Sitting of 18 June 1968

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL
Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
UNIVERSITY OF WALES INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BILL
Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) (No. 2) BILL
Read the Third time and passed.
BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
To be read a Second time upon Thursday.
MEDWAY WATER (BEWL BRIDGE RESERVOIR) BILL [Lords]
Read a Second time and committed.
MID-GLAMORGAN WATER BILL [Lords]
To be read a Second time upon Thursday.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next at Seven o'clock.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)
Read a Second time and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOUSING

    Mortgage Option Scheme
    Mr. Rossiasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what response there has now been to the introduction of the 100 per cent. mortgage guarantee scheme.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): According to a sample survey of building society mortgages, about 10 per cent. of mortgages completed during April were option mortgages and of these over 35 per cent. came under the guarantee scheme.
    Mr. Rossi: Has the right hon. Gentleman any plans to extend the scheme to those with no money to put down as a deposit but who nevertheless will not obtain any advantage from the option mortgage scheme?
    Mr. Greenwood: I have no power to do that at present.
    Mr. Cleggasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what representations he has received to permit those who have exercised a mortgage option to change their decision.
    Mr. Greenwood: Certain representations to this effect have been received, but there is no provision in the Housing Subsidies Act, 1967, for a properly given option notice to be revoked.
    Mr. Clegg: Is the Minister aware that certain people who have taken on the option mortgage are now, because of the family allowances, paying more than they would have paid had they not taken it on? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot take action, will he have a word with his right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to see whether he can do something on his side?
    Mr. Greenwood: I have no power to do it at the moment, and I think that we have to take into consideration the interests of the various lending agencies who administer this scheme and who felt at the time that to introduce a choice of

    885
    this kind would add greatly to the complications of the scheme.
    Mr. Barnett: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that genuine mistakes can be made and cause quite considerable difficulties, and that circumstances might change, too? In those circumstances, will he consider bringing in legislation to change the present situation?
    Mr. Greenwood: As my hon. Friend knows, anybody can opt into the scheme but cannot later opt out. I think that we must have regard to the interests of the lending agencies who are responsible for the administration of the scheme.
    Mr. Rippon: But does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that the questions put to him this afternoon show that there are grave deficiencies in the Act as it is now operating? Far too few people are exercising the option because its operation is too limited. Also, as hon. Members on both sides have said, the Finance Bill has perpetrated a fraud on some of the people who have got in.
    Mr. Greenwood: Ten per cent. of existing borrowers have taken advantage and 5 per cent. of new ones, which is about what we originally estimated. I have not ignored the point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes, but at the moment I have not these powers and I see little chance of legislation in the immediate future.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this is a first-class piece of legislation, of which his Department is entitled to be proud, but that difficulties are being experienced? Would he undertake to review this within 12 months to see whether further legislation is required?
    Mr. Greenwood: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. About 160,000 families among existing borrowers have already benefited and, on present figures, about 50,000 families per year among new borrowers will do so. We shall naturally keep the operation of the Act under review, and if we decide that any amendment is necessary we shall take that into account, but I cannot promise it at this stage.
    Mr. Silvesterasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what

    886
    modifications of the mortgage option scheme he is considering.
    Mr. Greenwood: None, Sir.
    Mr. Silvester: While the right hon. Gentleman has explained that he has no power at the moment to change the option mortgage scheme, is he aware that his booklet on the scheme explains that people paying tax of £80 a year are likely to benefit if they take the option and that that statement is no longer true? Has he any plans to change the booklet if he cannot change the law?
    Mr. Greenwood: I share the concern of the hon. Gentleman. If, in fact, the booklet is now misleading, I will, of course, look at the point he raises and see whether any corrective action is required.
    Mr. Brooks: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on planning to take this belated action, may I ask him to agree that where the Government takes financial measures which tip the balance of advantage against those who have taken up the mortgage option scheme there should be scope for some compensatory action so as not to cause great disillusion?
    Mr. Greenwood: I am afraid not. [Interruption.] Taxation is a normal risk. This matter was thoroughly discussed in Committee when the Measure was going through the House, at which point hon. Members decided to approve the Measure in its present form. It is too early to start contemplating an amendment along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.

    Rents (Circular 25/68)
    Mr. Murtonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why he has made no reference in Circular 25/68 to provision for increased costs in the period to 31st March, 1968.
    Mr. Greenwood: The circular explained that the general aim should be to avoid putting up rents by more than the amount needed to cover the rise in costs in the year; but I accept that rent increases in 1968–69 may also reflect extra costs incurred before 31st March, 1968.
    Mr. Murton: Would the right hon. Gentleman not consider amending his circular to take these costs into account

    887
    so that local authorities know where they are over proposed rent levels for local authority houses?
    Mr. Greenwood: If the hon. Gentleman will read the circular—it was No. 25/68—he will find the point covered. The point which we were making there was that increases in rents should not cover anticipated increases in subsequent years, but we fully accept that any expenses incurred before the circular was issued can be taken into account for current increases.

    Rent Officers
    Mr. Graham Pageasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what reduction in the number of rent assessment officers was made during the financial year 1967–68 and what reduction is expected during the present financial year.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): The net reduction in the financial year 1967–68 was 33 officers, of whom 19 were part time rent officers. It is expected that in the present financial year the reduction will be in the order of 30 officers, of whom more than half will be part time rent officers.
    Mr. Page: Why should there be any reduction at all? Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that they will be required under the Government's announced policy in the White Paper, "Old Homes into New Homes"? Are the Government seriously intending to carry out that policy as early as possible?
    Mr. MacColl: The answer to the last sentence is, yes, we are intending to carry out the policies of the White Paper. As to the other matter, we cannot keep staff hanging around waiting until the work is there. We must economise in staff.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Will my hon. Friend note the enthusiasm and persistence with which Conservative Members are pressing for higher rents through rent decontrol?
    Mr. MacColl: I hope that my hon. Friend will not forget that there is much more in the White Paper than just high rents.

    Immigrants
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what further provisions he is now making for housing immigrants.
    Mr. MacColl: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) on 7th May.—Vol. 764, c. 202–3. Areas with severe housing needs are already being given priority, their programmes are proceeding apace, and the further urgent study of areas with special problems, including those with large immigrant populations, is being undertaken.

    Multi-Storey Buildings
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many flats in multi-storey buildings are at present under construction; how many more are authorised and awaiting commencement, in design similar to the Canning Town block where disaster occurred, in May, 1968; what changes in policy he proposes pending publication of the report of the public inquiry; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Greenwood: At 30th April, 1968, 64,142 dwellings in multi-storey buildings of all types were under construction for local authorities and new towns in England and Wales. At the same date, 6,525 dwellings in multi-storey buildings in systems using large precast concrete load bearing panels were approved but not started. Of these, 29 dwellings were to be built by the system of construction used in the Canning Town block. I have asked the Chairman to pass on to me anything emerging in the course of the inquiry that indicates a need for interim action.
    Sir G. Nabarro: How long does the right hon. Gentleman expect that it will be before the report on the Canning Town disaster is available for us to read? If it is likely to be any substantial length of time, is it wise for these constructions to proceed unimpeded all over the country when they are of the same design as the Canning Town block?
    Mr. Greenwood: I said in my reply that 29 dwellings were to be built by the

    889
    system of construction used in the Canning Town block. Mr. Griffiths, the Chairman of the Tribunal, has not been able to give a date for the completion of his work, although he knows my view; that I would like to see the report as quickly as possible, consistent with a thorough investigation of the problem. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate the importance of my not saying anything at this stage which might appear to prejudge the findings of the Tribunal or might be likely to cause alarm in cases where alarm is probably uncalled for.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: While recognising the deep concern that exists over this matter, is it not important for us to keep a sense of proportion and recognise that industrial building on the high-rise plan has been going on successfully for more than 20 years in this country, in Europe and elsewhere?
    Mr. Greenwood: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that comment.
    Mr. Winnickasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now review the policy of encouraging local authorities to build very high blocks of flats.
    Mr. Greenwood: I have not encouraged local authorities to build high flats. Indeed, they were asked on the contrary in Circular 36/67 to re-appraise their policies for housing densities and layouts where these appeared to demand a high proportion of high rise dwellings.
    Mr. Winnick: While appreciating the difficulties of many local authorities, would it be possible for the Ministry to lay down a provision that before loan sanction is granted for particular schemes certain playing facilities for very young children should be included in all tall blocks of flats?
    Mr. Greenwood: This is a problem which is under review by the sociologists in my Ministry, and I hope to be able to issue guidance to local authorities, probably later this year.

    House Purchase Costs
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will initiate a study into the possibilities of constructing a complete
    890
    local authority register of property ownership with the aim of enabling houses to be bought and sold through the local authority as a simple log-book transaction, thus reducing house-purchase costs.
    Mr. MacColl: No, Sir. Investigating the title of every property would involve a great expense and burden of staff. Much of the information is already available in the Land Registry.
    Mr. Roberts: Would my hon. Friend accept that, while difficulty might arise in a few cases, 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. of houses bought and sold could be transacted on such a log-book basis? If one can buy an £8,000 Rolls Royce via a log book is there any reason why one should not be able to buy a £4,000 house in the same way?
    Mr. MacColl: I am afraid that land attracts historic accretions which motor cars do not. I am sure that the best way to proceed is to push on with compulsory registration of titles.
    Mr. Graham Page: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the inadequacy of the registers at the present time is causing a great increase in the work of conveyancing? As a first step, will he look into the matter of seeing that all proposals and encumbrances on property are registered on one register in one place so that the work of conveyancing could be thereby reduced and the cost possibly reduced?
    Mr. MacColl: We will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

    Old People
    Mr. Cordleasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he is taking to assist local authorities to provide special housing for old people.
    Mr. Gardnerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what priority is given to accommodation for the elderly in considering current local authority house building allocations.
    Mr. MacColl: Housing of old people is one of the priority needs for local authority housebuilding and, as an encouragement, higher costs on houses with

    891
    special features designed for old people are admissible for subsidy.
    Mr. Cordle: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that some of our housing problems could be dealt with by adopting a sensible policy of transferring council tenants to accommodation suited to their needs? Is he satisfied with the present provision of purpose-built flats for the elderly?
    Mr. MacColl: The type of house to be built for old people is a matter for the local authority to decide, based on its local knowledge.
    Mr. Gardner: Is my hon. Friend aware that some local authority flats built for elderly people provide a relatively cheap way of supplying initial accommodation in that when they are provided with alternative accommodation the elderly release their older houses? Will my hon. Friend ensure that in any representations he makes to local authorities this year he will see that this important area of accommodation is not cut?
    Mr. MacColl: Accommodation suitable for old people represents, on average, 28 per cent. of the total public authority provisions; and as the total provision in this sector is going up, the amount of accommodation provided for old people is also going up.
    Mr. Graham Page: Is it not a fact that the 28 per cent. average of annual output to which he referred has gone down every year while the Labour Party has been in office? What do the Government intend to do about this problem in the future?
    Mr. McColl: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The figure has remained stable over the years, although the absolute numbers have gone up because our output has been a record one.

    House Purchase (Surveyor's Report)
    Mr. Barnettasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will introduce legislation requiring building societies and others lending money for house purchase to provide copies of the surveyor's report to prospective purchasers who pay for such reports.
    Mr. MacColl: No, Sir. To compel building societies to provide copies of these reports would imply that they were

    892
    more general help to purchasers than is the case.
    Mr. Barnett: Is my hon. Friend aware that it simply is not good enough to accept uncritically the opinions of the Building Societies Association? Would he at least have discussions with the Association, which might be prepared to reconsider this matter, so that many hundreds of thousands of people who are paying money for something that they are not getting might see something for their money?
    Mr. MacColl: I can assure my hon. Friend that we have had and continue to have discussions with the Association. It takes this view and, short of legislation, at the moment it does not seem likely to alter it.
    Mr. Barnett: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Greater London Council (Rents Scheme)
    Mr. Huntasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what financial assistance he will offer to the Greater London Council in order to help it to meet an estimated loss of £1 million resulting from his refusal to allow the Council to proceed with its fair rents scheme.
    Mr. Greenwood: None, Sir. Local authorities are not entitled to compensation from national funds for restraint on prices and incomes.
    Mr. Hunt: Is the Minister aware that, as a direct result of his meddling interference, the ratepayers of Greater London are now being called upon to find an extra £4,500,000 in the course of the next two years? Is it not financial and social madness to force the G.L.C. to cut the rents of its top income tenants at the expense of the general ratepayers, many of whom are living in far less affluent conditions than some of the G.L.C. tenants?
    Mr. Greenwood: As a result of what the hon. Gentleman kindly calls my "meddling interference", the average increase proposed has been reduced from 11s. 7d. to 7s. 6d. a week and the highest

    893
    individual increase reduced from 22s. 6d. to 10s. I think that is well worth while. The estimated loss of revenue to the G.L.C. is equivalent to about 1½d. general purposes rate.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that a lot of nonsense is being put around about rent increases in the G.L.C? Is he aware that the unfair policy being operated by the present masters across the river is involving the placing upon tenants of charges which ought to be borne by the system at large, for example the Thames-mead scheme in my constituency?
    Mr. Greenwood: I do not want to comment on individual schemes, but I am entitled to point out that the G.L.C. basic subsidy per dwelling went up from £24 under the previous Administration to £173 for the cost of a £6,400 house.
    Mr. Rippon: Will the Minister agree that the G.L.C. policy is entirely in accordance with the Ministry's circular and advice on rent rebate schemes?
    Mr. Greenwood: I am grateful to the authority for saying that there was a great deal of wisdom in the circular that I issued.
    Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the phrase in the original Question, "fair rents" scheme, has been hotly disputed by tens of thousands of Londoners?
    Mr. Greenwood: The proposal for a "fair rents" scheme was turned down by the Prices and Incomes Board, so it does not arise here.

    Housing Society Dwellings
    Sir B. Rhys Williamsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what number of dwellings he expects will be completed this year by cost/ rent housing societies and by co-ownership housing societies, respectively; and whether he anticipates any increase in 1969 in either category.
    Mr. MacColl: Four thousand to 5,000 housing society dwellings should be completed in 1968, and a somewhat larger number next year. This year three-quarters or more of these are likely to be built by cost-rent societies, but many

    894
    of the dwellings will probably be turned over to co-ownership on completion. My right hon. Friend hopes that next year the proportion of co-ownership dwellings will be preponderant.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Can the Minister explain the relative failure of these projects? Is it due to suspicion or lack of familiarity on the part of the public, or is it because district valuers are unduly timid in making their assessments of the rents that might be obtained?
    Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend has invited a sub-committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Karl Cohen, to look at the whole problem of housing associations and housing societies. We will await the report with great interest.
    Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Will my hon. Friend reveal the limit which his right hon. Friend has placed on the cost of these units? I understand that special permission has to be given to a housing corporation for any project or unit in excess of £5,000 and that no such permission has been given to date? Will he review that?
    Mr. MacColl: This involves the use of public money and my right hon. Friend is most anxious that it should be used to meet the need for moderate rents and not be used for anything in the nature of luxury buildings.

    "Old Houses into New Homes" (White Paper)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government approximately how many houses he expects to be removed from rent control under the proposals of the White Paper, "Old Houses into New Homes"; how many of these houses are already equipped with a bath, inside lavatory and hot water system; and over what period it is proposed to phase the ensuing rent increases.
    Mr. MacColl: Our estimate is that after deducting dwellings in potential clearance areas about 200,000 let on controlled tenancies have the basic amenities and require less than £125 spending on repair. About an equal number might be brought up to a satisfactory state, but whether

    895
    they are so brought up will depend on the success of the policy outlined in the White Paper. On the last part of the Question, I cannot at present add to what is said in the White Paper.
    Mr. Allaun: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that he is in danger of spoiling a first-class plan by this proposal, which will actually slow down improvement, because of tenants' resistance? Would it not be ridiculous if a tenant actually decontrols himself because he would be putting a bathroom into his landlord's house?
    Mr. MacColl: The proposals in the White Paper are there for discussion. One of the matters that has to be considered is the failure so far to get improvements in privately rented houses. That is the problem to which the White Paper has to address itself.
    Mr. Lubbock: Would the hon. Gentleman admit that these figures are pure guesswork? Can he tell the House how long it will be before the results of a survey, about which he told me in correspondence earlier this year, on the number of controlled properties will become available?
    Mr. MacColl: The hon. Genteman is not far off in saying that there is a good deal of speculation in these figures. The survey should be ready by the end of the year, but I would not like to commit myself, because I know how severe the hon. Gentleman will be if I am slightly out.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what financial assistance, other than cheap loans, it is proposed to give local authorities towards the greatly increased compensation they will pay property owners under the slum clearance provisions of the White Paper, "Old Houses into New Homes".
    Mr. Greenwood: The proposals in the White Paper should not result in local authorities needing assistance beyond that available under the Housing Subsidies Act, 1967.
    Mr. Allaun: While welcoming fairer compensation for owner occupiers, may I ask whether it is not clear that the whole burden will fall upon local authorities, who are already having to pay

    896
    £40,000 or more per acre for land in demolition areas?
    Mr. Greenwood: The whole burden will not fall on the local authorities because of the subsidy system. Some will be borne by the Exchequer. The high cost per acre mentioned by my hon. Friend includes fit houses, public houses, shops, factories and other buildings of that kind. We have not received any objection from the local authority associations about the kind of burden which would fall upon them. I think it will be moderate and that in most cases local authorities will be happy to accept it.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that 50 per cent. of all increased costs of local authorities are due to excessively high interest rates resulting from the dear money policy of Her Majesty's Government, which goes on and on and on without diminution?
    Mr. Greenwood: I am not certain that the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question arises from the original Question. Certainly the policy will go on until the economy is sound once again.

    Overcrowded Dwellings
    Mr. Moyleasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will review the law with regard to the overcrowding of dwelling-houses, with a view to giving to local authorities powers to control the problem more effectively.
    Mr. MacColl: The White Paper "Old Houses into New Homes" published on 23rd April sets out the Government's proposals for dealing more effectively with the problems of multiple occupation, which include overcrowding.
    Mr. Moyle: Is my hon. Friend aware that local authorities are finding increasing difficulty in administering the existing law on multiple occupation due to the technical legal complexities and time-wasting procedures, as they regard them? Would he give this much more urgent attention, with a view to introducing amending legislation?
    Mr. MacColl: It is because of the unsatisfactory nature of the existing legislation that we outlined the proposals in the White Paper. If there are any

    897
    ways in which my hon. Friend thinks the machinery could be improved, I should be very grateful to hear them.

    Southampton
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many families within the city of Southampton are still living in houses without bathrooms.
    Mr. MacColl: Estimates based on the 1966 Sample Census show that about 6,750 households in Southampton were then without the exclusive use of a fixed bath. Specific information on bathrooms is not available.
    Mr. Mitchell: Do not this figure and similar figures for other authorities indicate that many landlords are not taking advantage of their present opportunities to modernise older houses? If landlords are not: prepared to do it, what plans has the Minister for getting someone else to do it?
    Mr. MacColl: I think that that is one of the points which will have to be looked at in connection with the White Paper. As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), it is very important to get co-operation in the private sector.

    Planning Blight
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what advice he is currently giving to local authorities regarding the purchase of properties in advance of requirements where planning blight exists.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Niall MacDennot): My right hon. Friend has urged local authorities to buy in advance of requirements in cases falling outside the statutory provisions where there is genuine hardship.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that with the increasing number of road-widening schemes and similar plans large numbers of properties in many of the big cities are suffering from planning blight, and in some cases local authorities are very reluctant to buy in advance of requirements? Will he put some pressure on them?
    Mr. MacDennot: We have made it clear to local authorities that loan sanction will be available for this purpose in hardship cases. If my hon. Friend has particular cases in mind, I shall gladly look into them.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Loan Sanction Applications
    Mr. Cleggasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what plans he has for enabling more decisions affecting local authority loan sanction applications to be taken in his Department's area offices.
    Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend has arranged recently for schemes for the reclamation of derelict land within a limit of £150,000 per case to be settled in the regional offices.
    Mr. Clegg: Could not the hon. Gentleman extend this devolution of authority to his regional offices so as to speed up administration?
    Mr. MacColl: Facilities in the regional offices have been expanded, but it is too early to say that any extension would result in economies or speed.

    Ratepayers (Assistance)
    Mr. Murtonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what assistance he proposes for domestic ratepayers in 1969–70.
    Mr. Greenwood: This will emerge after the negotiations with the local authorities on rate support grant this autumn.
    Mr. Murton: Would the right hon. Gentleman give the House a firm declaration that he will not go back on the undertaking given by his predecessor on Second Reading of the Local Government Bill that in the next year the domestic relief would be the equivalent of 1s. 8d. in the £?
    Mr. Greenwood: The rate support grant has to be negotiated every other year with the local authority associations. It would be a great discourtesy to them to anticipate the result of those negotiations, which will take place in the autumn.
    Mr. Crawshaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the credit for this great benefit which has been given by the Government is being taken by many Conservative-controlled councils? Would he please make it clear that any stabilising of the rateable value has been brought about by the farsighted legislation of this Government?
    Mr. Greenwood: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. We are, of course, talking about rate poundage and the House may like to know that the net average increase for domestic ratepayers over the last three years has been only one penny, which I think is a tribute to the Government.
    Mr. Rippon: Why will the right hon. Gentleman not answer clearly my hon. Friend's question? Will he acknowledge that if the relief next year does not amount to the equivalent of 1s. 8d. in the £, that will be another Government pledge broken?
    Mr. Greenwood: I decline to give an answer at this stage because, unlike the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I hate being discourteous.
    Mr. Rippon: Then how could it be given on Second Reading?

    Betterment Levy
    Mr. Rossiasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will give a break-down of his estimate of the total cost of the assessment and collection of Betterment Levy in 1968–69.
    Mr. MacDermot: I would refer the hon. Member to the Civil Estimates.
    Mr. Rossi: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that the cost of collection over the ensuing year will be 5s. 6d. in the £ as against a revenue cost of 3·28d.? Does this not teach him some lesson or other?
    Mr. MacDermot: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by a revenue cost of 3·28d. If he is referring to the cost of collection of Income Tax, that, of course, is a very cheap tax to collect. There are other taxes, many of them of great social importance, whose cost of collection is much greater. In any event, when a new tax is imposed the cost of collection is always high until it reaches

    900
    its full effect. For the reasons which I have given earlier, it will be some years before that is the case in relation to the Betterment Levy.

    Land Commission
    Mr. Graham Pageasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how much land has been acquired by the Land Commission to date.
    Mr. MacDermot: 4·3 acres have vested in the Commission; 14 acres are the subject of a confirmed compulsory purchase order; 450 acres are the subject of draft Compulsory Purchase Orders, and 190 acres at Hornchurch Airfield are being acquired from the Ministry of Defence. Contracts are likely to be exchange, or draft Compulsory Purchase Orders published for a further 2,000 acres within the next two months.
    Mr. Page: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman any evidence which would lead him to believe that this could not have been undertaken by the ordinary compulsory purchase procedure of local authorities and others who have that right? Has the Land Commission carried out the other half of its duty in selling any of that land for development?
    Mr. MacDermot: The Commission cannot resell until the land is vested in it, and the figures which I gave show the position there. As to whether this could have been achieved without the Land Commission, the Hornchurch Airfield example is admirable. This is surplus land which is now required for gravel extraction but which will later be needed for housing and schools. Without the intervention of the Commission, it would have been sold to private mineral operators who would later have realised the development value as an uncovenanted bonus. It will now remain in public hands, its benefit will accrue to the Exchequer and it will be possible to bring the land forward for development in a way which is suitable both for the local authority and for private developers.
    Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Can my hon. and learned Friend explain why the Commission is buying the land from the Ministry of Defence? It is already publicly owned, so why is the Land Commission involved?
    Mr. MacDermot: This, like other land which is surplus to requirements of the Ministry of Defence, has to be sold by them. There is no existing public authority other than the Land Commission which is in a position to purchase it in the present circumstances, for the reasons which I have explained.
    Mr. Clegg: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether any of the land acquired by the Commission will be sold as Crownhold?
    Mr. MacDermot: That depends on whether the Commission receives requests for disposals on Crownhold terms.
    Mr. John Fraser: Has my hon. and learned Friend seen the statement of Sir Henry Wells about the failure of local authorities to zone land in time to enable it to be released for housing development? What is he doing about that?
    Mr. MacDermot: Yes, I explained to the House at our last Question Time that this was a matter on which the Commission was concentrating. This is, probably, the greatest single factor affecting land prices, and our Ministry is engaged, with the Land Commission, in discussions with local authorities in the pressure areas.

    Planning Officers
    Mr. Silvesterasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he is taking to ensure the recruitment of sufficient planners to meet the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Bill.
    Mr. MacDermot: At my right hon. Friend's request, the University Grants Committee has made provision for a substantial increase in the number of university places for students of planning. They expect to see an extra 250 full-time and 250 part-time places by 1972. Additional places will also be available outside the universities.
    Mr. Silvester: Will the Minister bear in mind that he needs to secure recruitment from the schools to these extra university places and that his chief planner has expressed concern at the possibility of there not being sufficient planners to put new legislation into operation? Does he feel that these new

    902
    plans are sufficient for his foreseeable requirements?
    Mr. MacDermot: We share the concern expressed by the chief planner. It is for that reason that we took these steps and we hope by 1974 to have doubled the number of qualified planners in this country. As for the new planning system, I hope that as a result of it we will make better use of qualified planning staff and reduce the work on detailed matters, because this will tend to alleviate rather than aggravate the shortage of planners.
    Sir Frank Pearson: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the quality of these recruits is of vital importance if the whole operation is to be successful? Would he agree that it is better to wait until we can obtain recruits of the right quality than to rush the process and take in men who may not come up to the highest standard?
    Mr. MacDermot: I do not see how one can attract more recruits unless one makes places available for them.

    Large Buildings (Television Interference)
    Mr. Onslowasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will seek powers, by legislation or otherwise, to oblige the developers of large buildings to make provision for the preservation of adequate television reception in surrounding areas.
    Mr. MacDermot: I understand that there are formidable technical problems in establishing the effect of a proposed building on television reception; and I see difficulty in requiring a developer to provide a service on land which is not in his ownership or under his control.
    Mr. Onslow: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that this phenomenon of the bouncing of television signals causes annoyance to residents near high-rise blocks? Will he consider the experience in France, where small repeater stations are installed in these circumstances and overcome the problem at small cost?
    Mr. MacDermot: I would be glad to look into any possible solution of this;

    903
    problem, but I do not know whether the matter is dealt with in France as part of their system of planning control.

    Radio Masts
    Mr. Onslowasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will ensure that adequate technical guidance is made available to planning authorities, and to applicants for the establishment of mast sites, for microwave communication systems on the requirements of such sites; and if he will apply the same limitations of planning control in this connection to nationalised industries as to private applicants.
    Mr. MacDermot: A circular on planning control of radio masts has just been sent to planning authorities. A copy is available in the Library, and I will send one to the hon. Gentleman. Planning control applies to nationalised industries as to other developers.
    Mr. Onslow: I am grateful for that assurance. If the nationalised industries are subject to the same control in this context, why should they not be subject to the same controls as private individuals in other contexts, such as gasometers and so on?
    Mr. MacDermot: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the position from the point of view of compensation for statutory undertakers—I gather that he has that in mind by his reference to gasometers—then that matter has been dealt with in the planning legislation.

    Public Buildings (Lifts)
    Mr. Worsleyasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what guidance he gives local authorities as to the desirability of providing lifts in buildings to which the public require to have access, in such a way as to give access for persons in wheelchairs.
    Mr. Greenwood: The attention of local authorities has been drawn to a pamphlet issued by the Ministry of Public Building and Works on designing public buildings with easy access for disabled people. This deals with the subject of lifts. I will send the hon. Member a copy.
    Mr. Worsley: Has there been any change in practice in this respect? Very

    904
    often, even when a building has a lift, there are steps at the entrance which make it impossible for it to be used by people in wheelchairs.
    Mr. Greenwood: When giving loan sanction we make a check on the suitability of the building for disabled persons. If the hon. Gentleman has any points, I shall certainly look at them.
    Mr. Tinn: Will the Minister take steps to broaden this approach to draw the attention of architects designing commercial buildings, factories and so on to which the public have access, so that they are aware of this necessity also?
    Mr. Greenwood: I think that the subject has been adequately covered, particularly in the case of a joint circular from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Ministry of Health in November 1965 about access to public buildings for the disabled. But if my hon. Friend feels that there are gaps in the information available, I will do my best to remedy them.

    Use Classes Order (Restaurants)
    Mr. Worsleyasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will lay a Use Classes (Amendment) Order listing a restaurant in the Schedule of exceptions to Class I of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1963.
    Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Member has let my right hon. Friend have information about the difficulties that gave rise to his Question. We will consider this together with other evidence when the Use Classes Order is reviewed shortly.
    Mr. Worsley: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for what he said. Will he consider this very sympathetically? A change of use into restaurants, perhaps on a large scale, can critically alter the environment of certain areas, and they should be within the purview of a planning authority.
    Mr. MacDermot: Certainly, and I shall be glad to receive any further evidence hon. Members may have on this subject.

    Council of Europe (Recommendations)
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what Her Majesty's Government's policy is regarding the recommendations included in the Report on Regional Planning adopted by the Assembly of the Council of Europe in May 1968.
    Mr. MacDermot: These recommendations were adopted by the Assembly of the Council of Europe only last month and will now be considered by the Government.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Will my hon. and learned Friend give particular attention to the very valuable recommendations on exchange of technical information and to problems related to participation of the general public in planning procedures, which have particular partinence to our problems here?
    Mr. MacDermot: Yes, Sir, and I am glad to say that in general terms I welcome the report and the recommendations. It may be that we shall have reservations on individual recommendations, but they will be carefully considered and we shall see what follow-up action, if any, is needed.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will my hon. and learned Friend explain why this body, the Council of Europe, is recommending regional planning of the United Kingdom? Why does not it mind its own business?
    Mr. MacDermot: I think that when my right hon. Friend reads the report he will see that what it is recommending is regional planning of Europe.

    Derelict Land (Northern Region)
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what assistance the Land Commission is giving to reclaiming derelict land in the Northern Region by acquiring suitable sites.
    Mr. MacDermot: Local authorities in the Northern Region were recently informed of the Land Commission's willingness to acquire on their behalf derelict land suitable for development.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Are there any further steps that can be taken to encourage the more rapid development of work in this field, as there is very wide scope for it? We are very anxious that the Commission should get ahead with this kind of purchase.
    Mr. MacDermot: We have notified all local authorities that this service is available to them. The local authorities in the Northern Region receive very substantial grant—85 per cent.—for this purpose, but a number of them have been handicapped by not having suitable staff available to deal with the acquisition of sites. It is this service that the Land Commission will be able to provide.

    EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
    Ql. Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister what plans are now under consideration as an alternative to Great Britain joining the European Economic Community.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answers I gave to similar Questions on 28th and 30th May.—[Vol. 765, c. 1535–8; Vol. 765, c. 2127–9.]
    Mr. Winnick: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication about our present application to join the E.E.C.? In view of the various suggestions which have been put forward by Members and people outside the House for an Atlantic free trade area, have the Government considered the possibility of studying these proposals? Our right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) seems very interested in these suggestions.
    The Prime Minister: As I have already told the House, the Government gave very close study to this as one of a number of possible alternatives before deciding on the application which we put to the House last May.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: Is not the Prime Minister aware that a great deal has happened since the Government gave such study as they did to this matter? Will not he improve on the very disappointing approach he has so far made

    907
    to the possibilities of this imaginative and challenging concept?
    The Prime Minister: It is certainly imaginative and challenging, but we did not take the view that it was an immediately realistic one. As regards our application to join the E.E.C., as we have all said many times we have met with considerable frustration and disappointment, but I am certainly no more pessimistic about the success of that application now than I was a few months ago.
    Mr. Anderson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he appreciates that any flirtation now with so-called alternatives will reduce our credibility in Europe and give ammunition to those on the Continent who have said in the past that we were not interested anyway?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that there is any doubt in Europe about our very real interest and very real purpose in this matter. As I have said, nothing that has happened in the past few months has caused us to change the recommendation we put to the House, which was so overwhelmingly endorsed a year ago.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the Prime Minister aware that some of us think that the challenging concept of N.A.F.T.A. might be a little one-sided in its challenge so far as the other side of the Atlantic is concerned? In view of the ferment in both Western and Eastern Europe, should not we now be a little patient, because the opportunity might arise to build a more flexible European system more satisfactory to British interests?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about ferment in Western and Eastern Europe. America has also had to face problems. But it has always been our idea, and I think the idea of many hon. Members, that our joining the Community would be on a basis that we would all hope to get a very outward-looking Community, linking with other parts of Europe and the world.
    Mr. Jay: My right hon. Friend has referred several times to the Government's studies of these alternative policies. Does he agree that as these

    908
    studies, like others, have shown that there would be considerable economic advantages in some of them but possible political difficulties, it might now be wise to conduct a probe to see whether these political difficulties can be overcome?
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure that in present conditions in Europe or in an election year in America this would be the best time to have a probe, even if I were convinced by the very eloquent propasals in my right hon. Friend's book.

    SOCIAL SURVEY
    Mr. Kenneth Bakerasked the Prime Minister whether he will transfer responsibility for the Government's social survey from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Lord President of the Council.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The present arrangement has only been working for just over a year and it would be premature to consider a change now before the developments in the Government statistical services, foreshadowed in the Answer I gave on 2nd April to a Question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Mr. Du Cann) are more advanced.—[Vol. 762, c. 75–6.]
    Mr. Baker: Is the Prime Minister aware that the 500 civil servants who work for the social survey have to report to the Chancellor of the Exchequer yet they do surveys for six other Government Departments? Is he further aware that as a result research projects are taking up to three years to complete? When will the Government give real priority to social research instead of merely paying lip-service to it?
    The Prime Minister: We are carrying out the recommendations of the Hey-worth Committee, which studied the matter in great depth. It recommended that the social survey should be conducted for a number of Departments, for example. It would, therefore, not be appropriate for the survey to be attached to all these Departments and for the moment we are proceeding on the basis that it should be under the Treasury.
    Mr. Sheldon: Since the Chancellor of the Exchequer raises £12,000 million and

    909
    the way in which he raises it is based at least in part on what he considers acceptable to the people, is it not time that techniques of survey and investigation were used more frequently to discover what is more readily acceptable?
    The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will be giving their advice to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the passage of the Finance Bill on what they think will be acceptable and workable, but that is no reason for transferring responsibility for the social survey from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    VIETNAM
    Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister if he will now make a further statement on the intentions of Her Majesty's Government to assist in achieving a settlement and procuring peace in Vietnam.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answers I gave to Questions on 23rd and 28th May and on 13th June, Sir.—[Vol. 765, c. 862–4, Vol. 765, c. 1530–1, Vol. 766, c. 1433–4.]
    Mr. Molloy: Are we ready to help at any moment if called upon? Could we not help by keeping in close touch with the Soviet Union, bearing in mind its success at Tashkent? Are we prepared, if a cease-fire should be brought about, to give all aid possible in medical supplies and other forms in repairing the shattered lives of the Vietnamese people?
    The Prime Minister: I have repeatedly said that we stand ready to help. We are in close touch with our Soviet co-Chairman, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary recently discussed all these matters with his Soviet opposite number, Mr. Gromyko. Of course, we shall be ready to do all in our power to help in binding up the wounds of Vietnam.
    Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Will the Prime Minister point out to President Johnson that since America is the aggressor in Vietnam it has no right to demand reciprocity for stopping the bombing of North Vietnam?
    The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's premise and therefore, I cannot agree with the conclusion he draws from it. As I have made clear repeatedly, this is inevitably a horrible and ghastly war. With the bombing by one side there is also the ghastly shelling of civilians in Saigon by the Vietcong and North Vietnamese in recent days.
    Mr. Park: Will not my right hon. Friend recognise that, until there is an absolute and unconditional cessation of bombing of North Vietnam by the United States, the Paris talks will make little progress? Will he not urge on the United States Government that reciprocity from the North Vietnamese will only follow and cannot precede the cessation of American bombing?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware that this has been repeatedly stated over the past two years and more by the authorities in North Vietnam. It was one of the great difficulties faced by all of us concerned in getting the parties to the conference table. But now that they are at the conference table it is not for any of us to make it more difficult by saying what will and what will not be acceptable. The important thing is to keep them at the conference table.
    Mr. Tapsell: Is it not shocking that at the very time the Americans have stopped bombing in the vicinity of Hanoi the Communists should have launched an all-out offensive on Saigon?
    The Prime Minister: I have mentioned that this is one of the factors to be set out on the other side against the serious matters raised about the effect of the American bombing. All this proves the necessity for both sides to recognise that there will be no military solution but only a political solution and that they should get on with their talks.

    UNITED KINGDOM AND UNITED STATES (ECONOMIC DISCUSSIONS)
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Prime Minister when he will now visit the United States of America to discuss with President Johnson questions of international liquidity.
    The Prime Minister: As the House knows, I have no present plans to visit

    911
    the United States, but Her Majesty's Government are, of course, in frequent and close touch with the American Administration on all matters of common concern, including international liquidity.
    Mr. Roberts: Would not my right hon. Friend accept, however, that, in view of the vital need for international liquidity, there is urgent need for talks on this matter at the highest level? Would he accept that in this field, as in many others, we have a great deal of common interest with the United States?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend will no doubt have been glad to see the progress which, although slow for a long time, has recently been made on the special drawing rights and also the progress made at the recent Stockholm conference, when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer represented this country. We are in the closest touch with the United States. I have been in touch at various times with President Johnson and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in very close touch with Mr. Secretary Fowler.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: Can the Prime Minister say whether the recent attempts to insulate gold stocks by the Group of Ten against gold speculation are being successful?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the general view of City commentators as well as bankers and other observers is that the two-tier system has got off to a reasonably successful start—perhaps more successful than some pessimists thought. Of course, there have been upsets in the market, not least because of events in France and South Africa. But the United States and Britain are aware, of course, that the scheme depends on both getting their balance of payments into equilibrium as soon as possible.
    Mr. Cant: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the international liquidity problem for us is not associated with the drawing rights but with the capacity of this country to absorb short-term assets from abroad into our secondary banking system, which makes us increasingly vulnerable as a nation to trends in the financial world outside?
    The Prime Minister: I have heard my hon. Friend on this subject a number of

    912
    times, and everyone recognises the vulnerability created for sterling by its being not only a reserve currency but an international trading currency widely accepted and used for trade. One of the most important steps is the efforts being made through the Basle mechanism to deal with the problem of the sterling balances.

    WASH BARRAGE
    Mr. Derek Pageasked the Prime Minister what steps he proposes to take to ensure the co-ordination of activities of the Department of Economic Affairs, the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government concerned with the desk study of the Wash barrage.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to a similar question by him on 11th April. It will be for the Water Resources Board to co-ordinate the several parts of the study including any undertaken by Government Departments.—[Vol. 762, c. 326–7.]
    Mr. Page: How can my right hon. Friend justify the spending of public money on an investigation concerned primarily with water when everyone knows that other factors such as port facilities and land reclamation are of the greatest importance? Does not he agree that the time has come to transfer the study to the Department of Economic Affairs?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has followed this matter from the beginning and has taken a leading part. He has discussed it with me several times and he will be aware that, whatever ambitious scheme might be proposed on some future occasion in relation to this area, it will still be essential to have a study of the water resources, such as that being done by agreement of my right hon. Friend and which my right hon. Friend told my hon. Friend about recently.
    Sir D. Renton: But if there is to be a separate study of each of the advantages of this vital scheme, will it

    913
    not take many years for any Government to reach a decision? Is that the purpose of the Government?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that the original study by the consulting engineers involved an extremely high cost on their estimate, which was very much a speculative estimate, as to what the whole water scheme would involve. For that reason, my right hon. Friend did not feel able to go forward even with the feasibility study then considered, but he has sanctioned a much smaller study and we had better see how that goes.

    SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (SPEECH)
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Secretary of State for the Home Department at Blackpool on 28th May on prices and incomes legislation represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Ormeasked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, at Blackpool on 28th May on prices and incomes policy represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Prime Minister: I answered very similar Questions on 11th June, Sir, and fully elaborated my Answer in oral exchanges on 13th June. I have nothing to add to what I said then.—[Vol. 766, c. 27–8, 435–8.]
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I have studied those exchanges with care and the Prime Minister did not seem to answer the question. On 28th May, the Home Secretary said that there must not be further legislation on prices and incomes after 18 months. Does the Prime Minister agree that there must not be further legislation or not?
    The Prime Minister: I dealt with this matter fully last week. I said that the policy is as stated by me in my speech to which I referred in my previous Answer and in a public statement. If the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member interprets the statement of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary as implying that the options cannot be kept open and that there must be no legisla-

    914
    tion, the answer is that this is not the Government's policy.
    Mr. Orme: Is my right hon. Friend aware that criminal sanctions are still the central theme of the prices and incomes policy and have now been condemned by the Donovan Report? Will he now not confirm what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said—that we must not continue this policy after 18 months, even if it has to go on now?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not accept the simplification my hon. Friend has put about criminal sanctions. In the second place, the House will have to consider the Donovan Report in relation to a long-term solution to our industrial relations. With regard to the present legislation, I have said repeatedly that we hope that, given success with the three factors I have mentioned, it will not be necessary to introduce further legislation, but I would be wrong to give a pledge that there will be no further legislation.
    Sir Cyril Osborne: May I put a new point to the Prime Minister on this issue? He will remember that the Home Secretary said that he believed that a prices and incomes policy was necessary. He said, secondly, that he did not believe it should be compulsory. How can he get a policy agreed, without imposing legislation, if the trade unions will not accept his policy?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has rather over-simplified my right hon. Friend's speech. He certainly agreed, as do nearly all of us in the House, on the need for a prices and incomes policy. He went on to say that he supported the legislation at present before the House. I have explained many times why we feel in present circumstances that it is necessary to supplement the trade union voluntary policy with legislation.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some hon. Members on these benches, and I think in other places, regard the speech of the Home Secretary in Brighton as a first-class speech? We agree with the contents of it. Would he extend a bit further this example of private enterprise by members of the Cabinet, so that the members of the

    915
    Cabinet could disclose occasionally what they really think?
    The Prime Minister: If my right hon. Friend is in full agreement with the speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I find it difficult to understand why he did not vote for the legislation which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary says he supports.
    Mr. Peyton: Perhaps the Prime Minister would be willing to say, with his usual precision, whether he endorses the remark made by his right hon. Friend that when the new legislation runs out —[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]
    Sir Cyril Osborne: It is a quotation.
    Mr. Peyton: I fully understand that the quotation from the Home Secretary is unpalatable.
    Mr. Speaker: It is not only unpalatable, it is out of order.
    Mr. Peyton: Would the Prime Minister say, with his usual precision—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must hear the question.
    Mr. Peyton: Would the Prime Minister say, with his usual precision, whether or not he endorses the remark made by the Home Secretary that when the new legislation runs out there will be a need for a voluntary policy?
    The Prime Minister: Sir, there is a need for a voluntary policy. I have said

    916
    in my own speeches that there is a need for a voluntary policy. This is what we are working towards, and it is where the other party manifestly failed in 13 years. The hon. Gentleman was stopped from reading the quotation—I am trying to help the hon. Gentleman now—but if he was quoting a reference that there must be a voluntary policy, no, I do not endorse that statement for reasons that I have said.

    NEW MEMBERS SWORN
    Keith Bruce Campbell, esquire, Q.C., for Oldham, West.
    Edward Griffiths, esquire, for Sheffield, Brightside.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY, 1st JULY
The following hon. Members were chosen in the Ballot:

Mr. George Lawson.

Mr. Terence Boston.

Mr. Dudley Smith.

Parliamentary Reform
Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to give notice that on Monday, 1st July, I shall call attention to the need to reform the present state of Parliament, and move a Resolution.

OUTLAWRIES (No. 2)
3.38 p.m.
Mr. Nigel Birch: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill for the more effectual preventing of clandestine withdrawals of passports from British subjects.
As many hon. Members know, the Outlawries Bill, which, for greater clarity, perhaps I should call the Outlawries (No. 1) Bill, has been read in the House at the beginning of every Session since 1727. During those 240 years it has made no further progress. I have no doubt that the Editor of The Times—and we all put on record our regrets that his many efforts to enter Parliament have been unsuccessful—would look at this as further proof, if further proof were needed, that our procedure requires reform.
On the other hand, the symbolic value of this is very great. Ever since 1603 the House has introduced and passed the First Reading of a Bill which was not contained in the Queen's Speech. It is to show that in this House we have the right to give priority to discussion of matters other than Government business. At a time when the House is so much in the power of those who both hate Parliament and fear it, it is valuable that we should not tear away the decent draperies of Parliamentary procedure.
The Outlawries (No. 1) Bill is in existence in manuscript form in the Public Bill Office. Much of it is obscure and would amuse the leisured and the learned. But the general drift of it is perfectly clear. The Long Title is that it is a Bill for the better prevention of clandestine outlawries. What that means in modern terms is that it is a Bill to prevent people's rights being taken away by forms of secret skulduggery and, as the apprehension of an intelligent audience runs far ahead of the power of the speaker to express himself, I have no doubt that the House is aware that I am about to discuss passports.
My Bill seeks to prevent the secret removal of passports and the secret refusal to issue them, and it is the second which is by far the most important.
The House will remember that, when speaking in the debate about Sir Frederick Crawford's passport, my right hon.
918
Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) gave an instance of a young man who had written to him to say that his Rhodesian-born wife, resident in this country for four and a half years, had been refused a passport in her married name for more than six months. He did not say whether she had been asked to sign a declaration, but I suspect that she had.
I had an instance some time ago of a neighbour of mine who married a Rho-desian girl some years ago. By accident, she had a Rhodesian passport. He husband is a United Kingdom citizen resident here. He is a farmer. Her mother in Rhodesia had a stroke, and she had to fly to Rhodesia to see her. At that time, she had a Federal passport. When she got to Rhodesia, she was informed that her Federal passport was no longer valid. She asked for a United Kingdom passport. She was told that she was entitled to one, but that the formalities would take a long time, and that it would be much quicker to get a Rhodesian passport. She did so, and subsequently returned to this country.
When U.D.I. came, she wanted to take a holiday abroad with her husband—not, I may say, in Rhodesia. She was told that she could have a United Kingdom passport for six months only, provided that she signed an anti-Smith declaration.
It is quite unheard of to be required to make a political declaration before being given a passport. In Hitler's time, no one who married a German girl was asked to make an anti-Hitler declaration. No one was asked to make an anti-Stalin declaration if he married a Russian girl.
Immediately that this was brought to my notice, I rang the Private Office of the Foreign Secretary, who was the present Foreign Secretary in his previous avatar. I spoke to someone there, but I have no idea of his name. I said, "This is incredible. There must be some mistake." He replied "I agree. I have never heard anything like it." The poor man has no doubt found out since what sort of masters he is serving.
Suppose an Englishman married an Ibo girl. Would she be asked to sign a declaration that she supported the legal Government of Nigeria and supported the sale of arms to the legal Government in order that they might butcher her people?

919
In the past, it has been accepted that the wife of a United Kingdom citizen had a right to a United Kingdom passport. Now we are told that no one has a right to a passport and that it is a matter of prerogative. That is one of the most formidable "boss" words. It means the ipse dixit of a Minister.
The first part of my Bill lays down that the wife of a United Kingdom citizen has a legal right to a British passport. I hope that everyone will support that. The second part of the Bill concerns the withdrawal of passports and the review procedure announced yesterday by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs.
The third leader in The Times today makes the most devastating criticism of the Secretary of State's proposals. I have not time to elaborate on the matter now, but I think that they are wrong. The point is that the Secretary of State said that he was not bound by the findings of the review body and would prevent anyone from going to the Parliamentary Commissioner subsequently.
The terms on which the Advisory Committee has to make its decision could not be more vague. I do not know how it is to decide whether Sir Frederick Crawford was wrong not to sign the book in Government House, Salisbury. Per-

920
sonally, I have never signed the book in any Government House, so perhaps I may lose my passport.
My Bill lays down simply that everyone has a right to take his case to the Parliamentary Commissioner, whether it is for the removal of a passport or the refusal to grant one, and it is mandatory upon the Ombudsman to consider it. It lays down, too, that the Government have no right of certification to prevent the Parliamentary Commissioner doing his duty. Those seem to me to be two perfectly simple and good provisions.
Mr. Speaker, you will recollect that today is the anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo. I hope that it will inspire hon. Members to support the Bill and pass it through all its stages in less than 240 years.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Birch, Sir Derek Walker-Smith, Sir John Foster, Mr. Fletcher-Cooke, and Mr. Paget.

OUTLAWRIES (NO. 2)
Bill for the more effectual preventing of clandestine withdrawals of passports from British subjects, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time on Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 175.]

FINANCE BILL (BUSINESS COMMITTEE)
Motion made, and Question, That the Report [13th June] of the Business Committee be now considered—[Mr. Peart], put and agreed to.
Report considered accordingly.
Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43A (Allocation of time to Bills) and agreed to.
Following is the Report of the Business Committee:
That the following provisions shall apply to the Proceedings on recommittal and on report: —
Allotted days
1.—(1) The Proceedings on recommittal shall be completed in three days and shall be brought to a conclusion at 7 p.m. on the last of those days.
(2) The Proceedings on report shall be completed in four days and shall be brought to a conclusion as follows—
New Clauses and the Bill to the end of Clause 49 in the Bill, as amended by Standing Committee A—11.20 p.m. on the third of those four days.
All remaining Proceedings—7 p.m. on the last of those four days.
(3) On recommittal and on report, Amend ments to the Schedules shall be considered after the Amendments to the Clauses to which those Schedules relate in the same order as in the Standing Committee on the Bill.
Supplemental
2.—(1) When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into Committee on recommittal of the Bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question notwithstanding that notice of an Instruction may have been given, and on the conclusion of the Proceedings in Committee, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
No dilatory motion with respect to, or in the course of, Proceedings on the Bill in Committee or on report shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.
Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in bills and nomination of select committees at commencement of public business) shall not apply on an allotted day.
No opposed private business shall be taken on an allotted day.
3.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any Proceedings in accordance with these recommendations which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith proceed to put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say: —

(a) the Question or Questions already pro posed from the Chair, or necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (in cluding, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

(b) the Question on any Amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that Amendment or Motion is moved by a member of the Government;

(c) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded,

and on a motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2)Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House or under the Order [12th December] (Sittings of the House).
(3)If, at Seven o'clock on an allotted day, any Proceedings on the Bill which, under these recommendations, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time have not been concluded, any Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) which, apart from these recommendations, would stand over to that time shall stand over until those Proceedings have been concluded.
(4)If, on an allotted day, a Motion is made for the Adjournment of the House under the said Standing Order No. 9, the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill in accordance with these recommendations at any hour falling after the beginning of the Proceedings on that Motion shall be deferred for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on that Motion.
(5)If on a Motion made after Ten o'clock on an allotted day under the said Order [12th December] Mr. Speaker suspends that day's sitting till Ten o'clock in the morning, the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill in accordance with these recommendations at any hour after Ten o'clock at night shall be deferred for a period equal to ' the duration of the suspension of the sitting.
(6) Any deferment under sub-paragraph (5) of this paragraph shall be in addition to any deferment under sub-paragraph (4) thereof.
4. In these recommendations 'allotted day' means any day on which the Bill is put down for consideration either on re-committal or report as the first Government Order of the Day.

FINANCE (RECOMMITTED) BILL
[FIRST ALLOTTED DAY]
Considered in Committee.
[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

Clause 2 HYDROCARBON OILS
3.47 p.m.
Sir Gerald Nabarro: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 33, leave out 'elevenpence' and insert 'eightpence'.
The Chairman: With this Amendment, I think that it would be convenient for the Committee to discuss Amendment No. 153, in page 2, line 33, at end insert:
(b) (i) the duties specified in the foregoing subsection shall be charged at the rate of three shillings and eightpence where the aforesaid oils are delivered for home use as a propellant fuel for invalid carriages, as exempted from vehicle excise duty under section 6 of the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962;
(ii) vouchers in one gallon and five gallon units shall be issued by the Ministry of Transport and made available on demand at Post Offices; and where such vouchers bear the registration mark and class of vehicle concerned, or some other appropriate and specific mark of identity, and the vouchers as thus marked have been duly stamped or endorsed by a justice of the peace or an officer of a local authority, the holder of such a voucher shall, on surrendering it, be entitled to buy and to receive hydrocarbon oils bearing duty as specified in subsection (b)(i) above in the quantities designated on the said voucher, in and only in the vehicle thereon specified; and the retail or wholesale suppliers of such hydrocarbon oils, in exchange for such vouchers received, may buy and receive hydrocarbon oils at the aforesaid rate of duty charged, in the quantities designated, from his supplier.
No. 154, in line 33, at end insert:
(b) (i) the duties specified in the foregoing subsection shall be charged at the rate of three shillings and eightDence where the aforesaid oils in question are delivered for home use as a propellant fuel for vehicles modified for invalids as defined under section 11 of the Finance Act 1964;
(ii) vouchers in one gallon and five gallon units shall be issued by the Ministry of Transport and made available on demand at Post Offices; and where such vouchers bear the registration mark and class of vehicle concerned, or some other appropriate and specific

924
mark of identity, and the vouchers as thus marked have been duly stamped or endorsed by a justice of the peace or an officer of a local authority, the holder of such a voucher shall, on surrendering it, be entitled to buy and to receive hydrocarbon oils bearing duty as specified in subsection (b) (i) above in the quantities designated on the said voucher, in and only in the vehicle thereon specified; and the retail or wholesale suppliers of such hydrocarbon oils, in exchange for such vouchers received, may buy and receive hydrocarbon oils at the aforesaid rate of duty charged, in the quantities designated, from his supplier.
and No. 155, in line 33, at end insert:
(b) (i) the duties specified in the foregoing subsection shall be charged at the rate of three shillings and eightpence where the aforesaid oils are delivered for home use as a propellant fuel for vehicles qualified to display, and displaying, disabled driver car badges as specified in Ministry of Health circular 17/61;
(ii) vouchers in one gallon and five gallon units shall be issued by the Ministry of Transport and made available on demand at Post Offices and where such vouchers bear the registration mark and class of vehicle concerned, or some other appropriate and specific mark of identity, and the vouchers as thus marked have been duly stamped or endorsed by a justice of the peace or an officer of a local licensing authority, the holder of such a voucher shall, on surrendering it, be entitled to buv and to receive hydrocarbon oils bearing duty as specified in subsection (b) (i) above in the quantities designated on the said voucher, in and only in the vehicle thereon specified; and the retail or wholesale supplier of such hydrocarbon oils, in exchange for such vouchers received, may buy and receive hydrocarbon oils at the aforesaid rate of duty charged, in the quantities designated, from his supplier.
Sir G. Nabarro: This Amendment is concerned with motor spirit, largely for motor cars. However, before embarking on my speech, I want to make one or two observations about our procedure today in the context of the Amendment. Sir Eric, your first selection demonstrates at once the crass fatuity of the system of recommitting the Bill to the Floor of the House. I am about to make a speech calling for a reduction in the amount of duty on motor spirit, which will very largely be a reproduction and repetition of the speech made in Standing Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison).
My arguments may differ slightly, but the gravaman of the charges against the Socialist Administration for a huge increase in the duty on motor spirit will be almost exactly the same. Why we

925
have to endure a repetition of this kind of thing, I cannot think.
Mr. R. B. Cant Mr. R. B. Cant (Stoke-on-Trent, Central) rose—
Sir G., Nabarro: I will give way in a moment to the hon. Member. He should not get agitated yet. He will have a great deal to provoke him before I am through today.
Of course, the arguments having been thoroughly canvassed upstairs—sadly without my presence on the Committee— [HON. MEMBERS:. "Why did you not go there?"] The cacophony opposite of cries, "Why did I do go there?", if I heard them correctly, is evidently in total ignorance of the facts of the situation.
Immediately it was decided that the Finance Bill should be taken in Committee upstairs, I offered my services. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I suspect that the Chancellor took all possible steps to avoid my presence on the Committee. He knows of my behaviour in the House during the last 15 or 20 years but so far, save only for a modest Second Reading speech, I have been disenfranchised during the detailed discussions in Committee on a Bill which raises the level of taxation in Britain by a bigger margin than any Bill in the whole of Britain's history.
There is no better method of epitomising the increase in the level of taxation in a single record than in the matter of motor spirit. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Members opposite who are jeering at me will have memories long enough to recall that in 1964 the present Prime Minister and the present Home Secretary—
Mr. Joel Barnett: On a point of order, Sir Eric. It might help hon. Members if we could be told whether, on each Amendment throughout the course of the Recommittal stage, we are to have a sort of Second Reading debate.
The Chairman: I was myself beginning to think that we should most profitably use the time allotted by the Business Committee for the Recommittal stage of the Bill if we applied ourselves to the particular Amendments that have been selected rather than to extraneous matters.
Sir G. Nabarro: No extraneous matters have fallen from my lips yet, Sir Eric.
926
Otherwise, you, in your meticulous fashion, impeccable in your chairmanship, would have called me to order at once.
I was reminding the jeering Socialists opposite that in 1964 and in 1966 both the present Prime Minister and the present Home Secretary, immediately prior to the General Elections of those years, promised the entire electorate of Britain that there would be no call for substantial increases in taxation. Yet in no sphere has there been a sharper and heavier increase in taxation than in the burden falling on the motorist in this country.
The Chancellor regards this form of taxation as sumptuary. If he asks me to define sumptuary, I should say it is a consumer tax capable of easy and relatively painless collection. I hope that he will agree with that definition. That is why this heavy burden has fallen on the motorist. Time and again, since 1964, in flagrant violation and contradiction of pre-election promises, the tax on the motorist, that is on his motor spirit, has been sharply increased. [Interruption.]
I am glad to have driven one Socialist from this Chamber, a temporary incumbent of his seat with a majority of only 80 votes. I am sorry that the hon. Member jeered. He will not be here to survive the broken promises in regard to increased duty on motor spirit. In 1965, again in 1966, again in 1967, and again in 1968, the Chancellor has singled out motor spirit for an increase, and this year the amount was 4d. per gallon.
This first Amendment seeks to reduce the amount of the increase from 4d. per gallon to 1d. per gallon. The cost of the Amendment would be approximately £57 million. If calculated pro rata, the 4d. per gallon on motor spirit would yield £76 million for a full year, of which about one half is for motor cars and about one half for commercial vehicles. If the amount of the increase were thereby reduced to one 1d. per gallon instead of 4d. per gallon, it follows that the increased tax collected would be about £19 million in a full year and the cost of the Amendment would, therefore, be about £57 million in the full year.
The figure of the increase of the tax burden on the motorist was not put to the Committee upstairs in terms of the aggregation of increase in taxation on the road

927
user. Measuring 1964, that is, the year ended 31st March, 1964, against the year ending 31st March, 1969—a span of five years—in the first of those years the total sum collected from road user taxation was £777 million. During the year to 31st March, 1969 the total sum raised from road user taxation will have reached the phenomenal figure of £1,561 million. It more than doubled in five years.
Out of the £777 million in the year to 31st March, 1964, £120 million was contributed to Purchase Tax, £171 million to licence duties and the bulk, £486 million, to motor fuel taxation. In a span of just five years motor fuel taxation has risen from £486 million to £946 million, licence duties to £421 million, and Purchase Tax to £194 million, the total reflecting this increase of more than 100 per cent., from £777 million to £1,561 million, from all road user taxation.
Even the most vicious Socialist—[HON. MEMBERS: "Are there any?"] Are there any? They are all vicious in their attacks on taxpayers, because the party opposite believes utterly in a high level or taxation at all times.
Mr. Cant: Nonsense.
4.0 p.m.
Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Member says, "Nonsense", but can he believe in a lowering level of taxation when his party has not reduced a single tax in four years? This Amendment has been selected first because the Socialists regard motoring as a luxury, notwithstanding that there are 10½ million motor car owners in Britain today, the majority of whom own small cars. They are not all Tories by any means, but they will all be Tories at the next election. The Chancellor does his party no greater disservice than year after year to pile increasing taxes on the shoulders of the motorist without any hope of reduction at any future date. He is justifiably unpopular on that account. There is no easier way of raising a cheer at a Parliamentary by-election these days than by talking about the fiscal iniquities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the context of motor taxation. The second easiest way to raise a cheer is to talk about his inflationary policies.
928
When the Chancellor puts up by 4d. a gallon the duty on motor spirit he adds at once a great sum of money to the cost of the distribution of food and all the essentials of daily life. It may be true that the Selective Employment Tax— which I hope we will be debating here tomorrow—is a powerful factor in inflationary tendencies. I put easily second the increase in motor duties both in respect of spirit and the motor duty licences because they go straight on to the price of the articles in the shops. They go on overnight.
If hon. Members do not believe me ask the Co-ops. The Co-ops are the principal offenders. It is always they who campaign for a reduction in the duties on motor spirit; a reduction in Selective Employment Tax, or its abolition. Most largely the Co-ops are concerned with distribution; only to a minor extent with manufacture. The Co-ops at least have learned one eternal verity of commerce, which is that all indirect taxation is viciously inflationary— [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent is mumbling away about wanting more inflation. Does he want more inflation?
Mr. Stanley Orme: No, you want it.
Sir G. Nabarro: I wish, Sir Eric, that you would restrain the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) from shouting "You this and you that". I will give way to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent if he wants to intervene.
Mr. Cant: I tried once before. I was merely saying that you and your colleagues on that side of the House—
The Chairman: Order. Hon. Members should address their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Cant: I have sat here on many occasions when hon. Members opposite have made plea after plea to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the balance of taxation in favour of greater indirect taxation and less direct taxation.
Sir G. Nabarro: You kindly selected today Amendment No. 25, Sir Eric—
The Chairman: Order. We cannot, on this Amendment, enter into discussion

929
about the relative merits of direct and indirect taxation.
Sir G. Nabarro: I entirely agree. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) does not understand the rules of order. He must be more careful. On a later Amendment I shall discuss the whole matter of indirect taxation. I am not going: to be drawn on it today.
I am sure that every quarter of the Committee will agree that an increase in the duty on motor spirit—and half of this increase is in respect of commercial vehicles—is violently inflationary because it adds to the cost of distribution at every stage and is as vicious in an inflationary context as the Selective Employment Tax. For all these reasons I must deplore the Chancellor's decision to raise the petrol duty.
The right hon. Gentleman has doubled the burden on road users' taxes between 1964 and 1969. That is a dismal record indeed and an utter contradiction of the promises he and his Cabinet colleagues made before the General Election of 1964 and before the General Election of 1966. I shall continuously and unremittingly rub his nose in these fiscal facts during the short remaining period between this date and the next General Election.
I am delighted that my oratory is sufficiently seductive to attract the hon. Gentleman to sit below the Gangway.
Mr. Gordon Campbell: I should like to support the Amendment. My hon. Friend has pointed out with clarity that motorists and road vehicles have had to bear a tremendous burden of taxation. I and my hon. Friends from Scottish constituencies are sorry that you have not selected our Amendments affecting Scotland, Sir Eric, but the general position of taxation in the country is one that concerns us a great deal.
The Ministry of Transport, some months ago, commissioned a study of what was called track costs with the object of working out to what extent motor vehicles covered the costs of the roads and services which they used. When that report was issued, a short time ago, I suspect that the Minister—it was the former Minister—was surprised to find out what we had been telling her from this side of the House for a long time—that the total of taxation paid by
930
road vehicles amounted to about twice as much as is spent on the construction and maintenance of roads and related services. This was the conclusion in the report after calculations by several methods.
That report on track costs completely undermined what the Minister was trying to do in the Transport Bill with two taxes there, and it was not surprising that those two taxes were removed from the Transport Bill. Unfortunately, the Chancellor is now trying, through fuel duty and the Excise duties, to raise the equivalent amount of money, and a lot more, almost twice as much as would have been raised under the taxes under the Transport Bill. Therefore, I support my hon. Friend in seeking to stop the huge increase being proposed in this Bill on petrol duty.
Turning to Scotland, when hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite and on the benches behind fail to recognise that general increases in transport costs have a greater effect on the remoter areas of Britain than elsewhere, one realises how little they know about what goes on in different parts of the country. When we have pointed out in debates in the House and upstairs that a substantial increase in the costs of road transport has a greater effect in raising costs in the North of Scotland than it does in an industrial area in the South, hon. Members on the other side have actually disputed this on the grounds that the respective duty is the same in both places. The important point that they have failed to appreciate is that distance enters into ordinary life and business activities in the remoter areas, so that the additional cost of transport is more damaging than in other areas.
To illustrate this simply, where markets and supplies are 100 or 200 miles away, an increase in transport costs has much more damaging and painful effects than where markets and supplies are only five miles away. I have put this simple point to the Government in the past and they have sought, with their supporters behind them, to dismiss it.
This is a matter of great concern to Scotland, particularly to the North and West Highlands. One Amendment which we put down, to which I will merely refer in passing, sought to exempt the islands. This was on a good precedent, because

931
the Government agreed to one of our Amendments to the Transport Bill and announced exemption from quantity licensing in the case of the islands. In this Amendment we have taken the wording which the Government used to define the islands in theirs.
Certainly, in the islands and the North and West of Britain extra transport costs mean that petrol is considerably more expensive to buy at the petrol pump than in the South of England. The extra costs of sea and other additional transport mean that petrol is more expensive when dispensed and retailed. I refer to that in passing, because that is an example of remote areas which suffer additionally when there are substantial increases in transport costs. I hope that the Government, for the first time, will start considering these remote areas and the damage that is being done to them when transport costs are increased.
It is all very well for the Government to talk about development boards and what they are doing with investment grants, which in fact, only go to manufacturing industries. General talk by the Government about regional development becomes nonsense when it is completely contradicted and nullified by measures like this which, to such an extent, put up the costs of transport.
Mr. Angus Maude (Stratford-on-Avon): The reason we feel strongly about increases in fuel duties is that this form of indirect taxation is infinitely more vicious and inflationary than any other. I am astonished that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have not been able to appreciate this. There is a case, which we cannot debate in detail here, for moving from direct to indirect taxation, but this form of indirect taxation enters into the costs not only of distribution but of production of almost all goods in the country.
It has an effect on the competitiveness of our exports and on raw materials being carried by road. Everything carried by road to the factories suffers in this way. It has a cumulative and multiplying effect which spreads throughout the whole of industry. Not merely that. It also has a vicious and distorting effect on the whole transport system. It is impossible to get the most
932
efficient transport system in the country through the operation of market forces if the Government distort the relative costs of different kinds of transport every time they get into a mess with their finances and bring in an allegedly deflationary Budget.
My hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) spoke of the effect on the remote areas of Scotland. It has an effect everywhere in the countryside. We are in terrible trouble in the Midlands with our rural transport. Buses are continually being taken out of service because they are uneconomic. More and more people rely upon cars to get to their jobs. The combined effect of the increase in petrol duty and the increase in motor vehicle licence duty has been that innumerable working-class people have been forced to lay up their cars, and they are now finding great difficulty in getting to work with railway lines and rural bus services being closed down all the time.
I do not want to detain the Committee further. However, it should be obvious that this particular tax increase has an effect which spreads throughout all classes of the community. It has an adverse effect on export, it is directly inflationary, and it causes confusion and discomfort in a way that other forms of indirect taxation do not. I hope that the Chancellor will see fit to accept the Amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Mr. John Nott: I should like to add a few words in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). I believe that this increase in petrol duty will bear extremely hardly on the rural areas of the country. It is an exceptionally regressive form of taxation which one does not expect from a Socialist Chancellor.
In 1952, petrol duty was 2s. 6d. In 1964, after many years of Conservative government, it had been raised to 2s. 9d., an increase of 3d. After only four years of Socialist Government, petrol duty has been raised by nearly 50 per cent. and now amounts to 3s. 11d. In four years the duty on petrol has been raised by a vastly greater amount than the mere 3d. which occurred during the years of Conservative rule.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever)The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever) indicated dissent.
Mr. Nott: The Financial Secretary shakes his head. I hope that he will comment on my figures when he gets up to speak.
I believe I am right in saying that now the petrol duty is designed to raise £1,100 million. It involves an increase of nearly £75 million this year. This is an enormous burden to place on the poorer sections of the community, who, to a large extent, will bear this burden.
In his Budget statement the Chancellor indicated that only about 50 per cent. of families owned motor cars. That may well be the case taking the country as a whole; but, taking the outlying rural areas, the proportion of car ownership is very much greater. By necessity, the only people who do not own cars in most of the rural areas are old ladies and young children who cannot hold a licence. The rest of the community require cars, because there are no bus services.
In half the constituency which I represent there is no bus service of any kind. In another part I speak for about 6,000 people in the Lizard peninsula of Cornwall, where the bus services are practically non-existent. Hard as we try to get them replaced, it is impossible. I believe that Cornwall has a higher proportion of car ownership than anywhere else in the country, which is a most interesting figure bearing in mind that, according to the Inland Revenue, in income terms it is probably the poorest part of the country. In Cornwall, people need cars to get to work, to go shopping, to go to church, to deliver meals on wheels, and to provide an auxiliary hospital service for old people who want to get to and from hospital. A car is certainly not a luxury in rural areas. It is an absolute necessity.
If the Chancellor continues to increase petrol duty, it can only lead ultimately, and quickly at the present rate, to rural depopulation of our villages. Surely it is right that one of the Government's principal aims should be to try to change the trend towards rural depopulation by their regional development policies. I cannot think of any single tax—and this goes with Selective Employment Tax—which
934
is more calculated to act against the Government's regional development policies than an increase in petrol duty of this nature.
This duty will also bear particularly hardly on those parts of the country which rely for their principal industries on early potatoes, fish, cabbage, and other horticultural and fishing products, where the transport element in total distributive costs is very much higher than it is in respect of a commodity which is perhaps—
Mr. Tony Gardner: For the sake of clarity, will the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee the price of petrol in those countries which are our most serious competitors in horticultural products?
Mr. Nott: The argument about whether we have higher petrol prices, or lower taxes, or better living conditions than the French, the Germans, or the Italians is time-wasting and ridiculous. I am not concerned with the petrol tax in France, Germany or Holland. All I am concerned in seeing in this House, and in representing my constituency, is that the petrol tax does not rise to such a degree that people are prohibited from doing their shopping and going to work. The petrol tax in France and Germany is no concern of mine in dealing with the Amendment. This tax bears particularly hardly on areas where horticulture plays an important part, or where the fishing industry is of extreme importance, and for this reason I fully support this important Amendment.
I said earlier that this was an especially regressive tax. It will add greatly to the cost of living in the outlying areas where, because of their distance from the main centres of population, transport costs form a far greater proportion of total costs than they do in Birmingham, or London, or in the central parts of the United Kingdom.
It is astonishing that in West Cornwall, after deductions for National Insurance contributions and taxation, the take-home pay of the average worker is about £12 a week. The average level of council house rents is perhaps £3 a week. This means that the margin on which the average worker has to live is about £9 a week. If petrol tax is raised in the way contemplated, and following, as my hon. Friend says, the motor vehicle duty increases,

935
there will be a substantial increase in the cost of living in areas where the average take-home pay amounts to the figure which I have mentioned.
The Multiple Shop Federation—and I think that it made these calculations in connection with the Transport Bill— reckons distribution costs due to the increases in petrol tax and motor vehicle licences are likely to rise by between 9½ per cent. and 11 per cent. This represents a 1¼ per cent. to 1½ per cent. increase in the final selling price of goods. My constituents with an average take home-pay of about £12 a week are in no position to bear this further impost of 1¼ per cent. to 1½ per cent. in the price of necessary commodities like food and fuel.
I support the Amendment. I know that the Financial Secretary is a generous, warm-hearted man, and that he has with him a brief which will shortly indicate to us that the Amendment has been accepted.
The Chairman: Sir Douglas Glover.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Sir Douglas Glover: After those warm words of greeting to me, I am sorry that I cannot say to the benches opposite that my speech will be filled with much joy and feelings of happiness.
I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) about the Amendment. All our taxation is far too high, and is strangling the initiative of the nation. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), who says that he is not concerned with taxes in France, or Germany, or anywhere else. Most of the developed countries are getting themselves into the situation of having a taxation structure which is out of balance, and where the population has less and less control over its environment. Control is in the hands of the State, and the supreme example of this is the taxation of fuel.
One knows that the rise in petrol tax and the increase in taxation of the internal combustion engine since the Government took office is due to the fact that they have a built-in prejudice against the motor car. It is no use the Financial Secretary laughing. They are still convinced that anybody who has a car is automatically a plutocrat, and perhaps I might prove that by evidence.
936
During my short period in the House, when the Conservative Party, dealing with the matter in a much more practical manner, as is their wont, brought in an alteration to the electoral system whereby any political party could use as many cars as it wanted to at election time, Labour Members seethed with rage. They said that it was being done to create a bias against the poor people who had no cars. They said that they would not be able to go and vote, whereas, in fact, as everybody knew, as many people who went to the polls in cars voted Labour as they did Conservative.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite still have that prejudice. They think that there is something slightly indecent in a family having a car, so this tax is designed to try in some way to put the clock back and force us all to give up our cars. They know that they will not succeed, but they are paying the right sort of tribute to those old and ancient glories of the past. When they are thinking about where to get some more "lolly" to do some more "goody business" somewhere, they say, "The easiest way of raising money is to put another tax on petrol and on the automobile; to put another tax on any form of transportation except rail". That really is how the tax structure on the automobile and on the fuel that it uses has grown up.
I am certain that when we were in power we were all the time fighting against this in the Treasury, because this is an easy way of raising money. It is very much simpler and in many ways a less painful way of raising money than getting it by other taxes, but over the years all that it has succeeded in doing is to put an enormous burden on our industrial machine because so much of the oncost is due to the taxes we are discussing this afternoon.
This tax structure reduces our competitiveness and makes the demand for increased wages stronger, because when people find that their basic needs—and surely one of the basic needs is the ability to transport oneself from A to B—cost more, they say that to balance the increase they must have extra wages and salaries. These taxes bear heavily on the means of transportation, and particularly on the transportation of the individual.

