Sitting of 27 March 1969

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

  BARCLAYS BANK BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.
  WALSALL CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
  WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
  WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next at Seven o'clock.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

    Hunt Committee (Report)
    Mr. Gordon Campbellasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will now announce the actual date of publication of the Report of the Hunt Committee.
    Mr. Stodartasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs why a period of eight to 10 weeks is to elapse between the Hunt Report being received by him and its being made available to hon. Members.
    Mr. Barnettasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what is the actual date of publication of the report of the Hunt Committee.
    Mr. Wallaceasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs on what date he now proposes to publish the report of the Hunt Committee.
    The Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Peter Shore): There has been no avoidable delay, and the Hunt Committee Report is expected to be published before the end of April.
    Mr. Campbell: As Government policy in Scotland has created an extraordinary anomaly in the small area in and around Edinburgh, will the Government take the urgent action which is necessary before even more distortion is caused?
    Mr. Shore: The question of the Edinburgh area has been submitted to the Hunt Committee. We shall soon have for publication the views of the Hunt Committee, which can then be considered.
    Mr. Barnett: In view of the lengthy delay in setting up the Hunt Committee and now in the publication of its Report which has delayed action being taken in the grey areas, like Lancashire, and my part of Lancashire in particular, may we have an assurance that any necessary legislation on its recommendations will be implemented at the earliest possible moment, if not this Session, then early next Session?
    Mr. Shore: I promise my hon. Friend that there will be no avoidable delay in coming to conclusions on the Hunt Committee's report and taking what action may be necessary on it. But I must resist the suggestion that there has been delay either in setting up the Committee or in the Committee coming to conclusions. I also reject the suggestion that this has prevented us from carrying out many measures of great benefit to the North-West Region.
    Earl of Dalkeith: Would the right hon. Gentleman note that since the Hunt Committee made its investigation in Edinburgh there has been a very serious deterioration in the job situation there which could possibly even justify its going back and having a second look?
    Mr. Shore: I do not accept that there has been such a radical change since the evidence was submitted to the Hunt Committee. It will have taken account of this possibility.
    Mr. George Jeger: Does my right hon. Friend recall that he said some time ago that delay in publishing the Hunt Committee's report would not deter him in taking emergency action in any area

    1767
    where the unemployment position warranted it? Has his attention been drawn to the Thorne area in my constituency, where unemployment remains persistently at 11 per cent.?
    Mr. Shore: I remember very well giving that assurance and, in particular, expressing our concern about the unemployment position in the winter of 1967–68. As things turned out, the unemployment situation generally in that winter was less serious than many people had predicted, particularly those on the Opposition Front Bench. I am glad to say that there has been no general deterioration in the intermediate areas since.
    Mr. Richard Wainwright: In view of the great importance of having the utmost public discussion of the Hunt Committee's recommendations and the danger of its recommendations being overwhelmed by national interest in the Budget, would the right hon. Gentleman press for a more expeditious method of printing and follow the example of many municipal authorities which produce documents more quickly, if less elegantly, than the Government?
    Mr. Shore: I will look at any reasonable suggestions for accelerating the printing process. But I am sure that there is nothing unusual in this length of time for a substantial report.

    Private and Public Consumption
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs why the list of reasons in "The Task Ahead", on page 16, for the possible failure of devaluation includes failure to restrain adequately the rise in personal consumption; and why it was decided not to include failure to restrain adequately the rise in public consumption.
    Mr. Shore: Our balance-of-payments objectives would be jeopardised if either personal or public consumption were inadequately restrained. Chapters 5 and 6 show clearly that public expenditure and consumption have already been severely restrained and will continue to be kept under close control.
    Mr. Ridley: Since we are told officially by the Postmaster-General that devaluation has failed, would the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is because
    1768
    of the failure to restrain public consumption? Would he give the House the figures for the increase in both public and private consumption over the last four years of the present Administration?
    Mr. Shore: I cannot give those figures without notice. But the hon. Gentleman should be a little more accurate in interpreting the comments made by my right hon. Friend. He did not say that devaluation had failed. He suggested that there had been a certain disappointment at the speed with which the economy had responded to it. I would disagree with my right hon. Friend in terms of our export response, which has been very good.
    Mr. Cant: Would my right hon. Friend remind the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) that a study of the O.E.C.D. statistics shows clearly that the critical difference between this country and any other advanced industrial country is the percentage of our gross national product spent on personal consumption?
    Mr. Shore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful reminder. As a nation we spend, and have spent for many years, a very much greater part of our gross national product on personal consumption, and a successful strategy in switching resources to the balance of payments must mean some reduction in that proportion.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Question on the Order Paper has nothing at all to do with that point? If he cannot answer the supplementary questions so far put to him, may I put a more simple question to him? Is it or is it not true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out a year ago in his Budget to reduce consumption, and did he or did he not succeed?
    Mr. Shore: My right hon. Friend set out in his Budget of last year to reduce personal consumption. When it became apparent that the Budget had not had the effect that had been anticipated, he introduced further measures in November. The right hon. Gentleman's contribution on both occasions was to deny that it was necessary.

    Development Areas
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will initiate an investigation into the effect of the investment grant differential and the Regional Employment Premium in creating employment in the Northern, Scottish and Welsh development areas.
    Mr. Shore: A close watch is kept on the impact of all regional measures, although several of them, including those mentioned in the Question, have been in operation for a comparatively short time.
    Mr. Blaker: Since unemployment in the northern region is 73 per cent. higher, in Wales 37 per cent. higher and in Scotland 18 per cent. higher than in the autumn of 1965 when the National Plan was published, is not there room for doubt whether the expenditure of £260 million in so-called assistance to development areas is money well spent?
    Mr. Shore: The logic of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is to suggest to me that we should be spending more in development areas, but I gather that that is not the conclusion which he has reached. The trend of the movement of industry into development areas has been very good, particularly taking into account that the last two years have not been a period of expansion and the exceptionally heavy run-down in the coal industry.
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs by how much he expects that the differential in unemployment between the development areas and the rest of the country will be reduced between the present time and 1972.
    Mr. Shore: We expect a further relative improvement over the period to 1972, though our provisional assessment suggests that the progress will not be evenly spread over all the development areas.
    Mr. Blaker: Since it is perfectly clear that the Government have no idea what value for money they are getting from spending £260 million a year on so-called assistance to development areas, and since they were elected on a programme of bringing cost-effectiveness into government, should not they make some effort
    1770
    to find out what value for money they are getting?
    Mr. Shore: There is a genuine difficulty in terms of the time for which these measures have been operating. The R.E.P. and the differential investment grant have been in operation, in terms of paying out, for less than two years, and it is not possible in so short a time to come to adequate conclusions about the effectiveness of these measures.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend give to the House any figures which indicate a reduction in the differential in the unemployment rate during the last four or five years between development areas and the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Shore: There has been some closing of the gap between the unemployment rate in the development areas as a whole and that in Great Britain.

    Retraining
    Mr. Woofasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what contribution the assessments in "The Task Ahead" assumes of the growth of productivity from the growth of retraining facilities, particularly in the regions.
    The Minister of State, Department of Economic Affairs (Mr. T. W. Urwin): We attach great importance to retraining facilities, but it is not possible to quantify the precise contribution they make to the growth of productivity.
    Mr. Woof: Is my hon. Friend aware that a large percentage of those unemployed in the North-East who worked in the old basic industries are classified as unskilled, and that a substantial expansion of retraining facilities is required to enable them to take their place confidently in the new industries which are badly needed? Will he say whether the growth of productivity over the next few years is closely identified with this factor?
    Mr. Urwin: The provision of retraining facilities for those who have been made redundant in the mines and other basic industries is vitally important and is one reason why the expansion of the Government training centres has been so rapid. My hon. Friend may be glad to know that whereas in the development areas in

    1771
    October, 1964, only 1,340 places were available, in February, 1969, there were 3,770 and within the next three years there should be a further increase to 5,700 places. Together with other manpower policies, retraining should make a major contribution to competitiveness and growth.

    North-East Development Region
    Mr. Woofasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs to what extent the Government economic assessment involves the development of increasing employment opportunities and the attraction of further industrial growth in the North-East Development Region.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Frederick Lee): Our discriminatory regional policy is concentrated on helping every development area to get an increasing number of new jobs. In 1968 we spent about £48 million on discriminatory assistance in the Northern Region. The economic assessment takes full account of the contribution we expect this expenditure to make to the growth of new employment in the region.
    Mr. Woof: Will my right hon. Friend say whether he has excluded the possibility and desirability of creating more special development areas within the Northern Region, and what crucial contribution the Government are prepared to make to reduce the continuing heavy rate of unemployment there?
    Mr. Lee: The Northern Region gains more from the policy of special development areas than any other region and is responding very adequately. In reply to the second part of the question, the Government are spending more on and getting better results from the development area policy than ever before in the industrial history of the country.
    Sir C. Osborne: Did not the Labour Party promise full employment for everybody? Why are the Government allowing more than half-a-million people to remain permanently unemployed?
    Mr. Lee: If when the Conservative Party were in power they had not funked the issue of the restructuring of industry, we should now be further ahead than we are.

    Special Development Areas
    Mr. Fred Evansasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's special development area policy.
    Mr. Shore: The added incentives to industry, including the building of advance factories, are making themselves felt. The number of jobs in prospect in these areas is now some 23,000. Since November, 1967, 28 advance factories have been allocated and a further six bespoke factories have been authorised.
    Mr. Evans: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Will he bear in mind that there are many areas, including South Wales, where the level of unemployment is still totally unacceptable? Will he press for incentives to be given for bringing in industry, and will he bear in mind that the attitude of hon. Members opposite towards special development areas gives us no encouragement unless the job is done quickly?
    Mr. Shore: We are very conscious of the needs of South Wales and, in particular, of those areas of South Wales which are part of special development areas, but I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with me that the figures which I have given to him this afternoon suggest that the policy is having some effect.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that further progress, at least in Scotland, will depend largely on the investment programme of the Steel Corporation, and will he say what part his Department is playing in assessing the regional priorities of the various proposals, in particular the plans for oil terminals and steel works at present before the Corporation?
    Mr. Shore: That is a different question, but if the hon. Gentleman would like to know, I am in close touch with the Minister of Power on the regional location of any new units in the steel industry.

    Employment (Public Sector)
    Mr. Ellisasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what is the basis of his estimate that there will be

    1773
    an increase in employment in the public sector during the period covered by "The Task Ahead".
    The Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Alan Williams): The bulk of the expected increase is in the health and education services and is due to the rising proportions of children and old people in the population and to the need to improve the quality of the services.
    Mr. Ellis: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the demand for these services is expected to rise, and is he prepared to review the figures in the light of an increase in public spending and not be put off by hon. Gentlemen opposite?
    Mr. Williams: Yes, Sir. We naturally ignore the propaganda points from the Opposition, bearing in mind that our prior purpose is to look after the real needs of society, both the young and the old.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Is it the intention of the Government to maintain an average of half-a-million unemployed?
    Mr. Williams: I do not see how that arises from this Question, but of course it is not our intention. Our intention is to return to full employment.

    North-West Economic Planning Council (Report)
    Mr. Coeasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when the Government's reply to the North-West Economic Planning Council's Report, Strategy II, will be published; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Arthur Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on the reply he has now given to the North-West Economic Planning Council on the proposals in Strategy II.
    Mr. Shore: The Government's reply to the Council's Report was published on 19th March. Copies have been sent to all M.P.s in the region and are available in the Library.
    Mr. Coe: While I am encouraged by the evidence in that Report and the efforts of my right hon. Friend to promote long-term planning between the various planning authorities, in the case of local authorities what steps is he taking to
    1774
    ensure the continuity of this long-term planning when the time comes for a number of existing local authorities to disappear in the reorganisation of local government?
    Mr. Shore: As my hon. Friend knows, some ad hoc arrangements have been made between existing authorities in the North-West which, in a sense, anticipate the reorganisation of local government. That apart, I think we must await the publication of the Maud Report before going further in that direction.
    Mr. Davidson: Much play was made in Strategy II and in the Government's reply of population growth. Is he aware that the endemic problem from which we have suffered in North-East Lancashire over the years is the direct opposite, namely, population drift? Is he satisfied that this drift is now declining, and will he concentrate on bringing new industry into the area to ensure that the population stays there?
    Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend knows that the facts about population movement and growth in the North-West region are a bit more complicated than he has suggested. First, there is considerable growth in population, and this is combined in some parts of the region—especially in North-East Lancashire with which my hon. Friend is closely associated—with a decline in population. We want to devise a strategy which takes account of the needs of new housing at the location of additional population, and, at the some time, looks after those areas which are suffering population decline.
    Mr. Waddington: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of disappointment at the tone of his reply to Strategy II, particularly the airy-fairy nature of the promises made to North-East Lancashire? Is he aware, in particular, that it is not good enough to say that the Government accept the case for a new road link between the M6 and the Calder Valley, because what the people of North-East Lancashire are entitled to expect, surely, is that, before the new town comes into existence, that new road link will be there?
    Mr. Shore: The timing of road building is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. However, I am not aware that there is disappointment in the North-West Region with the reply which we have given.

    Yorkshire and Humberside Region
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what action he proposes to take to increase the rate of employment growth in the Yorkshire and Humberside Region, which is expected to decline further, as outlined in paragraph 24, chapter 9, Regional Strategy and Prospects, of "The Task Ahead."
    Mr. James Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what steps he is taking to ameliorate economic conditions in the Yorkshire and Humberside Region, in view of the statement, about its slow employment growth in paragraph 34 of chapter 9, entitled Regional Strategy and Prospects, in "The Task Ahead."
    Mr. Urwin: The Government are considering what measures are necessary and practicable, bearing in mind also the needs of other areas.
    Mr. Osborn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a most bland and depressing statement in "The Task Ahead"? In view of the fact that it will be some two months before the Hunt Committee's Report is published, which will no doubt confirm what is the task ahead, surely the Government should not be "considering". They should be taking action to prevent the sort of trend which they admit is happening now.
    Mr. Urwin: The Hunt Committee has considered the claims of many areas for special assistance. It is important that consideration should be given to the Committee's findings as a whole.
    Mr. Hooley: Would my hon. Friend agree that it is very important to locate new centres of administration and research in this area? Will he protest strenuously to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science about placing the headquarters of the open university in the South-East, when it might have formed an important cultural and growth centre in another region?
    Mr. Urwin: The Government's dispersal policy has been of great benefit to a number of areas in the country, and I assure my hon. Friend that the needs of the area to which he refers will be con- 1776
    sidered in the future, in conjunction with many others.
    Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that the Yorkshire and Humberside Region is too large? There are too many pockets of unemployment, like that in Mexborough, which has a level of over 6 per cent. Will he do something about it quickly and not await publication and discussion of the Hunt Report?
    Mr. Urwin: I am conscious of the problem which my hon. Friend raises, and we are considering particularly the situation and prospects in the coalfield area.
    Mr. Eddie Griffithsasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what representations he has recently received from local authority organisations in Yorkshire about the economic future of the Region; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Urwin: The West Riding of Yorkshire Urban District Councils Association has urged that South Yorkshire should be designated as a development area. It was informed by my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade that its views would be taken fully into account in the Government's review of the recommendations of the Hunt Committee.
    Mr. Griffiths: I thank my hon Friend for that reply. Has he had any representations from a consortium of local authorities, known as the 44 Group? If he has, what reply has he sent to it?
    Mr. Urwin: As the House knows, a certain number of representations have been made, but no reply will be sent until we have considered the Hunt Report. The 44 Group is to be congratulated on the work which it has done in helping to co-ordinate the aims of local authorities, and on its collective effort in assisting economic planning councils in their work.

    Overseas Expenditure
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs why the projected deficit on Government overseas expenditure, both current, invisibles, and capital, is £90 million

    1777
    greater at 1964 prices, in view of the fact that the target surplus on the balance of payments in "The Task Ahead" is larger than in the National Plan.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Unfortunately the hon. Member has misread Table 3.1 in the Economic Assessment, which shows Government overseas expenditure at current, not constant, prices.
    Mr. Osborn: May I ask whether the surplus which has been budgeted has altered since the publication of this Green Paper?
    Mr. Williams: No, Sir.

    Agriculture (Labour Force)
    Mr. Buchanan-Smithasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs in his assessment of the supply of labour in chapter 7 of "The Task Ahead" what estimate he has made of the ability of agriculture to continue the release of workers at the present rate.
    Mr. Alan Williams: It is considered that manpower in the industry will continue to fall and output per head continue to rise at much the same rate as in recent years. This is consistent with the growth in output implied in the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 12th November, 1968.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the Report of the "Little Neddy" on agriculture said that the rate of outflow of workers from agriculture ought to be halved if the agricultural expansion programme were to be realised? Does he accept that, or has he abandoned the expansion programme for agriculture, as the latest Price Review seems to indicate?
    Mr. Williams: As the hon. Gentleman knows, those assumptions about manpower were based on an import-saving increase of £220 million, whereas our programme is based on an import saving, over the period to 1972, of £160 million. Therefore, our manpower assumptions are consistent with our output assumptions. I might add that the Price Review is an extremely generous one. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, it is better than 12 out of the 13 produced by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and their 13th was before a General Election.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions and Answers are getting too long.

    Nuclear Submarine Contracts
    Mr. Brooksasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what representations he has received from the Northwest Economic Planning Council regarding the implications for the Merseyside employment situation of the decision to cease placing contracts for nuclear submarines, and for their re-fitting, at Cammell Laird, Birkenhead; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Urwin: My right hon. Friend wrote to the Chairman of the North-West Planning Council as he indicated in his reply to my hon. Friend's Question on 28th February. They have considered the matter and we have their views. I know there is some disappointment on Merseyside, but I am quite satisfied that if only one yard can be economically employed in the future, then the choice of Barrow has merit on regional planning grounds.
    Mr. Brooks: Will my hon. Friend indicate to the House what the views of the Planning Council are? Will he not agree that it is rather baffling to tell the Council something which the Government have decided a year earlier? In view of the need for a little forward planning rather than posthumous planning, would it not be a good idea to ask it to comment on the scope for nuclear propulsion work for mercantile vessels on the Mersey?
    Mr. Urwin: I observe that my hon. Friend has some doubt about the wisdom of the decision. It is not seen as a threat in the future to the economy of Merseyside in the way that he suggests. I am satisfied that nothing would have been gained by drawing the information to the attention of the Council at an earlier stage.
    Mr. Fortescue: What part have the relative employment situations on Merseyside and Barrow played in coming to the decision that the submarine should be built at Barrow?
    Mr. Urwin: That is one of the factors taken into account in arriving at the situation. It is a fact that Barrow is

    1779
    more vulnerable than Merseyside because of its comparative geographical isolation.
    Mr. Ogden: In view of the employment situation, is my hon. Friend aware that many Merseyside-based shipping companies place orders for new ships with yards as far apart as Hong Kong, Rotterdam and Japan? Could not more influence be brought to bear on them to place their orders with Cammell Laird, which is on their doorstep?
    Mr. Urwin: I accept my hon. Friend's comment. It is highly desirable that attention should be paid to this important factor.

    Balance of Payments
    Mr. Peytonasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when he expects the aim of a £500 million surplus on the balance of payments to be achieved.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs to what extent the policy outlined in the new economic planning document is based on a change from balance of payments deficit to a surplus of £500 million; and when this will be achieved.
    Mr. Hordernasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when the aim of economic policy, namely, the conversion of the balance of payments deficit into an annual surplus of £500 million, will be obtained.
    Mr. Shore: The first priority of economic policy is to convert the balance of payments deficit into a substantial surplus of the order of £500 million as soon as possible. The speed at which it will be achieved will depend not only on the Government's action but on many other factors, including the joint efforts of both sides of industry in switching the necessary resources into the balance of payments.
    Mr. Peyton: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he did not even begin to answer the Question? However, his reply is welcome to the extent that it may indicate that the Government are at last learning some modesty about their ability to forecast events. Does the Minister realise that public reaction to his Department and to the Government generally is a mixture of disdain and disregard as
    1780
    each forecast is falsified and each promise is broken?
    Mr. Shore: It would be a mistake to attempt to give a precise date for this particular surplus, because there are so many factors involving the whole nation, and in particular both sides of industry, in the achievement of the substantial surplus that we need.
    Mr. Taylor: If one of the factors which will bring it about is the efforts made by management and labour, why are the Government showing such appalling delays and complacency in bringing forward the legislation on labour relations which they said was urgent and important?
    Mr. Shore: It is extraordinary to hear from the other side of the House complaints about, as they allege, delay on our part to do things which the did nothing about in all those years that they were in power.
    Mr. Hordern: What is the point of producing a complicated economic planning document of this kind when the Government do not even know when they will achieve their first objective of producing a surplus of £500 million? When will they wake up from the dream world in which they live?
    Mr. Shore: The purpose of the economic assessment is to give industry as reasonably good an assessment of the next five years as we possibly can. I assure the hon. Gentleman that industry would be highly sceptical of any Government attempting to forecast precisely the particular order of magnitude of a surplus in any year.
    Mr. Barnett: Would it not be better to say that we shall not achieve a £500 million surplus, that we do not need to achieve it—nor do we need to achieve the figure of £700 million which the Opposition have quoted as their target—but that we prefer to go for a more realistic target of £200 million which is within our sights and which would give us the opportunity of a much higher rate of growth than would otherwise be possible?
    Mr. Shore: I cannot accept my hon. Friend's judgment that this is not a necessary surplus for us to obtain. Nor do I accept his pessimism that the attainment

    1781
    of such a surplus is beyond the capacity of this nation.
    Mr. Peyton: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

    Use of Resources
    Mr. Tom Boardmanasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs why "The Task Ahead", uses a different definition in Table 6.1 for the claims on resources for achieving the balance of payments target from the definition used in the comparable Table 1.1 of the National Plan; and if he will give comparable figures on both bases together with the actual change between 1964 and 1967.
    Mr. Alan Williams: The actual changes between 1964 and 1967, on both bases, are set out in a table to be circulated in the Official Report. It was decided to reduce the sub-divisions of

    USE OF RESOURCES (£ MILLION)

    National Plan Basis (a) (constant 1964 prices)

    Economic Assessment Basis (constant 1967 prices)

    1964

    1967

    1964

    1967

    GNP at market prices

    33,258

    35,225

    GDP at market prices

    36,861

    39,093

    Balance of trade in goods and services including net property income from abroad.

    −213

    −310

    Net property income from abroad.

    431

    410

    Balance of trade in goods and services (b).

    −500

    −568

    Investment:

    Investment:

    Manufacturing and construction

    1,346

    1,436

    Private industry and services

    2,898

    3,056

    Other private industry and services

    1,349

    1408

    Nationalised industries

    1,145

    1,379

    Nationalised industries

    1,271

    1,530

    Stockbuilding

    639

    114

    Stockbuilding

    726

    130

    Housing

    1,210

    1,326

    Housing

    1,336

    1,464

    Roads

    190

    245

    Public services

    813

    1,033

    Other public services

    561

    708

    Transfer costs of land and buildings

    59

    61

    Transfer costs of land and buildings.

    60

    62

    Defence

    1,925

    2,030

    Defence

    2,197

    2,317

    Consumption:

    Consumption:

    Social and other public services

    3,470

    4,048

    Social and other public services.

    4,068

    4,746

    Personal

    21,577

    22,854

    Personal

    23,908

    25,323

    (a) 1964 figures revised in conformity with National Income and Expenditure: 1968 Blue Book,

    (b) Excluding net property income from abroad.

    Mr. Tom Boardmanasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs in view of the fact that the period 1967 to 1972 covers three phases for the pattern of the use of resources in relation to the
    1782
    investment in table 6.1 to avoid unnecessary detail and to give more scope for variation in the light of the consultations with industry and, for these reasons, projections to 1972 on the National Plan basis are not given. The exclusion of investment income from the balance of trade in goods and services arises from the use of G.D.P. instead of G.N.P. as a measure of national output.
    Mr. Boardman: Do not these figures show that, if like were compared with like, the task of improving the balance of payments is very much greater now than in 1964? Is this not a damning indictment of the Government's economic policy?
    Mr. Williams: No, Sir. If like were compared with like, in 1964 we inherited a ramshackle economy with out-of-date industry. We now have a better industrial base on which to found our expansion, and devaluation has given us a competitive edge abroad.
    Following is the Table:
    period averages in Table 6.1 of "The Task Ahead," if he will sub-divide these projections to show the actual changes between 1967 and the latest available figures, the projected changes between

    1783
    then and 1970, and the changes between 1970 and 1972.
    Mr. Alan Williams: No, Sir. "The Task Ahead" is concerned with the changes that have to take place in the use of resources between now and 1972, but it does not attempt to predict the precise timing of their achievement. This will depend in large measure on the success by all concerned in improving the balance of payments.
    Mr. Boardman: Does not the presentation confuse past performance with present plans and future forecasts, and is not this designed to conceal the true size of the problem?
    Mr. Williams: Not to anyone who knows his way around an economic document.

    "The Task Ahead"
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will publish a revised Check-list for Action appropriate to the new planning document.
    Mr. Shore: One of the principal aims of the consultations described in Chapter 10 of "The Task Ahead" will be to identify the action which should be taken to improve economic performance.
    Mr. Lane: When the right hon. Gentleman draws up his list, will he put very high on it a reduction in the amount of distraction and interference which both private and public industry is having to endure from the present Government?
    Mr. Shore: That is an odd comment, because the dialogue which we shall be having with industry over the planning document will, or could well, lead to proposals from industry requesting the Government to do certain things which the hon. Gentleman may interpret as interference but which others might interpret as very useful intervention.

    Northern Region, Scotland and Wales (Migration)
    Mr. Michael Shawasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what estimate he has made of the net outflow of population each year from the Northern Region, Scotland and Wales, respectively, from 1969 to 1972.
    Mr. Urwin: None, Sir. It is very difficult to forecast to what extent the success of intensified regional policy measures will lead to reduced migration from these regions, as well as lower unemployment and higher activity rates.
    Mr. Shaw: But does not the hon. Gentleman recall that the National Plan stated that a review was being set up to forecast the trends in population movements? What has happened to that review? May we be told what evidence it gives on this matter?
    Mr. Urwin: I should inform the hon. Gentleman that the policy, and the fructification of the policy concerning regional assistance, is intended to produce over the next few years a more even spread of employment opportunities which will in time lead to major reductions in net migration from the less prosperous regions. I should require notice of the other aspect of the hon. Member's question.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that Government assistance to development areas has already been the means of saving many valuable communities from disintegrating, particularly the mining valleys of South Wales which have been acutely affected by pit closures?
    Mr. Urwin: Yes. I should point out to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that the stability of any structure depends entirely on the strength of its foundations—in regional and development area terms—a problem so long neglected by the Opposition when they were in power. The Government are now reinforcing the foundations and building an entirely new fabric in those areas where Government assistance is badly needed.

    Unemployment and the Balance of Payments
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs on what criteria he bases the policy outlined in the new economic planning document of making a reduction in the present level of unemployment consequential upon an improvement in the balance of payments.
    Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmidasked the Secretary of State for Economic

    1785
    Affairs what is the reduction in unemployment which the new planning document allows from its present level between now and 1972 on the basic case.
    Mr. Hordernasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs to what extent it is the policy of the Government that there should be a connection between the balance of payments position and the level of unemployment.
    Mr. Shore: Full employment is a major aim of the Government's policy. The size and speed of the reduction in unemployment cannot be exactly predicted since it depends on progress with the balance of payments, achieving a better balance of regional employment and on such factors as success in retraining and redeploying workers.
    Mr. Taylor: Is the Government's current economic strategy designed to secure an increase or a reduction in the present unemployment rate? Can the Minister say, in particular, whether the economic strategy takes into account the securing of trade union reform legislation within the next 12 months?
    Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman has already been told the timetable for the Measures on industrial relations—[Interruption.] It is for someone else to answer that Question, not for me.
    On the hon. Gentleman's main point, the basic case put forward in the planning document, which he will see if he reads it carefully, is wholly consistent with a decline in unemployment in the period of the assessment.
    Mr. Hordern: Can the Minister answer the Question which I put down? Is there, in the Government's view, a direct link between the level of unemployment and the balance of payments position?
    Mr. Shore: It is an extraordinarily simple Question for the hon. Gentleman.
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Shore: I will. I should have thought that it was self-evident, even to the dimmest intelligence, that a nation has to earn its living and that, if it cannot earn its living by its ordinary trade and other transactions, in a country like ours, employment will inevitably suffer.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The right hon. Gentleman knows the anxiety in the House about the unemployment figures. Does he recall the statement of the Prime Minister on 20th July, 1966, that the upper limit might be of the order of 2 per cent.? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for about 21 months the figure has been above 2 per cent.? Does he see any prospect of it dropping below that?
    Mr. Shore: Yes, Sir. As the economic assessment makes clear, we assume that there will be a decrease in unemployment over the period of the assessment. What we have not attempted to do is to give a time path of this change because it crucially depends on the two factors which I mentioned earlier, success with the balance of payments and success in our regional policies.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the economic strategy is now proving beneficial to Scotland? Is he further aware that in 1963, when the Opposition were the Government, there were 136,000 unemployed people in Scotland, whereas the figure is now 80,000? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the trade unions will play their part in carrying out the White Paper, "In Place of Strife", provided that managements measure up to their responsibilities?
    Mr. Shore: I thank my hon. Friend for his very useful contribution.

    Development Areas (Discriminatory Financial Assistance)
    Mr. Michael Shawasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs why, in view of the increase in the scale of the discriminatory financial assistance to development areas since 1965, which the new planning document, "The Task Ahead", underlines, the only estimate made of additional jobs created in development areas relates to jobs deriving from the use of the industrial development certificate procedure.
    Mr. Urwin: The only specific statistics relating to the growth of employment opportunities in development areas are those relating to I.D.C. applications. These do not, however, reflect the full impact of development area incentives, and the assessment in "The Task

    1787
    Ahead" does take account of the other ways in which such incentives are expected to lead to increased employment in development areas.
    Mr. Shaw: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that vast sums of money are being spent on other incentives? Is it not utterly wrong that these large sums of money should be spent without his being able to make any assessment of the benefits which are derived from the regional employment premium?
    Mr. Urwin: The only measures which have a distinct job relationship are those taken under the I.D.C. policy and under the Local Employment Acts. I discount the hon. Gentleman's comment that we are not getting value for money. I am sure that my hon. Friends who represent development areas will be in complete agreement with me when I say that industry in those areas is being very well diversified as a result of the policies now in train, to the advantage of the areas concerned.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: I assure my hon. Friend that people in the development areas welcome the work being done by the Government to stimulate the economy in those areas. Nevertheless, would my hon. Friend accept, looking back at the unemployment figures for February of this year and last year, that while there has been a reduction in unemployment in the non-development areas, unemployment has risen marginally in the development areas? Does not this show that we should be doing more rather than less?
    Mr. Urwin: The suggestion that we should be doing more is one which will meet with general approbation, especially on this side of the House, but I ask my hon. Friend to await the outcome of the discussions on the Hunt Report.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how 35,000 jobs net have been lost during the last four years in Scotland, whereas there was a net gain of 30,000 jobs in the previous four years, a question which the Prime Minister was unable to answer last week?
    Mr. Urwin: Jobs are being generated at a faster rate in Scotland than at any time in the history of Conservative Governments.

    Annual Growth
    Mr. Barnettasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will give his estimate of the extent to which annual growth is restricted for each £100 million of surplus on balance of payments, taking into account the various assumptions in the document, "The Task Ahead."
    Mr. Shore: No, Sir. I have nothing to add to the Answer which my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, gave to my hon. Friend on 13th March.—[Vol. 779, c. 333–4.]
    Mr. Barnett: Is it not a fact that we could aim for a higher rate of growth with a target of £200 million surplus on the balance of payments than with one of £500 million, which in any event could not be maintained for any consistent period, and should not we tell the I.M.F. that that is precisely what we propose to do?
    Mr. Shore: I do not dispute that the balance of payments restraint is an important restraint on economic growth, but I cannot accept my hon. Friend's suggestion that we need a surplus of only £200 million in the years ahead. I think that we need a considerably more ambitious surplus than that.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: To assist his hon. Friend's proposal, will the right hon. Gentleman consider inviting the Postmaster-General to address the I.M.F. and to explain his ideas?

  E.F.T.A. COUNTRIES (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  Ql. Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister what visits he proposes making to the European Free Trade Association countries.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): I have been asked to reply.?
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Graves-end (Mr. Murray) on 27th February, he will be making an official visit to Sweden in early July.
  Mr. Molloy: My Question goes a little wider than that. I am concerned because

  1789
  the Government seem to be hypnotised by their efforts to get into the Common Market, which I think is dangerous. Ought not we to acknowledge that we have E.P.T.A. partners and ought we not to show as much appreciation of their existence, in the possible hope of entering a new phase for European policy, as we show the Common Market?
  Mr. Stewart: The European Free Trade Area is in full vigour, and we are in constant touch with our partners there. There was an opportunity for a full exchange of views at the Ministerial meeting of ELF.T.A. on 21st November, and there will be a further opportunity at the E.F.T.A. Ministers' next meeting on 8th and 9th May.
  Sir F. Bennett: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to believe that our relations, economic or political, with E.F.T.A. countries would be improved if the Prime Minister were to visit those countries?
  Mr. Stewart: There are very many invitations from foreign countries for the Prime Minister to visit them, more, of course, than he is able to accept.
  Mr. Shinwell: Will my right hon. Friend decide once and for all to abandon these visits to other countries, particularly to European countries? Is he not aware by now that the more often Ministers and ex-Ministers perambulate around the continent of Europe the worse the situation becomes?
  Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. I cannot agree with my right hon. Friend.

  NIGERIA (ARMS BAN)
  Mr. Barnesasked the Prime Minister if he will now seek a meeting with the Heads of Government of France, Portugal and Russia to discuss joint sponsorship of an international ban on arms shipments to Nigeria and Biafra.
  Mr. M. Stewart: I have been asked to reply.
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the debate on 13th March when I dealt fully with the difficulties surrounding an international arms embargo.
  Mr. Barnes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Russian Embassy in
  1790
  London does not appear to be aware of any proposition about an arms ban having been put to it by the British Government? In view of that, will my right hon. Friend say why he is so definite about the refusal of the Russians to cooperate in this matter?
  Mr. Stewart: We have made inquiries about this and the position is as I stated it during the debate, that such an embargo, to be effective, would have to be policed inside Nigeria itself.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Will the right hon. Gentleman pursue this, because his objection has been that there would be a black market in arms? If the four larger Powers were agreed, it would not be impossible to control it.
  Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that during the debate I set out certain measures which I thought might be effective if they were taken together. We may know more about the possibilities when my right hon. Friend returns.
  Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Assuming that my right hon. Friend wishes to stop the slaughter in Nigeria as soon as possible, may I ask him to consider that perhaps the shortest and best way to do that is to send one interceptor fighter to stop French arms going in there?
  Mr. Stewart: That is another question.

  CAMMELL LAIRD, BIRKENHEAD
  Mr. Brooksasked the Prime Minister whether he will pay an official visit to the shipbuilding yards of Cammell Laird, Birkenhead.
  Mr. M. Stewart: I have been asked to reply.
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.
  Mr. Brooks: In view of all the adverse criticism that has recently been heaped on Merseyside, does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is worth noting that this major shipyard has an excellent record in recent years both in industrial relations and in competitive tendering? Before irrevocable decisions are taken which might end this centre of excellence

  1791
  in nuclear engineering, does not my right hon. Friend agree that an urgent appraisal is needed to give it scope for building nuclear merchant ships?
  Mr. Stewart: The position was set out by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy on 10th and 20th March, and it is that our current programme is not sufficient to maintain two building yards on nuclear submarine work. A choice had to be made between Vickers and Cammell Laird, and the decision was based on sound economic reasons and taken in the knowledge of Vickers' greater experience and capacity in all aspects of the work. Cammell Laird's order book for commercial vessels, I understand, is quite healthy, and I believe that other orders are in prospect.

  AGRICULTURE (PRICE REVIEW)
  Mr. Peter Millsasked the Prime Minister what arrangements he has made to meet the leaders of the National Farmers' Union.
  Mr. Joplingasked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange an early meeting to discuss agricultural expansion with the leaders of the agricultural industry.
  Mr. M. Stewart: I have been asked to reply.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had a meeting with the President of the National Farmers' Union for England and Wales on 10th March.
  Mr. Mills: Yes, but would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, in view of the present economic circumstances and the plight of agriculture, the recent Price Review has not provided adequate resources for agriculture to play the part it should play?
  Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. I do not agree with that. The determinations which the Minister of Agriculture announced give agriculture the resources to carry out a selective expansion programme. Apart from what happened in 1964 and 1967,
  1792
  this is the best Review for more than twenty years.
  Mr. Jopling: Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that last week's Price Review was in any way compatible with the Minister of Agriculture's statement last November? Is he aware that the farmers have lost all confidence in the Government in view of the scandalous double-talk of the last four months?
  Mr. Stewart: On the first part, yes, that is what I was asserting, and the facts justify it. On the second part, I do not accept that at all.
  Mr. Maclennan: When the leaders of the National Farmers' Union met the Prime Minister, did they make it clear that they continue their strong opposition to the Opposition's policy on agriculture?
  Mr. Stewart: The contents of the discussions between my right hon. Friend and the National Farmers' Union are confidential, but it is well known that the N.F.U. takes the view which my hon. Friend ascribes to it.
  Mr. Godber: As we shall have an opportunity to debate that on Monday, I do not propose to follow it, but would the right hon. Gentleman come back to the original Question and tell us whether the statement of the Minister of Agriculture in November had the support of his colleagues in the House? If it did, why has it not been honoured in the Price Review?
  Mr. Stewart: That was not the original Question, but since the right hon. Gentleman has asked it, I must say again that this incompatibility which he claims to find is not there: it is not justified by the facts.
  Mr. English: While recognising that the virtues of this Price Review are considerably greater than seem to be recognised by some hon. Members opposite, may I ask my right hon. Friend to dispose of the rumours that, to please the Treasury accountants, there is some suggestion of shifting subsidy from the taxpayer to the consumer, which would certainly be resisted by many on these benches?
  Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir.

  ECONOMIC SITUATION
  Sir C. Osborneasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the results of his policy announced on 20th July, 1966; and what new measures he proposes to introduce to achieve his aims of a strong sterling and favourable balance of payments.
  Mr. M. Stewart: I have been asked to reply.
  I would ask the hon. Gentleman to await the Statement which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be making on 15th April.
  Sir C. Osborne: Are the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor aware that the rate for sterling in July, 1966 was 2·7987 and that today it is 2·3936—[Hon. Members: "Reading."] Whether you like the figures or not, you are going to have them—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not threaten me.
  Sir C. Osborne: The rate today is—[Interruption.]—15 per cent. worse than it was in July, 1966—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—and, as regards the balance of payments, in 1966, there was a favourable—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—May I have your assistance, Mr. Speaker?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We are losing valuable Question time.
  Sir C. Osborne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in 1966 there was a favourable balance of payments of £15 million, that in 1967 it had turned—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is unbearable—
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is my job to protect hon. Members. Sir Cyril Osborne.
  Sir C. Osborne: In 1966, there was a favourable balance of £15 which the next year was turned—[Hon. Members:"Reading."]—into a deficit of £404 million and that last year—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be reasonably brief.
  Sir C. Osborne:—and that last year the deficit was £412 million? Is this not a disgraceful result of a promise made by a bankrupt Prime Minister?
  Mr. Stewart: The figures to which the hon. Gentleman refers are, of course, public knowledge. That is why some of my hon. Friends were a little impatient with his taking up time by repeating them. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has never disguised from the country the seriousness of its problems, which those figures illustrate. That is why he has taken firm measures to put the economy right.
  Mr. Maudling: If these figures are common knowledge, why are the Government so cross with the Postmaster-General for telling the truth?
  Mr. Stewart: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman would try to get that one in. I have just said that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has never disguised from the country the seriousness of the country's economic position.
  Mr. Cant: We all enjoy the new rôle of the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) as a sort of Rip van Winkle, 1966 vintage, but would my right hon. Friend draw the Chancellor's attention to the difficulties being created for this country by the United States of America and to the fact that, while we have no objection to their ransacking the Eurodollar market to buy the best in European industry, we have some objection to their doing so to finance American capital investment at home, with its implications for rates of interest? Would he do something about that?
  Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who is present, will have noted what my hon. Friend said. Although it is entirely right to notice the figures quoted by my hon. Friend or indeed any other facts about the economy, nor should we deny that we have, in recent months, noticed a decided improvement.

  GREECE (SUPPLY OF ARMS)
  Mr. John Fraserasked the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Prime Ministers of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries about the supply of arms to Greece; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. M. Stewart: I have been asked to reply.
  None, Sir. I have nothing to add to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary told my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) on 13th March.— [Vol. 779, c. 352–3.]
  Mr. Fraser: Would my right hon. Friend consider seeking an opportunity to persuade our N.A.T.O. colleagues not to supply arms to Greece under N.A.T.O. commitments until democracy is restored there? Will he confirm that there is no arrangement between this country and Greece to supply arms where they have not been supplied before?
  Mr. Stewart: There have been no substantial sales of arms to Greece from this country since the present Government there came to power. One should say that one would not want to take action which would damage N.A.T.O. without bringing any help to the Greek nation.
  Dr. John Dunwoody: Has my right hon. Friend seen a number of reports about British arms having been supplied to the Greek régime? Would he comment on that?
  Mr. Stewart: It is not the practice to comment on particular transactions. I repeat what I said earlier, that there have been no substantial sales of arms to Greece from this country since the present Greek Government took power.
  Mr. Ellis: What does my right hon. Friend mean when he uses the word "substantial" in this context? Is he aware that many of my hon. Friends believe that if there is a case for having N.A.T.O., it is that it is an organisation designed for the defence of democracy? Is it not reasonable to ask that, as there is no democracy in Greece, there should be no sales of arms to that country?
  Mr. Stewart: If my hon. Friend will look at the membership of N.A.T.O. and
  1796
  at the part which it has played in Europe in the 20 years of its life, he will, I think, agree that it does defend democracy.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 31ST MARCH—Supply [16th Allotted Day]:
Debate on the Annual Farm Price Review (Command No. 3965), on an Opposition Motion.
Remaining stages of the Nuclear Installations Bill and of the Redundant Churches and Other Religious Buildings Bill.
Motion on the Tyneside Passenger Transport Area (Designation) Order.
TUESDAY, 1ST APRIL AND WEDNESDAY, 2ND APRIL—Committee stage of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, which will be continued on Monday, 14th April.
ON WEDNESDAY, 2ND APRIL, at Seven o'clock, the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed Private Business for consideration.
THURSDAY, 3RD APRIL—The House will meet at 11 a.m., take Questions until 12 noon and adjourn at 5 o'clock, until Monday, 14th April.
As the House is already aware, on Tuesday, 15th April, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will open his Budget Statement.
The general debate on the Budget Resolutions and the Economic Situation will be continued on Wednesday, 16th April, and Thursday, 17th April, and brought to a conclusion on Monday, 21st April.
Mr. Heath: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that in addition to taking the Parliament (No. 2) Bill on Tuesday and Wednesday we will also be taking it on our first day back after the Recess, on 14th April?
Secondly, I asked the Leader of the House to inquire last week when his

1797
right hon. Friend would be making a statement about amendments to the Land Commission Act. Will he assure us that a statement will be made before the House rises for Easter?
Thirdly, is it the intention of the Prime Minister to report on his visit to Nigeria before: he House recesses for Easter?
Mr. Peart: To answer the right hon. Gentleman's third question first, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would like to inform the House about his visit to Nigeria. It is right that he should, and I sure that he will be anxious to do so.
To answer his second question, as he knows, this matter came up in debate the other night. My right hon. Friend will look into it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I appreciate that many hon. Members are pressing for new proposals. My right hon. Friend will have to consider these. I cannot be more precise about this or say when he will make a statement, or if he will make one. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's first question is, "Yes". I said that we would be taking the Parliament (No. 2) Bill on Monday, 14th April.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to Motion No. 177, which was tabled on 25th February and is entitled "In Place of Strife and the Encouragement of Strife"?
[That this House notes that, whilst the Government are urging trade unionists and lower-paid workers to restrict their incomes, on penalty of legal restrictions in default, they are at the same moment in the process of preparing to increase the salaries of the chairmen of the nationalised boards by as much as 60 per cent. per annum; and feels that the present climate of opinion is not conducive to supporting salary increases from £12,500 per annum to £20,000 per annum and from £16,000 to £27,000 per annum, as this is unlikely to persuade the trade unions to accept the Government's incomes policy and their White Paper, In Place of Strife.]
As everything therein was correctly foretold—as was admitted the day before yesterday—would my right hon. Friend formally accept the Motion and thus save the time of the House?
Mr. Peart: I know that my hon. Friend is anxious to save the time of the House, but I am afraid that I cannot accede to his request.
Mr. Sandys: Since next Tuesday—I have given notice of this—I shall be seeking leave to bring in a Bill to secure a conciliation pause before strike action in appropriate cases—[Interruption.]—may I have the guidance of the right hon. Gentleman as to whether, despite the decision of the National Executive of the Labour Party yesterday, it is still the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to implement all the main proposals of their White Paper "In Place of Strife", and if legislation will be introduced this Session?
Mr. Peart: If the right hon. Gentleman will have a word with me later I will be pleased to advise him privately—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]—but the answer to his question is: "Not next week".
Mr. Sandys Mr. Sandys rose—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Sandys: On a point of order. Is it not an abuse of business question time—it is surely in the interests of the whole House that we should know what the Government's intentions are in relation to a matter which I shall be bringing before the House next Tuesday—for the Leader of the House to use that form of reply when this is not a matter for private consultation?
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the House, like any other Minister, answers questions in his own way, even business questions.
Mr. Michael Foot: Since my right hon. Friend has made an announcement about the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, an announcement which will be unwelcome in all sections of the House, would he say what are his intentions about the Parliament (No. 1) Bill, which could extricate him from all these difficulties?
Mr. Peart: I am aware of my hon. Friend's views about the Parliament (No. 1) Bill. In relation to next week's business, however, I am concerned only with the Parliament (No. 2) Bill.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Would the right hon. Gentleman give an indication of

1799
whether the Government intend to allow time to debate the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which dealt with coastal pollution, and provide time for a debate on the White Paper which the Government have issued on that Report? While I recognise that there are some legal difficulties in this matter, is he aware of the continuing pollution of our shores, not least at Broadstairs, and will he do something about this matter soon?
Mr. Peart: I am aware of the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised, I accept that he has a strong case. He knows my interest in the matter, but I regret that such a debate cannot take place next week.
Mr. Shinwell: Has my right hon. Friend given further consideration to the request that has been frequently made for the Government to introduce a new Merchant Shipping Bill? Can he do anything along these lines next week?
Mr. Peart: I agree that my right hon. Friend has been pressing me on this matter. I am equally aware of the concern that is felt by many hon. Members about this and their desire that there should not be any delay in introducing the Merchant Shipping Bill. As has been pointed out, this will be a complex Measure. I am now, for the first time, being somewhat more specific on this issue and I am announcing the Government's intention to introduce the Bill later this Session, as soon as it is ready.
Mr. Turton: As the right hon. Gentleman appears to find difficulty in finding alternative business to put before the House, will he look at the five Motions that stand in his name on the Notice Paper on the law of Parliamentary Privilege? Is he aware that they have been on the Notice Paper for two months and that we always seem to adjourn just before this matter is discussed?
Mr. Peart: I am aware of what the right hon. Gentleman says, and it is true that these Motions have been on the Notice Paper for some time. I would like a debate to take place on this issue and on the whole Report, but I am afraid that one cannot take place next week. I assure the Father of the House that, like him, I regard this as an import-
1800
ant matter, that I would like it to be debated and that I regret that that cannot happen next week.
Mr. Milne: Since statements made by both the main political parties this week have highlighted the importance of the principle of equal pay for equal work, would my right hon. Friend pay attention to Motion No. 205 which stands in my name and in the names of many of my hon. Friends; and can we have an early debate on the subject?
[That this House, bearing in mind the legislative programme outlined by Her Majesty's Government, particularly the introduction of a National Superannuation Scheme, calls for the ratification of the International Labour Organisation Convention 100, Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value, by Her Majesty's Government, and urges that steps be taken immediately to introduce legislation to give effect to the principle.]
Mr. Peart: I have noted my hon. Friend's remarks about Motion No. 205. Having announced the business for next week, it will not, I am afraid, be possible for us to debate that Motion next week, but I am aware of my hon. Friend's remarks.
Dame Irene Ward: Has the Leader of the House taken note of my Motion No. 240?
[That in the opinion of this House, in view of the Minister of Power's refusal to answer Questions on the shortage of solid fuel supplies in Tynemouth during Arctic weather when he answers Questions on shortage of gas and electricity supplies, he is discriminating against the provisions of one source of warmth; and in view of the advertisements by the National Coal Board to buy solid fuel, he will take steps to ensure that solid fuel is available and, if not, to answer Questions.]
Will he ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Power to give me the necessary answers to the questions asked in that Motion? As I was not able to get a Question down to the right hon. Gentleman, I have obviously not given him an opportunity to answer me. Is he aware that if these questions are not answered I cannot properly protect the interests of my constituents, which is what I was sent here to do?
Mr. Peart: I am aware that the hon. Lady always seeks to protect her constiuents. She is an ardent supporter of of an area which I know extremely well. The responsibility in this matter is really one for local suppliers. However, in view of the importance of the subject, I will acquaint my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power with the hon. Lady's viewpoint.
Mr. J. Idwal Jones: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that a debate on Welsh affairs is not too long postponed? Does he have a date for a debate in mind?
Mr. Peart: We will have such a debate, but not next week.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Reverting to the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, would the right hon. Gentleman make it clear whether it is his intention to return to a discussion of this Measure after the opposed Private Business on Wednesday? For the convenience of the House and its staff, would he indicate on which of those nights, if not on both, he intends the House to sit all night?
Mr. Peart: I cannot be precise at this stage, but it is intended that the Private Business will be a delightful interlude between debates on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill.
Mr. Russell Kerr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have asked him on two previous occasions when we may expect the Government's reply to the last Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries?
Mr. Peart: I hope very soon.
Mr. Godber: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that before the House rises for the Easter Recess we shall have a full report from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the Northumberland Committee Report on the foot-and-mouth outbreak?
Mr. Peart: As soon as the Report is published. I accept that this is a very vital matter.
Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend say when the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity will be making a statement on the recent Report by the Prices and Incomes Board on top salaries? Will he give an assur-
1802
ance that before any decision is taken by the Secretary of State there will be a debate in this House on the Report?
Mr. Peart: I know that this is important. As soon as possible my right hon. Friend will make a statement.
Mr. Powell: The Leader of the House gave an assurance last week that before proceedings were resumed on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill a document would be available to the House. Can he indicate in what form it will be and when he expects it to be made available?
Mr. Peart: I understand that it is available now in the Vote Office.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend say whether any of the subjects he has announced for debate next week will give an opportunity for debating that very urgent subject, industry and employment in North-East Scotland, which is referred to in my Motion No. 233?
[That this House expresses its distress at the drift south from north-east Scotland of skilled craftsmen and other workers accentuated by the closure or threatened closure of Inverurie Locomotive Works, by the concentration of industry in Southern Scotland, and by the uneven spread of industry throughout the rest of Scotland; is of opinion that the future substitution of advance factories after the skilled craftsmen and other workers shall have gone south will be no solution to the relevant problems which by then will have broken up homes and inflicted loss and sorrow on the families concerned; and now urges the Government to use the advances of science, technology and communications to increase trade, industry, commerce and employment throughout north-east Scotland.]
Mr. Peart: As my hon. and learned Friend knows, we have had a debate on this matter. I compliment him on his assiduous pressing of the claims of Scotland.
Mr. Peyton: The Leader of the House was understandably shy about revealing in the business statement the amount of time which will be taken up on the Pauliament (No. 2) Bill. Is he able to overcome at this stage that growing shyness of his and tell the House how much more of its time is to be consumed in the Committee stage?
Mr. Peart: I was not shy, although I may be shy by nature. I made a rather precise statement when questioned by the Leader of the Opposition. I replied specifically. Let us see about the future, how we get on. Wait and see.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: May I draw the notice of my right hon. Friend to my constructive Motion No. 229 "The Unequal Society", which sets out the conditions under which a wages restraint policy might be practicable.
[That this House, noting that share values increased in 1968 by £12,500 million, that the Chairman of Woolworth's receives £877 per week and that there are 15 motor-car models selling well at over £5,000 each, believes that wage-earners cannot be expected to accept restraints until such time as the Government has drastically reduced the glaring, provoking and growing inequalities in our society; and further believes that a wages policy will become practicable when all remuneration is contained between a mimimum of £1,000 and a maximum of £10,000 per annum.]
If this cannot be debated next week, could it be debated in the week after Easter?
Mr. Peart: I have noted that Motion, but I am afraid I cannot find time for it to be debated.
Sir C. Osborne: Since the Parliament (No. 2) Bill does not appear to have one real friend in the House, why do the Government not drop it altogether?
Mr. Peart: It is not for me to get involved in arguments. I have announced the business. I know the hon. Member is in a minority on this matter.[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] In the Division Lobbies the hon. Member has been in a considerable minority. I listen to his advice, but not on this.
Mr. E. Rowlands: Returning to the question of a debate on Welsh affairs, if one cannot be held next week, will my right hon. Friend assure us that we can have one before the end of the Session? It was complained last time that the annual Welsh Report is 12 months old when we debate it.
Mr. Peart: I would be very sympathetic to having a debate on Welsh affairs.
Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Leader of the House aware that by occupying so much time on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill he is preventing debate on very necessary social reforms, such as the welfare of seamen, the Merchant Shipping Bill, the Seebohm Report and many other vital reports?
Mr. Peart: It may be that in debates on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill hon. Members will make their speeches very much shorter.
Mr. Ogden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are grateful for his announcement that the Government intend to introduce proposed reform of to introduce proposed reform of the Merchant Shipping Act, but that concern still remains? Introduction is not enough. We want the reform to be carried on to to the Statute Book this Session. Can he say anything about that?
Mr. Peart: I think I have given a satisfactory answer.
Sir Knox Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House give me the same information which he has intimated he will give privately to my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys)?
Mr. Peart: If the hon. and learned Member comes to see me I shall be delighted to give it.
Mr. Maclennan: Although not all my hon. Friends have displayed enthusiasm for reform of another place, most of us will be interested in the opportunity to debate reform of this place. Will my right hon. Friend give consideration to an early debate on the rôle of Select Committees?
Mr. Peart: There has been a debate on this matter, but, as always, if I could find time I would welcome a debate on it. I will bear this in mind.
Mr. Ian Gilmour: Does the business announcement mean that the Government have no measures more sensible or relevant to the needs of the country to put forward on two days next week than the Parliament (No. 2) Bill?
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are drifting into merit.
Hon. Members: Answer.
Mr. Peart: The answer is, of course, that I cannot accept the hon. Member's viewpoint.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Referring to the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, what did the Leader of the House mean, by the phrase "wait and see"? Was it intended as a bromide or, in the original Asquithian use, as a threat of using the Guillotine?
Mr. Peart: I should have thought the advice I gave about progress on the Bill was sensible. Let us wait and see how we proceed.
Mr. Coe: Will my right hon. Friend take note that many of us who support the Parliament (No. 2) Bill are glad that the Government are to press ahead with it next week in spite of the continual filibuster of a very small minority in this House?
Mr. Howie: If my right hon. Friend were to seize the opportunity to drop the Parliament (No. 2) Bill next week, which I think would receive wide approval even among those who have put in their applications, would this not give us an opportunity to debate the recently published excellent Report on the allegations made against the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir. G. Nabarro)?
Hon. Members: Where is he?
Mr. Peart: No, I do not want to get involved in that.
Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Is the Leader of the House aware that five months have passed since the Government announced their intention of setting up a Constitutional Commission and we still do not know the names of the commissioners? Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement on this next week and tell the House how many persons have been invited and have refused to serve on this Commission?
Mr. Peart: I cannot go into details, but I have sympathy with the hon. Member. I am rather impatient and will note what the hon. Member said.
Mr. Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that there is grave need for this House and the country to consider
1806
Britain's future relationship with Europe? Are we not to have a debate on this—if not next week very early when we return—perhaps based on Motion No. 226 in my name and a number of my hon. Friends?
[That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to initiate a new phase in the United Kingdom's relationship with Europe on a broader concept than the European Economic Community, embracing the European Free Trade Association, and designed to establish a sensible relationship with Eastern Europe, and thus making a real contribution to European prosperity and understanding, and the cause of World peace.]
Mr. Peart: I know my hon. Friend's views on this matter, but I cannot find time for a debate at the moment.
Mr. Ridley: If the right hon. Gentleman fails to give an assurance that a new Merchant Shipping Act will be on the Statute Book this Session, would it not be more appropriate to put it down for Second Reading next week instead of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill and to put the welfare of seamen before the political chicanery of the Government?
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are drifting into merits again.
Mr. Peart: I hope the hon. Member will not draw me into controversy. Previous Governments had opportunities to improve the merchant shipping legislation. I hope that this Bill will be a good one. It will be introduced this Session.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is the Leader of the House aware that the "delightful interlude" which he spoke about next Wednesday concerns my constituency? A reservoir is to be put down in Rutland and it will involve the loss of a lot of agricultural land. To save myself from sending out a note to everybody who is interested in agriculture, can I say that I would be delighted if all the full-time Members of the House of Commons were here next Wednesday for that Private Bill?
Mr. Peart: I am aware of the importance of this Bill. The hon. Gentleman has made his point.
Mr. John Smith: Is not this business of the Leader of the House talking

1807
privately to people going much too far. What is it that he wants to say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Streat-ham (Mr. Sandys) and to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) which he cannot say to all of us? This is an important matter. We want to know about it.
Mr. Peart: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be too critical when I say "Let us have a talk privately". The hon. Gentleman has seen me privately.
Mr. Roebuck: Has not the House had too much of this private consultation? Will my right hon. Friend look at my Early Day Motion No. 223, "Buying a Home"?
[That this House, disturbed at the rise in mortgage interest rates but unmoved by the argument of honourable Members who have been urging investors to place their money in unit trusts rather than with the building societies, and by those honourable Members who seek tax concessions for share-buyers, calls upon Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer to bear in mind that most people buying a home on mortgage regard this as a form of saving for old age; and urges him to find ways of giving them further encouragement by reducing the taxation paid by building societies.]
Will he rearrange next week's business so that the House can have an opportunity of debating this issue and so that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to put the deliberations of the House on it into perspective with regard to the private consultations he has already had with savings interests?
Mr. Peart: I am afraid not.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Will the Leader of the House see me privately to hear what he should do to the Parliament (No. 2) Bill?
Mr. Peart: I should be delighted to do so, and I should take the opportunity to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman what I think about him.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Back to serious business.

