improvement for very many people. All through the existing booklet we emphasised the importance of people considering very carefully before exercising their option.
    Mr. Rossiasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will take steps to raise the maximum Value figure in the London area for
    256
    houses falling within the 100 per cent. mortgage guarantee scheme.
    Mr. MacColl: No, Sir. It is too soon to contemplate any revision.
    Mr. Rossi: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, according to the figures published by the Co-operative Permanent Building Society for the last quarter of 1967, the average price of a new house in Greater London and the South-East was £5,482 in comparison with an average for the rest of the country of £4,351? Would not he agree that this places Greater London and the South-East in an unfavourable position because the scheme applies only to houses of under £5,000 in value?
    Mr. MacColl: The hon. Gentleman is talking about average prices. The scheme is intended to help people of moderate means who normally would not be in the market at average prices or over but would be interested in cheap houses.

    Council House Rents
    Mr. Cleggasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he has accepted the recommendations in Command Paper No. 3604 concerning the rents of council houses.
    Mr. Greenwood: The Government have already taken powers in the Prices and Incomes Act, 1968, to secure the limitation and phasing of rent increases, and to enable service of notice of increases without notice to quit, and we have commended to local authorities the recommendations of the National Board for Prices and Incomes concerning improved arrangements for dealing with complaints from tenants and for consultation with tenants' organisations. The Government will not reach any final conclusions on the other major recommendations of the Board until current consultations with the local authority associations are completed.
    Mr. Clegg: Is the right hon. Gentleman giving careful consideration to the recommendation that council rents should ultimately be based on replacement cost?
    Mr. Greenwood: That matter is one of the points dealt with by the National Board for Prices and Incomes, and it

    257
    is one of the subjects of consultation with tile local authority associations.
    Mr. Macdonald: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the recommendations in the document merely tinker with the problem, and that the only effective way to reduce rents is to achieve a reduction in interest rates? What further plans has he in this connection?
    Mr. Greenwood: The question of interest rates will be discussed later. In the case of new houses, we have done a great deal to reduce the interest paid by local authorities, but I have not at present any proposals for increasing the subsidy to the existing housing stock.
    Sir G. Nabarro: In reference to the last supplementary question from behind the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether he is aware that this morning for the first time an advertisement by a building society has appeared offering 8½ per cent. for deposits, a record level in history?
    Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that certain local authorities, usually Conservative-controlled, have been interpreting the 7s. 6d. as an increase that they can put on every year? Will he make it perfectly clear to the House and the country that that is not the Government's intention? I hope that a circular along those lines will go out.
    Mr. Greenwood: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The powers are limited in duration under the Act, but I have made it clear to local authorities that the 7s. 6d. is a ceiling and is not to be regarded as a norm. I am in correspondence with a large number of local authorities on this subject.
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many local authorities and representing how many council houses, have to date adopted his proposal of a 7s. 6d. per week increase in rents for each of three successive years; how much above the 3½ per cent. norm of prices and incomes policy this represents; and whether it is his policy that private landlords should now do the same, at 7s. 6d. per week
    258
    increase per domestic hereditament, for each of three years, in the interests of equity.
    Mr. Greenwood: I have not proposed any increase. On 3rd May I advised local authorities that I should not normally accept in any one year average increases in standard rents which exceed 7s. 6d. a week; and since then the 47 proposals I have received have all been within this limit. I have emphasised that this is an upper limit and not a norm. A private landlord is entitled to increase a regulated rent up to the fair rent subject to the phasing arrangements I have recently made.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will the right hon. Gentleman now apply himself to answering my Question? What relation is there between the 7s. 6d. per week for each of three consecutive years and the 3½ per cent. norm of the Government under the prices and incomes policy? Secondly, will he advise rent tribunals that private landlords, in equity, should be placed in the same position as councils as landlords?
    Mr. Greenwood: In the Question on the Order Paper, the hon. Gentleman asked a number of points, one of which related to an increase which he alleged me to have recommended and which I had not recommended. So far as the relationship between the increase and the 3½ per cent. norm on prices and incomes is concerned, I do not think this is a parallel. I do not think that an increase in total income can be compared with an increase in one item of expenditure, however important that is. But I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember that the Prices and Incomes Board recommended a maximum average increase and not a percentage. On the second point raised by the hon. Gentleman, perhaps he will study the guidance I have recently issued about the phasing of increases in the private sector.
    Mr. Ogden: Will my right hon. Friend clarify his earlier statement that 7s. 6d. is the ceiling for any increase? Does it mean that this is a ceiling for average increases but that some increases might be allowed of up to 10s.? When will he be able to use some of the powers given to him in the Prices and Incomes Act, 1968?
    Mr. Greenwood: I repeat that I have advised local authorities that I should not normally accept in any one year average increases in standard rents of more than 7s. 6d. per week. I have also said that I would not in normal circumstances accept individual increases of more than 10s. a week. There are later Questions on the Order Paper about my powers.
    Mr. Bessell: Has the right hon. Gentleman any evidence of hardship being caused to council house tenants in consequence of these increases?
    Mr. Greenwood: I think that any increases must cause some hardship and inconvenience. Our aim is to keep them to the minimum. That is what we are seeking to do through this legislation and the circular I have issued. If the hon. Gentleman has any experience of local authorities operating a rent policy which appears to inflict injustice, I would gladly look into such cases if he brings them to my attention.
    Mr. Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the G.L.C., under Tory control, is going right through the 7s. 6d. ceiling by imposing substantial increases in ancillary charges upon council house tenants in G.L.C. flats?
    Mr. Greenwood: Any increases of that kind must be limited to actual increases in costs. I would rather not become involved in discussion of individual cases. I hope my hon. Friend will bear in mind, however, that, as a result of my intervention, the G.L.C. has mitigated its proposed increases very considerably.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many local authorities have moderated rent increases, or proposed increases, since the issue of Circular 25/68.
    Mr. Greenwood: Twenty-six local authorities have moderated increases of rent, actual or proposed which had been notified to the Ministry before Circular 25/68 was issued.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the circular is having the desired effect?
    Mr. Greenwood: I think that the circular is having an effect in two ways. First, it is tending to make local autho-
    260
    rities now contemplating increases keep them within the limits. Secondly, it has had a profound effect in the case of these 26. In nine cases modifications to rent increases which would have come into effect after the circular are involved and in the other 17 rent reductions to mitigate rent increases which came into effect after the circular are involved, so I think that we are making useful progress.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the intervention of the Government in the affairs of freely elected local authorities will involve substantial rate increases, will not the Government compensate the ratepayers of these areas for the financial consequences of the Government's own intervention?
    Mr. Greenwood: I have answered that question before. The answer is "No". We have suggested various other considerations which local authorities should take into account. Local authorities cannot be specifically protected against legislation, any more than can corporations or private individuals.

    Housing Target
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will give an undertaking that there will be no further reduction in the 500,000 a year housing target because of increased activity in improving old houses.
    Mr. Greenwood: The Government's policy of allotting a greater share of public investment in housing to improvement of older houses was set out in the White Paper "Old Houses into New Homes". I expect new housebuilding to continue at a very high level into the 1970s.
    Mr. Allaun: That is not very definite. Does my right hon. Friend agree that housing need is so great that we need 500,000 new houses and 200,000 improvements a year, and would it not be unacceptable to do one at the expense of the other?
    Mr. Greenwood: Our overall policy was laid down in the White Paper. Local authorities must have some flexibility in the way in which they determine priorities of expenditure. The need for new housing is very great; the need for improvement of old houses is also great. My

    261
    general aim is to make the greatest contribution each year to the solution of the housing problem which our economic situation permits.
    Mr. Rippon: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to his hon. Friend that the figure of 500,000 was not a target, that it was a pledge, not a lightly given promise, according to the Prime Minister, to build 500,000 houses a year in 1970, no matter what circumstances might arise, that it was a pledge reaffirmed in the House in 1966 and that it has since been abandoned? Will he explain to his hon. Friend that no one would take any notice of a pledge, much less a lightly given promise, on this subject given by Her Majesty's Government?
    Mr. Greenwood: This must be the seventh or eighth time that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made this point. The whole House knows the reasons, following devaluation, why the target of 500,000 had to be abandoned. The fact remains that we have built substantially more houses than right hon. Gentlemen opposite ever built.

    House Improvements
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if, following the publication of the White Paper, Old Houses into New Homes, and in order to avoid slowing down still further the improvement of these houses, he will include in the subsequent legislation to be introduced the compulsory powers to make property owners install baths, hot water and inside water closets which have been omitted from the White Paper.
    Mr. MacColl: It is generally agreed that the existing compulsory powers have not worked well, and the White Paper proposes a policy relying mainly on persuasion, with compulsory purchase as a reserve power. My right hon. Friend will of course be very pleased to consider any suggestions my hon. Friend wishes to make.
    Mr. Allaun: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Public Health Inspectors Association, a body of practical experts, is very concerned that the White Paper proposes to repeal existing powers rather than to streamline them?
    262
    As many councils, particularly those now Conservative-controlled, would refuse compulsory purchase, would it not be better to have compulsory purchase and the existing machinery invoked?
    Mr. MacColl: The suggestions of the public health inspectors, who were very constructive and helpful, will be considered by my right hon. Friend before legislation is prepared, but the evidence is that attempts to force through improvements against active obstruction have not worked. It has been a long and tedious operation and, in this situation, it is best to go for compulsory purchase.

    Dispossessed Owners (Compensation Payments)
    Mr. Archerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will seek powers to control the practice of some local authorities of reducing the sum payable to owner-occupiers upon the compulsory acquisition of their property when they are rehoused in council accommodation.
    Mr. MacColl: The basis of compensation is laid down by statute and no person is obliged to accept less than the amount due on that basis: any dispute as to what this amount is in a particular case can be taken to the Lands Tribunal. My right hon. Friend will consider whether he can usefully send out advice to local authorities on this matter when he receives the report of the Housing Management Sub-Committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee, which is considering this amongst other questions.
    Mr. Archer: I thank my hon. Friend for the latter part of that Answer. Does he agree that if the private landlord were to exact key money in this way he would very properly face prosecution? Does he consider it right that a person of very moderate means should be deprived of a substantial part of his savings as a fee for the allocation of a council house?
    Mr. MacColl: Broadly, I agree with my hon. Friend. However, I ought to point out that councils are not obliged to provide council houses for dispossessed owners if they are satisfied that suitable alternative accommodation is available privately.
    Mr. Graham Page: Why does the Parliamentary Secretary have to wait for further information? Has it not become a scandal in some areas already that local authorities continue to engage in this practice, which is quite illegal?
    Mr. MacColl: I do not think that it is illegal. The reason for waiting is that my right hon. Friend does not have evidence to show that the practice is widespread. It certainly exists in some areas, but I am sure that this Question and Answer will have discouraged local authorities from it.

    New Towns (Ownership and Management)
    Mr. Allasonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government on what date Mr. Cullingworth was appointed to examine ownership and management of housing in new towns; and when his report is expected.
    Mr. MacColl: Mr. Cullingworth was appointed in February, 1966. His report will be published towards the end of this year.
    Mr. Allason: Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied with the speed of this report, remembering that it is of great importance to those who wish to become owner-occupiers in new towns? Is he not already aware that there is a gross imbalance in new towns and will he go ahead and start preparing his proposals to put right this imbalance?
    Mr. MacColl: On the wider issue, my right hon. Friend has already indicated his wish that new towns should move towards a better balance of owner-occupation. A first draft of the Report was submitted in February, but Mr. Cullingworth asked to be allowed to do further work to polish it for publication. It is a very interesting report, well worth waiting for.
    Mr. Newens: Before any action is taken to increase owner-occupation in the new towns, will my hon. Friend take account of the effect which will be produced by selling houses which were built some years ago at a comparatively low cost and putting the burden on the new rents of houses now being built?
    Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend will take account of the economic and financial implications of all decisions.

    Rent Assessment Committees, West Midlands
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) if he is satisfied as to the manner in which the rent assessment committees in the West Midlands are carrying out their duties under the Rent Act; and if he will make a statement;
    (2) what steps he is taking, in view of the fact that 70 per cent. of the decisions have led to rent increases, to ensure that rent assessment committees in the West Midlands pay proper regard to the reports of rent officers at hearings where landlords are represented by estate agents and solicitors.
    Mr. MacColl: Rent assessment committees have before them the rent officers' reports, whether or not the parties appearing before them are professionally represented. In the great majority of cases they see for themselves the properties concerned.
    In the West Midlands, out of 3,949 determinations by rent officers, 248 had been referred to and decided on by rent assessment committees up to 21st June. A total of 199 of these 248 decisions—80 per cent.—represented reductions of the rent before registration. The system seems to be functioning effectively.
    Mrs. Short: Does my hon. Friend recall that one of the rent officers in the West Midlands recently sent him a long memorandum about the difficulties in the West Midlands? Is he aware that rent assessment committee apparently pay no regard to the level of rents already obtaining in an area, and they do not consult the register of rents when making assessments? Will my hon. Friend now carry out an investigation into the way in which the rent assessment committees in the West Midlands are operating?
    Mr. MacColl: It is difficult to look at a particular case in isolation. The figures I gave in the Answer indicate that rent assessment committees in the West Midlands are bringing down the rents, below the rent before registration.
    Mr. Graham Page: Would the hon. Gentleman look into the practice, in parts

    265
    of the West Midlands, of not calling the rent officer to give evidence before the rent assessment committee? It always seems a little peculiar that the person who really has the information should not be called to give evidence.
    Mr. MacColl: This is rather wide of the Question. We look at this very carefully, and we have discussed it both with the rent officers and the presidents of panels. On balance opinion is against doing it.

    LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUN CIL (MINISTRY OF HEALTH RESPONSIBILITIES)
    Mr. Maurice Macmillanasked the Prime Minister what responsibilities the Lord President of the Council has or will have regarding the developments in the National Health Service described in the Ministry of Health's Green Paper.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): The scope of my right hon. Friend's present responsibilities in relation to the Ministry of Health have already been announced, Sir, and I have no further information to give the House.
    Mr. Macmillan: Will the Prime Minister accept that this amalgamation involves a unifying of the system of finance? Is it his intention that the Lord President should deal with the problem mentioned in the Green Paper, the double financing of the Health Service from taxes and health contributions on the one hand and rate support grants on the other?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is still going into the whole question of the basis on which the merger should be carried out, and it would be wrong for me to anticipate what his conclusions will be. Certainly all the relevant issues in the Green Paper, which are put forward for discussion and public debate, will be relevant to what he is doing.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the very practical suggestions for integrating the Health Service contained in the Green Paper have been discussed for the last five years and that, irrespective of whether it is the Lord President or the Minister of Health, it would be a Cabinet decision? Will he
    266
    say that discussions will not continue for too long before a decision is made?
    The Prime Minister: We deliberately decided that a matter so important, in a sense so human as this, should be published in this form so that there could be free public debate, without the Government having committed themselves to a given solution. The House will have seen the very forward-looking proposals my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is putting before the House and the country.
    Dr. Winstanley: Is the Prime Minister aware that we welcome the foreshadowing of the end of the damaging and divisive tripartite structure in the National Health Service, and we also welcome the Minister of Health's final conversion to the idea of area health boards, as first put forward by the Liberal Party seven years ago?
    The Prime Minister: As I said, this is a Green Paper, not a White Paper, so the hon. Gentleman should not jump to conclusions with such rapidity. I am sure that he will have a very important contribution to make to the public debate on the Green Paper.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: May I assure my right hon. Friend that it is particularly appropriate that this Report should come out at a time when we are considering the amalgamation of Ministerial responsibilities? Can we have a final decision on this Green Paper in the fairly near future?
    The Prime Minister: Also relevant to the Green Paper and the merger is the publication of the Seebohm Report. The ultimate decision will also have to take into account the recommendations of the Maud Commission on Local Government.

    GREECE
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Prime Minister what recent communications he has received from the Greek military régime regarding Her Majesty's Government's policy towards that régime; and what reply he has sent.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer given on 8th July by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, to a

    267
    Question by the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne).—[Vol. 768, c.6–7.]
    Mr. Fraser: Would my right hon. Friend appreciate that whatever reaction any remarks of his might have provoked in Greece they have been widely welcomed by democrats in this country and throughout Europe? Secondly, would he make it clear, as the timetable for a restoration of democracy is coming to an end, that we shall soon have to start making moves inside N.A.T.O., in concert with our allies, to expel Greece if there is no restoration of democracy by the end of this year?
    The Prime Minister: In answer to previous Questions by my hon. Friend I referred to the impatience with which everyone would be watching the attitude of the Greek Government to the timetable which they have promised. My hon. Friend will have noticed that the Greek Government have now, on timetable, produced a constitution. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on it, but it is a step in the right direction.
    Mr. John Lee: Is it not the case that this is not a proper, adequate constitution? Will my right hon. Friend continue to consider the possibility of helping to get Greece expelled from N.A.T.O., bearing in mind that the ostensible reason for N.A.T.O.'s existence is the protection of democracy?
    The Prime Minister: Our attitude to all these questions has been related to the fulfilment of the undertakings given by the Greek Government to get a speedy return to democracy on the basis of the democratic constitution to be approved by the Greek people. Since I last answered Questions on this subject, I think that there has been this step in the right direction.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: Would not the Prime Minister agree that there is a real danger, not only in Greece, but in other countries, of indulging the temptation of political condemnation and forgetting about the vital necessity of trade?
    The Prime Minister: I thought that that matter was very satisfactorily dealt with by the answers given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade when it was raised by hon. Members opposite two or three weeks ago.

    MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)
    Mr. G. Campbellasked the Prime Minister what further measures he proposes for the co-ordination of departmental activities in order to obtain decisions without delay on major development projects such as aluminium smelters.
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friends already work very closely together on these matters and no further measures of co-ordination are needed, Sir.
    Mr. Campbell: Should not the many factors involved, including the E.F.T.A. considerations, have been examined before the announcement made last year? As this would have spared the areas concerned the anxiety and the confusion caused by repeated postponements of decisions, should not the Prime Minister have resisted the temptation to make the announcement of this project prematurely at his party conference.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The impatience at the delay should be assuaged in the next day or two when announcements are to be made. Very difficult negotiations with business firms are involved. There had to be a public announcement first to enable any firm which wanted to make an application to do so. These negotiations had to be related to the requirements of E.F.T.A. and of other international obligations, and it was essential in the negotiations to ensure that no financial arrangements were made which involved any question of subsidy. This has inevitably taken a very long time.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his imaginative announcement at about this time last year on the provision of aluminium smelters was widely appreciated, particularly in Scotland, and we are glad that it did not take him 13 years to make it?
    The Prime Minister: In common with my hon. Friend, I am disappointed about the time which has been taken, but there have been the most difficult and involved negotiations with individual firms, and, as I say, some of the proposals put forward had to be turned down because of the international obligations involved.
    Mr. Maudling: In the context of high energy consumption, can the Prime Minister confirm that, despite the White Paper, the coal industry will provide half the energy requirements of the country in the 1970s?
    The Prime Minister: Yes—the right hon. Gentleman gives me the chance to say that, as is freely acknowledged in the Financial Times this morning, the doubts thrown on this matter by the misreport-ing of my speech on Saturday were inaccurate. [Interruption.] I am not blaming anyone, but I am happy to say that the Financial Times, which got it wrong yesterday, no doubt by inadvertence, got it right today once it heard, which hon. Members opposite have not heard, the tape recording of what I said.

    COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING
    Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Prime Minister what further progress has been made by the Commonwealth Secretary General towards calling a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference; and if he will send an official invitation, before the House rises for the Summer adjournment, to all Commonwealth Prime Ministers asking them to attend an early meeting in London.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 18th July to Questions by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling).— [Vol. 768, c.271.]
    Sir Knox Cunningham: I am glad to know that a date, even next year, has been found since my Question went on the Order Paper. Would the Prime Minister seek some urgent way of exercising Commonwealth pressure on the problem of Nigeria? As regards Rhodesia, will he again be in a position to tell his Commonwealth colleagues that punitive sanctions will succeed in weeks, not months?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Gentleman can always be relied upon to denigrate any subject which he touches, including the Commonwealth. I am disappointed that the date of the conference is as late as it is, but we had
    270
    to reach a date which was acceptable to 25 Commonwealth Governments. We should have preferred it to have been held this autumn. I thought that the question of Nigeria was fully debated by the House yesterday when two very full Statements were made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs. On Rhodesia, the hon. and learned Gentleman will find some interesting food for study in the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council this morning, which proves that all that he and other hon. Members have said has been totally wrong from start to finish.
    Dr. Gray: In future, will my right hon. Friend try to ensure that these meetings are held not only in London but in different Commonwealth capitals each year?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. We have tried to ensure that. Indeed, I think that I was the first British Prime Minister to attend a conference in Africa. That was at Lagos in 1966. On the question of the present Conference, we put forward the suggestion of Canada as a suitable location at an early date, but, in the event, the Commonwealth as a whole decided on this date and chose London for this occasion.

    WELSH OFFICE
    Mr. Gwynfor Evansasked the Prime Minister what plans he has now made for increasing the responsibilities of the Welsh Office; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: I have as yet nothing to add to the Answers which I gave to Questions on this subject on 25th January.
    Mr. Evans: Will the Prime Minister now fully implement the promises which the Labour Party made in 1964 in its election programme to transfer the Welsh responsibilities of the Ministries of Education, Agriculture and Health to the Welsh Office? Is he aware that, now that the Welsh people are deciding to live as a free nation, which is the message of three by-elections, the Government have a bounden duty to develop a Welsh civil service—[Interruption.]—in readiness for self-government?—[Interruption.]
    The Prime Minister: I missed some of those no doubt well chosen words. On the early part of the supplementary question, as I told the hon. Gentleman before, we are continuously reviewing the position of individual Departments to see whether we can get more devolution consistent with economy and efficiency, but it would not be right to do that if it were contrary to the interests of Wales or involved a big addition to staff and costs.
    Mr. E. Rowlands: Would my right hon. Friend take it from hon. Members on this side of the House that what the electors of Caerphilly said to the Government last week was that they wanted more jobs as a priority rather than administrative devolution? Would he therefore ensure that more jobs are provided to replace those in the declining coal industry?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is aware of the very great priority being given to economic recovery in Wales and, in particular, to the very sweeping new incentives which have been created, particularly in areas of colliery closures. The problem in Wales has been aggravated by the colliery closure programme. A considerable amount of new industry has been steered to Wales, which would not have been possible under the general philosophy of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans), but the closure of uneconomic collieries has intensified the problem.

    PRIME MINISTER OF SOUTH AFRICA (VISIT)
    Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he will invite the Prime Minister of South Africa to visit Great Britain to discuss matters of mutual concern.
    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so, Sir.
    Mr. Marten: But as Britain stands to suffer an immediate loss if the price of gold is increased, what steps do the Government propose to take to secure the co-operation of the South African Government in maintaining the price of gold?
    The Prime Minister: The question about the gold price and the decisions
    272
    taken in Washington in March were fully outlined to the House by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer after that meeting in Washington. I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said on that occasion, except that the hopes and views which he then expressed have been amply borne out by events since.
    Mr. Sheldon: But since the effectiveness of sanctions on Rhodesia very largely depends on the co-operation obtained from South Africa, can my right hon. Friend say what attempt has been made to secure this co-operation?
    The Prime Minister: We have been in touch with the South African Government on a number of occasions. Last year, I had talks with the Foreign Minister of South Africa. But, as my hon. Friend knows, the United Nations has laid down procedures for dealing with the question of international sanctions.

    DISARMAMENT
    Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister if he will give details of the communications from Mr. Kosygin and President Johnson on further proposals for disarmament, following the agreement on non-proliferation; and what reply he has sent.
    The Prime Minister: Our views on the Soviet Government's further proposals for disarmament, which we received on 1st July, and on President Johnson's message to the opening Session of the 18-Nation Disarmament Committee on 16th July, were set out in the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs in the debate in the House on 18th July. I have no further information to give the House today.—[Vol. 768, c. 1679–1805.]
    Mr. Molloy: Will my right hon. Friend maintain the pressure to have continuous conferences to bring about disarmament, which is the only guarantee for the survival of the world? In view of the dangerous situation which now obtains in Europe, would he consider advocating even more strongly the establishment of a peace and security council for Europe?
    The Prime Minister: With reference to the continuing conferences which my hon. Friend wants to see, there is the conference, again reconvened, in Geneva of the 18-Nation Disarmament Committee. My hon. Friend will have been delighted to see the very important initiative taken by Her Majesty's Government through my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs in his proposals concerning bacteriological warfare. With regard to a new security arrangement or security conference for Europe, I have nothing to add to questions I have answered on previous occasions about my talks with Mr. Kosygin.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the Prime Minister convey to Mr. Kosygin that it would be helpful to world disarmament if Soviet Russia took its forces out of Czechoslovakia?
    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said to the House in the debate on foreign affairs last Thursday. But we are, of course, in close touch with Mr. Kosygin on questions of disarmament. We very much welcome the initiative that he took on the day the non-proliferation treaty was signed, and equally, of course, the initiative by President Johnson. We look forward with some hope to the discussions between the United States and the Soviet Union in the light of those two new initiatives.
    Mr. Paget: Does my right hon. Friend think that disarmament is advanced by supplying arms to Nigeria and to Zambia, particularly in the latter case, when neither we nor anybody else is in a position to do anything to help Zambia if she meets the consequences of using those arms?
    The Prime Minister: The question of Nigeria was fully debated yesterday, not for the first time in this House, and that matter was dealt with. As to Zambia, as is made clear in an Answer of mine to a later Question, we made it clear to President Kaunda when he raised the defence question with us that we are prepared to have joint talks with the Zam-bian Government about the equipment which they need. We have made it clear that there is no embargo on defensive arms to Zambia.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us think that what the Foreign Secretary said in the foreign affairs debate about the situation in Czechoslovakia was not up to the importance of these events? Is it not time, so many years after the Yalta partition of Europe, that the peoples of Europe were enabled to unite in peace and freedom?
    The Prime Minister: I have not anything to add to what my right hon. Friend said on this very important, difficult and delicate issue in his speech last week. I am sorry that the hon. Member does not think that my right hon. Friend's speech measured up to the importance of the subject, but from his own standards of what measures up to the importance of the subject I am, perhaps, rather relieved.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a business statement affecting tomorrow's arrangements.
In addition to the business already announced, there will first be a debate on the Report published today, from the Committee of Privileges.
Mr. Peyton: Does the Leader of the House mean—at least, by omission— that he will do nothing to remedy the deficiency which occurred last night? Does he realise that his perfectly reasonable response initially to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition led us to believe that he thought that his own reputation was at stake and that he would do something about it?
Mr. Peart: I was merely announcing a debate on an important Report from the Committee of Privileges.
As to the matter of last night, I gave my assurance that I will look at that and I am doing so. I have in no way sought to mislead any hon. Member, on either side. Good relations are important in a certain sense. In that sense, I am still considering the matter, and I believe that we shall achieve something which is sensible.
Mr. Wyatt: On a point of order. May I respectfully ask you, Mr. Speaker, why you have twice refused me permission to ask a Private Notice Question of the Foreign Secretary about the—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is Parliamentarian enough to know that it is out of order for him to seek to inform the House of the nature of the Private Notice Question which Mr. Speaker has refused.
Mr. William Hamilton: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the debate on the Report from the Committee of Privileges will be on a Government Motion to approve the Report? If it is, some of us might want to amend it. Can my right hon. Friend say what time the debate will come on?
Hon. Members Hon. Members: Answer.
Mr. Peart: I am sorry, I was talking to colleagues, which is not unusual.
Mr. Frederic Harris: Ask your hon. Friend to repeat the question.
Mr. Peart: A very good idea.
Mr. William Hamilton: May I ask my right hon. Friend, first, whether the debate on the Report from the Committee of Privileges will be on a Government Motion to approve the Report? If it is, some of us would like the opportunity of putting down an Amendment to that Motion. Secondly, at what hour is the debate likely to come on?
Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend is, perhaps, being rather dogmatic at this stage. I will put down a Motion tomorrow and I hope that it will be taken immediately. A matter of privilege is a matter which affects the whole House. It is urgent and I like to get rid of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "What time will it be?"] Immediately —half-past three.
Mr. Ellis: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the matter? Surely it is quite reasonable for an hon. Member to ask the Leader of the House what form of Motion is being put down. He may wish to amend it. Cannot we have an answer to that?
Mr. Peart: I hope that my hon. Friend will look carefully at the Report. The Motion will be to accept it.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the Leader of the House assure us that the same procedure will be adopted as on previous occasions, and that there will be a free vote and the Whips will not be on?
Mr. Peart: Yes. I have considered this and I think that on a matter of privilege, which involves individual hon. Members, it will be a free vote. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will be objective when he considers his decision.
Mr. William Hamilton: May I press my right hon. Friend? Did he not say in his original statement that the debate would take place after the business which had already been arranged? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, at 3.30."] We are satisfied that it will take place at 3.30. Can we, therefore, be assured of the opportunity to table Amendments to the Government Motion?
Mr. Peart: If that is necessary, Mr. Speaker must decide whether to accept manuscript Amendments. I hope, however, that the Motion which I table will be broadly accepted. It will be taken at the start of business. My hon. Friend must carefully read the Report.

BROADCASTING
The Postmaster-General (Mr. John Stonehouse): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about broadcasting.
As the House knows, the December, 1966 White Paper on Broadcasting recorded the Government's decision that for the present the B.B.C. should continue to be financed through licence fees. It added that the Government had looked to the Corporation to set itself even more exacting financial objectives and that the B.B.C. had undertaken to make special economies. As a result of these economies and of the Government's measures, no increase in the licence fee was foreseen before 1968.
Earlier this year, the Corporation decided to retain the services of McKinsey and Co. to review the Corporation's present organisation and management methods with a view to improving their efficiency. Any improvements flowing from the McKinsey study will be long term in their effect.

277
Because of the efforts made by the Government in reducing licence evasion, and economies by the Corporation itself, we have been able to avoid an increase in the licence fee so far. But now the B.B.C. must have more revenue if it is to maintain and develop its broadcasting services. Accordingly, from 1st January, 1969, the combined sound and monochrome television licence fee will be increased from £5 to £6; and the combined sound and colour television licence fee from £10 to £11. The sound-only licence fee will remain unchanged at 25s.
I have also decided to increase the number of permitted hours of television broadcasting. For BBC 1 and independent television I have authorised an extra 3½ hours a. week, and an extra 50 hours a year for outside broadcasts. For BBC 2 1 have authorised an extra 2 hours a week, and 25 hours a year for outside broadcasts.
Mr. Bryan: The Postmaster-General has given virtually no explanation of the reasons for this very steep rise. May I ask him two questions? First, why he has not referred this increase of 20 per cent., the third in five years, to the Prices and Incomes Board, affecting as it does the whole population and, in particular, the old and the sick? Secondly, is he aware that this extra sum could have been raised by accepting advertising on Radio 1—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]— which was actually designed by the Government as a direct replacement of commercial pirate stations?
Mr. Stonehouse: The increase in the licence fee was unavoidable because of the additional costs the B.B.C. has to undertake in increasing the broadcasting hours which I have just permitted and also in continuing to improve the quality of the programmes. The increase was envisaged some years ago. It is because of the action taken by the Government and by the B.B.C. itself, which has improved its own efficiency, that the fee has been kept down for so long. This is entirely in accord with the White Paper on this subject. Reference to the Prices and Incomes Board would be inappropriate for a fee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]— which comes into the Consolidated Fund and cannot be considered as a straightforward charge in the orthodox sense.
278
Advertising on Radio 1 is something which, I know, many hon. Members are in favour of, but personally I would favour considering this subject after the B.B.C. has had some experience of its local broadcasting, rather than rush into a decision now. There are strong arguments against commercial advertising on B.B.C. which have to be weighed very seriously before we come to any decision.
Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that there will be no question of commercial advertising on the B.B.C? Would he also not agree with me that the £1 increase is a high figure for certain sections of our population, an increase which they cannot afford? I hope my right hon. Friend will have a further look at this point. Thirdly, will he approach the B.B.C. with a view to reducing some of the ridiculously high fees which are paid to some of the people who appear on television—there could be economies in this direction—including some top level politicians who get them?
Mr. Stonehouse: I have already made it clear that commercial advertising on the B.B.C. is ruled out for the time being, although, of course, one cannot anticipate what eventual decision may be made about B.B.C. financing in the long run. But for the time being I am not prepared to allow the B.B.C. to have commercial advertising, nor has the B.B.C. requested it.
My hon. Friend referred to this affecting certain classes within the community. I am well aware that certain sections of the community may be affected by this increase, but I think that it would be unwise to make exemptions for particular groups in order to give a benefit in kind.
I think we should allow the B.B.C. to reorganise the way it runs its business in the light of the McKinsey Report.
Mr. Maudling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer about a reference to the Prices and Incomes Board is totally unsatisfactory? Is there any reason at all why this increased charge should not be the subject of the same inquiry as in the case of an increased charge by a nationalised industry?
Mr. Stonehouse: The right hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood the point. This is not a charge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is a revenue fee for a licence—
Hon. Members Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are having too many atmospherics.
Mr. Stonehouse: It would be quite inappropriate to refer a revenue fee to the Prices and Incomes Board for investigation. Furthermore, right hon. and hon. Members opposite should remember that not only does this country have one of the best broadcasting systems in the world, but that the licence fee is one of the lowest in the world, and is certainly the lowest, as far as I understand, in the whole of Western Europe.
Mr. W. Baxter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this announcement will be met with a great deal of concern throughout the country, and that it seems to me to be a disgraceful increase in the licence fee? Will he take whatever steps are necessary to safeguard the old-age pensioners under the scheme? Would he, further, see whether or not some economies can be made in the running of this very vast and ill-run organisation? Furthermore—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be reasonably brief.
Mr. Baxter: How has my right hon. Friend, a Minister new to his present post, come to such a very important conclusion without giving the matter the full consideration which it deserves?
Mr. Stonehouse: I gave very careful consideration to this matter before coming to the House to make this statement. I am satisfied that the B.B.C. requires the extra £15 million a year to service the extra broadcasting hours that it is now being allowed and also to keep up the quality of its broadcasting, and that there was no alternative but to agree to the increase in fees, which, as I said earlier in my replies, was envisaged some years ago. It is not as though this has come as a sudden shock to the House or opinion outside.
The House really must consider, does it want this country to continue to have the high quality of the B.B.C. or does it wish that the B.B.C. should be forced to take advertising to a very large extent to finance its activities, which would change the character of broadcasting to a very fundamental extent? Hon. Mem-
280
bers should consider these points before they attack the increase.
I am aware, as I said earlier, that there are some classes who will be affected by this increase, and I am considering a plan which would allow old-age pensioners, and, perhaps, additional groups, to pay their T.V. Licence fee partly in advance and partly in arrears at the rate of 10s. per month.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions and answers must be reasonably brief.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on Saturday the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity said that the Government were winning the battle against rising prices? How can Ministers possibly say this when they themselves are putting up so many prices? Why cannot we do something to protect the people who may be deprived of television reception— old-age pensioners, for instance—by this absurd rise?
Mr. Stonehouse: This increase has been kept off for about two years. I am wholly satisfied that at this stage it must be allowed.
Dr. David Kerr: Would my right hon. Friend accept that there may be too many radio doctors and that many of us are very surprised that no more of the current licence fee is being spent on a more imaginative use of radio time to help education? When he conveys to the B.B.C. the admiration of so many of us at its maintaining high standards of service without raising the price for so long, will he also draw attention to the possibility of using more time for this purpose?
Mr. Stonehouse: I am sure that the B.B.C. will read with great interest the exchanges in the House today.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's answers about the Prices and Incomes Board that it is the policy of the Government that, when an industry can say that it has been thinking about increases for some time, and considers them unavoidable, there will be no reference to the Board, even if there is a direct and injurious impact on the old, the sick and

281
the poor—or is this doctrine restricted to State corporations?
Mr. Stonehouse: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong in assuming any such thing. As I said, the main reason why this is not being referred to the Prices and Incomes Board is because it is a revenue licence fee.
Mr. Mendelson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a widespread acceptance that the B.B.C., just because of its high quality and great influence, must be maintained as an independent organisation and must, therefore, be able to raise the money to pay for its work? But would he also accept that a plan to pay before or after one receives one's licence is no good, and that, if he wants to help old-age pensioners and similar groups, he should have a special new rate for them? Finally, would he strongly resist any attempt to commercialise the B.B.C.?
Mr. Stonehouse: I will certainly take those points into account. My personal view is that benefits in kind to any section of the community are inadvisable.
Mrs. Ewing: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that there is some injustice in charging the full fee to areas which receive only a partial service? Some parts of Scotland get no B.B.C.2 and very irregular B.B.C.1, and this applies to other parts of the country. Would he reconsider the increase for these areas, because that would greatly add to the injustice?
Mr. Stonehouse: I have carefully considered this point, but I have been advised, and I must accept the advice, that it would be impossible, and also very bureaucratic, to try to draw a line between different viewers, whether or not they receive a particular programme. Therefore, I have had to turn down that proposal.
Mr. Spriggs: In view of the importance of this subject, and the fact that it affects most homes in the country, should we not debate this matter before the licence fee is increased?
Mr. Stonehouse: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is here and has, I am sure, taken note of that request.
Dr. Winstanley: While we accept that it is necessary for the B.B.C. to have the money to fulfil its increasing obligations, would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are other ways of financing both independent and public service broadcasting and that this revenue fee will bear very heavily on those most dependent on broadcasting—the elderly and those living alone? How will he divide the 3½ hours additional broadcasting between the weekend programme contractors and those doing programmes midweek?
Mr. Stonehouse: The maximum hours per day will be increased from 8 to 8½, so that the extra hours will have to be spread through the week. The wider questions of financing which the hon. Gentleman raised, mut be considered in a much wider context. I shall certainly bear in mind those points.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has gone the wrong way about raising the additional revenue which the B.B.C. undoubtedly needs? Is he aware that what he has just announced is that fees for the wealthy section of the community who use colour television will be increased by exactly half as much as those paid by the less well-off section which receives only black and white? An increase from £10 to £11 is exactly half an increase from £5 to £6. This is half as much for the rich as for the poor. Will he look at that again?
Mr. Stonehouse: Considering that the colour fee is £11 and the black and white fee is £6, the relationship is, I think, quite fair.
Mr. Stratton Mills: What specific machinery did the right hon. Gentleman use to inquire into the B.B.C.'s application for an increase? Second, is he aware that an average increase of half an hour a day in broadcasting hours is disappointingly small? Would he say, also, how long both the B.B.C. and the Independent Television Authority applied for?
Mr. Stonehouse: I am satisfied that the increase was justified. Inquiries into the position in the B.B.C. have fully convinced me that it is anxious to achieve the highest efficiency. This is why McKinsey was appointed to conduct this survey.

283
It is socially desirable not to have unlimited hours. I am satisfied that the extra 3½ hours a week will aid both the B.B.C. and the I.T.V. to improve their programmes.
Mr. Maclennan: May I press my right hon. Friend on the point that the remoter regions are more dependent on broadcasting than the areas which are well served by the B.B.C. at present? There is a considerable inequity in increasing the fee in those very areas which do not enjoy B.B.C. 2 and whose reception of B.B.C. 1 is poor. Would he consider this again? We have experienced regional variations in taxation under the Government already, and it should not be beyond the wit of the Government, and certainly not beyond his wit, to devise an equitable system.
Mr. Stonehouse: I appreciate the seriousness of that point, but I am satisfied that it is very difficult to have a system which would ensure that whatever differential fee is charged is fair to the viewers.
Sir G. Wills: In view of the considerable increase in fee, would the right hon. Gentleman see that the many thousands of people in the South and South West receive uninterrupted transmissions of B.B.C. programmes instead of the very tweedy effects which they get at present?
Mr. Stonehouse: If there are any problems over reception, I will certainly examine them.
Mr. Shinwell: Before my right hon. Friend finally decides to impose this increase—I understand that the matter of a debate in the House will be considered, and that there will be an opportunity for us to come to a decision—would he discover from the B.B.C. its estimate of additional revenue which could be obtained if everybody who has a television set paid the licence fee?
Mr. Stonehouse: There has already been a considerable increase in income as a result of stamping out a certain amount of evasion. I doubt whether, if every viewer in the country paid the fee—and that is not yet the case—it
284
would raise the additional £15 million a year which is required.
Mr. Bryan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members are not clear about his personal views about advertising? Are we to understand that, when the B.B.C. local radio experiment runs out of money, he may then advise the B.B.C. to apply to him for permission to have advertising?
Mr. Stonehouse: This is another question. I answered points on it last week. I do not want to be drawn into a long discussion about it, because it is inappropriate, but I must make it clear that I am not proposing to allow—nor has the B.B.C. asked for it—any advertising on sound radio before the end of the local stations experiment, which is due to be examined in the middle of next year.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House.
Mr. Marten: On a point of order. May I briefly seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker?
A new Member has been waiting at the Bar for 20 minutes to take his seat. One of my hon. Friends and I, the other day, had to wait until the end of three statements before the Member concerned took his seat. The day when a new Member takes his seat is a very important day in his life. Could this not happen immediately after Question Time and before statements, since he would then have the advantage of having the Prime Minister of the day to "see him in"? Could you tell me, Mr. Speaker, which Committee this should be referred to?
Mr. Speaker: It is an interesting point, which I think next Session's Select Committee on Procedure might well look into. In the meantime, by pursuing this point of order, we are further preventing the Member from taking his seat.

NEW MEMBER SWORN
Alfred Thomas Evans, esquire, for Caerphilly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock, and that if the Motions relating to Home Ownership and Interest Rates and Terms and Conditions of Employment shall have been disposed of before Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put at Ten o'clock, by paragraphs (8) and (9) of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply). —[Mr. Peart.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, notwithstanding anything in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph (1) of Standing Order Na. 2 (Exempted business) the Proceedings on the Civil Evidenece Bill [Lords], the Civil Aviation Bill [Lords], the Theft Bill [Lords] and on the Motions relating to Sea Fisheries may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Peart.]

EQUAL PAY
4.1 p.m.
Mr. Christopher Norwood: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish the principle of equal pay.
The question is not so much whether hon. Members will oppose the suggestion of equal pay, but whether they are prepared to bring it into reality.
I am reminded of a book written by John Stuart Mill, more than 100 years ago, which has left a lasting impression on me. In 1888, 80 years ago, the Trades Union Congress passed a proposition calling for the implementation of the equality of pay for men and for women for work of the same kind and value. I am reminded that 50 years ago, in 1918, women were allowed to have a measure of equality of political influence for the first time. I am reminded that, in 1955, women in the Civil Service, in the employment of the State, obtained the right to the same pay for the same work.
I doubt whether the House will dispute the principle. I have written to a large number of my colleagues, and I have had more than 100 favourable replies of one kind or another. The only question is not whether the principle be there, but whether people are prepared to carry it out.
The history of equal pay is not one of the denial of a principle. It is the procrastination of 100 years and the refusal to find that any moment is a suitable time. Despite what has been said by Her Majesty's Ministers and by my right hon. and hon. Friends, my suggestion is that now is as good a time as any.
Consider the size of the women's working population. Consider the necessity for economic growth. Consider the argument advanced frequently by the Government that increased payments are involved with increased productivity, and that, if people are paid more, they will work harder—one of the few exceptions to the Government's prices and incomes attitude.
It is a growing problem. More than 4 million women earn less than 5s. an hour. The Bill proposes to end the discrimination over a period of time, and that existing machinery shall have the time in

287
which to draw up arrangements that will be suitable. I am suggesting in my Bill that it should be about a year and that, after that, there should be about three years in which we can move towards equal pay step by step. Where there is a difficult problem in deciding whether work is of equal value, I propose that it should be referred to a tribunal system somewhat analagous to that set up under the Redundancy Payments Act.
I am proposing that any individual or organisation representing an individual shall have the right to bring a case before one of these tribunals with a view to establishing that here is a case of discrimination and here it must be ended.
A recent public opinion poll published in the Evening Standard shows a gigantic public majority in favour of the principle and support of equal pay. My view of the situation, brought out not least by the reaction of the Ford strikers, is that women's patience is wearing thin and that it is time the community as a whole took note.
The House may look at this, as at many other questions, in two ways. It may regard it as an issue of the straight practicality of what is possible and what can be done. It may say that it is not easy to do. It may look at it from the technical, practical point of view. On the other hand, it may say that this is a question of principle. If it does, then, in my submission, the argument is over.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Norwood, Mr. Winnick, Mrs. Anne Kerr, and Mr. Bidwell.

EQUAL PAY
Bill to establish the principle of equal pay, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 192.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [29TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

  HOME OWNERSHIP AND INTEREST RATES
  4.9 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: I beg to move,
  That this House, noting the effect of the present high level of mortgage interest rates, deplores the policies of Her Majesty's Government which have caused hardship to existing house purchasers and are discouraging home ownership.
  The provision of good housing must be the most important social objective of any Government, yet there is no other sphere of activity in which the present Administration have more cynically abandoned the many pledges on the faith of which they secured office. Both before the 1964 and the 1966 General Elections, the leaders of the party opposite repeatedly promised much more help to home ownership through bigger and cheaper mortgages. The House will recall that the White Paper on the Housing Programme 1965 to 1970 (Cmnd. 2838), published in 1965, spoke of
  "…a large and rising demand for more houses for owner-occupation which shows no sign of abating, and the housing plan must meet it."
  No one disputes the demand for home ownership. Survey after survey has shown that at least 70 or 80 per cent. of our people, particularly young people, want to own their own homes. What has happened? In absolute numbers and as a percentage of total completions —both figures are relevant—private house building for owner-occupation has declined year by year since 1964. On the other side of the picture, when the present Government came to office in October, 1964, the building society mortgage interest rate was 6 per cent.; in February, 1965, it rose to 6¾ per cent.; in June, 1966, it rose to 7⅛ per cent. for new borrowers; and now it is at 7⅝ per cent. Interest rates have now risen to a record level, and they have been higher for a longer time than at any other period in our history.

  289
  We have come a long and miserable way since the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) flew his gay kite of 3 per cent. which brightened the sky of the 1964 General Election, and— let us face it—induced many thousands of people to vote for the Labour candidates. I know that some people say, as I think the right hon. Gentleman does himself, that there is doubt about the exact terms which he used, but at Colchester on 29th September, 1964, he said:
  "People do not care whether I said 3, 4, 2 or no per cent. We will get the cost down."
  In fact, as everyone knows, the Government have not done it. At least the right hon. Member for Belper has had the decency to resign from a Government who are totally discredited.
  The present record rate of interest means that a man buying a three-bedroom house has either to pay, on average, at least 10s. a week more than in October, 1964, or extend, as many people do, the period of replayment. What does extending the period of repayment mean in practice? As the Building Societies Gazette pointed out in May, many householders with owner-occupier mortgages may not be able to pay off their debts during the remainder of their working lives. They face a prospect of never-ending debt.
  Hon. Members may have seen the article in the Sunday Express of 14th July which gave the example of a man of 30 who was granted a loan of £4,000 early in 1965 towards the purchase price for a £4,500 house at the rate of 6 per cent. Repaying the loan over a period of 25 years at £312 per annum, he would have had the house as his own at the age of 55. Now, within four years, the interest rate has been raised three times, till it is now at 7⅝ per cent. On each occasion, because ho could not afford to increase his annual repayments, he had to opt to extend the period of the mortgage, with the result that the house will not be his until he is 73.
  That is, perhaps, a reasonably average case. At least, he is better off than the man who had an unusually long mortgage, a 35-year mortgage, who found to his horror that, unless he increased his repayments, his home loan would take 2,000 years to pay off.
  290
  It is no good hon. Members opposite suggesting, as they sometimes do, that the building societies should keep the rate down. Obviously, the building society rate had to be raised if a mortgage famine were not to be created, and it became inevitable, because of high Bank Rate, rising taxation and Government fiscal and monetary policies which have severely curtailed saving and so forced many small savers to withdraw their deposits.
  If the hardship to existing house purchasers is great, the discouragement to those who believed that a Labour Government would help them to become home owners has been even worse. It is true that building societies are lending more money to house purchasers than ever before—that is a measure of the demand for home ownership—but the pressure for advances is so great that rationing of mortgages remains severe, and steadily rising house and land prices mean that each purchase requires more money than ever before.
  A young married couple who today seek a house of their own are much worse off than a corresponding couple in 1964. and their position is deteriorating month by month. Here is an example. In 1964, mortgage repayments on a £3,000 house would have taken a quarter, of average industrial earnings. Today, they take over one-third, and at that price, of course, it would be a smaller and inferior house. This is where the present high mortgage rates have their most crippling effect on young couples without much capital and with their present earning capacity well below their future prospects.
  Many building societies normally restrict the amount which they are prepared to lend so that monthly repayments do not exceed one week's wages. The high rates, therefore, mean that many prospective buyers are being offered much smaller mortgages. Nor is it any good for most of them to look to the local authorities for loans, since the Government have deliberately restricted the funds available for this purpose. After the savage cuts from mid-1965 to mid-1966, the Minister fixed the figure at £130 million for 1967–68, and he has announced a similar limit for the current financial year. This is £50 million a year below 1964, although house prices have risen since then by over

  291
  25 per cent. and, as I suggested at Question Time today—I have thought about the matter carefully—may well rise by another 10 per cent. this year, or certainly considerably more than the Parliamentary Secretary suggested.
  Many local authorities are at this stage of the year already in a critical position in regard to home loans. Some have already had to suspend their loans altogether because their quotas have been exhausted.The Times published a list of some of these on 6th June. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will tell us what he proposes to do to remedy the present serious situation.
  It will not be enough for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Government have introduced their much-heralded mortgage option scheme or that, as from 1st April, 100 per cent. mortgages may be available for those who exercise their option, although—and in our view, this is quite wrong—for no one else.
  In the debate on the Housing Subsidies Bill, I described the Government's proposals as the great mortgage fraud, and everything that has happened since has confirmed that verdict. The principle of a mortgage option scheme to help those paying less than the standard rate of tax is unexceptionable—it was in the Conservative Party's own election manifesto—but the Government's scheme does little to assist anyone. It is not surprising, therefore, that it has attracted only about 5 per cent. of existing borrowers and 10 per cent. of new borrowers—many of whom, as I shall show later, rather regret the decision which they have made.
  At best, the Government's scheme is a classic example of giving away with one hand what they have already more than taken away with another. Moreover, as I said at the outset, the need to make an irrevocable choice to opt in which is based simply on a man's estimate of his own earning capacity and tax liability throughout, perhaps, a whole decade is bound to create something of a lottery. What I did not expect was that this year's Finance Bill would change the terms of the lottery so quickly and so cruelly. Once again, not only have thousands of people who trusted the Government been robbed of any hope of a prize, but they have had to pay more for their tickets. Many of them are in the position of
  292
  punters who have lost not only their shirt, but their braces.
  The Government spent about £80,000 advertising their mortgage option scheme, and published a booklet called, "Your Guide to the Mortgage Option Scheme", which indicated that anyone paying less than £80 a year in tax was likely to benefit from an option mortgage.
  As a result of this year's Finance Bill, in many cases this has proved wrong. I shall not reiterate the arguments I put forward during the debate on 3rd July, except to say two things. First, in our view the Government are now under a clear duty to warn people that the rise of the mortgage rate from ⅛ per cent. to 7⅝ per cent. means that the advantage of opting has seriously diminished. Secondly, there is a clear moral obligation to compensate those who have suffered hardship as a direct result of the Government's misleading advice to them.
  On 3rd July 1968, at column 1611, the Financial Secretary said that because he could not help within the framework of the Finance Bill that did not mean that that shed the whole Government obligation, and he agreed that the matter should be given the most urgent examination by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I tabled a Question today
  "To ask the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he has completed the urgent consideration of the effect of the provisions of the Finance Bill on the operation of the mortgage option scheme; and if he will make a statement."
  No doubt there will be a Written Answer to that Question as it was not reached this afternoon, but perhaps the Minister can explain the position to the House today.
  The evidence of hardship is clear, and it was clear during the debate on the Finance Bill. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have sent cases to the Government and explained the difficulties confronting their constituents. I have had a mass of letters on this subject, and I shall quote just one from a man in Newcastle. The letter is dated 13th July, and arose out of the report of the debate on 3rd July. He said:
  "I hope to hear more about the repeal or review of that legislation and in particular the refusal of any opportunity for opting out by the borrower.

  293
  It was my misfortune that I signed an option for this property before the Budget and would have benefited from the conditions that obtained at that time.
  Now however I estimate that I shall be paying this year £8 more than I would expect to pay outside the scheme and future years will cost me some £20 annually over the ordinary borrower.
  How can one trust a Government that perpetrates such frauds continually?"
  How, indeed? And that is not by any means an exceptional case. Indeed, his loss may be regarded as rather on the low side compared with some of the other cases brought to my attention.
  I have three questions which I hope the Minister will answer. First, will he give an undertaking that when this extremely misleading document, "Your Guide to the Option Mortgage Scheme" is reissued, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary promised, it will be drastically amended to show the danger of going into this option without much more advice than many people have had, and that he will issue a further series of advertisements explaining how the Government falsified the hopes of so many people and what he is going to do about it?
  Secondly, will he state the steps which the Government propose to take to enable those who have suffered hardship as a direct result of the Government's actions and statements in their guide book to be compensated? Thirdly, will he say now what he proposes to do to afford those who have been mistakenly induced to opt into the Government's scheme an opportunity to opt out?
  I know that this requires discussions with the building societies. As we were told, there are administrative difficulties, but, clearly, some people have been wrongly induced to come in, and they ought to be given the opportunity to get out. I know that the Minister invariably pleads that he is bound by the provisions of the Housing Subsidies Act, but it is not impossible for the Government to remedy their own mistakes in their own legislation if they really want to do so.
  I have dealt briefly with the harsh effects of high mortgage interest rates on existing and new borrowers, whether in or out of the mortgage option scheme. No one can doubt the damage which the Government have done. The question
  294
  now is: how can we mitigate the hardship they have caused and give new hope to those who want to own their own homes? I shall not pretend that we can evade all the consequences which flow from economic and fiscal policies which have brought this country so low, but I believe that there are some things which could be done immediately to encourage home ownership and to bring it within the means of more people.
  First, the Government have it within their power to cut the cost of new housing by abolishing the Selective Employment Tax—it should be altogether, but certainly for the construction industry, which serves such an essential social purpose—and by bringing down the price of land by repealing the Land Commission Act and abolishing the Land Commission.
  Secondly, as part of a policy of reducing the cost of house purchase they should reverse their recent regrettable decision to suspend the extension of compulsory land registration. This has apparently been done by the back door, through correspondence with the Lord Chancellor and others. This is a serious state of affairs, because the extension of land registration is about the only practicable way of reducing the incidental costs of house purchase which is fair to all the interests concerned.
  The Minister will recall that some proposals for simplifying conveyancing were shelved because the extension of land registration was to be expedited. Perhaps I might give some indication what is at stake. In the case of a £5,000 house there is a saving of more than £20 in fees if the land is registered. I hope the Minister will give us an assurance that this matter will be reconsidered.
  Thirdly, in our view the Government should recognise that difficulty in finding the deposit is at least as formidable an obstacle to the prospective house purchaser as the mortgage repayments. The Government's insistence on limiting 100 per cent. loans to those who have entered the option scheme is illogical, and it may be dangerous, because this policy may induce some more borrowers to exercise this irrevocable option when it would be against their long-term interests to do so. I submit that 100 per cent. loans, or help with the deposit in some other form— perhaps in the way that has been suggested from these benches—should be designed to help young people who had

  295
  not got much capital, but may already be standard rate taxpayers, or expect to be before long. In our view the cost might be met, at any rate in part, out of the savings on the current level of housing subsidies of one sort or another.
  Fourthly, the Government should stimulate far more than they have done private house building for owner occupation. While the total number of completed houses has crept upwards since 1964, completions in the private sector have gone down steadily, and the outlook for the future is far from reassuring. It is true that rather more houses were started in the private sector in 1967 than in 1966, but it was the start of the betterment levy which inflated the figures by at least 20,000.
  So, while, this year, we may see some improvement, at any rate at the beginning of the year, in the total number of private houses completed, the underlying downward trend continues. This is illustrated by the fact that this year's starts in the private sector have been officially estimated at 205,000, or more than 30,000 down compared with last year.
  But, more fundamentally, the Government have shifted the balance between private house building and council building by an increasingly costly subsidy bill. Ever since 1964 the public housing sector has been growing at the expense of the private sector, in spite of the rising demand for home ownership. Thus housing subsidies for new dwellings in Great Britain have risen from £68 million in 1963–64 to about £100 million in the current financial year. At the same time the rate fund contribution to local authority housing revenue account has risen from £21 million in 1963–64 to an estimated £40 million in 1966–67. These costs will rise still further as a result of the Government's interference through the Prices and Incomes Act with the statutory responsibility of local authorities to strike a fair balance between their tenants and other ratepayers.
  We have to recognise that council housing is not only more expensive in terms of cost to taxpayers and ratepayers, but is more inflationary than private housing, which is financed by individual savings. We are in the ridiculous position of raising housing subsidies and controlling rents of council houses to divert many families
  296
  from what they really want, which is to own homes of their own. It is, therefore, far more sensible to give such aid from public funds as we can to young people to buy their own homes, rather than spend public money on what is fundamentally the wrong objective.
  Finally, the Government must give some indication of their long-term policy on mortgage interest rates. At Question Time an hon. Member opposite referred to the fact that high rents are caused, in the local authority sector as anywhere else, by high interest rates. The report of the Prices and Incomes Board showed that interest rates now amount to about 50 per cent. of total local authority housing costs. This is inevitably reflected in higher rents. The same considerations apply in the private sector.
  In the old days members of the party opposite used to say that it was a brutal as well as a foolish thing to make the innocent householder pay for the doubtful luxury of attracting hot money to London. I do not know how much hot money is being attracted today, but it is certainly doubtful whether such a prolonged period of high interest rates as we have suffered under this Government—the most prolonged period of high interest rates in our history—can do anything but put up costs without a sufficient corresponding benefit to our balance of payments or reserves.
  To summarise our case against the Government: their basic concepts are in conflict with the ideal of a property-owning democracy; it is not what they really want at all. Their house building programme has yielded a diminishing number of houses for owner-occupation each year. They have attacked the idea of giving council tenants the opportunity of buying their own homes. Their misconceived fiscal policies have caused house prices to soar, and their mismanagement of the economy has precipitated quite astronomic mortgage interest rates. The benefit of their much-vaunted mortgage option scheme has been dissipated by their financial and economic policies and the fact that their scheme has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of mortgagors is the measure of its worth. Their 100 per cent. mortgage scheme, which the Prime Minister and other members of the Government promised in their election manifestos,

  297
  remains out of reach to all but an infinitesimal minority.
  In the view of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself the primary objective of a housing policy in any modern democracy must be the fostering of home ownership. Far from smoothing the path towards that goal the Government have made it much more stony. We can say, in the words of Sydney Smith:
  "The vigour of the Ministry is like the vigour of a grave digger—the tomb becomes more ready and more wide for every effort which they make."
  Unfortunately, while Ministers' souls lie mouldering in the grave their bodies go marching on. The sooner they resign the better it will be for all of us. Perhaps the Minister has already made plans to move on to happier spheres of activity. If so, I hope that his swan song this afternoon—if it is to be his swan song— will enable him to depart with a bang and not a whimper.
  4.34 p.m.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): My surprise and gratification that the Opposition should have chosen this of all subjects for debate today have not been lessened by the speech to which we have just listened from the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). It is part of the stock-in-trade of the Opposition to pretend that the Government are hostile to home ownership and have done nothing to encourage it. Nothing could be further from the facts and I am grateful to the Opposition for the chance which they have given me today to prove it.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the White Paper—The Housing Programme 1965–1970—which set out our policies very clearly. There, we said that the first task was to give housing a greater priority and to push up the rate of building, while within the enlarged housing programme there would be a balance—roughly 50–50—between public building for rent and private building for owner occupation. We said that at that time
  "while the Government must provide for a steady growth of building for owner occupation, it would be criminal, at the present time, not to allow an even faster growth of building to let"
  298
  but we added:
  "the expansion of building for owner-occupation … reflects a long-term social advance which should gradually pervade every region."
  That was the statement of our long-term aims, and it is those aims that the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that we have abandoned. He looks to the future and says that it is far from reassuring. I always regard him as the most cheerful Cassandra on the Opposition benches. Over and over again he has prophesied housing failures and all of his prophesies have been belied. On 1st November, 1966, he asked my right hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who is now Minister of Public Building and Works:
  "Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that while the public sector may be holding its own, the private sector is steadily falling? What does he propose to do about that? Does he agree that now there is very little chance of building 400,000 houses even by 1967?"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st November, 1966; Vol. 735, c. 228.]
  A short time later, on 15th December of the same year, the right hon. and learned Gentleman turned his fire on the Prime Minister and asked:
  "Does he agree that there is now no prospect of exceeding 380,000 houses this year, or next year, either?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1966; Vol. 738, c. 658.]
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman must be even more despondent about the fact that his prognostications have been so wrong.
  Mr. Rippon: Have they been so wrong? Is it a matter of 3,000 or 4,000, or 10,000 houses?
  Mr. Greenwood: On 15th December, 1966 the right hon. and learned Gentleman was saying that there was no chance of exceeding 380,000 houses in 1967.
  Mr. Rippon: Nevertheless, the Government have been very far from the mark.
  Mr. Greenwood: Far from the mark, the right hon. and learned Gentleman says. In fact, we completed 404,000. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but that is so. The right hon. and learned Member asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister:
  "Does he agree that there is now no prospect of exceeding 380,000 houses this year, or next year, either?"

  299
  We built 404,000, which was 24,000 more than the right hon. and learned Gentleman had predicted. We have to measure our achievements against the smokescreen of gloom that he is trying to create.
  During every year since we took office we have built a record number of houses. Last year, for the first time in history, more than 400,000 houses were built in Great Britain. The figures for the first half of this year have been published this afternoon and show that 12,000 more houses were completed in that period than in the first six months of 1967— 199,000 compared with 187,000 in the first half of 1967. Since more houses are normally finished in the second half of the year we shall build well over 400,000 houses this year. Another record year is before us.
  Within the total we have, as we have promised, made a large increase in building to rent—from 156,000 in 1964 to 204,000 in 1967. Building for owner-occupation has fluctuated, but has never fallen below 200,000 a year, so that in three years 619,000 houses have been built. In the last three years under the Opposition only 568,000 were built.
  Perhaps I could put it in another way. If we take the 44 months of Labour administration, 768,000 houses for private ownership have been completed. During the last 44 months of Conservative rule the figure was 678,000. We are, therefore, doing a great deal better.
  The rate of building is rising again. During the first six months of this year 107,000 houses were built for owner-occupiers compared with 90,000 in the same period last year, an increase of 17,000 in half a year, or over 19 per cent. Altogether, we have built about 1½ million houses since October, 1964, fairly evenly divided between the public and private sectors.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: The right hon. Gentleman keeps saying "We have done" this and that. Is he aware that the building industry has achieved these figures?
  Mr. Greenwood: This has been a remarkable piece of co-operation between the building industry, local authorities, building societies and the Government. It was left to the Labour
  300
  Government to get together the Joint Housing Programme Working Party, which is comprised of the various interests, all of which are concerned with house building. It staggers me to think that the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham did not get round to this point a great deal earlier.
  I was interested in what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about the expensiveness of council house building, and many people will draw conclusion from what he did say on the subject. Far from discouraging home ownership, we have done much better than the party opposite. This increase in private building has been more than matched by the success of the building societies in meeting the growing demand for home ownership.
  Mr. James Allason: When the right hon. Gentleman says that the Government have done better than the Conservative Party achieved when in office in 44 months, is he saying that the pledge given by the Labour Party in 1964 to build more houses for owner-occupation related to an average over the last 44 months and not to the current figures?
  Mr. Greenwood: Our statement meant that we would do better than the Conservatives. That we have done. It meant that we would seek to strike a balance of about 50-50 between the public and private sectors. That we have done. However, we do not have much time for this debate and, while I shall be pleased to give way to any hon. Member who wishes to intervene, I trust that there will not be many interventions, because many hon. Members wish to speak and I do not want them to be crowded out.
  In 1960, the building societies advanced £558 million. In 1966 and 1967, they lent £1,245 million and £1,472 million respectively. This year, they are confident of being able to lend a record £1,550 million.
  It would be wrong to think that we are concerned only with numbers. We are equally concerned with quality. That is why the National House Builders Registration Council has been reorganised. Private builders and Ministers between them—this is another piece of valuable co-operation—have created a valuable

  301
  new instrument which is already having its effect on the quality of the houses produced in the private sector. I appointed Mr. Douglas Calverly as the Chairman of the Council, and under his able leadership well over 80 per cent. of the houses completed for owner-occupation this year will carry the Council's 10-year guarantee of quality. In 1964, the figure was 35 per cent. I do not believe that it is an exaggeration to say that in a very few years' time jerry-building will be literally a thing of the past.
  I come to the question of option mortgages, to which the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham referred. We have taken positive action to increase the number of houses built and to improve the quality. We have helped owner-occupiers by the Option Mortgage Scheme, which started on 1st April this year. The Option Mortgage Guarantee Scheme started on the same day.
  The first gives borrowers who do not qualify for tax relief a subsidy of 2 per cent. on their interest payments. All borrowers get help, and either the option mortgage subsidy or the tax relief substantially reduce the effective cost of a mortgage. The second helps families who can make larger regular payments, but who have little capital to buy a house.
  About 10 per cent. of new borrowers, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman conceded, choose an option mortgage, and the great majority of these are people who would not have been able to obtain a mortgage at all because the regular payments, without the option subsidy, would have been too large in relation to their income.
  The Option Mortgage Guarantee Scheme has been criticised because few 100 per cent. loans have so far been given. But many more people have used the scheme than those who have had 100 per cent. loans because many borrowers do not want 100 per cent. loans. The Scheme enables them to get the loan they do want at lower cost than before. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked three specific questions on this subject, one of which appeared on the Order Paper today. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who answered that Question, will deal later with the three points raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  302
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman expressed concern, which we all feel, at the high level of interest rates. I wish to put the building societies' rates in a more general context. We agree entirely that there are strong objections to high interest rates, which increase housing costs, industrial costs, and the cost of servicing public sector debt. The hard fact is, however, that high rates are necessary for the time being as a means of protecting the reserves.
  In the short-term, and at the present stage of our economic recovery, we cannot unilaterally reduce our interest rates unless other countries reduce theirs. In the longer-term, the best hope for reducing our interest rates lies in getting the balance of payments right, thus removing the main cause of pressure on the reserves; and the Government are determined to achieve this.
  I need hardly say that I regret as much as anyone that housing interest rates are high, but high interest rates are necessary at present to protect the reserves, and loans for house purchase can be financed only if the current rate is paid to the investors who provide the money for them. If building societies, or other bodies, offered less than the market rate they would not attract the funds they need to sustain the high level of building that we all want to see. I am glad that the building societies are now receiving more money than in the early months of the year and that the movement is confident of being able to lend £1,550 million this year.
  Mr. A. P. Costain: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that his right hon. Friend made the position clear and dealt with these fundamental facts concerning mortgages when he made his stupid promise of low mortgage rates?
  Mr. Greenwood: My right hon. Friend did not make a stupid promise about mortgage rates. We have carried out the pledge we gave. We promised to reduce the rate of interest paid by people in the lower income groups.
  Mr. Rippon: The right hon. Gentleman surely agrees that the Prime Minister clearly promised 100 per cent. mortgages and low interest rates for all and said he hoped that that would benefit all mortgagors.
  Mr. Greenwood: I do not recall such a far-reaching statement having been made.
  Mr. Rippon: It was.
  Mr. Greenwood: If the hon. Gentleman who will wind up the debate for the Opposition wishes to deploy that in his speech, I shall listen to it with interest.
  Some house buyers may need a bridging loan and some builders rely on loans to tide them over between the purchase of the site and the completion of the house. Bank lending for housebuilding and bridging loans for house purchase are categories of lending which fall below the priority categories of lending which will help the balance of payments, but are not specifically mentioned in the Bank of England's latest guidance to banks as needing to be reduced. It is too early to say what the effect will be on specific borrowers, but the banks continue to have full discretion to decide the distribution of their lending within the ceiling. I hope that I have said enough to demonstrate that we believe in encouraging home ownership. We have taken positive action to encourage it.
  Mr. Rippon: May I just put the record straight for the Minister? The Prime Minister said in his election address in 1964:
  "100 per cent. mortgages, lower interest rates, and cheaper loan charges will help those who wish to buy."
  That was quoted in the debate of 15 th December 1966, at column 682, if the Minister cares to check it.
  Mr. Greenwood: That is not nearly so wide-reaching as the right hon. and learned Gentleman originally said. Of course, they do help them, and that is exactly what we have done; we have helped the categories to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred.
  I believe that the time is right for further development of our policies to help home ownership. There is, as I have said, a strong demand for home ownership, and that demand we have fostered and encouraged. I am glad that the party opposite agrees with me that many families at present renting houses from a local authority wish to own a home of their own, but, equally, there are many families living in slums, overcrowded or sharing.
  304
  who cannot afford to buy, and must rent a house.
  We believe that both these needs must be met. The Opposition seem only too willing to forget the second. There is at present no significant source of new rented housing other than the houses provided by councils. Yet some Tory-controlled councils, encouraged by their national leaders, are seeking to reduce the supply by selling off part of their stock of rented houses and so reducing the chances of those who must rent getting a decent house.
  In the circular which I issued in March 1967, I gave clear guidance to authorities about the sale of council houses. I said that it would be wrong for there to be large scale sales in areas where there is a pressing social need for more rented housing. To do so would postpone the time when an adequate supply of rented housing becomes available. Moreover, the sale of a substantial number of older houses and their replacement by new houses to let could have the effect of unnecessarily increasing rates or rents, or both. I am sorry to say that some local authorities have not complied with the spirit of that circular, and have spent large sums of money on popularising the sale of their council houses regardless, apparently, of the needs of the many thousands of people on their waiting lists.
  The House will be interested to note that this policy of Conservative councils has come under strong attack, not only from Labour groups but also from the private builders. They have criticised the policy, both in letters to the Press, from the President of the Federation of Registered House Builders, and in representations from that body to me. They have said that not only does sale reduce the pool of houses for letting, but that a house sold has to be replaced by an expensive new house, raising both rents and the cost to the Exchequer.
  I have come to the conclusion that this dissipation of public assets must be brought under control. I accept that in some areas where, because of our successful large programme of new building, pressures have eased, a few sales do no harm, but in the areas of greatest demand sales on more than a minimum scale ought not to be allowed.
  I have, therefore, decided that in the four conurbations of Greater London, the

  305
  West Midlands, South East Lancashire and Merseyside, sales should be limited to a quarter of 1 per cent. of the total housing stock in any one year. A circular modifying the general consent, to take effect from 1st August this year, will shortly be issued.
  This does not mean that we are disregarding the wishes of those council tenants who want to become home owners. I know that many do, and that many have the resources to make their desires effective. There is a double benefit in this, for if such a family moves to its own house it releases a house for letting to a family in need who cannot afford to buy. I am accordingly studying proposals which have been made to me that, where such tenants wish to move to a house of their own, the council should have power to help with removal costs and perhaps also with legal expenses.
  I come now to the question of local authority home loans, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred. As I have said, in 1960 the building societies advanced £558 million, and this year they expect to lend £1,550 million. We can expect their ability to lend to continue to grow, whatever the temporary fluctuations in their current borrowing. They have a steadily expanding supply of funds from the repayment of principal on their outstanding mortgages, and I share their confidence that they will be able to make an ever-growing contribution to the finance of house ownership.
  I have, therefore, been reviewing the function of local authorities in this field. The vast majority of councils operate only on a very modest scale. About two-thirds of lending is carried out by no more than 54 authorities whose activities are very localised. They provide nothing like the nation-wide service of the building societies, and the main distinction between the practice of local authorities and other lenders has vanished with the introduction of our mortgage guarantee scheme.
  I have, therefore, decided, in view of the continuing call for restraint in public expenditure and the need to concentrate resources on discharging the main housing tasks, that this less essential service ought to be conducted on a more modest scale, and that the local authorities'
  306
  quotas for lending this year should be reduced to about 80 per cent. of the sums originally envisaged. I shall, of course, be keeping the operation of this service under review. I shall most strongly urge councils to concentrate their lending on assisting persons whose need cannot be met elsewhere. In particular, they should concentrate on council tenants who wish to move, to enable them to buy privately and thus release accommodation for those in need.
  This, I am sure, is a more useful and effective way of helping, and more in accordance with the wishes of council tenants who wish to become owner-occupiers than the unwise policy of reducing the pool of houses available for renting. I am issuing a circular tomorrow explaining the new arrangements in more detail.
  I have spoken already of the steps which we have taken to protect owner-occupiers from the jerry-builder. I should be less than human if I did not draw the House's attention to yet another way in which we have set out to give owner-occupiers protection and help which the Opposition consistently denied them during their period of office.
  In our White Paper "Old Houses into New Homes" we have taken two further steps to help owner-occupiers. We propose to increase the standard grant for improvement from £155 to £200 and the discretionary grant from £400 to £1,000. As a result of this, many owners will be able to live in a degree of comfort which in the past they never thought possible.
  Secondly, we are ending the monstrously unjust situation under which owner-occupiers whose houses are demolished under a clearance scheme get far less than the real value of their house. Under our scheme they will be entitled to supplementary payments over and above site value, which has hitherto been the normal basis of compensation. In effect, they will at least get the market value of their house. I am amazed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends tolerated this blatant injustice for so long.
  I suppose that the Opposition, having run away from the opportunity of having a debate on the economic situation—a debate which we should have greatly enjoyed—had to find some other subject to take up the time. They could hardly

  307
  have chosen a subject more welcome to us than the question of home ownership.
  We have built far more homes for owner-occupiers than the Conservative Party did during a similar period. We have raised the total house-building programme to a level which the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not believe was possible. We have helped would-be buyers with the option mortgage guarantee scheme—something which the Tories never thought of doing. We have waged an effective campaign against the jerry-builders. We are introducing very generous changes in the level of improvement grants, to the great benefit of many owner-occupiers, and we are ending the injustice of site value compensation, with all that it has meant in hardship to owner-occupiers, many of them old and many of them only with modest means.
  It is a record of which we on this side of the House are proud. It is one to which I am glad to have been able to contribute, and one which I am happy to defend today.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. David Waddington: If I may crave the indulgence of the House, I should like at the outset to pay a tribute to my predecessor at Nelson and Colne. One thing he certainly had was political courage. There were, perhaps, not many occasions when I agreed wholeheartedly with the political opinions which he expressed, but I always admired the completely fearless way in which he expressed them. I am sure that the House will long remember his relentless campaign to bring about the end of capital punishment.
  I trust that the House will also bear with me for a little time while I speak about my division. I do not think that there are many hon. Members—excluding, of course, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government—who know very well that part of the world. I find that many people in London imagine that it is a very bleak, drab and damp place in the centre of industrial Lancashire with very little to commend it. The recent by-election in Nelson and Colne may at least have educated many of the journalists who then visited our town.
  The division is, in fact, a very grand place in which to live and work. One
  308
  has only to travel for a very few minutes from the centres of our towns and one is in the most beautiful unspoilt countryside. Beyond that, a very great deal has been done in recent years to improve the amenities of the towns. Thus they are no longer composed of serried ranks of "Coronation Streets", and no longer do those towns lack all amenities. I understand that not long ago hon. Members received from the local paper a coloured supplement which set out in great detail how good a place it was in which to live and work.
  In recent years we have been confronted with very real and special problems, first of all because of the contraction of the cotton textile industry and, secondly, because of the very strong—and, as I believe, far too strong—inducements offered by the Government to industry to go to the development areas, which are not so very far from the boundaries of the Nelson and Colne division. This is a subject about which I hope I may have an opportunity to speak on another occasion.
  On this occasion I must direct my attention to housing, and it is right to say that even there our part of the world has its special problems. It is interesting to note that although over England as a whole about 48·5 per cent. of all dwellings are owner occupied, the figure in Colne is 62·1 per cent. and in Nelson it is no less than 72·3 per cent. There must therefore be many people in Nelson and Colne who are extremely disturbed at the high level of the mortgage interest rates, and I hope that I am not being too controversial in a maiden speech in saying that I am bitterly disappointed at the non-fulfilment of the election promise of 3 per cent. mortgages. I suppose that the non-fulfilment is partly responsible for my presence in this Chamber now.
  There are two or three specific points that I should like to make. What we all want, of course, is an end to the crisis conditions in which we have lived since 1964 so that we can move away from crisis rates of interest and thus allow the mortgage interest rates to fall. Obviously, however, the crisis will not end in the twinkling of an eye—indeed, I doubt very much whether it will end before the end of this Parliament.
  In those circumstances, therefore, it cannot be in anyone's interest for the

  309
  Government to try—and I hope that they will no: seek to do so—to prevent the building societies from charging such a rate of interest as will enable them to pay investors what is necessary to pay them in order to get the money needed in the movement. At the moment, I understand that at least twice as many people are wanting mortgages as the societies can provide for, and the Government are not providing a service to those people who are waiting in the queue— and it is often people with the more slender means who are waiting in the queue and who have not yet been provided for—when they carp at and try to prevent increases in the mortgage rate.
  Secondly, I consider—as does my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon)—the mortgage option scheme to have been a monumental flop. Only 10 per cent. of new borrowers have opted, and the reason is quite obvious. One needs a crystal ball to know whether or not it will be to one's ultimate benefit to opt into the scheme. One has to bear in mind the possibility of the standard rate of Income Tax going up, in which case the benefit of mortgage option will diminish. One has also to bear in mind the unlikely eventuality of the standard rate of Income Tax coming down. One has to bear in mind that one's earnings may increase, but one has also to bear in mind that one's earnings may increase, but one has also to bear in mind the possibility that one may encounter trouble and one's earnings decrease.
  One has to bear in mind that after one has opted for the scheme the Government may, as the Government have done this year, increase family allowances and draw more people into the tax net. Perhaps—one never knows—the day may arrive when the mortgage interest rate will drop below 6 per cent. when, again, the advantages of having opted into the scheme will diminish. One really has to bear in mind the innate optimism of the British working man which must in itself militate against the success of the scheme. It is a rare bird who does not hope that either through his own efforts or good fortune—by winning the pools, perhaps—his means will increase, yet he now has to make the best calculation he
  310
  can of his ultimate prospects and earnings.
  One has to recognise also that the booklet advertising the scheme is very complicated as, indeed, it must be because of the complicated calculations that have to be made when a man is deciding whether or not the scheme will be to his benefit. There must be some better way of giving help to those with smaller means, and perhaps in the long run if not in the short run we should consider allowing everyone, whatever his means and whether he pays the standard rate of Income Tax or a lower rate, the right to withhold the equivalent of tax at standard rate in respect of mortgage interest payments.
  I finish with a positive suggestion for the encouragement of home ownership. I think that the best incentive and the best way of encouraging people to improve their own homes would be by the introduction of some sort of tax allowance for improvement. Not only would that be a positive encouragement to home ownership, but it would also have one very beneficial side effect. One would remove a lot of the built in antagonism to re-rating and make more sense of the rating system if people knew that they could spend up to the annual value of their houses on repairs and improvements and get tax relief on those sums.
  I hope that I have not trespassed for too long on the time of the House, and I am grateful for the patient way in which hon. Members have listened to me.
  5.10 p.m.
  Mr. W. S. Hilton: Quite a number of hon. Members are experts either by their own choosing in certain subjects or simply because their constituencies demand that they concentrate on interests such as agriculture, fisheries or industry. Most of us, however, have a housing problem, and constituents are very fortunate if they have an hon. Member who is able to put forward their housing problems succinctly, with clarity and understanding. The constituents of Nelson and Colne, after reading the speech which has just been made by the hon. Member for that constituency (Mr. Waddington), will feel with some justification that they have someone who understands their problems and will be

  311
  able to put them in this House with great clarity and effectiveness.
  I have rather mixed feelings, of course, in congratulating him, as a new Member of this House, on his maiden speech. It is a rather bitter-sweet duty for me because we on these benches obviously would have hoped to retain the seat for this side of the House but I was very impressed with the fulsome tribute he paid to his predecessor. We all appreciated his objectivity in that matter, just as we appreciated the opinions he expressed in the other matters he brought before us. While I listened to him I rather got the feeling that we must be in telepathic communication because some of the things he said I intended to deal with. I do not know whether that will be taken as a compliment, but I am sure that we all listened to him with great interest and we shall always be interested to hear what he says in our debates whenever we discuss housing.
  One thing he stated none of us can deny. This was that high interest rates we have to suffer at any time are usually due to the fact that the economy at that moment is unstable. It is not only interest on mortgage rates but interest on everything which goes up in such circumstances. I was very surprised that the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) made the speech he did in view of this central fact. I am sorry that he is not present now because I intend to say one or two things about his speech. He knows I have a great respect for him in relation to his work when he was a Minister in a Conservative Government, but, having listened to his speech today, I have the feeling that he is not the same man at all; that he apparently did not enter politics until 1964.
  Surely when one is moving a censure Motion and wishes to attack a Government one does so partly because of pride in one's own past Government record and the fact that it successfully redeemed its promises while the other lot failed and are deserving of censure. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman said nothing about pre-1964; yet the party opposite has always been a great sponsor of owner-occupation. Hon. Members opposite are the people who avowed their desire to promote a property-owning
  312
  democracy in this country. But there are people who took up mortgages in 1951–52 at the start of the Conservative administration and, during the financial crisis of 1957–58, found their interest rate was going up to 7 per cent. and they had a tremendous burden on their backs as a result. We heard nothing of this from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He must realise, however, that he has been wielding a two-handled sword in this debate. The more he tries to say that the present increase in interest rates is a breaking faith with electors in comparison with promises given, the greater wounds he inflicts on past Conservative Administrations because this also happened under them.
  I do not make these points because I want this to be a partisan debate. I am bitterly disappointed with the contribution the right hon. and learned Gentleman made because today we have an opportunuity to discuss the real problems of owner-occupiers and we do not often have such an opportunity. Even when the right hon. and learned Genleman moved on to suggestions about what could be done to improve the situation, he missed what I consider to be the central core of thinking on this problem, that not all owner-occupiers suffer from the impact of higher interest in exactly the same degree. He therefore made several suggestions for general improvements towards helping owner-occupation— making land cheaper and cutting building costs among them—but that would not significantly help many owner-occupiers who are already in the situation that their income is so low in relation to family responsibilities that they do not pay Income Tax.
  Does the House realise that there are considerable numbers of owner-occupiers who real income increases every time the mortgage interest rate rises? At one end of the scale this is the position. Under the interest adjustment clause in a mortgage one has the right to pay the same total amount in repayment accepting that when the interest goes up the period of the mortgage will extend. Consequently what happens is that a greater part of the repayment is taken for interest and one receives a higher allowance from the Inland Revenue. We then have the paradox that real income increases as a result of an increase in the interest rate.