937
One of my hon. Friends spoke about the effect of this tax in rural districts. I know how it affects many people in my constituency. But it is not only the rural districts. My rural friends should remember that when one is in bottom gear, in a traffic block or sitting waiting for the lights to change in an urban district, one is probably using petrol at a greater rate per minute—not per mile—than those in rural districts.
4.30 p.m.
Mr. Maude: The point we were making, particularly in respect of rural areas, is that in urban areas it is possible for people to get to work by public transport whereas in many rural areas today there is no public transport at all to get people to work.
Sir D. Glover: I was not disagreeing with my hon. Friend, for I agree with him; but I was pointing out that the problem of the cost of running a car still applies, with this increased taxation in urban areas almost as much as in rural areas.
I would ask the Financial Secretary to say on what grounds the Treasury can justify the increase, not just in this Budget but ever since the party opposite (got into power? The increase in petrol alone is almost 50 per cent., not taking into account increased taxation on the vehicles themselves and so on. On what basis of principle have these taxes been increased? I know that the hon. Gentleman may say, "We have a very largely increased amount of spending in the Budget. We have to raise the money from somewhere and we feel that this is as fair a way of raising it as any".
I start off with the premise that I believe we are spending too much. I think that all of my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the House would agree. But let us start with the Socialist view that we are not spending too much and that what we are spending is all carefully organised and very sound, meeting with the private support of the Financial Secretary, who has no doubt that this is most desirable, and that this is an ideal world in which to live. Let us work on that assumption. I would still say that any person trying to get a fair collection of money to cover the bill, this expenditure, would inevitably conclude that today we are raising too much of it from the fuel tax.
938
If we take direct and other taxation, we are raising far too high a percentage today from fuel taxation. I would like to know, therefore, knowing of the increase that this puts on the cost of living, distribution and transportation, what philosophy, what thinking has gone on in the three years since the Labour Government got into power that has caused them in those three short years to increase fuel taxes by almost 50 per cent., and how they can justify that as a basic sensible policy, in a society in which petrol is a vital necessity, needed not by a small minority but by the great mass of the nation, both in their own private lives and in their commercial and industrial lives, so that it is a part of the life blood of the nation.
How can the Government believe that they are increasing efficiency and increasing the well-being of the nation when they are increasing these taxes by 50 per cent. in three short years? Until the hon. Gentleman can give a satisfactory reply to that—and I do not think he can—I am quite certain nobody on this side of the Committee will have any doubt at all that my hon. Friend's Amendment ought to be enthusiastically supported.
Mr. Julian Ridsdale: I hope that the protests we make on this side of the House will one day make the Government realise that it is wiser to cut Government spending than to face the increased taxation which the country is having to face today, including petrol tax. I do not want to get into a Second Reading argument here about the merits of direct or indirect taxation, or about the general level of Government spending. I merely want to say, in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), that this tax on petrol and all the other taxes the Government have introduced are inflationary and are adding to the cost of production. I want, also, to support my many hon. Friends from rural areas. Those who have small fixed incomes know how much this tax is affecting them and their pockets.
I speak with great feeling, because just recently, in my constituency, the bus fare from one rural town to another, a distance of 20 miles, has gone up by no less than 40 per cent. and this at a time when we are talking about keeping prices

939
and incomes steady. This is partly caused by the kind of increased tax on petrol that the Government have introduced. The comment of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) that the price of petrol had increased since Labour came into power from 2s. 3d. to 3s. 11d., an increase of 50 per cent., makes one realise why some bus fares are going up in the way they are. I use this opportunity which my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South has created to protest most strongly to the Government at the 40 per cent. increase in bus fares which has taken place during the last week or two in my constituency.
Mr. Marcus Worsley: Sir Eric, you have chosen for discussion with Amendment No. 1, to which previous speakers have addressed themselves, three Amendments in the names of my noble Friend and three of my hon. Friends, and my remarks are mainly devoted to those. I do not want to suggest that I do other than wholly support the case that has been made from this side. I do not believe that this Government have ever understood the blow-lamp which they have put under the boiler of inflation by their continuous increases in petrol tax.
I want to refer not to the general case against tax increases on this scale, but to the particular case of the effect of increases in petrol duty on a particular category of people, namely, the disabled. You ruled, Sir Eric—obviously rightly— that a general debate on direct and indirect taxation would be out of order at this point. I am not for a moment attempting to challenge that Ruling. All I would like to do is to quote the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, on indirect taxation:
"… indirect taxation, to some extent at any rate, offers the individual a choice. If he is horrified by the impost he can abstain from some part of his consumption and produce the same demand reduction by saving. I certainly should not object to that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1968; Vol. 761, c. 276.]
These words are tragically ironic when applied to the kind of people covered by these three Amendments. It is harsh and ironic to say that there is any element of choice for a person whose ability to get around and enjoy life depends on his
940
invalid chair. There is an overwhelming case, in the terms of the Chancellor's own advocacy of indirect rather than direct taxation, for an exemption for these people.
I know that the Financial Secretary will criticise the admittedly somewhat cumbrous machinery which would be involved; and no one on this side would pretend that it is other than cumbersome. But it is the increase in petrol tax which has created the need for this machinery. I would agree if the hon. Gentleman preferred a system of moderate petrol duties with the same tax paid by the fit and disabled, but we have outrageously high petrol duties which have also been sharply increased in normal and interim Budgets since 1964. Therefore, these are not normal times. These increases have borne hardly on a section of the community which no one would wish to single out for punishment. Therefore, there is an overwhelming case for this cumbrous machinery to make a humane alteration.
I say this the more because, for people who rely on an invalid carriage, it makes all the difference whether they can use it freely and without too much thought of the cost or whether they have to be careful about it. These people have had no compensating increase in benefit since the Budget and there is none in the offing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not use the promised increase in supplementary benefit as an argument against the Amendments. These people have suffered substantial increases in costs and no compensating advantage, and I hope that the Committee will support the Amendments.
4.45 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I support the Amendments. There is still a tendency, in an emergency, when we need more revenue, to turn to the so-called luxuries and to lump petrol with wines, spirits and tobacco. That is obsolete, because petrol has long ceased to be a luxury. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) was right to say that, in the remoter areas, particularly Cornwall, petrol is a necessity. We have largely lost our rural railways and are losing our rural bus services, and the number of cars there is greater per head of the population than anywhere else. My hon. Friend was right to say that, in Cornwall, despite this large number of

941
cars, incomes are much lower. I would have thought, in fact, that the average take-home pay was less than the £12 a week which he mentioned.
Rural dwellers must use their own transport to get to work. When agriculture and tin mining were the main industries in Cornwall, men walked to work, but many fewer people are now employed in agriculture, because it is more mechanised, and the tin mines have gone, although we hope that they will return. The only possible employment for many in the villages is in the towns and their only means of transport is their own, although they may find it difficult to maintain a car or motor cycle.
Moreover, many families of moderate incomes are two-car families, because the husband needs one for work and the wife needs another for shopping. Families of similar means in London would not dream of having two cars, but this is a necessity in these areas, and petrol tax increases bear hardly there. I hope that this will be borne in mind.
Mr. George Younger: I regard this debate as a general protest at continuing rises in petrol duties rather than at this particular one. We must bear in mind that raising petrol revenue has ceased to have much to do with hydrocarbon oils or petrol, but has become simply a method of raising taxation. If the Financial Secretary proposed a new form of taxation and suggested putting it blindly across the population, irrespective of means or conditions, he would be rightly and severely criticised, but every time the hydrocarbon oils duty is raised it falls more hardly on those who depend on petrol to get about and do the normal things which appeal to most of us who spend much of our time in cities.
We all think, first, of the hardship to people who run cars, but a much greater hardship, which has a far wider effect, is the immediate and noticeable increase in shop prices caused by an increase in petrol duty. This is no myth; one can see an immediate increase in prices of detailed items following such an increase of duty, particularly in remoter areas. I was in a small village shop about four weeks ago to buy a few things, and in that one visit I found
942
three small grocery items which had gone up in price by 1d. in the previous week or so.
I was told that it was because of increased transport costs. The proprietor could not specify whether this meant increased petrol costs or licence duty, or the effects of the Transport Bill, but it was clear that it was largely due to increases over a long period in the price of petrol. The effect is direct and painful, particularly on remoter areas. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) mentioned particularly the fact that people in these areas have lower average earnings than in the country as a whole.
While I shall be delighted if the Financial Secretary agrees with the case we have been making, I hope that he will at least give an undertaking that in the months ahead the Government will look very closely indeed—far closer than they have done before—at the possibility of grading increases in petrol duty in favour of the remoter areas. There would be nothing unusual, new or extraordinary about there being differing prices for petrol at garages throughout the country. One need only travel north, into the Highlands, or towards the South-West, to see that different prices are charged the further one gets from the distribution points.
There would be no difficulty in administering such an arrangement and having different rates of hydrocarbon oil duty for remoter petrol stations. The Treasury would get a lot of co-operation from the oil companies in drawing the demarcation lines, and so on, and there would be little difficulty in establishing this principle. Once established, it would benefit all because the more overcrowded the South-East and the other large centres become the more advantageous it is for people to be encouraged to live in the less cramped areas. Such a move would be in favour of the Government's regional policy and the Government would be thanked for many years to come.
I hope, therefore, that the Financial Secretary will say, even without commitment, that the Treasury will look carefully into the question of producing a differential rate of petrol duty to help the rural areas.
Mr. Paul Dean: This might be an appropriate moment for me to intervene, in particular, about Amendments Nos. 153, 154 and 155. These proposals deal with a rebate of fuel duty for various categories of disabled people, particularly those who have invalid carriages, vehicles which are adapted for their own use and vehicles which qualify for the disabled drivers' car badges as specified by the Ministry of Health.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) said, the case in favour of this gets stronger every time the fuel duty is increased. There are three main arguments in favour of a rebate for the disabled. The first is an obvious one; the steep increases which have taken place in the fuel duty in the last few years. It has increased by nearly 50 per cent. in the last three or four years and is one of many increases in the cost of living to have greatly affected disabled people. How much of the £900 million to be raised by the Bill will bear on disabled people?
The Prime Minister said clearly at the time of devaluation and when cuts in Government expenditure were announced that those most in need would be protected. Many of the people covered by this series of Amendments come within the category of people in need. There is no doubt that this increase in fuel duty, together with many other increases in the cost of living, will mean a decline in the standard of living of many disabled people. It is an odd way of fulfilling that pledge given by the Prime Minister. The Financial Secretary cannot possibly make out that there has not been a decline in the standard of living of a substantial number of disabled people.
The Financial Secretary will no doubt use the argument which has been produced whenever we have discussed this matter; that this subject should be dealt with not through the taxation system, but through the social service arrangements. While I accept that this is a somewhat clumsy way of trying to achieve our objective, it is the immediate way at our disposal to get action taken now. If the hon. Gentleman says that this should be done through the social services, then he should bear in mind that we have discussed disability pen-
944
sions on a number of occasions and that whenever we have put forward proposals along these lines the Government have said, "We are considering the matter" or "We must wait until more money is available". We have, as a result of this state of affairs, never been able to hope for early action on this matter. We are, therefore, seeking to bring immediate help for this category of people.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not use the argument that the proposal contained in Amendments Nos. 153, 154 and 155 would cost too much—
Mr. Harold Lever Mr. Harold Lever indicated dissent.
Mr. Dean:—because he said in the Standing Committee that it would cost less than £1½ million a year. I am glad to note that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to use that argument.
The second main argument in favour of our proposal is the immense importance of mobility for disabled people. Those of us who are not disabled take mobility for granted. While we curse the traffic jams, we can at least travel by underground or walk. The disabled cannot. One of their most prized possessions is the means of mobility, for it helps them to lead a reasonably normal life—to get to their work, to the shops, to visit their relatives and friends and take part in recreational activities. Few aids to living are more important for the disabled than their means of mobility.
The third main argument in favour of our proposal is that these special vehicles can in no sense be regarded as a luxury, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea pointed out. They are not an optional extra but are an essential part of the life of disabled people, many of whom depended completely for getting about on vehicles which have been especially adapted for them. In many instances these people cannot use buses or other public transport facilities. It is impossible for them to contract out of the increased fuel duty.
The importance of these points was brought home to me when I had the privilege earlier in the year of opening the spring fair of a disabled persons' motor club. It was wonderful to see the help that the club is providing for its members and for other disabled people. All those with whom I spoke said that

945
their number one priority was their means of transport. I trust that the pledges given by the Prime Minister will be implemented and that the Amendments will be accepted, for this is one means of implementing those pledges immediately. It would also be an excellent means for us to help those who are valiantly trying to help themselves.
5.00 p.m.
Mr. Harold Lever: We have had a very interesting debate, opened by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), whose absence from the Standing Committee we all regretted. Many of us must have felt that he was one of the few Members who would have been heard without amplification, in spite of the somewhat unusual acoustic conditions that prevailed then. We are grateful to him for moving this Amendment with his accustomed moderation.
The points raised ought to be dealt with generally at first. The general atmosphere of criticism from the other side appears to be that there is an element of malice in the raising of this tax, an element of dislike of the motorist. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) went so far as to say that we had an antipathy to the internal combustion engine. It seemed to be a remarkable antipathy to nurse. I am sure that I am achoing the feelings of every hon. Member, especially those on this side, when I welcome the hon. Member for Ormskirk back, and say that we rejoice in the fact that he is now in full health and showing, by the vigour of his chastisement of the Government, that he is unimpaired in his capacity to render service to the House.
To deal with his point first, we must get some simple facts clear. In the modern society, petrol is inevitably attractive as a means of raising indirect revenue, not only to members of this Government but to the previous Conservative Government. When the Conservative Government came in in 1951, the level of petrol tax was 1s. 10½d. Before they left office they had raised it to 2s. 9d. a gallon, an increase of merely 50 per cent. When we came in pertol tax was 2s. 9d. and we have raised it to 3s. 11d., a rather smaller percentage increase.
Mr. Victor Goodhew: A shorter time, too.
Mr. Lever: If we take the shorter time under the Conservatives we get an even worse effect. When hon. Members opposite were in power the tax was 1s. 10½d. When we take a much shorter time, say about five years, we find that in 1956 it was 3s. 6d. a gallon.
Sir G. Nabarro: Suez.
Mr. Lever: I did not know that the Suez group or the Suez Canal actually determined the rate of duty per gallon.
Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman is historically wrong. He said five years after the Tory Government came in, in 1951—I am going slowly to allow him to collect his wits. Five years from 1951 is 1956, the autumn of that year. Suez took place in September, 1956, and the special Suez surcharge, in the form of an increased duty of 1s. a gallon was put on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd), the then Minister of Power, in 1956. It was later removed. That was entirely a temporary measure, and has nothing to do with the general matter. It is a most dishonest point.
Mr. Lever: The hon. Gentleman may lash himself into a fury, but the fact is that the Conservative Government, in 1956, increased the charge in one year by 42 per cent. The fact that they took it off later is beside the point of my argument. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members must try to relate their arguments to reality, not to their internally nourished fantasies.
They complained that I was quoting the beginning and end of the Conservative Government's record over petrol duty. They thought that this was over a long period, and I have taken it over a short period. If one takes the unhappy incidents in the middle, whether they be Suez or anything else, the fact is that it was not those which raised the petrol duty. It was the Conservative Chancellor who raised it by 1s. a gallon in one year.
Mr. Nott: According to the hon. Gentleman's figures, during the last three or four years of the Labour Government the petrol duty has gone up by 1s. 2d., whereas when the Conservative Party was in power for three times that period it raised it by 10½d. over the same period. On those figures, I do not see what the hon. Gentleman has to boast about.
Mr. Lever: It may be that when we get these annual arguments after we have been in power for 13 years we will be able to show a similar proportion. I know that it is hard for hon. Members opposite to see the proportions, but, if one takes proportions, the percentage increase while the Conservatives were in power was getting on for 50 per cent. This does not cohere with the kind of argument made from the opposite side that there is malice or incompetence on the part of the Labour Government. During Conservative rule over 13 years there was a 50 per cent. increase in the duty. It is not unreasonable for me, therefore, to remind hon. Members opposite that any Government are liable to have recourse to some increase in duty to raise revenue.
Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman will surely concede that there is some difference between an annual increase of less than 4 per cent. and an annual increase of 15 per cent. or 16 per cent?
Mr. Lever: It did not work out as an annual increase of 15 per cent. It was, unhappily, much jerkier than that. I can understand that hon. Members opposite, in Committee on the Finance Bill, want to disclaim all responsibility for foreign policy decisions. I will not weary the Committee with the details, but hon. Gentlemen would be completely wrong in supposing that there was a gentle progression of that kind. Taking the first year of Conservative Government, they increased the duty from 1s. 10½d. to 2s. 6d., an increase of 7½d. or 30 per cent.
This is rather like the record of the present Government—the duty has gone up rather sharply at the beginning, but who knows, the rates of increase may decline in later years. The hon. Member must not delude himself into supposing that the Conservative 42 per cent. increase in duty took place at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum.
Mr. Maude: On average.
Mr. Lever: I am hoping that, on average, over the next 13 years of Labour Government, there will be a similar argument available to us, though not necessarily in opposition. This is a tax which inevitably has some effect on transport costs, but it is, fortunately, gradual and very small. In the cost-of-living index

948
it comes to one-tenth of one point, and that will be gradually achieved, at its peak effect. It is not a very startling increase on the cost of goods, and explains why the Conservative Party felt able to increase the duty by 42 per cent. or so.
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) was at his most parochial today, and said that he did not care what petrol cost or what petrol duty was in other countries. But I must answer the debate, which concentrated on the competitive effect of the duty in terms of raising the price of petrol and of transport, even on export goods. If this is a decisive aspect of competitiveness, we are in a very competitive position. The cost of petrol per gallon in Portugal is 8s. 5d., in France it is 8s. 3d., in Italy it is 7s. 9½d., in Belgium it is 6s. 9d., in Norway it is 6s. 8d., in Denmark it is 6s. 5d., in Germany it is 6s., and in the United Kingdom, after the tax increase, it is between 5s. 9d. and 5s. 10d.
Mr. Nott: What is it in the Fiji Islands, which is just about as relevant to what we are debating?
Mr. Lever: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the price of petrol in the Fiji Islands is exactly as relevant to the argument about export competitiveness as the price in France, Italy, Belgium, Norway, Germany and Holland, I must leave him to his own thoughts, because I am not in tune with them.
Sir G. Nabarro: Would the hon. Gentleman get on the same wavelength, if he wants to use this as an argument? I am with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) in thinking that it is largely irrelevant, but, if he wants to use it, why not quote the comparison which is really valid? That is the comparison with the United States, where comparable petrol costs 2s. 4d. a gallon against 6s. here. He is making our petrol more and more uncompetitive for our exporters.
Mr. Lever: I was quoting what I thought was relevant. The hon. Gentleman may think that that comparison is more relevant, like the Fiji Islands. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his figures, but the figures I have are that the comparable petrol cost 3s. 5½d. a gallon in the United States.

949
It is very much cheaper than it is here, for obvious reasons that are not very relevant to our discussions.
Mr. Ridsdale: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that in that country direct taxation is very much lower and the consumers have much more money to pay the increased prices?
Mr. Lever: Even I if I were prepared to admit that, it would not be true. If I detailed the comparative situation in terms of direct taxation, I should soon be called to order.
The fact is that this moderate increase in the price is not unfair in the circumstances of this year's Budget. Its effect on the cost of goods is tiny. Its effect on our competitiveness with other European countries can be judged from the level of petrol prices in those countries. In all the circumstances, the Governments' case must be that this is a reasonable increase, making its contribution to a substantial increase in taxation which unhappily was inevitable in the present circumstances. I expect on hosaanas of joy from any taxpayer, and motorists are no exceptiton, but I am afraid that this is a burden that must be borne and accepted.
The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) asked that different rates should be considered for different parts of the country. On the face of it, that seemed to me impracticable, but I will have the idea looked at, without making any commitment. Perhaps I should not comment further than that.
I have every sympathy with those who want to help invalid carriage users and protect them against any increase in duty. Unhappily, no Government, including the Conservative Government when they increased petrol duty, have been able to find a way to shield particular users of this kind from the hardship or consequences of a petrol duty increase. The Amendment is impracticable. It could not be administered, and it could not be policed. There would be immense administrative problems.
Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Am I not right in thinking that in the Transport Bill there is a provision to make a rebate to buses? Is it not possible to make a rebate to invalid carriage users?
5.15 p.m.
Mr. Lever: There is in this Bill provision for a rebate to buses. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the point that we have shielded buses from the effect of the petrol duty increase. That is possible in the case of the relatively few large scale transport operators. It is certainly not possible to do it in the case of each invalid carriage users. I greatly regret this. It is not from any lack of sympathy that we cannot accede to the request, or, I suppose, that previous Conservative Governments could not accede to similar requests. I regretfully turn it down on the ground that its administration would be impossible and either grotesquely expensive in relation to what was granted or hopelessly badly policed.
The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Harold Gurden): Mr. Fortescue.
Mr. Maude: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he deal with the question of the particular hardship to the rural areas?
The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman had sat down. I called Mr. Fortescue.
Mr. Tim Fortescue: I am sorry that I was unable to catch the eye of the Chair before the Minister spoke, but perhaps in view of what he said that is just as well.
I have already learned in my brief experience in the House that there is not much future in appealing to the generosity, warmheartedness and open-handed affluence of any members of the Treasury team. This happens several times a year with monotonous regularity and the answer is always the same. I am sure that this is so whichever Government are in power. Therefore, it seems to me that the only way to try to persuade the hon. Gentleman of the virtue of the three Amendments dealing with invalid carriages is to persuade him that their acceptance would be in the Treasury's interests as regards money spending, and would not cost him anything. This I shall briefly try to do.
In the Health Services and Public Health Bill, which has just returned to the Commons from another place with a few Amendments, but no Amendment to the part of the Bill with which I am

951
now concerned, the Minister of Health, to the general acclamation of both sides of the Committee which dealt with the Bill, has taken powers under Clause 33(3), which states:
"The Minister may, … make payments by way of grant towards costs incurred by any such person as is mentioned in subsection (1)"—
that is, people entitled to invalid carriages—
"in relation to an invalid carriage or other vehicle provided by the Minister for or belonging to that person, that is to say, … the purchase of fuel for the purposes of the vehicle, …"
The Financial Secretary has just said that this is impossible, that the administrative complications which would arise from helping the small numbers of individual people who run invalid carriages to pay for their fuel would be quite out of the question. Yet in another Bill before the House, unopposed by anybody, one of his right hon. Friends is taking powers to do so if he wishes. If he uses those powers, and makes grants to the operators of invalid carriages to help them with their fuel costs, the cumbersomeness of that method of paying for fuel will be far greater than the cumbersomeness of the proposals in the three Amendments.
The Minister of Health would have to pay out some money to the operators of invalid carriages to enable them to pay for their fuel, the cost of which includes the extra tax which is now being laid on them. Therefore, the money would be paid out by the Government with one hand and collected by them with the other. I know that this has been rather a favourite device of the Government in financial matters. We have only to consider the family allowances and the Selective Employment Tax which have been foisted on us by the Government to see that this is what they like doing.
I do not think that anybody in the Committee, even on the Government side, would pretend that it is a very tidy or easy way of collecting money. Therefore, I seriously suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should look at the powers which his right hon. Friend has taken in the Health Services and Public Health Bill. He will then find that they are much more far-reaching and far more clumsy than anything suggested in the

952
Amendments, and that both from the point of view of economy of taxation and ease of administration it would befit him far better to accept our Amendments and thus obviate the necessity for his right hon. Friend to make the grants for fuel for invalid carriage operators which he proposes.
Mr. Michael Noble: I want to reinforce what has been said by a number of my hon. Friends and perhaps to encourage the Financial Secretary, who is coming at least a little way in our direction, to look even more seriously at some of these problems than he has indicated that he will do. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) that the possession of a car today is of tremendous importance to a vast range of people. Twenty years ago, at the end of the war, people wanted houses. Now, due to the successful Conservative housing policy, they have their houses and want cars. In most parts of the country, including, I am sure, the Financial Secretary's constituency, the number of cars has probably doubled, trebled or quadrupled over the last 12 or 13 years. It is what people want. It is the modern way of moving around.
But I hope that some time the hon. Gentleman will stay a few days with me in the wilds of Argyll. He will see that exactly the same thing has happened there but for quite different reasons, in that people must have motor vehicles if they are to live any sort of modern life at all. We have practically no railways and few buses, which are irregular in timing. There is no other way of getting around apart from cars, and if we are to keep people in such areas it is a strange paradox that they must be able to get away if they are to be prepared to stay. Cars in such areas are essential.
It is not really surprising, although it often does come as a surprise to people, that the Island of Orkney has, I believe, the highest density of cars in Europe. One would not expect this of a Scottish island but I believe that it is still true. It was certainly true a few years ago when I checked the figures. In these areas, there are practically no railways or rural bus services. Only private cars are available for people to be able to move about.

953
One of the aspects I have found a little disturbing—and I am not quarrelling with the hon. Gentleman's figures, because I am sure he is right—is the attitude that, if we put up the cost of petrol, it puts only one-tenth of 1 per cent. on the price of goods. This is disturbing because, for the first time in my life, in the Western Highlands there are a very large number of vans going between the local villages on journeys of 60 or 70 miles a day delivering goods but the owners are saying that they can no longer continue to do so and are taking their services off. The hon. Gentleman might say that this is not purely because of the cost of petrol. It is also, of course, because of the Selective Employment Tax, the increased vehicle licence duty and other increases imposed by the Government.
Mr. Harold Lever: I hope I did not, by a slip of the tongue, say one-tenth of 1 per cent. on the cost of goods. It is one-tenth of one point on the cost-of-living index which results from the increase in petrol duty.
Mr. Noble: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I took it to be the other. But I have raised this point with the Scottish Office and it has given me this sort of figure. It says that it is only a tiny percentage. But there is an accumulation of tiny percentages which have been imposed steadily over the last three or four years since the Socialists came to power, and it has fundamentally changed the view of many distributors and suppliers in the outlying areas. If these people go, as they are going, what is the rest of the community to do?
There is only one alternative. The people in these areas must use their own cars more regularly for much greater distances. In my constituency, people regularly drive 60 or 80 miles. I can go 100 miles in one direction and 160 in another by road without leaving my constituency. People must go long distances for their food and drink, and if all these extra costs mean the withdrawal of distribution services, then the only alternative is, for them to drive very long distances at weekends or whenever they can in order to obtain the things they need for their ordinary existence.
There is a good fundamental case for the Treasury to consider carefully the problems of differential taxation for the

954
areas of large distances in the rural parts of the country. The case is particularly valid for a number of islands, where the cost of petrol is often 6d. or more a gallon greater than elsewhere because of the problems of distribution. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look at this again and will bring in some effective legislation to put the matter right at an early date.
I do not feel entirely sympathetic with a Government who, having promised no extra taxation, have, even if only for a short period of three or four years, increased petrol duty and distribution costs so vastly. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South on raising this point and I feel strongly in support of his case.
Mr. Goodhew: Had I not seen it with my own eyes, I would never have believed the strange transformation of the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) from the back benches to the position of Financial Secretary to the Treasury. When he sat on the back benches, he was full of reasonableness and understanding. He was constantly attacking Treasury thinking and was full of common sense. Now that he has moved a few feet up the Chamber, he has suddenly absorbed the spirit of the Treasury almost to the point of callousness. He has been reduced from his old common sense to the tortuous arguments and juggling with figures of the Treasury.
The figures which the hon. Gentleman gave will not wash. We are not talking about an isolated example of an increase in taxation. He is clobbering the motorist this time. Not only is there 4d. a gallon on petrol but £7 10s. a year on the vehicle licence duty—an increase of 43 per cent. If he claims that the Government are less harsh on the motorist than the Conservatives were, he should look at it in the context of the Bill and see what the Government are doing to the running costs of the average man's car, many of which do quite small mileages a year. To these people, the additional cost of petrol and licence duty will make a great difference.
The hon. Gentleman also ignores the fact that, when previous increases were made, it was at a time when direct taxation was being reduced. That makes a great difference. Someone who brings home more money in his pay packet is

955
thus left with a better opportunity of deciding his own priorities in spending. But the Government have increased direct taxation as well as indirect taxation, on petrol in particular, while telling us that we must not have increased incomes to enable us to afford it.
I mentioned in Committee upstairs the aircraft workers in my constituency, many of whom must use cars in order to get to the Handley Page Works at Rad-lett, just inside my constituency, or to the Hawker Siddeley Works at Hatfield, just outside it. No doubt, when asking for pay increases to help meet extra costs, they will come up against the Prices and Incomes Bill. This is quite a different atmosphere in which to talk about increases in taxation. I wonder if he considers the commuters who live in a constituency like St. Albans. The trains are not very comfortable—[AN HON. MEMBER: They catch fire!]—They catch fire from time to time. This has caused a great deal of concern among my constituents, and has caused them to want to motor.
5.30 p.m.
The line is overcrowded and the rolling stock is uncomfortagle. Many of my constituents choose to motor part of the way in, which is what they have been asked to do. If their work takes them to a point well south of St. Pancras, it is much more convenient for them to motor part of the way in and pick up the underground, instead of going to St. Pancras by train and then on to the underground. These people will all suffer. They will suffer these increases at a time when the Government are showing a determination that they should not have increased incomes to enable them to afford it.
The same applies to those who have to motor their children to school. Parents work on a roster system by which they collect three or four children in one car and take them all to school. They have to do it, because there are no bus services in rural areas, and in many cases the education authority will not provide school buses. These people will be asked to pay the extra impost, and all because the Financial Secretary says that petrol is an attractive means of collecting revenue.
It is a great mistake for the Government to consider that the motorist is

956
somebody who is there to be clobbered and who can always be forced to pay more. There is a law of diminishing returns, and many motorists work on a narrow margin. The margin between being able to afford to run a motor car and having to pack it up all together is a very narrow one. If many people are driven off the roads, the Financial Secretary will be faced with the difficulty of providing public services, which will be much more expensive to the Government. I hope that he will think seriously about this before Report stage, although, as I say, the transformation which has come over him since he has moved from the back bench leads me to think that that is a faint hope.
Mr. Iain Macleod: Before my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) wraps up this very valuable and important debate, I would draw the attention of the Financial Secretary to one point on Amendments Nos. 153, 154 and 155, which are being discussed with Amendment No. 1—the three Amendments which suggest that differential and favourable treatment should be given to those who are invalid or disabled and who have to use an appropriate form of transport.
The Financial Secretary was sympathetic to the idea behind those proposals, as are all hon. Members on both sides of the Commmittee. He advanced two arguments against them, The first was that the idea was impracticable, and the second was that it could not be policed. I should like to put to the Commmittee very shortly that both those propositions are wrong.
On the question of whether it be impracticable or not, the class of person that we are considering does not have to pay vehicle excise duty and can obtain a certificate to this effect for display. It is quite true that the classes of people that we are trying to help are not exactly co-terminus with that group, but it is a very poor argument to say that one declines to help a most deserving group of people because one cannot be quite sure that one is helping all of them. Beyond argument there is in the system of exemption from excise duty a method of identification which is available to the Treasury. The problem of giving special help in the social services,

957
wherever it may be, is basically a question of identification. We know who are and who are not disabled, and, therefore, identification cannot be a problem which could stand in our way if the will to help these people is there.
I turn to the second point, that it cannot be policed, and that if coupons for a cheaper form of petrol were given to disabled drivers it might lead to the same sort of abuse that unquestionably happened with tobacco coupons for old age pensioners. There is a profound difference between the two. Coupons for tobacco were given to people, whether or not they smoked, as long as they asked for them, and many people who did not smoke were more than happy to give their coupons away. That position does not arise here. People are not disabled because they want to be disabled. They are disabled for any one of a hundred reasons. It is part of the tragedy of their lives and it is inconceivable to think that coupons issued to a disabled person would be traded for the gain of a penny or two that could come from letting somebody else have them.
In this context I pick up a point made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech. When he spoke about increases in taxation he said that for many people there was at least an alternative; that is to say, instead of paying the higher prices they could save the money. This is an absolutely valid argument for drinking spirits and for smoking, but it is not a valid argument for petrol for disabled drivers. They literally have no choice in these matters, unless they are prepared to vegetate in their homes, and we all know that the one thing above all others that is vital for disabled people is to keep them, as far as possible, in the full flow of ordinary life.
I am quite certain that the argument about policing has no validity. The argument about it being impracticable is, I concede, a little more difficult, but nothing like as difficult as has been claimed, in view of the exemptions from vehicle excise duty that already obtain.
I do not want to go into the party political side of this argument, because it is an argument that appeals very much to both sides of the House, but an undertaking was given by the Prime Minister that people most afflicted, would on the whole, as far as it could be done, not

958
suffer from devaluation. Unless something like this is done, that part of that pledge is broken. So, between now and Report stage, I ask the Financial Secretary to reflect again on the two points: is it practicable, and can it be policed? I have a feeling that he could well come to the House on Report with a more helpful answer than he was able to give today.
Sir G. Nabarro: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for referring to this as a valuable and important debate. Indeed, it has been a most one-sided debate. The voices of 18 of my right hon. and hon. Friends have been raised in support of mine in condemning this iniquitous increase in the motor spirit duty. Not a single voice, other than that of the Financial Secretary, has been heard from the benches Opposite. All of this adds weight to the most propitious and apposite comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), that Socialists have some antipathy towards the internal combustion engine; they do not like it. They are envious of people with motor cars, they regard motor cars as the perquisites of the Tory rich.
They will find out to the contrary at the next General Election. The motorists' vote in this country is critically important. I have recognised it since I entered politics. That is why I have always championed the motorist, and look where I have got. There are 10½ million of them today, and they are growing apace. They utterly resent the continuous and penal increases in the three related forms of taxation heaped upon them by the Socialist Administration since the autumn of 1964.
I intend to castigate the Financial Secretary in the mildest terms for his behaviour today. It was rankly dishonest when he said that, in the first five of their 13 years, the Tory Government increased the petrol duty by more than the Socialists have increased it in the last four years. I have quickly calculated five years forward from October, 1951, to October, 1956, having realised that the shilling per gallon Suez special premium was put on in the autumn of 1956 for a few short weeks to act as a special rationing measure in the extraordinary difficulties of those months, and removed very shortly thereafter. It is as dishonest

959
to calculate the shilling premium arising from Suez into petrol duties as it would be to say that unemployment in 1947 was 2·2 million due to the extraordinary behaviour of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). Of course, it was not his fault that every factory in the country shut down, and I have never suggested that it was—much.
It is just about as dishonest to calculate that into the general argument that was used by the Financial Secretary. Over 13 years between 1951 and 1964, my party demonstrated that it was the friend of the British motorist. I do not want to anticipate what I shall have to say on a further selected Amendment on Purchase Tax and other aspects of taxation, and this is only a passing reference, but it was the Tories who reduced the Purchase Tax on cars from 60 per cent. to 25 per cent. It is the Socialists who have put it in reverse. I remember my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), on Guy Fawkes' Day in 1962, bringing Purchase Tax on motor cars down from 50 per cent. to 25 per cent. in one go— the motorist's friend indeed. It was my party which said that the licence duty on cars was far too high at 25s. per horse power and made it uniform at £10 per car. Where has it gone now? First, it went to £17 10s., and now to £25—
The Temporary Chairman: Order.
Sir G. Nabarro: A passing reference only, Mr. Gurden.
The Temporary Chairman: I thought that we had already passed the reference. Let us come back to the petrol duty.
Sir G. Nabarro: I was endeavouring to demonstrate that the three aspects of taxation on motor cars are interdependent. I know that we are only discussing the petrol duty, but my party drastically brought down Purchase Tax on cars, drastically brought down the vehicle licence duty and, over 13 years, very mildly increased petrol duty. The party opposite has increased the vehicle licence duty—
Mr. Harold Lever: On a point of order, Mr. Gurden. I do not in the least mind these passing references, but, as I have denied myself similar references to matters wholly unrelated to the Amendment, I must ask you whether it would

960
be in order for me to deal with the comments made about the Purchase Tax on cars, vehicle licence duties and other matters in a further reply.
The Temporary Chairman: I had already reminded the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) of this, and I allowed other hon. Members to make passing references. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will now come back to the Amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Sir G. Nabarro: Mr. Gurden, I apologise. I was endeavouring to demonstrate the friend that my party is towards the motorist in every sense, whereas the party opposite is the enemy of the motorist, and 10½ million car owners in the country would do well to recognise that simple fact of life.
In the 12 months to 31st March, 1964, which was the last full year of Tory Government, the sum raised from road users in all forms of taxation was £777 million. In the 12 months to 31st March, 1969, the sum budgeted for is £1,561 million—
Mr. Gardner: It will be well spent.
Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) supports it, and HANSARD will record the fact tomorrow. Under Socialist administration, taxation on the motorist has more than doubled. That may be the policy of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. If it is, it is a very bad one, and the nation will condemn it. Indeed, it is a cardinal reason for the disastrous results at the polls of the party opposite in municipal elections and Parliamentary by-elections. A huge burden of additional taxation has been heaped on the motorist. That is why I am so proud to stand here as the friend of the British motorist—
Mr. James Dempsey: Listen to the chairman of the club.
Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) may jibe, but at least I drive a British car.
Mr. Dempsey: I do not drive any car.
Sir G. Nabarro: I know. I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman even has a

961
driving licence. Mr. Gurden, it is fortunate that this has been the first Amendment selected. I now make an appeal to you. We have two important issues to decide. Amendment No. 1 deals with the general proposition that the duty on motor spirit should be increased not by 4d. a gallon but by only 1d. The other three Amendments deal with the important matters raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) about disablement. If we cannot have separate Divisions on those two issues, may I recommend to

Division No. 216.]

AYES

[5.49 p.m.

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

Nott, John

Astor, John

Goodhart, Philip

Osborn, John (Hallam)

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

Goodhew, Victor

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Awdry, Daniel

Gower, Raymond

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

Grant-Ferris, R.

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Peel, John

Bell, Ronald

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Peyton, John

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Pink, R. Bonner

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

Pounder, Rafton

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Biffen, John

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Biggs-Davison, John

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Prior, J. M. L.

Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

Hastings, Stephen

Pym, Francis

Black, Sir Cyril

Hawkins, Paul

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Blaker, Peter

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Body, Richard

Higgins, Terence L.

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Bossom, Sir Clive

Hiley, Joseph

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

Hill, J. E. B.

Ridsdale, Julian

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Hirst, Geoffrey

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Holland, Philip

Royle, Anthony

Bryan, Paul

Hordem, Peter

Russell, Sir Ronald

Buck, Antony (Colchester)

Hornby, Richard

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Bullus, Sir Eric

Howell, David (Guildford)

Scott, Nicholas

Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

Hunt, John

Scott-Hopkins, James

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Sharples, Richard

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Iremonger, T. L.

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

Chichester-Clark, R.

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Silvester, Frederick

Clark, Henry

Jopling, Michael

Sinclair, Sir George

Clegg, Walter

Kaberry, Sir Donald

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

Cooke, Robert

Kershaw, Anthony

Smith, John (London & W'minster)

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Kimball, Marcus

Speed, Keith

Cordle, John

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Stainton, Keith

Corfield, F. V.

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Costain, A. P.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

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

Cradciock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Lane, David

Summers, Sir Spencer

Cunningham, Sir Knox

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Tapsell, Peter

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

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

Temple, John M.

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

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Loveys, W. H.

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Lubbock, Eric

Tilney, John

Doughty, Charles

MacArthur, Ian

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

Maekenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

Wainwright, Richard (Coine Valley)

Drayson, G. B.

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Eden, Sir John

Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain

Walters, Dennis.

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

McMaster, Stanley

Ward, Dame Irene

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

Maddan, Martin

Webster, David

Emery, Peter

Maginnis, John E.

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Errington, Sir Eric

Marten, Neil

Williams, Donald (Dudley)

Eyre, Reginald

Maude, Angus

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Farr, John

Mawby, Ray

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

Fortescue, Tim

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

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Foster, Sir John

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Woodnutt, Mark

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

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Worsley, Marcus

Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

Monro, Hector

Wylie, N. R.

Gibson-Watt, David

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Younger, Hn. George

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Murton, Oscar

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Glover, Sir Douglas

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Mr. Jasper More and

Glyn, Sir Richard

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Mr. Anthony Grant.

my right hon. and hon. Friends that they record their disapproval of the Government's policies by supporting Amendment No. 1, and then dividing on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"? That will demonstrate that we wish to register our disapproval under both those headings.
Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 185. Noes 247.

NOES

Albu, Austen

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Moyle, Roland

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Gregory, Arnold

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Alldritt, Walter

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Murray, Albert

Anderson, Donald

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Neal, Harold

Armstrong, Ernest

Griffiths, E. (Brightside)

Newens, Stan

Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

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

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Norwood, Christopher

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Oakes, Gordon

Barnett, Joel

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Ogden, Eric

Baxter, William

Hamling, William

O'Malley, Brian

Beaney, Alan

Hannan, William

Orme, Stanley

Bence, Cyril

Harper, Joseph

Oswald, Thomas

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Haseldine, Norman

Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

Bidwell, Sydney

Hattersley, Roy

Palmer, Arthur

Bishop, E. S.

Hazeil, Bert

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Blackburn, F.

Heifer, Eric S.

Park, Trevor

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Henig, Stanley

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Boardman, H. (Leigh)

Herbison, nt. Hn. Margaret

Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

Booth, Albert

Hilton, W. S.

Pavitt, Laurence

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Horner, John

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Boyden, James

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Pentlands, Norman

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

Bradley, Tom

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

Brooks, Edwin

Hoy, James

Price, Thomas (Westhoughton.)

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

Huckfield, Leslie

Probert, Arthur

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

Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

Randall, Harry

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

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Rankin, John

Buchan, Norman

Hunter, Adam

Rees, Merlyn

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

Hynd, John

Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.

Butler Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hitt)

Richard, Ivor

Callaghan Rt. Hn. James

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

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Cant, R.B.

Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

Carniichael, Neil

Jeger George (Goole)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

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

Coe Denis

Johnson, Carol (Lewieham, S.)

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

Cole'man, Donald

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

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Concannon, J. D.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Conlan Bernard

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Crawshaw, Richard

Judd, Frank

Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)

Cronin John

Kelley, Richard

Sheldon, Robert

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Kenyon, Clifford

Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

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

short, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Collen, Mrs. Alice

Kerr, Russell (Feitham)

Srlkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Dalyell, Tarn

Lawson, George

Silverman, Julius

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Leadbitter, Ted

Slater, Joseph

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Ledger, Ron

Small, William

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Snow, Julian

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Lee, John (Reading)

Spriggs, Leslie

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Lester, Miss Joan

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

Dempsey, James

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

SummerskillHn. Dr. Shirley

Dewar, Donald

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Swain, Thomas

Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

Lipton, Marcus

Symonds, J. B.

Dickens, James

Lomas, Kenneth

Taverne, Dick

Dobson, Ray

Loughlin, charles

Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

Doig, Peter

Loard, Evan

Dunn, James A.

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Thornton, Earnest

Dunnett, Jack

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Tinn, James

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

Maccoll, James

Tuck, Raphael

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

M acdonald, A.H.

Urwin, T.W.

Eadie, Alex

McGuire, Michael

Varley, Eric G.

Mckay, Mrs. Margreat

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Edelman, Maurice

Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Wallace, George

Ellis, John

McNamara, J. Kevin

Watkins, David (Consett)

Ennals, David

McNamara, J. Kevin

Ensor, David

MacPherson, Malcolm

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.

Wellbeloved,James

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

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

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Faulds, Andrew

Manuel, Archie

whitaker, Ben

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Marks, Kenneth

White, Mrs. Eirene

Fletcher, Raymond (Likeston)

Marquand, David

Wilkins, W.A.

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

Maxwell, Robert

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

Mayhew, Christopher

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Mikardo, lan

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchki)

Forrester, John

Millan, Bruce

Willis, Rt. Hn. George

Fraster, John (Norwood)

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Winnick, David

Freeson, Reginald

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

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Galpern, sir Myer

Moonman, Eric

Woof, Robert

Gardner, Tony

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Garrett, W. E.

Morris, Alfred (Wythenehawe)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Mr. John McCann and

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Mr. Neil McBride.

Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill put forthwith pursuant to Order [11th June]:—

Division No. 217.]

AYES

[5.58 p.m.

Albu, Austen

Garrett, W. E.

Mayhew, Christopher

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

Mikardo, Ian

Alldritt, Walter

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Millan, Bruce

Anderson, Donald

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Armstrong, Ernest

Gregory, Arnold

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

Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Moonman, Eric

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Morgan, E;ystan (Cardiganshire)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Griffiths, E. (Brightside)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Barnett, Joel

Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Baxter, William

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Beaney, Alan

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Moyle, Roland

Bence, Cyril

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Muiley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Harmling, William

Murray, Albert

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Hannan, William

Neal, Harold

Bidwell, Sydney

Harper, Joseph

Newens, Stan

Bishop, E. S.

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

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

Blackburn, F.

Haseldine, Norman

Norwood, Christopher

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Hattersley, Roy

Oakes, Gordon

Boardman, H. (Leigh)

Hazell, Bert

Ogderl, Eric

Booth, Albert

Heffer, Eric S.

O'Maley, Brian

Bottomley Rt. Hn. Arthur

Henig, Stanley

Orme, Stanley

Boyden, James

Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

Oswald, Thomas

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Hilton, W. S.

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Bradley, Tom

Homer, John

Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

Brooks, Edwin

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Palmer, Arthur

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

Howarth, Harry (Welingborough)

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

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

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

Park, Trevor

Buchan, Norman

Hoy, James

Parker, John (Dagenham)

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

Huckfield, Leslie

Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

Pavitt, Laurence

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Cant, R. B.

Hunter, Adam

Pentland, Norman

Carmichael, Neil

Hynd, John

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

Coe, Denis

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

Prlce, Thomas (Westhoughton)

Coleman, Donald

Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

Probert, Arthur

Concannon, J. D.

Jeger, George (Goole)

Randall, Harry

Conlan, Barnard

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

RanKin, John

Crawshaw Richard

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Rees, Merlyn

Cronin, John

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

Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Richard, Ivor

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Roberts, Albert (Normartton)

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Judd, Frank

Roberts, Cwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

Dalyell, Tam

Relief Richard

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Kenyon, Clifford

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

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

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

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

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Kerr, Russell (Feitham)

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Lawson, George

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Davies, I for (Gower)

Leadbitter, Ted

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Dempsey, James

Ledger, Ron

Shaw, Arnold (Illford, S.)

Dewar, Donald

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Sheldon, Robert

Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

Lee, John (Reading)

Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

Dickens, James

Lestor, Miss Joan

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Dobson, Ray

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Doig, Peter

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Silverman, Julius

Dunn, James A.

Lipton, Marcus

Slater, Joseph

Dunnett, Jack

Lomas, Kenneth

Small, William

Dunwoody, Mrs. Cwyneth (Exeter)

Loughln, Charles

Snow, Julian

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

Luard, Evan

Spriggs, Leslie

Eadie, Alex

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Edelman, Maurice

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Swain, Thomas

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

McCann, John

Symonds, J. B.

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

MacColl, James

Taverne, Dick

Ellis, John

Macdonald, A. H.

Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

Ennals, David

McCuire, Michael

Thornton, Ernest

Ensor, David

McKay, Mrs. Margaret

Tinn, James

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Tomney, Frank

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

Maclennan, Robert

Tuck, Raphael

Faulds, Andrew

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Urwin, T. W.

Fletcher, llaymond (Ilkeston)

McNamara, J. Kevin

Varley, Eric G.

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

MacPherson, Malcolm

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

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

Wallace, George

Forrester, John

Manuel, Archie

Watkins, David (Consett)

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Marks, Kenneth

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Freeson, Heginald

Marquand, David

Weitzman, David

Galpern, Sir Myer

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Wellbeloved, James

Gardner, Tony

Maxwell, Robert

Whitaker, Ben

The Committee divided: Ayes 244, Noes 181.

White, Mrs. Eirene

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Wilkins, W. A.

Willis, Rt. Hn. George

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Winnick, David

Mr. Neil McBride and

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Mr Alan Fitch.

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Woof, Robert

NOES

Alison, Michael (Barketon Ash)

Glyn, Sir Richard

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Astor, John

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

Page, Graham (Crosby)

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

Goodhart, Philip

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Awdry, Daniel

Goodhew, Victor

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

Grant, Anthony

Peel, John

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Grant-Ferris, R.

Peyton, John

Bell, Ronald

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Pink, R. Bonner

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Pounder, Rafton

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Got. & Fhm)

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Biffen, John

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Prior, J. M. L.

Biggs-Davison, John

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Pym, Francis

Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

Hastings, Stephen

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Black, Sir Cyril

Hawkins, Paul

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Blaker, Peter

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Body, Richard

Higgins, Terence L.

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Bossom, Sir Clive

Hiley, Joseph

Ridsdale, Julian

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

Hill, J. E. B.

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Braine, Bernard

Hirst, Geoffrey

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

Royle, Anthony

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Holland, Philip

Russell, Sir Ronald

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Hordern, Peter

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Bryan, Paul

Hornby, Richard

Scott, Nicholas

Buck, Antony (Colchester)

Howoll, David (Guildford)

Scott-Hopkins, James

Bullus, Sir Eric

Hunt, John

Sharples, Richard

Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

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

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Iremonger, T. L.

Silvester, Frederick

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Sinclair, Sir George

Chichester-Clark, R.

Jopling, Michael

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

Clark, Henry

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Smith, John (London & W'minster)

Clegg, Walter

Kershaw, Anthony

Speed, Keith

Cooke, Robert

Kimball, Marcus

Stainton, Keith

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Cordle, John

Knight, Mrs. Jill

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

Corfield, F. V.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Summers, Sir Spencer

Coatain, A. P.

Lane, David

Tapsell, Peter

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Cunningham, Sir Knox

Lewi s, Kenneth (Rutland)

Temple, John M.

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

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

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

Tilney, John

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

Loveys, W. H.

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Lubbock, Eric

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

MacArthur, Ian

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Doughty, Charles

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Walters, Dennis

Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain

Ward, Dame Irene

Drayson, G. B.

McMaster, Stanley

Webster, David

Eden, Sir John

Maddan, Martin

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Maginnis, John E.

Williams, Donald (Dudley)

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

Marten, Neil

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Emery, Peter

Maude, Angus

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Errington, Sir Eric

Mawby, Ray

Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

Farr, John

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

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

Woodnutt, Mark

Fortescue, Tim

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Worsley, Marcus

Foster, Sir John

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Wylie, N. R.

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

More, Jasper

Younger, Hn. George

Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Gibson-Watt, David

Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Murton, Oscar

Mr Reginald Eyre and

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Mr Hector Monro.

Glover, Sir Douglas

Nott, John

Clause 5
PURCHASE TAX
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: I beg to move Amendment No. 207, in page 5, line 11, leave out 'from' and insert 'of'.
The Chairman: With this Amendment it would be convenient to discuss Amend-

968
ment No. 208, in page 5, line 13, at end insert:
'and articles of any of the descriptions known as greeting cards'.
and Amendment No. 214, in page 5, line 13, at end insert:
(c) as from 30th April 1968 with the amendment of Group 26 by the addition to paragraph (a) of the words 'other than charity greetings cards' and the insertion after

969
'articles' of the words 'including charity greeting cards'.
Mr. Higgins: These Amendments arise directly from the debate which we had in the Standing Committee, in the sense that they seek to amend an Amendment which was made in that Committee. It is perhaps significant that, in the general air of confusion which surrounds many procedures of this Recommittal stage, we should be debating this subject.
Effectively what the Government did in the Finance Bill this year was to alter the basic structure of Purchase Tax. In place of the three rates which previously prevailed, they introduced a fourth rate, a 50 per cent. luxury rate. So the overall trend of Purchase Tax over the years towards narrower and narrower differentials and fewer and fewer rates was reversed. They have now adopted a policy which we do not believe is the right approach concerning Purchase Tax.
During the course of this exercise the Government have included in the 50 per cent. rate a number of items in Clause 5(b), including
"Diaries, calendars and similar articles."
That is to say, they decided that, instead of having a 50 per cent. rate on diaries, calendars and similar articles, they should have only a 33⅓ per cent. rate. The mechanics by which this exercise was achieved was to lop off from the tail end of what had previously been in this category items which included greetings cards. It became apparent, from the feeling in Committee, that many hon. Members believed it was wrong of the Government to reduce the rate on diaries, calendars and similar articles, which we supported, without also reducing the 50 per cent. rate on greetings cards. I shall refer to some of the reasons why we thought that was so and add some additional reasons.
Amendment No. 214, which we are also discussing, is concerned with charity greetings cards. I should like to treat this as a probing Amendment, because it raises a number of difficult problems concerning the relationship between commercial greetings cards and charity greetings cards.
The essential point which we made in Committee—and we believe it to be a strong one—is that the Government, in their use of the Purchase Tax mechanism,

970
are now moving more and more towards an arbitrary system where the pattern of consumption is being distorted. By use of the Purchase Tax mechanism, the Government are seeking to impose a certain pattern of consumption by saying that some things should be taxed more heavily than others. To the extent that this relies on some appraisal of whether the effect of the tax is likely to affect total sales and, therefore, total revenue, I think there is a reasonable economic case for arguing on these lines.
In economists' jargon, one would be trying to vary the tax according to the elasticity of demand. But it is a different matter when one tends to say that this or that item is good or bad in itself. We think that there is an economic case, but we do not believe that there is the value-judgment case for discriminating in this way.
We have had great difficulty in deciding whether there is any rationale between the four categories in place of the three which the Government have decided upon. On a subsequent Amendment we shall discuss some of the other items included in the various rates, but in this Amendment we are concerned with greetings cards.
One would not have thought that greetings cards, the average price of which is about 1s. 3d., and not more than 1s. 6d., would be regarded as luxury items and put into the same category as gold, jewellery, furs or luxury motor cars. The sending of greetings cards, while it may be very widespread, is not something one would think that the very rich had a great propensity to indulge in rather than the very poor. We suggest that the reverse may be the case. If that is so, surely the whole idea of Purchase Tax grading itself in this way, from the point of view of saying that this or that thing is good or bad, is false in this instance. Even on the economic basis, the argument that this is something which can stand a big increase in taxation is open to grave doubt.
Therefore, we believe that it is right and proper that the Government should look at this Amendment with sympathy and, at any rate, should reduce the rate to the same level as that which they are now charging, as a result of the Amendment accepted in Committee, on diaries, calendars and similar articles. We feel

971
that if the 33⅓ per cent. rate is right in this instance for diaries, calendars and similar articles, it should be the right rate for greetings cards. For that reason we commend this Amendment to the Government.
6.15 p.m.
Turning to Amendment No. 214, nearly all charity greetings cards are sent at Christmas time, whereas greetings cards otherwise may cover a number of other events such as birthdays, anniversaries and so on. Very few charities send out cards of a general nature designed to raise revenue for their charitable purposes. There are one or two exceptions. The Mouth and Foot Painting Artists, Ltd., which employs people who paint cards using their mouths or their feet, because they are armless, sells charitable cards which can be used for a number of purposes, such as birthdays, and so on; but, by and large, the charity market is restricted to Christmas cards.
Two important points arise. The Committee will recall that we debated this matter on 21st June last year on a new Clause to the Finance Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Horn-sey (Mr. Rossi). Alas, as a result of the pace at which Government legislation is being put through, my hon. Friend is engaged upstairs on the Prices and Incomes Bill, but he has asked me to say that he is sorry not to have an opportunity of again supporting the view that he put forward in the Finance Bill Committee last year.
My hon. Friend put forward a powerful case. His new Clause suggested that there was a strong case for the Government refunding Purchase Tax on charity greetings cards. My hon. Friend accepted—and I would probably accept as well—that difficulties may arise if charity greetings cards are excluded and other greetings cards are not, because may be that they will be more competitive in price and commercial interests will suffer. However, if some form of refund were made this would not be likely to be the case. This is debatable. Therefore, I think that we should treat this as a probing Amendment. If the Government accept the principle of the Amendment but suggest some other mechanism for doing it, I am sure my hon. Friends would not object.

972
A heavy tax is being imposed on charity greetings cards, which are not the most expensive type of cards. I gather that the average price of a Christmas card is about 7d., whereas the average price of an ordinary greetings card is about 1s. 3d. Consequently, in an earlier debate, the figures produced by the Government about the cost of making this variation in the tax rate were considerably exaggerated. The total revenue derived from Christmas cards is, therefore, correspondingly less than one might expect at first sight. Perhaps the Financial Secretary, if he is to reply, will be able to give some indication of the revenue raised from Christmas cards compared with other cards and how much the cost of these two sets of Amendments might be.
The point is that the Government are imposing a tax on a form of activity which is designed to raise money for charity. We believe that that is a bad principle and that we should look at it very carefully. After all, the Government have recognised that, generally speaking, taxing charities ought not to be done.
For example, I understand that the revenue which charities receive from investments is exempt from Income Tax. Charities are able to claim back the Income Tax which they pay on revenue received from covenants. In the classic case of Selective Employment Tax, the Government initially imposed a tax on charities but we were able to get them to change their minds and remove it. There would be some consistency of approach if they, perhaps not eliminated but did not increase the Purchase Tax on these items to the penal rate of 50 per cent.
Charity cards have had a great increase imposed on them, and for a reason which may not be immediately apparent, because all charity cards are normally purchased at cost. I understand that the Inland Revenue adds to that cost the amount of mark-up which would normally be imposed if goods were sold on a wholesale basis. Until a few years ago—I think until the end of 1966— this mark-up was calculated at 50 per cent., which the Prices and Incomes Board might feel is high, but then the Inland Revenue increased the 50 per cent. mark up to 75 per cent.