ELY HOSPITAL, CARDIFF
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement on the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Ely Hospital, Cardiff, which has been presented to the House this afternoon as a White Paper, Cmnd. 3975. I apologise for the length of this statement.
The Committee of Inquiry was set up in 1967 by the Welsh Hospital Board, at the request of my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Health, to investigate allegations of ill-treatment of patients and of pilfering by staff which had been made by a nursing assistant employed at the hospital. The Committee was also asked to make its own examination of the situation in the hospital at the time of its inquiry.
The Committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. Geoffrey Howe, Q.C., has done its work with a thoroughness, fairminded-ness and humanity which must command universal respect. This makes it all the more disturbing that the Report is highly critical and will, I am sure, cause as deep concern to Members as it does to me. It is for this reason and because I consider that it should be used at once as a basis for remedial action that I have decided to take the unusual course of publishing it in full, omitting only the names of individual patients and staff.
The Committee finds, first, that most of the specific incidents alleged by the nursing assistant as examples of ill-treatment did occur. Secondly, the Committee finds that many members of staff in the wards made use of food supplied for patients, and that excessive quantities of meat were provided to nursing staff. These aspects of the Report have been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Thirdly, the Committee finds that an atmosphere existed in which well-intentioned members of the nursing staff felt it hazardous to complain; two who did so had to leave the hospital.
Responsibility for serious deficiencies in standards of medical and nursing services and of administration is attributed to the senior staff of the hospital, to the hospital management committee and

1809
to the Welsh Hospital Board. The Committee also criticises the present procedures for dealing with complaints in the hospital service as a whole. And finally the Committee recommends that a system of inspection of such hospitals is needed—the form of which it leaves me to consider.
The House will, I am sure, wish to study the; Report before coming to conclusions. Nevertheless, I think hon. Members will expect me to say today what the Government's attitude to it is. As the Minister responsible, I accept the Committee's findings and recommendations about Ely. I add, however, that it would be quite wrong to draw conclusions about the standard of care in long-stay hospitals from these findings. I would remind the House that these findings do not apply to the whole of the hospital service or even to the whole of Ely Hospital: they apply only to four wards and one villa for children. To draw general conclusions from this limited evidence would be quite wrong. Indeed, in the course of an extensive series of visits up and down the country I have myself been deeply impressed by the skilled and devoted service given by staff in long-stay hospitals, who have, all too often, been working for many, many years under heartbreaking difficulties, and I am very much aware that if this Report were published without a firm assurance of strong remedial action, it could shake their morale. In expressing my confidence in them, therefore, I at once add this assurance to them and to the House. The conditions which have existed for so many years to which many of them have been calling attention for a very long time and in which such grave deficiencies as have been revealed at Ely can far too easily breed, are fully and frankly recognised by my Department, and I am already taking steps to ensure that they will be dealt with effectively by the Regional Hospital Boards.
One of these conditions is professional isolation. The main recommendation of the Report is that a new system of regular visiting and inspection is needed. I agree. And while the details are being worked out I am setting up a small working party in my Department to analyse the knowledge already available on these hospitals, and to supplement this survey where necessary with its own investigation.
1810
Secondly, I have already asked each regional hospital board chairman to reassess the situation in his region and to present a report to me at our next meeting in April.
I hope the House will permit me one further general observation. We are in the midst of a medical revolution in the treatment of the diseases of old age and mental illness. As the span of life is extended, long-term, often permanent, hospitalisation, which only 20 years ago was the norm for these patients, is being replaced by intensive treatment given in short spells in hospital. In planning the Health Service of the future, therefore, we are able to assume a massive reduction in the proportion of hospital beds—and of long-stay hospitals—required for geriatric and mentally ill patients.
Unfortunately, this does not apply to anything like the same extent to the mentally subnormal. For the foreseeable future many thousands of them will need resident hospital care for very long periods; and this means that there is no prospect of doing without this class of hospital, which I am afraid still remains a deprived area within the Health Service as, indeed, it was long ago when the Service came into being. The advice issued by my Department in 1965 to stimulate improvements, which this Report commends, was a good beginning. It shows what can be done. These hospitals must be given their fair share of manpower and money, even if this means, as it will mean, a reallocation of resources within the Health Service. I shall be considering with the Boards ways and means of starting this difficult operation as soon as possible.
Lord Balniel: This is a very grave and disturbing Report, and the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct to publish it in full. We must await our study before we reach a final conclusion. But what disciplinary action is the right hon. Gentleman intending to take following the Report?
We have considerable reservations about the system of inquiry which was set up after the allegations made in the "Sans Everything" booklet, partially because the inquiries have no power to secure the attendance of witnesses, and partially because there is uncertainty as to whether their function is an executive

1811
function to secure improvements in hospitals or a judicial function to secure a judgment of allegations.
I welcome the decision to establish an inspectorate because this will be a mark of public concern for the inarticulate and unfortunate, and I believe that it will be of value not only to the patients but also to the staffs, the vast majority of whom are dedicated to the service which they render to the unfortunate. Is it the intention of the Secretary of State that the reports of the inspectorate should be published so that we can have a well-informed public discussion annually on the hospital service?
Does not the heart of the problem lie in the fact, as shown in the last Annual Report of the Ministry of Health, that the major building projects of the hospital service amount to £215 million while only £7 million is devoted to the building of psychiatric hospitals?
Mr. Crossman: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for the way in which he has listened to this extremely unpleasant statement. He asked me first about discipline. Consideration of disciplinary proceedings must be postponed so long as the Report is under consideration by the Director of Public Prosecutions. I can say, however, that the charge nurse who was implicated—the nurse called "U" in the report—has been suspended pending these proceedings, and that the chief nurse in charge may be moved to another hospital. The rest of the disciplinary action must wait until the Director of Public Prosecutions has completed his consideration.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the system of inquiry. This is something which the Howe Committee made very clear to me. One of my aims in producing this new department for scrutiny is to ensure that we distinguish between scrutiny and the study of complaints. For the study of complaints, we may well have to consider the possibility of having a Health Services' Commissioner. I want to have a continuous scrutiny here such as other Departments have, although I do not like the word "inspectorate" because there is a long tradition of resistance to it in the nursing and medical professions. We have to think of an equivalent in terms of something that
1812
they will accept and which the nurses will feel that they can go to without fear of victimisation.
I shall ensure that the head of the new department is responsible personally to me so that there is no doubt of the department's independence in the service. We shall have to consider the question of publication of the reports later, but I agree that we want to get the maximum publicity about the conditions of the Service—remembering that what we have to discuss today is, I am sure, an odious exception.
Mr. E. Rowlands: This Report is shocking and a tragedy for both patients and staff, perhaps most of all for those who were found doing what they were doing. The House welcomes the great candour with which my right hon. Friend has dealt with the problem and also his decision to publish the Report.
The disciplinary measures taken have been a specific action. What now does my right hon. Friend intend to do to try and restore the morale at the hospital? In particular, does he intend to announce any measures to improve the facilities there?
Secondly, while his new Working Party is trying to work out the new procedures of inspection and scrutiny, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the maximum co-operation and consultation is carried out with the medical and nursing staff in the service, because it is desperately necessary to restore the morale of the whole nursing staff in this type of hospital?
Mr. Crossman: A good deal has already been done at Ely Hospital, I am glad to say. First, the hospital management committee in question is being disbanded and a new one created which will include not only Ely but other hospitals together so as to bring it up to the level of the others. Of course, once the old hospital management committee knew about the situation, I am also glad to say that the hospital was given £10,000 additional revenue for this year and is being given £20,000 next year.
Thirdly, and not least important, a League of Friends of Ely Hospital has been started locally. Half the trouble has been lack of local contact, a certain isolation, and I am delighted that the League of Friends has been set up.

1813
The nursing staff establishment has also been increased. The physician-superintendent has been moved elsewhere and the junior medical officer most severely reprimanded in the Report is leaving and a locum is taking his place. Drastic things have been done, but I remind the House again that what is involved is only four wards and one villa in one hospital, and I know that the House will want the hospitals to feel encouraged that these things will be put in order.
I could not agree more about the medical and nursing profession. It is no good simply copying other Departments. We cannot have H.M.I.s in the Department of Health. It is not the tradition. Whatever organisation we set up for scrutiny and advice must have the full support of the professions, and I shall be consulting the professions at every stage.
Mr. Turton: While appreciating the danger of drawing general conclusions from this unfortunate case, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not take the opportunity to review his policy of treatment of the elderly long-stay patients with a view to securing that they are not kept in large institutions very far from their own homes and visitors?
Mr. Crossman: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. As he knows, he and I have a great deal in common in our general attitude to this subject. But the preservation of old hospitals remote from centres of population is one of the things we have to consider as a danger. We have a dual responsibility. We want to enable old people to live in their own homes if possible by providing good community services. But if they have to go to hospitals, they must be under the very best medical supervision. We must ensure that if possible.
Mr. Moonman: There will be considerable respect, both in the mental health organisations and in the House, for the Secretary of State's courage in publishing the Report in full. What action does he intend to take at the hospital itself to deal with the matter? How does he intend to ensure a proper feed-back? In view of the increasing number of people needing medical treatment—now one in 10 of the population—will my right hon. Friend seize an early opportunity
1814
to make a policy statement on this in the House?
Mr. Crossman: It is not really for me to suggest what we should debate in the House, but the whole problem of long-term stay is something which I hope the House will take seriously, because it is a most tremendous community problem.
I must make a sharp distinction here between hospitals for the subnormal and hospitals for the treatment of mental diseases. The problems arise mainly in hospitals for the subnormal precisely because there is so much less that one can actually do in cure. There is not so much incentive in that sense for good doctors to be in such hospitals. So far as we can see, there is less need for anxiety about hospitals which are psychiatric in the sense of curing mental diseases.
I have given a list of the improvements made in Ely Hospital and have referred to the removal of certain persons. I think that the basic clean-up, if I may put it that way, which was necessary has been achieved. From 1st April next, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be in charge of the health services in Wales and will be answering questions on the details of Welsh hospitals.
Mr. Hooson: While reserving general comment until I read the Report, there is one matter of importance I wish to raise now. Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that two well-intentioned nurses who reported these matters were forced to leave the hospital? Were not these cases of victimisation? If so, surely these matters should be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions if morale generally in the hospitals and with regard to discipline is to be restored. If these two young men made complaints and as a result were forced to leave the hospital, surely the matter deserves investigation by those responsible for prosecution?
Mr. Crossman: I do not think that this matter is for the Director of Public Prosecutions but rather for the administration, the regional hospital board. One of these nurses has been restored to a position already. I must say that victimisation of this sort is, among all the other things that I found in the Report, most odious and alarming. These

1815
two nurses genuinely tried to complain and each in a different way lost his job. Victimisation of a nurse who wants to put things right must be avoided at all costs in working out our scheme for professional advice or scrutiny. It is immensely important to have a system whereby such people as nurses can make a case without fear of victimisation. This is the biggest single deficiency which Mr. Howe's investigation has exposed.
Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon Friend aware that autistic children who are often not mentally subnormal are often sent to hospitals for the mentally subnormal where they should not be, and where there is no treatment available for them? Secondly, when the inspectorate, or whatever it is to be called, is set up, will the inspectors pay their visits without warning to the hospitals for the mentally subnormal, and will there be an early visit to South Ockenden, from which there have been some very disturbing reports?
Mr. Crossman: The problem of the autistic child is very difficult. It is a problem which is to do with the psychiatric hospitals. Often we find at a hospital that the subnormal children are not strictly subnormal but are diseased in the mind and should be getting treatment in a special institution, such as the hospital next door, in this case, which was a very good psychiatric hospital. One of the problems is the contrast between the goodness of one hospital in the group and the weakness of another. As to South Ockenden, this is something which my hon. Friend should put to me by way of a Question.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea of the implications of the Report for administration? He has said that the difference between the good and the bad hospitals in a group can be considerable. Has he considered what changes may be needed in the structure of the regional boards, chairmen of the management committees and so on? Can he say whether he has any ideas in future to secure the high quality of public chairmen in the structure of the boards?
Secondly, does he really think it realistic to assume that he can get the money needed for this purpose, bearing in mind
1816
the special needs of hospitals for the subnormal by switching within the Health Service? Does he not think that this requires a larger amount of money being put into the Health Service?
Mr. Crossman: I am always glad to have support for getting more money out of the Chancellor. As to the structure, it was interesting to me that the Committee specifically mentioned that in its view the tripartite artificial separatism of the hospital service, with G.P.s and the local authorities, was one of the causes of what happened at Ely. I only report the fact that those of us who favour a unitary service received considerable support from the findings of the Committee. I felt that it would be a help in our later deliberations.
On the subject of personnel, and I am glad the hon. Gentleman mentioned this, I have no doubt that the Minister must take responsibility for the fact that so much of the report is concerned with the inadequacies of people on the hospital management committee, which I do not directly nominate, and also on the regional hospital board. We have to face it, that if we have selection, and people are nominated, they should not be there for ever. They should not be regarded as permanent fixtures. We must get young, vigorous people who really will do a job. I take this as one of the personal lessons of this Report. What I have to do, and persuade each regional hospital board chairman to do, is to harden his heart and rejuvenate some of his committees.
Mr. Pavitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the balanced responsibility of his statement and its perspective will give a great deal of satisfaction to thousands of mental nurses and other staff giving devoted service for the mentally subnormal? May I express the hope that the way in which the Press reports it will reflect that balance? Does he recall that in 1965, when regional hospital boards were instructed to restrain expenditure, the two exempted categories were mental health and geriatrics? In the light of this Report, would he add his support to the Parliamentary Labour Party's Health Group which is demanding a Select Committee on the National Health Service constantly to examine health organisation and its problems?
Mr. Crossman: I will give my support to any Select Committee which will investigate something I want investigating. With regard to 1965, my hon. Friend is quite right. In 1965 my hon. Friend the present Minister of Planning and Land gave specific instructions that special priority should be given to these mental hospitals, and hospitals for the subnormal. It is to his credit that the number of nurses has risen more sharply in our subnormal hospitals than anywhere else in the Health Service—from 12,000 to 14,000—and that the capital investment programme even though it is still inadequate, has gone up from its former miserable level. These are things which we started, and which we now need to accelerate. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend's other point. In deciding to publish this Report, despite the possible harm it will do to the patients, I was concerned with the public interest. The presentation of the Report by the Press will very largely determine whether it has a catastrophic result on morale in the service. I hope that the Press will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Dean: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that this grave Report is bound to cast a cloud over all long-stay hospitals and those associated with them? In view of this, will he press ahead with all speed in establishing an inspectorate, which he is now proposing and which we have been proposing from this side of the House for some time, so that the overwhelming majority of staff in these hospitals, carrying out devoted service, will be given a clean bill of health? As to the hospitals for the mentally subnormal, will he bear in mind in his discussions the growing burden on the staff as the life-span of the very severely disabled is increased through medical science?
Mr. Crossman: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said. In reply to his last point, we have not only the lifespan to consider, but we have to face the fact that in some parts of the country people are decanted into long-stay hospitals because they are an embarrassment elsewhere. We shall have to harden the hearts or strengthen the courage of those who run the hospitals, to refuse to overcrowd them. If we are soft-hearted and say that there is to be a fourth line of
1818
beds in a certain ward because the local authority wants us to take more, we ruin the chances of these people who are resident there having a decent life. We have to lay down minimum standards for them and maximum numbers, and insist that they are kept, whatever the difficulties to the local authority.
Sir M. Galpern: My right hon. Friend has referred to the heart-breaking conditions that often obtain in these hospitals. Is he attributing the causes of these conditions to the boards of governors, the regional managers or the hospital staffs, or is he conveying to the House that there has been a sad neglect in the provision of reasonably modern conditions for the inmates of these hospitals?
Mr. Crossman: I hope that I have referred to the last position. In my statement I described these hospitals as still a deprived area within the service. They have been that ever since the service was started. We all bear responsibility for leaving it there, and unless we think of these things without blaming others we shall not get them put right. Public opinion has to face it, that if we are spending vast sums, as we are, on making wonderful new hospitals for acute illness and acute surgery, we must bear in mind the hundreds and thousands of people in these other places and realise that if the gap between them is intolerable then the danger of an Ely becomes greatly increased.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.
Mr. Atkinson: On a point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) has asked questions about the South Ockendon Hospital. I have a constituency interest in that point. I must ask for your sympathy to be allowed to put my question.
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman has a special constituency interest in this problem I think he has a right to put a question.
Mr. Atkinson: With regard to the South Ockendon Hospital, may I bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the case of a young patient who died on 22nd February as a result of violence? That boy has not yet been buried. His

1819
mother is extremely anxious, not knowing what is happening to the boy. She has not been told, she only knows of his death. We cannot get anything from the hospital as to what is to happen to the boy, and the police say that they are not satisfied with their inquiries. There is no knowledge as to when his funeral will take place. May I ask my right hon. Friend to take some urgent action to look into this case and secure this boy's burial?
Mr. Grossman: Of course, I can say that the case is being looked into, but I beg my hon. Friend, if he cares about these things, to put Questions down as soon as he hears about them and not wait for a debate on another subject. South Ockendon must not be mixed up with it. This is a quite different problem, and I am looking at it.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order. May I raise a similar case affecting the same hospital? I have taken my right hon. Friend's advice and put down a Question, and I have written to him about it. I am still awaiting a reply. Will he please do something urgently?
Mr. Crossman: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says, and remember his letter to me. The case is being looked at with great urgency. I will give my hon. Friend a reply, but I am sure that he would rather wait for the proper reply than not have a thorough investigation.
Mr. Atkinson: On a point of order—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I stretched a point in giving the hon. Gentleman his
1820
question. I hope that we can now get on.
Mr. Atkinson: On a point of order. It is not good enough for my right hon. Friend to reprimand me—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. There are often differences of opinion between hon. Members who ask questions and Ministers who answer them.
Mr. Brooks: On a point of order—and I hope that you will regard this as a genuine point of order, Mr. Speaker. As my right hon. Friend has indicated that criminal proceedings are actively under consideration, it might be for the convenience of the House to have guidance on whether the Report will contain the minutes of evidence or other material which, if quoted outside, might involve certain legal difficulties.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order, but a question that the hon. Gentleman might have asked if he had had the good fortune to catch my eye. Many hon. Members wish to ask questions on statements. I cannot call them all.
Mr. Brooks: Surely it is important that hon. Members should know whether, in comments they make outside the House, any references to, or elaborations of, points in the Report might involve difficulties in the light of future criminal proceedings?
Mr. Speaker: Order. As I heard the Minister, he did not indicate that criminal proceedings have begun. I leave it to the Minister, if he wishes to answer.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  Mr. Speaker: Before we consider Lords Amendment No. 1, may I announce that I have not selected either of the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock).

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL
    Clause 4

      DISFRANCHISEMENT OF OFFENDERS IN PRISON ETC.
      Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 24, after "1957" insert:
      "or on a summary trial under section 49 of the Naval discipline Act, 1957".
      4.22 p.m.
      The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      When subsection (2)(a) was drafted no mention was made of persons sentenced by a naval commanding officer under Section 49 of the Naval Discipline Act, 1957. It was thought that such offenders were sentenced to short terms of detention, which they would not serve in prisons in this country. It is now known that it is the practice for them to be sent home to serve their sentences in civilian prisons. The Amendment is consequently little more than a drafting Amendment to remedy an omission from the Clause, which disenfranchises a convicted offender whilst he is serving his sentence in a penal institution—in effect, a prison.
      Dr. Reginald Bennett: Is there a minimum sentence under such summary jurisdiction which is contemplated as being a disqualification?
      Mr. Rees: I understand that this is simply a question of whether the sentence is served in this country. This affects registration and whether a person has the right to vote. We had to make the Amendment because it was our original impression that such sentences under the Naval Discipline Act would be served
      1822
      abroad. The question is whether the sentences are being served in a prison in this country, as I understand some are.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 6

      OTHER AMENDMENTS AS TO PROXY AND POSTAL VOTING
      Lords Amendment: No. 2, in page 5, line 23, at end insert:
      "( ) In section 23(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, as amended by paragraph 7(2) of the Seventh Schedule to the Local Government Act, 1958. the words ' rural district' shall be omitted."
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      The object of the Amendment is to provide for postal voting at rural district council elections. The Representation of the People Act, 1949, as amended, provides for postal voting to be allowed at all local government elections except, in England and Wales, elections of rural district, rural borough and parish councillors. The Amendment achieves its object by removing elections of rural district councillors from the exceptions named in Section 23 (7). It would have, by virtue of Section 23 (3), the effect of making it possible for qualified civilians to vote by proxy at those elections.
      We had a great deal of discussion about this in Committee. The hon. Members for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) and Petersfield (Miss Quennell) pressed their points in varying degrees and with varying interpretations of what should be done. I was pretty firm that nothing could be done, but we have listened very carefully in another place and to the Rural District Councils Association, and there is no doubt in my mind now that this amendment is sensible.
      I do not want to be out of order, but I have been advised very firmly that this could not be extended to parish councils. I thought, "Having gone so far, why not go the whole way?"
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly out of order if he discusses that.
      Mr. Rees: In that case, Mr. Speaker, I very much commend the Amendment.
      Mr. Richard Sharples: When a similar Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) it received support from both sides. The main difficulty the Government foresaw then was that of administration, but the Amendment has now had the full support of the Rural District Councils Association, and I am and the House are grateful to the Minister for accepting the Lords Amendment. I think that he is right not to go any further, but this will no doubt be of considerable advantage in rural district council elections.
      Mr. Eric Lubbock: I too would like to say a word of thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for the careful consideration he has given the matter since we raised it in Committee and since further discussions in another place. I am glad that the advice of the Rural District Councils Association has been taken by the Home Office.
      I thought that the case made in Committee was strong, but I understood that there were stronger practical objections, and I thought that we would have to wait until the Royal Commission on Local Government in England and Wales had reported before arriving at a solution. It is therefore with particular pleasure that I find that the Home Office has been able to accept the Amendment.
      I disagree with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) about going further. I would have liked to go a little further for the sake of tidiness, but since you have ruled that we cannot discuss that point, Mr. Speaker—
      Mr. Speaker: As the point is an important one, perhaps I had better rule very clearly. Erskine May states, at page 577:
      "According to a long-established rule, the Commons, when considering Lords Amendments, may not leave out or otherwise amend anything which they have already passed themselves, unless such amendment be immediately consequent upon the acceptance or rejection of an Amendment made by the Lords."
      That is why I ruled the Minister to be perfectly out of order when he referred to parish councils.
      Mr. Lubbock: I should have consulted Erskine May before tabling my Amendments, Mr. Speaker.
      1824
      I shall confine my very short remarks to the question of the rural district councils. It had always seemed to me an anomaly that electors could vote by post in the case of urban district councils, which by their very nature are more geographically concentrated, whereas they could not do so in rural districts and elections, where the need might be much greater, particularly for those who find it difficult to get to the polling station because of infirmity. The Amendment considerably improves the position for all those who live in remote areas and places where the unwell or infirm electors would otherwise be disenfranchised, as they have been ever since the 1949 Act. It is a minor but very useful Amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 8

      PREPARATION AND CORRECTION OF REGISTERS OF ELECTORS
      Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 6, line 32, after "election" to insert:
      "(i) at an election to the Greater London Council (other than an election to which paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the London Government Act, 1963 does not apply to determine the electoral areas), £200 together with an additional 1s. 0d. for every four entries in the register of electors to be used at the election (as first published) and for any less number of entries above a multiple of four; and
      (ii) at any other local government election,"
      4.30 p.m.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      This Amendment provides a higher maximum than does Clause 8(1)(b) for candidates' expenses at Greater London Council elections when the London boroughs have been divided into single-member electoral areas for G.L.C. elections. Oddly enough, an Opposition Amendment for this purpose with which my right hon. Friend had great sympathy was, for procedural reasons, defeated. We sought another way of dealing with this in another place.
      When the new single-member electoral areas, based on new Parliamentary constituencies, have been determined the average electorates of those electoral areas will be about 62,000, including persons of 18 years of age on the register.

      1825
      On the basis of Clause 8(1)(b) the permitted maximum of a candidate's expenses would be about £550. The permitted maximum for a candidate contesting the same area at a Parliamentary election would be about £1,150; and he would be allowed free postage of his election address under the Representation of the People Act, 1949, Section 79; whereas the local government candidate would not. For an average-sized G.L.C. electoral area the amendment would produce a maximum of £975 which represents, my right hon. Friend believes, a reasonable compromise between the present provisions of the Bill and the legal maximum for Parliamentary candidates. There is a case for this different arrangement for the G.L.C. and I commend it to the House.
      Mr. Sharples: We welcome the Government's acceptance of the Amendment, because this is an amendment which we put down during the Committee stage of the Bill, and against which the then Minister advised the House to vote. I do not recall any procedural difficulties which led the Government so to advise the House at that time. It was an absolutely straight Amendment but the Minister at that time advised the House to vote against it and forced it to a Division. We should be grateful to another place for giving this House and the Government an opportunity to consider the wisdom of the advice which was given to the House at that stage, on the proposal accepted in toto, that we put forward on that occasion.
      Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: As I was one of those who helped to press this Amendment on the Government, as my hon. Friend has reminded the House, may I thank the Government for their belated, almost death-bed repentance. The merits of the matter are abundantly clear. It would be ridiculous to fight a constituency the size of a Parliamentary constituency on the expenses limits originally laid down in the Bill. I am very glad that the Government, through the intervention of another place, have put this right. Perhaps in another context the hon. Gentleman may reflect on the considerable merits of another place as at present constituted.
      Mr. Lubbock: I should like to ask the Under-Secretary whether these new limits will apply before the Greater London boroughs are divided up into electoral areas. This is an important point, because as far as I can see at present the next G.L.C. elections, which are to be held in 1970, will be still on the old borough basis; unfortunately, in my opinion, because it is confusing to the electorate and all who have to take part in these campaigns. But I agree with what has been said on the wisdom of making this Amendment and I accept everything said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) about the wisdom of another place in giving us this second opportunity.
      I want to be quite clear, as far as I can read this Amendment, that we shall not obtain benefit from it in the important G.L.C. elections which are to take place next year. It would be useful if the Under-Secretary could clarify that point.
      Mr. Rees: If I have leave of the House to speak again, the hon. Gentleman is right in his interpretation. This provision will not come into force until the new single-member electoral areas have come into being. I am very grateful for the wisdom of another place. I would add that there were curiosities about the number of Amendments which were put down at an earlier stage. I can assure the House that the proposal in this Amendment was in the mind of my right hon. Friend, but this does not invalidate the argument that has been put forward.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 4, in page 6, line 40, at end insert:
      "(1A) Where at an election a poll is countermanded or abandoned by reason of the death of a candidate, the maximum amount of election expenses shall, for any of the other candidates who then remain validly nominated, be twice or, if there has been a previous increase under this subsection, three times what it would have been but for any increase under this subsection; but the maximum amount shall not be affected for any candidate by the change in the timing of the election or of any step in the proceedings thereat."
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: I seek advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether it would meet the convenience of the House if we could discuss at the same time Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 20.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): If it is the wish of the House that that should be done.
      Mr. Rees: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Clause 13, makes provision for the procedure to be followed if a candidate at a Parliamentary or local government election dies during the course of the polls. The present law provides only for the procedure to be followed if a candidate dies before a poll has commenced, and the procedure is consolidated in Clause 13. But I am advised that the Bill is silent on the question of the election expenses of the surviving candidates. Under existing law the new candidate would start with a clean slate, but the candidates already nominated would not. They would be able to spend only such balance, if any, as was left over and above what they had spent up to the date of the abandoned poll.
      On Report in this House the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) put down an Amendment to allow a surviving candidate to incur additional election expenses not exceeding one-third of the maximum to which he was originally entitled. I agreed to consider the point with reference, in particular, to the precise amount of additional expenses to be allowed. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, I hope, honour this undertaking, I would draw attention to three particular points.
      The Amendments are made, not as was the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam to Clause 13, but to Clause 8 to which—as dealing with election expenses—they are more appropriate.
      A surviving candidate will be able to incur additional expenses up to the full amount of his original entitlement. For purposes of calculating the maximum for the entire proceedings, the change in the timing of the election would make no difference. For example, if there has been a change of register between the abandoned poll and the further election, the limit on additional expenses, like the original limit, will be based on the earlier register. This is the effect of the final words of the new subsection.
      Amendment No. 5 applies the provision made by Amendment No. 4 for
      1828
      additional expenses to ward elections in the City of London, expenses of candidates at which are dealt with separately in subsection (2) of Clause 8. Amendment No. 20 amends paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the Bill and is consequential on Amendment No. 4.
      Mr. Sharples: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not feel that I am ungrateful if I find myself in the position of looking a gift horse in the mouth. On Report we put forward an Amendment which would allow the surviving candidates in the event of the death of one candidate to spend up to one-third again of the election expenses which were allowed. In the course of the very brief discussion we had the hon. Gentleman said:
      "If the candidates who stand again in the second poll are allowed to spend a second lot of election expenses they will have an advantage over the new candidate".—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 18th December, 1968, Vol. 779, c. 1450.]
      There was some merit in the argument he put forward. It was for that reason that we put forward Amendments which would allow only one-third as additional expenses and not, as now proposed, that the surviving candidate should be able to spend twice, or in some cases three times, as much as the original expenses allowed. The House is entitled to be told why the Government rejected our reasonable proposal and have gone so far as to allow twice or three times as much.
      We do not intend to vote against this proposition, but, in view of the Under-Secretary of State's statement at that time, it seems curious that the Government should have gone to this extraordinary length. It could produce an anomalous situation and give considerable advantage to the surviving candidates in the event of an election campaign having to be restarted as a result of the death of one candidate.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: May I say, with leave, that in the interim period we had a number of discussions with the various political parties. I am trying to think whether it would be in order for me to reveal what took place at those discussions. I will chance my arm and do so.
      The Conservative. Party preferred the original proposal of one-third, but, I gather, did not object to half. The Liberal Party suggested a sliding scale

      1829
      formula. I am advised that that would have had the opposite effect to what was intended. The Labour Party suggested the full maximum, or at least 75 per cent. of it.
      Bearing in mind the various views and what was said last time, we thought that it would be better to fix the figure at the full amount of the original maximum. I accept that there are different views about the best way of dealing with the matter. I do not think that there is a precise answer which is absolutely correct. We took all the views into account and my right hon. Friend decided to fix the figure at the full amount of the original maximum I hope that the House will agree with this.
      Mr. Lubbock: Since reference has been made to the views of the Liberal Party, may I say that I sympathise with the criticisms which have been made by the Conservative Front Bench. A campaign may have got halfway through and then a new campaign starts and candidates, including those who have previously been engaged in the electoral battle, will be allowed to spend the full amount of the expenses. That means that the candidates who remain in the field will have a. considerable advantage over the newcomers because they will have become known to the voters and their posters would have been displayed in the constituency and perhaps they will have sent out introductory leaflets. Under the Amendment, they will be empowered to spend double the maximum amount they would have been able to spend in a single campaign.
      I will not vote against the Amendment, but I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has gone a little further than we intended when we discussed this matter in Committee. I should have preferred to see adopted either the Conservative solution or something along the lines of the proposal put to the Home Office by the Liberal Party. We can only hope that this proposition will not operate too unfairly.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendment made

    Clause 9

      BROADCASTING DURING ELECTIONS
      Lords Amendment: No. 6, in page 7, line 41, leave out from beginning to "above" in page 8, line 9, and insert:
      "(1) Pending a parliamentary or local government election it shall not be lawful for any item about the constituency or electoral area to be broadcast from a television or other wireless transmitting station in the United Kingdom if any of the persons who are for the time being candidates at the election takes part in the item and the broadcast is not made with his consent; and where an item about a constituency or electoral area is so broadcast pending a parliamentary or local government election there, then if the broadcast either is made before the latest time for delivery of nomination papers, or is made after that time but without the consent of any candidate remaining validly nominated, any person taking part in the item for the purpose of promoting or procuring his election shall be guilty of an illegal practice, unless the broadcast is so made without his consent.
      (1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) above—

      (a) a parliamentary election shall be deemed to be pending during the period ending with the close of the poll and beginning—

      (i) at a general election, with the date of the dissolution of Parliament or any earlier time at which Her Majesty's intention to dissolve Parliament is announced; or

      (ii) at a bye-election, with the date of the issue of the writ for the election or any earlier date on which a certificate of the vacancy is notified in the Gazette in accordance with the Recess Elections Act, 1784, the Election of Members during Recess Act, 1858, the Bankruptcy (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1872 or the Bankruptcy Act, 1883; and

      (b) a local government election shall be deemed to be pending during the period ending with the close of the poll and beginning—

      (i) at an ordinary election, five weeks before the day fixed as the day of election in accordance with section 57 of the Representation of the People Act, 1948 or in Scotland, by or under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947; or

      (ii) at an election to fill a casual vacancy, with the date of publication of notice of the election.

      (3) Subsections (1) and (1A)."
      4.45 p.m.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Perhaps it would be convenient, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to take at the same time Amendments Nos. 7 and 36.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the House agrees, so be it.
      Mr. Rees: These Amendments take the form of, first, a revised version of subsection (1) of Clause 9, with a new subsection (1A) clarifying by means of definitions the period of operation of subsection (1)—Amendment No. 6; secondly, a consequential addition to subsection (5) of Clause 9 which deals with ward elections in the City of London—Amendment No. 7; and, thirdly, a consequential Amendment to Schedule 4,
      "Insertions authorised in Representation of the People Act, 1949, in Revised Edition of Statutes"—
      Amendment No. 36.
      The purpose of the Amendments is twofold. First, Clause 9(1) of the Bill as introduced referred to a candidate's "consent" to the making of a broadcast, but did not set out how that consent was to be secured. Under the opening words of the new subsection (1), it will not be lawful for an item in which a candidate takes part to be broadcast if he does not consent to the broadcast being made. Securing the candidate's consent thus becomes a requirement of law. The duty of complying with that requirement will fall on those responsible for making the broadcast—that is, the broadcasting authorities. But no sanction or penalty is attached to this requirement and there is no question of the broadcasting authorities being guilty of an illegal practice if there is a breach.
      I am advised that it would be extremely difficult to show that the words "it shall not be lawful" go so far as to create a statutory offence, and I am confident that no court would hold that they did so. It is doubtful whether anyone would be willing to bring proceedings against broadcasting authorities or their servants, or, if they did, whether a court would be willing to convict.
      Secondly, the operation of subsection (1) is now limited to a precise period of time by reference to an anterior limit. Discussions have taken place with the broadcasting authorities, and in another place pleasure was expressed that the Government found it possible to introduce this change. As introduced, Clause 9(1) operated
      "before or during a parliamentary or local government election".
      It was thus in line with the law on election expenses which, according to circumstances, may begin to operate well before an election is under way. It was represented, however, that this would impose too much uncertainty, and therefore restriction, on the broadcasting authorities. The fixing of an anterior time limit will leave them entirely free before that date, subject to their general duty to secure political balance. The question of political balance was dealt with more broadly during our earlier discussions.
      The anterior dates fixed, and defined in the new subsection (2), are those after which there can be no doubt that an election is in progress. They vary according to the nature of the election.
      The references to Bankruptcy Acts in paragraph (a)(ii) of subsection (1A) of Amendment 36 are necessary and not just whimsical because bankruptcy is one of the reasons for vacating a Parliamentary seat, and the Acts mentioned provide for the procedure to be followed by the Speaker in such an event.
      The anterior date fixed in paragraph (b)(i) of subsection (1A) of Amendment 36 for a local government ordinary election—five weeks before the day of election—is necessary to suit circumstances in Scotland, where under Rule 1 of the Scottish Local Elections Rules notice of a local government election may, in effect, be given up to five weeks before the day of election. In England and Wales, by Rule 1 of the Local Elections Rules, it works out, in effect, at about four weeks before that day.
      Apart from changes I have described, the general effect is the same as was that of Clause 9(1) as introduced. Personal electioneering is controlled, broadly on the lines recommended by the Speaker's Conference, in that a candidate is guilty of an illegal practice if
      "for the purpose of promoting or procuring his election"
      a candidate takes part in a broadcast before nomination day, or between that day and the close of the poll takes part in such a broadcast in which any other candidate neither takes part nor consents to its going forward without his taking part. News and objective reporting of candidates' activities, consisting of broadcasts in which candidates do not "take part", are not affected by the

      1833
      Clause and remain subject only to the broadcasting authorities' own rules of balance.
      There are two aspects of the change which merit discussion. The phrase "takes part" is similar to the wording used in Section 37 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963. That Section provides that a child shall not take part, among other things, in a broadcast performance unless licensed. In practice this is taken to mean that a television recording of a crowd scene or an activity involving children collectively is not prohibited.
      In the Government's view, the same principle will apply to broadcasting at the time of an election. "Taking part" must involve active and conscious participation If the candidate is addressing a television audience through the means of the television camera, he is actively "taking part". If he is addressing his constituents and happens to be taken by a television camera while doing so, then for the purposes of the Bill he is not "taking part" in the programme. This is an interpretation which was put upon the words in another place from which the Government would not dissent. Read together with the other key phrase, "promoting or securing", the phrase "takes part" appears to provide a sufficient touchstone for distinguishing between personal electioneering and news and reporting.
      The phrase "promoting or procuring'' is deliberately and advisedly taken from section 63 of the Representation of the People Act 1949, which deals with election expenses, in particular on propaganda and electioneering, and would, it is thought, be construed accordingly.
      I am conscious that many other comments could be made, but the Amendment is the result of discussions and we have attempted to be as helpful as possible. The Clause is generally as it was before, but with added refinements which I think are helpful, and I commend the Amendment to the House.
      Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone): I am told that I must not vote against the Amendment; it has, apparently, been agreed by everybody except me. It has been agreed by the Central Office, by Lord Hill and by the Independent Television Authority, and apparently it is
      1834
      generally commendable and absolutely intelligible to everyone except me. I did not understand it when I read it, and I understand it even less now that I have heard the Minister's speech.
      As I am one of the potential criminals who will be committing an illegal practice if I do not understand it and get it wrong, I must say a word or two about it in considerably sceptical criticism. What do the words mean?
      "Pending a parliamentary … election it shall not be lawful for any item about the constituency … to be broadcast from a television … transmitting station … if any of the persons who are for the time being candidates … takes part in the item and the broadcast is not made with his consent …"
      According to the Minister, that does not mean that is an offence; it just means that it is not lawful. The Amendment continues:
      "… where an item about a constituency … is so broadcast pending a parliamentary.. election there, then if the broadcast either is made before the latest time for delivery of nomination papers, or is made after that time but without the consent of any candidate remaining validly nominated, …"
      These are the words of which I am afraid:
      "… any person taking part in the item for the purpose of promoting or procuring his election shall be guilty of an illegal practice
      and so, presumably, is committing an offence.
      Suppose that during a General Election I hold an election meeting in the Seymour Hall in the middle of my constituency and the B.B.C., for reasons of its own, wishes to broadcast that meeting and broadcasts a picture of me speaking—
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): Or a picture of the violence!
      Mr. Hogg: The B.B.C. may even cause the violence. One never knows what is the cause of it, I have known some remarkable things to happen. If I am photographed speaking, I suppose that I am taking what the Minister calls "an active and conscious part" in the item—one hopes so. Must I be sure that all the other candidates have agreed to that before I allow the B.B.C. into my meeting?
      This is wholly new. I do not believe this was contained in the Bill when it left

      1835
      this House. I was not at all reassured when I looked up the debates in another place, because the Government, after having discussed it with Lord Hill, the Central Office, the I.T.A. and everybody except me, took advantage of the extraordinary rules of procedure in that place to introduce the Amendment on Third Reading, which meant that it was never properly considered and discussed. In a former incarnation I had experience of what goes on in another place, and I know that to be so.
      If this is what we are being asked to do, and what has been agreed between Lord Hill, the Government, the Central Office, the I.T.A. and every knowledgeable person except myself, I am not sure that I like it, and I doubt whether other people whose meetings are sometimes broadcast by various broadcasting authorities will like it either. But I suppose if I speak in Bridgewater or Orpington this will be all right, even if the hon. Member who will then be a candidate does not like it, although it will help the Conservative candidate as much or as little as if I spoke in my own constituency on behalf of myself.
      I am not happy about this, even though it has been agreed by the Government, Lord Hill, the I.T.A., Central Office and every knowledgeable person but myself.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 11

      ELECTION AGENTS, AND POLLING AGENTS.
      Lords Amendment No. 8: In page 9, line 17, leave out from "in" to second "or" in line 18 and insert
      "the constituency or one of the constituencies in which the area is comprised"
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      This is a drafting Amendment. The words in the Amendment replace the words:
      "a parliamentary constituency comprising the area or any part of it"
      which are at present included in Clause 11(3) of the Bill as part of the require-
      1836
      ments relating to the situation of the office of an election agent for a local government election. In particular, the word "parliamentary" is omitted; "constituency" on its own is sufficient, in view of Section 4 of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949. The additional words in the Amendment have been added in the interests of clarity.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 13

      COUNTERMAND OR ABANDONMENT OF POLL ON DEATH OF CANDIDATE.
      Lords Amendment No. 9: In Page 11, line 6, leave out from "the" to end of line and insert "necessary modification"
      5.0 p.m.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that it would be convenient to take, with this Amendment, Lords Amendment No. 10, in page 11, line 13, leave out from "apply" to end of line 14.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): If there is no objection, so be it.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: These are drafting Amendments to correct an error in the Clause as drafted. The modification mentioned in Clause 13(1)(a)(ii) does not spring from Clause 13(1)(a)(i) but from the opening words of Clause 13(1)(a).
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

    New Clause A

      PLACE OF WORK QUALIFICATION IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT
      Lords Amendment No. 11, after Clause 14, in page 12, line 19, at end insert new Clause "A":
      "A. A person shall be qualified for election to and membership of a local authority provided that throughout the twelve months preceding the last day for nomination of candidates for the relevant election he shall have had a principal place of work within the area of the authority."
      Read a Second time.
      Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      This is one of only two Amendments on which we are proposing to the House that we should not agree with another place. I am sorry to do so. I have read carefully the debate which took place elsewhere on this subject.
      The purpose of the Amendment, which was moved by Lord Brooke in another place, is, as it says, that a person shall be qualified for election to a local authority if during the 12 months prior to the election he has had a principal place of work within the area of the authority.
      It was a very interesting debate in another place, and I can well see the difference of opinion which emerged there. It is a simple point. It is whether residence should be the sole and sufficient qualification for standing for a local authority, or whether we should add a provision relating to a principal place of work.
      Although I read the debate carefully, I was not convinced by what was put forward. I stand on the principle that local government means local government and that it is the government of the place in which one lives. I think that it is right that people should stand for the area in which they live and not for that in which they necessarily work and in which they have an important but possibly transient interest.
      As my noble Friend, Lord Fiske, has said, there is no need to decry the work of those who live in one area and work in another and who may have served on local councils for that reason. Certainly I do not decry their work, but this would be a new principle.
      If one considers it, what is the major interest of those who live in one place and work in another? In the place in which they work, their principal interest is to keep down the rates, whereas those who live there are concerned with such matters as the amenities of life, the organisation of the local children's department and how much it should be given, and with street lighting and a great many other problems which do not concern the man who works there but does not live there.
      For the most part, it will be those who have a place of business in the area in
      1838
      which they propose to stand who will be concerned. There are exceptional cases, on which I will not expand too much, where there is a very large works which in certain circumstances could swamp the area in which the candidature is being sought. I can think of some examples of that, although they would be extreme ones. Nevertheless, it would be possible to have a council made up of people who live outside the area because of the great preponderance of one industry in that area.
      On balance, I recommend to the House that we should stick to the well known principle upon which local government is founded, namely, that people should live in the area in which they intend to stand for election, because it is their basic duty to safeguard the welfare of that area in all its aspects and not merely be concerned with one or two aspects of life in the area. I believe, too, that we get the best all-round councillors from among those who live in the areas which they propose to serve.
      Mr. Hogg: We on this side of the House lake a radically different view from that of the Home Secretary. I listened to his speech in an attempt to understand it, and I do not think I did understand the last part of his argument.
      How can the presence of a candidate who happens to work at a big works swamp anything? If this had something to do with voting—that is to say, with franchise—I could understand the argument that the people who came there to work and would then have the vote might swamp local residents. As this has to do only with candidates and not with voting, the argument seems to be wholly misconceived.
      I must recapitulate some of the arguments which favour the Lords' view of this matter rather than that taken by the Government. As Lord Stonham said in another place, the proposal in the Bill as it stands has been recommended by no one to the Government. It is clean contrary to the advice which they received from Lord Redcliffe-Maud, who was appointed by them for the very purpose of advising them.
      It would have the effect of disqualifying 80 people who are now sitting as members for the London boroughs, 24

      1839
      in the Birmingham City Council and 18 members in the Manchester City Council of all parties. In other words, it is a major blow against local government.
      I can only draw an extraordinary contrast between the attitude of the Home Secretary in this matter and his attitude in some other matters for which he has been responsible. Many of these people who will be disqualified unless the Lords Amendment is agreed to—
      Mr. Callaghan: We are not discussing that. That is a former proposition which is not before us now. We are discussing something new. It is not those who are being disqualified, but whether a new group should be brought in.
      Mr. Hogg: But they will be disqualified unless the new group is brought in. That is the point. The Home Secretary cannot escape this. He has proposed a Bill to which he adheres in the face of public opinion, in the face of experienced local authority associations and in the face of a large amount of opinion inside the Labour Party, as the debates in both Houses have shown. When he is given a constructive suggestion by the other place based on and almost verbally copied from the Redcliffe-Maud Report, he says that it is irrelevant to consider how many people will be disqualified by his proposals who would not be disqualified by the proposal of the House of Lords. This seems to me to be what this debate is about—
      Mr. Callaghan: My principal concern is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is getting very close to the bounds of order.
      Mr. Hogg: I am sure that Mr. Deputy Speaker will look after them without assistance from the right hon. Gentleman, who does not like to be reminded of the offensive nature of his own proposals.
      That is the contrast between the Amendment which we are considering and the Bill as it stands. That contrast is only heightened by the eagerness of the Home Secretary to blunder in before the Boundary Commission makes its proposals about local boundaries. Many of the people who would be allowed in if the Lords Amendments are accepted and will be disqualified if they are not are
      1840
      people who live very close to the boundaries which will be altered when the Boundary Commission reports. But the Home Secretary is not prepared to wait for that. He is very keen to wait for it when it comes to redistributing Parliamentary seats. However, we must not discuss that now. His enthusiasm for waiting on one occasion and for blundering in on another shows that he is a better party politician than he is a Home Secretary—a view which I base not only on the present Amendment but upon this morning's newspapers.
      The fact is that the hostility of the Government to the Lords Amendment is based once more upon their distrust and hatred of the electorate. One would think that the electorate would be qualified to judge somebody who works in the constituency and whom they know. However, if he is elected he is not to be allowed to sit, according to the Home Secretary, because he will be concerned to keep down the rates.
      My grandfather's principal place of work was the Polytechnic. He had no more desire to keep down the rates of St. Marylebone, until he went to live there, than he had to keep down the rates of any other part of London. But he knew more about the social conditions and the people who lived and worked in St. Marylebone than most men. However, that kind of man will be disqualified unless the Lords Amendment is accepted.
      The right hon. Gentleman is not really deceiving me. He may be deceiving his supporters, because they are not here. I do not know what he has done! But he is not deceiving me when he says it is too difficult for Government draftsmen to define what is meant by
      "a principal place of work"
      If the right hon. Gentleman can employ a Government draftsman to write the complicated gobbledygook that he has just sold to the Under-Secretary about broadcasting, he can employ a Government draftsman to define
      "a principal place of work".
      There is nothing to stop him doing it, but he does not want to do it on any terms, however precisely it can be defined.
      Mr. Callaghan: I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman wrote his speech before I spoke. I said nothing about any difficulties in drafting.
      Mr. Hogg: I have not written my speech, as the whole House can see. It is not written at all, whether before or after the right hon. Gentleman spoke. It is not all that difficult to find arguments to defeat the right hon. Gentleman's case, even without writing them down. I am not, after all, an Under-Secretary. But, unless I am vastly mistaken, the right hon. Gentleman said that there was difficulty in defining
      "a principal place of work".
      If he did not say it, the only argument presented in favour of the Government's attitude in another place now disappears. It is all the easier and more desirable to accept the Lords Amendment if there is no difficulty of draftsmanship. I am glad to note that the right hon. Gentleman has now withdrawn the mat from beneath his own feet.
      Although this is not one of the great issues of our time, it is a thoroughly discreditable little piece of gerrymandering. It is all the more discreditable because it is small and mean and will prove ineffective.
      I am glad that the Home Secretary did not try to sell us the outmoded nonsense about the elected Chamber against the other place. That, at any rate, is an argument with which we have not been wearied today.
      I can understand why, on the polling day of three by-elections, the Government are unwilling to talk about their own position as an elected authority. They certainly would not be elected now if anyone was given the chance to vote against them.
      I submit that the Lords are right in pursuing the advice of Lord Redcliffe-Maud, the authority chosen by the Government to advise them until he gave them advice which, rightly or wrongly, they thought would be hostile to their party interests.
      When the Home Secretary speaks as a statesman and as a responsible Minister, I always listen to him with great admiration and respect, as I hope I have shown on many occasions during this Parliament since his appointment; but when he speaks as a party politician he deceives nobody, and he should not try.
      5.15 p.m.
      Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Having had 13 years' experience in local government, I am pleased that the Government have seen fit to reject this Amendment from the other place.
      A simple principle is involved here. If a man wants to be a member of a council, there is no reason why he should not live in the area of that council. If a town is not good enough for a man to live in, then it is not good enough for him to sit on its council. It is as simple as that.
      I was interested in the argument put forward by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). He said that by rejecting the Lords Amendment the Government were flying in the face of public opinion. I do not know what public opinion he was talking about. The only representation that I have had has been from one chamber of commerce. If there was a lot of public opinion in favour of the Lords Amendment, particularly in relation to "the principal place of work" which would allow people working in the area to stand, I should have expected large-scale representations from the trade union branches in my constituency urging me to support the Amendment. This has not happened. The only representation I have had has come from the local chamber of commerce. I suspect that the only representations to other hon. Members have come from local chambers of commerce.
      It is fairly obvious that the Opposition are making such a fuss about the issue because they are being pushed from behind by their own supporters in the chambers of commerce, which do a lot, financially and otherwise, helping them at election times.
      There seems to be no reason why we should support the principle of people being allowed to sit on a council and make judgments about all sorts of services when they do not use those services because they live outside the area. I hope that the Government will stand very firm on this matter.
      Mr. Tom Boardman: I will briefly apply the experience of the City of Leicester in support of what has been said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). I will not follow