  313
  At the other end of the scale there are people who get no relief on this at all simply because they are not paying Income Tax. The flaw in the Income Tax relief scheme for owner-occupiers is the same flaw as exists at any time when we are trying to help people by the negative Income Tax system. Those who are worse off get very little and those who are better off get most aid. The inequities that exist among owner-occupiers due to trying to help them by tax reliefs are very much greater than the inequities that presently exist among the tenants of local authorities in relation to rents they pay and subsidies they receive. Yet outside this House and inside we are constantly discussing local authority tenants, the rents they pay and their subsidies to try and devise fairer schemes. Yet rarely do we have an opportunity of discussing owner-occupiers and attempting to achieve greater equity for them.
  That is why I am grateful to the Opposition for raising this matter today so that we have an opportunity of providing solutions to the problem. I say "solutions" because I should think it a waste of the time of the House today to pursue sterile political arguments on either side when we have a chance of getting to grips with the anomalies and making suggestions to get rid of them and bring about greater equity. The level of a mortgagee's income at present determines the amount of help he is to receive instead of our giving positive Government help to all owner occupiers much along the lines as was suggested by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne.
  On one point I must agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham, and this is that the option mortgage scheme has not met with anything like the success we hoped it would have when we discussed it on the Housing Subsidies Bill. This is not necessarily the fault of the Government. The Government tried to devise a scheme which would be of assistance to owner-occupiers with low incomes. It was a genuine attempt. For all the fire and fury attempted to be generated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman it should be remembered that not once in 13 years did hon. Members opposite even dream of bringing anything like the Option Mortgage Scheme into existence.
  314
  However, it has one great flaw in that it asks the owner-occupier to gamble perhaps for 20 years ahead. I do not think that in the provision of something which is socially necessary we should ask anyone to gamble. We must therefore seriously consider the option mortgage scheme and try to discover where we have fallen down and perhaps devise a better method of helping owner occupiers before the position greatly worsens.
  I want to put forward for my right hon. Friend's consideration my suggestions for what might be done. Throughout the years the House has not clearly realised the positive weapon which we have in the Inland Revenue mechanism for giving social aid. Every time we have tried to do anything to help people, such as by allowances in relation to personal responsibilities, it has always been on a negative basis so that those on low incomes did not benefit.
  We must try to ensure that the Inland Revenue acts in a positive way to help owner-occupiers, but it must act in such a way that those with the lowest incomes will also receive assistance. As I understand it—the Minister will be able to verify this—at present the total net relief which the average owner-occupier receives—this is in £s, not the amount of relief allowed against Income Tax—is £31; in other words, he is £31 better off as a result of his being able to set his (mortgage interest against his Income Tax. The theory is then that some owner-occupiers get nothing and some get £62. Some get more. Why cannot we decide that £31 is the amount that we want to give owner-occupiers as a direct Government subsidy? Why allow the pure incidence of incomes of owner-occupiers to determine the level of assistance they receive?
  Let us suppose it was decided that £31 was a reasonable amount. Then all bona fide occupiers—I do not believe in convenience owner-occupiers who would do this to get advantage of the subsidy —would be treated as if each year they had made a payment of £31 in Income Tax. At the end of the year owner-occupiers would receive their Income Tax assessment. An owner-occupier with a large income who was assessed to pay, say, £180 in tax for the year would pay that amount minus the £31 which he had

  315
  notionally already paid; so in that way he would get his £31 subsidy.
  It is important to realise that, if this subsidy is regarded as a payment of Income Tax actually made, at the other end of the scale the man with family responsibilities on a low income and who has paid no Income Tax would be treated as if he had made an over-payment of £31, and the Inland Revenue would have to send him a warrant for that amount. Again an owner-occupier due to pay £10 in tax would receive a warrant for £21 as a rebate. I do not suggest that this in detail is the scheme which should be adopted. However, this is the type of suggestion which I would hope would arise from this debate.
  I believe that the Inland Revenue could be used in this way to implement a scheme for the benefit of owner-occupiers. With this scheme there would be an adjustment automatically every year to suit the changing income of the individual and his changing family responsibilities. There would be no question of a gamble as there is at present under the option mortgage scheme.
  We often talk about means tests. Many of our schemes tend to founder because people do not like filling in many forms. However, people have to fill in a form stating the number of their dependants for Income Tax purposes. It is the one annual Income Tax form to be completed and the one annual test of means. The scheme I have suggested should commend itself to my right hon. Friend simply because we should be utilising something which already exists; there would be no extra charge to the Exchequer; we would be using the Revenue in a positive rather than in a negative way.
  Mr. Costain: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the £31 should be allowed whether or not a person has a mortgage? Would someone who owns two houses get £62?
  Mr. Hilton: These are details which would have to be thought out in the operation of the scheme. My right hon. Friend would have to check with the building societies to ensure that a genuine mortgage was in existence. By an owner-occupier, however, I mean someone who owns the house in which he lives. I do not contend that my suggested scheme
  316
  would be a panacea for all time and that there would not be problems to be ironed out. It is time, however, that there was a general recognition that not all owner-occupiers feel the impact of high interest rates to the same degree. Unless we discriminate in the help we give, we shall be failing in our duty to them.
  I do not expect the Minister to answer in detail the points I have raised, but if he can give an assurance that as a result of this debate he will take these ideas back to the Ministry and will not kick them out perfunctorily without studying them we shall all be able to say, as my right hon. Friend has already said, that we are delighted that this debate was initiated.
  5.27 p.m.
  Mr. Walter Clegg: It is many years since Conservative Members were able to welcome to their ranks a Member from Nelson and Colne. It has been well worth our waiting. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) showed his knowledge and love of his constituency, because it is a part of the world that he knows very well. As I am a local boy, it is particularly pleasant for me to be able to welcome another local boy to the House and to express the hope that he will take part in our housing debates in the future.
  As always, I found the contribution of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Hilton) very interesting. I had difficulty in following the ramifications of his proposed scheme. It would give rise to practical problems. As I understood it, there was to be one allowance for all borrowers; it would be worked out on a mean figure, and it would be general over the country. This would be unfair and dangerous, because house prices vary from area to area. A man living in London or the South-East would have to have a much larger mortgage than someone living in Lancashire. It would be wrong that he should get only the same allowance of £31.
  Mr. Hilton: I admit that there would be anomalies, but does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the problems which he suggests would arise under my scheme already arise in the aid we now offer? I am trying to refine it a little more.
  Mr. Clegg: I agree that there are anomalies, and there has been a general desire on both sides of the House to help the owner-occupier who does not pay Income Tax. The method to which the hon. Gentleman referred, that is, using the Inland Revenue in a positive way, has been proposed not only in the housing context but in the general social security context as well, and it may well be that we shall have to wait for a general review of social security before we find an answer of the problem of helping the man who does not pay Income Tax.
  The Minister made a complacent speech today. No Minister of Housing, whatever his party, can afford to be complacent when faced with the housing problems which this country has, but it seemed to me that, for a large part, the right hon. Gentleman's speech was little more than a series of pats on his own back. There is great cause for concern and there are many problems to which he ought to be paying attention. For example, there is the imbalance now developing between public sector housing and private owner-occupier housing. I notice something of a Pavlovian reaction on the benches opposite, particularly those behind the right hon. Gentleman, when this question is discussed. Public sector housing seems to receive general approval, while private sector housing is not regarded in the same way.
  What worries me about the balance between the two sectors which is being deliberately created as an act of policy is that, with each extension of the public housing sector, we are building up a more rigid society. What does the council tenant have? He does not have much legal security. He holds his council house at the whim of the local authority; he is not protected as a tenant of private property is. His tenancy depends upon the good will of the housing committee. But, more important than that, it is very difficult for him to move.
  Every hon. Member must have come across this problem time after time. After years on the housing list, someone is given a council house. It is likely that it will be his home for the rest of his life, much though he may wish to move at some time. The council tenant cannot just arrange an exchange with another council tenant who, perhaps, has a
  318
  smaller house. It all has to be filtered back through the local authority and be approved by the housing committee. All this tends to create an excessively rigid pattern in our society.
  The problem of moving from a council house in one part of the country to a council house in another is even more difficult, if not impossible of solution. I have in the past made some suggestions for overcoming the difficulties, but I am beginning to think that they are overwhelming in the practical sense. What we ought to do—this is what the Minister should be boasting about—is make a real extension in the private sector. Any man who owns his own house is far more free to move if his job calls him to another part of the country; he can sell his home and buy another. But a man in a council house is greatly restricted in his freedom to move elsewhere, and sometimes he may even be unable to move and take up a new job.
  I was astonished at the action which the Minister is taking about the sale of council houses by local authorities. It is an intolerable interference with the independence of local authorities and contrary to democratic principle. Many Conservative councils were returned after it was made clear that this was to be their policy. They won sweeping victories, which put them into power, on the basis that they would pursue a policy of selling council houses, yet now the veto is put on from Whitehall. The implication is serious. In one region after another, it is constantly said that there is too much power at the centre. We are constantly asked by local authorities and others in the regions, particularly in Scotland and Wales, as we well know, that more authority should be devolved. But the limitation which the Minister is putting on the sale of council houses is rule from the centre.
  We shall never have really good local government until we have real local responsibility. If the Minister does not like the sale of council houses, it is not for him to make rulings. The answer to the problem, if he sees it as a problem, is for the people who elected the local authorities to throw them out at the next election if they do not like what they are doing. If the Minister's present attitude is to be perpetuated, whatever may be

  319
  done by the present or a subsequent Government after the report of the Royal Commission will be a waste of time.
  The Minister seemed to think that the Prime Minister had made no promises about private sector housing or that, if he had, they were limited. In fact, on 10th October, 1964, in a party political broadcast, the Prime Minister said:
  "We believe that the Government should act positively to help owner-occupiers by lowering interest rates and, of course, to help them with cheaper land."
  Interest rates have been dealt with fully in the debate so far, and I shall not repeat the argument. I want to say something about cheaper land.
  A clear promise was made about cheaper land, and the Government's chosen instrument for the purpose was the Land Commission and the betterment levy. The great cry went out—and people believed it, no doubt—that the speculator would be hammered and that the new organisation would provide cheaper land. From the very beginning, we on this side said that, far from decreasing the price of land, the betterment levy would raise it, and we had support in that argument from the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price).
  I can speak with practical experience in this matter as a solicitor dealing with the sale of building land. Vendors are adding the levy to the purchase price, and builders are paying it. The builder does not mind paying because he will pass it on. The man who ultimately pays the levy which goes to the Treasury is the purchaser of the new house. We said that it would happen, and it has happened in practice. It is difficult to isolate the increasing price due to this one measure alone, but that it has had some influence I am convinced from my own experience and that of colleagues in the legal profession who have told me the same.
  A man goes to his solicitor and says, "I have a piece of land, with planning permission, and I want to sell. I want £X for it". The solicitor explains that there is the levy to be paid. The vendor asks, "what levy?", and then, after the solicitor has told him all about it, Be says that instead of £X he wants £X plus Y, that is, including the amount of the levy. When the land is put on the market, the builder buys at that price. It is as simple as that.
  320
  The machinery which the Government set up to redeem the Prime Minister's promise has done the very opposite of what they hoped and will continue to do the opposite. One cannot take a levy and pay it to the Treasury and hope that it will bring the price of land down. No tax ever brought the price of anything down. So that is another promise which the Government have failed to redeem.
  There is another side to the operations of the Land Commission which should be noted. The argument advanced for the Commission—and there had to be an argument, expensive thing that it is—was that land was being held back by speculators and that the new system would force land out of the speculator's hands and on to the market as a result of the compulsory purchase powers. We said at the time that that was not the reason for the shortage of land or the high price but that what was wrong was the planning system in this country, and that this was creating the shortage of land.
  What happened? The Land Commission went out looking for land to buy and it found the very situation which we had described. It is not speculators who are holding land back. Shortage of planning permission's is holding land back. The Government could have achieved a better result by making a change in planning procedures—in fairness to them, they brought in the Town and Country Planning Bill—and they could have avoided setting up an expensive agency like the Land Commission. If they had wanted to raise a tax on land profits, they could easily have done it without the monster which they have now created, and created on a false premise.
  We shall miss the whole point of the land shortage and land values unless we have a positive drive to provide more land for builders to develop and shake out all the old permissions, or many of them, as the new Act will enable us to do. But, more than that, there must be positive planning. The planner must go out and look for land instead of waiting for applications to come to him and then either approving or disapproving them.
  If that had been done, we could have avoided the expense of the Land Commission and the millions a year needed to run it. As was said at Question Time today, the Land Commission is now being

  321
  used as a stalking horse by builders. Some say, "Unless you sell me this piece of land, I shall go to the Land Commission and get them to use a C.P.O." Others might go to the Land Commission first and then say, "I have been to the Land Commission, and it is interested." Some of the owners of the land may, like a constituent of mine, have thriving businesses on it. So pestered was my constituent by this kind of threat being made to him that he told me, "The only thing missing from the front of the Land Commission Act is the swastika." I am sure that the Act was not meant to work in this way, but we must judge it in practice.
  There is not a great deal of time available for the debate. I think that the Minister was far too complacent. I believe that he under-estimates the bitterness which the failure of the Government's promises has caused among the people, and if he continues to be complacent we shall not get the results which the country needs. What the country needs is a great expansion in the private housing sector.
  5.42 p.m.
  Mr. John Fraser: In their home ownership programme, the Government have little to apologise for. There is no need for them to be defensive about it. The Motion talks about "discouraging" home ownership. In 1965, for both old and new houses, 386,000 loans were taken up. In 1966, 461,000 were taken up. In 1967, the figure was 504,000. In the first quarter of 1968, the figure was running at nearly 600,000 for the year. That hardly suggests that the Government have been discouraging or hurting home ownership. In the last quarter of 1967, the total amount advanced by building societies was £411 million, a record. In the first quarter of 1968, the amount was £427 million, again a record.
  The same trend is true of private house construction. In 1964—the last year of the Tory Government's programme—the number under construction was 174,000. Their previous best figure had been 149,000 in a year. The figure rose to 203,000 in 1965. It was 201,000 in 1966 and 189,000 in 1967—admittedly a drop. Nevertheless, this was still better than in any Tory year. At the beginning of 1968, there were 222,000 new houses
  322
  under construction. Whichever form of measurement one takes, the present Government have done better than the Tory Government did at any time during their period of office.
  But the figures are even better than they appear on the surface. Following the Rent Act, 1967, many people—and as a solicitor I had personal experience of this—were forced on to the house purchase market who should never have been there. This was because they were faced either with eviction or with buying a house they did not want or could not afford. This is why the prices of private houses rose so sharply when the Act began to take effect. Now, people who should properly do so are able to get local authority houses or can remain in private accommodation at reasonable rents.
  Then there is the question of the sale of council houses. There are many economic advantages in the sale of council houses. For example, the local authority is able to reduce its capital debt. As my right hon. Friend has pointed out, in areas where there is no housing need there is nothing particularly wrong in the sale of council houses. In an open market, there is no objection to selling council houses, giving a choice of renting or buying local authority accommodation.
  But in a borough like mine, with 15,000 families on the waiting list, it is hard to justify the sale of council houses. It would be totally unjustified and would mean taking these houses out of the available resources for ever. There is, however, even in the Inner London area, need for local authorities to sell houses to people who have been moved from one area to another under clearance schemes. One of the difficulties is that, in such clearance, both owner-occupiers and tenants are affected. People like teachers, solicitors and assistant town clerks, who have tended to buy their own houses and would not get local authority rented accommodation, need to be catered for.
  One of the results of the failure here is, for example, the situation in Tower Hamlets, which is denuded of teachers who live locally. They would like to buy their own houses and they cannot get local authority rented accommodation. Local authorities in these circumstances should take up the option arrangements for the sale of houses. This is a scheme whereby, when

  323
  the person to whom the house was sold in the first place wished to sell it again, it could be re-purchased by the local authority to be made available again to the some sort of person who needs such accommodation within the borough.
  It is certainly disturbing that interest rates should have risen by 1⅜ per cent. since 1964, but between March, 1952, and July, 1956, interest rates on building society mortgages rose by 2 per cent. This is not something, therefore, for which the Government can be blamed. Economic circumstances make it necessary to have high rates of interest and I urge the Government not to interfere with building societies in exercising their discretion to raise interest rates, because lack of mortgage funds caused by not putting up interest rates at the right time distorts the housing programme and makes it difficult for builders and those developing estates to plan some time ahead.
  Mr. Frederic Harris: Has not the hon. Gentleman missed the vital point that the Labour Party promised 3 per cent. mortgages?
  Mr. Fraser: Some people like to believe that they read something in the Daily Express about what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) but are not prepared to quote it in full. I shall not go back to that quotation, which is rather longer than hon. Members are prepared to quote.
  The Government have examined mortgage interest rates—something which the Conservative Party never did—by sending the whole issue to the Prices and Incomes Board. This has stimulated the building societies into taking a close look at their interest rates, liquidity and reserve position. The Building Societies Association is now considering the Hardie Report and this is being discussed by member societies. I hope that the Government will consider the possibility of giving help to the Building Societies Association by making changes in the law and practice of reserves and cash liquidity ratios. The present amount of building society funds is about £7,200 million, of which about £1,200 million is tied up in reserves and cash. If the Government could underwrite the liquidity position,
  324
  with no strings attached—because the building societies would on no account accept such strings—it might be possible to release from the present liquidity arrangements about £600 million for house purchase purposes, and this in turn might enable a small reduction in interest rates to be made.
  At present the tax allowance on mortgage interest works inequitably. The scheme which we devised for the composite rate of interest paid to investors in building societies penalises the person who does not pay tax at the standard rate. The standard rate payer gets some advantage from investing in building societies, but the person who pays less than the standard rate receives some disadvantage. Luckily, this is not generally realised. If it were, I fear that investment in building societies might fall somewhat.
  Apart from the mortgage option scheme, which I welcome, the person who pays a high amount of Income Tax gets the highest advantage, while the person who pays little or no Income Tax, even under the mortgage option scheme, gets a lesser advantage than, for example, the person paying Income Tax at the standard rate. It should be possible to have a composite charge, taking the average of all the tax allowances given, in exactly the same way as we have a composite rate of interest paid to all those who invest in building societies.
  I come to some of the wider issues of home ownership. I suggest that the Government should adopt, as part of an economic as well as housing strategy, a further extention of home ownership, both in terms of new and old houses. I use the words "housing strategy" because I believe that home ownership is one way by which one can get people voluntarily to devote more money to housing generally. As the representative of a London constituency, time and again I have seen how people living in houses with controlled rents of quite low amounts are not prepared to improve those houses because they have no incentive to do so. The landlord is in exactly the same position and, for exactly the same reasons, he is not interested in carrying out repairs and alterations.
  The result is that premises of this type tend to fall into disrepair, and a very

  325
  low amount of investment is put into them. When a house passes to the ownership of the tenant, almost immediately that tenant becomes prepared to devote more money to make the necessary improvements, no doubt because it is in his own interest so to do. In this way conflict is avoided between the landlord and tenant and one is using human nature to overcome an important housing problem.
  This difficulty particularly applies in older areas. I hope that the Government's scheme for older houses proves successful. Older property being renovated by local authorities is an important aspect, but a greater degree of home ownership is the best answer because the owner occupier generally sets the pace in older areas.
  I was sorry to hear my right hon. Friend's announcement about local authority loans. Perhaps I heard him incorrectly. If I did not, his announcement is to be regretted. I hope that local authorities, particularly in the London conurbations, will be given greater amounts to lend, particularly to purchasers of older houses, since in practice building societies will not make these loans.
  As an innovation, I suggest that the Government should facilitate the sale of houses by landlords to existing tenants by guaranteeing an annuity to the landlord. For example, a house occupied by a statutory tenant may be worth £2,000. The Government should facilitate the transfer of that house from the landlord to the tenant by guaranteeing an annuity to the landlord. The landlord would, in effect, be selling the house on a 100 per cent. mortgage, but would be receiving a guarantee of repayment from the Government. This proposal has the support of many tenants and would facilitate the transfer of houses on controlled rents owned by landlords who in many cases do not require them.
  In terms of economic strategy as individuals we devote far too little to housing, about 11 per cent. of personal expenditure—rather less than we spend on cars or tobacco and drink. We must increase this expenditure without forcing people to do so. A greater increase in home ownership would achieve that end. I suspect that an economic argument used by some people is that at a time of economic stringency we should
  326
  cut down the amount spent on home ownership and the funds made available for house purchase. This view is utterly wrong because if one buys a new house the import input is 10 per cent., while if one does not buy that house but spends the money on consumer goods in the shops, the import input is 20 per cent. There is, therefore, an economic advantage to be gained from greater home ownership and of harnessing human nature to make these import savings.
  House ownership develops the habit of saving and investment. One of our troubles as a nation is that we spend more per capita on personal consumption than any other nation. We devote far too little on investment. By selling home ownership to a greater extent, we would achieve housing and economic advantages which the people so badly need, particularly in the London area.
  5.58 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: The speech of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) was an interesting exposition of the state of home ownership today. I was glad to hear him advocate some measures which would encourage home ownership still further and I was particularly interested in his remarks about encouraging statutory tenants to buy their own homes because this is a lacuna in Government policy which should receive urgent attention.
  I have a constituent who owns two houses. He is an involuntary landlord who would be delighted to divest himself of the responsibility, provided that the statutory tenants, who are at present paying small rents—in one case of about £1 and in the other of about 30s.—would buy those houses. It is obviously not in the interests of the statutory tenants to buy them as long as their rents are controlled at such low sums.
  We should consider further means of encouraging people to take on the responsibility of home ownership, particularly as many of them live in controlled houses by accident and are in no sense in need. In other words, their incomes should not entitle them to pay the very low rents which enable those on extremely low incomes to live properly. There is an element of illogicality in our housing policy and subsidies when the

  327
  finances of the private landlord or the State are tied to the bricks and mortar and not to the personal needs of the tenant. So far we have been only tinkering with the problem and our housing policies have not tackled the fundamental problems. It is time that the Government addressed their minds to these urgent matters.
  On the other hand, I disagree with many of the criticisms which were made by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), and which were couched in rather extravagant terms. I can see that the Tory Party had to find a good substitute for the economic affairs debate, which did not take place in spite of the promises of the Leader of the Opposition, but I can also see how the Minister has welcomed this opportunity to say what the Government have been able to do about home ownership. At least we are forced to admit that in the last four years rather more has been done by the Labour Government than was done by the Tory Administration in the previous period. I do not go along with the generalised and sweeping criticisms which were made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  We all regret these very high mortgage interest rates, and those of us who have a high percentage of owner-occupiers in our constituencies can see the effects on the standard of living of our people—if they are paying more in interest on their mortgages, they have less to spend on other things and inevitably their standard of living declines. However, as the Minister pointed out, high interest rates are a product of the general economic situation, and to single out mortgages is to blind oneself to the fact that world interest rates generally have had to be maintained at a high level because of the international monetary situation. It is something which we all deplore, and we would all like them to be brought back to a more reasonable level, but that is not practicable in the present economic climate.
  We hope that the measures taken to restore stability and to bring long-term backing to our reserve position will make it possible in the near future to do something about a general lowering of interest rates, but there is no use in going back over the remarks which may have been
  328
  made by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) in the 1964 Election. We all know that he tends to say things out of turn from time to time and we do not attach any very great importance to his remarks. I do not think that any people were taken in by the hare, which he started, of 3 per cent. mortgages. If anyone believed that and voted Labour as a result of the so-called undertaking given by the right hon. Gentleman, he needs his head examined, and I do not think that many people did. Not many people in my constituency were taken in. They knew that it would be totally impracticable and that the sum required to finance a general lowering of rates of interest on mortgages to 3 per cent. would be astronomical and beyond the reach of any Government, even if it had not been faced with the difficulties which the Labour Administration had to face on taking office in 1964.
  Mr. Roy Roebuck: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to be unfair to my right hon. Friend in his absence. My right hon. Friend strongly disputed the one account of the statement which he made about housing interest rates which appeared in a Sunday newspaper.
  Mr. Lubbock: That is why I was not entering into a discussion of whether he actually said that interests rates would be lowered to 3 per cent. He certainly gave the impression that that would be the policy of the Government if Labour were elected. Certainly he gave that impression to the Sunday Express reporter who was at that meeting. I was saying that it would be fruitless to go back over that and discuss what was or was not said, because we are facing a situation brought about by the general economic climate in the world. Even if we had had the most brilliant men in office during the last four years, the most extreme geniuses, it would have been impossible to bring mortgage interest rates down to anywhere near 3 per cent. If we are to be realistic about this matter, we start from that position.
  What can be done to help home owners within the limits of the nation's resources? I do not think that the Government have done so badly as is sometimes pretended. Their first priority was to increase the number of houses to let,

  329
  so that there was a more reasonable balance between home ownership and houses to rent. We all know that the overwhelming number of housing cases which come to our advice bureaux in our constituencies are concerned with houses to rent and not with house purchase. That does not mean that people do not have difficulty about meeting their mortgage payments, but they are not so extreme as many of the sad histories to which we have to listen of serious overcrowding and of family break-ups and disputes caused by some of the appalling housing conditions in some major cities. The Government rightly gave priority to increasing the stock of houses to rent, while at the same time doing whatever could be achieved to encourage those who were capable of buying their own homes.
  The mortgage option scheme is a step in the right direction, although not many borrowers have taken up this opportunity. However, the fact that 10 per cent. have done so shows that the scheme has brought home ownership within the reach of some individuals who would otherwise have been forced into the rental market, and this has diminished the pressure on council house accommodation and reduced the amount of capital expenditure which local authorities would have had to incur, not significantly perhaps, but still more than the Tories did when they were in office. Rather than hearing these generalised criticisms, I would be far more interested in knowing what the Tories would propose to do if they resumed office. In these debates the Tories adopt a rather negative attitude, only criticising the Government and not telling the House what they would do. Perhaps the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) will bear that in mind when he winds up tonight.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Norwood about the effect of taxation on mortgages and especially the fact that more tax relief is given in respect of the more expensive houses. This seems an anomaly, in that the encouragement of home ownership should be directed mainly towards those at the lower end of the income scale. If there is a larger market to be tapped and if there are many people who would like to own their own homes but who are unable to do so for financial reasons, we should remove some of the subsidies paid to the
  330
  "pop" stars who buy £30,000 houses and get the Income Tax relief on the interest they pay, and use the amount to help those at the bottom end of the scale, that is to say, the 10 per cent. who are going in for the mortgage option scheme.
  A reverse kind of subsidy is now paid to those who are very rich. The higher up the scale one goes, the larger the benefit to be gained from the Income Tax system. This is something to which the Government should give attention as part of a fundamental review of the financial help given to home ownership. I should like a scheme to be initiated which would lead to a reversal of these subsidies with more payment to those at the lower end of the income scale.
  I want finally to deal with the sale of council houses. I agree with the Minister that one must carefully distinguish between areas where a near balance between supply and demand is being achieved and where it is perfectly legitimate and desirable to sell council houses, as long as there is a demand for them, and those areas, such as the big conurbations, which are very far from achieving such a balance and where it will not be achieved for many years.
  People imagine that in my constituency we are well off for housing, but about one-third of the cases which come to my advice bureau every week are concerned with applications for local authority accommodation. That indicates the size and importance of the problem in a fairly well endowed constituency. It is morally wrong to reduce the stock of houses available for letting by selling them to well-off people who can easily afford to buy them on the open market.
  Certainly local authorities should build houses for sale to people who are already in their own lettings, so as to release that accommodation for others. They should also build them for sale to people on the waiting list if there are those who can afford to buy them, so as to relieve pressure and also to make room for others whose need is greater. I do not think that consciously and deliberately to reduce the amount of houses available for letting while there is this tremendous shortage is correct.
  I would beg the Minister to carry on with the policy he has announced today of preventing those local authorities who have ignored this advice so far from

  331
  wantonly destroying the assets at present under their control. I do not feel that I can go along with the Conservative Party in the generalised and sweeping criticisms it has made of the Government's housing programme and therefore I shall recommend my hon. and right hon. Friend not to support it in the Division Lobby this evening.
  6.10 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Rossi: There is little that I find more sickening than the cynicism of the Government over home-ownership and the lamentably complacent speech of the Minister this afternoon. It may be that he has mesmerised himself with the figures that he has juggled about the Floor of the House, but he has certainly not convinced the struggling young couples, desperately anxious to buy their own homes. They will not be convinced when they realise that they have to try to find a deposit out of an income which is being virtually taxed out of existence by the Government and, having scraped together the deposit—without the help of this 100 per cent. mortgage farce, which is worthless—find that the house they want is gradually receding from their reach as prices continue to rise.
  House prices have risen under this Government by something like 35 per cent. It is easy to say that mortgage interest rates were governed by factors outside our control, but this was not the impression given in the country in the last two General Elections, whatever gloss may be put on the public statements made by the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown). These are matters about which the country knows and no amount of gloss, manipulation or juggling in the House will convince them otherwise.
  I do not know why the Labour Party is not being honest over this. It proclaims itself as the party of public ownership. That is what it passionately believes in. Its platform over the years has been the nationalisation of land. More recently it was the municipalisation of rented properties. These are the things for which it has fought in the last 25 years. It was only in 1964 and 1966, when the tacticians of the Party decided that it was necessary to woo the middle class—
  Mr. Roebuck: Bunkum.
  Mr. Rossi:—that in desiring to woo the middle classes it was decided that home ownership was fair game. A number of reckless and dishonest promises were made.
  Mr. Roebuck rose—
  Mr. Rossi: I will not give way, we have very little time. The hon. Gentleman has only been in the Chamber for five minutes; I have been here the whole of the afternoon. We have heard promise after promise made by right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  "We will cheapen the cost of housing by our interest rates policy."
  That was the Prime Minister in Stevenage in September, 1964.
  "By intelligent monetary policies Labour will bring mortgages within the reach of young couples living on average incomes."
  The Prime Minister again, at Sitting-bourne in September 1963. Where are those promises today? What young couples now consider that mortgages are being brought within their reach by the high interest rates that they now have to pay?
  According to a very rough calculation that I have made, the recent increase in interest rates makes a £3,000 mortgage £830 dearer over a period of 25 years. This is the sort of thing that the Government's policies have brought about; this is that sort of thing that young married couples have to face. I revert to the policy of the Government over home-ownership. It is implicit in the way that they have been handling money. Local authorities have been continually operating under a "stop-go" policy on funds available for mortgage loans.
  We are always being told that local authorities have had to suspend their mortgage loan scheme. Even today, in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, he told us again that there was to be another stoppage or suspension. At the same time local authorities can have what money they want in order to buy in property for their own use. There is no restriction on that, not even on properties not required for development purposes. Local authorities throughout the country have been encouraged by the Government to acquire odd properties here and there, whether or not required for a redevelopment scheme.

  333
  This policy has not added one single new unit of housing accommodation to the stock of the country—it has not provided one extra home. It has brought into public ownership more and more property, and at the same time, by drying up the mortgage sources, has prevented more and more people from buying their homes. This is the real policy of the Government, and this is why I say that their attitude towards home-ownership is the utmost sickening cynicism.
  I accuse them of this and they stand condemned of it on their own policy. Today we have an even greater discouragement for people buying their own homes when we axe told that local authority policy based on local needs is to be interfered with again because they will not be able to sell properties to then-own tenants.
  As to house prices, we know the effects that S.E.T. has had. It is a direct policy of the Government, and from this side of the House we have urged them time and time again to relieve the building industry from the tax. It adds something like £40 or £50 to the cost of a three-bedroom house. Is this an encouragement towards home-ownership? What has devaluation added? It has increased home prices. There has been no preference given at all to the building industry, to essential social services. The Minister has turned a blind eye. There has been no agitation on his part to exclude housing materials from these impositions, yet he talks about wanting to encourage home ownership.
  Home prices have increased under the Labour Party's administration by 35 per cent. What has happened to the promises made before the last two General Elections, that the cost of housing and land would be brought down? These pledges have been broken. The British public has seen this and realises the truth. It does not require the right hon. Gentleman to come here and juggle with statistics to convince them otherwise. They will judge and criticise him on his complacent manner in approaching this grave social problem. He has done himself no good in approaching the problem in this way.
  The right hon. Gentleman has adopted an "Anything you can do I can do better" attitude towards the previous
  334
  Conservative Administration. He has said that he has built more houses for home ownership than anyone else. He said that the Tory Party should look at its record. I have the statistics in front of me. In 1952, 34,605 houses were built for home ownership. That figure had gone up to 218,094 by 1964. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about 1963?"] There has been a progressive increase from 1953 to 1964. I do not wish to weary the House by reciting the figures, but the peak was reached in 1964, when over 218,000 houses for home ownership were built. Since 1964, there has been a progressive decline in the number of houses built for owner-occupation. In 1965, 213,000 were built; in 1964, 205,000 were built; in 1967, 200,000 were built. We are told that in 1968 200,000 will be built, but the starts this year are 32,000 down on last year. Therefore, next year the figure will have slid down again.
  Mr. Costain: I hope that my hon. Friend will not let the Minister get away, as he tries to do, with what he says about 1963 when we had the coldest winter for a long time. No building was done for three months. The Government kept on using stupid arguments. We should show how wrong the Minister's arguments are.
  Mr. Rossi: The figure for 1964 was only slightly up on the figure for 1962, but from 1952 until 1964 there was a continuing progression and a continuing decline from 1964 carried forward into next year, as the starts show.
  These are the true figures, and the Minister should not juggle with selective statistics for his own benefit. He has no right to be complacent. He will stand judged, not on his words, but on his deeds. The people of this country know how easy it is to buy a house and to get a mortgage and to pay for it. On these facts, the right hon. Gentleman stands judged and condemned.
  6.22 p.m.
  Mr. Oscar Murton: The Minister is a man of considerable charm, but in his speech I thought that he overdid it to the point of complacency. Virtually half the houses in Great Brtain are owned by their occupants compared with the figure of 28 per cent. in 1953. This reflects much greater credit on the

  335
  last Conservative Administration than on anything which the present Administration has achieved in the last three and a half years.
  Credit for this lies also with the building industry and the building society movement in the determined efforts which have been made to provide the necessary mortgage finance. Mr. Norman Griggs, the Secretary-General of the Building Societies Association, has forecast that his movement has expanded so rapidly during the last decade that if present progress is maintained it will outstrip and overtake the total assets of the joint stock banks.
  That advance is conditioned entirely by the general financial climate of the country. There are signs that prospects are not reassuring. It is perhaps a truism to say that speculative house building —that is, the building of private houses for sale on the basis of market conditions and potential public demand—must of its nature be geared to and be affected by the general economic situation. We expect that about 215,000 houses will be completed in the private sector by the end of this year, but we must remember that from 1964 to 1967 inclusive there has been a steady fall in the stock of new housing from 58 per cent. to under 50 per cent. which has been caused, as we all know, by the restrictive financial policies of the Government.
  Supporters of the Government may take gratification from the fact that for the first time there were indications of buoyancy in the private housing market in the early part of this year, but there are already signs of a downturn. There is considerable evidence that the consumer boom at the beginning of this year was reflected in a boom in housing. There is no doubt that the average man is frightened about the state of our money. He has preferred to put whatever money he could into something solid and to buy his home before the harsher measures which had been forecast overtook him. There has been a flight of money into ordinary shares, despite the fact that they show such a low return. There has been an unpturn in investment in unit trusts. On the other hand, there has been a downturn in investment in fixed interest stocks and in savings in building societies.
  The building societies would face great difficulty if this movement were to
  336
  continue. Although they are managing to hold their own and to serve the country faithfully, if investment is removed from the building societies to any great extent —and there is no doubt that members of the public are beginning to use them as a form of banking from which they can quickly withdraw their money—they will have to increase their rates. If that happens, it will be a tragedy for the home owner. This is something to which the Government should pay due regard.
  The way to prevent that from happening is to overhaul the economic capability of the country and to lower interest rates so that home ownership is made easier and the building societies are able to attract the money which they can lend to the small man to help him to buy the home which is his heart's desire.
  6.28 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Roebuck: I have been provoked into saying a few words by the speech of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), who, having blown up, has blown out. I apologise for not having been present during the earlier part of the debate, but I was engaged in other parliamentary duties, as the hon. Gentleman perhaps would have realised if he attended as diligently to his parliamentary duties as I do.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Government were building too few houses for home ownership and in the next breath complained that it was alien to the philosophy of the Labour Party that people should buy houses for home ownership. Therefore, I did not know what he meant. I wish to correct that view, because it has always been the policy of the Labour Party that people should be encouraged to own their own homes. One of the first benefits which the early trade unions provided for their members was the collection of money to enable people to buy houses in rotation.
  It is absolutely false to suggest that we on this side of the House do not wish to encourage home ownership among all members of the community. [An HON. MEMBER: "But not among council tenants."] An hon. Member opposite says that we do not desire to encourage home ownership among council tenants. That is wrong. What we say is that there is a great need for rented accommodation, and we must look after those people who require

  337
  rented accommodation. But we desire to make easier the terms under which mortgages can be obtained so that those people can acquire houses of their own.
  In that respect, the Government have done many excellent things. For instance, they have effectively reduced the mortgage interest rate payable by people who do not earn enough to benefit fully from Income Tax relief on mortgage interest payments. They have done a splendid job in house building, but there is no room for complacency. I should like the Government to do far more to encourage small builders to come together on a co-operative basis. Although the building industry, under the guidance of my right hon. Friends the Ministers of Housing and Local Government and Public Building and Works, has increased its productivity remarkably in the last year or two, far more could be done by getting small builders to work together co-operatively, possibly by buying machinery for their joint use, so that they can boost the building of houses.
  I apologise for intervening in the debate when I had been present only a moment or two, but I was provoked to do so by the hon. Member for Hornsey, who most discourteously refused to give way.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I should like, first, to offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington), as other hon. Members have offered their congratulations to him, on a maiden speech the standard of which, I am sure, we all wish that we had achieved when making our own maiden speeches—and not only that, but a standard which we would like to have achieved in our subsequent speeches—I suppose one calls them "matron" speeches—in the House. If we all kept up to the standard set by my hon. Friend today, we should all be very happy and much more efficient Members.
  The interesting point made by my hon. Friend about the very high percentage of owner-occupation of houses in his constituency was a justification of the choice of this subject for debate today. He gave us a searching analysis of the mortgage option scheme, which again justifies
  338
  this debate, because I hope that out of it will come a review of the mortgage option scheme which will make it more acceptable.
  To my congratulations I wish to add a note of sympathy to the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of State of the Department which is answering this debate for his sudden illness. I hear that, since we saw him last night, the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace) has been taken to hospital for an operation.
  I must declare an interest, as is the custom in this House. I am a director of a building society, but I hope that that interest will enable me to give information to the House in a form which is up-to-date and knowledgeable. The recommended rates of mortgage interest —those recommended by the Building Societies Association—and the recommended rate of interest to investors are, as right hon. and hon. Members know, 7⅝ per cent. to be paid by borrowers and 4½ per cent. to be paid to investors.
  I must say at once, however, that the 7⅝ per cent. covers only a very narrow range of building society business—for example, 75 per cent. advances on new houses. In some societies it covers a wider range, but I would say that the average rate of interest now paid by borrowers is not the recommended rate of 7⅝ per cent. but is nearer 8 per cent. on an average taken over all borrowers and not simply borrowers on new houses. Accordingly, the rate offered to investors in many societies is now greater than 4½ per cent.
  It was correctly said in an interjection during the debate that the present rate offered by some societies to investors is 8½ per cent. gross when one takes into account that it is paid, to use the well-known phrase, free of Income Tax although it is not really tax-free. However, the position is bad enough for the borrowers on the recommended rate at 7⅝ per cent. At 7⅝ per cent., a borrower on an average mortgage—£3,000 for a 25-year term—pays 10s. more a week than he paid when a Conservative Government were last in office. He pays 30s. more a week than he would have been paying had he believed what was said by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown), or what he was reported to have said. That 10s. a week

  339
  applies if the borrower is lucky and is on a 7⅝per cent. mortgage. He is more likely to be paying about £1 a week more than he would have been paying in 1964. This is the measure of the increase of the rates of interest which are now being paid.
  Building societies try to cushion this by leaving the instalments the same and extending the term of payment, but few things are more depressing to an owner or more discouraging to home ownership than to get one's mortgage repayment book at the end of the year and to find that, though the monthly instalments have been paid throughout the year, one has paid off only about £1 or £2 at the end of the year. This is most discouraging. In some cases, as a result of the high interest rates, the building societies have found that by extending the term there would not be any reduction in the amount owing at the end of the year.
  Why should interest rates have gone to such a high level? Building societies have to pay sufficient to the investor to attract the money into the building society and to leave a margin, between what they pay the investor and what they receive from the borrower, sufficient to pay the liabilities. Here the Government come very much into the picture, and in a very harmful way.
  The difference between £4 10s., the rate paid to the investor, and £7 12s. 6d., the money received from the borrower, has to be used in management expenses, which on average are 12s. 3d. of that margin, on Corporation Tax, on the composite rate of Income Tax and on maintaining reserves and liquidity.
  The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) said that the Government should in some way oblige the building societies to use the money which they keep for liquidity and should guarantee that liquidity in some way. That would be absolute folly. To direct building societies what reserves or liquidity they should keep would to attack them in a business which they know how to run. If they were to use up the money which they keep for liquidity, it would be a once-for-all operation. It can happen only once, and there is no advantage in that.
  The Government's responsibility really falls in Corporation Tax, which takes a
  340
  substantial amount of that margin, and, in particular, in the composite rate of Income Tax. In 1964, this used to be 5s. l0d. It has gradually crept up to 6s. 3d. It is generally anticipated that that 6s. 3d. will go up in the next Budget. Because there is always a three months' gap between the increase in the rate to investors and the return which a building society gets from its borrowers, and because the building societies will be liable for any increase in this composite tax as from 1st January, they now anticipate—wisely, I think—that there may be, and almost certainly will be, a rise in the composite rate in the next Budget. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could give an assurance that he has no intention of increasing that composite rate, that would be a factor in stabilising mortgage interest rates.
  The Motion refers to the effect of higher interest rates. There is an effect not only on the payment of interest on the mortgage—the mortgage instalments —but on the availability of money to lend. A building society has to pay sufficient to its investors to attract money, and it has to compete against those who are offering rates similar to Bank Rate plus.
  The volume of sales and purchases depends on the availability of building society funds. One ought to look ahead at least for the rest of this year to see how much should be available to deal with the expected production of new houses. I am a little more optimistic than the Minister on the number of private enterprise houses which will be completed this year. I would have thought that we should get up to 215,000. If that is so, how much do we need in building society funds to ensure that those completed houses do not lie empty? My calculations are that we ought for the rest of this year, to be getting into building societies £80 million a month, and I am very doubtful whether, in present circumstances, 4½ per cent. interest to investors will produce as much as £80 million a month.
  It has not been easy to recover from November, 1967, to March, 1968, when there were massive withdrawals from the building societies—withdrawals, and a spending spree, because of devaluation, because of the squeeze in January last, and because of the threats of what might

  341
  happen in the Budget. Those massive withdrawals from the building societies at that time were a public vote of no confidence in the Government. People were taking their money out and spending it because they did not know what was going to happen to it in the Budget. I think there is bound to be difficulty in recovering from that in the rest of the year—unless we get that illusory economic miracle the Prime Minister talks about.
  Some sales and purchases are not dependent on building society funds, but mainly it is always a chain of sales and purchases, a chain of people buying and selling their houses, and if one link in that chain cannot get a building society mortgage the whole chain collapses.
  Another reason why the chain may break is that a bank refuses to give a bridging loan, and here the Government are responsible. We have been told by the Minister today of some new policy relating to bridging loans. What he assured the House, if I understood him correctly, was that that sort of loan is still not considered as priority for the banks—he said no more than that a bank might perhaps provide a bridging loan. Up to the present I have not found the banks are ready to do this even for the most substantial client.
  These are practical obstacles which do cause hardship to the prospective house purchaser. As I have indicated in the last few sentences, perhaps I ought to declare another interest—as a practising solicitor.
  In that connection, let me say that I regret that the Government, in their preoccupation with so-called reforms of steel and transport and taxation, have been unable to find the little time which would be necessary to reform the law of conveyancing, the law of selling and purchasing property, and thereby cutting down costs. In fact, as my right hon. and learned friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) has said, they are doing just the opposite. They are increasing the costs of conveyancing by partially suspending the Land Registry. They have increased costs by such legislation as the Land Commission Act and the Leasehold Reform Act, and so they are making it more difficult for home owners to buy property.
  342
  It is little wonder that the housing waiting lists of local authorities get no shorter. As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) said, those who come to us in our advice bureaux or "surgeries" or whatever we like to call them, come for assistance in housing matters more than, perhaps, any other matter; they come to get our help, usually, I find, about their position on the housing waiting list, and, like other hon. Members, I am sure, I always tell them, "This is a matter for the local councillors".
  But in going through the facts with them I sometimes find that here is a man earning £30 a week, or who has £35 going into the house a week, and I ask, "Why do you not save up and get a deposit and buy your own house? Why do you want to go on the councils waiting list?" He produces a little list of figures to show how impossible it is for him to do that out of his pay packet, out of which he has to meet rising prices for household goods and large sums for insurance contributions and so on. It really is extremely difficult, even for a man earning £30 a week to save up for a deposit.
  A 100 per cent. mortgage may be available for some, but these men are usually the ones who are on rising incomes; it is no good their taking an option mortgage and therefore they cannot get a 100 per cent. mortgage. This is where this policy has gone wrong. How much would he have to save up? If a house cost £3,000 in 1964 it would be £4,000 now. That is the rise in house prices. Why? Because of the recent increases from devaluation, from S.E.T., and from the general policies of the Government. Then the constituent says "Suppose I have got a house. I have managed to save up the deposit and I have managed to find a building society which will advance the money to me, but look at the expenses I will have to meet in repairs and rates".
  The Government have not carried out their promise to reduce the burden of rates to home owners. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh. They have."] Oh, no. The rate rebate scheme has just scratched the surface, in the same way as the Option Mortgage Scheme. Of all building society borrowers 10 per cent. have taken advantage of the Option Mortgage Scheme,

  343
  and the percentage of people who have taken advantage of the rate rebate scheme really does not show that it is an advantage to home owners in general. On both these subjects, particularly the option mortgage, I appreciate the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Hilton), who said that the Government are asking a man to gamble for 20 years—if he takes up a Option Mortgage Scheme.
  I hope that a review will result from this debate—perhaps an immediate review of the difficulties which have arisen out of the Finance Act. If I may offer a suggestion to the Minister about how he could solve this for those who have suffered from the Finance Act, I would suggest that they can escape from their option if they pay back the mortgage and take a fresh one from the same society. Perhaps the Government would pay the costs of that, since it is the Government's fault that the borrower has got into this difficulty.
  It is no solution to all these problems to step up local authority building. It is no solution to shortening the waiting lists because the local authorities have already plenty of work to do in slum clearance, and it takes half as long again to build a council house as it does to build a private enterprise house. I think it is positively harmful to the total production of houses to force up the total quantity of council house building and to force down private enterprise building, as the Government have done over the past years.
  Tonight we have been give two more damaging attacks on home ownership. First, forbidding the sale of more than an infinitesimal number of council houses in certain areas of the country—in major areas of the country. This really is a shocking interference with the right of the local authorities to decide their own needs in housing, and I think that the announcement which the Minister has made today will be a very great discouragement to home ownership in general and will be looked upon as an attack upon the local authorities in governing their affairs in their own districts.
  The second attack on home ownership we have heard today is a reduction in the local authority home mortgages, denying the advantage which prospective house purchasers could obtain from borrowing
  344
  the money from local authorities to two out of 10 people who would get it under the present policy. With the hon. Member for Norwood, I regret this and I think that the Government are wholly wrong to reduce the money available for loans by local authorities by 20 per cent.
  Here are two major discouragements to home ownership, and this in face of the desire for home ownership. It has now risen to 50 per cent. of all households and the statistics show that between 70 per cent. and 80 per cent. of the rest also want to own the house in which they live. Government policy should recognise that. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, the primary object should be to promote home ownership.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) said that perhaps this Government would not do that because they did not believe in it, but at any rate the Government are so far from realising that that should be a prime object of policy, and have so failed to make that an object of policy, that perhaps there should be an independent body to advise them how to do it, perhaps a Home Ownership Advisory Council, something between the National Insurance Advisory Council and the Prices and Incomes Board.
  The Minister spoke of the Joint Standing Working Party, but that does not seem to have been very effective in guiding him along the right lines for the home owner. Perhaps a politically independent body such as I suggest—a Home Ownership Advisory Council—would consider Government policy with a view to giving those of modest means a fair deal in home ownership. They have not yet had a fair deal under this Government.
  6.52 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): It is very pleasant to be able to begin by paying a tribute to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) for his extremely interesting maiden speech and for identifying himself with that group of us in the House to whom housing and local government are real and abiding interests and loyalties. I should also welcome him as joining that very select group of Lancashire Members. I also have an educational connection with him which, in these

  345
  post-Newsom days, might be mutually embarrassing. But we are glad to see him in the House and hope that he will take frequent part in our debates.
  The main accusation against my right hon. Friend and the Government has been of complacency. I agree that it is of great importance that no member of a Government talking about housing should ever allow himself to slip into complacency, but the temptation is great. When an Opposition, with the whole field of politics at their disposal, choose a Supply debate on home ownership and then, in every single respect, are found to be wrong in what they say, while the facts and statistics are found to be in our favour, the result is not a dispassionate debate with critical suggestions about the future, but a great deal of argument about the figures.
  We who are being accused of being congenitally against home ownership and hysterically hostile to private building have, as a Government, presided over 200,000 completions every year of private sector houses. In only one year, the year that we came in, did the party opposite reach 200,000 completions. These are the facts upon which we must approach these problems.
  I was glad that both my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) made the point with which I was going to start, that we must recognise that we are working under conditions of great economic difficulty. The facts of the situation are that we have a capital famine, that we must husband our resources and that we have to face a high international interest rate. But, without being complacent, we are entitled to take tremendous pride in the fact that, in spite of those difficulties, we have been able to achieve such a great success over such a wide field in housing.
  I want to start with the Option Mortgage Scheme, which, rightly, played a large part in the debate. There has been a good deal of criticism of it and of our booklet. The dilemma is that one wants to give information—which we are always being accused of being slow to give—and, on a highly technical subject, one must balance the need to be clear and simple against the need to be
  346
  accurate. There is nothing inaccurate in this booklet, which carefully says that one can talk only in general terms about when an option mortgage is likely to help. At the same time, in very large type, it emphasises that
  "if you choose an option mortgage you will not be able to change your mind and go back to income tax relief afterwards."
  We make it clear. To suggest that this is some sort of fraud is an extremely inept observation by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). We will certainly redraft the booklet, now that existing borrowers are no longer part of the scheme, to make it reliable and informative.
  I do not agree with some of my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Hilton), who were inclined to dismiss the scheme because only 10 per cent. of people have opted for it. If we can keep up that steady rate, which we have since it began, that would not be a bad figure. These, after all, are essentially the people who will benefit, who do not benefit from tax relief. It was the difficulty over the discrimination of Income Tax reliefs for mortgages which we tried to overcome.
  About 160,000 existing borrowers have opted. In May, a test sample showed that about 3,700 new borrowers had opted that month. These are people who are finding it of benefit, and the suggestion that they have all been outraged at discovering that they were not getting as much as they had hoped to get is very exaggerated. Our records in the Department show that we have had, from all those people, only about 200 letters complaining that they had not found the scheme as effective as they had hoped.
  The great advantages of the scheme are, first, that it gives a lower and regular annual payment of the charges on the mortgage, and, second—this is not always appreciated—that it gives a quicker repayment of capital than under ordinary Income Tax relief. Therefore, when the time comes to sell a house, the value which comes back to the owner-occupier will be greater, because he has paid off more of the capital which he has borrowed; therefore, it will come to him on a scale proportionately greater than it would in a comparable situation under Income Tax relief.
  Mr. Rippon: Is that all that the hon. Gentleman intends to say about the undertaking given by the Financial Secretary on 3rd July last, when he said that the most urgent inquiries would be made into the difficulties created by the operation of the Finance Act in this respect? Is he aware that his right hon. Friend said that while he regretted that, within the framework of the tax system, he could not solve the problem, he would see that the matter was put right? Will he make it clear that the Government will not shed responsibility for the position?
  Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend has not shed responsibility for the position. The urgent inquiries have been made and we are satisfied that the scheme is working well and is performing a good service. Subject to carrying out a revision of the booklet, I do not think that we need do more.
  Mr. Rippon: The Financial Secretary promised to help those who had suffered hardship.
  Mr. MacColl: Nobody suffered hardship who read the booklet correctly. Warnings were given in the booklet about what one must do if one wished to take the option. The swings and roundabouts must be balanced in relation to possible tax changes, and so on. In any event, as the scheme has been in operation for only three months, it is too early to say that it is working unfairly.
  There has been much discussion of my right hon. Friend's announcement to limit the sale of council houses in some big conurbations. Time does not permit me to go in great detail into this matter, but I must point out that my right hon. Friend has the responsibility of approving sales of corporation property. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have said that he should not interfere with the discretion of local councils. My right hon. Friend has a duty to see that corporation property is sold at the right price and in such a way that it assists the provision of houses.
  My right hon. Friend has constantly been saying that he does not want to interfere or quarrel with local authorities, but that he has an overriding duty to see that there is an adequate supply of council houses. This
  348
  has made it necessary for him to consider this whole matter. Indeed, in his circular issued in March, 1967, he said that within a year he would be looking at the problem. He said that before the local elections. My right hon. Friend is fully entitled to take this decision.
  The Mortgage Guarantee Scheme, which enables people to get help, has also been greatly discussed. At first, hon. Gentlemen opposite said that this scheme would not come into operation. They then said that it was a flop, even before it had had time to work. It was interesting to hear the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham, who is a master of mistiming prophesies, say that the scheme was a betrayal. When the scheme was being debated I explained that we would discuss the matter with the lending agencies and that it would be brought into operation as soon as funds were available.
  In denouncing us, the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) then accused us of being chicken hearted and pusillanimous and the great height of his peroration was that we were a timid collection of frightened geese. When one considers that when we came to power we did not have adequate housing subsidy arrangements, that we had to reconstruct the scheme for the public sector and get it through Parliament, design the option mortgage arrangements and introduce the guarantee scheme, we have done very well. Already, we have succeeded in protecting home owners through the work of the building societies, the builders and the house registration facilities.
  About 80 per cent. of houses are registered in this way and are thereby guaranteed, compared with an extremely small number so guaranteed in 1964. These are real achievements. If we were a lot of frightened geese, I only hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite can get fertilised by the same gander.
  Mr. Graham Page: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that on the 100 per cent. mortgage issue we have been pointing out that such a mortgage can be given only to a man who can take advantage of the Option Mortgage Scheme, that such a man does not have a rising income and that he is just the man who wants a 100 per cent. mortgage? Since the scheme is bound to fail because of this, is not the hon. Gentleman prepared to look at the matter again?
  Question put:—
  The house divided: Ayes 234, Noes 318.

  Division No. 284.]

  AYES

  [7.8 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Clover, Sir Douglas

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, sir Hugh

  Allason, Barnes (Hemel Hempstead)

  Goothart, Philip

  Murton, Oscar

  Astor, John

  Goodhew, Victor

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

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

  Grant, Anthony

  Neave, Airey

  Awdry, Daniel

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Grieve, Percy

  Onslow, Cranley

  Balniel, Lord

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Gurden, Harold

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Batsford, Brian

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Bell, Ronald

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Peel, John

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. & Fhm)

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Percival, Ian

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Peyton, John

  Biffen, John

  Hawkins, Paul

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hay, John

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Pounder, Rafton

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Heseltine, Michael

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Blaker, Peter

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Pym, Francis

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Braine, Bernard

  Holland, Philip

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Brewis, John

  Hordern, Peter

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hornby, Richard

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.SirWalter

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hunt, John

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Bryan, Paul

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Robson Brown, Sir William

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

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Royle, Anthony

  Burden, F A

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Jopling, Michael

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Campbell Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Scott, Nicholas

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Sharples, Richard

  Clark, Henry

  Kimball, Marcus

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

  Clegg, Walter

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Silvester, Frederick

  Cooke, Robert

  Kirk, Peter

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Kitson, Timothy

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

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

  Corfield, F. V.

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Costain, A. P.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Speed, Keith

  Craddock, sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Stainton, Keith

  Crouch, David

  Lane, David

  Stodart, Anthony

  Crowder, F. P.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

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

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Currie, G. B. H.

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

  Tapsell, Peter

  Dalkeith Earl of

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

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Dance, James

  Longden, Gilbert

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

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Loveys, W. H.

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Teeling, Sir William

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  MacArthur, Ian

  Temple, John M.

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Maclean, Sir Frtzroy

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Doughty, Charles

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain

  Tilney, John

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  McMaster, Stanley

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Maddan, Martin

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Eden, Sir John

  Maginnis, John E.

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Marten, Neil

  Waddington, David

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

  Maude, Angus

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Emery, Peter

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Mawby, Ray

  Wall, Patrick

  Farr, John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Walters, Dennis

  Fisher, Nigel

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

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Fortescue, Tim

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Webster, David

  Foster, Sir John

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

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

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Monro, Hector

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Gilee, Rear-Adm. Morgan

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, c.)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Wylie, N. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Worsley Marcus

  Younger, Hn. George

  Mr. Jasper More ond

  W right, Esmond

  Mr. Reginald Eyre.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Albu, Austen

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Ellis, John

  Judd, Frank

  Alldritt, Walter

  English, Michael

  Kelley, Richard

  Allen, Scholefield

  Ennals, David

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Anderson, Donald

  Ensor, David

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

  Archer, Peter

  Evans, A. T. (Caerphilly)

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

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

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

  Lawson, George

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Faulds, Andrew

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Ledger, Ron

  Barnes, Michael

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Barnett, Joel

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

  Baxter, William

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Beaney, Alan

  Foley, Maurice

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Bence, Cyril

  Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

  Ford, Ben

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Bessell, Peter

  Forrester, John

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Fowler, Gerry

  Lipton, Marcus

  Binns, John

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Bishop, E. S.

  Freeson, Reginald

  Loughlin, Charles

  Blackburn, F.

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Luard, Evan

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Gardner, Tony

  Lubbock, Eric

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Booth, Albert

  Ginsburg, David

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Boston, Terence

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Gourlay, Harry

  McBride, Neil

  Boyden, James

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  McCann, John

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  MacColl, James

  Bradley, Tom

  Gregory, Arnold

  MacDermot, Niall

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Brooks, Edwin

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  McGuire, Michael

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

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

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)

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

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

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

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Mackie, John

  Buchan, Norman

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Hamling, William

  Maclennan Robert

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hannan William

  MacMillan, (Glasgow, C.)

  Carmicheal, Neil

  Harper, Joseph

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Castle, Hn. Barbara

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

  Coe, Denis

  Haseldine, Norman

  Marks, Kenneth

  Coleman, Donald

  Hattersley, Roy

  Marquand, David

  Conian, Bernard

  Hazell, Bert

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Marsh, Rt Hn. Richard

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Maxwell, Robert

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Henig, Stanley

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Cronin, John

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Hilton, W. S.

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Hooley, Frank

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Horner, John

  Mikardo, Ian

  Dalyell, Tam

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Millan, Bruce

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

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

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Molloy, William

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Howie, W.

  Moonman, Eric

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Hoy, James

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  HUCKFIELD, Leslie

  Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hughes Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Davies, S. O. (Methyr)

  Hughes, Emrys (Aryshire, S.)

  Moyle, Roland

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Delargy, Hugh

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Murray, Albert

  Dell, Edmund

  Hunter, Adam

  Newens, Stan

  Dempsey, James

  Hynd, John

  Norwood, Christopher

  Dewar, Donald

  Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill

  Ogden, Eric

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

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

  Oram, Albert E.

  Dickens, James

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Orbach, Maurice

  Dobson, Ray

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Orme, Stanley

  Doig, Peter

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Driberg, Tom

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

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

  Dunn, James A.

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

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

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

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Eadie, Alex

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Paget, R.T

  Edelman, Maurice

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

  Palmer, Arthur

  352

  353

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Pardoe, John

  Sheldon Robert

  Urwin, T. W

  Park, Trevor

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Varley, Eric G.

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

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

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Pavitt, Laurence

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

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Watkins David (Consett)

  Peart, Rt, Hn. Fred

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Weitzman, David

  Pentland, Norman

  Silverman, Julius

  Wellbeloved, James

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Silverman, Julius

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Whitaker, Ben

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Slater, Joseph

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Small, William

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Snow, Julian

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Probert, Arthur

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Steele, David (Roxburgh)

  William, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Randall, Harry

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Williams, Clifford (Abertilley)

  Rankin, John

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Richard, Ivor

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Swain, Thomas

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Swingler, Stephen

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

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

  Symonds, J. B.

  Woof, Robert

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

  Taverne, Dick

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

  Yates, Victor

  Roebuck, Roy

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Thornton, Ernest

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Boss, Rt. Hn. William

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Tinn, dames

  Mr. J. D. Concannon.

  Ryan, John

  Tomney, Frank

  EMPLOYMENT (REDUNDANCY FUND)
  7.20 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Roy Hattersley): I beg to move,
  That the Redundancy Fund (Increase of Contributions) Order 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th July, be approved.
  Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that if the House has no objection we can, with this Order, take the Redundancy Fund (Advances out of the National Load Fund) (No. 2) Order, 1968.
  Mr. Hattersley: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Because of the agreement of the House, two Orders are before us simultaneously.
  If the House approves the Redundancy Fund (Advance out of National Loan Fund) (No. 2) Order, my right hon. Friend will be empowered to obtain temporary loans for the Redundancy Fund up to a maximum of £20 million. She will be able to exercise this power from 16th August.
  Section 35 of the Redundancy Payments Act made provision for borrowing up to a limit of £8 million. The total borrowing limit may be increased up to a maximum of £20 million if both Houses approve Orders authorising the additional amounts. I am, therefore, today asking for approval for the maximum sum specified in the Act. Any additional borrowing would be possible only after amendment to the original Act.
  The Redundancy Fund (Increases of Contributions) Order increases the weekly contribution paid by employers to the Redundancy Fund from l0d. to 1s. 3d. for men and from 5d. to 7d. for women. The new payment will apply from 2nd September, 1968. This increase, if approved by the House, will be made under powers given to the First Secretary by Section 27(3) of the Redundancy Payments Act.
  The House will know that, during its early life, the Redundancy Fund remained in approximate balance, with receipts and expenditure more or less equal By February, 1967 it was clear that the receipts were no longer adequate, and contributions were increased from 5d. to l0d. for men and from 2d. to 5d. for women.
  356
  The then Minister of Labour told the House that his original intention was to increase the contributions to 1s. for men and 6d. for women, but after consultation with the C.B.I, and the T.U.C. he accepted a smaller increase. Of course, the decision to recommend the lower figure to the House is the responsibility of the Government and the Government's alone. However, the decision was taken, after industry—which finances the Fund and to whom the fund belongs in a very real sense—had been properly consulted. In my view, we were absolutely right to agree to operate on what then appeared to be a minimum necessary contribution.
  Industry continues to hold the view that we should operate as near to the margin as is prudent. Acceptance of that principle must mean that although we can promise that the contribution is not put up to an unnecessarily high level, there may be times when the tolerances we have allowed ourselves are just not sufficient to cover fluctuations in demands on the fund.
  In July, 1967, because expenditure was greater than income, we had to increase the fund's borrowing limits from £8 to £12 million. I told the House then that the increased borrowing limit was a temporary expedient and that my Ministry was considering, with industry, the level of future contributions. In his Budget statement this year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that from 2nd September contributions would increase to 1s. for men and 6d. for women, thus achieving the level we had recommended the year before. In April this year I asked the House for permission to increase the borrowing limit to £15 million to meet the outgoings from the fund until these new contribution levels had increased its income.
  Before hon. Gentlemen quote to the House what I then said, let me quote it myself. I told the House that I hoped that the fund would be in surplus within two years, and that these increases should not be taken to imply any pessimism on the Government's part about the future trend in unemployment. I also told the House that the inability of the fund to meet all the demands upon it were neither the result of inadequate forecasting nor of unemployment persisting at a higher level than we had anticipated. I repeat this evening that the additional demands

  357
  on the fund then and now are neither the result of inadequate forecasting nor of unemployment persisting at a higher level than we had anticipated.
  Unfortunately for forecasting, the level of unemployment alone does not determine the outgoings from the fund. Payments vary according to the men and women made redundant—their age, their length of service in their last job and the pay they received. All these factors influence the size of each individual redundancy payment and complicate the task of forecasting outgoings from the fund with any accuracy.
  For example, 10 men under 40 with six years' service and average earnings of £20 per week receive from the fund less than one-third of the payments made for 10 older men with 15 years' service and average earnings of £24 per week. To forecast with any accuracy the calls on the fund we would need to predict not only the number of new redundancies, but the ages, service and wages of each man who became redundant. This is clearly an impossible task.
  This position has been well exemplified during the first six months of this year. The number of individual payments has slightly decreased. In the three months ending in March there were 63,500; in the three months ending June there were 62,700. Yet outgoings from the fund have continued to rise because the average amount of each payment has increased too sharply. The average payment for the whole financial year ending March 1968 was £155; in the last quarter of that year it was £164; in the first quarter of this financial year it has risen to £173. As a result of this, weekly expenditure, which I reported to the House in April as averaging £800,000 during the previous nine months, has risen to £900,000, although the actual number of redundancy payments has fallen during the same period.
  The increased contributions of 1s. and 6d. which were announced in April would have produced an income of £835,000 per week—a figure clearly inadequate: to meet outgoings at the present level. The figure which I now recommend to the House will produce a weekly income of over £1 million. If expenditure remains steady at the £900,000 figure, the deficit will be wiped
  358
  out in 1971. I emphasise that as no more than a simple arithmetical fact. If expenditure remains steady the deficit will disappear in three years. But whether or not it remains steady depends on the average level of wages over the next three years and the employment record of men and women made redundant.
  Because of this sudden and unpredictable deterioration in the finances of the fund, this remedial action which I now commend to the House has had to be taken after less than adequate consultation with either side of the industry. Both the C.B.I, and T.U.C. have been informed, but we would have welcomed the opportunity to discuss the increase with them in greater detail. We have, however, received the views of the C.B.I. It accepts the increase as inevitable, but it reiterates its view that it is important for us to keep the redundancy contribution as near to the operation cost of the fund as possible. It is, in short, opposed to a large surplus being built up in the fund at the expense of industry. We agree with that view, and it is because of our agreement that such a surplus would be undesirable that we have constantly held the contribution level down to a basic minimum. I am sure that we were right to do this, but the House will understand that this has involved the possibility of the fund falling into deficit and contribution increases having to be made to retrieve that position.
  Another by-product of that decision is that Ministers, myself among them, have been required to come to the House with boring frequency to confess that the figures have changed during the last few months. I take the view, and if the House agrees to nothing else I am sure it will agree with this, that this is an attempt to operate as near as possible irrespective of the marginal embarrassment caused to my right hon. Friend and to me.
  Clearly, this increase is an additional burden on industry and at a time when the Government are urging industry to become increasingly competitive I cannot commend this increase to the House with anything but regret. But I think that it would be wrong were we to overestimate how great is the additional burden involved. The whole Redundancy Fund

  359
  Contribution represents little more than one quarter of 1 per cent. of labour costs. The increase for which I ask today is less than one-tenth of 1 per cent.
  In addition, and perhaps more important, I believe that the contribution that industry makes to the fund is a real contribution towards industrial efficiency. An examination of the payment pattern from the fund shows very clearly that there is no very large permanent pool of unemployed. Were the men who are unemployed this month the same as those who were unemployed two or three months ago we would be making far fewer redundancy payments than we are now. The continuing size of the redundancy payments, together with the fall in the numbers of unemployed, makes it clear that there is both a movement on to and away from the register of unemployed. This movement—this policy of redeployment—is carried on with infinitely less friction than would be the case were there no redundancy payment to soften the blow of temporary unemployment.
  This argument, in my view, applies as much to a man who loses one job and immediately finds another as it does to a man who has a period of unemployment between his old job and his new job. An unconditional redundancy payment encourages the individual to accept the difficulties and adjustments involved in changing jobs with less resentment than he would do otherwise. It is the compensation for the loss of a job, for the loss of security and for all the risks involved in leaving one job and moving to another and it has come about as a result of the scheme. The fund is well worth paying for in practical hard commercial terms.
  In a recent small sample survey my Ministry found no single cases where it could be said that payment had been made where no redundancy existed. Of course, in any scheme as complicated and as involved as this, covering as it does so many workers and so many companies, there may be people who have abused the scheme, but they are few in number—infinitely fewer than the critics sometimes suggest. They are certainly far too few to make a significant difference to the level of payment from the
  360
  fund. The overwhelming majority of payments are made to men who have genuinely lost their jobs and who genuinely seek other employment. Because of this the scheme works, humanely and compassionately, but it also helps to alter employment patterns without friction and without conflict.
  That, in itself, justifies the scheme and the extent of the scheme. It is in that spirit, in the spirit of the need to continue the scheme solvently and successfully that I commend these Orders to the House.
  7.34 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Scott: When the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity invited the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) to attend a party to celebrate the passing of the Prices and Incomes Act, he replied that his suit of sackcloth and ashes was at the cleaners. I wondered whether the Joint Parliamentary Secretary might have managed to borrow it for this evening's proceedings.
  He has come so frequently to the House having so firmly forecast that the powers he was taking either for the level of contribution or for borrowing were going to be adequate to keep the fund solvent and he has now had to come back to us for yet another massive increase in both. He has had to do so while having to confess that this decision again has been taken without any proper consultation with those to whom he so frequently tells us the fund is supposed to belong.
  I make quite clear that we on this side of the House accept the need for some scheme for economic and social reasons to cope with redundancy. We shall not oppose the Order because we accept that the fund must remain solvent, but I am sure it would be wrong for us to pass these Orders without questioning both the past history and the future prospects of the Fund to which these Orders relate. After all, we have been here several times before, as the hon. Gentleman confessed.
  When the contributions were included in the Act, they were at the levels of 5d. and 2d. In November, 1966 they were increased to 10d. and 5d. for men and women respectively. In the Budget we were promised, an increase to 1s. and 6d.

  361
  Now, before those increases have been implemented, we have a further increase to 1s. 3d. for men and 7d. for women. The story about the borrowing powers is very similar. In the Act, although the upper limit was £20 million, the Government were empowered to borrow up to only £8 million. In July, 1967 that rose to £12 million. In April, 1968 it rose to £15 million and now it has been raised to the limit empowered by the Act of £20 million.
  It is a sad story of bad forecasting and escalating costs trying desperately to maintain the solvency of the Fund. Of course, it is small beer compared with the additional contributions in terms of taxation and additional debts which the Government have heaped on to the country, but in its field it is important.
  The first point I come to is the accuracy of the forecasts the Government make about this fund and their hopes for keeping it solvent. When we go back to the Second Reading of the original Bill, we remember that the then Minister of Labour, of blessed memory, said of the 5d. and 2d. levels that the total cost would depend on a variety of factors. He said:
  " In the light of this, we have proposed a level of surcharge which should, we think, ensure that the Redundancy Fund is self-financing over a substantial period."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1965: Vol. 711, c. 44.]
  This was three years ago and we were talking about a level one-third of that in the Orders we are debating.
  On 24th July, 1967 the Joint Parliamentary Secretary came back to the House for increased borrowing powers. He said:
  "I emphasise again that any problems of tiding over difficulties are in a sense hypothetical. Certainly they are hypothetical in terms of a £12 million ceiling. My right hon. Friend believes that the £12 million ceiling will never be reached. It is certainly possible that the existing ceiling of £8 million may prove adequate, but I am sure that the House will agree that prudent management of the Fund requires us to make sure that sums are available to bolster and buttress the Fund to keep it out of deficit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th July, 1967; Vol. 751, c. 275.]
  To adapt a famous phrase, some hypothesis, some deficit!
  On 4th April this year we had Orders further to increase the borrowing powers. One would have thought that by this time the fact that so many fore-
  362
  casts had proved inadequate the hon. Gentleman would have learned some of the prudence he was proclaiming on the previous occasion yet even then he was making firm forecasts which have since proved completely inadequate. He said:
  "how can the House accept my assurance that no further sums will be needed? The answer is this: even during the period of maximum outgoings the average over the past six or eight months has been £799,000 a week. By 2nd September, when the increased contributions are due, the weekly income will be £830,000 per week. Even if outgoings persist at their present level, which I am sure the House will agree is an unlikely eventuality, there will be a weekly surplus on the fund.
  What I am suggesting to the House it that by offering the knowledge that the contribution is to increase, I am offering the certainty that the borrowing powers at present asked for will pay the bill until that time."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page), who wound up for the Opposition, asked:
  "Was the hon. Gentleman sincere in what he said tonight and does not he think that the Fund will be knocking on the door of £15 million within another eight months? I do not see why there should be a dramatic change in pattern ".
  The Parliamentary Secretary returned to the point and reasserted:
  "The £15 million ceiling will preserve that solvency. The new rate of contribution in September will make solvency permanent. I hope we all agree that our intention to maintain solvency with minimum borrowing powers is the right step to take."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1968; Vol. 762, c. 707–23.]
  All these forecasts successively have been proved to be nonsensical. Have the Government managed to study the redundancy patterns so that the forecasts which they are making about the future claims upon the fund are better than those which have gone before? Today we are debating yet another increase in contributions and in borrowing powers. It is right that we should ask why.
  The hon. Gentleman was clear and strong on the fact that the anomalies and abuses do not add up to any significant impact on the Fund. Will he quantify this later, because this was a very flat assertion? We all read about all sorts of abuses that occur.The Guardian for 5th March of this year said:
  "Three men in Peterborough were awarded more than £400 between them, although they had never left their job. The firm they worked for was a wholly-owned subsidiary

  363
  which was changed into an active company. A clerk who was declared redundant by a company and collected £160 from the fund was taken back a month later to do a similar job. A union district secretary has cited cases of collusion between employer and employees to make the worker eligible for payment."
  Then there are the stories about firms where, when an employee is getting near to retiring age and is not available for any substantial pension, he is declared redundant and takes a substantial handout from the fund. It may be right that he should get some sort of handout, but it is quite another question whether it should be from the fund and whether the fund should be used in this way.
  Perhaps the most blatant example of abuse of the fund was the change over in the television companies. I quote from The Times of 23rd March:
  "Technicians have all been guaranteed jobs with the new London weekend Thames Television, the Welsh Harlech and the Yorkshire Television groups, but as well as continuity of employment and full pension rights they have also received payments believed to total up to £250,000."
  I think that the hon. Gentleman has a duty to justify his flat assertion that the anomalies and abuses make no significant impact upon the state of the fund. It would certainly appear that, if these cases are at all widespread, the fund is being abused; and its administration and, without getting out of order, perhaps even the Act itself need tightening up.
  Have the Government made any more accurate estimate than, again, the rather flat assertion that the hon. Gentleman made about the link between the level of unemployment and demands on the fund? The hon. Gentleman rightly said that there is no absolute link, that the demands on the fund depend upon the number of men made redundant, upon their length of service, upon the pay that they are receiving, and upon their age.
  The very fact that the total level of unemployment is rising means almost certainly that the numbers who are making claims upon the fund will rise; so there must be some link somewhere. I should be surprised if the high and, indeed, rising level of unemployment was not having a significant impact on the present state of the fund. One thing that they both have in common is that the
  364
  accuracy of the forecasts by right hon. and hon. Members opposite have been miserably inadequate. I do not want to stray out of order, but forecasts have been made about the state of the fund and about the level of unemployment. Both have been proved wrong. I believe that there is a link between the two.
  After all, we have very firm forecasts about the state of unemployment in the late summer and autumn of this year. To go to the fountain head, as it were, the Prime Minister said this on 22nd November last year:
  "Certainly I do, and can tell him, on the best estimates available to us before devaluation, that unemployment next autumn looked like being well within that 1½ to 2 per cent. bracket, as a result of what was already going forward … it is right to tell the House that the problem which we shall be facing in a year's time is far more likely to be not deflation and unemployment, but expansion to a scale which might lead to labour shortage in many areas."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 22nd November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 1334.]
  In fact, as we know, the performance has not lived up to that promise.
  The Parliamentary Secretary said that there is no permanent pool of unemployed, but within the figures of unemployment the precentage of those who are long-term unemployed has been rising steadily. In January of this year 50 per cent. of those who were unemployed had been unemployed for eight weeks or less. In June the figure was down to 32 per cent. Long-term unemployment seems to be on the increase. Unemployment in total rose again this month. The figure for this month, seasonally adjusted, is 581,000 or 2·5 per cent. This is the highest figure since seasonally adjusted figures have been kept. It is even in excess of the much vaunted and much discussed February, 1963 figure. I repeat that the seasonally adjusted figures today are the highest for any month since figures have been published. I am sure that this has an impact upon the level of demand on the fund.
  My penultimate question is this. The hon. Gentleman is asking for contributions to go up to three times the level envisaged in the original Act and for substantial additional borrowing powers, right up to the limit envisaged in the original Act. We have a continuing high level of unemployment and, indeed, a rising level of unemployment. On 2nd

  365
  September, the Selective Employment Tax will be increased by 50 per cent. We know that this tax was supposed to be one of the weapons to bring about, in the Prime Minister's immortal phrase, the
  "more purposive use of labour".
  The Parliamentary Secretary once said that he did not know what that phrase meant. I do not know whether the Prime Minister has yet told him what it means.
  We can argue about the effects of the Selective Employment Tax. The Government say that the tax means redeployment and it means people losing their jobs; it means people moving to other jobs. If this is so, it surely means additional claims upon the fund. Yesterday's summary in The Times of the London and Cambridge Economic Bulletin showed that productivity is rising very fast. If productivity is to rise at 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. a year and the economy is to expand at only 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. a year approximately—one would doubt that—unemployment itself must rise. This will mean still more claims upon the Fund.
  We are absolutely at the limit of the borrowing powers. One wonders whether the Government ought not to be thinking about foreshadowing a new Act in the Gracious Speech for next Session, because it seems that the powers under the existing Act have been exhausted.
  Both the C.B.I. and the hon. Gentleman's Department are looking at the working of the scheme, but, in the light of the continued inadequancy of Government forecasting, I wonder whether some more detailed and more public examination, perhaps by the Public Accounts Committee or by the Estimates Committee, is now necessary. I have no doubt that we need the redundancy payments scheme. As I have said, for both economic and social reasons, something of the sort is necessary, but, in view of the record of Government forecasting and their management of the scheme, I hope that we shall, before approving these Orders, have satisfactory answers to the questions which I have raised.
  7.50 p.m.
  Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: I echo the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Padding-ton, South (Mr. Scott) that this might well be a suitable subject for study by
  366
  one of the Select Committees. Nothing but benefit could result.
  The objective of the Redundancy Payments Act is well worth expenditure, and substantial expenditure at that. As I have not previously addressed the House on this subject, I make clear my general attitude to the Act at the outset. None the less, when Orders involving expenditure on the present scale come before us, it is right to ask whether that level of expenditure can be justified by certain knowledge that it is wisely applied and used to the maximum effect.
  It is worth restating in every debate we have on this and allied quesions that the purpose of the expenditure is well worth while. First, it reduces the sense of personal insecurity, which is of great importance in the contribution which we can make to the total sum of human happiness. Second, it helps to make industrial change more tolerable for the individual. In those two ways, the expenditure makes it less likely that firms will shrink from or be diverted from action which is economically desirable. Thus, the scheme helps to bring about a willingness to achieve the reorientation of production and organisation in industry which we all agree is so much needed.
  First, on the general background, it is well to remember that to talk about change is one thing but to be on the receiving end of industrial change is quite another. The right hon. Lady the First Secretary of State, when discussing the claims of the Liverpool busmen, I think it was, used a memorable phrase in speaking of the stress and strain of the work which entered into consideration. I do not believe that we fully appreciate the stress and strain which industrial change and restructuring puts on the individual. When we are considering whether expenditure under the scheme is justified, it is right always to bear in mind the human considerations as well as the purely statistical or economic factors.
  The redundancy payments scheme, though an effective measure, is an extremely crude one. We deceive ourselves if we do not recognise that without reservation. A crude or roughly shaped weapon involving expenditure may be acceptable when the expenditure is not unduly large, but, as the expenditure steadily rises, the question is whether the

  367
  instrument itself could be refined and directed to better purpose. Its very crudeness may make it unacceptably expensive.
  The Under-Secretary of State spoke of the difficulty of forecasting what the expenditure was likely to be. I do not know whether he has them in his Department, but there are such people as actuaries, who spend a substantial part of their time assessing what contributions are necessary for pension funds. Although to give an exact forecast of the contributions required an actuary needs exact details of the age and service structure in the undertaking to which he is applying his mind, he is prepared to give a theoretical forecast based on a cross-section of industry, and can do so quite accurately.
  The only element in the redundancy payments scheme which does not arise in forecasting the cost of a pensions fund is that, as well as length of service and salary level on retirement—which both enter into the final pension fund calculation—there is the factor of age as well. That is the only factor present in the redundancy fund calculation which is not present in the other.
  I hope, therefore, that the Department will set about this question and cease making a margin of error of 350 per cent. We are now asked to approve contributions at 350 per cent. of the original level. If an actuary made a forecast of a pension fund contribution, saying that 15 per cent. would cover the outgoings of the fund, and then, after less than three years, he had to tell his client that he was sorry but 52½ per cent. was required, he would have to do more than make general remarks of the sort which the hon. Gentleman has just uttered about uncertainties and factors which are hard to forecast. It is not good enough. The hon. Gentleman would do better to "come clean" and admit that his Department was not up to the job of forecasting and assure the House that he will do better in future.
  Are we getting value for the money? There is little or no attempt to adjust the provision to the individual's prospects of re-employment at a similar wage or salary. The three elements in the formula to which I have just referred, length of service, age and pay, come into considera-
  368
  tion here. Age has a bearing on the prospect of re-employment, and so has length of service, though, in my view, only insofar as it is a reflection of age. But employment prospects in the individual's locality do not enter into the calculation at all. The cost is the same right across the board. Nor do the skills or qualifications for alternative employment which the individual has.
  We pay out of the fund—and we are asked to approve these Orders in the knowledge that we are so doing—the same amount to a man possessing a skill for which there is a known unsatisfied demand in industry and who may well be working in one of the prosperous regions where work is readily available as we do to a man possessing a skill for which the only demand in the locality came from the employer who has just declared him redundant.
  As a recognition of past service, the formula has merit, but I do not feel that we are being asked to pay out these large sums as a recognition of past service. That is not the purpose of the Redundancy Payments Act. Now that we are talking of sums of £50 million a year it would be as well if we consider what we are trying to achieve with the payments. The first thing we should be bound to conclude is that the payments are only very loosely related to the degree of personal hardship redundancy has brought to the individual. This is fundamental, and when I say "very loosely" that is exactly what I mean. One can almost say that they are not related at all.
  Other aspects will come more into focus as the payments continue. First, an individual facing redundancy for a second time has little hope of any substantial entitlement. It is very largely a once-and-for-all exercise for the individual. In effect, he has exhausted his entitlement on his first redundancy. The longer the Act is in operation, and the more often we discuss payments from the fund, the more material it becomes that an increasing number of people in industry will enjoy comparatively little protection from the Act and will receive comparatively small payments from the fund, even though they may be at an age where they will find alternative employment much more difficult to obtain.