973
On top of that notional wholesale figure there is imposed whatever the Purchase Tax may be. First we had the initial rate. It was then increased by the amount of the regulator. This was then consolidated, and now the Purchase Tax has been raised to 50 per cent. Effectively, there has been a whole series of increases in the tax burden imposed on charity Christmas cards, and perhaps the Financial Secretary will tell us what the percentage increase is now, as against the tax which was imposed on them in say 1964. It seems possible that the increased burden which has been imposed on them may be greater than the tax increase on almost any other category, certainly in the Purchase Tax range, and possibly across the whole range of taxation.
The amount involved is considerable. In the debate last year the figure was quoted of £8,500 being paid by the British Empire Cancer Campaign, but this sum will now be greatly increased as a result of increasing Purchase Tax from 27½ per cent. to 50 per cent. The overall burden on all these charities will be greatly increased. I shall not weary the Committee by going through them charity by charity, but the revenue which they receive from this source is very important. We therefore feel that this issue should be examined with the greatest care.
We must also bear in mind the overall position of commercial cards. We think that the best way to meet both cases is to make the Amendment to reduce the rate of Purchase Tax on the basis which we have suggested. We can find no basis for agreeing to an increase in the tax to the rate of 50 per cent. proposed by the Government. In the absence of any concession, but we are hopeful that there will be one, I hope that my hon. Friends will vote for the Amendments.
Sir D. Glover: I propose to refer particularly to Amendments Nos. 208 and 214. With regard to charity greeting cards, I was a little surprised when my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), in his able speech, talked about referring the profit to the Prices and Incomes Board because of a mark-up of 50 per cent. while the Inland Revenue uplifts it to 75 per cent., because a high mark-up is necessary if charities are to

974
come out with any profit at all. I do not suppose that, in practice, a mark-up of 75 per cent. works out as excessive, but we are not debating whether the matter should be submitted to the Prices and Incomes Board.
I ask the Financial Secretary to look again at the question of charity greeting cards. As my hon. Friend said, nearly all these cards are issued at Christmas time, and it is, therefore, fairly easy for the Inland Revenue to control their sale. The problem of dealing with the matter if there is to be any Purchase Tax at all is very complicated, and I suggest that it is wrong for the State to extract its pound of flesh from a charity. Charity greeting cards ought to be free of the tax, as they were until comparatively recently. I think that that is the only answer to the problem, because whatever rate of tax is imposed on these cards, as my hon. Friend said, the difficulty is that one cannot have a separate system for charity greeting cards. They have to be lumped in with all the Christmas cards that are sold.
A charity not only has to pay the tax, but must have a mark up for the notional profit, and the wholesale profit, on to which tax is added. If it is not 50 per cent., but only 33⅓ per cent., it is still an enormous amount and alters the price of the card. If a card costs 9d., and there is a mark-up of, say, 4½d.— that is 50 per cent.—and then Purchase Tax of 33⅓ per cent. is added, taking into account the profit which has to be included to bring in a worthwhile return, that card will have to retail for about 2s. If a charity greetings card sells for 6d.—and that is about the price at which most charities try to get them out—if tax has to be paid, it is necessary to get out a card which costs about 2d.
This means that it is an inferior card, and the public will not buy it to send to their friends. Anyone who receives a charity greetings card accepts that it is not as nice a card as one that is sent for purely commercial purposes, and in respect of which the sender gets value for money. If someone receives a card which says that all the benefits from the card are going to a charity, he accepts that it is not as good as an ordinary commercial card, but he expects, and the person who sends the card expects, that

975
it will look something like a Christmas card.
There will be great difficulty in getting out a Christmas card which carries this rate of Purchase Tax plus the Inland Revenue uplift for calculating the tax. It will be difficult to get out a worthwhile card to retail for about 6d. Therefore, apart from the added burden for the charitable organisations, they will find that over the years their turnover will drop steadily because they will not be able to provide as good a card as they were able to before Purchase Tax was brought in.
Therefore, while I would like to see the tax on charity greeting cards done away with altogether, I would certainly support any amendment to reduce the amount of Purchase Tax that the Government of the day are proposing to impose at any given time. I have great pleasure, therefore, in supporting Amendment No. 214.
6.30 p.m.
I come now to Amendment No. 208. I made a speech about greeting cards in the Committee upstairs. I was able at that time to use my own recent experience of hospital to tell the Committee at great length of the many greeting cards I had had from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, saying "Get well quick". I told the Financial Secretary then what the result of this tax would be. Having told him what would happen I was suddenly taken back to hospital and, during my second incarceration, because of the evils of the Government, all I received were letters. People simply cannot afford any longer to send these cards.
Many of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends and more on this side of the Committee were kind enough to write to me saying they hoped that I would soon be well, but would not be back in the House in time for the Committee stage of the Finance Bill; but they have been able to write only letters. One hon. Gentleman, who, presumably, was using old stock, sent me a card bearing the picture of a shoe saying "Get well quick. There is no one to put in your shoes in the House"—which, of course, was very nice.
But people will not get cards of this kind any more, because the price will

976
be too high, going up from 1s. 3d. to about 2s. One of my branch chairmen sent me a very nice greeting card with the post-script, "Don't do this again. The cost is too excessive. We cannot afford it". That will show the Financial Secretary what is happening as a result of the evil, Scrooge-like attitude shown by the Government towards these greeting cards.
The tax on calendars, for example, has been reduced, but in my view the tax on greeting cards is far more important. Cannot the hon. Gentleman accept this Amendment and bring the greeting card into the lower tax category? He cannot really be such a Scrooge, nor surely can his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as to think that his or my hon. Friends who send a "Get well quick" greeting card are in the Rolls-Royce class, that they are sending a gift beyond the wealth of diamonds.
This is something which the poor, the needy, the old and the lonely throughout the country use today to send people a message reminding them of anniversaries; and they do not expect to have to spend a fortune on such cards. Yet under this Bill they are to be bunged up with a 50 per cent. Purchase Tax on something which is bought by people wishing to send cheer to someone who very much needs it or to mark a birthday, anniversary or some other occasion when people want to be cheered up.
The Government are so lacking in the psychology—no wonder people vote against them—of what makes people tick that they feel that kind of greeting card ought to bear 50 per cent. Purchase Tax. If the Government seriously believe that that is where greeting cards ought to be in the broad spectrum of Purchase Tax, right in the top category, then I believe that a great many of the hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to have their heads seen to. Under this Amendment we are accepting that the Government, under pressure as a result of their mismanagement of our affairs, have this year had to raise a lot of money in the Budget. We are not saying, in this particular Amendment, that greeting cards should this year be exempted from all tax, but it seems completely wrong to put them in the top category, in the exclusive, expensive field of Purchase Tax. It is not as though to

977
accept the Amendment would be to wreck the whole Budget. If the Government were to accept it it would show that they understood what could be called the human approach.
After all, the amount of Purchase Tax involved, even if this Amendment is accepted, would be a very excessive tax to put on the good wishes and generous spirit which causes people to buy greeting cards to send to their friends, relatives and acquaintances in sickness, to which I have drawn attention, or to show that they have remembered an anniversary, a birthday or a wedding. For the Government to be so out of touch with human thinking as to feel that that kind of gesture can carry a greater rate of Purchase Tax shows in a very simple way why they are so unpopular with the public at large.
I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary will be able to accept this Amendment which would cost very little money, but would bring an enormous feeling of well-being to a great many people—not wealthy people —throughout the country who use these cards to bring some light and cheer to friends who are ill or to those who are celebrating a happy anniversary.
Miss Joan Quennell: I was tempted not to intervene, first, because as a member of the Committee, I was able to make a contribution at that stage and, secondly, because it hardly seemed necessary for any other member of the Committee to do so after the lucid and succinct exposition of the Amendment by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins).
It seems to me that these two Amendments deal with two quite separate issues. The first is the greeting card which is now sent widely throughout the country on all kinds of occasions. The second is the charity card. Both groups will now attract the highest rate of Purchase Tax. In Standing Committee, the Minister of State, speaking on an Amendment to this part of the Clause, made a curious definition. He described goods attracting Purchase Tax as being either luxury, less essential, or necessary. I believe that one would find it very hard to see how the chanty type of card could be described as a luxury.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) has said, this

978
type of card, of the cheaper variety, is produced by all kinds of charities and organisations throughout the country in order to raise funds and to promote and advertise themselves and their cause. It is hard to see by any stretch of the imagination how such cards could be described as a luxury item. I suppose that it could be said that they are not entirely necessary, but I really begin to wonder, because so many of these organisations are seeking to raise funds for necessary purposes. However, that is not a point which comes into the Purchase Tax structure of the country.
There is another anomaly in those Amendments dealing with greetings cards. The cards commonly sent, although they will attract the luxury rate, are not generally used by the rich and those with a luxurious way of life. It is generally the old-age pensioner, the sick, the elderly and the less affluent who will suffer the swingeing impost of 50 per cent. and I would like to hear the thinking behind this curious decision, and whether the Treasury could not reconsider it.
Mr. Harold Lever: The points raised have been considered before and I have tried to look at them with a fresh mind, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State said in Standing Committee that, in deciding the rate of duty, greetings cards were not one of the more essential items, and that is not unfair. What rate they should bear is a matter of personal judgment. I do not suggest that they are a great luxury of the idle rich, but they are the kind of article which can reasonably bear a fairly heavy rate, particularly since the amount involved in each purchase is so trifling.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) missed my welcome back in our earlier debate. He will not mind my saying that, if the tax deters him from "doing it again", that will be an additional reason in favour of it. Certainly, no one would question that the greetings card is a satisfying and emotional thing for the giver and the receiver, but if one takes the figures of the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), of 1s. 3d. and 1s. 9d., as typical for such cards, the difference between the proposed 50 per cent., and the present 33⅓ per cent. is a matter of ½d. or 1d. for each card, and is not a matter of great party political contest.

979
The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), who did not intervene—and I am not asking him to —has said that the Tory Party is the motorists' friend. The hon. Member for Worthing would probably claim that he is the friend of the greetings card sender, and will probably make similar claims during our three days' debate. Unhappily, this Budget requires to raise a great deal of revenue. The cost of this concession would be £3¾ million, and, therefore, I can take no different view from that of my hon. and learned Friend—
Sir G. Nabarro: This matter falls under Group 26 of the list which the Chancellor moved after the Budget, comprising diaries, calendars and greetings cards. Is the £3¾ million the cost of the concession if only charity cards were exempted or does it relate to all cards?
Mr. Lever: This refers to the total cost of the Amendments. I could have worked out the cost of the charity concession, since charities are reported to account for under a quarter of the total turnover, so, presumably, the relief would cost the same proportion. But the fatal argument about granting such a concession is that it would allow charities to enter ordinary trade—that is all that this is—on preferential terms. Hon. Members will not support that, I think. One cannot tell greetings card traders, carrying on lawful business, that competition will be loosed upon them by people with a tax advantage as distinct from the profitable overall result which they have on their Income Tax, profits and dividend receipts. That is not the same as sending them into the market place with articles which other traders manufacture, but at preferential terms of Purchase Tax. It could not even be restricted to cards. Charities sell other dutiable articles, and we should, rightly, be pressed for other concessions.
Although I sympathise with the idea of greeting people, I hope that the hon. Member for Worthing, if he thinks that we are distorting the consumer pattern by charging 50 per cent., which I doubt, does not think that it is because the

980
Government have a policy of reducing the number of greetings which people send. A false inference is often drawn that we increase taxes on the activities which we most dislike. This is wholly contrary to the purpose of the tax, which is to raise revenue; if we were trying to reduce or eliminate the activity we would hardly look to it as a source of revenue.
This is a matter of judgment, and mine is that taxation of these modestly-priced articles is one way of raising extra revenue, granted the assumptions of the Budget.
Mr. Higgins: Our point was that, although the sum involved may not seem much to hon. Members, it is often large to an old age pensioner or someone who likes to send or receive cards. I find it difficult to understand when we are told that the effect of a tax increase will not be much on the cost of living, but that the amount of revenue raised is much too big to be cut out of the Budget. I know that if the Government accepted the third Amendment that might not be the best way of giving relief to charity Cards, and that, if relief were given on the lines of last year's, which would not lead to an increase in price, since the charities would not pay tax but would have greater revenue for charitable purposes, this would be acceptable to us.
The overwhelming point is that the Government have set up four classes of which, I suppose, the top class is the luxury class, the next down is not the more essential items, the next consists of the almost essential items and the lowest is the essential items, although even that is taxed by this Government.
The Financial Secretary conceded that greeting cards are not a luxury and the Minister of State said that they are not one of the more essential items. It seems clear, therefore, that they should bear not the top rate of tax, 50 per cent., but the second rate, 33⅓ per cent., which is what this series of Amendments is designed to secure. Because of the disappointing reply of the Financial Secretary, I hope that my hon. Friends will divide the Committee.
Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

Division No. 218.]

AYES

[6.50 p.m.

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

Nott, John

Astor, John

Goodhart, Philip

Oeborn, John (Hallam)

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

Goodhew, Victor

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Awdry, Daniel

Cower, Raymond

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

Grant, Anthony

Peel, John

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Grant-Ferris, R.

Peyton, John

Bell, Ronald

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Pink, R. Bonner

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Pounder, Rafton

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Biff en, John

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Bjggs-Davison, John

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Prior, J. M. L.

Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

Hastings, Stephen

Pym. Francis

Black, Sir Cyril

Hawkins, Paul

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Blaker, Peter

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Boardman Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Body, Richard

Higgins, Terence L.

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Bossom, Sir Clive

Hiley, Joseph

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Braine, Bernard

Hill, J. E. B.

Ridsdale, Julian

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Hirst, Geoffrey

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Holland, Philip

Russell, Sir Ronald

Bryan, Paul

Hordem, Peter

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Buck, Antony (Colchester)

Hornby, Richard

Scott, Nicholas

Bullus, Sir Eric

Howell, David (Guildford)

Sharpies, Richard

Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

Hunt, John

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

Campbell, Cordon (Moray & Nairn)

Hutch son, Michael Clark

Silvester, Frederick

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Iremonger, T. L.

Sinclair, Sir George

Chichester Clark, R.

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

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

Clark, Henry

Jopling, Michael

Smith, John (London & W'minster)

Clegg, Walter

Kimball, Marcus

Speed, Keith

Cooke, Robert

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Stainton, Keith

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Cordle, John

Lancaster, col. C. G.

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

Corfield, F. V.

Lane, David

Summers, Sir Spencer

Costain, A. P.

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Tapsell, Peter

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Lew s, Kenneth (Rutland)

Temple, John M.

Cunningham, Sir Knox

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

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

d'Avigdor-cSoldsmid, Sir Henry

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

Loveys, W. H.

Tilney, John

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

Lubbock, Eric

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

Digby, Simon Wingfield

MacArthur, Ian

Van straubenzee, W. R.

Doughty, Charles

Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)

Wainwright, Richard CColne Valley)

Drayson, G. B.

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Walters, Dennis

Eden, Sir John

Maoleod, Rt. Hn. lain

Ward, Dame Irene

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

McMaster, Stanley

Webster, David

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

Maddan, Martin

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Errington, Sir Eric

Marten, Neil

Williams, Donald (Dudley)

Eyre, Reginald

Maude, Angus

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Farr, John

Mawby, Ray

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

Fortescue, Tim

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

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Foster, Sir John

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Woodnutt, Mark

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

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Worsley, Marcus

Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

Monro, Hector

Wylie, N. R.

Gibson-Watt, David

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Younger, Hn. George

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Cilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Murton, Oscar

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Glover, Sir Douglas

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Mr. Jasper More and

Glyn, Sir Richard

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Mr. Anthony Royle.

NOES

Albu, Austen

Boardman, H. (Leigh)

Cant, R. B.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Booth, Albert

Carmichael, Neil

Alldritt, Walter

Bottomley, Rt. Hi. Arthur

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Boyden, James

Coe, Denis

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Coleman, Donald

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Bradley, Tom

Concannon, J. D.

Barnett, Joel

Brooks, Edwin

Conlan, Bernard

Baxter, William

Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

Crawshaw, Richard

Beaney, Alan

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

Cronin, John

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

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

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

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

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Bidwell, Sydney

Buchan, Norman

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Bishop, E. S.

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

Dalyell, Tarn

Blackburn, F.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

The Committee divided: Ayes 173. Noes 234.

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Davies, Ifor (Cower)

Kelley, Richard

Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

Dempsey, James

Kenyon, Clifford

Pearson, Arthur (Pontyprldd)

Dewar, Donald

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

Pentland, Norman

Dickens, James

Kerr, Russell (Feitham)

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

Dobson, Ray

Lawson, George

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

Doig, Peter

Leadbitter, Ted

Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

Dunn, James A.

Ledger, Ron

Probert, Arthur

Dunnett, Jack

Lee, Rt. Kn. Frederick (Newton)

Randall, Harry

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

Lee, John (Reading)

Rankin, John

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

Lestor, Miss Joan

Rees, Merlyn

Eadie, Alex

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.

Edelman, Maurice

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Richard, Ivor

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Lipton, Marcus

Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

Ellis, John

Lomas, Kenneth

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Ennals, David

Loughtin, Charles

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

Ensor, David

Luard, Evan

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

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Faulds, Andrew

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

McBride, Neil

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

McCann, John

Shaw, Arnold (Illford, S.)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

MacColl, James

Sheldon, Robert

Foot, Michael (Ehbw Vale)

Macdonald, A. H.

Shinweli, Rt. Hn. E.

Forrester, John

McGuire, Michael

shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Fraser, John (Norwood)

McKay, Mrs. Margaret

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Depfford)

Freeson, Reginald

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Silverman, Julius

Galpern, Sir Myer

Maclennan, Robert

Slater, Joseph

Gardner, Tony

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Small, William

Garrett, W. E.

McNamara, J. Kevin

Snow, Julian

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

MacPherson, Malcolm

Spriggs, Leslie

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

Swain, Thomas

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

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

Swingler, Stephen

Gregory, Arnold

Manuel, Archie

Symonds, J. B.

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Marquand,David

Taverne, Dick

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

Griffiths, E. (Brightside)

Maxwell, Robert

Thornton, Ernest

Crifliths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

Mayhew, Christopher

Tinn, James

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Mikardo,Ian

Tomney, Frank

Hamilton, James (bothwell)

Milan, Bruce

Tuck, Raphael

Hamiling, William

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Urwin, T.W.

Hannan, William

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

Varley, Eric G.

Moornman, Eric

Harper, Joseph

Morgan Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Walker, Horald (Doncaster)

Haseldine, Norman

Morris, Charles R.(Openshaw)

Wallace, George

Hazell, Bert

Morris lohn (Abaravon)

Watkins, David (Consett)

Heffer, Eric S.

Moyle, Roland

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Henig, Stanley

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Weitzman, David

Hilton, w. S.

Murray Albert

Wellbeloved, James

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Neal, Harold

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

Newens, Stan

Whitaker, Ben

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

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

White, Mrs. Eirene

Hoy, James

Norwood, Christopher

Wilkins, W. A.

Huckfield, Leslie

Oakes, Gordon

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

Ogden, Eric

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

O'Malley, Brian

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Hunter, Adam

Orme, Stanley

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Hynd, John

Oswald, Thomas

Willis, Rt. Hn. George

Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

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

Winnick, David

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

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

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

Palmer, Arthur

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Mr Ernest Armstrong and

Johnson, carol (Lewisham, S.)

Park, Trevor

Mr. loan L. Evans.

7.0 p.m.
Mr. Gardner: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 5, line 13, at end add:
(2) Where an instrument included under Group 19 or 19A has been purchased by a registered blind person or person handicapped in such a way as to be unable to make use of books he shall be entitled to a refund of purchase tax paid on presentation of a receipted bill to the Commissioners.
The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this Amendment we can

984
also discuss Amendment No. 36, in Schedule 6, page 56, line 31, after 'blind', insert:
'and those handicapped in such other manner as to be unable to make use of books'.
Mr. Gardner: Amendment No. 2 and the further Amendment are probing Amendments. I am very pleased to see that the Financial Secretary is to reply, because we know him as a kindly and generous man even if he is a representative of Her Majesty's Treasury. While

985
the wording of these Amendments may not be perfect, and we recognise that we are dealing with the somewhat difficult problem of extensions and special concessions, we hope, while not wishing to stick to the wording of the Amendments, that they will give the Treasury an opportunity to think again about three basic points.
At the moment, the Purchase Tax Act gives some exemption to the talking book service which is provided by the Royal National Institute for the Blind. Schedule 6 to the Bill gives an exemption for record players and records which are specially adapted for use by the blind. We would like the Government to consider whether that exemption can be extended a little further to include tape recorders and tape recordings.
Secondly, we want to extend the exemptions policy to certain other categories, to almost totally handicapped people incapable of using books.
Finally, by the main Amendment we would like to provide opportunity for blind people and others severely handicapped to be able to obtain a refund of Purchase Tax which they pay on normal commercial tape recorders.
The growth of the industry which makes and services tape recorders is quite remarkable. It is a growing and very lucrative business. I suppose that my right hon. Friend, looking at this, decided that here was a ready source of revenue, and I quite agree with him. This is a market in which the young and affluent are very active, the people who, in the main, have the money to spend. It seems reasonable that while we are taxing record players we should, at the same time, tax tape recorders, but, when we do that, we also close a door on very many people. With the imposition of the new rate of 33⅓ per cent. on the machines and 50 per cent. on the recordings themselves we are likely to hurt perhaps a limited number of people, but a number of people to whom this Committee has always shown sympathy. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will be able to show some sympathy for them this evening.
First of all, then, we are trying to extend the exemption given in paragraph 6 of Schedule 6 to cover more people, those who are also handicapped in a way in which they cannot make use of books.

986
I have had one or two consultations about this. We are concerned with a relatively small number of people, people suffering from, for instance, multiple sclerosis, and others suffering from paralysis of one kind or another, and people who are temporarily handicapped and in hospital or other institution. The number of the people is relatively limited and that means that if we can make the concession it can be made at very little cost to the Revenue.
There is also the fact that the partial exemption extends to blind people using the talking book service. This exemption has served the blind community very well indeed over the years, but we live in changing times, and there are discussions going on at the moment about whether or not this service could be extended for use by other people, patients in hospitals, and it would seem odd if, because they are not blind they were excluded from the exemption given to blind people. With technological changes and new techniques there is the use of cheaper transistorised tape recorders, and the talking book service may become out of date, and in some ways it is already out of date.
There are at least two institutions providing a tape recorder service, the National Library, and another library providing a service for hospital patients and using closed tape recorders, that is to say, tape recorders which are not capable of recording. It provides a tape recorder on loan and supplies cassettes which can be fitted on the recorder, and which can be used for no other purpose.
It seems to me that this is a service which can bring light not only to the blind, but it can bring light, learning and enjoyment to very many sufferers. So I hope that the exemption, which we have had now for a while for the talking book service, can be extended to tape recorders.
That is the second Amendment. On this main Amendment, we are dealing with a much more difficult problem, and I appreciate that we are involved in special pleading.
There is a technological revolution which has produced small transistorised tape recorders which are now relatively cheap—or they were until the introduc-

987
tion of the 33⅓ per cent. Purchase Tax— and they have opened the eyes, as it were, of many thousands of blind people. It has opened them not only to the world of the talking book recorded by an actor or other reader on behalf of individuals, but it has opened up a world of communication which was closed to them before.
By means of these small recorders, which are relatively cheap, it is now possible for blind people to write a letter or message to a friend or relative in this country or elsewhere in the world, who can listen and record a reply. This has opened to these people a very wide world of opportunity for correspondence, for understanding, for sharing in the life of our society which is open to all of us and is largely closed to them.
I appreciate that we are asking the Treasury to devise a scheme by which people can get a rebate. We suggest in the Amendment that the method should be that a registered blind person or a person who can produce a doctor's certificate saying that they are totally incapable of using books, should be able to go to the Commissioners, having bought a tape recorded in the normal way, and ask for the Purchase Tax to be refunded. It is a substantial sum of money for many of these people. The amount involved may not be very great from the point of view of this House, but if one is blind or handicapped, and is buying one of these tape recorders, 33⅓ per cent. on the bill is a lot.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will find all sorts of technical difficulties with the Amendment, and that is why I do not want to press him on the words. I accept that we are engaged in special pleading, but we are pleading on behalf of a group of people who are denied a great many things which we accept as normal. We are denying, particularly, a growing number of blind people who use tape recorders, the opportunity to make contact with their friends and relatives. I hope that, while my hon. Friend may not be able to accept the wording, he will look seriously at our suggestions, and if he canot accept them will suggest other means by which we can help these people.
Sir G. Nabarro: I rise to support the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner)

988
and I want, first, to correct what I am sure was a slip on his part when, during his speech, he said that for the most part people who buy tape recorders are the young and the affluent. The people who buy most tape recorders today are businessmen and those interested in the improvement of business efficiency. The productivity of the average secretary is increased by 50 per cent. through the use of a tape recorder and discs of one kind or another.
There are always in all quarters of the House of Commons especially sympathetic and receptive ears for any measure to help the blind. This is one way of doing it, although I am not at all sure, in view of a letter that I have had from the Treasury about the posting of tapes between this country and other countries, that it would be practicable or possible for the Customs and Excise to deal with this matter in the fashion suggested. I propose to support this Amendment, if necessary in the Division Lobby, in the interests of the blind and I hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will do the same.
I want to bring a particularly difficult aspect of the matter to the attention of the Financial Secretary at the outset. Shortly after Purchase Tax was put on the machinery, I received a complaint from a constituent in Malvern, saying that tapes which travelled between the United Kingdom and other countries, between members of the Voice Respondents' Club—an international organisation whereby men and women, including blind men and women, record their voices in the form of messages—were arrested by the Customs and Excise on entering this country, and only released on payment of the Purchase Tax on the tapes.
Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: What a dreadful state of affairs.
Sir G. Nabarro: I quite agree with my hon. Friend, it is a dreadful state of affairs.
I took this up with the Financial Secretary and sent him the complaint from my constituent, drawing his attention to the obvious advantages, in the interests of international amity, of encouraging the Voice Respondents' Club. The Financial Secretary's reply was that, in future, would I arrange for members of the Club,

989
all over the world to mark the exterior of the packages containing the tapes with words to the effect that they are tapes with recorded messages? Will I accept responsibility for doing this? What drivelling rot!
Many blind persons are concerned in this traffic in tapes. This incident happened only 14 days ago, and it is one example of the extraordinary difficulties there will be in operating a system of unilateral discrimination and relief in favour of blind persons in the context of purchase tax on tapes and tape recorders. It all underlines the fact that it was a thoroughly iniquitous fiscal act to put Purchase Tax on this equipment at all.
7.15 p.m.
Mr. A. P. Costain: I congratulate the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) on introducing this Amendment. I find it a little difficult to understand why he put it forward as a probing Amendment. The case is well made out, since talking books are exempted from tax. It should obviously be right for tape recorders to be exempted. I use tape recorders quite a lot for corresponding with my family in Australia, and I find them most effective. I do not expect relief from Purchase Tax, but, bearing in mind that blind people can correspond quickly and cheaply in this way without the services of another member of the family or without having to pay someone, it must be a good thing to allow them to have these machines free of tax.
I do not often disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), but I have found that any tapes that I have sent through the post, shown as tapes containing correspondence, have not been made liable to Purchase Tax. As a blind person would use only one or two tapes, which could be sent backwards or forwards, it would not be unreasonable they they should pay Purchase Tax on the tapes initially. A concession can and should be made in allowing the Purchase Tax on the machine. I am sure that the Financial Secretary will feel in a kind and generous mood and meet the demands of his hon. Friend.
Mr. Higgins: I am sure that the Committee feels that the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) moved this

990
Amendment with the greatest sympathy and would agree with his motives. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) I am a little uncertain as to why he feels it should be a probing Amendment. The case which he deployed was extremely cogent and ought to be pressed if the Government are not prepared to concede it. If the wording of the Amendment is defective in some way, that can be remedied on Report and the Financial Secretary can indicate as much to us.
We feel that this is important. The hon. Gentleman rightly stressed the importance which has been attached to talking books, and the fact that these are specifically exempted within the terms of the Purchase Tax regulations. Technology is changing very considerably, and there are a great many recordings which may be of only transitory interest, but none the less of great topical interest to the blind.
The tape recorder which enables a tape to be used and then erased and something fresh circulated among the blind is a very important break-through. It would seem absurd to exempt a relatively obsolute form of technology, valuable though it is, and then not exempt the tape recorder. It is true that tape recorder prices have tended to fall, but the imposition of 33⅓ per cent. on the price to a blind person, many of whom are likely to be in the lower income group, is a very heavy imposition indeed. We ought to do all that we can to help.
One is a little uncertain as to exactly what the function of this recommittal stage is. We debated at great length in Committee the question of gramophone records, and the great delight which blind people derive from them was mentioned then. I hope that on Report we can return to the broader question of gramophone records, because in Committee not a voice was raised, apart from the Government Front Bench, against exempting blind people from payment of the Purchase Tax. I should have thought that the same would apply to the 50 per cent. tax on tapes.
On a later Amendment we shall come to the question of cassettes and similar items. We shall no doubt hear that there is difficulty in identifying the particular items which are used by the blind. One

991
would have thought that this could be arranged. It is always the case that if there is a will it is possible to find an administrative system, particularly when blind people are normally registered. I should have thought that there is no reason why the exemption should not be made for cassettes.
I therefore hope that if the Treasury reply is not favourable the hon. Gentleman would feel that this matter should be pressed to a Division. We on this side of the Committee shall not vote against the Clause, because we recognise that in the economic difficulties which have been created by the Government a very tough Budget has become necessary. But we shall vote against the Schedule, because we cannot support the Government's change in the structure of Purchase Tax.
Mr. Harold Lever: I may as well get off my chest once and for all the assertion of those hon. Members who suggest that in descending one or two steps from the back benches to the front I have suddenly sustained occupational hardness of heart. I think that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) put it more accurately in The Times this morning when he suggested that I was in this respect a poacher turned poacher. I have not changed in the slightest in my sympathetic understanding—if I had it then, I have it now—for the taxpayer, direct or indirect.
Were it in this case simply a question of ceding the tax relevant to the Amendments I should have no difficulty in meeting my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, who are very understandingly zealous to protect from taxation those who are handicapped, particularly people like the blind and invalids, who suffer a tyrant's stroke of fate from which the hale and the strong are exempted, and by contrast with which the miseries that afflict all of us in good health are minor indeed. I therefore approach the matter with the fullest sympathy.
All Governments have shown that they have wished to provide exemption of this kind. For example, all the talking book apparatus has already been exempted by the Government, as are tape recorders

992
specially adapted for the use of the blind. If my hon. Friend is talking of the development of a new kind of tape recorder specially adapted for use by the blind, or almost exclusively in its nature usable by the blind, which does not enjoy that exemption by reason of its novelty and so on, I shall certainly see what can be done to help.
We have always sought to meet the case for relieving of tax items which are clearly identifiable by their nature as being for the use of the blind or the handicapped. All kinds of things—even specially designed cutlery for the use of disabled people—have been exempted. This has been the work of both Governments.
The hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) says that where there is a will there is a way, but the will must be measured in relation to good sense and the cost of administration. Once one allows the relief not on the basis of the design or nature of the goods but on the basis of the person who will use them, one is in very dangerous and uncharted country. Blind people are carried about in motor cars. They use all kinds of objects in common use, like gramophone records. We have never exempted these categories of goods because they are for use by the hale and the infirm alike. Where we can find a precisely definable quality in the article which enables us to say that it is adapted for use by a handicapped or blind person, I shall readily look at any concession required.
Mr. Costain: When a blind person uses a motor car it costs him no more than a person with sight. The difficulty here is that when a blind person writes a letter he must get someone else to do it. He may have to pay to have it written.
Mr. Lever: I was not dealing with the difficulty of the blind here, but the difficulty of meeting the Committee's good intentions towards them, namely that one cannot depart from the principle that the relief shall relate to an article identifiable in itself as being for the use of the handicapped. Once one does that, one imposes an obvious and almost impossible administrative burden.
The one exception was in 1945, when Sir Stafford Cripps allowed blind people freedom from Purchase Tax on wireless

993
sets. He made it clear that it was a wholly exceptional provision, and that to multiply such concessions would place an impossible burden on the Inland Revenue. Once one starts to do this, one must set up an administration for each kind of handicapped person's requirements, not for readily identifiable articles, but articles in general use by well and handicapped people alike.
That the burden is utterly impossible has been recognised by all Governments. That is why the hon. Member for Worthing must have a care when he says that where there is a will there is a way. I am the last type of Member to accuse hon. Members opposite of lacking the will to help blind people when they were in office. I am sure that they were as well intentioned as any hon. Member in the House, but did not think it reasonable to find a way. I am sure that their will is as strong as mine is, but they saw as strongly as I do the obstacles to finding a way which make it impossible for any Government to burden its revenue-raising apparatus with the detailed administrative provisions that would be required once we set upon this path, which has been refused by all Governments.
Mr. Higgins: Does the wireless concession still apply?
Mr. Lever: I understand that it does. It was made clear by Sir Stafford Cripps that this was a departure from what was always regarded by all Governments as an iron-clad rule. He made it on the understanding that it could not be used as a precedent, and that he would not budge an inch, and would not expect any Government to budge an inch, from this position. In fact, no Government have done so. For example, it was pressed on the Conservative Government that the concession should be extended to bed-ridden and crippled people. The Conservative Government, in my view rightly, refused to have the concession extended, not for lack of the will but because the way is inimical to good administration of provisions of this kind.
I have given my hon. Friend assurances that if he will show me articles which are specifically and of their nature designed for blind people, I shall not be slow to consider sympathetically whether they have been covered by exist-

994
ing rules, and if not to see how they may be covered.
I am grateful to him for raising the issue, because it enables the Committee to reinforce publicly the sympathy we feel for people in this situation, and strengthens my hand and that of my right hon. Friend in making such concessions within the general rule as can possibly be made. But I am afraid that I cannot go beyond that at present.
7.30 p.m.
Mr. Albert Booth: I always listen with considerable interest to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on matters such as this. Naturally, the Treasury's hands of horror are raised at the complications involved in administering a tax concession. One would imagine having heard of this horror on many occasions, that the Treasury's methods were simplicity itself. But if one raises tax problems on behalf of one's constituents, one finds that its methods are as complex, if not more so, than those of any other organisation.
I want to plead that here we may be justified in breaking the golden rule that one has to identify the object as something very specific. I accept that the rule has been equally applied by both sides, but I want to speak in a way which appeals not to both sides but to my hon. Friend, who is also a member of the Labour Party, which has made many attempts to define Socialism. The definition which appeals to me most is that of a system by which one gives according to one's ability and receives according to one's needs.
In the case of the blind, the need is for aid in communication. Of all the handicaps which can befall a person in modern life, probably the greatest are those which deny the means of communication. Communication is most important to leading a full life in the modern world, and as a result of technological developments it is inevitable that there will be a great many means of communication which can aid the blind or the handicapped but can also be used to help in a lesser degree many others and will therefore be purchased by those who are not handicapped.
The more we go on applying the rule of a clearly defined object for the blind, the less we will be able to grant this sort of special relief in taxation. The way indi-

995
cated by the Amendment is by no means difficult of administration. It is possible to have recourse in every local authority to a register of blind and handicapped persons. If the Treasury want a second check, I am certain that the sponsors of the Amendment would not object to further consideration being given to one.
Mr. Harold Lever: That is not the problem. My hon. Friend says that there are innumerable other articles in common use to which the same argument will apply, and I hope he will see that that argument, far from being favourable to his case, is inimical to it. There is no difficulty in checking on a man who is blind. The difficulty lies in checking on the article and who gets the benefit of its use afterwards.
Mr. Booth: I understand the difficulties and the reasoning of my hon. Friend's argument. I appreciate that there are many other articles which can be of benefit to the handicapped and non-handicapped alike but whose benefit to handicapped persons will be the greater. But I press this point because I think that it would be simple, if it were necessary to have checks against abuse, to make such checks. Obviously, if a blind person purchased 50 tape recorders a year, one would have reason to suspect his motives. But if the check were made with both the blind persons' register and the tax office, there would be a safeguard against abuse. I urge that some consideration be given to this matter.
Mr. Donald Dewar: I had not necessarily intended to intervene, but I was interested in the line of argument put by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. Perhaps I have more sympathy than my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) with the difficulties. I accept that they are complex and present a real administrative barrier, but I must say that I regarded the Financial Secretary's performance with a small touch of cynicism.
I have the feeling that, if we had been looking at a much more straightforward suggestion for helping the blind, the Treasury would have resisted it on the different and more straightforward ground that it did not want to find the money. Let us take, for example, the

996
financial aid given to the deaf. There is a £100 tax allowance for them at a cost of just over £750,000 in a full financial year. This concession was suggested by the Royal Commission in 1954 and since then the purchasing power of money has altered sadly. I have been told in a Written Answer by the Treasury that the equivalent today would be about £150. I may be a horrible cynic and too sceptical, but I have the odd feeling that, if I were to put down an Amendment to bring this allowance to £,150, which would be well deserved, it would be resisted, not because it would be difficult to administer and too complex but because of cost.
I realise that the blind have been well treated in some respects. According to the Civil Estimates for the old Ministry of Labour for 1967–68 compared with 68–69, the grants to local authorities for the blind have gone up from £1½ million to £1,624,000. The grants to voluntary bodies have also gone up. Given our financial stringency, and the number of good causes which have been squeezed, this represents a concession for which the blind will be grateful, although the figures are still miserably low considering their difficulties.
Having said that, I still think that there is a case for trying to help these people and finding a way to give them a little more financial support and assistance. In a strange way, I would have been happier if my hon. Friend had made it clear whether he would have been prepared to make some concession which would cost money if such a proposal had been put in a more straightforward way than this Amendment. If the objections to the Amendment are administrative, I am prepared to support him because it is probably unworkable, but I would like an assurance that, if hon. Members put down an Amendment for a straightforward concession which would not offend his administrative mind, he would look at it at least sympathetically.
Mr. Gardner: I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), but I am not sure that we would necessarily assist the blind and the handicapped by trooping through the Division Lobbies.

997
My concern was to have the debate and draw these problems to the attention of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I am also grateful for what my hon. Friend said about the existing concession. I was under the impression that the Schedule did not cover tape recorders specially adapted for the use of the blind, but if that is so I am happy with that concession and perhaps we can return to the subject later on. My hon. Friend quoted the concession given by Sir Stafford Cripps and the difficulties involved in that departure, but it is not enough to say that there are all kinds of things that blind people use. We are discussing here something rather special —a special instrument that they use and from which they can get greater advantage than do other people.
We are discussing an instrument which has had loaded on to it a very substantial new tax. We are not discussing a whole range of things; we are asking for a special concession on this one instrument. I appreciate that there are considerable difficulties, and it is for this reason that I wanted a discussion on non-party lines. I was impressed by the advice of my hon. Friend who mentioned the allowance for blindness. If these administrative difficulties are insurmountable, it is time we looked again at the blindness allowance in view of the recent tax increases. I want to look at other possible ways of helping blind and other handicapped people. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6
AMENDMENTS TO PART I OF SCHEDULE 1 TO PURCHASE TAX ACT 1963
Sir G. Nabarro: Mr. Yates, how nice to see you in the Chair, when we are debating a Purchase Tax Amendment. No hon. Member of the House has a longer experience of Purchase Tax troubles than you have.
I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 55, line 32, leave out from beginning to 'for' in line 35.
The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Victor Yates): It would be for the convenience of the House to consider also Amendment No. 28, in page 55, line 36, leave out '33⅓ per cent.' and insert '25 per cent.'.
Sir G. Nabarro: This Amendment was a paving Amendment to a number of succeeding Amendments in my name and the name of many of my hon. Friends dealing with the whole gamut of Purchase Tax and its reform. As Amendments Nos. 25 and 28 alone have been selected for debate, I am rather restricted in what I may say, for the purport of these two Amendments, when read together, is to deal only with the existing 33⅓ per cent. rate of Purchase Tax and to seek to bring it back to 25 per cent. I am sure I may have your indulgence, Mr. Yates, in saying that any references I may make in the course of my speech to other Purchase Tax will be of a passing and desultory character only and will not be dwelt upon by myself.
I have a long association with Purchase Tax matters, and during the period between 1958 and 1962 I was asking Parliamentary questions at the rate of 100 per annum, always confined to the two or three months before the Chancellor's Budget statement. The purpose of that exercise, spread over four years and not without a measure of success, was reformative in character and sought to make progress towards a single flat rate of tax. I was prepared that the tax should be levelled at wholesale and, therefore, continue to be called a Purchase Tax. I do not mind that at all, although other people called it a sales tax simply because it was on a single flat or uniform rate. That is merely a matter of verbiage.
The important consideration, which is the gravaman of my Amendments, is that in peacetime in Britain my philosophy for indirect taxation dictates that there is no such thing as a luxury. No manufactured article is more or less essential than any other manufactured article. My fiscal philosophy is that the manufacturers of all goods do two things. First, they contribute towards a policy of full employment, which my party strongly supports, and, second, they contribute to the export of British goods all over the world. Resting on those two tenets I say that there should be no discrimination in levels of Purchase Tax. There

999
should be only one rate of Purchase Tax.
I cannot, in a Finance Bill, because of the rules of the House, move to put Purchase Tax rates up. Thus, I cannot by any manoeuvre or contortion seek to raise the 12½ per cent. rate to 25 per cent., or the 20 per cent. rate to 25 per cent. I can only seek to bring rates down, and, to enable me to make this speech, my group of Amendments on Purchase Tax was designed to bring the 50 per cent. rate to 25 per cent. and the 33⅓ per cent. rate to 25 per cent. I deal, therefore, this evening only with the second of those considerations, 33⅓ per cent. to 25 per cent., while advancing a general principle throughout. I am not alone in my concept—
7.45 p.m.
Mr. Michael Alison: Would my hon. Friend allow me to intervene? Would he concede, in limiting himself to the category which he proposes to reduce from 33⅓ per cent. to 25 per cent., that it would naturally follow that any article which is now to be charged at 50 per cent. but which was formerly charged at 33⅓ per cent. he would likewise like to see moved back to 25 per cent. and not remain stationary at 33⅓ per cent.?
Sir G. Nabarro: That is so. I shall not dwell on it, as I should be tempted out of order if I did so.
I seek, in the passage of time, a flat rate of tax, whatever we call it, whether we call it a Purchase Tax levelled at wholesale, a sales tax levelled at retail, or whether it is analogous to the West German and French method, an added value tax, a broadly based indirect tax which does not discriminate between manufactured article and manufactured article, most largely because of the frightful complexities, anomalies and fiscal incongruities that are created by the processes of discrimination. I intend to dwell on those in the 33⅓ per cent. bracket in a few moments.
I said that I was not alone in this matter. I was not a member of the Finance Bill committee upstairs, but I was delighted to see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), used these words:
"If one believes, as I do, that it is right to reduce direct personal taxation, wherever
1000
possible, as we did before, and as we will do again, the logic of events drives one towards such taxes as the payroll tax and the value-added tax."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 8th May, 1968, c. 531.]
I am quite unashamed of what I said about this matter. An added value tax suits Britain, and we ought to have it in this country. It would lead to a much broader base for indirect taxation. It would rid us of the appalling discrepancies and disparities that exist today as between, for example, the taxation of whisky, of cigarettes and of petrol, and in all the different rates of Purchase Tax on a whole range of manufactured articles. It would cause all manufacturers and services to conform to a single taxation system on a very broad base, yielding much greater revenue than the present revenue from indirect taxation, and enabling us to devote the surplus from indirect taxation, to the reduction of direct taxation. That will form the subject of a later Amendment which, I am glad to see, is selected.
Though the Chancellor of the Exchequer has many qualities, he does not share my views about fiscal propriety and simplicity. In his Budget statement on 19th March, he demonstrated that he is philosophically directly opposed to me in taxation matters. I will read the passage from his Budget speech because it demonstrates all this and has caused my Amendment. He said:
"Here, I propose a relatively small increase of approximately one-seventh to bring them to a 121 per cent. rate of tax. The middle range includes confectionery, ice cream and soft drinks. Here I propose an increase of approximately a fifth, bringing them to a 20 per cent. rate of tax. The third rate, now 274 per cent., applies to motor cars and most durable consumer goods as well as to a wider range of luxury or substantially less essential goods. Here, I propose to split the rate. For motor cars, motor cycles, refrigerators, washing machines, etc., there will be a similar increase of approximately one-fifth to 33⅓ per cent. But I think that in our present circumstances it is desirable that there should be a new, much higher, rate for luxury and less essential goods. For these, therefore, there will be an increase of rather over four-fifths —to 50 per cent. This rate will apply to furs, jewellery and imitation jewellery, gold and silver watches and clocks, gramophone records, smokers' requisites, cameras and other photographic goods, pictorial reproductions, diaries, calendars and greeting cards, fancy and ornamental articles, perfumery, and various toilet preparations and requisites. Full details will be given in the White Paper."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 280.]

1001
That pronouncement was utterly retrogressive, and I castigate him for it. He moved in exactly the opposite direction from his predecessors, the Tory Chancellors who toiled mightily under the scourge of my whip year after year, causing those Tory Chancellors to contract the rates of Purchase Tax and reduce them in number.
You, Mr. Yates, sat though it all. I knew that I was doing well when you laughed at me, as you did so frequently, because you were afflicted in Birmingham as I was then afflicted in Kidderminster. When I started my campaign in 1958, there were seven Purchase Tax rates. The top end. was a rate of 90 per cent., on cosmetics, of course. Lipsticks were judged the most luxurious of all manufactured goods, as if women could do without them, anyway—
Mr. Dempsey: Of course they could.
Sir G. Nabarro: That may be the hon. Gentleman's view, but he is an eccentric, and we all know him. However, we on the Tory benches are normal lusty males, and we like our womenfolk wearing cosmetics, including appropriate shades of lipstick.
There were seven rates, ranging from 90 per cent. at the top on cosmetics down to 5 per cent. at the bottom. Over those four years, we contracted the rates and we brought the seven rates down to three. At the top, we had not 90 per cent. but 25 per cent. At the bottom, we had not 5 per cent. but 10 per cent., without prejudice to the total yield. The revenue from Purchase' Tax went up year by year. As the economy expanded steadily, prosperity rose, and that was all reflected in the yield from Purchase Tax.
It was progress towards a single taxing system and, had the Tories got back in 1964, as they nearly did, by now we would have had a single rate of tax.
I am not alone in observing these trends. I have a healthy regard for Mr. Samuel Brittan, the Economics Editor of the Financial Times, who wrote on " The emerging tax philosophy of Mr. Jenkins", a leading feature article on Tuesday, 9th April, these words:
"The desire to shift from direct to indirect tax is part of conventional economic enlightenment, although none the worse for that. But an unconventional feature, which has so far escaped attention, is the way in which Mr. Jenkins has increased the number of Purchase Tax bands, and widened the range between the
1002
highest and the lowest. When Mr. Jenkins got up there were three rates—11, 16½ and 27½ per cent. When he sat down there were four—12½ Per cent., 20 per cent., 33⅓ per cent. and 50 per cent. This is in sharp contrast to the whole direction of changes under previous Chancellors, which was to reduce the number of bands, narrow the differences between them and bring more commodities into the net. The aim was to transform the Purchase Tax gradually into something more like a general sales tax."
Thus the Chancellor is moving against the general stream of conventional thought in this important matter.
I want to say something about the yield, and then, I hope, a little about the anomalies which have been created. This year, the Chancellor has soaked the consumer very hard. On the Purchase Tax, the provisional outturn for 1967/68 was £747 million. Before the Budget changes for 1968–69, the revenue would have been £760 million. After the Budget changes, it had become £887 million. Thus the Chancellor has increased the amount of the Purchase Tax yield between last year and the present year by £140 million, or 16 per cent., which is a very large and swingeing impost on the consumer.
Last, I want to say a word about the extraordinary difficulties that have been created in the interpretation of the Purchase Tax Schedules. I do not propose to embark upon another 100 Parliamentary Questions on the Purchase Tax. I believe that I may be able to do it in a better way and may see tax reforms at an early date with the return of a Tory Government, who I believe will move in this matter in the first Budget after their return to power.
The present state of the Purchase Tax Schedules as a result of what the Chancellor has done is very unsatisfactory. For example, Table 1 of the Financial Statement, 1968–69, gives the proposed changes in taxation and lists all those items which are to go up:
"The other goods previously chargeable at 27½ per cent., which it is proposed shall become chargeable at 33⅓ per cent., are as follows",
and then there is a long list.
Group 31 is:
"Toilet requisites shown on page 7 as exceptions from the 50 per cent. charge under this Group."
Group 32 (b) is:
"Toilet preparations shown on page 7 as exceptions from the 50 per cent. charge under Group 32 (a) and (b)."

1003
When one looks at the 50 per cent. charge, one finds language of this kind:
"… brushes, combs, scissors, nippers, knives, razors, … mirrors, sponges, dental sticks and tooth-picks … perfumery and toilet preparations (other than soap made up for sale as toilet soap, soap substitutes made up for sale as substitutes for toilet soap, baby dusting powders, shaving creams, shampoos, dentifrices, eye lotions, mouthwashes and antiseptics, calamine lotions and similar alleviating preparations, unperfumed."
8.0 p.m.
I would find it extremely difficult—if not impossible—after years of study of Purchase Tax Schedules to determine what is the tax chargeable on any particular item of toilet preparation I picked up in a chemist's shop. Take, for example, that passage in Group 18:
"wireless and television sets; valves and loudspeakers."
They are put up from 27½ per cent. to 33⅓ per cent. but
"photographic cameras and enlargers; parts and accessories; unexposed sensitised photographic paper"
etc., are up by 50 per cent. By what determination is it arrived at that the second group are 50 per cent. more luxurious than a television set or a radio? Who said so? Are they? I doubt it. Who has decided, other than a boffin sitting in a back room in the Treasury, for example, that the 50 per cent. rate shall apply to all articles designed for use in the waving, curling, setting, dyeing, tinging, bleaching, dressing or treating the hair, but not to drying machines and articles for heating the hair in the process of waving, curling or setting the hair? Hair waving and hair drying machines are in the 33⅓ per cent. rate. The machines are in the 33⅓ per cent. rate and the accessories for use with them are in the 50 per cent. rate.
It is no good the professor getting agitated; this is inconsequential fiscal nonsense and everyone knows it to be inconsequential fiscal nonsense. I could easily make up another 400 Purchase Tax Questions demonstrating the nonsense which runs right through all the Schedules today. They cannot be blamed on Tory Chancellors, for they were on the threshold of putting the whole position right gradually over the years. Now the present Chancellor has gone into reverse and made the whole position immeasurably worse than it was a year
1004
before by the increase from 27½ per cent. rate partly to 33⅓ per cent. rate and partly to 50 per cent. without rhyme or reason. Traders everywhere are very indignant that this has been done.
I hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will join me in the Lobby if we obtain no satisfaction on this important Amendment. It is the only substantial Purchase Tax Amendment that we are debating on Recommittal. I emphasise that I want two factors. I want a broad-based indirect system of taxation and I want absolute equality between manufactured goods. It is drivelling rot to say that a camera should be taxed at 50 per cent. but the Savile Row suit I am wearing should be taxed at 9 per cent.; that an ordinary Brownie camera is nearly six times as luxurious as this suit of clothes.
Mr. Nott: Does my hon. Friend realise that if he were wearing a mini-skirt he would have to pay no Purchase Tax at all?
Sir G. Nabarro: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We could go on with this nonsense absolutely ad infinitum.
I am glad to see that the 50 per cent. rate of tax, as a result of removal of dressed fur skin, now includes the Australasian red opossum if undyed and in strips measuring not more than 9 inches in length and I inch in width will be exempt. Why has Australasian red opossum been singled out for this highly favourable and discriminatory treatment?
I leave these fiscal meditations with the hon. and learned Member the Minister of State. I hope that he will not attempt to defend them, but will draw to the attention of the Chancellor—who I wish were in his place—his fiscal aberrations in this context. I express the hope that if by some mischance he is in office next year he will set about remedying this dreadful state of affairs.
Mr. Nott: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) on his fascinating speech about the Purchase Tax anomalies. Long before I came to this House I heard of his reputation in this field and it has been a matter of the deepest regret to me that, until now, I have not had an opportunity of hearing him perform on this subject.

1005
I want to concentrate my argument on a particular anomaly to which I made brief reference in my recent interruption. Before coming to the anomaly of the mini-skirt, however, I want to make some remarks; about my hon. Friend's speech. He is, I think, quite right when he says that in the attitude of the Chancellor and of my hon. Friends towards the Purchase Tax Schedule there is contained a basic difference in philosophy. I do not think my hon. Friends believe that it is the function of a Chancellor or a Government to try to instruct the British public or to try to interpret the public's choice in the market as between a luxury or an essential or a less essential article.
I read with amazement the Minister of State's speech on greetings cards in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debate in Committee. I thought of the discussions in Committee upstairs trying to categorise whether greetings cards are a luxury or an essential item or a less essential item. It is not the function of politicians to try to lay down whether a particular commodity is a luxury or not. That is for the consumer to choose. What is a luxury to one is an essential to another.
Mr. Booth: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the logic of his argument is that the Government should levy Purchase Tax on everything that is produced? That is the only way to escape from some discrimination.
Mr. Nott: Yes, I was about to say how much I agree that the only logical Tory attitude to the whole wide question of Purchase Tax is to have one overall sales tax. I certainly favour the French as opposed to the German system. We should get rid of these differentials between one product and another and go for one single rate, for a sales tax preferably in the form of an added value tax. There is, however, a substantial difficulty which will face the Conservative Party if it goes for this reform. If we have a single range of sales tax over all items there will be problems, and this is something which hon. Members opposite will recognise, for the poorer sections of the community. Therefore, if our party moves towards a general sales tax with a uniform rate as I hope it will, we have first to contemplate some form of negative Income Tax or some other means whereby we can ensure that the income of the poorer members of the community
1006
does not fall below a certain minimum level.
Mr. Orme: We have had this argument put in great detail, but there is not the difference between his side and our Front Bench on this matter that the hon. Gentleman tries to make out. They are both moving towards a broader based form of taxation. Some of us on this side are opposed to that sort of broad-based taxation and voted accordingly in the Committee.
The Temporary Chairman: It is not a question of a broad-based tax or a single tax. We are discussing an Amendment and I should be glad if the hon. Member would address his remarks to the Amendment.
Mr. Nott: I was merely making a few comments on my hon. Friend's speech on the anomalies of Purchase Tax. I want now to deal with one particular anomaly which relates to Group I referred to in the section we are now debating under this Amendment. I intervened and suggested to my hon. Friend that if he were to change his clothes at any stage from a Savile Row suit to a mini-skirt this latter garment would bear no Purchase Tax at all.
This is extraordinary because one has heard consistently from the Chancellor and the Minister of State how in this Budget is was necessary to raise the maximum amount of revenue. If revenue is to be raised, and if he is talking about distinguishing between luxury and less essential items, it might be reasonable to assume that a mini-skirt would bear some Purchase Tax, but in fact it bears none at all.
Last weekend in my constituency I met a most proper lady who was approaching middle age—I may perhaps be being slightly kind to her. Anyway, she was of the age when one would anticipate that normally she would not wear a garment of this particular length. I asked why it was that she wore her hem so high above the knee, to which she replied that she was living on a fixed income and had become very poor since the Labour Government came to power. Because of Purchase Tax she found it less expensive to purchase miniskirts than skirts of normal length.

1007
I inquired into this anomaly with the greatest interest and found in fact that mini-skirts bear no Purchase Tax at all because there is an exemption for garments and footwear of a kind suitable for children's wear. Therefore, they do not bear the rate of Purchase Tax of 11½ per cent., now to be raised to 12 per cent.; they bear none at all. I inquired why nothing had been done about this anomaly. I was told that it proved awkward to hold the balance between children and adults in defining what was of a kind suitable for children's wear. The only criteria could be length. I naturally asked whether the waist measurement could not be a criteria, to which the Department of Customs and Excise replied that this could not be so as some teenagers wore skirts known as hipsters and it was therefore not possible to distinguish by the waist; it was necessary to do so by the length.
8.15 p.m.
So the argument went round and round and we find the anomalous situation whereby the most fashionable garment— I do not know whether it is regarded as a luxury by the wearer but it is certainly regarded as a luxury in the eye of the beholders—is not taxed. Perhaps I should add that I would not personally like to see however, any increase in taxation which would act as a disincentive to the wearing of this admirable garment.
Mr, Alison: Surely an increase in taxation, or the application of taxation on a rational basis, would lead to a diminution in the length of the skirt.
Mr. Nott: Perhaps the Department of Customs and Excise would categorise such wear as being even less adult-like than it is at the present time. I merely quote this anomaly to support my hon. Friend and I would say that the present system is quite absurd. It leads to hundreds of anomalies and we have to pursue some means of overcoming the increasing number of categories, the increasing differentiation which the Government are making between luxury, essential and less essential items. I support the Amendment in an attempt to narrow the number of separate rates of Purchase Tax and support my hon. Friend in his wish that the Conservative
1008
Party will move for the abolition of Purchase Tax and the adoption of one single sales tax, perhaps an added value tax.
We should then have to give careful thought to how to protect the poorer sections of the community against a substantial shift to a tax on necessities, food and other items which would be much more badly hit than now if an added value tax were to be imposed.
Mr. Stanley Henig: So far, Mr. Yates, you have been liberal in your interpretation of what is allowed on this rather limited Amendment and I hope you will continue to be liberal with me so that I can reply from this side of the Committee to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), and to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. John Nott).
It would seem so far that hon. Gentlemen on the other side prefer their ladies to wear lipstick and other false equipment whereas we on this side prefer the mini-skirt. It would appear to me that the skirts might be that little more essential than lipstick—but I defer to the hon. Gentleman's great experience in these matters.
The hon. Gentleman has justified his Amendment seeking to reduce the new 33⅓ per cent. to 25 per cent. on the ground that this will simplify the position for the day when we have a flat-rate sales tax. The substitution of this Amendment in the Finance Bill would not achieve that, we are talking about something rather broader than that. Hon. Gentlemen are putting forward the idea of a sales tax. Many on this side of the Committee would not be prepared to accept anything like this at a time when there are so many inequalities in income which means that people's expenditure must be very unequal. Many hon. Members on this side would prefer, rather than a sales tax, something like an expenditure tax which was proposed some years ago. A person who was spending £500 a year on consumption would pay no tax; a person spending £2,000 a year on consumption might be taxed 50 per cent. This is more the kind of thing we would like to see.
Mr. Higgins: Who suggested an expenditure tax?
Mr. Henig: I regret I do not know. I understand the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's interjection is to cast aspersions on a very distinguished economist. I regret that he should have made such an intervention.
Mr. Higgins: I was in no way casting discredit on anyone. If the hon. Gentleman will read the Standing Committee reports, he will see that I pay compliments to the gentleman he has in mind.
Mr. Henig: I am glad to hear that.
To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, he very engagingly said that all manufactured articles were treated the same. When he said that I wondered whether he had ever had the good fortune to read or see the play, " The Apple Cart", by that distinguished Socialist, George Bernard Shaw, in which, towards the end, it transpires that in that mythical age England's entire prosperity had come to be based on the export of a most important manufactured article, namely, Christmas crackers.
Doubt: was expressed in some quarters whether the rest of the world could not conceivably do without Christmas crackers. Indeed, many on this side would say that, for example, there is a great deal of difference between pots and pans and Jaguar and Rolls-Royce motor cars. That is because virtually everybody can afford pots and pans, but only a small and privileged section of the community can afford Jaguars and Rolls-Royces. In this sense, moves towards a flat-rate sales tax are socially regressive because the people harmed most are those who spend the least because they have the least.
Although it was not specifically mentioned, one example of the kind of consideration that we on this side had in supporting the chancellor's Budget referred to gramophone records, which were not increased to 33⅓ per cent but to 50 per cent. People do not have to buy the most expensive types of gramophone records. They can buy the cheaper varieties. Those who have a small amount of money to spend on gramophone records would do this.
1010
The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South and his one supporter so far, the hon. Member for St. Ives, suggested that there is no such thing as a luxury. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South asked how the Treasury define and categorise a luxury. In looking at what is a luxury, one must consider the aspirations of ordinary people. These change over time. A television set, 10 or 15 years ago, was generally considered to be a luxury. This is not the case now. I do not see why we should say it is a luxury if people do not think that it is. Nowadays people consider, rightly or wrongly, that it is a necessity.
A magnetic tape recorder, on the other hand, is regarded as a luxury for the simple reason that most people feel they cannot aspire to one. Some people can afford a magnetic tape recorder and a television, but the vast majority can not. They, therefore, choose that which is the more necessary article and, rightly or wrongly, the majority of people have settled on television.
Given that there are many items which people feel that they need and many items which are felt generally to be luxuries and can only be afforded by a few, in a state of affairs where the Government have to raise money in a variety of ways it is right to consider the possibility of taking relatively more from those who can afford relatively more and demonstrate this by the goods that they buy. For this reason, it seems wrong to say, " Let us put 10 per cent. on pots and pans, so that a pot or pan costing 30s. would mean 3s. tax, and just 10 per cent. on a £2,000 motor car." That would be wrong, because the person who buys the £2,000 motor car can obviously afford to pay tax at a much higher rate. This is the attempt which has been made in this Budget.
Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman is miles off beam in this argument. There is no difference in the rate of tax on a £10,000 Rolls-Royce or a £500 Mini. The rate of tax is exactly the same. There are about 11 million motor car owners in this country. A motor car is not a luxury; it is a necessity. Yet it is taxed at 33⅓ per cent.—much higher than many other articles which, in many respects, axe much more luxurious.
Mr. Henig: In view of that, I am wondering whether the hon. Gentleman would join with me in putting down an Amendment on Report to the effect that the tax on motor cars costing more than £1,000 should be dealt with. If the hon. Gentleman will support me, I will willingly put down an Amendment.
Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman shows a crass ignorance of Parliamentary procedure. It would be absolutely out of order, even unacceptable at the Table, to move an increase in Purchase Tax. If the hon. Gentleman knew his fiscal history, if he rested less on academics and more on assiduity in Parliament, he would know that the late Sir Stafford Cripps unilaterally reduced the Purchase Tax on Rolls-Royces and similarly expensive motor cars, because of the export trade and to encourage the home market for them. He reduced the Purchase Tax on the most luxurious of all articles in Socialist eyes to increase export potentialities. The hon. Gentleman should go home and do his homework.
Mr. Henig: The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South is aware of what the late Sir Stafford Cripps did in this case, but he will be the first to admit, under other circumstances, that the right hon. Gentleman was by no means always right. However, on that occasion I suspect that he thought he was right.
An argument often used is that high taxation on luxuries prevents exports. Frankly, in an age when manufacturers are often content to rely on the home market, and not bother about exports, this argument becomes increasingly anomalous and not in accord with the facts.
In conclusion, I come down to the spirit in which these changes in the system of Purchase Tax, to which the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South objects, have been made. The argument is not that the new system is without anomalies. It is impossible for any system of taxation to be without anomalies. Every time a change is made there must be anomalies, and it is the job of those making the changes to try to iron them out. But the spirit behind the changes has been that, at a time when there is a manifest economic crisis— and we can argue ad infinitum the responsibility for it—and the need to raise
1012
a great deal of revenue, one has to look at the means by which it should be done.
One possible means might be an increase in direct taxation. That, at least, was ruled out this year. But the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South said that he would like the increase in indirect taxation to be spread equally across all forms of expenditure. If that were done, it would not fall equally on everybody; it would fall most heavily on those who could least afford to pay. In erecting, on the other hand, the system brought before us at this stage, the Chancellor had in mind a different criteria: that those who could afford the most, and demonstrated it by expenditure considered by their fellow citizens to be on luxuries, should pay the highest rate of taxation and, therefore, make the major contribution to the national revenue.
Bearing in mind social justice, this seems to be an unexceptional formula and one reason why I shall be only too delighted to vote against the Amendment.
8.30 p.m.
Mr. Alison: I warmly support my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir. G. Nabarro) in his powerful and cogent argument, because it seems to me that one of the most ludicrous and unsatisfactory aspects in the changes in Purchase Tax is the inequitable separation of the sheep from the goats. Some goods which hitherto have been taxed at 27½ per cent. go up to 33⅓ per cent. Some which hitherto have had to pay the tax at 27½ per cent. go up to 50 per cent. There is no rhyme or reason behind the Government's proposal.
In deploying my plea to the Minister around a particular item which lies within that group which has moved up to 50 per cent. I want to argue that any reduction which my hon. Friend may be successful in getting in the group which has gone up to 33⅓ per cent. must, in logic, since it comes from the same basic starting point, be extended up the parallel scale.
Perhaps I might draw the Minister's attention to an anomaly which stands in the strongest contrast to the anomaly to which my hon. Friend referred. Miniskirts, at one might call the ridiculous extreme, are exempted. This proposal is outdone in its injury and unsatisfac-toriness only by the fact that at the sublime end of the scale a commodity which

1013
is of semi-educational, if no higher, value, namely, the so-called framed scripture text which is distributed for Sunday school purposes, to schools, and to other places of education, goes up from the 27½ per cent. category, not into the group we are discussing, but into the outer space of the full 50 per cent. maximum penal rate. Is it logical that framed scripture texts should be charged at the full penal luxury rate while mini skirts are exempted, and bookmakers are charged at the rate of 5 per cent.?
Perhaps I can tell the Minister what one framed scripture text might say and here I give a sound four-line fiscal injunction:
"Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear, honour to whom honour."
I do not think that there is much fear or honour to be rendered to the Government, but at least the injunction makes certain that custom is paid under the heading of Customs and Excise to those who levy it, and that tribute, in the form of taxation, it is enjoined, should be paid to the tax gatherer. The Government single out injunctions such as that for the maximum tax. I am certain that these texts have a most educational value, and it seems incredible that, to fit in with the fiscal policy of the Government, they should be penally affected.
In the light of this wide-ranging debate which my hon. Friend has so skilfully and cogently initiated and deployed, there should be not only this reduction from the rate proposed by the Government to that which my hon. Friend proposes, but it should logically be extended to all the other regions of increase which take their starting point from the present level of 27½ per cent. The Government should make a clean sweep of the present disabilities and anomalies of the system and get back to something which is fair and equitable. They should do this particularly in respect of framed scripture texts in order to bring about a right frame of mind in our society, and to encourage a truly educational purpose.
The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Dick Taverne): The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) brought out his whips and scorpions to chastise the Chancellor of the Exchequer for widening and increasing the bands
1014
and differences between the bands of Purchase Tax. He and some of his hon. Friends have had a certain amount of fun with some of the anomalies. It is vital, in considering the Amendment, to look at the reasons why these bands were increased, and the number and the differences between them widened. The Chancellor faced the need to raise a large amount of tax. He decided that he would not place the burden of this on Income Tax, and if followed logically that he had to increase by a substantial amount the burden which was borne by Purchase Tax.
As I think the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) recognised, one of the disadvantages of increasing the amount of Purchase Tax is its regressive effect unless the tax is somehow or other made selective. Despite some of the things said by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, it is possible to distinguish between some items which ordinary people of all income groups have to use and to buy, and other items about which there is an element of choice.
Indeed, the hon. Member for St. Ives said that if there was to be a general sales tax, because of its regressive effects one would need to have ameliorating social measures such as a negative Income Tax to make up for the obvious injustice which a straight increase in sales tax or a straight increase in ordinary Purchase Tax would cause. So that to avoid the regressive effect of the kind of movement which the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South wants to see in the evolution of Purchase Tax, and to avoid the regressive effect of simply putting up Purchase Tax as it now exists, the Chancellor of the Exchequer chose to use Purchase Tax more selectively.
A powerful case has also been made out, and was made out by hon. Members opposite, against doing so; because just as there are disadvantages, on the one hand, in simply putting up Purchase Tax rates, so there are obviously certain disadvantages also in making the tax more selective. The disadvantages are those which have been pointed out and which to some extent are inevitable, because it is not possible to select neat, logical categories in which no element of dispute can arise, nor any incongruity or anomaly. This was already true of Purchase Tax as it was before.