      1843
      the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) because he has misconceived the whole argument.
      Leicester is divided by an artificial boundary drawn and fixed by a Labour Government for—let us not mince words—purely political ends. The result is that we have an invisible line dividing communities. The council estates were brought within the city and the private estates were left outside. We can guess the reasons for this, but they misfired.
      All those people living on either side of the line are part of that community. I believe that a man who lives five yards over the boundary but still directs and focusses his life on the city is more capable of representing the ward five yards away than a man who lives three miles away at the other end of the city, but within the city boundary, who is able to come over and stand for a ward at a remote part of the city from where he lives.
      There has been a great body of support for the Amendment no only from the chambers of commerce, but from many quarters.
      Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Could the hon. Gentleman name the quarters from which he has had representations?
      Mr. Boardman: I have had representions from county councils, various local authority associations and a number of commercial interests concerned with the welfare of the city life with which they are connected.
      If democracy means anything, it is that the electorate have a right to elect somebody that they want. Let them call the man who lives five yards over the city boundary a carpet-bagger if they wish and let them vote against him, but at least allow him to stand. To deny him that right is, in my view, a denial of democracy. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will be accepted.
      Mr. Lubbock: All things being equal, I am sure that the House would agree that it is better for a candidate to live in the area which he represents because he will be making more use of the services and, therefore, is likely to be in tune with the electors who support what he stands for.
      Education is one of the most important services provided by a local authority.
      1844
      For instance, if a candidate sends his children to the same school as the children who actually live in the borough he will be more sympathetic to the improvements in education that all parents would like to see. In the City of Leicester, of which the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) has knowledge, it is possible that in some cases a candidate living outside the city will send his children to a school within the city boundary. His interests will be identical to those of the people he is to represent, and I imagine that this must occur in many cases.
      If, as a result of redevelopments in city centres, people who were formerly inside the borough go outside—I know that there are cities where this has happened to a great extent—they still make great use of the services provided by the local authority. In particular, if their children started at a borough school, in no case of which I know would the education authority ask them to transfer to the county. Once they have been accepted for a school, in order to maintain continuity the education officer is happy to continue to provide a place for them in spite of the fact that they have moved outside the area.
      I have taken the view all along that all these alterations provided for in Clause 15 should be left on one side until the Royal Commission on Local Government in England and Wales has reported and we have much bigger electoral areas which will embrace many of the people who live just outside the boundaries of cities. As the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West said, some of these people may be only five yards on one side of the boundary but that will be enough to disqualify them from standing as candidates on the other side of the boundary even though all their interests may be there.
      I do not wholly sympathise with the Amendment because I can see it creating difficulties in places like London or Westminster where a vast number of people come to work every day, far more than live in it, and we might get a preponderance of candidates who do not have interests which coincide with those of the permanent residents. But because the Government have been so adamant in resisting the idea of deferring Clause 15,

      1845
      or that part of it which relates to candidates, until after the Royal Commission has looked at the matter and has advised us so that the House can take the necessary action, I intend to vote with the Opposition against the Government.
      Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I cannot understand the Government's altitude to this Amendment. The Home Secretary talked about keeping local government local. Why not go a stage further and say that candidates must live in the wards they represent, and that Members of Parliament must live in the constituencies they represent? What the right hon. Gentleman is doing by trying to delete the Amendment is refusing to allow people who spend a lot of time in a city from representing that city on the council. Such people show a great deal of interest in how the city is run, they are anxious to serve the community, and they are prepared to give up a great deal of their time in doing so.
      Has the right hon. Gentleman thought of the difficulty of finding suitable people to stand for election to local councils? We know that the Labour Party has an enormous reservoir of defeated councillors who are all too willing to stand for election because they have been swept out of office during the last two years, not because of their sins, but because of the sins of the Government. There are safeguards in the law. There are local selection committees which decide whether they want somebody in the city. As has been said, people have the choice of voting for somebody who lives in the city, or for somebody who lives outside it.
      In 1967 in the County Borough of Dudley—part of my constituency is in that borough—a lady stood as a Conservative candidate. She had lived in the town for most of her life, but had moved outside the boundary just before the election. At the last minute the Labour Party sent out a leaflet warning people about her having moved. I am delighted to say that virtue triumphed and the lady won the seat, which was another Conservative gain. The electors decided that although she did not live within the county borough boundary she was a good representative to have on the council.
      I hope that the Government will reconsider this and decide to act in the interests
      1846
      of local government, and will not look at it from what they consider to be a politically advantageous viewpoint.
      Mr. R. W. Brown: There is a marginal argument for saying that people should be able to stand for election in the area where they work, but I think that the overpowering argument is as my right hon. Friend has put it. Perhaps I should declare an interest. I had 21 years experience of local government, and, therefore, my experience is limited! I have never found it necessary for people outside the area to be drafted in to stand for election.
      It is wrong to argue this issue on the idea of gerrymandering, because my right hon. Friend ought to understand that if he enters into a fight with the Opposition on the question of gerrymandering they start a long way ahead of him. They have been gerrymandering for a long time. The classic example is the 1963 Local Government Act for London. It was a most scandalous and disgraceful Act, and it was passed for purely party political reasons.
      When we debated the Bill the argument was that a vast number of people would be lost to local government unless the Measure was passed. That argument has not been used today. It is the argument of the local government associations, and it is one that ought to be clearly understood. It is not a true argument, and it never was, to say that a vast number of people will be precluded from standing for election.
      What the House ought to realise is that because of the 1963 Act, because of the gerrymandering of the party opposite, a vast number of people in London are no longer able to participate in local government. People who had served for 30 years and more in local government were no longer able to do so because of that piece of gerrymandering. When I and others pointed out what was likely to happen if that Bill became law we were told that it was not important if people were no longer able to be elected to local authorities; the important thing was to get the principle right. The principle, of course, was to make sure that the G.L.C. would be Tory-controlled, and everything that hon. Gentlemen opposite did was designed to achieve just that. I

      1847
      hope that we shall not allow this argument to go on that people should be permitted to have more than their share of voting rights.
      My local council has changed from Labour to Conservative. To try to get some sense into the standards of people serving there people from other areas have been drafted in to serve on the aldermanic bench. I cannot believe that anyone regards this as an improvement in local government. If the party opposite is unable to find candidates to represent it, that is its problem. We do not want to start mucking about with laws to try to help
      hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I hope that we shall stand firm on this issue.
      Anyone has a right to stand for election to his local council. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have been trying to cause confusion by suggesting that we are disfranchising people or stopping them from serving the community. This is not true. Every individual has a right to put himself forward as a candidate for election to his local council, and this is the basis on which the law ought to be founded.
      Question put:—
      The House divided: Ayes 228, Noes 202.

      Division No. 133.]

      AYES

      [5.28 p.m.

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Anderson, Donald

      Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

      Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

      Archer, Peter

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

      Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

      Ashley, Jack

      Faulds, Andrew

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

      Finch, Harold

      Lipton, Marcus

      Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

      Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (lslington, E.)

      Loughlin, Charles

      Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Luard, Evan

      Barnes, Michael

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Barnett, Joel

      Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Beancy, Alan

      Forrester, John

      McBride, Neil

      Bence, Cyril

      Fowler, Gerry

      McCann, John

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      MacColl, James

      Bishop, E. S.

      Gardner, Tony

      Macdonald, A. H.

      Blackburn, F.

      Garrett, W. E.

      McKay, Mrs. Margaret

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Ginsburg, David

      Maclennan, Robert

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Booth, Albert

      Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

      MacPherson, Malcolm

      Boyden, James

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

      Bradley, Tom

      Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

      Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

      Brooks, Edwin

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

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

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

      Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

      Manuel, Archie

      Mapp, Charles

      Buchan, Norman

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Marquand, David

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Hamling, William

      Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Cant, R. B.

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Maxwell, Robert

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Hattersley, Roy

      Mayhew, Christopher

      Chapman, Donald

      Hilton, W. S.

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Coe, Denis

      Hooley, Frank

      Mendelson, John

      Coleman, Donald

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Millan, Bruce

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

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

      Cronin. John

      Howie, W.

      Molloy, William

      Crosland. Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

      Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

      Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Morris, John (Aberavon)

      Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

      Hunter, Adam

      Murray, Albert

      Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

      Hynd, John

      Davies, Harold (Leek)

      Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

      Neal, Harold

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Janner, Sir Barnett

      Newens, Stan

      Delargy, Hugh

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

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

      Dell, Edmund

      Jeger, George (Goole)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Ogden, Eric

      Dickens, James

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      O'Malley, Brian

      Dobson, Ray

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Orme, Stanley

      Doig, Peter

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

      Oswald, Thomas

      Dunn, James A,

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

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

      Dunnett, Jack

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

      Owen, Will (Morpeth)

      Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

      Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

      Padley, Walter

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

      Jones, T Alec (Rhondda, West)

      Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

      Eadie, Alex

      Judd, Frank

      Palmer, Arthur

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Kelley, Richard

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Ellis, John

      Kenyon, Clifford

      Park, Trevor

      English, Michael

      Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Ennals, David

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

      Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)

      Ensor, David

      Lee, John (Reading)

      Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

      Pavitt, Laurence

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William

      Weitzman, David

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Rowlands, E.

      Wellbeloved, James

      Pentland, Norman

      Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Whitaker, Ben

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      White, Mrs. Eirene

      Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Whitlock, William

      Randall, Harry

      Skeffington, Arthur

      Wllkins, W. A.

      Rankin, John

      Small, William

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Rees, Merlyn

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

      Richard, Ivor

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Taverne, Dick

      Winnick, David

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

      Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

      Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

      Roberts, Gwilvm (Bedfordshire, S.)

      Thornton, Ernest

      Woof, Robert

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Tinn, James

      Wyatt, Woodrow

      Roblnson, Rt. Hn. KennethSt. P'c'as)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Roebuck, Roy

      Wallace, George

      Mr. J. D. Concannoon and

      Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

      Watkins, David (Consett)

      Mr. J. Harper.

      NOES

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      McMaster, Stanley

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Gibson-Watt, David

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick

      Astor, John

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Maddan, Martin

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

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Maginnis, John E.

      Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

      Glover, Sir Douglas

      Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Glyn, Sir Richard

      Marten, Neil

      Batsford, Brian

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Maude, Angus

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Goodhart, Philip

      Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

      Bell, Ronald

      Goodhew, Victor

      Mawby, Ray

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Cower, Raymond

      Maxwell, Hyslop R. J.

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos.& Fhm)

      Grant, Anthony

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

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Grieve, Percy

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Biffen, John

      Gurden, Harold

      Mills, stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Black, Sir Cyril

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Monro, Hector

      Blaker, Peter

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

      Morgan-Giles, Rear Adm.

      Body, Richard

      Harris, Reader (Heston)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

      Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

      Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

      Neave, Airey

      Braine, Bernard

      Harvie Anderson, Miss

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Brewis, John

      Hastings, Stephen

      Onslow, Cranley

      Brinton, Sir Tarton

      Hawkins, Paul

      Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

      Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

      Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

      Osborn, John (Hallam)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Higgins, Terence L

      Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

      Bryan, Paul

      Hill, J. E. B

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

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

      Hogg, Rt Hn. Quintin

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Buck, Antony (Colchester)

      Holland, Philip

      Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Hordern, Peter

      Percival, Ian

      Burden, F. A.

      Hornby, Richard

      Peyton, John

      Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

      Hunt, John

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Campbell, Gordon (Moray& Nairn)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Carlisle, Mark

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Pounder, Rafton

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Channon, H. P. G.

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Cooke, Robert

      Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

      Pym, Francis

      Costain, A. P.

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

      Jopling, Michael

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      Crouch, David

      Joseph, Rt Hn. Sir Keith

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Cunningham, Sir Knox

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rhys willims, sir Brandon

      Currie, G. B. H.

      Kerby, Capt. Henry

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Kimball, Marcus

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Dance, James

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey

      Dean, Paul

      Kitson, Timothy

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Doughty, Charles

      Lambton, Viscount

      Royle Anthony

      Douglas-Home, fit. Hn. Sir Alec

      Lancaster, Col. C. G.

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Drayson, G. B.

      Lane, David

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Scott, Nicholas

      Eden, Sir John

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Sharples, Richard

      Emery, Peter

      Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

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

      Eyre, Reginald

      Lubbock, Eric

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

      Farr, John

      MaAdden, Sir Stephen

      Smith, John (London & W'minster)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      MacArthur, Ian

      Stodart, Anthony

      Fortcscue, Tim

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Foster, Sir John

      Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain

      Summers, Sir Spencer

      Tapsell, Peter

      Walker, Peter (Worcester)

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

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

      Wall, Patrick

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Walters, Dennis

      Worsley, Marcus

      Temple, John M.

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Wright, Esmond

      Tilney, John

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Wylie, N. R.

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

      Williams, Donald (Dudley)

      Capt. Walter Elliott and

      Waddington, David

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

      Mr. Jasper More.

    Clause 18

      TIMING OF ELECTIONS, AND OF STEPS AT ELECTIONS
      Lords Amendment: No. 12, in page 14, line 14, after "means" insert:
      "any bank holiday not included in the Christmas break or the Easter break and ".
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Lords Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 21. The purpose of this series of Amendments is to prevent the timetable at General Elections from being held up for more than one day by reason of bank holidays peculiar to Scotland, other than New Year's Day, or to Northern Ireland.
      Clause 18 amends the provisions of the existing law for the computation of time for election purposes by introducing in subsections (2), (3) and (4) the concept of a "Christmas break", "Easter break" and "bank holiday break". A "bank holiday break" will normally consist of three days; that is, the weekday before the bank holiday, the bank holiday itself and the weekday after the bank holiday.
      This will work well for bank holidays in England and Wales, where bank holidays are, by custom and use, treated as general holidays. In Scotland, however—and, to a lesser degree, in Northern Ireland—bank holidays, other than New Year's Day in Scotland, tend to be little more than days on which the banks are closed. In so far as bank holidays in Scotland and Northern Ireland are common with those in England and Wales, this does not matter. But there are certain bank holidays peculiar to Scotland and Northern Ireland which are not common with those in England and Wales.
      These are, in Scotland—or will be from 1971—the first Monday in May and the first Monday in August; and, in Northern Ireland, 17th March, St. Pat-
      1852
      rick's Day, and 12th July. It would be awkward if a General Election timetable in which one of these days fell had to be extended by three days throughout the United Kingdom instead of the one day which, particularly having regard to Scotland, is all that is necessary.
      The Amendments to Clause 18 redefine a "bank holiday break" accordingly and the proviso inserted by Amendment No. 14 specifically applies the full bank holiday break only to New Year's Day and to bank holidays in England and Wales.
      Amendment No. 21 is consequential on Amendments 12 to 15.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 16, in page 14, line 39, at end insert:
      "( ) In relation to the period within which any local government election is to be held, and in relation to the day of election at any local government election, section 295 of the Local Government Act, 1933, shall have effect as if the days mentioned in section 295(1) included any day of the Christmas break, the Easter break or a bank holiday break within the meaning of rule 2 of the local elections rules as amended by subsection (3) above; and in section 295(2) (under which, if an election is postponed, the day on which it is held is to be treated as the day of election for all purposes of that Act) the reference to the purposes of that Act shall include the purposes of the Representation of the People Acts.
      This subsection shall apply to elections of elective auditors as it applies to local government elections."
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      This is a technical Amendment required to bring Section 295 of the Local Government Act, 1933, into line with the Representation of the People Acts, 1948 and 1949, as they have been amended by Clause 18 of the Representation of the People Bill. Section 295 of the 1933 Act deals with the computation of time for

      1853
      the purposes of that Act, including local government elections. The provisions of the 1948 and 1949 Acts, operated on by Clause 18 of the Bill, also deal with the computation of time for the purposes of elections, including local government elections. As a result of the Amendments made by Clause 18, Section 295 is now in conflict with the relevant provisions of the 1948 and 1949 Acts. The Amendment will resolve that conflict.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 21

      SUMMARY PROSECUTIONS OF OFFENCES AT LOCAL ELECTIONS
      Lords Amendment: No. 17, in page 15, line 29, at beginning insert:
      "(1) In section 155 of the Representation of the People Act, 1949 (which, in relation to parliamentary elections, makes provision as to the prosecution of offences committed outside the United Kingdom by British subjects or citizens of the Republic of Ireland) in subsection (I) the words 'so far as it relates to parliamentary elections,' shall be omitted.
      (2)"
      5.45 p.m.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time Lords Amendment No. 22.
      Amendment No. 17 extends to local government elections in the United Kingdom the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1949 (155) about prosecutions for electoral offences committed outside the United Kingdom. Hitherto the Bill has provided, in Schedule 2(20) for Section 155 to be extended to offences at local government elections in relation only to broadcasts from outside the United Kingdom. Such broadcasts are, by Section 80 of the 1949 Act, illegal in respect of Parliamentary elections; but Clause 9(4) of the Bill extends Section 80 to make it apply to broadcasts from outside the United Kingdom relating to local government elections.
      It has been thought advisable to generalise the application of Section 155 of the 1949 Act to all offences at local government elections, rather than to make specific mention only of offences against Section 80, as amended by Clause 9(4).
      Amendment No. 22 is consequential on Amendment No. 17.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Schedule 1

      MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS OF PARLIAMENTARY AND LOCAL ELECTIONS RULES
      Lords Amendment: No. 18, in page 22, line 5, leave out paragraph 2.
      Read a Second time.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      This Amendment is concerned with the time allowed for the poll. There have been a number of arguments about this and it was said in another place that this was a matter for the House of Commons and not for the House of Lords, an invitation which fully understands the situation.
      The basic argument behind our proposal is that people should have more time in which to go to the poll. This is the view of agricultural workers and it will clearly be of advantage to, for example, those on shift work. There can be no argument against the idea of allowing an extra hour in which people may go to the poll and, with that brief but, I believe, incontestable argument, I recommend the House to disagree with the Lords in this matter.
      Mr. Sharples: The Under-Secretary assumes that there can be no argument against the Government's proposal. Does he really believe that no evidence has been produced to contradict his view? Is he aware that he has neglected Mr. Speaker's Conference and that it is a discourtesy to that Conference to say that no recommendation has been made which counteracts his argument?
      The whole point of the debate which we had on a previous occasion on this matter was that Mr. Speaker's Conference, to which even the Government should pay some respect, recommended that there should be no change in polling hours. In that debate the Home Secretary was asked what evidence and considerations had led him to advocate a change of this kind. His reply was:
      "It was the Government's collective view, having discussed and considered the evidence, that there was a case for extending the time

      1855
      to 10 o'clock."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1968; Vol. 775, c. 524.]
      The Government were asked to state the evidence given to them. We wondered if they had received a recommendation for this change from the political parties or trade unions. In the briefest of replies on that occasion, the Home Secretary made it clear that no such evidence had been presented; that this was simply a Government decision, presumably made by the Parliamentary Committee of the Cabinet. Even hon. Gentlemen opposite spoke strongly against this proposal, but their opinions were completely ignored by the Government.
      It is right that the other place should give us an opportunity to reconsider this decision. Certainly the Government should take this opportunity to explain fully why this extension of polling hours should be made. If a reasonable case exists the House will consider it, but we should not be asked to agree to this alteration merely on the Government's say so.
      Both in this House and in another place arguments have been adduced about the increased burden that this change will place on those who administer elections. The Minister responsible in another place admitted that by increasing the total number of hours by one, from 14 to 15, difficulties would unquestionably arise. This matter must be more fully explained and I hope that the Government do not think that the Under-Secretary's brief explanation will suffice, even if the Government intend to force this decision on the House with the aid of the Whips. They do so against the advice and clear recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference. They do so in the knowledge that many of the most experienced hon. and right hon. Members opposite utterly deplore this proposal.
      Mr. Lubbock: We can see how much support there is for this proposal on the other side of the House when we look at the serried ranks of empty benches opposite and when we consider the figures of the last Division.
      Mr. James A. Dunn: Quality instead of quantity.
      Mr. Lubbock: I shall wait and judge his quality if the hon. Member cares to make an intervention in this debate. It
      1856
      is possible that he may put up arguments in favour of the Government proposal which we have not heard from the Front Bench, either in Committee or in the brief intervention by the Under-Secretary this afternoon. On 11th December the Home Secretary said that this conclusion was drawn from the political experience of members of the Government. He conceded that there was no bit of evidence, and that no representations had been made by outside organisations of whatever character, in favour.
      In his single sentence speech this afternoon the Under-Secretary mentioned agricultural workers. I should like to know whether representations have been made by the National Union of Agricultural Workers and, if so, what form they took. If agricultural workers are employed continuously from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., something is wrong with the law. It would be monstrous if any worker were compelled to be on duty continuously for as much as 14 hours.
      The hon. Gentleman also mentioned shift workers. The Home Secretary gave an example of shift workers going to work at 10 p.m. and continuing until 6 a.m. That is a usual period for those on shifts. He suggested that it would be impossible for a shift worker who normally leaves home at 9.30 to go half an hour earlier so that he could cast his vote, although the Home Secretary said that he could drop into the pub or club and have a drink before going to work.
      I should have thought that on the few occasions when we have Parliamentary Elections shift workers could vary their route and take in the polling station as well as the pub. It would not cause great hardship if they had to get up half an hour earlier. Most people who get up at 7 o'clock in order to vote get up earlier than we do normally. We face this happily as a public duty because we think that going to the polls is part of the electoral process. We are prepared to sacrifice a little "beauty sleep" in order to carry out that duty. I do not see that this would be any great hardship.
      If the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) can produce evidence from his constituents, or from letters to any hon. Member, to show that people were prevented from voting at the last election by reason of the hours being limited as they are at present, the House

      1857
      would be glad to consider it. We could take that into consideration at the end of this debate, but so so far no hon. Member—and, I believe, no one in another place, though I have not read the debates there as carefuly as I ought to have done—has produced any example of people being prevented from voting in this way.
      We have adequate provision for people who are prevented from going to the polls by reason of their occupation or employment. The long-distance lorry driver who would be away in the North of England and not be able to get home in time to cast his vote if the poll closes at 9 o'clock, would not be helped if the time were extended to 10 or 11 o'clock. That is why provision is made for him to vote by post.
      The suggestion by the Government would mean very great difficulties and burdens being laid on the shoulders of returning officers, their clerks in polling stations, the party organisations and all who have to do a tremendous amount of work—and, my goodness, how we value it—at elections. We always thank them at the conclusion of the poll.
      We shall lay this vast additional burden on them. That is not of slight importance when we consider that they will have done many hours already. This is so that idle or lazy people will not have to come out earlier. For their sake this vast disruption and discomfort will be caused to those who help us to run the electoral system.
      Mr. Dunn: I hope that the Under-Secretary will resist any claim to alter the proposals made by the Government. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples), who said that automatically a recommendation by Mr. Speaker's Conference should be accepted. If so, many problems would be solved without the necessity for debating them.
      In answer to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) I point out that people who live in conurbations outside city centres leave home early in the morning because of the distance they have to travel to work. In my city they have to travel for approximately an hour before they reach their place of employment. Often their employment starts at 7.30 in the morning, especially on the
      1858
      dockside. Because of pressure of work in the docks, often on Thursdays and Fridays these men are required to work overtime until 7.30 p.m. If we accept this as a basis of measurement but do not apply it to everyone, a great number would benefit if voting hours were extended to 10 o'clock.
      Mr. Lubbock: Would those dockyard workers know in advance that they will have to work that amount of overtime? If so, cannot they get a postal vote?
      Mr. Dunn: They do not know in advance. I do not think they could get a postal vote because they would not be travelling to a place of work outside the area of the constituency. If we allowed such a postal vote I can imagine 10,000 dockers registering for it rather than being inconvenienced when there is the possibility that they would be called upon to work overtime.
      There are a number of cases in which the extension of hours would be an advantage. I appreciate that such an extension might cause difficulty for those undertaking this task, especially returning officers, but there should be some way of relieving them during the day. I do not think sufficient evidence has been produced by returning officers and their staffs to show that it is such an arduous task that they are asked to undertake. In the same way that the hon. Member for Orpington suggested there is no evidence for the necessity for the extra hour, there is no real evidence to show that it is unnecessary.
      Mr. Sharples: Surely the hon. Member knows that Mr. Speaker's Conference had evidence before it when it considered all these questions—evidence which is not available to this House? If he is not to take the advice of that Conference on a matter of this kind, he should at least produce evidence to contradict those decisions. Otherwise, what is the point of having a Speaker's Conference?
      Mr. Dunn: I used my words carefully and I said there was no real evidence. Even now when these people work from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. many of them are off duty during the middle of the day. It is known that in those periods they are not required.
      Mr. William Hamling: My hon. Friend knows that I was

      1859
      born in his constituency and brought up there.
      Hon. Members: How can he know?
      Dr. Bennett: It was before his time.
      Mr. Hamling: My hon. Friend knows that I lived in Liverpool in the dockland area for many years. It was often said by dockers that they were deliberately kept at work on the river on polling day so that they could not get home to vote.
      Dr. Bennett: That does not happen today.
      6.0 p.m.
      Mr. Dunn: This was said. Only those who are old enough to appreciate it can substantiate whether it is true. I say that generously to both points of view. There were one or two instances where candidates at local elections were subjected to pressure because of the casual nature of their employment. Thank God that those days have passed. I suggest that the additional hour will not impose a very arduous burden. I suggest that the evidence received by Mr. Speaker's Conference did not prove hardship. I hope that the House will disagree with the Lords.
      Mr. Hamling: The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), if anyone, should know that many people who live in his part of the conurbation of London travel very long distances to work, much further even than my constituents. I know from my experience that many of my constituents who travel to work to North-East London and North-West London get up long before 7 o'clock and do not return home until after the polling stations have closed, or perhaps only half an hour before then.
      Why is not an elector, particularly a manual worker, entitled to come home, wash and change, and have a bite to eat before going out to vote? It is all very well to argue that people should put themselves out to exercise their civic rights. The House is under an obligation to make it as reasonably possible as it can for people to vote. It should not put obstacles in their way. It is all very well for people who work short days, as I did when I was a schoolmaster, or who live near where they work, to say, "If people work late or travel long dis-
      1860
      tances to work they must try to make some other arrangement". It ill-behoves middle-class people who normally do not work such long hours as most manual workers do, to talk in the way that people have talked this afternoon. When many manual workers reach home they must have a bath and change before they can become civilised.
      Mr. F. A. Burden: Before they can become civilised?
      Mr. Hamling: Before they can go out into company. Surely the hon. Gentleman, representing Gillingham, should know something about smells. He knows that there are people working on the Medway with all sorts of cargoes who, on arriving home, must change their clothes, because it is unpleasant for them to go round in their working clothes.
      Mr. Burden: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he assesses whether a man is civilised by the state of the clothes he wears and by the fact that he is a little dirty?
      Mr. Hamling: No. I say that these men have a certain sense of propriety. On returning home they do not wish to stay in the clothes they worked in. Before going out to the polling station they like to change. They like to have a wash. Many of them bath first. This is my experience as the son of a man who worked on the docks. I know the great sense of propriety that these men have. They want to be decent and clean. Many of my constituents in Eltham who work on London Docks wash and change immediately on reaching home.
      Sir Edward Brown: The conditions the hon. Gentleman is talking about which obtained in his father's time do not obtain now. There have been many Acts under which baths, washrooms and changing rooms have been provided. These people now change before they go home, so on leaving work they are ready to go to the polling station.
      Mr. Handing: I only hope that the hon. Gentleman, who represents Bath, will go to the Royal Group of Docks and point to one shower bath or bath for the thousands of men working there. There is not one, and he knows it. The same is true of London Docks. The same is true of Liverpool Docks, where my

      1861
      father worked. It is as true today as when my father worked there 30 years ago.
      Mr. Burden: On a point of order. What has this discussion on the garb that people wear in the docks to do with the Amendment?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): I think that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) is making an incidental reference to it.
      Mr. Hamling: I was also making an incidental reference to the interjection made by the same hon. Gentleman who is now trying to call me to order.
      It has been alleged that nobody has made any representation. This was one of the main burdens of the speech I made on Second Reading. That is why I strongly support this proposal. I have been working in elections for well over 40 years. My experience teaches me that this is an admirable proposal which the House should support.
      Sir Barnett Janner: Whilst sitting on the sidelines I heard the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) use an expression which I thought meant that if he was satisfied that even a few people would be prevented from voting, he would support the Government. In Leicester, West years ago the successful candidate, Mr. Harold Nicolson, was returned with a majority of 87 and stayed in Parliament with that majority for ten years. When I arrived there as a candidate I was given to understand that Mr. Nicolson would not have had that majority had it not been for the fact that some people who worked late were not able to enter the polling booths. If by this extension people were enabled to vote, as I think they would be, we should do our best to provide the opportunity to vote for every person who wants to vote. The illustration I gave is an indication of what might happen in the event of people being prevented by voting by 9 o'clock.
      Mr. Lubbock: What date is the hon. Gentleman speaking of when these 87 votes made all the difference?
      Sir B. Janner: 1935.
      Mr. Lubbock: Surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that hours of work
      1862
      have changed considerably since pre-war. Although an Amendment of this kind might have been necessary in the 1930s, it is not necessary today.
      Sir B. Janner: I assure the hon. Genteman that this happened. I cannot vouch for the fact that there would have been 87 extra votes if the booths had been open later, but let us suppose that there would have been one or two extra. The person might have been in the House on a very small majority, which might have been prevented if other people had been able to vote. On those grounds alone, we are entitled to say that we should extend the time to a reasonable hour, so that people cannot say that they did not have a chance to vote.
      Sir Cyril Black: The trouble about the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) is that it is based on a number of assumptions for which there is no possible warranty. He assumes that if the poll had been an hour longer in 1935 in the West Leicester division 88 people would have voted for another candidate, and that therefore the candidate who was elected would have been defeated.
      Sir B. Janner: What I said was that a large number of people came too late to vote, that if the poll had been later they would have had an opportunity of voting, and that therefore a person might not have represented the constituency in this House for 10 years on an 87 majority.
      Sir C. Black: Of course. But the trouble about that argument is that it could be applied with equal force to closing the poll at 11 o'clock or midnight. The hon. Gentleman's argument has gone either too far or not far enough. Experience shows that whenever the poll is closed some people will come too late.
      One must be reasonable in these matters and consider all the parties involved. I support the argument of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) about the burden imposed on those charged with the duty of conducting the elections. I have received a letter from the secretary of the branch of the National and Local Government Officers Association in my constituency asking me to bring forward its views when the matter is discussed.

      1863
      Those views impress me as containing a great deal of common sense. The secretary wrote:
      "The members of my Branch have noted with regret the provisions in Part II of Schedule 1 … to increase the hours of polling so that the polling booths may be open until 10 o'clock at night. We have also noted that this provision was rejected by the House of Lords. As a considerable number of members of my Branch are inevitably involved in both the polling and the counting processes that follow, we have an interest in the number of hours these officers are required to work.
      My Branch is of the opinion that the extension proposed in the Bill is an unwarranted addition to a working day which is already longer than any other. When one realises that many Local Government Officers on completion of their work as Presiding Officers at a polling booth are then required forthwith to undertake duties on the count which may well last into the small hours of the morning, one realises that the strain is already considerable and should not be increased; therefore, my Branch has instructed me to write to you asking that when this matter is returned to the House of Commons you will support the rejection of Paragraph 2 of Part II of Schedule I."
      I am very glad on this occasion to be able to agree entirely with the national and local government officers in my constituency, and I propose to vote in the way they have asked me to.
      Mr. Dunn: Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that the presiding officers employed by the local authority volunteer for such tasks in many instances?
      Sir C. Black: I should have though that that was reason in favour of my argument rather than the contrary. I have always been concerned to ensure that people should not be required to work excessive hours. It is the duty of the House to protect workers who are liable to be called upon and required to work excessive hours. Therefore, I propose to vote for the hour of 9 o'clock and not 10 o'clock.
      Question put:—
      The House divided: Ayes 235, Noes 202.

      Division No. 134.]

      AYES

      [6.14 p.m.

      Alldritt, Walter

      Delargy, Hugh

      Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

      Anderson, Donald

      Dell, Edmund

      Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

      Archer, Peter

      Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

      Howie, W.

      Ashley, Jack

      Dickens, James

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

      Dobson, Ray

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

      Doig, Peter

      Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

      Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

      Dunn, James A.

      Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

      Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

      Dunnett, Jack

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Barnes, Michael

      Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

      Hunter, Adam

      Barnett, Joel

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

      Hynd, John

      Beaney, Alan

      Eadie, Alex

      Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

      Bence, Cyril

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Ellis, John

      Janner, Sir Barnett

      Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

      English, Michael

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Binns, John

      Ennals, David

      Jeger, George (Goole)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Ensor, David

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Blackburn, F.

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

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

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

      Booth, Albert

      Finch, Harold

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Boyden, James

      Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)

      Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

      Bradley, Tom

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

      Brooks, Edwin

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Judd, Frank

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

      Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

      Kelley, Richard

      Buchan, Norman

      Forrester, John

      Kenyon, Clifford

      Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

      Fowler, Gerry

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Lee, John (Reading)

      Cant, R. B.

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Carmichael, Neil

      Gardner, Tony

      Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Garrett, W. E.

      Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

      Chapman, Donald

      Ginsburg, David

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Coe, Denis

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Lipton, Marcus

      Coleman, Donald

      Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

      Loughlin, Charles

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Luard, Evan

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Cronin, John

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      McBride, Neil

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

      McCann, John

      Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      MacColl, James

      Dalyell, Tam

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Macdonald A. H.

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      McKay, Mrs. Margaret

      Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

      Hartersley, Roy

      Mackie, John

      Davies, Ednyted Hudson (Conway)

      Hazell, Bert,

      Maclennan, Robert

      Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

      Hilton, W. S.

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Davies, Harold (Leek)

      Hootey, Frank

      MacPherson, Malcolm

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

      Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

      Paget, R. T.

      Skeffington, Arthur

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

      Palmer, Arthur

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Manuel, Archie

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Mapp, Charles

      Park, Trevor

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Marks, Kenneth

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Marquand, David

      Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)

      Taverne, Dick

      Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

      Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Pavitt, Laurence

      Thornton, Ernest

      Maxwell, Robert

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Tinn, James

      Mayhew, Christopher

      Pentland, Norman

      Tomney, Frank

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Mendelson, J. J.

      Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Mikardo, lan

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Millan, Bruce

      Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

      Wallace, George

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Randall, Harry

      Watkins, David (Consett)

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

      Rankin, John

      Weitzman, David

      Molloy, William

      Rees, Merlyn

      Wellbeloved, James

      Moonman, Eric

      Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Whitaker, Ben

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Richard, Ivor

      White, Mrs. Eirene

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Whitlock, William

      Morris, John (Aberavon)

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

      Wilkins, W. A.

      Murray, Albert

      Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

      Willsy, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Neal, Harold

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Newens, Stan

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

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

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

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Roebuck, Roy

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Ogden, Eric

      Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

      Winnick, David

      O'Malley, Brian

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William

      Woof, Robert

      Orme, Stanley

      Rowlands, E.

      Wyatt, Woodrow

      Oswald, Thomas

      Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

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

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Owen, Will (Morpeth)

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Mr. J. D. Concannon and

      Padley, Walter

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Mr. Joseph Harper.

      Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

      NOES

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Doughty, Charles

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Astor, John

      Drayson, G. B.

      Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

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

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Eden, Sir John

      Jopling, Michael

      Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Emery, Peter

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Batsford, Brian

      Farr, John

      Kerby, Capt. Henry

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Kimball, Marcus

      Bell, Ronald

      Fortescue, Tim

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Foster, Sir John

      Kitson, Timothy

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. & Fhm)

      Galbraith, Hn. T. C.

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Lancaster, Col. C. G.

      Biffen, John

      Gilmour, lan (Norfolk, c.)

      Lane, David

      Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife E.)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Black, Sir Cyril

      Glover, Sir Douglas

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Blaker, Peter

      Glyn, Sir Richard

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

      Body, Richard

      Goodhart, Philip

      Longden, Gilbert

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Goodhew, Victor

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

      Gower, Raymond

      MacArthur, lan

      Brains, Bernard

      Grant, Anthony

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Brewis, John

      Grieve, Percy

      Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Gurden, Harold

      McMaster, tSanley

      Bromley-Davenport. Lt.-Col. SirWalter

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hall-Davies, A. G. F.

      Maddan, Martin

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Maginnis, John E.

      Bryan, Paul

      Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

      Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, NAM)

      Harris, Reader (Heston)

      Marten, Neil

      Buck, Antony (Colchester)

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      Maude, Angus

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

      Burden, F. A.

      Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

      Mawby, Ray

      Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

      Harvie Anderson, Miss

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

      Hastings, Stephen

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

      Carlisle, Mark

      Hawkins, Paul

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Channon, H. P. G.

      Hay, John

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Cooke, Robert

      Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Costain, A. P.

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Monro, Hector

      Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

      Hill, J. E. B.

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Crouch, David

      Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

      More, Jasper

      Cunningham, Sir Knox

      Holland, Philip

      Morgan-Giles, Rear Adm.

      Currie, G. B. H.

      Hordern, Peter

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Hornby, Richard

      Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

      Dance, James

      Hunt, John

      Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

      Dean, Paul

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Neave, Airey

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Ridsdale, Julian

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Onslow, Cranley

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

      Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

      Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Waddington, David

      Osborn, John (Hallam)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Walker, Peter (Worcester)

      Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

      Royle, Anthony

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Wall, Patrick

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Walters, Dennis

      Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Percival, Ian

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Peyton, John

      Sharples, Richard

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

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

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Silvester, Frederick

      Williams, Donald (Dudley)

      Pounder, Rafton

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

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Smith, John (London & W'minster)

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Stodart, Anthony

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Prior, J. M. L.

      Summers, Sir Spencer

      Woodmitt, Mark

      Pym, Francis

      Tapsell, Peter

      Worsley, Marcus

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Wright, Esmond

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

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

      Wylie, N. R.

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Temple, John M.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Tilney, John

      Mr. R. W. Elliott and

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Mr. Reginald Eyre.

    Schedule 2

      CONSEQUENTIAL AND SUPPLEMENTARY AMENDMENTS OF REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1949
      Lords Amendment: No. 19, in page 27, line 8, at end insert:
      "(2) In section 8(2) proviso there shall be omitted paragraphs (a) and (b) (which make provision against a person being registered as a local government elector more than once in any area or being registered as a nonresident if entitled to be registered as a resident)."
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With Lords Amendment No. 19 I suggest that we discuss Amendments No. 31, 32 and 33.
      Mr. Rees: Amendment No. 19 is largely technical, its purpose being to remove paragraph (a) and (b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, Section 8(2) proviso. With the abolition of the non-resident franchise and the bringing of the local government franchise into line with the Parliamentary franchise, these paragraphs are no longer required or, as regards paragraph (a) in particular, workable. Amendments No. 31, 32 and 33 are consequential.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 23, in page 34, line 24, after "Schedule 2" insert:
      "and rule 41(4) of the local election rules in Schedule 3 "
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      1868
      Paragraph 31 of Schedule 2 provides for the omission from Parliamentary Elections Rule 48(4) and Local Elections Rule 43(5), in Schedule 2 to the Representation of the People Act, 1949, of the concluding words which enable a counting agent to copy the statement of rejected ballot papers. It is no longer necessary to give this right to counting agents because paragraph 13(4) of Schedule 1 provides for such a statement to be published along with the result of an election.
      The Amendment provides for the omission of similar words at the end of Scottish Local Elections Rule 41(4) in Schedule 3 to the 1949 Act. Provision for a statement of rejected ballot papers to be published along with the result of a local government election in Scotland is made by paragraph 13(5) of Schedule 1.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 24, in page 35, line 47, at beginning insert:
      "(3) In Schedule 4, in paragraph 2, for the words from ' any householder' to ' the agent or factor of any such person ' there shall be substituted the word ' persons ' ".
      6.30 p.m.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: We can also discuss with this Lords Amendment No. 34.
      Mr. Rees: Amendment No. 24 will enable Regulations, corresponding to Regulations 22 and 70 of the Representation of the People Regulations, 1950, to require information for registration purposes to be obtained from persons, other

      1869
      than householders, and to make such persons liable to a penalty if they fail to give it.
      Schedule 4 to the Representation of the People Act, 1949, sets out the provisions which may be made in Regulations as to registration. To limit the area of the registration officer's inquiries to householders, as is the result, might reduce the registration officer's power too far. There are many people from whom he would require information for registration purposes, apart from householders. Examples are managers of hotels or of seamen's residential clubs—to go back to an earlier Clause—hotel administrators, occupiers of factories with resident caretakers, et cetera. This is an appropriate step.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Schedule 3

      REPEALS
      Lords Amendment: No. 29, in page 36, line 49, column 3, at end insert:
      "Section 128(6) from the words 'The reference ' onwards".
      Mr. Speaker: With this we can discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 26, 27, 28 and 29.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      This Amendment and those we are taking with it remove the following words from the particular sections of the Representation of the People Act, 1949:
      "The reference in this subsection to rules of court shall not include a reference to rules made before the passing of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883."
      There are no longer any such rules as are excluded by the subsection.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 30, in page 38, line 11, column 3, leave out "paragraph 2 "and insert" sub-paragraph (2)."
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      This is a drafting Amendment to correct a clerical error, I regret to say, in that part of the repeals Schedule dealing with the London Government Act, 1963. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the Act of 1963 will be brought into line with paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to that Act, as is already provided for in lines 5 to 9 on page 38 of the Bill.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amentments agreed to.
      Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. Buchan, Mr. Concannon, Mr. Hogg, Mr. Merlyn Rees and Mr. Sharples; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Merlyn Rees.]
      To withdraw immediately.
      Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to:—
      To be communicated to the Lords.

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967 that The Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act,1969.

2. Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act,1969.

3. National Theatre Act, 1969.

4. Genocide Act, 1969.

5. Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1969.

6. Horserace Betting Levy Act, 1969.

7. Derbyshire County Council Act,1969.

8. Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Act, 1969.

DECIMAL CURRENCY BILL
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
DECIMAL CURRENCY BILL
  New Clause 1

    LEGAL TENDER
    (1)

    Coins made by the Mint in accordance with section 2 of the Decimal Currency Act 1967 or in accordance with the Coinage Acts 1870 to 1946 and not called in by proclamation under paragraph (5) of section 11 of the Coinage Act 1870 shall be legal tender as follows, that is to say—

    5

    (a) coins of cupro-nickel or silver of denominations of more than ten new pence or two shillings, for payment of any amount not exceeding ten pounds;

    (b) coins of cupro-nickel or silver of denominations of not more than ten new pence or two shillings, for payment of any amount not exceeding five pounds;

    10

    (c) coins of bronze, for payment of any amount not exceeding twenty new pence or four shillings.

    (2) In the foregoing subsection ' coins of bronze "includes threepences of mixed metal.

    (3) Subject to subsection (6) of this section and to any direction given by virtue of section 14(5) of this Act, coins of the old currency other than gold coins shall not be legal tender after the end of the transitional period.

    15

    (4) For the purpose of being used for any payment in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section a coin of either the old or the new currency may be treated as being a current coin of the other currency of equal value.

    20

    (5) The powers exercisable by proclamation by virtue of section 11 of the Coinage Act 1870 shall include power to direct that any coins of the new currency made by the Mint in accordance with section 2 of the Decimal Currency Act 1967 other than coins of cupro-nickel, silver or bronze shall be current and be legal tender for payment of any amount not exceeding such amount (not greater than ten pounds) as may be specified in the proclamation.

    25

    (6) For the purposes of this section silver coins of the Queen's Maundy money made in accordance with section 3 of the Coinage Act 1870 shall be treated as made in accordance with section 2 of the Decimal Currency Act 1967 and, if issued before the appointed day, shall be treated as denominated in the same number of new pence as the number of pence in which they were denominated.—[Mr. Taverne.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    6.35 p.m.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Dick Taverne): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    This Clause restores, with one alteration, the original Clause 1 of the Bill which was, by some mischance, removed from the Bill during Committee proceedings. There is only one alteration in it, to which I shall come. When we discussed the former Clause 1, the Opposition members on the Committee objected to two parts of it. One was the part which continued to keep gold coins as legal tender, and the other was the absence of any specific reference to the retention of the 6d. As there is an Amendment to this new Clause dealing with the 6d., perhaps we can come to that when the Amendment is moved.
    The alteration in the new Clause refers to the 50 new pence piece, which is now specifically referred to. The 50 new pence coin, which was not included in the First
    Mr. Speaker: I have posted, as is my wont, a list of the selection of Amendments that I have made.
    Schedule to the 1957 Decimal Currency Act, will be treated as a current coin of 10s., and it is proposed that it should be legal tender for any amount not exceeding £10. The Proclamation which determined the specification and design of this coin and gave currency to it was made on 20th December last. It also provided that the coin might be issued before Decimal-day as a current cupro-nickel coin of the denomination of 10s. Since the Committee stage we have given further thought to the legal tender limit for this new coin, and any other future high-value coin, for example, one which might be minted of 20 new pence and 25 new pence in a weight/value relationship and similar shape to the 50 new pence piece. The reasons for the increase in the legal tender limit from £5 to £10 are as follows.
    First, there is the need to demonstrate that these coins are in a different category from the 5 new pence piece and the 10 new pence piece and second—and this is the main reason—the 50 new pence

    1873
    piece should be used as much as practicable. It could be said that if in law as few as 11 of these coins could be refused, then the use of the coin might be discouraged We would not wish to discourage the use of it, and accordingly we have provided for a higher legal tender limit.
    Mr. Terence L. Higgins: The Minister of State has correctly recounted the history of this Clause. As he rightly points out, it effectively seeks to reinstate the Clause which was deleted in Committee, albeit with the particular alteration to which he has referred. It is right and proper that we should stress why we felt that the Clause, as originally drafted, ought to be rejected. The procedure that we have in Committee is one in which we seek to amend the Clause concerned and then decide, after the Amendments have been carried or defeated, whether the Clause is defective. We then vote accordingly.
    At this stage the procedure is the opposite. We are now asked to consider this new Clause and we shall then seek to amend it later. In principle, it would be wrong for us to vote against it at this point, because we hope that it will be possible to amend it later, particularly when we come to the Amendment dealing with the 6d.
    As the Minister rightly pointed out, our objections to the Clause, as it was presented in Committee, were twofold. First was the fact that it mentioned that gold coins should continue to be legal tender. We felt that there were a number of objections to that. Second, there was the question of the 6d., which it will be more convenient to deal with when we debate a later Amendment. I want to concentrate on the argument about the position of the gold coins, because although we have tabled an Amendment it will not be possible for us to debate this at a later stage as the Amendment has not been selected.
    Perhaps I may say something on the difference between the Clause now presented to the House and that originally presented to the House at Second Reading and to the Committee upstairs. We appreciate the point that the Minister has made with regard to the introduction of the 50 new pence coin. This coin is likely to prove of considerable use and to facilitate cash transactions. But if as
    1874
    low a legal tender limit were placed on it as the £5 originally specified in the Bill as it came before the House on Second Reading this would mean that one was limited to tendering only 11 of these coins. While as many as 19 or 20 of them would be fairly heavy to carry round, nevertheless it would be unfortunate if the legal tender limit were set so low that the use of the coin was inhibited. Therefore, we should not have any objection to the alteration embodied in this new Clause as against the Clause as originally presented.
    I want now to look at the question of the legal currency of gold coins. We were disappointed at the fact that the Government have not reintroduced this Clause in such a form that the expression with regard to gold coins is deleted; because, as the House will now see, the Government's Clause suggests that gold coins shall continue to be legal tender and shall so continue beyond the end of the transitional period, as far as we can see. Our objection during the Committee stage arose from a probing Amendment which we put down seeking to delete the reference to gold coins. Originally, we had expected a fairly simple explanation from the Minister but the more we went into it the more our doubts were aroused with regard to the purpose of this part of the Clause.
    First, we were surprised to discover that gold coins which had been minted by the Bank of England were apparently of considerably greater value than their bullion content. This was a point of interest to the Committee rather than one which aroused any feeling of concern. What we were worried about was the apparent inconsistency between the statement in the Government's original Clause that gold coins should be legal tender and the actual position as we know it to exist in this country at the present time. There are very considerable restrictions on the circulation of gold coins. These particular restrictions arise partly from the original Exchange Control Act 1947, and in particular from Sections 1, 2 and 3 of that Act; because this legislation limited the buying, selling and holding of gold coins. This restriction was further strengthened by the introduction of a Statutory Instrument in 1966 which was also concerned with the circulation of gold coins.