  369
  The other point is that while the Act no doubt facilitates restructuring and rationalisation in major reorganisations, in the case of the individual it is a very real hindrance to mobility, because when a man moves from one job to another he writes off his expectation of redundancy pay in the future. This may not be generally appreciated, but it will become more and more appreciated that the man with 20 years' service with one firm who has the opportunity of another job, with perhaps slightly more responsibility and better pay, with another firm down the road will ask himself whether he is wise to move; if by chance his industry is subject to change and he stays with the firm he will receive several hundreds of pounds but if he is made redundant by his new employer he will receive very little.
  Therefore, the fact that a man writes off his redundancy eligibility when he changes jobs is a real barrier to individual mobility, and from that point of view we are not helping industrial change by making these very large contributions to the fund.
  What conclusions should we draw at this stage? We should examine the possibility of reducing the entitlement of men with long service who are still in the prime of life in exchange for a quicker build up of entitlement in early years of employment, particularly a quicker build up in early years of employment in a new occupation for men of 50, 55, or above I believe that the curve on the table is wrong, that it is too unimaginative and regular in its progression. The table might well be altered without doing any grave disservice to anybody.
  I call in evidence for my claim that there is something a little strange about the payments we are making the fact that men aged 45 with nine years' service receive 11 weeks' pay when made redundant, while men with nine years' service, aged 59, many of whom are well over the top as regards obtaining new employment, receive 13½ weeks' pay. That does not seem to reflect the realities of life. Now that the figures are so large I hope that at some opportunity we shall consider making the table more closely reflect the true realities of life, and the fact that as people move their entitlement is very much reduced.
  370
  Would not it be more in the individual's interest and more economical if part of the present expenditure from the fund which is now made directly to the employee were made to a new employer in the form of a training grant, where it can be shown that retraining is necessary before the individual can fill a job vacancy? I hope that you will feel. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this suggestion falls within the scope of the Orders and the question of getting value for the money, and that it will strike a chord in the Parliamentary Secretary's heart.
  At present, substantial training grants are available to firms in development areas, and substantial payments are made to firms expanding in them. Under the Industrial Training Act industry is being encouraged to undertake substantial expenditure on those already in a firm's employment. But it might well be in the national interest if some of that effort and expenditure were diverted to retraining those out of work.
  I know that much is being done in Government training centres. The Government have succeeded in continuing the expansion in industrial training centres, but there are great difficulties in getting men of mature age with family commitments to attend them. My experience of difficulties of which constituents have told me is that they will hold on perhaps to the last minute rather than go some distance away, so that they see their families only at weekends and have their whole pattern of life changed.
  I believe that an imbalance is developing between expenditure on training people in employment and expenditure directed to helping those out of work to regain employment and increase the value of the contribution they can make to the national economy. It may well be that some Industrial Training Act expenditure could be used to deal with the sort of problem the Redundancy Fund is designed to overcome.
  The figures involved have now become very substantial. In a former debate the Under-Secretary said that they were industry's expenditure and not the Government's. But they are a pre-emption of the the economy's resources. We must remember that earnings-related benefits have been introduced since the scheme was first devised, and it would be surprising if a scheme that was apt and

  371
  suitable in the absence of earnings-related benefits was still the most suitable vehicle now that they have been introduced. It may well be that we can find ways of helping those who have been made redundant to get a better job, and at the same time to benefit themselves and the country whilst reducing the cost of the scheme's operation.
  Redundancy is rightly an emotive word. As I said at the beginning, this is expenditure on something very worth while that touches some of the deepest feelings of the people of this country. But that is no reason for allowing a situation which has been shown to be increasingly illogical to continue, and no reason for failing to examine whether we can get better value for the money, and possibly at the same time spend considerably less than £1 million a week, which is what we are talking about this evening.
  8.10 p.m.
  Mr. John Pardoe: This Order is yet another entry in the catalogue of woe which many of us have been involved in for some time. The history of the Redundancy Payments Fund is an infamous example of the fallibility of government. I do not mean any particular Government, but government in general. I have no quarrel with the principles of the Act. Liberals have long advocated that a man has certain rights in his job and that, when he loses it through no fault of his own, he should be entitled to compensation,
  On the Second Reading of the Redundancy Payments Act, my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) said:
  "The Liberal Party supports the general principle of the Bill, but I have some reservations to make."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1965; Vol. 711, c. 113.]
  I, too, have some reservations to make and one of them is this Order. Let us look at the record.
  The Act came into force in December, 1965. The contributions then were 5d. for a man and 2d. for a woman. The average weekly income was then estimated to bring in £350,000 a week. The right hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter), the then Minister of Labour, said on Second Reading:
  "The total cost of redundancy payments will depend on the number of redundancies, the
  372
  age and service composition of the workers made redundant, and future changes in earnings since the payments will be based on earnings. None of these factors can be forecast with any precision. We have had to take into account a range of possibilities, using the best information available to my Department. In the light of this, we have proposed a level of surcharge which should, we think, ensure that the Redundancy Fund is self-financing over a substantial period."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1965; Vol. 711, c. 44.]
  Those words "substantial period" ring rather hollow in the light of experience since.
  To cover some of these uncertainties the right hon. Gentleman took the power to borrow up to £8 million and a further £20 million, if necessary, with parliamentary approval. The Account for the Redundancy Fund for 1966–67 says that on 1st April, 1966, when the fund had been running a very short time, there was a balance of £2·5 million. But the Account foreword says:
  "During May there was a substantial increase in the amounts of rebates and other payments and from that time until October the average weekly excess of expenditure over income was about £170,000 with the result that further investment … was no longer possible."
  By October, 1966, the fund's resources were so exhausted that the first borrowing from the Consolidated Fund took place in November, 1966. Also, in October, 1966, the right hon. Gentleman laid an Order before the House to increase contributions from 5d. to 10d. for men and from 2d. to 5d. for women, an increase of 100 per cent. for the former and 150 per cent. for the latter. On 15th November, 1966, moving approval of the Order, he said:
  "Unfortunately, pioneering produces its own problems".
  It does indeed.
  "One cannot lean on someone else's experience; one has to make decisions on the basis of what data lies to hand. I said on that occasion, in referring to the total cost of the scheme that none of the relevant factors— namely, the number of redundancies, the age and length of service of redundant workers and future changes in earnings—could be foreseen with precision, and that only experience would show whether an adjustment was needed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1966; Vol. 736, c. 371.]
  Once, yes, but surely not twice and not three times.
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that redundancies since April, 1966

  373
  had been running at a rate of about 125,000 a year compared with an estimate originally of 105,000. That was a fairly substantial increase in the estimate, even then. He explained that a higher proportion than estimated of those people being made redundant were over 40, which was increasing the per capita size of the payment. Compared with an estimated average per capita payment of £130, the average was then running at £180,000. All this meant that the fund had been running at a loss of nearly £100,000 a week on average since mid-April.
  The Account published last February refers to the deficit during the same period of £170,000 a week. It is possible that there is one month's difference in the period to which the two refer. But the right hon. Gentleman referred to £100,000 a week on average since mid-April and the Account refers to £170,000. It may be that the month of April constitutes the difference, but it is a rather large difference. What is the reason for these two figures being so far apart?
  The right hon. Gentleman forecast that, by February, 1967, when the contributions would be increased, the deficit would have reached £4½ million, which was slightly more than half the borrowing powers. He forecast, too, that the average weekly expenditure between mid-October, 1966, and mid-April, 1967, would have reached £650,000 and he hoped that it would fall to £430,000 during the period mid-April, 1967, to mid-October, 1967. He also said that, since there would be a gradual fall-off over these two six-month periods, the average for the whole 12 months would be £600,000 and that it would return— and this is significant—to what he called "a more normal level" of expenditure, perhaps from the spring of 1968.
  We have just passed spring, 1968. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman's figure was for a more normal level of expenditure, but the Under-Secretary of State has given a figure of £900,000 a week, which is slightly more than twice what the right hon. Gentleman forecast for the six-month period mid-April to mid-October, 1967. In my own speech on 15th November, 1966 I challenged the whole insurance principle of the scheme and said that, in a field where calcula-
  374
  tions were so notoriously difficult, it was wrong to try and balance the books from year to year and even, indeed, from six-month period to six-month period.
  I objected, also, to a flat rate contribution financing an earnings-related benefit and said that this was the wrong way to redistribute income. I proposed that the increases should be related to the experience of the mis-use of manpower in particular industries, and I cited the American example of a no-claim bonus —a fairly common principle in insurance that we should introduce. This advice was not taken and things have not worked out at all according to the forecast we were given on that occasion, which is not very long ago.
  On 13th July, 1967 an Order was laid to increase the borrowing limits. The Under-Secretary of State admitted that weekly outgoings since February, 1967, had averaged over £700,000 instead of £600,000 as forecast. The borrowing had risen from £4·5 million in February to £5·3 million in July. Asking the House to raise the borrowing powers from £8 million to £12 million, the hon. Gentleman optimistically thought that that would be the total which he would require and he said:
  "My right hon. Friend believes that that £12 million ceiling will never be reached … What I am asking for tonight is permission to provide for a contingency …"
  The hon. Gentleman ended his speech with words which I then took at their face value. He said:
  "I emphasise to the House that it is our intention to examine the nature of the Fund, the nature of the contributions, and to report to the House where the contribution level stands and what are the best long term interests of the Fund and how its solvency can and should be preserved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1967; Vol. 751, c. 275–6.]
  I took that promise of an inquiry to mean, not that he would come back 12 months later for another increase, but that there would be a fundamental, thoroughgoing examination of what was wrong with the scheme and not just with the fund.
  Today, we have a further proposal to raise contributions from 10d. to 1s. 3d. for men and from 5d. to 7d. for women and to raise the borrowing power from £12 million to £20 million, which is the maximum allowed under the Bill. We

  375
  ought to know exactly why these increased payments have been made necessary, because they have not been occasioned merely by the level of unemployment, as the hon. Gentleman has said.
  In another place, on 1st May, Lord Drumalbyn asked how many payments had been made since the Act came into force in December, 1965, and he was told by the Postmaster-General that in the period 5th December, 1965, to 31st March, 1968, 447,700 payments had been made, and I calculate that at 2⅓ years to be 192,000 payments a year compared with the original forecast on Second Reading of 105,000. The Under-Secretary has told us today that the expenditure is £900,000 a week, which compares with £700,000 a week in July, 1967.
  So far, I have not mentioned abuses. I accept that abuses of the scheme in the sense of dishonesty are probably very few, but I suspect that by the use of the word "abuse" many of us do not denote dishonesty but draw attention to the way in which the scheme can be used, perfectly legally and even perfectly honestly, as with the television companies, to extract considerable sums, and I do not believe that that was ever the intention or the purpose of the Act.
  Unfortunately, the Government seem to know very little about this kind of abuse. In that same Question, Lord Drumalbyn asked how many of the 448,000 redundancy payments were made to persons who also received a cash payment from their employers' private pension scheme, which I would not necessarily consider to be an abuse, and, secondly, how many had obtained new employment without any intervening period of unemployment, which I would consider to be an abuse, though not illegal under the Act. In view of the promise which the Under-Secretary made when he asked last time for an increase in borrowing powers to conduct an inquiry into the workings of the Act, this is an abuse to which he should give his attention and for which he should provide amending legislation.
  In 2⅓ years, contributions have gone up by 200 per cent. for men and 250 per cent. for women. I accept that these figures are extremely difficult to forecast, but errors of this kind are ridiculous. It is fortunate that we are
  376
  dealing with comparatively small costs, but if errors of this magnitude can be made in small things, they can also be made in large, and it would be monstrous if the House were to let pass a scandalous example of the rottenness of our machinery of government. We cannot pretend to preside over the nation's affairs if we are to base our decisions on errors of this magnitude. The Undersecretary would have been better advised to have come to us with a bingo barrel than the forecast which he has given tonight.
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I am sure that the Undersecretary must feel rather like Santa Claus, because he is the only Minister who keeps coming to the House, after intervals of not many months, to ask for a bonanza, although it is not a bonanza from which he gains any advantage. It is only a month or two ago since we debated this very subject. We had many quotations from the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), but I shall make only two. I shall be fair to the Under-Secretary, because I shall quote something which he said in our last debate and something which I said.
  The hon. Gentleman said:
  "At worst, we are in the position of a man going to the bank manager and saying 'We always knew or always feared, or were always prepared '"—
  he covered himself in every direction—
  "'and we told you we were prepared to ask for £20 million. We were prepared for it because we were a prudent customer of this bank. However, we are not asking for that full sum but for something appreciably short of that maximum.'"
  The hon. Gentleman said that after listening to what I had to say. I had said:
  "It is my guess that if this goes on"—
  that is, constantly asking the House for more money to meet the expenditure involved in the scheme—
  "The hon. Gentleman will have to come back to the House and have the sum increased from £15 million to £20 million."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1968; Vol. 762, c. 713–8.]
  We are now just preparing to go into the Summer Recess and the hon. Gentleman is asking for an increase of £5 million, which is 25 per cent. of the total

  377
  voted in the Act. Come October or November, when we return, presumably, if this money has run out, the Government will have to bring in another Bill.
  A deplorable facet of this constant miscalculation, which has been one blunder after another, is that the redundancy fund does not cover anything like all the workers in the country. Most of the nationalised industries are out of it. The firms with their own fund are excluded. The dockers, I think, are out of it. It does not cover a very large number of people.
  In the last debate the Minister was talking in terms of a peak claim on the fund in any one week of £850,000 with an average of about £650,000. The figure he gave today is £900,000 in a week—and this is pay-out. If it is £900,000 pay-out in a week now, and we are to accept what the Chancellor had said, that it is not expected that unemployment will go down, clearly unemployment will either go up or, at any rate, if some of the present unemployed get jobs, new unemployed will come into the market, this figure of £900,000 will rise to, not a peak but an average, of over £1 million. These figures show that during the Recess the Government and the Minister will have to look at the working of the fund.
  It is generally agreed that redundancy payments to those who are really redundant is desirable. We are now in a position where almost everyone is looking for a golden handshake. They are organising their affairs so that they made sure that eventually they get one. Both union and management in industry are working together on this. If this continues, although the Minister has always said that the fund is paid for by industry, it will become so insolvent that the Government will have to pay up in order to pay the deficit.
  Mr. Hattersley Mr. Hattersley indicated dissent.
  Mr. Lewis: The Minister shakes his head, but if the deficit gets too high, will he put up contributions again, not by 200 per cent. but by 300 per cent. or 400 per cent.? Where does he stop on putting up contributions? He must realise that there are only two options, either the employer and employee increasingly pays more for it, on the stamp,
  378
  year by year, or else the Government have to bail out the fund at the end of the day. During the Recess the Government have to consider whether there ought not to be some change in the present set-up.
  The Minister has constantly said that the present high redundancy payment has nothing to do with high unemployment but it must have something to do with it. This is clearly indicated by the fact that, as the unemployment figures have risen, so the pressure and the claims on the fund have increased. We are adding to unemployment. The fund bites on the 50 to 58 age group and is a direct incentive for individuals to seek to make themselves unemployed, and for firms to assist. If they are made redundant in this age group they get the maximum out of the fund.
  If the Minister analyses the figures he will find that the total sum, or the largest percentage of this sum, is made up of payments to those put on the labour market at the age of 50 or over. This is not desirable from a national point of view. Those whom we should be making redundant, in order to get mobility of labour, are those in the 30 to 40 age group. The man over 50 is disinclined to want to be retrained, in many cases is incapable of being retrained, and in most cases will not move away from his home at that age to another place of employment, which is the only justification for him being retrained. When a man in his fifties is made redundant, he gets another job in the same capacity in the same area and the Government have paid out money which is not assisting in any way the Ministry's main endeavour to secure mobility and retraining.
  In many cases, the fund is being used to provide an increased payment in advance of pension. If a man is to receive in a year or two a modest pension, it is a good thing if he is given £1,000 or more to set him off. This is something which has never happened before and which people are naturally inclined to clutch at. No one on either side of the House would want to suggest that they should not seek to get it if they can. But plainly Governments must concern themselves with the cost. If they must come to the House every four months and ask for another £5 million to pay the bill, sooner or later there will be a very heavy clamp down on the pay out.

  379
  If the Government get themselves into a situation in which they have to climb down and to cut the payment to £500, many people will have got away with a very high payment and those who come afterwards, once the clamp down takes effect, will find that they are treated less well than others. It is the Government's responsibility to ensure that they run their affairs in such a way that an Act authorising redundancy payments runs smoothly for a long time rather than that they should constantly have to ask the House for authorisation to amend the regulations or for more money to keep the Act going.
  One of the main proposals put forward when we were debating the original Bill was that it would bring about the dispersal of labour throughout the country. It is interesting to note that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government is going contrary to these Orders. It is suggested that there should be a build up of housing in areas which need it most where there is less unemployment and where industry is most busy—in Birmingham, the Midlands and London. These areas are to get an extra £20 million—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. It would be a mistake to pursue that subject on this Order.
  Mr. Lewis: I accept what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was simply suggesting that the amount of money being paid by the Government to keep people in particular areas is going contrary to the payment of money by means of these Orders. The purpose of the Orders is to get people to leave their areas and to disperse to other parts.
  The right hon. Lady the First Secretary of State is making speech after speech in the country in favour of increased productivity. How far is this expenditure of £20 million helping to increase productivity? If we get rid of people in their fifties and they are not redeployable, clearly this does not help the firm which wants to obtain highly skilled labour. New jobs are not being created if there is redundancy at the wrong age level and if there are redundancies among people who are disinclined to retrain.
  The last time when such Orders were debated, the Minister admitted that it
  380
  was necessary to increase the training facilities made available by the Government. Those facilities are still totally inadequate. Those who are being trained are not in every case acceptable. The Donovan Report, which was issued a few weeks ago and which we debated last week, makes it clear from the evidence that the trade unions do not yet accept those who come out of the training centres as being sufficiently acceptable for the highest skills that are available.
  The Minister must, therefore, do two things. He has to get the right people into the training centres. Certainly, the fund is not succeeding in that respect. Once the Minister has got the people into the centres, he has to make sure that they are put where they are needed, where productivity in the newer industries is vital to the country.
  We have been told many times that the fund is paid for by industry. I have indicated that if it continues to have such high claims made against it, sooner or later the Government must bail it out. It is not even true to say that the fund is paid for by industry. Governments tend to load upon industry tax after tax. payment after payment. Not only has industry to pay the Corporation Tax, but it had the Selective Employment Tax increased in the last Budget, the cost of insurance stamps goes up and now we have—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot go into all those wide subjects on this Order about the Redundancy Fund.
  Mr. Lewis: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We now have the situation, however, that the Minister has to increase the payments imposed upon industry for the redundancy scheme. My point is that this increased payment which is imposed upon industry is on top of everything else.
  The Minister has on many occasions said that this is something for which industry pays because industry derives the benefit. Some industries get the benefit while others pay. I hope that the Minister recognises that the firms which are best organised and best managed, which have their labour force right, have a minimum of redundancy. Therefore, they are not the firms which make claims upon the Fund. They still have to pay the piper. They still have

  381
  to meet the cost. They still have to pay for the mismanagement of the Government when they increase the charges or when they come to Parliament and ask for an extra £5 million. Therefore, the Government are imposing on the better-organised and better-managed firms impositions which result from their own mismanagement.
  Mr. Pardoe: Would the hon. Member follow that line of argument by accepting my suggestion that we should follow the American example and institute a no-claim bonus, thereby ensuring that those people did not pay for the sins of others?
  Mr. Lewis: I accept that that would be a reasonable suggestion. I am certain that the hon. Member is correct to the extent that if the fund continues with the same pressure upon it, and with the demand upon industry and upon the Government's loan fund, there will be an outcry from the companies which derive no advantage but which constantly have to pay the bill.
  I notice that when the Government come to the House for this kind of money it is always at that period when we are near the Recess—it was so the last time —when we are all very tired, when we have had enough, and when they think that they therefore can easily get away with £5 million. But I hope that the Government will bear in mind that, in so far as this scheme is paying out money, it is also providing the Government with increased income in the form of taxes. I see the Under-Secretary looking at me inquiringly; but if he is insistent that industry must pay for this, if he is intending to ask the House again for this money, and if the Government are not prepared to provide any subsidy for the fund whatsoever, will he bear in mind that everybody who receives a redundancy payment receives it less tax? Perhaps he will add up the amount paid out in redundancy payments and take off the amount which goes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because the recipients of redundancy payments do not get them tax free; they do not get them net, and the Government, in charging industry for the whole of this, are in fact making a profit out of their imposition.
  There are two points I want to mention about the cost of running this scheme.
  382
  We have a system of tribunals. Will the Minister look at what those tribunals cost? We have not been told, and I should like to know what they cost. Anyone can apply to a tribunal. I understand that anyone coming to a tribunal in London, or wherever it may be, can get travelling and subsistence allowances, and if he has to be away from work to attend the tribunal he can get the pay he loses for that day made up. At any rate, this must be a quite expensive operation, and the Government cannot refuse to allow to appear before a tribunal anyone who claims that he should have had redundancy payment.
  Finally, on the guaranteeing of payments. If a firm is unable to meet its share of redundancy payment the Government make it up. This is correct. There would be a great disservice done to individuals if a firm failed to make its redundancy payments. The individuals would suffer, and so the Government make them up. How much is this costing? How many firms have been unable to meet their obligations to make redundancy payments? If the cost goes up there will be many more firms in that category.
  I believe that this is the last time when we should be asked to vote a sum of money of this kind, when the Minister is reviewing the whole operation of the Act, because I do not think we can go on constantly increasing the charges to industry and to employees and at the same time loading the Government's Loans Fund with further sums of this order.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I must apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the Undersecretary of State, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) for not being present at the beginning of this debate. I was involved in a meeting just outside the House with some people from Glasgow, and at that meeting the issue of redundancy was very much discussed.
  I came into the House to hear the debate on this very important Order, and I was truly astonished to find that I would have an opportunity of getting off my chest some of the things I wanted to say about it. I honestly thought that

  383
  there would be a large number of Members wanting to take part in the debate. In these circumstances, it is a great and unexpected pleasure for me to make a speech on this Order. I hope that the Under-Secretary will forgive me if I mention some points with which he may already have dealt.
  It is felt that this Order does not matter very much, since we are talking of sums of 10d. and 1s. 3d. This is a 50 per cent. increase, but when we are accustomed to talking of millions and tens of millions—I was astonished to learn, through a Question raised by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) of an error of £133 million in a Budget memorandum a few months ago—people wonder whether this Order matters. But, in stark reality, when one considers that the redundancy payments scheme involves £76 million over two years, it is clear that we are talking of a very significant sum.
  I hope that it will not be thought that I think that the scheme is a mistake, but hon. Members will realise that we have created something which could be frightening and alarming and could commit us to substantial expenditure, which might get out of control—not through deliberate Government policy, but simply because the scheme could gather momentum and involve a great deal of extra money.
  A speech was made some time ago about sacred cows, and it was suggested that, with devaluation, there must be no sacred cows. I am afraid that this scheme is a sacred cow which has come home to roost with a vengeance and a great bang—
  Mr. Anthony Stodart: A cow has never been known to roost.
  Mr. Taylor: I thought that my hon. Friend was about to suggest that sacred cows should get the £12 subsidy for the upland areas, and I am glad that he did not, because the economy could not stand it. But I am grateful for his interest in my speech. He always listens to speeches with great interest and speaks with the profundity which one expects of him.
  I was saying that there was a danger that the redundancy payments scheme
  384
  might get out of control and cost us sums which were not anticipated when it was introduced. This Order is yet another indication that the sums involved will be greatly in excess of the amounts envisaged at the time.
  Some of the criticisms of the scheme are mistaken and somewhat false, but one of the advantages of an Order like this —as with the Measures on the borrowing powers of the Nationalised industries— is that it gives us one of our rare opportunities to review a scheme and to make some suggestions for improvement. It is a sad fact that periodic reviews are all too rare in the House. I know that, in agriculture, for instance, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) takes such a great interest, there are the Annual Price Reviews, on which we can discuss the progress of agriculture and what changes should be made. Although agriculture is not a main employer in my constituency—there is not one farm there—these debates are, I think, of a high standard and allow us to review general policy in that sphere. In that way, this debate gives us an opportunity to review the Redundancy Payments Scheme and see what changes might be made.
  Some of the criticisms which have been made about the Scheme are somewhat unfounded. It has been suggested, for example, that the cost of the Scheme will hold back progress in that employers who might otherwise dispense with their employees and instal labour-saving machinery might, because of these provisions, not change over to machinery but hold on to their employees. This criticism cannot be treated seriously because I calculate—not having been a member of the Standing Committee I may be wrong; I hope that the Minister will correct me—that even for an employee who has served his employer continuously for 20 years, the payment to be made by the employer for that man will be only seven weeks' wages. The total amount paid to the man will be much greater, but the larger part comes from the fund.
  If the amount to be paid by the employer is more—perhaps nine or 11 weeks' wages—I still do not believe that it will prevent him from dispensing with his employees and going over to labour-saving machinery. Some industrialists

  385
  have said that the existence of the Scheme prevents them from dispensing with employees and installing labour-saving machinery. I feel confident that if the machinery in question is of real value, the existence of the fund will not act as a deterrent.
  The scheme has also been criticised because, it is said, it discourages the mobility of labour. The most obvious example given is that of firms which wish to take advantage of the redeployment going on in Scotland. For example, a firm in Glasgow might decide to relocate itself in one of our exciting new towns at, say, Cumbernauld or East Kilbride. The firm's employees might be offered jobs in the new town, but since that might involve some of them in uprooting their homes, moving their children to new schools and so on, they might consider it an unreasonable offer and wish to take redundancy payments instead. To that small degree, the existence of the scheme might have a limited marginal effect on mobility.
  However, that is nothing compared with the freedom of action which is given to an employee who is made redundant after giving years of service to an employer. Such an employee has a lump sum with which he can perhaps buy another house in another area and spend a little time finding suitable employment. Thus, weighing the advantages and disadvantages of the scheme, I conclude that its existence does not hold back mobility.
  It has been said that the tribunals are too expensive. The increased contribution, from l0d. to 1s. 3d., is important in this context because many people would like to know what proportion of the 1s. 3d. will pay for the cost of administering and operating these tribunals.
  There have been criticisms, but very often criticisms come from those who have not had the opportunity of appearing before a tribunal. I have had the opportunity of appearing before a redundancy tribunal on behalf of a constituent, and I was impressed by the completely impartial way in which they considered the facts, and the trouble which they took to go into the details of the case. The tribunals have a record to be proud of.
  386
  While saying that, I think the Minister will accept that the scheme could be improved in one or two small matters of administration. There have been alarming stories about the travelling expenses of those who appear before a tribunal. It may be that some of the stories have no validity, but it is obvious that the scheme allows for abuse.
  If, for example, I wanted to bring an entirely bogus claim against an employer in Inverness, Wick or Orkney, no matter how hopeless and invalid my case, I would be entitled to receive my travelling expenses. If one were thinking of having a home holiday this year, under the scheme it would be possible for abuses of this sort to take place.
  Mr. Hattersley: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that for the abuse which he had in mind to operate he would have to be a man who was employed by an employer in Wick and who lived in London. Such persons could hardly be sufficient in numbers to make a large contribution to the cost of the scheme.
  Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was being helpful and trying to abolish the general arguments made against the administration. It is fair to say that there could be bogus cases in which substantial claims for travelling expenses would be involved. For instance, a person might come from Wick to London to see the lie of the land and then decide to go back to Wick. The easiest way of getting his fare paid would be to bring a claim, however bogus, against his previous employer.
  In the event of a person coming from Glasgow to London and not liking what he found in London, and perhaps not finding the people of London so congenial as the people of Glasgow, is it or is it not the case that he could get back to Glasgow at the State's expense by bringing an action under the Redundancy Payments Scheme against his previous employer?
  I do not join those who make a blanket condemnation of the administration of the Redundancy Payments Scheme; far from it. I have been doing my best to praise it, but may I draw attention to an anomaly? I have received a personal complaint from a major building employer in Scotland with an excellent record. The firm is concerned that some

  387
  of their employees of long standing are approaching foremen and asking to be included in the next redundancy. These are men of perhaps 60, 61 or 62 years of age who know that if they stayed in the employment of the firm until the retirement age of 65, and then retired, they would get nothing, but if they could be included in a redundancy they could receive a substantial amount of money in view of their long service.
  Having in mind the increased amount of money involved in the Order, the Minister should ask himself whether any of that increase can be accounted for by that kind of abuse. Perhaps to call it an abuse is wrong. Rather, it is an anomaly that can arise from the detailed application of a measure which brings many benefits as well as anomalies. I understand that the case of this building firm has been brought to the Ministry's attention and that the Minister has already given it careful consideration, but can he see any solution of the problem without destroying the whole basis of what is a good scheme?
  The Minister should tell us whether this sudden increase in the global expenditure will accelerate in the future. All the indications lead me to believe that the amount involved will accelerate very substantially, bearing in mind the present state of the economy and the changes in trends of economic development. We all know that unemployment will increase substantially over the next few months. That is inevitable in our present economic circumstances, and that event will result in more substantial payments from the fund. That may be one of the reasons why the Order is now before us.
  Unemployment involves a sum that we can assess, and is under some degree of control. Therefore, while increased unemployment will result in larger claims on the fund, it will be a once-for-all amount and one that can be estimated and reasonably controlled. I know that the Minister does not like the prospect of increased unemployment but we know that it is ahead. Whether it will be as a result of the Government's economic policies we cannot now discuss.
  I can think of five different factors which will in themselves result is escalating claims on the fund—not the once-for-all increase that unemployment can bring about, but something that will gather
  388
  pace. The first and obvious, of which the Minister will be well aware, is the factor of structural change in industry mentioned by Lord Beveridge in his famous Report at the end of the war. I know that I need not explain this to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) who has a case in his constituency. He has been fiercely defending one of his own constituents in just such a matter No one has fought harder than he for his own people. Whether or not the particular mine about which we are talking—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot pursue this line of argument on this Order.
  Mr. Taylor: I would not think of it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely making a passing reference.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member really ought not to make a lot of passing references to matters that are out of order.
  Mr. Taylor: I was taken away by the sight of my hon. Friend sitting there on the Front Bench—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is more important that the hon. Gentleman should obey the instructions of the Chair.
  Mr. Taylor: Then I will come back to the detail of the Order.
  The application is to increase the contribution in respect of the average male employee from l0d. to 1s. 3d., and I should like to know the extent of the structural change in industry that accounts for this increase. What period has the Minister in mind? Is it one year, two years or three years? Is he keeping in mind the very substantial escalation of structural change in industries like ship building and coal mining which will inevitably take place?
  When considering this Order and the increase in this sum, the Minister has an obligation to tell us to what extent he has taken structural change into account and the kind of time-scale he has in mind. Probably he thinks the Order enough to keep the fund going for 12 months, but to what extent has he taken this factor into account? There is a 50 per cent. increase in the amount of money the Government hope to raise. To what extent have they taken into account the

  389
  factor of automation and all the changes in the pattern of industrial development? Every new move in automation can create redundancies, and many redundancies make calls on the fund.
  The policies of the Government themselves obviously will cause a substantial increase. That probably is one of the reasons for this Order. We have seen small increases in national production and a declining manufacturing labour force. This is a substantial change. If new wage patterns in the engineering industry are to be negotiated on Friday in London—and I hope they will be successful—we shall see a further step forward in productivity. In bringing this Order to the House and making the calculations, to what extent has the Minister taken account of the Government's policies for productivity?
  Can the Minister explain in relation to the Order what calculations he made and on what calculations he justifies the figure in the Order? To what extent did he take account of the changes which will take place as a result of new trading arrangements by this country? I am thinking of new arrangements such as N.A.F.T.A.S.
  One of the greatest and most significant factors which I fear the Minister may not have taken into account is the changing attitude on the part of individual employers, who pay the 1s. 3d. under the Order, to what I might call lame ducks of industry, men who have served a firm well, who have given so much and asked for so little from their firms. Many employers have had a serious practice of regarding it as their responsibility to look after a particular employee who will be covered by the Order and by the scheme. Would those employers not be doing a greater service if they were to say to such men, "We have no job for you. We shall put you out at 62 or 63, but you might find yourself with a payment of £800 or £1,000." Would it not be better for them to do that than to give them a handshake or a pat on the back?
  There is a change in the attitude of some employers in this respect. I wonder if the Minister has taken account of the fact that more and more employers who might have kept redundant employees because of their long and loyal service
  390
  may consider that it is in the interests of those employees of relatively advanced years who have no great contribution to make to their firm to say that the best they can do for them is to show them the door, however regretfully and sadly.
  I hope that these remarks have not appeared to be destructive, because they were not so intended. I would not want anyone to infer from my few brief remarks that I am opposed to the scheme or that I think that it is a bad one. It is very valuable. We always want to improve something which we regard as valuable.
  Therefore, I want to make one or two suggestions about the kind of changes which I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us he is considering in relation to the figures he has presented. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) suggested that there should be a no claims bonus scheme. It was encouraging to hear a constructive comment from a Liberal Member. Such a scheme would be of great value. I mentioned the case to the Minister— he showed great interest in it—of a Scottish building firm. We could help by having a no claims bonus scheme.
  Mention has been made of people who are put out at 63 or 64 because they know full well that if they stay on until they are 65, they will get nothing. We must make some provision for this. One of the sad things about our whole Welfare State, a question which we can discuss on the Order, is that it encourages people—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We cannot discuss the whole Welfare State on the Order.
  Mr. Taylor: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying very hard to keep strictly to the rules of order. I was hoping to make only one or two brief points. I will come directly to them.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not only keep to order. He must also avoid tedious repetition.
  Mr. Taylor: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I greatly respect your opinion. I do not think that I have repeated anything at all.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I said that it is important to avoid tedious repetition.
  Mr. Taylor: I am very grateful Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was thinking that in some way you were suggesting that I was committing tedious repetition. I am very grateful indeed for that assurance, because, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is no person in the Chair whom I admire or respect more for his judgment than yourself; and I certainly would not like to annoy or displease you in any way at all. On the other hand, I think from what you have said that you were almost suggesting that I had gone on for too long. Having looked at the clock, I am alarmed to see for how long I have spoken.
  As I said at the beginning, I feel very strongly on this issue. I have not had an opportunity of speaking about it in any way before. I will try to bring my remarks quickly to a conclusion. I was saying that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North suggested a no claims bonus scheme. Was the amount fixed at 1s. 3d. as opposed to 1s. 5d. or 1s. 6d.—although I would not wish to add to the costs on industry, I think that 1s. 6d. could be justified on the basis of the figures which have been put before us of the escalation in the claims on the fund—because the Government are thinking of the introduction of a no claims bonus scheme or of arrangements for contracting out? I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an assurance along these lines.
  As previous speakers have said, we are considering not one Order, but two Orders. One Order suggests one means of providing finance, namely, by the stamp, through the amount paid to the Fund in respect of each employee. The other Order considers a second way of providing finance, by drawings on the National Loans Fund. We see the frightening suggestion that, in place of the £8 million which has been the position up to now, there is to be the very substantial amount of £20 million.
  Can the Minister give us some indication of whether this is the last Order of this sort which will be presented? Will he commit himself to saying that all the financing of the scheme as from the time of this Order will be done by Orders of the type of the Increase of Contributions Order and not by means of the National Loan Funds (No. 2) Order? When one starts borrowing
  392
  money, as is proposed under the second Order, to keep the fund going and solvent, there is a terrible danger that that kind of thing can gather pace so that we find ourselves before long with a scheme financed more and more by Government borrowings and, therefore, becoming basically more insolvent.
  The Minister should take his courage in his hands, face the world, and say, "We have a good scheme, a good scheme which should be self-supporting, a scheme from which we shall try to take away the minor abuses to which reference has been made, a scheme from which we shall try to take away the little injustices, a scheme from which we shall try to take away excessive costs of administration. It is a worthwhile scheme, a scheme which will wash its own face".
  That is the situation which I should like to see, and I hope that the Minister will at least give an assurance that that is what he is aiming at, that he wants to wash his own face in the context of this scheme. Although, in the present difficult economic climate, it may be necessary to increase the borrowings which we make through the National Loans Fund to £20 million, and we can accept that as a temporary measure which might be justified in present circumstances, will he give a cast-iron undertaking that his long-term intention is not to keep the scheme going by added borrowings from the National Loans Fund but to have the scheme self-supporting and self-financing in its own right? I am convinced that, if they have a scheme, arrangement or plan which is pleasing to them, which they think is socially just, equitable and desirable, the people of this country will be prepared to make the contributions to make it work.
  I have tried to go through my points as quickly as possible, but I have not got through a third of what I had hoped to say. The rest will have to remain unsaid, since I realise that many of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite wish to contribute to the debate. I shall, therefore, disregard the other part of my speech which I had hoped to make— [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, go on."] I am always tempted by these encouraging comments from my hon. Friends, who are always generous in such matters, but I feel that I have a duty to hon. Members who wish to take part.

  393
  I hope that the Minister will accept what I have said as constructive and helpful in some small measure. I hope that we can look forward to the time when the scheme is entirely self-financing and that the various little anomalies will be removed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will say that, but let him not be ashamed of these Orders. Let him not be ashamed of the scheme and the fund. It is a good scheme which was well-intentioned; it has serious problems of escalating costs, but I am sure that, with good will on both sides, with good sense and with sound economy, we shall overcome those problems. Let us hope that we can achieve all these aims and look forward not to having more of these Orders but to having a proud self-financing scheme which will be a credit to the country, a help to our economy, and a real help to people in need, to those who find a scheme of this kind of great value to them in their personal problems.
  In the circumstances, while we have concern, while we have worry, and while we have alarm, we think that the scheme is in itself basically sound and basically socially desirable.
  9.23 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Carr: I hope that I shall not disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cath-cart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). I am not sure that I shall do any face-washing, either my own or the Minister's. If I run true to what I am told is my form, I shall be at a rather more gloomy task. The last time I spoke in the House, I was accused by one of the national newspapers—the Tory Press, by the way—of speaking and looking like an undertaker. However, I hope that I am safe at least tonight, seeing that the Gallery whence these comments come is almost empty.
  No one could accuse the Undersecretary of State of speaking in the House like an undertaker. No slow, solemn step or long countenance for him. He always dashes at his subjects with great buoyancy and enthusiasm, including, as we have noted tonight, the task of estimating or forecasting the level of contributions needed to keep the Redundancy Fund solvent.
  This has been a very useful debate. It is right that a scheme of this kind should be debated not only when we have
  394
  to find more money, although that is, unfortunately, the occasion which gives us an opportunity for the debate. It is right that it should be examined. I find it both disappointing and extraordinary that not a single hon. Member opposite, other than the Minister, has seen fit to speak in the debate, which the old traditions of the Labour Party—certainly its traditions and practice when I first came to the House—would have brought forward many speakers, whether the party was in power or opposition.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) made clear, we have no wish to oppose the Order. We support both the social and economic intentions of the Act. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cath-cart, I agree that it has eased mobility and has, therefore, served the economic purpose which we had in mind, doing so in a way which has eased human problems at the same time.
  We believe, particularly in the light of our experience on this Order and previous increases, that the time is coming nearer and nearer when we should not only examine more thoroughly the working of the scheme, but should also consider more effective ways of achieving the same economic and social purpose which it was introduced to serve. But it is the scheme that we have at present, and we should not dream of doing anything but support the Order and make sure that the fund is made to remain solvent until a better alternative can be put forward.
  I shall not repeat all the detailed questions that have been put to the Minister, but we should not let the Order go through without calling the Government to task over their forecasting. We cannot allow the Minister to get away with his statement that it was really impossible to forecast, that the extra increase had nothing to do with inadequate forecasting. If it was impossible to forecast—and we can all see how difficult it must be—it was at least obvious that it would be impossible to forecast when the Act was first introduced or when each successive increase was made. The sudden impossibility to forecast contrasts very strangely with the certainty which the hon. Gentleman and other Ministers expressed over the past few years about the forecast income and expenditure of the scheme.

  395
  The failure of the forecasting is not small. The margin is enormous, and there must be an explanation for it. With the record the scheme now has, we should hope that our Public Accounts Committee will take a look at it and give us all the information on it that it is possible to find. My hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South gave quotations to show the certainty and assuredness about forecasting that we had in the past. Now we are suddenly told that it really is impossible to forecast. We find this difficult to believe. It may have proved more difficult than expected, but it cannot be as impossible as it now seems to be.
  The other reason—or rather non-reason—we were given was that the need for the increases had nothing to do with unemployment persisting at a higher level than expected. The Government can never lose on a statement of that kind because, when one asks them, as we frequently do from both sides of the House, to tell us what sort of level of unemployment they are estimating for, they become extremely coy.
  It is only the Prime Minister who sometimes gets carried away by his usual optimistic ebullience and talks at least in general terms, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South pointed out, is once again proved wrong in these general forecasts. But when the Under-Secretary of State tells us that the reason for these increases is not because unemployment has been persisting at a higher level than expected, this, of course, means nothing whatever unless he will also tell us what the level of unemployment was that had been estimated by the Government.
  As we have pointed out on a number of occasions, while we realise that it would not be wise for the Government to try to forecast precisely or even to give figures to their estimates, some indication of their estimate of trends could do a lot at times to improve confidence or to remove fear—either to give hope that the unemployment situation would improve in absolute terms or at least to damp down what might be exaggerated fears about the extent to which it is going to increase.
  The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with the suggestion that the increases in redundancy fund payments have nothing
  396
  to do with the unemployment figure. They must have something to do with it because, by definition—although, of course, the linkage is indirect—there must be some linkage between rising unemployment, and, therefore, people losing their jobs, and the payments from this fund. We should have from him a closer and convincing analysis of what that linkage is.
  At one time, the hon. Gentleman seemed to be arguing almost in a different direction. He said that at least the success of this fund was proving that people were going in and out of the labour market and were staying there only a short time. This indicated that the cost of unemployment would be increasing calls on the fund. But that is not the story told by the unemployment figures as published. We cannot get away from the fact, mentioned by my hon. Friend, that, in January, the proportion of unemployed who had been out of work for over 8 weeks was 50 per cent. and that, six months later, in June, it had risen to 68 per cent.
  This has been the case over the last year or two. The figures seem to be showing that long-term unemployment is rising and this does not correspond with the picture the hon. Gentleman was painting that the calls on the fund show a lot of people moving in and out of employment, redeploying themselves in a purposeful sort of way.
  I was rather shocked by the hon. Gentleman's attitude to costs. He said that one quarter of 1 per cent. of labour costs was the overall cost of the redundancy scheme. The hon. Gentleman said that this increase represented 1/10th per cent. of labour costs. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) and others have pointed out, all these little percentages might seem insignificant on their own, if they were on their own, but they are not. They are accompanied, if not at precisely the same time, by increases in S.E.T. and other increases in taxation of one kind and another and all these quarters of one per cent. add up to a substantial extra cost on industry which in the end is reflected either in the price of goods in the shops, or, to some extent, in less new investment to build up future industrial efficiency.

  397
  This extra increase represents another £8,500,000 on industry's bill in a year. Coupled with the increase in the Budget, which at Budget time was said to be enough to see us through without any further increase in the short term, I estimate it to add an extra cost to industry of some £14 million or £15 million a year. Therefore, lack of estimation and the extra costs for industry are serious matters.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary will not only go deeply into all those questions but will give us a greater assurance that the scheme and its working will be considered in depth. He referred to some small sample survey. I hoped, and I thought that I had understood from reports I had read, that something more substantial was going on. I hope that he will confirm that and give us some idea of what that is and that he will say that the payment will also be considered, because it is a flat rate payment, a poll tax.
  When we started at 5d. for men and 2d. for women, the amount per person was sufficiently small to make any idea of graduated contributions and graduated payments seem unnecessary, but now that it is 1s. 3d. for men and 7d. for women we are beginning to reach the level of contributions when the pros and cons of converting it from a flat rate poll tax into a graduated contribution related to the wage level of the person concerned should be considered.
  A review is also needed to make sure that there is no abuse. I agree that there is probably much more smoke than fire in all the talk about abuse of the scheme, but it is probably also true that where there is smoke, there is fire, even though the fire is small, and we have to admit that the possibilities for abuse are enormous, and we can all think of one or two things. There is no doubt that abuse occurs and that people ask their employers to make them redundant. I have personal experience of this. One hopes that employers will not connive in it, but it is also true that because employers get back such a large percentage of payment from the fund, it is very easy not to contest a case and certainly easy not to fight a case which goes before a tribunal. Why incur all the odium as well as the trouble of fighting a case if the net cost is so small? There is, therefore, a case for
  398
  seeing whether this balance of direct contribution reclaimed from the fund is right.
  There are many other possibilities of abuse. An inquiry into these should be carried out seriously. Abuse of this kind in social services can bring the success of a scheme into disrepute and lose it public support out of all measure to the actual scale of abuse. As my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) pointed out, any review ought to consider whether the application of this fund is right. He made a number of suggestions relating to the age scale, which showed the sort of need which ought to be met, and which is not being properly met.
  From this sort of review we ought to move on to the question which I raised earlier, whether, in the long run, this is the best sort of scheme to give the most help to those who most need it. There is evidence that there is a possibility that much money is being spent on the scheme and is not always going to those in greatest need. I hope that as well as answering these specific questions, the Minister will be able to give us some assurance about a searching review, which in the last resort will lead to the discussion as to whether this is the best scheme for the long-term future. The Minister must not expect to come in the future, if there should be need for legislation to raise the borrowing powers under this scheme, without being able to lay before the House a report on a detailed inquiry showing whether this is the best method of dealing with the problem.
  9.42 p.m.
  Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) began by apologising to his hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) for missing his speech. He then went on to congratulate him upon it. My judgment upon his speech is clouded by having heard it. Notwithstanding that, I thought that it was admirable. I even enjoyed those small passages of it which did not consist of quotations from speeches that I had previously made on the subject. The hon. Member had hard things to say about Government forecasting. I am not surprised and I do not begrudge him them.

  399
  Certainly, estimates that I have given to the House, and that my right hon. Friend has given, have proved wrong. The hon. Gentleman listed them and I did so before him. I must tell him that all our estimates, inaccurate though they have proved, have been more accurate than anyone else's. When the scheme was originally advocated in the House we were told by the Opposition that the original levy of 5d. and 2d. was almost certainly too high. As I told the House two hours ago, when we suggested a year ago that the increased contribution should be 1s. and 6d. both sides of industry, the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. thought that we were being pessimistic about demands on the fund.
  I do not believe that we have been over-pessimistic or optimistic. We have tried to be as realistic as we can be, and at the same time obey the principle and belief that we should not charge industry any more than seemed necessary to maintain the fund in viable and continual existence. I must tell hon. Members opposite how difficult the problems of forecasting outgoings from this fund are. Changes in the level of unemployment from one month to the next are not directly correlated to outgoings from the fund. I would remind the House of the examples I gave in my initial speech. The real level of unemployment—and it will be realised that it is not the seasonally-adjusted unemployed who get redundancy pay—falls during the spring. Yet the number of redundancy payments has also fallen, and those two things seem to be arithmetically absolutely consistent. Despite the fall in those two figures, the outgoings from the fund have increased—because perhaps the new unemployed are older, because perhaps they have longer service, because perhaps they are more highly paid. For all these varliable reasons, the problem of calculation becomes difficult to the point of impossibility.
  While I sympathise with hon. Members who say, "Is not this a task for actuaries? Is not this what actuaries are about?", I remind them that actuaries are likely to base their calculations on experience and precedent and that we have only a few years' experience of this scheme. There is certainly no scheme in which the precedents are comparable, in which the variables are so many and
  400
  in which, in addition to the existing variables, there is the additional alteration which may come about in the level of industrial activity.
  I concede that the number of new unemployed is one of the figures which have an effect on the number of payments, but it is only one of the figures; it is no more than that. It may not even be the most significant figure. We always knew that it was difficult to make this sort of calculation. That is why, in the Order, we allowed for borrowing powers to tide us over difficult times when our contribution level proved inadequate. That is why we have constantly understood the necessity to keep the situation under review. I shall return to the review situation before the end of my speech.
  Before doing that, I wish to deal with the oft-repeated claim that part of the difficulty in which the fund now finds itself stems from abuse. I think that confusion continues about what abuse amounts to. There are, I suppose, two sorts of abuse—at least, we have heard of two sorts tonight. One is literal abuse, and the other is abuse only in the minds of the critics. The first is literal dishonesty. The accusation usually takes the form of the suggestion that there has been positive collusion—that a company and a company's employee have agreed to pretend that there was redundancy when there was not. Invariably, on examination and analysis, that sort of accusation proves to be groundless.
  The hon. Member for Paddington, South drew attention to a newspaper report about alleged collusion in Peterborough. The collusion consisted of two firms which were related, with a man being declared bogusly redundant from the first and receiving a redundancy payment and then being re-employed immediately in the second in the knowledge of the first company. On investigation, that claim proved to be totally false, and the newspaper published a correction and apology. This is perhaps typical of the sort of accusations which have been made about that sort of literal legal abuse.
  Certainly, we have mounted many investigations as a result of allegations of that sort, but none of our investigations has led to prosecution because, on our experience and on examining the accusations made to us, our conclusion has been that while there is the opportunity

  401
  for abuse, as there must be in a scheme as large and complicated as this, the actual incidence of abuse is negligible.
  The second sort of abuse—and I emphasise that it is abuse in my view, only in the minds of the people who claim it to be so—concerns an employer who knows that a percentage of his work force is likely to be made redundant and offers his work force the opportunity to opt for redundancy if a portion of it chooses to do so. For example, the company with, say, 500 employees which says that 50 must be paid off on the first of next month and is prepared to take 50 volunteers.
  Clearly, the 50 volunteers are likely to be men who say, "Regretful as I am of the prospect of redundancy, the blow is softened by redundancy pay and I will volunteer for redundancy because, by my circumstances, by my age, by my service, by my wages, I am likely to receive a substantial sum"; and the more substantial the sum, the more likely they are to volunteer for redundancy.
  This does not seem to me to be an abuse of the scheme. Indeed, it seems to be a way in which redundancy can be carried out without friction, with the minimum of hardship and with a positive contribution to industrial relations rather than the industrial relations of the firm deteriorating.
  It is important to understand that some of the objects of the scheme can be achieved only if management and men operate the scheme to their maximum mutual advantage. By my calculations, that does not amount to abuse. I would not, however, like it to be thought that my right hon. friend and the Government are complacent about the operations of the scheme.
  We have heard a great deal tonight about the necessity for inquiries into the scheme. The Public Accounts Committee examined the schemes for 1965–66. Notwithstanding that examination and the Committee's conclusions, my right hon. Friend agrees that she has an obligation, and that there is a necessity, to keep the operation of the scheme under continuous review. As the hon. Member for Paddington, South said, the C.B.I. is examining the workings of the scheme. I am sure that it will read with interest
  402
  many of the constructive suggestions which have been made tonight. Certainly, as we examine the scheme as part of our continued review, we will look with great interest at some of the more creative suggestions which have been made tonight.
  Two things, however, should be said. I say them without wishing to prejudice the outcome of any review which we, the C.B.I. or anybody else might make. The first deals with a man who finds a job at once before he has been unemployed. Suppose that a man is given, say, a month's notice. He has no idea of his prospects at the time that notice is given. He has no idea of what the demand for his services in the community is likely to be before he is given notice.
  That man registers at an employment exchange and gets a job. It is available to him within two or three weeks and he is able, although he has been genuinely redundant, with all the uncertainty that that implies, to start on the Monday after finishing his previous job on the Friday. Would it be right to expect him to lose his redundancy payment? He certainly loses benefits even it he goes straight into another job; he loses seniority and all that that implies in the last-in, first-out principle. He may be less well paid. He may have to make personal adjustments, such as changing his home and his children's school. If that sort of man is to be denied the benefits of redundancy payment, he will certainly be less willing to change his job despite the fact that moving from job A to job B did not include a period of positive unemployment.
  The second situation is that of a man who does not have a new job ready for him when he is redundant, and cannot immediately be re-employed. Two questions arise about his position if he knows that he has to wait in idleness and unemployment for two or three months before he can benefit from the redundancy payment scheme. The first question is what he should do if he is offered a job within a few days of qualifying for redundancy payments. Secondly, do we hold back the payment until the two or three months has elapsed? To do that would be likely to produce all the industrial frictions, difficulties and problems that the scheme was intended to avoid.

  403
  I simply offer these as ideas, but as ideas which my right hon. Friend must bear in mind as she considers, as part of her continuous review, what form the scheme should take in future months and years.
  I have been asked some specific questions which, I hope I can answer to the satisfaction of the House.
  Mr. David Steel: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves—
  Mr Hattersley: I have only five minutes. Although I am sure that the hon. Member has an important contribution to make, he has arrived to make it rather late in the debate and I am sure that he would expect me to try to answer the questions which I was asked earlier.
  The first question asked by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) was the cost of industrial tribunals. Industrial tribunals in general—that is, tribunals dealing with other matters besides redundancy payments—cost something like £350,000 a year. When, however, one considers that the redundancy payments scheme alone has had outgoings of £900,000 in one week, it will be understood that that is a small proportion of the cost, and a necessary one, to make sure that appeals can be properly managed.
  I must also tell him that industrial tribunals have the right to disallow expenses if they believe them to be claimed frivolously or maliciously. Certainly, on occasions, they have the right to impose the costs of one party on another. Therefore, his hypothetical man on a free trip
  between London and Thurso will have to buy his own railway ticket.
  Secondly, I was asked about bankruptcies which might result from the imposition of this levy. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) thought that I had been less than regretful about the additional costs that this imposes on industry. In my original speech I specified my regret in having to ask industry to make this additional payment. At this time when we hope for a reduction in industrial costs it is obviously a matter of regret to me and to the Government that it is necessary.
  As I said then, and as I say again, although the increase is a matter of regret there are substantial benefits which we believe can be obtained from the scheme. They are benefits in terms of industrial peace, they are benefits in terms of the greater efficiency which stems from that industrial peace, not only for firms immediately involved but for firms on which they are dependent for spare parts and components, and firms which cannot operate without other firms which are themselves subject to strikes and stoppages.
  We believe that this scheme will work partly because of self-interests and partly because it is an economic necessity and makes a contribution to the economic health of the nation. While we regret the increase in costs, it is obviously necessary if the scheme is to continue, and I am gratified to know that the House in its entirety believes that it is necessary and should continue, and that it does not intend to oppose either of these Orders.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 189, Noes 7.

  Division No. 285.]

  AYES

  [9.58 p.m.

  Alldritt, Walter

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Allen, Scholefield

  Booth, Albert

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Anderson, Donald

  Boston, Terence

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Archer, Peter

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Boyden, James

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Dempsey, James

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Brooks, Edwin

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Barnett, Joel

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

  Dobson, Ray

  Baxter, William

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

  Doig, Peter

  Beaney, Alan

  Buchan, Norman

  Driberg, Tom

  Bence, Cyril

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Carmichael, Neil

  Eadie, Alex

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Binns, John

  Coe, Denis

  Ellis, John

  Bishop, E. S.

  Coleman, Donald

  Ensor, David

  Blackburn, F.

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

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

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Faulds, Andrew

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lawson, George

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Ledger, Ron

  Pentland, Norman

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick(Newton)

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Ford, Ben

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Probert, Arthur

  Forrester, John

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Rees, Merlyn

  Fowler, Gerry

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

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

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Loughlin, Charles

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Luard, Evan

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Cray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Gregory, Arnold

  McBride, Neil

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

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  McCann, John

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  McGuire, Michael

  Silverman, Julius

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Slater, Joseph

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mackie, John

  Small, William

  Hannan, William

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Snow, Julian

  Harper, Joseph

  Maclennan, Robert

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Hazell, Bert

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

  Swain, Thomas

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Manuel, Archie

  Swingler, Stephen

  Henig, Stanley

  Marks, Kenneth

  Symonds, J. B.

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Taverne, Dick

  Hilton, W. S.

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

  Hooley, Frank

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Thornton, Ernest

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Millan, Bruce

  Urwin, T. W.

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

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

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Howie, W.

  Molloy, William

  Hoy, James

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Hunter, Adam

  Murray, Albert

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Newens, Stan

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

  Norwood, Christopher

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Ogden, Eric

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

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

  O'Malley, Brian

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Oram, Albert E.

  Winnick, David

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

  Orbach, Maurice

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Yates, Victor

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

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

  Judd, Frank

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Palmer, Arthur

  Mr. J. D. Concannon and

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

  Park, Trevor

  Mr. Ernest G. Perry.

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  NOES

  Bessell, Peter

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Lubbock, Eric

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Mr. John Pardoe and

  Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)

  Mr. David Steel.

  CIVIL AND DEFENCE VOTES
  It being after Ten o'clock Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to paragraphs (8) and (9) of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply), to put forthwith the Question, That the total amount of the Votes outstanding for the year 1968–69 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund for the services defined in those Votes.

  CIVIL AND DEFENCE ESTIMATES, 1968–69 (OUTSTANDING VOTES)
  Question,
  That a sum not exceeding £6,735,187,850 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Civil and Defence Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1969,
  put and agreed to.
  Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to paragraph (8) of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply), to put severally the Questions on Motions relating to Navy, Army and Air Services Expenditure.

  NAVY EXPENDITURE, 1966–67
  Question,
  That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £2,496,468 11s. 11d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Navy Services for the year ended 31st March 1967 to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet deficits in receipts not offset by savings in expenditure from the respective Votes as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 5th February 1968 (H.C. 112) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 233),
  put and agreed to.

  ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1966–67
  Question,
  That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £1,425,485 8s. 2d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Army Services for the year ended 31st March 1967 to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet deficits in receipts not offset by savings in expenditure from the respective Votes as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 31st January 1968 (H.C. 111) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 233),
  put and agreed to.

  AIR SERVICES EXPENDITURE, 1966–67
  Question,
  That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £3,530,033 16s. 4d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Air Services for the year ended 31st March 1967 to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet deficits in receipts not offset by savings in expenditure from the respective Votes as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 30th January 1968 (H.C. 108) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 233),
  put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the Resolution relating to Civil and Defence Estimates by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Harold Lever, and Mr. Dick Taverne.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION)
  Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on 31st March, 1969, and to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 196.]

  MEAT AND LIVESTOCK COMMISSION (LEVY)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [17th July].
  That the Meat and Livestock Commission Levy Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved.—[Mr. Cledwyn Hughes.]
  Question again proposed.
  10.10 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Mills: Whatever may be said about this scheme, or about the Meat and Livestock Commission, the problem which looms up in my mind is the difficult climate into which the scheme finds itself launched. Many farmers and those engaged in the slaughtering of animals and the retailing of meat are hostile to the whole set-up of the scheme. The Minister must take into account the climate and the reaction and seek to answer the doubts which many have before proceeding with the scheme. Unless the Minister does something about the climate as a matter of urgency, the scheme will fail.
  People are concerned about the growth in the number of bodies that are being set up and in the number of levy schemes. This was the reaction from both sides of the House during the previous debate on this subject, and there has been the most frantic lobbying by certain sections of the business community. In a sense I can understand this.
  I suggest that the most stringent economies must be applied. The administration costs of the scheme must be kept to the minimum. We must beware of putting aside such schemes and rejecting this scheme out of hand, for I am not prepared to return to the jungle of the free-for-all that existed before the war. Many hon. Members will remember the difficulties of the farming community in the past, and I am not prepared to abandon these schemes completely.
  I ask the Minister to impress upon the Meat and Livestock Commission the need to keep the levies as low as possible. It is right too that each year the Commission should come to the House to ask for an increase should this be necessary, and that there should be a full
  410
  debate on the subject. I am not prepared to give them carte blanche so that they can go ahead. The Minister must do everything in his power to keep down the cost of administration so that the levies do not rise. He must make an effort to come to terms with the fears of those who are objecting to the scheme.
  Without the co-operation of all sides in the industry, the scheme will fail. The Minister should demonstrate quite clearly the advantages of the scheme; and that it will be worth while to support it by means of the levies. I suggest that a baby born like this, so soon after the violent reaction we have had to the Agricultural Training Board, is not a very good omen for the Commission: in the long run, no confidence means no success.
  One of the most glaring omissions is the fact that these levies will not be made on imported meat. This is a very serious matter and—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We are now discussing an Order. The hon. Member knows that he cannot amend it. He can denounce it, but he cannot amend it.
  Mr. Mills: Then I denounce it. This is a very serious mistake, and the Minister should seriously consider seeking powers to make imported meat pay the levy as well—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not understand. He can denounce but he cannot amend. He is now seeking to amend.
  Mr. Mills: Then I had better leave that subject. I have made my point to the Minister.
  Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Would not the answer be for the Minister to withdraw this Order and then introduce an Order in the form my hon. Friend recommends?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can conduct his own campaign.
  Mr. Mills: For my part, Mr. Speaker, that would be perfectly in order for me, but whether you would consider it so is an entirely different matter.
  We have had many letters on this question of the levy from butchers and those

  411
  who operate slaughterhouses, but I suggest that those who criticise must at least give us an alternative, and that is not so easy. I suggest that the levies would be considerably greater if they were not taken at this point; and that the slaughterhouse men and others who are killing those animals must seek to recoup the levies from the farmer and from the retailer. Otherwise, if we have these collection points from all the three parties concerned the levies will grow very considerably, and that would be wrong.
  In considering how the levies will be spent I accept the necessity for research. There is the taking over of P.I.D.A. and the beef recording body and the sums of money going into research, but private enterprise research works on a profit motive which would quickly bring down the chopper on a scheme that was proving unsuccessful. I trust that these levies will not be wasted on too costly and too extended schemes of research. My particular criticism of P.I.D.A. is that it has taken far too long with its research schemes. I hope that the Commission will not take such a leisurely course, but will spend these moneys wisely.
  I trust that there will be no duplication of advice and research. It will be obviously a waste of the levies if the N.A.A.S. continues to do the same work that the Commission is to do. Many people fear that unless action is taken to avoid it, there will be a vast amount of duplication of research with the consequent wasting of the moneys of the farmers, the butchers and all those who contribute. This is an important point.
  Paragraph 4(2)(d) of the Schedule refers to a levy of 2s. for pigs. This is fairly high. I must declare an interest as I rear pigs. If I can make 10s. or 12s. profit on a pig I consider that I am doing fairly well. I have never been very good at mathematics, but I should have thought that the 2s. levy is a fifth of my profit. That is a serious inroad into the profit on the production of pig-meat. The Minister should look carefully at the Schedule again. Although 6s. may not be too high a levy for beef the levy for pigs is certainly high. Paragraph 5(5) says that there is no appeal. That seems disastrous. Surely in the case
  412
  of dispute one ought to be able to appeal to the Ministry and to have a fair hearing. This point should be cleared up.
  I hope that the Minister will try to alter this most unfavourable climate into which it is sought to launch the Commission. I hope that the money will be spent wisely and sensibly. Consultation is absolutely vital to the success of the scheme. I have already heard from some bodies outside that there has been lack of consultation. I hope that there will be no duplication of research. The Minister must think again about the problems of imported meat.
  The Commission and these levies start in a very difficult climate. If we want this scheme to be successful a considerable amount of pruning will have to be done in administration costs. I am not prepared to dismiss the scheme. Farmers and those concerned in the industry will willingly pay these levies if they see that they will do something for the industry, the trade and the consumer. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of the fears which I and people outside have, but I hope that the scheme will be a success.
  Mr. Speaker: May I advise the House that it will not be out of order to refer to the Order that we are discussing.
  10.24 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: I met representatives of the wholesale meat salesmen's association in my area last weekend. I am completely in favour of a Meat and Livestock Commission. It is absolutely necessary. It will protect the consumer by ensuring that labelling of meat is clear and definite. I make no bones about that particular point. [An HON. MEMBER: "That makes a very meaty subject."] As one of my hon. Friends says, "That makes a very meaty subject".
  I have two questions to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister, and I am sure that he will be prepared to answer them. First, why has the primary producer been excluded from the levy? Many people believe that the producer, namely, the farmer, should bear some of the burden and that it should not be left purely to the market forces to see that the cost is evenly distributed.

  413
  Secondly, may I ask my right hon. Friend why imported cattle are excluded.
  Mr. Speaker: It is all right for the hon. Gentleman to ask the question, but the Minister could not answer it and be in order.
  Mr. Orme: I appreciate the point, Sir. We are dealing with a levy on beef.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The parent Act sets up the Commission. The Order imposes a levy. We are talking about a levy.
  Mr. Orme: I am talking about a levy on beef, and I am asking why imported beef is excluded. Those are my two questions.
  10.26 p.m.
  Sir Frank Pearson: I thank the Minister for having adjourned the debate last Thursday, thus giving us all a chance to speak now and, even more important, to read the speech he made then. Having read it with the greatest care, I am now much more doubtful about the Order than I was before he made his speech.
  The Minister started his speech by saying that as a matter of principle both sides were more or less agreed. Then he referred to the proceedings in Committee on the Agriculture Act. This is so, but the right hon. Gentleman underestimates the serious reservations that many of us had in Committee on certain points. We are very suspicious about the wideness of the powers being granted to the Commission. We were especially worried because we felt that the committees set up under the scheme may not be able to perform their function.
  The fact that we are debating the Order tonight, and that there is so much hostility to the Order, shows beyond all doubt that the committees have failed. There has been a lack of communication somewhere. If the scheme is to be successful, something must be amended to ensure that the channels of communication work better in the future than they have up to this time.
  I shall not dwell on the criticisms of the Order which have been made by hon. Members on both sides. It all comes dawn to criticism of pinning the levy to the point of slaughter. Because of that, imported beef escapes the levy.
  414
  This is totally wrong. If this is to be a permanent feature of the scheme, it will not be a success. The Minister must think again and introduce something totally different.
  Schedule 1 to the Act outlines the responsibilities of the Commission. They cover a multitude of subjects, only one or two of which have anything to do with retail meat. The rest concern such matters as artificial insemination and a hundred and one different things concerned with the production of meat. It is, therefore totally illogical that the whole levy should fall on one section.
  When the Minister explained the scheme to us he pointed out that no less than three-quarters of the expenditure from the levy would be allocated to the pig development scheme. This is extraordinary. We debated the Meat and Livestock Commission for about six or seven days in Committee and covered the whole aspect of meat production and retailing. Then the Minister comes along with an Order for a levy three-quarters of the expenditure for which is to deal with pigs, for which we have had a development scheme for years. The pig meat industry is one of the most coherent parts of the meat trade, and the levy could have been placed on it to raise the money to deal with pig development. That is where the money should have come from.
  What is the remaining quarter of the levy to be spent on? I think that the Minister said that it was to be spent on evaluation in the interests of producing meat most suited to the requirements of the housewife. It is a lot of "boloney" if that is all he is to use that £500,000 for. I should like to think that the housewife knows good meat when she sees it. I am very doubtful whether she needs this great Commission, with all its committees, levies, forms and records to tell when meat is good and when it is not. We have the finest meat trade in the world, gentlemen, and we produce the finest meat in the world. Our butchers know more about meat than anybody else does.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker is a patriot, too, but we must come to the Order.
  Sir Frank Pearson: I entirely accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the hon. Gentleman turns his back on the House and addresses his hon. Friends as "gentlemen" he denies hon. Members on this side of the House the opportunity to hear what he is saying.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), at this hour of the day, is a little hypersensitive.
  Sir Frank Pearson: It would be a matter of great grief to me if I felt that hon. Gentlemen opposite had not heard what I said, because they would have missed something. But I feel that I was getting a little wide of the Order.
  One part of the Order rather concerns me, because it illustrates how easy it is for bureaucracy to take control. With the best will in the world we may be trying to improve the standard of the meat the housewife gets, and wishing the scheme to be a success, but I draw attention to paragraph 7 of the Schedule, which lays down all the records that must be kept by those who slaughter cattle and sheep. That may not be a great burden for a big slaughterhouse or local authority slaughterhouse, but it is a burden for the small family butcher who slaughters his own meat.
  It is a great pity that that type of slaughterer-retailer should be asked to keep all the very intricate records and then should be open to visits from inspectors who check the records for two years past. This is the sort of thing that makes the trading life of a small trader intolerable.
  Mr. Paul Hawkins: My hon. Friend may remember that in Committee the Government made it quite clear that it was their intention to do away with small slaughterhouses and retail butchers.
  Sir Frank Pearson: My hon. Friend is quite right. This is what we all suspect. We look at these schemes, with all their intricate administrative provisions, and think that the Government are hostile to the small man. They know that, once this scheme gets going, in the end the small man will say, "I cannot carry on in business" and will leave it. This is why I dislike these schemes so intensely and the bureaucratic control laid upon
  416
  the small trader. But I shall not labour the point. I am certain that many of my hon. Friends will make it.
  Mr. J. T. Price: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I remind him of the Slaughterhouses Act, which was passed by Parliament under Conservative direction. The central purpose of that Act was to concentrate slaughtering of animals in this country. It was supported by all parties, but was placed on the Statute Book by a Tory Government.
  Sir Frank Pearson rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) will not yield to temptation but that he will return to the Order.
  Sir Frank Pearson: I shall not be turned aside from debating the Order, Mr. Speaker, by the irrelevant remarks of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price).
  I return to the point I made earlier. If this scheme is to be successful, the committees will have to work a good deal more intelligently than they have up to now. They must work in the closest collaboration with the trade. I hope never again to see such an Order under the Act which encounters so much hostility in the House. If the Commission does not manage to achieve that collaboration, then it is the Commission that will have to go.
  10.37 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Body: There is only one promising feature of the Meat and Livestock Commission. This is the appointment of Sir Rex Cohen as Chairman. He brings to the Commission great experience of both marketing and livestock. However, there must be real misgiving about the staffing of the Commission.
  Each region is to have a director. Under each regional director there are to be specialists for beef, pigs and sheep, and under the regional director there will also be fieldsmen who will visit every farm in the land. Most of these officials will be recruited from P.I.D.A. and the Beef Recording Association. It is significant to look at the salary scale. The fieldsmen are paid £1,100, rising to £1,700, and the regional directors at

  417
  £1,700, rising to £2,300. The Commission will have to pay far higher salaries than that if it is to attract the kind of man whose advice will be respected by the farmer.
  It cannot be said that these inadequate salaries are the result of shortage of funds. The Commission follows P.I.D.A., and from those who produce pigs £6,675,000 has been extracted in 10 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) and I, and the other pig producers, have paid £850,000 in one year alone. Much of this huge sum—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The salaries of the Commission and the amount the hon. Gentleman has himself contributed, apart from the slaughterer's levy, are out of order.
  . Mr. Body: I hope that the Commission will not repeat the same mistakes as the P.I.D.A. and duplicate its efforts. This has been done on a considerable scale. What is the point of the Meat and Livestock Commission having fieldsmen going to every farm and, at the same time, the N.A.A.S. sending livestock advisory officers to the same farms? It is the view of many farmers that the advice of neither will match the advice which they can now get from their own veterinary surgeons, or from the Fatstock Marketing Corporation and other technical sales representatives.
  The same goes for research. The M.L.C. plans to spend a quarter of its income on research. If this research is done on the same lines as that done by P.I.D.A., we can be sure that the Commission will dabble in work which others have been able to do more efficiently. For 10 years the emphasis has been put by P.I.D.A. on the bacon pig and this research is now to be continued by the Commission. Yet, despite 10 years of research, we still do not fulfil our bacon quota and the bacon pig is only marginally better than it was when P.I.D.A. began. Almost all the improvements which have been made so far can be attributed to individual breeders and the large-scale breeding companies and companies like Walls and B.O.C.M. All the while P.I.D.A. has overlooked the importance to the butcher and the housewife of the pork pig.
  418
  P.I.D.A. has definitely not given the farmer his money's worth and now the butcher is to be fleeced of an even greater sum. The butcher can be sure that he will not get his money's worth out of the Commission any more than the farmer got his money's worth out of P.I.D.A. The best argument for this scheme is that it will mean the demise of P.I.D.A. I hope that it will also mean the demise of many of the ideas of P.I.D.A.
  10.43 p.m.
  Mr. James Johnson: I enter this "National Farmers' Union" meeting with some trepidation, as I am not even a pig farmer, unlike some hon. Members opposite. I believe that tonight the Opposition would like the House to buy a pig in a poke. I am moved to speak in the debate because of the tirade from hon. Members opposite in the debate on Wednesday night, particularly the contribution which was made around midnight by the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport), who was most hostile towards the Government.
  Much of the sound and fury from hon. Members opposite signifies but little. Like other hon. Members, I have met butchers who have made their feelings known to me. They have a case and the Opposition have stated it very well tonight, but what substance is there in this case? To what extent are the butchers being victimised and persecuted? Is the levy such an iniquitous cost increase to the industry?
  The hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford waxed at his most eloquent about this. Like many others, he told me that the levy was one among many cost increases being imposed by this "vicious, wicked" Socialist Government on industry. I do not believe it. It is my belief, and I think that my right hon. Friend shares my view, that the levy will be diffused over the whole of the meat and livestock industry and will not be concentrated on the point of slaughter.
  I do not intend to get involved with a very clever dialectician on my own side of the House, but last week my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) talked about market forces. He does not believe in market forces.