1015
I was worried when the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South referred to the Australasian red opossum. I was relieved to find that this related to an anomaly already present in the Purchase Tax system and was not in any way created by the Budget; nor was the special case of the mini-skirt. These anomalies were already there but I concede that if one creates four categories instead of three and if the differences between the categories are increased, then to some extent more anomalies arise and those anomalies become somewhat greater.
The Opposition made the most of this but essentially the whole point which has been debated and very well debated, in the course of this Amendment, comes down to a very simple choice which was brought out by hon. Members opposite and by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig). The Chancellor of the Exchequer faced a choice, if he was to avoid increasing Income lax, between relying more heavily on a regressive tax with more being paid on things which are undoubtedly essential—and if be had gone in the direction of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South the burden would have been even more widely spread, with possibly a tax on food and on a number of items at present exempt about which there is no element of choice whatsoever; and, on the other hand, of being more selective making the tax less regressive but choosing in a subjective way.
Essentially, the issue at stake here is one of fairness; on the one hand going against logic, on the other following logic not in the strict sense but in avoiding certain anomalies which cannot be strictly defended in logic. But if one looks at the overall list there is very little doubt that when it comes to fairness the balance undoubtedly is in favour of the measures in the Finance Bill. Undoubtedly, it is true that those categories which now bear the highest rate of tax are those about which there is the largest element of choice; and undoubtedly it is true, also, that by and large the choice which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made and which is enshrined in the Finance Bill is one which will make the use of the Purchase Tax less regressive and, therefore, will remove some of the objections which otherwise could have
1016
been brought in and which, by and large, would have put a greater burden on Income Tax.
Mr. Higgins: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), who proposed this Amendment in his usual cogent and on this occasion I might almost say flamboyant manner; because there is no doubt that the case he made was a very powerful one. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives—I have not heard him speak before on this particular subject; I would have remembered if I had—brought out with great force the extraordinary anomalies which exist in the Purchase Tax structure. He was right to stress that the Government's policy of widening the bands and creating four instead of three is bound to accentuate the number of anomalies and their impact on those affected. The Minister of State fairly admitted this.
This must be a serious criticism of the Government's policy. We believe that the right tendency in the Purchase Tax structure is that which we pursued in office, of reducing both the number of classes and the differentials. The logic of events might then lead one to a value added tax, a discussion of which would be out of order, but we discussed in Committee the extraordinary way in which the Government raise Purchase Tax whenever the increased competition brought about by the abolition of resale price maintenance brings down the price of something.
It is clear that, in a number of categories—for example, motor cars and consumer durables—prices have been driven down by that competition and the Government are now raising them again. This has been a general effect of the Government's increases. I will resist the temptation to digress further on the question of mini-skirts, except to say that I saw a notice in the cleaners the other day saying, " Mini-skirts cleaned, Is. an inch". This might have some peculiar effects.
The crucial point is that the Government are distorting the overall pattern of consumption and making some value judgements. The Minister of State said that this was necessary to raise this vast amount of taxation. We recognise that, in the situation which they have created, the Government have to raise the largest

1017
amount ever in a Finance Bill. That is why my hon. Friends did not vote against the Clause, which is concerned with Purchase Tax, although we shall vote against the Schedule, which embodies the anomalies.
It is bizarre that the Minister of State should advance this argument with no reference to the fact that, in the debates on last year's Finance Bill, the then Chancellor said that the situation could be " Steady as she goes," that there was no need for increased taxation, and, later, that everyone could look forward to an increased standard of living. Now, the hon. and learned Gentleman says that we have to accept all these anomalies and changes because of the economic situation. He said that they were making the tax less regressive—not that some things are luxuries and some are not, or that some classes can bear the tax better and will yield belter revenue, but that the tax must be made less regressive.
8.45 p.m.
This must imply that the Government have made a clear-cut basis on which they say that because certain goods are bought more by people with high incomes and that certain goods are bought more by people with low incomes, they can somehow grade the tax between the two. This also means that for someone whose preference for a certain item is greater or less than the normal, the tax system is having an effect on his pattern of consumption, which is a tax principle that should not be lightly introduced, certainly for the arbitrary list of items concerned.
This series of Amendments is designed to reduce the rate of tax from what used to be the old top rate of 33⅓ per cent. to 25 per cent. Among the goods covered in this category are items which now come into the tax system for the first time, including tape recorders and music reproduction instruments. Among these is a class of musical reproduction instruments used for producing background music in industry and for other purposes. I understand that these machines are largely designed for use either in industry, with the object of increasing productivity, or in hotels and similar places where they are likely to increase trade.
I will not digress on the province of the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity or on the question of
1018
the hotel industry. We recognise the urgent need to increase productivity and the valuable contribution which the hotel industry makes to our national economy, and particularly to the balance of payments. I hope, therefore, that between now and Report the Minister will look at this side of the matter—sound reproducing equipment used in industry and elsewhere, which can be readily identified—and consider allowing equipment in this category to bear the lower rate of tax.
I must add a word about motor vehicles, since the whole effect of the Government's policy this year has been to impose bigger restrictions and taxes, whether by way of petrol tax, vehicle licence duty or Purchase Tax, on those who drive. We should have a clear statement about whether the Government feel that the motor industry, particularly from the point of view of its tendency to export, is helped by having a healthy home market, which will not be helped by the increase in tax imposed by the Clause. It would have been helped and its overhead costs might have been more widely spread if the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) were accepted.
Mr. Henig: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that in the last few months, and certainly since the announcement of many of the increases in taxation on the home sales of the motor industry, the export returns of the industry have been running at the highest level ever and that the industry is doing everything expected and hoped of it at the time of devaluation?
Mr. Higgins: At the time of devaluation and in the period immediately after it my hon. Friends and I argued that there was a strong case for using the Purchase Tax regulator. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman takes a great interest in the export of motor cars. He will be aware that for a number of months following devaluation the export of motor cars fell substantially while the import of foreign motor cars rose substantially because the Government did not use that regulator. It has been a continual contention of my hon. Friends that had the Government used the Purchase Tax regulator earlier, the economy might

1019
have been in a stronger position, so that the need to increase taxation now would have been less. It may be that the generally depressed state of the home market will lead to a position-we earnestly hope that it will not-when the industry will not be working at full capacity.
I am sure that it would be common ground between both sides that we would hope that everything which could possibly be done to encourage motor car exports would be done. All I am saying is that we have yet to hear a clear statement from the Government whether they think a healthy home market is or is not likely to bring about that state of affairs.

Division No. 219.]

AYES

[8.51 p.m.

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Goodhew, Victor

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Astor, John

Cower, Raymond

Page, Graham (Crosby)

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

Grant-Ferris, R.

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Awdry, Daniel

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Peel, John

Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Pink, R. Bonner

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)

Pounder, Rafton

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Biffen, John

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Prior, J. M. L.

Black, Sir Cyril

Hawkins, Paul

Pym, Francis

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

HeaW, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Body, Richard

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Bossom, Sir clive

Higgins, Terence L.

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

Hiley, Joseph

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Braine, Bernard

Hill, J. E. B.

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Hirst, Geoffrey

Ridsdale, Julian

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Bruce-Cardyne, J.

Holland, Philip

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Bryan, Paul

Homby, Richard

Royle, Anthony

Buck, Anthony (Colchester)

Hunt, John

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Bullus, Sir Eric

Iremonger, T. L.

Scott, Nicholas

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Sharpies, Richard

Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

Jopting, Michael

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

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Silvester, Frederick

Chichester-Clark, R.

Kimball, Marcus

Sinclair, Sir George

Clark, Henry

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

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

Clegg, Walter

Kirk, Peter

Smith, John (London & W'minster)

Cooke, Robert

Lane, David

Speed, Keith

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Langford-Hott, Sir John

Stainton, Keith

Corfield, F. V.

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

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

Costain, A. P.

Loveys, W. H.

Summers, Sir Spencer

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Lubbock, Eric

Tapsell, Peter

Crowder, F. P.

MacArthur, Ian

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Temple, John M.

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

Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Digby, Simon Wingfield

McMaster, Stanley

Tilney, John

Doughty, Charles

Maddan, Martin

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

Drayson, G. B.

Maginnis, John E.

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Eden, Sir John

Marten, Neil

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Maude, Angus

Walters, Dennis

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

Mawby, Ray

Ward, Dame Irene

Errington, Sir Eric

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Eyre, Reginald

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

Williams, Donald (Dudley)

Farr, John

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Fortescue, Tim

More, Jasper

Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Gibson-Watt, David

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Woodnutt, Mark

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Wylie, N. R.

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Murton, Oscar

Younger, Hn. George

Glyn, Sir Richard

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Goodhart, Philip

Nott, John

Mr. Anthony Grant and

Mr. Hector Monro.

I do not want to detain the Committee any longer. We have had a good debate on this subject. I am convinced that the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South carry the very greatest weight. We do not believe that the widening of the rates and the increased anomalies are in the public interest, and I very much hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will join me in the Division Lobby in support of my hon. Friend's Amendment.
Question put, That the Amendment be made: -
The Committee divided: Ayes 159, Noes 227.

NOES

Albu, Austen

Gordon Walker, Ht. Hn. P. C.

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Alldritt, Walter

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Murray, Albert

Anderson, Donald

Gregory, Arnold

Neal, Harold

Archer, Peter

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Newens, Stan

Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Griffiths, E. (Brlghtside)

Norwood, Christopher

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Griffiths, Rt. Hn. dames (Lianlly)

Oakes, Gordon

Barnett, Joel

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Ogden, Eric

Baxter, William

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

O'Malley, Brian

Beaney, Alan

Handing, William

Orme, Stanley

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Hannan, William

Oswald, Thomas

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Harper, Joseph

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Bidwell, Sydney

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

Bishop, E. S.

Haseldine, Norman

Palmer, Arthur

Blackburn, F.

Hattersley, Roy

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Hazell, Bert

Park, Trevor

Boardman, H. (Leigh)

Heffer, Eric S.

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Booth, Albert

Henig, Stanley

Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

Boston, Terence

Hilton, W. S.

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Horner, John

Pentiand, Norman

Boyden, James

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

Bradley, Tom

Hoy, James

Probert, Arthur

Brooks, Edwin

Huckfield, Leslie

Rees, Merlyn

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

Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.

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

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Richard, Ivor

Buchan, Norman

Hunter, Adam

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

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

Hynd, John

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

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

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

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

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

Cant, R. B.

Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Carmichael, Neil

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

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)

Coe, Denis

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

Sheldon, Robert

Coleman, Donald

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Concannon, J. D.

Kelley, Richard

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Conlan, Bernard

Kenyon, Cllfford

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Crawshaw, Richard

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

Slater, Joseph

Cronin, John

Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

Small, William

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Lawson, George

Snow, Julian

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Leadbitter, Ted

Spriggs, Leslie

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Ledger, Ron

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Dalyell, Tarn

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Swain, Thomas

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Lee, John (Reading)

Swingler, Stephen

Davidson, Arthur (Accrlngton)

LEStor, Miss Joan

Symonds, J. B.

Davles, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Taverne, Dick

Davies, Dr. Eynest (Stratford)

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

Davies, Ifor (Cower)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Thornton, Ernest

Dempsey, James

Lomas, Kenneth

Tinn, James

Dewar, Donald

Loughlin, Charles

Tomney, Frank

Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

Luard, Evan

Tuck, Raphael

Dickens, James

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Urwin, T. W.

Dobson, Ray

McBride, Nell

Varley, Eric G.

Doig, Peter

McCann, John

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Dunn, James A.

MacColl, James

Walker, Harold (Doneaster)

Dunnett, Jack

Macdonald, A. H.

Wallace, George

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

McGuire, Michael

Watkins, David (Consett)

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

McKay, Mrs. Margaret

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Eadie, Alex

Mackenzie, Cregor (Rutherglen)

Weitzman, David

Edeiman, Maurice

Mackintosh, John P.

Wellbeloved, James

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Maclennan, Robert

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Ellis, John

McMillan, Tom (Gasgow, C.)

Whitaker, Ben

Ennais, David

McNamara, J. Kevin

White, Mrs. Eirene

Ensor, David

MacPherson, Malcolm

Wilkins W. A.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

Willey, Rt.Hn. Frederick

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

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

Williams Alan (Swansea W)

Faulds, Andrew

Manuel, Archie

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Marquand, David

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Maxwell, Robert

Willis Hn. George

Ford, Ben

Mikardo, lan

Winnick, David

Forrester, John

Millan, Bruce

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Freeson, Reginald

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Galpern, Sir Myer

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Mr. Charles Grey and

Gardner, Tony

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Mr. Ernest Armstrong.

Garrett, W. E.

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Question, That this Schedule be the Sixth Schedule to the Bill, put forthwith pursuant to Order [11th June]:—

Division No. 220.]

AYES

[9.0 p.m.

Albu, Austen

Galpern, Sir Myer

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Gardner, Tony

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Alldritt, Walter

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

Murray, Albert

Anderson, Donald

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Neal, Harold

Archer, Peter

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Newens, Stan

Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Gregory, Arnold

Norwood, Christopher

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Oakee, Gordon

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

O'Maltey, Brian

Barnett, Joel

Griffiths, E. (Brightside)

Orme, Stanley

Baxter, William

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Oswald, Thomas

Beaney, Alan

Hamling, William

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Hannan, William

Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Harper, Joseph

Palmer, Arthur

Bidwell, Sydney

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Bishop, E. S.

Haseldine, Norman

Park, Trevor

Blackburn, F.

Hazell, Bert

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Heffer, Eric S.

Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

Boardman, H. (Leigh)

Henig, Stanley

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Booth, Albert

Hilton, W. S.

Pentland, Norman

Boston, Terence

Homer, John

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

Boyden, James

Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

Probert, Arthur

Bradley, Tom

Hoy, James

Rees, Merlyn

Brooks, Edwin

Huckfield, Leslie

Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.

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

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Richard, Ivor

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

Hunter, Adam

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Buchan, Norman

Hynd, John

Robertson, John (Paisley)

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

Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

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

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

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

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

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Cant, R. B.

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

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Carmichael, Neil

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Shaw, Arnold (llford. S.)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

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

Sheldon, Robert

Coe, Denis

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Coleman, Donald

Kenyon, Clifford

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Concannon, J. D.

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

Silverman, Julius

Conlan, Bernard

Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

Slater, Joseph

Crawshaw, Richard

Lawson, George

Small, William

Cronin, John

Leadbitter, Ted

Snow, Julian

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Ledger, Ron

Spriggs, Julian

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Lee, John (Reading)

Swain, Thomas

Dalyell, Tam

Lestor, Miss Joan

Swingler, Stephen

Darling, Rt. Hn.George

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Symonds, J. B.

Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Taverne, Dick

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

Davoes, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Lomas, Kenneth

Thornton, Ernest

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Loughlin, Charles

Tinn, James

Dempsey, James

Luard, Evan

Tomney, Frank

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Tuck, Raphael

Dewar, Donald

McBride, Nell

Urwin, T. W.

Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

McCann, John

Varley, Eric G.

Dickens, James

MacColl, James

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Dobson, Ray

Macdonald, A. H.

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Doig, Peter

McGuire, Michael

Wallace, George

Dunn, James A.

McKay, Mrs. Margaret

Watkins, David (Consett)

Dunnett, Jack

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

Mackintosh, John P.

Weitzman, David

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

Maclennan, Robert

Wellbeloved, James

Eadie, Alex

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Edelman, Maurice

McNamara, J. Kevin

Whitaker, Ben

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

MacPherson, Malcolm

White, Mrs. Eirene

Ellis, John

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

Wilkins, W. A.

Ennals, David

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

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Ensor, David

Manuel, Archie

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Marquand, David

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

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

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Faulds, Andrew

Maxweil, Robert

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Mikardo, Ian

Willis, Rt. Hn. George

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Millan, Bruce

Winnick, David

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Ford, Ben

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

Forrester, John

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Mr. Charles Grey and

Freeson, Reginald

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Mr. Ernest Armstrong.

The Committee divided: Ayes 224, Noes 159.

NOES

Alison, Michael (Barkaton Ash)

Cower, Raymond

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Astor, John

Grant-Ferris, R.

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

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

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds

Peel, John

Awdry, Daniel

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Pink, R. Bonnor

Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

Pounder, Rafton

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Biffen, John

Harvle Anderson, Miss

Prior, J. M. L.

Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

Hawkins, Paul

Pym, Francis

Black, Sir Cyril

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Body, Richard

Higgins, Terence L.

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Bossom, Sit Clive

Hiley, Joseph

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

Hill, J. E. B.

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Braine, Bernard

Hirst, Geoffrey

Ridsdale, Julian

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Holland, Philip

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Hornby, Richard

Royle, Anthony

Bryan Paul

Howell, David (Guildford)

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Buck, Antony (Colchester)

Hunt, John

Scott, Nicholas

Bullus Sir Eric

Iremonger, T. L.

Sharpies, Richard

Campbell, Gordon (Moray A Nairn)

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

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

Carr Rt. Hn. Robert

Jopling, Michale

Silvester, Frederick

Chichester-Clark, R.

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Sinclair, Sir George

Clark Henry

Kimball, Marcus

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

Clegg, Walter

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Smith, John (London & W'minster)

Cooke Robert

Kirk, Peter

Speed, Keith

Corrfield F. V.

Lane, David

Stainton, Keith

costain A. P.

Langford-Holt, Sir John

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

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Lewis. Kenneth (Ruthland)

Summers, Sir Spencer

Crowder F. P.

Loveys, W. H.

Tapsell, Peter

d'Avigdor-Coldsmid, Sir Henry

lubbock, Eric

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

MacArthur, Ian

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

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

Mackenzei, Alasdair (ross & Crom' ty)

Temple, John M.

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Thatcher, Ars. Margaret

Doughty, Charles

Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

Tilney, john

Drayson, G. B.

McMaster, Stanley

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

Eden, Sir john

Madden, Martin

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Elliot, capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Maginnis, John E.

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

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

Marten, Neil

Walter, Dennis

Emery, Peter

Maude, Angus

Ward, Dame Irene

Errington, Sir Eric

Mawby, Ray

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Eyre, Reginald

maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Williams, Donald (Dudley)

Farr, John

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

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgewater)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Mills, Peter (torrington)

Wilson, Geofferey (Truro)

Fortescue, Tim

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Winstantley, Dr. M. P.

Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

More, Jasper

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Calbraith, Hn. T. G.

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

woodnutt Mark

Gibson-Watt, David

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Wyile, N. R.

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Munro-Lueas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Younger, Hn. George

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Murton, Oscar

Younger, Hn. George

Glyn, Sir Richard

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

TELLERS FOR THF NOES:

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Mr. Anthony Grant and

Goodhart, Philip

Nott, John

Mr. Hector Momro.

Goodhew, Victor

Osorn, John (Hallam)

Clause 8
VEHICLES EXCISE DUTY: INCREASE OF RATES
Mr. Alison: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, page 7, line 26, at end insert:
(3) Vehicles designed wholly and exclusively for the carriage of containers, where such containers are designed for carriage by road, rail, and sea, shall be charged at the appropriate rate of duty specified in Table B, Part III of Schedule 7 of this Act.
I would, first, extend a welcome on the behalf of the Committee to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, whom we have not had with us hitherto, at least today, and whom we last saw as a very gloomy sun was rising
1026
over the River Thames at 6 a.m. on 9th May, when he joined our deliberations on matters affecting transport. It says something for the rather extended discussion that we have had here, that, almost six weeks later, the representative of the Ministry of Transport should be back with us when we are still only half way through the Finance Bill.
The Amendment which I propose, and to which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give a sympathetic answer, as he is bound to be a rare visitor to the Committee, concerns containers. There are few topics which are more relevant to, or have a greater bearing upon, the pursuit of efficiency and productivity in the manufacture and distribution of the

1027
products of British industry than the container revolution.
In order to sum up in a nutshell what I seek to achieve by the Amendment, I refer the Committee to two Tables in the Finance Bill. The first is Table A, on page 59, paragraph 4 of which refers to:
"Goods vehicles not included in any of the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Schedule."
The second is Table B, on page 60, paragraph 3 of which refers to "Other goods vehicles".
My object is to seek to make certain that container purpose-built vehicles are charged under paragraph 3 of Table B and not, as is likely to be the case, under paragraph 4 of Table A, which contains rates and charges which are very much higher than in Table B.
I hope that it will not be an imposition upon the Committee if I remind them of the four types of commercial vehicle upon which containers can be placed. It is essential to get these categories of vehicles clearly into our minds in order to appreciate the changes which need to be made.
The first type of vehicle is the ordinary rigid frame lorry with a flat platform at the back, supported on a back and front axle, with two axles as a minimum. That is the commonest sort of lorry, upon which a container can simply be deposited. A vehicle of this type would be charged at present under Table A according to its unladen weight. A four-ton vehicle in this category, for example, would be charged at the rate of £135.
The second type is the slightly more complex articulated lorry, with an associated trailer, which is, strictly speaking, integral with the tractor unit which pulls it. It is the sort of trailer which can be detached, but which has no separate front axle to enable it to be dragged along on its own, and has to rest on an undercarriage which is dropped down.
In passing, I would point out that the first type of vehicle I referred to, the ordinary rigid frame flat platform lorry with a back and front axle, is probably likely to turn the scales unladen at a lower unladen weight, load for load, than the articulated vehicle, which will have a minimum of three axles, the rear axle

1028
on the articulated trailer, the driving axle on the tractor unit and the front axle on the tractor unit. In the case of articulated vehicles, in the nature of things, there is likely to be a greater unladen weight than would be the case with an ordinary type of rigid-frame vehicle.
9.15 p.m.
The point in making the distinction is that the articulated vehicle is more convenient, more manoeuverable, more modern and better adapted to receive a container. Yet, in the nature of our taxation system for vehicle licences, there is a tendency at present for the articulated kind of vehicle to be discriminated against in favour of the rigid-frame vehicle, simply because there will always be an extra axle involved. Right at the outset, the container revolution tends to be discriminated against by an out-dated form of vehicle licensing.
I move from that to the third class of vehicle on which a container might be carried. It is the kind of vehicle referred to in Table B, where we read of goods vehicles used for drawing trailers. This third category is distinct from the articulated unit. It is the sort of massive road tractor and trailer which one occasionally encounters, in which there is a separate tractor unit on its own front and back axles and a separate trailer with independent axles. One finds them pulling tanks, vast transformers and other such units. Strictly speaking, it is a separate tractor and a separate trailer. These units are charged on a much lower rate of duty than the articulated lorry. In the case of the separate tractor, its rate of duty up to four tons is a £54 charge, as hon. Members will see from paragraph 3 of Table B.
Looking into the future and at those who increasingly will make their living in transporting containers about the country, I suspect that there is a built-in incentive for the future container vehicle to be not an articulated unit, which is probably the most manoeuvrable and economic kind of lorry on which to transport containers, but the separate trailer and tractor. The trailer itself does not have to be licensed at all, in which case duty has to be paid only on the separate tractor unit, which is very much less in terms of unladen weight than the articulated lorry. The tendency

1029
will be for container operators to go for the separate tractor and trailer. Inherently, this is uneconomic. It means putting an extra axle on the road, with extra tyres and extra expense in construction—
Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the whole purpose of using the semitrailer for containers is that, when the tractor unit moves away, the container on the semi-trailer can be left at a warehouse, port or other premises? That cannot be done with the draw-bar trailer, except with the trailer portion itself, so there is not the disincentive from semitrailers and the incentive to draw-bar trailers, as he suggests.
Mr. Alison: I suspect that there is substantial weight in what the hon. Gentleman says. However, if he studies the imbalances in the rates of vehicle duties applicable to those two distinct categories, he will see that they are so substantial as to outweigh the disadvantage about which he has spoken. For a four-ton unit, the differential is between £54 and £135, which is massive.
There is a fourth category of road vehicle, which is really the decisive point and for which the Committee should make special provision in the future. It is the articulated or semi-trailer vehicle which is purpose-built to take a container. The articulated trailing part is a light trellis framework with a minimum of its own structural existence. It is designed with the very minimum of material to take the four corners of a container. It is not intended to take any other sort of load and probably has no main platform base at the back. It is probably just a simple outline framework with a couple of strengthened in the form of trellis across the middle, designed to take a container and nothing else.
This must be the sort of vehicle of the future as the container revolution comes about. There should be a built-in incentive for the operators and manufacturers of road vehicles to develop this sort of articulated unit and not to go in for a rigid-frame lorry of the sort which probably has a lower unladen weight but is not nearly so manoeuverable or flexible in operation nor has the incentive for the trailer unit as at present charged under Table B.

1030
If the Parliamentary Secretary could accept the Amendment and move from Table A to Table B this limited range of vehicles so that purpose-built articulated lorries would be charged at the rate of only £54 maximum unladen weight, this Committee could put its shoulder in an intelligent and rational way behind a move which would lead to greater flexibility in the output and distribution of British industry.
Mr. Leslie Hnckfield: The argument of the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) shows that he has not understood why articulated vehicles are used. The whole principle of using them is that one can detach the tractor unit from the trailer unit and keep the prime mover continually in use. This is one of the main reasons why the principle of articulation has been adopted. Another reason is that with a tractor and trailer unit which can be detached the driver can be detached from his load. It is then possible to have effective and more flexible trunk haulage operation than if the driver has to stay with his load because his cab is attached to the trailer.
For these two reasons, that one can have more flexibility and keep the tractor or prime mover moving, many operators, pioneered by British Road Services— the nationalised sector—have gone in for articulation.
Mr. Alison: I should like to clarify what obviously I did not make sufficiently clear. The rate of charge at present makes a distinction between the articulated unit in which the tractor unit is movable and the non-articulated unit in which the tractor and trailer are borne on independent axles. It is a question of moving the articulated unit into the same category as the tractor and trailer unit.
Mr. Hnckfield: Again, the hon. Member has misconstrued my argument. The articulated principle means that in all circumstances the driver in his tractor unit can be detached from his load. With the draw-bar trailer, although one trailer can be detached, if there is a second trailer on the mam bed of the lorry it cannot be detached from the driver.
It is because an operator who is using a semi-trailer can put two containers on

1031
the same trailer, which can both be detached from the driver, that he will opt, despite some of the disincentives which have been referred to, for the fully-blown semi-trailer. It is not economic for any operator to have a system where he cannot detach the driver from the load as is the case with the draw-bar trailer.
The whole principle of container operation suggests that the operator will have to wait a long time at container ports, freight-liner depots and warehouses. He has to be in a position at all times to detach the whole of his load, which may involve two containers, from the trailer. With the draw-bar trailer he can detach only one container.
Mr. Alison: The second category was not what the hon. Gentleman described as a tractor unit with a built-in container space already on its back, but a separate tractor with no carrier unit at all—a Pickford's tractor without any carrying capacity, which is at present charged at a very much lower rate than the articulated tractor.
Mr. Huckfield: Having been at 45 sitting of the Standing Committee upstairs I appreciate the arguments put forward by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcester, South (Sir G. Nabarro) and other hon. Gentlemen, but I would still submit to this Committee that the hon. Gentleman has not understood the basic principle of articulation, which is that it is possible to leave a couple of containers. It is possible to carry two containers on a semi-trailer where it is skeletally possible, and to leave two containers behind. If he studies the way articulation works in practice he will find he is talking nonsense.
Mr. G. Campbell: I would like to support the principle of the Amendment which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Michael Alison). I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield). I know and respect his experience in road transport. I am glad that he was in agréement with our side of the Committee on some of the more important points where we tried to change the Transport Bill, but he has failed to understand the purpose of this Amendment.

1032
The Government ought to make sure that in the Bill they are not penalising containers. There has been and is still taking place a container revolution. Those of us who were inured in the Transport Bill Committee for so long were worried that the Government did not seem to have caught up with the container revolution. The freightliner service of British Railways, which was started five or six years ago with the support of the Conservative Government and which was held up by the disputes over the entry of road transport to the terminal, demonstrated how containers could revolutionise and speed up the transport of freight.
Now the Government are committing, or attempting to commit, the folly of taking the freightliner service away from British Railways—the most profitable go-ahead and developing part of the freight service. This is very much in accordance with the Amendment, because the transferability of the container from one kind of transport to another is one of its essential advantages.
9.30 p.m.
I was seeking, by way of illustration, to show to what extent the Government have failed to catch up with this container revolution which is now going on. It is important that we should ensure that there is no discrimination against the development of the container system.
To illustrate my point, I will turn to another side of transport and the use of the container. This is the present development of what is know as cellular shipping—the container ship which is being specially built with many compartments so that, if cut across as a section, it would look like a beehive. There is no doubt that lessons are being learned from the insect world in the construction of these ships. The way in which they are being constructed is similar to the storage arrangements of the bees and the ants.
These ships, together with the road and rail transport, will mean very much lower costs in the transport of freight across land and water. The great advantage of the container system is that it is easy to transfer from one means of transport to another. It is essential, therefore, that there should be fair treatment with similar forms of transport, such as

1033
trailers. That is why this Amendment seeks to move this form of transport to Table B of Part III of Schedule 7 for the purposes of taxation.
I recognise that there are several variations. The dialogue and exchange which occurred between my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash and the hon. Member for Nuneaton made clear that there are different systems—articulated systems of trailers and semi-trailers and so on. I recognise that this matter is complicated. But what worries me is that the Government do not appear to have looked into it. It is essential that this should be done.
I now turn to another point which particularly affects trade and industry in Scotland; the question of containers which travel only by road. There are special forms of container which travel only by road, such as refrigerated containers carrying meat. Meat-producers have found this a much better way of sending meat, other than sending live animals. It is important, therefore, that refrigeration should be included in their method of transport. The same considerations apply to the transport of fish.
Containers are being increasingly used for special packing and for moving without danger of breakage. This is the kind of point which the hon. Member for Nuneaton was making in Standing Committee so I hope that he will support us on this Amendment.
In the light of this container revolution, have the Government really examined the taxation which they are now proposing in the Bill? It seems doubtful whether they have. The Minister was not one of those taking part in our marathon on the Transport Bill, but I hope, none the less, that he followed the discussions that we had. I hope this evening that the hon. Gentleman will explain the Government's attitude and whether they have looked into this, or, alternatively, will accept the principle of this Amendment.
Mr. Paul Hawkins: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) in the Amendment which he has just moved.
I have a personal interest in this container revolution, because one of the major firms making containers and, for

1034
that matter, making the vehicles to carry them, Crane-Fruehauf, has its headquarters in my constituency at Dereham.
A few weeks ago I went to the Container Exhibition at Olympia, which was put on by the Port of London Authority, Overseas Containers Ltd. and others. I think that it is acknowledged on both sides of the Committee that containers will produce a tremendous revolution in transport by road and by sea. I understand that shortly Australia will not accept many goods unless they arrive in containers. I appreciate what the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huck-field) said about articulated vehicles having a built-in advantage, but there is no reason why this type of vehicle should be penalised in relation to those which, although used for carrying containers, do not have the same advantages, by carrying the higher rate of duty.
I support the Amendment because I believe that we should encourage modern means of transport, and these containers are probably the most modern means at our disposal. I believe that Britain is in the forefront of the container revolution, and this proposal is one small means by which we can keep Britain there.
Mr. Ridsdale: I feel rather like an amateur among a number of professionals when I hear references to what happened in Committee upstairs. I wish that we could have avoided this situation by discussing the legislation on the Floor of the House rather than upstairs.
My constituency has a direct interest in containers, because it has an important container port not only for British Railways but for private enterprise, at the Harwich Navy Yard, and also on the opposite shore at Felixstowe. It is said that we are in the forefront of the container revolution, but I think that the contrary is true. We have not moved nearly fast enough. Other countries have moved far more quickly than we have, and it is because of this that I ask the Minister to ensure that we get all the advantages that are possible from this form of transport.
I listened with interest to the lucid speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), and I could not help but feel that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie

1035
Huckfield) has been so concerned with some of the technicalities that he cannot see the wood for the trees.
Mr. Leslie Huckfield Mr. Leslie Huckfield rose—
Mr. Ridsdale: I propose to make only a short speech, and I heard what the hon. Gentleman had to say.
I hope that the Minister will adopt a progressive attitude, and say that our taxation system must provide advantages for this new means of transport. I hope that he will pay attention to the lucid arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash. I hope that he will ensure that our transporters derive benefits from the Government's policy, and will not have to continue with the disadvantages which they now have to bear to far too great an extent.
Mr. James Tinn: It is wrong for hon. Gentlemen opposite to imply that the Government, or indeed anyone on this side are less seized than they are of the importance of developing container traffic. I know that on the Tees in my constituency it is being developed vigorously, and I hope that it will be expanded.
I was rather taken with the logic of the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison). I find it hard to understand why there should be this tax differential between two kinds of trailer, one with two wheels which is coupled to an articulated vehicle, and one which has four wheels. I shall wait with interest to hear my hon. Friend's explanation for this anomaly.
When one recognises the anomaly, it is perhaps not quite so logical to talk solely in terms of the container traffic industry, because this seems to be something which applies equally over the whole of the road haulage industry.
Indeed, if there is something which needs to be put right, I would have thought redress would have to be applied over the whole of the industry. Certainly, from my own observations in my constituency, the tendency seems to be to use the four-wheeled trailer, which I understand is taxed at a lower rate—and that may be one reason—and which also seems to have the advantage that an additional trailer can be coupled to it, making it a two-load unit. This also

1036
seems to be the modern trend, although as a motorist I am not keen on seeing more and more of these transport trailers on the road. I cannot quite see that the burden is as considerable as the hon. Member for Barkston Ash appeared to be suggesting, but at the same time I recognise what appears to be an anomaly and I shall be interested in my hon. Friend's explanation.
Captain Walter Elliot: I would certainly be ruled out of order and I am sure I would not be popular with hon. Gentlemen if I went into all the details of the Transport Bill which was discussed upstairs. I was filled with admiration for the skilful manner in which my hon. and right hon. Friends endeavoured to reduce that Bill to good sense, but my overall impression of it was that after all the arguments the Government still failed to recognise what I believe is well known—that the transport industry is an integral part of the production line of industry. It has always seemed to me that although this country lacks many natural advantages we have inherent advantages in so far as transport is concerned. We have short hauls to our ports and airfields, and many ports well situated to supply and receive from overseas countries, with good deep water and facilities; and we should do our utmost to develop these advantages to assist out exports.
As my hon. Friends have already said, there is no doubt that the most revolutionary development in transport technique is the development of containers. I myself, I suppose naturally, am rather interested in ships and shipping. We know that tens of millions of pounds are being spent in developing special container ships and special ports for handling containers. This is a vast development. While we may not agreed with their methods I admit that the Government have by various measures and by building up certain departments, endeavoured to encourage British industry to greater efficiency. But for what appear to me to be illogical reasons they seem to be intent on squeezing the transport industry into a framework with scant regard for its efficiency. It will be a dreadful mistake if anything is done to check the development of the container system whether on sea or land; and certainly the two must go together.

1037
It is no good shipowners or port authorities spending these vast sums of money on developing their container ships and facilities if the parallel development does not go on with container vehicles ashore. Here is a sphere in which I am quite sure the Government should, as it has done in other spheres in industry, give real encouragement to the development of container vehicles. My hon. Friend put the case; extremely well and if the Amendment is accepted it will encourage this development on land, parallel with the great developments at sea and in the ports. That is why I support it and hope that it will be accepted.
9.45 p.m.
Mr. Costain: I was surprised that no attempt was made to reply to this interesting debate. I am seriously concerned when a Government use taxation to delay progressive developments—
Mr. Leslie Hnckfield: Oh.
Mr. Costain: The hon. Member makes extraordinary noises, and he also makes extraordinary speeches. He refers to my hon. Friends as speaking nonsense. He may have some experience of transport, but he is not the only hon. Member who has.
Mr. Huckfield: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that the cost advantage of using an articulated semi-trailer far outweighs the tax disadvantage to which his hon. Friends refer?
Mr. Costain: Are we talking about efficiency or about the maximum taxation which a Government can apply to an industry? The hon. Member argues that, because one form of trailer is taxed less than another, that is all right. My view is precisely the opposite. How will we get the most efficient transport system? In the near future, the Channel Tunnel will be operating with a type of transport depending very much on the trailer principle and I am anxious to hear what co-ordination has gone on with the lorry manufacturers.
My early experience in charge of a transport fleet showed me that a great deal of development was restricted in motor lorries—[Interruption.]—the hon. Member laughs, but I can go back to the steam trailer, when development was handicapped by high taxation. What consultations have the Government had with

1038
the manufacturers, who are doing so much for our exports? How will our taxation system compare with that of the Continent? In the near future, there will be interchange of these lorries, and I wonder whether we will be at a disadvantage with foreign operators. [Interruption.] Again the hon. Member finds this amusing. I am sorry that he does, since this is one of the most serious factors for our exports. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not let the debate go by default. I intend to vote for the Amendment.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): When I first looked at the Amendment, I wondered what it was trying to do. I thought that it was to remove containers from the reckonable weight in assessing the excise duty payable, but, from the speech of the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), whom I thank for his kind remarks in opening, it was clear that this was not one of the intentions. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite intend to create new concession rates for vehicles using containers? The hon. Member for Barkston Ash tried to argue this case by referring to the four categories of vehicle.
The hon. Gentleman is labouring under a considerable misapprehension about what the Schedule does. All types of container-carrying vehicle receive a substantial tax relief, and under the 1966 Act the demountable body is not taken into account for taxable weight. This applies if the vehicle is in category one, a platform lorry; in category two, an articulated lorry; in category three, a platform lorry plus fixed towbar with trailer; or category four, a special purpose-built vehicle.
The hon. Member for Barkston Ash is under a misapprehension in referring to category three vehicles. He referred to large road tractor and trailer vehicles and described them as tank transporters. He made great play with the subject of the drawbar trailer and gave the impression that hauliers would be turning to this type of vehicle in the next month or so—that we would have nothing but huge tank transporters rumbling up and down the motorways. This is a ludicrous suggestion and I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman seriously meant it.

1039
The hon. Gentleman seemed to believe that this type of vehicle, the tank transporter, would be taxed at £54 under Table B. In fact, it will be charged £135 under Table A (4) and £54 under Table B (3), making a total of £189. If we were to simply charge on the basis of Table B (3), what would be the result? The basic goods rates under Table A go up in ¼-ton steps, while the supplementary trailer rates, which the Amendment seeks to apply as the basic rate for goods vehicles designed wholly and exclusively for the carriage of containers, are in a much broader taxation band.
In addition, while the basic rates have no upper limit, the supplementary trailer rates have, and it is interesting to make a comparison between the basic goods rates proposed by the Government and those proposed by the Amendment. A 1½-ton vehicle will be paying £49 10s 0d., while the rate proposed by the Amendment is £14; a 4-ton vehicle will pay under the Government proposal £135, while the rate proposed by the Amendment is £40; and a 10-ton vehicle will pay £459 while the Amendment proposes £54. I cannot believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite are seriously suggesting that the Government should accept a proposition which would mean such a calamitous loss of revenue. Indeed, I wonder how the constituents of hon. Gentlemen opposite would feel if they knew that their representatives were asking that the owner of a 2½-ton vehicle should be allowed to pay £1 less, £24, in Excise Duty than ordinary drivers are being asked to pay, £25, for private vehicles? I am quite certain that the average car owner is certainly not going to be enamoured of this type of proposition.
I think the Amendment should be resisted, first because it is certainly badly drawn whatever its object may be. I am sure there is considerable confusion in the mind of the hon. Member who moved it. It is completely unacceptable in particular because container vehicles already have the benefit of the weight of the container being ignored for the purpose of assessing duty.
Mr. Alison: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for seeking to throw light on this. It is only light I am seeking. Could he help in this particular? Is a vehicle

1040
of unladen weight of four tons, which has a hook at the back so that it may be linked to a separate trailer, at present licensed under paragraph 4 of Table A— a four-tons unladen weight vehicle at £135—a platform lorry with capacity for taking a trailer—or is it taxed under paragraph 3 of Table B at £54, or is it taxed at both together? This is what I am not quite clear about. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would clarify that for us.
Mr. Brown: The vehicle is taxed under both Tables, because Table B is really an additional tax upon the trailer itself: the trailer cannot be taxed so the vehicle is taxed. Depending on the weight of the trailer, this is an additional rate of duty, set out in column 4 of Table B, and that duty is appended to the vehicle taxed in Table A.
Mr. Alison: I am genuinely seeking light on this. What is the taxable position, therefore, of the separate Pickford's tractor unit with no trailer attached to it at all, the small tractor unit used for hauling a tank transporter, for example? Is it assessed separately? It must be, we assume, otherwise the weight would go up to beyond four tons, which is the maximum weight under paragraph 3 of Table B. What is the rate of taxation on one of those separated tractor units which has no carrying capacity of its own?
Mr. Brown: The mechanical horse, which is really what we are referring to, would be taxed under Table A.
The Amendment is unacceptable to the Government because, assuming that its drafting were right, it would lead to, applying to container vehicles a duty which would be much too low, as I have indicated. It would be completely unfair to the transport industry as a whole.
Do not let anyone leave this Committee to night with the impression that the Government are not anxious to do all in their power to facilitate the container revolution. I do not think anyone can point a finger at this Government and say that we have done anything other than give great encouragement to the container revolution.
10.0 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am sure that the Committee

1041
is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) for bringing this matter to our attention. It has produced an interesting debate. I found it a little difficult to remember that we were debating the Finance Bill, and not the Transport Bill, the presence beside me of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) for most of the debate served to heighten the illusion.
The debate has demonstrated the value in these matters, technical though they may be—and the Parliamentary Secretary's reply has demonstrated the degree of technicality—of having a debate in the Committee of the whole House and not upstairs. We have had a number of valuable contributions, from my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell), who has great knowledge of shipping developments, from my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins), who has a strong constituency interest in the construction of these trailers which are the subject matter of the Amendment, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale), who represents one of the most important of the container ports, which is playing an increasingly valuable part in our overseas trade.
We also had the advantage of a contribution from the hon. Member for Nuneatcm (Mr. Leslie Huckfield). I understand that he has spent a substantial part of his working life in the industry before coming to the House. He was able to make a worth-while contribution. Although he said that my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash had misconstrued one of the provisions of this not altogether easy part of the Seventh Schedule he, speaking from very much greater knowledge, fell into exactly the same trap, because the objection he sought to raise against my hon. Friend's Amendment bore little relationship to the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary.
We on this side do not have the resources that are available to Ministers to draft Amendments, and I hope that his criticism that my hon. Friend's Amendment was badly drawn will not count against him. It was clear that the Parliamentary Secretary and his advisers had not appreciated my hon. Friend's case. There was a suggestion that the

1042
Amendment was directed towards relieving from tax the container which rests upon a trailer. My hon. Friend made it clear that his Amendment was not directed to that at all, and it is difficult to see how it could have been.
What comes out of this debate is the general view held about the value of developments in the container revolution. This was shown by the support which my hon. Friend's Amendment attracted from the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn). This is of great importance to this country, which has such a high proportion of overseas trade. My hon. Friend's Amendment has brought to the attention of the Government the need to keep taxation arrangements under constant review, particularly those affecting transport, and to make doubly certain that at no stage are desirable technological developments frustrated or hampered by a form of taxation drawn up before those technological developments were contemplated.
I appreciate the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's point in reply that the extent of the relief which the Amendment sought was perhaps rather greater than had been appreciated and that in this year's Budget it would perhaps be wrong to seek to press for relief for one form of transport—however desirable it may be, and however much we want to see the development—to the extent that he said would be the case here.
But the debate has performed a useful function in bringing to light the importance of ensuring that the container revolution in all its ramifications is not hindered by out-dated taxation practices. The Committee will be grateful to my hon. Friend for having moved it and enabled the point to be made and supported by many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
I feel sure that, having heard the Minister's reply, my hon. Friend will feel it right not to press the matter to a Division. At the same time, it would be equally right that the Minister should not feel that, having given his answer, for which we are grateful, that will be the end of the matter. It must be kept under constant review.
Mr. Bob Brown: I want to thank the hon. Member for Wanstead and Wood-ford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) for the way

1043
in which he concluded his speech giving the Opposition views, and to correct a statement that I made. I told the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) that a mechanical horse would be taxed under Table A, but it would in fact be taxed at the rates shown under Category 3, Part II of Schedule 7, on the unladen weight of the vehicle. A mechanical horse pulling no trailer would be taxed

1044
under Part II at the bottom of page 58, as I have said.
Mr. Alison: In the light of the speeches which have been made from both Front Benches, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11
CHARGE OF INCOME TAX FOR 1968–69
The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Harold Gurden): The next Amendment selected is Amendment No. 5, with which we shall discuss Amendment No. 6, in clause 12, page 8, line 41, leave out from '£2,000' to end of line 43 and add
'at the following higher rates in respect of the excess, that is to say:—
On the first £2,000 of the incomes chargeable to surtax—Nil.
On the next £500 of the income chargeable to surtax up to £2,500 at 2s. 0d. in the £.
On the next £500 of the income chargeable to surtax up to £3,000 at 2s. 6d. in the £.
On the next £1,000 of the incomes chargable to surtax up to £4,000 at 3s. 6d. in the £.
On the next £1,000 of the income chargeable to surtax up to £5,000 at 4s. 6d. in the £.
On the next £2,500 of the income chargeable to surtax up to £7,500 at 5s. 0d. in the £.
On the next £2,500 of the income chargeable to surtax up to £10,000 at 5s. 6d. in the £.
On the next £2,500 of the income chargeable to surtax up to £12,500 at 6s. 0d. in the £.
On the next £2,500 of the income chargeable to surtax up to £15,000 at 6s. 9d. in the £.
On the remainder of the income at 7s. 6d. in the £.'.
Sir G. Nabarro: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 8, line 36, leave out '8s. 3d.' and insert '7s. 6d.'
I am glad that we have profited from our experience in earlier years, which has facilitated the section of an Amendment dealing with reduction of Income Tax with an Amendment dealing with reorientation and reduction of Surtax, the two most massive forms of direct taxation, for it is very difficult to debate the one without the other.
The purpose of the Amendments in broad principle is to reduce the standard rate of Income Tax from 8s. 3d. in the £ to 7s. 6d. in the £, and so to reorientate all the rates of Surtax as to cause the highest level of Surtax to be 7s. 6d. in the £, so that the greatest earner in Britain and the highest payer of Income Tax and Surtax combined would not have to pay more than 7s. 6d. in the £ in Income Tax and 7s. 6d. in the £ in Surtax, an aggregation of 15s. in the £ on earned income.
That is why I am so grateful to the Chairman of Ways and Means for responding to the request I made to him yesterday that the two Amendments

1046
should be associated the one with the other, so that we could talk in terms of a maximum of 15s. in the £ for direct taxation
In 1966, immediately following the General Election, I moved during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill an Amendment to reduce the standard rate of Income Tax. Then I was persuaded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) not to take the matter to a vote because economic conditions would not have allowed a reduction in the rate of taxation on the scale I envisaged. I responed to the blandishments of my right hon. Friend and of the Whips and did not force a Division.
In 1967, I set down similar Amendments to that year's Finance Bill and again moved a reduction in the standard rate of Income Tax adding to it a rearrangement of Surtax rates. I took them both to a Division, supported by my party. I am delighted as always to be scouting ahead of my party year by year. That was the purpose of my exercise in 1966 and it succeeded in 1967.
I repeat it this year, although in slightly different form and in a somewhat different economic climate. But then we had a new Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is rather different in his approach to matters of direct taxation. He does not share precisely the views and the fiscal philosophy of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary.
We are delighted to see the Home Secretary now present. It is nice of him to blow me kisses instead of the fiscal raspberries to which I have been accustomed in recent years. I was recalling and recounting how, in 1966 and 1967, he listened to me moving reductions in the rates of direct taxation and always treated me with a measure of scorn, and his reply led the Daily Mail to head its report
"Poor old Nab—18s. 3d. in the £"
as though I were pleading my own personal case. I was not. I could not care less. There are lots of ways of making money other than from net income after direct taxation, as the Financial Secretary knows so well. Does the Home Secretary wish to interrupt? It is most improper for him to do so on the Finance Bill.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): I only wanted to say, knowing the hon. Gentleman's capacity for wringing the last ounce of publicity out of any given situation, that I hope he will excuse me if I leave. I came in to ask a question of my right hon. Friend. I am sitting in a Committee upstairs and I do not want there to be any feeling that I am walking out in the middle of the hon. Gentleman's speech.
Sir G. Nabarro: I repudiate any suggestion that I desire to wring any publicity out of this speech. I merely observed the right hon. Gentleman's entry and I am delighted to excuse him in view of the importance of his being elsewhere.
Mr. Herbert Butler: How kind.
Sir G. Nabarro: "Magnanimous" would have been the appropriate interjection. I was saying, when so rudely interrupted by the Home Secretary, that there is a marked difference in fiscal philsophy between the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and his predecessor, now the Home Secretary, in this context of direct taxation. The Chancellor is on record at least on two occasions as recognising that very high levels of direct personal taxation are a disincentive to greater effort and harder work.
10.15 p.m.
He resisted the temptation to put up Income Tax this year, for which I and many other people were very grateful; it was sensible of him to resist it. He had told the London Labour Party, on 19th March, 1967, that he thought that any increase in direct taxation could not be conducive to greater output and harder work. In his Budget statement this year he chose his words very carefully, and in that section in which he dealt with the rate of Income Tax he said:
"No earned income, save for the effects of the recoveries of family allowances, the principle of which had already been announced, will therefore be subject to higher direct taxation. This I believe to be justified on the ground of incentive."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1968; Vol. 761, c. 296.]
The former Chancellor always pooh-poohed that any disincentive was caused by high levels of direct taxation. The former Chancellor was always cheered

1048
to the echo by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett). They both pooh-poohed the speeches from this side of the House.
Mr. Henig: Quite right.
Sir G. Nabarro: We have another one, the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) as well. We have a professorial and academic voice added to that of the theorist of the chartered accountancy profession, his hon. Friend. The present Chancellor thinks otherwise. The present Chancellor at least has come this far towards Conservative views that the present levels of direct taxation are far. far too high.
My hon. Friend the Member for En-field, West said that our levels of direct taxation are not the highest in the world; but they are the highest marginal rates in the world. There is no country in the world that paid 19s. 3d. in the £ last year on the last dollar or the last £ that was earned in any country overseas. Neither, so far as I am aware, is there any civilised, industrialised and sophisticated community comparable to our own where the level of direct taxation this year leads to a top marginal rate of 18s. 3d. in the £. The Financial Secretary may reply that Albania pays 18s. 6d. in the £, or Guyana 18s. 9d. in the £, but these places are not countries, they are not industrialised, sophisticated communities such as ours.
I re-echo comments—I shall not repeat them in the same terms—made upstairs in the Committee that the men in Britain who earn more than £10,000 a year in industry, trade and commerce are the leaders. They are not generally in those positions because of Etonian ties. Very rarely is that the case. In 95 per cent. of the cases they have come from the bottom, earned their promotion the hard way and are sitting in the top executive position because of their ability to lead men and direct great enterprises. All the efforts of millions of working men and women everywhere are brought to nought without the enterprise, skills, drive and imagination of the men in the top executive chairs—
Mr. Eric Lubbock: Like Sir Giles Guthrie.
Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) says, "Like Sir Giles Guthrie". I am not talking about nationalised industries. They are a separate consideration. Their executives are underpaid. There is a stigma associated with working for a nationalised industry at the top level. Real, genuine, honest-to-goodness businessmen do not work for nationalised industries. We in the Conservative Party have always been in great trouble, just as the Labour Party has, in finding top executives for nationalised industries. The hon. Member for Orpington will never suffer such disabilities because he will never be in the Ministerial position required to select these executives.
Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman has got me wrong. I mentioned Sir Giles Guthrie only because he is not earning the money that he is paid, in spite of the fact that it is less than many of the hon. Gentleman's friends in private industry.
Sir G. Nabarro: I do not think that it would be kind or rational to criticise Sir Giles, who has left his post and is returning to the City. So far as I am aware, he has performed his duties as the head of an air Corporation with distinction and enterprise, notwithstanding all the obvious political disabilities put on him by being head of a nationalised industry.
Mr. Harold Lever: Has it escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention, when making his generalised expressions of contempt for the directors of nationalised industries, that the Chairman of the Central Electricity Board recently has been acquired by one of the great, enterprising world-wide outfits in this country at a very high salary after years of public service?
Sir G. Nabarro: The F.S.T. must get his facts right. It is not the Chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board, but the Chairman of the Electricity Council. I presume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to Professor Sir Ronald Edwards. The professor served a long stint as head of the Electricity Council. He did very well. Appointed by a Tory Government, he survived four years under a Labour Government. He has now returned to private enterprise industry, where I am sure that he will do even better. I hope that the F.S.T. will make a recommendation in the proper quarter
1050
to send him to another place as an earnest of the Treasury's approbation for his endeavours.
The Temporary Chairman: Order. Could this gentleman be related to the Amendment?
Sir G. Nabarro: I am sorry, Mr. Gurden. I was provoked. I do not think that the F.S.T. is behaving very well tonight. He has been leading me astray.
The fact remains that these punitive levels of direct taxation, Income Tax and Surtax, have three very damaging effects on our national economy. In my judgment, they act as a grave disincentive to further effort at every level, from £1,200 a year up to £100,000 a year, if anyone earns that sum—
Mr. Lubbock: The Chairman of Marley Tiles.
Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman says, "The Chairman of Marley Tiles". He is wrong again. Mr. Aisher earns £91,300. However, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman intervened, because that is a preposterous salary. No one is worth £91,300 a year. But why is he paid that huge sum? It is so that he can have an amount of about £12,000 after tax. That he is well worth. If he had £91,000 gross income in the United States of America, his net income would be about £27,500.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) is working it out to check it. It is no good the F.S.T. shaking his head vigorously. He is trying to catch me out, but I shall tell him how I arrive at this. All the civil servants are at work in the box trying to check the figures. On incomes of that size in the United States the effective rate paid is 70 per cent., subject to marginal influences. About 30 per cent. is the net and, in current vernacular, "take-home pay." Thirty per cent. is of the order of £27,000 to £27,500 related to £90,000. I am not going to argue the case of a man with £91,000 a year. The biggest single disincentive of present taxation in Income Tax is in the case of a man earning between £1,200 and £4,000.
I hope that the F.S.T. will not say that down to 2½d. I am inaccurate, Generally in that bracket, between £1,200

1051
and £4,000, for every additional £ earned the man concerned pays 32 per cent. in tax and retains 68 per cent. Above £4,000 a year the assessable Income Tax and later Surtax over the £4,999 level rises very steeply until the excruciating highest levels I have alluded to are eventually reached. All these levels of taxation are a grave disincentive to additional effort at a time when this country urgently needs greater effort and harder work on the part of men and women at every level of industry.
Personal savings in this country are very poor. This is no reflection on Sir Miles Thomas and the National Savings Movement. Last year they clocked up about £80 million of surplus, devalued in their pockets subsequently. The National Savings Movement and similar agencies, which ought to be encouraged to attract a much higher level in aggregation of personal savings than they are presently achieving, are of course knocked back by the present levels of direct taxation. It is no good the F.S.T. saying, "Oh yes, but the money is not available to save." Look what unit trusts did last month—£28 million in a month with new unit trust saving. I wonder why they are doing so well at a time when National Savings are doing so badly? The hon. Member the professor from Lancaster wishes to interrupt? I will give way at once if he wishes to intervene.
Mr. Henig: I was simply wondering what relevance these fascinating considerations about savings and unit trusts have to do with this Amendment.
Hon. Members: Oh.
Sir G. Nabarro: Thank goodness, I was never an undergraduate at the University of Lancaster. Thank goodness, I did not have to send my sons to that university. I think that a night school course at a Polytechnic would have served them better if the hon. Gentleman were the instructor.
The hon. Gentleman asks what are savings to do with the rates of direct taxation. In words of two syllables, so that he can understand, the lower the levels of direct taxes the greater the sums which will be left to fructify in the pockets of the people and the greater the sums which will be attracted to all
1052
the orthodox methods of saving, led by National Savings.
If the hon. Gentleman does not remember it, let him go back five or six years under successive Tory Chancellors and search out that our average performance year by year was £250 to £300 million a year in National Savings surplus. According to all Chancellors, Tory and Socialist, if they can obtain the money from National Savings they do not have to obtain commensurate sums from taxes. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so exasperated with me. I can understand his exasperation. The present levels of taxes militate against the accumulation of small savings.
Thirdly, the present levels of direct taxation aggravate and accentuate the brain drain of professionally qualified men and women who emigrate from this country. There were 70,000 last year. They were not all highly qualified by any means. A few come back, but the great majority of the immigrants are unqualified. About 90 per cent. of the emigrants are qualified and about 90 per cent. of the immigrants are unqualified. I call that a poor exchange—and I am no racialist.
Why do these people go? Some go because of the sun. Some go because they think that Australia's opportunities are better than Britain's. Some go because they fancy Canada. South Africa attracts a lot, and Rhodesia attracts some. But the major reason that they go—not the only reason—is because abroad they will be able to retain a larger part of their hard won earnings.
Mr. Lubbock: That is not true.
Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Member for Orpington mutters that it is not true.
Mr. Lubbock: If the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) read the report of the Jones Committee, from which I presume he is quoting, it said that the principal reason why young people who are professionally qualified go to the United States and elsewhere is because of the difference in salary structures between ourselves and the States, whereby people early on in their careers get higher earnings over there, whereas their total earnings throughout their careers are not

1053
much different in the two countries. It is nothing to do with taxation. It is the rate of promotion after a person is qualified.
Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Member for Orpington must think that I do not do any homework before I address the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the Jones Committee. I will quote the Jones Committee to him at once. I quote from the Financial Times of Monday, 23rd October, 1967.
Mr. Lubbock: I get my information first hand.
Sir G. Nabarro: Yes. But the Financial Times is a reputable journal and it quotes the Jones Committee. If the hon. Member for Orpington wishes to say that the Financial Times is mis-reporting the Jones Committee, let him say so, but listen to the extract first.
The Chairman: Order. I must ask the hon. Member to address the Chair.
Sir G. Nabarro: As you know, Sir Eric, it is my habit when speaking to gyrate, and though my body was facing you, I had turned momentarily to face the hon. Gentleman.
The article says:
"High quality staff. On the other hand the Jones Committee does emphasise that tax may well sway high quality senior academic staff and industrial specialists and may influence some people who are deciding whether to come back or not."
Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman said—
Sir G. Nabarro: I said that the brain drain was not due solely to the tax factor, but was in part, a major part, due to it.
Mr. Lubbock: If the hon. Gentleman studies the OFFICIAL REPORT he will find he said that taxation was the principal reason for it. I agree that taxation is a factor, but it is not a major factor, and if the hon. Gentleman had read the Jones Report instead of an extract in the Financial Times he would know that.
Sir G. Nabarro: I shall not weary the Committee by reading the entire Jones Report. I said that this was a major factor. The Jones Report said that it was a factor. The difference between us is minimal. These are all essential ingredients, and my case this evening is
1054
that the House of Commons ought to apply itself once again to the punitive levels of direct taxation extant in this country.
Year by year Tory philosophy in opposition is being moulded, and I am glad to see that it is going in the right direction. The first consideration, as has been brought out in our debates today, and in many earlier debates this year, is that immediately we resume power there will be a switch from direct taxation to indirect taxation. Secondly, there will be a reduction in the rates of direct taxation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West in his famous "light at the end of the tunnel" speech said that he would reduce Income Tax by 3d. in the £ this year. Of course the Socialists disagree with that.
Mr. Dempsey: It is a long tunnel.
Sir G. Nabarro: It is a long tunnel with a Socialist Government in office. Mercifully, they will not be there for ever. What I am pleased about is that the Tory Party is moving in the correct direction, which is that at the earliest possible moment we shall reduce the rates of direct taxation, and for the third consecutive year I make this speech drawing attention—
Mr. Henig: The hon. Gentleman will make it again next year.
Sir G. Nabarro: I shall if the Labour crowd is still there. I doubt it though, and I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to support me in this matter. I do not suggest that 9d. is necessarily the correct figure for a reduction in Income Tax this year, or that my Surtax figures are necessarily the correct ones, but what I am utterly sure of is that if Britain wishes to make progress in a harshly competitive world it is indispensible that we do not mulct our top brains of more than 15s. in the £ as an aggregation of Income Tax and Surtax. The American aggregation of 70 cents, and if the President's 10 per cent. increase in taxes goes through 77 cents, is still far below the British level, which is the equivalent of 91¼ cents.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: I know that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) is always so busy with his own speeches

1055
that he cannot read the speeches of others, but, had he done so, he would have known better than to say that I am against, and do not understand, the effects of incentives on the tax structure. I have said repeatedly that, although the Opposition's extreme assertions are wrong, there is obviously some disincentive in high levels of taxation. Rather than making the assertions which the hon. Gentleman claimed—unsupported by any evidence, as usual—I have been anxious to hear how the Chancellor could take this into account.
I have argued for not increasing Income Tax, for, where possible, reducing it, and for making good the deficiency in Corporation Tax. There is a disincentive effect, however, unmeasurable, in Income Tax, and this is greater than the disincentive effect of Corporation Tax. Very few managers feel that their companies have earned enough money and that they can go home or play golf, but this may apply to direct taxation, particularly Income Tax. Any disincentive effect of Corporation Tax could be offset by way of investment grants and other subsidies to particular areas. Therefore, rather than the shift to indirect taxation for which the Opposition argue, I would prefer a shift from Income Tax to Corporation Tax.
Hon. Gentlemen make great play of the incentive argument, unsupported by evidence, except for the kind of distortions of the Jones Report which we heard from the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South. I would rather we found out the facts. This could be done through the Government Social Survey. We know that the Chancellor raises over £12,000 million through taxation, and we have a right to know the disincentive effects of this, so that our taxation system can be adjusted to take account of it. I have ben asking for this for the past two years and more and we should be demanding a answer.
That Budget statement implied that my right hon. Friend accepted some of the disincentive arguments: he did not raise Income Tax for that reason. In that case, he must have felt that the £4,600 million being raised by Income Tax and Surtax was near the limit available to him for incurring the effects which he mentioned.
1056
10.45 p.m.
It is up to us to ask my right hon. Friend on what grounds he made this judgment; on what grounds he felt the limit had been reached where, if Income Tax had been raised any more, a disincentive effect would have been produced against the attempts he was making to extend the growth of the economy. What understanding is there of the way decisions are taken? We must know that this was sometimes a hunch.
We ask what kind of investigation was made? We know that there was none. We consider the work carried out by sociologists in all parts of our industrial economy and social life and we should ask ourselves why their help has not been asked for in this important sphere. We see the many millions of pounds raised and we do not understand the effect of raising this money on the decisions which individuals make as to how they will work, and what the disincentive effect will be.
If any industrial organisation failed to carry out simple surveys of this kind, into where its money was coming from, with market research of the simplest kind, it would be held grossly culpable. This issue is raised year after year. It seems to many of us that the Government fail to carry out this investigation into how the disincentive effect works and how we can make the effects work for the economy of the country.
It is time we insisted that this work be carried out, rather than have these statements made in these debates year after year. Some of the things found out by a survey, by the questions asked, should be: what is the effect on overtime working and does tax have a disincentive effect? Do people feel that workers are not working overtime, which might be in the interests of the country, because of this? A small amount of work done on this suggests that there is no disincentive effect.
This work was done in a small sector and few conclusions can be drawn. We also want to know the real attitude of Surtax payers. Do they decline appointments and promotion? What is possibly more important, do they avoid taking risks? Does it make them more cautious? It probably does, but we have no real evidence for it. That evidence is easily available and can be obtained.