    1875
    Effectively, what this legislation does is to provide that no one may hold more than four gold coins and may hold these four coins only if they had held them before 26th April, 1966. In other words, the holding of gold coins which had been minted after the date 1837 and their circulation were vigorously controlled. It was authorised by this House that anyone who happened to hold more than four of those gold coins, or happened to come into possession of any of them after the date I have mentioned, would be obliged to hand them in to an authorised dealer, who, in turn, would dispose of them. It was perfectly clear, therefore, that the effect was to prevent the circulation of gold coins as currency in this country.
    Yet when we came to the Committee stage we were assured by the Minister that one of the main reasons why the Government wished to include this provision in this particular Clause was that if that were not done it would be impossible for the Government to prevent the counterfeiting of gold coins overseas—I believe he suggested in the Middle East or Italy—and that these counterfeit gold coins, being of higher value than their bullion content, might then circulate. The Minister asserted that only if these coins were legal tender in the United Kingdom would it be possible for the Government to take legal action against anyone who happened to be counterfeiting such coins. The Minister quoted in aid a treaty which he said enabled the Government to do this.
    Mr. Speaker: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Amendment on gold coins has not been selected. I have allowed him to talk about the discussion on Second Reading but he must not pursue the subject in such detail as to make it appear that the Speaker has selected the Amendment for discussion when he has not done so.
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. Higgins: I am directing myself to the fact that the new Clause continues to perpetuate a reference to gold coins and arguing that there is some. doubt in my mind about the validity of the Clause, because I do not believe that it achieves the objective that the Government wish to achieve.
    Mr. Speaker: We are each seized of the point that the other is trying to
    1876
    make. I am only asking the hon. Gentleman not to go into too much detail.
    Mr. Higgins: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I am only saying that it seemed to me that to reintroduce the Clause in this way was open to objection; and I thought it would be helpful to the Government to spell out what I believe is the objection since it is a point that ought to be considered in introducing the new Clause. The essence of the argument is that the Government feel they need to reassert what they believe to be the position with regard to legal tender of gold coins in order to prevent counterfeiting overseas. The Government have called in aid a treaty which we have subsequently discovered—the Minister could not tell us this at the time—to be Cmnd. 666, signed in 1929. The definition of currency in that treaty is given in Article 2 of it:
    "In the present Convention the word ' currency ' is understood to mean paper money, in other words bank notes, and metallic money the circulation of which is legally authorised."
    It seems to me that this definition of currency as used in the treaty is quite inconsistent with the way in which gold coins are to be treated today, and, therefore, the Government cannot rely on the provisions of this treaty. Nor can they, by introducing this new Clause, seek to establish a protection which I do not believe they actually have. The Minister asserts that there have been cases brought under the treaty and that these have been successful.
    To summarise, I do not see how the Government can assert in the new Clause that gold coins are legal currency and that they conform to the definition given in Article 2 of the treaty, and, therefore, have the protection which the Government assert they have. Clearly, it would be wrong, in my submission, to pass the new Clause if that is the case and if the Government's view of the true position is wrong.
    I believe we were right to oppose the Clause in Committee and to reject the Government's argument, most especially because of the question of the 6d., but that is something to which we shall return and I will not delay the Committee further at this stage. I do hope the Minister can give us a better explanation of why the words referring to gold coins

    1877
    are still included and have been reintroduced in the new Clause, because I believe the argument on which the Government base their case is erroneous. Whether or not they have succeeded in getting other countries to agree to the provisions of the treaty, the definition in it does not seem consistent with the actual status of gold coins in this country at the present time.
    Mr. Taverne: I hope that the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) will not mind if I answer his points very briefly.
    With the Clause as it stands, there is no change in the law whatsoever. If the words were left out, there would be a change in the law. Gold sovereigns and gold coins are legal tender under the Coinage Act, 1870, and if these words were not in they would cease to be legal tender under that Act. If it were felt desirable at any stage that a gold coin should no longer be legal tender, the matter could be dealt with by proclamation, and it could be demonetised at any time without any fuss or need for statutory amendment.
    The Bill is not the occasion for altering the status of gold coins. Having gold coins as legal tender is of value to this country because it is possible for the Bank of England to meet the occasional demand for gold sovereigns to the benefit of our balance of payments. I should have thought that that was a good reason for keeping them. If the coins were no longer legal tender, it would, at the lowest, make the task of counterfeiters abroad much easier. It has been possible to launch successful prosecutions against counterfeiters on the basis that gold sovereigns were legal tender.
    Mr. Higgins: Is the Minister of State asserting that gold coins are currency within the meaning of the definition in the treaty which I have quoted?
    Mr. Taverne: This matter has been decided by a number of foreign countries. I do not wish to go into the question of the interpretation which should be given to the treaty, but when it has been examined the courts have been satisfied that its protection extended to gold sovereigns. A vital part of the argument was that they were still legal tender under the Coinage Act, 1870, and
    1878
    evidence was produced before the courts that the 1870 Act was on the Statute Book and had not been repealed. It is, therefore, the protection afforded to gold sovereigns which maintains the value of gold sovereigns, which helps our balance of payments.
    Mr. Eric Lubbock: Before the Bill was introduced, I had a long chat with the Financial Secretary about possible amendments to the Coinage Acts, the 1870 Act being the principal Act, because it occurred to me that the opportunity might be taken in conjunction with this legislation to consolidate all the previous Acts in one Measure. The Financial Secretary accepted that if this were to be done it would be better to do it by separate legislation.
    When the question of gold coins arose in our discussion, I made the same proposal as the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). We had a considerable discussion on it, and, in the light of what the Financial Secretary said, I accepted that there were great advantages in retaining the present position, clumsy though it may seem, considering that gold coins would never in practice be used as a medium of exchange. The fact that gold coins are worth more than the metal content is an advantage, and, therefore, they bring some benefit to our balance of payments. This is a very important argument.
    The question of whether the treaty to which reference has been made remains in effect has been tested comparatively recently in foreign courts. The example which the Financial Secretary gave me was Italy, where somebody began to counterfeit on a fairly large scale. It was drawn to the attention of the Italian authorities, a prosecution ensued, and the counterfeiter was convicted. That was an end of the matter.
    We have this protection which, according to the legal experts, can be retained only as long as gold coins are legal tender. While it may seem an old-fashioned and ridiculous anomaly to pretend that these gold coins are legal tender, there would be practical consequences if we were to alter the law. It is, therefore, better to leave it as it is.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time.
    Mr. Higgins: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 13, after 'Act', insert
    with the exception of 6d. pieces'
    Mr. Speaker: I suggest that we take

    Two-and-a-half new pence

    2·82759 1·9405

    Three-quarters copper, one-quarter nickel

    ·0188

    and Amendment No. new 10, the proposed Schedule:
    Further Amendment of Decimal Currency Act 1967
    Schedule 1 to the Decimal Currency Act 1967 shall be amended by omitting the row relating to Two new pence, that is to say:

    Two new pence

    7·12800 2·5910

    Mixed metal, copper, tin and zinc

    ·1500

    Mr. Higgins: As I said a few moments ago, we felt in Committee that we should do everything we could to retain the use of 6d. pieces, although in the form of a 2½ new pence piece, beyond the end of the transitional period. A Division on an Amendment similar to this Amendment in Committee resulted in equal numbers of votes being cast both ways, and the Chairman, being bound by tradition, cast his vote against the Amendment. However, we felt so strongly on this issue that we thought it right to regard the Clause as defective and to vote against it again on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    As the Minister of State said in Committee, the Government can by proclamation retain the use of the 6d. pieces in the way I have just suggested. But this is the prerogative of the Government and the Crown. It is not something that the Opposition can seek to do. Therefore, if we are to achieve our objective, the right approach for us is to seek to amend the Bill in the way we suggest.
    Throughout our debates on the Bill not a single voice has been raised in favour of abolishing the 6d. piece, with the exception of that of the Minister of State and possibily one other. I therefore hope that we can examine the case on its merits. I wish to say why I believe it right and proper to retain the 6d. piece, although not necessarily far into the future or to enshrine in legislation a position which means that it must be retained in our currency until such time as further legislation is passed. The arguments in favour of retaining the 6d. piece beyond the end of the transitional period
    at the same time Amendment No. 9, the proposed new Schedule entitled:
    Amendment on Decimal Currency Act 1967
    Schedule 1 to the Decimal Currency Act 1967 shall be amended by adding after the entry relating to Five new pence the entry:
    are overwhelming, and I should have thought they commended themselves to common sense.
    The Government have put forward only one argument for their belief that the 6d. piece should be abolished. The reason why they have, unfortunately, felt obliged to defend the abolition of the 6d. piece is in many ways accidental. When we debated the original Decimal Currency Act two years ago, the great debate was on the case for the £ system as against the 10s. system. Many of us on this side of the House, although we took no party line, believed that the strong case was for the 10s. system. One of the main reasons why we thought that the 10s. system should be adopted was that, naturally, it would have a 6d. in it. On the other hand, the Government eventually carried the proposal for a £1 system. We are now necessarily bound to that system, and the matter must be debated within that context.
    7.0 p.m.
    At the time when the 1966 Act was going through the House the retention of the 6d. if the £1 system were adopted was not considered seriously. It was used as an argument in the discussion of the merits of one system against another. There is no reason why the 6d. should not be retained with the £1 system.
    Mr. Lubbock: I cannot give the reference, but I remember an occasion on which I argued this case very strongly. I pointed out that if the 6d. were not retained, all the telephone boxes would have to be altered at great expense to the G.P.O.
    Mr. Higgins: That was not the point I was making. I was saying that the argument about the 6d. was tied up with the argument for the 10s. system rather than with the argument that the 6d. could be kept under either system. Although for better or for worse, we have adopted the £1 system, there is no reason why we should, in addition, abolish the 6d. We should come to this with fresh minds, and it is not too late to alter the decision of the House.
    The main argument of the Government has always been based on the experiment which was carried out before the Halsbury Committee reported as a result of which it was asserted that the existence of the 2½ new pence piece in the system would lead to confusion in cash and other transactions. This was on the basis of a small sample in an experiment which was conducted under somewhat artificial conditions.
    A secondary argument of the Government was that there were ideal sequences of denominations, and this argument was spelt out in detail on page 92 of the Halsbury Committee's Report. It was conceded that the 2½ new pence piece—that is to say, the 6d.—could be retained in the system if there were no 2 new pence piece, or, alternatively, that there could be an ideal system under which there was a 2 new pence piece but not a 2½ new pence piece. This concept is somewhat metaphysical, and we must look at the matter from a practical point of view. While a system containing both a 2 new pence piece and a 2½ new pence piece would not fall within this so-called ideal, I do not see why both coins should not be kept for a certain period of time because of the overwhelming advantages which I shall mention later. The Government's case has been largely based on this two-pronged argument, the sample survey and the ideal sequence of denominations.
    I come now to a point which I have not previously referred to. A report of the Bank of England, which is set out on page 234 of the Halsbury Committee's Report, points out that it is possible to include the 6d. in the £1 system. Indeed, this is argued as one reason why the £1 system should be adopted.
    The positive arguments for the retention of the 6d. are fourfold. First, there is the simple argument of the cost of
    1882
    creating the new coinage. By retaining in circulation the existing 6d. and calling it a 2½ new pence piece, the number of coins which it will be necessary to create is substantially reduced because the existing sixpences can continue in circulation.
    Secondly, there is a considerable improvement in what is called associability in the transitional period and beyond. It is obviously easier to change from one system to another, and mental processes will be facilitated, if there are markers; that is to say, new coins similar in shape and size to the old coins. If the 6d. is abolished, only the 2s. piece and the 1s. piece, which will become the 10 new pence and the 5 new pence pieces will act as markers in ordinary transactions. If the 6d. were retained there would be three markers for the ordinary housewives to use as a means of relating one currency to the other. This argument will diminish in importance as time goes by, but it may be that there will still be confusion even at the end of the transitional period, and the retention of the 6d. beyond the end of the transitional period will facilitate this mental process.
    Thirdly, there is the cost of conversion. A great many business machines and slot machines will have to be converted if the 6d. is abolished, whereas if it is retained the costs will be delayed. The machines would wear out and could be gradually replaced as they become due for normal replacement. This would represent an additional saving in real resources. If the 6d. is retained the machines will not have to be converted.
    Fourthly, will the abolition of the 6d. lead to an increase in prices? This seems to me to be the probable outcome. On Second Reading I raised the matter of telephone calls. Some progress has been made on this, and we have had an assurance from the Postmaster-General that machines now being converted will be able to take a coin which is equivalent to less than the present 6d., although the length of the telephone call which it will purchase will be reduced. This is a sensible move on the part of the Postmaster-General. He is from time to time sensible about various matters. It is the minimum charge on such things as telephone calls that is important. We welcome the announcement that the Postmaster-General made some time after this matter was discussed in Committee.

    1883
    It is likely that the cost of items sold through vending machines will be rounded up. Parking meters are likely to become more expensive. If the 6d. is abolished, the minimum charge for parking will tend to rise. Unless the Government are prepared to compensate them, local authorities will have to bear the cost of converting parking meters, and therefore to some extent the increase in charges will reflect an increase in costs which will be brought about because the 6d. has been abolished.
    Those are four simple, straightforward arguments which have to be weighed against the feeble arguments which the Government have almost stumbled on by accident to justify the perpetuation of the decision which they originally took on this issue. I hope that reason will prevail and that the House will agree that the Amendment should be written into the Bill so that the 6d. can be retained until it finally falls into disuse, when the Government can act in the way in which they acted with the farthing.
    Mr. A. H. Macdonald: I rise to oppose the Amendment, and I want to make one or two brief comments about it.
    Right hon. and hon. Members will remember that the Second Reading debate took place fairly late at night. I had the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, but, although I had been minded to make some remarks against the retention of the 6d. piece, so late was the hour that I decided to cut them out and concentrate on other points which I wanted to make. Since then, the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) has said again and again that no one on this side of the House spoke up in defence of the Minister. In view of that, I want to make it clear that I consider that we should not retain the 6d. piece for more than the transitional period provided.
    Throughout my remarks, I shall refer to the coin in question as "the tanner". It will not be six new pence if it is retained.
    I cannot help feeling that this constant hankering after the tanner stems from the feeling of many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite in favour of the 10 bob system. However, I beg them to lift up their eyes from this rather myopic study
    1884
    of the difficulties which will arise during the transitional period and look at the long vista ahead where we are seeking to establish a currency which will last for many years. Surely this should be our common objective.
    In view of that, I believe that we ought to choose the form of currency which will stand up best in the long run. If that is easier during the change-over, well and good. If it is not, certainly we should seek to minimise difficulties during the transitional period, but we should not amend the system of currency in a way which will linger on when that period is over.
    How does the tanner stand in the light of the long-term arguments? I cannot help feeling that there is a good deal of muddled thinking on the part of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. In Committee, I ventured to offer a few remarks against the retention of the tanner. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) immediately said that my arguments were rebuttable, because all that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends were arguing was that the tanner should be retained for a temporary though unspecified period—say three or four years—after the conversion to decimal currency, and then we could look at how things were going and, if it proved useless, it could be abolished conveniently at that stage. Indeed, the hon. Member for Worthing has just said that he does not propose retaining the tanner indefinitely, but merely for a limited period.
    I can understand that, but it is quite irreconcilable with Amendment No. 10, which we are discussing with this Amendment and which proposes to cut out the two new penny piece. I do not see how it can be argued that we want the 2½ new penny piece for a limited period if at the same time it is suggested that we cut out the two new penny piece as well.
    In the new system, we shall have a two new penny piece. Why? How can it be said that we want a 2½ new penny piece as well? To come back to present currency, we shall be having a coin which is equivalent to 5d. It seems odd to argue that we also want one which is equivalent to 6d. If we were to establish a new currency without any reference to anything that we had before, no one would suggest that we should have

    1885
    two coins so close together. Putting the argument in reverse, at present we have a 6d. piece, and no one clamours for a 5d. piece. It seems ridiculous to suggest that we should have the two coins together.
    Turning to another argument against the retention of the tanner, I suggest that the retention of the 2½ new penny piece will diminish the value of the new system that we contemplate. The big disadvantage of the 10 bob system, as I saw it, was that, in the fullness of time, the lowest unit would become of little value. However, under the 10 bob system, it could not be demonetised, because it would be required to give change. We should have to retain this useless coin which would be too small to buy anything. That was the advantage of the £ system. If the time came when we wanted to demonetise the lowest unit, we could do it without difficulty, and it would not be necessary to keep it for change. If, into the £ system, we now insert the tanner which is equivalent to 2½ new pence, I seriously suggest that, when the time comes to demonetise the half new penny piece, we shall not be able to do it because it will still be required to give change for the 2½ new penny piece. So, with respect to the hon. Gentleman's quotation from the Halsbury Report, the 2½ new penny piece will seriously diminish the value of the currency.
    7.15 p.m.
    Mr. John Hall: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how it will be necessary to retain the tanner indefinitely for the purposes of giving change?
    Mr. Macdonald: I am sorry if I did not make it clear. In fact, I was arguing the other way round. I was saying that, if we insert; the tanner, 2½ new pence, into the system proposed, it will be necessary to retain the halfpenny piece. Even though the time may come when we wish to demonetise the halfpenny piece, without such a little coin it will be impossible to give change for the 2½ new penny piece. Therefore, if the Amendment is adopted for the sake of making the transitional period that much easier—even though we shall be keeping the tanner during the transitional period, in any event—we shall be "lumbered" with these two fractional coins.
    1886
    I think that we are in danger of forgetting the whole purpose of the exercise, which is to convert our present system of currency into a decimal system. The existence of a halfpenny piece is a blemish and it would be foolish voluntarily to add another blemish which we do not need to introduce. The halfpenny piece is a regrettable necessity, but we can do away with it. But why voluntarily add another blemish and forget the object of the exercise?
    Even in the short term, I doubt whether the arguments for retaining the tanner are quite as strong as has been supposed. In view of the indefinite nature of the retention advocated by the hon. Member for Worthing, manufacturers of vending machines and other slot machines will be placed in great difficulty. If it is not clear how long, if at all, the tanner is to be retained, when they come to manufacture new machines they will not know what slots to put into them. If it is to be retained for a farily extensive period, it will be a little "dodgy" to introduce slots sufficiently clearly distinguished for customers to know which slot is the appropriate one for the new penny piece and which one is appropriate for another coin. Difficulties are likely to arise.
    The hon. Gentleman advanced as a main plank in his argument the subject of markers. In my view, the retention of the tanner would be the wrong kind of marker. I agree with him that the five and ten new penny pieces will assist people to convert to the new form of coinage. But the advantage of that is that they convert easily to a decimal system. If we retain an additional marker with a fraction attached to it, it will not assist people. Indeed, because there is a fraction, it will present an added difficulty in encouraging them to think in decimals.
    Thinking back to the arguments about telephone boxes and slot machines, I must admit that they are serious and weighty. But how far should we allow them to weigh with us in the long term? In a hundred years' time I trust that this form of currency will be working acceptably. How foolish and silly it would look if we adopted a form of currency that might be less than effective in a hundred years' time simply because it was more convenient to convert to it now.
    I am sure that hon. Members have noticed some of the interesting letters

    1887
    from practical people that have appeared in the last two or three days in the Financial Times pointing out that firms are already undertaking commitments on the assumption that the decimal currency is as set out. I was interested to see a letter the other day from a retailer pointing out that it seems difficult to suppose how the tanner, the 2½ new penny piece, will get into circulation. As the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) pointed out, people go into a shop with their pounds on pay day. If there are to be any halfpenny amounts it is almost certain that the change that the retailer will give will be the half new penny. It is doubtful whether he will give the 2½ new penny in change. If this is so, it is doubtful whether the 2½ new penny piece will come into circulation at all.
    For those reasons, we would be wise to concentrate on the long-term advantages of the system proposed by the Government and to resist the introduction of an extraneous element.
    Mr. John Wells: The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) has castigated hon. Members on this side of the House for apparently hankering for the 10s. system. He says that our argument for retaining the present-day 6d. piece, which he persisted in calling by the inelegant name of the "tanner", seems to show that we are harking back to a system which has already been condemned. But the hon. Gentleman is harking back entirely to this system when he says how inconvenient the new halfpenny piece will be and how inconvenient the present 1d. piece is, because, by implication, he is urging galloping inflation which will abolish the new halfpenny piece and, therefore, enable the pound and the new system to become realistic and reasonable.
    The hon. Gentleman used the phrase, "We are setting up a system of currency which will still be working in a hundred years' time". I believe that we are setting up such an incredibly awkward and inelegant system of currency that it is extremely unlikely that it will be working in a hundred years' time.
    I believe that I may have shown the hon. Gentleman in Committee the humorous medal which has been going around for some time dated 1971 which, on one
    1888
    side, has the figure of a little Britannia, apparently in the likeness of some well-known person, sitting puffing at a pipe and, written round the perimeter, "25 cents or such lesser sum as I may determine". This is precisely indicating that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend puffing at his little pipe are advocating such galloping inflation that this system that they are bringing in —
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We must now come to what the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) inelegantly called the "tanner" Amendment.
    Mr. Wells: I am grateful for your reminder, Mr. Speaker. The point I am leading up to about the tanner is that it should be retained for at least a transitional period, because I believe that this currency which is being set up is likely to be a transitional and ephemeral currency. I do not think that it will last for all these years that lie ahead.
    In Committee the Parliamentary Secretary indicated that the 6d. piece could be dispensed with. One of his arguments was that the "tickey" in South Africa had never really got going. I put the specific question to him but never got an answer then, so I ask it again in the hope that I may get an answer: was the "tickey" ever used as a parking meter or similar currency item? If not, then it naturally disappeared very quickly because there was no demand for it. It may have been used for parking meters, in which case the hon. Gentleman's argument may be valid. However, when he says that the "tickey" was abandoned rapidly and advocates this as an argument for abolishing the 6d. now, I question it. I should like a specific answer on that point.
    The 6d. is used widely in parking meters. Hon. Members coming into the Chamber have been given a hand-out by the R.A.C. about this point. I was given mine only a moment or so ago. I see that a number of local authorities, according to the R.A.C, are already altering their parking charges in view of the proposal to abolish the 6d. I see that Maidstone is among those local authorities. This is news to me. Westminster, Kensington, Chelsea, Maidstone, Camberley, Gosforth, Glasgow and Perth are

    1889
    among the towns and cities which are adjusting their parking charges' on the assumption that the 6d. will be abolished. This seems decidedly inflationary and hostile to the interests of the motorists.
    Mr. Lubbock: Not necessarily.
    Mr. Wells: The hon. Gentleman says "Not necessarily".
    Mr. Lubbock: If they have to use the shilling, they could allow twice as long on parking meters.
    Mr. Wells: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Many people do not want twice as long. We had the same argument when the Post Office abolished the 3d. slot in telephone boxes and said that people could have twice as long for 6d. But, as we heard in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) can send the most loving messages to his wife for 2d. My hon. Friend is obviously a very accomplished married man in this matter. But many people wish to get the minimum time for the minimum unit. Therefore, I believe that the 6d., or the "tanner", could play a very real rôle in parking meters and so on for a long time to come.
    Sir Douglas Glover: The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) talked about getting rid of the new halfpenny, which is the equivalent of our present 1d. Does he not remember —
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It helps the Official Reporters and, indeed, the Chair if hon. Members debate through the Chair at each other and not directly to each other.
    Sir D. Glover: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. Your rebuke is more than justified.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) will realise that the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, ran a great campaign about the outrage of women having to pay 1d. to go through the turnstiles in certain establishments. The hon. Member for Chislehurst says that the new halfpenny should be done away with. A fat lot of use it will be for these ladies going through the various turnstiles to be told that they can have twice as much time but they must pay twice as much!
    Mr. Wells: I do not wish to follow my hon. Friend in this direction at the moment.
    Time and again the Government have propounded the argument—and the hon. Member for Chislehurst deployed it in part this evening—that having a coin which is the odd-man-out of a series is inconvenient for some reason. In our present system there are plenty of odd-men-out. The half-crown is an odd-man-out looked at in one way. Although France and other continental countries have had a metric and kilo system since the time of Napoleon, people still, generally speaking, buy butter by the demi-livre, which has nothing to do with a kilo. Because a unit of conventional trade is an odd-man-out within the Government's concept of tidiness it does not mean that it is necessarily a bad coin. I deprecate this inordinate desire for tidiness. It will do nobody any harm if the 6d. piece is left in circulation for a little longer. It might be of value. It might stem inflation by a little, if only for the motoring public and some of the slot machine vendors.
    7.30 p.m.
    I must repeat a thought which I tried to put to the Government in Committee. Some slot machines work by gravity feed while others work electronically on the fall of a much lighter coin, generally speaking the so-called silver coins. Our current copper coins work machines by gravity. If we are to have the 1 new penny, 2 new penny and 3 new penny pieces, they will probably be of the heavier kind which will work gravity machines. It will be extremely inconvenient if we do not have coins of a single style which can work as weight multiples of each other. I hope that the Government will look at that again.
    Perhaps I might give one example from my specialist sphere, horticulture. In the past year we have had great difficulty in trying to decimalise in the bunching and packaging of flowers into tens instead of dozens. Auctioneers and other salesmen who are in the habit of selling swiftly in the market by the natural mental processes of the buyer are able to do so if things are bunched in dozens, which is the way they like to bid, in sixpences and shillings as we now understand them. I do not doubt that our market salesmen are men of great ability and quickness

    1891
    of mind, but if the 6d. piece is done away with there will be further difficulties in the auctioning and swift selling of units, just as we have had great difficulty in the bunching of flowers in tens.
    I realise that all this may mean nothing to the Government. They do not care about the unwarranted difficulties which they are creating for all these people. If the 6d. piece is left in circulation for an experimental period, and if at the end of that time it is found to have gone out of use, as the "tickey" did in South Africa, I shall be happy to come back and tell the Minister that I was wrong, and that it should be done away with, but tonight I believe that the 6d. piece should be kept.
    Mr. Gwilym Roberts: My hon. and learned Friend will have to produce much stronger arguments than he has done so far if he is to get my support for his attempt to remove the tanner. We accept that this is in many ways a rather lighthearted debate, but, having said that, I must add that an important issue is at stake.
    In replying to a question that I asked the other day the Minister of State said that there were 1,900 million 6d. pieces in circulation, and that his estimate—and it can only be an estimate—of the number of insertions of 6d. pieces into various types of machines was about 11,000 million a year. This means in common or garden terms that every man, woman, and child inserts a 6d. piece into a machine of some kind about 200 times a year, or four times a week. When we note that, we realise that this humble coin plays a very important part in our lives.
    The 6d. piece has considerable advantages. One great advantage—and no one has mentioned this so far—is its weight. It is possible to carry several 6d. pieces in one's pocket without any difficulty. It is used on innumerable occasions—when one wants to make a telephone call, when one wants to park one's car, and, what is extremely important, on the one-man buses. It has not been easy to get these one-man buses into service. There was strong feeling about their introduction, but their operation depends upon people having 6d. pieces to pay their fares.
    It was said in Committee that there might be problems associated with the
    1892
    weight of the new coins. It was also said that the complexities of conversion might be considerable. There is also the real danger that converting old coins into new coins will lead to price increases. I am sure that the House welcomed what the Postmaster-General said about the 2 newpenny piece which is 4·8d. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) said that not everyone requires the same amount of time to make a telephone call, and we therefore welcome what my right hon. Friend said, but there is a danger that in the general context of motoring, travelling on a bus, and other matters for which it will be necessary to do the conversion calculation, great difficulty will arise, and in addition we may find ourselves faced with a price increase.
    Those are some of what I regard as the minor arguments against the removal of the 6d. piece. I believe that the major argument for retaining it is this question of landmarks in our coinage system. Switching over to decimalisation will represent a big change for the bulk of the community. It will bring many trials and heartaches. From the point of view of the housewife and the old-age pensioner collecting his pension, the more familiar coins there are the better it will be.
    I have read the Committee stage reports very carefully. The Minister put the argument that there can be difficulties associated with conversion. I think that he talked about changing 30d. and getting 25 new half-pence. What we have to realise is that for a long time people will think not in terms of the new penny, but in terms of the old one.
    Mr. Macdonald: Nonsense.
    Mr. Roberts: I disagree with my hon. Friend. I maintain that for many years people will think in terms of the old 1d. In the old system, one can make up a simple amount like 9s. 6d. by means of four florins, one shilling and a sixpence, but if there is no equivalent for the sixpence, the individual will be lost.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) said that this was a fractional coin, but that is not a strong argument. One of the first things that one learns in mathematics is that fractions and decimals are basically the same. Every coin is a

    1893
    fraction of something. Despite the arguments in Committee that the half-crown and coins like the 25 cent piece are not fractions, I believe that they are fractions as much as the sixpence.
    I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will put forward stronger arguments. The main argument seems to have been that once sixpences are gone, the machines will be obsolete. But familiarity is a great argument. We must make the change as easy as possible, and this can be done by keeping the traditional sixpenny piece. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will consider what I have said and, even at this late stage, consider accepting the Amendment.
    Sir D. Glover: The Minister of State must be slightly embarrassed, because he has brought back a slaughtered calf with no head and is now trying to do a transplant operation to sew the head on again—
    Mr. Taverne: It has been sewn on.
    Sir D. Glover: But we all know from transplant: operations that that does not mean that it will stay on. I intend to do my best to get some red blood in the carcase to make this work.
    I like the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald), with whose arguments on many subjects I agree, but he seems to be very confused on this matter. By talking about this new currency going on for hundreds of years, he implied that this was the case with our present currency. This is basically true, but during those hundreds of years, a coin which was in common use in the Middle Ages, the groat, has disappeared and a coin which was in common use when I was a boy, the farthing, has also disappeared. No law of the Medes and Persians says that a coin must exist for ever.
    No one on this side wants the Government to give a binding undertaking that the tanner or the shilling will remain for ever, but we want to control inflation and it would be wise to have a 2½d. piece, at least for a transitional period of five or ten years, to save the cost of alteration of vending machines and allow that industry to keep down the cost of parking and, ultimately, the cost of living. I should have thought that the Government would enthusiastically support our campaign.
    1894
    7 45 p.m.
    The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts) years ago fought a delightful campaign against me. I was successful then, but I hope that we can form an alliance and both be successful now. After a good deal of research, he speaks of 11,000 million transactions, or four per person per week. Without the 6d., parking will probably go up to the next coin, the 1s. Those figures which the hon. Member gave, which were announced in reply to a Parliamentary Question, show what will happen for a family of husband, wife and one child. With 12 transactions a week, they will have to find 2s. 6d. a week more to balance their costs.
    Mr. Gwilym Roberts: The facts are even worse, because the figure of 11,000 million was an estimate of insertions into meters and vending machines alone, so the actual number of uses of the 6d. must be much greater.
    Sir D. Glover: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. His contributions in this matter have been weighty and well-informed. But the smallest of my calculations means that the cost of living of that family will rise by 2s. 6d. a week, an important amount of money. I cannot understand the Government resisting the Amendment. We do not say that the 6d. should last for ever. We are trying to avoid the rounding up for commercial gain which will inevitably result in increased costs. The R.A.C. brochure which has been mentioned said that certain councils are already saying that they will alter their parking charges in this regard.
    I accept that, over a period, the normal parking charge will probably rise from 6d. to 1s., but surely this time of financial stringency is not the moment to encourage it, thus creating further inflation and demands for increased incomes. Our job is to make this change with the smallest possible upset; this is the point which the hon. Member for Chislehurst seems to miss. We are prepared to accept that, in five or seven years, because of increased traffic, councils might raise parking charges to 1s. and chocolate bars might legitimately cost 7½d., or, to be exact, 7·2 pence. A great deal of upheaval would be avoided if we retained the 2½d. piece, if only for a time.
    Mr. Macdonald: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that this coin should be kept for a short while, and, that, after that period the matter should be reconsidered. How does he reconcile that argument with Amendment No. 10, which proposes to do away with the two new penny piece? If that were accepted there would be no question of rethinking the matter after a while. One would have to keep the 2½d. piece, which means that it is a little smooth of the hon. Gentleman to suggest the possibility of rethinking the matter in, say, five years' time when one would be stuck with that coin.
    Sir D. Glover: I am not responsible for my brother's thinking. I am speaking to this Amendment. For all the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) knows, I may oppose Amendment No. 10. There is by no means complete unanimity on this matter. I would be prepared to accept an interim period in which we had coins worth 2 new pence and 2½ new pence.
    Mr. Higgins: Perhaps I did not make my argument clear at the outset through trying to be brief. My own perference would be for a sequence of ½ new pence, 1 new pence, 2½ new pence and 5 new pence. This is why several Amendments appear on the Notice Paper. The alternative sequence would be; ½ new pence, 1 new pence, 2 new pence, 2½ new pence and 5 new pence. If the Minister prefers to accept the second sequence I should not insist on pressing the Amendment to eliminate the 2 new pence piece. If the second sequence were adopted, the 6d. might drop out of use quickly, whereas if the first sequence were adopted it might continue in use for many years.
    Sir D. Glover: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for explaining the matter further. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will see that my hon. Friends are not being dogmatic about this. One need only read the OFFICIAL REPORT of our debates in Committee to see that there is not party unanimity on this matter. I am sure that if there were a free vote the House would support the retention of the "tanner" for a given time, for we want to see a smooth changeover.
    I regret to say that whatever views are expressed the Minister will stick to his
    1896
    original argument. I have no doubt that his Ministerial brief has "reject" stamped on it in large red letters. This Amendment is not likely to get far, therefore, despite the overwhelming view of hon. Members who have spoken on this subject.
    In view of the lack of wisdom shown by the Government in other matters, they are unlikely to accept our argument on this occasion. If they have any wisdom they will accept the Amendment because it will give them the flexibility which is necessary in making a change of this kind, and will overcome the difficulty about which we have been speaking.
    Mr. Lubbock: For the sake of tidiness, it is best to avoid fractional coins in a decimal system. My first inclination, therefore, would be to adopt the Minister's point of view and oppose the Amendment. This is one of the difficulties of having a system based on the £ instead of 10s. Had the case which we were making three years ago been accepted by the Government, this problem need not have arisen. Now we must try to design a system which causes the minimum of inconvenience, even if it is not as arithmetically tidy as we would have liked.
    It is obvious that the 6d. piece must be retained during the transitional period, which may last for as long as 18 months, according to the Decimal Currency Board. If the Minister accepted the Amendment he would not be prevented from asking Her Majesty to make a proclamation demonetising the coin at the end of that 18 months' period. In the meantime, he would have additional flexibility. If he found at the end of the transitional period that the 6d. coin was still being demanded on a wide scale by the public, he could extend the transitional period. On the other hand, if he discovered that everything was going swimmingly and that the Decimal Currency Board was happy with the transitional arrangements, the one fly in the ointment, the 6d. piece, could go. The Amendment would give him that little extra flexibility, and he should welcome it.
    Far from going out of fashion, more and more 6d. pieces are being snapped

    1897
    up by the public. On 11th March I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
    "… how many … sixpences … were minted by the Royal Mint in 1968; how many … will be minted in 1969 …"
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury replied in a Written Answer.
    "In 1968 the Royal Mint struck … 76 million sixpences … In the first six months of 1969 the Royal Mint plans to strike … 85 million sixpences."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 255–6.]
    Thus, the Royal Mint takes the view, based on the demands placed on it by the banks, that 6d. pieces are required.
    I discussed this matter of old coinage with officers of the Royal Mint when I visited the Mint the other day. As I saw the number of old-type coins being produced I asked, "How does it come about that, with decimal currency shortly to be introduced, you are producing for circulation so many old coins?" I was told that, to a large extent, the Mint had to work to the demands placed on it by the public, as conveyed through the banks. The result is the number of 6d. pieces being produced in the first half of this year. This indicates that the public require this coin for their daily transactions.
    When we discussed this matter in Committee the Minister said, in effect, that we should not prolong the agony and that, if the 6d. piece is to go out of circulation, we should kill it off quickly. I suggest that the 6d. piece should be kept, although the Minister should, at the same time, inform vending machine manufacturers and local authorities that it is only an interim measure. He should make it clear that, for parking meters and other machines, the 6d. piece will not have an extremely long life and that it would be unwise of them to buy machines designed to take 6d. pieces.
    The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) is lucky to pay only 6d. when he parks his car. I have found in London that the normal charge is 1s., and often 2s. It is unlikely that local authorities have been installing in recent months parking meters that take sixpences. If they were encouraged by the acceptance of this Amendment to go back on the programme of converting to other coins all that the Minister would have to do would be to make clear that he is not pre-judging going back to the use of the 6d.
    8.0 p.m.
    Sir D. Glover: Not all hon. Members present represent London constituencies. I think they would agree that the usual initial charge outside London still is 6d.
    Mr. Lubbock: I accept the hon. Member's word for that. Perhaps they are slightly less inflationary in the Provinces than we are in London.
    At the instigation of the Government, the Decimal Currency Board has been quite inflexible on the matter of compensation. Certain industries will be faced with serious burdens as a result of the abolition of coins now in everyday use. I think particularly of coins which are used to buy sweets and other items at low prices. If we are to force operators of these machines to spend large sums of money unproductively in converting to other coins and if at the same time we are to say to chocolate manufacturers and others that they must design new packets and reorganise the whole of their production lines, there will be very substantial expenditure with no economic benefit whatever to the nation. This will take place at a time when we can ill afford it.
    I am concerned not only with industries which will be penalised but with the general economic situation. The Minister of State should take this into account in deciding what advice to give the House on this Amendment. Very powerful arguments have been put in its favour. It would cost him nothing to accept it, but it would save the country a great deal of money.
    Mr. John Hall: The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has made some very telling points, particularly in drawing attention to the increasing popularity of the "tanner". I want to come back to the main theme which has run throughout the debate, the inflationary effect of dispensing with the tanner. The introduction of decimal currency will tend towards inflation and this would be added to by abolishing the 6d. piece. It is the overriding duty of the Government to avoid anything which leads to inflation. The inflationary argument is one of the strongest in favour of this Amendment.
    The second argument, which has been stressed in various ways by hon. Members, is the capital expenditure involved in converting machines. Will the Minister

    1899
    of State tell us how much it will cost the Post Office, for instance, to convert telephone coin boxes? How much will it cost makers of vending machines who are likely to be affected, including the manufacturers of meters, if the 6d. is removed from the coins of the realm? I imagine that it will be a fairly large capital sum. When we consider the total cost of converting to decimal currency, which was quoted in the White Paper as about £128 million, we see that this will be a burden on the nation at a time when the country cannot afford such a burden. It will not add to any extent to the economic strength of the country. Anything the Government could do at least to defer for a considerable time some part of that expenditure would be welcome.
    In his reply the Minister of State should deal with the removal of the 6d. coin, its effect on inflation, and the cost problem. I think it would avoid considerable cost for a considerable time if the "tanner" were kept. It would avoid making many changes which would have to take place in vending machines of one kind and another.
    Mr. Taverne: I will first dispose of two points with which I do not propose to deal in depth. The first is the question of capital cost, which can be further discussed when we deal with compensation. Second, there is the question of flexibility. That does not affect the merit of the argument because it is perfectly possible for the Government to make a proclamation that the 6d. will not be demonetised but will continue as a coin of 2½ new pence in value. We resist the Amendment because we want to make the position quite clear. Flexibility is there whether or not the Amendment is passed.
    There are two main approaches to this question. There are the long-term approach and the transitional problem. Most of the discussion in the House has been about the transitional problem, but I should say something about the long-term question. It arises because one of the Amendments we are discussing in this group is whether or not the 2 new pence piece should be removed. There are two main fallacies in the argument on the long-term directed towards keeping the 6d. The first is that what is popular in an £s.d. coinage system will
    1900
    be popular in a decimal currency system. This clearly is not so as many experiments have shown and as experience in other countries has shown. Experiments show that the use of a coin which includes a fraction is more difficult to handle than a coin which itself is a fraction like the ½ new penny. It slows down payment and increases the number of errors.
    It has further been shown that in change-giving the 6d. coin or the 2½ new pence coin will not be used in the way in which it is used at the moment. This is not just the view of the Government. It is not just the view of the Halsbury Committee, and not just the view of the experiments carried out by Dr. Sheila Jones. This is something which has been realised by many people in trade. It has been made clear that large stores are planning and training their staff on the basis of giving change not in sixpences but in terms of the 2 new penny coin and the 1 new penny coin and the ½ new penny coin.
    They are doing so because they realise that one cannot train young girls of 16 as effectively in change-giving if they are encouraged to use the 2½ new penny as by proceeding with twos and ones and getting rid of the ½ new penny by adding the individual half penny.
    It was also the experience in other countries that in change-giving, which constitutes 80 per cent. of the transactions carried out in the retail trade, the 2½ new penny coin will not feature. It is a mistake to suppose that the 6d. coin would be popular under the new system in the way in which it is under the old. Most big stores are training their staffs on the basis of ignoring the 6d. even over a long period. No doubt the hon. Member for Ormkirk (Sir D. Glover) noticed a letter in the Financial Times by the Chairman of the Decimal Currency Committee of the Retail Distributors Association pointing out that the arguments for the 6d. are misconceived. He said:
    "Most sectors of retailing are now well advanced with planning for decimalisation, and these plans do not include the use of the 6d. coin.
    "… New methods of change-giving will be taught".
    It was made clear that they did not cater for the 6d.
    Sir D. Glover: All that that argument means is that if I am a retailer and if for two years I have been working on the basis of the Decimal Currency Bill, I have been making my arrangements on that basis and, therefore, I do not want at this late stage to have the machinery altered. That argument does not touch the arguments we have been making about parking meters, slot machines, and so on, because these retailers do not deal with them.
    Mr. Taverne: Of course it does not touch the argument about slot machines. That is a quite different argument, which I shall tackle separately. This is a point of fundamental importance which hon. Members opposite have neglected. In the change-giving process in the new decimal currency the 2½ new penny piece will not be a convenient piece to use and will not be used.
    The second aspect of the long-term argument, which has been neglected by hon. Members opposite, is that it does not follow that a popular pricing system under the old system will be a popular pricing system under the new system. It is possible to arrange a new pricing and packaging system generally which will not be inflationary but which will no longer be based on the old 6d.
    Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I am worried about the point made by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) about packaging. This is a cardinal point. If industry is geared to a present tanner packaging, enormous industrial costs will be involved in moving to a new unit of packaging.
    Mr. Taverne: Of course costs will be involved. No one denies that costs will be involved for industry in changing over to the new decimal system. This has been made clear from the start. But it is totally misconceived to argue that it is impossible to have a new form of pricing and packaging without increasing the cost to the customer. Individual items can be arranged; the pricing and the packaging can be arranged so that in terms of value for money there will be no inflationary effect as a result of the change to the decimal system. We are not discouraging retailers from using the new halfpenny in the pricing of low-priced goods. It is totally false to argue that because things will still be priced in 2½ new pence, for example, we must have a 2½ new pence coin. At the
    1902
    moment, although it is popular to price articles in amounts ending with l1d., it does not follow that we need an eleven penny coin.
    Let me come now to the arguments which mainly prevailed in the debate These were the arguments about the transitional arrangements. There is one point which hon. Members have totally neglected. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) should have paid slightly more regard to this. There is nothing that the Government can do to ensure the popularity of the tanner under the new decimal system. What is absolutely vital in considering what will happen is to consider how cash flows. The reason why sixpences are popular is that sixpences are drawn from the banks by retailers. They are drawn from the banks by retailers because at the moment the sixpence is a very popular way of giving change. There is a net movement of sixpences out of the banks to retailers. There is a net movement from retailers to customers. It is true that sometimes people pay in sixpences, but they receive more sixpences from retailers than they give back to retailers.
    The next part of the flow is that these sixpences then find their way from the pockets of the public into coin-operated machines. There is a net flow from coin-operated machines to the banks. Therefore, the popularity of the sixpence depends basically on the fact that under the £.s.d. system it is a very easy change-giving unit for retailers. Once it ceases to be a popular change-giving unit for retailers, the public will not be able to get their sixpences. The fact that there are now millions of transactions in which the public use sixpences is a reason for making it quite clear that the sixpence will be demonetised, because if coin-operated machines continue to keep their sixpenny coin slot the result will be that there will be masses of machines which are still ready to take the sixpence but there will be no sixpences that people can put into the machines.
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. Lubbock: If the Minister of State is so absolutely certain that after D-day the sixpence will cease to be a popular coin, why did he allow the Royal Mint to produce 85 million of them in the first six months of last year, at a cost to the taxpayer of £140,000?
    Mr. Taverne: The reason why sixpences are produced at the moment is that sixpences are in great demand. It is the duty of the Mint to meet the demand that the public puts forward. When there is no longer a demand, when the public will not be getting the sixpences because the retail trade will no longer be providing sixpences to the public, then the supply of sixpences for the public to be put into coin-operated machines will dry up. The Mint must meet the demand. The demand will cease to exist far more rapidly than hon. Members realise or even imagine during the transitional period. This was found to be the case in South Africa with the "tickey". South Africa said,"Let us keep the ' tickey ', because it is a popular coin". Then it found, contrary to its expectation, that because a coin which includes a fraction is not a convenient coin for change-giving, the "tickey"proved to be far less popular than was imagined. There is one difference between South Africa and this country —
    Mr. Lubbock: Only one?
    Mr. Taverne: I must correct that at once and say, "as far as the ' tickey ' and the sixpence are concerned ".
    The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) asked whether the "tickey" was widely used for coin-operated machines in South Africa. The answer is, "No". The result is that, where it is not used for coin-operated machines, the "tickey" will stay in circulation much longer than the sixpence will in this country, because it is the coin-operated machines that remove the sixpences from circulation, that supply the sixpences to the banks, where the net flow is from the coin-operated machines to the banks. Therefore, it will be a far faster process of removing the sixpences in circulation in Britain than ever happened in South Africa with the "tickey". If retailers are not drawing out sixpences, they are quickly removed from the public by coin-operated machines. Sixpences will not be drawn out by retailers. Therefore, there is more likely to be a rapid removal of the sixpence than there ever was with the "tickey".
    Sir D. Glover: I have a good deal of knowledge of the retail trade. I think
    1904
    the Minister of State is on a very dangerous argument. What he is saying is that prices in the shops will alter, because if prices in the shops do not alter a purchaser will get the same amount back in change. If I want to buy something which was 19s. 6d. before decimal currency and which should be 19s. 6d. after the change-over to decimal currency, I want a coin back which will give me the same change out of my £1 note as I got before decimalisation. If I do not get it, it means that the price has risen.
    Mr. Taverne: What the hon. Gentleman is totally unable to do is to transfer in his imagination from an £ s. d. system to a decimal system. He is still arguing that because in the £ s. d. system the 6d. is a popular coin in change-giving, therefore it must remain one in the decimal system. This is what the South African experience shows to be untrue.
    The fact is that there is nothing that the Government can do to stop the 6d. from going out of circulation. What would be the result if we were to accede to the arguments which have been advanced tonight and were to say, "We will see whether or not the sixpence proves to be unpopular"? The result would be likely to be confusion and frustration and a bringing of discredit on to the new decimal currency system. What would happen would be that the 6d. would go out of circulation; machine operators might be encouraged to wait and see and not to convert their machines; the machines would still be there waiting for the sixpences, but the public would no longer have the sixpences in their pockets. That is what would result if we were to encourage the 6d. to remain after the transitional period. It is absolutely essential, for the effective transition and the smallest possible dislocation, an object which we all share, to make it quite clear that the 6d. will be demonetised, to ensure that the trade and the machine operators have a firm basis on which to plan, and to see that the transition takes place as rapidly as possible.
    It is then said that even if those arguments are true there is nevertheless bound to be an inflationary effect as far as the machines are concerned. It is very important to look at what the machine position is. There are about 1·7 million machines operated by sixpences. The

    1905
    largest single group, which consists of television meters, totals just over 600,000. They are fitted to ensure that the rent or hire-purchase payment is available when due, and the excess is returned to the user when the meter is emptied. If these meters use different coins for a different time there is no reason why that should or need be inflationary.
    The second largest group, about 300,000, consists of amusement and gaming machines—mainly fruit machines, pin tables and juke boxes. Stakes and winnings can be increased commen-surately, as can the amount of time sold; so there is no need for an increase in the cost of living.
    The next largest group is telephone call boxes. As my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General has announced the intention is to change them so that the minimum fee will become 2 new pence, and, again, there is no reason why this should be inflationary. Indeed, taking the arguments advanced by some hon. Members opposite, this could have the opposite effect. It is rightly said by some that in certain cases the time can be adjusted. One may not necessarily want the extra time. I will not say what will happen if a smaller unit is used as the basic unit, as the 2 new pence unit will be, because I cannot predict. It is possible to adjust the time downwards, and those who wish to speak for only half a minute or a few seconds can do so at a smaller cost than they did before.
    The next largest group of meters is gas and electricity meters, mostly electricity. In all, there are about 10 million gas and electricity meters, of which about 100,000, or 1 per cent., take sixpences. They are being changed to operate on shillings, and the amount of gas or electricity supplied can be changed as well; so again there is no reason for there to be any inflation.
    One comes down in the end to parking meters, where one could make adjustments to ensure, if one wished, that there was no inflation with smaller coins. I cannot anticipate what local authorities will
    do. Apparently some are changing to higher coins; many were doing so in any event. The hon. Member for Orpington made a perfectly good point about parking meters.
    There is a point on the 100,000 machines selling chocolate and confectionery. But many of these now sell shilling bars for two sixpences, and there is no reason for any inflation here, because a 5 new pence piece can be inserted where two sixpences are inserted now, although one will no longer have a 6d. to put in. The amount of chocolate one gets for a shilling is more than double the amount one gets for 6d. The 6d. bar of chocolate is becoming rarer, and it is possible that a change might have to be made in any event.
    There are 100,000 machines selling aspirins and indigestion tablets. These can be converted to take 5 new pence or 2 new pence coins and the number of tablets can be varied proportionately.
    Looking at the vast majority of machines which will have to be adapted, I see no reason to suppose that the change need bring about any general inflation of prices.
    The main fact is that the sixpenny piece is a convenient coin in the old system, and that the 2½ new pence unit will not be a convenient coin in the decimal system. Whatever the House says about this will not affect the practice, the flow of money, the machine transactions and the change-giving transactions in the shops, because they will be carried out differently in the future. Whatever one would like to do with machines, if we encourage the hope that the 6d. will remain we make planning more difficult, are likely to lead to the frustration of the public and are not likely to achieve the easy transition the whole House wishes to achieve.
    Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 80, Noes 102.

    Division No. 135.1

    AYES

    [8.24 p.m.

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Buck, Antony (Colchester)

    Dance, James

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

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Dean, Paul

    Biffen, John

    Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

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

    Body, Richard

    Costain, A. P.

    Emery, Peter

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Crouch, David

    Eyre, Reginald

    Brown, Sir Edwsrd (Bath)

    Dalkeith, Earl or

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Fortescue, Tim

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Foster, Sir John

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Sharples, Richard

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Lubbock, Eric

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

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

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

    Grant, Anthony

    Maddan, Martin

    Smith, John (London & W'minster)

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Miwby, Ray

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Grieve, Percy

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Temple, John M.

    Gurden, Harold

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

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Monro, Hector

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Hawkins, Paul

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Waddington, David

    Hay, John

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Hill, J. E. B.

    Percival, Ian

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Holland, Philip

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Prior, J M. L.

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Hornby, Richard

    Pym, Francis

    Worsley, Marcus

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Rawtinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Kimball, Marcus

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Mr. Jasper More.

    NOES

    Anderson, Donald

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    O'Malley, Brian

    Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

    Howie, W.

    Oswald, Thomas

    Atkins. Ronald (Preston, N.)

    Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

    Owen, Will (Morpeth)

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Hunter, Adam

    Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

    Beaney, Alan

    Hynd, John

    Palmer, Arthur

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham)

    Pentland, Norman

    Booth, Albert

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

    Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

    Bradley, Tom

    Loughlin, Charles

    Randall, Harry

    Buchan, Norman

    Luard, Evan

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Cant, R. B.

    Lyon, Alexander W. (Cork)

    Rodgers, William (Stockton)

    Chapman, Donald

    McCann, John

    Roebuck, Roy

    Concannon, J. D.

    MacColl, James

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Macdonald, A. H.

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Dalyell, Tam

    Maclennan, Robert

    Ryan, John

    Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Davies, Ifor (Govwer)

    Manor, Peter (Preston, S.)

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

    Manuel, Archie

    Skeffington, Arthur

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

    Marks, Kenneth

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Ellis, John

    Marquand, David

    Taverne, Dick

    English, Michael

    Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Tinn, James

    Ensor, David

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Tuck, Raphael

    Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

    Mendelson, J. J,

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

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

    Mikardo, Ian

    Wallace, George

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Millan, Bruce

    Weitzman, David

    Fowler, Gerry

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Wellbeloved, James

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Molloy, William

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Moonman, Eric

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Winnick, David

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Morris, John (Aberavon)

    Hamling, William

    Moyle, Roland

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Newens, Stan

    Mr. Joseph Harper and

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

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

    Mr Neil McBride.

    Hazell, Bert

    Clause added to the Bill.

  Clause 2

    CONVERSION OF REFERENCES TO SHILLINGS AND PENCE IN CERTAIN INSTRUMENTS
    Mr. Taverne: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, leave out lines 17 to 20 and insert:
    (g) any document not mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs which is intended to enable a person to obtain through a banker payment of any sum mentioned in the document.
    This Amendment provides statutory cover for the conversion of pounds and new pence on the basis of the whole new
    penny table of all old coinage instruments of payment drawn, issued or made before decimal day which are passed through the bank clearing system and not specifically covered in paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (3). As the Bill stands, it provides that the Treasury can make an Order that certain instruments specified by this Clause shall also be covered.
    I explained in Committee that we did not know all the instruments that might have to be covered and therefore wished to have some such general power. I was asked why we did not know, and could we not find out? I said that I would make inquiries. Inquiries have been made and one of the clearing banks has

    1909
    provided a list of 140 organisations which issue documents presented through the clearing system and drawn upon itself. The list is by no means comprehensive. Even a controlled analysis of items lasting three months would not provide a fully comprehensive list, since it would not take in instruments drawn infrequently and at irregular intervals.
    This is a comprehensive Clause. It would obviously be undesirable to place the burden of finding all these instruments on the banks, who have enough to do. Further, it would obviously be undesirable to specify all 140-plus instruments in the Bill. Instead, this general umbrella has been provided, which I hope the House will find acceptable.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 3

    CONVERSION OF BANK BALANCES
    Mr. Lubbock: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 22, after ' bank', insert ' or a building society'.
    This Amendment arises out of a point made by the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) in Committee when he referred to the position of the building societies, and asked the Minister of State whether they were included in the definition. The Minister made it quite clear that they were not. He outlined the reasons for the Clause as it then stood in relation to the banks. He said:
    "The Clause does not specifically state who will make the conversion, but this is not necessary. The banks will do so, and they are entitled to do so, and that is the end of the matter. It is true the awkward customer may then say to the banks, ' I did not like what you did,' but the bank will say, ' We were entitled to do so end we have done so '."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 4th March, 1969; c. 150.]
    This Clause is to take account of the awkward customer, as the Minister puts it, who objects to the conversion of the balance which was expressed in terms of the existing denomination, into decimal coinage immediately after D-day.
    As the Minister has made clear, the banks are the ony organisations actually empowered to convert on D-day. The rest of the organisations which have balances would be covered under Clause 8, which does not take effect until the
    1910
    end of the transitional period. I put it to the House that the building societies should be given the same power as is conferred on the banks, because of the very large number of deposits which they have to operate. I am informed by the building societies that on the date of conversion there will be something like 14 million accounts of investors and borrowers, which might be affected by this Amendment. Although there may be other organisations which might have wished to have the same power, the building societies are the biggest single group affected in this way.
    I understand that the Building Societies Association has recommended to members that they should take advantage of the closure period allowed in the Bill which would be on Thursday and Friday, 11th and 12th February, 1971, so that they can make their own arrangements. This would be very convenient, because there will not only be two days during the working week when the banks will be closed but, if the transition could not be completed then, if necessary, additional overtime could be worked on the Saturday and Sunday. There would then be four days within which clerical and administrative operations connected with the change-over could be completed. In the case of the largest building society, there would be as many as 1,750,000 accounts. There are many smaller societies who will need this period. There will not be another opportunity because on no occasion will the banks actually be shut for two days.
    They will be as equally likely to have awkward customers as will the banks and they want to co-operate with the Government and effect the change-over as quickly as possible. If the Minister thinks that this conflicts with the argument we had on the previous Amendment, it could be qualified by adding the proviso that it should be for the convenience of the public. What I am suggesting is very much in the interest of the public. Indeed, the Government White Paper itself (Cmnd. 3889) says in paragraph 19:
    "It is desirable to keep the changeover period as short as possible".
    Surely, therefore, the Government ought to encourage organisations like building societies that are prepared to do this to put the changes into action immediately following Decimal day, 1971.