  419
  He is a good Socialist. I am a good Socialist and I do not believe in market forces.
  Mr. Speaker: Order, we can leave market porters out of this.
  Mr. Johnson: I will not pursue this, Sir.
  Mr. Speaker: I apologise. The amplification is defective. I understand that the hon. Gentleman said "market slaughterers".
  Mr. Johnson: I feel a lot better after that.
  I want to refute the nonsense talked on the benches opposite with some facts. If the whole cost of this levy, I believe it to be £1.85 million, were passed on to the consumer, and I have had these figures checked with the highest authority, it would mean an increase of one-seventh per lb. on retail butchers' sales. This is said to be iniquitous, wrecking the whole industry, causing unemployment and destitution to butchers and their families.
  This is what was said last Wednesday. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Who said that?"] The hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford. He often says what the other side feels, but does not say. The levy is not merely on the butcher, not a mere addition to the costs of the industry, but, as an hon. Member said last week, a collective investment in its efficiency. It is hoped that the industry will respond and help the Commission in its work and apply the results of that work quickly.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) spoke about labelling and the way in which this work will help his wife, and all our wives, to shop more efficiently and get better value for money. This is an important issue which has been completely lost in the sectional, emotional appeal from Members speaking for the National Farmers' Union, on behalf of their friends. It is not in the best traditions of the House to lobby in this way. I speak on behalf of the whole industry, and on behalf of all the women in the country.
  Those who read last week's proceedings will see that the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) the Opposition official spokesman, has never
  420
  opposed the Commission, or the fact that the Government must get the money by levy to operate it. The most convenient way of getting the levy is at the point of slaughter. That is indubitable and the arguments of the Opposition have not convinced me. Once again, I say that it has bought a magnificent pig in a poke.
  Mr. J. B. Godber: The hon. Gentleman has quoted me, and I do not dispute anything that he has quoted. Would he explain why he has not supported me in regard to a levy on imported meat, because the very things about which he was talking surely make it right to impose it on imported meat, too?
  Mr. Johnson: The Minister is better able to deal with these points. The importer gains little by the levy. It is the home producer who gains in the home sector, as well as the population of the country—our wives. Those who gain should contribute to the cost of the levy.
  10.50 p.m.
  Mrs. Jill Knight: I am often infused with resentment when hon. Gentlemen presume to speak on behalf of my sex. I strongly resent the implication that the housewife who does the family shopping is a bird-brained nitwit who does not know the difference between a chop and scrag end.
  Having listened to the debate, and read as much as I could about the previous one, I gather that it is seriously suggested that the slaughterhouse operator must pay the levy partly so that the meat can be labelled clearly, so that the housewife will not be misled by the butcher about the quality of the meat. Whereas the large majority of housewives know perfectly well about the quality of the meat that they are buying, the housewives who have not yet learned to do so have ready advisers in their butchers. [An HON. MEMBER: "And their husbands."] Their husbands may well come into it at a later stage, but when the transaction is being carried through, the butcher, who knows well the quality of the meat, is ready to advise. This is a libel both on the housewife and on the butcher.
  We housewives were told some years ago that we did not have enough sense to know about eggs, and so we had the

  421
  great egg farce. Now, the Egg Marketing Board has been unscrambled, as it were—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I intervene with trepidation, but I must point out that we are discussing a levy on slaughtering.
  Mrs. Knight: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I was merely drawing what seemed to me to be a reasonable point of difference and similarity between the two cases. I feel strongly that when money is being collected for doing a job of this kind, one should consider whether the job is necessary at all.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: Is my hon. Friend aware that part of the labelling which is proposed is categorisation of cookability and eatability? Would she agree that the cookability in meat depends upon the excellence of the cook as much as on anything else, and that eatability depends on factors like the state of one's teeth? These factors are hardly under the control of the Commission.
  Mrs. Knight: My hon. Friend has made a splendid intervention. The numerous factors go far beyond what it is possible to specify on a label attached to a piece of meat.
  When trying to impose a levy scheme of this kind, the Government should make sure that they have the full co-operation, agreement and understanding of the people involved. I understand that the National Federation of Meat Traders' Associations feels strongly that its members have not had a fair deal and that the fairness of the levy is very much in question, although the Government promised time and again that when the levy was imposed it would be a fair one. I understand that the Federation feels strongly that it is not a fair levy.
  Anyone who proposes to work a scheme of this nature cannot attempt to operate it successfully without the co-operation of the very people on whom the scheme depends.
  10.55 p.m.
  Mr. Bert Hazell: I shall not keep the House more than two or three minutes, but there are one or two points I should like to make about the proposed levy. I was very interested to hear the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) say that he agreed in
  422
  principle with the Meat and Livestock Commission and that he did not want to see a return to the difficult marketing conditions which used to exist in the industry a few years ago, but he was anxious that the levy should be kept to the lowest possible amount.
  I think that my right hon. Friend, in bringing to the House the figure of £1·85 million, has endeavoured to keep the figure as low as practicably possible. I am certain that had the Commission had its way the figure the House would have been considering tonight would have been substantially in excess of £1·85 million. Therefore, I think that the Minister must have brought some pressure to bear to ensure that the amount to be demanded is as low as possible while being in keeping with the obligations and responsibilities of the Commission.
  Mr. Harold Gurden: How long, can the hon. Gentleman tell us, will this figure remain at £1·85 million?
  Mr. Hazell: We are dealing with the levy as it is presented to the House at the moment and I do not intend to be drawn into any projected figure or date in the future. This figure the House is being asked to approve will last for two years, and after that it will be for the House to decide whether the amount should be increased or not, according to the recommendations of the Minister at that time and the observations of the Commission.
  We are assured that three-quarters of this sum is already a liability on the Commission itself, that it is taking over responsibilities of other organisations. We know that £1 million is required already for the continuation of the work which the Pig Industry Development Authority has done and is doing. I think that farmers generally would agree with me in saying that everyone associated with the industry desires that the work of P.I.D.A. should progress and that there should not be any reduction in it, because it is of help to the pig industry as a whole.
  Some of the money is required for the work of meat recording, the expenses in connection with the development of meat recording, carcase classification, market information, and so on. Therefore, I

  423
  must stress that we on this side of the House think that the amount called for is not unreasonable, bearing in mind the continuing responsibilities which the Commission will have to accept, and the work of development to be undertaken in the immediate future.
  10.59 p.m.
  Mr. Paul Hawkins: Perhaps I should at the beginning declare an interest, as I am a livestock auctioneer. This declaration may be tedious repetition, because I have made it on previous occasions.
  The levy is the result of setting up the Commission, about which I have always had considerable reservations. I have stifled them because I thought the industry wanted it and I thought that it might possibly do some good.
  In Committee on the Agriculture Bill, as the Bill progressed, I had more and more misgivings about the objects for which the levy is being demanded. Time and time again I said, and the former Minister agreed, that the Bill must have the good will of all concerned if it was to work properly. Yet the drastic compulsory powers in Clause 9 were insisted upon, and that is our major objection to the Act—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that we cannot amend the Act or the parent Section, of which the Order is an application. He must come to the Order.
  Sir Douglas Glover: On a point of order. Are we not in order in saying that one of the reasons why we object to the Order is that it will be used for certain things which are in the Act? I would have thought that they were relevant.
  Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for advising the Chair of what is in order; I have, however, just ruled.
  Mr. Hawkins: I regret being out of order, Mr. Speaker. I was simply trying to point out that one of the purposes of the Order is to introduce compulsory powers in certain instances.
  I believed, in my innocence, that no Government would insist on a levy which would be used to put traders and butchers
  424
  out of business and to prevent fresh enterprises from even opening in development areas. I understood that such vital matters as prevention of disease and control of imports could be tackled with this money. The Minister agreed that disease was an important subject and that the Commission would probably be able to deal with this. But it is not one of the objectives in the "Work and Income" booklet produced by the Commission, which says how the money will be spent.
  The Commission gains its power from this levy, which enables it to close markets, butchers' shops and slaughterhouses. The Minister said that it was the Government's policy that smaller slaughterhouses should be closed, and the levy will make this possible. Is it any wonder that the trades have risen against this? The Opposition fought hard against these compulsory powers, but the chairman says, in this booklet:
  "I should also make it clear that the scheme has not been agreed by many of the interests concerned despite weeks of consultation."
  I cannot think of any interests which are likely to have agreed it. Possibly the importers did, because they do not have to pay any levy; I should be interested to hear which interests have agreed it. Surely many more would have been preferable to beginning the scheme with no good will at all. I am now convinced that it will be more of a burden than a help.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) referred to the climate of opinion in the industry and the country. As a result of these levies and boards which have been imposed on agriculture, the industry has changed remarkably over the last five to seven years. Anyone who goes about the country will have realised that there has been a revulsion of feeling against the interference with private businesses and individuals which these schemes and their levies have wrought upon the population. I hope that my Front Bench—if not the Government, who are completely out of touch with public opinion—will realise this and will not consider themselves bound by former attitudes. The climate has changed in agriculture because we are plagued with these bodies and their levies. We have an enormous number and variety of them.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the hon. Gentleman's Front Bench or various levies. We are discussing the levy to which the Order refers.
  Mr. Hawkins: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I will not, therefore, refer to the Potato Board, which I was about to do.
  I do not suggest that the chairman of this new board has adopted the sort of dictatorial attitude that has been adopted by a recent board which has been imposed on the agriculture industry. The first move of the Meat and Livestock Commission was to seek levies at double the rate the Commission thought necessary. I was glad to see that the Minister had reduced the top limits for levy purposes—for example, from 8s. to 6s. for cattle—but I had hoped that for once the right hon. Gentleman would have instructed the Commission to review the whole position again and would have said, "You will make do with half the figure for which you have asked." That is the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman should have adopted, at least for the first few years of the Commission's existence, towards this body.
  The levy will be used to achieve the work mentioned in the booklet to which I referred and many producers and butchers consider this work to be totally irrelevant. At the start the board will cost £1·8 million. But what will be the total annual cost to the industry of all the levies? If we could spend this and the proceeds of other levies to raise the end prices to the producers, the money would be put to far better use.
  One objective of the scheme—and no doubt much of the levy money will go towards this end—is to co-ordinate the labelling of meat. I agree with my hon. Friends who have pointed out that excessive handling can damage the quality of meat. If a country butcher is asked to cut off the best joint from a piece of meat that has been labelled, he must then handle the remainder of the joint, recut it and label it again. This constant handling of meat can do no good for the butcher or the consumer and it is bound to add to the cost.
  Mr. Hazell: Is all meat priced at the top price? In other words, are there no cheaper cuts?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I suggest that the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) returns to the subject of the Order.
  Mr. Hawkins: With respect, Mr. Speaker, the Order provides for amounts to be levied and sets out certain objectives on which the levy may be spent. Obviously, joints of meat are priced according to their quality. I was referring to the case of a housewife wanting a butcher to cut the best piece of meat from an already priced and labelled joint.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot, in discussing this Order, refer in detail to the cutting up of meat, the selling of it and the pricing of various parts of it. We are discussing the levy for which the Order makes provision, and he must address his remarks to that.
  Mr. Hawkins: I apologise again, Mr. Speaker. I thought that these matters were part of the objective of the scheme.
  A compulsory scheme of this sort will be largely unworkable, the cost of the levy will rise and, in the end, costs to the consumer will rise. Apart from the £1 million which would have been spent anyway for P.I.D.A., £320,000, as set out in the booklet, is being spent on collecting the levy, on general headquarters expenses, approved expenditure and contingencies. I note that one of the contingencies would be the setting up of a new headquarters in Scotland. Such is the way that empires grow.
  The farmers' unions and the butchers are right to object to this scheme. The National Farmers' Union journal of 1st June this year states:
  "In its discussions with the Commission, however, the union has repeatedly emphasised the vital need for it to convince the industry that its services "—
  that is, the Commission's services—
  "will provide real value for money. This it has so far failed to do. And this is the nub of the matter."
  The Commission's premature decision on the levy, presumably urged on by the Government, has produced a complete refusal by the butchers to co-operate. This is thoroughly bad for the whole meat industry and in particular for the consumer. Even at this late hour I urge hon. Members to reject the scheme so that further consultations can take place,

  427
  and, in particular, I ask the Government to consider the suggestion that the Commission's work, largely for the ultimate benefit of all consumers, should be financed during the first year or two as a public scheme. This would cut costs. I hope that the Government will recognise that any scheme is doomed to failure if it does not have the good will of the vast majority of those concerned, and that they should withdraw this Order and think again.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that this debate will finish at 11.41 p.m. Hon. Members should be fair to each other and make sure that all who wish to speak have a reasonable proportion of the time available.
  11.12 p.m.
  Mr. Albert Booth: While many matters may divide us in this House, I hope we can be at one in agreeing that it is regrettable that a situation should have arisen in which the work of the Meat and Livestock Commission is liable to meet with obstruction and non-co-operation from a body of men whose maximum co-operation is needed if it is to work effectively.
  I was concerned to receive today from a butcher in my constituency a communication which indicated that the President of the National Federation of Meat Traders' Associations has invited butchers to consider a number of ways in which they might frustrate the work of the Commission, without stepping beyond the bounds of the law, to express their protest at what they consider to be the unfair method of obtaining this levy.
  While in no way approving the action of the President of the National Federation of Meat Traders' Associations, I suggest to the Minister that it might be worth while considering whether or not an undertaking can be given that alternative ways of obtaining the money necessary to carry out the work of the Commission will be considered. It seems to be a reasonable and logical request, when one considers who will benefit from the work of the Commission. It cannot be argued that the slaughterer or the farmer or the retailer are the only people who will benefit.
  428
  One could argue possibly more logically that the customer, the housewife and the members of the housewife's family would benefit equally well from the work of the Commission, but one would not go on from that to suggest that the levy should be placed on the housewife, although one may feel that it will be automatically passed on to her. I am certain that it is not beyond the ability of my right hon. Friend to devise a scheme whereby the cost could be spread more widely across the industry, bearing partially upon the retailer, partially upon the slaughterer and partially upon the farmer, recognising that, almost inevitably, it will bear partially upon the housewife in any case. This would be worth while, since it would be a fair way to do it.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot amend the Order.
  Mr. Booth: In view of your Ruling, Sir, I take it that I must oppose the Order.
  I oppose it, therefore, so that I may ask my right hon. Friend to consider a fairer way of introducing the levy with a view to obtaining the maximum cooperation which will be needed not only to operate the work of the Commission fairly, but to ensure that the consumers will reap the full benefits of the work of the Commission, as we hope they ultimately will.
  11.16 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Jopling: I am disappointed that during the course of the debate some of my hon. Friends have used the Order as a vehicle for attacking the Meat and Livestock Commission. If they have antagonisms to the Commission these should have been voiced some years ago, when the Verdon-Smith Report was first published. The Minister made a serious omission in not paying tribute to the Verdon-Smith Committee—I know that that is a dirty word to the Government—when he opened the debate. The attitude of some of my hon. Friends to the Meat and Livestock Commission has been soured by the experience of the Agricultural Training Board, which is a pity.
  As an agriculturist, I believe that the levy which is to be imposed by the Commission will, in general, be useful to the

  429
  industry as a whole. The Commission has a useful job to do, and I hope that it will be allowed to get on with it, but I am antagonistic to the Order and I oppose it on three grounds which have already been mentioned.
  I oppose it partly because the Order refers only to home-killed meat, and this is a serious omission. The Verdon-Smith Report, in paragraph 851, said that for imports a comparable levy should be charged at the ports. I do not see why this could not have been done. I believe that it could simply and economically be collected at that point.
  Secondly, my main quarrel with the Order is that it gives the Commission an open cheque for several years before Parliament can review the work of the Meat and Livestock Commission. As the Minister said in opening the debate, the Commission has agreed not to increase the levy for two years, but there is another £600,000 that can be collected under the Order above the amount to be levied for the years ahead. It could, therefore, be four years before the House has an opportunity to debate the workings of the Commission. It seems to me that there has been a serious change in policy by the Government from what we understood in Committee. When we debated the levy at that time, the hon. Gentleman the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) said:
  "Parliament will surely wish to take into account … this year's and next year's needs and circumstances, in the light of the way in which the Commission and the industry are using the powers provided in the Bill."— [OFFICIAL REPORT,Standing Committee A, 28th July, 1966; c. 454.]
  The phrase used was "this year's and next year's". Therefore, our understanding was that we would have a levy that could be reviewed at the end of two years, but we now have a situation in which Parliament may not discuss the matter again for four years.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): The Meat and Livestock Commission has agreed that this agreement should only continue for two years. That is the period laid down. If the hon. Gentleman will divert himself to another point, it was I who insisted in Committee that every section
  430
  of the industry should be allowed to consider whether the levy ought to be imposed, and it was the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends who opposed the Government in this respect, and insisted that the levy must be made at the carcase point.
  Mr. Jopling: As I understand the position, the Commission has agreed that it will not increase the levy on cattle of 4s. a head for two years but as a result of the Order it could levy 6s. So, for two years, it can levy 4s., and then 6s., without coming to Parliament at all. We therefore have a clear case of the Government having altered their policy. I do not think that the Government can run away from this charge. They have not behaved fairly to the House, and I hope that because of this change of policy, of which we were not told earlier, we shall divide against the Order.
  11.22 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Stodart: When the Minister adjourned consideration of the Order last week he said that he wanted to hear a full debate. I hope that he has now not only heard, but has listened to—as I am sure he has —a debate in which the main points made have been on the size of the levy, the method of its collection, and, although quite clearly I must tread very delicately here, the exclusion of imported meat.
  I very much agree with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) the other night, and with those of several hon. Members on both sides this evening. There are very strong feelings among producers that levies or contributions of this kind are getting money enough. That feeling may be unreasonable, but it certainly exists. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) and Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) that this feeling has been stimulated, I think unfortunately, by the incredible hamfistedness of the handling of the Agricultural Training Board's affairs. After that experience of some months ago I think that the Government should have prepared the ground a little for this levy, but as far as I can see they have done very little indeed.
  I say quite frankly that this Commission is desirable, by and large, provided that it works—and this is waving

  431
  the red rag—along the lines of P.I.D.A., because I think that P.I.D.A. has, on the whole, done good work which has been to the advantage not only of the producers but of the consumers by improving the quality of livestock and pigmeat. Therefore, I say that provided the Commission gets its priorities right and uses the levies to get an improved recorded production of the right types of carcases, and so on, and forgets about most of the nonsense in Section 9, I do not in principle quarrel with it.
  Nor, if I may say so, do I quarrel, broadly speaking, with the principle of paying by levy. The Amendment we moved in Committee was suggested by the National Farmers' Union, which accepted the principle and was concerned only with the amount. It is most important that the method of collection should be done simply and efficiently. The Bill certainly gave powers to levy livestock products. I think it meant that a levy could be put on each pound of meat pie or sausages. To put the levy on small sales would be quite prohibitive.
  I cannot see why, from the point of slaughter, the charge will not filter through back a little to producers and forward a little to consumers, through what I know the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) does not like, the ordinary play of market forces. This may have disadvantages, but I do not think that there is a simpler, more efficient or cheaper way of collecting the levy.
  It is not in order to attempt to amend this Order and to ask that imported meat should be included, but I think I heard you say, Mr. Speaker, that it was within order to denounce the exclusion of imports. It is quite disgraceful that imports should not be included in the levy. I should think it—I use a denunciatory word—preposterous that imports should escape because this means that inevitably far more of the weight must fall on the home-produced article. The hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Derek Page) reminded us of some of the proportions of imported meat as opposed to home-produced. Something like 34 per cent. of all the meat with which the Commission will deal is imported. It is deplorable that importers will without question benefit by the work of the Com-
  432
  mission in improving marketing, market research and so on without paying a halfpenny for it.
  The Scottish National Farmers' Union has spoken forcibly, as have some of my hon. Friends tonight, about the original levy proposals. The union said:
  "Frankly, we doubt the wisdom of making provision for a rate of levy greatly in excess of what is justified by foreseeable needs."
  It is true that the right hon. Gentleman has reduced the original proposals. The excess is no longer so great, but the excess still exists. Because of the exclusion of imported meat from the levy, because we believe that until the Commission has demonstrated that it is giving value for money and that it should not demand more money than it requires, because also, despite what the hon. Member for Leith has told us, without doubt a higher levy can be imposed under this scheme without coming back to this House for two years—he sought to make clear that it was impossible to impose a higher levy but that can be done— we shall vote against this Order unless the right hon. Gentleman can reassure us on these points tonight.
  11.30 p.m.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House, I will reply to the debate. I am extremely glad that we were able to have this extended debate, because I think that it was right that hon. Members who wished to take part in it should be enabled to do so. I have valued the contributions which have been made. We have had the opportunity of hearing differing views and we have had some time to reflect on what we heard in the debate last week. Some of the speeches made by hon. Members opposite have been inflammatory, far more so than they were in Committee on the Bill when the Commission was discussed in very great detail. It is clear that market forces of one kind or another have certainly diffused something through the Opposition since the Committee stage of the Bill.
  As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) said, critical interest has centred on two important aspects of the scheme—the method of collecting the levy and the exclusion of imports. Hon.

  433
  Members have shown that they attach weight not only to the likely economic and commercial consequences, but also to the presentational aspects of the equity of the scheme. My hon Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) expressed his concern that the scheme should be equitable in fact and in appearance, and that the appearance of equity was worth paying for. He made one slight error; he said that I had praised market forces. I said that I recognised their existence, as my hon. Friend must do when he writes his splendid books and sells them.
  The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude), in particular, questioned the appearance and wisdom of a levy on home production without any charge on imports. These, therefore, are the two questions with which I should like to deal very briefly. There are a few hon. Members who would throw out the Commission bell, book and candle, but they do not represent the view of the House as a whole.
  As to the point of collection, there has been argument as to whether or not the levy will be borne entirely at the point of slaughter, where it is first imposed, or whether it will be diffused through the industry as a whole. I freely admit that neither the Commission, in its repeated discussions with its Distribution Committee, nor my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and I during the course of the very lengthy representations, could move the meat trades from their belief that the levy would stick where it first fell, although there were those among them who thought that in time there could be diffusion through the trade and industry.
  I have been reassured to hear so many hon. Members state their view that the levy would be spread. This is my view. There is no reason to think that this charge should differ in its impact from an increase in labour costs or any other additional charge.
  However, some, although they admit this, have criticised the appearance of the scheme. How fair does the scheme appear to be? Would it be worth while incurring the extra costs of other methods of collection for the sake of demonstrating openly that the charge fell across the whole industry? That depends on the additional cost involved. The Commis-
  434
  sion certainly considered it, and we considered it very carefully. The Commission estimated roughly that the possible alternative methods of collection would cost more than three times as much-that is, three times the £125,000 provided for this purpose in the budget of the Commission.
  I do not say for a moment that this is conclusive, or that other methods might not be worked out. Certainly, it is possible to work out other methods. I want to stress that, with one exception, alternatives are by their very nature bound to increase costs substantially and they will either add to the Commission's administration or give the trade more paper work, or both.
  The exception would be financing from public funds which is what one hon. Gentleman suggested. But it has been made clear from the very start, and was made perfectly clear in Committee, that this would not be right. However, although hon. Members on both sides have said that the point of slaughter is clearly the convenient and economic point of collection, and although many, including the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), share my view about the spreading of the levy, I regret that we have been unable so far to remove all the fears and the doubts which exist in the meat trade and which have been expressed in the House.
  Therefore, I should like to take this opportunity to make it clear that we do not want to ignore their arguments. It would be unfair to do so, and it is something I would not wish to do. I believe that it is a fair scheme, as well as the most economical and practical, and that this will emerge more clearly in the light of working experience over the next 12 months or two years. For that reason my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are very willing to give the trade every opportunity to come back and to show us and the Commission that the levy is sticking at the point of collection, if the trade still thinks this after a year or so of operating the scheme. In such an event we should give serious consideration to the trade's representations if it appeared that the levy was operating inequitably. I hope that after those assurances hon. Members will be satisfied that we are ready to have another look in 12 months.

  435
  References have been made again to splitting the levy. I do not want to say very much more about that. It is possible to split the levy under the Act, but it would not have been possible if hon. Members opposite had had their way. For example, the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins), made a very strong speech tonight against the Commission and all its works, but I have been reading HANSARD of the Committee stage of the Act. This is what he said then:
  "We believe it to be a correct principle that a levy should not be paid on a live animal and thereafter a levy be paid on its carcase, on parts of its carcase and on lard coming from that carcase, or other livestock products."— [OFFICIAL REPORT,Standing Committee B. 24th February, 1966; c. 642.]
  Therefore, hon. Members opposite have changed their minds. I do not complain about that, but the meat trade, farming and the House should know that they have completely switched their views in this matter.
  I thought that the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) came to a very reasonable conclusion, and I hope that after hearing me he will be in the Lobby with us tonight. He talked about co-operation by the Commission to avoid duplication of effort. The Act under which the Commission operates says clearly that it shall
  "…enter into such consultations with other authorities and persons as appear to them required to ensure that duplication of research, advisory services and other activities is avoided so far as practicable."
  Therefore, that point is covered by the Act.
  The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) dealt with expenditure on pig development, and attributed to me words which I did not utter in my speech last week. I hope that he will read it carefully again. I said that about three quarters of the levy in the first two years would be spent on maintaining existing work, and that the largest part of this, about £1 million, is the continuing work now done by the Pig Industry
  Development Authority. This reflects the fact that the Commission is starting in a responsible way and not flying too high.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sal-ford, West (Mr. Orme) asked about the exclusion of the primary producer from the effects of the levy. I have dealt with this in some detail, but I could add that there is a broad measure of agreement on both sides of the House that market forces will spread the effect of the levy, and the primary producer is certainly among those who will be affected. It will depend on the state of the market at any given time.
  It would not be proper for me to deal in any detail with the import side, but hon. Members have spoken about it. If money were collected on imports on the understanding that it was to develop services to imports, the proceeds could not simply be merged in the general funds of the Commission. Australian and New Zealand exporters, for example, who had paid levies to their meat boards, as they do, often for very similar services, would be quick to ask the Commission to show that any import levy here was not being spent for the benefit of the British meat industry alone. This could inhibit promotional activities in Britain, and hon. Members would regret that more than anyone.
  If we are convinced, as I am, that money should be invested on a national scale in improvements in British production and marketing, there is no alternative to ploughing back from our own production and in our own way. We have not set up the Commission to encourage the trade in imported meat, but to promote the sale of British meat, to serve the consumer, to serve the trade, and to serve the industry. I hope that everyone here tonight will now support the Order.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 198, Noes 141.

  Division No. 286.]

  AYES

  [11.41 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Alldritt, Walter

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Binns, John

  Allen, Scholefield

  Barnett, Joel

  Bishop, E. S.

  Anderson, Donald

  Baxter, William

  Blackburn, F.

  Archer, Peter

  Beaney, Alan

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Bence, Cyril

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Booth, Albert

  Boston, Terence

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Molloy, William

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Haseldine, Norman

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Boyden, James

  Hazell, Bert

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Moyle, Roland

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Henig, Stanley

  Murray, Albert

  Brooks, Edwin

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Newens, Stan

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

  Hilton, W. S.

  Norwood, Christopher

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Hooley, Frank

  Ogden, Eric

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

  Horner, John

  O'Malley, Brian

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

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Oram, Albert E.

  Buchan, Norman

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Orme, Stanley

  Carmichael, Neil

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Howie, W.

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

  Coe, Denis

  Hoy, James

  Palmer, Arthur

  Coleman, Donald

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Park, Trevor

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Hunter, Adam

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Hynd, John

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

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

  Pentland, Norman

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

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

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

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

  Rees, Merlyn

  Dell, Edmund

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

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

  Dempsey, James

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Dewar, Donald

  Judd, Frank

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Ryan, John

  Dickens, James

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

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Dobson, Ray

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

  Sheldon, Robert

  Doig, Peter

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

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

  Driberg, Tom

  Lawson, George

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick(Newton)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

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

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Silverman, Julius

  Eadie, Alex

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Slater, Joseph

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Small, William

  Ellis, John

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Snow, Julian

  Ensor, David

  Loughlin, Charles

  Spriggs, Leslie

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

  Luard, Evan

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Swain, Thomas

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Swingler, Stephen

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McBride, Neil

  Symonds, J. B.

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McCann, John

  Thornton, Ernest

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Urwin, T. W.

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  McGuire, Michael

  Varley, Eric G.

  Ford, Ben

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Forrester, John

  Mackie, John

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Fowler, Gerry

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Maclennan, Robert

  Weitzman, David

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Garrett, W. E.

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

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

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  Gregory, Arnold

  Manuel, Archie

  Winnick, David

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Woof, Robert

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Yates, Victor

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Millan, Bruce

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Mr Joseph Harper and

  Hannan, William

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

  Mr. Charles R. Morris.

  NOES

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Clegg, Walter

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Astor, John

  Crouch, David

  Goodhart, Philip

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

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Dance, James

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Bessell, Peter

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Biffen, John

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

  Gurden, Harold

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Doughty, Charles

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Body, Richard

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hawkins, Paul

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Heseltine, Michael

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Eden, Sir John

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Braine, Bernard

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Holland, Philip

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

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

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.SirWalter

  Emery, Peter

  Hunt, John

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Bryan, Paul

  Eyre, Reginald

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, West)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Jopling, Michael

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Foster, Sir John

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Clark, Henry

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  438

  439

  Kirk, Peter

  Peel, John

  Teeling, Sir William

  Kitson, Timothy

  Percival, Ian

  Temple, John M,

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Peyton, John

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Lambton, Viscount

  Pike, Milss Mervyn

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Lane, David

  Pink, R. Bonner

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Pounder, Rafton

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Waddington, David

  Longden, Gilbert

  Pym, Francis

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Loveys, W. H.

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Lubbock, Eric

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Webster, David

  Maddan, Martin

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Maude, Angus

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Royle, Anthony

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Monro, Hector

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Sharples, Richard

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Silvester, Frederick

  Worsley, Marcus

  Murton, Oscar

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Wright, Esmond

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

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

  Wylie, N. R.

  Neave, Airey

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  younger, Hn. George

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Stainton, Keith

  Onslow, Cranley

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Stodart, Anthony

  Mr. Jasper More and

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Mr. Anthony Grant.

  Pardoe, John

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  CIVIL EVIDENCE BILL [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee),considered.
  CIVIL EVIDENCE BILL [Lords]
    New Clause 1

      ADMISSION OF STATEMENT OF EMPLOYEE AGAINST EMPLOYER
      No statement by an employee shall be inadmissible as evidence in civil proceedings by reason only of the fact that the employee was not authorised by his employer to make an admission, but the employer shall not be estopped from denying the truth of the statement.—[Mr. Alexander W. Lyon.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      11.50 p.m.
      Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      This is an important Bill, coming on at an intolerable time. I hope that I shall not unduly weary the House with the first two Clauses. The first, in particular, is of some importance. It raises a point which is small in scope, but important in practice in many types of civil litigation. A great many of the cases heard in the civil courts are either actions in negligence against an employer, or actions in breach of statutory duty against an employer. Often the best evidence that there is of negligence or breach of statutory duty is some admission made by the employer's servant immediately after the accident.
      I think of a case where some machinery should have been switched off and caused
      440
      an accident because it has not been switched off. The man who should have done this says immediately after the accident "I'm sorry. I forgot." This is the typical example which occurs frequently in the courts. Although the employer's servant is not a party to the action and anything that he says, therefore, is probably, technically, hearsay, one gets in it fairly frequently under the res gestae rule. On occasions, one is stifled from doing that by the rule that an agent is not allowed to make an admission on behalf of his principle unless he has been authorised to do so. This rule has been applied to a master-servant relationship where, in my judgment, it has very little relevance. It has been applied in such a way that many of these admissions, which are highly material and may very well point to the real truth of the situation are not accepted by the courts. I have had this happen to me on so many occasions that it is a matter of some importance, at any rate in the kind of litigation in which I am engaged.
      Therefore, I look for some relief in this highly important Bill which attempts to allow, for the first time, a good deal of evidence consisting of out-of-court statements, which otherwise might be excluded by the hearsay rule. The point I am seeking to bring to the attention of the House is not covered by Clause 2, which says that
      "… a statement made, whether orally or in a document or otherwise, by a person, whether called as a witness in those proceedings or not, shall, subject to this section and to

      441
      rules of court, be admissible as evidence of any fact stated therein of which direct oral evidence by him would be admissible."
      The difficulty about the point that I am raising is that if the servant were called by the plaintiff to say, if he was prepared, the words which he used immediately after the accident, the likelihood is that the evidence would be ruled out on the basis of the rule to which I have referred, namely, that an agent is not entitled to make an admission on behalf of his principle unless authorised to do so. It is ruled out, not on the basis that it is hearsay, but on the basis that it is not authorised. For this reason, it is necessary that there should be an addition to the Bill to cover the point.
      It may seem to non-lawyers, and perhaps even to lawyers who are not involved in litigation of this kind, that the point is a trivial one. but I assure the House that on many occasions, particularly in factory cases, where the plaintiff may have difficulty in establishing his case, this crucial piece of evidence, which might turn the scales in his favour, is not admitted.
      If we are to allow hearsay evidence to be used at the discretion of the court, in proper cases, I cannot see why the same provision should not be extended to this type of what is technically hearsay. I therefore hope that the Government will accede to my request, although at this hour of the night I have no desire to put the new Clause to a vote.
      The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) raises in his new Clause what is unquestionably an important point. His Clause would make an out-of-court statement by an employee admissible, but not conclusive evidence, in civil proceedings against his employer notwithstanding that the employee had no authority to make an admission. I assure my hon. Friend that we have gone carefully into this matter.
      The point I would like to emphasise is that the Law Reform Committee was fully alive to the difficulties created by the rule to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention, and the Committee has referred to it in paragraph 31 of the Thirteenth Report. In the Government's view, the presence of Clause 2 in the Bill makes my hon. Friend's new Clause
      442
      unnecessary for the purpose which he has in mind of making admissible against an employer his servant's statement which is first-hand hearsay. As I see it, this is already achieved by Clause 2.
      If I understood my hon. Friend aright, his anxiety seems to be founded on the belief that as a matter of law, quite apart from the rule against hearsay, a servant's unauthorised statement is not admissible. That is the difficulty which is felt by my hon. Friend. With great respect, however, I am not satisfied that it is a substantial difficulty. I would have thought that that rule is, broadly speaking, an aspect of the rule as to the non-admissibility under the existing law of hearsay evidence. Obviously, it follows from the view which I have just expressed, if I am right, that the matter is sufficiently covered by Clause 2 of the Bill. That is the answer which I must give to my hon. Friend, but I say again that it is an answer which is given only after careful thought and consideration.
      12 m.
      My hon. Friend's new Clause would confine its effect to employees and employers. The rule to which he refers applies equally to principals and agents, and if it were either necessary or desirable to have a new Clause I think my hon. Friend would agree that the principle of his new Clause should apply to both. But that is merely a passing comment upon the matter. It does not go to the substance of the issue.
      On the main point, the Government's view is that this matter is met by Clause 2. As I said, it really comes down to the question whether the rule to which my hon. Friend refers is founded upon the principle hitherto applying that hearsay evidence is not admissible or whether it is founded upon something else. On the view that we take it is an aspect of the hearsay rule, and the mischief is avoided by Clause 2.
      Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I did not, for obvious reasons, at this stage of the evening, start quoting authority, but the authority I have is a decision of the Court of Appeal in 1889, when Baron Pollock gave the leading judgment, and there is no reference at all to the hearsay rule, in the course of the judgment, which excludes such evidence. It is based entirely on the basis of the rule that an

      443
      agent is not allowed to make an admission unless he is authorised to do so. On that basis, and that being the authority, surely no court would be able to say that such evidence was admissible, now that the Civil Evidence Act, as it will be, has admitted hearsay?
      The Solicitor-General: I am much obliged. I have had that authority in mind, and I have also had in mind the authority of more recent day, the case of Burr v. Ware Urban District Council, the 1939 case, in which the Court of Appeal refused, in a fatal accident case, where the only survivor of the accident was the defendant's driver, to allow an interrogatory to be administered to the defendant's driver to elicit a statement made at the inquest held on the plaintiff's son who had been killed in the accident. That is another case I had in mind, and of more recent date.
      I do not think that any hon. or right hon. Member of the House would wish this argument to proceed very much further. There might be argument in the Court of Appeal about this. These cases are all cases of hearsay, whether their root is in the hearsay principle or otherwise. As I say, I have given careful attention to this, and we are satisfied that Clause 2 meets the case.
      Question put and negatived.

    New Clause 2

      INADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY UNAUTHORISED INTRUSIONS INTO PRIVACY
      No evidence which has been obtained by unauthorised intrusions into the privacy of the individual against whom the evidence is sought to be used shall be admissible in any civil proceedings.—[Mr. Alexander W. Lyon.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      This Clause deals with an aspect of the law in which I have taken considerable interest over the last two years. What is required, I suspect, is a completely new enabling Act to indicate what is unauthorised intrusion into privacy, but I raise the point upon this Bill because of
      444
      discussions I have had with many people about the right to privacy and because of particular cases such as the one in the Divorce Court only a year or so ago, when a private inquiry agent had had a "bugging" device installed in an hotel bedroom in order to obtain evidence of adultery and the Divorce Court judge strongly criticised this method of obtaining evidence.
      Because of the rule that no evidence can be excluded simply because it was improperly obtained he was bound to accept the evidence and to rule in favour of the petitioner. In such cases one would have no redress unless there were a rule rather like this in relation to the method employed to obtain evidence.
      For instance, if it were ever enacted by the House that there was such a thing as a tort of intrusion into privacy, and that damages could be awarded, it would still be worth the risk for a private inquiry agent to "bug" a hotel bedroom. If he were then mulcted of damages, they would be added to his bill to his client. This is apparently the attitude of one such agent who uses these devices frequently in his work. He has no fear of criminal or civil proceedings over invasion of privacy, because it merely becomes an expense upon his ultimate account to his client, who would be only too willing to pay, provided that he got the evidence which he was seeking.
      In such circumstances, the mischief could be cured only if the evidence were not admissible. Since we have not yet created such a tort, it will be difficult to accept the new Clause, but I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will at least be able to give us some assurance that the Government have this in mind and will do something about it.
      Sir Peter Rawlinson: I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon). In Committee, we discussed the question of the "fruit from the poisoned tree", as it has been called elsewhere, and agreed how objectionable it was to obtain evidence in these ways. We must face the fact that this will soon develop even more, and I agree that we must try to restrain it. But I foresee, as did the hon. Member, the difficulties of trying to import it into the Bill. It would also have

      445
      to be in the criminal law and in a different form than the hon. Member proposes. But he is right to draw attention to this matter, which will be one of the gravest subjects which we will have to face in the administration of the criminal and civil law in future.
      Therefore, although I sympathise with the hon. Member, I agree that it would not be a good idea to import it into the Bill at this stage.
      The Solicitor-General: I share the view of the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) that the new Clause raises, in a different form, the issue of the "fruit of the poisoned tree" which we debated in Committee on an Amendment which he moved, when the arguments against introducing this doctrine into English law were fully deployed. The arguments were, first, that the question is of great importance in criminal than in civil law, and that the recommendations of the Criminal Law Revision Committee should be awaited; and, second, that the proposal was a far-reaching one which has not yet been fully considered and which should not be implemented at a late stage of the current Bill without an opportunity for detailed examination.
      On these grounds, I cannot accept the Clause, but I certainly do not seek to counter the argument that this is an important matter and raises a subject which we should watch carefully.
      The recommendation I make that the new Clause should not be accepted is not founded on any lack of recognition of the importance of the subject, to which my hon. Friend has given much thought and attention. This does not seem to us to be the appropriate point at which to introduce the principle; and I repeat that in all likelihood the importance of this question is greater in criminal than in civil law and that the recommendations of the Criminal Law Revision Committee are awaited.
      Question put and negatived.

    Clause 4

      ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN RECORDS AS EVIDENCE OF FACTS STATED
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 35,
      446
      leave out from 'person' to 'in' in line 36 and insert 'acting'.
      I suggest that it would be convenient to discuss the following Amendment, at the same time, Amendment No. 2.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): If there is no objection, so be it.
      The Solicitor-General: This series of Amendments extends the meaning to be attached under subsection (3) to a person acting under a duty so as to make that expression include a person acting in the course of any trade, business or profession, instead of
      "… a person performing a duty falling to be performed by him in the course of any trade …".
      In paragraph 16 of its Report on hearsay evidence, the Law Reform Committee discussed the corresponding provision of the Evidence Act, 1938, which provides for the admissibility of statements contained in written records. One of the conditions for admissibility was that the statement must have been recorded in the performance of a duty to record relevant information. Of this requirement the Law Reform Committee said:
      "The requirement that the statement must have been made in the performance of a duty to record information is, we think, a valid one."
      The concept of duty is, in our view, however, not appropriate to the case of the one-man business man who keeps his own records. This series of Amendments is designed to meet that instance. The owner of a one-man business is under no duty to himself, although he would find it, in practice, essential, to keep formal business records. It would be anomalous if entries in his ledgers made by him were not admissible whereas entries made in similar ledgers made by another businessman's clerk were admissible, simply because he was an employee. Convenience and logic both seem to invite the view that entries made in the course of business by the proprietor should be treated on a par with similar entries made by an employee.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: No. 2, in line 38, leave out 'by virtue' and insert' for the purposes'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

    Clause 6

      PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO ss. 2 TO 5
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 7, line 5, at end insert:
      (5) If any person in a certificate tendered in evidence in civil proceedings by virtue of section 5(4) of this Act wilfully makes a statement material in those proceedings which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both.
      This Amendment attracts a criminal penalty to the wilful making of a false statement in a certificate tendered in evidence under Clause 5(4), which deals with statements produced by computers; a certificate to the effect that the conditions have been satisfied under which a computerised record is admissible.
      As introduced, the Bill contained no criminal sanction in respect of statements contained in such a certificate. Whether there should be a criminal sanction is debatable, and thought was given to this matter in Committee. On the one hand, if the certificate procedure is to be freely used, those concerned must not be, so to speak, frightened off. The attachment of such a sanction could have that effect. We felt that we might possibly run the risk of reducing the overall usefulness of the procedure.
      On the other hand, not all parties to civil actions are scrupulously honest and the absence of any sanction might lead a dishonest person to tell a deliberate lie in the knowledge that he would not, in the normal course, have to go into court to support his statement on oath and thus expose himself to a possible prosecution for perjury. Moreover, the honest but possibly not too careful man has nothing to fear under this Amendment, because the offence is committed only if the falsehood is wilful.
      12.15 a.m.
      The arguments that took place in Standing Committee indicated, certainly to my mind, a rather striking amount of support for the principle that a criminal sanction should apply in this instance. That view was expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson), the hon. and
      448
      learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) and others. I undertook to give further consideration to the point, and on the strength of that I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman withdrew his Amendment.
      When I gave this undertaking I made it clear that in any event it would not be desirable, in my view, to require a statutory declaration since to make that requirement would greatly complicate the procedure and would lead to unnecessary expense. I accordingly indicated that a better precedent was likely to be afforded by Section 89 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1967. Under that Section a person who wilfully makes a false statement in a statement in writing tendered in evidence in lieu of his giving oral evidence in committal proceedings or at a criminal trial, is liable on conviction on indictment to two years' imprisonment or a fine, or both.
      The proposed new subsection (5) to Clause 6 follows Section 89 of the Criminal Justice Act in this respect. It also follows Section 89 in attracting a criminal penalty only to a false statement which is material in the proceedings in which the certificate is tendered in evidence. Thus, in effect, the offence will be committed only if the deliberate falsehood relates to one or other of the conditions of admissibility applicable to the computerised record in question. No offence will be committed if the person concerned chooses, for what may be good reasons, to conceal, for example, his true name. In this instance we have thought it well to take account of the strength of the views expressed on this point in the Standing Committee, and I trust that the Amendment will be welcomed.
      Sir P. Rawlinson: I am glad that the Solicitor-General has had second thoughts. He promised to look at this point in Standing Committee after we had moved the Amendment asking for a statutory declaration. I had never understood why there should be any real fear about frightening off people who are to make statements for the compilation of records which are to be computerised and then used in actions. If they are to be frightened off, they ought to be frightened off.

      449
      If a person wishes to take advantage of this system he should do it with accuracy and care, and he should be prepared to stand by what he has said and by the figures and facts which he has compiled. For this reason my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) and I put down the Amendment asking for a statutory declaration. I accept that the statutory declaration may be too cumbersome a process, and I would have thought that the proposal which is to attract the same provisions as apply in the Criminal Justice Act is correct.
      I am glad that the Solicitor-General has agreed to this proposal, and I am sure that it will strengthen and improve the Bill.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 8

      RULES OF COURT
      Sir Peter Rawlinson: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 9, line 31, at end insert:
      (6) No rule of court under this Act shall be made by the Lord Chancellor save with the approval of a majority of persons who have been appointed under section 99 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 who are present and attending the meeting at which rules of court under this Act are to be made; and the Lord Chancellor shall make any rule of court so approved by such majority and shall not refuse to make any such rule.
      Clause 8 is an important Clause. It provides for the making of the rules of court, and in its provisions it establishes conditions before a statement can be given in evidence under Clauses 2, 4 and 5, which are the main Clauses of the Bill.
      For instance, Clause 8(2)(a) provides that the rules shall make requirements about notices to other parties and give particulars, including particulars of persons making or recording a computer statement. Subsection (2)(b) provides that there shall be rules made about counter notices to require persons to be called as witnesses whether or not they should and must and have to be called. Subsection (3)(a) confers discretion on the court even if the requirements with regard to Clause 2 (hearsay), Clause 4
      450
      (records of facts), or Clause 5 (computers) have not been complied with.
      Subsection (3)(b) provides that rules shall be made as to the power given to the court to give directions as to whether and in what conditions a statement within Clause 2(1) (hearsay) should be made. Subsection (4) provides that rules may be made for preventing a party from adducing evidence which could otherwise be adduced by virtue of Clause 7. Accordingly, Clause 8 provides for the effective machinery for operating the Bill, and this effective machinery is given by the Clause to the Rule Committee.
      The Law Revision Committee to which reference has been made by the Solicitor-General, and which is the Committee which fathered this Bill by making the recommendations of their Thirteenth report, categorically recommended that it would be convenient to incorporate the initial rules both for the High Court and the county court in a Schedule to the Act. As was pointed out by the Law Reform Committee, this had been done in the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873. They recommended that that should be done and that thereafter, if necessary, the rules could be amended if in the light of experience those rules were found not to be working effectively, and they repeated this in the summary at page 24 of their Thirteenth report.
      The absence of a Schedule dealing with the rules was raised on Second Reading and, as I understand it, the reply from the Government was that it would be too inconvenient, it would be too bulky, it would extend the Bill too much, it would be difficult to work out the rules at this stage and it would be better to have the Bill on the statute book and then set about formulating the rules. At the time I did not find that very convincing, and I should have thought it would have been much more convenient to have a Schedule.
      At some time, these rules will have to be made. A Rule Committee must be established and the rules made, and it would be far better to delay the Bill until that had been done rather than, as usual, have this piecemeal legislation. There are practising lawyers, and indeed six judges, on the Law Reform Committee who all made this recommendation, and I am surprised that the Government should have rejected that proposal
      451
      and gone ahead with the Bill without the rules having been set out in a Schedule.
      I move the Amendment because, as Parliament will not have the opportunity of examining them in the Schedule to the Bill—though doubtless the rules will be placed before the House and we can if necessary pray against them at another time—if Parliament is to leave it to the Committee it is important to know on what terms we leave these rule-making powers to the Committee.
      The Rule Committee, as is apparent from the Clause, consists of persons appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The rules are made by the Lord Chancellor and any four or more of, as it were, the presidents of the different divisions, four judges of the Supreme Court, two practising barristers and two practising solicitors—all appointed by the Lord Chancellor. Obviously, they are widely experienced persons. But, as I understand it, the present attitude of the Administration and of the Lord Chancellor is that if the Lord Chancellor disagreed with what the Rule Committee proposes he has the power of veto and can say whether or not he will make the rule. If that is so, Parliament is handing over to a Minister the power to lay down what rules he likes, and the function of the Rule Committee is purely advisory.
      I suggest that Parliament should not do that. Parliament does not have the rules in a schedule, so it should make it perfectly clear, as I hope the Amendment does, that it is the Rule Committee that will make the rules, and that even if the Lord Chancellor does not like a rule that is proposed by a majority of the members of the Rule Committee attending he must make that rule.
      I say that because it is not long since we had a debate in the House about the rules which were made by the Rule Committee. On 8th April I posed to the Attorney-General questions about the position with regard to the Lord Chancellor and the Rule Committee. I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he thought that the Lord Chancellor had this power of veto, and what were the powers of the Rule Committee. I never received any answer from the Attorney-General to the several questions I then posed, and those questions
      452
      were afterwards posed in the professional Press but were never replied to.
      I can only assume from that that the Government's view is that the Minister, in this case the Lord Chancellor, has that power. If the Lord Chancellor does assume that power, it is right that Parliament should make clear exactly what it wants. Parliament should make it clear that it is the Rule Committee which has the effective power.
      The Amendment therefore seeks to control the power of the Minister, and so to say that, in effect, a rule shall not be made without the agreement of the Rule Committee; and that if a majority of the Rule Committee believes that a rule is appropriate and should be made, the Lord Chancellor may not veto it, but shall have to make it. In that way we shall get a Rule Committee to which we shall be giving very extended power but which will have some control over the rules it makes.
      I consider this to be a very important matter in the Bill, and important also with regard to Parliament and parliamentary control over the legislation that is made. I therefore hope that the Solicitor-General and the Government will accept the Amendment.
      12.30 p.m.
      Sir Eric Errington: I want to speak not so much from the strictly legal point of view, but from the point of view of the difficulty that arises in dealing with a new contrivance —the computer. It seems that it alters the whole atmosphere of the question of rules.
      I take the view that computers are not always right. There must be some protection which should have very careful consideration and may need amendment at some time. The sort of situation which makes me anxious is that where in an ordinary county court judgment summons it may be that a computer will be used, perhaps in a number of cases in which the defendant may not be in a position to combat the result of the computer's figures. That is a serious position, and one which is not entirely a legal one. It requires a great deal of thought to ensure that justice is done between the person who can afford and use a computer and the ordinary person who is not in that position. That is a

      453
      very strong argument for strengthening the Rule Committee.
      I disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson), who suggested that it is an advantage to be able to change the rules so that if the first effort to make the computer work fairly fails it can be amended.
      The Solicitor-General: I quite agree with the great importance that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) attaches to the treatment of computers. They constitute a novelty and as such pose unexpected and novel questions of evidence. I entirely share the concern he has expressed about them. I do not think I have more to say in response to his speech than to remind him that, whatever criticisms may be made of the Bill, it cannot be criticised on the ground that an elaborate and serious attempt has not been made to deal with this. The matter is dealt with in great care and elaboration in Clause 5. In addition, in Clause 8 provision is made for the Rule Committee to deal with points arising under this novel head. While agreeing with him about the importance of this, I invite the hon. Member to take the view that the Bill deals carefully and conscientiously with the subject.
      The Amendment has unmistakable overtones of an earlier discussion, as the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) pointed out when moving it. It is none the worse for that. I do not pursue the point that as matters have developed the House has not had the opportunity to study the initial rules in a Schedule. I was glad to have an indication from the hon. Member for Aldershot that there is an advantage in having this matter dealt with in rules outside a Schedule to the Bill. I have nothing to add to what has been said already on that subject.
      The Amendments would have the effect that rules of court under the Bill could be made only with the approval of the majority of the members of the Supreme Court Rule Committee attending the relevant meeting and that the Lord Chancellor would be obliged to make any rule so approved. I repeat that the Amendment has overtones of an earlier discussion which took place when the rule; under Section 7 of the Matri-
      454
      monial Causes Act, 1967, came to be considered. That Act provided that the authority having power to make rules was to be the Lord Chancellor together with any four or more of a number of specified persons.
      The Amendments are concerned with the rule-making powers of the Supreme Court Rule Committee, but for this purpose there is no distinction between the two, because under Section 99(4) of the Judicature Act rules of court may be made by the Lord Chancellor together with any four or more of the following: the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, four other judges of the Supreme Court, two members of the Bar Council, and two solicitors of whom one must be a member of the Council of the Law Society.
      It is clear from the wording of Section 99 of the Judicature Act that no rule can be made without the Lord Chancellor's concurrence. This is no accident. The Lord Chancellor has been a necessary concurring authority in the making of rules since at least 1881, and in the case of county court rules he is empowered by Section 102(8) of the County Courts Act, 1959, to allow or disallow or alter rules submitted to him by the County Court Rule Committee, of which he is not a member.
      It is thus plain that it has been the deliberate intention of Parliament to give to the Lord Chancellor the final responsibility for deciding whether a rule approved by the specified number of members of these committees should be made, and in so providing Parliament has no doubt borne in mind the obvious point that, should rules be made by one of the rule committees and be challenged in Parliament on a motion to annul, the Lord Chancellor, or the Attorney-General on his behalf in the House of Commons, would have to defend them and it would put the Lord Chancellor in a very difficult position if he had to defend rules in the making of which he had not concurred and which could be contrary to Government policy or inconsistent with a decision already taken by Parliament, or both.
      This, I hope, will be recognised as a point of very considerable substance in this controversy. It would not be acceptable to anybody on either side of the

      455
      House if, in the hypothesis of a rule committee making a recommendation which was manifestly contrary to the intention of Parliament as previously expressed, the decision of the rule committee should prevail. It is this consideration which has the result of the provisions in the Judicature Act taking the form that they do.
      It is true that on the strict wording of the Judicature Act the Lord Chancellor could make rules notwithstanding the opposition of seven members of the Committee, provided that he could get four members to support him. In practice, the Lord Chancellor has never made rules against the wishes of the majority of the Committee, and there is no practical possibility of his doing so.
      Some such provision as Section 99(4) is necessary, however, because rules may have to be made at comparatively short notice, and in circumstances in which it is impracticable to assemble the full Committee. The object of the provision is not to enable the Lord Chancellor to override the majority but to create a reasonable quorum.
      There is the further objection to the Amendment that if it were desirable to provide that majority approval was required such a provision should extend to all rules made by the rule-making authority and not merely to rules under the Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that there is no special feature affecting hearsay rules which justifies such treatment for them.
      The Amendments are defective in the following respect: rules of court may be made under the Bill not only in respect of the Supreme Court but any court or tribunal to which the Bill is relevant. In particular, the Clause contemplates both county court and magistrates court rules. The effect of the Amendments would be that these rules could not be made without the approval of the majority of the Supreme Court Rule Committee.
      That is merely a criticism of the drafting that I make with every respect. I have no more to say on the main issue. I have shown the basis of our objection, and I must ask the House to resist the Amendment.
      Sir P. Rawlinson: I accept that this is a new proposal, but I think that a new
      456
      practice has developed. It is because we fear that that is so that we take this, the first opportunity, to introduce a new proposal that we think is sensible and right. It is suggested that if the Rule Committee proposed a rule which the Lord Chancellor did not like it would be difficult for him or the Attorney-General to defend it. But surely he could say it was made by the Rule Committee and that he did not like it, and he would not then have to defend it? Why must Ministers always be defending such things, and the whole life of the Administration be thought to depend on such matters?
      Parliament should say that it should give rules committees power to make rules, not Ministers. It does not matter how distinguished the Minister is, the rules committee should have the final say. That is why we have put forward the Amendment, for we understand that a practice has grown up only very recently under which a veto will be imposed on the Rule Committee.
      However, I appreciate that there are some defects in the drafting of the Amendment, for which I am wholly responsible. For that reason, and that reason alone, I shall not invite my hon. Friends to join me in pressing the Amendment to a Division. But I give a very grave warning to the Government that the Rule Committee should be given this power and should be able to exercise it.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 15

      PRIVILEGE FOR CERTAIN COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO PATENT PROCEEDINGS
      Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, in page 17, line 18, after 'proceedings', insert 'before the High Court or'.
      The Clause gives to those who consult patent agents the same privilege with regard to their communications with them as they would have if they were consulting a solicitor. That privilege is that neither party shall be forced to disclose in litigation communications made for the purpose of pending or contemplated proceedings. This is frequently referred

      457
      to as "solicitor's privilege". It is nothing of the sort. It is no privilege to the solicitor. It is a privilege to everyone who consults a solicitor that the solicitor shall not be forced to disclose the communications which have been made to him, provided that they are communications in connection with pending or contemplated proceedings.
      12.45 a.m.
      The Law Reform Committee, in its Sixteenth Report—Command 3472—after dealing with and approving privilege in respect of consultations between a solicitor and his client, went on to deal with communications between a patent agent and the person who consults him. Paragraph 25 said:
      "It has been represented to us that communications of the kind described in paragraphs 18 to 23 above,"—
      communications between solicitors and clients—
      "if made for the purpose of pending or contemplated proceedings in the Patent Office or the Patents Appeal Tribunal to be conducted by a patent agent, should be entitled to the same privilege as they would have if the patent agent were a 'professional legal adviser'. We think that it is clearly right that they should and, in our view, the principle on which is based the common law rule of privilege in aid of litigation would extend to such communications."
      So there has been inserted in Clause 15 a similar privilege for communications between a patent agent and his client as between a solicitor and his client when they are made in connections with appeal proceedings before the Patent Office or the Patents Appeal Tribunal.
      But the Bill goes a little further than the Report. It gives privilege even when these communications are in connection with an application to the Patent Office, when perhaps no litigation such as we understand the word is pending. But in paragraph 24 the position is considered of when the patent agent is consulted in connection with High Court proceedings and separate perhaps from proceedings in the Patents Appeal Tribunal. Paragraph 24 begins:
      "The category of professional legal advisers is confined to barristers and solicitors. Patent agents do not fall within it and there is no general privilege for professional communications between them and their clients. Insofar as they are instructed in connection with pending or contemplated proceedings in the High Court, no problems arise; communications with them would be privileged under the
      458
      rules referred to in paragraphs 20, 21 and 23 above, since in these proceedings solicitors and counsel are also instructed."
      With respect to the Committee, I think that it has fallen into error there. There are many occasions in which a client may consult a patent agent without first consulting a solicitor or counsel. We are left with the extraordinary position that if, when the client decides to go to his solicitor first when he is concerned with some problem which may lead to High Court proceedings over an invention, the solicitor takes him along to a patent agent, there is privilege. Communications then between the client and the patent agent will be privileged. They are in contemplation of High Court proceedings. But if the client goes to a patent agent first, as frequently he does, without consulting a solicitor, then the communications between the client and the patent agent are not privileged. This is where the Committee went wrong in its Report. It said that there was no problem, because on every occasion when a client consulted a patent agent, he would have a solicitor or counsel and would have been taken to the patent agent by the solicitor, which is not so; it does not always happen.
      Therefore, I have moved the Amendment in order to get over this anomaly. It seems ridiculous that, merely because a client goes to the solicitor first and is then taken to the patent agent, the communications between the client and the patent agent will be privileged, but if the client goes to the patent agent on his own and asks for advice, the communication will not be privileged. If my Amendment is agreed to, communications will also be privileged when the client goes to the patent agent on his own and asks for advice in contemplation of proceedings.
      The Solicitor-General: The Amendment would extend Clause 15 so as to make it confer on patent agents a legal professional privilege in respect of proceedings before the High Court as well as proceedings before the Comptroller-General and the Patents Appeal Tribunal under the Patents Act, 1949.
      The history of the matter is that at a late stage in the progress of the Bill, in the middle of June, suggestions were received by us informally from the Law Society that the privilege proposed to be

      459
      conferred on patent agents should extend to communications made when a patent agent was consulted in connection with High Court proceedings. The point was made that the patent agent in substance acted as a legal adviser and that, as many patent agents were in fact solicitors, the existence of the privilege should not depend on whether such an agent was consulted qua agent or qua solicitor. It was said that the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents supported this proposal.
      It remains true that the proposal is directly contrary to what was recommended by the Law Reform Committee in its Report on Privilege in Civil Proceedings. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) founded his argument, very fairly, on the basis that the Committee had been wrong. Leaving aside for a moment the merits of the issue, hon. Members will appreciate that one would have to be extremely cautious before going against a recommendation of the Committee on a point raised as late as this was raised. I readily acknowledge that that does not go to the merits, but it is a consideration which must clearly be in our minds.
      Mr. Graham Page: Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that the Committee did not recommend this because it thought that it already existed and that it was therefore unnecessary to give it. It thought that a client always consulted a patent agent arm in arm with his solicitor, which is just not the fact.
      The Solicitor-General: The substance of the hon. Gentleman's argument was that the Committee was wrong. He used that expression perfectly clearly and without equivocation. When that is said about a recommendation of a Committee of this calibre in the context of a proposal coming forward so late, the House would obviously be well advised to proceed with the greatest possible caution.
      Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I did not catch when it was that the hon. and learned Gentleman said that this proposal came forward. Was it in the middle of July, or no less than five weeks ago which he keeps describing as being so late? Was it no less than five weeks or a month ago which is so late that nothing can be done about it? It seems a very generous period of time.
      The Solicitor-General: It was the middle of June, but the hon. Gentleman cannot make much of that. It was received by us two days before we started consideration of the Bill in Committee. On any fair view I should have thought that it came too late. I have some difficulty in seeing on what grounds the hon. Gentleman considers this Amendment to be necessary. If the patent agent is not also the party's solicitor, communications passing between him and the solicitor, or him and the client will have privilege under the current rules. That is set out in Paragraphs 18–23 of the Law Reform Committee's report. The only circumstance in which the Amendment would confer privilege where none exists under the current law, or under Clause 15 as drafted, would be that in which the communication passed between the patent agent and the client, otherwise than for submission to the client's solicitor. This I would have thought could occur in practice only where the patent agent was also the client's solicitor and was acting as patent agent, but not as solicitor—a circumstance which I would think unlikely, since the communication,ex hpothesi is being made for the purpose of pending or contemplated proceedings in the High Court.
      I am not persuaded that this Amendment is necessary or desirable. I confess that if the proposal was put seriously, it is a pity that the Law Society, who were specifically invited to submit evidence to the Committee, and responded fully to that invitations, did not make it at a much earlier stage. In the face of the Committee's recommendation, we feel that it could not be accepted without much greater consideration than it is possible to give it on Report. If the Government were persuaded that there was here a substantial lacuna and defect, one would not have resort to the timetable aspect of the matter that I have thought it right to present. When one adds, that, with respect to the hon. Member, there is not very much to this anyhow, one is entitled to ask the House to share the view that as the matter has developed, the point has not really received the consideration that would warrant a change in the language of the Bill.
      Mr. Graham Page: I am astonished that the Solicitor-General should take

      461
      the point that Report stage of a Bill is too late to present an Amendment. This is surely the stage when major Amendments are received.
      The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman cannot put that kind of proposition into my mouth. I said nothing of the kind. Of course Report stage is not too late to accept Amendments. I never heard such nonsense enunciated from either side of the House. The point is that one has to have regard to each particular case on the merits of the issue, the size of the point and consider it in relation to a report by a reform committee, and the manner in which these propositions come forward, and the order of time in which they came forward. When these matters are considered, and one thing is balanced with another, I am suggesting that it is not appropriate at this stage to make this change.
      Mr. Graham Page: Nevertheless, the Solicitor-General made great play of the fact that the Law Society had been invited to give its comments on the Bill at an early stage. Indeed, he admitted that it had put forward the proposition which is included in my Amendment two days before the Committee stage began. He says that that is too late. If a body like the Law Society is invited to put forward Amendments to the Bill, if it is not to do so before the Committee stage, when must it do so? The Law Society has to consider these matters carefully in various committees. It brought forwards its proposition two days before the Committee stage and put it to the Government at that stage. It was not accepted by the Government and, therefore, it is brought forward as a formal, specific, quite clear Amendment at this stage.
      1.0 a.m.
      It is true that I expressed the opinion that the Committee was wrong. It was
      462
      wrong in assuming that this privilege existed and in assuming that whenever a patent agent is instructed pending High Court proceedings, the privilege will exist. That was what the Committee said. It said that there was no need for an Amendment to the law in this respect because the privilege existed.
      In my practice, I have known many occasions when a client has consulted a patent agent first. When he has found that someone is infringing his rights in an invention, he has gone to a patent agent and asked advice about proceedings. He is not under an obligation to come to a solicitor at that stage. Sometimes he does not do so if he has been in touch with a patent agent before. If he does that, however, there will be no privilege in the communications between the client and the patent agent, and yet if he goes to the solicitor first and the solicitor takes him to the patent agent, privilege will exist. That is the anomaly which not only I, but the patent agents, want to overcome, and which the Law Society has put to the Government and wishes the Government to overcome by the Amendment.
      The Solicitor-General has cast the Amendment aside by informing the House that it is too late a stage to deal with a minor Amendment of this sort. It may be minor, and such a situation may not occur more than once or twice a year, but it is an anomaly which there is opportunity to put right in the Bill. The House should put it right.
      Amendment negatived.
      Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time,put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading),and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

  CIVIL AVIATION BILL [Lords]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [19 th July], That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Question again proposed.
  1.2 a.m.
  Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I rose to speak a minute before the Third Reading was adjourned on Friday. I am glad to see that the Minister is just about to get some technical backing. I was about to explain to the House on Friday why it was necessary to have a full and complete—"full and proper" were the words used by the Minister's predecessor—Third Reading.
  It was apparent from the form taken at the beginning of Third Reading that the Minister of State would have been happy to ditch completely the commitments made by his predecessor and allow the Bill to receive its Third Reading on Friday without having honoured the specific commitment given to Standing Committee G by his predecessor at c. 45 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee's proceedings.
  In Committee, what was then Clause 7, but is now Clause 11, began to be subjected to scrutiny by the Committee. That is the Clause which enables the Board of Trade, with the approval of the Treasury, to make unlimited grants or loans to any person who is conducting one of a large number of activities. When the Minister of State was pressed on a number of very specific points he quite reasonably told the Committee that his policy thinking had not been advanced sufficiently far to give the Committee the information which it quite reasonably requested, and he gave a positive undertaking to give that information to the House on Third Reading.
  What were the questions put to him? I think it is necessary to run through them. I have given notice in writing to the Minister that I wished him to honour the undertaking given by his predecessor. I gave him that notice as long ago as last Friday. I think that for the record it is necessary that we should be quite specific about what the questions were which were to be answered tonight by the Minister of State. The Minister has had ample opportunity to read the
  464
  OFFICIAL REPORT of the debates in Committee, so none of these questions can come to him new now. I shall quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT. I said:
  "First, who qualifies? This question has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) … Does the Board of Trade intend to lay down qualifying regulations, or does it intend to remain entirely passive dealing with individual applications on an ad hoc basis? "
  Then, a little later:
  "I therefore look forward to hearing from the Minister of State who qualifies for these various acts of public benevolence, what are the rules governing the granting of loans or the provision of grants; when and how will these rules be made known; and whether or not they will be retrospective…. Do these expenses have to be approved in advance by the Minister before a claim for a grant or loan can be made, or can the expenses be incurred and then the bread cast upon the waters in the hope that the Minister will decide to make a grant?"
  Now we come to a particularly important one:
  "Does the Minister's decision whether to make a grant or loan depend upon the merits of the individual case or upon the number of grants or loans which have already been made in the same financial year?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT,Standing Committee G, 16th May, 1968; c. 41–2.]
  There is, of course, an important principle involved here.
  The Minister of State said:
  "I do not propose to follow the advice of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and talk right through to the end of the sitting, but if he is in serious doubt about the purpose of the Clause and the amount of money involved, I will elaborate perhaps on Third Reading. I give an assurance to do so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,Standing Committee G, 16th May, 1968; c. 45.]
  So we look forward to hearing from the Minister what is the amount of money involved each year. In other words, what will the Department be budgeting for? Because without that Parliament cannot exercise proper financial control over the expenditure which is authorised in what is now Clause 11 and was then Clause 7. This is drawn so widely that this information does need to be given to the House. We do need to be told what will be the criteria which will decide whether the person referred to gets a grant or a loan; and, if a loan, what the terms of the loan will be.
  I think it was perfectly proper for the Minister of State to ask us to postpone this to the Third Reading because, quite

  465
  obviously, this extraordinarily ill-prepared Bill had not reached the point where the Minister was able to give an honest answer to the Committee, but it is absolutely essential, if the Government are to retain any shreds of integrity, that, the Committee having ceased its examination at that point, in view of the undertaking given by the Minister, we should now have a full statement from the Minister covering these points.
  We are now in the somewhat bizarre position of debating the Question, That the Bill be read the Third time, without the Minister concerned having made a speech in support of the Motion. We therefore have to put at considerable length and before hearing him speak the points which we hope that he will cover. Otherwise, we would exhaust our right to speak before knowing whether he had covered all the points which his predecessor undertook to cover. He has put the House in a very difficult position and it is incumbent upon him to cover all these points.
  It is wrong that a consolidation Measure of this kind, containing financial provisions of unlimited potential, should go on the Statute Book without proper debate. With those few words on only one Clause, I look forward, however belatedly, to a full statement from the Minister of State along on those points.
  1.11 a.m.
  The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. William Rodgers): This is the final stage of what is, by common consent, a very useful Bill, which has been much improved during its passage by the efforts of hon. Members on both sides. My own credit for this has been small, and I know that the House would wish me to pay tribute to my predecessor, who played an active part during many long hours in Committee and is responsible for much of what is now, I am sure, a very good Bill.
  In case the House might inadvertently have been misled by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), I should emphasise that the Bill has hardly been rushed through. It went to another place on 8th November last, went into Second Reading Committee here on 14th February, has been discussed in the House in all for over 24 hours, and started with 21 Clauses and has ended
  466
  with 28. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Tiverton, who made over 80 separate contributions to those debates. So it can hardly be said that we have not had a full debate or that he himself has not had a good bite of the cherry.
  When the Bill first went into Second Reading Committee, where Bills go which are supposed to be non-contentious, the chief Opposition spokesman said that the Committee generally welcomed the Bill and was disposed to recommend it to the House; thereafter, he and other hon. Members spent eight separate sessions deciding what was wrong with the Bill and how it could be made better. Therefore, at the end of Third Reading, I can say that we have considered it fully, and if everyone is not satisfied, that is only because no one is ever wholly satisfied. If the hon. Member for Tiverton feels at the end of the evening that I have not done justice to his pertinent and probing questions, his experience of the ways of the House will enable him to carry on the debate at his own convenience.
  On Third Reading—I would have been happy had this gone on longer, but we took much longer on Report than anyone anticipated, with two hours on the first Clause—the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) raised some points of particular concern to him about traffic over his own constituency. As I said at the time, these are matters which are perhaps better dealt with in correspondence than in the House at this hour when we want to press on to further business.
  We had a long debate on the new Clause dealing with noise, at the end of which I conceded what must be generally accepted, that the disturbance caused by aircraft noise is a major social problem and is likely to increase as aircraft become larger and traffic increases. I do not propose to go into the problem in more detail, except to remind the House that, apart from the measures which must essentially be regarded as palliatives— concerned with how aircraft land and take off, preferential runway utilisation, restrictions on the number of night jet movements—we are taking special steps to introduce a noise certification scheme, which we hope will, over a period, substantially reduce the noise from aircraft. In the interim, I am personally concerned

  467
  to ensure that the aircraft operating today, which will operate for many years ahead, can, through research, cause less noise.
  The hon. Member for Tiverton raised a number of points about Clause 11, which is generally concerned with the development of airports policy. I regret that he is discontented. I would like to develop this matter in greater detail, but my reading of what was said by my predecessor in Committee does not lead me to believe that, even if he had had more time than I have, he would have proposed this moment for a discussion of all the detailed points the hon. Gentleman raised. However, if he wishes to go into the matter further, I will be happy to give him such answers as I can.
  As the hon. Member for Tiverton said, the Bill consolidates many aspects of aviation policy. It is a good Bill and the House has welcomed it. The House will be glad to see it go on its way as a useful contribution, to which many hon. Members have, in part, contributed.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

  THEFT BILL [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  THEFT BILL [Lords]
    Clause 1

      BASIC DEFINITION OF THEFT
      1.17 a.m.
      The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 12, leave out 'four' and insert 'five'.
      This Amendment is consequential on the inclusion in the Bill of Clause 6, which was added in Committee. The Amendment would substitute "five" for "four" in subsection (3), which contains the basic definition of "theft"—that is
      "… the intention of permanently depriving the other of it …"
      Subsection (3) applies Clauses 2 to 5 to the operation and interpretation of Clause 1. The Amendment ensures that
      468
      Clause 6 also applies for the purposes of that Clause.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 5

      "BELONGING TO ANOTHER"
      Sir Peter Rawlinson: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 3, line 24, leave out from first 'trust' to end of line 26.
      The matter with which the Amendment is concerned was raised in Committee. In this Clause we have the definition of property belonging to another and some curious words in subsection (2). It is interesting to note that subsection (1) deals with
      "Property … belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest …"
      Subsection (2) deals with
      "… property subject to a trust …"
      Subsection (3) is concerned with the situation
      "Where a person receives property from or on account of another, and is under an obligation to the other to retain and deal with that property …"
      Subsection (5) is concerned with
      "Property of a corporation … belonging to the corporation …"
      They are all definitions. However, in the part of the Clause with which the Amendment is concerned, we read:
      "Where property is subject to a trust, the persons to whom it belongs shall be regarded as including any person having a right to enforce the trust …"
      My hon. Friends pointed out in Committee that this was muddled drafting. We still take that view. Although the Solicitor-General promised to look at the subject again, he has not tabled an Amendment to put the matter right. We see no reason why this provision should not be redrafted.
      The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): I am glad to have the opportunity of dealing with this point which was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) in Standing Committee. As I understood it, the anxiety that was felt was that the expression "defeat the trust" might have the effect of causing the offence of theft to extend to breaches of trust which were not criminal. I am satisfied after

      469
      careful inquiry that this anxiety is unfounded.
      As the Bill stands, there has to be dishonest appropriation of property and an intention permanently to deprive before theft is constituted. Any conduct in relation to trust property, in order to amount to theft, would have to be conduct which would be theft if the property were not trust property. In the view that I take, this limits the ambit of the phrase "defeat the trust". Such difficulty as there is on the point would, in the Government's view, not be removed by resort to any other language. That is the outcome of our thinking upon this matter.
      Sir John Foster: I cannot help but disagree with the Solicitor-General. The words which it is sought to omit are:
      "and an intention to defeat the trust shall be regarded accordingly as an intention to deprive of the property any person …"
      having a right to it.
      Leaving aside the difficult English in that sentence, surely the intention to defeat the trust is part of the element of the offence. One has to see what the intention to defeat the trust means. In Committee I criticised the imagery of a battle between the alleged criminal and the trust. One can defeat the trust in many ways. The Solicitor-General says that there is a limitation in that one has got to have a dishonest intention to get hold of some property. But the words that we seek to omit state that defeating the trust
      "shall be regarded accordingly as an intention to deprive of the property any person having that right."
      The wording is very cumbersome and it introduces an entirely new concept into English law, namely what is defeating the trust.
      If "defeating the trust" is intended to be an element showing that there was a dishonest intention, then the words are not apt to do that at all because some minor attempt to break the trust might be regarded as an intention to deprive a person of the property even though without those words no criminal intention would have been proved. I therefore submit that these words should be omitted, for the Clause will work just as well without them.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 6

      WITH THE INTENTION OF PERMANENTLY DEPRIVING THE OTHER OF IT
      Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 5, at end insert:
      ";and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment, the House can also consider Amendment No. 3.
      Mr. Morgan: These are drafting Amendments. Their only effect is to transfer the proposition at the end of subsection (2) of the Clause, namely, that a borrowing or a lending cannot amount to treating the property as the borrower's or lender's own to dispose of regardless of the other's rights, to the end of subsection (1). There are also some necessary adjustments made to the opening words. It has been suggested to the Government that the proposition would come in more appropriately at the end of subsection (1), and the Government have accordingly drafted these Amendments.
      Sir J. Foster: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can get away with saying that it is a drafting Amendment; he must explain what it means. It is not, to my mind, a drafting amendment to take a cumbrous and obscure passage and move it from the end of one subsection to the end of another. That is not a drafting amendment.
      I invite the House to look at the words. What, apparently, it means is that a borrowing or lending of the person who is accused of theft cannot amount to a permanent deprivation of the property unless the borrowing is for a period and—I underline the word "and"—in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.
      The first criticism is that the borrowing or lending should be able to amount to a permanent deprivation if it is for an unlimited period. It is very difficult to see why, if the person suspected of theft borrows or lends some property for an indeterminate period, say for a period determinable on condition, that should

      471
      not be equivalent to a borrowing or lending which equals a permanent deprivation of property.
      What is made even more difficult by the moving of this passage from subsection (2) to subsection (1) is that, as well, the circumstances must make it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal, so that where the last sentences make it equivalent to outright taking or disposal those are not enough to make it a permanent deprivation unless it is for a period as well. It is difficult to see the logic of that. If there are circumstances making it equivalent to outright taking or disposal, I would have thought that was sufficient to make it a permanent deprivation according to Clause 6(1).
      The hon. Gentleman has not explained why it is thought that the passage should be moved from subsection (2) to subsection (1). I quite appreciate why he has avoided that, since it would involve telling the House what it means. The circumstances which make it preferable to move it from one to the other must depend on what it means. With great respect to him, I think he is not in accordance with the tradition of the House in saying it is a drafting Amendment. It is nothing of the sort; it is this: a particular sub-sentence means so-and-so and because it means so-and-so, it is not apt for subsection (2), but because it means so-and-so it is apt for subsection (1). I would ask him to explain what it means and why it is more apt for subsection (1) than for subsection (2).
      Mr. Morgan: I have been invited to explain the exact meaning of this passage. I would plead that this is a drafting Amendment in the sense that it neither adds to nor detracts from anything that was contained in the totality of the Clause when it was moved as a new Clause in Committee. In that respect I submit that it is a drafting Amendment and no more.
      1.30 a.m.
      Two changes are involved. First, the position is moved from subsection (2) to the end of subsection (1), where it more properly belongs, and then it is put in a positive rather than in a negative form. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues will agree that, in effect, if the Amendment is carried
      472
      the Clause will read no differently from how it read on leaving the Committee. The meaning of the words, therefore, takes us rather wider than the Amendment itself, but I would say that the whole purpose of the Clause itself and of this proposition is to place beyond any doubt what has already been an established pattern of law for upwards of 150 years. It is a restatement of the law with regard to those cases which might not literally amount to a deprivation of the ownership, which had been so regarded from time to time.
      The proposition covers cases where a person has borrowed property either with the full consent of the owner or without that consent, and where he has acted in such a way in relation to that property as to show clearly that he is thereby either actually or constructively assuming the position of the owner. It would cover the case, in particular, of the person who borrows a chattel, pledges it, and then, perhaps by spending the money he receives therefore, makes it impossible or unlikely for him to be able to redeem it—
      Sir J. Foster: Would not that situation come within the Clause, because he would be pledging it, not for a period? Will the hon. Gentleman explain why it has to be for a period? In the circumstances in which one pledges a chattel, one does not do it for a period.
      Mr. Morgan: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposition. Both the circumstances and the period, in the sense that by depriving himself of the likelihood that he would be able to redeem it, would amount to a permanent exclusion of the ability to regain that chattel and thereby to pass it back to its original owner.
      The case which comes most readily to mind in this connection is that of a person borrowing, say, a season ticket. If he borrows it merely to keep it for any reason whatever as a piece of cardboard having an intrinsic value of a fraction of a penny, no offence can be committed under the Clause. But let us assume that he uses the ticket in order to gain admittance to a certain performance or series of performances—let us say that he uses it for nineteen of twenty performances. He has, by that act, used
      473
      the season ticket in a situation which shows that he is not any longer acting as a borrower but as aqua owner of the ticket. There is a series of settled cases on such a question, the circumstances and the period put together show quite clearly that to all intents and purposes there is an intention to deprive the owner permanently of the chattel.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: No. 3, in page 4, line 12, leave out from 'rights' to end of line 14.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

    Clause 9

      BURGLARY
      Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 5, line 2, leave out
      'a term not exceeding fourteen years' and insert 'life'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we can consider Amendment No. 29, in line 4, leave out Clause 10.
      Mr. Lyon: These two Amendments are linked, and the main Amendment is to delete Clause 10—Aggravated Burglary. It was with some surprise when I read the report of debates in another place and in Committee that I found this point had not been taken at any stage. The basis of the Bill is that there have been in the past far too many complicated and overlapping offences which ought to be reduced to a number of simply stated and clearly defined offences, with, perhaps, higher maximum penalties than had been the case previously for the offences from which the current offences will take their name in order that the judges can decide on the severity of the offence and apportion punishment accordingly.
      As the Criminal Law Revision Committee said in its introductory paragraphs about the Bill:
      "The present different maximum penalties date from times when maximum sentences were passed much more commonly than they are now and when Parliament was much more willing to trust the discretion of the courts in sentencing."
      We all know of the time when people were transported for quite simple and relatively innocuous cases of theft. Having followed that principle admirably in
      474
      the presentation of this excellent Bill, we come to Clause 10 when, for some reason which the Committee does not clearly spell out, it decided that in addition to the offence of burglary an offence of aggravated burglary is needed. It says that aggravated burglary should be simple burglary coupled with the possession of some offensive weapon. Note not the use of an offensive weapon but simply its possession. If a man commits a simple burglary but has in his pocket a knife, that knife may be sufficient to convict him of the more serious offence even if he never takes it out of his pocket and the occupant of the house is unaware that he ever had the weapon on him.
      This is the kind of ludicrous situation there has been in the past where some feature has been present in the commission of the offence which was peripheral to the commission and had no effect on the mind of the person against whom the offence was committed yet which somehow or other makes it a more serious offence. Surely there should be an offence of burglary simpliciter and the court should be allowed to determine in all the circumstances what is the appropriate sentence. Burglary simpliciter in Clause 9 should have the maximum penalty of imprisonment for life and thereafter it should be for the court to determine the sentence. It is unnecessary to put in Clause 10 with aggravating features. I am carried in this conviction because, as the Committee pointed out, burglary has hitherto carried a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life. The new offence of burglary as defined in the Bill carries a reduced maximum sentence. It would, therefore, not be inappropriate to increase the maximum sentence to imprisonment for life. If that were done, there would be no virtue in retaining the additional offence of aggravated burglary, unless it be said that somehow or other the higher penalty is a deterrent to a burglar carrying an offensive weapon.
      I see my hon. Friend the Under-Secre-tary nodding. I should have thought that we had now reached the stage where we could say that burglars do not commit offences carrying in their minds the maximum penalties to determine what are the deterrent qualities of punishment. I do not want to go into the whole question of capital punishment. It may be

      475
      that where there is a fixed penalty, such as there is for murder, it is a matter which a potential criminal will carry in his mind. Where there is simply a maximum penalty, and where the criminal fraternity knows as well as any member of the bar present that the maximum penalty is rarely imposed—in almost every single case the punishment imposed is less than the maximum but will vary in length according to the way in which the offence was committed—it must be inappropriate to suggest that there is some deterrent quality in fixing a higher maximum penalty in a different kind of case.
      Take, for instance, a case of simple burglary committed in such a way as to terrify the occupants of a house but when no offensive weapon is carried. Any judge would regard that as a more serious offence than a case of burglary where the house was unoccupied but where the burglar was carrying a gun. The very fact that some violence had been offered or offence caused to people who were on the premises—they might have been tied up or gagged—makes it a much more serious offence in the eyes of the court than the peripheral fact that a man was carrying an offensive weapon when committing burglary on an unoccupied house. The result of Clause 10 would be that for that simple case of burglary a criminal would receive a higher offence than if he had committed the other offence, which carries in theory a higher maximum penalty. No judge looks at the maximum penalty, where the maximum is in the region of 14 years or life, to determine what the sentence should be. He simply looks at the facts. The maximum penalty of 14 years is sufficiently high in any case for most ranges of offence. It is only in the exceptional case that the maximum penalty would be used.
      It is illogical and unfortunate that the Committee, which was so revolutionary in its recommendations over such a wide area, should have been so pusillanimous on this issue. It said in paragraph 80 of its Report:
      "Although we are in general opposed to splitting up offences, we regard it as justified in this case."
      However, the Committee did not go on to determine why it should be "justified
      476
      in this case". The Committee accepts that the arrangement would be free from the disadvantages of the present system of splitting up offences, because there would be no overlap, since simple burglary would have to be proved first and then the aggravating features added to it. The Committee finishes its findings on this matter in this way:
      "If the possession cannot be proved, the accused can be convicted of simple burglary."
      I cannot see anything in the Bill which says that a person can be convicted of a lesser offence if he is charged with the more serious offence and the aggravating features are not proved to be present. If there is nothing in the Bill to say that a person can be convicted of a lesser offence, is it simply a rule of practice that a person can be dealt with in this way?
      Sir J. Foster: The hon. Gentleman gave an instance of a man with an offensive weapon who put people in a house in fear. Would not that be robbery under Clause 8, because in order to steal the man puts a person in fear?
      1.45 a.m.
      Mr. Lyon: I was coming to that point. I agree that it would be robbery, but in order to be convicted of robbery he would have to be charged with it. In the indictment there would have to be two counts, one of burglary and one, either alternative or supplementary, of robbery, and the ingredients of the offence would have to be spelt out. Why go to the trouble? Why not simply charge the man with burglary and allow the court to take into consideration all the facts of the case? If there is violence or a threat of violence, or possession of arms or the use of arms, all this can be taken into account in deciding the appropriate sentence.
      The fact that reference is made to robbery strengthens the case, because whereas before we had robbery simpliciter, robbery with violence or robbery with aggravation we now have the single crime of robbery, for the obvious and simple reason that if there is a maximum sentence of life imprisonment one can deal with any aggravation that is caused by an appropriate sentence. Why not do that with burglary? Instead of having burglary and burglary with aggravation why not burglary with a

      477
      maximum sentence of life imprisonment? Any aggravation can be dealt with within the particular offence. I believe that the Committee has been illogical on this, simply because there was a suggestion of using firearms. Everybody accepts that that is a particularly aggravating feature of any crime, but this is not likely to lessen the use of firearms. It simply adds a complication that need not be there.
      Sir P. Rawlinson: I offer the Minister support, if it is needed, in maintaining the position as it is. I hope that he will ignore the blandishments of his hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon). In the Bill there are theft, stealing, robbery, burglary and aggravated burglary, and it is right that there should be the extra offence of aggravated burglary. I am not so confident as the hon. Gentleman about the ignorance of those who engage in the full-time practice of crime. It is right that there should be the distinction between aggravated burglary by the burglar who is armed, and burglary by the cat thief who breaks through a window, takes something and goes. Where a person goes to a house with a firearm, explosives, or whatever it may be, we should spell out in the Bill that that is an aggravated offence, and should carry an extra penalty. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will not accept the Amendments but will retain the offence of aggravated burglary.
      Mr. Edward Lyons: I support my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) in the interests of further simplifying the law, to reduce the burden on judges and recorders in explaining the law to jurors and to reduce the burden on jurors, making the law simpler for them to understand and thus making it easier for them to arrive at sensible verdicts.
      Under Clause 10 one must explain to a jury what burglary is, and go on to explain aggravated burglary, telling them that if they do not find aggravated burglary they can bring in a lesser verdict of burglary. All of that is unnecessary. There is no reason why there should not be one charge of burglary, with the court having discretion as to the proper sentence.
      If a man goes into a house which is unoccupied with the intention of com-
      478
      mitting burglary and has in his pocket a knife which he habitually carries, he may be charged with aggravated burglary and is eligible for life imprisonment. On the other hand, supposing he goes empty-handed into a house where he knows that there is a woman upstairs, and that woman hears him moving about, she will be terrified. It may affect her for life. But he is not guilty of robbery because, unless he intends to frighten the woman, to draw himself to her attention, there can be no offence of robbery. If he goes into a house determined to commit a burglary, not caring whether the house is occupied or not, he is simply guilty of that burglary and is eligible for a lesser sentence. Yet most people would consider that the second offence was far more serious than the first. We are creating artificial divisions in Clauses 9 and 10 which are quite unnecessary, making the law unnecessarily complex. I therefore feel that the Amendment is worthy of support.
      Sir J. Foster: The important point here is that it is for the jury to decide whether the criminal is armed or not and not for the judge. There may be a disputed question of fact as to whether it was an aggravated burglary and it is wrong for the judge to have to make up his mind as to a question of fact. It would seem unfair that a simple burglar should get imprisonment for life even if the woman upstairs whom he did not know was there was frightened.
      Mr. Elystan Morgan: I am grateful to hon. and learned Members opposite for their comments and the ease with which they have been able to transcend party loyalties and attitudes in dealing with the Bill.
      The approach of the Committee in preparing the draft Bill was to reduce the number of different offences with their varying penalties. This has been done particularly in the case of theft, a single offence with a ten-year penalty now replacing a complex of existing offences and penalties. But the Committee did not think it right to make such a simplification of the offences covered by Clauses 9 and 10, and the Government agree.
      The offences of burglary and aggravated burglary in these Clauses replace a

      479
      complicated group of offences of breaking in and out of buildings under Sections 24 to 27 of the Larceny Act, 1916, for which the maximum penalties range from seven years to life. Fourteen years is the present general maximum penalty under Section 26 of the 1916 Act for breaking and entering a building other than a place of divine worship or dwelling house and committing an arrestable offence in it.
      In the Committee's view, expressed in paragraph 74, fourteen years is the right maximum for ordinary burglary but for aggravated burglary, which could be a very frightening offence which might lead to loss of life, a maximum of life imprisonment was necessary. While the Committee was in general opposed to the splitting up of offences—a view expressed in paragraph 80—it considered that it was justified in this case.
      My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) made the point that there might be difficulties about what might turn out to be a simple burglary if a person was charged with an offence under Clause 10 and with no other offence. The power to convict of simple burglary a person charged with aggravated burglary is contained in Section 6 of the Criminal Law Act, 1967. It is a general provision applying to all cases where the lesser offence is included in the greater. In addition, I should have thought that the very use of the word "aggravated" made it clear that there was such a power.
      The Government see no reason to depart from the Committee's conclusion in this connection. Ordinary burglary could easily include some quite minor offences; for example, trespassing in a building with intent to steal but without stealing, or entering as a trespasser with intent to do some minor malicious damage. I maintain that a maximum penalty of life imprisonment would be wholly disproportionate for this sort of conduct. Moreover, the Criminal Law Revision Committee did not think that
      " a sentence of more than 14 years' imprisonment would ever be appropriate, even in the worst cases, for ordinary burglary".
      Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member wish to divide the House?
      Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: No, Mr. Speaker. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 12

      TAKING MOTOR VEHICLE OR OTHER CONVEYANCE WITHOUT AUTHORITY
      Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 6, line 8, at end insert 'or vessel'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment, I have suggested that we take Amendment No. 26, in page 6, line 9, at end insert 'or vessel'.
      Mr. Gresham Cooke: The parent of Clause 12 was Section 28 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, which made it an offence to take or drive away a motor vehicle without the owner's consent. When that provision was introduced by the Labour Government of 1930, it was clearly understood by everybody, police and public alike. Two years ago, I was concerned about the taking away of yachts, boats and other vessels, and I introduced the Vessels Protection Bill which was on lines similar to those of Section 28 of the 1930 Act, but dealing with vessels instead of motor vehicles. It received the Royal Assent last year. That Act, too, was clearly understood by the public and the yachting fraternity generally. It was widely mentioned in the yachting Press and the police have said that it has been a useful and clear Measure.
      Clause 12 makes it an offence to take away any conveyance, without any mention of vessels, yachts or boats, and this word "conveyance" may confuse the public who will not think that it covers a vessel. The public will only read that the Vessels Protection Act has been repealed by the Bill, and the word "conveyance" will not give the public the feeling that it covers a motor vehicle, or a vessel, or a hovercraft, or anything else. None of the 12 meanings of "conveyance" in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary mentions a vessel.
      The Government, too, are extremely confused by the use of the word "conveyance". In Committee on the Hovercraft Bill, I tried to insert the word

      481
      "conveyance" into the definition of a hovercraft, saying that the word was used in the Theft Bill and that we should bring the two Bills into line. However, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, the hon. Lady the Member for Exeter (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody) turned down my suggestion, among other reasons, because:
      "If one were wishing to be facetious, one might inquire whether 'conveyance' is intended to refer to an instrument under seal transferring the title of real property. We must take the words as meaning what we believe them to mean in this context."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,Standing Committee D, 27th June, 1968; c. 109.]
      2.0 a.m.
      That is what the public probably do think the word "conveyance" means. I suggest that the word "vessel" should be put back into the Clause to clarify it and make it clear that it refers to yachts and boats as well as what the public means by the word "conveyance." Besides being a legal point this is a public relations point. Whatever may be the result of my Amendment the Home Secretary should, in his circulars and instructions to police, and in Press notices, make it clear that the word "conveyance" includes all kinds of conveyance, motor vehicles, hovercraft, vessels and all the rest of it.
      Mr. Elystan Morgan: It is my contention that there is no substance in the argument that vessels are omitted from Clause 12. Subsection (7)(a) says that the offence under the Bill could apply to:
      "… any conveyance constructed or adapted for the carriage of a person or persons whether by land, water or air."
      That point is clearly covered.
      I would submit that the hon. Gentleman's second argument, about the felicity or otherwise of the use of the term "conveyance" in substitution for the word "vessel" has little merit. There can never be any real danger of misunderstanding or uncertainty in this direction, because the term is accompanied by its own specific and clear definition. It matters not whether the object referred to is called a "vehicle", "conveyance" or "X", because whatever its name, the category is clearly defined.
      When the Road Traffic Act, 1930 was being drafted, and indeed the 1903 Road
      482
      Traffic Act, from which the original term was taken, the range of vehicles was very small. Now we are in the age of the hovercraft, and perhaps in the next few decades all manner of different forms of vehicles and conveyances will be developed. It is very necessary to devise a term that will be an adequate description to encompass them all. The point about publicising that this applies to "conveyances" in the air, on land or on or beneath the sea I am prepared to consider sympathetically.
      Mr. Gresham Cooke: In the light of the Under-Secretary's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 13
      ABSTRACTING OF ELECTRICITY
      Amendment made: No. 4, in page 7, line 1, at end insert 'dishonestly'.— [Mr. Elystan Morgan.]
    Clause 15

      OBTAINING PROPERTY BY DECEPTION
      Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in line 36, at end insert:
      (3) Section 6 above shall apply for purposes of this section, with the necessary adaptation of the reference to appropriating, as it applies for purposes of section 1.
      This Amendment is consequential on the insertion in the Bill, in Committee, of Clause 6—the Clause which partially defines the words
      "with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it."
      As it stands, Clause 6 applies only for the purposes of Clause 1, but clearly it should now apply both to Clause 1 and Clause 15.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 16

      OBTAINING PECUNIARY ADVANTAGE BY DECEPTION
      Sir Eric Errington: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 7, line 42, after "advantage", insert:
      "or the possession or control of any property belonging to another".