1057
Then there is the question of what kind of misunderstanding there is in the minds of the people as to the level of taxation they are paying. Many people are not fully aware of the marginal rates of tax at certain levels. What is the level of this misunderstanding and how can it be put right? Is it just a grumble? Or is striving for success being affected; and if it is being affected, can it be put right?
These problems are capable of solution and in the raising of thousands of millions of pounds, a few thousands might be spent to great effect in finding some of these answers.
Mr. Maude: It seems to me that what the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has said is perfectly true. We need a great deal more knowledge about the effects of high rates of direct taxation on people working, whether on the shop floor or in executive and directorial appointments, but it does not require a great deal of research to know that the marginal effects of high taxation on work, on enterprise, and on initiative, are considerable. Our system of taxation is particularly detrimental because the standard rate has absolutely no justification in logic, financially or economically. Indeed, if it were not for the need for some sort of withholding tax for dividends, it is difficult to believe that we would have our present standard rate system.
Our progressive tax rates go up in a serious of jumps and have a particularly vicious effect at the margins where the jump occurs. On the other hand, I lived for some years in Australia, where there is not a standard rate but a smooth progressive rate of taxation. It is possible for the Treasury to raise or lower the whole of taxation from the very lowest to the top rate of Surtax by 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. in a single Budget without messing about with the standard rate and the lower rates.
At the margin in Britain one gets a disproportionate effect which one does not get: with a smooth progressive code. This effect is particularly bad when one has a high standard rate of direct taxation. It has been less marked over the whole sphere since the minimum Surtax rate on earned income was raised from £2,000 to £5,000, but it is still considerable.
1058
Until and unless we get a sensible system of direct taxation, cutting out the standard rate, with a notional withholding tax for dividends and a smooth, progressive—and, I suggest, a much less steeply progressive—system of taxation, we will continue to have a detrimental effect on overtime earnings and on effort of every kind. Until and unless a Government has the initiative and courage to change the whole system of direct taxation, these difficulties will occur.
If we wish to liberate the energies of our people, we should reduce the standard rate of tax. While nobody, including my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), would claim to know that the best results would be obtained by a reduction of, say, 9d. in the £ in the standard rate, the marginal effect of such a move, when workers now find that every extra 1d. they earn is charged at 8s. 3d. in the £, cannot be doubted.
I hope that my hon. Friends support the Amendment as a demonstration against a rate of direct taxation which is far too high and which should be reduced.
Mr. John Cronin: I must compliment the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) for suggesting that there should be a more smoothly progressive rate of Income Tax, which would obviously be beneficial for the working of the whole tax system. However, it would require more than courage for such a change to be made. It would require a complete change of our whole system of taxation and it would present immense difficulties.
I do not support the Amendment, and I do not believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite seriously support it. They must be aware that a substantial reduction in the rates of direct taxation now would indicate a premature tendency to reflation and, therefore, a run on the £.
Mr. Michael Shaw: In which year since the present Government came into power would it have been appropriate under those conditions for us to suggest a lowering of taxation?
Mr. Cronin: That is not relevant to the argument. The Amendment would be deleterious now. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcestershire,

1059
South (Sir G. Nabarro) has done a very good job for the Conservative Party in moving the Amendment. All those industries, bankers and businesses which contribute to Tory Party funds will say, "Good old Gerald. He's done his stuff. We are on the right side and investing our money satisfactorily." I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman imagines that the Amendment is in the national interest.
Sir G. Nabarro: I will give the exact cost. Reducing the standard rate from 8s. 3d. in the £ to 7s. 6d. would cost £180 million in a full year. Reducing the top level of Surtax so that no one would pay more than 15s. in the £ would cost £4 million only.
Mr. Cronin: The hon. Gentleman cannot believe that it is as simple as that. He is completely ignoring the psychological effect, which is the all-important thing for sterling. The hon. Gentleman spent most of his time shedding tears over the unfortunate people who pay 18s. 9d. in the £. It is no part of my brief to speak on behalf of such people.
Sir Tatton Brinton: The hon. Gentleman mentions 18s. 9d. in the £. I take it that he means either 19s. 8d. or 18s. 3d. Can he be more precise?
Mr. Cronin: I accept the correction with pleasure.
I must compliment the Chancellor for not increasing the standard rate, although he may have been under presure to do so. I hope that in the future he will be able to reduce the standard rate of Income Tax. The present high rate has serious disadvantages. Some of our opinions on this side should be revised in the light of modern circumstances. It was Socialist thinking that increases in direct taxation were desirable because it was mainly the well-to-do who paid direct taxation, and normally the mass of the working people paid hardly any at all.
There has been a very big change. Although we are proud that we have a progressive system of taxation, with the heaviest burdens falling on those most able to bear them, there is no doubt that a large part of the population pays Income Tax on a substantial scale. The Report of the Commissioners of Inland
1060
Revenue, Command 3508, shows that those who pay the largest amount of total tax are in the income group of £1,000 to £1,500 a year. Of that group there are 5,900,000 who pay Income Tax. Between them, they pay £770 million out of a total income of £7,260 million, which is more than 10 per cent. of their incomes. Now these are the people, our skilled workers and their wives who are presumably taken as one unit of income, who we should desire to encourage. It is particularly undesirable to reduce their incentive to work. I therefore feel that a reduction of Income Tax, particularly of the standard rate, would have a very direct and beneficial effect of this group of people.
11.0 p.m.
One of the problems of high direct taxation is that it is paid only by a very limited number of the people who should normally pay it. These high rates lend themselves very considerably to evasion and avoidance. For instance, it is very difficult to believe that as much tax is collected from Schedule D as really should be. If hon. Members look at Table 72 of the Report, Cmnd. 3508, they will notice that about 350,000 people in this country either own businesses or are engaged in professions which bring them less than £300 a year income. I find it very difficult to believe that some of these people are not taking part in some form of avoidance or even evasion.
The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South has referred to the brain drain, with 70,000 qualified people leaving the country every year. There is obviously a taxation consideration which must be a motive behind the disappearance of these people overseas. The most important thing, it seems to me, is the actual disincentive effect of high rates of direct taxation on the desire to work, as opposed to the desire to have leisure. It does not require any investigation to come to this conclusion. It obviously must reduce the incentive to do overtime and extra work.
I fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) that an inquiry into the precise disincentive effects of direct taxation is desirable. It is something which the Government should have done a long time ago. I recollect that when the Royal Commission on the Taxation of

1061
Profits and Incomes, in a Report about 11 years ago, dealt with this matter, they did so in a somewhat sketchy way and did not produce any real evidence to show whether or not there was a disincentive effect. There is no doubt that there must be a disincentive effect. There must also be, as a result of high rates of direct taxation, a tendency towards consumption rather than saving. Finally, there is also a preference, if anybody does save, to have an asset which produces benefits in kind rather than an asset which produces a monetary return.
A person who has saved £500 or £1,000 prefers to have a motor car which gives him some benefit in kind rather than monetary savings on which the interest is highly taxed. So, from the point of view of incentive, I think it very important, if there is to be expansion of the economy in the future, that there should be some reduction in the standard rate of Income Tax.
Finally, it is important that the Government should think about the political effect of high rates of taxation. There is no doubt that hon. Gentlemen opposite like the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, do have a willing ear from the public. They say, "Ah! These chaps are in favour of lowering taxation." This has a political effect which cannot be ignored, and I cannot believe it is to the advantage of our party that we should be known as the party which prefers high direct taxation. [HON MEMBERS: " It does."]
I am advising my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is undesirable that we should have this reputation. I accept that the rate of direct taxation is particularly high at present. This has a most undesirable political effect for us on this side of the House.
It seems to me that the very highest good for this country is to continue to have a Socialist Government. Anything which contributes to that summum bonum is something that we should encourage. The political effects of continued high direct taxation will not, therefore, be in the national interests. Finally, I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will convey to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer some of these remarks, and advise him that during the course of what I hope will be the long reign of Labour Government
1062
a time must soon come when direct taxation should be lowered.
Mr. Ridsdale: The first thought hon. Members opposite seem to have about anything is, "Let us hold an inquiry." Do we really need to hold an inquiry into the disincentive effects of direct taxation? Hon. Members have spoken to people earning £20 a week, such as railwaymen, many of whom must work overtime to earn that sum, know very well that disincentive effects direct taxation has. That is why I welcome the Chancellor's statement in his Budget speech that he would try to move from direct to indirect taxation, to take many people out of direct taxation. To my mind, that is Conservative policy.
I hope that he particularly had in mind those earning £20 a week. I am absolutely convinced that until we can take out of direct taxation altogether the person earning £20 or even £25 a week we shall not get productivity going to the necessary extent, nor shall we get personal savings at the necessary level.
The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) talked about the desire to encourage saving, saying that his right hon. and hon. Friends must look to the party advantage. But we must think about the national advantage and not the party advantage. If we think about the national advantage, we must realise that the only way we can encourage personal saving again is to cut back on direct taxation. Saving has fallen in the past few years because of the philosophy of the Socialist Government, who believe that saving can be done only by the Government. That it what is wrong. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) was so right when he said that money should fructify in the pockets of the people rather than in the coffers of the State. That is our philosophy, and why we know that Socialism can never succeed.
I feel that this is almost a Second Division debate. I read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee stage. I read with great interest the very eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) and the Chancellor's replies. But the Chancellor has been here for only a very short period today. How are we and the country to know his thinking, when he

1063
speaks upstairs almost in secret, where the Press cannot go, and does not come here to reply—
Mr. Harold Lever: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The Press not only could go, but every facility of a mechanical kind was given to it to enable it to report our proceedings.
Mr. Ridsdale: The Committee stage upstairs was not in the atmosphere to which we are accustomed on the Floor of the House, with the Chancellor here, instead of being closeted in a small room with a few hon. Members and no public in the gallery. I hope that we shall, at this stage and on Report, hear the Chancellor replying to some of our debates. I am disappointed that he has hardly been here all day, particularly so when we are having such an important debate as this.
We are discussing much more than whether taxation should be reduced by 9d. or 6d. in the £. We are discussing the whole philosophy of taxation and finance, and I should like to have heard the right hon. Gentleman. I believe that we shall only go along the right road for the economy if we lower the rates of direct taxation and shift the burden to indirect taxation, when we can shift the burden from those earning £20 a week and give at least some encouragement to them to see their savings in their own pockets and not taken and saved by the State.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Harper]—put and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

MR. FRANK ALLEBONE (PENSION)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]
11.12 p.m.
Mr. Harry Howarth: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the unfortunate circumstances which have led one of my constituents, Mr. Frank Allebone, to believe that he has suffered an injustice. I appreciate the attention which my hon. Friend has given to the case in correspondence with me, but, nevertheless, I believe that I must draw attention to this matter in view of Mr. Allebone's complaint.
The circumstances are that, prior to the Second World War, Mr. Allebone was in good health and in regular employment in the boot and shoe industry. He enlisted in the Army in April, 1942, and was found to be Grade I medically on his enlistment. There was no question of his suffering from any disease. He served in Sicily and Italy for almost three years and it was whilst he was in Italy that, during a medical examination, it was discovered that he was suffering from diabetes mellitus.
I have seen a copy of Mr. Allebone's medical history from his enlistment to his dicharge on medical grounds and I am satisfied from what I have read that, from the first time that diabetes was discovered until his discharge—and I am sure that he would wish me to say this— he had the best of medical attention. I have had no complaint about the treatment he received.
However, during the proceedings on his invaliding out of the Army and while in the convalescent home, Mr. Allebone was asked the following question prior to his examination:
"If you are suffering from any disease, wound or injury, state what it is, the date upon which it started and what in your opinion was the cause of it".
Mr. Allebone replied that he was suffering from diabetes and that it was first discovered during a medical examination in Italy on about 5th April, 1946. He further stated that the cause might be

1065
due to exposure, etc. A further question to which Mr. Allebone answered "No", was:
"Did you suffer from the disease or injury or anything like it before joining the service?"
In the report later issued by the officer in medical charge of the case, referring to my constituent's discharge, it was stated that the date of origin was approximately October, 1945, at Undine, Italy. Eventually, Mr. Allebone was discharged from the Army on 19th December, 1946, with no pension awarded. It is perhaps understandable that he appealed against this decision. He based his claim on the fact that before joining the Army he was fit and well and able to do a good day's work in a factory, whereas he was discharged with a recommendation for light work.
Mr. Allebone spent three years in the front line in Italy and Sicily and was exposed to all kinds of weather, as were many who were with him. For days on end he was soaked with no means of getting dry. He claimed that exposure and damp were the cause of his disability. I do not think that there is any disagreement that Mr. Allebone was a fit man when he joined the Army, but if there is, certificates have been issued by his previous employers saying that he was never absent from work because of ill-health. It is true that during his service in the Army there was no medical incident until the one in April, 1946, which led to his ultimate discharge. It is only fair to say that the medical officer acting for the Director General of the Services on behalf of the then Minister of Pensions discounted the fact that exposure and dampness were the causative factors of his disability and were not medically acceptable.
The Minister's doctors attached great importance to the fact that Mr. Allebone had not required hospital treatment during his service nor had he been aware of his condition until his routine medical examination, but I have no doubt that for some months he had been suffering, if only slightly, from this trouble, which was apparently then in its early stages. I have been talking of Mr. Allebone, who was discharged from the Army over 20 years ago, fit only for light work. What is the position today? He is now 60 years of age and is unable to work at all as a result of this disability, which he
1066
still maintains he contracted through his service in the Army. He has had to have a leg amputated. In addition, his other leg is causing some concern and his wife writes to me that he has suffered with his legs for over 15 years and has been able to walk only a few yards without a lot of pain.
Is it surprising that both my constituent and his wife feel very bitter about this whole business? He was perfectly fit when he went into the Army, he served most of his time overseas in the front line and then it was found that he had diabetes and he was discharged fit only for light work. I said that I appreciate the attention which my hon. Friend has given to this case. I know that there must be many cases such as this throughout the country where difficult decisions have to be made in the light of the circumstances surrounding each case, but are there so many of them that we must strictly observe the rules laid down, the necessity for the man to prove that he became disabled as a result of Army Service. How can he obtain such proof? Of course, he might have become disabled had he not been in the Army, but who is in a position to say definitely that that is so? It is purely a matter of conjecture.
Is it not possible in these cases for some payment to be made in order to help a man over what must be a very difficult period of his life? I know that my hon. Friend has sympathy and compassion in cases such as this, and I hope he will agree to look at the case of Mr. Allebone again in the light of all that I have said, and in the light of the difficulties which he has faced over the past 20 years, after serving his country so well during the last war, if only by an ex gratia payment, so as to give some comfort and hope to him and his wife for the future.
11.20 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Charles Loughlin): My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Harry Howarth) has raised a case which must command the sympathy of the House. As he has explained, Mr. Allebone, now aged 60, served during the war with the Royal Artillery for four and a half years, almost three years of that time with the Mediterannean forces. In April 1946, as

1067
my hon. Friend says, he had a routine examination in connection with his release from the Army and was then admitted to hospital in Italy for investigation of a finding of sugar in the urine. He gave a history of pleurisy several years before enlistment, and of inflammation of the gums in December, 1945; there was no other medical history at all. Diabetes mellitus was diagnosed, although, here again, there was no family history of diabetes, and he himself gave no history of symptoms relevant to the disease.
Mr. Allebone was put on a diet to control the condition, and was returned to the United Kingdom, where, in May, 1946 he was admitted to Whitchurch Emergency Hospital, Cardiff, later to a hospital nearer his home and then to a convalescent depot. After his condition had been stabilised by diet—he did not require insulin—the Army started invaliding proceedings in June, 1946 and he was formally discharged from the Army three months later.
As I explained to my hon. Friend when I wrote to him in April, Mr. Allebone's entitlement to a war pension was thoroughly considered following his discharge from the Army, but, after studying all the evidence, our doctors were unable to certify that his condition had been caused or made worse by service. They said that the diabetes mellitus was a constitutional metabolic disease, the onset of which had not been affected by any factor arising from war service. In the circumstances, his claim to a war pension had to be refused.
Mr. Allebone appealed to the pensions appeal tribunal against this decision, and we prepared a statement of case setting out all the evidence, together with the medical reasons for refusing his claim. Mr. Allebone stressed, as my hon. Friend stressed tonight, his fitness prior to enlistment, and attributed his condition to exposure and damp during the three winters spent in the front lines in Sicily and Italy.
Our doctors reaffirmed their earlier advice, explaining that diabetes mellitus is a disorder of the carbohydrate metabolism due to an inborn weakness of the pancreas. They pointed out that, as he had not required any hospital treatment during service, nor had he been aware
1068
of his condition until its discovery at his routine release medical examination, they remained satisfied that the onset and course of the disability had not been adversely influenced by any service factor, including exposure and damp. In view of this advice, we were still unable to admit the claim, and the appeal went forward to the pensions appeal tribunal.
The hearing of Mr. Allebone's appeal was adjourned on three separate occasions; the first time to obtain an independent specialist's opinion; the second time to await the decision on a test case with the emphasis on obesity, from which Mr. Allebone also suffered; and the third time for the consideration of fresh evidence given orally by Mr. Allebone, and of the decision on another test case with the emphasis on stress and strain which had shortly before been decided in the High Court. Mr. Allebone was assisted throughout by the British Legion, which of course, has a wide experience in appeal cases of this kind. The tribunal, which had before it all the evidence, including the arguments put forward by Mr. Allebone, finally ruled in February, 1950 that the diabetes mellitus was neither attributable to nor aggravated by service, and it disallowed the appeal.
The tribunal is a statutory body coming within the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor and is entirely separate from and independent of my Ministry. The ruling of the tribunal is legally binding upon both the Minister and Mr. Allebone and can be overruled only by the High Court on a point of law. I think that my hon. Friend will accept that there has never been any question of the possibility of taking the case to the High Court on a point of law.
My hon. Friend has suggested that my right hon. Friend should exercise her powers to make ex gratia payments to Mr. Allebone, having regard to his good service and to his fitness on enlistment and taking account of the fact that he was invalided. He has explained that Mr. Allebone is now unable to work and that, as a result of his disability, has had to have a leg amputated.
The position in relation to ex gratia payments is that, under the Royal Warrant of 1884, the Minister has power, with the concurrence of

1069
the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, to grant a pension in exceptional cases to a person who does not qualify for a pension under the normal Royal Warrant. However, it would not be a proper use of this power to use it to override the decision of an independent Tribunal which has decided that there is no connection between a person's disability and his service in the Armed Forces. The remedy which the law provides where revision of a tribunal decision is sought lies either in an appeal to the High Court on a point of law or, where vital fresh evidence has been adduced, in an application to the High Court for the case to be remitted for rehearing by the pensions appeal tribunal.
It has been the policy of successive Governments to provide preferential benefits under the War Pensions Scheme which reflect the country's awareness of its indebtedness to those who have been disabled or bereaved as a result of service. The justification for a preferential scheme is an insistence on the causative effect of service, and if we were to abandon this causal link as a basis for admission to the benefits of the War Pensions Scheme, we should be abandoning the case for such a scheme.
I appreciate that my hon. Friend has pleaded that there may not be many of these cases and, therefore, that we ought to be able to be generous, and that, even though there is no causal link between the disability and the service, we ought to
1070
give some form of ex gratia payment. However, he must accept that there are an enormous number of these cases and, in any event, the causal link is the key to the whole pensions scheme.
I am very sorry that I cannot give my hon. Friend better news. In the correspondence to which he referred, I have already explained to him Mr. Allebone's right of appeal on a point of law to the High Court. I can only add that I would certainly consider any fresh evidence produced which might form the basis of an application for a rehearing, with the leave of the High Court. But that evidence would have to be fresh and cogent evidence for this purpose.
It is not very easy for a Minister to examine cases of this kind where it is known that the applicant is in ill-health and has a disability. I can assure my hon. Friend that I have the greatest sympathy with all those people who served in the Armed Forces and who, although not caused by such service or by war service, are suffering illness in consequence of a constitutional defect or a degenerative condition. Unhappily, there are only some areas in which one can operate and, although I have every sympathy with Mr. Allebone I am sorry that I cannot concede to my hon. Friend's request.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Eleven o'clock.

HOUSING
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  National Coal Board Houses, Durham (Rents)
  National Coal Board Houses, Durham (Rents)
  Certificates of Fair Rent
  Certificates of Fair Rent
  Housing Need (Minister's Speech)
  Housing Need (Minister's Speech)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Planning Procedures (Circular 100)
  Planning Procedures (Circular 100)
  Birmingham (Overspill Schemes)
  Birmingham (Overspill Schemes)
  National Parks Commission
  National Parks Commission
  Farms (Intensive Livestock Houses)
  Farms (Intensive Livestock Houses)
  Beaches, Suffolk (Oil Pollution)
  Beaches, Suffolk (Oil Pollution)
  Coal Mining (Manchester)
  Coal Mining (Manchester)
  Local Government Employees (Superannuation)
  Local Government Employees (Superannuation)
  Derelict Sites, Yorkshire and Humberside (Clearance)
  Derelict Sites, Yorkshire and Humberside (Clearance)
  Local Authorities (Borrowings)
  Local Authorities (Borrowings)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Industrial Civil Servants (Equal Pay)
  Industrial Civil Servants (Equal Pay)
  Public Expenditure (White Paper)
  Public Expenditure (White Paper)
  Sterling Balances
  Sterling Balances
  Gold Price
  Gold Price
  Polypropylene (Purchase Tax)
  Polypropylene (Purchase Tax)
  International Bankers (Discussions)
  International Bankers (Discussions)
  Special Drawing Rights Scheme
  Special Drawing Rights Scheme
  Acquisitions in lieu of Estate Duty
  Acquisitions in lieu of Estate Duty
  Government Offices, Northern Region (Cleaning)
  Government Offices, Northern Region (Cleaning)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Fuels (Consumer Preference)
  Fuels (Consumer Preference)
  Uranium and Coal Mining
  Uranium and Coal Mining
HOSPITALS
  District General Hospital, Shrewsbury
  District General Hospital, Shrewsbury
  Guy's Hospital (Resignation of Matron)
  Guy's Hospital (Resignation of Matron)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Measles (Vaccination)
  Measles (Vaccination)
  BEACHES (OIL POLLUTION)
  BEACHES (OIL POLLUTION)
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Swaziland and South Africa (Extradition Treaty)
  Swaziland and South Africa (Extradition Treaty)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Student Union Officials (Sabbatical Terms)
  Student Union Officials (Sabbatical Terms)
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Coventry, Nuneaton and Tamworth (Unemployment)
  Coventry, Nuneaton and Tamworth (Unemployment)
  Unfilled Vacancies
  Unfilled Vacancies
  Former Miners, Arley Colliery (Unemployment)
  Former Miners, Arley Colliery (Unemployment)
  EMBASSY STAFF, SAIGON
  EMBASSY STAFF, SAIGON
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Mr. Cohn-Bendit (Entry into United Kingdom)
  Mr. Cohn-Bendit (Entry into United Kingdom)
  Alcoholics (Treatment in Prison)
  Alcoholics (Treatment in Prison)
  Brockhill Remand Centre (Women's Wing)
  Brockhill Remand Centre (Women's Wing)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Acton (Waiting Lists)
  Acton (Waiting Lists)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Banqueting House Exhibition of Historic Monuments (Maps)
  Banqueting House Exhibition of Historic Monuments (Maps)
TECHNOLOGY
  Tees-side (Air Pollution)
  Tees-side (Air Pollution)
SCOTLAND
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
  Agriculture and Horticulture (Fuel Costs)
  Agriculture and Horticulture (Fuel Costs)
HOARD OF TRADE
  Seafarers (Sight Tests)
  Seafarers (Sight Tests)
ROADS
  M56 (Wythenshawe-Bowdon Section)
  M56 (Wythenshawe-Bowdon Section)
TRANSPORT
  Goods Vehicle Testing Stations (Huddersfield Area)
  Goods Vehicle Testing Stations (Huddersfield Area)
RAILWAYS
  Victoria-Heathrow (Rail Link)
  Victoria-Heathrow (Rail Link)

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.
The Viscount Kemsley—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

OVERSEA CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONERS AND DEVALUATION
LORD GRIDLEY: 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 assistance is being given to pensioners of Her Majesty's Oversea Civil Service living in countries like South Africa, which has not devalued, and whose pensions are now reduced owing to devaluation by some 14·3 per cent.]
LORD BOWLES: None, my Lords. Her Majesty's Government have not felt able to make good the loss in oversea currency value of pensions paid to their own pensioners resident abroad in countries which have not devalued, and they could not treat Her Majesty's Oversea Civil Service pensioners whose pensions are paid by the oversea countries by whom they were employed more generously.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him why it is that Her Majesty's Government are treating pensioners of Her Majesty's Oversea Civil Service differently from their own employees? Is it not a fact that Embassy staff are receiving compensation in countries overseas which have not devalued, and did not the Prime Minister say in his broadcast in respect of devaluation that the pound would not be devalued in our pockets?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, the answer to the last part of the noble
514
Lord's supplementary question is that the Prime Minister did say that the suffering would be as little as possible but that obviously there would be some all round because of devaluation. As regards the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, he knows as well as I do—probably better, because he is associated with these ladies and gentlemen—that they were never really legally, constitutionally, employed by Her Majesty's Government at all. In view of that fact, I think his supplementary question does not arise.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell me which are the "countries like South Africa"?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I think my noble friend had better ask the noble Lord opposite that question.

NUCLEAR ARMS AND NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY
2.7 p.m.
LORD ROWLEY: 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, following the approval of the Non-Proliferation Treaty by the United Nations General Assembly, it is their policy to collaborate with President Johnson in his proposals to end the nuclear arms race an3 to reduce the existing nuclear stockpiles.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): Yes, my Lords, As my right honourable friend the Minister of State with special responsibility for disarmament matters made clear in his statement in the First Committee of the United Nations on May 28, we regard the Non-Proliferation Treaty as an essential first step in achieving the ending of the nuclear arms race and making progress towards general and complete disarmament. We are pledged, under the Treaty, to work for progress in this direction. We intend to do all in our power to carry out our commitments.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, following up the speech of President Johnson, may I ask my noble friend whether it is intended that Her Majesty's Government

515
should enter into diplomatic discussions with the United States Government and the Soviet Government with a view to the achievement of an agreed plan for nuclear disarmament to be placed before the Geneva Disarmament Conference?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, as my noble friend will know, we are always engaged in diplomatic consultations with the Soviet Government, the United States Government and other Governments about these problems. We very much hope that, first of all, it will be possible for the United States and the Soviet Union to get together and move towards an understanding about nuclear weapons, and especially about things like ballistic missile defence, which seems to me to be an integral part of the arms race; and we, of course, shall be ready to take part in any talks if it appears to be valuable for us to do so.

BUSINESS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it is hoped to make substantial progress on the Town and Country Planning Bill tonight, and your Lordships' Committee will sit until about 11 o'clock. Dinner will be available between 7 and 8.30 p.m.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA (UNITED NATIONS SANCTIONS) ORDER 1968
2.10 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved yesterday by the Lord Chancellor, That the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1968, laid before the House under Standing Order No. 62 on Monday, June 10, be approved.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, we had a long debate yesterday, and in view, too, of lengthy business in your Lordships' House this afternoon, clearly we should like to have an early Division if a Division is called to-night. For that reason, therefore, I will so far as possible make a short speech, and I will limit my remarks in the main to the speech that was delivered yesterday afternoon by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. I think I should say in passing that the debate
516
showed little new thinking, but I must say that some of the speeches deliverd indicated that some noble Lords do not now realise that they are living in the latter part of the 20th century. But the new element was the declaration by the noble Earl of the intention of the Opposition to divide.
I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that I thought his speech very strange. Certainly he selected his words carefully; but I am bound to say that they lacked the conviction to which we are normally accustomed from the noble Earl. We had from the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, one of those performances of a polished professional advocate, but even in his case conviction came out only when he was talking about the constitutional crisis. I do not intend to follow the noble Viscount and to discuss the constitutional issue, for to me the importance of the fate of this Rhodesian Order transcends the constitutional conflict. If there is to be a constitutional confrontation, that can be solved: but if there is an adverse vote to-night on this Order there will be far-reaching effects in Rhodesia, in the Commonwealth and, in fact, throughout the world.
In our decision tonight I hope that the House will bear in mind the words of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in 1965, when he said that no action of ours should give comfort to the illegal régime; and also the words of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, yesterday, that whatever we do we should not expose the nerves of racial conflict. My Lords, this is a matter in which race and colour are very much involved. Therefore let there be no doubt about the consequences of the act which the Conservative Party are contemplating to-day.
As it has been since 1965, the challenge that confronts us is the illegal seizure of independence by the representatives of a white minority in Rhodesia. It is not the illegality that arouses world opinion; it is the determination of these people to hold in political bondage some four-and-a-half million who are of a different colour and race from the minority. It is this, more than anything, that arouses world opinion. But for us in the British Parliament the issue has greater consequences. It is the British Parliament that

517
bears the ultimate responsibility for all Rhodesians. It is only the British Parliament that can change the Constitution of Rhodesia. It is only the British Parliament that can grant independence—and neither the Conservative Administration nor the Labour Government were prepared to grant independence under the 1961 Constitution.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, speaking yesterday, described the history of this affair. He reminded the House of the very clear warning given to the Rhodesian authorities by Mr. Sandys—a warning that went unheeded. If there is a choice to-day, if there is a decision to be made, it is the same as it was some three years ago. The passing of time has not changed the issue or the principles that are at stake. We were confronted with I.D.I.; and Parliament therefore had to make up its mind what action it should take. Should it condone? Should it wash its hands of its responsibilities? Should it abdicate to the white Rhodesians or should it take steps to return Rhodesia to constitutional rule?
The vast majority of both Houses, by their votes and by their speeches, have said that Parliament must retain and assert its authority in Rhodesia. That, I believe, is still the feeling in most quarters of this House. But what steps should then be taken? The vast majority believed in peaceful action and the rejection of force. Talks by both the Conservative Administration and the Labour Government to prevent I.D.I. failed. Therefore, if negotiations were to be possible it was clear that some measures, some sanctions, would need to be applied on those in Rhodesia if they were to come back to the negotiation table.
It is agreed on all sides in both Houses of Parliament that economic sanctions should be applied. The Conservatives supported sanctions and, until now, have never in this House challenged their imposition. By the term "Conservatives", I mean the official Opposition. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, speaking with the authority of the Front Bench opposite and with his long experience (having been Lord Chancellor during the period of the Conservative Administration at the time of their talks with Mr. Smith) was concerned about how effective those measures were.
518
The original sanctions imposed by the United Kingdom were selective, but in the end they did not bring meaningful talks. With the passage of time, despite every effort by the Government, it is still not possible to find a solution. Should we now capitulate, as some noble Lords suggested yesterday afternoon? Or should we make our chosen instrument more effective? As we sought so make sanctions more effective by asking others to share in bearing the burden the Opposition became more restive. I think this raises the question whether the Conservatives, in order to achieve Party unity after the three-way split in the House of Commons, were prepared to accept sanctions only so long as they were ineffective. If this is so, it would be an act condoning the seizure of independence in Rhodesia. I do not believe that that was the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington; but it may be a factor which has forced him, in order to maintain his own Party unity, to agree to a Division to-night.
Noble Lords opposite are opposed to international co-operation in this matter. They object to our going to the United Nations. If they still support sanctions, but not of an international character, it follows that it is the British industrialists and traders who must bear the entire burden, leaving their competitors free to develop their trade in Rhodesia. It makes it possible for overseas buyers to buy at much lower rates because of the effect of the United Kingdom sanctions on the economy of Rhodesia. Without international co-operation the burden would be entirely ours and sanctions would be less effective than they could be. Is that the intention of the Opposition? If the intention is to bring Rhodesia back to constitutional rule, why deliberately seek to make sanctions ineffective and so prolong the period of illegality? Is that the intention of the Opposition?
In any case, although we have direct responsibility the Commonwealth is concerned. It is no good thinking that this is a little local problem; it trains the very heart of the Commonwealth. Sanctions hurt Rhodesia and affect our trade, but few realise what could be the consequences to our international trade if we appeared to be condoning I.D.I. Noble Lords opposite never cease to express their fears over our trade with

519
Spain and South Africa. There would be a great risk not only to our trade but also to our private invested assets overseas if we took a course which gave great affront to world opinion by appearing to wash our hands of Rhodesia and default on our responsibilities. We could not survive trading only with white countries.
We do not pursue this policy for this reason: that we have a moral responsibility that Parliament so far is not prepared to give up. We must pursue this policy. We must be ready to negotiate at the first sign of meaningful negotiatiations. The door is not closed. In passing, if I may say so, we had a difficult time at the United Nations to keep this approach open and we got no praise from the other side. In the meantime we must continue sanctions, not in a punitive sense but solely to bring home to those in Rhodesia that there is no future in their present state. Sanctions hurt, often indiscriminately, but this must be so if they are to be effective. Noble Lords opposite have their doubts about the effectiveness of sanctions but no one has yet suggested an alternative other than force.
My Lords, why should the Opposition decide to divide on this Order? Articles 1 to 9 are broadly similar to Orders already passed and never challenged by the official Opposition in this House. Articles 10 and 11 affect airlines but have little practical effect in this country because there is no British air services to Rhodesia. I know that Article 12 caused disquiet. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor explained yesterday the reasons for action and the form it would take. I hope that what he said has gone a long way to allay the doubts and anxieties which have arisen. I want to make three points clear regarding this Article. First, although this part of the Security Council resolution picks up the wording of our own draft, that wording was put forward against the background of a demand in New York for a much wider range of measures under Article 41 of the Charter. Secondly, it is quite wrong to say that all persons now holding Rhodesian passports will be denied entry into this country. A large number of Rhodesians can claim United Kingdom citizenship and these will be allowed in.
520
So will people qualifying on humanitarian grounds; so will those Rhodesians who will be eligible to receive British passports in accordance with what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said in his statement yesterday. Third, the categories of people to whom Article 12(1)(b) will apply have now been publicly defined and, as was announced by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, an advisory committee has been set up to review this small and limited class.
I do not believe it is this Order which has caused the threat of a Division. I think that threat is striking at the United Nations resolution from which this Order springs. The burden of the noble Earl's complaint was that we had taken the Rhodesian issue to the United Nations. As the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said yesterday, with his long experience as a Minister of State, it was a Conservative Administration who took the question of our dependent territories to the United Nations and the Committee of 24. Whether or not noble Lords opposite recognise that Rhodesia is an international problem, it is. We made it clear to Mr. Smith that if we could not get agreement we should have to go to the United Nations. I want to make this clear. If we had not taken this matter to the United Nations, others would have done so. By having taken it we are able to effect control over the proceedings. Had it been taken by another country the control would have been infinitely less. Perhaps in the end it would have been a question only of veto.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor referred to the negotiations at the Security Council. Let us be under no illusion. The illegal executions in Salisbury raised bitterness and hatred, but by patient skill and diplomacy my noble friend Lord Caradon was able to get an agreed result. Even France was prepared to accept it. There may be some aspects which we should have preferred to be without, but we agreed, and by that agreement we were able to get rid of the worst features of the original draft.
I should like to say something now about Paragraph 13 of the resolution which refers to moral and material assistance to the people of Southern Rhodesia in their struggle to achieve their independence. A lot of fuss has been made

521
about this paragraph, and it has been described as an incitement to terrorism. It can be interpreted as an incitement to terrorism only it we assume that the people of Southern Rhodesia as a whole are terrorists. That is not the position of Her Majesty's Government and I do not believe it is the position of noble Lords opposite. No delegate speaking in the Security Council in his explanation of vote suggested that this paragraph condoned or encouraged violence. I am told that the Guinean representative at the United Nations to whom the noble Earl referred hold this view, but there is another African representative from Tanzania who is reported to have taken a completely opposite view. For our part we have made our opposition to violence quite clear. It would be absurd to suggest that any Government that is not already encouraging terrorism will now begin to do so as a result of this non-mandatory paragraph. If there is any risk of this it would be increased by the interpretation, a totally unnecessary and distorted interpretation, placed on the paragraph by noble Lords opposite.
At the United Nations we still have control of Rhodesia. Rhodesia is a British responsibility and we have not handed it over to the United Nations. But, my Lords, events are not controlled by flouting world opinion but by containing it by negotiation. If we could have had half the sense of realism from Mr. Smith as was displayed at the United Nations I believe that we should not only be at the conference table but could well have our solution. Every noble Lord has spoken about the need for new negotiations. It seemed to me that many noble Lords were totally ignorant of the past events. We have had twelve special missions to Rhodesia to find a solution. We have never failed to react to any glimmer of light. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, expressed confidence in the Home proposals. He admitted he did not know what they were. I suppose there are only three who know—the Government, Mr. Smith and Sir Alec; and Sir Alec will not disclose them, nor will Mr. Smith and therefore the Government cannot. But one fact is known, that the Home proposals fall far short of one of the five principles of the Conservative Administration which the Opposition still continue to support; that is, the second
522
principle, that there should be no retrogressive amendment to the Constitution.
My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor quoted speeches which have been made by Mr. Smith when he made quite clear that be would change the Constitution, that his children might wish to change the Constitution. If that is the view now held in Rhodesia, then quite clearly the proposals of Sir Alec, while they may be helpful, do not meet what Parliament has laid down. This is the view that Mr. Smith has held consistently. I do not see how the Opposition can agree to a settlement that did not provide for the second principle. What is the position of Her Majesty's Government? The Prime Minister and other spokesmen for the Government have repeatedly emphasised that the Government are anxious to reach an honourable settlement by negotiation. On March 27 the Prime Minister said this:
"The Governor, to whose courage and steadfastness all of us in the House pay tribute, especially in these past weeks, know that we shall always be ready to consider the possibility of a settlement on the basis of our agreed principles.… The House will insist that a settlement which is based ultimately on trust can be made only with people who can be trusted to make it effective. The Governor is there and is authorised to pursue any meaningful development which satisfies these principles and the necessary requirements of trust. If and when, at any time, soon or late, he should so report, that will be the time for decision."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, col. 1570, 27/3/68.]
That is the position of Her Majesty's Government.
As I see it, Mr. Smith is subject to conflicting influences. In the first place, while he does not himself regard majority rule within a foreseeable future as a really desirable goal for Rhodesia, he realises that there can be no settlement on any other basis and that without a settlement Rhodesia cannot prosper. He has said, and I have no reason to doubt his word on this, that for this reason it might be necessary to agree to a settlement which would involve unimpeded progress to majority rule. What he has not yet been prepared to do is to agree to the measures that would in fact provide for unimpeded progress. The other influence is the pull of Right-Wing extremists inside the Rhodesian Front and outside it. They see the future in terms

523
of unrelieved White domination, possibly disguised under the doctrines of South Africa. Mr. Smith is also sensitive to their pressures.
If noble Lords to-day reject this Order the Government will take the necessary steps to discharge their obligations to the United Nations and to implement the policies which it has decided upon. But that action by this House would have the effect of weakening the incentive for Mr. Smith to come to a just and honourable settlement and would strengthen the influences of those who urge him to reject all thought of a settlement and to follow their own Right-Wing extremist policies. Rejection of this Order, with the resulting polarisation of the whole situation, would greatly damage the prospects of the Governor being able to report, as indicated in the quotation I have just given, that there could be meaningful developments.
That is the seriousness of the position this afternoon. I would stress that what is vital, if negotiations are to succeed, is that Mr. Smith must never be permitted to believe that he can succeed, that this country will weaken in its resolve to bring back constitutional rule to Rhodesia. There will be no conference, there will be no solution, if Mr. Smith feels that he can succeed. Does the House seriously believe that if sanctions were lifted Mr. Smith would change his position? Why should he?
In view of the fact that yesterday's debate was wide-ranging and that no doubt it will be so again this afternoon, there is a danger that the real issue before the House will not be recognised. What is the issue? It is in essence to continue seeking to restore constitutional rule in Rhodesia through peaceful means. If the Order in Council we are debating is not approved, the House will be rejecting an Order designed to give effect to a recent Security Council resolution. What possible construction could be placed on such a defeat? It could only be said—and let there be no illusion about this—that this House was prepared to acquiesce in 'illegality in Rhodesia. There is no use saying that this is not the intention, that this House is simply voting against an extension of the Government's policy on sanctions. The stark fact is that if this Order is
524
not approved, the action of this House can only be an encouragement to the illegal régime in Salisbury. If the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has any doubt on the point, I hope that he will read the article in the Evening Standard.
If we reject this Order, it would betray those in Rhodesia who have loyally stood by the Governor, Sir Humphrey Gibbs, and the legal Constitution there. It would betray the future of the 4½ million coloured people in Rhodesia for whom we are responsible. It would also be a betrayal of a principle to which all fair-minded people in this country, irrespective of Party, have subscribed to since the war in respect of our dependent territories—the principle of majority rule. What a terrible step that would be. It would be an indelible mark on the liberal record of this country which could never be erased.
Some three months ago in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, expressed concern for the future of some 2,000 Falkland Islanders. He spoke with feeling and carried with him the sympathy of the whole House. Is there any reason why such concern should not now be extended to the 4½ million black Rhodesians?—unless there is to be one principle for the whites and another for those of another colour. What would be our standing internationally if this Order to implement a United Nations' resolution, which had been reached by patience and skill, give and take, were to be rejected? Equally, what would be our standing within the Commonwealth? I known that there are some who regard the Commonwealth as the old Commonwealth, but they are few in number. The reality is the new Commonwealth, which has grown up from the end of the Second World War from our former Colonial territories. The Commonwealth is far from a united or perfect organisation. There may be no common policy and on many issues there may be distinct division of thought, but the important feature is that it is a family of nations of many colours and many religions that remain in touch with each other, and as such it is a force for good. Would not the world be weaker and more dangerous, if the Commonwealth, nebulous though it may seem, were fragmented?
Let there be no shirking the fact that if in the face of international opinion this House frustrates the implementation of

525
the United Nations' resolution, the joy of 200,000 White Rhodesians would have to be balanced against the betrayal of the 4½ million Rhodesians of another colour for whom we are responsible. It would do irrevocable damage to our international prestige and might lead to the possible break-up of the Commonwealth. I cannot think of a more sombre fact. I say bluntly to noble Lords opposite that if this Order should be defeated tonight by an unrepresentative House, composed of many Peers who like myself are here merely by birth, that action could have only one construction and end. It is not use saying that this is an expression of view, an expression of disagreement over Government policy and that a new Order can be laid. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, knows as well as I do that if he wishes to censure the Government, there are procedures for doing it. He may have considered this course but he has decided for direct confrontation.
I cannot emphasise strongly enough that an adverse vote to-night could be construed in only one way throughout the world—the vindication of all those who have opposed sanctions and supported the illegal régime in Rhodesia. Some of us are deeply involved in Party politics, and there is nothing dishonourable in that. Many of us have been through the heat of battle on many important issues and have suffered defeat in good humour, conscious of a battle well fought. But to-day the importance of the issue transcends all other considerations. If a narrow Party line is taken on this issue, the House will forfeit the right ever to talk of honour and principle. If the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, whose liberal views were made abundantly clear in the Rhodesian debate of 1965, when he said: "All of us feel there must be majority rule", and others whose honour and integrity are undoubted are to be seen voting in the same Lobby with those who have consistently supported the illegal régime and are opposed to sanctions, the clock of progress will be put back, and our claim as a nation to be in the van of civilisation will have no substance.
My Lords, it is my earnest plea that this House should stand by the principles which it has always upheld; the principles which always govern our relations with the peoples of dependent terri-
526
tories; the principles on which independence has always been granted. I would ask the House to mark these words, which I quote:
"We have regarded it as our sacred trust to protect the poor and the weak, to provide for the defences of the country against foreign aggression, and to promote the general prosperity in the Indian communities. That was our duty, which we have performed, I think everyone will agree, to the best of our ability."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16/7/47; col. 860.]
I repeat, "our sacred trust to the poor and the weak, and our duty." My Lords, those words were spoken in this House 21 years ago by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury; and perhaps he will remember them.
There comes a time in public life when one may be required to stand apart from one's friends. There comes a time when principle requires one to say: "This I cannot support, despite my loyalty to my Party." To-day that moment has come. I appeal to this House, I appeal, if necessary, over the head of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and his Chief Whip, to those on the Conservative Benches, not to treat this as a Party issue. What is at stake to-night is something more vital than that. It is that we should fulfil our obligations to all Rhodesians, but particularly to those whose only hope is their faith in the Crown and the British Parliament.
2.42 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I intervene in this debate with a feeling of great diffidence for it must seem, I think, to many of your Lordships that every point that can be made on this difficult subject has already been made by other speakers and that all the House really wants this afternoon is to come to a vote. I can promise your Lordships that I will try to he as brief as I can. Arid yet I feel that I must say a few words, my Lords, for the very simple reason that I believe profoundly that your Lordships are being asked by the Government to come to your conclusions on entirely wrong premises. The picture that has been drawn of Rhodesia, and which is held to justify these new I and severe measures, is, I believe, however sincerely put forward—and I am not questioning that—an entirely false one; and I say this even after hearing the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd.

527
We had descriptions last night by some speakers that seemed to depict a state of conditions in that country which appeared to me to bear no relation to reality: a picture of a Police State based on terror and oppression; of the grinding down of the African inhabitants to a condition of abject poverty and misery and of holding them back from any social advance Even the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who spoke just now, painted a picture rather of that character. Every effort, it seems to me, has been made to stoke up bias against the white people of Rhodesia. And, my Lords, these things are simply not true.
I am not going to suggest that things are perfect in Rhodesia, any more than they are anywhere else—even here. But the lot of the average Rhodesian African is far better than he would find in any of the neighbouring black controlled States. The liberty he enjoys is far greater; his standard of life, at any rate until the imposition of sanctions, was steadily rising. And, my Lords, the average African appreciates this. There is, indeed, remarkable evidence of it. I would only mention, because I do not want to take up the time of the House, two examples. First, in Rhodesia alone in Central Africa, among all the States there, the police go about unarmed. Secondly, the tracking down of the terrorists, who lately invaded the country from the North, has been very largely done not by Europeans, but by Africans. Surely, facts such as those do not accord with the grim picture which has been painted by so many opponents of white rule in Rhodesia.
I do not ask your Lordships to accept what I have said on my own evidence alone; I recognise that I am regarded as a very biased person. But, if I may say so in his presence, those who heard, or have read, the recent remarkable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, after his visit there, will, I am sure, agree that what he said confirms everything that I myself have said this afternoon. I do not want—it is a bad thing to do in a situation such as this—in the graphic modern phrase, to "over-egg my pudding". No doubt it may be argued that there might be more rapid advance in various directions than there has been. But I still maintain—and I hope that the
528
noble Lord, Lord Silkin, still shares that view—that the sombre picture which is being painted to many people in this country is so dark as to be almost unrecognisable, and certainly does not justify the new Draconian measures which your Lordships are being asked to approve this afternoon.
But I may be asked: In that case, why did the United Nations take so strongly a different view? Why did they feel so violently that, as we have been told, Lord Caradon had to fight very hard to get even this compromise? I hope that supporters of the Government are not so naïve as to think (and I say this particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd) that it is the legality or illegality of Mr. Smith's Government that is really worrying the United Nations. What they (and by "they" I mean, in particular, the Afro-Asian States and the members of the Eastern bloc; and I should say that most of them themselves started as illegal Governments: they may be legalised now, but they were very much in the position of Rhodesia when they started) are after is much bigger game than that. What they want—and make no mistake about this, my Lords—is the expulsion of all Western influence from Central and South Africa. That is the aim and object of all their African policy, and they will stick at nothing to achieve it. To them, if I may use a famous old saying by Mr. Philip Guedalla:
"Any stigma is good enough to beat a dogma."
I simply cannot understand why the Government, with all the information they have, do not understand this.
I may be asked: But was not the Security Council unanimous? What about that? Well, my Lords, I am afraid that I have not been so impressed by the unanimity of the Security Council as the Prime Minister, judging by his statement of May 30, apparently is. No doubt it is open to him to view with more enthusiasm than some of us the singularly unconvincing spectacle of such nations as Russia and Hungary, of all nations, appearing as leading champions of legality and free institutions. But, after all, this unanimity is not really so surprising, for we have it on the authority of the Lord Chancellor himself that the decisions of the Security Council need not be based on the principles of equity

529
and justice; that it is a purely political body. If he would like me to quote the passage, I shall be happy to do so, because I have it here; but I am sure that it will be fresh in his memory and probably in the memory of most noble Lords who are here to-day.
If that interpretation holds the field—and it may well do in the United Nations at the present time—it surely is not necessary at all that the Security Council should take into any account the rights or wrongs of any question that is brought before it. All it has to consider is what is the most convenient course to take from the purely political point of view. And very often, my Lords, it may be extremely convenient for great nations and great international bodies to bully a small country so long as it is too small to hit back. And there is another point, I think, which follows from this. If the Lord Chancellor's view, that the Security Council is merely a political body untrammelled by any moral considerations, actuated by only political considerations, be accepted, the attitude of those of its members who belong, broadly, to the Eastern bloc becomes very comprehensible indeed; for to them the passing of this resolution may very naturally be regarded as a very considerable triumph.
So, though I be told that these steps that have been taken have the approval of the Security Council itself, I still maintain, with Mr. Dean Acheson, that the action enshrined in the resolution of the Security Council, to give effect to which this Order in Council is being introduced, constitutes, by any true interpretation of the principles governing the United Nations' Charter, an act of naked aggression against a small peaceful country, with no moral or legal justification; and that for the Security Council to lend itself to such a thing makes it still worse. It is like a criminal putting on a policeman's uniform to make it easier for him to commit his crime.
That is the international position, as I see it. What they want is to drive Western influence out of Africa. That is their reason for all the actions that they have taken in the Security Council. If they wish to do that; if they want, in Mr. Tom Mboya's vivid phrase, to "make the white man scram out of Africa", they cannot but regard this resolution as a notable step in the right direction. After all, my Lords, they have
530
not done so badly in Africa. Tanganyika and Zanzibar themselves are largely now controlled by the Chinese. Russia, so we read in the papers, is contemplating a base in Aden, and we are at present making room for them in the Persian Gulf. And now there is this additional prod at Rhodesia. They have not, I repeat, done so badly.
But even if it is natural that the opponents of Western civilisation are happy to see the passing of this resolution, is that any reason why we in this country should equally rejoice over it? Our policy towards Rhodesia is calculated, as I understand, to have cost us already upwards of £200 million; and if we continue it now it is going to cost us a great deal more, and it is losing us, all the time, valuable customers and valuable friends. Nor is it, in any case, likely to be successful in its purpose of bringing Rhodesia, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, wishes to do, to her knees. South Africa and Portugal are not likely to be very enthusiastic about a policy which is, in effect, aimed by the Afro-Asians as much at them as at Rhodesia. And now there have been clear indications, both from Malawi and from Zambia, that they would regard the application of this policy as likely to constitute a real economic disaster for them. If, then, we approve these new measures this afternoon, it is we only who will suffer; and we shall suffer more and more.
Lastly, my Lords, I would say this. I know that your Lordships haw already been subjected to horrific threats, both by members of the Government and by others belonging to the Party of noble Lords opposite, as to what will happen to us if we reject this Order. No doubt we shall have more of this—perhaps when the Leader of the House comes to reply to this debate. We have had one example already of what can only call this môt d'ordre a particularly revealing one, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a speech which he made on Saturday last and which we may all well ponder. He spoke of a threat to an elected House by an unrepresentative one.
This remark, my Lords, seems to be based on an assumption that an elected body, an elected House, must be taken as always continuing fully to represent

531
the views of those who elected it, however long the period since the preceding Election and whatever it may have done, good or bad, in the meantime. But that is, of course, by no means true. An elected House, as we all know, may entirely cease to represent its electors. That is, of course, one of the main reasons why countries—not only our own but other countries, too—have included Second Chambers in their Constitutions. It is just because the Governments of democratic countries which were representative at the time they were elected sometimes become entirely unrepresentative of those who elected them that it is felt that there must be some check on such Governments if the will of the people is to prevail.
But, my Lords, such checks, however salutary, are perhaps never very popular with the Governments to whom they are applied. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and no doubt many of his supporters, really seem to want now is that there should be single-Chamber government and that if the House of Lords is to continue at all it should be merely on the basis of a smoke screen behind which a single-Chamber Government can operate. Indeed, some of the supporters of the Government, I understand, have already gone even further, judging by a Motion which, I gather from the wireless this morning, has been tabled in another place, to the effect that unless we always and immediately agree to accept everything that comes to us from the House of Commons, the House of Lords should be abolished altogether. But that is not, in my view at any rate, a threat which should break our hearts or shake our courage.
If that is the Labour Party's real view, it is surely better that the British people should know it. It is valuable that we, too, should know it, for it indicates clearly that even if a clash be avoided on this occasion the issue will not have been permanently solved. The flashpoint happens to have been reached over Rhodesia, but if we give way over Rhodesia there is likely soon to be another exactly similar crisis on some other issue.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is the Transport Bill, which your
532
Lordships will possibly wish to amend pretty drastically on one or another important point. If we do that then, according to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, we shall have exactly the same speeches as to-day, the same threats hurled, the same fists brandished at us.
This seems to be almost a classic case of a situation in which the functions of a Second Chamber ought to be brought into operation. It is a situation involving vitally important issues of policy on which the views of the British people are not yet known. We on this side of the House believe that the great majority of the British electorate are in favour of an immediate resumption of negotiations between Great Britain and Rhodesia to bring this miserable quarrel between them to an end; and we believe, too, that on the lines of the proposals that have been brought back to this country by Sir Alec Douglas-Home, after his recent visit to Rhodesia, that result could be achieved.
If I understood the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, correctly, he seemed to indicate—and I very much regretted to hear it—that he thought Sir Alec was seeking a settlement which did not accord with principles to which he had already declared his adherence. I do not believe that that is true. It is quite out of character with Sir Alec, and I do not believe anybody in this country would think he would do such a thing. Noble Lords on the other side of the House, on the contrary, if I understand them correctly, think the British people would favour a further tightening of the screw of sanctions so as to bring Rhodesia to her knees. Only the British people themselves can finally decide which of us is right. That being the case I would, if I may, in all seriousness urge this House to throw out this Order and by so doing give an opportunity to the Government, by going to the country—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Noble Lords may laugh at that. The only reason they will not do it is because they know what will happen; but perhaps I may finish what I was saying—by going to the country to give practical application to that great principle of majority rule to which their lip service has so long and so powerfully been paid.
3.3 p.m.
LORD HUNT: My Lords, I will be very brief. The noble Marquess started his speech by telling us that everything has already been said, but he went on to say quite a lot. But then the noble Marquess has a great advantage over me in that he knows his subject and he has a much greater experience of your Lordships' House than I have. If I may borrow an analogy from a field of activity with which I am much more familiar than I yet feel in your Lordships' House, I agree that it would be hard indeed to find any route leading towards the summit of this exceedingly difficult mountain which has not been thoroughly explored and every crevice and every crack worn smooth by the passage of numerous feet.
In my short stay in your Lordships' House I have learned the wisdom of silence on both these counts, but I have also observed that there are occasions, and last night and this afternoon may provide more of them, when even an inexperienced tyro without particular knowledge—and my knowledge of Rhodesia is limited to some very good friends, white Rhodesians, who were comrades in arms in the war—can make a contribution towards reaching a decision, and for such a person to stand up and be counted ahead of a Division; and, greatly presuming though I may be, I am so presuming now.
I have listened with the deepest interest to the numerous speeches, and I have read the ones to which I could not listen personally. All of them, so far as I could judge, were spoken with sincerity, diametrically and irreconcilably opposed as they must be, by people sitting uncomfortably on either horn of such a decision as this. I recognise that whatever decision we, as a majority, reach in this House this afternoon, it will carry serious snags in its train. But having said that, I have no hesitation in declaring that for my own part I am completely persuaded to support the Government on this issue.
Whatever might have been the possibilities of another policy so long as Rhodesia was held to be still an internal matter for the British Parliament, that situation no longer obtains. That is a simple fact and, as I have understood it, that is the crux of the matter. Rightly or wrongly, for better or for worse, the Government accepted the view of other countries that this was a problem affecting
534
the human rights and impinging on the liberties not only of the black Rhodesians in their own country but of other people beyond the frontiers of Rhodesia. I am convinced that that is a basic truth.
It has been claimed by several noble Lords—the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, the noble and learned Viscount Lord Dilhorne (incidentally I am disappointed that he is not in his place, no doubt for an excellent reason, but he said yesterday after his speech that he remained to be convinced by subsequent speakers) the noble Lord, Lord Grimston, and others to whom I have listened—that Rhodesia presents no threat to any, other State. We have just heard the noble Marquess say the same thing. Indeed, in the physical sense that is true at the moment, but the persistence of racial injustice there as an act of deliberate policy is deeply disturbing to human relations far and wide, and, above all, to race relations. We have seen this effect on other issues which trouble the conscience of every community, simply because the seeds of injustice exist everywhere and they can be germinated into the thorns of hate and violence, despite distance and natural obstacles, by actions which go unchallenged and undeterred by people who ought to know better.
No one has disputed the examples of flagrant wrongs given by the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Southwark, and the noble and reverend Lord, Lord Soper, and maybe one of two other noble Lords. They have not been disputed, simply because these and other actions are known and recorded and could be seen, and because they are true. It may well be, as the noble Lord, Lord Grimston, said, that injustice as between man and man is practised elsewhere around the world, and he instance I particularly black Africa. There is no doubt about that. But the fact that it is not possible to act everywhere simultaneously to remove injustice a id to right wrongs has never yet been a justification for doing nothing, especially in a particular case where, as in Rhodesia, we still have a responsibility.
But, my Lords, I return to what I see as the crux of the matter: the simple fact that the Government, with the mandate of its majority, accepted the proposition about 18 months ago that Rhodesia is a problem of international con-

535
cern, and with that mandate the Government have taken the problem to the United Nations. The consequences and the sequel to that mandate were a Security Council resolution for which the Government representative voted and which was unanimous, and whatever the noble Marquess may say about the unanimity of that resolution I think it is highly significant. It was not simply a majority with some abstentions. It was not a resolution reached by the pressure of the black African vote, as has been suggested. Every member State supported it in their own right including France. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in, if I may beg to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, what I thought was a quite outstanding speech, traced the Opposition's defection from sanctions, from a bipartisan policy, an all-important decision, to that decision of Parliament, but so far as my information and recollection goes his Party did not register any effective dissent at that time. But whatever views may be held about that now by noble Lords, with the wisdom of hindsight, it is a very grave matter indeed to act against the Government of the country now.
There may be rare and exceptional occasions when the Parliament of a nation may be right to refuse to ratify its Government's support for a Security Council resolution, even though, as we are reminded here, in this country it would set a precedent; it has never happened before. But this is surely not such an occasion. Leaving completely aside the internal political consequences and considering only our position in the world, to do so would not simply be folly, as Mr. Jenkins said in a speech over the weekend, in the former context of internal consequences. It would lay this House open to a charge of hypocrisy on our previous stands for human rights, a charge of prejudice in favour of white Rhodesians and their policies which would reverberate around the world. What is even more serious is that those charges would rub off on the name of Britain. Our standing as a nation may not be particularly exalted in the world at the present time. We should certainly forfeit any remaining respect that we may hold, particularly among our coloured friends around the
536
world, if we were to shrink back from the consequences of this resolution now.
I recognise that there is a deep and sincere division of convictions about this Order. I applaud noble Lords opposite for their rejecting completely out of hand the threat to the future of your Lordships' House. If I may say so, I was surprised that the noble Marquess spent so much time lecturing your Lordships on this subject. I do not think it deserves a second thought. I respect the right of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and his Party to dissociate themselves from a course of action which, as he pointed out, is not theirs to take, it is the Government's. But what I cannot respect is a decision to vote against this Order. Some very hard words have been used in the course of this debate, and I will use some hard words now, and I use them advisedly. I would say that if a vote is to be taken against this Order with the full weight that the Opposition Party commands it would be an act smacking of sheer sabotage.
When all this started three and a half years ago, all Parties agreed that there was no incompatibility between the imposition of sanctions on the one hand and the search for a basis for an honourable settlement on the other. And presumably in accepting sanctions at that time all Parties concerned wished those sanctions to have their effect. Sanctions have continued, they have grown, and they have grown stronger simply because they need to be made more effective. But discussion has decreased to a trickle and now it has dried up. There is no justification whatever, short of war, for ceasing to talk.
I do not accept the contention of my noble friend Lord Wedgwood that the Government do not want a solution by negotiation. It is all too easy to forget and ignore the Herculean efforts made by the Prime Minister only a year or two ago, and the much more recent diplomacy of George Thomson in the same sense. We need to remember that they have made these efforts. But I still can find no excuse, despite what we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for not following the lead in the pack ice spied by Sir Alec Douglas-Home only a month or so ago. There may still be open water there. No fair-minded person can doubt that if a statesman as wise and

537
experienced and of such integrity as Sir Alec Douglas-Home thought that there was a basis for a settlement, and thinks it now, it is very probably the case. And let us remember that he said he thought that then, and he thinks that now, against the background of continuing sanctions. Negotiations in a matter such as this can be undertaken with any prospect of success only from a position of strength. All the member States of the United Nations Security Council voted for the resolution; they are providing us with that strength. Can it be that this House would wish to influence our country to break ranks with them? I urge that we stand firm. Twelve previous occasions or not, I urge that talks begin again.
3.17 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, it makes me sad to discern, as I think I do, having listened to most of this debate and read the rest of it, that many Members opposite in this House and, as I have read, in another place are much more concerned with politics in Britain than they are with the wellbeing of millions of Africans. It seems to me that those most concerned in a heartfelt way for millions of Africans are those who have been there, not those who know so little about it. And then we are told by one speaker after another that we on this side, or some of us, are wanting to hand over—that is the word—the Africans to these Rhodesians or to these South Africans, the minority of white men, as if the white men in those countries were bad men. My Lords, they are not bad men; they are as good men as any of us, and very much wiser and better rulers than are to be found elsewhere from Cape to Cairo.
These criticisms of Rhodesia and South Africa in the governmental and managerial spheres do not help the millions of Africans to eat more or to get better education or to learn how to take their place as equals; they hinder them. Sanctions will not help. In Southern Africa the black men are better off than in any other place in Africa, though I am afraid that the situation is deteriorating in Rhodesia. I promise to be extremely brief. I will be almost so brief that I hope I may not be misunderstood and thought to be rather arbitrary. I shall vote against the Government, but
538
for slightly different reasons from those which are moving so many of my colleagues. The main reason is their whole misunderstanding of the position in Southern Africa. I do not think they understand it.
My second reason is that "settlement" is now out. It is not a word that means anything in the context of to-day. In my judgment, for what it is worth, Smith does not have to settle. We, on the other hand, have lost the battle of Rhodesia. It is not dishonourable to lose a battle. I have been in battle, as other noble Lords have been, too, and many of us have lost battles—in life, in war, in politics. Politics is a business of winning and losing battles. It is not dishonourable to lose a battle, but it is extremly silly not to recognise when you have done so. I would not call Mr. Wilson a wise General; I would not go so far as that. But I do affirm that a wise General knows when he has lost a battle and that he has in fact lost the battle of Rhodesia. There may be a war going on between Southern Africa and what might be called some parts of world opinion, a cold war supported by Goebbels-like transmissions from Botswana, aided and abetted, and paid for, by the B.B.C. and Her Majesty's Government. There could be that. And this cold war may end one way or another in decades to come. Which way it ends is immaterial to my argument; but the battle of Rhodesia is lost.
My Lords, when you lose a battle, if you are a wise General what do you do? You withdraw, perhaps to fight again another day on the same battlefield, or perhaps to fight in another battle or in another place. But you are not such a fool as to go on fighting a battle you have lost. So I say to Britain, "Call it a day". I say the same to U.N.O. I assert that there is nothing dishonourable about this, but only real wisdom.
One may say that by calling up reserves—that is a thing that megalomaniac generals do ad nauseam. But who are the reserves? There is U.N.O.—vou think you can still win the battle. But no; I do not think so. By calling up our reserves in the shape of further and better sanctions? I do not think so, either. To my mind, there is no evidence whatever that they will be effective. By engaging in sanctions against South Africa and Portugal? It is quite

539
certain to me that South Africa and Portgual will not obey this ruling from the United Nations. They will break the blockade; I am quite sure they will do that.
There are perhaps only four honest people in the world just now. They are the Rhodesians, who know where they stand; the British Government, who think they know where they stand, or at any rate honestly seem to believe it; Portgual and South Africa, who are quite determined to know where they stand. The rest of the world, including the United States, will cheat more or less. They have done it already, and I am quite sure that they will do it again. So calling up the reserves will do no good. The only way to bring about a settlement by bringing Southern Rhodesia to her knees is by force, or by applying sanctions to the whole of Southern Africa, which means a shooting war. There is no force in the world capable of or willing to undertake it. So victory is out, and therefore I repeat that we had better call it a day.
I have only one last thing to say, my Lords. I have said, "call it a day". This much is certain. The Europeans in Rhodesia will continue to govern and manage Rhodesia, whatever we do. That is only an opinion but it is one that I firmly hold, and it is one that we had better heed. Maybe I am a little before my time and it will take Her Majesty's Government a little longer to find out. But I am quite certain that that is what they will find out. Lastly, I am going to vote against the Government because I do not like being bullied and dictated to and threatened.
3.25 p.m.
LORD SNOW: My Lords, I have listened to a number of debates on this subject in this House over the last two and a half years, all of them curiously emotional by the standard of your Lordships' House. I have sat here listening, and this is the first time that I have said a word, for the simple and sufficient reason that I thought any word I said, or indeed any word that anyone else said, was much more likely to do finite harm rather than finite good. I believe that still to be true. I have no doubt whatever that a great deal which has been said already in this debate has done
540
appreciable harm round the world. The House had serious warnings of that yesterday from many noble Lords who are experienced in international affairs and aware of the international communications which come about as a result of speeches here. Too frequently noble Lords give me the impression that they are talking only to themselves, or perhaps to Rhodesia. In fact they are talking to a much larger world—a world which is listening most carefully, a world which is judging us, I must say, without much mercy. So, since the harm is done, perhaps I shall not do any further harm if I join in now.
I have listened here, as I have said, for two and a half years, and with increasing despondency. The despondency comes chiefly for two reasons. First of all, I was sure—in fact I was sure before I came to this House at all, and certainly before November, 1965—that both Government and Opposition, and succeeding Governments and Oppositions, have been far too optimistic about Rhodesia. The Governments and Oppositions in this country seem only to believe that many white Rhodesians genuinely wanted to accept the Six Principles. I could not believe that for an instant. Let me be clear: I am not making moral accusations—they are all too easy to make and they do no good. We are all caught in historical traps, and our morality largely comes from that.
I was thinking of this as a purely historical matter. I cannot think of any single case in history where a white community, living alongside a black community and having power over it, has ever voluntarily relinquished that power. I should be most interested if noble Lords could produce an encouraging example. All the evidence seems to point the other way. White communities have always tended not to decrease their power over their black neighbours, but to increase it. To think otherwise is to fall for one of the liberal illusions. Societies do not automatically get more just and as a matter of course. There are many examples where, over hundreds of years, groups or classes of people have had their liberties and rights progressively reduced. I might also remind your Lordships that it took a major war to abolish Negro slavery in the United States, only a hundred years ago. Sometimes, when

541
I travel in the Deep South I feel that if that war had not been fought Negro slavery would still be in existence there.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, would the noble Lord recall the case of India and this country?
LORD SNOW: My Lords, I certainly recall the case of India, but that was not where communities were living side by side. It was an ephemeral and entirely superposed rule. These are people living on the same soil. Incidentally, I have had the curiosity to look up some of the debates in your Lordships' House about the American Civil War, and I recommend that study to noble Lords. They are curiously interesting. Your Lordships' predecessors were, as you probably know, absolutely and fanatically pro the Southern States, and some of the speeches could have been made in this debate, though I suspect that one or two of the speeches that have been made in this debate might have seemed rather old-fashioned, even at the time of the American Civil War.
But the most relevant example of all, when one thinks of the behaviour of a white community to a black one, is South Africa. Here, again, we come to a beautiful example of the liberal illusions in practice. After the South African War, a Liberal Government here made what is probably the most generous peace settlement ever made by victors in war. It was made with the ultimate in good will. There was no attempt to obtain any guarantees for the behaviour of the whites towards the black community. It was assumed that, with generosity on our side and good intentions, things would get better. That was quite natural in the climate of sixty years ago. Men were not exactly born free, but they were bound to get freer. Political liberties and personal liberties for the black people of South Africa must ultimately arrive. Many people here made cheering speeches, very much like the cheering speeches with which we have been entertained during the course of this debate. General Smuts made cheering speeches to us about how all this would in due course happen. I heard many of them because I knew him quite well.
Well, we know what has happened in South Africa. Once again I am not
542
making a moral statement; I am just reminding your Lordships of what exactly happens, not only in wish-fulfilment but in actual fact, in such societies. I have little doubt that a similar process has been taking place in Rhodesia for years past. White politician after white politician has fallen, and they have fallen because there is a tendency, which appears to be inevitable, to turn towards the ultra. Right, meaning, of course, white power for ever.
Now, if Rhodesia and South Africa lived in a universe of their own, then that might easily happen, at least for a very long time. But they do not live in a universe of their own. They live in a much larger world, a world which is scrutinising both them and us, since by a piece of what I must say I think to be bad luck we are saddled with some of the responsibility. All other considerations apart, that obliged us, and still obliges us, to take what action we could. I shall come back a little later to our part in the present division of the world. If we had not taken action, even with very slight hopes of a good end, then such influence as we still have would have gone, and in many respects gone for good. Abdication here would have been the worst of disasters, which is a passive disaster.
The real condition and direction of Rhodesia have been one of my reasons for despondency. The next, I am afraid, has been the attitude—sometimes the words but more usually the tone underlying the words of noble Lords directly opposite. I am thinking of them in the first place, although I believe their particular passions have gradually infected the rest of their Party. I should say that this includes many noble Lords for whom I feel respect and, if I may say so, in many cases affection, but your Lordships' House is usually a fairly reasonable and certainly not an overemotional one.
The degree of emotion on this issue has surprised me, and what has surprised me even more is the degree of emotional identification with the Rhodesian Front that noble Lords opposite have managed to achieve. I do not think that anyone of average detachment could have listened to these debates for two-and-a-half years

543
without feeling that emotional identification every time this issue has been raised. There has always been something irrational about it, and that is distressing when experienced and intelligent men show themselves blown about by gusts of irrationality which, if they were demonstrated by student protestors they would not be slow to deplore. In fact, there is much unreason blowing dangerously round the world, perhaps from the same cause or set of causes, and it has now reached your Lordships' House and is triumphantly producing an extremely irrational political action—probably the most irrational political action of recent years. Your Lordships' House has done some very odd things in its time, but I doubt whether it has done anything more irrational than this.
For what are the real consequences of what noble Lords appear to contemplate doing? First of all, in the immediate practical terms of which noble Lords have spoken, precisely nothing. It will not affect by one day the kind of measures which the Government are obliged to take. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who usually speaks so moderately and sensibly on international affairs, said yesterday that it would give the Government time to think. In cold blood, does he really think that any Government, this Government or any other, would alter a major step in foreign policy simply through being refused an Order in this House, particularly as this Order can be reproduced time and time again in—I must say—a manner which will make our Parliamentary procedure look more than usually foolish?
No, the consequences are not practical except for those the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, told us about in terms of human relations, but they are deeply psychological. This action will give great pleasure to much of the white population of Rhodesia; it will give great pleasure to much of the white population of South Africa, though not quite all, because there are some wise and farsighted people there; it will give great pleasure to some Portuguese and to the supporters of Governor Wallace in the United States of America. I am quite sure that if your Lordships do what you appear to be thinking of doing, then there will be mild celebrations in Montgomery, Alabama,
544
and in Memphis, Tennessee, where the citizens had wild celebrations for the deaths of both Kennedy brothers. And I have here to remind your Lordships that this was not done carelessly, for already they have made Mr. Ian Smith a folk hero.
On the other hand, this step will produce nothing but distrust and dismay in almost all other quarters of the world, particularly in America where men of goodwill are confronted with a coloured problem of great difficulty which persons on both sides of politics are trying with enormous effort to attempt to conquer. This step to them will be a real handicap; a real rebuff for Nelson Rockefeller, Senator McCarthy and Hubert Humphrey. Any one of them will feel that this country has shown a complete lack of faith. For—and here I am in complete agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, with whom I disagreed a moment ago—there is no doubt that Rhodesia has touched one of the exposed nerves of the contemporary world, perhaps the most exposed. That is why Rhodesia has taken on a significance far greater than in itself it would justify. If it were not for this particular complication it would not have occupied anything like so much of our time in this House. And that is why no responsible Government here, even if it wanted to, could just push the problem under the carpet.
For Rhodesia has become the symbol and emblem of the greatest divide in our world. That divide is not between East and West, it is not between capitalism and communism, it is between North and South, black and white—or, it you like it better, between the rich and the poor. About 1,000 million of our fellow human beings, what the Americans call a "billion", live in reasonable comfort. By that I mean that they have enough to eat, they have roofs over their heads, they are usually literate and they live into their sixties, all things which were unimaginable in any large group of people until quite recently.
These fortunate people all, or almost all, live in the northern hemisphere in a belt from North America to Europe to the Soviet Union, then including Japan. All of them, except the Japanese, are white. The rest of the human race, twice as many, have none of these advantages. Their lives have always been nasty, brutish, toilsome and short; and they are