    1911
    The building societies wrote to the Treasury on this point and received a reply yesterday, so that I am afraid very little time has been available in which to study it. It would have been helpful if there could have been a rather more prompt reply. The building societies wrote to the Treasury on 18th February and the reply has only just been received. I am not complaining so much of that, but the Treasury letter explains why the banks are given this special provision and no other organisations are brought into the Clause. Frankly, after reading it, I cannot say that the argument stands up.
    Where the Treasury says that under Clause 12 bills of exchange, which include cheques and promissory notes, will be invalid if they are drawn in shillings and pence from D-day onwards it is helping the case I am putting; because, as all cheques going into the building societies are to be drawn in the new amounts, would it not be convenient if, at the same time, the balances are converted? I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to accept this Amendment which, although it is not of very fundamental importance, would put the building societies in a position to make the change after D-day with peace of mind knowing, like the banks, that they will not have to suffer the possibility of receiving a comeback from awkward customers.
    Mr. Taverne: The Amendment has to be judged against the background of what is happening; and what will be happening is that during the transitional period both the old and new currencies will be legal tender. If this is so it is very difficult for the Government to say unilaterally that, in general, people may decide they will accept payment in only one particular form. If both forms of payment are legal tender then it seems reasonable to say that people should be entitled to pay in old currency if they wish to do so.
    This is the general question which first has to be considered by the Government. Certainly, there will be nothing to stop people converting accounts into decimal form during the period; and in general the Government expect that those who pay amounts to organisations that have converted, or receive amounts from such organisations, will be prepared to do so
    1912
    in decimal currency in accordance with the table. But as a matter of law we feel that people should be allowed, if they wish, still to pay in the old currency.
    The one exception to this is the exception in the case of banks provided under the Bill. The reason for that is that there will be no change-over period at all for the banks, because after decimal day bills of exchange and promissory notes will be invalid if they are drawn in shillings and pence after that day. In the case of the banks, therefore, an exception had to be made. The hon. Gentleman has tried to argue the case for building societies and I would not argue that there is no case. But in practice 80 per cent. of payments to building societies are made by cheques on banks, so that there is no doubt they will be made in decimal currency form. But the difficulty of the Amendment is that it is very difficult to reconcile it with the first principle I announced, that people should still be free, in general, to pay in old coins if they wish to do so during the transitional period. If we drew the line at the building societies, it would be difficult to stop there. Why should we do it with the building societies and not with insurance companies? Why not do it with hire-purchase companies? Exactly the same considerations arise with them.
    Mr. Lubbock: Not quite. I said that the building societies had 14 million accounts. The insurance companies do not have deposits and loans on this scale.
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. Taverne: Some payments may be made through building societies, but a tremendous number of payments are through insurance companies. It would be very hard not to give this right to the insurance companies if it were given to the building societies. I should not like to say how many payments are made through hire-purchase companies, but they must run into millions. It would be hard to deny this right to them. If we did not draw the line at the banks, we would be abandoning the general principle.
    Therefore, with some regret, I must ask the House not to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.

  Clause 14

    MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS
    Mr. Taverne: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 12, line 20, at end insert:
    (6A) In the case of cupro-nickel coins of the denomination of fifty new pence issued for use before the appointed day as current coins of the denomination of ten shillings by virtue of section 2(4) of the Decimal Currency Act 1967, section 1 of the Coinage Act, 1946 (cupro-nickel coins to be legal tender for payments up to forty shillings) shall apply as if the reference to an amount not exceeding forty shillings were a reference to an amount not exceeding ten pounds.
    This Amendment is consequential on the new form of Clause 1. Under the new Clause 1, it was provided that the legal tender limit for the new 50 new pence piece should be £5 instead of £2. This Amendment simply provides that this should also apply from the moment that the new coin is introduced, which will be 14th October this year.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 16

    REPEAL OF S.(5)(1)(d) OF DECIMAL CURRENCY ACT 1967, AND OTHER REPEALS.
    Mr. Higgins: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 13, line 16, leave out subsection (1).
    The purpose of Clause 16 is to remove from the Decimal Currency Board the obligation which it had under the earlier Decimal Currency Act to receive representations about compensation. There is entire agreement between the Minister of State and myself about the decision reached after the original Decimal Currency Act—that there should be no system of general compensation. None the less, it is not right at this stage in the proceedings to allow the Board to suggest to the Government, and for the Government to accept, that the Board should cease to receive any representations on this subject.
    The argument put forward by the Minister of State in Committee was not reasonable. It has been agreed that there should be no system of general compensation. If the Board continues to
    1914
    receive representations, it may receive a case in which it is justified in making an exception and compensation should be pa1d. If that is so, there may be other similar cases. While we accept that a system of general compensation is not justified, individual firms or organisations may be able to show that they have suffered and that the Government should pay them compensation.
    The Minister of State accepted in Committee that this question should not be decided by whether Government expenditure would be involved. I hope that we shall not hear it said, "The Opposition are pressing for more Government expenditure". This is most certainly not what we are doing. We are saying that in the Decimal Currency Act the Government accepted an obligation to consider the payment of compensation if a case can be made out. The Government have accepted this potential obligation to expend money, and the Decimal Currency Board ought not at this stage to give up its duty in this respect.
    Since the Decimal Currency Act came into force the Decimal Currency Board has set out criteria against which it said that it would judge applications for compensation. It is debatable whether the Board made clear whether these were necessary and sufficient criteria, or whether they were necessary but not sufficient criteria. The impression of industry in general was that, if the criteria announced by the Decimal Currency Board were satisfied, this would mean that there was a reasonable case which could be discussed further by the Board and passed on to the Government. These criteria having been set up, and many firms having apparently met all the criteria, the Decimal Currency Board, instead of pursuing the matter in greater detail with those firms, has carried the matter no further, and has suggested that the obligation to consider further applications should be removed from the Board.
    As a result of the decision which the House has taken this evening on the 6d., it is clear that many firms will incur additional costs which would not have been incurred had the 6d. been retained. There is, therefore, a case for saying that the Board should continue to receive representations from those affected by the

    1915
    decision to abolish the 6d. There may be cases of a special nature which will emerge only between now and the beginning of the transitional period, or between now and the end of the transitional period. For the Decimal Currency Board to ask the Government to relieve it of its responsibility now is quite unjustified. For that reason, I hope that the House will support the Amendment.
    Mr. John Hall: Most of the arguments on this Amendment have already been deployed in Standing Committee on a similar Amendment which I moved, so I shall be brief.
    The debate on the original Decimal Currency Act was in June, 1967, when the Treasury spokesman said that there was to be no general compensation but, nevertheless, special cases could be considered and were to be referred to the Decimal Currency Board for investigation to see whether there was a case for compensation which it could recommend to the Government.
    It was accepted in Standing Committee that the objections that certain people and associations might have had to the introduction of the decimalisation system and to the decision of the Government not to have a general scheme of compensation were to some extent met by the promise that special cases would be treated fairly and justly by the Decimal Currency Board, which could recommend compensation. Therefore, the objections which might have been pressed still further and more strongly from both sides of the House on behalf of people likely to be affected seriously by the changeover to a decimal system were not pressed to the extent that they might have been.
    After considering all the evidence from a number of associations, the Decimal Currency Board found that it was necessary to draw up certain criteria which had to be met by any person or organisation seeking compensation. The Automatic Vending Machine Association of Britain which was affected by this wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer protesting at the dismissal of its representations by the Decimal Currency Board. In the course of its letter dated 13 th September, 1968, addressed to the Chancellor,
    1916
    it said that the impression created with the Association was that
    "… no claim, no matter how morally justified, shall be permitted to succeed, and leaves us with little doubt that references in the Government White Paper and in the Act to ' special circumstances' compensation has no substance and that there was never, at any time, any intention to pay compensation no matter how justified."
    Understandably, the Chancellor reacted strongly to that accusation of bad faith and, in his reply dated 16th October, 1968, he said:
    "You are completely mistaken if you suppose that the Government have approached this question of compensation otherwise than in good faith."
    Then we come to the next stage, when the Decimal Currency Board asked to be relieved of responsibility for deciding these special cases for compensation, and it recommended that no compensation be paid at any time. That must leave the impression in the minds of those likely to be seriously affected by this decision that they have been led up the garden path and have been the victims of bad faith on the part of the Government.
    If one examines the criteria established by the Decimal Currency Board, one finds that the first one is:
    "they must be necessarily and directly incurred as a result of decimalisation and would not otherwise have been incurred".
    In the case of the Automatic Vending Association of Britain, there is no doubt that the costs would not be incurred but for decimalisation.
    The second criterion is:
    "they must be clearly identifiable and measurable".
    That, too, is very easy to do in a case of this kind.
    The third criterion is:
    "the must be manifestly disproportionate, after taking into account all tax allowances, both to the costs incurred generally by organisations and to the benefits deriving from the changeover ".
    That, again, presents no problem.
    The fourth criterion is:
    "they must be for the conversion or replacement of machines purchased before 14th July, 1967".
    That, too, could easily be done.
    The only one which might be difficult to meet is the fifth and last which says:
    "they must extend so far beyond the normal financial fluctuations and hazards of business

    1917
    that they cannot be readily absorbed in normal operating costs ".
    That is capable of such wide and general interpretation that it is difficult to imagine any organisation which could meet it if it was the intention of the Decimal Currency Board not to allow it to meet it.
    The Decimal Currency Board having created the criteria, it seems very odd that it should find itself unable to adjudicate on cases brought to it. Unless the Amendment is accepted, in my view the Government will remain accused of bad faith in this matter.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Taverne: The Government approached this question with a certain amount of regret. At the start, we had an open mind on the issue of compensation. As the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) conceded, we ruled out any general scheme of compensation. But we asked the Decimal Currency Board to look at the possibility of a special scheme of compensation, and it was charged with examining whether it could recommend such a scheme in special cases. It was not always to be the exceptional case which was to be the subject of a scheme, if any. The hon. Member for Worthing said that there was an obligation on the Government to pay compensation in exceptional cases. This is not so.
    Mr. Higgins: It was not my intention to give that impression. In fact, I do not think I d1d. I said that there was an obligation on the Board to receive representations, and I thought that would be reasonable.
    Mr. Taverne: Indeed, there was a statutory obligation. I apologise if I did not hear the hon. Gentleman aright.
    I should make it clear that there was never any obligation on the Government to give compensation to anyone. We said that the Decimal Currency Board was to receive these representations to see whether it could recommend a scheme, but it was also made clear that it was possible that it could recommend no scheme and that it should recommend that there should be no compensation for anyone. This was made clear in the original White Paper which said:
    "If it can be shown to the Decimal Currency Board … that there are grounds for… assistance in special cases the Government will
    1918
    consider any recommendations the Board may care to make. But such cases, if there are any at all, will be exceptional."
    I mentioned in Committee, but it is important to repeat it to the House as a whole, that during the debates in Standing Committee on 2nd May, 1967—the debate on the former Decimal Currency Bill—the then Financial Secretary said specifically at column 232 that it was possible that the Board would recommend no compensation.
    The hon. Member for Worthing is right in saying that the issue is not one of Government expenditure. Indeed, it is with reluctance that the Government have accepted the advice of the Decimal Currency Board that a special scheme was not feasible. We would have liked a special scheme, but when the Board said that it could not draw up a fair one which could be properly administered, reluctantly we had to accept its advice.
    It was the Board's duty to receive representations, and it did receive them. It was the right body to examine the problem. It was an extremely experienced body, and it went into the matter in very great detail. It found by the summer that none of the representations which it had received justified a special scheme, it is not that some of these representations did not make out a strong case for a particular industry or firm; it was impossible, on the basis of the representations, to see what a scheme would look like. For that reason, the Board published criteria, first, to remove doubts about the minimum that would be required and, second, to help it to decide whether representations could be such as to justify a special scheme.
    The difficulty throughout has been one to which I feel hon. Members opposite have not given due weight. It is not that a good case cannot be made out for, say, vending machines. If there was a good case for vending machines, it was impossible to establish any criteria by which we could distinguish vending machines from amusement machines. If a good case could be made out for amusement machines, it was impossible to draw a line and draw up a scheme which would include amusement machines but would clearly establish principles by which it would not apply to cash registers. Whichever way we looked at it, it was not a shortage of facts which led the Board to

    1919
    the conclusion that a scheme was not feasible. Indeed it went into a great many facts. It had a large number of representations and it made the most detailed investigations. It was not the absence of facts which led to this conclusion; it was the basic insolubility of the problem. The Board realised how insoluble the problem of working out a fair scheme was only after it had looked at all the representations it was asked to examine.
    If the hon. Member for Worthing asks the House to say that it should look at further representations and examine further facts, he fails to meet the point that however many more facts we look at we still cannot arrive at a scheme which can fairly, without anomalies and inequities between one class and another or between one firm and another, say that some under the scheme are entitled to compensation and others are not.
    In a sense, the argument between hon. Members and myself has been at cross purposes. They have said that case A or case B is a deserving one, and in a way I am not disputing that. What I am saying is, If a scheme is allowed for case A and case B, you must show me a principle on which I can distinguish them from case C and case D ". The Board has not been able to find such
    a principle, and no one has been able to suggest one. In those circumstances, with reluctance, we felt it necessary to accept the Board's advice and to concede, with regret, that we could no longer place on it the burden of receiving representations which cannot solve this basic problem.
    Mr. John Hall: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, he was kind enough in an earlier debate to say that my point about the capital cost of, for example, converting the coin-operated Post Office telephone boxes would be better raised in this debate. Can he now give me the figures for which I then asked?
    Mr. Taverne: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Gentleman exact figures. I have made inquiries, and I understand that the estimates of the cost of, for example, the conversion and adaptation which will be necessary for the 6d. coin machines have varied widely from £3½ million to £10 million. A figure somewhere between the two may be the right one, but I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the exact cost for telephone call boxes. It is the only help I can give him.
    Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 76, Noes 91.

    Division No. 136.]

    AYES

    [9.06 p.m.

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Pym, Francis

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

    Hawkins, Paul

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Biffen, John

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Boardman, Tom (Lelcester, S. W.)

    Hill, J. E. B.

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Body, Richard

    Holland, Philip

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Hornby, Richard

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Buck, Antony (Colchester)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Sharples, Richard

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

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

    Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

    Kimball, Marcus

    Smith, John (London & W'minster)

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nalrn)

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Temple, John M.

    Costain, A. P.

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Dean, Paul

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Drayson, G. B.

    Lubbock, Eric

    Waddington, David

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

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Emery, Peter

    Maddan, Martin

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Eyre, Reginald

    Mawby, Ray

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Fortescue, Tim

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

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Foster, Sir John

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Worsley, Marcus

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Grant, Anthony

    Pardoe, John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Percival, Ian

    Mr. Jasper Moore and

    Grieve, Percy

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Mr. Hector Monro.

    Gurdtn, Harold

    Prior, J. M. L.

    NOES

    Anderson, Donald

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    O'Malley, Brian

    Ashton, Jos (Bassetlaw)

    Hazell, Bert

    Oswald, Thomas

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

    Hooley, Frank

    Owen, Will (Morpeth)

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Howie, W.

    Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

    Palmer Arthur

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Hunter, Adam

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Hynd, John

    Pentland, Norman

    Booth, Albert

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

    Bradley, Tom

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Randall, Harry

    Buchan, Norman

    Loughlin, Charles

    Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

    Cant, R. B.

    Luard, Evan

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Chapman, Donald

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Roebuck, Roy

    Concannon, J. D,

    McCann, John

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Crawshaw, IRichard

    MacColl, James

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Macdonald, A. H.

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Taverne, Dick

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

    Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

    Tinn, James

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

    Ellis, John

    Manuel, Archie

    Tuck, Raphael

    English, Michael

    Marks, Kenneth

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

    Ensor, David

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Wallace, George

    Evans, Gwynfor (C'roarthsn)

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Weitzman, David

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

    Mikardo, Ian

    Wellbeloved, James

    Faulds, Andrew

    Millan, Bruce

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Molloy, William

    Whitaker, Ben

    Fowler, Gerry

    Moonman, Eric

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Winnick, David

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Morris, John (Aberavon)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Newens, Stan

    Mr. Neil McBride and

    Harper, Joseph

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

    Dr. M. S. Miller.

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Clause 18

    SHORT TITLE, CITATION AND COMMENCEMENT
    Amendment made: No. 8, in page 4, line 11, leave out 'and (5)' and insert '(5) and (6A)'.—[Mr. Taverne.]
    9.16 p.m.
    Mr. Taverne: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    The Bill has been mainly concerned with the changeover period and with the vital rôle, which will emerge more and more in the period before decimal day arrives, of the Decimal Currency Board. At this stage I will restrict my remarks to the plans of the Board.
    It is essential for everyone to realise that D-day is less than two years ahead. It is necessary for each and every organisation affected by the change to make detailed plans. The Decimal Currency Board will be concentrating this year on the retailer and doing its best to ensure that retailers understand what decimalisation involves.
    Towards the end of 1970 the Board will turn its efforts towards its publicity campaign for the benefit of the public. The Board believes, I consider rightly, that it would be a mistake to mount its largest campaign too soon.
    1922
    Although hon. Members may not be concerned with the Bill after today, we can all play a part in our constituencies in helping people to understand what this historic change in the currency system means. Publicity is vital in this matter. The knowledge of the public is equally vital and retailers should, therefore, make their plans in good time.
    9.18 p.m.
    Mr. Higgins: The House in general will agree that it is to be hoped that the purpose of the Bill, which is to facilitate the process of decimalisation will not result in the transition causing difficulty and that the transition will take place as smoothly as possible. That must be agreed, whatever one's views about the type of coinage or process of decimalisation. Whether or not the change-over is smooth will depend to a considerable extent on the way in which business men and others most affected by the change plan ahead and get their plans going at as early a date as possible.
    The Minister will appreciate, because we have debated this matter at length both in Committee and on the Floor of the House, that my hon. Friends and I are not entirely happy with the Bill as it stands. One point has come to my attention recently.

    1923
    Earlier, the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the conversion of certain machines, such as chocolate machines, saying that they would be delivering larger bars which would, in future, be paid for under this Bill and under the Act by the new 5 penny coin, the equivalent of the present 1s. coin. But I understand that many of those who are trying to convert their machines already—and I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that the earlier conversion takes place the better—are finding that an adequate supply of the present 1s. coin or of the new 5 penny coin is not available. Consequently, while they are increasing the size of the items they are selling to double or thereabouts, they are having to put in machines which take two of the present sixpences. If that is so, they are incurring even more expense than they would otherwise need to do.
    Now that the Bill has reached Third Reading and will, no doubt, soon pass through its further stages, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will ensure an adequate supply of coins of the new denominations in the period leading up to the transitional period as well as in the transitional period itself and beyond. This is an item which has not so far been covered by the Decimal Currency Board. I hope that it will now do so and that the period of transition will be smooth.
    9.21 p.m.
    Mr. Taverne: Perhaps, by leave of the House, I can now reply to the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). I take note of what he has sa1d. As I understand it, it is not the absence of adequate supplies of these coins so far as the Mint is concerned that is the difficulty, but the real difficulty is the one I was trying to convince him of earlier, which is that how far a coin is popular depends on how far people like to use it and not on the bank supply.
    The Is. coin has always suffered difficulty in that it has not been a popular change-giving coin and has not found its way into circulation quite as rapidly as most people have wished. Hence the need often to change to two sixpenny coin-taking machines rather than shilling ones. We shall certainly look into the point.
    1924
    Before closing, I should like to thank the hon. Member for Worthing and his colleagues, in particular the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott)—who I understand is ill—and also my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Mac-donald) for the assistance they have given throughout our discussion. They have made great contributions to the general discussion of the Bill, which is an important part of the transition itself.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

LAND COMMISSION
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Miller.]
9.24 p.m.
Mr. Paul Hawkins: Hon. Members may ask why we are to have another debate on the Land Commission when we have already had three during the past week or so. My reply is, first, that it is an hon. Member's duty to take all steps to prevent hardship "being done to his constituents and to draw that hardship to the notice of the House; second, that, to date, Ministerial replies have been wholly unsatisfactory; and, third, that I was granted the Adjournment for Friday, 7th March, but it was later suggested that I might be out of order and, therefore, I should not proceed.
However, on 13th March the Table Office wrote to me as follows:
"It has, however, since become clear that the Minister himself, by making an order under s. 63 of the existing Act, can direct that no levy be charged in certain specified circumstances. Orders of this nature do not count, for purposes of an adjournment debate, as legislation, and it would therefore be quite proper to use your half-hour to press the Minister to make such an order."
I am here tonight to press the Minister to make that Order and other Regulations, as he has the power to do.
I read the report of the debate on 21st March. Later I was encouraged by Press reports at the weekend. I had hoped that this debate would be unnecessary. I was shocked by the Minister's reply to the debate on 25th March. The weekend stories in the newspapers, although written by reputable reporters attached

1925
to the House and others, were denied. No sympathy or feeling was shown for the hardships which were disclosed in the debate. It appeared to me, I am sorry to say, that the Minister was completely out of touch with the feeling in the country—which is strong—and devoid of any sympathy for those suffering hardship and distress.
Thus, I was even more determined to press on with this debate. I hope I may say that I am not usually one who merely raises matters to score party points. I feel sick at the lack of concern shown about these cases of worried young and old people with little money who are hounded—this is the only way to express it in certain cases—by the Land Commission because the Minister will not make Section 63 Orders exempting small cases.
I hope we do not have to wait until a suicide or a breakdown in health. The Minister responsible should know better than most the real possibility of a breakdown in health or a suicide from the worry caused by some of these cases. I hope that the Minister will take action before anything like that happens. A few of the right words tonight and these thousands of people will be relieved of the anxiety which I shall show they are suffering when I come to the cases which have been brought to my notice. If these words are not spoken tonight, I warn the Minister that scores of hon. Members will hammer away at this point until justice is done.
I wish to refer to particular cases which have been brought to my notice. I have referred most of these cases to the Land Commission. I can give full details to the Minister later, if he wishes.
The first case concerns a widow, a Mrs. Wigley. She wrote me in these terms on 22nd January:
"Dear Sir, I have been advised to write to you about my problem. Five years ago when my late husband and I retired we spent all our savings on this cottage where I am now living and have now been a widow for two years and have nothing, only my pension to live on. Eighteen months ago I was offered £150 for a piece of my garden, which I readily accepted. This I received last March. Time "—
I think she must mean "by the time"—
"I had paid solicitors' fees and had my cottage repaired which it was badly in need of I have now received a letter from the Land Commission demanding £45 12s. to be paid back to the Government within one month,
1926
but I have nothing left. This is causing me a great deal of worry and distress, and I should be grateful if you have any solution to this problem."
That is a typical case of many hundreds throughout the country.
My second case concerns a gift of land. Again, there have been many hundreds of such cases. The gift was to a Mr. Sapey from a Mr. Hewitt, who wrote to me on 22nd February. I shall read just the relevant extracts from his letter. He wrote:
"I would like if I may to draw your attention to an iniquitous and tyrannical case so far as the Land Commission is concerned over a piece of land which I have passed on to my good friend John Sapey by Deed of Gift for him to build a bungalow for himself in order to live nearer to his people. This is now about half completed, he being his own contractor,"—
Mr. Hewitt adds an explanatory note that Mr. Sapey is not a builder by trade but an employee of Watney Mann, the brewery firm—
"doing some of the work in his spare time, the rest put out to sub-contractors. He is faced with a payment to the Land Commission of approximately £250. The enclosed demand is shown as £296, but he has got this reduced to £250. … He just has not got the money to pay the demand of the Land Commission, and to add insult to injury they are charging him 1s. 1d. per day interest.
Case No. 3 is somewhat different. I mention it to show the completely un sympathetic method adopted in certain cases to collect the levy. My constituent, then living in Northamptonshire, sold his share of a cattle hauliers business to his partner, a lady, because of ill-health. He retired to Norfolk and bought a bungalow with all his spare cash. His partner has not yet been able to pay him his share, due to the credit squeeze and other matters. The Land Com missioner's office in Nottingham has now written to him asking for payment of £2,388 4s. due only on 31st December last year on some part of that transaction, which we do not dispute. I would like the Minister to pay attention to the wording of the letter, remembering that it was written on 14th March, that the betterment levy did not become due until 31st December, and that already interest —
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): To try to get the matter cleared up, am I right in thinking that this is not a case

1927
that the hon. Gentleman has notified to my office?
Mr. Hawkins: I have not. It came to my notice only during the past few days.
The betterment levy was due only on 31st December, and yet a letter was written only 2½ months later, by which time interest of £31 12s. had accrued in these terms:
"Dear Sir,
Despite previous applications for the above, I have not yet been advised that payment has been made. Accordingy, I must give you final notice that, unless settlement is made within seven days, the matter will be placed with the solicitors with a view to Court action for recovery of the levy and interest due, with costs.
"Will you please note that your liability to interest is now accruing at the rate of 9s. 1d. per day. Any remittance, which should include the full amount due (i.e. levy plus interest due to the date of despatch), should be sent to…
"No further communication will be sent to you from this office."
That is a very harsh way to write to somebody who has not yet received from his partner a half-share of the proceeds of the sale and literally does not have to money to pay. Interest is mounting at a rate of £150 or £160 per annum. This is a completely wrong way to write to retired people. One can understand the anxiety and distress which it has brought to my constituents. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will not condone this, but it shows how these cases can build up to immense distress to individuals.
Case No. 4 is another familiar one, that of a young couple given a bit of land by an aunt. The young lady wrote to me:
"My aunt has recently given my fiance and me a piece of land on which to build a bungalow. I enclose for your interest a copy of a letter together with enclosure, which I have received from the Land Commission.
"As you can imagine we need all the money we can get to enable us to build the bungalow, buy furniture etc. and we do not feel it is right that we should have to pay £136 0s. 0d. for no apparent reason."
I have details of several other cases, some too complicated for me to understand, but enough has been said in this and other debates to show that these relatively small cases—small in total amount due to the Land Commission, but not small in number—which cause the greatest hardship are much more than the 3 per cent. of the total which the Minister referred to in a previous debate.
1928
I wrote the the Minister on 12th March, saying, among other things:
"I have several cases of considerable hardship under the Land Commission Act where single plot owners with very little money are being pressed for payments of some considerable sums … I have however read in he papers recently of a statement made by Mr. Willey who piloted the Land Commission Act through the House that (1) interest can be waived and (2) that the Land Commission had power to defer payment of levy.
"I shall be very grateful if you can let me know whether this is the case and whether you will be issuing instructions to the Land Commission on these points. In the meantime I have told my constituents who are involved not to pay anything until the matter is clarified. I trust you will be able to do this fairly soon."
The Minister for Planning and Land replied on 26th March:
"Under the provisions of Section 45(2) of the Land Commission Act, the Commission have power however, where they think the circumstances warrant it, to inform the levy payer that they are prepared to postpone collection or are prepared to collect the levy by instalments or that they are prepared to agree to an arrangement which combines both these facilities."
What does "postpone" mean here? Can it be left until death and collected from the deceased's estate where elderly people are involved? This is about the only way, very often, in which this sum can be pa1d. I hope that in these cases waiver of interest could also be made.
The Minister concluded in this letter, of which I think that the Parliamentary Secretary has a copy:
"As you will see from the note, the postponement of levy is to be offered in those cases to which the Betterment Levy (Waiver of Interest) Regulations, 1967, apply. These are cases in which the benefit of the development comprised in the project under Case C is not immediately available and to collect levy forthwith might result in hardship to the person charged to levy. It would not be possible to extend the arrangements to waive interest to cover other cases "—
and here is the relevant phrase—
"without a further set of Regulations under Section 51(4) of the Act."
Why should not a further set of regulations be made to cover these extra cases?
It seems that the conclusions from these debates are these. First, on 25th March the Minister admitted that there are cases of hardship. He said:
"I have never denied that there are cases of hardship—never from the start."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1969; Vol. 780, c. 1343.]

1929
Second, I am convinced, with my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) who spoke in an earlier debate, that the vast majority of the money collected by the Land Commission has come from small amounts, from small people who feel the hardship the most. Third, it is stated by many authorities—the Table Office in its letter to me; the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), in his article in The Times; and my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page)—that an Order under Section 63 could be made now by the Minister. This would relieve, by a de minimis provision, all those hardship cases which we have discussed.
Again, in his letter to me of 26th March, the Minister admits that a further set of regulations under Section 51(4) could be made to cover the waiver of interest in cases other than those previously covered.
So we have this position. Hardship is admitted by the Minister, and it is admitted that it is within the power of the Government to relieve that hardship and anxiety at once by announcing that they intend to issue the necessary Order under Section 63 and Regulations under Section 51(4). The Minister of Planning and Land has a last chance to do this now. I hope that he will because his previous remarks were out of character.
I feel sure that if the Parliamentary Secretary had been allowed to he would have liked to have given way. As it is, he is repeating "No, no, no" like that well-known character from Moscow, it may well be that the fault, as was the case with the Price Review, lies with the Chancellor and perhaps the Prime Minister. If so, let him say so and resign. I do not ask him to go into any details if he does not want to do so. All he has to do is to say whether he will issue these Orders and Regulations so that justice may be done and thousands freed as from tonight from anxiety.
9.43 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) has raised several interesting cases, and I should like to make comments upon two of them. I have not been
1930
given notice of the others. I do not complain of that, because some may have come in late, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman has already been in touch with the regional offices. These cases, although apparently simple, can often be quite complex, and it is necessary to have all the facts before giving a helpful reply.
I know that the hon. Gentleman will not take it amiss or think that I am criticising him for raising this matter, but I am a little regretful that so much attention has recently been concentrated on this type of case—not that I do not want to see injustice put right, if it exists, and remedies applied. Because of this intense concentration, almost to the exclusion of everything else, the major purposes of the Land Commission Act and the Land Commission have tended to be obscured
Lieutenant-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: The hon. Gentleman says that a great deal of attention has been paid to hardship cases. Surely it is the purpose, perhaps even the duty, of hon. Members, to draw attention to such cases. If we did not do so, we would be avoiding our natural duty.
Mr. Skeffington: The hon. and gallant Gentleman could not have been listening to me. I said that it was the duty of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West to do that. I also said that I was sorry that there had been exclusive concentration on hardship because the whole purpose of what I regard as an essential reform in dealing with land has tended to be obscured and the Commission and those who serve it with devotion and loyalty have been painted in some quarters as being extremely oppressive in the way they operate the machinery. This is unfortunate because it is unjust and un fair.
I applaud what the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West has done, but the exclusive concentration, particularly in the Press, on this side of the matter has created an impression which is false and which in the long run is not in the interests of those who are seriously trying to find a method of solving the very difficult problem of betterment and land acquisition. The hon. Gentleman said that he was not anxious to score party points. Nor am I. Governments have been baffled by the problem of how to deal with the enhanced value of land

1931
due, in most cases, not to anything which the owner of the land has done, but simply to the activities of society and its ever-increasing demand for land for housing development, schools, roads and all the other things which go to make a civilised society.
It is therefore important, even in the context of the cases which the hon. Gentleman has raised, that we should realise the major purposes of the Commission in attempting to deal with the problem of betterment and the acquisition of land on a comprehensive scale. If there were no objective and major social purpose there might be no point in having a levy and acquisition in the way in which the machinery of the Land Commission works. It is therefore necessary to look at these cases in the context of the operation of the Commission and the Act.
I shall say very little about acquisition because that is not so material to the cases which the hon. Gentleman has raised. The question of how to deal with the sudden creation of great wealth which is sometimes provided merely by a planning application is two-pronged: what can one do in the individual case, and how can one deal with cases collectively on behalf of society? Many people, including Professor Alan Day and an ex-Member of the House who was of the hon. Gentleman's profession, feel that some central organisation is necessary if land is to be available comprehensively where it is wanted, with a form of acquisition wider than that of any local authority, to meet the tremendous demand for housing and all the things which go with it.
It has been said that if we are to maintain a sufficient rate of house building to cater for the needs of people marrying younger and the growing population, which will perhaps be another 20 million by the end of the century, we need the equivalent of a new Bristol every year to accommodate 400,000 people, or a new town to accommodate 60,000 or 70,000 people every six or seven weeks. It is for this reason that many people feel that a central agency is necessary.
The Land Commission has been a long time getting off the ground. The Act
1932
may be complicated, but so are the English land laws and the interests with which we have to deal. No land system in Europe is equal to ours in the various interests which have legal recognition. Wide concessions were made in the early stages, so that it was not expected in the first few years that the acquisition programme would be a large one. This is peripheral, although it has to be taken into account in considering individual cases.
The crucial issue is how society in general deals with the sudden creation of great wealth which is not due to action taken by landowners. The classical case is that of an acre of agricultural land worth £200 or £300 which, upon planning permission being given for the erection of a petrol station, for example, becomes overnight worth perhaps £40,000. It is the view of the public that this enhanced value which is brought about by the needs of the society should not go to an individual. Various solutions have been suggested, from the advocacy of a simple tax on site values to the solution adopted by the Government. I had thought that this view was generally accepted, but if there is disagreement on this I should like to know. I was under the impression that this policy was broadly agreed by both political parties. Although methods may differ, I have understood from speeches which have been made in the past that even the Conservative Party would not be opposed to a moderate tax or levy upon land which benefits from planning permission.
Mr. Hawkins: I cannot, as a back bencher, speak for my party, but I agree largely with what the Minister has sa1d. He said that he would speak about the larger aims of the Land Commission, but he has not yet done so. Speaking as a professional chartered surveyor, I wholly disagree that this policy has kept down the price of land; on the contrary, I am convinced that the workings of the Land Commission have increased the price of building land.
Mr. Skeffington: This is an argument to which I have not yet addressed myself. I am prepared to do so if the hon. Gentleman thinks it will be helpful to the House. Evidence from all parts of the country gives considerable support to the view that the operations of the Land

1933
Commission have not added to the price of land because of the law of diminishing returns. People buy land for speculative building—or perhaps I should say for private enterprise building—but there is a limit to the amount which they will pay and to the amount which people will pay to buy the houses.
This is a controlling factor, quite apart from the fact, as I believe, that the greater the scale of the activities of the Land Commission, the more moderating its influence will be. I should like to see the Commission getting into its stride as rapidly as possible and helping to provide land for the 40,000 houses a year which are required in the Home Counties. I believe that it can do that, very much to the assistance of the local authorities.
Though there may be disagreement on individual cases, I think it is agreed that there is a case in society for taking, in at any rate a category of cases, some of the new value which land acquires when it gets the benefit of planning permission. The method chosen by the Government is the betterment levy at 40 per cent. which, in view of suggestions that it should be 70 per cent. or even higher, is a very moderate level in the kind of case which it is intended broadly to cover. I am sure that there will be no disagreement in the House about that, though I am not sure that the Country Landowners' Association will agree with me. Certainly sections of public opinion agree that it is right.
Then I move on to the question of how the levy is to be applied and what one does in cases of very much smaller amounts where the kind of problem emerges which the hon. Gentleman has described tonight.
I must begin by pointing out that there are a number of exceptions which have been of great benefit in that no levy has been imposed. In the course of last Friday's Adjournment debate, the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) referred to a speech which I had made about an exemption after the publication of the White Paper but well before the publication of the Bill. I imagine that he thought that there was some inconsistency between what I said in answer to a question and what the position really is. Indeed, when I heard that the hon. Gentleman intended to raise the
1934
matter, I thought that I had given a hostage to fortune, particularly as the question had been raised at a public meeting and one sometimes does not carry all the relevant details in one's head. However, I hope that on that occasion I adopted a more precise attitude than one hon. Member who has been the subject of a recent inquiry by an all-party Committee of this House.
I was asked by a local councillor whether a plot of land next to a building would escape levy. I replied that, if someone who owned the land wished to use it for themselves or, say, for their son and daughter, there would be no levy. But, if it were sold to a builder as a business deal, it would then be levied. I am glad to say that that is correct. It was one of the great exceptions. If land were held for a single dwelling house for the owner or his son or daughter, it would escape levy.
That was the first of the concessions. It was a very valuable one, and it would have been quite wrong to penalise people who, well in advance of the White Paper, had procured some additional land either for retirement or by way of a gift for a son or daughter on marriage.
Lieutenant-Commander Maydon: If the land in question in the case which he has mentioned was sold to a son or daughter, would the same thing apply? Would there be no levy payable?
Mr. Skeffington: Provided that the conditions are satisfied, it would turn on whether the transaction was notifiable to the Inland Revenue. Once we get into the realm of a notifiable transaction, it might be affected. I should have to know all the circumstances —
It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McCann.]
Mr. Skeffington: This was the first concession, and I think it was an important one.
In view of the other cases which have been put forward, it is right to draw attention to another concession of considerable importance. That is what I might call, for want of a better term.

1935
the 10 per cent. tolerance in relation to dwelling houses. In these cases, if there is either rebuilding or expansion of an existing house, provided that the extension or rebuilding is not greater than 10 per cent. of the original area or 1,000 sq. ft., whichever is greater, it does not need a planning certificate and it escapes levy. This is a considerable concession or exemption. The 1,000 sq. ft. is an area as great as many of the houses being built by local authorities at the end of the war. It is right that this should be put on record to weigh against the other cases. It is not that one right justifies what the hon. Gentleman thinks is wrong. This is so that the public can see the picture as a whole.
On conversions, not more than three adjacent buildings can be converted to any number of separate dwellings without attracting levy. There are similar concessions relating to industrial expansion which are beneficial. In the case of industrial expansion the levy does not become payable, even if the extension is beyond this figure, until there is a sale. Therefore, the fears which some hon. Members and members of the public had about this being a deterrent to industrial expansion have not taken place.
There is then the waiver of interest regulations or the postponement of levy. This applies in a number of cases which are controlled by Section 45 of the Land Commission Act. I will not weary the House with the details, unless I am pressed. In these cases the collection of the levy in whole or in part can be postponed to a date that may be determined. This period is at the discretion of the Commission. I think that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point. This is a very important instrument which the Commission can use and, so far as I know, does use sympathetically in the discharge of its duties.
Mr. Hawkins: In other words, so far as the Minister can say, there is no reason why the Land Commission should not postpone payment of levy until death occurs.
Mr. Skeffington: I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to look at Section 45(2) to see where this concession applies and how it operates. I am not trying to be evasive, but this is rather complex. We
1936
must consider that categories of cases are set out here and in the appropriate regulations which have to be read in conjunction with the various cases, A, B, C, D, E and F. The hon. Gentleman will realise that if I went further than that in answer I might give a misleading impression, which I do not wish to do.
The hon. Gentleman referred to hundreds of cases. I hope that the figures given about cases will be treated with caution and responsibility. I am not saying that if there is one case of hardship, particularly if it ought not to have arisen, it is justified, but I have looked at many of the cases that we have received. My impression—and I shall know more about this in due course—is that this is not nearly so widespread as has been suggested. If there is one case which has caused hardship it is to be regretted, but one must get the matter into perspective, and it is my job to try to do that tonight.
About 80,000 transactions a year will be notified to the Commission through the Inland Revenue. It is not a heavy bureaucratic operation because an additional copy of the form which has had to be completed in any case since, I think, 1931, simply goes to the Commission. In the overwhelming number of cases there is no levy. The form is examined and passed on. It is a matter of a few minutes' scrutiny, if no question of levy arises.
It is worthwhile putting on record that since we have had these Adjournment debates, and since there has been a campaign in the Press, a number of people have thought that if they sold any sort of house it would attract levy. This is not so. It is only where a question of betterment value in excess of the 10 per cent. tolerance to which I have referred arises that levy may become payable. In the ordinary sale of a house at its existing value no betterment value arises, and so no levy is pa1d. In the overwhelming number of the 80,000 cases there will be no levy. I am happy to put that on record, because the whole position may get very much out of perspective if it is thought that the contrary is the case.
I have been surprised in a number of cases that I have seen to find that those who could have taken advantage of

1937
skilled advice, and of many of the provisions to which I have referred, either did not do so, or did not carry out the correct procedure. They started building operations before the due date. They did not take advantage of the simple matter of notifying the Commission in time. I am sorry about this, because I am sure that it was not due to anyone's malevolence, and I hope that it is not thought to be due to anything that the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources, and now the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has done, because we conducted the best campaign that we could. We issued advertisements, and about one million leaflets. We issued booklets specially designed for property owners and estate agents. We issued a more technical book to those who had to deal with the subject. We did everything we could, and it is to be regretted that in some cases, although professional advice was available on quite simple points—I am not talking about the intricacies under A, B, C, D, E and F—mistakes were made. I very much regret that that was the case.
Mr. Hawkins Mr. Hawkins rose—
Mr. Speaker: Interventions prolong speeches.
Mr. Hawkins: I wish to query what the Minister has said about the number of cases of hardship which come forward. I mentioned hundreds of cases. As I have had seven cases in one constituency, I believe that over the next few months several hundreds, if not thousands, of cases will come forward.
Mr. Skeffington: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be a little cautious about this. A number of cases which have come to us have not been cases in which there has been hardship of the kind that he has alleged, but cases of people who have not wanted to pay the levy, and I understand that. Nobody wants to pay any kind of tax. Nobody wants to pay rates. Not all of the instances that come to our notice have an element of hardship, or an element which, after consideration., would make society say no levy should be pa1d. The analysis so far—and I agree that it is not complete—is not such as to lead me to think that this is perhaps more widespread than I believe it is.
1938
The hon. Gentleman referred specifically to two cases about which I have made some inquiries. He mentioned two more about which I have no details, although I know that he has been accurate in what he has said and they may well be with the Commission now. If he cares to send me details, I will look at those cases and, if I can, make helpful comments.
The first case he mentioned about which I have a note concerns Mrs. Wigley. He described it well and accurately. The Controller for the region where this case arose said that if Mrs. Wigley wished for help she should inform the regional office about certain details. She was sent a questionnaire for that purpose so that the Commission could be informed of the facts, and consider whether help could be given, either under the Act or through some kind of discretion.
Mrs. Wigley replied that the matter was being dealt with by the hon. Gentleman. He has been a notable advocate on her behalf. But I hope he will accept that the information which he has passed to the Land Commission was its first proper information about Mrs. Wigley's circumstances. Even if he had not intervened on her behalf, she would have been asked for those details, and on the basis of her replies the Commission would have considered how it could help her. I have had cases of this kind, as have other hon. Members, and perhaps I may emphasise that, if hon. Members get in touch with the regional controllers, they will always find them extremely helpful in suggesting ways in which cases can be tackled. They give a good deal of advice.
I understand that the payment in Mrs. Wigley's case is about £45 and that it should be possible to make the payments by instalments over a period which, I hope, will be neither oppressive nor unfair. However, I will keep a fatherly eye, as it were, on the case, although I have no doubt that the Land Commission will deal with it adequately and properly.
In the case of Mr. Norris, I understand that he offered his bungalow for sale and a purchaser agreed to pay the price.
Mr. Hawkins: I did not mention Mr. Norris. His is not one of the cases I mentioned, although I have it in my file.
Mr. Skeffington: I mentioned it because it was one of those which I understood the hon. Gentleman wished me to deal with.
Mr. Hawkins: I did not say so.
Mr. Skeffington: Then I will not weary the House with details. Perhaps my office was wrongly informed but I was informed that this was one of the cases he wanted me to deal with tonight.
Mr. Hawkins: I did not mention it.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us not argue about cases we are not arguing about.
Mr. Skeffington: I have been into the case. There was some dispute as to whether levy was due and, as I have explained, levy becomes due if there is a difference between existing use value and the value of the property with a planning permission. This was the sort of case where the seller did not get planning permission but someone else did, and the price of sale was equal to the market price with planning permission, so levy became due.
I will look into the other two cases mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I do not have details of them. I hope that what I have said puts the matter into perspective. A number of concessions have been made in this matter. A vast number of transactions go forward without difficulty and I do not think that it is true, from what I know of the operations of the Land Commission, that it desires to be or is oppressive. We welcome details of any cases where this is thought to be so, and I assure the House that they will be carefully looked into.
I hope that the background details which I have given will help to put this matter into perspective. I will only add that the kind of cases which hon. Members have raised are being examined so that we may assess precisely what the position is.
10.16 p.m.
Lieut-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: The Minister's remarks lacked precision and clarity, particularly when he spoke about parents who wish to dispose of small pieces of land to their children. I should like a definite answer about the position of parents who sell, for a peppercorn price or even for the
1940
valuation price, a small plot to a son or daughter who may wish to build on it. Are such parents and children expected to pay betterment levy?
10.17 p.m.
Mr. Richard Body: My hon. Friends and I recognise that the Parliamentary Secretary is one of the few masters of the complexity of the Land Commission Act. We regret that there are not more hon. Gentlemen opposite to give him some support, for we note that he sits by himself on the benches opposite.
We do not understand why the simple mechanism of Capital Gains Tax could not be applied to those who derive any financial gain from betterment. We recognise that if planning permission enhances enormously the value of a plot of land, as it may do, the community is entitled to extract some tax or levy from those who have had that windfall. So far, however, the Government have not explained why the simple mechanism of Capital Gains Tax should not be applied.
Instead, the Government have created this edifice of a Land Commission, which is costing the taxpayer millions of £s with very little return. In so doing, they are causing great anxiety and distress to many people with small plots of land or with gardens which are larger than they really need and who wish, particularly when they are getting old and are seeking some supplement to their retirement pensions, to derive a small financial benefit from that holding.
It is all very well for the Government to say that people in this predicament can go to the regional offices of the Land Commission and have their cases sympathetically examined. That may be so, but it is harsh to expect people who are living humble and ordinary lives to incur that sort of trouble.
Hundreds, if not thousands, of people with small plots of land—perhaps of half an acre or a little more—on which their own homes may be sited and who feel that they can sell off a small part of the plot to a relative or neighbour, so enabling them to have an extra few hundred £s, do not realise that they will suffer by being charged betterment levy.
Thanks to the Press—we applaud the way in which the newspapers have taken

1941
up these cases—many people are beginning to realise the dangers they run. It is astonishing that we should have set up this great edifice of a Land Commission when Capital Gains Tax would have done the job perfectly well. After all, the Government sought to hit the speculative owner of a sizeable amount of land with the advantage of planning permission and, thus, a windfall. It was right that he should pay some tax, but why should we have this cumbrous procedure—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot in an Adjournment debate abolish the Land Commission, even if the hon. Gentleman wishes to. We can talk about matters of administration such as other hon. Members talked about in the main debate on this subject this week.
Mr. Body: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Having sat on the Standing Committee for so long, I have acquired a certain hatred for the Land Commission Act.
The Government have not said why, in all these cases, the simple mechanism of Capital Gains Tax could not have been applied instead.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is doing what I asked him not to do. We cannot substitute Capital Gains Tax for the betterment levy in this Adjournment debate. There are other opportunities for doing so in Parliament, but not tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Ten o'clock.

ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Immigration (Economic Effect)
  Immigration (Economic Effect)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Resources
  Resources
  Exports
  Exports
  Investment
  Investment
  Trade Account
  Trade Account
  Regional Employment Premium
  Regional Employment Premium
  North-East Lancashire
  North-East Lancashire
  Output Growth
  Output Growth
  Brown Baily Limited (Take-over)
  Brown Baily Limited (Take-over)
  Private Consumption
  Private Consumption
  Consultation with Industry
  Consultation with Industry
  Overseas Investments
  Overseas Investments
  Development Strategy
  Development Strategy
  Grey Areas
  Grey Areas
  Humberside
  Humberside
  South-Western Region
  South-Western Region
  Absenteeism and Holiday Trends
  Absenteeism and Holiday Trends
  Imports
  Imports
  Hunt Committee's Report
  Hunt Committee's Report
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Broughshane
  Broughshane
  Automatic Telephone Exchange, Rothlin Island
  Automatic Telephone Exchange, Rothlin Island
POST OFFICE
  Mail Deliveries
  Mail Deliveries
  Special Stamps
  Special Stamps
  Rural Area and Sub-Post Offices
  Rural Area and Sub-Post Offices
  Departmental Advertising (Scotland)
  Departmental Advertising (Scotland)
  Command Paper (Publication)
  Command Paper (Publication)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  I.T.A. Mast, Emley Moor (Collapse)
  I.T.A. Mast, Emley Moor (Collapse)
WALES
  Prince of Wales (Investiture)
  Prince of Wales (Investiture)
  Reservoir Schemes
  Reservoir Schemes
  Plasnewydd Clearance Order
  Plasnewydd Clearance Order
  M4 (Early Warning Lighting)
  M4 (Early Warning Lighting)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Manuscripts, Documents and Archives (Export)
  Manuscripts, Documents and Archives (Export)
  Art Exports (Reviewing Committee)
  Art Exports (Reviewing Committee)
  Alexandra Palace (Great Organ)
  Alexandra Palace (Great Organ)
  Comprehensive Reorganisation
  Comprehensive Reorganisation
  Arts Council (Staff)
  Arts Council (Staff)
  Public Libraries (Borrowers)
  Public Libraries (Borrowers)
  Religious Education
  Religious Education
  Chemistry Teachers
  Chemistry Teachers
  Child Guidance Clinics (Wirral)
  Child Guidance Clinics (Wirral)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prison Governors
  Prison Governors
  Assizes (Shrewsbury, Stafford and Worcester)
  Assizes (Shrewsbury, Stafford and Worcester)
  Racecourse Betting Levy Board (Chairman's Salary)
  Racecourse Betting Levy Board (Chairman's Salary)
  Fires (Cause and Prevention)
  Fires (Cause and Prevention)
  Cars (Lighted Signs)
  Cars (Lighted Signs)
  Metropolitan Policemen (Press Photographs)
  Metropolitan Policemen (Press Photographs)
  Members' Correspondence
  Members' Correspondence
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Prices and Incomes Policy
  Prices and Incomes Policy
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Far East Defence (Meeting)
  Far East Defence (Meeting)
  Blue Streak Project
  Blue Streak Project
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Building Societies (Interest Rates)
  Building Societies (Interest Rates)
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Married Couples (Taxation)
  Married Couples (Taxation)
  Earned Income (Taxation)
  Earned Income (Taxation)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Car Plant (North-East)
  Car Plant (North-East)
  Wreck, Thames Estuary
  Wreck, Thames Estuary
  Ford Motor Company, Dagenham
  Ford Motor Company, Dagenham
  South Africa (Scottish Exports)
  South Africa (Scottish Exports)
  Wool and Man-made Fibres (International Trade Agreement)
  Wool and Man-made Fibres (International Trade Agreement)
AVIATION
  Aircraft Accident (Manchester Airport)
  Aircraft Accident (Manchester Airport)
  Training Flights
  Training Flights
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Newspaper Advertisement
  Newspaper Advertisement
  Property, Camberley
  Property, Camberley
  OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT
  OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT
TECHNOLOGY
  Aircraft Establishments, Bedford
  Aircraft Establishments, Bedford
TRANSPORT
  Pallet Pool
  Pallet Pool
  Railway Stations (Parking Charges)
  Railway Stations (Parking Charges)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Census Test
  Census Test
  Hardship Pension Allowance (Mr. G. Coles)
  Hardship Pension Allowance (Mr. G. Coles)
  Health Visitors (Training)
  Health Visitors (Training)
  Mongol Births
  Mongol Births
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agriculture and Horticulture (Advisory Councils)
  Agriculture and Horticulture (Advisory Councils)
SCOTLAND
  Social Work Department
  Social Work Department
  Secondary Schools (Construction)
  Secondary Schools (Construction)
  Social Work (Scotland) Act, 1968 (Regulations)
  Social Work (Scotland) Act, 1968 (Regulations)
  Development Strategy
  Development Strategy
COAL
  Stocks
  Stocks
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Tip Safety (Report)
  Tip Safety (Report)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.
The Earl of Airlie—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

LONDON (HEATHROW) AIRPORT RAIL LINK
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what programme has now been made for the building of the rail link between London and Heathrow Airport.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, no programme has yet been settled for the building of a rail link between London and Heathrow Airport. Following, a recommendation of the Transport Co-ordinating Council for London in 1967, detailed plans are being worked out by British Rail in conjunction with other interested bodies for the construction both of the line itself, most of which is along existing track, and of the terminals at either end, to establish accurately the economics of the project. Agreement has yet to be reached between the parties about the finances of the link and certain related matters, and these are being looked into by my right honourable friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Transport.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply may I ask whether he can advise us how soon a decision is expected, or how soon the discussions will come to fruition? Could the noble Lord advise us, also, whether in view of the increasing road congestion to London Airport, the
1358
Government are satisfied that the present coach service will continue to be able to give an adequate service.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I will take the second part first. This issue arises because of the doubts about the continued adequacy of the coach service. As to when a decision can be reached, there are, as I have said, a number of interests involved—British Railways, the British Airports Authority and the airlines—and it is not surprising that it is rather difficult to get them all to agree on the same solution. But I can assure noble Lords that the Government are well aware of the urgency of the matter, and we have brought pressure to bear on the parties to put forward an agreed scheme as quickly as they can.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, could my noble friend say whether any further progress has been made in connection with connecting the West London terminal at Gloucester Road with the Underground there? This proposal has been put forward over a long period of time, and it has always been turned down on the ground of expense. But in view of the fact that the Underground runs, as it were, beneath the terminal at Gloucester Road, it would seem that there is an outstanding case for a link-up between the terminal and the Underground system.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I indicated the difficulty in getting agreement. My noble friend puts his finger on one of those difficulties. What B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. would wish in relation to Gloucester Road is not necessarily the same as other people wish in connection with Victoria.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us whether consideration has been given to having an overhead railway, whereby passengers could embark in the middle of London and be delivered, I understand, to the door of the aircraft, without the necessity of having to go through various stations on the way?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I can appreciate that the right reverend Prelate is more interested in things above ground than below ground. My advisers have not carried me that distance, I am afraid.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, was one of the factors for this examination the arrival, as I believe, of the large new airliners at Heathrow next year? Could the noble Lord tell us whether Heathrow without a rail link will have the capacity to deal with the arrival of these large new planes, and what the prospect is of meeting the incidence of these large numbers of passengers all arriving at one time?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, that question goes a little beyond the Question that was put down, but I understand that the answer to the first part, about the capacity of Heathrow, is, Yes. This, however, is merely another of the factors, added to the continual natural growth of air services, which are making the question of access from the airport to London a matter of ever-increasing urgency.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that the longer the decision is delayed, the more expensive will any solution be?
LORD HUGHES: Undoubtedly, it will, my Lords. That is why the Government are pressing the urgency. But we have more than one indication that when Governments attempt to force solutions on unwilling people it does not add to speed.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, if and when agreement is reached as to the massive new proposal for this rail link, any estimate has been made as to the length of time the work will actually take?
LORD HUGHES: Yes, my Lords. It is estimated that it will take five years to complete the link.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, if time does not seem to be the important factor would it not be better, in the long run, to go by sea?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I think that is a suitable note on which we may end this. I would only say that if the premise put forward was right, the conclusion would be equally right. However, I doubt if the premise is a correct one.