      483
      One notes with interest in regard to this matter that the idea of law reform legislation is to produce simplicity. Whether or not I could do that, I should indicate that the reason for the Amendment is to deal with the situation which arises in connection with hire-purchase transactions.
      The case of Regina v. F. W. Garlick in 1958 established clearly, according to Mr. Justice Havers' judgment, that a hire-purchase agreement which was entered into by a false representation was not incurring a debt or liability obtaining credit. That was subsequently confirmed in the 1966 case of Regina v. Inman.
      The question of hire purchase was referred to at c. 70 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee but it was not pursued. The effect of my Amendment is to deal with the case of a person who by deception is able to obtain the use of property, which I do not think is covered by either Clause 15 or Clause 16. I do no know whether it is necessary for me to emphasise the importance of this matter from the point of view of ensuring that the securing of property by deception under hire purchase is a matter of considerable moment in these days when a great many transactions take place by hire purchase. Even simple hire of property may be affected by the Amendment.
      Without my Amendment, Clause 16 provides only for the three types of special transaction dealt with in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (2), so that without the Amendment the matter is not covered by the Clause. I understand that there have been discussions between the Home Office advisers and that it was not considered appropriate to add another paragraph to subsection (2) to deal specifically with hire purchase. It follows that as the Bill stands, one is thrown back to subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 15, but even that does not cover the position because of the words
      " with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it"
      in subsection (1).
      It might be argued that in the frequent cases concerning motor cars, there would be the protection of Clause 12. That deals only with motor vehicles, which
      484
      are by no means the only form of property which might be used and possession of which had been obtained under a hire-purchase contract. The complications of establishing "without lawful authority" under a hire-purchase agreement would be formidable.
      The full legal point should be clearly dealt with in an important matter of this kind. It is dealt with by my Amendment, which covers the case of a person who obtains property by a hire-purchase document which has been made possible by deception and then, under threat of prosecution, says that he will return it, having had the use of it for a period.
      In a hire-purchase transaction, Clause 15 would not provide secure means of prosecuting somebody who could establish that what he did was not intended permanently to deprive of its goods a hire-purchase company which is the owner of the property.
      With regard to Clause 6(1), that provides that when a person appropriates property without meaning that the owner shall permanently lose it, he is regarded as having the intention of depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other's right. But this suggests that the disposal should be without regard to the other's rights, and I think it might easily be said by anybody charged with an offence of this kind, his disposal at the end of the period when he was using the property, was that he intended to have regard to the rights contained in the hire-purchase agreement. Even if his position did come under Clause 15 there would be an anomalous position in regard to the punishment which, under Clause 15, is a maximum of 10 years, while under Clause 16 it would be five years. Surely there should not be such a difference of five years if we are dealing on the one hand with a bank overdraft and on the other the use of property which was obtained by deception under a hire-purchase agreement.
      I believe that the method of my Amendment is the best way of dealing with this potential loophole in the law. It suffices for me to say that I think there is that potential loophole which ought to be dealt with in not allowing people by deception to obtain the use of property which at the end of a period of time they propose to return. If the

      485
      Government consider this case is covered, I should be glad to know how it is suggested that it is covered, and if it is not covered I am confident that it should be, either by my Amendment or otherwise.
      Mr. Elystan Morgan: This Amendment is both undesirable and misplaced in Clause 16. That Clause is concerned with deception which led to the obtaining of pecuniary advantage as defined in subsection (2) without obtaining the property, but dishonestly obtaining property by deception is dealt with in Clause 15. The Amendment confuses completely the pattern of offences under the Bill by adding to Clause 16 a further offence of dishonestly obtaining possession or control of property belonging to another punishable with five years' imprisonment instead of the 10 years' provided by Clause 15 and without the ingredient in Clause 15 of the intention permanently to deprive the owner of the property. In short, if the Amendment were carried the Bill would contain two separate offences in Clauses 15 and 16 of dishonestly obtaining property by deception, one requiring the intention permanently to deprive the owner, and the other, albeit with a lesser penalty, without requiring such intention.
      In earlier debates the House has decided that the Bill should not extend theft to dishonest borrowing or create a new offence of dishonest borrowing.
      Sir E. Errington: This is not borrowing. I would like to emphasise that. Even though the House did decide that dishonest borrowing should not come within the Bill, this Amendment has nothing to do with borrowing.
      Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman did not have the advantage of being a Member of the Committee when this matter was discussed very fully. When challenged, if that is the appropriate term for such a well-ordered, co-operative Committee, hon. and learned Gentlemen on the other side said that what they meant in each case by what they would wish to see categorised as unlawful borrowing was any borrowing in respect of which the consent of the owner had not been obtained. It would be indefensible to create a general offence of obtaining that temporary possession of property by deception when it is not to be criminal simply to take the property without the
      486
      owner's consent for a temporary purpose. If that Amendment were accepted it would be a criminal offence, assuming dishonesty, to trick someone into lending something.
      2.15 a.m.
      The Amendment is understood to have been proposed because of fears that the Bill as drafted may not adequately cover hire or hire purchase agreements obtained by deception. The hon. Member referred to this. The Government consider, however, that the Bill adequately covers any conduct by a person obtaining such an agreement which could be criminal. If when the agreement is obtained, deception is used with a dishonest intention permanently to deprive the owner of the property, there will be an offence of dishonestly obtaining the property under Clause 15 (1) or an attempt to commit such an offence.
      It is true that there might, in some cases, be difficulty in proving that the deceptions was used with an intention permanently to deprive the owner but the difficulty would be no greater than under the existing law of false pretences, where an intention permanently to deprive has to be shown. It would often be evident from the conduct of the person obtaining the property that his intention was permanently to deprive the owner of it, for example if he sold it or abandoned it in circumstances when it was unlikely to be returned to the owner.
      Similarly, the Amendment is unnecessary to deal with cases in the hire purchase field where a pecuniary advantage is obtained by deception. Under Clause 16(2,a) a pecuniary advantage is to be regarded as obtained for a person in any case where
      "any debt or charge for which he makes himself liable or is or may become liable (including one not legally enforceable) is reduced or in whole or in part evaded or deferred ".
      Accordingly, it would be an offence under the Clause to use a dishonest deception to obtain property on hire or hire purchase on more favourable terms than would have been the case but for the deception.
      It has been pressed by the hon. Member that the Bill should make criminal the dishonest obtaining of a hire or hire purchase contract by deception even if

      487
      this does not result in a reduction or evasion of charges or in the hirer making away with the property. In the Government's view, this would be wrong.
      The Bill as introduced in another place contained a provision which was then Clause 12(3) of the Criminal Law Revision Committee's draft Bill, which would have made it an offence to obtain any contract by dishonest deception. This, however, was removed and replaced by the present Clause 16 after criticism that such conduct should in general be left to the civil law. It would indeed be contrary to the present scheme of the Bill to single out hire or hire purchase contracts for such exceptional treatment.
      Sir E. Errington: Before the Undersecretary sits down. Is it, then, the Government's view that Clause 15, in addition to Clause 6, creates an offence which would deal with the case of someone who, by deception, obtains a hire purchase contract and uses the subject of the contract?
      Mr. Morgan: If a person uses that hire purchase contract as a subterfuge for gaining possession of the property, Clause 15(2) says:
      "For purposes of this section a person is to be treated as obtaining property if he obtains ownership, possession or control of it …"
      Clearly, if he disposed of it by dumping it, selling it or trying to sell it, there would be an offence of the theft as defined in Clause 1. I do not think that Clause 6 comes into this situation. There might be a few cases in which it would be claimed that he had borrowed it under such an agreement, but either there would be a taking, a theft, under Clause 1, or no such offence would have been committed, in which case there would be for the finance company only the civil remedies.
      Sir E. Errington: Although I will not divide the House, I will not withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment negatived.
      Sir P. Rawlinson: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 8, line 13, after "employment", insert:
      "or to obtain the services of another person".
      Subsection (2)(c) deals with a false reference enabling a person
      488
      " … to earn remuneration or greater remuneration in an office or employment … ".
      Should we not state the obverse; in other words, cover the position if, by a false reference, a person obtains the services of another person? I merely pose the question. Perhaps this issue is already covered by the Bill.
      The Solicitor General: The Amendment is similar in effect to that of a new Clause which the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) moved in Committee and which was designed to make the dishonest obtaining of valuable services an offence. After arguments against that proposal were adduced, that new Clause was withdrawn.
      During the debate in Committee on that new Clause the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) referred to a possible case of a person who helped a man with his work—for example, accounting—without payment but in return for training, before discovering that the employer was not what he held himself out to be. In such a case there would be no evasion of a payment due, since what would have been offered would be the obtaining of a professional qualification which would not have been obtained in the circumstances.
      I undertook to look into the question of whether this would be a pecuniary advantage within the meaning of the Clause, and probably the hon. and learned Member for Solihull had this case mainly in mind when he tabled the Amendment which the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) has moved.
      The Government's view is that the dishonest obtaining is adequately covered by the Bill. Where actual property—for example, a meal in a restaurant—is obtained, there will be an offence under Clause 15. Where the deception is used to get work done without an obtaining of property there will, generally speaking, be an offence under Clause 16(2)(a). Under that subsection a person will commit an offence if, by deception, he dishonestly evades or defers, or enables another to evade or defer, in whole or in part, any debt or charge for which he makes himself liable or is or may become liable, or where the deception results in the debt or charge being reduced. This provision will cover the dishonest obtaining of services by deception where the object is to evade, defer or reduce the

      489
      charge that should be paid, and appears to cover those types of fraudulent obtaining of services that should be criminal.
      The case to which the hon. and learned Member for Solihull referred in Committee would not be covered by Clause 16 because there is no question of payment being evaded or deferred or a charge being reduced. But there is no reason to think that such a case would be other than rare, if not entirely hypothetical, and we do not think that it is necessary to extend the Bill to cover it.
      But if this case is to be covered, so, too, presumably should other types of obtaining non-pecuniary advantage by deception, and this would be to extend the boundaries of the criminal law well beyond what has been criminal in the existing law. Indeed, if passed, the Amendment would have the effect that anyone who was persuaded by deception to accept or remain in a job with a false promise of better prospects of any kind would come within the scope of the Clause. There is no reason to believe that there is any substantial mischief with which the Clause fails to deal and it would be most undesirable to extend it in the manner proposed. As I say, I am glad to have had the opportunity of dealing further with the point that was raised. I recommend that this Amendment should be resisted.
      Sir P. Rawlinson: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

    Clause 31

      EFFECT ON CIVIL PROCEEDINGS AND RIGHTS
      Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 16, line 39, leave out 'him' and insert:
      'that person or the wife or husband of that person'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we are also taking Amendments 8, 9 and 10.
      Mr. Morgan: The effect of the first two Amendments is that the restriction already existing in the subsection on the privilege against self-incrimination in civil proceedings would extend to the privilege against incriminating a spouse. Whether
      490
      a witness has a privilege of refusing to answer a question on the ground that this would incriminate his spouse is uncertain, but Clause 14(1)(b) of the Civil Evidence Bill gives this privilege.
      Correspondingly the third Amendment makes an answer given in civil proceedings to which the subsection relates inadmissible in criminal proceedings against the spouse of a person who is giving the answer, as well as in such proceedings against such person himself.
      The Clause was concerned only with the incriminating of the person making the statement or admission. The Amendments widen the subsection, so that the person and his spouse are identified for these purposes as in Clause 14(3) of the Civil Evidence Bill.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendments made: No. 8, in page 16, line 40, leave out 'him' and insert 'that person'.
      No. 9, in page 17, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert:
      'in answering a question put or complying with an order made as aforesaid shall, in proceedings for an offence under this Act, be admissible in evidence against that person or (unless they married after the making of the statement or admission) against the wife or husband of that person'.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

  Schedule 2

    MISCELLANEOUS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
    Amendment made: No. 10, in page 25, line 15, column 2, leave out from 'words' to '"an 'in line 17 and insert:
    ' following "against that person" there shall be substituted the words "or (unless they married after the making of the statement or admission) against the wife or husband of that person in any proceeding in respect of.— [Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

  Schedule 3

    REPEALS
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 27, leave out lines 29 and 30.
    Mr. Speaker: It is suggested that with this Amendment we take Amendments Nos. 12, 16, 18, 21 and 22.
    Mr. Morgan: These Amendments respectively delete from Schedule 3 certain repeals of existing enactments. The first Amendment deletes the repeal of Section 12 of the Trade Union Act, 1871. The second Amendment deletes the consequential repeal of Section 5 of the Trade Union Act Amendment Act, 1876. It also deletes the repeal of Section 87(3), (4) and (5) of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896.
    The next Amendment deletes the consequential repeal of Section 9 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1908 which added a proviso in Section 87(3) of the 1896 Act. The second limb of the third Amendment deletes the repeal of Section 111 of the Building Societies Act, 1962, and Amendment 18 deletes the repeal of Sections 64 and 66(1)(a) of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1965.
    The provisions in question concern offences in relation to friendly societies, trade unions and building societies. They create offences of obtaining by false representation any moneys, securities, books, etc. of a society, or having such moneys or withholding or misapplying them for an unauthorised purpose. Their repeal was originally included in the Bill on the ground that the offences were superseded by the offence of theft.
    The Government have, on reflection, decided that it would be better to preserve the provisions because they provide for a convenient summary offence, and also because they provide a summary procedure whereby societies may recover their property. In the case of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896 and the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1965 it is possible to recover property where it is proved to have been taken but without fraudulent intent, and where there is no conviction. Accordingly these Amendments would preserve the provisions mentioned above.
    2.30 a.m.
    Sir P. Rawlinson: The reasons given by the Parliamentary Secretary for these Amendments, strange as they seemed at first sight, are sound and correct. A total of approximately 72 Government Amendments have been made to the Bill in the course of its passage through the other place and in this House. When the Bill first came to be amended it was suggested by the Lord Chancellor that it was almost unnecessary to amend it. This
    492
    shows how necessary it is to examine carefully Bills such as this which are concerned with the criminal law. This has been done successfully, not least in these last Amendments which I think, on reflection, are accurate and sensible and should be supported.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: No. 12, in page 28, leave out lines 17 and 18.— [Mr. Elystan Morgan.]
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 29, leave out lines 10 to 13.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we can take Amendments Nos. 14, 17, 20, 31 and 16.
    Mr. Morgan: The principle of these Amendments is exactly the same as in the earlier group of Amendments dealt with. These deal with the Building Societies Act, 1962, the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act, 1957, the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, the Agriculture Act, 1937, the Agriculture Act, 1957, the Horticulture Act, 1960, and the Agriculture and Horticulture Act, 1964. Again, on reflection, there would appear to be minimal advantages in not repealing the provisions referred to. In most of these cases the already existing offences cover rather wider ground than does Clause 15 of the Bill. Furthermore, it might not always be easy to prove a dishonest intent, as would be required if only the offences in the Bill were available.
    The Amendments accordingly preserve the existing offences only in so far as they are summary offences. It is not considered necessary, having regard to the other provisions of the Bill, to retain the offence under the Horticulture and Agriculture Act, 1964, as an indictable offence.
    Sir John Foster: For the sake of HANSARD I think the hon. Gentleman slipped up. He said there would be minimal advantages in not repealing. What he meant was that there would be minimal advantages in repealing.
    Mr. Morgan: Minimal advantages in not repealing as the Bill stands at the moment, thereby preserving the offences as they are set out in the various Acts at the moment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further amendments made: No. 30, in page 30, leave out lines 3 and 4.
    No. 14, in page 30, line 5, column 3, leave out 'Section 7(1)'.
    No. 31, in page 30, leave out lines 25 to 28.
    No. 16, in page 30, leave out lines 34 to 37.
    No. 17, in page 30, line 39, column 3, leave out from 'the' to 'onwards' in line 40 and insert 'words
    "or on conviction on indictment"'.
    No. 18, in page 30, leave out lines 41 and 42.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in
    line 42, at end insert:

    1966 c. 32

    The Selective Employment Payments Act 1966.

    Section 8(2)(a), (b) and (d) and (ii).

    1966 c. 34

    The Industrial Development Act 1966.

    Section 9.

    1967 c. 1

    The Land Com-mission Act 1967.

    Section 8l(5)(a), Section 93.

    1967 c. 9

    The General Rate Act 1967.

    Section 49(8).

    The same principle as I mentioned in relation to the two groups of Amendments earlier dealt with applies here.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: No. 20, in page 30, line 44, at end insert:
    1967 c. 22 The Agriculture Act 1767 Section 69(1)(ii).
    No. 21, in page 32, leave out lines 17 and 18.
    No. 22, in page 32, leave out lines 36 and 37.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]
    Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time,put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading),and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
    Motion made, and Question, That the proceedings of this day's sitting be suspended—[Mr. Concannon]—put forthwith, pursuant to Order [12th December] (Sittings of the House)and agreed to.
    ADJOURNMENT
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Concannon.]
    Debate arising—
    The debate having been concluded, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
    Mr. SPEAKER suspended the sitting of the House at twenty-five minutes to Three o'clock a.m. till Ten o'clock this day, pursuant to Order.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Smoke Control Orders
  Smoke Control Orders
  South Coast Towns (Economic Planning Council Report)
  South Coast Towns (Economic Planning Council Report)
  Burst Water Pipes (Emergency Arrangements)
  Burst Water Pipes (Emergency Arrangements)
  Rivers (Survey)
  Rivers (Survey)
  Land Commission Act
  Land Commission Act
  Water Rate, North-East Essex
  Water Rate, North-East Essex
  Berwick-upon-Tweed (Growth)
  Berwick-upon-Tweed (Growth)
  Development (Injurious Affection)
  Development (Injurious Affection)
  Development Corporations (Transfer of Assets)
  Development Corporations (Transfer of Assets)
  Bishop's Stortford U.D.C. (Newtown) No. 1 Compulsory Purchase Order
  Bishop's Stortford U.D.C. (Newtown) No. 1 Compulsory Purchase Order
  St. Albans' Central Area Plan
  St. Albans' Central Area Plan
  Tyneside (Royal Commission on Local Government)
  Tyneside (Royal Commission on Local Government)
  Greater London Rate Equalisation Scheme
  Greater London Rate Equalisation Scheme
  Planning (Standards)
  Planning (Standards)
  Local Authorities (Repair and Maintenance Work)
  Local Authorities (Repair and Maintenance Work)
  Land (Local Authority Development Schemes)
  Land (Local Authority Development Schemes)
  Dorset (Historic Buildings)
  Dorset (Historic Buildings)
  Municipal Ombudsmen
  Municipal Ombudsmen
  Women Teachers of the Blind (Retirement Pension)
  Women Teachers of the Blind (Retirement Pension)
  Conservation Areas (Designation)
  Conservation Areas (Designation)
  Local Authority and Allied Personal Social Services (Committee's Report)
  Local Authority and Allied Personal Social Services (Committee's Report)
  Swimming Pool Standards (Conference)
  Swimming Pool Standards (Conference)
HOUSING
  Completions
  Completions
  Land
  Land
  Rents (Carlisle)
  Rents (Carlisle)
  Evictions
  Evictions
  Rents (London)
  Rents (London)
  Financial Control in Local Authority Building Departments (Working Party)
  Financial Control in Local Authority Building Departments (Working Party)
  Mortgage Option Scheme
  Mortgage Option Scheme
  Tenancies (Assignment)
  Tenancies (Assignment)
  Rate Support Grants (Lancashire)
  Rate Support Grants (Lancashire)
  Warwickshire and Tamworth (Birmingham Overspill)
  Warwickshire and Tamworth (Birmingham Overspill)
  Harassment of Tenants, London Area
  Harassment of Tenants, London Area
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Company Mergers
  Company Mergers
  Directors' Remuneration (Taxation)
  Directors' Remuneration (Taxation)
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  Output Budgeting
  Output Budgeting
  Civil Estimates (Cost Reductions)
  Civil Estimates (Cost Reductions)
  Life Saving Equipment (Purchase Tax)
  Life Saving Equipment (Purchase Tax)
  Foreign Travel Allowance
  Foreign Travel Allowance
  Entertainment Industry (Taxation)
  Entertainment Industry (Taxation)
  Property Security Investment Trust Limited (Dividends)
  Property Security Investment Trust Limited (Dividends)
  School Furniture (Purchase Tax)
  School Furniture (Purchase Tax)
  Decimal Currency
  Decimal Currency
  Government Service (Coloured Personnel)
  Government Service (Coloured Personnel)
  Gallaher Limited (Sale of Equity)
  Gallaher Limited (Sale of Equity)
  Silver Alloy Coins
  Silver Alloy Coins
  Members' Car Mileage Allowance
  Members' Car Mileage Allowance
  Civil Service Salaries
  Civil Service Salaries
  Civil Service Pensions
  Civil Service Pensions
  Newly-Mined Gold (B.I.S. Discussions)
  Newly-Mined Gold (B.I.S. Discussions)
  Selective Employment Tax (Scottish Laundries)
  Selective Employment Tax (Scottish Laundries)
  Trial of the Pyx
  Trial of the Pyx
  Sterling (B.I.S. Discussions)
  Sterling (B.I.S. Discussions)
  Civil Service (African Employees)
  Civil Service (African Employees)
COAL
  Bevercoates Colliery
  Bevercoates Colliery
  Liquid Fuels and High Calorific Gas
  Liquid Fuels and High Calorific Gas
  Reports
  Reports
  Seaborne Coal (Price)
  Seaborne Coal (Price)
  Coal Production
  Coal Production
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Public Inquiries
  Public Inquiries
  British Steel Corporation (Member's Letter)
  British Steel Corporation (Member's Letter)
  British Steel Corporation (Refinanced Debts)
  British Steel Corporation (Refinanced Debts)
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Sir Frederick Crawford
  Sir Frederick Crawford
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Terramycin Prescription
  Terramycin Prescription
  Doctors' Lists (Emigrés)
  Doctors' Lists (Emigrés)
  Drugs (Testing)
  Drugs (Testing)
  Insulin (Price)
  Insulin (Price)
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Mortuary Hygiene and Technology (Diploma)
  Mortuary Hygiene and Technology (Diploma)
  Dairy Cream
  Dairy Cream
  Invalid Vehicles (Repairs)
  Invalid Vehicles (Repairs)
HOSPITALS
  Geriatric Patients, Wales
  Geriatric Patients, Wales
  Underwater Casualties, North-East
  Underwater Casualties, North-East
  Drug Costs
  Drug Costs
ROADS
  Kerb Ramps
  Kerb Ramps
PORTS
  Port Authorities (Appointees)
  Port Authorities (Appointees)
  Smaller Ports
  Smaller Ports
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Mr. Chimutengwende
  Mr. Chimutengwende
  Kenya Immigrants (Appeals)
  Kenya Immigrants (Appeals)
  Commonwealth Immigrants Act (Kenya Survey)
  Commonwealth Immigrants Act (Kenya Survey)
  Drugs (Thefts)
  Drugs (Thefts)
  Collecting Boxes (Permits)
  Collecting Boxes (Permits)
  Strangeways Prison, Manchester (Borstal Detainees)
  Strangeways Prison, Manchester (Borstal Detainees)
  Detention Centres
  Detention Centres
  C.S. Gas
  C.S. Gas
  State Management Scheme, Carlisle (Pay Claim)
  State Management Scheme, Carlisle (Pay Claim)
  Mr. Emil Savundra (Legal Aid)
  Mr. Emil Savundra (Legal Aid)
  Committal Proceedings (Reports)
  Committal Proceedings (Reports)
  Road Fund Licences (Offences)
  Road Fund Licences (Offences)
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS (TRANSFER)
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS (TRANSFER)
WALES
  Prince of Wales (Investiture)
  Prince of Wales (Investiture)
  Housebuilding (Cost)
  Housebuilding (Cost)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Royal Air Force (Projected Squadrons)
  Royal Air Force (Projected Squadrons)
  Reservists (Parliamentary Members)
  Reservists (Parliamentary Members)
  Medical and Nursing Staff, Malta
  Medical and Nursing Staff, Malta
  Service Medical Officers (Civilian Patients)
  Service Medical Officers (Civilian Patients)
  Naval Medical Staff (Recruitment)
  Naval Medical Staff (Recruitment)
  Royal Naval Hospital, Malta
  Royal Naval Hospital, Malta
  Explosive Storage Depots
  Explosive Storage Depots
  Officers (Driving Offences)
  Officers (Driving Offences)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Alconbury and Alconbury Weston (Flooding)
  Alconbury and Alconbury Weston (Flooding)
  Dairy Cream
  Dairy Cream
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (SALARIES)
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (SALARIES)
  PRICES AND INCOMES (WEST HAM TRADES COUNCIL LETTER)
  PRICES AND INCOMES (WEST HAM TRADES COUNCIL LETTER)
  TRADES UNION CONGRESS ECONOMIC REVIEW
  TRADES UNION CONGRESS ECONOMIC REVIEW
  OFFICIAL SECRETS ACTS (ADVISORY COMMITTEES)
  OFFICIAL SECRETS ACTS (ADVISORY COMMITTEES)
  PRESIDENT KAUNDA (TALKS)
  PRESIDENT KAUNDA (TALKS)
  LOCAL AUTHORITY AND ALLIED PERSONAL SOCIAL SERVICES (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
  LOCAL AUTHORITY AND ALLIED PERSONAL SOCIAL SERVICES (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Preparatory Schools (Parental Aid)
  Preparatory Schools (Parental Aid)
  School-Building Programme
  School-Building Programme
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Swiming Pools (Design Development)
  Swiming Pools (Design Development)
  Industrial Training (Travelling Expenses)
  Industrial Training (Travelling Expenses)
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Remploy
  Remploy
  Unemployment (Scotland)
  Unemployment (Scotland)
  Cost of Living Advisory Committee Report
  Cost of Living Advisory Committee Report
POST OFFICE
  Telecommunications Vehicles (Accidents)
  Telecommunications Vehicles (Accidents)
  Posts and Telecommunications Investment
  Posts and Telecommunications Investment
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Directory Inquiry Service
  Directory Inquiry Service
SCOTLAND
  Approved Schools
  Approved Schools
  Court Fines
  Court Fines
TECHNOLOGY
  Jetstream Component Manufacture
  Jetstream Component Manufacture
  Electronic and Telecommunications Industry, Wales
  Electronic and Telecommunications Industry, Wales
BOARD OF TRADE
  Take-Over Bids (Code of Conduct)
  Take-Over Bids (Code of Conduct)
  British Export Houses
  British Export Houses
  Potential Exporters (Marketing Research)
  Potential Exporters (Marketing Research)
  Export Councils (Financial Assistance)
  Export Councils (Financial Assistance)

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

EDINBURGH-GALASHIELS-CARLISLE RAIL SERVICE
LORD KILMANY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is their intention to make an announcement about the future of the Edinburgh-Galashiels-Carlisle railway line before the Summer Recess.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport announced in another place on July 15, he has given his consent to the withdrawal of passenger services from the Edinburgh-Hawick-Carlisle line, subject to the provision of certain additional bus services.
LORD KILMANY: Yes, my Lords; but is the noble Lord aware of the indignation, indeed the anger, which has swept across the length and breadth of the Border at this decision, which cannot but he detrimental to prosperity in that area? After all the brave words that have been spoken—and the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is one of those who has the interests of Scotland very much at heart—after all those good intentions have been expressed, is it not dreadfully disappointing to be given a decision, which appears to be final, saying, "No" to what is badly required?
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, rises to reply, may I, as one who is interested in industry in Galashiels ask whether he can give any figures as re-
844
gards the increased amount of traffic which would come on that line as a result of the intention to double the population of Galashiels? Surely that must result in a large increase in the demand for the railway.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmany, is asking this House to agree that we should continue to subsidise an entirely uneconomic railway line. We have had eight days of debate on this subject and we are about to have a ninth. Would individuals in the Border country be willing to pay, say, 11d. per passenger mile for transport, compared with the standard 3d. a mile, in order to maintain this service? I think that they would not.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, does the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, realise that by doing away with this railway he is leaving the Border towns further away from a station—either Carlisle or Edinburgh—than any other place in Scotland? Is he aware that only last Sunday 100 people went from Hawick to Edinburgh on the 6.15 train? Had buses been made available it would have meant at least another three buses starting from Hawick to convey the people from there, let alone the passengers who might have been picked up on the way; and the roads to-day are so crowded that it is almost impossible to get along on them. Does not the noble Lord think that with a more economical organising of the service and the cutting down of overheads (which I am perfectly certain could be cut down) this railway could easily come within the category with which we are dealing, as a railway with an important industrial and social content?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, for eight days we have discussed the relationship between bus and rail transport. My right honourable friend has agreed to this closure subject to the provision of certain additional bus services. Experts—and, after all, experts are not completely incompetent—have come to the conclusion that bus services can supply the needs of this area. The alternative is railway transport at 11d. per passenger mile as opposed to 3d. It is up to the Government to make decisions

845
on this basis and that is why this decision has been reached. The Government have every sympathy with the situation in the Border country. This is an area which will not be neglected, in the same way as no other problem area has been neglected by the present Government, but to preserve the existing rail service would not be the best thing to do.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that the difficulty really arises through the lack of use of tile railway by the people in the area? If they had used the railway line instead of travelling by motor car, the present situation would not have arisen.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether adequate provision is being made for goods traffic?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, there is an alternative route. Goods transport can be conveyed on other lines rather than the particular line which we are discussing in this Question.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I do not want to appear to be persistent, but having taken cognisance of the explanation the noble Lord has been good enough to give, may I say that he did not answer my question about what might be expected to be the increased freight traffic as a result of the intention, as I understand it, to double the population of Galashiels?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, if the population should double, other policies would be followed; but there are two rail routes through this area, the other one being the Westerly route via Carstairs, so we are not closing down the only route in this area.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lord, if the noble Lord looks at the map he will notice that it is quite impossible for either passengers or freight traffic to get on to the route from Carlisle via Carstairs to Edinburgh unless they go to Carlisle. You cannot take the traffic across the hill. If this line is shut down, it will be impossible for either passenger traffic or goods traffic to get from Carlisle to Edinburgh through those six or seven burghs. It could go by road to Carlisle via Carstairs, but although there are a great many black-faced sheep on that route, so far as I know there are no
846
buses. May I suggest to the noble Lord that the Government should look at the map and the situation again, and realise that if they spend all this money it will go down the drain?
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that when the railway line from the Tees Valley across to West Cumberland was under the same sort of sentence as this line, exactly the same arguments were put forward from the then Treasury Bench, to the effect that bus services could meet the needs of the district, that the district would not suffer, and so on; and that all those arguments have proved to be false?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Lord is making an assertion. I have no evidence to prove or disprove it.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, can my noble friend say what bus services will be provided to take the place of the railway?
LORD WINTER BOTTOM: My Lords, all I can say is that the closure of the line will be subject to the provision of certain additional bus services. If my noble friend will put down another Question, I will tell him what those additional bus services are.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, what I am asking is what my noble friend means by "certain additional bus services".
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, if my noble friend should ask I will tell him.
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONAN: My Lords, would the noble Lord say whether the Government would keep the line going from Edinburgh through to the Borders to Harwick? It might be conceded that the line from Hawick to Carlisle is not used very much and is uneconomic, but it would, I understand, cost the Government only £250,000 per annum to keep the line from Edinburgh to the Borders and Hawick going until the growth period starts in tile Borders,
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am interested to know that £250,000 is considered a bagatelle. I am not certain that it is. Certainly the Railways Board,

847
which in the new transport legislation that we are putting through has been charged to make a profit, would not regard it as a bagatelle.
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONAN: My Lords, it is a bagatelle compared to the benefits that would accrue socially and economically to the people of the Borders. And is not the £250,000 a bagatelle in comparison with the £55 million which is to be spent under the Transport Bill to keep uneconomic lines going throughout the whole of Great Britain? It is a bagatelle in comparison with £55 million, is it not?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the present bagatelle we are talking about is £700,000. I am not certain if noble Lords really want it to be spent.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Next Question.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he does not agree that it is a little inconsistent that Members on the opposite side of the House, who have always opposed subsidies to our national railways, should now be opposing this proposal, when Her Majesty's Government have been seeking to find social value in railways, despite the Beeching Report which they supported?

POPULATION TRENDS AND PROBLEMS
2.45 p.m.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ascertain, for the next 25 years:

1. the natural increase in the population;

2. the acceptable immigration increase;

3. the likely emigration figure;

and what steps as a result they have in hand to meet the needs of the overpopulation of this country during that period.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET).My Lords, the Government use established statistical techniques to forecast population trends. They do not give certainty, but they suggest an increase of 10 million in the next 25 years. At the moment, there are about 300,000 immigrants a year, and rather more emigrants, making a net annual loss on migration of 40,000.
The question whether the word "overpopulation" is justified when applied to a possible increase of 10 million in 25 years is one on which the Government have, as yet, no view. There must be more study and more public discussion which, provided it is objective, the Government will welcome.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his full reply, but is he aware that I am slightly horrified that the Government have no views, as yet, on the results of this increase in population? But is he aware, also, that I am consoled by the fact that they will study this matter, and I shall perhaps put down a Question in 12 months' time to see whether their study has had any result.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I should not let pass the noble Lady's formulation that the Government have no views on the results of this increase. They have, of course, views on the planning measures which must be taken if the population is going up substantially in the next 25 years. They have, as yet, no views as to whether it will be a good thing or a bad thing if the population does go up that much.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in England the present population works out at 90 inhabitants per square mile, in Scotland 18, and in Wales 28? Therefore, will the Minister state whether development should be concentrated in Wales and in Scotland?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, that is another question.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, may we return to Great Britain? The noble Lord said that the Government

849
would welcome study. Are the Government themselves going to carry out continuing studies of this question, or are they relying on other people to do so?
LORD KENNET: Both, my Lords. They are looking to competent study organisations and individuals to do so, and they are also carrying out studies of this nature themselves.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, would the noble Lord consider having these figures published in those countries from which we are receiving at the moment the majority of immigrants, so that they may realise that it is not a question of disliking immigrants but of the position which is growing in this country of over-population?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am sure that the Governments of those countries from which we principally receive immigrants are well aware of these figures. Whether it would be expedient for the British Government to take steps to publish them in those countries is another Question of which I should like notice.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, since experience in the past has proved that migration assists exports, and in view of the fact that the Overseas Settlement Board has been discontinued, is the Minister able to give an assurance that contact with the High Commissioners of the Dominions, and also South Africa, is adequate to make sure that those who wish to emigrate can with advantage get the assistance?
LORD KENNET: Not without notice, my Lords.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that, as the demographic estimates of population increases have been so unreliable in the last forty years, any estimates for the next twenty years have a large element of guesswork? But taking one set of figures from the Conservation Society, these figures state that by the end of the century we shall have 18 million more people in this country, of whom one million may be from immigrants.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, on the first part of the noble Baroness's question, it is the duty of the Government to make the best provision they can on the
850
basis of available forecasts that they have had, while allowing for the inevitable margin of error in those forecasts. On the second part of the question, I could not, without notice, comment on those figures.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, could the noble Lord indicate whether the demographic study of the population will be coupled with a study of feeding of the increased population by the appropriate Department?
LORD KENNET: Yes, my Lords, of course.

EXHAUST PIPES ON HEAVY VEHICLES
2.51 p.m.
LORD STRATHCARRON: 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 introduce legislation to make it compulsory for heavy commercial vehicles to be fitted with vertical exhaust pipes in the interest of health and safety.]
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the answer is, No. The purpose the noble Lord has in mind would not be fulfilled by introducing such legislation. The gases which come out of an exhaust pipe tend to sink towards the ground, so the widespread use of vertical exhausts would have the disadvantage that foodstuffs such as greengroceries carried on open lorries might become contaminated. Moreover, any solid particles blown out of a hot exhaust could fall on the heads and shoulders of nearby pedestrians and cyclists. The most practical position for an exhaust pipe outlet seems to be low down on the offside of the vehicle and pointing to the rear.
LORD STRATHCARRON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for his reply, which I do not think is very satisfactory. Is he aware that in many parts of the world this system works with great satisfaction; and that it seems to me that the exhaust blown on to one's legs at present eventually goes up to the level of one's head, whereas with the system I suggest it would be emitted at the level

851
of the head and then rise, because exhaust gases are hotter than the air? Therefore, the system I propose would be preferable.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Lord seems to be walking in the middle of the road.
LORD STRATHCARRON: I am on a pedestrian crossing.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is a problem not being dealt with solely in this country. A specialist working group of the Economic Commission for Europe concluded that vertical exhaust pipes were unlikely to be helpful. Investigations have, however, not been completed. Europe is, oddly enough sharing our view.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, could my right honourable friend say what investigation is taking place with a view to making it compulsory to reduce these fumes that are coming from exhaust pipes, both from ordinary commercial motor lorries and, in particular, from some of the diesel engines running on the railways? Exhaust fumes from diesel engines rise and anyone who travels on the railway bridges that cross the lines knows the effect of these fumes, which I am sure are very injurious to health.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, if diesel fuel is burned in an internal combustion engine it is bound to produce fumes. This is one of the facts of life. However, we do not want to have smoke as well. The best way to deal with smoke is to prevent it. The Ministry of Transport mechanical engineers carry out roadside spot-checks at which the use of vehicles smoking excessively is prohibited. The new annual checks for heavy goods vehicles will in fact include a smoke check.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether the habitual use of vertical exhausts on farm tractors is detrimental to produce?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, taken by and large, farm tractors operate on farms and are not an undue nuisance.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER AND NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
LORD AMULREE: 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 reconsidered the possibility of extending the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner to cover complaints about the National Health Service.]
LORD KENNET: Not yet, my Lords. But I would draw the House's attention to a Green Paper published to-day by my right honourable friend the Minister of Health on the future administrative structure of medical and related services, which, among other things, has some suggestions to make about this matter.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his reply. In view of the fact that I have the Green Paper to which he refers in my hand at the present time, I do not propose to ask any further questions.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, as I have not yet seen the Green Paper, may I ask whether the Government will have under consideration the possible appointment of a specific Hospital Commissioner whose duties would be separate from those of the Parliamentary Commissioner? I feel that something of the kind is now necessary.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, in the Green Paper there are two specific proposals which are canvassed for possible consideration at a later stage. One is the extension of the duties of the Parliamentary Commissioner as at present constituted to the Health and Hospital Services; and the other is the appointment of a new Health Commissioner.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, could we be informed what "a later stage" means, approximately?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I think that the best definition of that is to be found in the Green Paper, which points towards a period of public discussion and debate.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, notwithstanding the Green Paper, would the noble Lord pass on to the right honourable Minister the feelings of frustration experienced by so many members of the public using the National Health Service, that their dissatisfaction cannot effectively be dispelled under the present system?
LORD KENNET: I will, my Lords. But the House will not forget that we discussed this matter at great length at the time we introduced the system of the Parliamentary Commissioner, and found good reasons for excluding the Health Service from his jurisdiction.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, could the noble Lord confirm or deny the opinion which I have heard expressed, that under the present system the Parliamentary Commissioner is underemployed?
LORD KENNET: No, my Lords; not at the moment.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, if that be so, if he is under-employed, is that not a tribute to the admirable and public-spirited manner in which Government Departments carry out their duties?
BARONESS HYLTON-FOSTER: My Lords, when considering whether more work could or could not be put upon the Parliamentary Commissioner, would it not be a good thing to ask him how much more he personally thinks he can do? Also, is the Minister aware that perhaps he has not had the advantage that Cross-Benchers have of recently having had a talk about this matter from the Parliamentary Commissioner?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I note what the noble Baroness has said.

BROADCASTING
2.57 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, at a convenient moment after half past three my noble friend Lord Bowles will be making a Statement on Broadcasting.
I should perhaps remind your Lordships that dinner will be available tonight from 7 o'clock till 8.30 p.m.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL
Read 3a,with Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS AND PRIVILEGE
2.59 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper: That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to consider and report whether any, and, if so, what, changes in the law of defamation and of Parliamentary Privilege are desirable in relation to the publication of the proceedings in Parliament. In doing so I would only remind your Lordships that the Motion follows the recommendations in paragraph 23 of the Second Report of the Select Committee on Televising the Proceedings of the House of Lords; that is, the Second Report of the last Session. This Report was agreed by the House on July 18 last year. It also follows a similar recommendation in paragraph 25 of the Second Report of this year of the Select Committee on Broadcasting the Proceedings of the House of Lords, which has not in fact yet been considered by the House.
As your Lordships will see, the Motion takes the form of a recommendation to set up a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider what changes in the law of defamation and Parliamentary Privilege are desirable in relation to the publication of the proceedings in Parliament. I would only add that this Motion in no way pre-empts any decision, or commits the House in any way as to whether or not the proceedings of the House should be broadcast in any form. It is intended to enable the inquiry into various legal aspects of broadcasting to take place, as they affect both Houses of Parliament and the broadcasters themselves, and this is what was recommended by the Committee last Session. My Lords, if we pass this

855
Motion a Message will then be sent to another place.
Moved, That is it desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to consider and report whether any, and, if so, what, changes in the law of defamation and of Parliamentary Privilege are desirable in relation to the publication of the proceedings in Parliament.—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution and to desire their concurrence.

TRANSPORT BILL
3.2 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH in the Chair.]
Clause 123 [Amendment of provisions as to parking places]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 289A:
Page 164, line 15, after ("vehicles") insert ("or vehicles").
The noble Lord said: I should first point out that the word in the Amendment should be "vehicle" and not "vehicles". I suggest to your Lordships that we take also Amendment 289B at the same time. This is quite a small point. Clause 123(1) enables an order designating parking places to confine their use to particular persons or vehicles of any class specified, and goes on to say:
"and that authority may, in the case of any particular parking place and any particular vehicle, or any vehicle of a particular class, instead of making a charge as mentioned in the said subsection (1) or (5), issue a permit for that vehicle to be left in that parking place "
and so on. It may well be that a family coming up from the country, for example,
856
may have more than one vehicle and they may not always bring the same vehicle. As the permit is in favour of a person, that person should be allowed some latitude as to the vehicle with which he fills the parking place allocated to him. The point is a simple one. I beg to move.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): Clause 123(1) gives local authorities new powers to introduce parking controls with much more discrimination than they have at present. It enables them both to set up parking areas where parking would be permitted only for those to whom special permits had been issued, and to make charges for the facility. An example is the residents' parking scheme at present in existence under the powers which the G.L.C. have from their Act of 1967. For these schemes there is a system of permits for particular cars, but there is nothing in the wording of the Bill as now drafted which would insist on an arrangement of one permit per vehicle, and there is no reason why the local authorities could not change, if they so wished, the way in which they administer the schemes they already have in operation, or which would necessarily tie future schemes to the way the present ones are being administered.
I am encouraged to make the next point because the Amendment has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and I know he will appreciate this sort of thing from his knowledge of procedure and drafting in past legislation. I am informed that according to the Interpretation Act the singular includes the plural unless the context implies otherwise. Our advice is that this is not a case where the opposite is implied, and therefore the wording of the subsection in referring to a vehicle in the singular would not prevent a permit from being issued to cover more than one vehicle.
We think this is a system in which the maximum latitude may be allowed to the local authority. The point made by the noble Lord is a perfectly reasonable one and I see no reason why the local authorities should not be in a position to give effect to it. Certainly there is nothing in the Bill as it stands to prevent them from so doing. In those circumstances, and knowing the noble Lord's inclination

857
against waste, I would suggest that the Amendment is unnecessary.
LORD SOMERS: Is the noble Lord quite certain that he has been correctly informed? I should have said that the plural contained the singular.
LORD LEATHERLAND: There seems to be a great deal of interchangeability between plural and singular, but I want to draw attention to what, in another place, would be a point of order. The Marshalled List of Amendments tells us that after the word "vehicles" in line 15 we should insert something else, yet on referring to the Bill I do not see the word "vehicles" in the plural used at all, but the word "vehicle" occurs in two separate places in that line. It may well be that the noble Lord put the wrong word down in the Amendment or it may be what we call a "printer's error".
LORD HUGHES: I was in no doubt that there was a printer's error. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, pointed out that the word should be "vehicle" but I did not think it was worth while troubling your Lordships because I had no reason to believe that the noble Lord would wish to persist in his Amendment after the very reasonable answer which I have given him. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, I have no reason not to believe the information I have been given, that the singular includes the plural, singular though that may seem to the noble Lord.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I will not pursue the issue, although there was some slight doubt in my mind whether in this case the singular included the plural, because if that was so one might say that the concept referred to "person" as well, and that there the singular included the plural. However, in view of the assurance given by the noble Lord and his obvious desire that this power should be used flexibly, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved Amendment No. 290:
Page 165, line 30, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Earl said: With the permission of the Committee I should also like to refer to Amendments 291 and 292, since these Amendments on the Mar-
858
shalled List all cover the same ground on parking facilities.
LORD STONHAM: Is the noble Earl not in error in saying Amendments 290, 291 and 292? Does he not in fact mean Amendments 290, 292 and 293?
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I endeavour to help the Committee? I think Amendments 290, 291 and 292—and, indeed, 294—are all directed to the same point; and although they are making different approaches to it, I think it might be for the convenience of the Committee if we were to discuss them together and they can then be moved separately.
EARL HOWE: With your Lordships' permission, and with my grateful thanks to my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, I will proceed to move my Amendment. The object of this Amendment, No. 290, is to delete the proposed power under subsection (6) to permit local authorities to use surplus income from parking meters for purposes other than off-street parking accommodation. This subsection obviously very much affects the interests of the private motorist in seeking to extend the powers of the local authorities regarding the use of the parking meter scheme. When Parliament in 1956 first approved the granting of powers to permit charges to be made for parking on the highway, the Government gave assurances indicating that private motorists need not fear that this was another way to impose additional motoring taxes on a section of the community which was already taxed to the hilt. Parking meters were there to help in street parking, and any surplus income would be used by local authorities for the benefit of the private motorist in connection with off-street parking.
In actual fact I understand that a very limited contribution has been made from this source towards the cost of providing off-street car parks, and a large proportion of the income has been spent on administration—which is quite natural—and the enforcement of the parking meter scheme. Where is this off-street parking accommodation which the motorist so badly needs? I am sure noble Lords will agree with me when I say that in some areas of London, and elsewhere, it is almost impossible to find a parking space, and much time is wasted

859
in going round in circles looking for a space in which to manœuvre one's motorcar alongside a parking meter. In this respect, I submit the motorist has been badly let down. Of course, the Government can break faith with the motorists if they want to, but they must not be surprised if the motorist makes an attempt at retaliation.
Some interesting facts were published on July 10 of this year by the Royal Automobile Club, revealing that more than £8½ million has been put into parking meters by motorists since the first scheme was introduced in 1958. Of this, £6 million has been spent on overheads and administrative costs. Personally, I think the motoring public have a right to know what is happening to their money. I have heard it suggested, even, that it might help if a national balance sheet were published annually, showing in detail what had happened to the parking meter income: the expenditure on administration, the surplus from the meters, the proportion devoted to the provision of off-street parking and garage accommodation and also the amount involved in the proposed extension of local authorities' powers to permit the use of surplus profits in subsidising the public passenger transport services—and this at a time when recent developments in public transport industries have shown that the public's mobility is greatly dependent on the use of private transport.
I contend that parking meter revenues should be used for the purpose for which they were originally intended—in other words, for the provision and maintenance of proper parking accommodation—and should not be used in the carrying out of such highway improvements until the former object has been achieved. I am fully alive to the fact that the Amendment refers in the main to the interests of the private motorist, but there is very little reference to him in this Bill. He does, after all, represent a very large section of the community. When I consider that the motoring public accepted the principle that parking meter charges were to be made, and that unequivocable assurances were given, I repeat, by the Government at the time that this was not another way of taking money from the motorist's pocket, I find the provisions of subsection (6) most objectionable. I
860
could use a stronger word, but I would not offend your Lordships by so doing.
I could quote from the proceedings in another place in 1955–56, during the passage of the Road Traffic Bill at that time. The provisions of that Bill were as clear and emphatic as possible. The first parking meter Order was presented before your Lordships' House for approval in 1960, and I understand that both sides of this House were firmly of the opinion then that all surplus revenue should be used as provided by Statute. Private motorists have been treated like this once before, I am reminded, in respect of motoring taxes, and they are not going to forget in a hurry that they are now the most heavily taxed section of the community, with little to show for their taxes. I hope that the noble Lord will accept my Amendment in the interests of the motorists who took to the parking meter scheme in good faith. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
LORD PARGITER: Before the Minister replies I hope he will be able to say something to alleviate the fears which many of us have with regard to this being another example of politics and politicians being brought further and further into disrepute. Parking meters were started not with the idea of being a permanency, but with the idea of ultimately releasing the highway to be absolutely free for traffic. The idea was that the revenues could be used towards off-street parking, and one assumed that when the time arrived when off-street parking was proficient, street parking would be prohibited. That is the object we have in mind: to keep the streets free for traffic to move.
This clause is another example which will indicate the absolute permanency of parking meters—it does not indicate anything else. It indicates that the revenue will be used for all sorts of purposes which bear no relationship to street parking or anything of that kind but which will permit local authorities to spend this money in any direction in which they wish provided it is connected with transport; and as local authorities are being brought more and more into the transport field—and they will be brought more and more into deficit in the transport field—one can easily see there will never be any surplus revenues

861
to use towards off-street parking. So I hope the Government will look very carefully at what is proposed here. We ought to get to the stage when we propose to do something with a particular objective in mind and we do something. We ought not to depart, because of some expediency, from the objective which we had in mind. The object of parking meters was in order ultimately to provide revenue, first of all to co-ordinate and get an orderly system of street parking, and, secondly, to provide for off-street parking that would be sufficient for the purposes of cars which required to come particularly into city centres. Little has been done in this direction up to now.
I hope that this will be the first objective. I would accept the spirit of the other Amendment, if, after we have achieved that objective, we want to keep parking meters, and so on, to provide for other revenue purposes connected with transport. I would regard that as being a satisfactory answer. I would not regard it as being desirable, but I would regard it, in the general wash of ups and downs that we get in the provision of revenue, as being something that might be done to which the motorist could not reasonably object. But we ought to put first things first. If the object of parking meters was, first of all, to establish ordinary street parking and then to abolish it in favour of off-street parking, we ought to keep that as the main objective.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I support what the noble Lord who has just spoken has said? I believe that the proposal for parking meters, by some curious chance, was first introduced in this House, and I think I was responsible for doing it. I must, in fairness to your Lordships, say that it was defeated by a large and enthusiastic majority on the first occasion on which it was proposed, but on the second occasion, largely due to the "bribe" which was perfectly clearly made, that this money would be provided for additional facilities for motorists, it was accepted in this House. Now we are going back on that bribe, and it is a matter which affects the image of politics to the great body of the public, not in regard particularly to one politician but to the approach which politics makes to the problems which come to them and the use which politicians make of the
862
money they draw from the public. I hope the noble Lord will consider these points very carefully.
LORD WOLVERTON: I should like to support the noble Lord, Earl Howe, in his Amendment, because, as has previously been said, it was specifically understood by Parliament that after meeting the ordinary arrangements for parking, all the surplus money would be used for extra parking facilities. The interesting figures which my noble friend, Lord Howe, has given the House since the scheme was started are that the public have put £8½ million into parking meters and it has cost £6 million to administer the scheme. Administration takes a pretty high proportion of the total amount put in. It leaves the small amount of £1½ million for extra off-street parking facilities. Very little has been done. Something has been done, but we were hoping for a great deal more. I think the whole matter needs looking into. The administration seems to me to be very expensive. It is not easy, I know, and the authorities do their best; they must have a large number of parking meter attendants, et cetera. To take powers, which in this Bill the Minister wants to do, to extend the use of this money to carry out street improvements, seems to me to be entirely wrong and out of the spirit with what Parliament was told when it passed the original Act.
LORD SOMERS: May I raise one more point apropos of this? Your Lordships should remember that until the streets are cleared of parked vehicles by means of off-street parking the provision of extra public transport will do nothing but add to the congestion that is already there, because public transport vehicles, owing to their large size and constant stopping, are the worst factors in holding up the traffic. I learned that myself not many years ago when there was a bus strike lasting a few days. Driving through London was absolutely like being in Paradise.
LORD DRUMALBYN: There was a long debate on this point in another place, in the course of which the Government spokesman put forward completely conflicting points of view. If I may say a word on the Amendment in the name of my noble friend and myself, it proposes a compromise which seems reasonable and which I would

863
hope the Government would accept. In the Commons the Opposition pointed out, as my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, have said, that public faith is involved here. When these provisions were introduced in 1955 the Government gave explicit assurances that all profits from parking meters must be used for increasing off-street parking facilities or cheapening off-street parking accommodation. It is important, obviously, that public faith should be maintained, even although one Parliament cannot bind its successor. It follows, I think, that only if and to the extent that the surplus exceeds the needs for the provision of off-street parking places would Parliament be justified in going back on that pledge. The Government then replied (and I am referring to column 3191) that while they were most anxious to stimulate in any way they could these authorities to prepare parking places as part of the general transport and traffic problem, they had to ensure, as was stated in the White Paper, that the total amount of parking space in a city centre was not raised to a level which leads to severe congestion.
That we accept, although of course the whole purpose of providing off-street parking is precisely to avoid severe congestion by removing as many vehicles as possible now parked on the roads to off-street parking places. We consider that this is and should remain the first purpose for which the surplus funds in the parking meter account should be used, and only when adequate provision has been made for this purpose should the surpluses be diverted to other purposes. We fully recognise that in some cases the surpluses are considerable. Figures were quoted to show that in Westminster, for example, expenditure for the year ending March 31, 1967, amounted to only about half the gross income, and the surplus was some £437,000. This appeared to be an extreme example quoted. It can hardly be denied, though, that more could be done in Westminster to provide off-street parking. It would be a pity, I suggest to your Lordships, if in our main cities we fell behind other countries in the provision made for off-street parking. Mention was made in the Commons that New York is proposing to spend
864
200 million dollars—that is over £80 million—on off-street parking. The surpluses in this country would not go far to match that, and it seems odd that such surpluses as are available should be diverted to other purposes. I would also say that unless priority in the use of surplus funds is given to the task of providing off-street parking the probability is that local authorities will tend to divert funds to other purposes, and this we think would be wrong, both from the point of view of traffic policy and also from the point of view of public faith.
LORD BELSTEAD: Although the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said many things with which I am sure many of us agree, may I support the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in suggesting that Amendment No. 291 goes to the heart of the matter in a reasonable way, in posing the question: should parking facilities be a first charge on parking meter revenue? The difficulty, it seems to me, is that there is very little written evidence on the subject. A British Road Federation parking survey has shown that 64 per cent. of local authorities have made some study of parking needs, but this still leaves more than one in three local authorities who have not yet any real conception of how traffic in their town centres will develop. I believe, from reading the papers, that the Government know the percentage of the car-owning population to-day, but I wonder whether there are figures to show how long, on average, in each 24 hours a car remains parked. None the less the evidence of our eyes does show that parking is an increasing problem.
I think it is correct to say that as a result of the present Budget the total revenue from motor vehicle owners will be about £1,500 million per annum, but the total expenditure on the roads is going to be between £500 million and £550 million per annum. In paying for parking meters in the past motorists have at least known that their money was destined, or was supposed to be destined, for off-street parking. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has made the point that a pledge was given; and of course one Government can undo what another has done, though that will not go unnoticed. If this pledge is to be altered, the suspicion of the motoring organisations way

865
back in 1955–56, that parking meter money is just going to be an extra tax on the motorist, may well be realised. I wonder whether the noble Lord, in replying—he will have a very much better knowledge of the clause as amended than I have—could say what the reference to "some other person" in paragraph (d) means. Does it mean that under this particular subsection parking meter money might go to the P.T.A. facilities?
May I put up two brief points which I do not think have been referred to so far? Your Lordships may recall that as a result of an Amendment to Clause 69 in another place, which received pretty general support from everybody, convictions for parking offences, if sufficiently numerous, could lead to removal of a transport manager's or operator's licence, and during the debate on that Amendment Mr. Stephen Swingler, the Minister of State, said that he felt that three bodies were responsible for parking—the people who operate, the local authorities and the police. On a new council housing estate near where I live there is not a single garage of any kind. This policy disfigures the neighbourhood, and it is a constant danger to pedestrians, particularly to children playing in the streets. Many of us believe, and I am one, whether or not we agree politically with the right honourable lady the previous Minister, that she did look ahead very considerably. I ask the Government, should not their advice, their help and their pressure be needed to oppose such a short-sighted housing policy, which is not confined to where I happen to live?
The other point is this. Any of your Lordships who travel by rail, and particularly noble Lords who travel in the London area, would surely agree there is a need for more parking facilities at railway stations, and that local authorities' parking revenues could well combine with British Railways to solve a problem, which is part of this Amendment, and which affects not really British Railways at all but the locality of the station and, therefore, the local authority itself. Is there less need for off-street parking facilities to-day than there was in 1956? Are the surpluses from parking meters so great that they can now be diverted to other uses? Unless the answer to those two questions is, Yes, then surely Amendment No. 291, at any rate, should be
866
accepted as seeking to help the Government and local authorities to continue to deal with a problem which exists to-day and is going to get worse in the future.
3.30 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL: It might be extremely difficult for my noble friend to make any changes in this subsection, in view of the discussion which took place in the other place on this particular type of Amendment. But it does highlight the difficulty that has developed with certain forms of taxation so far as transport is concerned.
One remembers that in the early stages of taxation of motor transport, it was suggested that the income raised would go towards the development of a better roads system or highways for motor car travel. One knows well that the road associations for a long time, even if not at this moment, were pressing the point that the vast amount of taxation that comes from motor transport should be devoted to providing better roads. This is an old argument that has gone on; and here we are faced with the same type of argument.
As my noble friend Lord Pargiter rightly remarked, when legislation was enacted to authorise parking meters, some form of understanding was arrived at, even in the legislation, that any surplus revenue would be devoted towards increasing parking accommodation. The terms of this Clause 123(6) of this Bill mean that any surplus that can be, or is, derived from these parking meters can be devoted to whatever purposes the local authority may determine, provided that it deals with certain transport measures. The surplus from parking meters can be used towards the developing of additional highways, additional streets, or whatever the local authority decide. This gets away from the objective which I think the nation faces.
The use of parking meters, with motor cars parked on streets, simply cannot be tolerated indefinitely, with the passage of time. By the turn of the century it is expected that there will be at least twice as many motor vehicles on the roads as there are to-day. If that be so, how can these be catered for unless they are stopped from coming into the centres of conurbations and into towns, or unless

867
some steps are taken with a view to easing the burden of local authorities by providing short-term multi-stormy car parks within shopping or business areas? If money derived from the present parking meters can be utilised by the local authority in the way indicated in the Bill it certainly destroys the objective which many of us had in mind when we supported this measure originally; namely, that this additional revenue to a local authority would go a long way towards providing additional multi-storey or underground car parks in the centres of our towns.
Somehow or other, this idea seems to be not progressing quite so quickly as it might. One realises that there is the difficulty of heavy capital expenditure in purchasing the land in the centre of our towns in order to build these multi-storey car parks. One can appreciate that. But one would have thought that revenue coming from parking meters might have been earmarked for this purpose instead of the local authorities being given freedom to use any surplus for whatever purpose they like, the cost of which would otherwise have to be met from additional rates plus the grant from the central authority.
Therefore, I shall certainly support my noble friend in whatever stand he may take. I feel there is a case to answer, and I should have thought this Government could be a little more progressive and would do everything to encourage multi-storey car parks with the object of taking motor cars entirely off the ordinary streets and allowing them to be utilised for the purpose for which they were built; namely, to allow easy movement of traffic, and not as parking places for motor vehicles.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I wish to detain your Lordships for only a moment. It so happens that I was leading the House at the time when the former Bill to which reference has been made came before your Lordships, and I have a quite distinct recollection of the suspicion with which the whole idea of parking meters was viewed. I am sure that only the assurance of the Government that the money derived from them would be used for off-street parking made it possible for Parliament to agree to them at all. I think it would be most un-
868
fortunate if, through Parliament, that assurance were now to be completely nullified, and if Parliament now said something entirely different, that the revenue could be used for other purposes.
I think I am right in saying that the revenues from parking meters go into the pockets of the local authorities. There was great suspicion on the earlier occasion that a local authority would take this revenue into general revenue and that it might be deployed for another purpose for which the local authority desired to use it. We gave great assurances at that time that these revenues would actually be used for the provision of off-street parking. The Government of which I was a member gave that assurance. That is why I have taken the opportunity of addressing your Lordships today, in making an appeal to the Minister that the decision which was reached then should be regarded not as a Party matter but as an assurance which was given to the British people.
LORD STONHAM: A Minister dealing with a Bill is always most grateful when, quite unexpectedly, he is invited by the Opposition to take five Amendments together. And far be it from me to decline to do such a thing! But when I interrupted the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and suggested that these Amendments were on different points, it was for no technical or academic reason. It is true that all the Amendments deal with off-street parking and expenditure from meter revenues, but they are all quite different in their intent.
The first Amendment of the noble Earl would remove subsection (6) entirely. If indeed that Amendment were carried, it would pre-empt Amendment No. 292, the noble Earl's second Amendment, which asks only for the deletion of three or four lines from that subsection; and it would certainly prevent Lord Drumalbyn's Amendment from being moved—an Amendment, by the way, with which I have considerable sympathy, a sympathy which I cannot extend to the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Although I am glad to have one discussion on this subject I hope that we shall bear in mind that the three Amendments would have a quite different effect.
I think this is the third time during the passage of this Bill through both

869
Houses that an attempt has been made to remove subsection (6) or part of it, and I think it would be right if I explained the importance which the Government attach to this matter. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said that he had a distinct recollection of the suspicion with which the introduction of meters was viewed at the time when he was Leader of your Lordships' House, and he thought it would be quite wrong if Parliament now suggested something entirely different. This subsection does not suggest something entirely different, and I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, will confirm this, because all his first Amendment does is to say, "Wait until we are sure that from the revenues there is sufficient off-street parking, and then by all means give local authorities authority to spend any surplus revenue for the benefit of transport generally." So there is very little there.
This was done in 1956, when I was not a member of that Government, or even a Member of your Lordships' House. It was a year or two before I came in. I cannot say whether or not it was a bribe, but I certainly think that the whole idea of these Amendments springs from the extraordinary view which motorists, or some motorists, have: that the steering wheel in their hands, mounted on four wheels, provides them with a sort of divine right to go into any city and "plonk" down anywhere in all kinds of numbers and in all places so as to cause such extraordinary congestion that the whole place becomes topsy-turvy.
LORD PARGITER: May I interrupt my noble friend to say, as a motorist, that I have not held that view at all?
LORD STONHAM: I did say "some motorists", and I was very glad to hear my noble friend Lord Pargiter remind your Lordships that meters were originally introduced to try to keep the streets free.
The purpose of the subsection which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, now proposes to remove is to give local authorities more flexibility in the use of parking meter revenues. At present these revenues can be used only for the provision or maintenance of off-street parking, and to repay any sums borrowed from the general rate fund of the authority for parking purposes. Surely it is obvious that, for reasons of traffic and parking
870
control, off-street parking facilities in an area should not be expanded to the extent that, if they were fully used, the result would only be severe congestion on roads in that area. That is the serious possibility we face. In fact, we face it already under the law as it stands; and it is what the noble Earl's Amendment would create or perpetuate. The existing profits statutorily must be used for off-street parking, and that could lead to over-provision of parking space. If I had time I could give many examples of that in many places. Quite a fight was fought from the Benches opposite about off-street parking in Finsbury Square. In fact, there were two Acts of Parliament about those facilities. They are not even half used now; and they never have been. In many cities to-day there is the risk that over-provision of parking spaces will attract more traffic than the road system is capable of handling.
It may be that there is a case to limit off-street parking places in the very places where the revenue from parking meters is highest. Furthermore, the use of surplus meter revenue for car parking can easily mean subsidising the charges which should be made in the car parks. If meter surpluses are used to help to pay for operating the car parks, then there is a direct subsidy. If they are used to help pay the capital cost, which is then reflected in lower interest charges, that is again a subsidy. I put it to your Lordships seriously that in some places, certainly in the heart of the busiest cities, it is just as foolish to over-encourage the car community by artificially low parking charges as it is to over-provide parking space. It is a hindrance, not a help, to motorists and traffic generally.
The Government agree that any surplus revenue from parking meters should be used for the benefit of travellers. What we do not agree is that the provision of more parking space is necessarily in the traveller's best interest. We believe that there will be many cases where a wider view needs to be taken of how the traveller can be helped, and that is why we are proposing, in subsection (6), to broaden the purpose for which surplus parking meter revenue can be used and to allow any such money to be put towards the financing of other measures which will provide better travel facilities in that area. In other words, we aim to provide for measures which give better value

871
for the money available than would the excessive provision of parking spaces.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, said first of all that the Government of the day gave unequivocal assurances that any surplus would be used by local authorities for the benefit of private motorists. I too have looked at the debates. My understanding is that Parliament in 1956, in regard to London, said that surpluses should go to off-street parking. But does that constitute a reason why, in 1968, after the great increases in car-ownership, after changes in parking control in cities, and in recognition of the need for planning urban passenger travel as a whole, Parliament should not decide that a less tight straitjacket is needed? Do we then have to call it a betrayal? Is it a bribe on which we have gone back in order to look at the changed situation 12 years later?
Then the noble Earl said: "Where is the off-street parking? The motorists have been badly let down." There are vastly more off-street parking places now than there were 12 years ago; and, as I have indicated, many of them not used. The noble Earl seemed to think that the motorists have been badly treated in this way, and he quoted some figures. Perhaps I may quote the figures for the cities of London and Westminster, where there are some 17,000 parking meters—about 25 per cent. of all the parking meters in the entire country—and where in the last 10 years the total surplus income from the parking meters has been £1,800,000 but the capital expenditure during that period has been £9 million—five times as much. So where is the argument that the money has not been spent for the motorist when actually those two cities alone, London and Westminster, have spent five times as much capital expenditure on off-street parking as the net surplus revenue from the parking meters?
EARL HOWE: May I interrupt? If the noble Lord's surmise that there are plenty of off-street parking facilities is correct, how is it that the roads of our towns to-day are constantly jam-packed tight with motor cars unable to find anywhere to park?
LORD STONHAM: If the roads are jam-packed, obviously it is because the cars are not parked.
EARL HOWE: This is the view of many motoring personalities who possibly know a great deal more about the subject than I do.
LORD STONHAM: I know that very often it is a general view, and it is always a particular view when one wishes to park oneself and cannot immediately find a place. I too am a motorist, but I am now looking at the picture as a whole, and I have, I hope, given a complete and absolute refutation of what the noble Earl said about the use of surplus revenues from parking meters and the capital expenditure.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord has put up a very good argument for saying that a good many of the meters have been put in the wrong place. Undoubtedly there may be places in Finsbury Square where they ought not to have had parking meters, but there are many areas in London where motorists cannot find places to to park, and there should be off-street parking. I do not know whether the noble Lord has had the same experience, but I have had the experience that if there is nowhere else to go and one puts a car in a place where it ought not to be it is towed away and one has to go to the other end of London to get it back. If there had been off-street parking, that would not have occurred.
LORD STONHAM: It has also been my experience to go to the Hyde Park parking place, where there are no meters, and I have never found it more than a third to a half full. Yet 300 yards away, where the meter charge is 4s. for a short period, the places are full. This is true, and in response to the noble Marquess I say to him I do not know any off-street unmetered parking place in the West End which I have ever been to in the last two years that has been full and where there has not been plenty of room at all times. We are talking about off-street parking, and what I say is the case; and I am quite sure this is the experience of all noble Lords.
LORD TREFGARNE: The noble Lords claims that the underground car park at Hyde Park is frequently empty. Does he know how long it takes to walk from the underground car park in Hyde Park to any reasonable Underground station or bus stop nearby?
LORD STONHAM: Of course, off-street parking is not as convenient as leaving a car on one's own doorstep. I am refuting the case that not much has been provided, because it is quite untrue. It is no use the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, saying, "Yes, but that off-street parking is not where I want it. I would sooner leave my car right outside the Hilton or the Dorchester or somewhere like that."
I should like to deal with the arguments as they were put to me. I have dealt with the point about where the off-street parking is to be found; I have given a good indication of the position on that. Perhaps the main reason why more off-street car parks, multi-storey or other, which have been needed have not been built, has been lack of realisation of the need by the local authorities concerned. The transport and traffic plans which the Minister has asked the major authorities to prepare should put that right. The Bill will help by giving local authorities, for the first time, an absolute duty, under Clause 126, to see that adequate parking is provided; it will introduce infrastructure grants for specified purposes, which will include some car parks; and it will give local authorities fuller and more independent powers in the closely related field of traffic management.
On the point about parking meter surpluses gained from motorists being used to help parking, in the slightly wider form that a surplus from the travelling public should be used to help the travelling public, the Bill in fact adopts this principle. The wider form makes more sense in 1968, when almost everybody uses a car at times and a bus or train at other times—when at times a citizen is "the motorist" and at other times "the bus passenger" or "the rail passenger" or "the pedestrian". By no means am I criticising what the noble Earl and the noble Marquess introduced in 1956. That made sense in 1956 in the heart of London when there was both a crying need for on-street parking control through meters and an appalling shortage of off-street parking space. The 1956 Act was certainly sensible for that time, not because of some theoretical principle but because of the practical rightness of trying to meet two great and related needs at once. But a great deal has happened since then. In the Cities of London and
874
Westminster 4,400 off-street parking spaces have been provided in recent years at a cost of £9 million. In these areas any shortage of off-street parking space is no longer "appalling"; in fact, even at the busiest times of the busiest days there is some such space to be found, both in the City and in the West End. So the needs of the situation are different now. I think that I have answered those points.
I should now like to come to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, on the same point, which, I submit, clearly recognises the validity of the Government's policy that there are circumstances when surplus parking meter revenue could and should be used for highway improvements and for better public transport. The Government welcome the more constructive approach of the noble Lord's Amendment, certainly compared with the other ones; but there are difficulties about the Amendment as such. First of all, what is "adequate provision" for off-street parking facilities? Adequate for what? For all motorists? Is it something which every noble Lord would regard as adequate? Adequate for the capacity of the street system? And who is to decide? There is obviously scope for a great deal of misunderstanding, and, with the Amendment worded as it is, the question might even have to be referred to the courts. Presumably, however, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, would agree that the local authority ought to be able to decide. But what is adequate now may not be adequate at some future date. If the local authority have some surplus revenue now but think that they have provided all the off-street parking they need for the present, presumably the noble Lord would agree that they would be free to spend the money on other transport improvements.
Certainly the Amendment, as drafted, is not acceptable; and it would need modifying to cater for the "in the opinion of the local authority" and the "adequate for the present" points. But if we interpret the noble Lord's intentions in the way I have outlined, then it would make little or no practical difference to the Bill, because the effect of the Bill at present is to place firmly on local authorities the reponsibility for deciding whether it is right to use any surplus parking meter revenue for carparking or for one of the new purposes

875
to be authorised in the Bill. Moreover, if it is objected that under the Bill as it stands a local authority may not use their parking meter revenue, the answer is that in subsection (3) of Clause 126 a new duty is imposed on all the local authorities concerned to secure the provision of suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway.
I do not think that it is the sense of the Committee, and certainly not on the two main planks put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that the deletion of the whole of this subsection is necessary or right. I hope that I have indicated to the satisfaction of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that there is nothing between the Government's and his view as to what should be done. His Amendment, if I have understood its intentions correctly, is not viable, but at the same time it is not necessary.
LORD SOMERS: May I go back to something said by the noble Lord earlier? He said that off-street car parking which is provided at the moment is never full. Would he think that this is possibly because there is no visible indication as to where it is? I have never discovered such a park, except the one underneath Hyde Park.
LORD STONHAM: I understand that an important Statement is about to be made. This might be a convenient moment.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for answering the debate? Of course we wish to deal with all these Amendments together. As he rightly says, they are different methods of approaching the same problem, but it could be that my noble friend Lord Howe might be willing to support the Amendment put down by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn and myself. Therefore, we were very glad to hear that the noble Lord found it at any rate acceptable in principle.
I think that we shall have to ask him to go a little further than he went in his speech. I welcome the distance which he and his colleagues in Government have moved since the position was taken up by the Government in another place.
876
I hope that the gap may be bridged. I accept what the noble Lord said about there being difficulty over the drafting—there always is when the Opposition draft. I also accept that "adequate" is not a suitable word to have in a Government Bill. The point on which we must stick is the matter of priority. My noble friends, and particularly my noble friend Lord Salisbury, have explained the atmosphere, and indeed the sense of both Houses of Parliament, in which this particular measure was originally introduced. Indeed, later on it fell to me to introduce the first parking meter scheme. Therefore, I have a lively sense of just how sensitive opinion was, not only among motorists outside but also among Members of Parliament, in both Houses, and on all sides.
People generally did not like these parking meters, but were prepared to accept them if they could be seen as the means to an end of getting more off-street parking. This is clearly in the mind of every motorist in the country today. It would not be right, in our judgment, to put this Bill on the Statute Book, leaving it open for local authorities to please themselves which of these things they did. I agree that improving the highway or public transport facilities will benefit the general travelling public, in the same way as they will benefit by building an off-street car park—all these factors are related—but this is a point on which we feel we should stick.
We are really trying to help the Government here, because they are gratuitously setting out to offend millions of motorists. This matter is so marginal that it would be absurd to go ahead in this way. In practice, most local authorities would probably be more sensitive to the importance of the pledge than, perhaps, noble Lords opposite, and they would not go ahead and spend parking meter surpluses on other purposes, knowing full well just how strongly all the motorists in their neighbourhood would feel about it. But, even so, we are here legislating for the country and we feel that on the Statute Book should go a clause and a subsection which make quite definite that the first priority is to use these surplus parking meter funds for assistance in the building of off-street car parks. Then, if there are some surpluses over after that, by all means let them be used for other purposes as well.