545
nearly all coloured. That is the great threat and horror of the social condition of our world. Do you wonder, my Lords, that when white and black live together in the same country that country becomes an emblem and a symbol of this threat? Do you wonder that Rhodesia has become to all the coloured people of the world a token of the white man's good faith and in particular, since we have the legal responsibility, of this country's good faith?
That is why, if Her Majesty's Government had not taken action, or the sequence of action it has done, we should have lost whatever hope we had of playing a mediating part in this confrontation, the ultimate confrontation of the rest of this century and beyond. As one of the major secondary Powers in the world, as probably still the stablest country in the West, as one with a direct African and Asian experience behind us, it is our plain duty to play what part we can—however slim the hopes—in taking some of the horrors out of that confrontation. No responsible person wants to say a word which will, even vestigially, bring racial conflict nearer. We can all imagine it. Unless we are very lucky, or produce more foresight than we have yet shown, the last years of this century may be a dreadful time. We have to do our best.
For purely selfish reasons, we have to do our best. I admit that noble Lords opposite have not in general talked about the economic cost of our Rhodesian policy. To those, like the noble Marquess, who have harped on it, I will say this. The economic cost of doing nothing, of quietly abdicating to the Rhodesian Front, would have been much greater. To the whole of Africa and Asia, that would have been the final bad faith, and it would have been our trade that would have paid part of the bill.
But the real point is our plain duty. It is very hard to carry out a thankless duty with slender hopes. I do not pretend to your Lordships that this issue of black and white is going to disappear in two generations. What I am afraid of is that, almost without knowing it, people in fortunate countries are letting themselves get into a state of siege. They are becoming hypnotised by the pressure of the unfortunate all around them. I believe this to be very true in America,
546
both internally and externally. I believe that it is true of many of us here, including noble Lords opposite. It may be a prime cause of the malaise of the West. We can do so much: technologically we can do almost anything, yet we cannot do enough. We have not the political skills or the human concern really to cope with the world social conditions.
We feel impotent. And it may be that that impotence is the cause of these gusts of irrationality that are blowing round so strongly. People react to this particular impotence in various ways. Students demonstrate vigorously against all structures of society. Noble Lords opposite identify themselves with persons who are nearer to an actual state of siege the white populations of Rhodesia and South Africa. I am sure that they are not calculating. If they were calculating, I should be much happier. It would be very much less dangerous if they were calculating, instead of letting their emotions run away.
What they are doing—I admit this quite freely—is not egocentric. In effect, it is helping to destroy what hops there are, and as a minor consequence it is helping to destroy this House. I do not want to say much about that. I am speaking as a private citizen, and I know no more than I read in the newspapers. But I feel rather sad about it. On this matter I disagree with a good many of my friends. I believe that a society like ours, which is going through violent changes without revolution, is probably unwise to change its institutions too causually, even in the name of logic. Often, as with the Monarchy, a style that the country is used to brings its own comfort long after the original function has departed. So I had hoped that we could produce an acceptable Second Chamber which would keep some of the style of this House as we now know it.
Further—and I suppose that on this matter I am like most people in this Chamber—I have sometimes toyed with the thought of how your Lordships' House would meet or bring about its end. But I confess that, if this is to be the end, I never for one single instant thought of anything so fantastically improbable. I imagined that perhaps noble Lords opposite might turn down a Government Bill which there was reason to think had

547
pretty wide electoral unpopularity. I should not have thought that specially noble, but it would be all in the game, and at least it would be completely rational. Or I fancied that your Lordships might conceivably act as the guardians of public amenity if some peculiarly crass, non-political administrative decision came before this House—as, for instance, Stansted. If that had been the case, as I have already said here, you would have had my support. But this, my Lords! After all the good sense that has been talked in this Chamber for years—this! A subject which can be made electorally interesting only if there is a deliberate attempt to poke into the ugliest side of race conflict in this country. A subject on which, so far as we know public opinion there is overwhelming pressure for the Government to be more and not less active.
I commend to your Lordships' attention the result of a Gallup Poll on Rhodesia which appears in a rather inconspicuous place in to-day's Daily Telegraph. It shows that 41 per cent. of persons tested wished to criticise the Government for not being active enough; 15 per cent. thought it had been about right; 12 per cent. thought the Government had been too active; and the rest neither knew nor cared. Noble Lords sometimes speak as if they have special knowledge of the wishes of the British people about Rhodesia, as though by talking to themselves and vilifying the Prime Minister enough they come away with a sense of public opinion. I would commend this particular Gallup Poll, which I confess surprised me, to their close attention this afternoon. It is also a subject which can only degrade us in the opinions of those people of the world whose opinions we ought to respect; a subject which can only make our world more hopeless. It is so irrational that even now I can scarcely believe it. It seems that, after all the civilisation and sophistication of the last decades, your Lordships have suddenly had a brainstorm, as though you had learnt nothing and forgotten everything. To be driven by some passionate return to an atavistic impulse which would have been slightly old-fashioned a hundred years ago. Good God, my Lords, what a way to go
That, though, is a small matter by the side of the world issues which hang over
548
us all this afternoon. I should like to end with one final word to my noble friends on this side. I have said that noble Lords opposite have identified themselves emotionally with the white Rhodesians. That has led them into sheer unreason. It is no good our falling into the same mistake. We cannot identify with the black and unfortunate of the world. That kind of emotion never wears well. If we try, they will not think we are genuine. They will trust us less than they do now—and that is little enough. Whatever we do, we shall not get much thanks. We are in the classical position of the intermediary. So, I think, are all people in the privileged world who try to find some resolution, or at least some fragment of hopeful action, during the next ominous twenty years. We shall not be thanked. We shall probably come out of it badly. All we can do is our duty: persevere over Rhodesia as toughly as we can, and think as hard. That is a bleak and stoical doctrine. But I believe it is the only one which may avoid the worst and give us a little hope.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, I am not going to interrupt the noble Lord who has just spoken, but would he consider whether it might be a good idea to circulate to a highly intellectual magazine his next speech on these affairs?
3.51 p.m.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Snow, whose maiden speech on the subject of Rhodesia I think that was, your Lordships have listened to me on this subject with fortitude on many occasions during the last three years. I must therefore start by acknowledging your generosity which enables me this afternoon to address you once again. I realise that the case which I shall submit to your Lordships may appear complicated and the trend of my argument may conflict with deep and sincerely held views in all parts of the House. But the great strength and virtue of this House is that its Members are always prepared to listen and to judge the arguments put forward in debate on their merits. I believe that the case which I shall attempt to deploy is conclusive. If I fail to persuade your Lordships to consider it, it will not be because of the weakness of

549
that case, but because of my own poor powers of advocacy.
I think your Lordships would be mistaken to allow either what has happened during the last three years in the relations between Britain and Rhodesia, or what might have happened had the personalities involved and the political positions of the Parties been different, or indeed what should have happened if everyone associated with the problem had been wiser from the start, to obscure the reality of the situation as it exists on June 18, 1968. Up till now we have hoped that it might be possible, by negotiation and agreement between Britain and Rhodesia, to resume a more or less orthodox process of political evolution from the 1961 Constitution to a state of independence within the Commonwealth. I do not believe any more that this is possible with the Smith régime in Rhodesia. We must face the fact that Mr. Smith, in the political situation in which he finds himself in Rhodesia, dominated as it is by the Rhodesian Front hierarchy, has no power to negotiate an agreement which would be acceptable politically by the present Government in Britain or by any British Government. Equally, it is no longer possible to envisage a settlement with Mr. Smith which would be politically viable in the circumstances in which Mr. Wilson and the Labour Party find themselves in Britain to-day.
It is no good saying that reasonable people should find an escape from the present dilemma. It is no good believing that in Africa, or indeed in any part of the world, things are bound to come right in the end. It is no good pretending that negotiations, as we have envisaged them up till now, will get any easier, when Mr. Smith months ago said that they were becoming increasingly difficult. No amount of negotiation will produce agreement between the Government of Britain and the Smith régime in Rhodesia, and it is a disservice to pretend that at this stage there is any value in starting negotiations again.
Let us examine the evidence. Right from November 11, 1965, I doubted whether any negotiated settlement between any British Government and the Rhodesian Front Government was pos-
550
sible, and I said so in your Lordships' House. I hoped that I might be wrong. When, therefore, the Prime Minister invited me to undertake a mission to Salisbury almost exactly a year ago to-day, I applied such knowledge as I possessed of the personalities, the politics and the problems of Britain and Rhodesia to the situation which I found there. During the month I spent in Rhodesia I think I had a better opportunity of getting into the heart and mind of Rhodesia than any political emissary has done before or since. On my return, I recommended that ground should be prepared for the start of a negotiated settlement 'with the Smith régime. I said that any settlement would involve concessions on both sides. I advised that the longer negotiations were delayed the more difficult they would become. I set out in the verbal report, which I gave to the Prime Minister and Her Majesty's Government, the considerations which brought me to that conclusion.
The outcome of that advice, which I think was accepted by Her Majesty's Government, was the visit which was paid by the Commonwealth Secretary to Salisbury in November of last year. I know of no reason to doubt the good faith with which Mr. Thomson entered into the discussions which he had with Mr. Smith on that occasion. Your Lordships will recollect that on his return the Commonwealth Secretary informed Parliament that Mr. Smith had added new conditions to the basic terms of "Tiger", which were at variance with the Six Principles and which widened the division already existing between Britain and Rhodesia. That view and that conclusion were, I think, shared equally by all Parties in Britain after they had heard Mr. Thomson's report.
I hope I shall not lead your Lordships to suppose that I pay any particular attention to, or lay emphasis on, any actions which I may have taken in relation to this matter, but in January I felt there might be some value in trying to get a further round of negotiations started, and it seemed to me that those could most easily originate from a nonofficial quarter. I, therefore, in your Lordships' House—and my noble friend Lord Jellicoe referred to this in his speech yesterday—put forward some proposals which might, I thought, lead at

551
any rate to a start of negotiations, if not to any constructive result from them.
Those ideas produced a favourable reaction both here and in South Africa. I believe that they provided an opportunity for the Portuguese Government to make representations in Salisbury. Although they were censored in Rhodesia itself, with the B.B.C. and the S.A.B.C. there was plenty of knowledge of what they were about. Indeed, I sent copies to Colonel Knox the Chairman of the Rhodesian Front organisation, who informed me subsequently that he had circulated them to his six powerful area chairmen. Although the proposals were not necessarily acceptable to Her Majesty's Government, I think it was clear, and certainly it seemed to me, that I received every encouragement in taking my initiative on my own private responsibility. There was no reaction of any sort from Mr. Smith or anyone else in the Rhodesian régime.
Then came the visit of Sir Alec Douglas-Home. After his talks with Mr. Smith he had talks with Mr. Wilson and indicated publicly that he thought he had made progress. I think we must have some reservations as to whether the proposals concerned constitute a basis for a politically viable settlement until we know what they are. But, in any case, they gave an opening for the creation of favourable conditions for the start of a negotiation, an opportunity which any Government or régime which wished to start negotiations in good faith would have been quick to seize.
Instead, and in conscious defiance of the constitutional position of Her Majesty the Queen, the three terrorists, after the Supreme Court judgment, were executed in Salisbury. It is immaterial for the sake of my argument whether Her Majesty's Government in Britain gave the right advice to Her Majesty to reprieve those three men. It is equally immaterial whether they were, as indeed they were, guilty of grave crimes. If there had been any willingness on the part of the authorities in Salisbury to create an atmosphere conducive to a successful negotiation, every reasonable person in this country, and far beyond, knows that they would have had no difficulty whatever in exercising the power of reprieve through Mr. Dupont. Clemency on this
552
occasion would have won to the régime a great deal of sympathy outside Rhodesia: and, my Lords, we know that symbolism is part of the stuff of politics and diplomacy everywhere and at all times.
Then came the interview with Mr. Ian Waller of the Sunday Telegraph, referred to by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his speech yesterday. Mr. Smith on that occasion went out of his way, so it seemed, to make it clear that he and his colleagues could never enter, in good faith, into an agreement with Britain which would result in practice in eventual majority rule in Rhodesia—the principle to which the Conservative Party and the Labour Party are equally committed.
My Lords, if this evidence is insufficient to convince your Lordships that in negotiations with Mr. Smith Britain has passed the point of no return, there is something which is, I think, even more conclusive. I have here the Report of the Whaley Commission presented to His Excellency the Officer Administering the Government in Salisbury on April 5, 1968. This Report, the publication of which Mr. Smith has many times threatened would mark the point of no return in the political relations of his country with Britain, proposed not majority rule but, as a compromise for the consumption of the Rhodesians and, as they believed, no doubt sincerely, a reasonable constitutional solution to their problems, parity between the two races. Your Lordships will recognise that this goes back to a position, so far as the Africans are concerned, which is in fact less advantageous, less liberal, than the Constitution which Mr. Duncan Sandys negotiated in 1961. That Constitution was intended to lead, and, as was widely acknowledged at the time, would eventually have led in the course of years, to majority rule. But, my Lords, the Whaley Commission Report has now been abandoned because the Rhodesian Front will not accept even eventual parity as a political possibility.
I therefore submit this question to your Lordships: How can Mr. Smith contemplate a successful negotiation with either a Conservative or a Labour Government committed to eventual majority rule in Rhodesia when he cannot even get the acquiescence of his colleagues and

553
supporters in Rhodesia itself to the Report of a Southern Rhodesian Constitutional Commission, composed mainly of strong Rhodesian Front men, which proposes the modified solution of parity? My Lords, how could the British Government, knowing this, enter now into such a negotiation in good faith? I believe firmly now, my Lords, that as long as the present régime is in control in Rhodesia no successful negotiation is possible. And this despite the fact that, as I know from the evidence of my own contacts there, a majority—the moderate, non-political Europeans and Africans—want a settlement and are prepared to pay the price for it. And this is true however many of these folk queue up outside Government House in Salisbury to sign Sir Humphrey Gibbs's book.
No one in your Lordships' House, I think, has given more wholehearted support to Sir Humphrey Gibbs than I have. It was his hope over the last two-and-a half years that he would be able to bring Rhodesia back into full allegiance to the Crown. He has been instrumental personally in creating a series of opportunities from which fruitful negotiations could have been pursued. His behaviour, and that of Lady Gibbs, has won the admiration of people everywhere. But, my Lords, I think that a new situation has now arisen. I believe now that his continued presence in Salisbury—not in Rhodesia, but in Salisbury—raises false hopes in the minds of the general public in Rhodesia which can act positively against a solution to the Rhodesian problem. They feel—and I think they are justified in feeling—that things cannot really be so desperate, or appear so desperate, while Sir Humphrey is at Government House. It is much the same point as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made yesterday, when he referred to talks about talks. People believed that things would work out for the best while the talks were proceeding; and it is the same while there is still somebody of Sir Humphrey's calibre and courage at Government House to keep the contact going.
My Lords, if I were concerned with this—and I am not—I would advise Sir Humphrey to move now to his farm at Bulawayo. I would suggest to him that for the time being, during these next few months, although he would still re-
554
main the Governor, his most effective place in Rhodesia is not at the centre of affairs but in the wings. Further, I would disband the existing Diplomatic Mission, the so-called residual mission, and replace it by two small non-diplomatic information groups stationed both in Salisbury and in Bulawayo. Other countries are to give up their consular missions in accordance with this resolution of the United Nations. We shall have difficulty in persuading then that we are not in the position to do the same.
I frankly do not think that Her Majesty's Government would find this any particular handicap. There are many ways in which contact can still be maintained. An information group would be able to help with welfare cases but would have no political content. The presence of a residual mission tends to persuade people there who see the dangers ahead that, somehow, Britain will be able to find a way out by some comforting diplomatic expedient. Moreover, the personnel of this mission tend to become implicated in and identified with the anti-Rhodesian Front elements of the population. If Rhodesia is to be saved, it must be by the action of Rhodesians in Rhodesia, and in my view the British presence can at this present stage only hamper the process.
For our part, my Lords, if we are to help in Rhodesia, if we are to help prevent the tragedy for Rhodesia which lies ahead of it on its present road, we must, in my view, not only apply but be seen to apply sanctions as whole-heartedly and as effectively as possible. We must not allow our critics and our enemies—and none of us should underestimate their number or their hostility—to ascribe any eventual failure of sanctions, if sanctions do eventually fail, to a lack of determination on the part of Britain to make them succeed.
Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to put my arguments in this way. If sanctions succeed in bringing about a change of political orientation in Rhodesia, the way to a settlement, an honourable and generous settlement, is possible between the two countries. And here may I say that I listened—and I have no doubt that the House did—to the strangely moving maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Poltimore, yesterday. If, however, sanctions were to fail as a result of the

555
demonstrable failure of other countries, members of the United Nations, to fulfil their obligations, it would still be possible to reach a settlement. We should be able to go to the United Nations and say that, although we had carried out our undertakings under the United Nations resolution in the letter and in the spirit, others had failed to do so.
We could present them with the evidence of this failure. We should then be justified, among reasonable people, in feeling ourselves free to negotiate in those circumstances the best possible settlement of this dispute. In both these cases, I think, settlement would take the form of a treaty registrable at the United Nations rather than some domestic constitutional instrument. In both these cases we, Britain, would still have some control over the ensuing situation. If, however, sanctions fail, and it appears that such failure was due to unwillingness on the part of the British Government to carry out their United Nations obligations fully, then we shall lose any real power to prevent the application to the Rhodesian situation of the only sort of expedient which is available: that is, force. Not the force of the British Army; not the force of an organised United Nations contingent; but the force aimed at Rhodesia by a mounting wave of terrorism and insurgency.
It may be that Mr. Smith's policy has already made a solution of the Rhodesian problem by force inevitable. I am certain—and Mr. Smith has already admitted it—that that unfortunate country has ahead of it a long period of terrorist activity and internal instability. Anyone who is tempted to shrug off the African capability for violence and insurgency should remember the seven years in Kenya and the long campaigns that the Portuguese have waged in Angola and Mozambique. They should cast their eyes over the situation in Nigeria to-day. Even with South Africa's help, Rhodesia has not the resources to stand up to the tremendous economic, physical and psychological strains which such an onslaught on it would involve. Rhodesia, isolated, already weakened by the impact of sanctions, the target of insurgency, would eventually be destroyed; and, my Lords, there are plenty of people in the
556
world only too prepared to undertake that with or without any sanctional reference to the United Nations and Article 13. Britain, under a Labour or a Conservative Government, would in such circumstances have little power to mitigate or prevent all this from happening.
My Lords, the alternatives in front of Britain in its handling of the Rhodesian problem are, I submit, these: either she can make every effort to make sanctions effective, going, in my submission, further than is intended at the present moment; or, by the half-heartedness of her application of sanctions, can make it inevitable that the solution of the Rhodesian situation will be achieved by force. Your Lordships will note that in my speech I have not tried to ascribe responsibility for the situation either to Britain or to Rhodesia.
If a vote is taken this afternoon I shall vote with the Government. Many of my noble friends will not feel able to do so. I hope that in these circumstances they will abstain. If they vote against this Order they must realise that they are voting not against the mismanagement of a discredited Socialist Administration, not in support of kith and kin in Rhodesia—their vote against this Motion may inculpate them in the process of ensuring that the Rhodesian problem is settled by force. They will be voting against many of the best and wisest in Rhodesia who are desperate to see action taken by Britain which is sufficiently effective to save Rhodesia before it is destroyed. They will, for all their sense of loyalty and patriotism, be playing into the hands of people outside Britain and Rhodesia who oppose everything that they and this country stand for.
It gives me no pleasure to speak in this debate dissociated from my friends of long standing on this side of the House, or to say things that I know will cause pain and even despair to many people who may hear them in Rhodesia, or to vote with a Government which, at this stage in our history, it might well be the right thing to endeavour to force out of power. But I will vote for the Government to-night because I am convinced that it is the right thing to do; and I only hope that I have helped convince some other Members of this House to do the same.
4.16 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF HEADFORT: My Lords, may I ask your Lordships' indulgence for a few minutes to tell you about my recent visit to Rhodesia. I left Salisbury last night having spent over a month touring the country. In the course of this journey I had the opportunity of meeting Rhodesians from all walks of life and of seeing for myself how Rhodesia was coping with sanctions. I am able to report that practically nothing is unobtainable, although some prices have increased since U.D.I. If sanctions are supposed to make the Rhodesians turn against the so-called rebel Government, they have certainly failed, and failed dismally. From the conversations that I had with Rhodesians who were members of the Rhodesian Front, and also with those who were not, I found an almost universal acceptance of Mr. Smith's policy and a readiness to continue the struggle, indefinitely if necessary.
What I found so sad was that many Rhodesians who had emigrated to Rhodesia from Britain during the last ten or twenty years were very bitter about the policy of the British Government; and the present confrontation is certainly turning the hearts of these people away from their natural affection for Britain. Possibly of more significance is the attitude of the young Rhodesians in their late teens. Many of these young people, who were born in Rhodesia, have grown up with the economic war that Britain is waging relentlessly against their country and, naturally, this is causing them to regard Britain as their enemy.
Why, my Lords, have sanctions failed? Quite simply, it is that neither Portugal nor South Africa are prepared to see Rhodesia destroyed; and as long as these two countries maintain their support sanctions will never bring down the present Government in Rhodesia. In my opinion, sanctions have mainly been responsible for bringing together, possibly more strongly than before U.D.I., the large majority of the population in support of Mr. Smith's independent Government. Have sanctions had any success at all? Yes, my Lords, they have, in one respect. But it is not one which I find at all heartening. Sanctions have certainly slowed down the development of the Rhodesian economy, and this has
558
adversely affected the rapidly-increasing African population in that not enough new jobs are available for them. One of the effects of sanctions has been the rapid diversification of the Rhodesian economy. Many products which formerly were imported, mainly from Britain, are now made locally. I sampled some of them and found most of them to be of good quality; although some were mere expensive than the previously imported goods that they replaced. To-day, we are asked to make sanctions tighter. But if sanctions have failed, more sanctions are not the answer. Negotiations should be reopened with Rhodesia and a genuine effort made to avoid the personal vendetta which seems to have marred all previous attempts at a settlement.
In conclusion, my Lords, I feel that I should not sit down without giving you my firm opinion that Rhodesia is not a threat to world peace. I toured the African townships of Harari and High-field near Salisbury, and saw ample signs that the Africans living there were well satisfied with their lot. Their schools, community centres, swimming pools and beer gardens were evidence of extensive Government interest in their welfare, and I saw African housing, ranging from flats for single persons to luxurious houses, even better than many Europeans have. I believe that Africans in Rhodesia are far better off, under the stable Government that is existing there now, than Africans in many of the recently made independent countries to the North where the economies are breaking down and where law and order is tending to become a thing of the past.
4.21 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, it is extraordinarily interesting to get firsthand, from the noble Marquess, Lord Headfort, the very latest report from Rhodesia. I had some doubt whether to speak in this debate. On the other hand, having been associated with Rhodesia for so many years, and having, as a Minister of State in different Offices, been so largely responsible for decisions which were taken before, during and after the war, I felt that I could not give a silent vote.
I shall be very brief as I always am. The first thing I want to say is this. There have been allegations—not so much in the debate to-day and yesterday, though

559
there have been one or two suggestions—that those of us who oppose sanctions are racialists. I do not believe it to be true at all in any case, but it certainly cannot be said with any truth of me. I was principally responsible for establishing the multiracial university in Salisbury and they did me the honour of naming the first hostel after me. I think that disposes of any suggestion that I am motivated (a horrible word) by any racial feelings. But I have become convinced, completely convinced, that sanctions are wrong for this reason: that experience has shown that the people who are hardest hit by them are the ordinary Africans, whose greatest need is employment.
That employment depends entirely on Rhodesian industry and Rhodesian agriculture. Every time an outlet in Rhodesian trade, industry or agriculture is closed or curtailed, Africans suffer most, and more and more Africans are thrown out of work. This emphasises that sanctions are wrong. But surely sanctions are made more ridiculous, or more impossible, than ever by the situation which is developing in Zambia; a new situation which proves the futility and the mischief of sanctions. My Lords, sanctions were supposed to help Zambia, but Zambia refuses to have anything whatever to do with them. Zambia says that she must trade with Rhodesia; she must have Rhodesian coal; she must have Rhodesian electric power; she must have the use of Rhodesian railways and Rhodesian rolling stock, and, incidentally, she must have the use of the Portuguese railway to ship her copper out by the port of Beira. If Zambia refuses to give any effect to these sanctions and, on the contrary, is going to insist, in her own interest, in trading more and more with Rhodesia, does that not make the sanctions futile and malicious?
My Lords, I promised that I would be brief, but I hope that I have put the case from the African point of view clearly. It is in the interest of the Africans that I shall vote against this measure to-night, and I hope that many of your Lordships, for those reasons, will join me in the Lobby.
4.26 p.m.
LORD STRANG: My Lords, I shall be very brief indeed. Let me say at the outset that it seems to me that our policy
560
in Rhodesia is in a state of sterile deadlock, and so far as I can see there is no prospect whatever of any solution. Unlike the Government, I am not satisfied that the existing sanctions, or these new extended sanctions, are likely to offer any solution. Unlike the Opposition, I am not persuaded that negotiations now offer any possibility of a tolerable solution, whether based on the Six Principles or the Five Principles or anything like them. I hope I am wrong about that, but that is my present view; I should like to be persuaded otherwise. I am interested to note that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, shares my view on that one point.
That, my Lords, is a grim situation; but, however that may be, what we have before us now is this Order and we have to decide what to do about it. I do not know when I found it more difficult to make up my mind. I must confess that I do not like this Order. I think, nevertheless, that it would be a grave mistake for your Lordships' House to reject it. I cannot, therefore, vote with the Opposition against the Order. In coming to this conclusion, I have two considerations in mind. First, whatever one may think of the action of the Government in bringing in the United Nations in the way they have done, a unanimous resolution of the Security Council to which we have given our assent is something which, from the point of view of international relations, ought not to be disregarded. Secondly, I am not persuaded that the Rhodesian issue, which in the form in which it is presented to us to-day is a matter of foreign policy, is a good ground for exercising your Lordships' existing and undoubted power to reject the Order, quite apart from all the constitutional consequences which may ensue.
That being so, my Lords, one's natural inclination would be to abstain from this Division, but with the decision of the Opposition to vote against the Order that no longer seems to me to be sufficient. I have listened with some sympathy, and I hope with due understanding, to the official Opposition case put by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in those grave, measured and moderate tones which are so characteristic of him; but I cannot bring myself to believe that the course which the Opposition have decided upon is the course of wisdom, and

561
so deeply do I feel this that I find myself constrained, doubtful as I am about their policy, to go into the Lobby with the Government. My Lords, let me emphasise that I am speaking for myself alone, and not for any others on these Cross-Benches. We are independent, and each of us makes up his mind in his own way.
4.29 p.m.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I am glad of the opportunity to follow the noble Lord, Lord Strang, and the noble Lord, Lord Alport, because of the wisdom of the advice which I consider they have given to the House, and I hope that noble Lords are not going to try to salvage their consciences to-night by pleading about the state of unemployment in the African population. There is unemployment for Africans as the result of sanctions: there may be worse unemployment. But against that we have to balance the prospect of freedom and majority rule in the long term; and this is a prospect which ought to weigh very strongly with your Lordships' House.
My noble friend Lord Wade has clearly stated where we stand on the Order itself. We support it, although, like many other noble Lords, we have reservations on certain aspects of the provisions. But this is only one side of the problem. Another aspect, one in which I am involved to some extent, is that which strikes at the fundamentals of the Constitution, though even this is not the main aspect. If there is an adverse Vote to-night, it is likely to distort completely the natural progress towards the reform of this House which we could be so near to achieving. It is no secret that the formal proposal which could be put to your Lordships' House and to another place would provide a workmanlike House for generations to come. I believe that it is the type of proposal which might well commend itself to the vast majority of the people of this country. But if the whole weight of the Conservative Party, animated by its Right Wing, is mobilised in the Division Lobby to defeat the will of the elected representatives of the people, not only will this reform be jeopardised but certain other things must inevitably follow.
First of all, there will be a strong demand from important sections of the
562
Labour Party and the Liberal Party that a sine qua non in any reform shall be the elimination of hereditary Peers from taking part in any of the proceedings of this House. The fact that this is an emotional reaction, the fact that the House would suffer by the immediate elimination of some such hereditary Peers, the fact that some of our hereditary Peers are radicals, and the fact that the weight of Right Wing opinions is not all with hereditary Peers (many of them in the Rhodesia Lobby appear to be Peers of first creation)—all these things would be weighed together and the result on the future of this House is in my view unpredictable.
Secondly, I would say that in the past ten to fifteen years the proponents of a one-Chamber system have been losing ground very fast indeed. I am afraid that if there is an adverse Vote to-night, their arguments will be fortified. I can tell the House one other reaction which is predictable—that is, that in the Liberal and Labour Parties the already strong movement in favour of an elected Second Chamber will gain further ground. To many of us this would not be the proper course to take, because we do not see this House as a rival to the House of Commons. But what the Conservative Party is in danger of doing to-night—and I hope it will not do this—is to revive all the old phobias about the House of Lords and to poison the climate of co-operation which has been established in the past year.
But in the matter of this Rhodesia Order the reform of this House is not the main issue. I have very great sympathy with the position in which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has been placed by the mass of supporters who have appeared from somewhere to support him to-night. He and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, are among the most enlightened Members of your Lordships' House on any question, and I have great sympathy with the position in which they find themselves, because they both have ministerial responsibility of a high quality. I would still plead with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, even at this stage, to change the advice which has been given to his own supporters. I do not expect to influence the Rhodesian lobby in this House in any way, but I would appeal to the rest of the Conservative Party, and to any noble Lords on the Cross Benches who might

563
be inclined to oppose this Order, to think seriously before they do so.
The best argument which can be deployed is that an adverse Vote this evening will not really affect Government policy. The Order will still run to July 8, and it can then be re-laid. But the situation will not be seen in that light outside this House, nor will it be seen in that light in international circles abroad. An adverse Vote on this Order will be interpreted as nullifying the Government's ability to prosecute sanctions. It will introduce a strong element of half heartedness into the opposition which other countries should be putting in to the activities of the illegal régime in Salisbury, Rhodesia, and indirectly might well delay even further the prospects of an agreed settlement. I find it no argument to say that what those who oppose the Order are going to do is to hold up the Order for a few weeks to ensure that the public and the Commons have further time to consider it—and no doubt it will be added that, after all, that is something which might well be contemplated if we are to reform your Lordships' House in future. The difference is profound. Under any reformed system the massive reserves of Tory reaction would not be present in this House. They would not have the power to influence or to reject an Order laid by the Government. The case would be won on argument and not on numbers. And this is what I believe will be virtually resented outside this House as irresponsible action on the part of the Conservative Party, if they go into the Division Lobby to vote against this Order.
I would plead with those who want to see a successful evolutionary reform of this House not to jeopardise it by being party to a gesture that will be interpreted as a determination to defy the will of the elected representatives of the people on a matter of foreign policy, a province in which the Government of the day must feel itself to be supreme. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, implored us to think of what we are going to do about the Transport Bill and the Prices and Incomes Bill. These are quite different matters. By all means let us challenge the Government, as we are entitled to do, on a number of the major issues in the Transport Bill and
564
send them back to another place for reconsideration. But no Government of any complexion could ever tolerate a veto by a non-elected Chamber on its decision to implement an important resolution of the United Nations.
The Conservative Party cannot argue that mandatory sanctions against Rhodesia are in order if imposed and enforced by us but are quite illegal it imposed by the United Nations. The United Nations are entitled to determine the existence of any threat to the peace under Article 39 of the Charter. They have decided, rightly or wrongly, that the rebellion of the Rhodesian régime is such a threat. This decision was made with the concurring votes of the five Permanent Members of the Security Council, of which the United Kingdom is one. The country is therefore irrevocably committed legally to the decision that the Rhodesian régime is a threat to the peace. Having taken that decision the Security Council are entirely in order, under article 41, in taking measures not involving the use of armed force to give effect to their decision.
The position is, then, that Her Majesty's Government are legally and morally bound to put the resolution into effect. If they are not able to do so because of the action of this House, it will mean that this country is repudiating its solemn obligation to the United Nations, repudiating the Charter of the United Nations which it signed and ratified in 1945. The violation of the Charter of the United Nations is not something which this country should lightly undertake in any circumstances.
It has been argued that this matter should never have gone to the United Nations. I do not agree. This is a matter in which many countries have a direct interest. They are dealing with the civil rights of their own people, with the problems of different races in different countries. This is a matter in which the United Nations have a very proper interest, and I believe that we should be guided by the words which were uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt: that this action is going to be watched all round the world and it is of vital consequence. We have to recognise that the United Nations resolution received massive support. That is why I feel sorry when a noble Lord with

565
the experience of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, refers to this as "a miserable squabble" between London and Salisbury. It is not looked upon as a "miserable squabble."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, with great deference to the noble Lord, I never said such a thing.
LORD BYERS: I took down the noble Lord's words and I am sure we shall be able to check it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope that the noble Lord will read my speech to-morrow.
LORD BYERS: Does the noble Lord think it is a miserable squabble?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, I do not; I think it is a very serious matter. But I do not take the same view as the noble Lord, Lord Byers.
LORD BYERS: I am not asking the noble Marquess to do that. I specifically said that I had no hope of changing the views of people who hold the views of Lord Salisbury. But I must say that to suggest that this is not a matter of important international interest is something which I think should not go without protest. I cannot believe that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, is still sticking to the views that he expressed yesterday: that a mandatory resolution is binding on Her Majesty's Government, but not on Her Majesty's Opposition. This I find to be quite untenable. I cannot believe that he put this forward seriously. Hallo, another correction
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I wonder whether I could interrupt the noble Lord for a moment in the fine flow of his oratory, which I am admiring. I think probably—and I apologise to your Lordships' House—that in the interests of brevity I did unduly telescope my argument on this point yesterday. I should like briefly to explain my position here.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, may I interrupt? Is the noble Earl rising to make a personal statement to explain something? If so, would it not be better (I am sure the House will give him permission to do so) to make it later, rather than making a lengthy intervention
566
during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Byers?
LORD BYERS: With respect to the noble Earl, perhaps I could complete this argument and then he may correct it. I think it is an important point to get right, because I do not think the noble Earl did justice to himself. When he said first of all that a mandatory resolution is binding on the Government but not on the Opposition, he then went on to say:
"It is for the Government to consider before accepting these obligations whether they will be in a position to honour them."
I want to ask: Does this mean that a British Government, freely elected, with a sizeable majority in the Commons, must always consider in the execution of its foreign policy whether or not it can carry with it the Conservative Right Wing of a non-elected House of Lords?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear Answer
LORD BYERS: I have actually finished that point. But perhaps I should ask the further question: What happens if there is a Conservative Government in power, prepared to negotiate with Rhodesia on the Six Principles, as I hope they might, if they get in? Are they to be at the mercy of their own Rhodesia lobby? Are they to depend on the votes of us and others in order to get their policy through? This is not practical politics; it is not a tenable proposition.
On all these counts I appeal to the House not to oppose this measure. Calm reflection must show that no Government can tolerate such treatment as this from a non-elected House. The resentment which will be felt in many quarters at the interference with the execution of a policy by the Government on a measure which has so much international support cannot, in my view, be measured or predicted. I hope that noble Lords, particularly on this side of the House and on the Cross Benches, will not oppose this Order to-night; and if there is any move by some of them to do so, I hope That others will come into the Government Lobby.
4.44 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I hope that my noble friends behind me will allow me to survive the praise which has been heaped upon me by the Leader

567
of the Liberal Party. We have had a long debate, and in the course of the last two days we have heard every facet of the case, for and against, put most cogently from both sides of the House. I do not think, therefore, that it is necessary for me to speak at any great length about the merits of this Order. It seems to me, as I think it does to those of us who sit on this side of the House, that this Order is thoroughly bad; that it marks the bankruptcy of the Government's policy of Rhodesia; that it cannot be effective, and that it will almost certainly have the opposite effect of that intended.
I have never been, and am not now, a supporter of Mr. Smith or his régime; and, indeed. I could well have done without the advice which he has tendered to your Lordships, as reported in the newspapers this evening.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD CARRINGTON: I have made it clear on countless occasions, in this House and outside, that in my view it was most unwise of Mr. Smith to declare unilateral independence; and more recently it was foolish and short-sighted of him to reject the terms which were offered to him by the Prime Minister during the talks on board H.M.S. "Tiger". I certainly do not wish to bring any comfort to Mr. Smith. I hope that noble Lords opposite, who may disagree with a great deal of what I have to say, and, indeed, perhaps with the rest of my remarks, will at any rate acknowledge that what I have said so far is true.
But, my Lords, over the past few months the situation has been changing. Reluctantly we agreed with the official sanctions imposed upon Rhodesia. I, for one, though with considerable misgivings, felt that it would have been difficult for Britain to ignore Mr. Smith's actions and do nothing whatever to mark her disapproval. I do not think I ever felt it was likely that sanctions would bring Rhodesia to her knees, though it is interesting to recall that we were told at the time by the Prime Minister, and indeed by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that it was only a matter of weeks before the Smith Government would fall as a result of sanctions.
568
Subsequently the Government took the matter to the United Nations and mandatory sanctions were introduced. We are on record as having been opposed to that. We were opposed to it, first, because we felt that once the United Nations stepped into the arena things would go from bad to worse and more and more drastic action would be called for; and secondly, because we felt that sanctions would not be effective, not least because South Africa and Portugal were very likely to ignore the United Nations decisions.
We are now faced with another tightening of sanctions, another resolution of the United Nations. I think it is right that all of us who sit in this House should ask ourselves whether the proposals which are before us this afternoon are likely to do good or to do harm. It has, so far, been abundantly clear that, though sanctions may have weakened the Rhodesian economy, they have by no means brought her to her knees. Quite regardless of whether this is the right thing to aim at, it does not seem capable of achieving anything. The very fact that South Africa and Portugal are still openly trading with Rhodesia makes that a foregone conclusion. And all of us know from references we have seen in the papers, from the speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Headfort, this afternoon, and from others who have visited Rhodesia and South Africa, that large quantities of goods are coming into Rhodesia from countries which, though nominally adhering to the United Nations resolutions, are, of course, doing nothing of the kind.
Unless the United Nations takes action against South Africa and Portugal, then sanctions cannot succeed. As I understand it (and I am glad to hear it) it is certainly not the intention of the Government to do that—though by what logical basis you do the one and not the other, I cannot for the life of me understand. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, whose speech I listened to with great attention this afternoon, might ask himself, also, the question: If Rhodesia is a threat to world peace, though not a physical one, why then is exactly the same action not taken against the Republic of South Africa?
At the same time, I could think of some very good economic reasons why

569
you should do none of these things. The tightening up of sanctions proposed in this Order will, I have no doubt, have no more effect, or little more effect, than the previous mandatory sanctions, and if it has any effect it will be, I think, only to strengthen the resolve of the Rhodesians to hold out against the attempt to starve them into submission.
In the Statement which the Government made in Parliament just before the Whitsun Recess which announced their support for the United Nations resolution, we were told, in answer to a question I put, that a part of the resolution urged the members of the United Nations to give material assistance to the Africans in Rhodesia—the opposition to Mr. Smith. I must say, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said this afternoon, that I find it almost unbelievable that the Government should have put their seal on such a statement. While no doubt it is true—and I accept it at once—that they did not have any intention of encouraging subversion and terrorism and aid to the terrorists by accepting this proposal, it cannot surely have escaped their attention that the language used in that section of the resolution would almost certainly encourage the more extreme members of the United Nations to do just that, and to use an excuse for doing so the resolution which was adopted by the United Nations. I think that the words used by the Ambassador to Guinea bear out some of the misgivings that we on this side have. The Government, in my view, are culpable for having accepted those words, and since the Orders which we are discussing this afternoon are an expression of that resolution I must put it on record that we on this side dissociate ourselves from the Government and from the dangerous words to which they have put this country's signature.
Apart from the tightening up of sanctions generally, the main effect of this Order will be to prevent travel by Rhodesians to this country and to countries which are administered by Britain unless they travel on a British passport. I really do not understand the purpose of this. It seems to me mean and spiteful, but it is surely also a counter-productive a proposal as it would be possible to devise. One of the most obvious ways of bringing pressure to bear on
570
people with whom you disagree is by talking to them—all of us have been doing that for the last two days in this House—and by letting them see and hear at first hand the reactions of other people in other countries. And if as a Rhodesian you are forced to sit in your own country, or perhaps just to go to South Africa, is it very likely that you will hear the other side of the case, the case for moderation and the case for a settlement?
Surely, the more the people are isolated, the more they are cut off from world opinion, the more they are made to feel that they have been made outcasts, the more likely they are to become intransigent, resentful and obstinate. One has only to look at the history of the last two or three decades to see what happens to a country which is cut off from contact with the outside world: to take only one example, Russia in the days of Stalin and the transformation which has taken place since then. Free travel and free interchange of ideas is perhaps the most useful way to change people's opinions. Therefore, I must say that, of all the measures against Rhodesia which I have heard proposed, this to me is quite the silliest.
In any event, in my view sanctions will not work. We know that there are some countries which will not carry cut the United Nations' resolution, and we do not believe that the policy will be effective. I believe that there still is a chance of a settlement with Rhodesia. When Sir Alec Douglas-Home was there a few months ago he came back with a very definite hope and belief that even at this stage a settlement was possible, and a settlement to which we could all honourably agree. And as we heard yesterday, both from Sir Alec in another place and from my noble friend, he still takes that view, and I certainly, knowing Sir Alee as I do and as so many of your Lordships do, would feel that, if he thinks that, it is certainly right to have another shot at negotiation. Because, my Lords, do we really wish by our actions to push Rhodesia into the arms of South Africa and apartheid, to form an African white bloc, with all the attendant dangers for world peace which such a move might bring? I beg noble Lords opposite to think again and have another try at reaching a settlement, for I am certain

571
that it is only by settlement that a solution to this problem can be found.
My Lords, if those of us who sit on this side of the House had only to think of the merits of this Order we should not have taken long in making up our minds as to what to do. Our colleagues in the House of Commons had no such difficulty. But because of the composition of your Lordships' House it is likely, if all the Conservative Peers decide to vote in a particular way, that they will defeat the Government. So all of us have to consider a situation complicated by this factor. It is a situation which we have lived with from 1945 to 1951, and from 1964 until the present time. It has always been the case that if the Conservative Party in the House of Lords has taken a different view from that taken by the Labour majority in the House of Commons, there has immediately been an outcry in the Labour Party and in the Press about hereditary Peers, about the unelected Second Chamber—
LORD SHEPHERD: And the backwoodsmen.
LORD CARRINGTON: —and about the backwoodsmen; and it would interest the noble Lord to know that I was looking round the House earlier to-day and there is not one Peer on the Benches behind me whom I do not know by name.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh
LORD CARRINGTON: The influx of Life Peers has been such that we cannot now sit on that side of the House. As a matter of fact, in looking round, it occurs to me that perhaps I was wrong in saying that there were no backwoodsmen—as I look at the Bishops' Benches.
My Lords, this reaction to any action by your Lordships is not unexpected. The outpourings of Mr. William Hamilton, for example, are as predictable and as regular and as numerous as the tides of the North Sea. Usually these speeches and articles have been accompanied by threats about the abolition of the House of Lords and of the hereditary system and, more recently, of the abandonment of plans for agreed House of Lords reform. I must say, in passing, that I very much regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have been one of those who made a speech of that character
572
over the week-end. It might not perhaps be inapt to remind the Chancellor that the House of Lords is not "Mr. Jenkins' poodle".
My Lords, threats do not get anybody anywhere. In any event, in spite of the threats, we have on occasions made known our views, afforded a period of delay for reflection, and we have believed that that has been our duty. But after the matter has been discussed again by the House of Commons, and passed there once again, we have given way to the elected Chamber. We have—and it is absolutely true what noble Lords opposite have said—on no occasion taken the course of rejecting an Order, because as your Lordships know, owing to an anomaly, a rather curious one, which was left unamended in the Labour Government's Parliament Act 1949, Orders do not come under the provisions of that Act. Nevertheless, even on Orders we have on occasions made it absolutely clear what our attitude is; and I can think of one occasion, not so long ago, when the Government, partly at any rate for this reason, decided on a completely different course of action rather than continue with an Order in this House.
My Lords, on this occasion we are faced with a very difficult situation, but not, I think, quite so difficult as I made out in the speech I made in December, 1965, which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack very fairly quoted yesterday. If the House decided to vote against this Order the effect would be this. The Order would remain in force until July 8, when it would be possible, if the Government so wished, to re-lay it; and during the meantime the Order would remain in operation, so that there would be no question of the Order lapsing, unless the Government decided not to re-lay it. I must say that I think that at some later stage we ought to discuss the rather curious position which seems to have emerged from this investigation, which is that, quite regardless of what either House of Parliament does, it appears that the Executive can, if it re-lays an Order time and time again, follow a policy which has been rejected by Parliament. In my opinion, quite apart from the constitutional position of the House of Lords, this is something which we ought to investigate at another date.

573
I want now, if I may, to be very careful in what I say, but I think I must go as far as this: I find it inconceivable to imagine that in any reformed House of Lords which, as your Lordships know, has been the subject of discussion over the last few months, there would be no provision for the House of Lords (or the second Chamber) when seriously troubled on a matter of principle to reject a Statutory Instrument and to enable the Government to have time for reflection and the opportunity for another debate in the House of Commons. Certainly none of us who sit on these Benches would agree that a reformed House should have no say whatever and should not have a constitutional right to record its opinion on these matters. Therefore it would seem to me that if we took the course which my noble friend Lord Jellicoe outlined yesterday we should be doing precisely that.
The fact that under the present system we could throw the Order out again and again is perfectly true, and I will come to that a little later, if I may. Those of us who feel that these mandatory sanctions are likely to be wholly counter-productive and to have the Opposite effect to that which almost all of us in this House want, are placed in a great dilemma. A number of powerful arguments have been advanced on the other side of the House as to why we should not vote.
The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack made a point in his speech of the effect of such a vote on the discussion on the reform of your Lordships' House. I am one of those who, quite openly and for a great many years, has said that I wish to see the reform of this House. If I may say so without offence, I have probably been saying that a great deal longer than most of your Lordships. One of the reasons why I want to see a reform of its composition is that however wise and sensible may be the decisions which your Lordships take, they are always weakened by the attack made on the membership of this House by members of the Labour Party and others, and I cannot and do not try to justify the presence of a permanent majority for any one Party in one of our two Houses of Parliament.
I am as keen as anyone to see that reform should take place but, my Lords,
574
what sort of people should we be—what sort of a person should I be—if, because of my wish to see a reformed House, I trimmed my sails on every issue which I regarded as being of major importance? I think that people outside would be justified in saying that a body composed of people like that is not worthy of reform or of perpetuation as a Second Chamber. If I may I would point out to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor—and I do not think I need to—that it is certainly my belief that what we have been doing in the inter-Party conference is to devise a Second Chamber which all of us believe to be the one most suited to our needs, one which can be defended both in composition and in powers. I certainly do not believe in that more or less, because of the actions which noble Lords opposite may take from time to time; nor, I think, should they be deterred from what they believe to be the right solution by actions which we take from time to time. We are not dealing at this moment with a reformed House of Lords; we are dealing with the Constitution and the House as it now is, and I very much hope that the members of the Government will continue to strive for the best solution for the House of Lords and not decide to take unilateral action. I am sorry if the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, finds that very funny. I was trying to make a serious argument.
The second reason which noble Lords opposite have adduced, and notably the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, against our voting on this issue has been that of the international obligations of the Government. My Lords, I concede at once that this is a factor of the greatest importance. The Government have accepted the resolution by the Security Council and there is no denying that. But it seems to me there is another side to this argument. The Government have accepted a resolution at the United Nations. In order for that resolution to be implemented it is necessary for legislation to be introduced and approved by both Houses of Parliament. Is it really argued that both, or either, House of Parliament is debarred from expressing its opinion on the merits of the course which the Government have taken? If so, what is the purpose of the Affirmative Resolution procedure? Is it really argued that both Houses, because of the commitment by

575
the Government, are powerless to reject that legislation? What would happen, for example, if both Houses did reject such an Order? I am no lawyer, as your Lordships know, and the last thing I want to do is to tangle with the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, or indeed with my noble friend Lord Conesford, on a matter of law, and particularly on a subject as complicated as this, but to me, as a simple man who was brought up to believe that Parliament is sovereign, I cannot conceive of a situation in which the ultimate control of British foreign policy passes out of the hands of Parliament into the hands of the United Nations—
LORD BYERS: May I—
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would allow me to go on. Nevertheless, having said that, I concede that this complicates the issue and increases the dilemma of noble Lords on this side. The Government have international obligations and it is something which would certainly weigh heavily with me if, on a subsequent occasion, we had to debate this Order again. But are we, as a House, not even to record our opinion? Are we not to perform the function of a Second Chamber, or at any rate to advise our followers to perform that function?
By voting against this Order, it seems to me, we should be doing a number of things, all of them perfectly and absolutely consistent with the duties of a Second Chamber. First of all, if the House were to reject this Order (and there may be some on this side of the House who do not agree with what I am saying), we should be putting on record that the majority of the House, composed as it now is—and it is, after all, this House that we have to deal with—believe that the Government's policy with regard to Rhodesia is wrong and calculated to lead to disaster for black and white alike in Rhodesia; and by doing that we should be asking the Government to consider the powerful arguments which have been adduced from this side of the House this afternoon, and to reflect upon them.
We should also be allowing time for public opinion to make itself felt. I do
576
not know what public opinion is about Rhodesia. I, too, saw the results of the Gallup Poll in the Daily Telegraph this morning. I was surprised, because certainly the cross-section of people I meet do not seem to hold those views at all. I have no idea what public opinion is, and I do not suppose the Government have; but at any rate such action on the part of your Lordships would enable people to express their views; it would enable newspapers to air their views; it would enable letters to be written to Members of Parliament, and all the other accepted ways of forming public opinion.
Thirdly, if the Government decided, in spite of the advice which we had given them, to re-lay the Order, we should be giving the Commons another opportunity to debate it in the light of what has been said in this House by some eminent people who have first-hand knowledge of Rhodesia. I have always thought that this was the proper function of a Second Chamber. If, as may be the case, it is quite clear that the people of this country are either in favour of the Government's policy or not interested, or are uncertain; or if it is reflected in another Vote by the elected Chamber, then, so far as I am concerned, I do not think your Lordships should persist any further. You will have performed your proper constitutional function. But what I cannot accept is that we who sit in this House have not a right—not just a legal right, but not a right—and indeed almost a duty on occasions of this kind to do what we think is right, to take what we believe is the proper course, a proper course that Members of a Second Chamber should take.
A great deal has been written in the past few days about a constitutional crisis, and if I may say so, I think that a good deal of it has been greatly exaggerated. If the sort of action which I have outlined is going to bring about a constitutional crisis, then I really do not see what the value of a Second Chamber is. I do not think that I would care to sit in a House, in a place which has no power of any kind, which cannot even record its opinion, and which is just a rubber stamp for the House of Commons. So the course that I am going to take—and I take it with a deep sense of responsibility—is to record my conviction that the Government's policy on Rhodesia is wrong, not in support of Mr. Smith or

577
any faction in support of Mr. Smith, not to sabotage anything, but because I believe the Government's policy on this to be entirely and absolutely wrong. I believe that the only chance of peace is a settlement by negotiation, and I believe that the Government should think again about the course that they are pursuing. They should listen to what people are saying. But if in their wisdom the Government decide to reintroduce the Order and it is passed again by the Commons, the factors which I have outlined in my speech would certainly weigh very heavily with me in any further advice I was bold enough to give to your Lordships. In the meantime, I shall do what I believe to be my constitutional duty.
5.13 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not wish to waste the time of the House by making the usual sort of winding-up speech and paying the usual compliments, but there are two speeches to which I should like to refer. I am sure the whole House would wish me to refer to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Poltimore. I think that as our newest, if not youngest, Member he managed in a most admirable way to convey both the strength of his feeling and the depth of his knowledge, without in any way offending the proprieties or causing anything other than pleasure to us all.
I would also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who has managed to put forward his views no fewer than three times in the last 24 hours; first of all in The Times, where he rode the whirlwind—I am rather doubtful now whether he is really riding it; secondly, last night on television, and thirdly in his speech to-day.
When I listened to all yesterday's debate, I must admit that I was frankly appalled by the way in which the debate had developed. To-day, I think, we have hit rather higher standards, and indeed noble Lords have been deliberately and consciously restrained and moderate in their remarks. This debate is taking place not just in terms of the interests of this House or of this country but in terms of the world. There is an agonising drama—and we all agree about this—prolonged, and perhaps, so far as our life-
578
time is concerned, of unpredictable duration, which is unfolding in Africa, and running as a sinister theme throughout all our discussions has been the question of race.
It is not just the fate of 200,000 white Rhodesians or 4 million Africans in Rhodesia that is at stake to-day; it is, indeed, the survival of multiracial policies. And those multiracial policies—despite some remarks from noble Lords which suggested to me that although they would deny that they were racial in instinct indicated a lack of understanding—are still being fought for by men, white and coloured—men like Kenneth Kaunda and Jomo Kenyatta, in the face of actions and in the presence of remarks at times of such provocative-ness that one must despair of the prospect that white and coloured can live together in peace in this world. I of course acquit noble Lords, certainly noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite, from this sort of prejudice, but I was distressed by the speeches of certain noble Lords, distressed as much by the obvious sincerity with which they spoke—that unfortunate reference to ju-ju men, the sort of suggestion that for many years to come the white man has still got to rule.
Then, too, there was the attitude to the United Nations. "A bit of a giggle", the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, called it. He made a point even of repeating it, and boasting of the fact that he was a Life Peer. I find this sort of attitude so irresponsible that I am surprised to find the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe—and it may be that he now regrets it—suggesting that a mandatory resolution (and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, referred to it) of the United Nations is binding on Her Majesty's Government but not on Her Majesty's Opposition. It is Britain on whom the resolution is binding. We cannot have two foreign policies both running at the same time. I had the feeling that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, wished at one time to correct this impression, and if he did I will gladly give way.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I did indeed. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, had asked me a question about this, and I was about to give a reply when the noble Lord intervened. But I think I can say quite straightly to

579
him that the constitutional position on this, and how we regard it, has been put by my noble friend Lord Carrington. I entirely agree with what he has said on this point regarding the Opposition's responsibility.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I can scarcely believe what the noble Lord is saying. He went on to say that it is for Her Majesty's Government to consider, before they incur an international obligation, whether they will be in a position to honour it. In this context this can mean only that they cannot enter into arrangements in the conduct of foreign affairs except by the leave of the Conservative majority in an unreformed House of Lords. I cannot see what else it can mean.
Of course, the Government of the day has to carry Parliament with it; and this means in another place. Traditionally she Government of the day stands or falls in the House of Commons. It does not stand or fall in your Lordships' House. It is, I think, part of the difficulty that noble Lords opposite have got themselves into. They are having to erect an ingenious and unconvincing case for an action which many of them wish they were not taking to-day.
Let me now try to establish certain matters on which there is agreement, at least, so far as the Front Bench on the other side is concerned. We are all agreed that the objective must be to end the rebellion, and we agree that we should seek to negotiate an honourable settlement in accordance with the Six Principles. It is, I think, also agreed—certainly it was in the past; though I am not quite sure whether this is the view of the Conservative Party now—that economic sanctions should be used to persuade the régime to negotiate a settlement within this context. We are agreed, for reasons which have been fully spelled out, that force should not be used. We are also agreed that this is primarily a British responsibility; that we should seek to avoid a confrontation with South Africa, that the position of Zambia should be protected and that they should not be forced to commit suicide.
The Opposition apparently seek to distinguish between sanctions imposed unilaterally by this country and sanctions
580
imposed, for the most part on other nations, by the Security Council. Some noble Lords (this suggestion may be unworthy, but it seems so obvious that we cannot but make it) feel that the real distinction should be between effective and ineffective sanctions. We have had arguments as to whether sanctions are punitive, whether they are some kind of petty revenge—I am sure the noble Lord Lord, Lord Carrington, would not accuse the Government of that.
My Lords, the purpose of sanctions is of course to establish beyond doubt that the illegal régime, with all its talk of a nine-days' wonder, cannot hope to build up a prosperous Rhodesia unless it returns to legality. Inevitably, the effect of sanctions falls on the guilty and the innocent alike, Africans and loyal Europeans. But what would noble Lords have? The only alternatives are force in the short run, or, as I sincerely believe, force in the long run against a beleaguered society, by guerillas and freedom fighters constantly harassing the unhappy people who will live in those conditions. I do not think there is a single Member of your Lordships' House who has spoken regularly in these debates who has not condemned U.D.I. and the actions of the Smith régime. Yet this is the moment when they want to call the whole thing off. For that can be the only meaning of a vote against this Order to-day.
The whole object of our policy in Rhodesia is to achieve an honourable settlement. The principles on which it should be based are those which were worked out by the previous Administration, and were agreed to by both sides of the House. So far as sanctions are concerned, we have never looked on them as an end in themselves. We are not trying to punish Rhodesia, still less to ruin her economy and seek to destroy the livelihood of the people who live there. Right from the start our aim has been to use sanctions in order to convince those who have taken power in Rhodesia that the best hope for their country and for their own wellbeing lies in a settlement based on the principles I have already referred to.
I should like to refer in a moment to the interesting speech of the noble Lord. Lord Alport. He certainly did not suggest this, but some noble Lords have argued that sanctions are a farce. This is

581
not the view of those in Rhodesia who are engaged in business there. In recent public statements they have made this very clear indeed. As recently as yesterday, I had discussions with a leading loyal Rhodesian citizen as to just how anxious they are about the effect of the further development in sanctions. What the Government seek, and what is the purpose of sanctions, is that Rhodesian prosperity can be built only on a genuine acceptance (I use those words carefully) of the rights of the majority. Sanctions are there to bring this home to those concerned. It does not make sense to argue that this would be better done if we did it alone, without the co-operation of the international trading community secured by the United Nations resolution.
We already know that, except in one important respect (which I acknowledge and to which the noble Lord referred), this Order adds little to the sanctions that are already in force. What it does is to implement the resolutions which impose them with greater force on other countries. Economic sanctions can be successful only if we have a greater degree of international co-operation; and in practice this means mandatory decisions of the Security Council. As my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack said, it is strange that noble Lords opposite, who have so often pointed to the loss of British trade, should now oppose a measure which would seek to ensure that other countries did not pick it up.
Before I leave the question of sanctions let me say one more thing. Noble Lords opposite have not made as much use of the kith and kin argument as we have heard on previous occasions. Let us also remember—I think it is important that they should know that we are aware of it—that a considerable number of loyal white Rhodesians, headed by the Governor, detest the illegal Government and all that it stands for; but they still look for a settlement, and they have accepted the Six Principles. We regret that the action we are going to take will be painful, and possibly arduous, for them, as it will be for the 4 million Africans. But it is for their joint future that we are having to take this action.
The noble Lord, Lord Alport, put the view that there was now no chance of successful negotiations with the régime,
582
and he argued that the time had come when the Governor should be allowed to retire gracefully to the country. I fully acknowledge the noble Lord's deep knowledge of this problem, and his sincere sympathy with the Governor and those who are standing up for what is right. But our views on these two points are not the same as his. We still hope—and I stress this to noble Lords—that negotiations can be held, and we attach the highest value to the Governor's admirable readiness to stick to his views. In short, the views expressed by a e noble Lord, Lord Alport, are quite different from those of the British Government, and I can assure the House that the Governor himself is far from sharing them.
There was one other point made by the noble Lord, about the residual mission in Salisbury. I think it is relevant that during the discussions at the Security Council it was accepted by all concerned that if we were to be able to discharge our responsibilities in respect of Rhodesia we should need to retain the office we have in Salisbury. This was accepted in New York, and it is the view of the British Government. It is one of the things that Lord Caradon managed to get in the discussions at the United Nations. I do not wish to take up much time, but some of these points need to be emphasised. It does not seem to be appreciated by certain noble Lords (I have in mind particularly the question of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton) that Her Majesty's Government are still anxious to get a settlement by negotiation. In particular, Lord Lytton asked whether the British Government would be prevented from negotiating with the illegal régime as a result of the United Nations resolution, and would not be able to grant independence before majority rule.
The answers are, first, that the resolutions of the General Assembly, unlike the mandatory resolutions of the Security Council, are not binding on Member Governments. Secondly, Her Majesty's Government have announced that they would not commend to Parliament independence for Rhodesia before majority rule. That remains our position. But noble Lords will recall that the Prime Minister and other Government spokesmen have repeatedly made it clear that if there were a substantial change in

583
circumstances in Rhodesia this question could be looked at again.
As regards holding discussions with the régime, I would remind the House that the Prime Minister and other spokesmen have repeatedly emphasised that the Government are anxious to reach an honourable settlement. The Governor is authorised, as the Prime Minister said recently, to pursue any meaningful development which satisfies the Principles and the necessary requirements of trust. If and when at any time, soon or late, he should so report, that will be the time for decision.
Now the position of Mr. Smith, as we see it, is subject to three conflicting influences. In the first place, while he does not himself regard majority rule—and my noble and learned friend made this clear—within the foreseeable future as a desirable goal for Rhodesia, I think he begins to realise that no settlement may be possible on any other basis, and that without a settlement Rhodesia cannot hope to prosper. He has said, and clearly he is right, that for this reason it might be necessary to agree on a settlement that would involve unimpeded progress to majority rule. What he has not been prepared to do is to agree to measures which would, in fact, provide this unimpeded progress. These are two of the three conflicting influences I mentioned. The third is the policy of the Right-wing extremists inside the Rhodesian Front and outside it, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, should be able to understand what that means. They see the future in terms of unrelieved white domination, possibly disguised with theoretical doctrines of apartheid. Mr. Smith is also sensitive to their pressures.
The House will have seen a report in to-day's Evening Standard that Mr. Smith has said in an interview that he pleads with Peers to vote against the new sanctions Order to-day. My Lords, it is surprising that noble Lords complain about my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and make no complaint—although the noble Lord said with great skill, "Of course we would ignore him", but other Lords have hardly mentioned it—
LORD CARRINGTON: What I said was that I should be very glad to be without Mr. Smith's advice.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, may I say something? I am regarded as an extremist of the Right Wing, and I very much regret what Mr. Smith has said.
LORD SHACKLETON: Of course noble Lords regret it. It is deeply embarrassing for them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think that is quite fair of the noble Lord. I regret it because it is a great mistake for anyone outside to try to influence what we do in this House.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, noble Lords talked about "Mr. Jenkins's poodle". Nobody, I think, would suggest that the House of Lords is "Mr. Smith's poodle." Indeed, noble Lords have done their best to meet an embarrassing situation. But I am leading to another point: that is, that if noble Lords are influenced—and I am sure it was counter-productive—to answer that appeal, then irrespective of what is done later to remedy the situation over the Order their action this afternoon would have the effect of weakening the incentive for Mr. Smith to come to a just and honourable settlement, and it would strengthen the influence of those who urge him to reject all thought of a settlement and to follow their own extremist policies. Rejection of this Order—and I say this with complete and absolute belief; this is my view—with the resulting polarisation of the whole situation, would greatly damage the prospects of the Governor's being able to report, as indicated in the reference I made to what the Prime Minister said on March 27, that there were developments which he could pursue and which satisfied our agreed principles and the necessary requirement of trust.
My Lords, we are in a difficulty with regard to the knowledge that Sir Alec Douglas-Home has, because the House does not know what was said, but it is the opinion of my right honourable friends who have studied the proposals—and if we are to believe Sir Alec Douglas-Home I think it is right that we should believe my right honourable friend the Commonwealth Secretary—that these proposals still lack the essential requirement of the blocking quarter and the guarantee towards unimpeded progress towards majority rule. When that is

585
forthcoming—and I stress this—the Government will be ready to seek an honourable settlement.
Let me turn now to what has been called the "Constitutional issue", which has rather clouded and complicated our discussions. Noble Lords opposite, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, should not grumble, and I am sure they do not, when Members in another place and elsewhere refer to the "Constitutional issue", because, of course, they were the first people to mention it. They gave as their reason on previous occasions why your Lordships' House should not vote against Orders that it would be unwise because there would be a constitutional crisis. I am being very sparing in my quotations because I know how embarrassing it must be for the two noble Lords opposite, but the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said:
"if your Lordships were to reject the Order the Government could always reintroduce it. But I do not see how that advances his argument.
Surely then my noble friend, and those who feel like him, would again move to reject the new Order. I cannot believe the 'Constitutional issue' can be dodged in this way so I must ask my noble friends, do they now really wish to precipitate that constitutional crisis?"
I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, his own question, because that is precisely what he has done. They have, in fact, unleased a whirlwind, the whirlwind which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was riding so skilfully in The Times—and I pay tribute to the way he has always managed to ride the whirlwind; we know the job of the Leader of the Conservative Opposition in this House is not the easiest one in the world. He has lost control of the situation, and I want to emphasise the consequences, since some noble Lords seem to have failed to appreciate what they will be doing to-day. They have said that they must do their duty and vote as they think fit. Of course they must; and they must also have regard to the consequences of their actions and the interpretations that will be put on them, and I should like to spell them out.
I hope we can forget all this talk about threats and bribes. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, made fun of them. I wish the constitutional issue had not come up.
586
I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and I am appalled that it has now arisen at this particular moment. The noble Lord has attempted to rationalise what the Opposition are now doing. He is saying that they are giving the Commons an opportunity to think again. In relation to an Order he is propounding a novel constitutional principle. It may be familiar to him, the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and others who have been having discussions on this matter, but it is certainly not known as a proposition outside. Furthermore, it was linked only to a greatly changed composition.
Last night the House of Commons passed this Order by a large majority. Both the Labour Party and the Liberal Party voted for the Order. Noble Lords know that the Government cannot think again on this issue. This represents a crucial issue, and indeed it would become an issue of confidence. Some Members may feel that in this tight little island we can opt out of world opinion, we can ignore the unanimous vote of the Security Council. My Lords, we heard yesterday from a former Minister of State for the Colonies, Lord Perth, who begged the House of Lords to support this Order. Some of us remember his father when he was a well known and distinguished Secretary of the League of Nations. My noble friends Lord Rowley and Lord Henderson (whose father, Mr. Arthur Henderson, was such a great supporter of the League of Nations) will appreciate the vital need, imperfect though the United Nations may be, to continue to support it. Do the Opposition really want us now to back down? Do they think that the House of Lords should have been consulted before Lord Caradon pulled off a remarkable diplomatic success at the United Nations? Noble Lords have totally failed to mention this matter, and I am sorry that there has not been a word of praise from noble Lords for what Lord Caradon achieved
There is a further implication in what noble Lords are doing to-day—and I believe this to be a serious matter. The House of Lords has survived by its ability at moments of crisis to accept realities. When, long ago, it did not do so, it paid a heavy price. When the Duke of Wellington was Prime Minister he was a wiser man than certain noble Lords before the First World War. Noble

587
Lords have said that it is right to throw out this Order, and have discussed lightly the meaning of this act, suggesting that they must in fact just vote according to their consciences. I do not know why in the last fifty years—there may not have been many Orders fifty years ago—they have never found an occasion on which their consciences troubled them on a particular Order, but they have argued, in effect, that, although they have never rejected an Order in this House, it is right to do so on this occasion.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, it happens to be a fact that I secured the rejection of an Order in 1937.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I understood that the noble Lord achieved the withdrawal of an Order.
LORD SALTOUN: I had the whole House with me.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, there is a great difference. Indeed, there have been references to Stansted. The great difference between Stansted and this Order is that by discussion and debate on a Resolution, and not on a Motion to reject the Order, this House, and notably the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, exercised the sort of influence which was right and proper; and the Government thought again. But today they are giving the Government no chance. They are saying, "Reject the Order". Until 1909, the House of Lords never rejected a Finance Bill or a Budget. There must have been many Finance Bills that they did not like. I cannot believe that they liked some of Lord Harcourt's proposals. But suddenly, in 1909, such was their hatred of the Liberal Government, such was their conviction of its unpopularity in the country, that they broke with their own precedent to which they had firmly stuck until that moment, and threw out the Finance Bill. This country was then thrown into years of bitter constitutional controversy.
What the Opposition are proposing to-day will be a breach of self-imposed principle. They propose to reject an Order where public opinion has been given a full opportunity to impress itself on the Government—when there have been considerable discussions over years on this subject; when in fact, public
588
opinion polls support the Government; when the whole of the responsible Press advise the Conservative Party not to vote against this Order. For not just The Times, and the Guardian, but the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph, the Mirror, are all advising noble Lords not to vote against the Order.
This is not a simple matter. It is no use noble Lords' coming along now and saying, "All we are going to do is to ask another place to think again". Nor am I so certain about the consequence of the defeat of this Order. I cannot at this moment say whether this Order in fact can be laid again in the present form. There are legal difficulties. The fact that the Government undoubtedly will have to persist with their policy does not alter the consequences which can be at least technically difficult. I am sure the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, who is wise in these matters, and the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, would regard it not quite as simply as some noble Lords opposite think.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord, since this is a very important point? Is the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, saying that an Order cannot be relaid in another place giving effect to exactly the same provisions as this Order?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, on the technical point, I am not expert enough to know what the precise consequence is. As I understand it, this Order has immediately cancelled existing provisions under older Orders. Furthermore, I understand that it may be necessary to have a new type of Order. It is not just a question of relaying the Order. It may undoubtedly be a similar Order, but we shall be taking a serious and definite step.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think that this is very important, and I would ask the noble Lord if he would clear it up. Is he saying that it will not be possible for the Government to lay an Order which gives effect to the same provisions as this Order? This really is a very important point.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am not saying that. I am saying that it

589
will not be possible to relay this Order; it may be necessary to lay a different Order. I fully acknowledge this. But the consequences are quite considerable.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, since the noble Lord referred to me would he give way? Is not the position that if this Vote against the Order is carried to-night, the Order will cease to be effective after 28 days? It does not lapse immediately. At the end of those 28 days, another Order in precisely similar terms can be laid. It will not be the same document; but another Order in similar terms can be laid, and that can be brought into force under the same Act, just as this one has been.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Viscount is asking us to continue to administer an Order which one House of Parliament, unrepresentative though it may be, has refused to approve. The Government, clearly, are going to have to consider the implications of that. It is certainly true, as the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has said, that at the end of the period it will be possible for the Government to lay a similar Order, but it will not be the same Order in certain quite important respects. Certain consequences have already been noted. All I can say to noble Lords is that they are presenting us with a complicated and difficult situation on which I cannot give a definite answer to-day, and on which I should have thought that, before they sought to defeat the Order, they would themselves have found out the consequences.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I think that it was in 1937 that I moved the rejection of an Order of the Scottish Office. The Order was withdrawn by the Government, and after consideration it was relaid later.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord the Leader of the House is being a little less than fair. Certainly my understanding, and the understanding of my noble friend Lord Dilhorne, is that an exactly similar Order, though perhaps with a few different words, can be laid. If the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, with all the advice of the constitutional lawyers behind him,
590
says that that is not so, then so far as I am concerned that makes a very great deal of difference to the action I should take.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord seems terribly worried I about the possibility of not relaying exactly the same Order so that your Lordships can pass it.
LORD CARRINGTON: No.
LORD SHACKLETON: I wonder why the noble Lord bothers to vote it down.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord is being very unfair and rather evasive about this. I made a very long speech in which I made my position absolutely clear, and in which I said that, if a certain number of things happened, I would not advise noble Lords who sit on this side to persist in their opposition to the Order if it was relaid. It the noble Lord is now saying that it is not possible to lay an Order with the same provisions as this one, that alters my argument. The best advice that I can get from my noble friend Lord Dilhorne and others is that one can lay exactly the same Order, except for a few words. If the noble Lord is saying that that is not so—and I ask him a direct question—that alters the position.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I can only repeat again that I cannot myself attempt to answer for all the legal consequences of the action to-day.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh
LORD SHACKLETON: Noble Lords are seeking to annul this Order. I certainly do not want to mislead the noble Lord, and I will be absolutely fair with him. It is my opinion that it will be possible—indeed, my advice is that it will be possible—to lay, if not the same Order (in fact, in some respects it may be quite significantly different) an Order which gives the same effect as this. I must in fairness say this to the noble Lord, because I should not wish him to be deceived and I should not wish to give him a misleading excuse for not voting against this Order. What I was saying was that the consequences ale of a kind which we shall have to think about very carefully. I hope that I have not misled the noble Lord.