BETTERMENT LEVY AND HARDSHIP CASES
3.12 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many cases of betterment levy have been submitted to the Minister of Housing on grounds of hardship and whether Her Majesty's Government will now issue a statement on the speculation that changes in the exemption of betterment levy in certain cases are to be shortly announced.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, the Minister has received about 120 letters giving details of individual cases where hardship is alleged since February 6, when he indicated during the debate on home ownership and the Land Commission in another place that he was prepared to consider such cases. The noble Lord will not expect me to comment on Press speculation.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I did not gather whether the noble Lord answered the second part of the Question. While thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask whether he can confirm the Press report (I think this is important) on the Sweeting case, that the Land Commission, having assessed these people originally at some £750, now advise them on how to avoid payment of the levy? If this is the case, will the Government now request the Land Commission to issue a leaflet with each assessment explaining on what grounds an assessment or levy could be avoided?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the situation in the Sweeting case is as follows. Because Mr. Sweeting started work before the land was transferred to him, Mr. Clark, who is his wife's uncle, is the "developing owner" for the purposes of the Act and would therefore be liable to any levy chargeable. Section 61 of the Act provides for exemption where a person who owned land before the issue of the White Paper in September, 1965, uses it to build a single house for himself

1361
or a member of his immediate family. Mr. Sweeting does not qualify as a member of Mr. Clark's family under Section 61, but Mr. Clark has now intimated that he intends to live in the house himself. If he takes up residence and stays for the minimum period of six months specified in the Act he will be entitled to exemption from levy under the Act.
On the general question of advice to possible levy payers, this matter is being kept under continuous review. I am satisfied that for the moment the information promulgated is sufficient, but I repeat that there is continuous review of this aspect.
LORD WADE: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord is satisfied that the general public understand these complexities? Also, pending the abolition of the betterment levy, which would be the best solution, could not something more be done to explain these matters clearly and simply to the general public?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, on the general question of information, anybody who buys or sells land or develops on land in his own possession without taking professional advice is acting extremely incautiously. If any professional adviser omits to mention the existence of the Land Commission and the levy he is falling short of his professional duties. On the more general question about the abolition of the betterment levy, I take note of the position expressed on behalf of the Liberal Party, I presume, in this House to-day.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, as the payment of compensation is dependent upon the payment of betterment levy, has my noble friend information of any case in which the payment of compensation has been refused?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am not quite clear—compensation for what? If my noble friend will give me further details of what he has in mind, I shall be glad to look into it.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, compensation for the refusal of planning permission. As I understood it, the payment of the levy on development helped to pay for the compensation where planning permission was refused.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, this case is no large part of the 120 letters that I mentioned. But I take my noble friend's point and will consider it.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, while noting that the Liberal Party has now thrown over the betterment levy, which for many years it advocated, may I ask the Government whether they have noted that churches are now suffering unfairly under the levy? Will they consider whether they would not have been wise to accept the decision of this House, that charities should be in all circumstances exempt from levy?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord is referring to churches as bodies, as entities, which are owners of property or to individual churches in the case of a sale of a church for development purposes. In the former case, Parliament has decided that charities should not be exempt on their investment land; as to the latter case, I do not know of any particular geographical cases which the noble Lord may have in mind. I should be glad to look into them if he would give me details.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, when my noble friend and the Government are considering the future of betterment levy, will they try to avoid the mistake made by the Liberal Government of 1911, which imposed the very famous and much publicised land tax, then cancelled it and paid back all the money they had received?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the Government always seek to avoid all mistakes made by all former Governments.
LORD WADE: My Lords, will the noble Lord kindly note that my colleagues and I were always opposed to the betterment levy, although we have proposed a very much more satisfactory and fair way of dealing with this matter; but I think it might be slightly out of order to give a discourse on this subject now.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, could the noble Lord perhaps tell the House how long ago the Land Commission submitted recommendations to the Minister on exemptions from the levy?
LORD KENNET: Not without notice, my Lords; and this reply is not to be taken as agreeing that any such submission has been made.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, cannot the Government do something to cause the Land Commission to expedite their decision about betterment levy, as in many cases there is a three-year or four-year time-lag before they ultimately get round to the task of deciding whether or not betterment levy should be levied?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, there cannot be a three-year or four-year time-lag: the Act has been in operation for only two years.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, has the noble Lord any information on the drying up of supplies of minerals as a result of the betterment levy?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, that is a rather different question.

ALHAMBRA THEATRE, GLASGOW
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take steps to prevent the sale for office development of the Alhambra Theatre, Glasgow, one of the few well-equipped theatres in Scotland which would be extremely costly to replace.]
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the Government have no power to prevent the sale of the theatre.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very short and rather unsatisfactory Answer. May I ask whether the Minister would consider it worth while discussing this matter with the Arts Council? Would the Minister not agree that to destroy one of our few and best-equipped theatres in Scotland for so-called development—not, be it noted, for housing—is a retrograde step? Furthermore, would he not agree that such a decision could be economically short-sighted as to replace this theatre would be very expensive indeed?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am quite certain that the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, will not be surprised when I tell him that such discussions have taken place. The fact is that the Scottish Arts Council already make an annual grant to the Citizens' Theatre Company, which was £58,000 in the year 1967–68, and to the Scottish Opera, which was £78,000 in 1967–68. I am informed that both the Corporation and the Arts Council consider that the Alhambra Theatre is too large for regular use as a theatre under present conditions, and it was because of this that the Corporation decided not to acquire the theatre.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: My Lords, would the Minister agree that a problem of rather greater urgency is that of the replacement of the Glasgow Citizens' Theatre, which is now threatened by demolition in the area in which it operates?
LORD HUGHES: Yes, my Lords, but unfortunately the Alhambra Theatre does not offer a solution to that problem, because of its size. I do not know whether noble Lords are aware that the seating capacity of the Alhambra Theatre is 2,250, and while no doubt my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe would be happy to think that the Citizens' Theatre could regularly fill a theatre of that size. I do not think he is quite such a complete optimist.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, has my noble friend received any great volume of requests from members of the Conservative Party for the Government to take powers to interfere in the purchase or sale of land?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, no, but it seems to me that it is a perfectly suitable opportunity for private enterprise to operate.

THE OPEN UNIVERSITY
3.22 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: 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 sufficient funds have been

1365
made available to the Open University to allow them to accept all applicants for courses in the first year.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, students will be enrolled next year for courses starting in January, 1971 Grants to the Open University after that date will take account of the level of enrolments.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask her whether she is aware of the forecast reported by the Vice-Chancellor of the Open University, that there might need to be a quota system for allocating places on courses for the first year?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should not like to comment on any statement by the Vice-Chancellor of the Open University, but as the noble Lord will appreciate, the number of potential students is vast. The financing of the Open University will be different from that of existing universities, and therefore the whole matter must rest on the enrolments when they come in.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, what facilities will be offered to the students of this new university to smash up university property, in order that they may feel no sense of grievance when they compare their lot with that of other university students?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, since they will be utilising in some part their own television sets one assumes they will not exercise this right, or opportunity.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, could my noble friend say whether the restriction on admissions is likely to be due to monetary causes or to the lack of sufficient tutors throughout the country?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, we have no evidence that there is in fact restriction. We have not yet even received the enrolments, so one can hardly say that there will be restrictions.

ELY HOSPITAL, CARDIFF
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, at a convenient moment after half-past three my noble friend Lady Serota will be making a Statement on the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Ely Hospital, Cardiff, which is being presented to the House this afternoon as a White Paper.
WITHAM NAVIGATION COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SALISBURY RAILWAY AND MARKET HOUSE BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
TEESSIDE CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

NURSES BILL [H.L.]
3.26 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (BARONESS SEROTA): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Nurses Act 1957 and the Nurses (Scotland) Act 1951. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

HORSERACE BETTING LEVY BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 41 (No Two Stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with for the purpose of taking the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill through its remaining stages this day.—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that the Second Report from the Select Committee be now considered.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
1. LIBRARY
A Report from the Sub-Committee on the Library for the year 1968 was laid before the Committee.
2. PROPOSED WORKING PARTY ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENTS AND THE TREASURY
The Committee were informed of the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a Working Party should be set up to study the relationship between the House of Lords, the new Civil Service Department and the Treasury. The Committee agreed to set up a Working Party.
3. PARLIAMENT OFFICE AND LIBRARY
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee of a review of the following posts in the Parliament Office and Library:—

Librarian

Clerk of the Journals

Accountant's Office

Hansar+d Reporters

The Committee authorised the scales of salary consequent upon the revised grading of these posts.
The Committee authorised the temporary employment of a shorthand typist in the Parliament Office when required by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
4. HANSARD REPORTING STAFF

(a) The Committee reviewed the Agreement with Haynes Secretarial Services for the sup-
1368
ply of typists for the reporting of Debates and approved an increase in their charges.

(b) The Committee sanctioned the application to temporary Reporters of the revised attendance fee as set out in the Appendix to D.E.O. letter of the 11th March, 1969, and revised attendance fees to Permanent and Temporary Reporters when the House of Lords sits after 10.30 p.m., with effect from the 1st November, 1968.

5. OFFICIAL SHORTHAND WRITER
The Committee approved an increase in the scale of fees and the annual retaining fee for the official Shorthand Writer with effect from the 1st November, 1968.
6. DOORKEEPERS
The Committee authorised the appointment of an additional Doorkeeper for duties at Judicial sittings from the 1st October, 1969.
The Committee authorised improved revised scales of salary under D.E.O. (68) (Pay) No. 20 to the Doorkeepers with effect from the 1st January, 1969.
7. MEAL ALLOWANCES
The Committee approved an increase in the rate of meal allowance payable to certain officials working late in the evening after a normal day's duty.
8. SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE 1968–69
The Committee approved the presentation of a Supplementary Estimate for the year 1968–69.
9. SUPERANNUATION AWARDS
The Committee sanctioned the payment of the following awards under the Superannuation Act 1965:—

(a) Revised Pension and Additional Allowance to Mr. William Day, M.B.E., Principal Doorkeeper, who retired on the 17th January, 1969;

(b) Death Gratuity under S. 4(1) to the legal personal representative of the late Wilfred Henry Martin, Senior Attendant, who died on the 10th February, 1969, and a pension under S. 53(2) to Miss Valerie Claire Martin;

(c) Death Gratuity to the legal personal representative of the late Mrs. Rose Emily Cranston, Housemaid, who died on the 24th December, 1968.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.— (The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FOREIGN COMPENSATION BILL
3.28 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. —(Lord Chalfont.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 1 [Extension of power to deal with property of Baltic States and ceded territories]:
LORD CHALFONT LORD CHALFONT moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 3, at end insert—
("(2) Any order made by the Board of Trade under that section may make the like provision in relation to former property of a Baltic State or ceded territory as might be made by such an order in relation to enemy property if a state of war existed:
Provided that an order made by virtue of this subsection shall not provide for the payment to. or the vesting in, a custodian of enemy properly of any money or other property unless an order had been made under or by virtue of that section before the passing of this Act purporting to require it to be paid to a custodian or to vest it or the right to transfer it in a custodian.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall our discussions at the Report stage on what was then subsection (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill. As I understood it, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, accepted the assurance I then gave that the small amount of unvested assets should remain outside the purview of the Bill. These unvested assets, with an estimated value of about £30,000 to £40,000, were for the most part reported to the Custodians and then became subject to control under Article 4 of the Trading with the Enemy (Custodian) Order 1939, shortly after the territory to which they relate became enemy territory. They have not, however, been the subject of vesting orders. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, pressed his point to a Division and the subsection was left out of the Bill. But I think he and your Lordships would agree that there must be sonic provision in the Bill to enable the Custodian to perfect his title to property already vested in him. This Amendment has the purpose of restoring the sub-
1370
section but with the addition of a proviso to give statutory effect to the assurance which I earlier gave to the House.
We have taken the opportunity to consider whether to redraft the subsection so as simply validate the vesting orders already made. This looks at first sight attractive. But in view of the complex nature of these matters—with which the House will recall the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, dealt some detail at the Committee stage—we have reached the conclusion that it would be better to stick to the original wording, together with the addition of a proviso to implement my assurance that these unvested assets should remain outside the scope of the Bill. Of course it would still be possible, if new vestings were hastily made before the Bill becomes law, to defeat the purpose of the proviso, but I assure the House that we have no intention of doing any such thing.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I am sure the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for the explanation he has given with regard to this Amendment. When I first moved the Amendment in Committee to leave out subsection (2) of Clause 1, the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, said that the object of the subsection was merely to perfect the title of the Custodian, and gave me an assurance that it would not be used for any wider purpose. That information, as we know—and I do not seek to criticise it as an error—was wrong, and I mention it now only because at that moment I took the stand that if that was all the subsection was intended to do I saw no objection to it. I see no objection now to inserting a provision, if required, whereby the title of the Custodian to what is in his possession will be perfected.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for discussing with me the terms of this Amendment. I should have preferred a much simpler form, but I dare-say there are difficulties that I have not appreciated. I do not think he can really say that this form of Amendment all that simple, but I think the proviso is entirely effective for the purpose he and I want to see achieved at the present time, for it provides, if I understand it correctly, that no order for payment to the Custodian of any money or for the

1371
vesting in him of any property can now be made, under the power given by this Bill when it becomes an Act, unless prior to the passage of the Act such an order has already been made. It strikes me as odd, in a way, that if such an order has already been made there should be need to make another one when this Act has been passed. Be that as it may, think the proviso is effective to achieve that end, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for taking so much trouble to meet what were the clear wishes of the House on the Report stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.33 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Chalfont.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, it would be churlish not to thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for having dealt with this humiliating Bill in the sympathetic way he has done. He has gone out of his way to help us over certain grave difficulties that we felt, and I am grateful to him for this. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, was given a thankless task, and he stretched his powers to the very limit to meet us on this side of the House, and also, I suspect, if I may say so, some of the feelings of noble Lords and Ladies on the other side of the House.
Nevertheless, I feel that I cannot say goodbye to this Bill without reiterating what I said at the beginning; that is, that Her Majesty's Government have seen fit to dispose of property which by no conceivable stretch of the imagination could morally have belonged to them. These assets came within the control of Her Majesty's Government simply and solely because they were in the ownership—and I repeat "ownership", because eventually we did persuade the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, to say that he thought they were in the ownership; and I know that under British law that is so—of the Custodian of Enemy Property. But let us not forget that these assets came into the ownership of the Custodian of Enemy Property simply and solely because a country which had declared its neutrality before the war was overrun by the Ger-
1372
mans, and these assets, which had been placed for safe keeping in British banks, were then blocked. This is the first thing that happened to them, they were blocked. This is a perfectly normal procedure.
The next thing that happened to them—not to all of them—was that they were vested in the Custodian. I think I am right in saying that the gold about which we talked so much was not in fact vested in the Custodian until 1953, and, as my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne eventually discovered, there were other assets that had not been vested at all; and we have been able, thanks to the persuasive arguments of my noble and learned friend, to have these excluded. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont for that. But I still believe —and nothing will persuade me otherwise—that we are in fact to-day being asked to legalise what is really an act of confiscation. Perhaps it may be helpful if I quote the words of certain legal gentlemen whose views reinforce my own. One of them is an American legal expert, and he says this:
"The enlightened policy of the nation is not to confiscate enemy private property but rather to preserve it.'
That is a quotation from Edward D. Roe, Foreign Confiscation in Anglo-American Law, New York 1951, page 10 and following. Then I must invoke the observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McNair:
"The vesting of enemy property in the Custodian is primarily a matter of ensuring its conservation rather than its confiscation."
This is my view. I think we are being asked to do a humiliating thing; we are being asked to give legality to a contemptible act by Her Majesty's Government.
3.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, perhaps I had better say straight away, in case the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, may show some anxiety, as he showed some concern recently at the length of Peers' speeches, that I do not intend to speak at any undue or great length on this Motion. I think that when this Bill came before the House one's first impression was that it was a pretty harmless run-of-the-mill Bill; and had it not been for the excellent work done by Sir Tufton Beamish and others in another

1373
place it may be that we in this House should not have appreciated the deep and serious implications of this measure. I believe that in fact we have greatly improved this Bill. My noble friend Lord Lansdowne has described it as an act of confiscation. I think that in this House we have done a great deal to mitigate that. As the Bill first appeared in this House I think that it entirely merited that description.
But here one has to distinguish between property which really became bona vacantia, and so the property of the Crown, and which the Crown has put in the hands of the Custodian for distribution among these various creditors, and property which had not become bona vacantia and had not got into the Crown's possession. So far as the distribution of bona vacantia property is concerned, it could not, I think, be regarded as confiscation to effect that distribution. But distribution of property which did not come within that class could amount to confiscation if the distribution took place straight away and automatically. But we have the concession, the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, which I think goes a long way to mitigate that effect; and that is that if there are claims by former owners of that property within, I think he said, two years, that property will be returned to them. That would mean, as I understand it, that after two years are up the distribution will be of property which within that period has had no claim by a former owner, or successor of a former owner, established in regard to it. I think that that is a considerable improvement; it was made as a result of debate in this House, and I welcome it.
This is, of course, a Bill designed to implement an Agreement with the Soviet Union, and the Government are indeed fortunate that they did not have to submit that Agreement for approval to either House of Parliament. For I am sure, although they may think that they have had a rough passage over this Bill, they would have had a very rough passage indeed in securing approval for a measure which provided for giving half-a-million pounds to the Soviet Union as the price of an Agreement, when all that we are now doing under
1374
this Bill could, and I think should, have been done without the necessity of paying any such price to the Soviet Union for it. Furthermore, it is not the only benefit that the Soviet Union has got out of that Agreement.
We have spent a good deal of time in this House on this Bill. I do not for one moment think that that time has been wasted. Three Divisions have been carried against the Government. One of them dealt with a purely legal matter, the right of appeal in certain circumstances from a decision of the Foreign Compensation Commission, a matter in which, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out, the Government really were not involved, and certainly not a matter on which there was any Party issue. Nevertheless, the proposal that there should be such recourse to the courts, supported as it was by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, the Law Society and the Bar Council, and many others, was strongly resisted and we had to go to a Division with regard to it, a Division which was carried.
That was followed on Report by the tabling by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of an Amendment to meet that particular point. I should like to express my gratitude to him for doing that, but I cannot forbear to draw from this the lesson: if we had not been able to carry that Amendment, would any Government, not necessarily this Government, having fought on that issue and won, have then put down an Amendment at a later stage? I do not think they would. But, thanks to the Lord Chancellor, and thanks to our carrying that Amendment against the Government, we have succeeded in making that improvement in the Bill.
The second Division we had was in regard to the matter we have just been discussing. There again, the carrying of that Division paved the way for an Amendment which satisfied the Government and those who have criticised this particular measure on that particular point. I do not believe that would ever have happened had we not been able to carry the Amendment. I just want to point to the fact that, quite apart from sending Amendments back to another place, it is sometimes useful in this House to carry Amendments against

1375
the Government, thus giving the Government an opportunity of thinking again and, as here, thinking again on two issues in which there is no Party issue involved and no Party point or principle.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has had a difficult time in getting this Bill to where it has now got. I should like to thank him for the care and attention that he has given to it and for the consideration he has given to the views expressed. I do not propose to say any more with regard to it, except to repeat that I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the part he played.
3.45 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, as both my noble friends have said, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has had a rough ride on this Bill, but he has been given a number of unbroken broncos by his colleagues. He has ridden this one with grace, tenacity and, almost the whole time, with his eyes shut, which is a considerable feat of rodeo, as anyone must agree.
This Bill has now reached almost its last stage in your Lordships' House, and I hope that to-day Ministers will not either show or simulate surprise that some of us consider it a deplorable, even a dishonourable Bill. It is theft from the innocent and defenceless by those in high places. It is a five-star felony. The Government have protested that their purpose is beneficent, in partly compensating certain people, most of them having no connection with the Baltic States, who have suffered through expropriations of one kind or another by the Soviet Government. I suppose I could easily have been one of them, though I am not. I should like to say, with emphasis and conviction, that neither in this case nor in any circumstances that I can imagine, would I wish to be compensated out of money stolen from other, equally unfortunate and innocent people. The money which the Foreign Compensation Commission will handle and distribute will be "filthy lucre" in an unusually explicit sense.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, here, and the hapless Mr. Whitlock in another place have spoken poignantly about the claimants and the legitimate
1376
preoccupations of those claimants. None of this poignancy or heartfelt sympathy embraces the original owners—and I would say the true owners, the moral owners—of these assets, or the claims that they may have. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, was in fact somewhat impatient with them, because they had not come forward already to present their claims, and he implied that if they wanted to come forward in the next two weeks following the passage of this Bill there was nothing to stop them. That term for coming forward has now, as we know, been extended to two years.
When I pointed out that these people were not living in Bognor or Bishops Stortford but within the Soviet frontiers, and totally prevented from presenting their claims, lie brushed this aside as "colourful". Then when I pressed him he said that I was presenting "colourful facts". The noble Lord can only consider Bognor and Bishops Stortford as colourful if he leads as drab a life as the Labour Government have tried to impose upon the whole country, and this I know not to be the case. On the other hand, if he supposes that life within the Soviet Union and Soviet occupied territory is "colourful", then he has far less knowledge of the conditions there than is adequate for a Minister of State at the Foreign Office, and this I would also hope not to be the case.
I have recently read passages from a report from a Czechoslovak citizen after a visit to Latvia, in which he expresses his relief at the comparative freedom enjoyed in Czechoslovakia even since the Soviet invasion, and we all have to be conscious of the kind of conditions that have been imposed there. This Czechoslovak citizen described how freedom of the individual and national expression had been suppresed in Latvia by the Soviet masters; yet this is one of the three peoples receiving what I regard as punitive treatment from Her Majesty's Government. The Government may believe, indeed they have implied, that the fate of these people is so hopeless that they may be regarded as hardly to exist and any idea of future freedom can be utterly dismissed.
One of Lord Chalfont's favourite words, I have noticed, is "hypothetical". He has even spoken of "hypothetical flies" cast over the Government Front

1377
Bench. That is pretty colourful! It is far from clear, and I think he should clarify whether the Government believe it totally inconceivable that any of these countries can exist again. If so, then that seems to me pretty hypothetical in the noble Lord's pejorative interpretation. Simply to study the history of Poland, as one example, is to question that premise.
If the Government, while reluctant to express such a sweeping belief, still suppose that there is no practical chance of the true owners ever being in a position to claim, then I think they are also mistaken. Do they believe that the Central Banks of those countries can never be re-created? This sort of thing has happened. I do not know how many times it has happened, but one instance is the National Bank of Austria. The Oesteriechischer Nationalbank was founded in 1922, ceased to exist after the Anschluss in 1938, when it was absorbed by the Deutsche Reichsbank—an exact parallel to what has happened in the Baltic banks when absorbed by the Russian system—and re-created after the War by the Notenbank-Uberleitungsgesetz, a Bill passed through the Austrian Parliament. It now, of course, trades and is recognised by the world. What is to prevent any or all of the three Baltic countries, having recovered freedom, going through the same sort of parliamentary process with regard to the three Central Banks?
Thirdly, and lastly, do the Government assume that all the private depositors of those three countries who might have a claim through the banks must be dead, also their heirs? If so, let them say so. For my part, I say now, as I said at the Report stage, that they, the Government, are cruelly discriminating against innocent and helpless people. This Bill places a large number of people in the Baltic countries in an under-privileged category, in a state of statutory contempt. The greater part of these assets were vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property 28 years ago. At one moment they were recognised as the legitimate property of some customers of the Bank of England, the next moment they were vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property. There was nothing improper or unnecessary in this. It was done with the assets of many other countries over-run by Nazi Germany. But, as I pointed out on Report, of the £380 million transferred in this way from "technical" enemies to the Custodian,
1378
practically all has been returned to them except the £7 million which belonged to the Baltic countries. This cannot be described as anything but discrimination, and the reason for that discrimination is the ignoble one that the true owners are weak, unheard and at present unidentifiable. The Government may protest that only one of those qualifications is valid, the difficulty of identifying the original owners.
It is not accurate to say that, in matters of property ownership, an automatic assumption is made after 28 years that title cannot be re-established. When I was in the Ministry of Agriculture some years ago, I had to consider a somewhat perplexing problem originating from land ownership which, by coincidence, has now come back into the news. Before the First World War—that is, before 1914—small plots of land were sold, as part of a sizeable scheme, on Canvey Island in Essex. In the course of the First World War many or most of the deeds were scattered and lost. Basildon New Town bought up part of this area, and where the ownership was not known the purchase money from a compulsory purchase was paid into court, where it has awaited claimants ever since. Much of it still waits, protected, for the proper claimants should they come forward. Some of them have, and amounts of as much as £1,000 have been claimed and paid. There is new speculation it this area, as a result of a possible international airport at Foulness.
Some plots of land bought nearly 60 years ago may be of very considerable value, leading to successful claims being made 70, 80 or 90 years later for all I know. There was no question in my mind, when it was put to me, but that these claims had to be protected. It was not, as I recall, seriously challenged by anyone. If the Government choose to say that this is irrelevant, then they are admitting my charge that discrimination is being practised against the true owners of the Baltic assets. There is one law for them, and a far more favourable and civilised law for the original, also unidentified, owners of the plots on Canvey Island.
Why should these unhappy, presently enslaved, people not be protected, or enabled to bring their claims forward for compensation by a British Government,

1379
even after the assets have been distributed, as we now know they will be? On the 20th of this month I asked the Government what were the duties of the Custodian of Enemy Property. I was answered by the noble Lord, Lord Brown, who said:
"These Orders were made by the Board of Trade with a view to preventing the payment of moneys to enemies and of preserving enemy property in contemplation of arrangements to be made at the conclusion of peace." —[[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20/3/69, col. 1016.]
My Lords, what has become of those purposes to-day? I wonder if the noble Lord is listening to my question. I am making a point which I shall ask him to answer. I ask him what has become of those purposes to-day? Since we are no longer at war, it can hardly be claimed that the Custodian is now preventing the payment of moneys to enemies. As for preserving enemy property in contemplation of arrangements to be made at the conclusion of peace, whatever may have been contemplated in 1939, it certainly was not a deal of this nature. So that the purpose of these Orders, as described from that Despatch Box a week ago to-day, has been misused and abused.
The noble Lord, Lord Brown, also said that:
"In 1954 the House of Lords decided that the Custodians were Crown Servants whose duties involved the holding of property and the receipt of income until further instructions were given to them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20/3/69, col. 1017.]
I understand that such further instruction would come from the President of the Board of Trade. Arising from that part of the noble Lord's answer, I wish to ask the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who will reply if, in this context, the President of the Board of Trade is governed, directed or limited by anything in law or Statute, as to the directions he gives. I hope that the noble Lord will be armed with the reply to this question, as it is a very obvious one, consequent on the explanation by his noble friend. Moreover, he was, I recall, in his place on that occasion when I told his noble friend that I should study the reply between then and the Third Reading of this Bill. More specifically still, I told the noble Lord's private offices this morning that I should be asking him this question.
I hope the noble Lord will recognise that this question is an extension of one
1380
which I put to him in the Report stage debate. I asked him whether Parliamentary action was necessary to enable the Custodian to dispose of assets under his control, other than by returning them to their original owners, because, in my submission, that would have made this a confiscatory Bill. The noble Lord appeared, a minute or two later, to deny that this was a confiscatory Bill, although on reading his words in Hansard I see that he did not actually deny it in words—but nor did he answer my question. I put it to him again: is Parliamentary action necessary to obtain the result sought in this Bill? If so, can he declare in definite terms that this is not a confiscatory Bill? If Parliamentary action is not required, then I have to ask him what the blazes is Clause I doing in the Bill?
My Lords, I do not think there is anything now to be done by us to draw the poison from this piece of legislation. I should like to think that a future Government would feel themselves in honour bound to make an ex gratia payment to a claimant who could prove his or her case—but, as I understand it, the Bill precludes the presentation of such a claim. If the Government can say that I am mistaken in this, it will do something to lessen the stigma which will blemish this country's name for fair dealing and fair treatment in particular to those without protection. There is something humiliating, to my mind, in the possibility that a future claimant may have a valid, attested claim recognised by international law, being forced to that recourse because his rights in British law have been deliberately barred by the terms of this Bill. Saving certain humanising improvements, mentioned by my noble and learned friend, that we have been able to make to this Bill in this House, I am sorry to say that I dislike it now as much as I did when I was watching its controversial passage through another place. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, may have observed that on this occasion I have been sparing to the point of solicitude, so far as quoting him to his own discomfort is concerned—no more than a light tease at the opening. But it would be wrong to spare the true author of this nasty piece of work.
I cannot close without reminding the House that immediately after the visit of Mr. Alexei Kosygin, in the course of

1381
which this Agreement was made, Mr. Harold Wilson declared that his guest had "in seven days almost become a part of the British way of life". I hope that the Prime Minister blushed at the recollection, privately at least, when the following year his quondam guest, as one of the rulers of Russia, ordered the invasion of Czechoslovakia and the crushing of the nascent urge to liberty in that country. I suggest that the Agreement reached and transcribed into this Bill is characteristic far more of the Russian way of life than of ours. When Mr. Wilson and Mr. Kosygin supped together in London, they were careful to use the same truncated spoon.
4.1 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am grateful for the thorough and courteous way in which this Bill has been treated in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, need express no solicitude for me. I have found the piloting of this Bill through your Lordships' House a stimulating and interesting experience. The Government believe the agreement with the Soviet Union to have been a good and wise one, but noble Lords will have their own opinions, to which they are entitled, about the matter, and I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, will continue to give voice to them.
In dealing with what I hope will be the last stages of the passage of this Bill in your Lordships' House, I shall deal briefly with some of the points which have been raised in this short debate. It is partly because the Government agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, in his quotations from certain learned legal authorities that we did two things. First of all, in the Agreement with the Soviet Union we secured the insertion of Article 3, which provides that the Soviet Government are responsible for settling claims by Soviet nationals. Secondly, as I have said in your Lordships' House before and I repeat to-day, if an individual comes forward to claim his property to-day, he will get it. If he comes forward after the Bill becomes law, he will still get it or its value. I do not believe that any Government could be more unequivocal about their intentions than that.
1382
I shall not on this occasion allow myself the pleasure of a joust with the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, because time is short. I should like simply to reassure the House that I am acquainted in some detail with life in the Soviet Union and I need no instruction, although I will defer to the noble Lord in detailed knowledge of Brighton, Bognor Regis and Basildon. I can best answer his question by saying that the present statutory duties of the Custodian are to preserve enemy property in contemplation of arrangements to be made at the conclusion of peace. That is a broad definition of the Custodian's statutory duties. This Bill would add a new statutory power: to dispose of the Baltic and ceded territories' assets in order to enable the Custodian to pay money to the Foreign Compensation Commission.
The justification for this, in the eyes of Her Majesty's Government, is as follows. First, British property was nationalised by the Baltic States in Soviet legislation in 1940 or thereabouts, without compensation. Secondly, the British Government after years of effort have concluded this Agreement, to which I referred earlier, with the Soviet Government—the only Government now existing in the area in relation to British claims. Thirdly, the Soviet Government have undertaken not to pursue their claims to Baltic and ceded territories' assets now to be disposed of under the arrangements proposed in the Bill.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, has the noble Lord finished dealing with that point?
LORD CHALFONT: If the noble Lord will contain himself in patience for a moment longer, perhaps he will be satisfied. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has explained, many of the assets in question—indeed the noble and learned Viscount referred to this in his welcome contribution to-day—which formerly belonged to Baltic or ceded territories companies are probably bona vacantia—that is, the property of the Crown—and no longer the property of former owners. As regards the property of individuals, if it was covered by the Anglo-Soviet Agreement then by Article 3 of that Agreement the Soviet Government is solely responsible for settling the claim of the Soviet nationals

1383
concerned. In other cases if the individual comes forward and establishes that some item of property is his, then he will get back the property itself or its value. Accordingly, there can be no doubt— and I hope that there is no doubt left in your Lordships' mind—that this Bill is not a confiscatory Bill. If the noble Lord wishes me to say that again in order that it is clearly on the record, I will do so: this Bill is not a confiscatory Bill. In the view of Her Majesty's Government, its proposals are fully justified.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has already contradicted himself, in explaining that this Bill is required, in order to dispose of these assets, in the way they are being disposed of.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I do not think it would be in the interests of your Lordships' House to go back over all these arguments. So far as I can see —and it seems that most of your Lordships are with me on this—the provisions of this Bill are fully justified and, as I have explained, in the cases which are bona vacantia and in the case of individuals' property there is no element of confiscation about the Bill at all. I am sure noble Lords will agree that the whole of the Bill and all the arguments which have been deployed have been given a most careful scrutiny. It is unlikely that the Amendment which was made during the Committee stage, the effect of which was to leave out subsection (5) of Clause I which concerned the payment of £500,000 to the Consolidated Fund from the assets, will commend itself to another place. I believe that the earlier part of the Bill, as it now stands, is an improvement on the Bill which was first received in your Lordships' House. That is the result of long, careful, courteous and comprehensive debate.
I should like to express gratitude to your Lordships, and especially to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, for the courtesy and care with which he has studied the Bill and for the co-operation which he has extended to me in securing what I hope will soon be its passage through your Lordships' House. I hope noble Lords will agree
1384
that the Bill, which has been modified in several important respects in order to meet your Lordships' wishes, will now pass.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

ELY HOSPITAL, CARDIFF: INQUIRY FINDINGS
4.10 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (BARONESS SEROTA): My Lords, I will, with permission, now repeat a Statement which is being made by the Secretary of State for Social Services in the House of Commons about the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Ely Hospital, Cardiff, which has been presented to the House this afternoon as a White Paper, Cmnd. 3975. In doing so I must apologise for its length. The Statement is a follows:
"The Committee of Inquiry was set up in 1967 by the Welsh Hospital Board at the request of my right honourable friend, the then Minister of Health, to investigate allegations of ill-treatment of patients and of pilfering by staff which had been made by a nursing assistant employed at the hospital. The Committee was also asked to make their own examination of the situation in the hospital at the time of their inquiry.
"The Committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. Geoffrey Howe, Q.C., has done its work with a thoroughness fairmindedness and humanity which must command universal respect. This makes it all the more disturbing that the Report is highly critical and will, I am sure, cause as deep concern to Members as it does to me. It is for this reason and because I consider that it should be used at once as a basis for remedial action that I have decided to take the unusual course of publishing it in full, omitting only the names of individual patients and staff.
"The Committee finds, first, that most of the specific incidents alleged by the nursing assistant as examples of ill-treatment did occur. Secondly, the Committee finds that many members of staff in the wards made use of food supplied for patients, and that excessive quantities of meat were provided to

1385
nursing staff. These aspects of the Report have been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Thirdly, the Committee finds that an atmosphere existed in which well-intentioned members of the nursing staff felt it hazardous to complain; two who did so had to leave the hospital.
"Responsibility for serious deficiences in standards of medical and nursing services and of administration is attributed to the senior staff of the hospital, to the Hospital Management Committee and to the Welsh Hospital Board. The Committee also criticises the present procedures for dealing with complaints in the hospital service as a whole. And finally the Committee recommends that a system of inspection of such hospitals is needed—the form of which it leaves me to consider.
"The House will, I am sure, wish to study the Report before coming to conclusions. Nevertheless I think honourable Members will expect me to say today what the Government's attitude to it is. As the Minister responsible I accept the Committee's findings and recommendations about Ely. I add, however, that it would be quite wrong to draw conclusions about the standard of care in long stay hospitals from these findings. I would remind the House that these findings do not apply to the whole of the hospital service or even to the whole of Ely Hospital: they apply only to four wards and one villa for children. To draw general conclusions from this limited evidence would be quite wrong. Indeed in the course of an extensive series of visits up and down the county I have myself been deeply impressed by the skilled and devoted service given by staff in long stay hospitals, who have all too often been working for many years under heartbreaking difficulties; and I am very much aware that if this Report were published without a firm assurance of strong remedial action, it could shake their morale. In expressing my confidence in them, therefore, I at once add this assurance to them and to the House. The conditions which have existed for so many years to which many of them have been calling attention for a long time and in which such grave deficiencies as have been revealed at Ely can far too easily breed, are fully
1386
and frankly recognised by my Department and I am already taking steps to ensure that they will be dealt with effectively by the Regional Hospital Boards.
"One of these conditions is professional isolation. The main recommendation of the Report is that a new system of regular visiting and inspection is needed. I agree. And while the details are being worked out I am setting up a small working party in my Department to analyse the knowledge already available on these hospitals, and to supplement this survey where necessary with their own investigation.
"Secondly I have already asked each Regional Hospital Board Chairman to reassess the situation in his region and to present a report to me at our next meeting in April.
"I hope the House will permit me one further general observation. We are in the midst of a medical revolution in the treatment of the diseases of old age and mental illness. As the span of life is extended long term, often permanent, hospitalisation which only 20 years ago was the norm for these patients, is being replaced by intensive treatment given in short spells in hospital. In planning the Health Service of the future, therefore, we are able to assume a massive reduction in the proportion of hospital beds—and of long-stay hospitals—requirel for geriatric and mentally ill patients.
"Unfortunately, this does not apply to anything like the same extent to the mentally subnormal. For the foreseeable future many thousands of them will need resident hospital care for very long periods and this means that there is no prospect of doing without this class of hospital which I am afraid still remains a deprived area within the Health Service as, indeed, it was long ago when the Service came into being. The advice issued by my Department in 1965 to stimulate improvements, which this Report commends, was a good beginning. It shows what can be done. These hospitals must be given their fair share of manpower and money even if this means (as it will mean) a reallocation of resources within the Health Service. I shall be considering with the Boards ways and

1387
means of starting this difficult operation as soon as possible."
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, this is a terrible story about Ely Hospital. I am sure the noble Baroness has found it as painful to have to make this Statement as the House has found it painful to hear it. I venture to suggest that until we have had time to read the findings of the Committee, the less any of us comments on what has actually happened at Ely Hospital the better it may be. May I be allowed, however, to say how strongly most of us would agree with what the noble Baroness said about not generalising from this lamentable case, but, instead, extending our support and appreciation to the devoted staff who work in many other long-stay hospitals—sometimes, I am sorry to say, under almost soul-destroying conditions.
As to what is wrong, the responsibility of Ministers is involved, as well as of Regional Hospital Boards and hospital management committees. Do the Government recognise that the whole of the hospital service is critically short of money and that, while hospitals for the mentally subnormal are in the greatest need of all if they are to satisfy modern requirements, their needs cannot be rightly made good by simply twisting more tightly still the financial screw on other hospitals?
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Baroness for making this long and rather tragic statement. Like the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, I do not want to comment at this moment on the goings on at Ely Hospital and would rather wait until I have had time to study the Report. But I am very pleased that the Government have had the courage to publish this Report, even though it may be an unpleasant one to read. I should like to associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said about the staff of these hospitals. Like him, I have had considerable experience of the conditions under which they work and of the marvellous work they manage to do under those deplorable conditions. One wants to pay the biggest tribute one can to the devotion to duty which they show.
There are three interesting matters to which I should like to refer. The first
1388
comment I would make (possibly it is unwise, but I should like to make it) is that it is the attitude of the senior staff that really lays down the attitude in the whole hospital, from the senior doctor down to the junior member of the ward staff. I am pleased to see that the Minister is to consider some way of changing the form of complaint, and possibly to introduce some form of inspection—I do not mean that in a pejorative way at all, but in a general, friendly and hopeful kind of way. I am a little worried about the assumption that there is going to be a large reduction in the number of beds taken for mental patients and geriatric patients. We were told that some time ago, and it proved to be sadly untrue. There may be some reduction but it will not be a very great one. I am very grateful indeed for the Statement.
4.20 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, if I may venture one or two comments from these Benches—and I do so with the greatest restraint—may I ask the Minister whether she realises the sense of relief that many people will feel that this Report has at last been published? These conditions have been known to exist for quite a long time in the past, and have given rise to an enormous amount of uneasiness. Also, may I say how much the statement made by the Minister, that the Government intend to take drastic action in this matter, will be generally welcomed? May I stress also the urgency for some action to be taken to remedy the appalling conditions which she has described?
In this connection I would emphasise the need for a special training for nurses who are on the staff of these institutions. Special recognition should be given to the difficult conditions under which they work, and, particularly, some adjustment should be made in the matter of their pay in order to recruit the proper type of nurse for these institutions. Furthermore, may I say how important it is that some proper channel should exist for the laying of complaints, when such complaints are known to exist, to see that they are not brushed aside in the future as they have been, most unfortunately, in the past?
BARONESS SUMMER SKILL: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot agree with my noble friend when she suggests that

1389
we might receive this Report without comment. I believe that every time an inquiry of this kind is made it is much better for the helpless individuals in these institutions to have people in both Houses of Parliament who are prepared to ask questions again and again. Therefore, may I ask—
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, in fairness to the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, may I say that it was not she who suggested there should be no comment? I suggested that we should withhold comment only until after we have had time to read the Report.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I agree, but some of us who have been in Parliament for many years have lived through this kind of moment, time after time. It is always suggested that we should read the Report and see what is in it. By the time we have read the Report other things are happening and people forget to ask questions at what I consider to be the relevant moment—now. What I want to ask my noble friend is this: is she aware that what she said just now applies to similar institutions throughout the country, in so far as the staff are intimidated? My noble friend said that two members of the staff were dismissed, or left, because they questioned the system: their questioning was unpopular, and therefore they were dismissed.
What I should like to know, in view of this Inquiry and of the Statement which has just been made, is what general inquiry is now going to be set afoot by her Department in order to see how far the conditions in this institution apply in others. Unless somebody from outside goes in, questions the management committees and generally makes a fuss, the conditions which she describes now and which have obviously been existing in this institution for years can go on in other institutions of which we have no knowledge. Therefore, my question to her is this—and I have faith in her Department, now that she is in this job, because she is a woman and has compassion. My noble friend at the back groans. I am afraid it is true that women have a little more compassion in these matters than, perhaps, some of the men. May I ask my noble friend whether she will see to it that her Department makes
1390
a general inquiry with regard to the administration of homes and institutions which are organised for the old and the sick? Because it is in these places that the patients are completely helpless.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am bound to say that the House is getting seriously out of order at the moment. I realise that this is a matter of deep I concern. The House makes its own rules of order. In fact, we practically always break them on Ministerial Statements, but I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that questions for clarification may be asked upon such Statements but they should not be made the occasion for immediate debate. Before we go any further, I feel that this is a point of which we need to be reminded.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, my noble friend having said that, may I ask him whether he will give us an assurance now that this matter will be debated in this House?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Baroness, who is, as she reminded us, a very experienced Parliamentarian, knows that it is not for the Leader of the House to determine what noble Lords themselves may choose to debate. It is open to her to put down a Motion or an Unstarred Question at any tine. I may add that I think this is a matter of very grave concern, and obviously the House is rightly concerned. I would not disagree with my noble friend that this matter, along with other subjects, is one that could well be debated.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, as the sole Welshman to speak on this matter—and it primarily concerns Wales—may I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware that this Report will be regarded with the utmost seriousness in Wales, and that Welsh people will want to know that there are no other institutions where the same conditions might already apply? May I also ask her whether, when her right honourable friend has discussed the whole question of Ely Hospital with the Chairman of the Hospital Board, a further report or statement will be made to Parliament, conveying to Members the results of that interview between the two gentlemen concerned?
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I say (perhaps it is hardly necessary for me

1391
to say it) that I cordially agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and with the noble Lord the Leader of the House that, before we discuss this matter further, we ought to read the Report. I should like to put a question to the noble Baroness, and I put it because I was for many years both chairman and a member of a number of hospital management committees; and it seems to me inconceivable that a hospital management committee should not have known of what had been going on apparently for a long time. Certainly I should like to think that it could not have happened in the case of the hospitals with which I was concerned; and if a management committee is doing its job properly, it ought not to have happened in this case. May I ask the noble Baroness whether, in the Report, there is any reference to the activities of the Hospital Management Committee?
BARONESS HYLTON-FOSTER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether Her Majesty's Government do not think that this is the moment to recommend that nurses should be moved around more? Because even with special training it needs superhuman patience to cope with some of the patients with whom they have to deal.
4.27 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken for their very balanced and restrained comments on a Statement which has clearly caused us all a great deal of distress. To my noble friend Lady Summerskill, whose comments were scarcely restrained, I can only say that I have very little doubt that if I were sitting in her place, and with her long Parliamentary experience, I should have reacted to a Statement of this kind in just the way that she has done to-day. It is a great support—and I know my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will share my feeling in this—to know that a Statement of this kind has been received in the way your Lordships have received it to-day. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, pointed out, the prime responsibility is that of my right honourable friend, and he and I will together, I hope, work through the recommendations of
1392
this Report and see the implementation of the proposals that I have put before your Lordships in the Statement to-day.
Of course, as again the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, pointed out, there is no superfluity of money in the National Health Service—I only wish there were. Nevertheless, I think it is the duty of the Ministers responsible to take cognisance of the fact that there are large differences between the amounts spent in hospitals such as this and in other kinds of hospitals within the National Health Service, although of course there are sometimes good reasons for those differences. We must also take note of the fact that there are large differences between what different regions spend on these hospitals. These are aspects which my right honourable friend will clearly want to investigate.
All noble Lords expressed some relief at the publication, and one or two asked specific questions. Here I would join with my noble friend the Leader of the House in asking them to read the Report; and I assure my noble friend Lord Silkin that there is mention in this Report of the activities of the Hospital Management Committee. With regard to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, about staff being moved around, as I indicated in the Statement that I read on behalf of my right honourable friend, the lesson of Ely is the need to avoid professional isolation in medical, nursing or in other grades of hospital staff. If noble Lords read the Report they will see that this aspect stands out clearly.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked about the situation in Wales. I can assure him that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales (who will become responsible for Welsh hospitals on April 1) is fully aware of the situation; and from my conversations with him I know that he is taking action himself on the Ely Report.
Finally, my noble friend Lady Summerskill asked me two questions. She asked: What is being done to inquire into other hospitals? She joined with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, in asking whether the results of these inquiries will be reported. When, at leisure, your Lordships read the Statement that I have just repeated you will find that there is a two-fold answer to this question. In

1393
the first place, my right honourable friend is considering the setting up of a professional advisory system at regional and central levels so that by regular visiting we can raise standards in these hospitals as a whole. That is the long-term plan. In the short term the working party that my right honourable friend is setting up will have as its first task an assessment of the situation in other hospitals with a view to discussing with the regions what reallocations we need to make to improve standards.

LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

LAW OF PROPERTY BILL [H.L.]
4.32 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is very much lawyers' law reform. It makes various amendments to our law of property; and our law of property is itself a somewhat technical subject. I mention this at the outset because the Bill has nothing to do with Party politics. I think it to be largely non-controversial: but at the same time I shall have to ask your Lordships to allow me to make an ordinary Second Reading speech. The reason for that is that it is so uncontroversial that it has been accepted by the Opposition as suitable for a Second Reading Committee in the other place. That means it will not have the Second Reading in the other place, and where that happens they naturally look to this House to see what explanation of the Bill has been given here. It is for that reason that I am
1394
afraid I shall have to make an ordinary Second Reading speech. At the same time, I recognise that one has to have tea at some time or another, and therefore if anybody should wish to leave now and to come back in half an hour, I am quite sure that neither the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, nor I would take any offence.
My Lords, this is a Bill containing a considerable number of miscellaneous amendments to the law relating to property and land. Its three main parts concern first the law of business tenancies; secondly, the registration of title deeds under a special system operating only in Yorkshire, which is to be brought to an end; and, thirdly, a number of conveyancing matters concerning interests in land generally. With the exception of Part II, which deals with the Yorkshire title deeds, the Bill is based on the recommendations of the Law Commission contained in three Reports published by the Commission in the course of the last two years.
The three Reports are: the Law Commission's 9th Report, entitled Transfer of Land, Interim Report on Root of Title to Freehold Land, which was presented to me at the end of 1966 (the draft clause appended to that Report is reproduced in Clause 20 of the Bill); the Law Commission's 17th Report entitled Landlord and Tenant, Report on the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II, which deals with business tenancies and which I received in January of this year (this has appended to it a draft Landlord and Tenant Bill which forms the basis of the first 12 clauses of this Bill); and, lastly, the Law Commission's 18th Report Tr6nsler of Land. Report on Land Charges A fleeting Unregistered Land, which reached me only a few weeks ago and was published last week. The drift clauses 'appended to this Report are incorporated in Clauses 21 to 24.
Before I go into the details of the provisions in the Bill I should like to say a few words about the working methods of the Law Commission, because they enable me to put the Bill forward in the confidence that it will be widely welcomed. It is the practice of the Law Commission before arriving it any conclusions to publish working papers which are given a wide circulation and in the legal Press and among

1395
organisations and individuals which are likely to be interested in them. Just how wide this circulation goes your Lordships will be able to see from the long list of bodies who commented on drafts of the Law Commission's recommendations on business tenancies which is set out in Appendix 4 to the Law Commission's Report on this subject. They include The Law Society and the Bar Council, the Society of Public Teachers of the Law, the National Chamber of Trade, a number of local chambers of commerce, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Building Societies Association, the Church Commissioners, numerous Government Departments and many more organisations of learning and distinction.
Among the individuals who made their contribution is the distinguished lawyer Member of this House, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead. The list of persons and associations whose memoranda assisted the Law Commission in the preparation of its Report on Root of Title is given in paragraph 33 of that Report and, though shorter than that to which I have just referred, again includes many distinguished and representative bodies and persons. The result of these manifold contributions to the reform of our law, for which I should like to express my appreciation to all concerned, is that the proposed changes of the law are supported by a very wide consensus of opinion. Her Majesty's Government have had no hesitation in adopting the recommendations. Apart from the necessary editorial changes when draft clauses are incorporated into a Bill, there are only a few alterations to which I will draw your Lordships attention when I come to discuss individual clauses.
In its two recent Reports the Law Commission has adopted a practice which I think this House will find particularly helpful when it comes to examine the Bill in Committee. The draft clauses recommended by the Law Commission appear in Appendices to the Report accompanied by explanatory notes, the clauses being on the left-hand page and the notes on the right-hand page. They are designed to aid the reader on the background to the proposed enactment, and where, as unhappily must sometimes be the case in view of the legal com-
1396
plexity of the world in which we live, the statutory language does not immediately convey its meaning to the uninitiated reader, the notes are designed to help him understand it.
This is not, of course, an invention of the Law Commission. I have just received a copy of a draft Criminal Code for Canada and I have observed that they have initiated, for the benefit no doubt of their Members of Parliament, the same practice of putting the draft clauses of the Bill itself on the left and then explanatory notes on the right. Moreover the Report on business tenancies contains yet another aid to the legislator and, I think, ultimately the profession. Here the recommendations are all amendments of existing statutory provisions and the second Appendix sets out the relevant sections as they will read when the amendments have been made. It has always been my view that we do not sufficiently help our legislators with explanatory material of Bills.
As the Bill consists of a large number of diverse amendments of the law, I cannot give your Lordships an indication of its contents without commenting on the clauses individually. I cannot group them and merely expound the general scheme. If this means, here and there, going into some degree of technicality, I must ask your Lordships' indulgence in advance. Before I explain the clauses in Part II think I should give you a broad description of the scheme of the 1954 legislation on business tenants which these clauses amend.
Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 applies to business tenancies defined in the broadest possible way. It covers any tenancy where the property comprised in it includes premises occupied for business purposes, and "business" is defined as including any trade, profession or employment and any activity carried on by a body of persons whether corporate or unincorporate. Of course, the most common example is the shop, whether it has dwelling accommodation above it or not. If part of it is business premises the whole of that Part of the Act applies to it. Broadly, where a business tenancy comes to an end, whether on the expiration of the term or as a result of notice served by the landlord, it is continued by the Act on the same terms

1397
as before until terminated by a notice given in accordance with the provisions of the Act. When that notice is given the tenant has the right to apply for a new lease.
My Lords, obviously it is something of a hardship on the tenant of a shop if when the lease runs out he has to move to some other premises, acquire other premises, and perhaps lose all the goodwill which his hard work has acquired. The landlord can resist the grant of a new lease only on specific grounds, the most important of which are either that a tenant has been a bad tenant or that the landlord requires the premises either for himself or for redevelopment. If the tenant is denied a new lease on grounds other than his own bad conduct, he is entitled to statutory compensation of an amount equal to once or twice the rateable value of the premises, depending on how long he has been there. If the tenant obtains a new lease, the terms are those which are agreed between the landlord and tenant or, in default of agreement, determined by the court. Where it falls to the court to determine the new rent, the amount is to be that obtainable in the open market, disregarding any good will attaching to the premises as a result of the tenant's business, any personal factors concerning the tenant's occupation and any improvements made by him.
My Lords, this Act has now been in operation for 15 years, and on the whole it has stood the test of time well. The number of tenancies renewed or terminated annually in accordance with its provisions must be very large indeed. In 1967, 4,258 applications for new tenancies were filed in the county courts alone (a few more are dealt with in the High Court) and this, of course, is only the tip of the iceberg, because in most cases there is agreement. It is not perhaps surprising that over the years, with the vast number of cases involved, a number of defects in the operation of the Act have come to light. The Law Commission has examined these and Clauses 1 to 12 are designed to deal with them.
Let me now deal briefly with the individual clauses. Clause 1 concerns the determination of rent payable under a new lease. As I mentioned earlier, improvements which may be made by the
1398
tenant or his predecessor in title should be disregarded so that the rent will not be inflated due to the tenant's own good work; but the courts have held that on the true construction of the relevant sections this covers only improvements made during the current tenancy. This clause will ensure that improvements to be disregarded in fixing the rent include those made during the tenant's earlier tenancies of the same premises so long as they were not made more than 21 years before, and the same applies to improvements made by predecessors of the tenant whose tenancies he acquired.
Clause 2 will enable the court to fix a variable rent. Variable rent clauses are now commonly found in long leases and as the court has power to grant a new lease for periods up to 14 years under the Act, it seems appropriate that in a proper case the court should be able to include a variable rent clause.
Clause 3 contains provisions designed to prevent abuse of the protection afforded by the 1954 Act. Until the tenant's application for a new lease is determined and the terms of the new lease are settled by the court the original lease automatically continues. It does not terminate until three months after the application is disposed of and the time for appeal has expired. Where, as is frequently the case at the end of a long lease at a fixed rent, the rent payable under the original tenancy has dropped much below the market value it therefore pays the tenant to play for time. In one case I noticed in the Report the current rent was £250 and the market rent was £3,000. In such a case the landlord may suffer grave injustices from delay. Clause 3 will in future enable the landlord at any time after the tenant has made a request for a new tenancy to apply to the court to determine a fair rent which will be payable from the date of the application until such time as the tenancy finally come to an end.
Clause 4 enables the landlord in certain circumstances to terminate the tenancies of sub-tenants at the same time as those of his immediate tenants. I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with that, for this reason: that a decision of the court which this clause was intended to rectify was itself disapproved in the Curt of Appeal in a case which was reported in The Times the day before yesterday.