877
If the noble Lord does not like this drafting as it is, we shall be very willing to discuss it with him, but we feel that the sense of priority is paramount and we must ask him to accept that before we can consider withdrawing the Amendment.
LORD STONHAM: I take it that we are considering only Amendment No. 291, because the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, would be quite unacceptable.
EARL HOWE: May I say that I appreciate very much what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has said. He is a man for whom I have the greatest respect, but I am afraid I do not agree with everything he has said. I understand his difficulties, and I feel that he is batting on a very sticky wicket after what has been said by noble Lords in support of these Amendments. I believe there is justification for moving my Amendment, but the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is a better one and, I should have thought, would appeal far more to your Lordships' House. Therefore I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment and heartily to support that of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.3 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 291.
Amendment moved—,
Page 165, line 35, leave out ("paragraphs") and insert ("paragraph—
(d) provided that adequate provision for off-street parking facilities in each local authority area has been made then such surplus may be applied to—").—(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)
LORD STONHAM: I have two problems. One is the drafting. The difficulty of finding satisfactory words and explanations for the two phrases that I quoted earlier is considerable, as noble Lords will appreciate; but that is not the main problem, because that could be overcome. But the main difficulty is that I cannot
agree to anything which might well, in the end, result in obliging local authorities to subsidise off-street parking, thereby acting as a magnet for more cars and increased congestion. If means could be found of getting over that problem, there would be no difficulty. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, seemed to agree that local authorities should have great discretion in this matter and would always act sensibly. But they must act in the interests of their community as a whole with regard to traffic as a whole, with regard to travelling as a whole, and not only in the narrow interests of visiting motorists, and I still think it would be better to leave these powers flexible.
Of course, I shall deal with the noble Lord with complete honesty. If I say that I will look at the drafting and look at this second problem, of course I will do so. But I cannot guarantee success. On the other hand, if he does not feel that his purpose can be achieved, and if this principle is so important to him, he may prefer to have a decision on it now. I must leave it to him.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I thank the noble Lord for his attempt to meet us. But this is not just a drafting problem. As I understand him, he feels that it is impossible for the Government to accept the principle of the priority which we feel is basic to this situation. We have put down the Amendment in this form to do our best to make it acceptable to noble Lords opposite, and, indeed, to noble Lords generally, and we hoped that we might succeed; but we feel that this is the absolute minimum on which we should insist because of the history of this matter and because there is a pledge here which everyone expects to be fulfilled. In that spirit I must press the Amendment.
4.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 291) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 92; Not-Contents, 53.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Allerton, L.

Atholl, D.

Abinger, L.

Amherst, E.

Auckland, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Amulree, L.

Audley, Bs.

Airedale, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Balerno, L.

Albemarle, E.

Asquith of Yarnbury, Bs.

Bannerman of Kildonan, L

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gridley, L.

Rowallan, L.

Belstead, L.

Hawke, L.

Sackville, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Henley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Bessborough, E.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

St. Just, L.

Blackford, L.

Howe, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Ilford, L.

Salisbury, M.

Buckton, L.

Inglewood, L.

Sandford, L.

Carrington, L.

Jessel, L.

Sandys, L.

Clwyd, L.

Kilmany, L.

Selkirk, E.

Conesford, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lambert, V.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Somers, L.

Cromartie, E.

Long, V.

Stamp, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lothian, M.

Stonehaven, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strange, L.

Dundee, E.

MacAndrew, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Eccles, V.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Effingham, E.

Margadale, L.

Swinton, E.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Merrivale, L.

Teviot, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Middleton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Essex, E.

Mills, V.

Vivian, L.

Falkland, V.

Milverton, L.

Wade, L.

Ferrier, L.

Molson, L.

Windlesham, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wolverton, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Grenfell, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Plummer, Bs.

Arwyn, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Raglan, L.

Beswick, L.

Gifford, L.

Rhodes, L.

Blyton, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Rusholme, L.

Bowles, L.

Hall, V.

Samuel, V.

Brockway, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Serota, Bs. [Teller.]

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Burden, L.

Hughes, L.

Snow, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Iddesleigh, E.

Sorensen, L.

Chalfont, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Champion, L.

Latham, L.

Stonham, L.

Chorley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Citrine, L.

Lindgren, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

McLeavy, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Mitchison, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Moyle, L.

Walston, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Willis, L.

Faringdon, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

BROADCASTING
4.21 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat a Statement on broadcasting which my right honourable friend the Postmaster General has made in another place. This is the Statement:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about broadcasting.
880
"As the House knows, the December, 1966, White Paper on Broadcasting recorded the Government's decision that for the present the B.B.C. should continue to be financed through licence fees. It added that the Government had looked to the Corporation to set themselves even more exacting financial objectives and the B.B.C. had undertaken to make special economies. As a result of these economies and of Government measures, no increase in the licence fee was foreseen before 1968.
"Earlier this year the Corporation decided to retain the services of McKinsey and Company to review the Corporation's present organisation and management methods with a view to improving their efficiency. Any improvements flowing from the

881
McKinsey study will be long term in their effect.
"Because of the efforts made by the Government in reducing licence evasion, and economies by the Corporation itself, we have been able to avoid an increase in the licence fee so far. But now the B.B.C. must have more revenue if it is to maintain and develop its broadcasting services. Accordingly, from January 1, 1969, the combined sound and monochrome television licence fee will be increased from £5 to £6; and the combined sound and colour television licence fee from £10 to £11. The sound-only licence fee will remain unchanged at 25s.
"I have also decided to increase the number of permitted hours of television broadcasting. For BBC-1 and Independent Television I have authorised an extra three and half hours a week, and an extra 50 hours a year for outside broadcasts. For BBC-2 I have authorised an extra two hours a week, and 25 hours a year for outside broadcasts."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, for repeating his right honourable friend's Statement. I will not say very much about it now, as we had a long debate last week dealing with the financing of B.B.C. television, and I made my views and the views of my noble friends very clear then. I am very glad to hear that the B.B.C. are themselves making economies as their contribution to the solution of this problem— provided, of course, they are economies which can well be made without reducing the service the B.B.C. give. Can the noble Lord say anything about these economies, such as where they will be made? Will they, for instance, affect the local sound radio experiment at all?
My Lords, I am also very glad to see that the cost of the sound radio licence is remaining unchanged, because this is a tremendous help for old and very badly off people. But the increase on the television licence is a very big one. It is a rise of 20 per cent. on the combined licence; but as the cost of a sound radio licence has not gone up, if you deduct
882
the cost of a radio licence from the cost of a combined licence, one sees that the television part of the licence has risen from £3 15s. to £4 15s., which is an increase of 26⅔ per cent.
If this were a private enterprise organisation, or even one of the nationalised boards, the Prices and Incomes Board would have looked into it very closely indeed. Have the Prices and Incomes Board been consulted about this? I welcome the "sugaring" of this particular pill at the end by the extra hours of broadcasting. So far as Independent Television is concerned, I am not quite clear whether the increase in permitted hours also automatically gives a slight increase in the permitted time of advertising.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, the noble Lord has given a great deal of information and asked a few questions. May I start by replying to his questions? As to the hole made in the Government's prices policy, there are circumstances in which price increases are unavoidable, as is recognised by the criteria published in the recent White Paper on policy. It is, however, of vital importance that before an increase is made all possible ways of avoiding it should have been fully examined. As I have explained, we have been successful by various means in avoiding an increase until the beginning of this year.
The answer to the noble Lord's question about what kind of steps the B.B.C. are taking to increase efficiency is that they are examining the financial control, and that is one of the reasons why they appointed McKinsey and Company to go into the matter. Regarding the question of reference to the N.B.P.I., I may say that the licence fee is neither a price nor a charge for the performance of services and, in common with other Revenue proposals, it does not come within the scope of matters which may be referred—the noble Lord seems to be laughing, but he has really disclosed a good deal of ignorance about what the Prices and Incomes Board can look into. Unlike the Post Office charges, the licence fee goes into the Consolidated Fund.
The noble Lord talked about the tremendous increase, but it is ¾d. a day, so let us have no exaggeration about that. He said that there had been an increase

883
of 20 per cent. and he is quite right, but some newspaper prices have gone up by 25 per cent. The price of the Evening Standard went up from 3d. to 4d. and then from 4d. to 5d. and that is a 66⅔ per cent. increase. I have not heard them howl about that increase in price, but they make a "song and dance" when it comes to publishing a price increase of this kind. Those were all the questions put by the noble Lord that I can remember.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, for repeating the Statement and to welcome the news that the licence fee for sound only is not to be raised. There are a great many people with small incomes who appreciate this service. As regards the Statement as a whole, may I take it that this represents a clear decision on the part of the Government not to introduce advertising into the B.B.C. programmes? If so, I think it is a wise decision. Regarding the television licence fee, I would ask whether the Government have considered the possibility of a remission of part of the fee for the benefit of those viewers who can get B.B.C.1 programmes but cannot get B.B.C.2 programmes?
LORD BOWLES: With regard to the decision of the B.B.C. not to advertise, I think that the feeling here was made clear by everything that was said in the House last week. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, may remember (I have forgotten whether he was present) that the initiative comes from the B.B.C. They have to make approaches to the Postmaster General if they desire to make a change in their general outlook. As to the question about the poorer people, it is difficult to distribute help in the form of kind; it is much better to do so by money. A licence concession would not help the poorest people because they would probably not have television at all and therefore they are not the people most likely to benefit. The Assistant Postmaster General explained on March 22 why it would be impossible to make a licence concession to people who had poor reception or did not get decent television programmes. There are 18 million licence holders and that is a great number. If the noble
884
Lord would think about it he would realise what a great organisation would be necessary to find out whether television reception was slightly below what was regarded as normal. There would be a tremendous argument on every occasion. In one case within the knowledge of the B.B.C. an inspector went to see a lady who complained that she was not getting proper reception of programmes and he found that the battery operating her set was completely dead. The noble Lord will see that that kind of investigation is quite outside the bounds of reasonable possibility.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, followed me. So far as the 25s. fee is concerned I welcome the fact that it is not to be increased. I asked only whether there was any possibility of a remission for people in those areas where the B.B.C.2 programme cannot be obtained.
LORD BOWLES: No, my Lords, there is not. The B.B.C. are making rapid progress with the provision of television programmes all over the country. The increase in the licence fee which is being asked for is necessary because of the extra effort which, at the request of the Postmaster General, the B.B.C. have put into developing the broadcasting and television services.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I put this point to the Minister? I understand from his Statement that some foreign firm has investigated the efficiency or inefficiency of the B.B.C. Why should not the B.B.C., like other nationalised undertakings, be subject to the Public Accounts Committee? Would the Minister agree that the Public Accounts Committee should have not only the right, but the duty to inquire into the competency, efficiency, cost and accounts of the B.B.C?
LORD BOWLES: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for that question. It is true that a foreign firm, McKinsey and Company, although they have not yet actually looked into this matter, have started to do so. They are, I believe, the same people who looked into the I.C.I. on the question of efficiency and improvements. I am not certain whether the noble Viscount is right in saying that the Public Accounts Committee have

885
power to look into the accounts of the B.B.C. However, I will find out and let the noble Viscount know.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, the Public Accounts Committee have whatever power is delegated to them by Parliament, and without any question they would have the right to do this.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl for referring to him as a Viscount. I can see no reason why anybody should stop the Public Accounts Committee from looking into this matter. I do not know that anybody has. I do not know why they have not taken the initiative, if they have the power. But I will let the noble Earl know as soon as I find out the information.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, could the noble Lord say what type of programmes will be included in these additional three and a half hours? Will there be more educational and scientific programmes? Have the Government, or the governing bodies of the two Authorities, laid down any conditions regarding the type of programme? And is this linked, to some extent, with the Government's plans for a so-called University of the Air?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, first of all, the noble Earl no doubt knows that the Government have not really any say in the programmes of the I.T.V. or the B.B.C. This is left to the Chairmen of both those bodies.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I said, "the Government or the governing bodies".
LORD BOWLES;: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. The B.B.C. may have decided on some more educational programmes; I do not know. This was announced only about an hour ago. I have no idea whether the B.B.C. are already preparing for this. I think they have some plans in view for increasing the hours of television, and in fact in future, instead of 30 hours a week for B.B.C. 2, it will be 32 hours a week. For outside broadcasts B.B.C. 2 will have 200 hours a year, of which up to 50 hours may be recorded
886
not more than 96 hours before. Without going into all the details, I can let the noble Earl see these figures. There is a general increase in the amount of television broadcasting and more live, and outside broadcasts. I think the noble Earl will feel that this is all right. The question of the University of the Air was referred to in our debate last week, and I referred to the fact that Channel 4 was being kept for the possibility of this being put on the air.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord clarify the answer that he gave my noble friend Lord Denham to the extent of saying whether the approved increase in total broadcasting hours for the I.T.A. covers also an increase of the total advertising time that they are allowed to broadcast?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I think they will be allowed to do what they like. It has been asked from time to time why the I.T.V., with its increased time, should get more advertising, and in that way not need help, when the B.B.C. is not paying in the same way. I think the E.T.V. will be entitled to more advertising time, although I have not the exact information at my disposal. That is a question that is often asked: Why can the I.T.V. make more profit with longer hours?
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, the noble Lord talked about licence evasion. We know that a short time ago this was estimated to involve a very large sum. Can he say now, after the efforts made to reduce that sum, what the estimated loss of revenue by evasion still is, and how it compares with the total which is now to be raised, which I think from the noble Lord's Statement amounts to £18 million, unless that figure includes sound licences as well as the joint licences?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, the last figure the noble Lord mentioned should be £15 million, and not £18 million. That is what we expect to get. That is exactly the loss the B.B.C. were incurring. About 18 months ago evasion was costing about £10 million a year, and that has now been reduced to £6½ million. That is quite a large reduction in 18 months.

TRANSPORT BILL
4.35 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: This Amendment is consequential on No. 291. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 165, line 40, leave out ("(e)")and insert ("(ii)").—(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 295:
Page 167, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) So much of section 97(2) of the principal Act as limits the extent to which section 42 of that Act is to apply to vehicles and persons in the public service of the Crown shall cease to have effect.").
As the law stands, orders made by a local authority under Section 42 relating to the control of on-street parking places for payment do not apply to vehicles and persons in the public service of the Crown. However, orders made by the appropriate Minister do apply to those vehicles and persons. Ministers have already delegated to local authorities their power to make parking meter orders. In effect, Ministers no longer make them. The Crown do, in practice, observe parking meter orders, so that the effect of the Amendment will virtually be formal, and will ensure uniformity in the law. In future, Crown vehicles and servants will be legally bound to obey orders controlling the use of parking places on highways for payment. I beg to move.
Clause 123, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 124 agreed to.
Clause 125 [Traffic signs, bollards, etc.]:
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE: I beg to move Amendment No. 296:
Page 168, line 33, leave out subsection (1).
I think that, for the Record, I should like to put it straight that my name is not Chesham, but Howe. I am particularly flattered to think there is some confusion, but that is the fact of the case. It appears that this Clause 125 is likely to encourage the imposition of
888
"blanket" speed limits which will involve no expense on signs whatsoever. I do not think that this is in the interests of the motorists. This is a short Amendment, and I will be as brief as possible over it.
It may well be considered desirable to vary the speed limits on different motorways from time to time, since conditions differ greatly as to the density of traffic, numbers of lanes, types of emergency warnings, signs, police supervision, accidents, and so on—all kinds of obstacles that might cause different signs to be erected on different motorways. The M.4, with which I know many of your Lordships are familiar, narrows down after a lengthy period of a three-lane dual carriageway to a two-lane dual carriageway, where tottering along at 70 m.p.h. can be dangerous. That is the sort of instance where it is possible that on certain motorways a different speed limit, either up or down, is needed.
It occurs to me, also, that tourists arriving in this country with left-hand drive cars, with our left-hand rule of the road, will be in some further confusion unless they have some indication of our overall speed limit. This is often confusing, even to British motorists in these islands. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Earl that this is the right way to achieve simplicity. The purpose of this subsection is to remove an anomaly concerning the signing of overall speed limits. The present situation is that overall limits on motorways must be indicated by signs, whereas overall limits on all-purpose roads do not have to be signed. The extraordinary position is that because of the appearance of the 70 m.p.h. sign on motorways the public are in no doubt that that is the maximum speed at which they can travel on the motorway. I do not think it was helpful to road safety to have the noble Earl talking about the 70 m.p.h. speed limit as "tottering along".
I would point out that a very large number of motorists think that the absence of signs on public roads means that in fact there is no speed limit. This is clearly shown by the fact that many motorists, when charged with exceeding the 70 m.p.h. limit on roads other than motorways have claimed in defence that

889
they thought the overall general speed limit applied only on motorways where it is indicated by signs. It may be claimed that motorists need and welcome signs on the motorways to inform them that an overall limit of 70 m.p.h. is in force; that without signs they will be misled into breaking the limit, and that the removal of the existing signs may give the mistaken impression that the 70 m.p.h. limit has been removed from motorways. However, none of these arguments answers the difficulty that having different signing systems on motorways and non-motorways is confusing to the motorist.
The Government consider that there should be uniformity in this matter and that the simplest way to achieve it is for the 70 m.p.h. limit to apply to both kinds of roads in exactly the same way. It will therefore follow that where there are no signs the limit will be 70 m.p.h., and where the limit is other than 70 m.p.h. it will be so indicated—as is the 30 m.p.h. limit at the entrance to a built-up area or the 40 m.p.h. limit which is in force in some places. It is true that the alternative of signposting all roads where the 70 m.p.h. limit applies would achieve the same purpose; but at a time when the Government are called upon—and rightly so—by all sections of the community not to spend money needlessly, it is an unnecessary expense to put 70 m.p.h. signs all over the country when exactly the same purpose can be achieved by having people know that where there is no sign there is a 70 m.p.h. limit. We cannot reasonably be asked to exercise all proper economy and, at the same time, be asked to spend money to achieve an object which can be achieved by not spending it.
I would point out that so far as motorways are concerned there would not be immediate steps to take down all the 70 m.p.h. signs. Obviously, we must allow time for the public to have it firmly fixed in mind that the 70 m.p.h. limit applies wherever it is not indicated to the contrary. Once this is quite firmly established, and I believe it will be established in a reasonably short time, we can remove the 70 m.p.h. signs from the motorway and the general public will know exactly where they are. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will accept that this is a step which is designed to
890
help motorists and has the incidental advantage of saving public money.
EARL HOWE: I thank the noble Lord for what he has said. I do not think we should put economy before the safety of the motorist; that factor should always be in our minds. I appreciate that these 70 m.p.h. signs are not coming down immediately; because it will obviously take some time before the motoring public fully appreciates the position. I still feel that there are certain roads in this country, principally motorways, on which even 70 m.p.h. is too fast. You may say that one should leave it to the motorists' intelligence and good sense to drive according to the conditions. This can generally be done; but we are also thinking of foreigners. My main concern is over the possibility of accidents to foreign tourists who do not fully understand the "blanket" speed limit. I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said. I have in mind that a White Paper on advisory speed limits is possibly coming out in the near future. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 296A:
Page 169, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) At the end of section 59, add the following words:—', and such regulaticns may lay down the specification for such object or device and such warning signs as shall he used in conjunction with it.'.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 296A in the name of my noble friends and myself. First, I should apologise for the late arrival of this Amendment on the Marshalled List; but it appeared in another form earlier so that I hope noble Lords opposite are prepared for it. I think it is now drafted in a rather more elegant form by direct reference to the 1967 Act which hat; been so conveniently amended. Therefore the point will be more easily taken. The point is a simple and an uncontroversial one. In Clause 59 of the 1967 Act the Minister is given power to make regulations for fixing warning devices for temporary obstructions. This covers the fixing of traffic lights by road building contractors when road work obstructs part of the highway and necessitates one-way working.
My wish is that the Minister's regulations should achieve a greater uniformity in the fixing of these temporary traffic lights. At present the variation in method of fixing the lights is so wide as sometimes to create an additional danger on a road, rather than to add to the safety. I am sure that noble Lords will have observed this themselves. Traffic lights are sometimes fixed so near bends as to limit vision so that a collision may occur between a car which is already stationary and waiting for the traffic lights to change and the next oncoming car. Sometimes traffic lights are fixed against the skyline where, in bright sunshine, the light is invisible. There is a great variation of ways of positioning them so that they are not easy to see. I should like to suggest certain minimum requirements to be satisfied in fixing these temporary traffic lights, always bearing in mind that, in the very nature of things, the driver will not be expecting to meet a set of traffic lights on the open road and will come upon them by surprise.
These are my suggestions as to the minimum conditions. First, the regulations should lay down that there should be a large coloured warning sign, of standard design and size, fixed at least 100 yards before the lights, indicating that there are emergency traffic lights ahead. Second, the regulations should require a background screen of adequate size fixed behind the traffic lights to ensure that they show up in all conditions; and, third, there should be adequate minimum brightness—adequate candle power—for the lights so that they show up properly.
There may well be other conditions; but, in general, these emergency traffic lights, which are used on quite a large scale by road building contractors, are a great improvement over the man with the red flag whom one used to see who usually waved one in front of oncoming traffic. Even though I think it most desirable that there should be uniformity in the conditions in fixing these lights, this is not the case at present, and my Amendment would achieve it. I hope that the Government will accept it. I beg to move.
4.50 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: I think the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, will be
892
rather disappointed at the first words which I am briefed to say: that this Amendment would extend unnecessarily the Minister's control. Not long ago I listened to a programme on the radio—I think it was one in the morning—on this subject, when someone went round examining the different ways in which temporary road signs were being put up and the tremendous variety of degrees of safety, or lack of safety, which they accorded. They had all the paraphernalia necessary for success, but the one thing which seemed to be pretty clear was that in every case where they were not safe it was because the people on the spot were not paying attention to the regulations governing these signs, or because, as the signs were put up in the wrong spot, they did not serve their purpose.
Perhaps I should explain the present situation. The erection of all traffic signs, whether permanent or temporary, is the responsibility of the highway authority or, in special circumstances, of the police; and for giving effect to traffic regulation orders in Greater London, of the Greater London Council. The only traffic signs which may be used are those prescribed in the Traffic Signs Regulations 1964, unless they are, in special cases, specifically authorised by the Minister as temporary signs, because the requirement or restrictions or prohibitions concerned cannot be conveyed by a prescribed sign. The need for such temporary non-prescribed or unauthorised signs should be very rare, but when the need does arise the highway authorities may, exceptionally, give permission, under the provisions of the regulations, for their use.
As the highway authority for motorways and trunk authorities, the Minister includes in all his road works contracts the following clause:
"Temporary traffic signs. The contractor shall erect and maintain on the works, and at prescribed points on the approaches to the works, all traffic signs necessary for the direction and control of traffic, and the size of all such signs and the lettering and wording thereon shall be approved by the engineers before erection. The signs shall be reflectorised or adequately illuminated by night by approved means."
As the grant-paying authority for improvements of principal roads, the Minister similarly requires highway authorities

893
to use the Ministry standard form and conditions of contract which includes this clause.
For other roadworks it is customary for highway authorities to include the same clause, but even if they do not they are still responsible, and no signs may be erected without their approval. The use of this clause in contracts gives the highway authorities full powers to ensure that any roadworks are adequately signed, lighted and guarded. If it were possible for the Minister to make regulations requiring the contractors to sign road works in a certain manner it would, as already mentioned, undermine the authority and responsibility of the highways authorities.
In situations where there are difficult roadworks, the signing is normally agreed between the highway authority and the police, and where appropriate the advice of the Minister's divisional road engineer is also sought. In addition, Section 8 of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 requires all statutory undertakers adequately to fence and guard any works and to erect such traffic signs as are required by the highway authority.
To assist highway authorities, statutory undertakers, contractors and others concerned with the safety of roadworks, the Ministry of Transport published in 1962 two traffic safety codes, one for roadworks on roads other than motorways, and the other for roadworks and emergencies on motorways. These codes are now being revised to form an up-to-date and comprehensive code; and when it is issued all highway authorities, statutory undertakers, and so on, will be advised to include in their roadworks contracts a clause requiring compliance with the code. In the meantime, a circular is being issued covering the main points which will be included in the code. This revised code will also form part of the "Road Works" chapter of the Minister's Traffic Signs Manual, a document giving detailed guidance on all aspects of traffic sign usage.
The result of all this is that we are in no doubt that as between the Ministry, on the one part, and the local authorities and the statutory undertakers, on the other, there will be no difficulty at all. The way in which it should be done, and the facilities which are used in doing it, will be perfectly clear to all concerned.
894
It is not the Minister or Parliament but the authorities responsible for carrying out the works who will be in a better position to ensure that the matter is dealt with properly on the spot.
I hope that what is being said here, and what is being done in the revision of these safety codes, will bring home to the responsible people in local authorities and among the statutory undertakers that, whatever Parliament may do to create the safest kind of conditions in temporary schemes, it will not be effective if the work is not in fact carded out properly on the spot. We think that what is in the law now is just as likely as some other provision written into this Bill to achieve the purpose. If we write this provision into the Bill it is no mo-e likely to succeed than what happens at the present time if the people on the spot do not pay proper attention to it.
I hope that I have persuaded the noble Lord that there is absolutely nothing between the Government and him on this matter. It is simply that we do not think that any useful purpose would be served by adding these words to the Bill; that, in fact, he is already as near achieving his purpose under the existing procedure.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, gave his usual comprehensive answer, and I agree that on paper the situation is satisfactory. But he was gracious enough to give me my case to start with—that in practice it is not satisfactory—as he said he heard a radio programme describing the very wide variation which in fact exists and undoubtedly causes danger. I welcome the revision of the codes; I am sure that that is a good plan. I also welcome the sending out of the circular. But this brief debate gives the opportunity to make the point that the present situation on the ground is not satisfactory; that either the road contractors themselves or the local authorities are not taking enough trouble to see that these temporary traffic lights are fixed properly. Some of them do; others do not. And, between the local authority and tie contractor, the result is that sometimes these signs are not satisfactory: they are not safe, and they may well lead to accidents.
I should not like to exaggerate this situation and say that there is a position of such danger that the Minister ought

895
to act. But although I would agree with the noble Lord that it is undesirable to interfere with local authorities in carrying out their powers in such matters, he will appreciate that there are some overriding factors of road safety where the Minister lays down standards, as indeed in the case of the maximum speed limit which we were talking about earlier. We have not reached that situation yet, but I make the point that there is an unsatisfactory state of affairs here, and I would ask that the noble Lord should call the attention of the Ministry of Transport, and of the Minister of Transport, to this matter. I would also ask him whether he will perhaps alert his divisional road engineers to the fact that this is something they should keep an eye on, to see how local authorities are administering it —whether it is they or the road contractors who are at fault—so that when we get this new code we generally get a better standard of safety and greater uniformity in fixing these traffic lights. I certainly do not wish to add to the Bill anything which, as the noble Lord rightly says, is not necessary; but I hope that my words will have some effects in the practical result on the ground. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 125 agreed to.
Clause 126 [Increase of responsibility of local authorities in connection with road traffic]:
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved Amendment No. 297A:
Page 172, line 16, at end insert—
("(bbb) proper facilities for the delivery and collection of goods and merchandise.")
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to ensure that traffic authorities shall pay due regard to the provision of proper facilities for delivery and collection of goods and merchandise. As I understand the Bill, the general duty placed on the G.L.C. by Section 84(1) of the 1967 Act will be extended to all local authorities throughout the country and will include a proviso as to the importance of facilitating the passage of public service vehicles and securing the safety and convenience of passengers.
For the sake of clarity I should like to quote part of Section 84(1) of the 1967
896
Act as it will be amended by this Bill and, if your Lordships are willing to accept it, by my Amendment. It will read as follows:
"It shall be the duty of the Greater London Council and every other local authority upon whom functions are conferred by or under this Act so to exercise the functions conferred on them by this Act as, so far as practicable having due regard to—

(a) the desirability of securing and maintaining reasonable access to premises,

(b) the effect on the amenities of any locality affected,

(bb) the importance of facilitating the passage of public service vehicles and of securing the safety and convenience of persons using or desiring to use such vehicles,

(bbb) proper facilities for the delivery and collection of goods and merchandise, and

(c) any other matters appearing to the Council or authority to be relevant,

to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic."
and so on.
The clause we are now considering is concerned with conferring greater freedom and responsibility on local authorities. In considering the effect of the regulation of road traffic, it would seem to me to be logical also to consider the question of facilities for delivery and collection of goods and merchandise. It is surely part of the traffic problem and as it is the wish of Her Majesty's Government to improve the flow of public service vehicles the acceptance of this Amendment would improve the flow of delivery vans and vehicles. It would surely ensure that delivery and collection of merchandise could be carried out more expeditiously.
There is no definition of the word "access" in the 1967 Act. It says merely that due regard will be paid to the desirability of securing and maintaining reasonable access to premises. The object of this Amendment is to ensure that local authorities will pay due regard to the provision of proper facilities for the delivery and collection of goods and merchandise while bearing in mind the essential character of goods transport operations, thus making for less delays, greater efficiency and productivity. I beg to move.
LORD BOWLES: Section 84(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act—as proposed to be amended by the Bill as it

897
now stands—imposes on traffic authorities in the exercise of their functions certain obligations. Among these is a duty to have regard
"to the desirability of securing and maintaining reasonable access to premises".
This Amendment seeks to add to these obligations a duty to "have regard to proper facilities for the delivery and collection of goods and merchandise". To do this, however, is quite unnecessary since the obligation to have regard to proper facilities for loading and unloading goods is contained in the more general one to secure and maintain reasonable access to premises.
I was rather surprised, the noble Lord having read this section out, that he did not realise it covered the point he was making.
LORD MERRIVALE: if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I think it is a question of interpretation.
LORD BOWLES: Very well. This, of course, would not be the case were there a special provision in Section 84, as there is in Section 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act which we discussed last night, in our debate on Amendment No. 287A, requiring restrictions on loading and unloading goods to be disregarded in determining whether access to premises is interfered with. There is, however, no such provision in Section 84, and restrictions on loading and unloading will therefore be covered, in this context, by the obligation to have regard to the desirability of maintaining and securing reasonable access.
The Amendment therefore adds nothing to Section 84, and it is in fact undesirable in that it singles out one particular way in which access to premises can be interfered with. I hope it has already been made clear in the debate we have had on two previous Amendments touching on this question of access, that the Government fully accepts the importance of the need for access. I can assure your Lordships that this will be spelt out in detail in the manual of guidance the Minister will be issuing in due course to local authorities on the use of the road traffic powers. The manual will point out that, where roads are banned to traffic, this should only be done where arrangements can properly be made for the delivery and collection of
898
goods during the time when the road is open to traffic, or by other means (for example, trolleys) when it is closed. The manual will also stress the importance of proper and systematic consultation.
It is desirable to keep the Statute as simple and flexible as possible. There is, in our view, no need to write provisions, over and above those referred to, into Statute Law itself. I would respectfully ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I think the difficulty is the meaning of "access". Would it be possible to put a definition of "access" into the regulations so that uncertainty is ruled out?
LORD BOWLES: I will certainly refer that point to my right honourable friend the Minister.
LORD MERR1VALE: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, and also to my noble friend Lord Nugent for highlighting the request I made towards the end of my remarks. Due, I think, to the support of my noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, will, I understand, look into this question of defining the word "access", and with that assurance on his part—
LORD BOWLES: Not in the Statute but in the manual.
LORD MERRIVALE: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 126 agreed to.
Clause 127 [Enforcement—fixed penalties and traffic wardens]:
5.8 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 297B:
Page 174, line 10, at end insert—
("Provided that the Secretary of State may by order specify particular circumstances in which the liability to punishment for such an offence shall cease.")
The noble Lord said: This is primarily a probing Amendment. Clause 127(1)(a) extends the fixed penalty procedure from a stationary motor vehicle to offences on a moving vehicle. This is quite an important extension and I should like to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Stonham about the Government's policy behind the extension of the fixed penalty system.
It is, of course, common knowledge to all noble Lords in this Committee that the police, in enforcing the law, would normally proceed on the basis of what they call "token enforcement". Experience has shown them that with most offences it is sufficient to catch and prosecute the most flagrant offenders in order to deter the others who might be tempted to break the law. This is obviously a sound approach. I recognise that this does not always happen, but with regard to parking offences experience has sadly taught that there has to be 100 per cent. enforcement in order to make it effective.
Nevertheless, as the fixed penalty system is extended over a greater range of offences, is there going to be any discretion for the traffic warden, in dealing with offenders, or must there be an automatic prosecution and fining of the offender who pleads guilty? In other words, as these fixed penalties are extended and traffic wardens' powers are extended too, will the traditional system which the police have used, of warning an offender where they think it suitable, be within the scope of the traffic wardens' powers, or must the fixed penalty be automatic? That is the purpose of my Amendment: to provide a peg on which to make this inquiry. I beg to move.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord, Lord Nugent. of Guildford, said that his Amendment was a probing Amendment. I confess that the purpose of the Amendment was not clear to me before he made his speech and it is only a little more clear now. The Amendment follows paragraph (a), which refers to offences
"committed in respect of a vehicle by its being left or parked on a road during the hours of darkness without the lights or reflectors required by law"
and says,
"the words 'left' or 'parked' shall cease to have effect".
The effect of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord—and I am quite sure he did not mean it to have this effect —would be to enable the Secretary of State to specify by order the circumstances in which there would be no liability to punishment for a vehicle lighting offence. That is the effect of the Amendment. The Secretary of State would, in effect, be able to provide, by
900
an order subject to the Negative Resolution procedure only, that in prescribed circumstances the penalties determined by Parliament for these offences under a different Act should not take effect. The Amendment therefore appears to give the Secretary of State so general a power that it might even be claimed that under it he could end liability to punishment, even in a case which had been adjudicated by a court.
As I understood the noble Lord, he was concerned not to have extended, or if extended to have explained, the fixed penalties to vehicles that were moving, as compared with those for vehicles that were stationary. This does not seem to be achieved by his Amendment. The question does not arise. The Amendment itself is not in an acceptable form. Section 80 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1957 is concerned with offering a fixed penalty as an alternative to prosecution. The Amendment, however, is not concerned only with fixed penalties, but with permitting a person to escape any form of penalty or liability to punishment. In the case of lighting offences they would escape. An Amendment to Section 80 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act is not an appropriate way of achieving this objective. It would require either extensive amendment of the Road Transport Lighting Acts 1957–67, or an entirely new provision of its own, setting out the extent to which the Secretary of State should and should not be able to order penalties not to apply.
I had it in mind that the noble Lord might have been thinking of lighting offences, following on the paragraph which his Amendment would immediately follow, and it might follow on the discussion that arose in another place. Apparently he is not concerned about that. With regard to the question of oral warnings, there will be no change at all in the practice of police officers giving oral warnings. Traffic wardens will continue to be able not to serve a notice. Stopping moving cars at night for small lighting offences, in our view, is not likely to be a matter to exercise police officers much in practice.
On a later Amendment I think we can deploy in some detail any question of changes in the duties of traffic wardens and the way those duties will derive.

901
They will in fact be very limited indeed, and will always derive direct from the Commissioners of Police, and they will be only such duties as Parliament would approve for the field in which traffic wardens can operate. I do not think, therefore, that there is any point in the case that the noble Lord has made. Certainly, as I see it, it is not related to his Amendment, and he certainly does not wish what his Amendment quite obviously would require.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I feel I owe the noble Lord an apology, if I misled him. I could have raised the matter on the Question that the clause stand part. The question I wish to ask arose out of the effect of Clause 127(1)(a), which, as I understand it, extends the fixed penalty procedure from a lighting offence on a vehicle which is stationary to a lighting offence on a vehicle which is moving. It was because the fixed penalty procedure was being extended in what seemed to me to be a quite important way that I wished to ask this question. I am not entirely clear about the answer, but as the noble Lord has rightly said, I have another Amendment down later, No. 301, when perhaps we can have a more general discussion on this subject. The noble Lord will then have a clearer idea of what I am driving at, and we shall probably get a more satisfactory answer. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STONHAM moved LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 298:
Page 174, leave out lines 11 and 12 and insert—
("(b) at the end of paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the word 'or'").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Shepherd. With this Amendment I should like to take Amendments Nos. 299 and 300. These are purely minor drafting Amendments to make the drafting of the new paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) for subsection (1) of Section 80 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 consistent with that of the existing paragraphs (a) to (c) of the subsection. They make no change of substance. I beg to move.
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 299 and 300.
Amendments moved—
Page 174, line 26, at end insert ("or")
Page 174, line 34, at end insert (" or ") —(Lord Stonharn.)
5.19 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved Amendment No. 300Z:
Page 174, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (5) of the said section 80 (which provides for payment of a fixed penalty under that section to be made to suet justices' clerk within the meaning of section 27 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949 as may be prescribed) at the end there shall be added the words 'and where, in England or Wales, by virtue of regulations made for the purposes of this subsection, a justices' clerk for a petty sessions area comprised in the area of one responsible authority within the meaning of the said section 27 discharges functions in connection with a fixed penalty for an offence alleged to have been committed in a petty sessions area comprised in the area of another such authority—

(a) that other authority shall male to the first-mentioned authority such pa3ment in connection with the discharge of those functions as may be agreed between them or, in default of such agreement, as may be determined by the Secretary of St ate; and

(b) any such payment between responsible authorities shall be taken into account in determining for the purposes of subsection (2) of the said section 27 the net cost to those authorities respectively of tie functions referred to in that subsection'.")

The noble Lord said: As your Lordships are no doubt aware, tilt larger urban authorities are beginning to draw up transport and traffic plans that will be necessary to keep our towns and cities reasonable and efficient places to work and live in. The Greater London Council has made considerable progress in this connection, and clearly an important part of these plans, particularly in the years ahead, will be the making of coordinated traffic management schemes. These are enforced mainly by the fixed penalty system. The number of fixed penalty notices served each year in London is very large, and is g rowing. For example, there were 270,000 notices in 1966 and nearly 460,000 in 1967. The number is already so large that a computer has been installed to deal with as much as possible of the clerical work that the fixed penalties system creates. By using a computer the clerical work created by any likely increase in the number of notices will be able to be dealt with using fewer staff than would

903
otherwise have been necessary and providing a better service. At present, the computer is taking on work in the Inner London Session area, where the court and police clerical staffs have for some time worked in the same building. As from early next year it will be the turn of the Outer London Commission Areas to be helped by computer working. This, in my submission, will be best done if all the computer aspects of the work are centralised in the present Inner London offices.
No difficulty arises on the police side, but the clerical work that would be undertaken on behalf of the Outer London Commission Areas and Home Counties courts which will be served by the computer will have to be paid for, and there is at present no statutory authority for the local authorities concerned to pay for the service that will be provided. I understand that the authorities interested in the Metropolitan Police plans are agreed in principle that the clerical work associated with Metropolitan Police fixed penalty notices ought to be centralised in this way, and that discussions for effecting this in practice await the taking of a power to enable the financial arrangements to be made. The Amendment seeks to do this by enabling one authority to pay another for the services it receives in this way. It is written in general terms, as the problem is likely to arise in places outside London in due course.
The Amendment therefore provides in paragraph (a) that when a justices' clerk in one Commission Area is designated to discharge functions connected with the fixed penalty system in respect of tickets issued in another area, then the responsible authority in the other area shall pay for the services rendered. The authorities concerned will agree between themselves how to calculate the payment, but if they cannot agree the Home Secretary can do so by making a determination. This follows similar provisions in the Justices of the Peace Act 1949, where a magistrates' courts' committee and a local authority do not agree about ordinary court expenses. Paragraph (b) ensures that payments made for this purpose can be properly brought to account when the Home Secretary repays certain court expenses
904
each year. The Amendment will not lay any new duties upon local authorities, but it will enable them to make agreements between themselves for modern technology to be used to improve the administration of the fixed penalty system, and this could have a vital bearing on traffic arrangements over wide areas. I beg to move.
LORD STONHAM: When you get the position where last year in the Metropolitan Police area alone there were 460,000 fixed penalty notices served, which was approaching double the number of cases in 1966, and they are still going up, then it is only possible to handle them by using a computer. This is what we are now doing, but it is highly desirable that the benefits of this centralised working should be extended to other local authorities and done in agreement with all concerned. This suggestion from my noble friend would be a most valuable provision. It will greatly facilitate administrative work and will prove extremely useful, and I hope your Lordships will agree that the Amendment should be accepted.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 300A:
Page 174, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (6) of the said section 80 (which provides that a notice under subsection (2) of that section shall specify the offence alleged, and give such particulars of the offence as are necessary for giving reasonable information of the allegation) for the words from 'specify' to 'allegation' there shall be substituted the words ' give such particulars of the circumstances alleged to constitute the offence as are necessary for giving reasonable information thereof'.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 300A. The effect of this Amendment is to enable a fixed penalty notice to describe in ordinary language the offence for which it is issued without having to specify the particular provision of the individual enactment which creates the offence. The object is to enable the notice to state the offence in question simply and not to present the motorist with a long list citing paragraphs in orders which cause confusion by their sheer length as well as administrative difficulties.
The form of the fixed penalty notice is prescribed by the Secretary of State in regulations made under Section 80(11) of

905
the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967, subject to the requirement of Section 80(6) that the notice should "specify the offence alleged and give such particulars of the offence as are necessary for giving reasonable information of the allegation". This provision is interpreted quite rightly as requiring the individual enactment creating the offence Lo be cited, as well as the description of the offence. With the proliferation of parking places and waiting restriction orders a situation has already been reached where in one area the same offence may be created by several different enactments each relating to a different group of streets. As a consequence the police in one force commonly have to use a number of different editions of the fixed penalty notice, all relating to the same offences. The result is greater expense in the production of notices and wasteful destruction of notices when new orders are made or old ones rescinded, even though the offences, and perhaps even the streets, do not change.
If the Amendment is accepted, drivers will be clearly informed, in simple language, of the offences they are alleged to have committed. In practice few, if any, wish to study the relevant enactment before deciding whether to pay the fixed penalty or await proceedings and those drivers who doubt whether a fixed penalty notice has been properly issued commonly write to the police. If a driver wishes to study an order, he is already likely to ask the police for further details and if the Amendment is accepted the Home Secretary will discuss arrangements with chief officers of police to ensure that a driver can be readily informed on inquiry of the title of the local order in respect of which a fixed penalty notice has been issued.
At present there are 20 types of fixed penalty notice in use, and eventually there may well be 53 covering the whole of the Metropolitan police district. In order to reduce expense, Metropolitan police notices now list the offences and citations as a separate part of the notice on cheaper paper. There is a different list for each type of notice. If the requirement to cite enactments remains, it will be necessary to continue having separate lists and to destroy them and reprint fresh editions whenever changes—including consolidations—are made in local orders. Last year the Road Traffic Regulation Act and two Greater London
906
Council orders, consolidating waiting and loading restrictions, each made it necessary to reprint all the fixed penalty notices. Twenty-four other orders were made affecting one or more types of notice. Similar consolidation measures this year are likely to involve printing three batches of new schedules for each of 20 types of ticket, and new orders expected this year are likely to involve production of 30 to 40 other new lists. Apart from the expense of production and distribution, these arrangements leave open the possibility of fixed penalty notices being issued in error with outdated lists.
If the need to cite enactments were removed the fixed penalty notices for different boroughs would need to be distinguished only by a code letter, and only five types of fixed penalty notice would be necessary for the whole of Greater London, which has five commission areas, each at present having fixed penalties received at one central office. If the Amendment is accepted, the Commissioner of Police prop3ses to ensure that the title of the relevant enactment can be discovered by inquiry at any Metropolitan Police station and that the enactment itself will be available to be read at the police station in the area where the notice is issued. I think that this Amendment is a benefaction to man, whether he be motorist or police officer. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord has moved this Amendment most persuasively, but I think he would agree that what your Lordships must tie concerned with is that where a notice of a fixed penalty is given, the person on whom the notice is served will still have the full option as to whether to pay the fixed penalty or to elect to have his case heard. The noble Lord said that there will be symbols or letters by which the actual offence can be identified and, if I understood him correctly, the person concerned can in each case go to a police station and verify the particular offence in regard to which he has been called upon to pay this fixed penalty. If that is so, if that option is open to him and he can see whether he is being correctly summoned to pay a fixed penalty, and whether he really will be likely to be convicted if he goes to court,

907
that is all right. But I am certain that the noble Lord will understand if we are just a little inclined to have misgivings in regard to the difficulties that arise here.
I am glad to see a barrister present in the House now; I was hoping that there would be one. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, who will be able to appreciate the misgivings that I am feeling and who can deal with them a great deal better than I can. I believe this is a really important point, because we are moving from the point at which somebody is charged with an offence and is charged before the court, to the point where he is liable to pay a fixed penalty unless he chooses to go to court. Now we seem to be going a little further, to where he is being asked to pay the fixed penalty or, if you like, being given the option to pay a fixed penalty without the offence actually being specified and merely with
"such particulars of the circumstances alleged to constitute the offence as are necessary for giving reasonable information thereof."
What is "thereof"?—the offence, or the circumstances? I do not know. I am not entirely happy about this, and I should like to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has to say about it, and any other legally qualified member of the Committee, before we accept this Amendment.
LORD AIREDALE: I was not expecting to be invited to address the Committee on this matter. Had I expected this I should have gone into it in a great deal more detail than I have had time to do. I have studied this matter for only about five minutes, but certainly I have misgivings. The Minister's speech seemed to me to indicate that there is a great deal the matter with the Statute Book and with the book of Statutory Instruments containing the subordinate legislation. But surely it must be that if a person is to be charged with an offence the police must satisfy themselves in every case that an offence appears to have been committed, and they must therefore be satisfied that there is a statutory offence created, whether by the Statute itself or by subordinate legislation.
If the police, who are professionals in this matter, are likely to be in difficulty in being able to cite the particular offence
908
which is alleged, what hope is there for the alleged offender, a layman in these matters, being able to discover what offence has been committed? I should have thought it was in every case a good exercise for the police to satisfy themselves under what section of what Statute or Statutory Instrument an alleged offence has been committed, and that they should be required to specify it in the notice.
It would not confuse or "fox" the alleged offender to be told at the end of the notice, "Contrary to section so-and-so of such-and-such". If that meant nothing to him he could disregard it. It would not need more than about two lines of typescript; but for some people it would be a great advantage and would save them either having to search the Statute Book or go to a solicitor and it would be a good exercise for the police in every case to satisfy themselves positively that an offence had apparently been committed in this case.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I intervene for one moment, to mention to the noble Lord that under this clause it is not now only a question of the police but also of traffic wardens.
LORD AIREDALE: Yes, a fortiori traffic wardens most certainly; because it would be a sorry day if the police, or even more so traffic wardens, were to be encouraged in the least degree to say to themselves: "We are pretty sure that somewhere in the Statute Book there is an offence which covers these circumstances, and we do not have to put it in the notice. It is all right; we can serve the notice without having to make 100 per cent. certain that this constitutes an offence. We are 99 per cent. certain, and we think it is safe to take a chance" I want them to be 100 per cent. certain, and to put the two lines of typescript at the foot of the notice, saying: "Contrary to section so-and-so of such-and-such".
5.38 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: Noble Lords are not merely "looking a gift horse in the mouth", they have opened its mouth to examine the stoppings in its teeth. It is proper that they should do so. But here we are considering the law as it stands at present. This insists that under Section 80(6) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 every notice should specify the

909
offence alleged and give such particulars of the offence as are necessary for giving reasonable information of the allegation. This has been interpreted, and still is interpreted, as necessitating the citation of all the Acts, including the local Acts, which created the offences in question; and as I have said, by next year there will be 53 different possible citations for the same offence in the Metropolitan area alone, and also variations from borough to borough. This is not merely calculated to upset motorists, but to drive them, the police officers and traffic wardens stark raving mad.
This is a simple sensible proposal which I thought would have appealed to every noble Lord in the Committee. I said that the notice will say in clear language what the offence is: it will say, "You were waiting at a meter bay after an excess charge had been incurred." That is the kind of simple language which a motorist will understand. He might dispute that he was waiting at a meter bay after the excess charge had been incurred. That would be a point on which, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has suggested, the constable or traffic warden must satisfy himself that an offence has been committed. As I indicated, the law is being satisfied at present by the issue, with the fixed penalty statement, of a piece of paper which, of course, varies every few months when a new Act of Parliament is passed or when the Greater London Council introduce new regulations, and which has to be replaced every three, four, five or six months. This piece of paper cites the number, not just one, but the number of possible offences under the different enactments, and this seems to us to be entirely unnecessary as they all relate to the same incident. All that will be done in future, will be the provision of a list of names of local orders at the police stations. But if the motorist wants to study that it will be given to him. He will not be denied anything.
As far as concerns the question of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, about the option to go for trial, that will be completely unaffected; there is no difference whatsoever. When the police officer or warden says, "You are committing this specific offence", describing the offence in simple terms, and the motorist says, "No, I was not; I will not accept the
910
'plaster'"—or whatever they call the fixed penalty—"I am going to court", fair enough he can go to court. At that stage—the issuing of the local summons when the motorist has elected to go for trial—there will be the reference to the paragraph in whatever Act or by-law the summons is issued under. It will, of course, be stated in full exactly as it is now.
So the situation is this. If a motorist who, in the view of a police officer, has committed an offence, of a kind to which a fixed penalty would be appropriate, accepts the fixed penalty, the offence he is alleged to have committed is described in simple terms. If he accepts the fixed penalty notice knowing or accepting that he has committed this offence, then that is the end of the matter, and he pays the fine. If he does not—and he has an inalienable right not to accept it—then he will go to trial. If the matter is prcceeded with and the summons issued, then the enactment will be quoted in detail just as it is now. Really, there is no it fringe-merit of a motorist's present rights or liberties, but merely a simplification of the procedure under which, if he agrees, certain offences can be dealt with. That is all this Amendment does.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: As a layman, I find some attraction in simpler words which tell the average offender just what his offence is. There are two points, but I think the noble Lord has satisfied one of them. There is the point that the offender has a long-stop right to plead not guilty and go to court when the matter will be tried in the ordinary way. There was also the point that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, brought out, that if the charge can be put in this rather more general form, that this might lead a traffic warden who was not 100 per cent. certain of the offence still to proceed to send cut the sheet. Is there some central register or record where these offences are recorded in the police station or the administrative office from which the traffic warden works—I suppose there is—where all the details are put down, and is it possible to indicate when the sheet is sent out that if the offender wants any further information he can be given it? This would seem to meet it both ways. I think 99 people out of 100, when they get this, would say, "Yes, I did it; I might as

911
well pay up" and that is the end of it and they know what it is. But there may be occasions when they do not and will want to question precisely what the offence is and what regulation, what Act, they have offended against. If they could ask for that then I should have thought we would have met it both ways.
LORD STONHAM: I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, was in the Chamber when I moved this Amendment, but I said that if your Lordships accepted this Amendment, then the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis proposes to ensure at once that the title of the relevant enactment can be obtained merely by asking at any Metropolitan police station, and that the enactment itself will be available to be read at the police station in the area in which the notice is issued by any motorist against whom there is an allegation. So if there is any doubt it can discovered immediately without trouble.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: Could a note to that effect be put on the bottom of the form which deals with the offence in the way set out in Amendment 300A saying that if the motorist wishes for further details of the enactment referred to they are obtainable from a police station, or something like that?
LORD STONHAM: That is a most valuable suggestion. I would have thought that would have been done in any case, but I will certainly pass it on. I might go a little further than that: there will be in the whole of Greater London just the five commission areas. I did not raise the point about a code letter that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, mentioned. The code letter is only to indicate the borough, not the enactment. There will be only five types of fixed penalty notice necessary for the whole of Greater London relating to the five commission areas. All the penalties—this is again the point of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent—will be received at one central office, but information can be obtained at any police station, and the particular enactment under which the offence is alleged will be available for reading at the police station in the area.
I think this is something motorists will really welcome. Motorists will ask themselves, "Have I committed the offence?"
912
"Have I overstayed my limit parking?", or "Have I done something I should not have done?", and not "Have I committed an offence under Subsection (8) of Section 94?" and so on. If he says to himself, "No I have not", then in most cases he will not accept the fixed penalty; then the position is exactly the same as it is now. When he agrees with the warden or police officer that he has done what he is alleged to have done, then the only possible doubt could be whether the fine, the fixed penalty, is appropriate; in other words, whether it is the right one. But there are not a multiplicity of penalties, and these things are easily understood. I will certainly look very carefully at what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has suggested.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: May I ask the Minister one question? Are these offences the kind that if they accumulate in triplicate the licence will be at risk, because people would be much more likely to contest them if they are than if they are not.
LORD STONHAM: It is not possible to give a categorical answer covering the whole field, but in general the answer is "No".
LORD AIREDALE: If the information is going to be so readily available at a police station if the alleged offender wants it, I cannot see what possible objection there can be to requiring it to be put at the end of the notice in two lines "Contrary to …" and then to quote the enactment which would so readily be quoted to the person if he went to the police station. It requires two lines of transcript.
LORD STONHAM: I do not see how one can have 53 different enactments in two lines. This was not what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, suggested. He suggested informing the motorist, "If you don't agree, the easiest way to find out what your rights are is to go to such-and-such a police station."
5.50 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amend ment No. 300AA:
Page 175, line 17, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b).
The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to leave out paragraphs (a) and (b)

913
of the proposed new subsection (4A). Among the functions which may be transferred to traffic wardens are those relating to the keeping of order and the prevention of obstruction, included in the two Acts referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b).
The Metropolitan Police Act 1839 is described in its long title as:
"An Act for further improving the police in or near the Metropolis".
Section 52 says—I am afraid I have not been able to check what may have happened to Section 52 in the intervening 130 years or so:
"That shall be lawful for the Commissioners of Police from Time to Time, and as Occasion shall require, to … give Directions to the Constable; for keeping Order and for preventing Obstruction of the Thoroughfares in the immediate Neighbourhood of Her Majesty's Palaces and the Public Offices, the High Court of Parliament, the Courts of Law and Equity, the Police Courts, the Theatres and other Places of public Resort, and in any case where the Streets and Thoroughfares may be thronged or may be liable to be obstructed."
The point at which my Amendment is directed is the function of keeping order. I should have thought we should be careful about giving traffic wardens functions related to the keeping of order. I should also have thought that keeping order would be well outside the Long Title of this Bill, which is:
"to make further provision with respect to transport and relevant matters".
With respect, keeping order is not really a relevant matter; it is a much wider matter than transport. I should not object to traffic wardens' having duties in relation to the prevention of obstruction, but it seems to me, at any rate, that keeping order is quite a different matter. I would therefore suggest that these words be removed from the Bill. I beg to move.
LORD STONHAM: The effect of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, would be to prevent the Commissioners of Police for the Metropolis and for the City from issuing directions to traffic wardens to keep the streets clear from obstruction in the vicinity of palaces, public offices and places of public resort when they are likely to be thronged or obstructed. This would seriously hamper the use of traffic wardens to deal with traffic diversions
914
and to keep routes clear for processions, such as the Lord Mayor's Procession or the State Opening of Parliament.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Before the noble Lord goes on—he is quite rightly reading from his brief—he has rot mentioned the keeping of order at all: it does not appear to be in his brief, yet this is the main point I am raising. I agree about the diversions, but it is the keeping of order that I am concerned about.
LORD STONHAM: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to continue: he interrupted rather quickly. I am telling him the effect of his Amendment. As he is well aware, the police have had these powers for 129 years and have exercised them, I should have thought, with the greatest discretion and to general and almost complete satisfaction.
The noble Lord has made it perfectly clear that he is concerned, in particular, about traffic wardens. I am happy to show that his fears in this respect are groundless. The noble Lord appears to be afraid that the Secretary of State will be able to prescribe public order duties as duties which may be perfonned by traffic wardens. But the position is that the words in brackets in Clause 127 (4) are only descriptive of the enactments referred to: they are included solely to ensure that the Bill refers to the correct parts of those enactments. Of themselves they convey no powers whatsoever to the Home Secretary or to traffic wardens. I would at once ass are the noble Lord that paragraphs (a) and (b) will not enable traffic wardens to be employed to keep order, nor will they allow directions to be given to traffic wardens for the keeping of order.
The functions of traffic wardens are strictly limited by subsections (1) and (2) of Section 81 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967, as amended by this Bill, to functions in connection with the regulation and control of traffic and vehicles and to police functions concerning the enforcement of the law in relation to traffic and vehicles. This limitation bites on paragraphs (a) and (b)—the very paragraphs which the noble Lord wants to remove—so that directions by the Commissioners of Police to traffic wardens can be concerned only with the prevention of obstructions in crowded or

915
obstructed streets. They do not give traffic wardens any powers of arrest. Powers of arrest under the two Acts cited —the two Acts of 1839—remain confined to constables.
To make the matter even clearer (because I do not wish to leave any doubt in the noble Lord's mind), the distinction lies between the use of powers to control and regulate traffic in connection with public processions and similar events and to limit road space permitted to demonstrators—that is where the distinction can lie. No question arises of the Commissioners being able to turn the traffic wardens into a sort of riot police under the guise of directions, even if they wished—and they certainly do not wish—to be so. The noble Lord must be aware that so far as police duties are concerned and what the police themselves regard as their proper functions, they would be 'trongly opposed to traffic wardens taking up those duties; and Section 81 of the 1967 Act restricts the employment of traffic wardens to traffic matters.
That means that the Commissioners' directions under the Metropolitan Police Act 1839 and under the City of London Police Act, 1839 can tell traffic wardens only what directions to give to traffic, including pedestrians. They cannot tell them physically to stop pedestrians from doing anything. That distinction is quite clear. Traffic wardens can tell a pedestrian, "You should not go along this street or that street", but they cannot physically stop them from doing it, if the pedestrian wishes to do so. Traffic wardens could direct people away from a street but they could not form a cordon to prevent people from entering the street. Nothing in the paragraphs (a) and (b) which the noble Lord wants to move alters that fact. They could not eject or arrest people who entered a street if asked not to.
The directions would authorise them to direct traffic in the same sort of way as they would be able to do under Sections 14 and 15 of the Road Traffic Act 1960; but as the 1960 Act powers may not cover all the traffic plans which the Commissioners may need to make—for example to control the cars of sightseers to the West End street decorations at Christmas—it is necessary to bring traffic wardens within the scope of the
916
powers to be used on those occasions, just as we are now using wardens to assist in controlling traffic in Whitehall. I am very glad to assure the noble Lord that what he had read into paragraphs (a) and (b) just does not arise.
LORD BELSTEAD: What the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has said does not square with what the Minister of State Mr. Swingler said in another place. Referring to these specific words, but on another Amendment, he said:
"The conception is that traffic wardens might perform an important ancillary function in helping the police in dealing with processions, which take place in London, for example, and demonstrations and other things of that kind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 9/5/68; cols. 3268–9.]
We are delighted to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has just said, but if Lord Drumalbyn's fears are well-founded one feels that there would not be an ugly rush to fulfil those functions, bearing in mind what has been happening on certain Sundays in London. I do not say that frivolously, because one notices that under this clause traffic wardens are specifically excluded from the power of arrest. If what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, says is right, how is it that paragraphs (a) and (b) are different from Section 15 of the 1960 Road Traffic Act as amended by the regulations, under which a traffic warden may direct pedestrians?
LORD STONHAM: I thought I had dealt very clearly with that point. He may tell pedestrians that they should not enter a particular street or that they should go down a street instead of going up it; but he cannot stop them from doing the opposite of what he tells them. Is that quite clear? He can tell them, but if they refuse to do it, then he has no power to force them to do it. I gave as an example that he could not, as could a police officer, form with other traffic wardens a cordon to stop people from going through. I think there is general agreement that in appropriate matters it is highly desirable that traffic wardens should assist the police. I agree, quite firmly, that those duties which are appropriate to those who hold the ancient and honourable office of constable should not be discharged by anyone other than a police officer. Nothing of that sort arises here.

917
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, quoted my honourable friend Mr. Swingler in another place. I, too, have a copy of the article in the Police Journal. All I can say is that these matters relating to Clause 127 are Home Office matters. I am a Home Office Minister, and that is why I am dealing with them. I am giving the facts. If, by any chance, there should be any shade of difference in what some other Minister said—and I do not think there is—then there must be an error, because these are the facts.
LORD BELSTEAD: Perhaps I am being particularly dim, but what do paragraphs (a) and (b) add to Section 15 of the 1960 Road Traffic Act?
LORD STONHAM: They enable the Commissioners to give instructions to wardens to assist in the control of traffic. The effect of the deletion of these paragraphs, which Js what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is asking for, would be to remove from the Commissioners of Police powers which they have had and exercised since 1839.
LORD DRUMALBYN: No.
LORD STONHAM: Yes. It is all very well for the noble Lord to shake his head, but the effect of the Amendment would be to prevent the Commissioners of Police for the Metropolis and the City issuing orders direct to traffic wardens.
LORD DRU VIALBYN: To traffic wardens, not to the police.
LORD STONHAM: That was what I said one sentence before the noble Lord got up and interrupted me. That is the effect of these paragraphs. I do not know what noble Lords are concerned about.
LORD AIREDALE: I am satisfied about this matter. I am satisfied that if it were the case that traffic wardens were to be used to prevent a breach of the peace, then the expression used would be not "keeping order", but "keeping the peace". Those two expressions are very close together and I am not at all surprised that noble Lords have felt uneasy about the expression "keeping order" and might have thought that it meant "keeping the peace" and "preventing a breach of the peace". I am glad that we have had this discus-
918
sion so that the matter was able to be lucidly explained by the Minister
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the trouble which he has taken to explain this matter. I think he must agree that on the face of it there was something to explain. I am sorry if I interrupted him before he got into his full stride, but there was a special reason for my doing so. I noted down what the rubric on the clause had to say, since it is the rubric which is generally quoted. The rubric says, "Empowering the Commissioner of Police to make regulations for preventing obstructions in the streets during public processions" which is practically the same as the noble Lord has said, but it makes no reference what, ever to keeping order. I still think that the words "keeping order" should be left out. I would therefore suggest to the noble Lord that, as this is not in the rubric and has nothing to do with the functions of the traffic warden, and as it is plainly liable to mislead people like me, even if it does not mislead a distinguished lawyer like the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, it would be better to omit the words. That was the purpose of my Amendment—not to deprive the police of any of their powers. Perhaps the noble Lord would have another look at this matter between now and the Report stage. I do not want to pursue it further. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.8 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved Amend-met No. 300B:
Page 175, line 29, leave out head (ii).
The noble Lord said: This probing Amendment relates to an additional power which is sought in this clause to be given to traffic wardens. I seek from the Minister justification for the power which it is proposed to give wardens to stop traffic in a general sense, as opposed to the more limited right to stop traffic in the course of patrol and regulation of traffic. Section 223 of the 1960 Road Traffic Act reads:
"A person driving a motor vehicle on a road and a person riding on a road bicycle or tricycle, not being a motor vehicle, shall stop the same on being so required by a police constable in uniform, and if he fails so to do shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds."

919
So I presume that, if a regulation were made under the Bill, a traffic warden would have a similar power.
I appreciate that, as the Bill stands, this power exists only if brought into effect by a regulation. Can the Minister say why these extra powers are sought for these traffic wardens, and in what circumstances regulations would be made to give them these extra powers? I feel that without a satisfactory explanation from the Minister it could, in future, if regulations are made, be an added cause of friction between the motoring public, commercial vehicle drivers, and so on, and the traffic wardens. I beg to move.
LORD STONHAM: I am very glad to respond to the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, to say how this extra power came to arise. It arose in another place where the Government moved Amendments to this effect. When they did so the Opposition claimed that they had instigated the Amendments, a claim which my honourable friend Mr. Morgan stoutly denied. But it proved that they were all of a like mind and as a result it was thought right that it should be an offence, in certain circumstances, to disregard a traffic warden's direction to stop. I am very glad to be able to make that clear.
The effect of this probing Amendment would be to prevent the Home Secretary from providing that it shall be an offence under Section 223 of the Road Traffic Act 1960 for a motorist or cyclist in certain circumstances to disregard a traffic warden's direction to stop. The extension of Section 223 together with Section 14 of the Road Traffic Act 1960 to traffic wardens was recommended by the Police Advisory Board's Working Party on Manpower, as a complementary power to the extensive use of traffic wardens to direct traffic.
Traffic wardens are already used fairly widely to control and regulate traffic without any legal sanction, and experience has confirmed that it is desirable that it should be an offence to disregard a traffic warden's signal when on point duty or otherwise controlling traffic, just as much as it is to ignore a police officer's signal. The noble Lord will readily
920
appreciate that if it were not so, and if the signal of a man in uniform on point duty was likely to be disregarded, it could lead to bad accidents and perhaps to traffic chaos.
The Working Party pointed out that if these sections were applied opportunities would be opened up for the wider use of traffic wardens. Examples of the possible use of Section 223 by traffic wardens might be stopping and dealing with people cycling on footpaths, or cycling without lights in winter mornings and evenings, or stopping vehicles for the purposes of Ministry of Transport census checks or vehicle examinations. The noble Lord will know that at present it is usually a police officer in uniform who stops vehicles for a census check, and then university students take the particulars. But the power could be given to traffic wardens. This sort of work is important and probably ought to be expanded, but would involve a wasteful diversion of police effort if only police officers could be employed to stop the traffic as the essential first step. I am very glad to be able to say this, and this is a point which I wanted to put to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, on an earlier Amendment.
The clause does not give traffic wardens a general discretion to stop vehicles under Section 223. The section can be applied to them by the Secretary of State's Order under Section 81(3) of the 1967 Act only for the purposes of functions specified in that Order and can then be exercised only: first, when assisting police constables; or, secondly, for purposes of controlling and regulating traffic; or, thirdly, when there are reasonable grounds for believing an offence has been committed which has been specified by the Home Secretary by Order as suitable for traffic wardens to assist in enforcing and to do so by using the power to stop. A traffic warden acting independently could not therefore be empowered to stop vehicles and question drivers merely to see whether offences had been committed. The Home Secretary's Order is subject to affirmative order procedure, so traffic wardens could stop vehicles under Section 223 in the restricted circumstances already described only when exercising functions to which Parliament had directed that the power should apply.

921
I think there are ample safeguards, because when these regulations are made in this House we shall have the opportunity of looking at them and of questioning whether we think it right that all the powers to stop then proposed should be given to wardens.
LORD MERRINALE: I am grateful to the Minister for the clarification he has given. The purpose of this Amendment was purely to seek clarification, and I have no intention of pressing it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment,
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: moved Amendment No. 301:
Page 175, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) In the Police Act of 1964 the pro, visions of section 49 and section 50 shall extend to complaints against traffic wardens and the provisions of section 30 shall extend to matters connected with the activities of traffic wardens.")
The noble Lord said The purpose of this Amendment is to apply in regard to traffic wardens the same basic safeguard which the public enjoy in their relations with the police; that is to say, that they can make a complaint which shall be dealt with in a certain way laid down by the Statute. I make no apology for the fact that this was mentioned in another place—I say, "mentioned", because the guillotine descended and I doubt whether it had five minutes' debate—because the short debates we have been having for the last hour or so about traffic wardens' duties show that noble Lords on all sides are very interested in this development, and, while generally approving of it, are concerned to see that the balance is exactly right. Therefore, although this was rejected in another place, I feel it is right to take a little more time over it and perhaps to debate it rather more fully because it is a very important matter.
Sections 49 and 50 of the Police Act 1964, to which this Amendment refers, lay down the manner in which a complaint against a police constable by a member of the public shall be dealt with. As noble Lords will know, these complaints are very rare. I was concerned with only one during the 16 years that I was in the House of Commons. But the
922
fact that there is a statutory channel for making a complaint probably has something to do with the excellent relationship which normally exists between the police and public.
As we have been discussing these clauses, we have seen that wardens' duties, certainly in traffic matte's, are being significantly expanded, and I suggest that it then becomes a matter for constitutional concern, as well as of practical importance, that a similar complaint procedure should be considered for a member of the public who comes into conflict with a traffic warden The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has rightly emphasised that the traffic warden has no power of arrest, and usually if there is trouble it arises out of a police constable's exercising that power. But the traffic warden has power to stop a vehicle in his duties of controlling traffic, so it is possible that there could be some awkward misunderstanding and conflict with a member of the public.
I should like to make it quite clear to the Committee, that, whenever possible, I am entirely in favour of the extension of traffic wardens' duties in order to relieve the police. My Amendment is in no way a reflection on the traffic wardens themselves, or on the way they discharge their difficult duties—quite the reverse. My view is that they have discharged their duties so well that they have qualified themselves for taking on mere extensive duties. But I believe tint this is an important point which should be considered by Parliament, and much more carefully than in another place, and that we are reaching a point where something may be needed in case, there is a conflict of the kind I have mentioned.
The other point in the Amendment, dealing with Section 30 of the Police Act, relates to the chief constable's duty to make an annual report to the Home Secretary on the policing of his area. It is suggested that the annual report should now be extended to cover the activities of the traffic wardens as well. I feel that these matters are important. We are moving into a new field, and the time may well have arrived when this safeguard should be provided between traffic wardens and the public. I beg to move.
LORD HAWKE: I think my noble friend has left out one distinction between the police and traffic wardens, and that is the immensely long training which the police have, amounting almost to an apprenticeship. With the great extension of the traffic warden service, it will obviously be more and more difficult to get people of the right sort and calibre, and obviously the recruiting local authorities, and so on, are going to make some mistakes. It is very important that the general public should be able to have some method of registering to the local authority the fact that their agent has made a mistake. I have met traffic wardens who appear to have come from the West Indies and who have had remarkably little knowledge of English. That is liable to land them in great difficulties. Unless there is some method of bringing home to the local authorities the fact that some of their servants are not doing their work properly, I cannot see how ultimately they can have the confidence of the public.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Before the noble Lord replies, I wonder whether I might add one important point. It is that, as the Amendment on the face of it makes clear, these clauses in the Police Act do not apply to Scotland. I see the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on the Government Front Bench. I believe that the procedure is not the same in Scotland and that this is not governed by Statute but by regulations. However that may be, I hope it will be possible for the noble Lord to answer for the Government's intentions in this matter as to complaints about traffic wardens, and that his answer will cover both sides of the Border.
LORD STONHAM: I am sorry I cannot satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. This applies only to traffic wardens in England and Wales, and has no effect at all in Scotland. Therefore, I have a dispensation so far as Scotland is concerned, and did not have to trouble my noble friend. This, again, has been an extremely useful discussion, and certainly in principle I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, in his remarks on training and on the suitability of wardens. In their much more limited functions, they are of course just as much in initimate contact with the public as the police, at least when motorists are thought to have committed some kind of offence within the ambit of their powers.
924
But I am bound to say that, having admitted that, a police officer is totally different in responsibility. His responsibility is vastly more important. He has far greater responsibilities—responsibilities which demand, with complete public approval and with the approval of the police, a strict code of discipline and proper procedures with regard to complaints by the public.
Section 49 of the Police Act 1964 places a statutory obligation on a chief officer of police to record any complaint—and that means every complaint—from a member of the public against a member of his force, and to have it investigated. Indeed, he may appoint an officer from another force to investigate a complaint; and he can also be directed by the Secretary of State to appoint such another officer to investigate. On receiving the report of an investigation, the chief officer of police is obliged to send it to the Director of Public Prosecutions unless he is satisfied from the report that no criminal offence has been committed. This is a very heavy responsibility indeed, and a very strict form of treatment (if I may use that expression) from which I do not dissent. What in effect the Amendment asks for is that this sort of procedure should be applied to traffic wardens, who are not in the same sense a disciplined force at all.
Section 50 requires police authorities and Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary to keep themselves informed as to the manner in which complaints against members of a force from members of the public are dealt with by chief officers of police, and they carry out that duty. This Amendment would apply these provisions to complaints from members of the public against traffic wardens, whose powers and responsibilities even under Clause 127 are certainly not such as to require strict statutory disciplinary provisions of the kind which apply to police officers. Traffic wardens are civilians employed by police authorities, who are a type of local authority (in the Metropolitan police district, of course, by the Commissioner of Police), and their conduct is governed in the same way as the conduct of other civilians so employed.
Adequate administrative arrangements exist to deal with the few complaints that arise at the moment, both serious

925
and minor. In their inspections, I can assure your Lordships that Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary give close attention to the manner in which complaints made by members of the public against traffic wardens are dealt with, and in the absence of anything to suggest that present arrangements are not working satisfactorily I really do not see any case for statutory provisions of the kind proposed applying to traffic wardens, thereby singling out, as it were, wardens among all civilian public employees for special treatment.
I know that the circumstances with regard to all aspects of road traffic are changing, and it is possible that the warden service will develop in ways which will make changes in their conditions of service necessary in the future; but that day has not yet come. Even under the Bill's proposals traffic wardens' functions, powers and conditions of service will differ enormously from those of police officers. There is, for example, no question of traffic wardens having any special powers of arrest, search, entry or detention of property, or special duties to take action to deal with suspected non-traffic offences.
So while I agree that if their duties were extended (although I think it is unlikely) it may be necessary to make changes, I think it is very unlikely that Parliament would agree to extend to wardens powers similar to those of constables, particularly with regard to arrest and things like that; and unless noble Lords can suggest that complaints are not being dealt with—my information is that they are; there are not many, but they are being dealt with—I really do not think that they will want to press for traffic wardens to be treated in the way police officers are with this elaborate machinery for the investigation of complaints.
LORD AIREDALE: We have not yet had a reply with regard to the reference in this Amendment to Section 30 of the 1964 Act. This would require annual reports to include reports on the activities of traffic wardens. I should have thought that this was a thoroughly desirable thing. I should think that it will be very popular with everybody, including the traffic wardens themselves, that the work they do should be recognized
926
and commented upon in these annual reports, which I believe are chief constables' annual reports. At this time of experimental extension of the use and duties of traffic wardens there is everything to be said in favour of requiring the annual report on the police to include a report on the activities of traffic wardens.
LORD STONHAM: I apologise for not mentioning that. It is true that Section 30 enables the Secretary of State to call for reports from chief constables about any matters "connected with the policing" of their areas. Traffic wardens can act only under the direction of the chief constable and for traffic and traffic law enforcement activities prescribed by the Secretary of State. Therefore all conceivable traffic warden activities would be connected with the policing of the chief officer's area and are already within the scope of the section. In our view, specific reference in Clause 127 would be otiose. Chief constables' annual reports include a section about traffic wardens' activities. I shall be pleased to send the noble Lord a copy so that he can see for himself.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I thank the noble Lord for his answer. He certainly answered the last point completely. With regard to the rest of his reply, I am bound to say I do not feel entirely satisfied. I think he has a good point when he says that the procedures which are applied to the police in Sections 49 and 50 of the Police Act would be unsuitable for the traffic wardens. Those procedures have been carefully worked out to be suitable for this highly-disciplined force with its wide-ranging and important duties. But I do not quite agree with the noble Lord when he says that traffic wardens are like other civilian employees. They are not; they are moving out of that class quite quickly as extra duties are put upon them. As their duties in dealing with traffic increase, so the possibility of conflict with the general public is bound also to increase. That is inevitable. When you are dealing with a motor car you are dealing with the driver inside it. The fact that wardens do not have the great powers of the police does not mean that they will not, on occasion, have conflicts and that there may not be complaints.