591
I am sorry that I cannot be more precise, but your Lordships have still not rejected this Order—and I hope that you will not do so—and it is really not possible for the Government to decide in advance what their actions are going to be on something which is of such a unique and extraordinary nature. Orders vary—the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, referred to Orders being relaid. It depends. There is a vast variety of different types of Order, and I should hope not to get drawn any further. I have said that what the Opposition are proposing to-day will be a breach of a self-imposed principle, but when I say that the consequences are unforeseeable I beg noble Lords not to consider that as a threat. It is a simple statement of the effects and of the enormity of the steps they are proposing to take.
I have spoken at such length that I shall not have time to deal with the noble Lord, Lord Halifax—I mean the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. The contrast between the two is so strikingly obvious that it was my intention to draw your Lordships' attention to a famous debate in 1947, to which my noble friend Lord Shepherd has already referred when the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury (Lord Cranborne, as he then was), and the Conservative majority in this House were dissuaded by the late Lord Halifax from voting, not on an Order but on a Resolution condemning the policy of the Government in India. On that occasion the noble Marquess and other noble Lords heeded that request. I am sorry that there is no Lord Halifax here to-day. I do not know whether we shall cast the noble Earl, Lord Perth, or the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for that role. But I say to noble Lords that it would have been perfectly possible for them to have moved a Resolution and voted on it, without taking this unprecedented step.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I must say to the noble Lord that we asked in this House, before this matter was discussed by the United Nations, whether we could have a debate here, and it was refused by the Government.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Marquess is making a totally untrue statement. It was never refused, and he knows it is not possible to refuse
592
a debate in your Lordships' House. Any noble Lord can put down a Motion. It may be that his noble friends on the Conservative Front Bench were unwilling to have a debate, but it is really not fair to say that a debate was refused.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I put one question to the noble Lord? I think the question is a fair one, and the noble Lord will not hesitate to give his answer. If he says that it is wholly improper for us to vote in the way that we have been advised to vote, why did the Government put in their 1965 Act the power to do so? Why did they not say that the confirmation should be by the Commons House of Parliament?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord raised that point last night, and I really did not think it worth answering. He referred to the Industrial Expansion Act, and the reason why that was confined to the Commons was that orders made under that Act will be concerned primarily with financial matters. There is that custom, but, if I may say so, I and former Leaders of your Lordships' House have, perhaps wrongly, continually been jealous to ensure that we had that right. But the Government have always assumed, as have previous Governments, that the House of Lords would not reject an Order, and this is what they are proposing to do to-day.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I must say one word. I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but he has accused me of telling an untruth. If I have, I apologise and I withdraw it, but I believe the occasion to have been in a supplementary answer to a Question. I hope he will understand that I was speaking what I truly thought.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I certainly would not accuse the noble Marquess of deliberately telling a lie. I am only saying that unintentionally he was misleading the House. If the Conservative Peers, and those who are minded to follow their leaders into the Lobby to-night, go in in sufficient strength to defeat the Government, there will be the following consequences. The first consequence will be that it will not damage the standing of the present Government in this country. Indeed, it is even arguable—and this may cause some noble

593
Lords to pause—that it could be a bonus from the Labour Party's point of view. It will not have any establishable effect, although there will be great complications because, as I have indicated, the Government cannot change their policy in this matter. I cannot say what will be the consequences of the adverse vote. The House of Lords, as I said, ought not to assume that we just go on relaying the Order indefinitely. The Conservative Party in their hearts know that if they were in office they would have to continue with the present policy. What noble Lords will achieve by their vote is a great diminution of the reputation of your Lordships' House. They will have revealed a weakness in the leadership of the Conservative Party, and they will have damaged the reputation of this country in the eyes of the world. How can we explain a vote in the House of Lords to the rest of the world? Should we just say that the House of Lords is totally unrepresentative?—in which case they would ask why we have tolerated its existence for so long.
Above all, and I believe this most sincerely, the possibility of a settlement of the Rhodesian problem will be diminished by such a vote. We cannot avoid the fact that this will be an encouragement to Mr.smith
and the Rhodesian Front to be more intransigent, rather than less. Time and again the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has advised us not to send a message of comfort to Mr. Smith. I appeal to noble Lords who on the whole, in my experience, bring an independence of mind and judgment on such matters, if they cannot vote for the Order at least to abstain. I suggest that that would be the wise and dignified act for those in doubt.
I would only repeat again to those who may be doubtful—and some noble Lords said that they would determine their attitude on the assurances of the Government—that at the moment there are signs of a real prospect of Mr. Smith coming to the conference table and abiding by what is said there, the Government will be prepared to open talks with them. I therefore ask your Lordships to indicate your attitude on this really rather extraordinary and special occasion by supporting the Government and voting for the Order.
6.0 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 184; Not-Contents, 193.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Carnock, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Airedale, L.

Carron, L.

Goodman, L.

Alport, L.

Chalfont, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Amulree, L.

Champion, L.

Granville-West, L.

Archibald, L.

Chester, L. Bp.

Hall, V.

Arran, E.

Chichester, L. Bp.

Hampton, L.

Arwyn, L.

Chorley, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Citrine, L.

Hayter, L.

Asquith of Yarnbury, Bs.

Clwyd, L.

Helsby, L.

Barrington, V.

Cohen, L.

Hemingford, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Henderson, L.

Beswick. L. [Teller.]

Coventry, L. Bp.

Henley, L.

Birdwood, L.

Craigton, L.

Heycock, L.

Birk, Bs.

Cranbrook, E.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Birmingham, L. Bp.

Crook, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Blackburn, L. Bp.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Blackford, L.

Douglas of Kirtleside, L.

Holford, L.

Blyton, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Hughes, L.

Boothby, L.

Esher, V.

Hunt, L.

Bowden, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Exeter, L. Bp.

Inman, L.

Bristol, L. Bp.

Faringdon, L.

Jackson of Burnley, L.

Brock, L.

Fiske, L.

James of Rusholme, L.

Brockway, L.

Foot, L.

Kahn, L.

Brown, L.

Fulton, L.

Kennet, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Gainsborough, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Burden, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Kings Norton, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Kinloss, Ly.

Byers, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Gifford, L.

Latham, L.

Leatherland, L.

Pargiter, L.

Sherfield, L.

Leathers, V.

Parmoor, L.

Simey, L.

Leicester, L. Bp.

Peddie, L.

Snow, L.

Lichfield, L. Bp.

Penney, L.

Soper, L.

Lincoln, L. Bp.

Perth, E.

Sorensen, L.

Lindgren, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Pilkington, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Platt, L.

Stonham, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Stow Hill, L.

London, L. Bp.

Popplewell, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Longford, E.

Portsmouth, L. Bp.

Strang, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Raglan, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

McLeavy, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Swanborough, Bs.

Maelor, L.

Ravensdale, L.

Swaythling, L.

Mais, L.

Rea, L.

Talbot de Malahide, L.

Manchester, L. Bp.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Marks of Broughton, L.

Rhodes, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Maughan, V.

Ripon, L. Bp.

Tayside, L.

Milford, L.

Rochester, L.

Todd, L.

Mitchison, L.

Rowley, L.

Wade, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Rusholme, L.

Walston, L.

Morrison, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Waverley, V.

Moyle, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Moynihan, L.

Samuel, V.

Williamson, L.

Nathan, L.

Segal, L.

Willis, L.

Newcastle, L. Bp.

Serota, Bs.

Winterbottom, L.

Norwich, V.

Shackleton, L.

Woolley, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Shannon, E.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Ogmore, L.

Sharp, Bs.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Oxford, L. Bp.

Shepherd, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Oxford and Asquith, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Coleraine, L.

Gisborough, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Colville of Culross, V.

Godber, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Colwyn, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Albemarle, E.

Conesford, L.

Gough, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Gray, L.

Allerton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Greenway, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Craigavon, V.

Grenfell, L.

Ampthill, L.

Cranworth, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Atholl, D.

Crathorne, L.

Haddington, E.

Auckland, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Harris, L.

Audley, Bs.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Headfort, M.

Barnby, L.

Daventry, V.

Hives, L.

Bathurst, E.

De La Warr, E.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Beatty, E.

De L'Isle, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Beaumont, Bs.

Denham, L.

Howe, E.

Berkeley, Bs.

Derwent, L.

Ilford, L.

Bessborough, E.

Digby, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Bledisloe, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Jessel, L.

Bolton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Kemsley, V.

Boston, L.

Dudley, L.

Killearn, L.

Bourne, L.

Dulverton, L.

Kindersley, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Dundee, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Braye, L.

Dundonald, E.

Latymer, L.

Brecon, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Leicester, E.

Brentford, V.

Effingham, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Egremont, L.

Lloyd, L.

Bridport, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Long, V.

Bristol, M.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Lonsdale, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Loudoun, C.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Lovat, L.

Buckton, L.

Falkland, V.

Lucan, E.

Burton, L.

Falmouth, V.

Lytton, E.

Caldecote, V.

Ferrers, E.

MacAndrew, L.

Carrick, E.

Ferrier, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Carrington, L.

Fisher, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Chandos, V.

Foley, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Chelmer, V.

Forester, L.

Mancroft, L.

Chesham, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Mar, E.

Clinton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Margadale, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

May, L.

Remnant, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Mersey, V.

Rockley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mills, V.

Rothermere, V.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Milverton, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Swansea, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Rothes, E.

Swinton, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Rowallan, L.

Templemore, L.

Monsell, V.

Rutland, D.

Terington, L.

Monson, L.

Sackville, L.

Teviot, L.

Mountevans, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Thorneycroft, L.

Moyne, L.

St. Helens, L.

Thurlow, L.

Nairne, Bs.

St. Oswald, L

Townshend, M.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Salisbury, M

Trefgarne, L.

Newton, L.

Salter, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Saltoun, L.

Ullswater, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Sandford, L.

Verulam, E.

Oakshott, L.

Sandys, L.

Vivian, L.

Pender, L.

Savile, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Poltimore, L.

Selkirk, E.

Watkinson, V.

Portal of Hungerford, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Wedgwood, L.

Poulett, E.

Simonds, V.

Westminster, D.

Rankeillour, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Willingdon, M.

Rathcavan, L.

Somers, L.

Wolverton, L.

Reading, M.

Stonehaven, V.

Wrottesley, L.

Redesdale, L.

Strange, L.

Wynford, L.

Redmayne, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL
6.16 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Kennet.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD OAKSHOTT in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Survey of planning areas]:
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNORmoved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Lord said: Your Lordships now revert to domestic matters, and, speaking on behalf of the Opposition, I should like to say that I anticipate no constitutional clash arising out of the Committee stage of this Bill, at any rate. My first Amendment is designed primarily to elicit from the Government a statement about the surveys and the way in which they think they will be organised. If I may enlarge for a moment on this general issue of Part I of the Bill, I am entirely with the Government in believing that a reorganisation of the present development
598
plan procedure is desirable, and my noble friends and I would wish primarily to try to join with the Government in making this Part, and indeed the other Parts, of the Bill even better than they are.
The idea of the statutory survey is a new one. In Clause 2 we shall come to the structure plan; and I well appreciate that the boundary of the area to be covered by a structure plan may well cut across the area of a local planning committee. Why, however, is it necessary to have a similar division in regard to the statutory direction of the local planning authority to institute a survey? Would it not be wiser, while the survey is being instituted and carried out, for the local planning committee to cover the whole of its area? I believe I am right in saying that the Government regard this survey in each case not as a kind of new birth but as a continuation of a process which has probably already been going on, and should have been going on, under the auspices of any efficient local planning authority. If that is so, would it not be desirable for the survey, which the local planning authority is by this clause to be instructed to institute and carry through, to cover the whole of its area? Indeed, would it not lead to the construction of a better structure plan under Clause 2 if that were made against the background of a survey which had extended to the whole of the local planning authority's area?

599
It has been made clear on behalf of the Government that their intention is to use their powers under one of the later clauses in the Bill (I think it is now Clause 89) to get this process of surveys and structure plans started in a limited number of areas, each area covering, or including part of, the territory of several local planning authorities. I presume that this is because these first structure plans will act as pilot schemes; and the Ministry as well as the local planning authorities will be able to gain experience of the working of this new system without risk of a nation-wide collection of structure plans all descending upon the Ministry simultaneously and submerging it, as virtually happened with the development plans under the former Act.
Even if that is so, would it not be wise, whatever the proposed boundary of the structure plan were to be, to encourage each local planning authority to go ahead with a survey covering the whole of this area? I am moving this Amendment, not in any hostile spirit and certainly with no intention of pressing it, but in the hope that it may afford an opportunity for the Government to explain rather more clearly what they have in mind about the surveys and how these surveys are to lead on to structure plans. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 25, leave out subsection (5).—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
6.25 p.m.
LORD KENNET: I shall find difficulty in improving on the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, in the parts of his remarks where he said he supposed the Government reasons would be the following. It is really just that. The purpose of having this power in the Bill for a local planning authority to carry out a survey of part only of its area relates to the transitional period between now, when we pass the Bill, and the time when the new planning system is in operation all over the country. During that time it may be the case, indeed I hope it will be (and there is every intention on the part of the Government and certain local authorities to ensure that it shall be) that two or more local authorities will come together to
600
draw up a plan which may cover the whole area of some of them and only parts of the areas of others.
A typical case would be the conurbations where good planning, as such, would be much better served if there were one coherent plan covering not only the densely built-up parts of the city, as traditionally considered, but also parts of the county or counties surrounding it. The drawing up of such a structure plan would be done together by the county borough or county boroughs and also by the surrounding counties of a predominantly rural nature, and would be done with their agreement. For the purpose of such a structure plan there is need for a survey, and the survey tending towards that structure plan will not need to cover all parts of the counties—that is, in the example that I give; but one can think of other examples. Its purpose is to facilitate the putting into effect gradually of the new system of planning, area by area throughout the country, according to criteria which have been named in the House of Commons and pending the time of local government reform itself.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord, who has explained what are the Government intentions largely by repeating my remarks in words of his own. I am still not wholly in a position to understand why the Government have in mind to confine the statutory survey which some local authorities will have to carry out to a certain part of their area. Would it not be better if the local planning authority, which should know its whole area fairly well by now, were to institute its first statutory survey covering the whole area, in which case much of this subsection (5) would not be needed? I appreciate that the Government may wish the eventual structure plan not to extend over the whole of the area, but why should the authority be discouraged from getting its survey completed over its whole area as quickly as possible?
LORD KENNET: It is not, of course, the intention in this clause, as drafted, to discourage local authorities from doing anything which ought to be done. It is the intention that there shall be machinery and powers available for them to do what ought to be done, even if

601
it is different. It may be that one local authority ought to survey part of its area as part of a joint survey with other local authorities, and ought to survey other parts of its area in an entirely self-sufficient way and not in conjunction with other local authorities. It may be that these two things ought for expediency to happen at different times, and it is simply to allow this to happen that the subsection is there.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I will withdraw my Amendment in a moment, but I wonder whether we are using the word "survey" in two different senses; one as the work of surveying, which I still feel should undoubtedly be continuous, and the other as a report of a survey, which may well be confined to certain areas. However, I do not want to press the noble Lord further on that matter at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Preparation of structure plans]:
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, in subsection (4)(b), after "proposals of the", to insert "structure". The noble Lord said: This is purely a drafting Amendment. If your Lordships would be good enough to look at subsection (4) you will see that the local planning authority is required to have regard:
"(a) to current policies with respect to the economic planning and development of the region as a whole"
and
"(b) to the resources likely to be available for the carrying out of the proposals of the plan …"
As you cannot have economic planning without an economic plan, the natural way to read that is to suppose that (b) raises the question whether there will be sufficient resources available to carry out the economic plan of the region as a whole. I do not think that is what is meant, and that is why I suggest that it would remove ambiguity if in line 27 the word "structure" were inserted before the word "plan". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 27, after second ("the") insert ("structure").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
LORD KENNET: I entirely agree with what the noble Lord has said and would advise the Committee to accept this Amendment.
6.30 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNORmoved, in subsection (5), to leave out "indicate" and insert "describe". The noble Lord said: Having had 50 per cent. success up to now, I am starting off in really good heart. With Amendment No. 3 perhaps it would be convenient to consider Nos. 9 and 30, which are related. This Amendment concerns subsection (5) of Clause 2, which says
"A local planning authority's genera proposals under this section with respect to land in their area shall indicate any part of that area (in this Act referred to as an "action area") which they have selected for the commencement during a prescribed period of comprehensive treatment, …".
My Amendment is to substitute "describe" for "indicate". In another place an Amendment was moved but was not acceptable to the Government, to replace "indicate" by the word "define". I think that I can appreciate the Government's objection to being as definite as that but I suggest that the word "describe" would be an improvement on both.
The point is that the moment some part of an area in a structure plan is indicated as likely to become an action area, everything around it begins to suffer from blight. As we shall be reverting to the subject of blight under a later clause, I think I should say a word about it now. We have seen it particularly in London recently with the motorway box scheme. I observed it four years ago in what was at that time my constituency. And when I was the responsible Minister, I found it necessary to legislate about blight. Maybe I did not go far enough, and a subsequent clause of this Bill seeks to take the legislation further.
The point at issue is that the instant the idea gets about that a certain part of a town is to be the subject of redevelopment, or the site of a new road, or anything like that, blight falls upon that part, in the sense that prices fall, because people know that if they purchase property in that area they are likely to have the enjoyment of it for only a limited,

603
though usually an uncertain, time. So I am putting it to the Government under this Amendment that it is contrary to everybody's interest to allow blight to spread more widely than is necessary.
I have much sympathy with the Amendment moved in another place to replace "indicate" by "define", because if the structure plan really defined the action area there would be no need for blight to settle outside the defined perimeter. The Government said, with some sense behind them, that at that stage neither the Minister nor the local planning authority could be certain of getting the exact definition of an action area right. Therefore, it would be a mistake to use the word "define". But it really is not good enough to retain the word "indicate".
I understand that it will be the written part which will be the governing part, rather than the map, but unquestionably, if we retain the word "indicate", that will leave the local planning authority free to indicate in a vague way in its description, which will form the main part of the structure plan, that area which is to be an action area, and therefore blight will settle not only on the intended part but on a large area around also. I believe I am right in saying that the indication on the structure plan of a proposed action area would be a diamond-shaped mark superimposed on a large coloured area. The diamond shape will certainly not be the shape of the area. It will simply indicate that somewhere on a coloured piece of the map, which may be quite large, there is an action area; and if there is good property in the area, blight will settle and houses will become difficult to sell at a fair market price.
It seems to me that something more definite than "indicate" is required, even if I allow the Government's case that something less definite than "define" should be used. May I suggest "describe" here and in the corresponding places in later clauses. A description, while it will not be so precise as to cause embarrassment to local planning authorities and need not go precisely along the centre of a particular road as it might have to under a definition, would, I think, be considerably more precise than a mere indication by a coloured diamond on a big map. I do not think
604
that "indicate" is sufficient. I believe that the Statute should contain a suitable word, and I suggest "describe", which will not permit a local planning authority to put forward a structure plan where the indication of the action areas would be so vague as to cause blight quite unnecessarily to a considerable area of surrounding property. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 31, leave out "indicate" and insert "describe".—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I should like to support my noble friend's Amendment. At the present moment, my county council is dealing with a development plan, about which a great many different maps and indications are being used, and it is exceedingly difficult to see how things are going to work out. When I made inquiries about getting more accurate descriptions I discovered that this was very difficult because things are still under discussion and not actually completed. I think that the word "indicate" is too wide and that if, in addition to whatever symbols are put on the plans, there could also be a description of the areas, this would be of great help to people who are interested in the plan and to those whose houses will be affected by the action taken on the plan.
6.39 p.m.
LORD KENNET: I have the greatest sympathy with the purpose behind this Amendment, because accuracy is good in itself and blight is always bad in itself, but I want to run through the reasons, which I hope will not sound pedantic, for preferring "indicate" to "describe". The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, did not go so far as to ask that action areas should be shown on the map at this stage. That would be the extreme course, to define them in precise lines on the Ordnance Survey maps. I would remind the House that at this stage in the new procedure it will be the description, the written statement, that counts, and not the map.
The description of the area would require the planning authority to have a pretty precise idea of its detailed scheme for the area. This in itself would go rather against the whole concept of the structure plan, because the whole idea of the structure plan is to present to the

605
Minister only those issues with which Central Government must concern itself—the policy and general proposals for the whole area—leaving the detailed planning within the framework of that to be dealt with in local plans, among which the action plans would be.
Experience under the present system has taught us that the involvement of the Minister in every detail of the plan, and the need to set every detail right for purposes of his approval is one of the major causes of the enormous delay which we live with at the present time in dealing with development plans. I think the Committee ought to be very careful about introducing anything which might tend to perpetuate that fault, and I really think this simple shift of words might. The idea is that a structure plan should indicate those action areas on which a start is expected to be made in the next ten years. This is a very long time, and it would be hardly realistic to expect description of the boundaries of all the areas on the structure plan as much as ten years before there may well have been a start upon them, let alone a finish. I think that to attempt to draw boundaries, to describe boundaries—because "describe" must mean being rather precise about boundaries—so far in advance would risk misleading people, and would only increase disturbance both among public bodies and private persons who would be affected by the plan.
Lastly, on the question of blight, this is a very difficult question to settle. I think, if I may say so, that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, put it rather simply in saying that the more precision you have the less blight you have. I feel that the real situation is more difficult than that. The more precision you have, the less widespread will be your blight, but the more severe it will be within the area precisely defined or described. The less precision you have, the more widespread will be your blight, I agree, but the less severe it will be because of the very doubt about the area in which the development in question is to take place. This is a balancing out between precision, giving geographically limited but severe blight, and imprecision, giving geographically more extended but less severe blight. In my view, the word "describe" is the right one to put us at the correct
606
place on the spectrum which I have just described to the Committee.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: The word "describe", or the word "indicate"?
LORD KENNET: I beg your Lordships' pardon. The word "indicate". The noble Lord, as so often, has saved me from adopting his own position. Consider the derivation of the two words, "indicate", meaning to point with the finger, and "describe", meaning to write down or write a line round. The latter is too precise, and I would urge the Committee, for the reasons I have given, to retain the rather better word "indicate".
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: At any rate, the noble Lord has accepted that this is a difficult matter. I, for my part, accept his improvement of my description as between deep blight over a small area and lighter blight over a larger area. I hope that the Government will continue to think about this to see if there is any way in which we can ensure that the structure plans will not create more blight than is necessary. I think the noble Lord, Lord Fiske, who has great experience in these matters, will agree with me that blight is one of the most difficult and complicating factors when one is trying to do long-term planning.
If your Lordships can, through debate here, assist the Government in working out a way in which these structure plans can be arrived at, so as to create the minimum of blight in the years to come, that will be a very great gain. Even if the Government are unwilling to alter this word "indicate", I hope that they will carefully consider, in any circulars they are sending out, or any regulations they are making in regard to a structure plan, whether there are means by which they can alert local planning anthorities to the great danger of so drafting and preparing their structure plan that they may cause unnecessary blight. We have had our debate. I am inclined to think that "describe" is the better word, and the Government think that "indicate" is the better word. Let us all think over it, and meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I should like to say a few words about Clause 2. I wish to pay my tribute to the Planning Advisory Group and to all those, in Government circles and outside them, who have worked together to think out this new idea of the structure plan. I have no doubt at all that it will be an improvement on the former development plan. There is one particular question that I want to ask. It arises out of the emphasis which the Report of the Planning Advisory Group laid, and which this Bill embodies, with regard to taking transport and traffic questions much more fully into account at the stage of drawing up a plan than was done in the main with the original development plans. Indeed, subsection (3)(a) of this clause lays special stress on measures for the improvement of the physical environment and the management of traffic.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet said that the Minister would be contemplating a ten-year period in this clause. Ten years is quite a long time on the traffic side, and a great deal can happen in ten years. Will the structure plan include not only an indication or description of the action areas, but also an indication or description of all those parts or strips of the structure plan area which are likely to be (shall I say?) radically altered on traffic grounds because of the need for new roads or other ways for the traffic? Again, I have blight at the back of my mind, but whereas the clause is fairly specific about the action areas, it is not so specific about the manner in which road changes, in particular, are likely to be marked and made clear. I think that if the noble Lord could say something about the addition which he expects this new emphasis on traffic management will cause for structure plans and those who are compiling them, in comparison with the old development plans, it would be of value; because, as I say, though the action plan has a whole subsection devoted to it, the traffic management aspect is simply mentioned in passing.
LORD KENNET: Yes, I should perhaps have first of all clarified the ten-year period I mentioned. The idea is that this should be the period up to which action areas should be indicated on the structure plan. That is, when a local authority is preparing its structure plan,
608
if it wants to do something in a given local area within ten years it should make it an action area. If it does not, it should not. That is the general guidance on this point. The period of ten years does not have the same significance elsewhere as in action areas. On the general question which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, asked about, showing traffic proposals and road proposals in the structure plan, the answer is "Yes, of course." That is why it appears in this clause: in order to ensure that that shall be shown and taken properly into account.
I should perhaps say at this stage that we, and I think the local authorities as a whole, are very conscious of the fact that co-ordination between the planning side and the road transport side has not been as good as it should have been over the last twenty years, either at Central Government level or at local government level. For this reason we are bending all our efforts to improve it at both those levels. I believe that this new structure plan procedure will provide a very good vehicle for a final fusion of effort from those two sides of the house, both nationally and locally.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to
Clause 3 [Publicity in connection with preparation of structure plan]:
6.53 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNORmoved, in subsection (1), to leave out "in their opinion". The noble Lord said: Perhaps your Lordships will be willing to consider, along with this Amendment, Amendment No. 10 to Clause 7, which is identical though in another context. Both Clause 3 and Clause 7 were clauses which were moved into the Bill at the Report stage in another place; therefore, we have a special obligation to look at them carefully, as they did not go through the whole long Committee examination that the rest of the Bill did. The particular question I want to ask here is whether the Government are right in including these words "in their opinion". I know the Government to be sincere in wishing that there shall be much better and more effective publicity in connection with plans of all sorts than took place in all cases in the past; and

609
it is for that reason, no doubt, that we have two whole clauses devoted to publicity: one to publicity for structure plans and one to publicity for local plans. But is it right simply to stipulate that
"the local planning authority shall take such steps as will in their opinion secure"?
I think we can take it as axiomatic that there are good, bad and indifferent local planning authorities. One cannot tell what there will be after local government reorganisation has taken place. I cannot help thinking that in the matter of implementing Clauses 3 and 7, different local authorities may hold very different opinions as to the amount and quality of publicity which will be necessary to achieve these objects. If those words, "in their opinion", remain in the Bill members of the public who feel very disturbed about the lack of proper publicity that has been given by their own local planning authority to a proposed structure plan or proposed local plan will have no defence, they will have no weapon, because when they complain to the local authority, the local planning authority will simply say, "We did what was in our opinion enough, and that is all the Bill requires us to do". Surely it would be better to leave out the words "in their opinion" so that the local authority would not be the judge in its own cause as to the quantity and quality of publicity which it should secure for its structure plans and its local plans. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 14, leave out ("in their opinion").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
LORD HOLFORD: I hesitate to intervene in this matter because the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has administered town and country planning; I have only made proposals. But I feel rather strongly about this subject, and the point I want to make is this. Some initiative must be taken in this matter, and I take it that the object of this clause in saying "in their opinion" is that local authorities should take the initiative. At the end of the subsection it is stated that the authorities shall consider any representations made to them within the prescribed period, which means that if other people want to take the initiative and
610
put forward suggestions or make objections they can in fact do so. It seems to me to be abundantly right that the local authority should have placed upon it the job of bringing this matter to people's attention, which is something positive. In other words, I think that it is better to leave in these words "in their opinion", because what we are really discussing is not the ends but the means by which they do it.
LORD KENNET: The point is that if we leave out the words "in their opinion" we bring in the courts. We create a gap which can be closed only by application to the courts, and we could get endless litigation about whether or not the local authority had taken the steps which the Bill will say they ought to take. They are rather vaguely phrased, intentionally so, because I think the local authorities know their own situation in their own areas best. The limits within which the local authority can act in this matter of publicity and public participation in drawing up plans are subject to what the Minister may lay down in regulations. But, subject to broad considerations such as the periods during which any notices must be displayed and the opportunity of inspecting documents, the local planning authorities themselves are, we think, the most competent judge of what publicity will produce adequate results. They know best local conditions and the likely reaction to particular methods of publicity and of inviting people to come along and take a hand.
There are many safeguards in this connection, even if we leave in the words "in their opinion". The actions of the local planning authority have to be reported to the Minister; the authorities have to tell him what they have done. The Minister has power to withhold consideration of the plan and return it to the authority with directions to take further steps about publicity and so on. It would be going rather far if a structure plan should risk invalidation at the very end of the whole procedure following a challenge in the courts on the grounds that the publicity given to proposals was not adequate. If there are inadequacies in publicity they should be corrected at a far earlier stage, even long before the formal public inquiry is held.

611
As the Bill stands now it provides for the Minister to ensure that such inadequacies are corrected. The point is that as the Bill stands, without amendment, the local planning authority will not be the final arbiter as to what steps are adequate. The effect of the words "in their opinion" is indeed to exclude challenge in the courts, but they do not prevent the Minister from imposing firm obligations by way of regulation and also giving general advice which will be given after the report of the Skeffington Committee, which I need not describe to your Lordships, on the whole question of public participation in planning. A combination of regulations, general advice and the Minister's power in Clause 3(4) to send the whole thing back if he is not satisfied about the publicity, or to direct the authority to do something else about it, ought, in my view, to be enough to secure the effect which I know all sides of the Committee are at one in desiring, namely, that the publicity shall in every case undoubtedly be sufficient.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation, and for my part I am solely anxious to be helpful here. I was glad to hear that he seemed to be satisfied that the words which I propose to leave out would not undermine the Minister's power in subsection (4). I think this point needs looking at further, although I will not press him on the matter to-day. Subsection (4) provides what may happen if the Minister is not satisfied that the authority has adequately complied with subsection (1). I do not see how he can fail to be satisfied that the local planning authority has taken such steps as would "in its opinion" secure certain results. The local planning authority would simply say, "This is our opinion, and the law says it is our opinion and not yours that matters; therefore 'buzz off'".
I appreciate that the Minister also has to be satisfied about lines 24 and 25, whether the authority has adequately considered any representations made to it within the prescribed period, but are the Government really wise to leave the Minister so powerless, as he will be if these words are retained, on the question whether a local planning authority has adequately complied with its first duty
612
under subsection (1), namely, the publicity duty? Now that I have raised the point I feel sure the Government will consider it between now and Report stage and will see whether there can be any better wording, because we are all anxious that adequate publicity shall be secured and that the intentions shall not be frustrated by a local planning authority which has antediluvian ideas on publicity. Having said that, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.2 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, in subsection (2), after "inspection" to insert "and purchase". The noble Lord said: Perhaps your Lordships would consider, along with this Amendment, Nos. 11 and 12, to Clause 7, which are related to the same point. Here we are dealing in the first instance with Clause 3(2), which requires the local planning authority to make copies of the plan, as submitted to the Minister, available for inspection at their offices and at such other places as may be prescribed. This Amendment raises the question whether that goes far enough.
A local planning authority can comply with that statutory requirement simply by having copies of the plan available in certain places during office hours. These plans will be important documents and will be of interest to a large variety of people. Not all of them will be people of such leisure that they can go along to certain buildings within office hours and sit down and read studiously the copies of the plans that are there. If I were professionally concerned in this, or indeed if I were a member of a society which was interested in the growth and development of the town, I should want to be able to get hold of a copy of this plan and take it home with me and study it. That is why I am suggesting that the statute should stipulate that these plans shall be available for inspection and purchase, and not only for inspection. This Amendment is probably too simply worded from the draftsman's point of view, but I think its object is plain. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 28, after ("inspection") insert ("and purchase").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
LORD AIREDALE: I should like to support this Amendment. In these days of copying machines which are fairly widely available, there should be no difficulty for local authorities in getting copies prepared for sale to people who require them in order to study them in their own offices or homes. One cannot possibly expect a person who has studied a complicated plan in some local authority building to be able to remember that plan. He either has to make a copy for himself, which would seem to be a tedious exercise for him, sitting in the office of the local authority, or he must have one provided for him in some way. Surely the answer is to use copying machines and to make these plans available for a reasonable sum to people who want to buy them.
LORD FISKE: I should like to intervene shortly, perhaps partly on the grounds that I have never knowingly in my planning life told anybody to "buzz off". But if I have clone so I am sure it was with the best intentions. I am a little worried about this Amendment, not because I think these plans should not be circulated but because of the stage at which they should be circulated. There is nothing more confusing than to have one plan generally purchased and circulated to all the solicitors and estate agents in a town, on which people take their decisions to buy or not to buy certain properties or land, and then to find, on inquiry at the town hall, that it is not really the right plan, because when it went to the Minister he had excluded a little piece of land on which you thought you could build a house. So, while I think it is perfectly fair that the plans should be available for purchase, in my view it should not be when the plan is published but when it comes back approved by the Minister that it should be put freely on sale.
LORD MITCHISON: I should like to make a small plea for the people who are affected by these plans. It is no doubt right that they should have a copy, but is it absolutely necessary in all cases that they should be made to pay for it? That would seem to be the effect of putting in these words; but I, knowing the warm-hearted generosity of wealthy local authorities, should hope that people would sometimes get one free.
LORD ILFORD: I hope your Lordships are not going to place upon local authorities the responsibility for providing these plans to everyone who likes to walk into the office and ask for them. If a person has an interest in the area he will probably be prepared to pay a shilling or half-a-crown, but it is quite a different matter to say that the local authority ought to undertake to distribute the plans free of charge.
LORD KENNET: We at any moment now shall be affronting the question of selectivity in the social services. As my noble friend Lord Fiske has said, it is important to distinguish between the operative plan which is approved by the Minister and the draft plan. I am sure it is unnecessary, but to be double sure that we are avoiding mistakes the approved plan is treated differently. This comes under Section 10 of the Act of 1962, which states that copies of development plans approved by the Minister are available for sale to the public at a reasonable cost, and this has been done ever since then. That provision is carried over into the Bill now before us. Clause 13 enables a similar provision to be made in regulations about structure and local plans once they are approved by the Minister, and the Minister intends to make a regulation having that effect. So that local authorities will have to offer for sale the approved plans.
We now turn to the draft plans which are the subject of Lord Brooke's Amendment. Here I would point out, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that we are not discussing whether or not the local planning authorities shall be empowered to offer these plans for sale. They will be empowered; they can do so without amendment of the Bill. The effect of the Amendment would be to bind them to do so in all cases. We ought to remember that the local plans will vary very much in scale, detail and importance, and some of them will be really very minor things indeed, not showing much, and will not be of interest to very many people; and it is possible that to impose on the local authority a statutory duty to print off or render publishable copies for sale would be going too far, because photocopying machines do not always produce satisfactory results and a local authority would feel it ought not to offer inferior

615
goods for sale and would have to print the lot. It would be a pure waste of money for something which interests only half a dozen people in any case.
What I suggest is that we do not amend the Bill on this point, simply on the grounds that the question is not important enough for a statutory obligation, but that we let the Bill go through as it stands. And I can give an undertaking to the Committee now that if, after some experience of the new procedure has been gained, the Minister finds that there is complaint about the way it is being operated, he will issue a circular telling local authorities that they ought to make copies available for sale of certain categories of draft plans—at any rate those which are likely to be of interest to more than merely a handful of people. I hope that the Committee may agree this will meet the case.
LORD AIREDALE: I simply cannot believe that any local planning authority which is of county council or equivalent status has not in these days access to a copying machine which can be relied upon to produce legible copies of documents.
LORD KENNET: I do not know about that, but I have not in the Ministry.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: The Ministry seem to have gone downhill since my day. I feared that that was the case, but had not liked to mention it. I can appreciate that there may be a difference as between the structure plans and the local plans. Some local plans may be of interest to only a handful of people, as the noble Lord said. But I cannot believe that there would be any structure plans which would not be sufficiently important to be of interest to a considerable number of people; and, though I am grateful for the offer the noble Lord made on behalf of the Government, I feel concerned particularly for those who will be professionally concerned with these matters.
It seems to me that the moment a draft structure plan is made available for inspection under subsection (2) of Clause 3 a considerable number of people in the professions will find it their professional duty to examine it, in order that they can advise their various prin-
616
cipals whether there are any matters on which those persons should take the opportunity given them under subsection (1)(c) of making representations about the draft plan. If the local authority can say to all the solicitors, valuers and agents of other kinds, as well as to individual property owners who may be interested, "We have no obligation beyond exhibiting copies of this draft plan within office hours at certain places", they will obviously create a great deal of for themselves. What we want to do is to extend good will. That is the whole object of Clause 3 and the publicity provisions.
I hope that the noble Lord will think further about this. I am quite sure that my Amendment is too simple to be properly drafted, and I appreciate that there may be small local plans where one would not wish to put the local authority to the trouble of making a number of copies for sale which might never be bought. But I have no doubt whatever that with all structure plans there will be a genuine demand for copies for people to take back to their homes or offices and study, and I think that that demand ought to be met from the very inception of this procedure.
I feel sure that the Government will consider this and see whether there is a way, without imposing unreasonable obligations, of ensuring that the people
"who may be expected to desire an opportunity of making representations to the authority".
to use the words of the clause, will have ample opportunity to provide themselves with a copy of the plan about which they wish to make representations. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Approval or rejection of structure plan by Minister]:
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
7.17 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I wonder whether the Government could give an assurance that their idea is that the public inquiries will take place in

617
just the same way for these structure plans as for the development plans. One has subsection (3)(b), which says:
"afford … an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by him for the purpose; and
(c) if a local inquiry or other hearing is held, also afford the like opportunity to the local planning authority and such other persons as he thinks fit."
Are the Government envisaging that there may be some cases where a private hearing will suffice without the local planning authority being present? Will it not always be the case with a structure plan, unless the unbelievable happens and there is not a single objection or representation from anybody, that it will be necessary to have a public inquiry? If so, should we not say so, either in the Bill or through the words of the noble Lord speaking for the Government?
LORD KENNET: There is no intention of departing from the procedure in this respect which has long prevailed in this field. I agree with the noble Lord that it looks odd to put in "if there is a hearing or a public inquiry", but I imagine the Committee would not wish to make it impossible, in the very unlikely event of there being virtually no objections, to dispense with a hearing or a public inquiry. What do I mean by "virtually no objections"? I agree that it is a very remote, possibly hypothetical case. Supposing a structure plan is submitted to the Minister and there is simply one objection which is based on a misunderstanding of the plan. This can be sorted out in correspondence; this is a written representation. This would not then give rise to a need for a hearing or public inquiry at all. I agree that it is unlikely to happen, and I agree that the procedure otherwise would be the same as under the 1962 Act.
LORD MITCHISON: Before the clause is agreed, I should like to remind the Committee that in subsection (4) there is at present a provision that the Minister
"shall not be under an obligation … to cause any local inquiry or other hearing to be held".
So that if effect were to be given to this suggestion there would have to be an Amendment to the clause, and no doubt the Amendment would indicate in what
618
circumstances a local inquiry is considered to be imperative on the Minister.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Alteration of structure plans]:
7.20 p.m.
LORD KENNET: The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that the same obligations in respect of publicity and public participation as apply to the original submission of a structure plan are made to apply also to proposals for alterations to that plan. I do net expect the Committee would wish me to explain in detail how this is done. It is fairly evident that what is sauce for the original plan should also be sauce for the alterations to it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 20, leave out from first ("and") to ("4") and insert ("sections 3 and").—(Lord Kennet.)
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6—[Preparation of local plans]:
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNORmoved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 7. This deals with the provision that different local plans may be prepared for different purposes for the same part of any area. I am aware that this matter was raised on a probing Amendment in another place, and I appreciate that there may be circumstances in which local plans may overlap one another, but I see considerable dangers in having different local plans for different purposes for the same part of the area, and I move this Amendment principally to enable the Government to explain how they propose to get over those dangers. Hitherto, we have, in general, been accustomed to a plan which is "the plan". We now have provision made for different local plans. I suppose one might be a recreation plan for part of the countryside, and one might be a traffic plan. It may be that in an area there will be a large-scale plan and a small-scale plan. Unless a great deal of trouble is taken to inform everybody concerned, there will be a danger that some-body looking at a plan will think that it is "the plan" and that he need look no further. My point will be met if the

619
Government will give an assurance that by regulations or otherwise they will put local authorities on guard against the possibility of misleading people by not making it sufficiently clear that there may be in existence another local plan in the particular area, in addition to the plan at which the person concerned is looking. I know that this subject has caused some anxiety in professional circles and, without wishing really to leave the subsection out, I should like to be assured that the Government are alive to the possibility that different local plans, if they were not all available at the same time to the same person, might quite easily mislead him. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 1, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
LORD KENNET: I think in the interests of speed the simplest thing I can say is, yes, I do give the assurance for which the noble Lord asks.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ILFORD LORD ILFORD moved, after subsection (4), to insert:
"( ) A non-county borough if they so desire may prepare a local plan for their area and the provisions of this Part of this Act shall apply to any such plan as if it had been prepared by the local planning authority, references to the local planning authority being deemed to be references to the non-county borough."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to make it possible for the non-county boroughs to prepare the local plans within their areas. It is recognised that the structure plan must be made by the county council, but within the structure plan there are local plans which deal with particular areas in much greater detail than does the structure plan. It seems right that the non-county boroughs in the area of the structure plan should be given some part in the preparation of their local plans. After all, they are the authority who are, I suppose, in the closest contact with the population and more fully acquainted with the nature of their district than the county council are likely to be. I desire to cast no reflection on the county coun-
620
cils, but it is obvious that the local authority, the non-county borough, is a great deal more in contact with the population and with the district than the county council can be.
These non-county boroughs are not small authorities; some of them are quite large authorities. They are all housing authorities and they are all highway authorities for certain classes of highways; and it seems to be a natural thing that, in addition to discharging the important functions of those two services, they should be entrusted with the preparation of the local plan. Many of the larger non-county boroughs have provided themselves with a planning department and with an adequate planning staff, so they are quite capable of undertaking the preparation of local plans without having to engage additional staff, or a staff which differs from that which is already in their employ.
Not infrequently the Government express a desire to maintain these county districts. They recognise the advantage of an authority which is close to the population. This provides exactly the opportunity which is wanted to extend the services which have been entrusted to these authorities in a direction in which they will do something to make good the loss of powers which these authorities have suffered in recent years from the many different changes in the administration of local government. It may be that the Minister will think that he cannot go as far as the Amendment invites him to go and make it possible for a non-county borough, if it desires to do so, to undertake the preparation of these plans. That seems to be the best and simplest course to take, but it may not be a course that necessarily appeals to the Minister.
I would invite the Minister to consider whether some form of delegation might not be adopted. I would remind him that under the Education Act 1944, delegation was extended in certain directions a great deal further than it had been before. Excepted districts were there set up. There is a similarity between the planning authority and education in this regard, because the excepted districts were given power under the Education Act to prepare within their areas their own school plans. I would invite the Minister to consider whether, if he cannot go as far

621
as the Amendment invites him to go, by some similar form of delegation the non-county boroughs might not be brought into the business of preparing the plans. Delegation under the Education Act has worked well, and I think the excepted district found the position was a very acceptable one. I should, of course, like the Minister to accept the Amendment, but if he feels he cannot do that, then perhaps he will consider whether delegation might not prove an acceptable alternative.
I ought to say that the Bill already contains some provisions for delegation, but they are not very satisfactory provisions because they involve the submission of the decisions of the county district authorities to the county council and their consideration by the county council. They then become effective until they become decisions of the county council. A good deal of time is occupied by all this going backwards and forwards, and the arrangements under the Education Act, in which the county district authority, or the excepted district as it is in education, is given power to prepare the plans in its own area, are much more suitable.
I hope the Minister will consider this matter sympathetically. People often express a good deal of sympathy with these county district authorities without doing very much to give practical effect to their sympathies. This is an occasion where something which is quite properly suitable for administration by the county districts might be entrusted to them.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 2, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Ilford.)
7.33 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I am sorry to find myself in dispute with my learned friend who speaks for the A.M.C., but though the County Councils Association have not formally considered this Amendment, I cannot believe that it would be very popular with many county councils.
LORD ILFORD: I speak for the County Councils Association, too.
VISCOUNT GAGE: But surely not on this Amendment. I thought that one of the principal criticisms of the present planning set-up was that the areas were too small to permit of the proper de-
622
ployment of trained staff; and trained staff are getting rarer and more difficult to obtain all the time. Certainly in my experience the greatest possible expertise is necessary in the preparation of town maps, as they were called, and areas of comprehensive redevelopment as they were called, now to become action areas and local areas.
Of course, the non-county borough could, and probably would, employ a consultant. I am speaking in the presence of the well-known town planning consultant, and I do not wish to give any wrong impression about this, but in my experience the consultant nearly always has to get a great deal of material from the county, and he then proceeds to make his plan. Unless he works very closely with the county council he may well come to a conclusion, in his efforts to please his clients, which in some ways conflict with county interests, particularly in the matter of roads.
I think it is very right and proper that county districts and non-county boroughs should be given the maximum responsibility, and often it is quite possible for the county authority to delegate certain particular functions to the borough council. I think it would be a mistake, however, to put this into a sort of statutory form. I think it might lead to a good deal of altercation in certain cases, altercation which would be very difficult to resolve except possibly by the Minister himself. I think it would be particularly unwise, too, to make such a substantial change in planning law just at the time when the Report of the Royal Commission on the Structure of Local Government is expected and when we expect considerable changes in planning structure to be proposed. I fully agree that county councils should be encouraged to be on the best possible terms with the county boroughs and districts, but I think this is possibly not the best method to promote those good relations, and I hope that it will be left over for the time being.
LORD SILKIN: I fully agree with the noble Viscount who has just spoken. I think it would be a great mistake to give specific powers to the non-county boroughs at this time, or indeed at any time. When the 1947 Act was introduced we came to the conclusion that there

623
were far too many local planning authorities in the country. At that time I think there were something like 1,100, and the number was reduced to something like 100 or 110. Unfortunately, there became a tendency among county councils to delegate to local authorities, with the result that these delegated authorities, instead of acting as pure delegates, became virtually authorties on their own account, and acquired particular points of view, very strong local points of view, which were not in accordance with the conception of planning as we understood it.
If this Amendment were carried it would in fact create a new type of planning authority whose interests would be located solely in the area itself, and there would be a great tendency not to have regard to the planning of the area as a whole. It would be the very negation of what, as I understand it, we have in mind, under this Bill, which is to widen the scope of town planning, to create larger units and to get a conception of planning an area as a whole. I hope, therefore, that this Amendment will not be incorporated in the Bill. It may be that by agreement with the county councils, these boroughs may have some kind of function hereafter. I should not object to that, some kind of voluntary functions, but I think that to create new planning authorities of this kind and to give them powers as local planning authorities would be a tremendous mistake.
LORD KENNET: The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, said that the district councils ought to have this power of drawing up plans because they had greater local knowledge than the county councils, and I think nobody could possibly dispute that. After all, they live there and the area they cover is less wide. Therefore, it would be strange indeed, and they would be failing in their duty, if they did not know every inch of the area a little better than the county council. However, the county councils themselves have built up a pretty formidable knowledge of their areas. After all, they have been planning authorities for twenty years, and during that time, in cooperation with the district councils and with the help of the district councils, they have gathered a knowledge which, I think, is very little indeed behind that
624
in detail available to the district councils. And, of course, it is wider in its incidence and therefore better fits them for the joining up of their plans which must, by their nature, be related closely to each other over the whole area of the planning authority itself.
I think a more important difficulty in the way of this is the question of skilled manpower. I know the noble Lord said that district councils had planning officers who were pretty good, but I expect he would agree this is not true of all of them. The best might be capable of doing almost as good, or indeed as good a job as the county council in its planning field. But it would have to be admitted that in general the county councils, having been the planning authority for many years, have a greater concentration of skilled manpower, and that if one were to delegate this local plan-making function permanently on a statutory basis to the district councils, an inevitable result would be the erosion, if not break-up, of those pools of skilled manpower which at present are available to the existing planning authorities.
There is also the question of whether the non-county boroughs would themselves always have the right boundaries for the drawing up of local plans. One can imagine a district plan, or even an action area, which would cross the boundary of a non-county borough and run into county territory. In that case there would be a clear disadvantage in allowing the non-county borough to draw up a local plan. Another thing the Amendment does not do is to stop the county from drawing up a local plan. There is no machinery for settlement if a dispute develops. The noble Lord mentioned education as an analogy, but education is a field which is different enough in its nature and in the job which has to be carried out to make the analogy not close or relevant to our discussions. He also said that there were classes of decisions delegated by counties to non-county boroughs which then had to be vetted by the counties. He cannot have meant under the Bill, because I do not think that there is anything in the Bill of that nature, so any such troubles which exist at the moment under the Bill will go.
I come to the two greatest objections to doing this. The first is that it never

625
has been done. It could be held to be a step in the wrong direction, since we want in the Bill to make it easier for planning authorities to group together to get plans which cross boundaries. We also want in the Bill to have ready a new planning system which will be able to be operated by the larger units which people expect to come out of the Royal Commission Report, if indeed they recommend that. The tendency will be towards concentrating the skilled staff into larger units rather than dispersing them. One might hold that after 20 years experience of having planning authorities at county and county borough level, now would be the wrong time to delegate plan-making powers themselves lower down. An Amendment to a similar effect was rather fully discussed in the House of Commons and did not find favour there. In view of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD ILFORD: I am a little disappointed that the Minister is so unwilling to consider delegation on the lines I suggest, since I feel that it offers a solution. It is not every non-county borough which could undertake these powers, and I was not suggesting that it should. But having heard what the Minister has said, I must accept it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: In Clause 6 we come to the important concept of the local plan. This was another of the new clauses which on the Report Stage in another place was moved into the Bill in substitution for something different and it is reasonable to ask one or two questions about it. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will be able to say something about the Government's general idea for the local plans. I think that everybody understands the concept of an action plan. This is where what hitherto we have called comprehensive development is required. But that will not be the only kind of local plan, and the local planning authorities will be at liberty to start preparing all
626
kinds of other local plans for different parts of their areas.
How do the Government envisage their going about this? It is at their discretion. Where should they start first? A further question is, how all this will link up with the existing plans? As I see the matter, these local plans will be of special value in that they will give developers a clear idea of what kind of development will or will not be acceptable in particular parts of the town or countryside. That clearly is of importance. But how is a local planning authority to proceed? To which parts of its area, other than action areas, is it to give priority here? In the case of an action area, I understand that if an area has been indicated in a structure plan as an action area the local authority will be required under subsection (6) to go ahead as rapidly as possible and prepare a local plan for it. But what about the rest? In some cases they may have had amendments to their development plan quite recently approved by the Minister. I know that development plans and local plans will not be exactly the same, but the information—the guidance, shall I say?—to potential developers will in such places be up to date.
Is it envisaged that local planning authorities will turn aside from such areas, and after they have dealt with their action areas will they get to work on parts of their area where the existing plan is out of date and seek to bring that up to date by the preparation of local plans? I think I can see vaguely how this will work. It seems to roe that local planning authorities would benefit by considerable guidance as to how they are to use these new powers. I take it that I am right in assuming that all existing plans will remain in force until they are replaced by local plans under this clause.
My final questions on this clause relates to subsection (7). This is the subsection which gives the Minister power to give a direction that they shall prepare a local plan as soon as practicable for a certain part of an area covered by a structure plan. In what sort of circumstances is it envisaged that the Minister will wish to use that power? Is that simply a long-stop power to stimulate a local authority which does not appear to be getting on with the job?

627
Or, alternatively, is it intended to provide a way forward for the Minister when for reasons of Government policy it is thought desirable that a local plan should be prepared by the local authority for that area? I hope I have made my general questions clear. I think it would be of considerable help to your Lordships if the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, made a short statement about the local plans, other than the action area plans which are self-explanatory.
LORD KENNET: I welcome the opportunity of making a statement, because it is a puzzling matter if one just reads the Bill. There will be a variety of kinds of local plans. One of these, which must follow from the structure plan, is the action area plan. This is typically for comprehensive treatment, whether by development, redevelopment, improvement or a combination of two or more of these, and—this is the detailed plan—the provisions for drawing the boundaries which we discussed on an earlier Amendment. The terms of the Bill, and of the intended regulations under it, will permit a range of treatment in these action areas from the fully detailed to a document in the nature of a brief for the developer, which will lay down the guide lines for what the planning authority wants to be done.
The question of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, was directed more specifically to the other local plans, the non-action local plans—what are they for? The primary function of local plans, other than action area plans, will of course be to guide development control. These plans will typically be prepared for neighbourhoods within large existing towns, or for small towns not exceeding 50,000, where there are no conspicuous proposals for concentrated change. If there were such conspicuous proposals, then an action area plan would of course be appropriate. They will be something akin to the town map in the development plans under the 1962 Act. That will be the closest resemblance to any existing animal, though they will not be very like that. Their function will be to display the subsidiary structure of neighbourhoods or small towns and to set out the pattern of land uses expected.
Another sort of local plan will be concerned to present a particular policy of
628
the planning authority—for instance, for rural recreation or for the working of minerals—and to put flesh on the bones of the bare statement which will appear in the structure plan that, "Here be recreational; here be mineral workings." Those are the sort of plans more than one of which may exist in relation to one tract of country, which we discussed at an earlier stage and agreed it would be important to ensure that local authorities saw to it that nobody was confused by the permitted multiplicity.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, inquired about the relationship of the new local plans with existing plans. What will local authorities do if they have only just had their old style plan approved by the Minister? One of the criteria governing the going over of the planning authority to the new scheme will be its position in the cycle of the old planning system; that is, if it has just had a jolly good new development plan approved by the Minister, that will be a reason for delaying the coming into effect of the new planning system in that area. If, on the other hand, it has an old development plan which is out of date and which was coming up for review quite shortly, that will be a reason for bringing it into the new system earlier rather than later.
I shall not trouble the Committee with all the other reasons. This is only one of five or six, and may of course be overridden by other criteria. The transitional provisions of the Bill empower the Minister to cancel, delete or utterly annul such planning material left over from the old system as is no longer needed when the new style plans come into effect.
Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, inquired about the Minister's powers of direction under subsection (7). These are really intended just to see that there are no local planning authorities which simply do not react to new Government proposals. If there should be such powers they are default powers of a specific nature, but they are not the general default power which covers the whole Bill. If what I have been able to say is not sufficiently detailed for the noble Lord, I ask him to allow me to come back to it at a later stage in the Bill. But I hope that what I have said is sufficient.
Clause 6 agreed to.
The Sitting was suspended at 7.55 p.m. and resumed at 8.25 p.m
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Inquiries, etc. with respect to local plans]:
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: On Clause 8, I should like to ask the same sort of question which I asked on an earlier clause with regard to structure plans, but here we come to something new. These are inquiries on local plans, and they are going to be taken by a person appointed by the Minister or, in certain circumstances, by the authority themselves. We therefore have something new here. May I say that I welcome the Amendments which the Government made in another place to ensure that the inspector (if I may call him that) who takes an inquiry into a local plan shall not be a mere creature of the local authority. I mean that with no disrespect to local Government officials, but I think it is universally accepted that it is important that this should be a well-qualified and independently-minded person.
May I take it that the general practice here will be as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, assured me it would be with regard to structure plans; that is to say, where a local inquiry would in a normal case be held into a plan now, the same kind of public local inquiry will be held in future into a local plan, though the person who holds the inquiry may not be a Minister's inspector and though he will report to the local authority and not to the Minister? I hope I can be assured that, in general, if there are representations or objections of sufficient importance to warrant a local inquiry rather than a private hearing, then a local inquiry will be held. I am not quite certain how the Minister is going to secure that: I am concerned only to ensure that it shall be secured.
Secondly, may I ask a little further about the inspector's report? I understood during our Second Reading debate that the report of an inspector on an inquiry or hearing into a local plan would be both published and sent to the Minister. I am not sure how that is secured. I do not think that the 1958 Act, referred
630
to in subsection (l)(b), is sufficient to secure the publication of the inspector's report; though it does ensure publication of a statement of reasons for the local authority's decision. My general feeling about this is that I am prepared to accept that these local plans should be subjected to a form of inquiry similar to those to which we have been accustomed but not necessarily taken by an inspector appointed by a Minister.
I am anxious for the assurance that everything in respect of these inquiries will be as public and above board, shall I say, as it is at present. I have no reason to suspect that it will not be; but it is not clear on the face of the Bill how it will be ensured, for example, that the person who conducts the inquiry will be required to produce a report that will be published by the local authority so that the public will know not only what the local authority has decided, and why, but what the inspector or person who held the inquiry reported or recommended to the local authority. I had rather expected, for example, that subsection (2) dealing with regulations might extend to these matters. It may be that the Minister can make regulations in other ways. I am not questioning the policy here; I am only asking how the Minister is going to ensure that his intentions are carried out.
LORD KENNET: In a word, by regulations under Clause 13 to which we shall be coming. The main point about all this is that the question whether a given matter shall be settled by hearing or by public inquiry will be regulated in the same manner as it was under the 1962 Act and that the report of an inspector on any inquiry will be required to be published. I hope that that is enough to cover the points made by the noble Lord.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Adoption and approval of local plans]:
LORD KENNET: This Amendment is more than drafting but still on a point of detail. Its effect is to ensure twat the local planning authority shall not adopt a local plan if the Minister has directed, under subsection (3) of the clause, that the plan shall not have effect unless approved by him. The condition which I now invite the Committee to impose

631
was, in fact, included in the Bill as it was introduced in the House of Commons; and the omission of the reference to the relevant subsection was inadvertent. It is, as it were, a drafting Amendment of substance. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 33, leave out ("subsection (2)") and insert ("subsections (2) and (3)".—(Lord Kennet.)
8.35 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that if the local planning authority propose modifications to the plan they shall, before adopting the plan as modified, afford an adequate opportunity of making objections to the modifications proposed, and shall consider any such objections made."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 14. The requirement in this Amendment may be provided elsewhere in the Bill. I should like to make sure that it is. If not, I may feel it necessary to press this Amendment.
The draft local plan is published. It goes to inquiry. A report is made by the inspector or person holding the inquiry, and that goes back to the local authority. The local authority, under subsection (1) of the clause, can adopt the plan either as originally prepared or as modified so as to take account of objections. Modifications to a local plan may be very extensive. They may also be very expensive, but what I am thinking about here is that they may substantially alter the conditions of life for a number of people. If a road for which a particular line is proposed in the original draft plan gets drastically altered as a result of objections made to the inquiry, the road then has to go somewhere else and that may create a situation in which other people should be entitled to have their objections heard.
What I am anxious to discover is what procedure the local planning authority is required to go through when, as a result of a public local inquiry, it determines that substantial alterations to the draft plan, or modifications as they are officially called, are desirable. If the whole matter has been covered with the discussion of alternative possibilities in the public inquiry, well and good;
632
but if such strong objections have been adduced to a particular line of a road that the local planning authority then wants to put into its modified local plan an entirely different line of which perhaps no one has heard of before, it seems only just that those who may be affected by these modifications—and they may be drastically affected—should have their own opportunity to make representations and objections. My Amendment is designed to discover from the Government what they envisage and how these people who may be so affected by modifications will have an opportunity to have their views heard and considered. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 36, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
8.38 p.m.
LORD KENNET: The idea is that this matter should be covered by regulations under Clause 13, and I welcome the opportunity of saying what is the intention about these regulations. The Minister intends they shall provide for the following. Modifications which the authority think necessary will have to be published in a manner laid down. With the modifications there will be deposited for public inspection a copy of the original plan and a copy of the report of the inquiry or hearing, together with the authority's resolutions on the recommendations. A copy of the report and the proposed modifications will then have to be sent to the Minister at this stage. Not less than 21 days will be allowed for objections to the proposed modifications. The planning authority must consider these objections. They will not be under an obligation to afford a hearing to objectors; though they may hear them if they wish and the Minister intends to advise by circular that they should do so if the modification has caused the objector to raise new issues on which he had no opportunity of being heard at an earlier stage. In general, unless modifications are of a particularly radical nature it should be possible for objections to modifications to be dealt with by written representations or made the subject of a hearing rather than a public inquiry; but any hearing will have to be conducted by someone other than a member or officer of the planning authority

633
or district council concerned. Having considered any objections to their proposed modifications, the authority must resolve provisionally whether to adopt the plan as originally deposited, to adopt it with specified modifications, or to withdraw it. I hope that this statement of the Minister's intentions with regard to what will go into the regulations meets the point made by the noble Lord.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for what he has said. I should like to examine carefully in Hansard the detailed particulars he has given, but on first hearing they sound to me very satisfactory. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD KENNET: The purpose of this Amendment is to make explicit a procedural step which has so far only been implicit in the Bill. It relates to the Minister's power to call in a local plan so that, instead of its going forward for adoption in the standard fashion by the local planning authority, it shall become subject to procedures leading to the Minister's approval. So far the Bill has merely said that the Minister may direct that the plan shall not have effect unless approved by him. The Bill has said nothing about an obligation thereby resting upon the local planning authority to submit the plan to him for approval. This Amendment therefore states categorically that as a consequence of the Minister's direction that a local plan is not to have effect unless approved by him the authority must submit the plan to him for his approval. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 43, after ("him") insert—
("(4) Where the Minister gives a direction under subsection (3) above, the local planning authority shall submit the plan accordingly to him for his approval").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Whether Clause 9, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD MERRIVALE: I rise purely to seek an assurance from the Minister that the procedure laid down in this clause for the adoption and approval of local plans will be revised in the light of the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Gov-
634
ernment. It seems to me that as the Bill stands there is the objection that local planning authorities will be in a position to pronounce upon objections to a local plan which they themselves had prepared—in other words, they will be judge in their own cause.
I do not wish to cast any aspersions on the integrity of local planning authorities, but as a principle I should have thought it wrong that they should have this opportunity. I feel that this is borne out by experience. It is difficult for the originator of a plan to view it dispassionately when he receives objections. Moreover, does not the noble Lord feel that objectors who are not successful in getting their views accepted may feel that this was due to vested interests? If such a feeling became prevalent with objectors, the system could become discredited.
I should like to call your Lordships' attention to two points which were made in the Maud Committee Report on the management of local government. They say:
"There is often too wide a gulf in local government between the governors and the governed."
They say at another point:
"Whatever changes in the structure of local government may result from the report of the Royal Commission, the value we shall get from time and money spent on local government will still depend … on the degree of mutual understanding established between them and the people of the local communities they serve."
I am not sure whether there has been a complete change. Would not the system of local plans be defeated if they had to be referred to the Minister? Would not the ideal solution be that the right of approval should rest with the next higher planning authority? The reason why I am asking for this assurance is that it may well be that the Royal Commission will recommend a two-tier structure for local government, with a grouping of local authorities into larger regional authorities. Earlier on the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, referred to larger units. I do not know whether he meant larger regional units, but if he did, we are thinking on the same lines. Would the noble Lord not agree that it is reasonable to seek an assurance that such a review would be undertaken, or that the provisions in this Clause would not be implemented until any recommendation

635
such as I am suggesting may be put forward by the Royal Commission had been put into effect?
LORD KENNET: When legislation arising out of the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government is being prepared it will be necessary to see whether the new system which is to be taken into operation conflicts with anything in the existing law—and the Bill now before the Committee will by then be existing law. It will be necessary to reconcile any new proposals with anything that is in this Bill, and it may be that the Government at that time will have to repeal or modify clauses of this Bill, along with many others. I do not think there would be any case for singling out Clause 9 of this Bill for special review in that context, although Clause 9, along with other clauses, and this Bill, along with other Acts, will need to be reviewed for that purpose.
On the point of local authorities' being judge and advocate in their own cause. I might remind the Committee at this point that in certain categories of cases objections to local plans will be heard by inspectors appointed by the Minister, and not by the local authority which made the plan, and the right of appeal to the Minister against a decision on a given planning application, which of course will be affected by the contents of the plan, remains unaltered. Appeal to the Minister will be the same, except in so far as certain categories of appeal will be settled by the Minister's inspectors in their own right not by the Minister—a point to which we shall come later. Lastly, of course, as always, if any local planning authority conducts itself in such a way as to make itself unpopular with its own electorate, it will be chucked out.
Clause 9, as amended agreed to.
Clause 10 [Alteration to local plans]:
8.44 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved after subsection (1) to insert—
"( ) Without prejudice to subsection (1) above, a local planning authority shall, if the Minister gives them a direction in that behalf with respect to local plan adopted by them or approved by him, as soon as practicable prepare proposals of a kind specified in the direction, being proposals for the alteration, repeal or replacement of the plan".
The noble Lord said: Clause 10(1) provides that a local planning authority may at any time make proposals for the alteration, repeal or replacement of a local plan they have adopted or, with the consent of the Minister, make proposals for similar action with respect to a local' plan approved by him. It it one stage further forward. The Bill confers no powers for the Minister to direct the local planning authority to prepare and submit proposals for the addition, repeal or replacement of a local plan, such as he has by virtue of Clause 5(1), which we have already passed, in relation to a structure plan. The effect of this Amendment is to bring these two things into parallel and to provide that without prejudice to the local planning authority's power to prepare plans at their own discretion the Minister shall have a power, exercisable in relation to local plans whether adopted by the authority themselves or approved by the Minister, to direct the local planning authority to prepare as soon as practicable proposals for the alteration, repeal or replacement of a local plan as may be specified in the direction. That is a precise account of the situation, which can be summed up more succinctly by saying that the Minister can direct a local authority to submit proposals to him for a change in the structure plan, but as the Bill is drafted he cannot for a local plan, and the Amendment would give him authority to do so. I be to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 16, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: This seems to be an improvement in the Bill and I welcome it. Perhaps I may raise on it one point which otherwise I should have raised on the subsequent Motion, That the clause stand part. This new subsection refers, as does subsection (1), to the alteration, repeal or replacement of a local plan. I understand "alteration", and I understand "replacement", but I am not clear in what circumstances one would wish to repeal a local plan. If one repeals a local plan one leaves a blank. If one wants a better local plan, then one replaces it, and provision is made for replacement. But it seems to me strange that in any circumstances one should wish to repeal a plan; stranger still that in any circumstances the Minister should wish to direct a local

637
planning authority to repeal a local plan. I did not give the noble Lord any notice of this question. If he is not in a position to answer straight away, perhaps he will think about it.
LORD KENNET: I think that that is what I had better do. Prima facie, I take the noble Lord's point: what would one do by repealing a plan and not replacing it? If the noble Lord agrees, I will think about it and consult, and we can revert to it at a later stage.
LORD KENNET: This is entirely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 23, leave out ("9(2)(a)") and insert ("9(4)(a)").—(Lord Kennet.)
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Disregarding of representations with respect to development authorised by or under other enactments]:
LORD KENNET: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 38, leave out second ("of"). —(Lord Kennel.)
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Supplementary provisions as to structure and local plans]:
8.53 p.m.
LORD KENNET: In the interests of swift progress, I should like to say simply that this Amendment is designed to eliminate a duplication between subsection (1)(b) and subsection (1)(d). I think that noble Lords who have their eye on the text will see at once what I mean. Possibly it will not be necessary to discuss it further, and in that spirit I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 17, leave out from beginning to ("have") in line 18 and insert:—
("(d) without prejudice to paragraph (b) above, provide for notice to be given to particular persons of the approval, adoption
638
or alteration of any plan, if they") —(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET: Let me try again, in the interests of speed, to give my explanation to the Committee in capsule form. The purpose of this Amendment is to make clear that Clause 13(1)(f) covers local plans as well as structure plans in all respects. I realise that I am rather trying the Committee in presenting it in this form, but perhaps that is sufficient explanation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 27, leave out from beginning to first ("or") in line 28 and insert ("structure plan or local plan which has been approved, adopted or made, or any document approved, adopted").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Whether Clause 13, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I have two points to raise on this clause. The first relates to the second line of subsection (1), which says that the Minister "may make regulations" with respect to a great many things. From m hat the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has already said, I understand that the Minister is intending to make regulations and this, I guess, is one of the places where common sense would provide that the word "shall" should be used—"the Minister shall make regulations"—but the draftsman, for reasons which are no doubt good but are sometimes incomprehensible, feels that it is more appropriate to say "may". I have argued this both ways, in Government and in Opposition, but I do not want to do that now. I want an assurance from the Minister that he really does intend to make regulations about all these various matters on which he is empowered to make them. If he does not, I think a great many people will be left in considerable difficulties.
The second point is one which I should like to raise because this seems to be the most appropriate place to do so. We are going into an era when there will be a great many plans. There will be existing development plans, there will be existing non-statutory plans, there will be structure plans, there will be local plans and there may be different local

639
plans for the same area. It will be of great convenience to all concerned if it is possible somehow, somewhere, to find out with certainty what plans are in existence, what is their authority, status, state of progress, and so forth, and what other plans are in preparation though they have not yet seen the light. I have in mind that not only owners of property but surveyors, and, particularly, solicitors, would find it of great convenience if they could establish these matters with certainty. Will the Minister, among the many regulations that he has power to make, include a regulation that will require the planning authority to publish and keep up to date a list of that sort?
LORD KENNET: On the question of "shall" or "may", the common sense thing here is that the Minister is going to make regulations. But one cannot put that in a Statute and so it came out as "may", no doubt for the reasons mentioned by the noble Lord. I could not here and now give an undertaking that he will make regulations about every single matter on which he is empowered to make regulations, but I agree that most of those matters will have to be regulated, and this corpus of regulations will be one of the main ways in which the planning system goes forward.
On the question of Ministerial regulation to require each planning authority to keep a register of plans in force, I should like to have time to consider that point, and perhaps we can return to it at the next stage. It is of course necessary that one should be able to go to the office of any planning authority and say: "Will you show me all the plans which are in force, whether for the whole of your area or a certain part of it, and may I be assured that what you have shown me is the totality of plans in force?", and that one can be quite sure that it is the totality. But as for a specific undertaking, I should like to be able to consider this point.
LORD MITCHISON: Before anything happens about this may I make two comments? The first is that the Minister is given various powers to deal with a whole mass of subjects—"maze" is really the better word—because otherwise he might feel himself compelled to make plans about the non-existent; and not even the wisest man has ever been able to do that.
640
The second is this. I have read and tried to understand this Bill—and indeed a good many of the debates on it; but if ever there was a case for a few "child's guides" I should have thought that this was one, and I hope my noble friend will consider the publication of one or two "child's guides" as useful. They do them very well in the Ministry of Housing.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [New provision as to enforcement notices]:
9.2 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, in subsection (4), to leave out paragraph (b) and insert
"on any other person having an interest in that land".
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment about which I feel somewhat strongly. We are dealing here with enforcement notices. We have reached now Part II of the Bill. Subsection (4) says:
"An enforcement notice

(a) shall be served on the owner and on the occupier of the land to which it relates; and

(b) may, if the authority think fit, also be served on any other person having an interest in that land, being an interest which in their opinion is materially affected by the notice."