1399
Therefore I think it may turn out that this clause is really codifying the existing law rather than altering it.
Clause 5 is less significant but perhaps useful. It is designed to prevent devices sometimes used to keep business premises out of the operation of the Act of 1954 altogether. On the other hand, there are some cases where it would be in the interests of both parties that the 1954 Act should not apply to a letting but it cannot be excluded. At present the only tenancies excluded from its operation are those initially granted for a fixed term not exceeding three months and then only if the tenant does not remain in occupation for more than six months. This provision inhibits the letting of premises in some cases where both landlord and tenant would welcome a strictly temporary letting; for example, where the landlord has premises standing vacant pending his own occupation or awaiting demolition and reconstruction at a future date.
Two clauses in the Bill will facilitate lettings in such circumstances. Clause 6 enables agreements excluding the operation of the 1954 Act to be validly made with the consent of the court on the joint application of both landlord and tenant. Clause 11 lengthens the short tenancies to which the Act does not apply from three months to six months, and the overall limit of occupation from six months to twelve months. Your Lordships may notice that Clause 6 in the Bill differs from that in the Appendix to the Report. We thought it right to make two small changes; first, to enable the parties, with the consent of the court, to make valid agreements to surrender an existing tenancy as well as valid agreements to enter into a tenancy; and secondly, to provide that in either case the agreement must be endorsed on the appropriate document creating or evidencing the lease.
Clause 7 slightly widens the grounds on which the tenant can resist a landlord's claim for possession at the end of the lease. Under Section 30(1)(f) of the 1954 Act, a landlord is entitled to possession if he intends to demolish or reconstruct the premises or a substantial part of them or to carry out substantial work on the premises and could not reasonably do so without obtaining posession. The courts have held that he is entitled to possession on this ground even where
1400
the tenant would be willing to accept a new tenancy on the condition that he gives the landlord all the necessary access and facilities to do his work and even where the tenant would be content to accept a new tenancy of only part of the premises and the landlord only requires the rest of the premises for his operations. The clause will enable the tenant to obtain a new tenancy in such cases. I do not think that I need trouble your Lordships with the remaining clauses under Part I of the Bill.
Part II of the Bill provides for closure of the Yorkshire Deeds Registries. They were established in the time of Queen Anne and George II apparently in order to avoid fraudulent transactions by moneylenders and others, for the preamble of the Act establishing the Registry in the East Riding recites that:
"… from the power possessed by ill-disposed persons to commit frauds by secret conveyances, several persons (who through many years' industry in their trades and employments and by great frugality, had been enabled to purchase lands, or to lend monies on land securities) had been undone in their purchases and mortgages by prior and secret conveyances, and fraudulent encumbrances, and not only themselves, but their whole families thereby utterly ruined".
This was, of course, before the establishment of a solicitors' profession with high standards of integrity, safeguarded by the Law Society. The registers provide the facilities for a record to be kept of title deeds in the Ridings which is open to inspection by the public. Registration of certain mortgages also has the effect of giving them priority over all subsequent mortgages.
When the system of registration of title to land, introduced under the 1925 Law of Property legislation is extended to Yorkshire, the facilities afforded by these registries will become otiose, since all future transactions in areas of compulsory registration will be governed by the new system. Indeed, the closure of the Yorkshire Registries was already contemplated in the Land Registration Act 1925, which set up the new system. So far as I am aware, this peculiar method, not of registering titles but of registering title deeds, has always been peculiar to Yorkshire and Middlesex, and the 1925 Act always contemplated that when registration of title was applied to those counties the Deeds Registries would be

1401
wound up. This happened about a quarter of a century ago in Middlesex, and now the time is approaching when compulsory registration will be extended to parts of the Ridings, so we must make preparations for this closure.
Huddersfield was made a compulsory registration area in 1961 and other areas are to follow. It is not intended to defer closure of a registry until the whole of the land in the Riding is covered. Indeed, I have learnt in my consultations with the county councils that it may be necessary for reasons of manpower shortages to order the closure of a registry before compulsory registration comes to the Riding. Power to do this is conferred by Clause 13, which provides that a registry shall close either on the day when compulsory registration is next extended to any part of its area or when an order to close it is made by the Lord Chancellor at the request of the county council. These registries, of course, do not belong to the Government, they belong to the local authorities. The effect of the closure will be that from the appropriate date new deeds will cease to be capable of registration. The registries will remain open for another two years for the purpose of registering deeds executed earlier and for searches. At the end of that period, they will close for all purposes. Clauses 14 to 19 deal with consequential matters. Arrangements have been made for the transfer of documents, for the preservation of documents of historic interest and for safeguarding the position of staffs and so forth. I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with them.
I now come to Part III, which concerns dispositions of interests in land and land charges. Clause 20, which reduces the statutory period of title and is based on the Law Commission's 9th Report, makes a change of the law expressly designed to simplify and cheapen conveyancing, although its contribution in this respect must not be over-rated. To make its effect intelligible, I must briefly explain the investigation of title undertaken when land changes hands. Title to land, as your Lordships will know, can be either registered or unregistered. If it is registered, the ownership of the land can be ascertained from Her Majesty's Land Registry, and mortgages and other burdens or charges on the land which are not otherwise apparent appear in the register.
1402
A purchaser therefore, who has obtained the vendor's authority to inspect the register has no difficulty in making sure of what he is buying. On the other hand, where the title to the land is not registered, the purchaser will want to investigate the deeds relating to past transactions in order to be quite certain that the vendor is in fact the owner of the land and that the land is not subject to any unexpected burdens or restrictions. Clause 20 concerns this investigation.
Section 44 of the Law of Properly Act 1925 provides that, subject to any other agreement between the vendor and the purchaser, the buyer is entitled to call for title deeds over a period covering the title to the land during the last 30 years. Clause 20 reduces this period to 15 years. Consultations by the Law Commission showed that the proposal to shorten the period had the general support of practitioners. The work undertaken in successive conveyances of a piece of land is largely repetitive. Moreover, under the law or limitation actions to recover land cannot, with a few rare exceptions, be brought after 12 years. Consequently, an investigation of the title over a period of 15 years, which indicates that the transactions throughout that period were satisfactory, will normally be adequate. The case for the reduction is discussed in detail in the Report and I need not go into it at greater length.
Before 1840, the general practice in regard to land was to ask for title to be proved over a period of 60 years. In practice, it was found that this period was far too long and few purchasers asked for it to be proved for more than 40 years, so that in 1874 by Statute it was amended to 40 years. It was gradually found that this was unnnecessary and that was why in 1925 the 40 years was reduced to 30. One of the consequences of the reduction will be an increase in the risk that some burden on the land or some restriction on its use may be overlooked because it was imposed in a transaction which preceded the period of investigation. But if any losses result from this, Clause 22, as I shall explain shortly, will provide a remedy.
This brings me to the remaining provisions of Part III, which deal with land charges. Land charges impose a burden on a piece of land or restrict the owner's right to use it. Examples are certain

1403
mortgages, options to purchase and restrictive covenants. It is of vital concern to a purchaser to know whether the land he is buying is subject to such burdens. Where the land itself is registered, this presents little difficulty. He can inspect the register of title to the land and find out. The situation is more difficult where the land is not registered, and in order to ensure that a purchaser will become aware of such charges, the law requires that they must be registered. A registered land charge is then deemed to come to the knowledge of all persons. Clauses 21 to 24 relate only to such land charges on unregistered land.
Now land charges affecting such land are registered against the name of the owner of the land at the time when the charge was created. In order to make a search of the land charges register it is therefore necessary to know the names of every person who has owned the relevant land since the register was created on January 1, 1926. All lawyers will continue to be grateful to my noble and learned predecessor Lord Birkenhead for his property legislation of 1925, which was a complete modernising of the whole of our property law. I know of no defect in it except this one. It was unfortunate. Once title has been registered at the Land Registry, anybody can go there and everything to do with the land, including charges, is on the register; and it is a geographical register. You start by wanting to know where the property is that you are interested in, and from the address or from the passage in the register you can trace it. This is all perfectly clear and simple. But for some reason, when it was provided that in the case of unregistered land there should be a land charges register, it was provided that this should be registered under the name of the man who owned the property at the time the charge was granted. Therefore, unless you know the names of the previous owners, going back a considerable distance, it may be impossible for you to find the entry in the register which records the charge. This has now gone on since January 1, 1926.
Forty-three years have now passed since that date, and accordingly even the deeds covering a 30 years' title may not disclose all the relevant names. It is
1404
therefore possible that a purchaser making a full search against the estate owners known to him will nevertheless miss some land charges and the risk will be slightly increased when the 30 year period is reduced to 15. In practice, the risk is not great because these charges are normally mentioned in the documents of title, and those which are not will often be revealed in answer to inquiries between the solicitors acting for the parties. Nevertheless, there is an inherent defect in the system which grows as time passes. The position was reviewed by the Committee on Land Charges under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Roxburgh which reported in 1956. They came to the conclusion that no practicable cure could be devised, and the Law Commission, who have now re-examined the problem, have confirmed that conclusion. Solutions like the conversion of the land charges register into a register operating by reference to maps of the land concerned are ruled out by the sheer volume of the existing registrations. In the long term, the Commission concludes, the solution will have to be found in the nation-wide extension of the system of registration of land.
As I have said, burdens on land must be registered so that a purchaser will not buy land without notice of them. An unregistered land charge is generally void; on the other hand, every purchaser of land is deemed to have notice of a registered charge. This provision can lead to injustices where, for one reason or another, the purchaser is unable to discover the entry in the register relating to the charge. Clauses 21 and 22 are intended to go a long way to right these injustices. Clause 21 concerns the position as between the vendor and the purchaser of land. It is the normal practice for anyone buying land to make a binding contract at the earliest possible moment subject to a right to rescind if the vendor cannot show a sound title. The vendor's title is not investigated before the contract. However, it was held as long ago as 1927 that, as a purchaser is deemed to have notice of any registered land charge, he cannot rescind the contract if he discovers such a charge after the contract. As the purchaser would not normally know the names of the previous owners of the land against whom he would have to search until, following the contract, he is supplied with

1405
the vendor's abstract of title, this can operate unfairly. In practice, parties normally safeguard themselves by appropriate provisions in the contract. Clause 21 ensures that in future a purchaser will no longer be deemed to have knowledge at the date of his contract of any registered land charge of which he was in fact ignorant. If he discovers a land charge which the vendor had not disclosed to him, he will be able either to rescind the contract or to claim damages.
Clause 22 deals with the position after the purchase has been completed. As I explained in relation to Clause 20, land charges may be registered against the names of former estate owners of the land which are not known to a purchaser because the title deeds do not go back far enough. Theoretically, as time goes on, more and more names will disappear into the mists before the root of the title. Nevertheless, as purchasers are deemed to have notice of all registered land charges, the land will continue to be bound by the registered burden. If this defect in the system of land registration causes loss, that loss should be borne by public funds, as this is a mistake in our system. Clause 22 accordingly provides for the payment of compensation to anyone who completes a purchase after the enactment of the Bill and subsequently suffers loss as a result of the emergence of a land charge which was unknown to him at the time of the purchase and which he could not then discover. The clause sets out the machinery for recovering the compensation in some detail, and your Lordships may have noticed that there are small differences between the clause in the Bill and that appended to the Law Commission's Report.
The real remedy for all this is to extend compulsory registration of title to all the built-up areas of the country as soon as we possibly can, and ultimately, I hope before not many years have gone by, to the country as a whole. Meanwhile, if somebody does suffer damage because of a defect in the legal system, it is only right that (and I am happy to say that the Treasury agree) they should be compensated out of public funds. Subsection (9) excludes mortgagees of certain leases from the persons entitled to claim compensation, and subsection (11) contains a provision defining the date of certain
1406
contracts. I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with explanations of these. Lord Macnaghten, that eminent Lord of Appeal in Ordinary at the turn of the century, once said:
"No one, I am sure, by the light of nature ever understood an English mortgage of real estate".
And that great teacher of the law, Professor Maitland, in the Second Edition of his book on Equity, asserts that:
"It is the worst of our mortgage decd that owing to the action of equity it is ore long suppressio veri and suggestio falsi".
So it would take me a long time to explain the reason for the change in subsection (9).
There is little I need say about the remaining clauses of Part III. They require land charges created by a company for securing money to be in future registered in the register of land charges as well as the Companies' Register, and make minor, but none the less valuable, changes regarding the effect of registration of certain rent-charges for loans advanced for purposes of improving agricultural land.
My Lords, in the course of my speech I have had to cover some difficult branches of the law of property and conveyancing. In a sense, this is mainly a lawyer's Bill, but I hope that I have persuaded the House that the changes which it will make in the law sire of practical importance and real value. Some of them will simplify the law; others will right minor injustices or streamline the administration. I hope that the Bill will be accorded a favourable reception. I beg to move that the Bill may now be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
5.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has told such of your Lordships as did not take advantage of his invitation for a temporary period of absence what is in this Bill; and for those who wish to pursue this sterling material yet further, there are the three Law Commission Reports to which reference can be made. There is no doubt that your Lordships will consider this subject to be highly technical, as indeed it is, and, I am afraid, perhaps not

1407
of the scintillating and stimulating nature of the debates which are going to follow. Therefore I will not take up a great deal of time. This is a Bill upon which it is quite impossible to make a Second Reading speech, and I will confine myself to asking a few questions, and perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be good enough to consider them and make one or two general comments at the end. I see in their place two noble and learned Lords who are extremely familiar with much of the subject matter of this Bill, and it may be that they also will have some comments to make.
On Part I of the Bill I have some detailed comments, and the first arises under Clause 6 which is, as the noble and learned Lord said, one of the clauses that allow a contracting out of the restrictions in Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The point which I should like to have clarified, and which is not I think clarified by the Law Commission, is: what is the role of the court upon the joint application that is set out under two paragraphs in the clause as it is here printed? It seems to me that as the application will be joint, by both the landlord and the tenant, the court is liable to become simply a rubber stamp, and no criterion is set out in the clause whereby it may exercise its discretion one way or the other, perhaps on occasion to refuse consent to this contracting out. It seems to me that this position always brings the function of the court into contempt, unless courts are given some indication of what they are to do if for some reason they do not approve of the joint application. There will be no argument about it, so far as I can make out, because both sides at that stage will agree.
Then in Clause 7 a new Section 31A is inserted into the 1954 Act. The noble and learned Lord of course explained about the problem of the landlord who wished to redevelop or carry out structural alterations, and the tenant who was quite prepared to let him do so. even although it would mean some temporary inconvenience. The Law Commission's Report on this explains this matter in paragraphs 36 and 37. Of course, they make it clear that where the tenant is prepared to give facilities for the reconstruction or the redevelopment, then
1408
that may allow him to insist upon the grant of a new tenancy, whereas at the moment the law is that the landlord can get possession.
But in paragraph 37 the Law Commission have rejected a recommendation that where there is a complete redevelopment the tenant should nevertheless be allowed, if he wishes, to have a new tenancy of the new building. It seems to me to be possible under the wording of the clause as it now is that that is what could happen, because there is no limit on the extent of the reconstruction or redevelopment or on the, as it were, permissiveness of the tenant in allowing facilities to the landlord to carry out this work. It seems to me that one could construe this provision so that the tenant says to the landlord, "I am perfectly prepared for you to redevelop this property altogether. I can go away for a certain length of time, and at the end of it, when you have built a completely new office for me, I will come back and continue my protected tenancy". This seems to me exactly what the Law Commission were not recommending. Therefore, it is possible that this clause is drawn too widely.
Then, under Clause 9, I fail to understand the argument that the tenant must be in occupation at the time when the application for the new tenancy is made and at the time when the order for a new tenancy is given (or I suppose, as it may turn out, not given) by the court, but that the period in between is of no concern. This is said by the Law Commission to be a measure which is intended to ease the practical difficulties of tenants who may consider that they will not get their new tenancy and wish to find some alternative premises. But what good it will do the tenant if he is allowed to have some alternative premises for a period but then has to come back again to the premises in question at the moment when the matter is being tried by the court, is altogether beyond my comprehension. I do not understand what practical effect and usefulness to the tenant this particular clause is going to have. It may be that the noble and learned Lord could consider that and tell me, if not to-day then at some other time.
My main criticism about this Bill, so far as Part I is concerned, is that,

1409
although the noble and learned Lord drew attention to the admirable way in which the matter has been explained in the Appendices to the Law Commission's Report, for some reason the draftsman has not done the same. There is a very well established method of dealing with this incredibly complicated legislation by reference, and there can be no doubt that Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 is a very widely used provision and is applied all over the country to a large number of people, some of whom may not have legal advisers—they may not need them. What the Law Commission have done has been to set out in the Appendix what is called technically, I think, a "Keeling Schedule". They have reprinted the 1954 Act with the amendments in heavy type. I should have thought it would have been the greatest possible improvement that this Bill, too, should have a Keeling Schedule setting out the provisions of Part I as amending the 1954 Act: not only the sections of the 1954 Act that have been amended, but the whole of Part II, so that one can read the whole thing together in one place. This must be the right way to deal with legislation by reference of this sort. If the noble and learned Lord does not do so, I shall put down an Amendment (and it will take me a long time to write out) in order to have this effect.
Under Part II—Closing of Yorkshire Deeds Registries—I have very few questions to ask, although of course this is the one subject in the Bill which is not covered by the Law Commission Report. The noble and learned Lord said that he had consultation with the three county councils—and that of course is a matter which I should have expected to occur. I do not know whether he has had consultations with the legal profession in Yorkshire. The solicitors will be particularly involved, I imagine, in this; and the local societies of the solicitors' profession would, I imagine, have some very interesting views upon whether or not this measure is going to work properly. I think the House might be glad if the noble and learned Lord could tell us the result of those consultations.
It would also be of interest, in view of the fact that he said, or at any rate implied, that the whole system of the registries seems to be grinding to a halt
1410
in Yorkshire, largely from lack of staff. if he could give us some indication of the timetable that he foresees for the extension of compulsory registration in that county. It cannot be a real inference that can be drawn now from the Preambles to those old Acts that fraudulent-mindedness is any more prevalent in Yorkshire, even if it ever was. But I think we ought to know what is the timetable whereby this existing protection is to be withdrawn if there is going to be a substantial gap between that and the date when compulsory registration comes in. The noble and learned Lord may also be able to assure us that in the rural areas where compulsory registration under the 1925 legislation will not come until later there will be no practical disadvantages from the closure of the Deeds Registries when the compulsory registration first reaches one of the urban areas in that particular Riding of Yorkshire; because the date at which some of the county districts come under the national scheme may be very much later than that when the urban districts are brought under it.
Now I come to Part III, which I suppose is the most technical Part of all. It may be that the point I have in mind is something which is so obvious that, just because of its sheer obviousness, I have missed it. But, as under Part II (the Yorkshire Registries), there is here provided a statutory right to compensation if, as a result of either Part II, the rearrangement of the system, or Part III. the defects of the system, somebody becomes aware too late of a charge which then puts him in the disadvantage per laps of having a restrictive covenant on his land of which he did not know anything, or some other defect or disadvantage in title. I can fully understand, and I am very glad to hear, that the Treasury has agreed that there shall be compensation payable in such an event. But what strikes me as curious is that where this statutory right to compensation is granted, for instance in Clause 22, there does not seem to be any statutory requirement that the person who claims it should first of all have carried out a proper search of the title, not even to the extent of 15 years.
It seems to me that one could read Clause 22 as enabling a person to claim for an undiscovered restrictive covenant

1411
even though he had not carried out a proper search; and this could, I think, be of practical importance under subsection (4), because the compensation that is to be allowed is either the amount that it costs to get rid of the incumbent on the land or, alternatively, the compensation. In the case of a restrictive covenant, you can go to the Lands Tribunal and ask for the covenant to be modified or removed. You may or may not succeed, but if you do not succeed you do not get compensation. Therefore it seems to me that upon discovering the undisclosed restrictive convenant the person who has bought the land could go to the Lands Tribunal; he could fail to get the restrictive covenant removed, because it is still of some value and still enforceable, but he could then claim compensation. This is all very well if it is a very old covenant, and he really did not have the opportunity of finding it. But what if he simply has not looked? It seems to me quite wrong that in such a case he should have compensation. I suspect that there ought to be something rather more specific in the Bill about the duty of the purchaser before he can rely upon this right in the Bill. I have no other detailed comments on this matter, but this seems to be rather an important one, if I am right in having spotted a loophole here.
The other thing I want to say concerns a general matter. I am not sure what has happened to Her Majesty's Government, but we have had now a number of, I am sure, very worthy but very hotch-potch Bills containing a lot of detailed, boring things— probably very necessary—which come from the good work of the Law Commission. Then they get embellished by a title such as the "Law of Property Bill". Now the Law of Property Bill surely, as the noble and learned Lord said, is something which properly graced the legislation in 1925 but it does not grace this Bill. This is a Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, and I cannot think of any reason to call it a Law of Property Bill —except possibly that of brevity, and also, conceivably, the question of gaining credit for a rather more impressive piece of legislation than in fact it is. My Lords, I hope that it is not the latter, because I do not think it is a particularly impressive piece of legislation, and one
1412
only has to look at the Reports of the Law Commission to see that that is so.
For instance, paragraph 47 of the Interim Report on Root of Title, sets out some of the difficulties which are still unresolved. Sub-paragraph (4) refers to the possible need for changes in the limitation period applicable to actions for recovery of land by the Crown and by spiritual and eleemosynary corporations. This point has still to be explored, and it is bound up with matter in this Bill. It is an unresolved difficulty, and the noble and learned Lord drew attention to it. So we shall in due course have another of these Bills dealing with that. And the same applies to the Landlord and Tenant Act, because in paragraph 4 of the Introduction to the Report on that Act there are two things which, for reasons that wholly escape me, the Law Commission say they do not think they can tackle at this time. One is the definition of a "business". Should it be so wide as to include a famous tennis club? For some reason they do not want to take that one on. Similarly, there is another technical point about when a request is "given "or "made". These are two technical terms which the Commission do not wish to go into now. I suppose that one of these days they will tackle the points, and then we shall have another of these hotch-potch Bills put together from this Report and that. So, my Lords, although this Bill may be a good measure in itself, and one which should be welcomed, I hope that the noble and learned Lord is not trying to attract too much credit for a grandiose title on something which is not so significant as it might at first sight appear.
5.23 p.m.
LORD WILBERFORCE: My Lords, this Bill is a small step towards that great simplification of the law of landlord and tenant and of the law of property which we were promised when the Law Commission was first set up. It is true, as the noble Viscount has just pointed out, that this Bill is of a rather piecemeal character, and indeed could fairly be said to represent a step back rather than a step forward, because instead of simplifying the law it adds another fairly complicated Statute to the reading matter with which we are faced in this particular subject. But I think we must be grateful

1413
for it. These prosaic, boring, technical matters are of importance.
The various Parts of the Bill deal with matters which affect a great number of people—business tenancies, landlords, people who buy and sell land and people who have to search the register. I for my part think that on the whole it is worth proceeding with them even though, before long, they may be overtaken by something more general. Here, I should like to pay my own tribute to the care with which the Law Commission have prepared these drafts and to the care which they have taken to consult persons of various interests before framing their proposals.
My Lords, I have a few comments to make on the different Parts of the Bill. The first concerns Part I, the Landlord and Tenant Act section. On the whole that is well conceived, as I understand it. Of course the Law Commission had to start from a comparatively modern Statute—the Act of 1954—which was a well drafted and practical Act and therefore easier to deal with than some of the more medieval aspects of the law of landlord and tenant. But what has been put into Part 1 by way of amendment to that Act is, on the whole, well conceived, and I am glad to see in particular that it does not bear, as so much of this legislation tends to, an anti-landlord bias. It strikes a balance between landlord and tenant; and where it is fair to do so, it rights the present state of the law in the interests of the landlord, and on the whole it is admirably impartial as between the two.
I note—and this links up again with what the noble Viscount has said as to other matters which may require further consideration—that the Law Commission, in paragraphs 5 and 6 of their Report, drew attention to more than one matter which required attention; namely, cases where the business, the tenancy of which was for renewal, was carried on either by a company or a partnership; and they referred to certain cases before the courts which had given rise to difficulty. The reason they give in those paragraphs for not having made a proposal for legislation was that there was a pending appeal to this House in its judicial capacity in relation to one of the matters, and they thought it better to await the decision of this House. But then there is a note put in at the last moment,
1414
saying that that appeal has been withdrawn and further consideration will now be given to those questions. I wondered whether it would not be possible for this matter to be introduced into this Bill at one of its stages, rather than waiting for a fresh piece of legislation which may take some time to arrive. It does not seem to be a matter of great complication and it seems a pity to let this occasion pass. The only other point I wish to make on this Part of the Act is to endorse most heartily the proposal made by the noble Viscount that the Landlord and Tenant Act should be printed with the amendments in it. That seems to be absolutely essential, and I feel sure that the Government will fall in with that suggestion.
I come now to Clause 20 of the Bill, which deals with the particular matter of the root of title, which was the subject of a separate Report from the Law Commission. That is the Report which proposes that the root of title should be reduced from 30 years, as it now stands under the 1925 legislation, to 15 years. For my part I have felt, and still feel, rather doubtful about the merits of so drastic a reduction. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out that the period has come down from 60 to 40, to 30, and now we are to come down to 15. It is pointed out in the Report of the Law Commission that it is a fallacy to suppose that the reduction in the work of conveyancing solicitors is achieved proportionately to the reduction in the length of title which has to be deduced. You do not get half as much work in a 15-years root of title as for a 30-years, simply because you may well have to go back beyond 15 years, even if the minimum period is 15.
The argument which seems to have weighed most with the Law Commission in suggesting 15 years as against 20 is not, as I understand it, any longer valid. It is contained in paragraph 28, where they say that a reduction to 15 years would avoid the necessity of looking at a number of difficult transactions which occurred during the war period of 1940 to 1946. That was in 1965 and we are now in 1969, and the same objective would be secured if one were to reduce to 20 years rather than to 15. I appreciate that there has been substantial consultation on this point, though one notice

1415
from the Law Commission's Report that among the experts in Lincoln's Inn some doubt was felt as to the propriety of this reduction; and the adversaries of it were given an opportunity—an interesting technique in law reform—of publishing their views in one of the law publications, to which the Law Commission in their turn sent out their counter-proposals. I have no doubt that these suggestions have been very widely considered.
It does not perhaps matter a very great deal whether one fixes 20 or 15 years unless—and this is a real fear, I think—a reduction to 15 years is going to give rise to a demand, as it may, that the title of vendors of property should be guaranteed. It must be true that a reduction to 15 years will give rise to a small number, but at any rate a number, more of defective titles, cases where either a good title cannot be made or where some charge is discovered. There is already a certain amount of pressure in the profession and outside that a vendor of property should have to warrant and guarantee his title, and if a reduction to 15 years is going to give rise to more defective titles I have some fear that the pressure for guaranteeing titles might increase. That would be a bad thing, I should think, because it would bring us closer to the American system of bonds, insurance companies and so on, all of which would tend to add to the cost of transferring land rather than diminish it. If possible, I should like to hear from the noble and learned Lord that he has considered this point and that he has advised that the proposed reduction to 15 years is well designed from that point of view, that it will not give rise to a demand for guaranteeing title, or that, if it does, he will himself be in a position to resist it.
Lastly, I come to the section dealing with land charges, which have imposed rather a burden on those of us who try hard to follow these matters, since the Law Commission Report No. 18 was only available on March 19. It is a very technical and difficult Report, and though the noble Viscount seems to have found no difficulty in digesting it at short notice, I must say that I did. This deals, as everyone knows, with a most thorny and difficult subject, and there is really no proper solution to it. The Law Com-
1416
mission put this very well in paragraph 74. They say they know that their proposals will not lead to solving the defects in the existing system; that they are inheritors of a defective system from 1925. and it is not possible to put the clock back; that it is not possible, having regard to the huge number of transactions, to amalgamate the register with the land register or start a new register, and they say that all that can now be done is to patch the system and try to alleviate some of its worst consequences. Then they say this, which I think is of importance:
"We recognise, however, that if the present delay in extending compulsory registration of title… were to be prolonged, it might well be that substantial changes would be required in the system of registering Land Charges."
That brings me back to a point which I have raised before in this House and shall continue to raise, and that is the vital necessity of pressing on with the compulsory registration of land. I need not rub it in, because I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor thinks exactly as I do about it. It is the only solution, and is the one matter in the realm of real property which is really going to do good and save some money and simplify the law. The present timetable looks to be this. so far as one can tell, putting it optimistically: that compulsory registration in England and Wales will be established by 1977, but of course after that date it will then take a considerable period of years before transactions, titles and so on are actually put on the register. So we may easily be faced with another period of twenty years under the existing system.
As regards acceleration of the compulsory land registration, I should like to revert to what was said the last time this matter was discussed, when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, in answer to a question of mine, that he wanted very much to get on with it but that the Treasury had imposed a ban on civil servants; he could not get any more civil servants, and until he did it was not possible to accelerate land registration. I would ask the noble and learned Lord whether the Treasury does not realise that land registration is one of the few Departments which makes money; it does not cost money, it makes

1417
money, it brings it in. Therefore, an increase in the staff does not cost anything, it is deflationary rather than inflationary; and it is absolutely absurd for our financial masters to pretend that the general ban on increase in the Civil Service should be applied to this particular field. The contrary is the case, and the extra civil servants ought to be made available if they can be found.
Accepting, as one must, that there is going to be a substantial delay in extending compulsory registration, I want to make one final point which arises out of paragraph 74 which I have just read, that some further step will be necessary. I am convinced that it will. I do not think this patchwork will last very long, and I feel sure that before many years it will be necessary to do seomething else. The occasion for doing something else will surely arise out of the Report of the Maud Commission on Local Government, which, it may be—one can only guess—will suggest the establishment of wider regional areas of local government which will enable the whole system of local land charges, which at present are scattered about over a number of small local authorities, to be reduced and centralised.
It seems to me that if thinking starts on that soon enough it may be possible to make use of whatever reform comes out of the Maud Commission's recommendations to simplify and rationalise both the system of land charges and the system of local land charges, which would be an important step. That, of course, would not be necessary if compulsory land registration extends to the whole country, but assuming that there is to be an interim period it might give us a halfway house with which we can live better than we can under the existing abominable system of land charges. Subject to those remarks, I certainly support the Bill.
5.38 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, for the interest they have taken in this Bill. I should very much like to deal with all the questions which have been raised, but perhaps in a sense we have had our fair share of to-day's time. We have the very important Second
1418
Reading of the Immigration Appeals Bill, then an Order and then two Unstarred Questions. As we are adjourning to-day and the Committee stage of this Bill will be taking place after Easter, I should like to consider carefully everything that has been said and I will personally answer all the questions which have been raised. It will give me great satisfaction to see the noble Viscount and discuss with him the interesting question of what titles to Bills ought to be. It may be that by the Committee stage we shall be able to implement a further recommendation of the Law Commission in relation to restrictive covenants. With regard to the other questions that have been raised by the noble Viscount and the noble and learned Lord, I will, if I may, answer them either orally, or in writing, or both.
On Question Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROYAL ASSENT
5.40 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act,

Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act,

National Theatre Act,

Genocide Act,

Licensing (Scotland) Act,

Horserace Betting Levy Act,

Derbyshire County Council Act,

Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Act.

IMMIGRATION APPEALS BILL
5.41 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that the Immigration Appeals Bill be read a second time. This Bill is concerned primarily with the fairness of the procedures we adopt within our system of immigration control to determine whether an individual immigrant is eligible for admission. In our view that system works both fairly and effectively at present. We keep the effectiveness of the control under continuous review, and your Lordships are fully aware that we take fresh action

1419
whenever it is found to be necessary and just. Indeed, we put a review of immigration policy in hand as soon as we took office. This resulted, in 1965, in a reduction in the issue of vouchers from 20,000 to 8,500 a year. Early in 1968 we introduced an amending Bill to enable the Government to regulate the rate of entry of people whose United Kingdom citizenship was not derived from any substantial connection with this country.
In the same Bill we made other changes in the law which had then become necessary to maintain the effectiveness of our control over Commonwealth immigration. For example, the 1968 Act restricted the admission of dependent children to cases where both parents or the only surviving parent was here, and contained provisions aimed at the suppression of clandestine immigration. From time to time we have taken administrative action to adjust the rules governing eligibility for admission. The most recent example is the withdrawal of the concession under which a man from a Commonwealth country was allowed to settle permanently in this country if he married a woman who was resident here. We have never lacked the courage to make changes that experience proved necessary, or to insist that such changes left inviolate our refusal to discriminate on grounds of race or colour. We are determined to maintain this policy and, while never allowing ourselves to be driven into adopting new measures for the sake of satisfying public clamour, will always watch the situation closely and take further action whenever it is found to be justified.
The Government are concerned, however, to ensure not only that our immigration control works, but is seen to work both effectively and fairly. It was in this spirit that in 1965 my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced the Government's intention to submit our immigration procedures to an independent review. That review was undertaken by a Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Roy Wilson, Q.C., President of the Industrial Court. We are greatly indebted to Sir Roy and his colleagues for their valuable Report, on which Part I of the Bill is largely based. The general conclusion reached by the Wilson Committee was that, while immigration control was in general fairly administered
1420
and the great majority of cases which arise at present properly decided, it was not always apparent to immigrants, to their relatives and friends and to the public generally, that justice was being done. They recommended the establishment of a formal system of appeal to impartial administrative tribunals, and a year later the necessary legislation was introduced.
The cost of the appeal system will be quite substantial—about £500,000 a year. There will be some loss of the capacity for swift and decisive action in particular cases which we can achieve at present. There will be an increase in the number of Commonwealth citizens and aliens who have to wait for some time in this country, pending a final decision on their applications for admission or continued stay. But such disadvantages, though they should not be overlooked, do not, in the Government's view, outweigh the advantages of bringing immigration control more fully under the rule of law and so of making it manifest that those affected by it are treated fairly. I would add here that intending immigrants would greatly reduce the risk of delay on entry and still further reduce the risk of dispute if they obtained entry certificates before embarking. I cannot too much emphasise the importance of that.
I propose now to discuss the clauses of the Bill, drawing special attention to the few points at which our provisions depart from the Wilson Committee's recommendations. Where I make no such comment we have followed the recommendations. Clause 1 establishes the appellate authorities for the purpose of the Bill, comprising the Immigration Appeal Tribunal and its adjudicators. Clauses 2 to 5 confer rights of appeal against action taken under the Commonwealth Immigrants Acts, and Clause 14 enables provision to be made for appeals in connection with the admission and removal of aliens, by Order in Council, under the Aliens Restriction Acts. The Home Secretary has laid before the House a White Paper containing a draft Order in Council which shows the provision that we intend to make.
Eventually—I have said this many times before but I will say it again—we shall have permanent and comprehensive legislation for the control of Commonwealth citizens and aliens which

1421
will also cover rights of appeal. The Government have not lost sight of the need for this, but we have not been able to find room for such far-reaching legislation in this Session's programme. As I said last year, and I think your Lordships agreed, it will be helpful to see how the new appeal system works in practice, superimposed on the present system of control, before the two are combined in permanent legislation. Meanwhile there can be no question of aliens being arbitrarily deprived of their rights of appeal, because any Order in Council amending the Aliens (Appeals) Order will, like that Order itself, be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure.
The decisions against which Commonwealth citizens will have rights of appeal under Clauses 2 to 5 of the Bill are, with one important exception, those against which the Wilson Committee recommended that an appeal should lie. The exception relates to offenders who are recommended for deportation by the courts. The Government consider that the balance of advantage lies with the retention by the courts of their present power to recommend offenders for deportation; and we consider that appeals against such recommendations should continue to be heard within the ordinary judicial system.
In accordance with the Wilson Committee's recommendation a person who is alleged to have entered illegally is to have a right of appeal; but to discourage any abuse of this right we have thought it desirable to make it clear on the face of the Bill that once it is established to the satisfaction of the adjudicator that the appellant has entered, or is seeking to enter, illegally, his appeal must fail. Detailed provisions based on this general principle are to be found in Clauses 2, 4 and 5.
Clause 6 enables regulations to be made providing for notice to be given of decisions which are subject to appeal, with a statement of the reasons for such a decision and information about the right of appeal. Clause 7 deals with appeals from an adjudicator's decision to the Tribunal. Subsection (2) of the clause enables the rules of procedure to impose a requirement of leave to appeal. The Home Secretary proposes to provide in the rules that leave to appeal is to be
1422
granted in any case which turns on a point of law, or in which the appellant is making a bona fide claim to political asylum. In other cases the grant of leave to appeal will be a matter of discretion, on which the adjudicators will follow such guidance as may be given by the Tribunal. But the Bill itself specifies two classes of case in which leave to appeal to the Tribunal is not to be required. The first is that in which the appellant holds an entry certificate—again emphasising the importance of the "entry certificate"—and here we are following the Wilson Committee's recommendations. The second is that in which refusal of admission follows from a decision taken by the Home Secretary himself, in which he considers it to be n the public interest that the person concerned should not be allowed to enter thee country until the Tribunal itself has reached a final decision in the case.
Clause 8 is concerned with the functions of the appellate authorities in deciding appeals. The point I want to emphasise here is that the Home Secretary will remain responsible for determining the policy to be applied in the administration of immigration control. This policy will be expressed in the form of "immigration rules" which will be laid before Parliament and published. Under the appeal system these immigration rules will be binding on the appellate authorities, and within the limits allowed by law the Home Secretary will be free to alter the rules as the public interest may require.
Clause 9 prescribes a special procedure for use in cases involving national security. The Wilson Committee expressed the view that appeals in security cases could be dealt with in the same way as other appeals, except that they might need to be heard by specially selected adjudicators; but the Government consider it essential that in security cases the Home Secretary of the day should retain his responsibility for the final decision and that there should be provision in such cases for safeguarding evidence of which the disclosure would be harmful to the national interest. These objects are secured by Clause 9, which provides for the appeals to be heard by a panel acting in an advisory capacity—a panel of independent and judicially-minded people in whom the

1423
appellant can have confidence and whose advice will carry great weight.
Clause 10 gives the Home Secretary a power, which I think will be useful in some instances, to refer a case back to the appellate authorities for their opinion on some fresh matter which has come to notice since the hearing of the appeal. Clause 11 provides for rules of procedure to be made by the Home Secretary. As envisaged in paragraph 149 of the Wilson Committee's Report, the Government propose to bring the appellate authorities within the scope of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1958 by an order under Section 10 of that Act. When the rules of procedure have been drafted, they will be the subject of consultation with the Council on Tribunals. Clause 12 and Schedule 3 deal with the release of appellants on bail. Clause 13 authorises seamen who are appealing against a prohibition on their landing to be brought ashore, in custody, for the hearing of their appeals.
Clause 15 empowers the Home Secretary to make grants towards expenditure incurred by voluntary organisations in providing, for people who have rights of appeal under the Bill, both advisory and welfare services. A Working Group representing seven voluntary bodies concerned with the welfare of immigrants drew up, in July last year, a scheme under which those bodies would join in setting up a single advisory and welfare organisation such as the Wilson Committee envisaged. After some further discussion with the voluntary bodies, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary agreed in principle to the proposal for a single organisation providing a comprehensive advisory and welfare service. We have invited the voluntary bodies to continue discussions with the Home Office on the scale of the service to be provided and the arrangements for assistance from public funds.
I come now to Part II of the Bill. The principal provision here is Clause 16, which empowers the Home Secretary to make a deportation order, without a court recommendation, against a Commonwealth citizen who fails to comply with his conditions of admission. A power of this kind was first proposed in August, 1965, in the White Paper Immigration from the Commonwealth:
1424
but later that year the Government decided to set up the Wilson Committee, and we took the view that it would be better to defer legislation enabling Commonwealth citizens to be deported without the recommendation of a court until we could be sure of providing such right of appeal or other safeguard for the Commonwealth citizen as Parliament would consider satisfactory. It is not our intention that this power to deport for breach of conditions of admission should become effective until the appellate authorities are established and a right of appeal to them is available against a decision to deport. And I should perhaps emphasise that this power of deportation applies only to the Commonwealth citizen who has been admitted on conditions. It has no application whatever to those admitted with employment vouchers, or to wives and children admitted for settlement.
The purpose of Clause 16 is to enable the Home Office to enforce conditions of admission without recourse to criminal proceedings. In the present state of the law, the only sanction we can use against a Commonwealth citizen who fails to observe a time limit attached to his stay, or a restriction on his engaging in employment, is to prosecute him for an offence under Section 4(1) of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962. This is a harsh and clumsy procedure for dealing with people, very few of whom are criminals in any accepted sense. The police are obliged in these cases to bring the Commonwealth citizen before a court as a criminal because only a court has power to initiate the process of deportation. But what is needed, as we said in the 1965 White Paper, is a "speedy and effective power" to secure their repatriation without our having to invoke the sanctions of the criminal law. That is what the clause provides.
Clauses 17 to 21 contain various supplementary provisions. The only one to which I need draw special attention is, I think, Clause 17(5), which enables a warrant to be issued authorising entry to premises for the purpose of arresting a person who is liable to detention in connection with the making of a deportation order under Clause 16. There is a similar provision in paragraph 9(2) of Schedule 3, relating to the arrest of appellants who have been released on

1425
bail. Provisions of this kind are necessary if we are to be able to enforce the departure of people who have been at liberty in this country while their cases were being considered by the Home Office and by the appellate authorities.
Clause 22 provides, among other things, for dates of commencement for the various provisions of the Bill to be fixed by Statutory instrument. It is too early yet to say how soon Part I of the Bill can be brought into operation. I know that it will be your Lordships' wish to see a system of appeal in operation at the earliest practicable date; but the establishment of an appeal system depends not only on the passage of legislation, but also on the completion of a great many administrative problems and preparations. I do not want to exaggerate the practical problems involved in setting up the appeal system, but they are considerable. Provision has been made in the Estimates for the coming financial year to ensure that money is available for bringing the system into operation before the end of that year—that is, before the end of the financial year starting on April 1 next. But how soon the necessary resources of manpower and accommodation will be available is less easy to determine. If I may sum up, the principle underlying this Bill is that people from overseas should not be excluded or deported from this country without a full and fair hearing being given to their claims to enter or remain. Your Lordships will find me ready to consider any suggestions that you may put forward in Committee for further improvement of the Bill. This evening I invite the House to record its approval of the underlying principle I have mentioned, by giving the Bill its Second Reading. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Stonham.)
6.0 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, in my opening words I wish to refer to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who has explained this Bill with his usual lucidity. This is the last day of term before the Easter Recess. During this period we have had 30 sitting days. My researches have disclosed that on no fewer than 18 of those 30 days Lord Stonham has been speaking for the Government on important business. It is a
1426
remarkable record, and I think that noble Lords in all parts of the House will wish to pay tribute to him.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: This Bill has its origin, as the noble Lord hinted, in the White Paper entitled Immigration from the Commonwealth which was presented to Parliament by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, in August, 1965. It seemed to me at the time a very soundly based White Paper. I will remind your Lordships of a particular passage which is relevant to our debates to-day. It is paragraph 25:
"At present a Commonwealth citizen may be deported only if a court has made a recommendation to that effect on convicting him of a crime punishable by imprisonment. The Government regard it as important that there should be a speedy and effective power to repatriate immigrants who in one way or another, e.g., by obtaining entry by misrepresentation or by flouting the conditions on which Grey were admitted, evade the stricter control over immigration that is now envisaged. Without it the effectiveness of the control would be greatly weakened. It is therefore, the Government's intention to seek for the Home Secretary a general power—in addition to his power to act on the recommendation of a court—to repatriate such Commonwealth citizens if he considers the public interest to require it."
That was the position taken by the Government in August, 1965. But though the Government regarded it as important three and a half years ago, they have waited all this time before proposing to Parliament legislation to give them this power. It is the power embodied in Part II of this Bill. The reason for the delay, for which the noble Lord gave a euphemistic paraphrase, is that following publication of the 1965 White Paper there was a revolt within the Parliamentary Labour Party against that thoroughly reasonable proposal which I have just read out.
The Government, which up to then had no intention of setting up an expensive machinery for appeals—there is no mention of any such thing in the 1965 White Paper—decided to get themselves out of an embarrassing situation by appointing the Wilson Committee with terms of reference:
"To consider whether any, and if so what, rights of appeal or other remedies should be available to aliens and to Commonwealth citizens who are refused admission to or are required to leave the country."