927
I am not in a position at this moment to suggest what the complete procedure should be; but I do not think that anything the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has said would convince this Committee that such procedure should not be considered now. My noble friend Lord Hawke, with his customary perspicacity, put his finger on a very important point: that it is not too easy to recruit men and women to take on these difficult duties and that the training is relatively short. This, again, does not make the noble Lord's point; it makes my point from this side. The possibility of friction arising is rather greater because they are not, and cannot possibly be, as highly trained as the police.
I should like to hear the noble Lord say that this is a point which deserves further examination. I would not make it a highly elaborate procedure of complaint; but I am sure that there will be complaints from time to time and that they will perhaps be more difficult to deal with. It would be in the interests of the wardens themselves, of the police and of the local authorities if there were some regular procedure of complaint which could be used when difficulties arise. I hope that this would happen very seldom. I think they do their job very well. But it is likely to happen less seldom if the procedure is there. Certainly I do not press the noble Lord to accept this Amendment—it is far too elaborate—but I do ask him to look at this point in the long gap before Report stage to see whether it may be wise now, as we are substantially extending the duties of the traffic wardens, to work out a simple procedure for dealing with complaints.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I say a word in support of the noble Lord? We are extending the duties of the traffic wardens. It is quite wrong to say that they are in the position simply of civilians. They are in a position of authority in public places. Two things are needed. First, they want protection for themselves. That is important. If anyone is discourteous there should be proper channels through which complaints should be made. That is a protection for themselves. And, second, the public want to know what is the proper channel. I agree that they are behaving very well; but it may happen that this
928
will not continue indefinitely. I hope the noble Lord will suggest some simple means that the public will know about.
LORD STONHAM: I do not agree with the noble Earl that they are the only civilians in authority. Anyone who drives between 8 and 9 a.m. or between 3.30 and 4.30 p.m. will in every town, borough or village, see elderly men and much younger women in white coats holding up signs saying "Stop". They are people in authority, civilians in authority; and their authority is usually not questioned. Drivers stop. To a great extent they are doing the same job as the wardens. I do not wish to run away from this important matter. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said that he was not demanding what his Amendment demanded: Section 49 procedure. I do not think that that procedure will ever be applicable. If it were, the wardens would be police officers.
But the noble Earl is right to ask what action the public can take. The advice I give is that they should complain to the police about the conduct of the wardens. That is the easiest and simplest thing to do. And that conduct, although not subject to Section 49 procedure, will certainly come within the field of the chief officer of police under Section 30; and he must take cognisance of it. Inevitably increasing contact between the wardens and the police in the performance of their duties will mean that something of the police discipline and esprit de corps will rub off on to the wardens, but we have not yet reached the stage where standardised procedure has been shown to be necessary. Individual police authorities and individual local authorities are employing wardens; one cannot lay down national terms for complaint.
With the great deal of consultation that would be necessary between now and Report stage, I do not think I shall be able to come back here with anything like the noble Lord suggests. I have been thinking about this point while we were discussing it. It is something which may have to be done some time, maybe next year and after careful consideration. But we should have to have evidence of the need: of numbers of complaints being made with no machinery existing to deal with them, which I do not accept

929
to be the position at the moment. My feeling is that it is a matter for my Department, the Home Office, to deal with and should not be dealt with by this Bill as at present drafted. This is not the first time I have thought about the matter and I shall certainly continue to bear it in mind.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for going that distance. I thought that as there was practically everything else in this Bill this might have gone in, too. But I accept that this would need a great deal of careful consideration with the local authorities concerned, with the warden service and with the police and so on, and that it could not be done quickly. I think, however, that there is a case and the noble Lord is persuaded. If we are not at the point now where this needs doing I think that we are near to it and I suspect that we are at that point. But I am content to leave the matter with the noble Lord to take back to the Home Office and to start a review, and to get the picture together, so that in the coming months—the next six months or so—he can decide whether action should be taken and, if so, what would be the appropriate form of procedure. I would stress that I am not asking for an elaborate procedure which would scare traffic wardens stiff, but a simple procedure which would give the public and the traffic wardens confidence. I think there is a case for that. In the light of the noble Lord's careful undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 301Y:
Page 176, line 16, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships have already accepted two Amendments on the commencement provisions of the Bill, to Clauses 112 and 115, and this is the third in the series. The Government are not proposing any change in the arrangement for the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland to bring the provisions of Clause 127 into force in England and Wales and in Scotland respectively. What we do propose is part of a wider tidying up exercise, the transfer of the specific provision in subsection (5) of Clause 127 to Clause 156.
930
It appears in paragraph (b) of the new subsection (3) to that clause which later tonight we shall propose shall be inserted by Government Amendment No. 316B. I beg to move.
Clause 127, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 128 agreed to.
Clause 129 [Principal Act to be printea as amended by this Act]:
6.45 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 301Z:
Page 176, line 42, at end insert ("and may thereafter be cited as the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 as amended by the Transport Act 1968.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment in the names of my noble friends and myself to insert at the end of subsection (1) the words:
"and may thereafter be cited as the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 as amended by the Transport Act 1968."
I hope that the noble Lord will understand when I say that this Part of the Bill has been rather irksome. It is very difficult to go through a fairly long Part which is almost entirely detailed Amendments of another Act of Parliament. It ever there was a need for a Keeling Schedule I should have thought this was a case where one should have been provided. Only last year the Road Traffic Regulation Act, with 113 sections and 8 Schedules, and covering 111 pages, was passed, and within a year we have this Part of this Bill, which I am afraid that I can describe only as "messing that Act about".
This clause, Clause 129, blandly suggests that we should treat that Act as if these Amendments had been incorporated in it from the start. The only concession to what I might call propriety is that it is to be marked with a statement to the effect that "in pursuance of this section"—that is the clause we are now considering—" it is printed as amended as aforesaid". Then we go on to subsection (2) which says:
"If any copy of the principal Act as amended as aforesaid prepared in accordance with the copy certified as aforesaid is printed and published by Her Majesty's printer after the passing of this Act but before the last of the appointed days aforesaid,—"

931
which is going to be quite a long time—
"it shall be marked both with such a statement as aforesaid and with a statement to the effect that it represents the principal Act as it will have effect after the last of those days."
Those who buy Public General Acts ana Measures for each year will not have the Act which will be actually in force in any of the volumes they have purchased, neither the 1967 volume nor the 1968 volume. Surely this will cause a good deal of inconvenience, to say the least. It may even cause confusion, mistake and error.
I ask the Government to think of some better way to deal with the situation. Surely at the least they could promise a consolidation Bill in the very near future, say in next year's legislation. Meantime, the curious document—and I can only refer to it as a curious document—with the corrigendum on the front of it should be properly described, surely, as what it really is. This will be the Road Traffic Act 1967 as amended by the Transport Act 1968. Then we shall have for the first time a "Keeling Act", I suppose, as opposed to a Keeling Schedule. This would be a new procedure, and I only hope that it will not be called a "Drumalbyn Act". I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for letting me into the secret of what this Amendment was intended to do. I admit that on reading it I was not at all clear. I admit also that he does not exaggerate the picture when he talks about possible confusion. However, I must say that it is the opinion of my advisers that to accept the Amendment would merely make confusion worse confounded. We have followed the standard practice in this matter—for instance, in relation to citations in future Acts of Parliament. It is almost universal for any Act to include the provision that references in it to any other enactment are to be construed as references to that other enactment as amended by any subsequent enactment. For example, in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 this proviso for its future amendment is included in Section 104(3). I was a little suspicious about the reference that it was almost universal. I did not want to say that and then afterwards find the noble Lord,
932
Lord Drumalbyn, saying, "Yes, it is almost universal, but is it in this particular measure". So I checked that in fact it does appear in this way.
Copies of the Act of 1967 are printed, in accordance with the requirements of Clause 129. That clause already provides that the print must be marked with a statement to the effect that it contains the 1967 Act, as amended by the Bill. If there are references to this, for example, in correspondence, there is nothing to stop the writer of the letter from making it clear to which edition of the 1967 Act he is referring.
The noble Lord asked whether we should have a consolidation Bill in due course. The effect of what we are doing by providing the reprinted Act in this way is to provide a consolidation Bill. The reprinted Act will not look like the present dummy, with blank pages and heavy type; it will be just an ordinary Act of Parliament. Putting in the dots, the blank spaces and heavy type is merely for the purpose of directing your Lordships' attention to where the alterations have taken place, but, of course, the user of the amended Act in future will not be interested in what the alterations are: he will be interested only in what the state of the Act is.
I must readily admit the noble Lord's point that this is a complicated situation, and I ask him to believe, even though he may have difficulty in doing so, that we have accepted the simplest way of dealing with a not too easy situation. I hope, therefore, the noble Lord will find it possible to withdraw the Amendment, and I trust that I may have at least persuaded him in part that my advisers know what they are talking about.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I wish I had had the dummy, as the noble Lord called it, some time ago, because it would have made our task a great deal easier. If this Amendment reflects a little irritation at the end of all that, I think the noble Lord will forgive us. He admits that a certain amount of confusion is involved here. However, I do not want to press the Amendment. I suppose the Government are doing the best they can, but I hope that we shall have a consolidation Bill very soon. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 129 agreed to.
Schedule 14 [Amendments of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967]:
6.54 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved Amendment No. 301A:
Page 248, line 47, leave out from ("may") to ("make") in line 48.
The noble Lord said: I put this Amendment down as I feel it is quite unreasonable to make it impossible to question the validity of a traffic regulation order after a period of six weeks from the date on which the order is made. Such an order might have been inadequately advertised, thus making it impossible for a potential objector to exercise his rights, because the very existence of the order may not have become apparent to him within a period of six weeks. During that period of six weeks he may have been abroad. There are other examples of which one can think as to how it might be difficult for a potential objector to become aware of an order having been made within the period of six weeks, which is a fairly short period. I beg to move.
LORD BOWLES: This Amendment would remove from subsection (1) of the new Section 84E to be added to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 the time limit of six weeks for challenging in the courts the main types of traffic and parking order. This change would make Section 84E almost completely valueless, and I hope the Committee will not agree to it.
The new Section 84E extends to the main traffic orders the provisions of Section 41 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 which at present relate only to parking meter orders. These provisions lay down that legal proceedings attacking the validity of an order, either because it is outside the statutory powers or because the procedural requirements have not been complied with, must be begun within six weeks from the making of the order. Provisions of this nature have long existed in relation to compulsory purchase orders and planning orders, and they were first applied to parking orders in the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act 1960. This was done because a belated invalidation of a parking meter order would cause complete confusion—the parking authority would not know
934
what to do with the money it had received in reliance on an invalid order. It could not possibly restore the money to the motorists who had paid it.
The new Section 84E also replaces certain provisions which have long existed, but which are now of doubtful effect. These provisions were designed to protect certain traffic orders from challenge in the courts. The reasons for the new Section 84E are, first, that the devolution of responsibility to local authorities provided for in Part IX of the Transport Bill will mean rather more detailed procedural provisions than exist at present. If these provisions are not complied with, the order may be invalid. The second reason is hat a new general duty is being laid on local authorities to have regard to certain matters in exercising their traffic and parking functions. (see the amended Section 84 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act.) This duty is of a general nature. There could be argument, in particular cases, whether the duty had been complied with. If it had not, any order made could be invalid.
The third reason is that the types of order referred to in Section 84E are those which are integral to traffic engineering schemes. Such schemers not only involve complex signing arrangements, but they frequently involve alterations to the highway itself. If a scheme of this nature depended on an order which, after being implemented for a considerable period, were held to be invalid—for example, by a magistrates' court when hearing a case involving the prosecution of some person for contravening the order—complete chaos could ensue. The signs would be wrongly in position, and the highway would have been wrongly altered. It would, in practice, be quite impossible for the traffic authority to put matters right in a short time. And considerable danger to the public would follow if motorists proceeded to ignore the order which had been held to be invalid.
The new Section 84E is an integral part of the new traffic regulation arrangements in Part IX of the Transport Bill. These arrangements will not work properly if traffic and similar orders can be belatedly invalidated on (possibly) technical grounds. It is vital that they should be at risk of such invalidation

935
for a short period only. If at a subsequent date it is found that a local authority have wrongly made an order or have not properly complied with the procedure, the Minister will have ample power under the new Section 84A to revoke the order so as to avoid any injustice or oppression. The Minister would not hesitate to exercise this power if he found a case where there had been injustice or oppression, but he would be able to arrange the revocation so as to avoid chaos or danger to the public. On those grounds, I regret to say that the Government cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD MERRIVALE: It is certainly not my intention to create any further chaos in this Bill. What I am concerned with is that a potential objector to a certain order should have a reasonable period of time in which to exercise the rights he has under the Bill. My contention is that six weeks could be rather short, especially if the order were advertised. Somebody concerned might be abroad. There might be such circumstances. I am pleased that the noble Lord has mentioned that the Minister has the power to revoke an order if he feels it necessary. I agree that it might be unreasonable to request an unlimited period in which an objector could exercise this right. I am wondering, however, whether the noble Lord would be willing to consider an extension of this period of six weeks. Would he be willing to look at that again between now and Report stage to see whether, say, three months would not be more appropriate in certain cases? I do not wish completely to delete the words by my Amendment. Rather, I should like the Minister to be willing to have a look to see whether it would be possible slightly to extend the period of six weeks.
LORD BOWLES: I am sure the noble Lord will realise that the Government have given very great attention to this time limit. He talks about people being abroad for a long time. Well, that is just too bad. If there is only one person who might support this and he happens to be abroad, it is a great pity that there is nobody else about to spot that an order might be ultra vires the Minister or the local authority. I cannot give an
936
undertaking. My right honourable friend—
LORD MERRIVALE: If I might interrupt, it could be inadequately advertised, or in fact not advertised at all. A number of persons may not be even aware that an Order has been made.
LORD BOWLES: There are provisions about its being advertised. But, of course, my right honourable friend will obviously read what the noble Lord has said, or will have it read for him. I cannot give any undertaking. I see his point. On the other hand, I think that possibly he sees mine. If parking fines and meters have been collecting money for a long time, or for more than, say, six weeks, it is rather difficult to know what to do with it. The noble Lord could not easily prove that he had put so many coins into a parking meter during the course of the previous 12 months. There would be some difficulty there. I think that the Government are right, although that is only my private view. I think they are right in trying to speed up people who believe that an order is ultra vires or has not been properly advertised, or who think that the procedure has gone wrong, and I think that six weeks is quite a long time when one considers it. However, my right honourable friend will no doubt read this debate. I cannot give any undertaking. I hope the Committee will therefore reject the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD MERRIVALE: I do not think the Committee will have to reject it; I will not press it. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, has said that possibly the Minister may see what has been said on this subject, because he must agree that these traffic regulation orders can be fairly wide-ranging and therefore there could be an injustice if the period was in effect too short. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the limited assurance he has given, and with those few words I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BOWLES LORD BOWLES moved Amendment No. 302:
Page 252, line 32, leave out paragraph 32.
The noble Lord said: This Amendment could, for the convenience of the

937
Committee, be taken with the last Amendment on the Marshalled List, namely, No. 321. On behalf of my noble friend I would say that he thinks that these are simply drafting Amendments consequent upon Amendments Nos. 289 and 295 which extend the application of orders made under Section 6 and Section 42 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 to persons and vehicles in the public service of the Crown, by amending Section 97(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967. Section 97 deals with the application of the Act to vehicles and servants of the Crown, and Section 97(2) lists the parts of the Act that apply to Crown vehicles and servants.
The first Amendment, No. 302, removes the amendments to subsection (2) of Section 97 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 which are made by paragraph 32 of Schedule 14 to this Bill. It restores to its original form that part of subsection (2) of Section 97 which is in brackets and which limits the application of parking meter type orders to Crown servants and vehicles to those orders which are made by the Minister. The second Amendment removes altogether the words in brackets in Section 97(2). In other words, the combined effect of these Amendments is to delete the exemption for Crown servants and vehicles contained in Section 97(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act. All orders controlling parking places on highways where payment is made will, therefore, if these Amendments are agreed, apply to Crown vehicles and servants whether those orders were made by the Minister or by a local authority. I beg to move.
Schedule 14 agreed to.
Clause 130 [Compensation for loss of employment etc.]:
7.7 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 303:
Page 177, line 19, leave out ("42(5)") and insert ("45(5)").
The noble Lord said: I move Amendment No. 303 on behalf of my noble friend, and with it I should like to take No. 304. Both these Amendments are drafting corrections. What is now Clause 45 of the Bill was in both prints of the Bill in the Commons Clause 42, but
938
through a slip the renumbering of these two references was overlooked when the Bill was being reprinted for the Lords. I beg to move.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 304:
Page 177, line 22, leave out ("42") and insert ("45").
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 304Z:
Page 177, line 24, at end insert—
("or
(d) the revocation under paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 6 to this Act of a consent granted under that Schedule").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 304Z. This Amendment is similar to one moved by my honourable friends in another place but which the Government did not then feel able to accept. I hope that it may fare better now. It deals with the situation where a passenger transport executive revokes the consent of the bus operator and one of that bus operator's employees is thereby thrown out of work or otherwise suffers a worsening of his position. As the Bill is now drafted there is no provision for redundancy compensation, save that provided under the Redundancy Payments Act, under which payments are tied to a wage limit of £40 a week. This Amendment would help senior employees earning more than £40 a week who may suffer in this way and it adds the revocation established under Schedule 6, paragraph 7, to those happenings in respect of which statutory compensation becomes payable to the employees. I beg to move.
LORD STONHAM: As the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has said, transfers of the kind he envisages have no provision made for them in the Bill over and above that of the Redundancy Payments Act for senior employees of stage carriage operators who may have their consent to continue their services revoked by the Passenger Transport Executive. We have had representations about this, particularly from the Passenger Vehicles Operators' Association. As the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said, one of his honourable friends put down an Amendment on Report stage in the Commons

939
which would have had the effect of bringing these employees within Clause 130. The Government resisted that Amendment because statutory compensation has customarily been provided only for events arising directly from an Act, and the line has been drawn rigidly between such cases and cases which did not stem directly from the Statute but were the result of someone's voluntary action, regardless of whether or not that action had been influenced by changes brought about by the Statute.
The Government then felt that the revocation of a consent was not an action which was so clearly dictated by the provisions of the Bill that it could be held to be within the rigid limitations hitherto imposed. It seemed to us that acceptance of the Amendment might be a dangerous precedent and might lead to demands for the extension of statutory compensation to all kinds of cases, hitherto firmly excluded, which it might be difficult to resist.
Our intention was, instead, to make provision separately for redundancy compensation in these cases as part of the general compensation provisions of Schedule 6, paragraphs 10 to 13. But the more we examined this possibility the more difficulties we found and the Amendment to which the noble Lord has referred has led us to reconsider the possibilities of providing for statutory compensation for these people.
We now think that perhaps we gave too much weight to the dangers of repercussions. A Passenger Transport Executive's revocation of its consent to an operator is very close to a definite provision of the Bill. The Executive, in effect, has the choice either to allow or not to allow an operator to continue his existing services. This is a choice which must be made under the Bill, just as the granting of a consent is a decision forced on the Executive by the Bill, under Schedule 6. The revocation of a consent can be considered to be an alternative to that decision. Thus we now consider that it is right and proper to provide for redundancy compensation in these cases, in the same way as has been done for transfers or other changes made by or under the Bill, and we recommend that this Amendment should be made.
Clause 130, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 131 [Pensions]:
On Question, Whether Clause 131 shall stand part of the Bill?
7.13 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: I should like to take this opportunity to draw attention to the lack of provision within this Bill for the existing railway superannuitants who are on the present railway superannuation funds. Perhaps I ought to declare an interest because, as many of your Lordships will know, before entering another place I was a railway servant, and am at present the recipient of an allowance from a London North Eastern superannuation fund. These are contributory funds, contributed to by the employer and the employee, and they are based on a retirement allowance of an average over the whole of the service, and an average of the last seven years. When those allowances are fixed, on a person's retirement, they remain static. They remain at that level, unless there is some provision for alteration, for all time. During the period since the end of the last war, and perhaps since the end of the First World War, there has of course been continual inflation and rising prices, and this has meant that the standard of life of the railway pensioner or superannuitant has continuously fallen.
One must say that appeals to the British Transport Commission, in the old days, and to the Railways Board lately have met with sympathy, but no cash has been forthcoming, and the former B.T.C. and the B.R.B. have always said, "We are already in deficit, and if we make a payment to the existing members of the fund who are retired we shall go further in deficit, and we cannot do it." On two occasions since 1948—one in 1956 and the second in 1965—after continued pressure from Members of another place and from the trade unions on the Minister of the day, very small increases were given to the most lowly paid recipients of allowances. These followed appeals by the Minister of the day to the B.T.C. and, in 1965, to the B.R.B., that the allowances should be increased on the understanding that the Minister would accept responsibility for the added deficit. Very small increases to the most lowly paid recipients of allowances were, as I say, made in 1956

941
and 1965. But they were extremely small payments, and were given only to those who were drawing the smallest allowances.
If one contrasts that treatment with the treatment meted out to civil servants, to members in local government employment, or to teachers, who receive rises every few years under the Pensions Increase Acts, one sees that the position is totally different. Other nationalised industries, such as gas, electricity and coal, follow the precedent of the Pensions Increase Acts and make similar allowances from their own funds to their retired members.
There is a White Paper (or a Blue Book), Railway Policy (Cmnd. No. 3439). I read that carefully, and in a number of paragraphs in that White Paper there are references to the fact that in future, after the passing of the legislation, the Railways Board must stand on its own feet and pay its way. But nowhere in that White Paper is there any reference whatever to the plight of the existiing superannuitants on the railways funds. If, in fact, the Railways Board has to break even, then the plight of the member of the existing pension and superannuation funds is likely to be bleak indeed.
I have heard on many occasions, particularly, shall we say, since nationalisation, these highfalutin phrases about railways in the future "breaking even." However, they were in a bad state before they were taken over by the State. But we had the same sort of things said when the first modernisation plans came out; when those plans were revised, and at the end of them. The railways were always going to break even, and to be paying their way at the end of the period. We had the same thing when we had the reorganisation scheme, and the same thing after the decentralisation scheme. We had the same talk when we had the Beeching Plan. In spite of the case put by my noble friends on the Front Bench, that at some time the railways will break even, my own feeling is that they will not break even as a result of this reorganisation or, I think, for a considerable time to come.
In view of that, I suggest that the Government should either make a grant or give the British Railways Board authority to deal on a realistic basis with those in
942
the existing pension funds who, over periods of time, have rendered yeoman service to the railways of this country and who are now in their retirement suffering a gradually declining standard of life. May I, just briefly, at the end of my speech say that I contend that the Government, under this Bill, are reorganising transport once again, and they have a responsibility to see to it that those who played their part in the industry and are now in retirement should not continue in that plight, as they have done for so many years. The Government should therefore give authority to the British Railways Board to make this payment as one that can be accepted, or else the Government should themselves give a grant towards the cost of raising some of those pensions which are now very low indeed.
LORD CLITHEROE: May I, as one of the not very many surviving directors of the company in which the noble Lord was a distinguished member, say I have very great sympathy with him in the plea that he has put forward?
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: I should like to add my voice of sympathy for and appreciation of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren. It is a problem that was before us when I was with the British Transport Cammission, a problem which has continued ever since, and it is right that attention should be drawn to it at this time. But I am sure it is not sufficient to give the Railways Board authority to attend to this matter without also assuring them of some Government support in the doing of it.
LORD STONHAM: I am in an extremely difficult position in replying to my noble friend and to noble Lords, because I, too, have every sympathy with this claim. I have large numbers of railwaymen friends, many of them retired, and I know full well how small these pensions are in the wages grades. It is very clear that sympathy is not enough—it is money that is wanted. Both on the railways and elsewhere that is a very scarce commodity. My noble friend, who very properly declared an interest as a railway superannuitant, knows full well the British Railways Board and their predecessors, the British Transport Commission, initiated a number of schemes of supplementation of

943
pensions in payment to their former salaried staff, the last of them being as recently as 1966. I am afraid it is the case that these schemes have not given increases to the extent which the super-annuitant would have wished and, indeed, the railway wages grades have not so far received any benefit at all from supplementation of their occupational pension.
The discrepancies to which my noble friend referred truly and painfully exist. The Railways Board have done the best they can for their staff under very difficult conditions, but they are in revenue deficit, and the cost of pension increases has, in practice, been paid out of the public purse. Of course, retired railway staff are also eligible for the State pension which will have benefited from the recent significant increase which the Government decided to make in spite of the country's economic difficulties. We insisted that this must have priority. The financial restructuring of the Board provided in this Bill, and the new financial remit given to them, will leave the decisions to the Board, in the first place, to say whether more can be done for their pensioners, including ex-wages grades as well as ex-salaried employees. I was not quite sure what the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, meant by saying that the Board should have permission. This Bill leaves them freedom of action. If he says it is not much good giving them permission without a special grant of money, that I would accept.
LORD LINDGREN: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, because I know what it means to have one's train of thought interrupted, but on two previous occasions—the last was in 1965 when Mr. Tom Fraser was the Minister—the B.T.C. and the Board gave way on the authority of the Minister at the time and said that in fact it would be allowed in their deficit. Prior to that the B.T.C. and the B.R.B. had not been able to make grants because it would have added to the deficit.
LORD STONHAM: I am instructed that under this Bill and the new arrangements that have been made it will be for the Board to make a decision whether or not more can be done for their pensioners. I have had estimates made about the cost. It is estimated that to increase
944
pensions, to ex-salaried staff alone, in accordance with the cost-of-living index would cost the Board at least £3 million per annum, and more detailed estimates might well show a considerably higher figure. That indicates the size of the problem, because I am talking only about the salaried staff. Indeed, if the full increase in pension related to the cost-of-living increases were to be given, it would put railwaymen as a whole in this respect in the very forefront of occupational schemes, both in the public and the private sectors.
In the Government's view it would not be appropriate to expect the Railways Board at this point in their affairs to be tied in this way, but I can assure my noble friend—and I am glad to be able to do so—that the Railways Board will continue to take their pension responsibilities very seriously and do all they can for their retired staff. The Board are keeping the position of their super-annuitants and other retired staff under constant review, and they can be expected in these reviews to take into account any future changes in the wider context of public sector policy for pensions. Despite the distressing and disappointing experience of the past, I think that with this Bill the Railways Board will be in a position to assist their former loyal servants.
LORD LINDGREN: I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply, and I appreciate the difficult position he is in, but if the railway employees do not get better treatment than in the past—which has meant two rises over 20 years, waiting 10 years for each of them—many of them will not live very long to enjoy what they get. There is one point my noble friend made which, in the normal course of events, would be correct. He referred to the fact that these persons were in receipt of the national retirement pension. But very many of them are not. Railway salaried staff were, prior to 1948, excepted persons, as were school teachers, local government employees, civil servants and the rest. They were excepted persons and were not within the National Insurance scheme. Of course, the 1948 Act—quite rightly in my view—embraced everyone and brought everyone in. There was a 10-year waiting period before a person became entitled to his pension, again quite rightly

945
—there is no such thing as something for nothing somebody has to pay for it, and if a pension scheme is to be on some sort of actuarial basis there has to he a period of contribution before drawing the pension. In the National Insurance Act that period was 10 years.
The retirement age within the railways is permissive at 60, but compulsory at 65. Even taking the 65s, it meant that people over 55 could not contribute, or they would not be able to get 10 years in and then draw their pension when they became 65. So to-day there are men of 70 who in fact are drawing their superannuation allowance but who are not within the National Insurance Acts. I admit straight away that if they wanted to, and if they are in a poor plight, and it is tragically true that many of them are, they can go for the social security payments—the old National Assistance payments—but no one really wants them to do that. I am grateful to my noble friend. The fact that it is going to cost £3 million even to give them the cost of living increases shows the real extent of the problem to which I have drawn attention, and I hope as a result something will be done.
Clause 131 agreed to.
7.30 p.m.
LoRD LINDGREN LoRD LINDGREN moved Amendment No. 304A:
After Clause 131, insert the following new clause:
Reimbursement of contributions to early retirement benefits for railway and other workers
(".—(1) The Minister may, out of moneys provided by Parliament, make payments to any of the Boards or new authorities reimbursing any of them the amount determined in accordance with subsection (2) of this section of any contributions in respect of any increase in the cost of retirement benefits paid before normal retiring age to or in respect of persons who have at any time been eligible to receive payments under a scherne made under section (Payments to redundant railway and other workers) of this Act.
(2) The amount of any payments under this section shall be determined in such manner as may be agreed between the Minister and the respective Boards and new authorities with the approval of the Treasury and shall be certified by the Boards' or new authorities' respective auditors.
(3) In this section 'contributions' means payments by way of contributions to pension schemes and superannuation funds maintained by virtue of sections 98 and 99 of the Trans-
946
port Act 1947 and sections 73 and 74 of the Act of 1962.")
The noble Lord said: I think it would he for the convenience of the Committee, if my noble friend agrees, that we should take Amendments Nos. 304A, 304B and 304C together because they are dealing with the same problem. They all deal with redundancy likely to arise to railwaymen because of the operation of this Bill and the general decline of the railway industry as such. I am certain my noble friend will have noticed, if other noble Lords have not, that the suggested new Clauses are not a brain child of mine, but are in fact Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Coal Industry Act 1967. I am going to suggest that in many ways the problems of redundancy and re-deployment on the railways are exactly the same as, or similar to, those of the coal industry, and provisions to cover them should be made within this Bill.
I am one of those who want railwaymen to accept this Bill with all the consequences that it means for them. If railwaymen are willingly to accept redundancy brought about by the reorganisation that is hound to follow this Bill, as well as the redundancies arising from modernisation, there must be adequate provision for redundancy and redeployment payments, and the cost should not fall heavily on the British Railways Board. I ought to say, and I will bring it out a little later, that as a result of negotiations between the railway unions and the British Railways Board, there have been considerable redundancy payments which are over and above those allowed under the redundancy Act.
It is generally accepted that the railways and coal mining are in an exceptional situation so far as the contraction of their industries are concerned with the consequential redeployment and redundancy. Both industries have had to reduce their labour forces dramatically in recent years. Between 1964 and 1966, manpower reductions and the numbers discharged through redundancy in the two industries have been very large indeed. It may be a surprise to many noble Lords that they have been very much greater in the railways than in the coal industry. May I give the figures I have available? In 1964, for the National Coal Board, the reduction

947
in manpower was 28,000; on the railways it was 40,546. For 1965 the figures were: Coal Board 41,000, railways 33,962; and in 1966, Coal Board 26.500, and railways 26,092. I have not got the Coal Board figures for 1967, but for the railways it was 20,648. When we come to actual discharges through redundancy, the figures are very much higher for the railways. The figures are: for 1964, mining industry, 2,463, railways 9,231; 1965, mining, 1,885, railways 11,486; 1966, mining 3,494, railways 9,813.
It will be seen that while the total reduction of manpower in the three years is about the same—the Coal Board 95,500, compared with 100,600 for the railways—the total number of discharges because of redundancy on the railways was about four times as great as the number in the coal industry. That is the contribution which railwaymen generally have made to the modernisation and reconstruction and reorganisation of their own industry.
I agree it could be argued that the coal mining industry is quite exceptional for the following reasons. The death of a pit means the death of a mining community. The industry has a high proportion of men aged fifty and over. Many of these older miners suffer from poor health and are disabled. Those over fifty-five will find it difficult to obtain other employment.
Strangely enough (and I have drawn an analogy between the two industries) the same sort of factors apply within the railway industry. There are railway towns, and most of the mining communities have within them railwaymen. The closure of pits means redundancy for railwaymen. The run-down of the coal-mining industry means a serious fall in railway revenue—estimated at £16 million in 1969 and at £39 million in 1974 as compared with the 1966 revenue. If you are not getting traffic you do not need the employees, and there are consequential redundancies.
There are also a high proportion of railwaymen over 50 years of age, and a considerable burden of redundancy has fallen on the older employees. That is right. We in the trade union movement have agreed with the Railways Board
948
that if in fact some people have to be got rid of, it should tend to be those nearing retirement, rather than those who are young and just starting out with their families. So the older worker has borne the brunt of the redundancy.
The incidence of industrial injuries among railwaymen is also higher than in other industries, though not by any means as heavy as those for mineworkers. Railwaymen (the majority over 55) who leave because of ill-health or disability, and who receive redundancy payments under agreements made with the trade unions, number about 1,000 a year. Railwaymen over 55 are likely to experience the same difficulty as mineworkers in finding alternative employment. In the case of the railways, the cost of redeployment (which in the case of pit closures are partially met by the Government) are heavy, and at present are borne entirely by the Railways Board, except for the rebates for the lump sum redundancy payments received from the Government's Redundancy Fund.
Between 1963 and 1967 the Railways Board incurred expenditure on redundancy and re-settlement of the order of £24 million, but the rebates they got back from the Government's Redundancy Fund amounted to only £4½ million, the balance being borne entirely by the Railways Board. The costs of redeployment include weekly continuing payments, superannuation and pension payments, welfare grants, retention of rate of pay while occupying a lower grade post, payment of lodging and travelling allowances and other costs including, quite rightly if they want somebody to move, payments arising from rehousing.
In the light of what I have said, it would appear to me that there is an equally strong case for the railways to he treated in the same way as the Coal Board, and for including in this Bill provisions similar to Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Coal Industry Act 1967. If, in fact, we can get the Government to accept their responsibilities to the Railway Board, as they did to the coal industry, then there will be available £20 million, some of which can be allocated by the Railways Board to those pensioners who at the moment have had rather a cold shoulder in the previous discussions. I beg to move.
7.42 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I am sure your Lordships have been considerably impressed, as I was, by the speech of my noble friend Lord Lindgren. Anyone who has known railwaymen well—I started my political life with them and I owe anything that I possess in the way of political acumen to railwaymen, who taught me the language and everything else—will realise why I am warmly appreciative of the case that my noble friend has put forward.
As my noble friend indicated, he has modelled these three clauses on Sections of the Coal Industry Acts, and he has argued that the case for the railways is the same as the case for coal. But my noble friend's Amendments do not apply only to the railways. The effect of these new clauses would be to give the Minister powers not only in respect of railways but in respect of the Docks, Waterways and London Transport Boards, and the new authorities, which are the Freight Corporation, the Bus Company and the Scottish Group.
The powers which my noble friend asks should be given to the Minister in respect of all those are, first, that Amendment No. 304A would empower the Minister to make payments to any of the Boards or new authorities reimbursing the amount of any increase in the cost of retirement benefits paid by them under the provisions of the proposed new clause, Amendment No. 304B to or in respect of employees made redundant before normal retiring age. Amendment No. 304B would empower the Minister to make a scheme providing for the making of payments to persons who become redundant before attaining the age of 65, or 60 in the case of women. This would be more generous than the corresponding Section 3 of the Coal Industry Act of last year. That Act does not provide for such payment to workers who become redundant before attaining the age of 55, whereas the new clause proposed by my noble friend would permit payments in respect of a worker who becomes redundant at any age up to 65.
My noble friend's third new clause, Amendment No. 304C, would empower the Minister to make grants, not exceeding £30 million in aggregate, in any of the five years from 1969 to 1973 to the Boards and new authorities towards
950
"relevant" expenditure in redundancy and compensation payments. "Relevant" expenditure is defined to include payments under the Redundancy Payments Act 1965, compensation payments in respect of loss of pension, removal and resettlement payments, and so on, again as in Section 3 of the Coal Industry Act 1965.
In the case of the coal industry, the Government sought powers of this kind because of the special circumstances in that industry. During the passage of that Act, my right honourable friend the then Minister of Power, and now Minister of Transport, said:
"I announced in the debate on 18th July that the Government were preparing a scheme to tackle the special problems of the older men who will be leaving the coal industry. They are a very special problem indeed. The man of over 55 who has worked in a mine all his working life is probably in a different position, because he started work and spent a large proportion of his early days in a very different coalmining industry from that which we know today. Anyone who has experience of or who has seen the position of many people in the older mining districts knows that in this industry, as distinct from almost any other industry, the older miner is a very special problem."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons 28/11/67, col. 255.]
To some extent, of course, circumstances of this kind can arise in any industry. I always think "redundancy" is an ugly word, at whatever age it comes. But the closure of a factory in an isolated town can have a serious effect upon the local community, and the workers who become unemployed there may find it difficult to obtain new jobs. The needs of workers who become redundant are, however, already covered by the Redundancy Payments Act 1965, and in the Government's view there is no justification for special Exchequer assistance to any particular industry unless there are quite exceptional circumstances. Parliament accepted that these quite exceptional circumstances existed in the coal industry; but in the Government's view the factors involved there are not present, at least to anything like the same degree, in the transport undertakings to which my noble friend's new clauses relate.
My noble friend is asking for special aid for the railway industry. But the new clauses in fact go far beyond the railway industry. In extending them to all the other nationalised transport undertakings no doubt my noble friend has

951
recognised the unavoidable fact that one could not, on any fair basis, apply his proposed measures to the railways without giving the same treatment to the other undertakings. But more than that, once the field was widened in this way the Government feel that there would be no point at which one could, in logic or in equity, stop the process. For example, if special treatment were given to the N.F.C. with its quite considerable road haulage element, what possible ground could there be for refusing to apply the same treatment throughout the road haulage industry? If the Docks Board were to be given special help, why not all other dock undertakings? The Government have already refused to provide special assistance towards severance schemes for the dockers. If the London Board, why not all other bus undertakings? There would be virtually no limit to the repercussions.
For these reasons, if the country could afford the heavy cost of increasing the scope of Exchequer involvement in redundancy payments—and further increase in public expenditure beyond existing commitments must at the present time be avoided—the right course, in our view, would be to modify the provisions of the Redundancy Payments Act so as to cover the whole range of employment rather than introduce further ad hoc arrangements for particular industries. Manpower costs represent two-thirds of the British Railways Board total costs. It is therefore of vital importance to the Board's financial wellbeing that they should adopt a satisfactory manpower policy, and this must obviously include adequate redundancy arrangements. This is equally true of any labour-intensive industry with a declining manpower requirement.
The particular reasons which determined the Government under this Bill to refuse special aid to the railway industry are, first, although, as my noble friend said, the rate of redundancy in the railways has in recent years been greater than in the coal industry—he quoted those figures very fairly—the railway rate is now declining, mainly because so much has already been achieved that it becomes progressively more difficult to find measures that will maintain the momentum, whereas the rate of redundancy in the coal industry is expected
952
to increase considerably during the next years.
Secondly, although the British Railways Board incur heavy expenditure on redundancy payments, this does not represent a net financial burden. The cost of each payment is recovered within a matter of weeks. These were not small amounts. Last year the average of all redundancy payments made up to May, 1967, by the British Railways Board was £379 per man, and under a special scheme introduced last year to persuade the younger footplatemen to leave, the payment was £250 per man, which they recovered within ten weeks through savings in wages. Last year the gross cost to the British Railways Board of redundancy payments and directly associated costs was nearly £4¼ million. It is not the case that nothing has been done, and it is not the case that there is not a lot to be said for the redundancy payments scheme, and for the belief that, if the money was available—and redundancy payment contributions have now had to be increased, or will have to be increased—general increases and not special increases would seem to be the answer.
Thirdly, the Transport Bill includes provision for a drastic financial restructuring of the British Railways Board. The Joint Steering Group recommendations, on which this is based, did not assume any special Government help towards redundancy costs. Such help would be in conflict with the principle that the Board should stand on their own feet, as any commercial concern has to.
Finally, although some railway towns could be seriously affected by the closure of a British Railways Board establishment, they are now very few. British Railways Board redundancies are spread over the whole country and do not invariably involve a heavy concentration of redundancies in an area of high unemployment. For example, the closure of a branch line can and does, unfortunately, give rise to pockets of redundancy, but they are usually quite small and the places are usually some distance apart.
There is a case, and my noble friend made it very well, for comparing the service of the railwaymen to their country with the service of the miners to their country. He used that to support his

953
Amendments which claim the same or similar special treatment. We do not, however, accept that the cases and the problems are the same. Obviously it would have been very good if we could pay higher sums for redundancy. But if there is a solution to this problem it is not through the kind of special treatment for the railways which my noble friend urges, it is through more general improvements which can only come as the general economic situation of the country improves.
7.54 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: I have to thank my noble friend for his reply, and of course I admit right away that I dealt entirely with railways because I had been asked to do so by my own trade union, the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, and I was not asked by the other Boards. In fairness, one had to include within the Amendment the other Boards or authorities that might be created under the Act. Equally, with those Board or authorities, redundancy is not likely to arise. Many of them are going to be created by the Act, but so far as railways are concerned we have had again this reference to financial reconstruction and the possibility of the Railways Board breaking even. That can only be done if, in fact, there is a drastic reorganisation of the manpower within the industry. Because of its 100 years of development many grades have been created, very likely, I will agree, by trade union action, but trade union action in order to get a shilling or two for somebody else in years gone by. There could be—and the Railways Board are trying to negotiate this with the railway unions—an amalgamation of grades so that there are not these sectionalised duties. It is all very well to talk in a House such as this or outside, but if men are going to be asked to agree to reorganisation, cutting out of grades, and taking on other work knowing full well that the purpose is to create lower manpower and reduce the number of jobs, then there has to be some inducement. The British Railways Board have borne the cost up until now and it has been to their credit.
My noble friend quoted certain redundancy payments to certain persons, but they were not paid from the Redundancy Fund, they were paid by the railways to induce the reductions in manning and the
954
rest of it. It is true that because of those redundancy payments they received later on the benefit that they did not have to pay the wages of the fellow who was not doing the job he was doing before, but that is all part of reorganisation. I suggest that that ought to have been borne by the Government and not by the Railways Board if, in fact, you are going to ask them to try to break even.
In view of the fact that it is obvious that I shall not get much further with it, having aired it, then I would beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 132 [Machinery for negotiation and consultation with stag]:
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 305:
Page 180, line 39, leave out ("Minister of Labour") and insert ("Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity")
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend I beg to move Amendment No. 305, and with it I should like to take Amendment No. 306. These are drafting corrections following the transfer of functions of the Minister of Labour to the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity earlier this year under the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity Order 1968. Similar Government Amendments were made to Schedule 4 on July 2. I beg to move.
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 306.
Amendment moved—
Page 181, line 7, leave out ("Minister of Labour") and insert ("Secretary of State aforesaid")—(Lord Stonham.)
Clause 132, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 133 and 134 agreed to.
8.0 p.m.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME LORD NUNBURNHOLME moved Amendment No. 307:
After Clause 134, insert the following new clause:
Grants for adopting private roads
(".—(1) The Minister may in agreement with the Treasury make a grant to any local authority to adopt any private road which has remained unadopted for a period of not less than ten years subject to the Minister being satisfied that—

955

(a) the road is a connecting road and is used regularly by traffic as a through road and has been used for this purpose for not less than ten years;

(b) the road is within a built up area and that land on one or both sides of the road has been developed for residential purposes;

(c) that the freeholders of any property developed on either side of the road are not obligated by private contract or bye-law or other statute to pay all or part of the cost of making up the road.

(2) The Minister may order that any grant made under subsection (1) of this section shall be subject to the freehold owner or owners of any property on either side of the road contributing a proper share of the total cost of adopting the road if such owners are bound by private contract or any bye-law or statute made before the appointed day to make such contribution and the provisions of this section shall not release any freehold owner of any obligations in this respect.
(3) In any dispute arising between a freeholder owner, the Minister or a local authority in respect of any liability under any private contract or bye-law or statute the Minister may refer the dispute to arbitration.
(4) The Minister may order that when a grant exceeding fifty per cent. of the total cost of adopting a road under the provisions of subsection (1) of this section has been paid by him the local highway authority shall be responsible for normal maintenance costs of the said road thereafter.")
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move Amendment 307. After Clause 134 we should like to insert a new clause concerning grants for adopting private roads. I tabled this new clause because of the difficulty many owners of property experience in persuading the local authority to make up a private road and to adopt and maintain it. Lord Foot will be familiar with cases of this sort. The new clause is self-explanatory, but it is worth noting that under existing legislation Government grants for highway improvements may be spent by local authorities as they think fit, an exception being grants for principal roads designated as such. Therefore, the Minister has no power to make a grant to a local authority for the adoption of a road of the type referred to in this clause. If the new clause were accepted, the Minister could make additional grants to the local authority for the specific purpose of adopting a particular road. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, has correctly stated the position in relation to grants on roads
956
at the present time. The existing arrangements are that grants for highway authorities will be paid towards the construction, improvement or maintaining of any highway maintainable at public expense. Under the old grant system, a specific grant at varying rates was paid towards the cost of all Class I, Class II and Class III road works. Under the present system, introduced in 1967, specific grant at 75 per cent. is paid only towards the cost of constructing or improving principal roads—those are broadly equivalent to the former Class I roads.
Items of improvement accepted for grant are mainly those which are so expensive or so uneven in their incidence that local authorities could not, without specific assistance, be expected to carry them out. Government assistance towards the maintenance of local authority roads and towards the improvement of non-principal roads is now given through the rate support grant, which is a block grant distributed according to objective factors unrelated to the ways in which the local authority choose to spend the money: this is the point to which the noble Lord has directed the Committee's attention.
The new system was agreed with the local authority associations before it was introduced. It has these advantages over the old system: first of all, specific Exchequer assistance is concentrated on roads of national importance; secondly, local authorities are entirely responsible for determining their own priorities on non-principal roads; and thirdly, the grant administration in both central and local government has been greatly simplified by reducing the number of specific grants and the detailed scrutiny and control procedures which inevitably go with them.
When the new grant system was introduced, the Minister of Transport emphasised to local authorities that items of improvement, for example on non-principal roads, which were not eligible for specific grant should not simply on that account be regarded as any less necessary or desirable. In the Minister's view, local authorities must be treated as responsible bodies and allowed to settle their road priorities with the minimum of control from central Government—I say, in parenthesis, that these are very sound liberal principles.

957
But this means that on their side they must be prepared to shoulder their responsibilities and not expect a specific grant for every desirable highway improvement. If they are going to get a general grant they cannot ride off on the basis that they are going to spend the money on everything else, and then say, "We cannot afford to do this because we are not getting a specific grant for it". If they did that, the new system would break down and we should be back exactly where we were. However, the local authorities are not doing that: they are in fact acting as the Minister expected them to do—showing that they are responsible bodies and they are the best judges of how they should spend such of their money as they think desirable on road improvements in their area. This covers occasions when they may decide that it is reasonable to take over private roads, unadopted roads, and take these on as a public charge.
My own experience as a local authority man in the past has shown that local authorities are not unreasonable. Where it is an ordinary burden and can be considered as part of the purchase price of a house that the road should be paid for by the frontager, the local authority expect him to do so, but there are sometimes circumstances where, because of the particular nature of the site—for instance, where a house is on a corner and the road runs along two sides instead of just along the front—the local authority, in Scotland at any rate, will very often adopt the practice of relieving the houseowner of the responsibility in respect of the shorter of the two roads. This is an example of the way in which local authorities exercise their responsibilities in a reasonable way and seek to take on to public shoulders a burden which could not be reasonably expected to be carried by a private individual. However, if we are to do this as a general rule the individual would be no better off, because we should then be transferring a general responsibility of owners to individual ratepayers in their capacity as ratepayers—except that perhaps the burden would be a little lighter on the average owner because the owners of commercial and industrial premises and people living in rented property would all be paying part or this through the rates.
It may well be that Parliament will decide that this would be a good thing
958
and that nobody should have the responsibility for paying for the construction of roads; but Parliament has not decided so far that this is a proper thing to do. It therefore seems that the responsibility should rest exactly where it does now and that the local authority should take on a responsibility of this kind where they feel it would otherwise be an undue burden on an individual owner. I think your Lordships would be well advised to leave it exactly where it is, for the simple reason that it works.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: I thank the Minister for his very full explanation, which I entirely accept. I beg have to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME LORD NUNBURNHOLME moved Amendment No. 308:
After Clause 134, insert the following new clause:
Cattle grids and fences
(".—(1) The Minister may in agreement with the Treasury make a grant to any local authority being an agent of the Minister for the provision of cattle grids or permanent fences to prevent cattle or other animals from straying on to roads or publicly or privately owned property, subject to the Minister being satisfied that—

(a) cattle or other animals are causing danger to road traffic or pedestrians; or

(b) are a nuisance to occupiers of esidential properties.

(2) Grants made under subsection (1) of this section shall only be made available for the provision of fencing of common land on which statutory grazing rights exist and shall not be available for the provision of fencing to privately owned land or the provision of cattle grids on roads where cattle or other animals stray only from privately owned land.
(3) Grants shall be made as provided under subsection (1) of this section for fencing and cattle grids on non-principal highway provided such highways have been adopted by a local authority and not withstanding the provisions of the Local Government Act 1966 or any other enactment confining the right to make such grants in respect of principal roads.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment 308. After Clause 134 a new clause should be inserted to cover cattle grids and fences. Under the terms of the Local Government Act 1966, the Minister's right to make grants for cattle grids and fences, et cetera, to a local authority was abolished: instead, an additional grant is made annually and the local authority may spend the money for

959
authorised types of road improvement at their own discretion.
The effect of this can be illustrated by the case of a village in Bodmin, Pensilva. Agreement has been reached between the local authority and the county highway authority in respect of a grant for which application was publicly made to the Minister. Following the Act of 1966, neither the local authority nor the county highway authority could make this application. It was then a matter for the local authority to persuade the county highway authority to make an allocation for cattle grids and fencing from the general grant which the county authority was to receive from the Treasury. The county highway authority decided in their new discretionary powers that the claim of the local authority in respect of Pensilva did not have first priority. In the past the local authority could have obtained a specific grant; by reason of the 1966 Act they cannot do so.
My new clause would restore this right in cases where there was a danger to road traffic or pedestrians, or where straying animals were committing a nuisance detrimental to residents. It is not, of course, the liability of the owner of an animal to ensure that it does not stray if the animal is put out to graze on common lands. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I should like to support this Amendment. I have in mind the New Forest ponies. When driving in that area I have once or twice nearly run into a pony. The Amendment has much to commend it, since serious accidents can be caused by straying animals, particularly when they stray on to a main road. No doubt the noble Lord who is to reply will have all sorts of objections, probably financial ones, but I myself cannot think of any at the moment.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Viscount is perfectly right, except that he amplifies my case. I do not have "all sorts of objections" to this Amendment. I nave a very good one: namely, that it is far too expensive. This Amendment was tabled in another place by Liberal Members, both in Committee and on Report, but because of the guillotine procedure it was not discussed at all. Therefore, I cannot object to its being raised in Committee to-night.
960
In certain parts of the country, for example in the West Country, this problem is fairly acute. Last year Mr. Bessell represented to the Minister that the specific grant system should be extended to cover cattle grids. He was then told that although the Government do not dispute that the provision of cattle grids and also fencing would undoubtedly bear more heavily on some highway authorities than on others, the fact remained that if this were done by the local authorities the cost in relation to highway expenditure as a whole would be small and this did not justify extending the system of specific grants. Your Lordships might go on to say: "If it is too expensive for the Government to undertake, then surely it is too expensive for local authorities". This may well be the case. It is simply that the Government, faced with our economic situation, just cannot accept the obligation to take on additional duties of this kind.
Leaving aside that argument altogether, I cannot accept the Amendment for a second reason—a reason which I have already put forward on the previous Amendment. We have sought to simplify the system of grants by restricting specific grants to the principal roads. Therefore, if we were to go back to a system of specific grants for items such as this, it would be completely against the principles which we have agreed with the local authorities. If we were to do so, it would be used as a precedent for extending specific grants to a whole number of other items, and, before we knew where we were, we should be back on the old system.
What is certain is that the local authorities may get grant out of the Government under one system or another. What also is certain is that they are not going to get the best of both worlds. They cannot get general grants on the generous basis on which they are now provided and also expect to have specific grants added to them. If we were to take the risk of going back to a situation of having grants for this, that and the next thing, then at the end of the day it must result in local authorities getting much less than they would get on general grounds. They would have to do a great deal more work and issue a lot more paper, and at the end they would have no more money. They would be in no better position to

961
do the job than at present. This in relation to the local authority powers stands in exactly the same position as the item of taking ever private roads. If the local authorities wish to do this, it is up to them. What they cannot expect is to get general grant to enable them to undertake items of a general kind and then get specific grants for them all over again.
I am sorry if the noble Lord feels that I am being unsympathetic in this matter, but it is simply that we are convinced—and I think that local authorities are now persuaded—that this is a better system for them. It gives them the maximum amount of freedom in dealing with their own problems; it gives them as much money a; they are likely to get and, on present records, it gives them more money than they would have obtained if the previous system had been continued.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: I thank the Minister for his very full reply. Before I withdraw the Amendment, I should like to congratulate him on putting his foot down in regard to economies, even though it may mean that I do not get my grants for fencing. Personally, I like to see the open commons. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 135 agreed to.
Clause 136 agreed to.
Clause 137 [Powers of Minister in connection with Channel Tunnel]:
8.18 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 309:
Page 187, line 34, at end insert ("but he shall not acquire such land until he has published a statement outlining the overall requirements which lead him to consider that such individual acquisition of land is justified").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the topic of the Channel Tunnel Council. The purpose of Clause 137 is to give the Minister power to acquire land, by agreement, for the Channel Tunnel terminal. This Amendment would require the Minister to inform the country first as to the case for proceeding with the acquisition of land for the Channel Tunnel. This Amendment may give us art opportunity
962
to discuss, a little widely, the merits of setting up the Channel Tunnel Council.
It is perhaps a surprise to your Lordships that this topic appears n this Bill, but we have learned by now that sooner or later everything appears in this Bill, and it is only right that the Channel Tunnel should have a place in it, too. The Bill has maintained to the end its reputation as a monster. Of course, this matter should have been put in a separate Bill and brought before Parliament in the ordinary way, with a Second Reading in another place, and a Committee stage when all the experts could have gathered to discuss this extremely important topic. Instead, it was brought in right at the end of the Committee stage of this Bill in another place, when the guillotine was hard down. It was jammed in at the end with far too little debate for dealing with a matter of such very major importance. But so much has already been said about the Government's management of their legislative programme, that I should be boring your Lordships if I said any more.
We have the benefit of the Minister's two speeches in another place, describing the purpose of setting up a Council now. It seemed to me that he said just about enough to raise the maximum anxiety and the minimum confidence. Most uncharacteristically of him, his reactions were so touchy that reading the Report gave me the impression of a background of uneasiness which certainly increased my anxiety. My personal position on the Channel Tunnel has always been rather in favour of it, in principle. But, naturally, like others who like the idea in principle, I wish to await reliable figures before reaching a conclusion. This being my starting point, I naturally feel some measure of agreement with the Government's wish to set up a Planning Council to work with what I understand to be a similar body that is being set up by the French Government.
My criticism of the Minister's action falls under two heads. First, there is his method of approach of a new clause pushed late into this already overloaded Bill—this, I think, is an offence both to Parliament and to the public—and of course it is pushed in without any up-to-date report or White Paper which

963
would give the world outside—and indeed Parliament inside—a full picture of just what the position is now on the Tunnel. Secondly, I feel concerned about the implication of permanency in the structure of the Channel Tunnel Council. The sum of £1 million is to be provided for it. That is a lot of money and would keep that Council going—with two members, it is the smallest council that has ever been formed—for a very long time.
It raises the question of whether the setting up of this Council commits Great Britain to the construction of the Channel Tunnel. This, I think, is the major issue and by far the most important one. I suggest to noble Lords opposite that the searing experience which they have had over Stansted Airport, where they have had to back-pedal completely out of their decision to go ahead with it, should have taught them that public opinion on these major development issues can express itself so strongly that in the end Governments are obliged to back-track and change their minds, and to think again. It must be the right course of action, with major developments of this kind, to complete the preparatory work to the point where the full detailed pros and cons can be ascertained, and then to publish the whole story in a White Paper for public debate, before deciding whether to embark on the project at all.
I imagine that in the last two or three years some factors have operated in favour of the project; for instance, I believe that the geological study has been entirely satisfactory. I believe, also, that the estimate of potential cross-Channel traffic is even faster-growing than was originally anticipated. But, equally, there are other factors which now operate against it—for instance, the development of the modern roll-on, roll-off ships; the container freight traffic; the hovercraft, which crosses the Channel in 35 minutes and which, it appears, will be bigger and bigger and well able to take a large number of heavy freight vehicles. And, of course, there is the very rapid development of a multiplicity of small ports to the South and East of the country which are continuously increasing their trade with the Continent, and which have certain attractions in
964
spreading the traffic lines flowing from the areas of the country that will link up with Europe.
I do not pretend to know where the balance of advantage lies to-day, but I know that the British constructional resources which will be engaged in this project when the time comes will be very large indeed. If they are engaged in this project, they will to that extent not be available for building new towns, new motorways, and all the other things we want built here. This is so whether the Channel Tunnel is financed by public money or by private money. The constructional resources are limited and this is a very big project. Therefore, what I want to hear is an unequivocal assurance that the setting up of the Planning Council is at this stage concerned solely with preparatory work, which will bring us to the stage where the Government of the day, and the British people, can decide without commitment whether or not the building of the Tunnel is in the national interest. This Amendment requires the publication by the Minister of his case before taking the definitive step of acquiring land for a terminal, and, in my judgment, it is the minimum safeguard that the nation will not be committed blindly to this project. It is on that basis that I beg to move the Amendment.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I should like most warmly to support this Amendment. I come from a part of England where the terminal will be situated if ever we have a Channel Tunnel, and I think it is putting the cart before the horse for the Minister to go around acquiring land for a Tunnel that may never be built. The country ought to be assured that the Tunnel is, in fact, going to be built before the Minister starts acquiring land for a terminal. Our resources are short enough at the moment, and the Government are trying to cut down expenditure. If the Minister acquires land for something which may never happen, it will merely be a waste of resources which, otherwise, might be used in a far more useful manner. With those words, I should like to reiterate that I support my Front Bench most warmly on this Amendment.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I do not know whether noble Lords opposite are now beginning to wriggle on the question

965
of the Channel Tunnel, but I feel that they are taking a rather narrow and insular view. Are they really abandoning the whole idea of the possibility of our entering the Common Market at some future date? If they are not still standing loyally by the idea of the Common Market, which was originally proposed by Mr. Heath in the House of Commons several years ago—and he himself made attempts to negotiate us into the Common Market—then this is a major change of policy on the part of the Conservative Party. We are entitled to know that. The attitude of Britain at this moment is that we are favourably inclined to entry into the Common Market and to the construction of the Channel Tunnel if they appear to be remotely possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, said that this is an overloaded Bill. But this is a comprehensive Transport Bill, and I wonder what he would have said had we omitted to mention the possibility of a Channel Tunnel being constructed at some future date. He might, quite legitimately, have criticised us for shutting our eyes to that possibility and for taking only a partial view of the transport problems of this country. I think that any review of the transport requirements of this country must include the possibility—let us put it no higher than that—of a Channel Tunnel being constructed at some future date; and, really, in planning the transport policy of the country we must look ahead to that possibility.
Now the noble Lord wants us to hold back on this acquisition of land until the whole story about our Channel Tunnel intentions is published, presumably in a White Paper or some other Parliamentary document later on. But would that not be rather a pity? Would it not enable the speculators to rush in, as we know speculators do rush in wherever any large-scale land acquisition is proposed? It would mean that a lot of people would get rich at the expense of the British taxpayer. If it is foreshadowed that at some time we shall be embarking upon a Channel Tunnel project, then financially it is very prudent on the part of the Government to make such acquisitions of land as are necessary as far in advance as is possible, so that they do not buy at unnecessarily
966
inflated prices. I feel that if we were putting forward this comprehensive transport policy and omitted to make any mention whatsoever of the possibility of a Channel Tunnel, then we might have been open to well-deserved criticism from the Benches opposite. I do not know what my noble friend is going to do about this Amendment, but I am quite content that the clause should remain as it is set out in its original form in the Bill.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Why the noble Lord, just because we are asking the Government not to acquire land until they have decided to go ahead on a project, should think that we therefore do not want to go into the Common Market, I cannot understand. It is the most illogical form of argument I have ever heard. As to speculators, when the Government come to acquire land for the Channel Tunnel they have, so far as I am aware, their compulsory powers. I do not think the question of speculators comes into it. Even if they acquire the land to-day, people in that part of England, which I know very well, all think that there is probably going to be a Channel Tunnel; and so any speculation by people buying in the hope that the tunnel will be on the land they have bought has already occurred. I think the noble Lord is rather off the rails.
LORD LEATHERLAND: The noble Viscount knows that if compulsory powers are exercised, they are exercised on the basis of the market rate ruling at that time. If that time happens to be after the Government have issued a White Paper saying, "We are definitely going into the Channel Tunnel", then those scales of prices will be considerably inflated; and I do not want to see land speculators cashing in on what should be a very worthy national effort.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: If the Government buy the land for the Channel Tunnel and the Channel Tunnel does not materialise, then the Government are going to lose money. You cannot have it both ways.
LORD LEATHERLAND: Ah, but the Government are much wiser than the noble Viscount!
8.34 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: As a Scottish Minister being asked to deal with an Amendment on the Channel Tunnel, I felt that at least my remit was a little wider than it usually is. In the middle of the firing here I began to wonder whether I should ask permission to enter into what appeared to be a private argument between the two noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has spoken principally to Clause 138, the setting up of a Channel Tunnel Council, although strictly his Amendment is to Clause 137. But I must admit that in due course he related his remarks on Clause 138 to his Amendment. Perhaps he will forgive me if I deal first of all with the Amendment to Clause 137 and then go on to the wider aspects which he has raised.
The present clause—that is, Clause 137—does not seek to empower the Minister to acquire land compulsorily for the Tunnel. Any land which needs to be compulsorily acquired will in due course be the subject of further legislation, with the usual safeguards for the rights of individuals, in a full Channel Tunnel Bill for the project as a whole; for example, by use of the hybrid Bill procedure, in which acquisition of specific areas is authorised by the Bill itself, or by applying the usual compulsory purchase order procedures. Meanwhile, extensive consultations must be carried out with the planning authority and other local interests on the location of the various works and facilities. In the course of this process, plans may well be published as the requirements are defined, though such plans will necessarily be provisional until Parliament has passed the appropriate enabling legislation for the project as a whole.
No further safeguard for the landowner seems necessary in circumstances where the Minister is enabled to acquire only by negotiated agreement on terms acceptable to the vendor. Indeed, the Amendment which is now being discussed by the Committee would have the opposite effect to the intended one, since it would in practice reduce the Minister's power to alleviate hardship. It would be unduly restrictive to insist upon publication of the overall requirement in all cases before an individual piece of land is acquired under this subsection. For example, in the case where land is to be acquired
968
at the owner's request it may become clear that a particular plot of land cannot be sold on the market at a reasonable price because of the possible effect of the Tunnel. This can well happen at a stage before the overall areas to be safeguarded against conflicting developments have been established. It could cause hardship to the owner of a particular plot if the Minister had no discretionary power in these circumstances to buy at the owner's request. In the case of land required for the study period, the particular requirement may once again be abundantly clear before the overall requirement has been established.
Admittedly, by the time this Bill becomes law the stage may well have been reached where tentative overall plans delineating terminal areas will have been made available—for example to local authorities for consultation—but we cannot be certain that such plans, issued as working documents for purposes of discussion and perhaps illustrating alternatives, will at any particular time be suitable for use as justificatory statements on the lines envisaged in the proposed Amendment.
In the case of the public at large, it may be argued that unless the Minister has to publish a clear indication of the overall land requirement for the Channel Tunnel before exercising his powers under this clause, Parliament and the public will not be able to judge whether he has sufficient justification for bringing the land in question into public ownership at public expense. With the clause as it stands, the Minister must be of the opinion, before purchasing land, that it is likely to be required for the Channel Tunnel. It is true that he is not bound to show evidence in support of that opinion; but the clause is intended to prevent hardship, and if he were unable to buy an individual plot without stating an overall requirement, hardship could result.
May I now go on to Clause 138? First of all, I should like to help the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, by giving him an unequivocal "Yes" in answer to the assurance which he sought. On this matter, the final decision to go ahead will be subject to an Anglo-French Treaty establishing the line of the Tunnel, providing for the setting up of an Anglo-French Public Operating Authority, and for the terms on which the Operating

969
Authority will remunerate the construction company. It will be subject to legislation in the United Kingdom to approve the project, which will enable the Government to fulfil the obligations of the Treaty, to set up and empower the financing and operating bodies and to give the necessary land rights for the Tunnel works in the United Kingdom.
Noble Lords may ask why there should be interim legislation now. To give the full reasons would endanger our prospects of getting through all we hoped this evening; but I think I can state briefly the reasons for legislating at this stage. First, the planning of United Kingdom terminals as part of the essential preparations for fuller legislation has now reached the stage when property may be blighted. There is strong pressure on the Ministry to publish information on the areas required for terminal facilities. We cannot do this without power to deal with the consequential effects on property owners. It was for this reason that Clause 137 was included in the Bill which, unlike Clause 138, I would remind noble Lords, was in the Bill from the beginning. Clause 138, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, rightly said, came in at a later stage.
The second point is that Anglo-French negotiations have now reached a stage where the need for the operating authority or its forerunner in the shape of the Planning Council during the preliminary study period has become clear. The studies, some of which are essential preliminaries to fuller legislation, cannot proceed without the Planning Council; so interim legislation is essential. In France, an equivalent organisation can be set up without legislation. The British side might therefore be responsible for delay to the project if the Planning Council cannot be set up by the end of this year. The Government did not put provisions in the original Bill because it is only recently that negotiations have clarified the requirements sufficiently to draft enabling provisions even in the fairly general terms of Clause 138. We were simply not ready last year when the main body of the Bill was; drafted.
I do not know whether I should make my next remark. I think that probably it is true enough. Anglo-French negotiations do not always marry easily into
970
the Parliamentary time table. The Minister could have waited until the Commons Report Stage or the introduction of the Bill into this House before tabling the new clause but he thought it was right to table it as soon as it was ready, so as to give maximum time—even though noble Lords may think it is the minimum time—for discussions.
The provisions are appropriate to the Transport Bill which, from the outset, contained a clause on the Channel Tunnel. The provisions were hardly of sufficient import to warrant a completely separate Bill which, as the Committee will appreciate, must of necessity take up a good deal more Parliamentary time. I hope that I have allayed the fears of noble Lords about our commitments through the legislation which is in this Bill. I hope that the assurance that I have given to the noble Lord in the most unequivocal terms will satisfy him and I hope that he will agree that what the Government are doing in Clause 137 is in the interests of individual landowners and that it would not be in their interests for the noble Lord to press his Amendment.
LORD AIREDALE: Can the Minister confirm that Anglo-French negotiations are going well and can he say whether there is any truth in a rumour which is circulating at the present time that there is to be a mid-Channel escalator to connect an English channel tunnel with a French channel bridge?
LORD HUGHES: The rumour has not reached me. Could I leave it at that?
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I thank the noble Lord for his careful and detailed answer. I may say that the purpose of my Amendment was not to give any special safeguards to private landowners; neither did I ask for anything of the kind. I do not doubt that those who have bought land in the neighbourhood have done so with their eyes open for many years now. I am quite content to let the market follow its natural course. I felt, I suppose, slightly guilty when listening to the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland; because, quite evidently, I failed to explain my position in discussing the general project. I meant to convey that possibly there could be other connections with the Continent

971
which would be of even better value than the Channel Tunnel. Of course whether or not we have a Channel Tunnel is neither here nor there in relation to our possible entry into the Common Market; but the pros and cons of the Channel Tunnel are a very much more complex matter. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, did not say anything about the possibility of a White Paper within the measurable future which would give the whole picture of the Channel Tunnel and alternative methods of transport. I hope that this will be forthcoming within the next six months. The sooner that public opinion is admitted to the picture, the better.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Lord would not expect me to commit myself and my colleagues to any period. I can say without fear of contradiction that this Government have not shown themselves reluctant to issue White Papers.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: The noble Lord has a point there. Many have been issued and another one or two will not come amiss. But, joking apart, this would help to dispel anxiety and to carry public opinion with the Government in whatever course they are going to follow. I was reassured to hear that legislation will be necessary: first of all, an Anglo-French treaty and then an Anglo-French operating company. I apprehend, from what was said in another place, that the Channel Tunnel Council would be the English half of this body in due course. My concern here was primarily to ensure that we are not at this stage committed to the project itself; that this is entirely a preparatory stage. I think the burden of the noble Lord's speech gave the assurance that we wanted. I am not concerned with the private interests of landlords; I am concerned with the public interest of the people to make sure that what we do here is the right thing. I think we are sufficiently reassured and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 137 agreed to.
Clause 138 agreed to.
Schedule 15 [Channel Tunnel Operating Council]:
8.48 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 310:
Page 254, line 17, leave out ("two nor more than four") and insert ("four nor more than six")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment which is entirely self-explanatory. The Schedule sets out in paragraph 2:
"The Council shall consist of not less than two nor more than four members appointed by the Minister and the Minister shall appoint one of those members to be chairman and another of those members to be deputy chairman of the Council."
If the Minister appoints only two, the Council will consist of a chairman and a deputy chairman. I am very much in favour of small bodies; but this one seems to have been reduced to a mini-size. I feel bound to ask the noble Lord whether such a streamlined body as this is really big enough to carry out the multifarious duties required. Perhaps the noble Lord will let us into the secret of how this mini-Council is going to work. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: The Government thought that they had good reasons for keeping the Council very small. Its job is to take part in the preliminary study period which must precede the final decision to build the tunnel. The studies will be carried out by two bodies: the Council, acting with its French counterpart as the forerunner of the Anglo-French public authority, which will operate the tunnel, and the Study Company set up by the private financing group who will be responsible for the tunnel's construction.
The clause as it stands says that the Channel Tunnel Planning Council would consist of not less than two and not more than four, so it would not necessarily be confined to a chairman and a deputy chairman. It raises the interesting thought that if the deputy chairman ever had to function in those circumstances, over whom would he exercise his chairmanship. It is "not less than two nor more than four", or, as the Amendment suggests, "four nor more than six", and I do not think we should be inclined to argue that the slightly larger body suggested by the noble Lord would in any

973
way impair the principles that we are seeking; and as a hope for favours which may yet come from him, I am prepared to accept this Amendment.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I must thank the noble Lord for his generosity. I am bound to say that, knowing that £1 million was going to this council I was thinking of applying for one of the jobs myself. It is not quite so attractive now, but nevertheless the consolation of getting my Amendment accepted is so great that I thank the noble Lord very much.
Schedule 15 agreed to.
Clause 139 [Transfer and disposal of historical records and relics]:
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amendment No. 311:
Page 189, line 4, leave out ("records and").
The noble Lord said: Clause 139, concerning the disposal of historical records and relics, has caused considerable interest and a good deal of disquiet. It fell under the guillotine in another place so that it has not yet been debated either in this House or by the House of Commons. My noble friends and I have tabled three Amendments, Nos. 311, 312 and 313. The first two concern the historical records and the third concerns the transport relics. It might, therefore, be convenient to speak to Amendments Nos. 311 and 312 together.
These two Amendments are designed to safeguard the historical records in the possession of the Railways Board. Under Clause 139 the records are dealt with in exactly the same way as the historical relics. Indeed, the two are linked together in a single phrase. If the Bill goes on the Statute Book in its present form, it will have the effect of putting an end to an extremely efficient and valuable archive service which is now administered by the Railways Board and which was originally established by the British Transport Commission. There is here the prospect of an expensive, short-sighted and, in a way, historic mistake. If it is to be avoided, I think it is necessary to examine carefully The thinking behind the concept that railway records, which means papers, and railway relics, which
974
means objects (and sometimes large objects such as locomotives) should be treated as one.
The assumption that relics aid records are complementary and inseparable, and should therefore be preserved together in a single museum, rests on the proposition that the records form the documentation of the relics. The British Records Association have set up a special committee of their Council to examine this relationship, and in their report they have argued most effectively that this connection is not established. For the most part, the relics, they point out, have been preserved by chance and have been artificially reassembled in the Transport Museum at Clapham and in two smaller collections in York and Swindon. These museums, in particular the Clapham Museum, are the subject of Amendment No. 313.
On the other hand, the records are the working papers of the organisations which preceded the present Boards, that is, the British Railways Board and the London Board, and they were preserved originally for business and administrative use in the same way as any other papers. Although they have since become of no particular use to the Railways Board, they have become a major source of documents for the study of economic and social history. They are not a collection of eclectic museum exhibits in themselves, nor do they document other exhibits. They may, and do, contain documents concerning, for example, the purchase and operation of locomotives and other equipment which is now preserved among the relics; but such material forms an infinitesimal part of the whole and so these records, these papers, are, in short, an organic and systematically assembled unity.
The records differ from the relics not only in kind but also significantly in the use to which they are put. The transport relics are in the main a tourist attraction, although they do have a useful educational purpose in bringing 19th and 20th century industrial technology alive for schoolchildren. The records, on the other hand, are used mainly by research workers who also need access to the Reading Room at the British Museum, to the Public Record Office and to the Record Office of your Lordships' House where

975
the Private Acts of Parliament concerning railways are kept.
These records, the subject of Clause 139, are at present housed in London in a building known as the Railways Board Record Office, which has been converted and equipped to provide proper storage and proper access. The staff have been specially trained and are knowledgeable about the records and their contents. This Bill provides that both the records and the relics—these two which are linked together in a single sentence—should be transferred to the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I understand that the records will not be regarded as records of that Department, and it this is so they will not rank as public records. They will not be defined as public records under the Public Records Act 1958. Therefore, the usual procedures concerning review, accessibility and disposal will not apply to this extremely important collection of documents. I think that this evening we must ask the Government—this is a serious matter which has given rise to a great deal of disquiet from those who know most about it—for their reasoning on this point: why the records are not to be regarded as public records under the terms of the Public Records Act 1958.
Further to this, it is proposed by the Department of Education and Science that when they receive the relics and the records, both should be placed in the care of the Science Museum as an addition to their permanent collection. These, it is intended, will be located together in York where a special building is planned for constructional conversion which, in the case of the records alone, will cost £60,000. We will come on to the proposals at York for a national transport museum on the next Amendment. The cost there is half a million pounds, but just the building for the records will cost an estimated £60,000.
Therefore, in conclusion, the two professional bodies which have studied this matter—the Society of Archivists and the British Records Association—have both come to the conclusion that the linking of records and relics in Clause 139 is a mistaken concept. To avoid a costly and damaging mistake, these Amendments seek to separate records from relics, and to make appropriate provision for the
976
proper preservation of this important collection. I beg to move.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I rise to support this Amendment and in doing so I think I should declare an interest, for, though I cannot claim to be speaking for it, I have been for many years a member of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts. I should add that, for this reason, what I say will relate not to the relics, interesting and important though they no doubt are, but only to the records.
The Royal Commission are greatly disturbed about the dangers which may well flow for the records from the proposals of this clause. The importance of early industrial records I am sure needs no emphasis to noble Lords who sit in this House. They form, as we all know, an essential part of the history of our country. Up to now, so far as the railways have been concerned, great care has been taken to preserve them in the custody of the Railways Board—those, as I think we have just been told, of the West and South-West in London, and those of the Eastern area in York. But the proposals which are incorporated in this clause are likely to play havoc with these existing arrangements. For all the records—both those relating specifically to railways, and to what are described by the rather obscure term "relevant authority", which I understand means bodies concerned with canals, road transport and things of that kind—are to be concentrated at York alone. There they will be in a far more inconvenient place, if I may say so, than they would be if they were left in London.
There they are to be handed over by the Railways Board to the Ministry of Education and Science. At that point, so far as I can see, anything might conceivably happen to them. For under subsection (1)(b) the Minister will be empowered to,
"transfer, without consideration or by way of sale, to any other person, or otherwise dispose of, any of these records…"
That is what could happen under this clause to this great collection of records dealing with railways and canals, the early history of which is so important to us, and which without these records might very easily be lost.
The free hand that is to be given to the Railways Board and to the Minister

977
is underlined by the words of subsection (6) of Clause 139, which states that the powers I have described
"shall have effect notwithstanding anything in the schemes in force under paragraph 1(5) of Schedule 6 to the Act of 1962 (which impose duties as to the preservation of the historical records…vested in the Railways Board by that Act) and the Railways Board may, with the approval of the Minister, vary or revoke any such scheme so far as appears to the Board and the Minister to be expedient…"
I repeat that it seems that under the wording of this clause they can do anything they like with these valuable records: they can break up the collections, which have been amassed with some care; they can give some portion to one place and another portion to another; they can sell some, if they like; they can give away others; they car destroy yet more; they can burn them, if they feel so inclined, and if they are in agreement on the subject, without it being in the power of anyone else to stop them. I cannot see why.
Why should not those records be left where they are, and where they can be made available in their entirety most easily to research students? Why should these great collections of records be, in any circumstances, broken up? Why should the Bill give power for them to be broken up? Why should not they be designated, as we have already been told, as public records which would give them automatically the protection afforded to public records? Amendment No. 312 which has just been moved is, I understand, intended to achieve this purpose. I must confess that I am not entirely happy about the exact wording of Amendment No. 312. I cannot quite see why records less than 30 years old should not come within the ambit of the Board. For within a very few years they will qualify by becoming more than 30 years old, and by that time very likely they may have been destroyed.
I beg the Government not to reject this Amendment, but to accept it, in principle, with the exact wording subject to further discussion. They could surely do this without any loss of face. I find it more shocking than anything else that this clause, as I understand, was passed through another place without any consideration or discussion, under the guillotine. If the wording needs amendment, I feel sure that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, would not object to that. The
978
important thing, I would emphasise, is the purpose of the Amendment, and on that surely we can all, in whatever part of the Committee we sit, be agreed.
LORD HURCOMB: I intervene in your Lordships' debate on this subject because I took a great interest in these matters of both records and relics when I became Chairman of the British Transport Commission. I thought then, and I think now, that the whole significance of collections of this kind depends upon their being brought properly together. If it is convenient to the course of the debate, I shall defer anything I have to say about relics, which are in a different category, and limit what I have to say now to records. I think—and when there was a Transport Commission, it thought—not in terms of railways or roads, docks or canals, but in terms of transport, and a great many of these relics and records relating to different forms of transport are nevertheless closely connected.
But now, on the subject of records, may I ask the Government what they are doing about the records of the gas industry, the electricity industry, the coal industry, and the iron and steel industry? As the noble Marquess has just said, all these records are of very great importance to economists and economic historians, and it really will be intolerable if they are told, when they want to look up something of the past history of the railways, that they must go to York to find what they want, only to discover then that some of it is in Edinburgh, because it is of interest to Scotland, and some of it is at Clapham Junction, or somewhere else, because it is of interest to London Transport, while some of it the Secretary of State for Education and Science thought might be torn up and thrown away.
These collections have been brought together and, as I say, this matter goes beyond transport. I therefore repeat: What are the Government doing about the records of these other great nationalised industries? The documents relating to the growth of electricity in this country are of enormous importance, not merely to antiquaries or historians, but also to scientific men; and that they should be treated in the way this clause indicates seems to me quite wrong.
I join in the appeal of the noble Marquess and the noble Lord who moved

979
the Amendment, to the Government not to reject these Amendments, but to agree to think the whole substance of this clause over again. It seems to me that the thinking of the Government, and the Railways Board behind them, has gone wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, when I raised these issues on the Second Reading debate, excused himself from replying to me on the ground that I was not in my place at the very late hour at which he spoke. But he also very courteously wrote to me a full letter setting out the Government's reasons for the clause.
Among other things, they said they had consulted the Steering Group. The Joint Steering Group, however, had certainly not consulted the historians or the archivists to whom the noble Marquess has referred, and they took what seems to me an entirely wrong approach. They started off by listing what they called "obligations from the past". Among obligations from the past are level crossings and bridges, pensions, relics and records. What a way to look at interesting and valuable scientific relics of the great engineers of the past! What a way to look at the documents embodying the whole history of the growth of the great industry of railways! It seems to me a completely misguided approach, and I think that this is where it has gone wrong. People who think in that way have no conception of what historians and economists and other people really want to find.
It may be that the iron horse has run its course, as they say, and that the railway age will not recur. But one never knows. After all, it is not many years ago that Professor Clapham wrote a very important economic work and called it The Railway Age. But people are still interested, economists are still interested, in tracing the course of our economic life during the 19th century, and they will want access to all these documents. So the British Transport Commission proposed, and indeed insisted, that the records of all the railway companies should be properly brought together, properly housed, and moreover—this is important—should be put in charge of a competent archivist, whom we in fact appointed. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, whether it is intended to
980
retain the appointment of a competent archivist in charge of this collection, or whether he is to be regarded as "an obligation of the past" and shown the door.
I would suggest to the Government that they should reconsider their whole approach and policy in regard to this matter and accept the argument, which I am sure any economist and any historian would support, that the collection of these railway documents—and I would say also all the London Transport documents, and many of the canal and dock documents—should be treated as a transport collection and carefully preserved, made accessible and put in charge of a competent archivist. As the noble Marquess has said, the Government would not lose face by so doing.
I think that the present decision has been taken without full regard to the interest which these documents possess. Of course there may be some unnecessary paper about, and I would not say that every scrap of paper relating to railways should be preserved for ever. But those are problems which the Public Record Office, under the control of successive Masters of the Rolls, have easily dealt with.
If I am not boring your Lordships, perhaps I may give just one instance. Many of the subsidiary companies which the railways have absorbed had their own minute books, and they usually sent copies of their minutes to the parent companies or to companies which had heavy investments in them. There may be some duplication there, and there may be some case for sending the minute books of the particular companies back to South Wales, or wherever it was. But those are minor problems, and it does not need all this machinery to cure that. So I would appeal for a review of the approach to this problem, which I think has been fundamentally wrong, and I urge the Government to accept the views which I am afraid I took for granted. I did not myself ask historians and economists what they wanted done. I assumed that what I was doing was what they would want, and I am glad to know that they are now in agreement on that.
9.16 p.m.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: I also warmly support the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. This clause is based on

981
the recommendations of the Joint Steering Group, and in particular paragraphs C.16 and C.17 of their summary of recommendations, contained in Appendix C to Command Paper 3439. In my speech on Second Reading I commended the work of this Joint Steering Group and I thought—and still think—that they have been responsible for many of the best parts of the Bill that is before us. On this question of relics and records, I believe that they have spoken well in several cases. They have said that there is a strong case for preserving the relics and the records. They have given reasons for their opinion, and they have also made it clear that in their view the British Railways Board should not remain responsible for financing the custody of either the relics or the records in the future. I think that is right. A burden is being put on the British Railways Board, and an addition should not be made for this kind of thing.
It seems that the recommendations of the Joint Steering Group involved the placing of the records and relics at York. Why does this appear in their recommendations? It seems to those noble Lords who have spoken so far on this matter to be a great mistake, and it appears so to me. What is the reason for this recommendation? It is clearly because they have been set a financial limit to their recommendations. It becomes quite clear, as one reads their report, that they have been told that not a penny must be spent beyond what can be obtained from disposing of the existing establishments at Clapham and York. That is why this recommendation is before us.
It is most unsuitable for the records to go to York, and I think we should attach more importance to them than is attached in the Joint Steering Group's recommendations. One hundred and fifty years ago this country led the world in railway technology, and we should be proud of it. I suggest to your Lordships that the day is coming when we can be proud of it again. Recently I have had the opportunity to be present at an international railway congresss, in company with the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb. There I listened to members of the British Railways leading the way in the discussions on the future of the railways, and I heard one member after another from foreign railway systems standing up and
982
praising the work that is being done in England in the research and development of railway technology. I think it is a great mistake to look upon these records as just bits of paper from the past that can be disposed of in the most convenient way, so long as it does not cost any money. I hope, with the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, that the Government will look at this whole matter again to see whether they cannot make better arrangements for the maintenance of these valuable records.
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONAN: I should like to intervene just for a short moment. Do I gather, from the speeches of some of the noble Lords, that they feel that the centralisation of these records in London is the best thing that could happen to them? The Highlands Railway of Scotland has perhaps some of the most interesting history of any railway in Great Britain. Did I gather from the noble Lord that to keep the records in Edinburgh would be to keep them in the wrong place? Is there any merit in taking these records now, with all the duplication and photographic powers that are with us now, to a centralised area, like London? Why not York? York is as easily reached by students, and more easily travelled in than London when they do reach it. So I would say that this idea of the centralisation of records is behind the times and, indeed, is not in the interests of the individual areas that built these records up.
LORD HURCOMB: May I answer the noble Lord on my own account? So far as the Scottish railways are concerned, I can see no great objection to their records reposing in Edinburgh, provided they are properly catalogued and the record of what is there is in the central collection, so that anybody who wants to study that will know just where to go. I would not carry that dispersal beyond Scotland. May I remind noble Lords that before the amalgamation of 1921 there were some 114 separate railways: and we really cannot contemplate the centres of all those railways asking for their own particular documents back.
LORD WINDLESHAM: So far as our proposals are concerned, the Railways Board Record Office in London would retain precisely the records that it has

983
now, with the staff and the archivist referred to by Lord Hurcomb; and those records which are in Edinburgh would remain exactly where they are. What would the noble Lord say if under the Government's proposals his records in Edinburgh were moved to York and centralised in York?
LORD FERRIER: I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, talked about the development of the English railways, and I wondered whether it was on that account that the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, rose to speak. I am informed by my grandchildren that the Railway Museum in Glasgow is one of the most interesting places in Scotland. It occurs to me that although Edinburgh is an important place in terms of Cowlairs, developments of the Caledonian Cardean-type engines, and the like, which are great contributions to the whole development of the steam locomotives, perhaps Glasgow is as important as Edinburgh in respect of Scottish railway development.
9.24 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: I think I have heard in this debate the best argument yet against the operation of the guillotine in another place. As has been stated, this matter has not been discussed before, and that is unfortunate, because the absence of any discussion in another place has allowed the most extraordinary series of misconceptions to grow up about what the Government intend, which could not possibly have taken place if there had been even a cursory discussion in another place. The Government are being accused of seeking to destroy, or to permit the destruction and the dispersion of, these records. The very opposite is the intention. Let me just point out what the Government intend—and I am confining my remarks, as did the noble Lord. Lord Windlesham, and the other noble Lords who have spoken, to the record side. We shall come to a discussion of relics in due Course.
What is the present position? There is not a single collection of records at the present time there are three collections of records maintained by the Railways Board just now. There is the collection in London, there is the collec-
984
tion in York and there is the collection in Edinburgh. So when we talk about breaking up an essential collection, let us get the first of the facts right. The collection maintained in Edinburgh relates almost entirely to the history and culture of Scotland, and accordingly it is appropriate, and the clause makes provision for this, that the Secretary of State for Scotland should take this over if he so wishes. I am happy to say that he does so wish, and I am sure the Committee will agree—I am certain the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman of Kildonan, will agree—that that is the best and most appropriate home for the Edinburgh collection.
As to the London and York records, we propose, if it is financially possible, that an annex should be built to the proposed Transport Museum at York to house all the records now in London and the records in York which are worth preserving under one roof. Those records will be in the charge of the Department of Education and Science; and while I have no wish to belittle, because it would be quite wrong for me to do so, the splendid care which the Railways Board and their predecessors, the British Transport Commission, have given to these records, I am certain the Committee must agree that the Department of Education and Science, to put it at the least, are as well qualified to have custody of them.
Where do the anxieties lie? The doubts which have been expressed here, and which have been expressed to my right honourable friend, fall broadly into two classes: first, that the records now in London should be removed to York, and secondly, that the collections so devotedly built up over the years should be destroyed or dispersed. I would say a word about both those points of view. I should not wish to disagree that from a scholar's point of view there is not necessarily any close link between records and relics. Further, it is of course true that people wishing to study the railway records might wish to consult other records, many of which may be in London. For instance, there are the originals of the old private railway company Acts.
Against this we must weigh the administrative and financial convenience of the move to York and of accommodating the records in the new museum at York, and

985
also the benefits;, which I do not think should be overlooked, of having the York and London records all under one roof. I must admit, corning from Scotland, that I cannot find myself impressed in the slightest by the argument that when you propose to move something from the North of England to London or from Scotland to London that is a good thing, but when you propose to move something from London to somewhere else it is as if one were moving it beyond the snow line. In the time it takes to get from King's Cross to Clapham you can be more than half way to York. It depends how you are going; you do not need to go by rail. I travel regularly from Edinburgh to London, and it will be no surprise to most of your Lordships, and certainly not to my fellow Scots, because they confirm it, that it takes longer to get from Heathrow to your Lordships' House than from Turnhouse to Heathrow. So the idea that moving out of London is something that ought not to be thought of is one, I must admit, which does not appeal to me. I can assure the Committee that we have had no objections from anybody in York or the North of England to this proposed transfer.
The second point is a more serious one. This is the suggestion that under the new dispensation the collections of records—and I am told they date from as far back as 1699—which have been so carefully built up should be dispersed or destroyed. Nothing is further from the truth. When the noble Marquess was reading from the clause about what could be done, the way in which they could be given away, they could be sold, they could be put in the dustbin, they could be burned, he did not seem to know that not one of these documents can be disposed of in any of these ways without the consent of the Minister. And that is a position which does not exist at the present time. The Minister's consent for these things to be disposed of is not necessary just now.
We accept that the preservation which has gone on so well, even without safeguards from the Minister, is something which should be continued. We entirely accept that where these records are concerned the collections which have been assembled are of much greater value than the total value of the individual items.
986
A good part of the value consists in their being a collection, and I would suggest to your Lordships that putting together the York and London collections must inevitably enhance their value, because for the first time, at least, those other than the Scottish records will be compete in one collection. It is not proposed to break up the collections in such a way that we retain only documents which have a specific value taken in isolation. The integrity of the collections as a whole will be respected. We are advised that one or two of the less interesting documents, or duplicated documents, might conveniently be weeded out; but this will be subject to the safeguards which are written into the clause, and without these safeguards even these documents cannot be disposed of.
I must stress that no record may be disposed of without the consent of my right honourable friend. He has given an assurance that the appropriate experts will always be consulted before consenting to the disposal of any single document. How much further in the interests of preserving a document can we go? It is not the Minister alone who is going to say that it will go. He is going to say only after lie has consulted experts.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but he said that the Minister has given this far-reaching assurance. When did he give it, and to whom? This has not been before the House of Commons at all.
LORD HUGHES: I do not know where he has given the assurance. It ought to be sufficient for your Lordships that I, in this Committee in your Lordships' House, say that an assurance has been given, and I now repeat it on behalf of my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not wish to intervene again, but the noble Lord must understand that this Minister is not the only or the last Minister who will be occupying this position. Reading from Clause 139(1)(b), the Bill says that the Minister can
"transfer, without consideration or by way of sale, to any other person, or otherwise dispose of, any of those records or relics."
It says that the Minister can do that. What the noble Lord says is that this Minister says that he will not. I fully accept that. But I do not think that the

987
Bill ought to go so far as to say that the Minister could do that.
LORD HUGHES: It does not say that the Minister can do this; it says that the Railways Board may do this with the consent of the Minister. There are two parties concerned before this can be done. Up to the present the Railways Board have shown a commendable desire to preserve these records. When they are in fact freed of any financial obligation in connection with their preservation, why should we suspect that now the Railways Board will have any desire to recommend that the records should be disposed of, and should invite the Minister to do so? What reason have we to believe that when the Minister invites the opinion of experts before agreeing to such a request, the experts also would, quite inexplicably, wish to dispose of records which are worth while?
In the interval, I have been told where the Minister gave this assurance. The assurance was given by the Minister in a letter which he wrote to the Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning, as President of the British Records Association. It is in correspondence in that way, and it is now confirmed, or it will be confirmed in due course in the records of your Lordships' House. One knows, and we have had this already this evening, that one Parliament cannot commit another. But this is not the sort of thing which would ever become the subject of Party argument. One cannot see any large economic measures flowing from this. This is the sort of undertaking given by one Minister which one can expect logically and reasonably to be continued from one holder of the office to another, from one Parliament to another, without any difficulty.
It may interest the House to know that the proposed clause, so far as the chief worries are concerned, in fact will make very litle difference to what could happen under the existing law. The chief difference it makes is to provide more, and not less, security for the records. Under the existing law the Railways Board are charged with preserving the records, but there is nothing to say where they may be preserved. The Board may, with the agreement of the other transport authorities, keep them in London, York, or anywhere else they wish.
988
As to the power of disposal, again the Railways Board, with the consent of the other authorities and without consulting the Minister of Transport, may at the moment dispose of any material which is no longer required to be preserved as part of the records. Accordingly, what the Clause makes possible—and I must emphasise that these are not firm decisions, but possibilities which the Clause permits—is the placing of the records in the hands of those well able to look after them, the experts at the Department of Education and Science and, secondly, to make the Minister's consent necessary for any disposal whatsoever. It seems to me that from an archivist's point of view these are improvements on the present position.
I was asked about the position of the archivist who looks after these records at present. I inquired about this myself because it seemed to me that if he was an employee of British Railways and the British Railways Board were no longer to have responsibility for these records, they would probably not need to continue to employ an archivist. The position quite clearly is that this officer, if he wishes to transfer and to continue to do this work, will have the opportunity to do so. He may, of course, elect not to transfer and wish to seek employment elsewhere. That would be his privilege, but he has his rights. I would assure your Lordships that there will be the most complete willingness to continue this archivist in his work. I think the noble Lord wishes me to give way.
LORD HURCOMB: It is very good of the noble Lord to say that. My point was not so much about the personal position of the existing archivist as to make sure that a competent archivist will remain in charge of these records. I would not have thought, subject to correction, that the Department of Science and Education itself employed archivists or had anything to do with the direct custody of any collections at all, but if the noble Lord will say that a competent archivist will be in charge of these records in future then I think he has completely met my point.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I wonder whether the noble Lord would have one other consideration in mind: records become archives in the course of time.