I cannot, for the life of me, see why there should not be a statutory requirement to serve an enforcement notice on all other persons having an interest in the land, instead of its being left to the opinion of the local authority as to whether some other person's interest is materially affected by the notice. My Amendment, which may not be particularly skilfully drafted, is designed to ensure that object, so that it will read:
"An enforcement notice—

(a) shall be served on the owner and on the occupier of the land to which it relates, and on any other person having an interest in that land."

I should have thought that it was impossible to resist an Amendment of that character. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 39, leave out paragraph (b) and insert the said new words.—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
BARONESS SEROTA: It is perhaps unfortunate that I should be in this particular position just at the point when the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, begins to feel strongly, but the Amendment he has just moved with considerable conviction would oblige a local planning authority to serve an enforcement notice not merely on the owner and occupier of the land, as he has indicated, but also on any other person with an interest in the land. The requirements for the service of an enforcement notice under the clause we are discussing do not differ from those which already apply by virtue of Section 45(3) of the 1962 Act. The mandatory requirement for service on the owner and the occupier dates from the 1947 Act, and the discretionary power in paragraph (b) dates from the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, but at no time has the service of an enforcement notice on persons other than the owner and occupier been obligatory.
The noble Lord indicated that possibly the Amendment might have certain other repercussions, and I must advise the House that it would in fact have a far more drastic effect than the one that he has foreseen and sought to introduce. Indeed, this could really be a wrecking Amendment in certain senses, in that it would oblige local planning authorities to serve enforcement notices on all persons with an interest in the land; and in that sense the Amendment covers mortgagees, people such as ground landlords with only a remote reversionary interest, mere licensees, and persons bound by contract to acquire an interest in the land. It would mean that the local planning authority would virtually always be driven to go through the time-consuming procedure of a formal request under Section 215 of the 1962 Act for the names and addresses of persons with an interest in this sense. What is more, the risk of technical failure in service would inevitably be greatly increased, and it is one of the more important aims of these new enforcement provisions to seek a reduction in the number of such failures.
I hope with that explanation the feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, are a little less strong than they were when he first moved this particular Amendment. I hope that in the light of the explanation he will at this
642
stage withdraw it. He may, of course, and one fully understands this, on second thoughts wish to discuss the matter further, but, as at present drafted, I fear that the Amendment would cause difficulties which perhaps he himself had not envisaged at the stage when he put it down.
LORD MITCHISON: I hesitate to intervene when strong feelings are involved, but I think that the Amendment would carry matters far too widely. I think I can best put it by dividing the sort of cases I have in mind into geographical cases and others. In geographical cases the planning permission may relate to land and to something to be done on some part of the land, and yet the notice may have to be served on someone who had an interest in the land, which might indeed be a geographical one, in another part of it. The Amendment is not really clear in that respect. But what is even more serious is the breadth of the phrase of "having an interest in that land". It would cover, for instance, people who had an interest by way of a charge or mortgage but who might not in the least be concerned in the enforcement notice in question, which could relate to a small thing as well as to a large one.
A similar instance seems to me to be the case of an easement over the land, which I suppose would constitute, an interest in it. Sometimes these people are extremely hard to find. I remember a case in my former constituency where there were a number of proprietors of a few rights in a village and nobody could ever find out who they were. There was a solicitor who claimed to act for them, but I do not believe he knew who they were; at any rate, he never let out who his clients were. One gets over interests in land and small matters. I think it is something which we must leave to the discretion of some authority, in this case the local authority. I hope I am not sounding unreasonable, but it seems to me that this Amendment might create difficulties that would hold up for some trivial reason something which ought obviously to be done by way of an enforcement notice. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, will accept that I say this, believing that it would be workable in most cases—I will go that far with him on his Amendment—but there might be a number of cases where

643
it would not be workable. One of the main difficulties with a provision of this kind, when you make it obligatory to do something in regard to it, is to find the people concerned.
LORD SILKIN: While I think that the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, goes too far, I am not satisfied that the clause as it stands is entirely satisfactory. It is hedged by too many provisos. Subsection (4) says that an enforcement notice
"(b) may, if the authority think fit also be served on any other person having an interest in that land, being an interest which in their opinion is materially affected …"
Why are you giving a discretion to the local authority? Why are you saying they may serve this notice only if they think fit? I think this provision needs to be looked at again. This is an abundance of caution.
Furthermore, the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Mitchison have both suggested that a mortgagee is not necessarily a person who would be affected. I should think that in most cases where there is an enforcement notice he will be very much affected. After all, his security may well be involved. I think that there ought to be some kind of an obligation to give notice on such a person, and it should not be left entirely to the discretion of the local authority. Therefore I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, might withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that the whole matter is looked at again.
LORD AIREDALE: I agree very strongly with the first part of Lord Silkin's speech. There are surely far too many qualifications to this paragraph (b) as it now stands. I could not help thinking that the Government's reply really amounted to the fact that it would be much less trouble for bureaucracy if this Amendment were not accepted. How often does a local planning authority serve an enforcement notice? I do not suppose they serve them every day. Of course it is possible to think up cases such as the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, advanced, an exceptional case where it is difficult to find somebody who has some tenuous interest in the land. But how many of these cases are there going to be? If the person cannot be found, well he cannot be found, and it is just too
644
bad. But surely the general rule should be that any person having an interest in the land about which an enforcement notice is to be served shall, under the Statute, be served with a copy of the notice. That would seem to be the best and proper thing to do, and if it sometimes puts some local authorities to some trouble—well, life is like that.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: There is one point that I should like to bring up. Neighbours in neighbouring land may be affected by an enforcement order, and they ought to have a say or be notified. Could the noble Baroness give an assurance that all people affected will be notified?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNNOR: The most persuasive thing the noble Baroness said in her reply to me was that improvement of the law had been brought about by the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, because that must mean that I was responsible for that improvement. It also reveals that I am, in a sense, seeking to amend my own Act. However, most of us can do that, and we need not be ashamed of trying to do so; and I am encouraged by the degree of support I have received from various noble Lords for my proposition that this subsection requires further attention.
Of course I do not want to press any Amendment that might be a wrecking Amendment. We all want to arrive at something which is practicable. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I cannot really see any justification for the insertion of the words "if the authority think fit", even though eight years ago I may have been convinced that they were necessary. Having heard the noble Baroness's reply, I believe that we all have one aim, which is to ensure that the people who may be affected are notified while avoiding the immense and unnecessary proliferation of paper. I feel sure that, in the light of this short debate, the Government will give further consideration to this matter; otherwise, I may have to put down a further Amendment at the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 15 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: This is an important Clause, and it was substantially and valuably amended during its passage through another place. I need not go into all the history of what has hitherto been the length of time after which an enforcement notice cannot be served. But in the Bill as originally presented to Parliament there was no time limit in respect to any kind of development. I think I am right in saying that in another place, as a result of criticism, the Government went so far as to insert subsection (3), which says that where the breach of planning control is, broadly speaking, a breach in respect of material development rather than in respect of user of land or premises, then there shall be a limit of four years. That is a great improvement. With that limitation I, for my part, am prepared to accept the clause.
But it would not be right for your Lordships to allow it to go through this Committee without my mentioning that there is considerable anxiety about the lack of any time limit in the other cases. As the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, indicated on the last Amendment, these matters may have considerable effect on value. All the time people have to make valuations for various purposes, including death duties, and hitherto it has been known that a breach of planning control which had continued for a certain time could not be challenged by way of an enforcement notice. Now it will be challengeable at any time if it is a breach in respect of user, rather than a breach in respect of material development.
Undoubtedly there is anxiety among people who are professionally concerned with valuations and the like that this will make their job more difficult, in that valuations may be upset through an enforcement notice coming along at any time in respect of a breach of planning control which has existed for many years. I for my part am prepared to accept the Government's compromise solution here and to see how it works. It was only right to put on record that there are people, particularly in the professional world, who are by no means happy about the absence of any time limit for an enforcement notice in user cases.
LORD SILKIN: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. I am very unhappy indeed about the lack of any provision of a time limit, for the reasons that he has given, apart from the question or valuation. There is the simple case of a person who has been using part of his own home as an office. I may want to use part of my house in a year or two as an office, to save my going out. I shall do it for a time, but I am always at the mercy of the local authority coming along and saying that I am using it without planning permission and that it is a change of user. After a certain period one ought to be at ease and able to feel that the change of user is one which has now been sanctified by time.
It may be that exactly the same provisions are not applicable for a change of user as for development, but if the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, had felt disposed to put down an Amendment I think I should have been very happy to have given him support. I certainly hope that further consideration will be given to this matter, even though I recognise that the Government have compromised. But why do the Government feel it necessary to compromise? What was the evil that they had been trying to meet? I have never had a difficult case which has arisen simply because after four years it was not possible to serve an enforcement notice. Why the Government should want to draw this distinction between a change of user and development, I do not know. I agree that there has been a compromise, but why is it always necessary to compromise? Why could not the practice have been permitted to go on? However, there is no Amendment on the Marshalled List, and all we can do is to ventilate our views about the matter in the hope that the Government may look again, or that some Amendment may go down at a later stage.
LORD MITCHISON: With great respect to my noble and distinguished friend, I hope we are not going to encourage him to use odd corners of the Palais Wilson as offices without getting planning permission. I should have thought the simpler remedy was to provide a suitable prize for people who, after having evaded the law successfully

647
for three years, could perhaps be given a spoon of some sort—I am not sure whether it should be wooden or silver—as a prize for their success in their effort, and then encouraged to apply for planing permission. Planning permission means something, and if you are going to let people be naughty simply because they have been naughty long enough, it makes the law a bit silly.
LORD AIREDALE: In that case, I wonder how the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, defends the four-year period for enforcement notices under subsection (3).
LORD MITCHISON: As a compromise.
LORD KENNET: May I say a word about this matter? I think the justification for the distinction between something which is already built—development control—and change of user is the following. If I erect a large or even a tiny building and the planning authority does not get around to challenging me within four years, then it is not worth its salt, because it ought to. If, on the other hand, I have a field or a plot of land of an indeterminate nature in one corner of which I break up and sell for scrap two cars a year, and then at the end of the limitation period I suddenly go into big business as a scrap metal dealer, perhaps burning off painted panels and rubber-covered wiring and making myself a general nuisance all round, it is a very different matter. That is the justification for making the distinction.
LORD SILKIN: Is my noble friend saying that the local planning officer would not discover this general nuisance in four years?
LORD KENNET: It would not be a nuisance beforehand. Who shall say that breaking up two cars and selling the bits on a given plot of land is a nuisance? I would not say it was. But breaking up twenty cars a day on the same plot of land may very well be a nuisance. This is one of those cases where if all citizens in this country were like your Lordships one would not have to bother; but they are not. Some of them know very well there is a limitation and they establish a use in a minimal way which is imperceptible to everybody and gives no trouble, for the sole purpose
648
of getting an uncovenanted and unpermitted profit thereafter. It is to prevent this abuse that the Government arrive at a compromise.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am grateful for that short debate. I feel it would be difficult for me to put down an Amendment on Report stage, in view of my having said that I should be prepared to accept the clause, but we may have to return to it. I have one other small question to which I certainly would not expect an immediate answer, and that relates to subsection (8)—the provision for withdrawal of an enforcement notice. I am not quite sure in what circumstances this would arise, but if a local planning authority serves an enforcement notice the owner or occupier on whom it is served may be put to some immediate expense, whether in resisting the notice or in seeking to comply with it, and then, suddenly, under subsection (8) the local planning authority could withdraw the notice and give notice of that to everybody.
If I remember rightly, under the principal Act, should an enforcement notice be quashed the Minister has power to award costs against the local planning authority. I should like to know whether a smiliar power will exist here if in fact it appeared that the local planning authority had been acting unreasonably in first of all calling upon the owner or occupier to do something by this enforcement notice and then changing its mind and withdrawing the notice. I do not ask for an immediate answer to that question, but perhaps the point could be noted.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Appeal against enforcement notice]:
9.27 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Kennet I beg to move Amendment No. 22. This is a drafting Amendment to improve an Amendment which was moved into the Bill by the Opposition on the Report stage in another place. As Clause 16(4)(b) now stands as a consequence of that Amendment, the Minister is empowered to disregard a failure of service if either the appellant or the person who ought to have been served has not been substantially prejudiced. What is intended, of course, is that the Minister should disregard the

649
failure of service only where no one has been prejudiced. This Amendment ensures that this is made the effect of the paragraph. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 29, leave out from ("if") to ("been") in line 30 and insert ("neither the appellant nor that person has").—(Baroness Serota.)
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved to leave out from the beginning of subsection (7) to end of paragraph (a) and to insert instead:
"(7) Where an appeal against an enforcement notice is brought under this section the appellant shall be deemed to have made an application for planning permisson for the development to which the notice relates and, in relation to any exercise by the Minister of his powers under subsection (5) above, the following provisions shall have effect:—

(a) any planning permission granted there-under shall be treated as granted on the said application;".

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 23 I would draw the Committee's attention to the fact that Amendments Nos. 105, 109, 110, 115 and 116 to the Schedules also relate to this particular Amendment. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I make mention of their relevance at this stage although we shall, of course, come to them later. The first of these Amendments, Amendment No. 23, restores to the Bill the concept of a deemed application for planning permission for the development to which an enforcement notice relates accompanying any appeal against that notice. It is a concept which stands in the Act of 1962 by virtue of Section 64(2) and (3), but it was not included in the course of recasting the enforcement provisions in the Bill when the power of the Minister to grant a planning permission when determining an appeal against an enforcement notice was expressly stated in what is now Clause 16(5). The effect of paragraph (a) of the Amendment is that a permission granted under Clause 16(5) takes its place along with all other permissions, and is capable of being revoked or modified like any other planning permission. Apart from that general point, the restoration of the concept is specifically necessary in order conveniently to secure that three limitations on the grant of planning permission shall apply in the case of the grant of permissions under Clause 16(5). These points
650
are dealt with in the Amendments which I mentioned earlier. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, leave out lines 16 to 22 and insert the said new words.—(Baroness Scrota.)
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Power to stop further development pending proceedings on enforcement notice.]:
BARONESS SEROTA: The purpose of the new subsection which this Amendment proposes should be inserted into Clause 17 is to ensure that tipping of refuse or waste materials can be halted by means of a stop notice pending the final determination of proceedings on an enforcement notice served by the local planning authority. Many of your Lordships will be familiar with the difficulties associated with tipping waste material—particularly those who live in cities like London. The justification for the Amendment is that tipping is just as irreversible in practice as building and other kinds of operations. The stop notice procedure is intended as a means of "holding the ring" so as to avoid prejudicing the outcome of enforcement proceedings while they are in progress. It is just as necessary that this procedure should be capable of being applied to the deposit of refuse or waste as to the construction of a building or any other works. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 41, at end insert—
("The operations which may be the subject of a stop notice shall include the deposit of refuse or waste materials on land where that is a breach of planning control alleged in the enforcement notice.").—(Baroness Serota.)
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Determination of planning and similar appeals by persons appointed by the Minister]:
9.34 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "prescribed class", and insert:
"class prescribed by the Minister by an order which shall not have effect until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament".
The noble Lord said: We have now reached Part III of the Bill. I hope that the Government are pleased with the rate at which the Opposition is enabling them to make progress with this Bill. But we must pause a little, I think, on Clause 19, because it provides for an extremely important change in procedure. I sympathise with the desire of the Government to try to relieve the excessive load of work falling, nominally on the Minister but in fact on his officials, who it is well known need to get ministerial decisions on only a relatively small percentage of the cases and problems that pass through their hands in this field. But something needs to be done about the tremendous load of appeals which, at any rate nominally, have to be decided by the Minister. Hence we have this far-reaching proposal in Clause 19, that the actual decision on a planning appeal can be taken by the inspector, instead of it merely being the duty of the inspector to hold an inquiry and report to the Minister, when his report has to be processed in the Ministry and the Minister himself has to take the decision, or it is taken in his name.
I accept that there is an overwhelming case for some alteration. I must say that in principle I dislike the idea of important decisions being handed to people in official positions. I think it is more desirable always that elected persons should take decisions which may be of a controversial character, and should then have to answer for them. But I accept that it is quite impossible to continue with the present arrangement. I understand that something like 97½ per cent. of all the planning appeals are decided by the Minister in accordance with the recommendation of his inspectors. Therefore if we can create a new system under which some section of that 97½ per cent. can be actually decided by the inspector without the necessity for his report being examined in the Department, that will be a great gain.
I understand that it is the intention of the Government to transfer only certain categories of appeal away from the Minister to a person appointed by the Minister under this clause, and that is well and good. I am sure it is right. But which categories are transferred will be extremely important, and while I accept
652
that after the transference of one class has been made the transference of other classes may be thought desirable, nevertheless I feel that Parliament should keep a watch on all this. That is the reason for my Amendment.
At present, under the Bill as it stands, the Minister may prescribe a class of planning appeals which shall be determined not by him but by the inspector. My Amendment would ensure that this prescribing of classes would be subject to Parliamentary control, and I think that that is very desirable. I do not want to multiply the number of matters which are subject to Affirmative Resolution—this is not a day when I should specifically seek to multiply that—but here one is transferring from the full Parliamentary control which attaches to ministerial decisions classes of cases away from ministerial control; and I think that the Minister will not be answerable for planning appeal decisions taken, not by him but by somebody appointed by him. If I am wrong about that, I shall be very interested to know.
In other words, I do not want to seek to impair the general purpose which the Government are following here, but I suggest that there should be closer Parliamentary control. I think that is very desirable in this transitional stage when people will hardly have got accustomed to the new system. People do not like the idea of matters which may be very important to them individually—not necessarily important in terms of money but important in terms of amenity—being decided by an official and not by an elected Minister. That is why I hope the Government will take seriously this suggestion that when the Minister wishes to prescribe a class of cases that can be transferred away from him to a person appointed by him he should seek the affirmative approval of both Houses of Parliament. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 26, leave out "prescribed class" and insert the said new words.—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
BARONESS SEROTA: In introducing this Amendment, the noble Lord rightly drew the attention of the Committee to the objects of Clause 19 and of the remaining clauses in Part III of the Bill and their great significance in terms of

653
the changes in the way in which we deal with appeals under the arrangements outlined in this Bill. He has also indicated that the object of the exercise is to expedite the determination of appeals to the Minister against decisions of local planning authorities. This is a cause which I think we all have at heart, and it was given general welcome at Second Reading stage. Nevertheless, I appreciate that the transfer of responsibilities of this kind from Minister to inspector causes certain qualms, and if the hour were not so late I should be tempted to engage in debate on the relative roles of the elected member and the permanent official at either Central Government or local level. This is very much in the public mind to-day.
But while the arrangements that we seek to introduce as a result of the changes in the Bill will be brought about as early as is properly possible, early introduction of the arrangements at the cost of causing inconvenience to persons who have already lodged appeals, or of delay in the discharge of business due to an unsuitably phased changeover, would clearly be extremely unfortunate. Further, the Committee can be assured that the Minister will see that the regulations setting out the classes of appeal to be delegated will be made in good time for people to take account of them before their effect is felt in practice.
On the specific point that the noble Lord is seeking to achieve by this Amendment—that the regulations prescribing the classes of appeals which will be for determination by inspectors under the new system introduced by this part of the Bill shall be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure—as the Bill is drafted the regulations will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. This is because Clause 85(3) of the Bill has the effect of applying Section 217(2) of the 1962 Act to the definition "prescribed" in Clause 85(1).
I am very conscious at this moment of time that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and other noble Lords present have far greater experience than I have in this House and in another place, but I understand that, broadly speaking, the distinction is between regulations which settle matters that are fundamental to the operation of the Statute and those which provide merely for the filling in of
654
details which do not have to be settled once and for all by the Act but are deliberately left for later consideration by the Minister. By this standard there is no case for making the regulations under Clause 19(1) subject to Affirmative Resolution.
If the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, were carried, the effect would almost certainly be to postpone the making of the first regulations under Clause 19. As I indicated a few moments ago, it is the intention of the Minister, subject to the proper consultations and safeguards, to implement the procedure as early as is reasonably possible, having given due weight to all the considerations involved. As the clause now stands, it is hoped —subject, of course, to Royal Assent being given this side of the Summer Recess—to be able to apply the new system to appeals in the subscribed cases on or after October 1. I should not like your Lordships to take this as a firm date, but this is the target to which the Minister intends to work. The regulations made under Clause 19 will, in the usual way, be subject to consultation with the local authority associations and the usual professional representative bodies.
I hope that with that explanation, and possibly with further thought, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, will withdraw his Amendment to-night. I think we are all anxious, following the policy of this Bill, to implement the new procedures as soon as we can, and it is the view of the Government that this particular class of regulation, subject to the negative as opposed to affirmative procedure, is the right way to achieve this.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: If I had had any thought of pressing this Amendment to-night, I think the noble Baroness would have persuaded me not to do so. However, it does not seem to me to be a matter on which I should seek to divide the Committee. We have had the clarification from the Government that these regulations under which classes will be prescribed will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. That does not appear on the face of the Bill except to anybody who knows his way thoroughly about this Bill and the principal Act. So it is helpful to have it on record with the authority of the Government.

655
I agree with the noble Baroness that if we are going to have this change the sooner we start to get experience of the new working the better. She said that some class or classes might be prescribed in time for the new system to apply to them by October 1. May I ask if she is in a position to say whether it is the Minister's intention to include anything other than single houses in the first class of cases to be transferred to the new procedure? It has been made clear, both on Second Reading and in another place, that the Government are anxious to draw a distinction between the type of planning appeal which, though it may be of immense interest and importance to an individual, can hardly be said to have widespread repercussions, and those which are of wider interest.
I would agree that probably the planning appeal relating to the single house represents the class that could most easily be transferred for experimental purposes to the new system. I must say that I should be sorry if the Minister were to proceed too fast and were to transfer cases which might be of a more widely controversial character to be settled by permanent officials, and not by him, until we had had a great deal more experience of the working. Perhaps the noble Baroness can give us some indication of the Minister's intentions before I withdraw my Amendment.
BARONESS SEROTA: As I understand the position, the classes of appeal that the Minister is at present minded to prescribe are single houses, which amount to 33 per cent. of all appeals; housing estates comprising ten dwellings or under, amounting to some 10 per cent. of appeals; outlying residential applications of 2 acres or under, which at present amount to 4 per cent.; flats and maisonettes, 10 or under, 2 per cent.; residential conversions, 3 per cent. If it helps the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, I will add that up for him. I have it in front of me, and he has not unless he has been quick at writing it down. It is a total of 52 per cent. These are likely to amount, allowing for some cases that serve special reasons, to well over 40 per cent. of all appeals decided, and about 60 per cent. of the full range of appeals under Section 23, which are at present foreseen as coming within the
656
general system. I hope that is information which the noble Lord will find helpful, and I can only assure him that if there are further details in this matter that will assist him in consideration of the clauses concerned, we shall be only too happy to let him have them.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for both of her replies. Now that we are satisfied that the transfer will be subject to Parliamentary control by the Negative procedure, and also that the Minister is quite clearly going step by step in this matter, I do not think we should press this Amendment further and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Determination of appeals by the Minister]:
9.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 20 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: Clause 20 provides that the Minister may, as it were, withdraw an individual appeal which is in a class prescribed for transfer and decide to determine it himself. It would be of interest to the Committee, I think, to know in what circumstances it may be the Minister's intention to use this power. Personally, I hope he will not hesitate to use it where there is evidence that the planning appeal, though it may be concerned with a small site or a small issue, nevertheless is giving rise already to strong local controversy. If we are to save administrative time and difficulty by this change, I am anxious to avoid bringing permanent officials, whoever they may be, into the field of strong local controversy. Indeed, it would be wholly unfair to do so. The great difference is that Ministers can speak for themselves and defend themselves, or try to, whereas permanent officials are necessarily silent. If you are paid to do the job, you do the job and make your recommendation, or in this case you issue your decision, and there it is. The storm may break upon your head and you cannot defend yourself.
I greatly hope I shall hear that it will be the intention of the Minister, where

657
he has reason to believe that there is likely to be considerable local controversy over the outcome of a planning appeal, whichever way it may go, to withdraw it. I know from my experience that there are planning appeals where, so to speak, you cannot win. If you decide one way you please one set of people and you make permanent enemies of the other; if you decide the issue the other way the result is simply the reverse of that. Anger seems to be much more prevalent than gratitude in these matters. I submit that the anger should fall on the elected person rather than on the permanent official.
BARONESS SEROTA: I am very happy to give the noble Lord the assurance that he seeks.
LORD SOMERS: Before we pass this clause, I should like some assurance from the Government that if a private individual makes an appeal against a local government and gets no satisfaction it will be possible to apply to the Minister. I remember a case a few years ago where a cousin of mine made such an appeal and it was refused. It was for a very small matter inside his own house, and when the appeal was refused he had good reason to believe that in fact it had never appeared before the planning authority. So I arranged for him to come with me to have an interview with the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who at that time was none other than my noble friend Lord Brooke, who may possibly remember the occasion. Eventually we were able to find out that it was definitely the case that this appeal had been merely rubber stamped by an official and had never appeared before the planning committee at all. That kind of thing is difficult for the ordinary private individual to find out, and it seems to me that the Minister is the only person who can do it.
BARONESS SEROTA: I am not quite sure whether I have followed the argument of the noble Lord or whether the point he made is relevant to this particular clause. Clause 20, which we are now discussing, relates to the power of the Minister to recover jurisdiction in any appeal that would otherwise be decided by an inspector. But we have taken a note of the noble Lord's point
658
and perhaps we can discuss it with him in another way.
LORD SOMERS: I must apologise to the Committee if I have raised it at the wrong time. It is a little difficult for a layman to understand which clause is relevant and which is not.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Local inquiries and hearings]:
9.59 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, in subsection (1), after "if" to "the applicant or appellant desires or". The noble Lord said: We come now to local inquiries and hearings in relation to this new procedure. There are well established arrangements for local inquiries and hearings under the existing procedure, where an inspector takes the public inquiry and reports to the Minister, and, generally speaking, there is no difficulty in its being decided whether a public inquiry is necessary or a private hearing is sufficient. However it seemed to me desirable, as we were coming into a new field, to ask whether the same rules would apply. I am seeking to raise the subject by means of this Amendment. At present the subsection says that a person appointed to determine an appeal shall hold such an inquiry if the Minister directs him to do so, and my Amendment would make it read that he shall hold such an inquiry if the applicant or appellant desires, or the Minister directs him to do so. I am extremely anxious to ensure that the applicant or appellant, as the case may be, shall not lose any of his rights to the holding of a public inquiry simply through the transfer of the determination from the Minister to the inspector. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 28, at beginning insert ("the applicant or appellant desires or".—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
LORD AIREDALE: I should like to support this Amendment, on the, well-known ground that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. If an appellant desires that justice in his case should be seen to be done by a public inquiry he should be entitled to it. It is not only very good for the

659
public to take an interest in these things, and for the Press to attend local inquiries and to report the proceedings in local newspapers, so that people in the neighbourhood shall take an interest in the matter, but it is also very good for officials to have to conduct inquiries under the public gaze. It is very good for your Lordships to have to conduct your deliberations under the public gaze. We are doing so at 10 o'clock at night under quite a strong public gaze. It is very good for us. It is good for everybody deciding matters to do so under the public gaze, and that is why I strongly support the idea that if an appellant feels he would like his appeal to be heard in public, that wish should be respected and it should be granted.
BARONESS SEROTA: As I read it, this Amendment would mean that an inspector dealing with a transferred appeal would have to hold a local inquiry if the appellant so desired, and I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, are concerned about the form of the inquiry. As I understand the situation, in practice an inquiry at which the public could be present would never be refused if that were what the applicant or appellant wanted, and I think this meets the point the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has just made. But it seems wrong that a matter which ought to be settled in the light of the weight and circumstances of the case should not be in the control of the Minister, who can override his inspector by virtue of the directing power in Clause 22(1) in order to insist on a local inquiry.
In the view of the Government the Amendment is open to objection on a number of grounds. First, it enables the appellant to insist on a local inquiry but gives no corresponding right to the local planning authority. This, I submit, is wrong. Secondly, it applies only to appeals transferred to inspectors and does not affect appeals to be determined by the Minister. In principle, the procedure for dealing with the two kinds of determination ought to be the same. Thirdly, the purpose of Clause 22(1) is to empower an inspector determining an appeal to hold a local inquiry even if neither party asks for one, and to compel him to hold such an inquiry if the Minister
660
directs that it should be done. A more appropriate place in the Bill to make provision about the rights of the parties to an appeal, as opposed to the powers and duties of the inspector, would probably be in Clause 19. I wonder whether, in the light of these comments, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, would like to withdraw his Amendment so that we can have further discussions, perhaps at another stage, about it.
LORD AIREDALE: I certainly accept the point the noble Baroness makes, that perhaps it is unfair that the local authority should not also have a right to demand a local inquiry. I think perhaps that is a good point. By all means let us have a further Amendment from the Government at the next stage to say that not only the appellant but also the local authority shall have the right to demand a local inquiry. Let that argument be used not to defeat this Amendment but as a springboard from which a further Amendment might be introduced at the next stage.
LORD MITCHISON: With respect, I do not think, that a local inquiry is on quite the same footing as an appeal. There are very many instances in the Statute Books of local inquiries being allowed, and they are sometimes allowed on the direction of the Minister alone, sometimes at the direction of the Minister or of some other person in a peculiarly responsible position; or, I think I am right in saying, speaking from memory, at the instigation of quite a number of people concerned in a case. But that an individual should be allowed to insist on a local inquiry I think, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, is pressing things too far.
The trouble about this planning machinery is that in this Bill as in others, it is most complicated and it takes time, and the public feeling about it I think is a certain indignation at the delay and inconvenience rather than a feeling that a local inquiry ought to be held. There certainly would be cases for a local inquiry, but whatever one's personal opinion may be, one is not entitled to assume that all Ministers are necessarily idiots; and in a case like this I should have thought that the Minister was the right person to entrust with the duty of deciding whether or not there was a case for a local inquiry.

661
I am not pretending for a moment that Ministers are infallible; they certainly are not. I am sure that they make mistakes over a matter of this sort. In fact, I expect that the noble Lord and I have made a number of mistakes. But apart from that, one has surely to strike a balance between expense, inconvenience and delay on the one hand, and an excess of formality and rights of the individual citizen on the other. The right to a local inquiry does not seem to be quite on the same footing as the right to have visible and apparent justice. I should have thought it is a different kind of thing. Therefore, for myself, I feel doubtful whether this Amendment would really inure to the public benefit. I hope Lord Brooke will not mind my saying that I am utterly convinced by his sincerity in wishing to simplify the procedure of planning so far as possible, to cut out time and, incidentally, to reduce the number of people engaged in the machinery of planning.
10.8 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: This Amendment may well appear in the wrong place, but let me excuse myself by saying that this is a most difficult Bill, and I can find my way about it only through the exercise of common sense. As my Amendment concerns local inquiries and these are mentioned in Clause 22, and, so far as I can ascertain, are not mentioned at all in Clause 19, it appeared to me desirable that I should table my Amendment, not to Clause 19 but to Clause 22. I had read Clause 19 and it was from that clause that I took the phrase "applicant or appellant". For my part, I cannot see how the person concerned with an appeal is not also the appellant; but if your Lordships will subject yourselves to reading subsection (6) of Clause 19, you will see there that before the determination of any such appeal "the Minister shall ask the applicant or the appellant" certain questions. In order not to be caught out on that, I put the words "applicant or appellant" in my Amendment.
I take the point that there should be equal rights for the local planning
662
authorities as for the applicant or appellant, to demand a local inquiry. My concern really is to ensure that justice is seen to be done to fully the same extent under this new procedure as has been the case under the existing procedure, where the inspector reports to the Minister. I am not going to press this Amendment, but I should be grateful if the Government would consider what I have said and what has been said by other noble Lords, and see whether the point can be made any clearer, because it would be an undesirable result of this desirable change if people started to say that whereas under the old procedure a local public inquiry would always be held when it was desirable, under the new procedure one was not equally sure of getting it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Repeal of existing provisions for compulsory acquisition of land]:
On Question, Whether Clause 25 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am not sure whether it is best for me to ask for a statement from the Government here or on Clause 27. Clause 25 repeals Section 67 of the principal Act and Section 47 of the Post Office Act 1953, and, as I understand it, makes way for the apparently sweeping powers granted in subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 27. If the Government say that it would be better for me to wait until we reach Clause 27, well and good; but either now or then I am anxious to ask the Government to explain precisely why these changes are being made and what will be their effect.
LORD KENNET: If the noble Lord agrees, I would sooner do it on Clause 27.
Clause 25 agreed to.
10.13 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, in subsection (1)(a), to leave out "or assist".
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment of substance, although it is a very short one. Subsection (1) of Clause 26 indicates the matters on which the Minister must be satisfied before he will authorise a local authority to acquire land compulsorily. From the point of view of the individual citizen, subsection (1) with its paragraphs, (a), (b) (c) and (d), is pretty formidable. When I read it my first instinct was to put down a number of Amendments to limit these very wide categories. I then found that they were taken almost word for word from the principal Act which has been in force for a number of years, and therefore it seemed to me that it would be perhaps a waste of the Committee's time if I were to do that.
But there is one substantial alteration here and that is that the words "or assist" have not, so far as I am aware, hitherto been part of the law in this context. Subsection 1(a) says:
"The Minister … may authorise a local authority … to acquire compulsorily any land within their area if he is satisfied—(a) that the land is required in order to secure or assist the treatment as a whole, by development, redevelopment or improvement"
et cetera. I would not for one moment question that where the land is required to secure the treatment as a whole by redevelopment or improvement of the land or any area in which the land is situated, there exists a clear case for the confirmation of a compulsory purchase order. But I am more doubtful whether we should extend this category by inserting the words "or assist". To secure something is quite definite and plain; but one may give the most minor assistance and yet be categorised as assisting.
If we were to pass the Bill in this unamended form it could be argued by a local authority which had made a compulsory purchase order that although it was not necessary to acquire the land to secure these various results, nevertheless it would assist those results if land was compulsorily purchased. That is not a strong enough ground on which a public authority should be entitled to take away compulsorily the citizens' property. As I said on many occasions
664
during the proceedings on the Country-side Bill, there must be compulsory purchase powers and, equally, Parliament must examine scrupulously any extension of those powers. This is an extension and appears to me to be undesirable. I trust that the Government will accept this Amendment, or propose some Amendment of their own which will guarantee the owner of the property against the risk that the Minister may confirm a compulsory order against him simply because a local authority says it will be of help to them in bringing about a certain result if they are enabled to acquire the land compulsorily. That is not sufficient justification for compulsory purchase and that is why I am moving this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Age 23, line 8, leave out ("or assist").— (Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
LORD MITCHISON: I respectfully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that this kind of case needs watching very carefully. But it needs watching from both sides. This is a case where one has to consider carefully the effect of leaving out the words. They have been put in here because the Government— in this case the Ministry of Housing, no doubt after consultation with local authorities—are of the opinion that they are required. One must assume that Ministers are on the whole reasonable people and have regard to the public advantage. In some cases there may be questions of policy; in others the policy may be self-evident. The person who has to be satisfied here is the Minister, no doubt at the instigation of the local authority. The Minister could be asked questions in Parliament about how he had managed to be satisfied in this case.
Let us think for a moment about what is involved. We are asked, and it is agreed, that powers should be given to secure the treatment as a whole for the development, redevelopment or improvement of land—if I may shorten it. No one doubts that those powers are necessary, and no one doubts that there will be proper cases in which they are not absolutely necessary and cannot in that sense be said to secure the object we are considering, but are none the less of material assistance to it. It might reasonably be the case in a very large number of instances that there were things which

665
assisted to a considerable degree but which could be dispensed with, and where compulsory purchase could be avoided if this Amendment were accepted, at the cost of putting the public or the municipal purse to some extra expense.
I entirely agree at once that compensation for compulsory purchase ought to be fair, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, is not the only ex-Minister in this place who has done his best to achieve that object one way or another, but I do not think we can proceed on the assumption that there is something fundamentally wrong with compulsory purchase because it always results in unfair compensation. The remedy for that is to try to deal with the compensation. What it does do is to take away the land of some person who might not otherwise be willing to dispose of it. We know that is the position, and I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that that is a very serious matter which must be closely looked at.
We therefore get to this balance. On the one hand, there is the man whose land is being taken away from him although he does not want to part with it. On the other hand, there is the possibility of achieving the desired result by way of development, redevelopment or improvement by some much more expensive or otherwise objectionable method, so that it cannot be said strictly to secure the land. This kind of case is a matter of judgment and opinion, and I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and I could have agreed, if we had had an opportunity of discussing the matter fully, that a balance of convenience of that kind must be decided by and on the responsibility of the Minister of the day; and that to try to do it by omitting words from a Statute which seem to be necessary in, at any rate, a large group of cases is the wrong way of tackling the problem.
I suggest that you really cannot find words that will cover the cases of assistance which are proper cases, as distinct from the cases of assistance which are really quite slight cases, such as the noble Lord had in mind, where the local authority is being a bit unreasonable and saying," It is convenient to do this, and therefore we shall say that it assists us
666
and will use compulsory powers". What you must do when there is that balance to judge is to leave it to the responsible Minister to weigh up the two considerations, as I know well the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has often had to do himself, and decide which he thinks is right. Different Ministers and different Governments will come to different conclusions. There will be different conclusions in one part of the country from those in another, and there will be any number of factors involved which cannot be dealt with by appropriate wording in a Statute.
I hope that on reflection the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, will agree—I think that is always a nasty phrase and perhaps I should say that I hope I have succeeded in persuading the noble Lord—that there really is a case for leaving the words in, and that it is sometimes inevitable to have to leave questions of balance of this sort to Ministerial judgment. That is what Ministers ale for, and the poor devils—I hope that is not too un-Parliamentary a way to describe them—sometimes get far too many kicks because they have to do it. But somebody has to do it and it cannot be done by putting the whole matter into statutory language. Therefore, I would leave the power, relying on the fact that it depends not only on a local authority application —I should not pay nearly so much attention to that—but also on the decision of a responsible Minister, for which he is answerable to Parliament.
VISCOUNT GAGE: With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, surely there is another authority which occasionally has to be satisfied as to the meaning of words, and that is the courts. I remember certain decisions—Ministerial decisions, too—being challenged in the courts and being found ultra vires, with very great effect on planning legislation. I know, from what we are told, that judges ought to be able to interpret anything, but surely we ought to try to make the intentions of Parliament clear enough for them to be enabled to make a decision; and if you employ words as vague as this I should have thought that they would have had some difficulty in doing so. I quite agree that you cannot tie everything up completely, and I merely wish to put forward that particular consideration.
LORD MITCHISON: If I may reply for one moment to the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, may I say that I agree with a great deal of what he said. But the trouble in this kind of case is that you cannot find a form of words which will cover the good cases and not cover the bad ones.
LORD HOLFORD: I hope your Lordship will forgive me for ventilating a different kind of anxiety which I have on this word "assist". I have been putting myself in the position of someone advising a local authority, after preparing a scheme, that they ought in fact compulsorily to acquire a certain interest in land. If the word "assist" means assisting the convenience of the makers of the plan, although one would often welcome it I do not think that is a worthy object. If it means assisting by way of convenience and making a thing more tidy, or anything of that kind, I beg leave to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that this is not the right use.
But much more important is the question, what the word "assist" adds to the word "secure". Because here we are talking about securing "the treatment as a whole "; and I must say that I should be very much relieved if an example could be quoted of what I think the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has already implied in what he has said—that something is essential to assist a plan which cannot in fact be got by securing the treatment as a whole.
LORD KENNET: First of all, let me clarify that we are not of course talking about assisting the convenience of a local authority. Let me read this part of the clause as unamended. The Minister is to be satisfied,
"that the land is required in order to secure or assist the treatment as a whole, by development, redevelopment or improvement or partly by one and partly by another method, of the land or of any area in which the land is situated;… "
So it is perfectly clear what "assist" applies to: it applies to the treatment as a whole
"of the land or of any area in which the land is situated".
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said first of all that the word "assist" introduced a new power, and, secondly, that
668
it introduced a power which ought not to be there. I believe that in both these assertions he is mistaken. It does not introduce any power—and let me ask him whether he would not agree with me that it does not when he has heard the parallel power in the 1962 Act. This Bill abolishes the requirement of designation—that is, designation of land on the plan as subject to compulsory acquisition—which has failed to serve the purpose expected of it, and replaces the "comprehensive development area" with the "action area" concept. Now these changes force a change of language in this regard, but they do not, I submit, entail any change of substance, and there is not, I submit, any change of substance in the wording now before the Committee when compared with that in the 1962 Act.
Under the 1962 Act, land which could be brought under the relevant section, the compulsory purchase section, had to be
"either comprised in a comprehensive development area defined in the development plan or contiguous or adjacent to such an area; …"
and the Minister had to be satisfied that
"either it was required to secure the development or redevelopment of the area; or"—
and here we come to the point—
"that it was expedient in the public interest that it should be held together with land so required".
If the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, can tell me in what way that concept differs from the concept of assisting in the development as a whole, I think he will have established his point that a new power is being conferred here. Otherwise, I take leave to insist that no new power is conferred. There remains the question of whether the power conferred is one that it would be right to continue. If we agree that it is already there, is it right to continue it? I think it is; for the same reason that it was right to have it in the 1962 Act; and that is primarily because of the one owner, the owner of one house or building in the middle of what is a comprehensive area, or what may now be an action area, who will not sell.
You may imagine that the local authority wishes to purchase by agreement; that the whole of the area is to

669
be purchased for development or redevelopment; and that there is one person in the middle holding out against an arm's length purchase, the ordinary purchase by agreement; and that the local authority wishes to purchase his property compulsorily. If we delete the words "or assist" he can then take the local authority, not by way of appeal to the Minister, but beyond to the courts. He can say, "If you do not buy my one house you will not have been prevented from securing development of the area. You may have 500 or 1,000 houses all round. How can you say you are not able to secure it?"
This is where the word "assist" comes in. The local authority can then say, "Ah, but it would assist in the development; the whole development, which we admit would be secured without the purchase of your house, would be assisted if we could also purchase your house". My contention is that the power in question is neither new nor unjustified; and the latter contention depends on the former. If it was justified in 1962, it is justified now. I hope the noble Lord may agree to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: First may I say what a privilege it is to us that we should have the noble Lord, Lord Holford, present in this Committee. There is an immense advantage to this House in having somebody who is willing to put his vast experience at our disposal during these complicated matters. I think perhaps that he may grant to us, as he has come fairly fresh to legislation, that the business of getting the law right is just as difficult as the business of getting the plans right.
We shall have to return to this again on Report stage. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said that there was nothing really new in the words "or assist". He asked me whether I was aware of the existence in the 1962 Act, the principal Act, of the reference to its being expedient in the public interest that the land should be held together with land so required. That is what he said implied the word "assisting". But those precise words appear in paragraph (b) of this subsection. We have had those words on the Statute Book, I know, and we have had the word "secure" on the Statute Book for years. My case is that we are add-
670
ing to the various powers in this Bill the additional concept of assisting the treatment as a whole.
I must say that I could not follow from the noble Lord's argument how he, managed to claim that the word "assist" was not an addition to the existing law, or how it would not be possible to acquire that obstinate individual's house in the middle of a re-development area if the word "assist" was not there. We have surely been able to overcome those difficulties in the past, and it certainly appears to me that the case for adding this new concept contained in the words, "or assist" has not been made out.
I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, and I was grateful for his general approach, but he seemed to think that I was seeking to take away an existing power. I am not; I am challenging the addition of a new power, and I hope that between now and Report stage further thought may be given to this point. I should be very willing to discuss it further with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, if that would be helpful, but I must make clear to the Committee that the onus is on the Government to show why the existing words have not been operating sufficiently well and that it is desirable for Parliament to add this new power comprised in the words, "or assist".
I will leave my argument there, because I do not think it is any good pursuing it indefinitely at 25 minutes to 11 at night, but I must give notice that if I have not obtained some satisfaction meanwhile, it will be essential to ask the House to revert to this matter on the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.38 p.m.
LORD ILFORD LORD ILFORD moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"( ) The Minister may authorise any local authority as aforesaid to acquire an easement or other right over land by the grant of a new right:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply to an easement or other right over any land which would for the purposes of the Act of 1946 form part of a common, open space or fuel or field garden allotment."
The noble Lord said: Clause 26 and the following clause, Clause 27, which is relevant to this point, deal with the

671
powers of compulsory acquisition. Clause 26 authorises the Minister to grant to certain local authorities the right to acquire compulsorily any land within their area on certain conditions. Then if your Lordships look at Clause 27, you will find that it gives the Minister of Public Building and Works powers to acquire compulsorily
"any land necessary for the public service.".
Subsection (3) states:
"The power of acquiring land compulsorily under this section shall include power to acquire an easement or other right over land by the grant of a new right."
Your Lordships will see that the powers which are given, and the powers which may be given, to a local authority are different from the powers given to the Minister of Public Building and Works. The Minister may acquire an easement or right over the land without having to acquire the land itself, whereas the local authority is given power only to acquire the land. This Amendment seeks to extend to local authorities authorised to acquire compulsorily the right to acquire an easement or right over the land in the same way as the Minister of Public Building and Works. It is very much to the advantage both of the local authority and of the citizen that if the local authority's purpose can be met by the acquisition of a right over the land, or an easement as it is called, without having to acquire the land itself. It is a great advantage to the landowner, who does not lose his land, and to the local authority which will not have to take on more land than it requires for its purposes.
It is always dangerous to give illustrations in a case of this sort and wiser to deal in generalities, but I wonder whether I can illustrate the point the Amendment aims at by a simple illustration. Suppose that a local authority possesses a site for house building, or some purpose of that sort, but the access to the site is across the land of an adjoining landowner. As the Bill stands, the local authority would be compelled to acquire the adjoining land, not because it wants it, but because it wants the right to pass across it to its own site. The Amendment would make it possible, if the local authority arrange to give the
672
owner a corresponding right in another part of the area, for it to acquire the right to cross his land without having to acquire the land itself. If it is good for the Minister of Public Building and Works to have this power, I should have thought that it was equally good for the local authorities. I am sure that it is very much to the advantage both of the local authority and of the citizen, and I hope that your Lordships will be able to take the same view of it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 24, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Ilford.)
LORD KENNET: The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, has justified his Amendment mainly by reference to Clause 27, which re-equips the Minister of Building and Works and the Postmaster General with certain compulsory purchasing powers. This is in the Bill because it repeals the designation provisions of the 1962 Act, and it is necessary to give these Departments the power to require the grant of easements and certain other rights. These rights are of obvious use to the Post Office for the purpose of laying cables and to the Ministry of Building and Works for access, for instance, to remote defence sites.
I understand that parallel powers are already in the hands of local authorities. I do not seek to convince the Committee and the noble Lord that they ought not to have parallel powers, but I seek to convince them that they already have these powers. A parallel case would be when a local authority is acting as a water undertaker or sewerage authority, in which cases it already has compulsory powers. There remains one category of case—that is, when a local authority would be content to take an easement instead of making an outright purchase of a piece of land. I assume that in such a case the owner would prefer to grant an easement rather than sell the land outright, and agrees with the local authority on normal purchase without the use of compulsory powers.
In conclusion, I would inform the Committee that this matter was discussed in another place, and it was left by my right honourable friend the Minister of State to the honourable Member of the Committee who had introduced the Amendment corresponding to this one to

673
let him have any information in his possession which indicated the need for an extension of the acquisition powers proposed by the Amendment. No information has been received, and I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, that if he could let me have any concrete information which suggests that the existing powers of local authorities as sewerage authorities or water undertakers does not suffice for this sort of purpose, then I would be grateful to have a look at it. Pending that, I hope that he will agree to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD MITCHISON: I am inclined to think that my noble friend ought to look at this independently, too. I have in mind one or two types of case. I imagine that where the easement or other right is attached in some way to a piece of property that is being compulsorily bought there ought to be no difficulty. But I am sure that it ought to he checked.
I think one has to remember that what we are trying to do in the whole of this Bill involves a good deal of redevelopment, and the sort of case that I have in mind is a right of way. It may not exist at all; there may be nothing that can be handed over in exchange for it —no question of an old right exchanged for a new—but it may be for the convenience and advantage of everybody that a right of way should exist in some cases. One thinks of all kinds of things —children getting to school, and so on. If that is so, then we ought not to allow a local authority to be put to a large amount of additional cost in buying things it does not want, or to be held to ransom by someone who perhaps has the strongest physical revulsion to a number of small children crossing the bottom of his garden, or land. I know that people have rights, but in a case of this sort one must provide reasonably.
LORD ILFORD: I will certainly see what information I can obtain on this matter and send it to the Minister. I hope it appears that this right to acquire an easement is desirable in cases other than the cases he mentioned, where the local authority is a water undertaker or is laying sewers. My recollection is that both those two powers are express statutory powers. As I say, I will see if I can find the information the noble Lord wants and send it to him, and I
674
hope that he will then look more favourably on my Amendment than he does now. In the meantime, I ask leave to withdrawn the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Compulsory acquisition of land by certain Ministers]:
On Question, Whether Clause 27 shall stand part of the Bill?
10.48 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: May I now press the Minister to answer the questions which I asked, perhaps prematurely, on Clause 25? Subsection (1) of Clause 27 has the appearance of meaning that all land required for the public service by any Minister except the Postmaster General shall in future, if it is necessary to use compulsory powers, be acquired by the Minister of Public Building and Works. It would be helpful to know whether that is really what it means, and whether, by the combination of Clauses 25 and 27, all other Ministers except the Postmaster General are losing their powers of compulsory purchase. The phrase, "any land necessary for the public service" is extraordinarily wide, and it would seem at first sight that it would be almost impossible to challenge it. Perhaps the Minister will explain why those words have been chosen.
Now I come to the Postmaster General. I believe I am right in my recollection that the Postmaster General's existing powers of compulsory purchase are so complex that they are never used, and that the Postmaster General must have recourse to roundabout methods if he requires any land that he cannot obtain by agreement. That, at any rate, was the position before the designation procedure existed. I am not absolutely sure whether the designation procedure was open to him. What it amounts to is this. On the face of it, the combination of these two clauses appears to make the most drastic changes in the powers of Ministers to acquire land compulsorily; and Clause 27 appears to empower the Minister of Public Building and Works to acquire compulsorily virtually anything simply by saying that it is necessary for the public service—not necessary for the public service within

675
his Department, but necessary for the public service anywhere.
What is the explanation of all this? It may not have any sinister implications; I do not know. But I confess that by reading the proceedings in another place I was not able to get my ideas wholly clarified. Maybe that was my fault. I have no desire to hold up the proceedings here if in fact these changes are not fundamental ones. But I think that the Committee would wish the Minister to give a clear explanation and not to feel limited by the lateness of the hour or restricted thereby into keeping his explanation very brief.
LORD AIREDALE: The words "the public service" are indeed wide. I imagine that they would include, for instance, the building of a new post office, and thus would have the position that, under subsection (1), the Minister of Public Building and Works may compulsorily acquire any land necessary for the building of a new post office because it is for "the public service". Could that be really intended? Surely these words are far, far too wide and we must have an explanation of what is really meant.
10.53 p.m.
LORD KENNET: They may be wide, but they are not new. Let me first stand for a moment in sackcloth for having contributed my proportion, and probably more than my due proportion, to the confusion which has surrounded the discussion of this clause in both Houses. I think the best thing I can do about the question of the powers of the Minister of Public Building and Works is to run through, in capsule form, the history so far. In 1852 the Minister of Works was given power to acquire land by agreement for the public service—that was by agreement. That was the first appearance of the phrase "for the public service". Under the 1947 Planning Act he was given power to acquire land by compulsion for the public service and for the exercise of any of his functions. This power was at that time limited to places designated in plans for this kind of development, and also to areas in which no development plan was in operation. I do not need to remind the Committee that at the beginning of the operation of
676
the 1947 Act, and for a few years after, the second class of areas—that is, those where there was no development plan—covered the entire country.
The third stage is 1968 and the Bill now before this Committee. The whole concept of designation is going, and so something has to be put in to say what the Minister of Public Building and Works may or may not do. The proposal in the Bill is that he should have compulsory purchase powers for the public service and that this shall not be limited to any particular part of the country, as indeed it was not for a few years after 1947. I would draw the Committee's attention to the fact that, far from giving him increased powers, we are giving him rather reduced powers in this respect. In 1947 he had powers to purchase compulsorily for the public service and for the exercise of any of his functions. The present Bill will give him powers to purchase compulsorily only for the public service.
I hope and believe that covers most of the points that the noble Lord had in mind. If there is anything further he would like to say about it—and I admit that this is the latest attempt to clear up the confusion that has existed in both Houses so far—if the noble Lord is against this in any respect (I say this in all sincerity and helpfulness) we can carry the matter forward better if he will tell me in what respect he does not agree.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I do not think I heard him explain the position with regard to the Postmaster General, and I asked about that in connection with subsection (2). The further question with which he did not deal, and I am sorry if I did not make it explicit, is whether, if we agree to these clauses, it will leave no Ministers with compulsory purchase powers other than the Postmaster General and the Minister of Public Building and Works. Those two will have the powers under subsections (1) and (2). What about all the other Ministers? What about the Defence services and everything else that is needed for the public service? Is it the case that whenever a Government Department requires something for the public service and cannot acquire it by agreement it will rely upon the Minister of Public Building and Works acting

677
under subsection (1) of this clause? The one other case, as I have made clear, is that of the Postmaster General, and perhaps the noble Lord will complete his reply by telling us exactly how the Postmaster General has stood and will now stand.
LORD MITCHISON: I hesitate to intervene in this Front Bench "battle" but I think what was said in Committee in another place might be of assistance to your Lordships. May I be allowed to remind the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, if he has a bound volume of the Committee Proceedings in another place, that he will find it beginning in column 643 on March 26. The Minister, Mr. MacDermot, agreed that at first sight these words "for the public service" looked a little confusing and might appear to be immensely wide. The difficulty arises as soon as we try to put some other phrase in their place. Then he commented on an Amendment which might at first sight have appeared to restrict the powers, because the Amendment was "for the purposes of any of his functions", and he said that if he were feeling very Machiavellian he would accept that Amendment because it would widen the present powers.
The reason is that apparently over a long period of years a precedent has been established that this term "the public service" is construed rather narrowly and is usually taken to mean the administration of the central Government. I think the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, is quite right in supposing that the Minister of Public Building and Works would exercise this power for Departments other than his own.
Again, in column 646, the Minister said:
"The matter has been looked at again to see whether there is any other wording which would achieve the object better and with more modern phraseology, but I am told that when looking into it the advice was that any attempt to do so would be likely to result in a widening of the power or in our having to itemise a list of detailed purposes which would then require amending legislation on reconstruction of Government Departments, and so on. It is for this reason that the power has not been found to be excessive in relation to the powers of acquisition by agreement. I hope the Committee will feel able to accept my assurance about this".
678
Then he went on to assure the Committee
"that the provision will continue to be administered in the rather restrictive way in which the term has been used up to date."
There was a division on the matter—this was on substantially the same sort of point—and a conclusion was reached in another place, not of course necessarily to be accepted here, but hope that this House, in the passion it has acquired to-day for innovation, will not feel compelled to practise modernity in the form which the Minister had found would result only in widening the actual powers. I agree with noble Lords opposite, if I may say so respectfully and seriously, who said that these powers sound amazingly wide. I am afraid the short answer is that they are not in practice amazingly wide, but if you try to effect the result in language instead of practice, which might still occasionally commend itself to this House, you would only either widen the powers or produce an enormously long list which would have to be changed from time to time. I put this forward hoping to help the House in the matter, really believing there is no mischief here but also that it looks highly mischievous.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I think the noble Lord is very likely right. There may be nothing sinister here but it is extraordinarily difficult to be satisfied that that is so. I was following the noble Lord when he was reading out passages from column 646 of the Committee proceedings in another place, but he stopped just before he came to the sentence which had been puzzling me. Mr. MacDermot, the Minister, said
"I assure the Committee that the provision …"
that is, I think, subsection (1)—
"will continue to be administered in the rather restrictive way in which the term has been used up to date. It certainly would not include powers which other Ministers have for carrying out some service which they are responsible for administering, social services or planning services, whatever it may be."
I do not know whether Mr. MacDermot was wrong there; I think he may have been speaking off the cuff and may have made a mistake, and in fact it may be that these Ministers would always, at any

679
rate in future, apply to the Minister of Public Building and Works if it was sought to acquire land compulsorily for the public service. But this is one of the matters I hope the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will be able to clear up for us.
11.5 p.m.
LORD KENNET: Let me have a shot. First of all, if I may concentrate for a moment on the Postmaster General, his powers under the Bill—and I will say why they are there in a moment—are to acquire compulsorily any land required for the purposes of the Post Office as defined in Section 87 of the Post Office Act 1953, and that definition is
"'The purposes of the Post Office' includes any purpose relating to or in connection with the execution of any duties for the time being undertaken by the Postmaster General or any of his officers."
In other words, it is the job he is there for.
If I may retreat for a moment to speak slightly more in general about this whole situation, it arose like this. Under the 1962 Planning Act land could be designated for the purposes of the functions of any Minister and that Minister could himself then acquire that land compulsorily under Section 67. Now we are getting rid of designation and all its works something has to be done. All Ministers except the Minister of Works and the Postmaster General now fall back on their functional powers contained in other legislation—for instance, the Minister of Transport through the Highways Act, and the Minister of Defence through the Land Powers (Defence) Act. The Minister of Works and the Postmaster General do not. Because of the necessity to put a number of Bills together in such a way as to make sense, they figure in the present Bill. The Minister of Works has the powers which I have just outlined, and the Postmaster General also has the powers which I have just outlined.
To revert to the Minister of Works for a moment, what is "the public service"? The public service is primarily Government Departments, the provision of buildings for the work of central Government. That is the public service in this context. The Minister of Works has other functions which are not so assumed under that category of public service—for instance, responsibility for ancient monu-
680
ments. He might wish to acquire a theatre, some place of entertainment, any building on behalf of some Government body, or some Government-subsidised body. This would not be the public service, but it would be a function of the Minister of Works to do so. The Bill gives him compulsory purchase powers only for the public service. It is the provision of offices for Central Government and all its works, and not for the exercise of other functions which may be his. I hope that I have succeeded in throwing some light on what is, I admit, a confused scene, but confused only by the necessity of fitting together separate Acts of Parliament.
LORD AIREDALE: I am thinking of the Ministry of Social Security. They need buildings, do they not, in all large centres of population just as the Post Office do? It is rather curious, is it not, therefore, that the Ministry of Social Security do not figure in Clause 27. This clause seems most odd. No wonder we are uneasy about it
LORD KENNET: I do not think it is at all curious. The Ministry of Social Security require offices. The Minister of Works has a great deal of experience in providing offices: it is perhaps his main job. The Post Office requires a great many other things, such as pylons, aerials, masts and wires and radio stations, and this is a highly specialised service in which the Minister of Works has not had so much experience.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: Whether the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has clarified this to the point of transparency I am not absolutely sure, but I should like to congratulate him on having given a much clearer and more coherent account of what this clause means than anybody managed to extract from the Government during prolonged proceedings in another place.
LORD KENNET: It is earlier in the evening.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: It all happened, I quite agree, as the noble Lord says, earlier in the evening. Having listened to his explanation, I do not myself believe that there is anything sinister here. There still remains a good deal that is mysterious; and I think the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, agrees with

681
me in that. But this phrase "necessary for the public service" has tradition behind it, and I appreciate that those who matter understand what it means. I appreciate that the Postmaster General needs to have separate powers, and it has now been made clear to me that the other Ministers who may wish to acquire land compulsorily have various Statutes relevant to their own work on which they can fall back. Consequently, subsection (1) of this clause is much less far-reaching and frightening than it would appear to be to the casual reader.
I should like to go over again in Hansard what has been said, so as to make sure that it really is compre-
682
hensible now. Perhaps at an earlier time of the day it may become more comprehensible. But I do not wish to press the matter further now; indeed, I rather hope that the Government will agree that, with the assistance of the Opposition, they have made good progress with the Bill tonight. We have managed to complete 28 Amendments and 27 clauses by ten past eleven and I think that is good going.
Clause 27 agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past eleven o'clock.