989
I should have thought that the future managers of the whole of our transport are bound to have an archivist to look after their records which will eventually become archives. We shall then have two separate series of archives, one held by the Minister of Education and Science and the other with the current records.
LORD HUGHES: I think I can follow what the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, asked. I spoke about the personal position of the present archivist because it may well be that if he wishes to transfer he may well be the best qualified person to look after the joint collection at York. We would accept that this will be the responsibility of an archivist, if not the present one then another one suitably qualified. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, will forgive me if I do not follow up his point. As a matter of fact, I should be glad if he would repeat it, since I did not quite get the beginning of his question.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: The point is that any organisation, whether it is Government, local government or a commercial firm, has records which in due course become archives. It is essential for any body to have an archivist. The fact is that in the course of time the current records will become archives, if I can differentiate between them in that way, and half the transport archives will be gathered in one place and the gradually accruing ones will be held in another.
9.40 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: I do not think this is an argument against what I have said but rather an argument in its favour, because one of the problems at the moment is that they are not in one place and we wish to avoid having two separate collections. At the moment, part is in London and part is in York, and we think it is a reasonable policy that they should be in one place and having regard to the general policy of the Government in seeking to move things out of London, it would be surely better to take the London records to York rather than to bring the York records to London.
There is one other thing I should have mentioned: the impression was created that all we had done was to act on the advice of the Steering Group.
990
We had consultations, and one of the bodies consulted was the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries, whom the Department of Education and Science always consult on these matters. They have said they are satisfied with what is proposed for both the records and the relics.
I am not sufficiently versed in these matters to be able to say whether or not that is a substitute for not consulting somebody else, but I am quite satisfied, from what I have heard in this debate and from what I have read, that a great many of the misgivings quite genuinely held in this matter could never have been formed had there been discussion at a much earlier stage in another place. That is no reason why the Government should depart from what is essentially a sound proposal, because people have formed their own opinion about it in the interval. It is because we are convinced that this will preserve these wonderful collections in an even better way than has been possible in the past. It fits in with the requirement that the railways are to be a commercial concern, and that therefore it is not proper for them to be charged with the responsibility of looking after these records. This was a responsibility placed on them in the past, which merely meant that the deficit was increased and that in due course they would get the whole lot back from the Government. They are not going to have deficit financing now, and it is therefore appropriate that these things should be looked at in their proper context.
I think I might be unduly optimistic if were to try to persuade myself that the misgivings which have, I think erroneously, grown up over the period of two months may all be dispersed in the answers which I have given to your Lordships. What I am quite certain of is that anyone who is listening to this argument for the first time and has come to it without any preconceived opinions on the matter, formed erroneously or correctly, will at least have reasonable grounds to believe that what the Government are doing is perfectly reasonable, intelligent and defensible.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have two questions to put to the noble Lord. He referred to a letter which was written by the Minister to Lord Denning. Could the House have the text of that

991
letter, for it is very important that it should be on record? My second question is this: was Lord Denning satisfied with the reply which he received from the Minister?
LORD HUGHES: I do not think the noble Marquess is being at all reasonable in this matter. I have stated that the Minister has given an assurance. The noble Marquess asked when the Minister gave the assurance, and I have told him when it was given. I have told the Committee the form in which it was given, and I have repeated the assurance on behalf of the Government. I do not think that he is justified in asking that this letter should go into the Record. If he wants to go to Lord Denning and ask him for both sides of the subject and Lord Denning is willing to give it, I have not the slightest objection: it would not matter to me in the slightest. I think that I have discharged my obligation to your Lordships in giving the assurances and in answering questions. Beyond that I am not prepared to go, and I do not think that it is reasonable to ask me to go beyond that.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on making a fine fighting defence of his case, but there are certain points in his defence about which I did not feel convinced. His first point is that the Minister has given an assurance—which I am prepared to accept on its face value —that experts will be consulted before disposing of any document. But here this evening in this Chamber I have listened to experts: to my noble friend Lord Salisbury, who is a member of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts; to the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, who has some knowledge of the railways; to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, who has some knowledge of the railways. They have all given the noble Lord advice that the collection of records in London should remain in London. The advice of the Special Committee set up by the British Records Association was quite specific, that the records should remain in London in proximity to the headquarters of British Railways. These seem to be points of great importance to those noble Lords and others who are experts in this field.
992
The noble Lord quoted with confidence from the White Paper that not only had the Steering Group given their opinion and advice on this matter, but they had also consulted the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries. That Commission would be primarily interested in the relics, and not in the records. It is the records that noble Lords have been telling the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, ought to stay in London. If the relics are to go to York, it may be that many people would like to see them remain in London, but it is not something anybody is going to the stake about.
LORD HUGHES: The Standing Commission were consulted on both records and on relics. Their answer was that they were in agreement on both.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: May I intervene once more, since I am a member of the Standing Commission? At that time there was no prospect of there being any place in London for them to be stored. The Museum at Clapham was going to be scrapped. There was no possibility of anything going anywhere other than to York.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: That does not seem to have helped the noble Lord very much. The noble Lord has received advice from the best sources he may have, which I do not doubt include many experts of great reputation; but this evening the noble Lord also has had the opposite advice from other great experts. This is at least enough to make the noble Lord hesitate before saying that the course which the Government intend to take is the right one. I have come to this matter with an uncommitted mind. We have put down this Amendment to give this matter an airing. I see the noble Lord smiling, but it has had no debate before, since the guillotine prevented any debate in another place. We are doing a service to the public in raising a debate on this matter, which is one of importance and about which many people feel very strongly.
I have been most interested to hear the debate as it has unfolded. I thought my noble friend Lord Windlesham made an extremely strong case, having prepared it with great care in order to put the facts before this Committee, but it is the contributions of noble Lords who

993
have direct personal experience in this matter which, certainly to my mind, carry the greatest weight. I am astonished that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, seems to be completely unimpressed by the advice which they have been giving to him. I should not myself feel content to accept the advice that he has given the Committee—that it should accept the Government's view and should not accept the Amendment.
I rather agree with the small point made by my noble friend Lord Salisbury that Amendment No. 312 may not be quite correct and should be further amended, perhaps on Report stage, but the general weight of the advice that has been given by those who have great personal experience is that this Amendment is right and that it is right to keep in London the records that are in London. If the noble Lord want to move the relics up to York, then let him, and nobody is going to quarrel with his keeping in Edinburgh the papers he wants to keep in Edinburgh.
LORD HUGHES: It is not a case of not accepting the advice that I have been given. Certain opinions have been expressed and I have, I think quite reasonably, pointed out that at least some of those opinions have been based on misconceptions as to what the Government propose to do. In these circumstances, it is not unreasonable that I should continue to rest the Government's case on the full consideration of the matter which they have given to it, taking into account all the circumstances. Inevitably, in matters of this kind there must be disagreement, even between experts. Governments must make up their minds on which side they are going to come down, and sometimes they will be wrong.
The precedents show that when Governments have accepted expert advice that it is wrong to move out of London, they have more frequently been wrong in taking that advice than when they have rejected it. The Forestry Commission's headquarters would not be in London to-day if the Government of the day had not listened to the advice of the experts that it had to be in London. A lot of the other Departments which we have been unable to move out of London would not be in London to-day if we
994
had not listened to the advice of the experts, who pointed out how impossible it is to get to Edinburgh, or Glasgow, or York, or Newcastle, or Cardiff or any of the other places to which their interests were going.
When one considers moving from London to somewhere else, there must inevitably be a matter of opinion in the decision. It may well be that I am not the proper person to form a conclusion on this matter, because I must admit, quite frankly, that I start off with the bias that the argument that London must be the centre for everything is not correct. If I am wrong in that, I am certainly wrong along with a great many people outside London.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I should like to make one point in relation to what the noble Lord has said. He, unfortunately it seemed to me, gave the example of the Forestry Commission which moved from London. It did not move to where it ought to have moved it moved to Basingstoke. That seems to me about a, ridiculous an example as can be imagined, when the great majority of forestry is in Scotland.
LORD HUGHES: Exactly, and that is the point I made. The Government of the day accepted the advice of the experts that Basingstoke was the place to which it ought to move; whereas, if they had consulted anybody outside London, they would have been told that the right place to move it was Edinburgh, Perth or Inverness.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I am not surprised that the noble Lord says that London is not the right place to have everything, especially as he has managed to keep the records that he wants to keep in Edinburgh. It all seems to be coming out very well for him. But seriously, and joking apart, he has said, quite rightly, that this is not a Party controversy. This is something which we ought to be able to get agreement about. Surely the noble Lord will see the wisdom of taking this point back and looking at it again before Report stage. Noble Lords who lave given their advice to-night have not come here to make trouble; they have come here to try to get the best possible answer. This is the first public debate

995
there has been on this subject. It is absurd to insist that the Government view must be right because that is the advice the noble Lord has been given. He has now been given other advice. Why not take it back and have a look at it and see what is the best answer? The Committee is prepared to take a completely objective view on this subject.
LORD HURCOMB: The noble Lord has made great play with the fact that the archives are already divided between London and York, but is there anything in York except the records of the old North-Eastern Railway, whose headquarters it always was? I do not think it is quite fair to imply that there are two lots of things of much the same magnitude and order in two different places. If the noble Lord would look again at the point as to the records—I am not talking about the relics—he would find that the arguments for even perhaps moving York to London would be very strong, and the relics might go to York.
LORD HUGHES: If I have given the impression for one moment that the records in London and the records in York were of similar value, or that the collections were of similar size, I will without any hesitation withdraw that, but I thought I had made it perfectly clear that I was not in fact so suggesting; that there was not necessarily a comparison between the two. Quite frankly, I should have thought that, London having all the pull it had in the past, it would have been a miracle if the two had been of equal importance up to the present. So I quite willingly give the noble Lord that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, invites me to give way. There is nothing for me to give way on here. What I will certainly undertake to do is this. If this Amendment is not pressed, I will draw to the attention of my right honourable friend this discussion which I think he will find both interesting and valuable. It may well be that, arising from that consideration, there will be discussion with some noble Lords whose past connection with this makes them well qualified to be brought into the discussion —the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb; the
996
noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oak-ridge; and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, because of his interest in historical manuscripts. I certainly would not rule that out. But it is not for me to give way, because at the moment the Bill stands in a form which we think is acceptable. I am certainly willing to give the undertaking that we will look at the matter, and discuss it in the light of this debate; but it would be a prerequisite to that that the Amendments are not pressed.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: Of course, I entirely accept the noble Lord's point. I was saying "give way" because up till then the noble Lord had not shown any sign of being impressed by what had been said in this Chamber. However, his attitude now is, I think, entirely reasonable, if I may say so. I feel that the right thing to do is to accept the noble Lord's undertaking to discuss this further, and perhaps to have consultations with some noble Lords who are particularly interested and others outside, and then to see what he can bring along at Report stage. Because if we are not satisfied we can always put this Amendment down again.
LORD FERRIER: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, if he proposes to do so, may I say this, speaking with a great deal of sympathy for much of what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said? I am reminded that York is becoming a centre for a number of records, such as the famous Castle Museum, which for me is a very thrilling record of the past. Also, of course, it is close to the Stockton and Darlington Railway, which, after all, was the beginning of all railways.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I make a suggestion? If, as I understand it, my noble friend proposes to withdraw his Amendment pending further discussions, would it not be a good thing if he decided also to put it down again on Report stage? That would then give an opportunity to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, to tell your Lordships the result of the inquiries and discussions that he had had. We would then have the opportunity to vote if we felt so inclined.
LORD HUGHES: I would suggest that the better course of action would be for the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, to wait to

997
see what takes place at these discussions. Then, if he finds it necessary to frame another Amendment, it will be relevant to what has emerged from the discussions. It may be that we will not reach agreement; but it may well be that if he has regard to the discussions which take place then at least the Amendment which emerges will be in the most up-to-date form. Because one thing that is fairly certain is that this Amendment, as the noble Lord himself would be the first to admit, would probably not be in the right form of words. I have not made any point on that because there is no point in doing so unless it is the only point of disagreement. But I can quite accept the principle that the noble Lord. Lord Nugent, in withdrawing, is not giving up any right to re-table the matter. But I think it would be a mistake if I were to ask my right honourable friend
998
to embark on discussions of this kind and to have on the record at the same time that this House had apparently so little faith in what was going to emerge from these discussions that an Amendment had already been tabled.
10.0 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: We are ready to go into this with every hope and confidence that the noble Lord will deploy his vast dialectical powers on the Minister with the same effect as on this House to-night and that he will have complete success. We should expect to have a very good Amendment on Report stage. If not, we have the right to put down what we like. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 15 agreed to.
10.2 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amendment No. 313:
Page 191, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section there shall be no change in the location of any collection of relics without there first having been full consultation with the local authorities within whose area the relics are located.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment concerns the relics which have been the subject of a good deal of debate on the previous two Amendments. Although there has been an inclination to say that the relics could go to York and the records might stay where they are. I believe that this should be looked at and debated and not just assumed. The transport relics referred to in Clause 139 are at present mainly housed in the Museum of British Transport at Clapham, with subsidiary museums at York and Swindon. It is now proposed to close the Clapham Museum, to sell the site and to transfer its contents to a new museum. That new museum, if we are to accept what is recommended in the Railway Policy White Paper, will be at York.
The reasoning behind this recommendation was spelled out clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oak-ridge, in his speech on the last Amendment. The framework of the reasoning is a financial one. The site of the Clapham Museum, we are told, would realise about £517,000, just over half a million pounds, and this sum of money is proposed for rehousing both the relics and the records.
When we had the Second Reading of this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, with his well-known interest in the subject of museums, questioned the wisdom of this policy of closing the Clapham Museum and moving its contents to York. The Government were not able to reply immediately after he had made his speech—it was near the end of the debate. But that was some weeks ago. So this particular point which I want to develop now has been put before. I hope the Government will be able to tell us in some detail what their reactions are.
In the White Paper, Railway Policy (Cmnd. 3439), the Government accepted that transport museums have a useful
1000
scientific, educational and cultural role and that the greater part of the exhibits should be preserved in such a way as to assure their continuing development. This was on page 53 of the White Paper. But because of the lack of suitable rail connections, Clapham, we are told, is not suitable as a site for a transport museum. If this is so, one must ask why it is that a railway museum was put there at all. It is therefore proposed to establish a new museum on another site.
The White Paper goes on to say on page 54 that neither the Railways Board nor the London Board have a suitable site in the London area. Indeed, a letter was sent by the Ministry of Transport to certain London boroughs which went further and referred to
"an exhaustive search in London for a suitable British Railways or London Transport building"
which had proved fruitless. That was what the Ministry of Transport said in reply to those London boroughs who wrote in on this point.
How exhaustive was this search? St. Pancras Station which, after all, is a fairly conspicuous building, was overlooked completely. We must ask the noble Lord who is to reply: was St. Pancras Station considered at the time of the Joint Steering Committee's Report? A statement was made on Second Reading that it was not, and had the possibility of using St. Pancras been known to the Joint Steering Committee at the time, their conclusion might have been different.
In a way, the structure of St. Pancras Station is in itself a museum-piece of industrial architecture. It is already the subject of a preservation order so that it cannot be developed for other purposes. It cannot be demolished and redeveloped for office property. Its location is central; it is convenient to Madam Tussaud's and Regent's Park, and thousands of visitors go to that part of London in the course of a year.
Nor are there any problems regarding rail connections. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, when replying to the last Amendment, based his argument (and I must say I think that when it is studied in cold print his argument will not be quite so persuasive as it was when he delivered

1001
it) on the policy of regional dispersal. The noble Lord became really quite emphatic and heated on the point. It seems that where the relics are concerned the case for York rests specifically on this policy of regional dispersal. The noble Lord shakes his head—no doubt he will tell us in his reply why he does so— but it was almost the main plank of his argument that there should be regional dispersal and that London should not be the centre for everything. I can see that to him this is something which means a great deal, but one must look at the facts on these issues, and this Amendment relates to a different issue from the last Amendment.
It is a question of whether the Clapham Museum should be closed at all, and secondly, if it is closed, should its contents go to York or to some other building? We are told that the reasoning is that there is no other building in London; that an exhaustive search was made and no building belonging to the Railways Board or the London Board could be found. That statement is contained in the White Paper and in the letter the Ministry of Transport sent to the London boroughs. So if the policy has changed, and this is another of our misconceptions, let us hear about it. But that is what has been said up until now.
Is this the right policy? We are told the site in Clapham can be sold for £517,000 and that it is not the right place. If it is not the right place, is it sensible to consider building a new museum in York? It is proposed to reconstruct and adapt an old motive power depot. To convert that into a museum obviously would cost a great deal of money. Furthermore to move the locomotives, wagons, railway carriages, and so on, up to York would be a very expensive business. Is it not the case that St. Pancras Station, which in itself virtually constitutes a museum already, and would require little conversion, and which already has car parking facilities and facilities for tourists, is available for this purpose at practically no cost?
The fact that half a million pounds can be raised by the sale of the Clapham site does not mean that half a million pounds has to be spent. It is this sort of thinking which has let Government expenditure run out of control. What we want to hear from the noble Lord in his
1002
reply on this matter is a response to the suggestion about St. Pancras—which was made originally on Second Reading—and about which there has, as yet, been no reaction from the Government And we also want to hear whether the Government are satisfied that there has been proper consultation with the local authorities in the area on the proposal to close the Clapham Museum. I peg to move.
10.10 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: If I may deal first of all with what the noble Lord. Lord Windlesham, said in the last debate, he said that I had based the case on the Government's regional development policies. I did not do anything of the sort. I gave a whole variety of reasons. I emphasised rather strongly that the concept that moving things into London was right and moving things cut of London was wrong was not one to which I subscribed. This was one of the reasons why moving things to York seemed, at least to people outside London, to be not without merit.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Why did the noble Lord choose to place greater emphasis on that argument? He used the words just now "emphasised rather strongly". Why did he give greater emphasis to that than to his other arguments?
LORD HUGHES: Because two arguments were advanced against taking the records and relics to York: one that it meant taking them out of London, and the other that they were going to be destroyed. I dealt, I think probably almost at equal length, with both arguments. It may be that I spoke more emphatically about getting them out of London, because I was more on my own territory in that. I know how often we have got the wrong end of the stick in that connection. One perhaps speaks with more conviction and more enthusiasm when one is speaking on one's own subjects. But if the noble Lord wants to reduce it to measurements of inches in Hansard, I do not think he will find that the other aspect was treated as a minor part of my remarks because I had to deal with both legs of the argument, as I shall have to do again.
I thought that in discussion of the last Amendment we were going to get the

1003
relics to York without difficulty, because over and over again it was emphasised that there may be a case in connection with relics; that the relics are a different thing from the records. But now we find that we have to start all over again, and that it is regarded as just as important to maintain the relics in London. If I perhaps over-emphasised the value of taking things out of London, I would suggest, with respect, that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, over-emphasises the need to retain them in London. He stresses the fact that we ought not to consider (this is how it appeared to me) taking them out of London until we have explored every possibility of retaining them in London.
Why should that be? Would it be a surprise to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, to know, for instance, that the little railway museum which is presently at York had more visitors in 1965 and 1966 than there were to Clapham? With all its vast intake of people—all, apparently, in the noble Lord's mind, and pictured as just searching for the opportunity to go and look at the railway relics at Clapham—fewer went to see them than went to see the very much less impressive exhibits at York. If that is the case, at least we are not completely off our heads in suggesting that we should consider sending the whole lot to York.
The noble Lord put a very proper question when he said: "If Clapham is such an unsuitable place, why is the museum there in the first instance?" He is just as well placed to answer that question as I am, because, quite frankly, when I see the information that I have here, I too should like to know who was responsible for putting it there in the first place. Whoever it was has a lot to answer for. There are no rail facilities into the museum. When you get inside the museum there are no rails inside. If you want to move these heavy things about it is extremely difficult. But in the place to which we propose to take the relics there are rails right into the museum, and there is a turntable inside, so that if you get new exhibits coming in it becomes a relatively simple matter to move them about.
These are two reasons why Clapham is unsuitable. It may well be that at a
1004
given time the people concerned, perhaps thinking similarly to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, thought: "Let us look around London and see where they can be put." It may well be that Clapham was the best of a bad lot. But we do not now need to confine ourselves to considering what is the best of a bad lot; here we have a very good site indeed.
I should like to make it absolutely clear that, as with the records, we appreciate the historic and educational value of these collections which the British Transport Commission and the Railways Board have built up. We have no intention of shrugging off our responsibilities. The Department of Education and Science will take to York all those relics which in the opinion of Sir David Follett, the Director of the Science Museum, are most worthy of preservation as part of a national collection. Specifically London relics may not go, so we are prepared to accord to London the same facilities that we accord to Edinburgh—specifically London relics.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but he makes his gracious gesture and says, "We are willing to accord this privilege to them". But is it not a fact that the London Board were not willing to let their relics go? Was not the question put to them by the Government and they refused to have them moved to York?
LORD HUGHES: Not so far as I am aware, but I am not sufficiently well-informed on this matter to contradict the noble Lord with the emphasis I would wish. But, of the rest, over three-quarters of the items will be preserved. Indeed, far from a dispersal, there will be to some extent a consolidation, in that the worthwhile relics of both Clapham and York will find themselves under one roof. What will not be taken to York will be those relics, and there are some, which are of relatively minor interest or which are duplicates.
It is obviously impossible to keep absolutely everything. Considerations of space and cost alone would prohibit this. But it is the intention to maintain a transport collection which includes all worthwhile relics and which reflects as a whole the developments of the last 150 years. Incidentally, I can assure the Committee

1005
that there is no intention of losing the very interesting Royal relics which are now at Clapham. If there are any relics which any noble Lord is particularly interested in, I am quite certain that my right honourable friend the Minister, if he is told, will be happy, so far as is possible, to see that they are preserved.
Why the move from Clapham? I have said something about this already, but it is so interesting that I think that if what I say is repetition it will not do any harm. My brief says, "The present site of the Clapham Museum is not really ideal". That is the usual masterpiece of Civil Service understatement. It has no rail connection and it has no rails inside, so it is really expensive to get items into it in the first place. As I say, there are no rails inside, and therefore to move relics about so as to make room for something new is a most difficult and expensive operation. In short, it is virtually impossible to develop the collection at Clapham. York has many advantages. The proposed building, which is a disused motive-power depot, is of course rail-connected and has a turntable already installed. It would be easy to get relics in and out and to rearrange those already there, so we shall have a living museum in which the continuing development of rail transport can be displayed in the years to come.
I must point out, however, that the decision to move to York is not a firm one. It is a decision which, circumstances permitting, may be implemented. If circumstances do permit it, this will be, we think, a very worthwhile move. But what I must emphasise is that, unless and until York is got ready for the move, Clapham will continue to be the Railway Museum. The Museum will be continued there as at present. There is no intention of taking the collection away from Clapham and putting it into storage where no one will see it until another place is ready for it. So a continuing museum will be available, first of all at Clapham and then at York, if that should prove to be possible.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: Will the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting for a moment? I do not think he has referred to St. Pancras.
LORD HUGHES: I am coming to it.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDEORN: There you have a museum. It could be used as a museum piece in itself.
LORD HUGHES: I will come to that. I have referred to the number of visitors in 1965 and 1966. Just in case noble Lords think there is anything ulterior in not referring to 1967, the fact is that there was then a slight trend the other way. There were more people who went to Clapham than to York, but that was merely owing to the fact that for part of the year York was either wholly or completely closed. This accounts for the small drop in numbers at York during that period, so the most up to date figures show that there is a potentially greater number of people going to York. I need not remind your Lordships also that York is an important tourist centre, and at least is near the birthplace of the railways. It will be the first time that a branch of a national museum has been established away from London, and if we are going to make a move of this kind then a move of the railway museum from London to York is perhaps as fitting as we can find.
With regard to the question of St. Pancras, it is true that St. Pancras was suggested during our debate on Second Reading, and at other times, and in other places by other people. Your Lordships know that this is merely one of a great number of suggestions which have been made for the future use of St. Pancras. If indeed it ceases to be used as a railway station—and that is not yet the position—it will be far the Railways Board to dispose of it in the first place, subject to their usual practice of offering the land, as it becomes available, to the local authorities, and to the classification of the building itself as an historic building. I cannot go beyond that. This is a matter in the first instance for the British Railways Board, and it may well be that, leaving aside the building itself because the Board does not have complete freedom over that, if it elects to deal with the land in a commercial way, I do not think we necessarily have a right to argue on that point. The reason is that acting commercially is one of the things which has been so consistently pressed on the railways, that they ought perhaps to be exercising their own minds in that direction more than they have done in the

1007
past, and exploit the commercial value of land which they hold and for which they have no further use.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Would it help the noble Lord in his argument if I limited the question I put to him to the building and not to the land at all?
LORD HUGHES: I have been given a lot of information, and although the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, may or may not have a high regard for me, I am quite certain he does not believe for one moment that I have ferreted out for myself the information which I have transmitted about the relative merits of Clapham and York. I have not been given any information as to the relative suitability of the St. Pancras building to form a transport museum as an alternative to Clapham or to York.
LORD WINDLESHAM: But why not? This is the exact point which was raised on Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.
LORD HUGHES: Because at the moment we are dealing with Clapham as it is; we are dealing with York, which seems a completely suitable site and which is available. We do not know at this stage whether St. Pancras would he available for this purpose. I have pointed out that York is still a contingency; it is not a firm decision because there are several conditions to be fulfilled first. It may well be that in the course of the considerations other factors may emerge to make York not the most suitable site, and if in the course of those considerations it turned out that St. Pancras was suitable and available, and could be used, then certainly St. Pancras would be considered. It is not being considered at the moment because in fact we are satisfied that York will provide a first-class place for a museum.
If we are always going to defer Government action on these matters, not on the basis that we should act because we have a good place, but that we should wait until we are absolutely certain we have the best place in the country, we shall never in fact do anything, because someone will always be able to find an argument justifying consideration of some other place. Surely the point is we should be satisfied, and those respon-
1008
sible should be satisfied that the site suggested is one which will well lend itself to the purpose for which it is suggested. I have heard no argument against the proposal at York on that basis. All the information I have been given—and nothing that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has said has been against it—has shown the suitability of York. But we are now merely talking about the fact that we have not examined the possibility of every other site that may be available.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but I am sure he wants to get my argument right. I did advance a strong line of argument against the suitability of York on the grounds that it seems it is going to cost half a million pounds of public money to install a railway museum there. Meanwhile there does seem to be an alternative—the building, not the land—at St. Pancras, which might cost far less than that. Therefore, this does throw considerable doubt on the suitability of the site at York, which will require heavy expenditure to convert it for a museum.
LORD HUGHES: On the cost at York, the noble Lord is on strong ground, because he is reading from the documents which are before him. On the second one, of course, he is not on strong ground, because he merely makes the statement that to do this at St. Pancras would cost not nearly so much, but he has no basis for this. What evidence does he give? It might cost £1 million to do it at St. Pancras; it might cost £100,000 to do it. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has no more idea of what it would cost to do this at St. Pancras than I have, and I can assure him I have no idea what it would cost.
LORD WINDLESHAM: That really is what I am objecting to. It is all very well for the noble Lord to reply vehemently, but if he had any information at all, we could have a more meaningful debate. Everything he says in his reply goes towards underlining the point that a decision was taken in principle before St. Pancras was considered. He now says St. Pancras still has not been considered, but the original decision should stand. I cannot follow that.
LORD FERRIER: May I ask for some clarification? May I ask the noble Lord what he means by the building of St. Pancras? Is he contemplating the movement of the St. Pancras structure? I say this with due consideration, because I think I am right in saying that the structure of the St. Pancras Arch is a very interesting historical piece of ironwork. It is something corresponding with the Forth railway bridge, and it crosses my mind, as one who regarded the destruction of the Euston arch as the most ghastly piece of vandalism, that it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that if indeed this arch can be dismantled, it might answer the question. If the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is talking about the arch at St. Pancras as being a historical matter, it might be moved and save a lot of money in both ways.
LORD HUGHES: I may have been doing my friends in the Ministry an injustice in what I said about giving away the facts of how little I know about what it would cost at St. Pancras. Fortunately, they are not in the same state of ignorance as I am, because I have just had a note passed to me which says that it would cost far more than half a million pounds to develop the St. Pancras building as an alternative site for this museum, apart altogether from any effect which this may have on the value of the remainder of the site.
Apart from that, as those of your Lordships who have been in the building know, it is not an easy place to heat or light, and it would certainly not be an easy place in which to display the relics, so I am afraid I have allowed the noble Lord to lead me into a trap, which I ought not to have done, in assuming that everybody else was as ignorant of the cost of St. Pancras as he and I are. Fortunately my advisers are better placed than I am myself. From that we come back to the main point of all this, which is that Clapham is certainly not a suitable place for this museum for the reasons I have stated. It is incapable of development, which more or less means that it must remain the same as it is now with little or no change at all. Therefore, there must be a change of location of some kind. If a change takes place, there is the opportunity of realising something of the order of half a million
1010
pounds from the sale of the present sites, at both Clapham and York, and if this is used for the development of an alternative site in York at this motive-power depot it means there will be no additional charge on public funds. There is no other significance than that to the figures. If it can be done without additional expense to public funds, so much the better.
The change from Clapham must be made. The change to York is something which is possible. It is a change to a location where it is shown that there is interest in a railway museum; it is an area where the railways are of historic importance; it is near the birthplace of the railways. And for that reason, which seems perfectly sound, as a contingency proposal the Bill should remain as it is.
LORD MOTTISTONE: Could the noble Lord tell us what is the plan for Swindon, where there is also an excellent museum?
LORD HUGHES: Fortunately for me, there is nothing on the Marshalled List in relation to an Amendment on that, because I do not know the answer.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: I know it is late and that noble Lords will not wish to hear much more on this subject, but I hope I can express my point of view very briefly. I know the round shed at York, and I accept readily the opinion given that it would house the relics; and I think it would house them quite well. I know the noble City of York, and I think it is a magnificent city with a beautiful cathedral, and if I did not think these things I would not dare say them in the pretence of the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I know the museum at Clapham. I can even answer the question which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, put to the House. He asked who was responsible for locating the museum at Clapham. So far as I know, it was myself. It was the only place available, and I knew at the time that it was a very bad place.
I should like to complete what I say by putting forward one argument against York and in favour of a museum in London. The reasons for a museum have been given in laying emphasis on

1011
the number of visitors, the number of tourists and even the number of children. These things are quite important in their way, but there are other people who will visit this museum. There are men who come from railway companies in foreign countries who come to England primarily looking for material for their railways, and they are, like all old railwaymen, interested in the past of railways; and they will welcome the opportunity to see the relics in the city to which they have naturally come, whereas they will not naturally go to York. I think it is quite an important point, and as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said that the decision to move to York has not yet been finally made, I hope that careful thought will be given to the possibility of a site in London. I do not believe that there is not another round shed available in London. What I am quite sure is true is that it would cost a little more than the one at York.
LORD HUGHES: I do not wish to say much more than that I was horrified when the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, said he located it at Clapham. I hope I can move safely about the building in future. I was then relieved to find that he put it there knowing that it was a bad place because it was the only place he could find, because I had suspected that that was the reason it was there.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I do not think the Committee would want to prolong the discussion on this point any longer. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, debates with such vigour and skill that we let him get away with things he should not be allowed to get away with. On St. Pancras he changed his ground absolutely and completely in mid-speech, because he was advancing the line of argument that it was much too early to say anything about St. Pancras because nothing was known about its suitability or cost, and then halfway through his speech he suddenly produced some figures; so that we have got something out of this debate. I think we have extracted something from the noble Lord. I personally think it is most regrettable that he was not able to put this information in his speech, bearing in mind
1012
that he had had several weeks' notice of the suggestion that St. Pancras should be used. But we now have some information. It is new to me, and it is most important information, I think, to people who are concerned with this issue; they will also regard it as important information.
The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, has again give us his great experience in the last moments of this debate on this Amendment, and I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, when he draws the attention of his right honourable friend to the debate we had on records, will want to make sure that this debate on relics also receives examination. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 139 agreed to.
Clauses 140 to 142 agreed to.
10.36 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 3132:
After Clause 142, insert the following new clause:
Amendment of Road Safety Act 1967
".—(1) The Road Safety Act 1967 shall have effect with the amendments hereafter specified in this section.
(2) In section 9(1)(b) (which relates to the issue of goods vehicle test certificates)—

(a) for the words 'is found on an examination' there shall be substituted the words 'has been found on examination';

(b) for the words 'does so comply' there shall be substituted the words 'has been found so to comply'.

(3) In section 14, in subsection (8) (under which the Minister may by regulations make certain exemptions provided for by paragraphs (a) and (b) of that subsection) at the end there shall be added the following paragraph:—

'(c) make provision for the issue in respect of a vehicle in such circumstances as may be prescribed of a certificate of temporary exemption exempting that vehicle from the provisions of subsection (1), (2) or (3) of this section for such period as may be specified in the certificate'.

(4) In section 14, in subsection (9) (under which the Minister may by regulations provide that a licence for a vehicle under the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962 shall not he granted unless certain requirements are satisfied) for the words 'under the last foregoing subsection' there shall be substituted the words 'under paragraph (a) of subsection (8) of this section or unless there is produced in respect

1013
of the vehicle a certificate of temporary exemption issued by virtue of paragraph (c) of that subsection which exempts that vehicle from the provisions of the said subsection (2) or (3), as the case may be, for a period which includes the date on which the licence is to come into force.'"
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this new clause, the purpose of which is to meet a small anomaly in the new procedure under the Road Safety Act 1967 for the plating of goods vehicles. Plating is to start on October 1 of this year by regulations under the Act, and as the law stands under the 1967 Act the Minister can by regulations exempt from the requirement to have a plating certificate or a test certificate a whole class of vehicles. For example, he can exempt all vehicles of less than 3½ tons loaded weight, but he cannot exempt a single individual vehicle.
In practice it will sometimes happen that an individual operator, due to circumstances beyond his control, cannot get a plating certificate or test certificate by the due date—for example, on a renewal. The new clause would give the Minister power when making the regulations to provide for such a temporary exemption of the vehicle, and it would also make a certificate of temporary exemption valid in respect of a test certificate in applying for an Excise licence for a goods vehicle.
Finally, the new clause will clear up the doubt which has arisen as to whether a test certificate can be properly given where more than one test has been involved—for example, when there has been a partial failure on the first test and subsequently a re-test in that respect. They are small technical points, and I hope that they will be acceptable. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: It may possibly come as a surprise to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, after the way in which I have been disagreeing so violently with him and with his colleagues in previous Amendments, that on this occasion I can congratulate him on putting forward an Amendment which is not only most useful, but to the drafting of which I can take no exception. I have much pleasure, therefore, in accepting the Amendment.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 313ZA:
After Clause 142, insert the following new clause:
Application of road traffic enactment to Crown
roads
".—(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 32 of the Countryside Act 1968 with respect to certain Crown roads, the Minister may, with the consent of the appropriate Crown authority or authorities concerted, by order, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, direct that, subject to subsection (3) of this section and to such exceptions, adaptations or modifications appearing to him to be necessary or expedient as may be specified in the order, all or any of the road traffic enactments shall apply to all Crown roads, or to any specified Crown road or Crown roads, or to Crown roads of a specified class, as they apply in relation to other roads to which the public has access.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, but subject to subsection (3) of this section, any order under the said subsection (1) with respect to any of the road traffic enactments may in particular include provision—

(a) for enabling functions with respect to a road exercisable under the enactment in question by the local authority or the highway authority to be exercised with respect to a Crown road by the appropriate Crown authority or by a particular local authority or highway authority;

(b) for enabling power to make an order, regulation or scheme under the enactment in question with respect to a Crown road which would otherwise be exercisable by a local authority or highway authority to be exercised instead by the Minister, and for requiring the consent of the Minister to the variation or revocation by any other authority of such an order, regulation or scheme made by him;

(c) for a certificate of the appropriate Crown authority or of the Minister that the authority or Minister has, or has not, consented to the doing of anything for which under the order or under this subsection the consent of the authority or, as the case may be, the Minister is required to be evidence, and in Scotland sufficient evidence, of the facts stated;

(d) for exempting from any provision of the enactment in question persons and vehicles on a Crown road in the service of the Crown or of an agent of the Crown.

(3) No order, regulation or scheme in relation to a Crown road shall be made, varied or revoked under any of the road traffic enactments by virtue of an order under subsection (1) of this section except by or with the consent of the appropriate Crown authority.
(4) With a view to the avoidance of doubt, the road traffic enactments specified in an order under subsection (1) of this section may include any provision of those enactments rotwithstanding that it would have applied in relation

1015
to Crown roads apart from the making of the order; and the inclusion in the order of a provision which would so have applied shall not prejudice anything done under that provision in relation to a Crown road before the coming into force of the order.
(5) In this section—

(a) the expression 'appropriate Crown authority', in relation to a Crown road, means—

(i) in the case of a road on land belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown, the Crown Estate Commissioners or other government department having the management of that land;

(ii) in the case of a road on land belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Chancellor of the Duchy;

(iii) in the case of a road on land belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall, such person as the Duke of Cornwall or the possessor for the time being of the Duchy of Cornwall appoints;

(iv) in the case of a road on land belonging to a government department or held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of a government department, that department;

and if any question arises under this paragraph as to what authority is the appropriate Crown authority in relation to any Crown road, that question shall be referred to the Treasury, whose decision shall be final;

(b) the expression 'Crown road' means a road, other than a highway, to which the public has access by permission granted by the appropriate Crown authority, or otherwise granted by or on behalf of the Crown;

(c) the expression 'road traffic enactments' means the enactments (whether passed before or after this Act) relating to road traffic, including the lighting and parking of vehicles, and any order or other instrument having effect by virtue of any such enactment;

and, in the application of this section to Scotland or Wales, for any reference to the Minister there shall be substituted a reference to the Secretary of State.
(6) Nothing in this section shall prejudice any enactment in addition to this section and section 32 of the Countryside Act 1968 which relates to Crown roads."
The noble Lord said: This new clause empowers the Minister or, in Scotland or Wales, the appropriate Secretary of State, by order to apply all or any aspects of road traffic law, with or without modification, to various kinds of Crown roads, with the consent in each case of the appropriate Crown authority or authorities. The public at present are able to make use of many roads on Crown Land because the relevant Crown authorities
1016
allow them to do so. Examples are some of the roads in the Royal Parks, in Ministry of Defence training areas and in the Board of Trade's trading estates. These roads are not highways or "roads to which the public have access" and do not therefore fall within the ambit of the road traffic law. This situation has given rise to a number of difficulties, particularly over traffic regulation and parking control.
The situation has been made more anomalous by the Countryside Act which recently received Royal Assent. The Committee will recall that, following strong pressure from preservation societies and from the National Parks Commission to bring Crown roads in National Parks and other designated countryside areas within the ambit of the Road Traffic Regulation Act, pressure which was supported on both sides of the House, the Bill was amended by Parliament so as to enable traffic regulation orders to be made, with the consent of the appropriate Crown authority, in respect of Crown roads in such areas. We therefore have the anomalous situation that some Crown roads are liable to road traffic law and others are not. There is much to be said for achieving uniformity, and in this clause we seek to bring it about. I beg to move.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: There was a good deal of anxiety expressed in another place on this point, and the new clause which the noble Lord has moved is very welcome.
Clause 143 agreed to.
10.42 p.m.
LORD BANNER MAN OF KILDONAN LORD BANNER MAN OF KILDONAN moved Amendment No. 313A:
After Clause 143, insert the following new clause:
". There shall be established within three months of the passing of this Act a Scottish Transport Advisory Committee consisting of five persons appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland with the duty of reporting not less than once each year to each House of Parliament on the following matters—

(a) the extent of which grants paid under section 39 of this Act to the Railways Board relate to passenger services in Scotland; and

1017

(b) the extent and distribution of assistance paid to Councils in Scotland under section 34 of this Act; and

(c) the incidence of charges made for the carriage of passenger and goods by the Boards and new Authorities on industry including agriculture, forestry and fishing in Scotland; and

(d) the extent to which the Boards and other authorities are setting tip offices and employing officers and expending resources in a manner which takes adequate account of the need to promote economic development in Scotland; and

(e) the working of Part V of this Act in Scotland and its effect on the Scottish economy."

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 313A. I know that it is very late, but I should like to say a word or two and give you my reasons for putting the Amendment forward. First of all, I would thank the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for having patience in advising me and in putting the Amendment in a form that may commend itself to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I do not know whether that will happen, because the noble Lord as a rule hits my Amendments for six. Whatever he does on this occasion, it will be no reflection on the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn.
To have this clause included in the Bill in my opinion is vital to the interests of the people of Scotland, for when it becomes law they will be faced with new State controls, which alway carry the burden of Westminster centralisation and increased bureaucracy in their wake —the very subject we have been discussing this evening. Nationalisation, for example, in Scotland has opponents for doctrinaire reasons, but its worst feature is the increase in central executive control from London which accompanies it. This proposed new clause is required because nowhere in the Bill is there suggested a watchdog committee of this character to safeguard Scotland's interests. If your Lordships from England view this clause from your own standpoint, you may dub it "national" or perhaps "Liberal", both words of low value connotation if viewed from the centre of power here in London, but without in any way appearing to try to threaten the Government I suggest they would do well to lift their heads out of the sand and take notice of how the indifference of the people to overcentralisation of power
1018
in Westminster is being replaced by a hearty dislike and condemnation, with a consequent loss of seats and votes to the major parties. The despised provincials, who have the temerity to consider that freedom and executive decision over their own living go together, are showing the strength of the defender and saying: "Thus far and no farther". Scotland can take no more "justice" of a paternalistic character from Whitehall. The people of Scotland demand proof in facts and figures so that justice can be seen by them to be done.
When this Bill becomes an Act, a sum of over £50 million per annum is to be spent in Great Britain by Government to keep non-profit-making transport services running for the economic and social good of the community. We wish to ensure that due account is taken of the special needs of Scotland visé England. For example, we heard to-day about the premature closing down of the Borer railways. This was disposed of as though it were a matter of no consequence at all. Why could not the Government have waited at least until this Bill was an Act and then had something to say concerning the Borders, especially when they are sponsoring growth pointy within the Borders? Yet they write the whole thing off. Nobody asks that they keep the railway going from Hawick to Carlisle; everybody said that that does not pay. But have the Government any right to close down a railway from Edinburgh to the centre and the heart of the Borders merely because they say that it is going to save them £250,000 a year, at the present rate of loss, and when the Government tell the whole country that they are going to spend £50 million or £55 million under this Bill once it is enacted? This is deplored and the Government must realise that that sort of thing is entirely wrong and is alienating not only the people of Scotland but the people in other areas of a fringe character in Great Britain.
Then there is the situation in regard to bus substitution in the Borders. The buses are not there. One could travel from Edinburgh to Hawick by train in one-and-a-half hours. A bus in its most modern state takes at the best two-and-a-

1019
half hours, and in the winter time it cannot move at all in the snow which blocks many of the Border roads. Have the Government considered St. Boswells, which is a growth and industrial area? There used to be a commuter service from Hawick and other areas to St. Boswells. If St. Boswells were developed as an industrial area, this service could be developed again. But, no, the Government come along and kill the hope which exists in the Borders, or which at least existed at one time, of development of such a character as would help the people of the Borders. Then we are told that freight trains are going to run. But there can be no doubt that the freight aspect will disappear in a short time, now that the passenger aspect has been killed.
Paragraph (c) of my new clause simply provides for a report to be made as to the effect of the new organisation of transport charges on our indigenous industries in Scotland. The distance to major markets has always been the chief limiting factor in the growth of our industries. Any increase in transport costs or licence difficulties will do untold harm to the proper development of areas such as the Borders and the Highlands, as well as other areas of Scotland. The effect on Scotland of this mammoth Bill should, in my opinion, be measured annually.
Paragraph (d) emphasises the need for decentralisation of offices of Government which may be set up under this Bill. We want to avoid what has already happened, such as the nonsense of the Forestry Commission moving an extraordinary distance to Basingstoke where the executive centre now is, yet its past and its future, so far as trees are concerned, are mainly in Scotland. The nonsense of over-centralisation in London, which we have been hearing about, is something which we in this country have to tight more than ever in our history, and it is one reason, at least, why the Government of the present day are not so popular and even why the Governments of past days were not popular.
We in Scotland have always said that the National Coal Board and the Railways Board would work better if they were given at least a little devolution
1020
over the Border into Scotland. There is a certain amount of discrimination, so far as the people of Scotland are concerned, because of this lack of decentralisation of any kind of executive power. You will not convince the housewife in Scotland that for the past many years she has been paying 10s. to £1 per ton of coal more than the English housewife for any other reason than that the centralised Board clown in London thought she ought to do so. The only thing which has been devolved in recent years is the Savings Bank, and what a job it was to draw that tooth out of the London jaw!
I now come to paragraph (e). It can only be after the Act has been in force for at least a year that the effect of Part V on the Scottish economy can be assessed, even approximately. There is a plethora of licensing regulations for the carrying of goods by road, and how they will work in some areas of Scotland is certainly not known. Many areas have no railway alternative, and what is to happen in those areas? The regulations forcing 10 per cent. of road traffic on to the railways are nonsense in those areas.
I hope the Government will look with favour on this Amendment. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, this time to accept as a Scotsman the sincere purposes and wishes of another Scotsman in this matter, and not always to do the work of another nationality so far as these Amendments are concerned. The ramifications of this enormous Bill will receive annual scrutiny if the Minister will only agree to this Amendment. The interests of the users of transport in Scotland will, to some extent, be safeguarded by this proposed annual review.
It will be no use the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, saying that we have a Secretary of State and a Scottish Office to look after our interests as well as a whole lot of Under-Secretaries of State. Those are administrative individuals. They give no measure of executive background to any living that we have in Scotland. The Government would prevent widespread dissatisfaction if only they would allow a little measure of devolution in this regard. A little power given away now in the form of this proposed committee

1021
may ease the wrath of the electorate—and, believe me, the wrath of the electorate certainly needs easing! It would also do much to ease the impact of this mammoth Bill on Scotland. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: Before the Minister answers, I should like to support the noble Lord. We both come from further North in Scotland than probably any other Member of your Lordships' Committee, so we are rather involved in this. The noble Lord suggests something which I think might be quite a good idea, and that is a committee. The Minister may immediately turn round and say, "Heaven knows how many committees we have had in the last number of years!", but I will tell your Lordships why I think it is right. The committees we have had have usually been made up of theorists from the South—from some of the conurbations there. I cannot name one Highlander or Islander who has been a member. There may have been some, but, if so, I have missed them.
We have particular troubles and difficulties so far as transport is concerned, and I should very much like to see people who live up there being able to take some part in the discussions and being able to explain to people who, quite frankly, do not know the Highlands and the difficulties. I am not referring to the Minister from that very independent place, the Kingdom of Fife, who has helped us a tremendous lot; but there are others who come up and talk such rubbish. They do it with the best will in the world, but it is still rubbish. I should like to see the Highlanders allowed to play a much greater part in telling the interested people here in London, and indeed in the Scottish Office, where the troubles are, and allowed to suggest ways in which they might be overcome. I support the noble Lord who has just spoken.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Before the noble Lord replies, may I say just a word about this subject? The noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, was good enough to refer to me, and I did help him a little—at least, I tried to—in the drafting, although I feel that probably the ideas that he wanted to express are better than the actual drafting of them. But there it is. I think there is something in what
1022
the noble Lord is trying to urge on the Committee. We have, of course, a Scottish Area Transport Users' Consultative Committee, and it is empowered to consider certain things, but the number of things that it is able to consider is rather limited. Most of what it has considered has concerned the closure of railways, and there, of course, it is limited to considerations of hardship. It can initiate other considerations itself, but it does not seem to do so very much. It does not seem to be on the right level.
Then we find that under this Bill passenger transport services so far as concerns the Scottish Transport Group are excluded altogether from the consideration of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee; and then, just at the moment when we thought that the Border railway was going to be all right with the £55 million subsidy that is to be paid to the railways, we find instead that £700,000 is lopped off right away and buses are to be substituted. All this is extremely disheartening. It means that even before we start £700.000 has been lopped off the Scottish share of the £55 million, which is the point that the noble Lord was trying to make this afternoon at Question Time.
I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell us now what proportion of the non-remunerative railways, apart from the Border railway, are to be found in Scotland and what the amount involved is. This is the sort of thing for which there should be a committee in Scotland, keeping an eye on it. This is the first of the noble Lord's proposals. Then there is the question of the extent and distribution of assistance paid to the councils for rural bus services. This, too, would be a thing over which a committee in Scotland would have an overall view. The incidence of charges made for the carriage of passengers and goods by Boards and new authorities on industry, is another subject. Here again, although the transport users' consultative committees, as I understand it, can now consider the National Freight Corporation services and the railway services, they are debarred from considering charges.
It is very important that the incidence of the charges as a whole on industry, agriculture and fishing in Scotland should be considered, as I said at an earlier stage. We need something to do that.

1023
Then there is the extent to which the Boards and other authorities are putting up offices. The noble Lord dealt with that point very extensively and I need not mention it further. Finally, there is the working of Part V, which deals with special authorisations. I take it that now the Border railways has gone no special authorisations will be given—there will he no need for them in the area and the whole area will be exempt. If not, there will be considerable difficulty if that area is to be put to the trouble of sending freight by road and then having to have it transferred to the railway in Carlisle, because that will put up the costs.
The whole subject has to be looked at carefully. Some committee should be taking a view of it and advising the Government from the point of view of the people and of the user. That is the essential thing that the noble Lord is recommending, as I see it. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will not say that he is satisfied with the arrangements already in the Bill. If he is, he must be the only Scotsman who is.
LORD FERRIER: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, and what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. I am tempted to speak because of what I heard when the unfortunate Minister concerned was answering a Question this afternoon about the Border railway. To one who is not a Highlander but lives ten miles from Carstairs and has travelled every mile of metalled road in the Borders during his lifetime, it was mystifying to hear the words that were spoken about how to get from Hawick to Edinburgh via Carstairs. It did not make sense to me.
To keep to the issue of a committee for Scotland, I speak with considerable experience of railway management, as it so happens that for a number of years in my business life in India I was concerned particularly with feeder railways. I am confident that by some of the methods adopted in India to face competition which arose from road traffic and buses when roads became more passable, a great many of the railways in Scotland could be made at least to break even. If the sole criterion is that a railway should be closed down because it is losing money, am I not right in
1024
thinking that the commuter services round London lose more money than all the railways in Scotland put together? Surely those railways should be closed before the line from Inverness to the Kyle of Lochalsh. I should be glad to know from the Government the answer to that one.
I feel very strongly that this matter of profitability should be faced squarely. I will not go on with the argument the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, has produced so characteristically and persuasively about Scottish independence and that sort of thing, but will support him on the question of running a region of British railways at a great distance from London in a terrain which, manifestly, most people on this side of the Border simply do not understand. This was made clear when we debated the British Standard Time Bill. They are unaware of the conditions in Scotland.
It is surely proper that the Amendment which the noble Lord proposed should be taken back and considered and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will give us an assurance to that effect. If he does not, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, will divide the Committee, and I shall support him. Let us stand up and be counted, no matter how few there may be. This matter must be looked at right in the eye with the problems of railway operation, irrespective of nationalisation or anything else, in terms of terrain, traffic load and profitability. It should be examined and should be under the control of some sort of sub-committee in Scotland.
LORD HUGHES: I am constantly intrigued by the passion with which the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, encourages your Lordships to divide on these matters, no matter how late the hour; and it always seems to be at a late hour when he wishes to encourage us to divide. I do not view with enthusiasm his idea that everything which has to be said on this matter has already been said. If that is so, I am wasting my time in trying to put the other side of the argument. I am in sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman of Kildonan, has put forward and I am prepared to do much of what he asks, but not in the way he wants. What he has asked is

1025
totally unworkable. He said that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, had helped him in drafting the Amendment. I am not certain whether the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was pulling his leg. What has emerged is perfectly correct as a drafting proposition. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was very careful to say that if there was anything wrong with the drafting it was not the fault of the noble Lord, but I think he was leaving the principles quite squarely with the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman. What are we asked to do? The Secretary of State is asked to appoint a Scottish Transport Advisory Committee. Whom is the Committee to advise? Not the Secretary of State. In fact—
LORD BANNERMAN of KILDONAN: But—
LORD HUGHES: The noble Lord must contain himself for a little. He has had a fair innings. After all, he has turned this once again into a general debate on the economy of Scotland and none of the Scottish noble Lords has followed him in that error.
The duties which are to be laid on the committee are not to advise anybody. It is to find a lot of information and to transmit it, not to the person who appointed the committee, not to the Secretary of State for Scotland. For the first time (it is not necessarily a bad thing because it is the first time) we are asked to appoint an advisory committee which is not to advise anybody but is to collect a lot of information and transmit it direct to Parliament. If there is anything wrong with the body, the first thing wrong is its title. It is not an advisory body at all; it is a fact-collecting agency.
That might be quite reasonable if nobody was doing it already. The Amendment refers to the extent to which
"grants paid under section 39 of this Act to the Railways Board relate to passenger services for Scotland."
Information about that is to be made available already to Parliament, because Clause 39 requires the Railways Board to publish details of grants paid in respect of unremunerative rail services. Then we come to paragraph (b) in the Amendment, which refers to making information available about
1026
"the extent and distribution of assistance paid to Councils in Scotland under section 34 of this Act."
The Government agree that it is proper that the information should be made available to Parliament, and that is why the Government will ensure that information about rural bus grants and the Secretary of State's other activities will be given in the annual report of the Scottish Development Department, which again is presented to Parliament.
On paragraph (c), the incidence of charges made for the carriage of passengers and goods, fares and charges are fixed by the Boards in the light of their commercial experience and judgment. Their effect on industry in Scotland falls within the sphere and interest of the Scottish Economic Planning Counci1 and their Transport Committee, who have been extremely active in relation to transport matters, particularly in recent months. They are free, as they have been in the past, to give such advice and make such representations to Ministers as they think are necessary. And I would remind your Lordships that under the prices and incomes policy all proposals for major price increases for nationalised industries are to be referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes. So there is already provision for protection or full examination under paragraph (c).
On the extent to which the Board and other authorities are setting up offices and employing officers and expending resources in a manner which takes adequate account of the need to promote economic development in Scotland, Parliament has been very careful in Statutes not to lay down to the various nationalised industries in the United Kingdom directions the location of their headquarters or offices. The nationalised industries, in general, are expected to pay regard to the Government's regional development policy in the siting of their main offices, but it has been recognised all along that it would be undesirable to impose any statutory provision giving Ministers power over the industries in the detailed conduct of their operations, such as would be a natural corollary of this part of the proposed clause.
As to the working of Part V of the Bill in Scotland, and its effect on the Scottish economy, how is an advisory

1027
body of five people, chosen by the Secretary of State, going to get this information? Are they going to set up as a separate Department of State? Remember that they are not to report to any Minister, but are to report direct to Parliament. There is no word about them being paid; they may or may not be paid people. But if they are not paid people, it becomes all the more obvious that they must rely on staff to collect this information for them. Yet we are to have, for the first time, so far as I can see, a department responsible to no Minister reporting through a so-called advisory body direct to both Houses of Parliament.
With what the noble Lord wishes to do I find it difficult to disagree, and the Bill already makes provision for three of his five points. If we do not make provision for the fourth it is because we do not think it is in the interests of good commercial organisation of the nationalised industries that we should give them specific instructions of this kind; and if we are not giving them specific instructions, there is not much point in asking them what they have done, other than will emerge in the ordinary way in their reports. Paragraph (e) I would willingly accept if I could see any possible way of making it work.
The noble Lord was perhaps rather led into this by the way in which I spoke on previous Amendments. The way things are going, I shall be offered membership of the Scottish Nationalist Party before he is, if I get led into many more debates such as I have had this evening. He said that what we needed was a watchdog of Scottish interests, and that the Bill will result in increased centralised control from London. This Bill sets up for the first time an entirely separate nationalised transport board for Scotland—the Scottish Transport Group. This was discussed in another place and it was said—I do not know who said this, if it had been said from the Opposition it would have been much stronger, but I doubt whether it was—that it was the most important measure of devolution to be brought before this Parliament. Whether that is an exaggerated or picturesque view of the situation, the fact cannot be disputed that this is a measure of devolution in transport very much greater than anything that has been accomplished before.
1028
I have already said, when I was rejecting another of his Amendments—the noble Lord said I had "hit his Amendment for six" on a previous occasion—that I honestly dislike disagreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman of Kildonan. But on the previous occasion I could find nothing good to say for his Amendment. On this occasion I am accepting that three of his five points are valid and pointing out that provision is already made for them. For this reason, I can see no useful purpose in importing these three points into the Bill a second time, and adding to them one which is undesirable and a fifth which is unworkable.
11.16 p.m.
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONAN: I did not expect any more than I got from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, but he tends to confuse matters. He questioned the fact that I had called this an advisory body, and felt that because of that there was something wrong with it. There is nothing wrong with an advisory body except that it has not executive power. As a rule we do not like advisory bodies in Scotland, merely because nobody takes their advice and they have no executive power. But here was a body which I was asking should be appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, thinks it a crime that it should not report back to the master who appointed it.
I feel that the request that we have made, that there should be this watchdog committee over the working of this mammoth Bill in Scotland, is not an unreasonable request. The fact that perhaps we require a staff for this advisory body is one factor. Is there something wrong in expecting that a staff should work along with the advisory body to find out the facts of how this mammoth Bill is working in Scotland under the peculiar industrial and social conditions of Scotland? Not only that, but there is the fact that there are great areas in Scotland which are depopulated areas which require the most special treatment in regard to services of a transport character. Yet we find the nature of the Government's concern for a great area of Scotland, the Borders, translated into a contemptuous disregard for this area, and the closing down of a railway when,

1029
surely, they could have waited to see whether or not the Act that they were producing might have something different to say about it, especially as this Act enabled them to spend £55 million on uneconomic services. Yet to-day we were told that a quarter of a million pounds was far too much to spend on the Border area for this branch line.
I say to your Lordships that there is a complete lack of sympathy for the social and economic situation of the people in Scotland; and the Government should know better than I that this is causing a definite dislike of Government centralisation and Government dictation. This feeling can be only intensified by a Bill of this nationalistic, nationalisation quality, with the authorities that are to be set up under it.
At least the noble Lord has agreed to two-fifths of my committee. He has suggested that three-fifths is being looked after in the Bill. But what I want is an overall picture of the situation, not a piecemeal picture as will be produced by the noble Lord's agencies under this Bill. We want a whole picture of the situation in Scotland. That is what I am asking for in this Amendment, and that is what I am prepared to divide the Committee on if the noble Lord will not consider that this is a feasible proposition under the Bill.
THE EARL OF PERTH: Before the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, replies, I wonder whether he could help many of us on this subject, because it is one which I think causes us considerable anxiety. I appreciate that what the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, has proposed in this Amendment is perhaps impracticable and cannot be carried through in its present form. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, proceeded to demolish, clause by clause, the various things which were there, or else said that they were to be taken care of by one body or another, or by a third o' fourth body. This may be true, but it will be awfully hard to follow just what each one of these bodies may report, and what will be the overall effect.
The noble Lord himself said that he had great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, was seeking by this Amendment, in which case I should like to ask him whether the Government
1030
could not help us by themselves undertaking annually to make a specific report about the effect of the Transport Bill on Scotland; because for Scotland the Transport Bill is of greater importance than for any other part of the country. I say this advisedly, because we all know that one of the greatest handicaps we suffer from is the distance between many parts of Scotland and the rest of the country. If the noble Lord (who said he has sympathy with us) would undertake that once a year there would be some sort of report made by the Scottish Office, or who you will, then I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, not to press his Amendment. If the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is not today able to tell us exactly what form the report would take, perhaps Lord Bannerman could put the Amendment down again at the Report stage.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Earl has reminded your Lordships that I have sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, wanted. I went on to point out that some of the things for which he was asking he was asking for needlessly, because the Bill already covers them and therefore it would be quite wrong to insert them into the Bill again. There is nothing wrong with having advisory bodies; he himself made the main criticism in saying that most people criticise them because they are only advisory bodies and the people whom they advise are under no obligation to accept their advice or to act upon it. But my criticism was that this committee is not in fact an advisory body at all, because there is nothing in the Amendment calling on it to give anybody any advice. The Amendment talks about passing on information; it is not even saying that the committee should comment on information that it gathers. I was pointing out that the Amendment was inconsistent in that it was naming a body in one way and calling upon it to do something else.
In his reply to me the noble Lord proceeded to a point which I should like to be able to meet—and this is also the point followed by the noble Earl, Lord Perth. Even if all the information that is wanted is submitted in the way I have suggested, the noble Earl suggested that it does not have the same value if one has to search through different places

1031
to find it. I cannot say whether it is possible for the Scottish Office or the Development Department or any other existing body to take the responsibility of gathering together these various pieces of information and presenting them as a document. I readily accept that if it could be done it would be a worthwhile exercise, and it would certainly then form a very useful basis for us, having a Scottish debate, not necessarily on an Amendment to a Bill, but arranged specifically for the purpose. I readily undertake to examine the possibilities, and after examination I will, if I may, write to the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman and the noble Earl, Lord Perth who in his capacity as chairman of the Scottish Peers' Association is probably also well qualified to receive a letter of this kind. I will let them know whether it is possible to do something of this kind or, alternatively, explain why it cannot be done. I will do so in ample time, so that if the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, is not satisfied with what I give to him, and wishes to pursue the matter at the next stage, he will not be hampered in his future activities by my having left my answer until the last minute.
LORD KILMANY: Before accepting the proposal that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has put before us, perhaps I might ask him this question. It will be in his recollection earlier today, when a colleague of his was answering a question of mine about the closing of the Border railway, that the reply from the Government was exceedingly disappointing to my point of view, and also, I think, to the point of view of the vast majority of people who live in the Borders, and I expect the vast majority of people who live in Scotland at all.
The question I wanted to ask the noble Lord is whether the solution that he now puts before us, on the proposal largely of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, could in fact meet the problem of the closing of this Border line, and whether he could give us any hope that the proposal he has put before us could allow the regrettable decision, which was announced in this House today, and elsewhere last week, to be overtaken, overturned and corrected. If the noble Lord could give that assurance, I for one
1032
should be well content to leave the matter where it is. But if not, I shall find it difficult to feel satisfied that I have done everything I can to prevent the closure of this line, which I know is so badly needed by those who live in the Border country.
LORD CHAMPION: I have sat here and listened to very much of this debate. Most of the problems that have been raised seem to apply equally to Wales. What I would now do is urge my noble friend, if he is going to get out special reports for Scotland, that he ought to ensure that special reports are got out also for Wales. I know that some of my friends from Yorkshire who in the normal way would be here would be making precisely the same points on behalf of the nationalists of Yorkshire. They would be extremely anxious to get a report of this sort presented to the House from time to time covering the Yorkshire area. This sort of thing can be carried to the point of absurdity, and it seems to me that this is what this House is in danger of doing at this time. I am bound to protest that if my noble friend is to come along on Report stage with something of this sort for Scotland, I shall be looking very carefully to make sure that Wales is also included, so as to be able to satisfy my friends in Wales that Scotland is not getting away with it once more.
LORD HUGHES: I am not going to be dragged into a quarrel—Wales versus Scotland. All I would say is this. When the noble Lord compares Wales with Scotland, I will not quarrel with him. When he starts to talk about parts of England as if they were separate nations, we are in danger of falling out; so I am not going to pursue that matter. There is a Scottish Office and there is a Welsh Office, and they have jobs to do. It may well be that something of this kind could fall perfectly within their remit.
I have not suggested that anything which the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has asked me to do is in the context of putting something into this Bill. What he asked was: Is it possible for information to be given by the Scottish Office, or by one of the Departments of the Scottish Office? This would be something quite outwith the Bill. I shall not

1033
be putting forward Amendments to the Bill in this respect. I agree that it would be improper to do that. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmany, asked me about the solution I have suggested. I have not suggested a solution. I was asked to consider a proposition by the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, and the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and I have undertaken to look to see whether it is possible to do what they ask. Anything which I am looking at is in relation to future activities and can have no relevance at all to anything my noble friend said this afternoon.
Much was said in the previous debate about the question put this afternoon and the answer given in another place last week. I did not refer to it. That was dealt with by my noble friend this afternoon. I continued deliberately not to embark on it during discussion on this Amendment. I do not want to mislead the noble Lord, Lord Kilmany, into any action that he would not otherwise take. I do not want him to think I am proposing any solution. All I have done is to undertake to look at the practicability of a suggestion for gathering various pieces of information which are going to be made available under one heading.
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONAN: I thank the noble Lord for his willingness to recognise that the collation of all the data concerning the effect of this Bill in Scotland is something worthwhile from a Scottish point of view. It is not depreciated in any way by the desire of Wales to have a similar collated picture; in fact, I would ask that Wales should be given such a picture as well. If we can receive from the Government, and from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, the assurance that before the Report stage he will inform me and the Hot se of the position, then perhaps we can arrive at something which will safeguard Scotland against what I feel will be the ill-effects of this Bill. I am very much in sympathy with the noble Lord here who wants to see a "re-think" on the Border situation, because in my view the Government have acted far too quickly in this matter without waiting for their own legislation to take form, and I think they could well have done this and given hope to the Borders for future
1034
development. Nevertheless, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for only having hit my Amendment for three-fifths of a six. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 144 agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 314:
After Clause 144, insert the following new clause:
Restriction of operation of Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947, s. 226
(". Expenditure incurred by a district council under or by virtue of this Act shall not be taken into account in any calculation as to the limit of one shilling per pound imposed on the rate which may be levied by such a council in any year by section 226 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947.")
The noble Lord said: This is a minor Amendment. It will give power to a district council to undertake expenditure of the kind stated in the new Clause additional to, and beyond, the present limit—which I think is a sum equal to the product of a shilling rate. A similar power, I understand, already exists in England. These powers of expenditure are purely permissive powers, and, like other permissive powers of the kind, they are to be additional to the present limits of expenditure. The district councils wish to have this power and the Government can see no reason for denying it to them. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I ask one question? There is an upper limit of the product of a shilling rate on all other expenditure. Did the Government consider an upper limit on expenditure in this regard for district councils? It seems illogical that there should be a limit on one form of expenditure and not on another.
LORD HUGHES: No. We think that these are powers for expenditure which, having regard to the resources and the field of district councils will not be widely used, and we do not think it necessary that a specific limit should be imposed. Whereas, of course the ordinary functions of district councils within their own areas cover a field which could take them, if they were so minded and had the power, very much in excess of the present limit which they have. Expenditure on

1035
parks, the provision of golf courses, swimming pools and the like, can very soon, given the inclination, run to very much more than the product of a shilling rate.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved Amendment No. 314A:
After Clause 144, insert the following new clause:
Compensation for certain refusals under Docks and Harbours Act 1966
(".—(1) Where in the case of an application for a licence under the Docks and Harbours Act 1966 for the employment of dock workers which has been refused by the licensing authority—

(a) the application was made before the commencement of section 1 of that Act; and

(b) the applicant has not appealed under section 7 of that Act against the authority's decision to refuse the application; and

(c) after the date when notice of that decision was given to the applicant by the authority, all applications for such licences for the port in question have been referred to the Minister under section 8(2) of that Act,

then, subject to subsection (2) of this section, for the purposes of compensation under section 13 of that Act for the refusal of that application subsection (5) of the said section 13 (which relates to the date to be treated for the purposes of such compensation as the date of refusal of a licence) shall not apply, and shall be deemed never to have applied, in relation to that refusal, but for the purposes of subsection (3) of that section the refusal shall be treated as having taken place on the date referred to in paragraph (c) of this subsection.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section shall not have effect in relation to a case where the amount of the compensation under the said section 13 has been determined before the date of the coming into force of this section unless within three months of that date the applicant sends to the licensing authority a writen request that it shall so have effect.")
The noble Viscount said: The object of this new clause is to correct a defect which has been found in the Docks and Harbours Act 1966. It is a rather complicated matter, but I will explain it as briefly as I can. Perhaps I should first declare an interest, but I think it is not an interest that your Lordships would feel should inhibit me from moving this clause, as the effect of it, if it is passed and if this Bill comes an Act, is that the Port of London Authority will incur certain additional expense which it is not liable to incur at the present.
Your Lordships will remember that one of the principal objects of the Docks and Harbours Act 1966 was to provide for the licensing of port employers, and it was provided that where a licence was refused to someone who had been carrying on business he could claim compensation, based, briefly, on the difference between the value of his business before he was refused and its value after he had been refused. In due course the licensing authorities in each port considered these matters, and the trouble arose mainly in the Port of London. A number of applicants were refused licences. Some of them accepted that refusal, and they proceeded to wind up their business and put forward their claims for compensation. But there were others who appealed against the refusal of a licence. Under the Act it was then necessary for the Minister to appoint an inspector and to conduct a public inquiry. In due course, after this had been done, the Minister gave her decision.
It was then found (and it had not been observed) that the date which is treated, for the purposes of a claim for compensation, as the date of the refusal was in all cases the date of the Minister's decision, which was some three months after the original decision of the licensing authority. This was because the inspector was bound to consider the whole field of the employment of labour in the port. Therefore the Minister called in all the applications. But, of course, the people who had accepted the decision originally and had wound up their business found that in three months' time they had no business on which to calculate their compensation. It was held by the lawyers in some cases—though not in all—that this deprived them of the whole of the compensation, and certainly of all their compensation for good will and other such things. In many cases, of course, they had disposed of their assets.
The Ministry of Transport immediately felt that this was quite wrong: it had never been intended. They therefore suggested that the compensation (which, I should explain, is paid by a levy on the successful applicants for licences and on the port authority who are themselves employers), should be paid ex gratia. But difficulties were felt about this, so

1037
far as the private employers were concerned. Some of them were limited companies, where the directors had responsibility to their shareholders; and in the case of the port authorities, if they had agreed to do this they might well have found that they were acting outside their powers. Therefore, we were at deadlock. I think it is no secret that it was a suggestion of the Ministry (who indeed were good enough to arrange for this clause to be drafted) that we should put an amending clause into this Bill to enable the matter to be put right. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: At this late hour the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, has moved his Amendment with two qualities which must commend themselves to your Lordships—clarity and brevity. He will be glad to know that he has also added to that persuasiveness. We can accept the Amendment.
Clauses 145 to 148 agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: We have not, as I had hoped, quite got through the Committee stage, but if we continued we should not finish at a reasonable hour, and I think we should adjourn consideration of the Committee stage now. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
The Queen's Consent signified; Bill reported with Amendments.
BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL BRITISH RAILWAYS (MERSEY RAILWAY EXTENSIONS)BILL CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) (No. 2) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
ELY-OUSE ESSEX WATER BILL [H.L.] GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (VAUXHALL CROSS IMPROVEMENT) BILL [H.L.] LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.] MEDWAY WATER (BEWL BRIDGE RESERVOIR) BILL [H.L.] MID-GLAMORGAN WATER BILL [H.L.] PORT OF LONDON BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
  AIR FLIGHTS OVER SOUTH-WEST LONDON
  AIR FLIGHTS OVER SOUTH-WEST LONDON