1427
The Wilson Committee worked fast and well, as one would expect of any committee under that particular Chairman, and their Report was published in August, 1967. Among their other findings the Committee said in paragraph 63:
"We have been greatly impressed with the desirability of establishing a person's admissibility to this country before he starts on his journey, and we make recommendations to this end in Parts IV and V."
Later in our debate I hope that the Government will explain how much or how little they have yet done towards getting a person's admissibility established before he leaves his home overseas and starts on his journey. If only we could make that universal, it would do more than anything else to cut down the distress and frustration of making the long journey and then being turned back on arrival.
Meanwhile, the new power which the Government regarded as important and urgent to take as long ago as August, 1965, seemed somehow to become less and less urgent in their eyes as time went on. Another year and a half after the publication of the Report was let pass before this Bill was introduced. We now have a Bill which incorporates, in Part II, the new powers which, as I have explained, are three years overdue; and in Part I the new appeals machinery for both aliens and Commonwealth citizens which is estimated to cost £500,000 a year. For myself, I would not give nearly such high priority to establishing an appeals system at a cost of £500,000 a year as the Government do—though, admittedly, under pressure. If I were granted £500,000 of public money to use, I believe that it would do much more good if it were spent on increasing the grants to voluntary bodies and local authorities for improving social services and community services in those places where special problems arise through big concentrations of immigrants. That is where the money is needed. We have an unquestioned responsibility to all these people who are already here, much more direct than we have to others who are not in this country at all.
If the Government seek to rebut what I am saying by quoting the statement of the Wilson Committee that opinion among their witnesses was virtually
1428
unanimous in favour of establishing some kind of system of appeals, I reply that of course it was. If they had asked witnesses from the parts of the country about which I have just spoken they would have found opinion virtually unanimous in favour of better community services—just as if, had they asked people what they thought about the tax system, they would have found witnesses virtually unanimous in favour of lower taxes. Government and Parliament have to do what none of those witnesses was called upon to do, and that is to establish priorities in the laying out of public money, which is one of the most important and responsible duties of a Government. I, personally, think that there are many priorities higher than the setting up of an appeals system at the ports. In the event I believe that it will make no perceptible difference to the numbers of people admitted. I have a high admiration for the way the immigration officers do their work. It is difficult and thankless work, and I feel most strongly that those who wish to criticise anything that happens in this field should direct their criticisms against Ministers, whatever Government are in power, rather than against the immigration officers who to the best of their ability are carrying out Ministers' intentions.
When the new system in Part I of the Bill gets going, of course there will be some successful appeals. But that in itself will not prove that the appeals system has brought about a difference, because, human nature being what it is, immigration officers who now in an evenly balanced case give the would-be immigrant the benefit of the doubt are likelier in future to decide doubtful cases the other way, knowing that the adjudicator can be relied on to make further investigations and put things right if the decision of the immigration officer has been too stern. The £500,000 a year will justify itself in so far as it gives confidence and satisfaction to those who succeed on appeal. I do not think that it will give much extra confidence and satisfaction, compared with the present system, to those whose appeals fail. It will certainly lift a painful load of responsibility and unpopularity off the Home Secretary and other Home Office Ministers. I am not suggesting that this is why the Bill is being introduced; I

1429
know that it is not. I can recollect cases where my life as Home Secretary would have been easier if the ultimate responsibility for decision had been on some tribunal and not on me. Yet Ministers exist to carry responsibility and to defend their decisions and policies to Parliament. Weighing up all this, I do not believe that this new appeal system will add as much to human satisfaction and happiness as if the £500,000 a year were spent in the alternative way I have suggested.
Part I of the Bill marks, of course, a fundamental change which the noble Lord did not mention. Entry into this country is at present a privilege, except for certain categories of people from the Commonwealth who have a statutory right under the 1962 Act to come in. If this Bill becomes law, entry will no longer have the status of a privilege; it will have the status of a right for all except those aliens or Commonwealth citizens whom it is decided not to admit, and even they will have a right of their own—the right of appeal against the adverse decision. The Home Secretary will continue to be able to exercise a general control by making immigration rules, as the noble Lord explained. But in so far as he exercises discretion to refuse to admit an alien or a Commonwealth citizen who he thinks ought not be allowed to come, his decision is liable under Clause 8 to be set aside by an adjudicator or by the Tribunal, simply on the vague and unchallengeable ground that his discretion should have been exercised differently. There are grave questions for Parliament here.
I suggest that your Lordships should consider most carefully Clause 8(1)(a). Sub-paragraph (a)(i) presents to the appellate authority a normal justiciable issue:
"that the decision or action against which the appeal is brought was not in accordance with the law or with any immigration rules applicable to the case."
That is a clear issue for appeal. But in sub-paragraph (a)(ii) the appellate authority is given no external guidance whatever, The task for it is to decide whether,
"where the decision or action involves the exercise of a discretion by the Secretary of State or an officer… the discretion should have been exercised differently".
Surely, where the Secretary of State has to exercise discretion either he must be
1430
directly responsible to Parliament for his decision, or that decision can be overridden only by an appellate authority which is given some criteria on which it is to base its overriding judgment. It seems to me intolerable that, in a matter which is not one of fact or of law, but one of discretion, a Minister of the Crown can be overridden by an adjudicator who only needs to say, "I think my ideas on the exercise of discretion are better than the Minister's." I hope that the Government will consider this passage in the Bill very seriously, particularly bearing it mind Appendix III of the Wilson Committee's Report and the behaviour of the so-called Aliens Deportation Advisory Committee in the 1930s, which is not irrelevant to it.
I remember a case where I signed a deportation order against an alien who had slipped into this country via Ireland, and whose presence here I regarded as not "conducive to the public good"—that is the technical term—because he was a known drug addict. He had no right of appeal. I was answerable direct to Parliament for the decision. Under this Bill he could appeal, and I think I am right in saying that his appeal world go to the Tribunal. And the Tribunal, having unfettered freedom and being answerable to nobody, might take a different view and say that it was an insupportable interference with the liberty of this foreign subject if he was not allowed to come and spend a time here, and enjoy his heroin among the sort of people he would gather around him in London. The Government, who have certain responsibilities for law and order and public health, would then be powerless to get rid of such a man.
Noble Lords may also remember a man called Rockwell (now dead, I think) who also slipped into this country via Ireland six or seven years ago. I had to consider his case and I decided that the presence of this man, an alien and an avowed Nazi, was not conducive to the public good, though he had committed no crime on British soil. I believe that the vast majority of British people were grateful to me for using my discretionary power to make him go quickly. But under this Bill he would have had a right of appeal to the Tribunal, and it would then have been perfectly open to the Tribunal to say that this was an arbitrary and oppressive act by the Home Secretary, out of accord with Britain's liberal reputation

1431
for cherishing freedom of expression, however odious the views expressed may be. Had either of those two individuals been Commonwealth citizens and not aliens, it would not have been possible to deport them at all. They had not broken any landing conditions. They had entered Britain lawfully through the Irish Republic. They had not committed any crime.
Now that we are to extend the powers of deportation to Commonwealth citizens who have broken a condition of landing, and now that everyone threatened with deportation is to have a statutory right of appeal, I want to ask the Government seriously, in the light of such cases as I have mentioned, whether the long-standing power to deport an alien on the ground that his presence here is not conducive to the public good should not be extended to a Commonwealth citizen also. I would not have urged this when there was no right of appeal, but now that there is to be a right of appeal the objections to this course fall to the ground. Had a man like Rockwell been not an American, as he was, but a Canadian, say, or an Indian, or a Maltese, I am certain that his presence here advocating Nazi doctrines would have been no less unacceptable to public opinion, but there would have been no means of getting rid of him because he would be immune from deportation.
There is one other point of principle which I must raise with the Government, for the Second Reading debate is the time for points of principle rather than for minor points of criticism of clauses in the Bill. Why do the Government propose in this Bill to discriminate in favour of those wishing to come to this country from abroad, and against British citizens resident here already? If an alien wishes to come, and is refused admission, the Bill will grant him a right of appeal. But if a British citizen wishes to travel abroad and the Government withhold a passport from him, he has no right of appeal whatever; and I can find no proposal in this Bill that he should be given that right. Most of your Lordships may imagine that a British citizen has a right to a passport if he wishes to travel abroad and complies with the necessary formalities and pays the fee. But that is not so. To issue a passport to a
1432
British citizen is not a statutory duty on the Government; it is a prerogative act. Will the Government, therefore, in Committee bring forward Amendments to the Bill and to the Title of the Bill to grant to a British citizen refused a passport to travel abroad the same rights of appeal against the decision as an alien who has been refused permission to land?
My Lords, we should give this Bill a Second Reading and then help the Government to amend it in Committee on the lines that I have mentioned. Part II is necessary for the reasons that the noble Lord has given, and on the Government's own showing. by that White Paper, it is three years overdue. Part I implements broadly the Wilson Report, and my criticism of it is not on the detail. My personal criticism of it is that it is very expensive in relation to the small difference it will make, and the £500,000 a year could be spent to better purpose on community services to help immigrants who are already here. In Committee the Government should show the courage of their convictions about appeals, should accept the logic of my speech, and should extend the scope of the legislation to the no less important matters that I have indicated.
6.20 p.m.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, it gives me some pleasure in opening what I want to say to the House this evening to join with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, in his congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, upon the extent of his achievement during these last thirty days. The way in which the noble Lord manages to deal with all the work which falls on his plate is a perpetual wonder to me, and I know we are all pleased with the way in which he always deals with the House, in spite of the many duties that are thrown upon his shoulders, with courtesy and with kindness.
My Lords, my intervention in this debate will be very brief, because I am a wholehearted supporter of this Bill. I recognise that the Government, in introducing it, are not only substantially implementing the Report of the Wilson Committee but are also carrying out undertakings which they gave, particularly at the time of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act last year, that as soon

1433
as they could manage they would set up an appeal procedure for people who were wanting to come into this country.
If I may, I should like to deal briefly with only two of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. He said that if he had at his disposal half a million pounds to spend upon the problems of immigration it would be better to spend it upon the people who are already here, upon mitigating their condition. May I briefly say why I wonder whether the noble Lord's judgment upon that matter is right? I believe that one of the very important matters to assist the solution of our problems of immigration is the way in which we deal with the intending immigrant at the moment he arrives on these shores. If the procedures which we have to receive him, possibly even to send him away, do not appear to be fair; if the decision appears to be made by some faceless bureaucrat, and if the possibility of the decision being reversed may depend upon whether he can get the assistance of a Member of Parliament or somebody like that to put his case to the Home Office, I think it undermines the confidence of the immigrant population, not only the people coming in but the people who are already here, in a way which is really very harmful to the establishment of satisfactory race relations in this country. I of course defer to the far greater experience of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, in this matter, but I seek to ask him and the House to consider whether in fact his judgment upon this matter is right. I think it is vitally important that we should now implement this Report and put it into effect.
The only other matter to which I want to refer was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, when he referred to the terms of Clause 8(1)(a)(ii), which of course provides that the discretion of the Secretary of State, exercised through an immigration officer, can be reviewed and, indeed, if necessary, reversed by an adjudicator or the Tribunal. My Lords, there is a dilemma here. This point was of course developed and deployed in the other place by Mr. Quintin Hogg, and I, at any rate, always read and listen to anything that Mr. Hogg has to say about these matters with great attention. He developed this theme in a rather different
1434
way from that put forward by the noble Lord. The way Mr. Hogg put it was this: that he doubted the wisdom of passing down to an adjudicator or to the Tribunal the discretion which had previously been vested in the Home Secretary, because a tribunal of that kind—a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal—is an appropriate body to deal with questions of law and questions of fact, but it is not an appropriate body to deal with the administrative and discretionary questions which very often arise in cases of this kind.
I see the force of that argument. I can well see that when you depart from questions of law and fact and move into the field of discretion there are sound reasons for saying that that is a matter of policy which ought to remain in the hands of the Executive, which is accountable to Parliament. I can also see the force of the argument that a judicial or quasi-judicial body of this kind is not really appropriate for dealing with what is basically a discretionary and administrative question, when you get outside questions of law and questions of fact.
I think we are caught in a serious dilemma here, and I would put the matter to myself in this way. I ask myself: Do I regard the need for some appellate system, so that it may be seen to all the world and by the immigrant himself that he is getting a fair deal, that his case is being heard and that due consideration is being given to his particular circumstances, as overriding the difficulties which there are in occasionally transferring to a body of this kind questions which are the subject matter of discretion? My answer to that question is "Yes"; and I think that the situation is greatly mitigated by reason of the fact—and I commend the Government for having taken this course—that they have laid down for the benefit of the adjudicators and the Tribunal, and indeed for the benefit of the immigration officers, the rules which they are to apply in the case of both the Commonwealth immigrant and the alien. By giving those guide rules as to how the discretion which has now been devolved to the adjudicators and the Tribunal is generally to be exercised, the Government have gone a very long way to mitigate the problem; and I think it is only in peripheral and marginal cases, very peculiar cases, cases with sectional circumstances, that you will find that the

1435
Tribunal or the adjudicator will be concerned with matters of discretion. If I may say so, I think this is a compromise, but I think it is probably the best sort of compromise which could be devised.
I should therefore like to commend this Bill to the House. Perhaps I might conclude by saying this. My Party, and I myself, have in the past been at some odds with the Government sometimes on this question of immigration. Sometimes we have felt almost violently in disagreement with the Government. It is all the more pleasant, therefore, on an occasion of this kind, to be able to congratulate the Government upon implementing this policy; and, if I may say so very humbly. I think they have done a very workmanlike job.
6.29 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, I, too, was very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, drew the attention of the House to the remarkable service which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has offered to us during this Session. Perhaps I may presume, from these Benches, to add a pastoral word, and to plead with him not to overdo it, because his services are far too valuable to this, House for us to contemplate our being deprived of them because he submits himself too fully and too readily to the demands of public service.
If I had any doubts at all about the desirability of this Bill they have been dispelled by two of the paragraphs of, the Wilson Committee Report. The first is paragraph 61, which draws attention to the indignity to which people may be subjected if they have to undergo intense examination on arriving in this country at a time when they are least able to deal with it: people coming to this country after a long journey, people who are tired, people who do not speak the language, people who are apprehensive of what the future may hold for them. They are not in the right state to undergo the kind of scrutiny which is also disliked by those of us who, in different circumstances, go into a foreign country. Therefore it is desirable that this should be dealt with in a much more judicial way.
My Lords, Clause 84, which lends weight and authority to this Bill, reminds us of the undesirability in principle of permitting the Executive to take decisions
1436
which affect a man's whole future, decisions against which there is no appeal. This creates a sense of injustice in the individual; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, pointed out, the sense of injustice extends far beyond the individual who is concerned. If the Bill is justified upon only these two grounds, it ought to receive the ready support of this House. Nevertheless, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has pointed out certain grave matters of principle which the House will have to consider very carefully. There are four points within the Bill which, although they are matters of detail, will need to be very carefully considered, because they will affect the whole character and working of the system that is laid out in the Bill.
The first one concerns the procedure under which the Bill will operate. Clause 11 empowers the Secretary of State to make rules of procedure. We do not yet know what those rules will be; but there are many who hope, with the Wilson Committee, that the procedure will be subject to the scope of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, which will give the opportunity for examination of the way in which the tribunals are working. I hope, therefore, that consideration will be given by the Government to placing the work of the tribunals under the scope of that Act.
Secondly, I would draw your Lordships' attention to the remarks made in the Wilson Committee Report on the question of deportation. As we know, there is a dual system here: the powers of the Minister to deport and the powers of deportation under the measure. The Wilson Report considers (it is in paragraph 132) that the Secretary of State should have power to repatriate a Commonwealth citizen who has obtained entry by misrepresentation or by flouting the conditions on which he was admitted. It recommends that the courts should cease to have power to make recommendations to deport. The House must ask itself whether it is desirable to continue this dual system and whether it would not be wiser to give power to deport solely to the Minister.
Thirdly, I would draw your Lordships' attention to the question of legal aid. The Wilson Committee (in paragraph 177) state that they do not consider that there are sufficient grounds for making legal

1437
aid available. I think this House must examine that opinion because grave issues concerning the whole future of an individual are involved here. Undoubtedly very heavy expenditure will be incurred by and laid upon those who, in many cases, will have small ability to meet it. I know there is the suggestion that grants should be made to advisory and welfare organisations in order to be able to help individuals. It is also very desirable that help should be given as speedily as possible. I suppose it is possible that a legal aid system might be so slow-working that the aid would not come at the time it is needed to the people who most need it. Therefore, it might be possible to have a dual system whereby both legal aid and aid through advisory welfare organisations were made available. This is an important matter concerning the working of the measure, and I hope that it, too, will be examined.
Finally, my Lords, I would say something about the appointment of the adjudicators. This is vital to the whole system of working. The Wilson Committee recommend (in paragraph 153) that the appointment of adjudicators should be vested in the Secretary of State. There are many very experienced in these matters who believe that that is not good advice, and who think that the appointment of these officers should be entirely separate from the Immigration Service, which is responsible to the Home Secretary. Those who take this view believe that there is a very strong case for examining whether it would not be better that the Lord Chancellor should appoint the adjudicators so that there is no question whatsoever about their independence of thought and mind.
These are matters which are in a sense details, but they are very important because the compassionate working of this measure will largely depend upon them. I hope that they will be studied, for I am sure that many like myself would wish to support this Bill.
6.37 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I cannot let tributes in this House to my noble friend the Minister pass without adding my own to them. To my admiration I must add real amazement at the amount of hard work that he can put in during a Session in this House.
1438
Not only do I welcome this Bill but I congratulate the Government on their sense of justice and fairness in introducing it. That is my reading of it from a completely general standpoint. I have no knowledge of the complex legal; matters in this Bill, and if some of my judgments are wrong I hope that my noble friend will correct me. Few people—and I am one of them—were aware of the really unsafe foundations upon which our immigration laws are based, Mr. Quintin Hogg in the House of Commons called them "nonsensical". In fact, I discover that the laws have been extended from two temporary emergency measures, the Aliens Act 1914 and 1918. The Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 was modelled on these and gave complete powers to immigration officers, whose decisions could not be challenged in the courts. Little wonder, my Lords, that Mr. Quintin Hogg during the Second Reading in the Commons—and he is a man who commands respect and affection in all Parties—speaking of the immigration laws since 1905 said that we have established one of the most illiberal, arbitrary systems of immigration law in the civilised world.
To-day thousands of aliens and Commonwealth citizens are interrogated by overworked immigration officers, doing their best to be fair under the most difficult conditions. However, when the would-be immigrant fails to satisfy the conditions of entry he or she is detained pending legal representations. Recently I heard of the case of a 17½-year old Pakistani girl, who spoke no English and was detained in Holloway Prison for one month waiting for her case to be considered. The Immigration Appeals Bill, having individual justice as its aim, could be really workable and fair in such cases. Facts such as age and relationship have to be elucidated; and when hundreds of individual disputes have to be determined, that is not the job of a Minister or Ministers. The Ministers are there to decide policy. It is the job of an administrative Tribunal such as is recommended by the Wilson Committee and which is to be put into practice by the Bill when it becomes law. It is for such a Tribunal to deal with the day-to-day problems of immigration. It is not suggested that the Tribunal should be staffed only by lawyers, and some lawyers are opposed to the Bill. I am afraid that

1439
lawyers are somewhat allergic to tribunals. I suppose that they are jealous of their powers. But perhaps lawyers alone are not ideal adjudicators of social problems—not always.
I welcome this Bill, but there are some minor flaws in the draft rules presented to Parliament. There is discrimination against Commonwealth citizens in certain respects. In the White Paper Commonwealth Citizens Control after Entry, paragraph 24 on page 5 deals with entry and residence of husbands and male fiancés. I know that great play has been made of the increase in the number of male fianceés from Commonwealth countries who have come here in the last few years, but, under the provisions of this Bill, if they have used the excuse of marriage for illicit entry they can be deported. As the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Chester, has said, no provision has been made for legal aid for immigrants in these cases. The financial support promised for voluntary organisations is not an adequate substitute and will not achieve this objective.
But, despite these criticisms, this Bill is a good one. The fears expressed in the Commons by those who opposed it are groundless, I believe, because there is no automatic right of appeal, as I understand it. There is no handing over of Government immigration policy. The Secretary of State makes the rules for the appeal proceedings, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will bear me out when I say that these rules are binding on the appellate authority. He can still keep any alien or Commonwealth citizen out of this country. The Wilson Committee have done a splendid job and deserve much credit. The Government have shown wisdom, courage and humanity in following up the Committee's recommendations in this Bill—or very largely doing so—and I hope that the phobia about illicit entry will be assuaged by the provisions in the Bill.
I have only one more point to make, and it refers to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, about the half-a-million pounds a year which it will cost for these appeals. My Lords, what is half-a-million pounds a year when spent on social services and spread over the country? That is the point. Half-a-million pounds a year to
1440
obtain proper appeals or to settle disputes could have a marvellously good effect, but I do not think that half-a-million pounds a year spent throughout the country in the communities where immigrants live would go very far. In any case, that sort of money should be spent by the separate Ministries responsible for education, health and other services.
6.45 p.m.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, I too should like to pay my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for the magnificent work that he does in your Lordships' House. If I may say so, we have a great affection for him and I hope that when we go away at the end of this term the fact that we shall not be sitting will mean that he will find that his labours are to some extent lightened. In general, my Lords, I find myself more in sympathy with what was said by the noble Lord regarding the proposals in this Bill than with what was said by my noble friend, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, but I recognise at the same time that my noble friend has far greater and wider experience in these matters than I shall ever have.
I support this Bill and the idea of an Immigration Appeal Tribunal because of the experiences I have had when living in the Commonwealth, where I have spent the greater part of my life, and I propose to confine my remarks to the position of the Commonwealth immigrant rather than that of the alien. I believe that an appeal tribunal would be able to sort out the position of a Commonwealth immigrant citizen who had, in good faith, gone to an agent in his country of origin and paid an extortionate fee for travel documents which he believed to be genuine; and who, on arrival in this country, found to his consternation that the documents were false. That can happen. I know from my own experience that many of the people who come from the poorer parts of the Commonwealth and who are semi-literate can be duped in this way. I think, therefore, that an appeal tribunal could remedy what might be a possible injustice. That would do nothing but good at a time when race relations generally are somewhat sensitive.
With regard to the issue of false documents, it is an unfortunate fact that as soon as statutory controls are imposed

1441
they are exploited by some people for their own monetary gain and advantage. Immigration officers are aware of this, probably more so than anybody else. The published records show that in 1968, 168 Commonwealth citizens were found to be travelling on falsified documents. Parliament has imposed duties on immigration officers which are difficult and onerous. I am quite certain that these officers deserve our gratitude—as other noble Lords have said—for the manner in which they perform their duties. I believe that the burdens of these officers might be lightened if there were an appeal tribunal, and any unjustified criticisms which might be made against them for acting in an arbitrary fashion would be more likely to be removed. My noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor said that the creation of an appeal tribunal would tend to make an immigration officer submit difficult cases to the tribunal instead of making decisions himself. I think that if the Appeal Tribunal found an immigration officer adopting tactics of that kind it ought to be their duty to call attention to the submission of unnecessary appeals, and the officer should be disciplined accordingly.
I now come to the operation of immigration control, and even with this Bill I do not see how control can be as successful in its operation as we should all like it to be if we in this country act in isolation. This is really a Commonwealth problem. By that I mean, without disparagement to our friends in the Commonwealth, that the issue of forged travel documents takes place in many of the newly independent countries and in the immigrants' countries of origin. It would be in the interests of everybody if the activities of those who are responsible for the issue of forged documents were severely curtailed. I know what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for whom I have the greatest respect, is likely to say in reply to this—that is, that we cannot interfere in the internal affairs of other members of the Commonwealth. But if the Commonwealth is ever to mean anything, is it not possible for one country within the Commonwealth to co-operate with another country within the Commonwealth to alleviate the difficulties of the nationals of one of them who are suffering frustration at the ports of entry, and to alleviate the difficulties of our im-
1442
migration officers? In the opening stages of his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, stressed the importance of the institution of certificates of entry in the country of origin. Is it not possible to co-operate in this matter? And may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, have we ever sought the co-operation of other members of the Commonwealth in the difficulties that face all of us over immigration control?
An event occurred last Christmas which, in my view, meant that life in future can never be quite the same for any of us. Noble Lords may have seen the picture of the "Good Earth", as they called it, from the cabin of the space capsule of Lovell, Anders and Borman, as they sped on their journey towards the moon. This convinced me in dramatic fashion—and it must have convinced most of those who saw that picture—that the world in its solitude is really one entity in space, a world on which all the peoples of all races have to learn to live together. It is a sinister fact that at the present time nations everywhere, even some of the newly independent nations, are tending to increase their immigration controls. This does not help, particularly as I believe that it tends to exacerbate racial tensions.
I commend the action of the Government in bringing this Bill before your Lordships and I support the Second Reading. I am sure that it will help to reduce racial tension. Nevertheless, would it not succeed even better if there was a meeting of Commonwealth Ministers and ourselves to iron out the respective difficulties of us all, to some of which I have referred? I commend this suggestion to the consideration of the Government, in the belief that it would greatly facilitate the operation of the Bill.
6.55 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I join with all noble Lords who have spoken already in their compliments to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and in their general commendation of this Bill. It is a good and useful Bill and will serve a valuable purpose.
On two occasions recently I have spent a few hours with the immigration officers at London Airport and have been able to watch at first hand how they do their job. I certainly go along with the noble

1443
Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, in his respect for what they do and how they do it. They have a very difficult job. I noticed them on one occasion when there was a large number of aeroplanes arriving mainly from India and Pakistan. The aeroplanes had been circling for some time over the Airport in a fog and streams of people came through the Immigration, arriving after a long and hard journey in a strange country, not knowing the language and what they were going to find here. I was much impressed by the humanity of the men who dealt with them. In almost every case there was no problem at all. Where there was a problem, it was often one of language, and there was somebody available who could speak the language and could help. When it was a question of detaining someone for further investigation, it was done, so far as I could see, decently and politely. That in no way detracts from the need for an appeal against what, after all, can only be the subjective assessment of one human being concerning the truthfulness or otherwise of another. The necessity for that has been borne out by the White Paper and is confirmed in this Bill. That is a good thing.
There are one or two points—minor points perhaps but not without importance—which I hope the Government will consider in this context. When an immigrant is detained, I agree that it is the responsibility of the airline which has brought him in to see that he is looked after, and that it is no responsibility of Her Majesty's Government or anybody else. For all that, I think that we should pay attention to the conditions under which these people are detained. I have seen some of the accommodation, and while the best that is possible is being done under restricted circumstances, it is not a very happy sight. A large number of people are detained in a small room, with beds close to each other and scarcely any room for movement or exercise. They are guarded by kindly people of the Securicor in uniform. I hope that the Government will do something to improve the conditions of these people while they are being detained.
It would be interesting to know whether the Government envisage that more people would be detained if they exercised their right of appeal and did not
1444
go home straight away. I know that the Bill gives facilities for bail to be granted, but I imagine that there will be some cases where, on perfectly reasonable and sound grounds, it will not be granted, and the chances are that there will be a larger number of immigrants detained.
Another point I would ask the Government to consider is the number of immigration officers who are available for this job. At the present time they are heavily overworked with the growing number of immigrants who come in, and when there are appeals it is obvious that evidence will have to be given by the officers concerning the people whose entry they have claimed is not according to the law as it is at present. That will take up a considerable amount of their time. It will still further increase the strain on them, and will increase the delay not only for immigrants but for other people who come into this country who have to pass through the immigration net. Therefore, while I know it is difficult to recruit any more of these people, I would suggest that so far as possible tribunals should hear the cases they are investigating actually on the site where the detention has taken place, where the immigration officer is working. For instance, a room or rooms should be set aside at London Airport for this to be done, so that the immigration officer can go there when he is needed without any difficulty and then resume his duties, instead of having to find his way to London and having to hang about for one or possibly two days, while the case is being heard.
Finally, there is the point which was raised by the right reverend Prelate about the appointment of the members of the appeal body. I share his view that it is better that such people should not be appointed by the Home Secretary. I in no way suggest that the Home Secretary would not be entirely objective and appoint admirable people; but it will be considered—wrongly, but nevertheless considered—by many that he is acting as judge in his own cause. It would be preferable, in my view, if these people were appointed by some other Minister. The Lord Chancellor is the obvious choice, but the danger is that the appointments will then tend to be, and possibly inevitably would have to be, lawyers. I do not think that a legal qualification

1445
is in any way the sole qualification, or indeed the best one, for this type of assessment. Very little hard evidence will he presented: it will be much more a question of the actual age of somebody, the actual relationship—whether somebody is a fiancée or not—which cannot be proved in a legal sense, but is a matter of judgment. The kind of people who do that are often not lawyers, but people who have had experience in social welfare of one kind or another, possibly in the countries of the immigrants concerned, and have some understanding of the individual human problems that arise. The points I have raised are not large, but I think they are points which will affect the actual working of the Bill. It is a good Bill, and I am happy that the Government have introduced it.
7.3 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I apologise for not having indicated that I wished to speak in this debate: I slipped up. I will be quite brief. If I know my noble friend Lord Stonham, he will be somewhat embarrassed by the whole series of tributes which have been paid to him. I would only add this comment: the extraordinary thing is that he has served the House so fully when only a short time ago he was quite seriously ill. I should like to join with others in hoping that he will not be so conscientious in doing work for this House as to cause any detriment to his health and to his continued service. And I appreciate, when I say this, that I have myself caused my noble friend a good deal of trouble by my criticism of what he has had to administer. The main reason why I am speaking to-night is that, even though I criticise nearly every item of legislation which my noble friend mentioned in the introductory passages of his speech, I wholeheartedly welcome this Bill, and I rejoice in the opportunity of expressing that appreciation.
I should very much like to reply in detail to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. He and I are old political antagonists. I would make only two comments on his speech. The first is appreciative. I should very much like to see legislation which gave British residents who were refused passports the right to make a similar appeal.
1446
My only doubt is whether this would come within the terms of the present Bill. My second comment is critical. The noble Lord said that this £500,000 could be better spent upon social activities, education and helping local authorities with large immigrant populations. One reply to this suggestion has come from my noble friend Lady Gaitskell. I make another reply. The noble Lord urged this as a matter of priority. He urged that the £500,000 would be better spent on the social services than on the machinery for these appeals. It is a matter of priorities. But the priorities are not between spending £500,000 on an appeal system or £500,000 on social services. The priorities must be against our national expenditure altogether, and many of us feel that to be spending £100,000 to £1 upon armaments and war preparations, and to be critical of spending £500,000 upon giving greater rights to immigrants when they claim to come into this country, is taking the rule of priorities to the lowest stage where we can possibly make a comparison.
I welcome this Bill for three reasons. The first is this. From the very beginning of these immigration laws many of us have felt that to allow officials, however conscientious and unprejudiced, to make decisions affecting the future lives of individuals without their having an opportunity to appeal is inconsistent with the rule of law. I would emphasise what my noble friend Lord Walston said. Many of these decisions by the immigration officers are subjective: they have to be made on the basis of whether they believe what is said by the immigrants. A judgment of this sort is extraordinarily difficult to make, and it is one that is largely outside the training and experience of the immigration official.
The second thing I want to say is this. I join with others in paying tribute to immigration officials. Rather strangely, a considerable number of them were constituents of mine, because my constituency was on the edge of the airport. I know them, and they have spoken to me of their difficulties. I know that the great majority of them are conscientious, but, as my noble friend knows, they occasionally make mistakes. He will be aware that over the years I have taken to the Home Office a number of cases

1447
of appeal against decisions by immigration officials. I have often had to apologise, because they have been at the weekend—and I pay tribute to the officials at the Home Office who were able to find the Minister in time to enable a decision on deportation not to take effect. But these cases are sufficient to justify the proposal for this appeal tribunal. My noble friend will appreciate, if he refers to the files at the Home Office, that in only one case out of a considerable number that I have raised have the Home Office decided against the right of the immigrant to remain in this country.
My Lords, my third reason for welcoming the Bill is this. Many immigrants and their families, when they arrive at Heathrow, or some other place of entry, have no knowledge of the procedures involved or of the organisations or individuals who can give them help. It has been almost by accident that my telephone has rung, often at late hours of night, for calls from those who have been treated in this way at Heathrow. This has been due to the accident of knowing me and to ignorance in not knowing appropriate organisations. The proposals which are made in this Bill will help to meet that difficulty. My Lords, that is all I want to say. I want to express the very greatest appreciation both of the Minister and of the terms of this legislation. I may have to make some suggestions in Committee, but in principle I support the Bill wholeheartedly.
7.11 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I am not going to detain the House or my noble friend Lord Stonham from the rest which we all agree he ought to have. I want to intervene for only this reason—and my intervention was promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. I have to declare an interest because I am a member of the Community Relations Commission; and therefore I ought to be grabbing with both hands the opportunity Lord Brooke suggests should be given us of having another half million pounds. But I reject it, because I think that the £500,000 to be spent on these appeals will in fact be much more valuable in our community relations than any
1448
amount of money spread in thin disposal over the country.
That is why I think this Bill is going to help enormously any work we are trying to do in integrating the communities; in helping to remove the misgivings, the doubts and the miseries of the present situation. Above all, as Lord Brooke said, it will enable us to ensure that everyone sees that justice is in fact being done. I think that that is very important from our point of view. I have only one thing to say to my noble friend, and that is that we on the Community Relations Commission are not trying to exceed our remit or ask to be consulted by the Home Secretary on these matters. What we welcome very warmly and sincerely in the interests of our job is that we may give him whatever advice and participation we possibly can; and it would be very useful if we knew in advance the kind of matters on which we can help.
7.13 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and indeed to every noble Lord who has spoken in this debate, for their great kindness to me personally. I did not know that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, had been doing some research. It is interesting to learn that I have spoken 18 times in the last 30 Sitting days. I did not know how many—I knew it was too many, but I did not know it was as many as all that. I can only say that I am most grateful and, although this is our last Sitting day before Easter, to me it feels like Christmas.
I would also thank every one of your Lordships for the welcome that you have given to this Bill. I am going to answer as many points as I can, but I should like your indulgence in this regard if I am as brief as I can be without undue brevity, because there is important business yet to come and the hour is getting rather late. I should like to say, however, that while I have been listening to this debate I have become convinced that we ought to have a very interesting and helpful Committee stage. I will therefore try to limit my remarks to those vital points which I think may be helpful in relation to a Committee stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, asked me about the delay since

1449
1965 in taking power to deport for breach of conditions under Part II of the Bill. This delay was occasioned because the Government took the view that it would be wrong to take power to deport by Executive action, without any right of appeal, a person who had entered the country lawfully and had not been convicted by a court, still less recommended for deportation. So the Government decided to establish the Wilson Committee to look at the rights of appeal generally, and the time since 1965 has been passed in the work of that Committee and in the preparation of the Bill. I am somewhat surprised that the noble Lord, with his great knowledge of these matters departmentally, should have thought that that time was unduly long.
The noble Lord referred to review by adjudicators of the Minister's discretion. I think he put it that an adjudicator should not be in a position to say, "I think my judgment is better than the Home Secretary's". The Aliens' Deportation Advisory Committee, to which the noble Lord also referred, had no guidance at all from the Government on general principles and policy, but the appellate authorities under this Bill will receive guidance in the form of immigration rules. But I think the other parts of the noble Lord's argument on this point were effectively answered, if I may say so with respect, by the noble Lord, Lord Foot. May I say to the noble Lord, while I think of it and while thanking him for his remarks, that I would ask him his forgiveness because I owe him a letter from the last debate. I would ask him to understand that this matter is not forgotten. We are still working hard on this very complex matter, and I hope he will hear from me soon about the subject referred to last time which I thought he might have mentioned again.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, also raised very interesting points. He mentioned Rockwell, for example, who was an American Nazi—I remember the occasion quite well—and a drug addict, whom he did not mention by name and whom he had to decide to deport. He said that under these arrangements the Home Secretary would not be free to act in the way that he himself was free to act. Indeed, neither of the two classes of person he mentioned
1450
could be deported if the appellate authorities upheld an appeal against deportation, as the noble Lord supposed. With regard to a Commonwealth citizen, there would be no power to deport if no criminal offence was committed or if the Commonwealth citizen was not in breach of the conditions of his entry. If, as the noble Lord suggested, the question is "Should there be power to deport a Commonwealth citizen because his presence here is not conducive to the public good?", I would ask the noble Lord to consider whether this would not indeed be a new facet of the Conservative Party's policy of assimilating the treatment of aliens and Commonwealth citizens. The information in the possession of the Home Office at present does not suggest that this change is warranted or that it would serve a substantial purpose. As the noble Lord is aware, Commonwealth citizens hive a right to acquire our citizenship after five years' residence, so that if the noble Lord wanted to make the change he suggests it would of course be of limited effect so far as time is concerned.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? He said that if a man had committed no criminal offence he could not be deported. But I wonder whether he would agree that a man who was an undesirable character could have a very bad influence and cause others to commit criminal offences without actually doing so himself.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, this is a possibility, and indeed this was exactly the kind of case that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, posed with his drug addict. It was the kind of situation he envisaged. Indeed, the; same could have been said of Rockwell. But I should have thought it rather doubtful in both cases whether it would be very long before they committed a criminal offence. But I agree that that is a possibility.
The noble Lord then raised a most interesting point about the refusal of passports to British citizens to go abroad, and asked why should they not have the same right of appeal as Commonwealth citizens. As one would suppose, the noble Lord stated the position correctly, but in practice a passport is refused only

1451
where the applicant is still in debt to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for expenses previously incurred in repatriating him from overseas; and I think that is a proper provision because he is a defaulter. That is something which is rarely disputed. Otherwise there are the extremely rare cases where the Foreign Secretary has decided as a matter of Executive discretion that for special reasons the grant of a passport to the applicant would not be in the national interest.
In the second class of case there is normally no justiciable issue. The issues are those that may well touch on national security, in regard to which the Home Secretary, under Clause 9 of the Bill, has reserved to himself the right to make a decision. But in cases where a passport is refused for reasons connected with the situation in Rhodesia—which forms a special category—the Government have set up an advisory committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Cairns, and any change in the law relating to United Kingdom passports would go beyond the objects of this Immigration Appeals Bill, as the noble Lord will appreciate, and of course it is outside the subject considered by the Wilson Committee. But I will certainly bring this point to the notice of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and it may well be that in a later stage of the Bill we shall deal with it again.
I turn now to the questions put to me by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, which were four in number. The right reverend Prelate asked me first for an assurance that the whole system of appeals would come under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act. I can give that assurance. They will come under the Council on Tribunals which was set up under the Act. He then asked about the appointment of adjudicators and urged, as indeed did my noble friend Lord Walston, that the appointments should be made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor instead of by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. On that I have to say that the Home Secretary has decided, with the full agreement of my noble and learned friend, that he will adhere to the Wilson Committee's Recommendation to make the appointments of adjudicators himself, and I think for reasons that the right reverend Prelate
1452
will accept. The Government think that the functions of my noble and learned friend should be limited to the appointment of the comparatively small number of Tribunal members, because the Tribunal is the higher appellate authority and obviously the appointments of Tribunal members will be the key appointments. They will be made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and surely his responsibility for them is sufficient guarantee of impartiality.
We also think that if the noble and learned Lord had to deal personally with the appointment of adjudicators, bearing in mind that there will be perhaps more than twenty serving full-time and thirty part-time, it would be beyond the resources of the small staff of my noble and learned friend to give proper consideration to each individual appointment. I understand that it is the view of my noble and learned friend that his own intervention will be far more effective in the establishment of the appeals system if it is limited to the appointment of the members of the Tribunal.
The right reverend Prelate also asked for an assurance that legal aid would be forthcoming for those making appeals. As I said in my speech in relation to Clause 15, there is, we hope, one single voluntary body being set up to assist appellants and others, and as the Wilson Committee suggested, it would be very much better for them to assist in appeals rather than that it should be done individually under the legal aid system. They thought it would cost less. I would assure the right reverend Prelate that this is one of the things which will be taken into consideration in respect of the degree of financial support that is accorded to the voluntary bodies.
The question of deportation was described by the right reverend Prelate as a "dual system". I feel that what we are doing is surely right; namely, retaining in certain classes of case the present system with the intervention of the courts (and I think it is always desirable, when we can, to do so), but also to bring in under Clause 4(1)(a) the right of the Home Secretary himself to deport in certain cases. This is entirely in accordance with the Wilson recommendation although, as I said in my speech, we do not intend to implement it until the whole machinery for these appeals

1453
is available and ready. I hope that that adequately covers the points raised by the right reverend Prelate.
My noble friend Lady Gaitskell, as always charming and kind, referred to the case of a 17-year-old Pakistani girl who was detained in prison for one month. My noble friend was correctly advised. Miss Patel was so detained while her case was taken to the courts, and when it failed there representations were subsequently made to the Home Office. That was the reason for the long period referred to by my noble friend. Miss Patel was then sent away. My honourable friend Mr. Merlyn Rees who deals with these matters in the Department—and deals with them with the utmost thoroughness and fact-searching and heart-searching—was not satisfied that Miss Patel was, as she claimed, the daughter of a Commonwealth citizen resident here. I am afraid that she had to go back.
My noble friend Lady Gaitskell also asked me for an assurance that she was right in thinking that rules are binding on the appellate authority. She was correct in so thinking. While I am dealing with this point about the one Pakistani girl who was kept here so long, perhaps I may deal with the associated point raised by my noble friend Lord Walston with regard to detention accommodation and the time that people are likely to be kept here, and also the number of people likely to be detained. I would say to your Lordships that we are well aware that accommodation is inadequate, and we are doing our utmost to get accommodation at London Airport for mothers and children who may have to be detained overnight. This is certainly our intention.
With regard to greater numbers, I think that they are likely to be less and that people are likely to have less trouble. I mentioned the number of adjudicators we intend to have, and we expect that two or three, for example, will be on duty at any one time at London Airport, although no adjudicator will be on duty for more than six hours. The service will be from nine o'clock in the morning until nine o'clock at night. We expect to be able to deal with most cases, so far as adjudicators are concerned, within 24 hours. Of course, bail will be granted to most of those who are now detained, if it is
1454
necessary to detain them. But we are going to provide more accommodation.
My noble friend Lord Walston raised a point about the advisability of having all appeals heard in adjoining buildings at London Airport, or on a site near to it. This is what we hope to achieve so far as London Airport is concerned, but at other ports it is not generally thought to be practicable to hold the hearings in the port area. But this will not give rise to any serious problems because we always have places available within a reasonable distance from the port.
The noble Lord, Lord Gridley, for whose speech I was also grateful, raised the question of forgeries. On this I would say that the Commonwealth Governments who are chiefly concerned have done a great deal to tighten up their procedures for the issuing of passports, and so on; but they cannot, of course, stamp out entirely the traffic in forged documents, and they cannot place an embargo on their own citizens' leaving for this country. Our immigration officers, however, are not inexpert at spotting forged documents, and not very many, I think, get through the fine mesh.
The kind of problems which the noble Lord mentioned cannot easily be dealt with by inter-Governmental consultation, but we certainly bear the point in mind, and at some levels consultation is continuous. The High Commissions in London are most helpful, and there is the greatest degree of co-operation and help and understanding from them. The noble Lord opposite said that I would say that we cannot interfere with newly independent nations. I have not said it. Of course, we cannot interfere with newly independent nations—or, I hope, with any nation. But we can consult with them and co-operate with them for the greater benefit of the citizens of all the countries.
He spoke about entry certificates, and I entirely agree; in fact I think I have said three times this evening how important it is to have the certificates. Consider some of the countries from which these people come. Perhaps their village is a long way from any office, so that they have to travel, and that is expensive to do. If it is to get a document to take them out, that is one thing; but if it is to get a document that does not necessarily allow

1455
their departure, that is another, In principle, we are very much in agreement with what the noble Lord has said. We have been continuing our efforts to publicise the entry certificate procedure and are continuing to do so by all means in our power.
My Lords, I have tried to answer most—indeed, I hope all—of the questions that were put to me. I thank your Lordships for all the contributions you have made, and hope that what I have said will be of some use in considering the points that your Lordships would wish to raise in Committee, all of which I look forward to considering with the utmost care. I hope that your Lordships will now give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FUTURE BUSINESS
7.37 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, with permission I will make a short Statement about future business. I had hoped that the Decimal Currency Bill would reach us from another place before your Lordships' House rose for the Easter Recess. It now seems that the House will rise this evening before the Bill is received. Alternative arrangements are therefore being made to enable the Second Reading to be taken as planned when we return. Your Lordships will see on the Order Paper which will be distributed to-morrow a Business of the House Motion in the name of my noble friend the Leader of the House, which is being tabled to-night to be moved on April 15. The purpose of this will be to enable the Bill to have its formal First Reading on that day, to be followed immediately by Second Reading. I should emphasise, however, that the Bill will be printed and available for distribution and consideration tomorrow.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for making this Statement to the House. I think it desirable that the House should be fully aware of what is happening. I think that some, seeing on the Order Paper the very day we return a Motion to suspend Standing Orders to take two stages in one day, might have thought
1456
that the noble Lord's Party were trying to rush things. But I am sure that, with his explanation, the House will be satisfied.

BACON CURING INDUSTRY STABILISATION SCHEME 1969
7.38 p.m.
LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK rose to move, That the Draft Bacon Curing Industry Stabilisation Scheme 1969, laid before the House on February 27 last, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be now approved. Bacon stabilisation arrangements began in December, 1966. The present system of payments was introduced in April, 1967. The scheme embodied in the Order, which I hope the House will approve, is authorised by Part V of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968.
The only significant change of procedure in this Scheme, as against the others, will be the establishment of a register of bacon curers which will be kept by the Minister. Unless a curer's name is inserted in the register he will not be eligible for the stabilisation arrangements. Although the prospect of any levy payments may seem remote under the currency of the present Scheme, nevertheless we think it important to make clear that the arrangements as a whole rest firmly on the idea of payments being balanced in the long term by levies, and that the same considerations should apply to the payment of grants as to the application of levies. All this is provided for in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Scheme.
It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage the expansion of British bacon production. This can be effected only by making efficient use of resources, by increased productivity and by improved marketing. The Bacon Market Sharing Understanding, the particulars of which I recently gave in the House, open the way for the curing industry to win a larger share of the United Kingdom market. The measures taken at the Annual Review should ensure a steadily increasing supply of the necessary pigs, and it is now important for the whole curing industry so to organise their resources that they can take full advantage of their opportunities.
When the Worth Committee recommended the continuance of the stabilisation arrangements they expressed the hope that these arrangements would be
"so adjusted as to encourage re-organisation and to discourage the inefficient use of resources".
To help in achieving this, and in securing the expansion objective's, the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation has agreed to make an independent examination of the structure of the industry and to consider with individual companies whether any improvement might be effected.
In the meantime, this draft Scheme relates to bacon produced up to September 30 only. Obviously, a longer-term decision is required and the Government are prepared to consider immediately any recommendations, interim or final, made to them by the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation. I believe that the industry will give the I.R.C. that measure of co-operation which is necessary for the investigation to be speedily completed. Should it be necessary the Government propose to lay before Parliament a Scheme extending the present arrangements for a further short period, pending the Corporation's final recommendations.
My Lords, I do not believe there will be any disposition to deny that stabilisation arrangements are necessary, and that they have played a vital part in putting the British bacon industry in the more encouraging position from which further advance should be possible. I have no hesitation, therefore, in commending this Scheme to your Lordships' approval. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Bacon Curing Industry Stabilisation Scheme 1969, laid before the House on 27th February last, be approved.—(Lord Beswick.)
7.42 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for describing the Scheme and its purposes to your Lordships, and may I say that I welcome the Scheme and would advise my noble friends to welcome it, too. This is no more than an interim measure to continue the existing Scheme. It is a complicated little Scheme, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for sparing us a complete explanation of how it all works. The fact is that it keeps the
1458
bacon-curing industry alive at present, and therefore is of great importance.
The curing industry is the essential link between the pig farmer and the housewife. The shaky condition of this industry has been a matter of great anxiety. It is due to a number of factors, some within the industry and some without. Here I should like to express my thanks to the Worth Committee for the Report which they made, which has been such a helpful review of this most complicated affair. The industry reached a crisis in 1966 when this Scheme was brought in to keep it going, and it has been most useful in this period.
As the noble Lord has rightly said, in the context of a programme to increase home food production bacon is a most important commodity. At present, we produce not much more than one-third of the total bacon consumed in this country. Only about one-third comes from our own farms, so there is a great scope for increased production, depending on two things: first, that our farmers produce the right sort of pig to make good bacon; and secondly, and equally important, that the bacon-curing industry is of both the right quality and the right capacity. As the noble Lord has said, this is no more than an ad hoc interim Scheme; and will come to an end in six months' time. I should like to make a comment on the shortness of this period, because it means that in these six months the Government hope to work out a permanent Scheme for this industry which will really set it on the right road.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has told us that the Government have called in the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation to help. They have already the Report of the Worth Committee; but the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation has a big and difficult task ahead of it, first of all to win the complete confidence and co-operation of the industry, which is a most complex affair. It consists at the present time of something over 200 factories. It is true that the Worth Committee said that there were not more than ten or twelve groups that make a significant contribution to production. Nevertheless, the structure is most complex, and the future reconstruction of the industry will clearly depend on a number of mergers taking place in

1459
order to achieve a really efficient structure for the future.
I should have thought that the Government are being optimistic in supposing that even the I.R.C., with all its dynamic qualities, would be able first to work out schemes of reconstruction, and then to make recommendations to the Government in that short time. I was relieved to hear the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, say that if necessary an extension of this Scheme could be made, and that he would if necessary come before this House again with an extending Order. The only point I want to make to the Government is: for heaven's sake! take enough time to do it. It is impossible to get agreement in a short time, and "shot-gun marriages" for mergers are no basis for a happy future. We must try to get this industry reconstructed on a really sound basis, and I am sure that this will not be easy. The I.R.C. and the industry have my best wishes, but I press upon the Government not to say that it must be done in six months. It is most unlikely that that would be possible. So I ask the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, not to hesitate, if it is necessary, to come here and ask for a further Statutory Order extending the Scheme for a further six months.
There are three questions that I should like to put to the noble Lord. Would he say (I do not think he told us) whether the bacon curers are satisfied with the Scheme as it now exists in the present Order. Secondly, what is the annual cost of the present Scheme? I think we should know this before we agree to the Order. The noble Lord told us that the industry is co-operating with the I.R.C. I was happy to hear that. I hope it will. I think perhaps I need not do more than say that I hope that out of this co-operation will come a sound reconstruction which will put this industry on a thoroughly efficient modern basis. It consists of some good modern parts and some less good, old-fashioned parts, of adapted buildings and so on. Out of it we want to see coming something really good and permanent. With those comments, I am pleased to support the Order. I would just ask the noble Lord to answer the one or two questions I have put to him.
7.48 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, there are two points of detail that I should like to raise on this Order. The lesser one in importance is, I think, on Article 10, which lays down that the Minister shall determine the rates of payments or levies week by week. I assume that this is for the benefit of the industry and not of the Minister, so that the industry may keep a running account and may know, week by week, how it stands as between the receipt of payments and being liable for levies. I should have thought that it would have been better if Article 10 had laid upon the Minister the duty not only to determine the matters week by week, but to publish and to communicate to the industry weekly these decisions. I hope that when this Scheme is shortly superseded, as I understand it is to be, by another one, opportunity will be taken on that occasion to impose upon the Minister the duty not only to make weekly determinations, but to communicate these determinations weekly to the industry.
The other point (I think a much more serious one) arises on Article 9. This empowers the Minister to impose levies whenever he considers that the return from the sale of the bacon is more than sufficient to cover the cost of production of the bacon, without taking into account any profit for the producer or any question of the producer's being enabled to make a living without being liable for levy should the Minister so determine. I do not suppose that such power would ever be exercised by any Minister, because I do not suppose that any Minister wants to bring the bacon curing industry to an end; and this would be what would happen if these powers were exercised and levies were ordered without the producer being enabled to make a living. But I do not think that Ministers ought to come before Parliament and ask for powers which they would never contemplate using; nor do I think Parliament ought to grant Ministers powers which they clearly would never, in their senses, put into operation.
I do not suppose that in the next six months during which this Order is going to operate any Minister, however malevolent, will be able to do a great deal of damage to the bacon industry, and I am sure that no Minister wishes to do so.

1461
Nevertheless, I very much hope that when this Order is superseded by another one the power which is sought in the new Order to make levies will not require the Minister to consider simply the cost of production and the proceeds of sale and take no account of the entitlement of the producer to make a living. I hope that in granting power to impose the levy it will require the Minister to have regard to the fact that the producer is there to make a living out of the work that he does. I very much hope that that point will be borne in mind when the new Scheme is brought into operation.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome which has been expressed for the scheme, and I particularly welcome the words of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. Also, I hope that I can construe what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, as a welcome for this scheme, although he had some reservations to make. Let us face the fact that it is an interim scheme, and a necessary interim scheme. I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, whether it was agreed by the industry. They welcome the framework of the scheme. I understand that they would like rather more money to come as a result of it, but nevertheless the amount, which is some £8½ million for this year, is a very considerable sum. I am glad to see the noble Lord indicating his support. I suppose it is very seldom that we shall get an industry—especially an industry concerned at all with agriculture—saying that they are quite satisfied with the amount of money. But that is the position in this case.
The noble Lord said that it was better to wait a little longer and to come up with the right final scheme rather than to make a quick decision with an unsatisfactory scheme. Of course this is a sensible thing to say. My understanding is that the I.R.C. say that they might make interim recommendations about the reorganisation of the industry within about two months. They are not entirely unfamiliar with the industry. A good deal of inquiry, of course, has been made and they know something about its structure, although not until quite recently, I understand, did they get the agreement of the companies concerned to go in and make
1462
detailed investigation. The fact seems to be that they will go in now with some understanding of the overall Picture, and that within a few months they will be able to complete their inquiries. I trust that they will be able to come up with proposals that will be satisfactory. Nevertheless, I take the point that rather than hurrying without reaching a satisfactory conclusion, it would be better to have another extension of this interim scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, raised two or three points. He wanted to know why these determinations about prices were made weekly. The answer is that they are decided weekly because bacon prices change weekly, and it is of assistance to make these determinations each week. He asked whether it would be possible to publish the prices. I understand that the industry is informed of the prices, but whether any formal publication would be more helpful is a matter we shall consider. The noble Lord went on to say that the powers to apply a levy, as they were not likely to be brought into operation within the next six months, ought not to be in the Order. I do not agree with him at all on this. The whole essence of this sort of stabilisation scheme is that it should be a give and take arrangement. The principle is important, and on reflection I hope he will agree that even though within the short term that part of the principle covering the levy is not applied, nevertheless it is essential that we have firmly before us the fact that in the lean times the Government help, in the good times the industry make a contribution, and that the objective is that overall the scheme will be self-balancing. Therefore I hope the House will agree that it is as well to maintain this principle in this Order.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, went on to say that he thought there should be specific reference to a profit before a levy is applied. Again, I am afraid that I cannot agree with him. It is quite impossible to say that no levy shall be raised unless each firm makes a profit. One cannot say that at all. One given rate of price may enable one firm to make a profit, and another one could well make a loss. What I think is important is that there should be the possibility of profit. We want a reasonable

1463
rate of prices to prevail, and the considerations which are set out will enable the Minister to determine whether there are prices under which eventually some firms will make a profit. Some, if they are not so efficient, may well not reach the profit-making stage. Nevertheless, they have the opportunities of profitability, and I think this approach—perhaps the noble Lord will agree—is the right one. I hope that I have answered all the points which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, put to me, and I trust that the House will now be able to approve this Order.
On Question, Motion, agreed to.

RAILWAYS: DERAILMENTS AND GOODS WAGONS
7.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE THE EARL OF CROMARTIE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the potential danger to the travelling public due to the frequency of derailments, whether they will direct British Railways to withdraw from service the type of goods wagon which is liable to be derailed at speed or to reduce the speed of trains made up with such wagons. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I have put down this Question as I know there are a number of noble Lords, as well as many railway travellers outside your Lordships' House, who are perturbed by the ever-increasing number of derailments on British Railways. Apart from the loss of time—not to mention the expense to the taxpayer which these derailments cause in the re-routing of the trains and clearance of the track, which often must be re-laid—there is a very real danger involved. I do not have to remind noble Lords that only two or three weeks ago a young cadet travelling on the Western Region was killed, due to the passenger express in which he was travelling colliding with one of these derailments. What, my Lords, would have been the scale of the disaster if the cement train derailed last year on the King's Cross/Edinburgh line had fallen inwards, instead of outwards, right in the track of the following Flying Scotsman?
Leaving aside the sub-standard maintenance of rolling-stock, a situation which in my opinion is not helped by the progressive closing of the Scottish repair depôts, there is little doubt that the design of certain goods wagons, more especially the 16-ton mineral wagons, should be subject to some very close scrutiny indeed. Whether they should be taken out of service, or modified in some way, I do not know, but this is a matter which should not be swept under the carpet. I think and hope that the Minister will agree with me that the public should be told what remedial measures are contemplated, before there is a major disaster.
8.1 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend on this very important subject. It is high time that the Government were probed about their intentions in regard to the standards which they propose to operate in their freight wagon fleet. The problem, as I understand it, is that the Railways Board have some 800,000 wagons in operation, 75 per cent. of which are the short-wheel-base variety, built for limited speeds of 45 miles an hour and now totally unsuitable for modern requirements. I believe that a great majority of the 75 per cent. I have mentioned are over 30 years old. Nevertheless, they are used, and have to be used; and, in consequence, too often they are running too fast for their capabilities for too long a period, so that they then overheat and consequently seize up.
Besides the handicap of out-of-date rolling stock, the railway depôts also suffer from a serious shortage of available wagon fleets at certain times of the year. I believe I am right in saying that in peak periods the shortage is something like 30,000 wagons. As was evident the other day, coal traffic had to be turned away from the railways—the very traffic which we were told the railways would cope with under the new Transport Act. The problem is acute, and the result of using this old and ancient rolling stock is that there is now continuing evidence of delays and breakdowns, loss of punctuality in services and now possible accidents. The loss of punctuality in services was particularly stressed in the recent Annual Report of the Central Transport Users' Consultative Committee.

1465
I should like to put four specific questions on the wagon fleet. First, I would ask the noble Lord what research has been done into the overheating of wagon axles and what results have been achieved. Secondly, is it likely that these old-type wagons can be modified, or will they have to be scrapped? Thirdly, how many wagons now in operation are restricted to the 45 m.p.h. limit? Finally, what research has been carried out on the new disc-brake system?
I suggest that the remedy, or partial remedy, is to keep open some of the alternative routes and, where possible, to separate freight from passenger traffic. I could cite the example of two routes between Gloucester and Birmingham, the Bromsgrove route and the Stratford-on-Avon route. The Railways Board intend to keep open the Bromsgrove route and, ultimately, to close the Stratford-on-Avon route. But the Bromsgrove route is extremely hilly for the carriage of freight and includes the famous Licky incline. It has already been proved that this incline is so steep that a number of trains have overrun or overshot the points. I believe that regulations have now been adopted which slow down the services. The freight service generally is not a happy one. The freight services, despite the provisions of the Transport Act, are decreasing every year, revenue has gone down, the services are being withdrawn, and the equipment is old. It is time that we were given the Government's view of the long-term future planning of the Railways Board.
8.6 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I have a good deal of sympathy with the noble Earl's anxiety as disclosed by his Question, for to-night I set off on my eighth overnight journey undertaken this month. On occasions when my sleeper has been "over the wheels", I have been particularly conscious of the manner in which the bogeys of even the passenger coaches "hunt" at high speeds on some parts of the track, especially on the electrified Euston/Crewe section where they reach speeds of 90 to 100 m.p.h. and come down the banks of the Shap and Beatock.
One cannot help hearing or reading about derailments. Indeed, when one sees a goods train, the wagons of which are necessarily loose-coupled, coming down one of these banks, one appreciates the strain on the wagons and tracks which
1466
arises in the present conditions. Last Friday there was a wagon standing in the loop beside the arrival platform at Carstairs with one bearing so burnt out that the wagon had to be chocked up. I understand that it had been there for two or three days and was not the first wagon to have gone wrong in that area recently. Admittedly, all the main line goods wagons have now got oil bearings, but they are modified wagons of the short wheel-base type to which the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has referred. That does not convert them into modern vehicles which are safe to attach to modern trains. The speed of the schedules and the long hauls as compared with the days of steam must put considerable strain on couplings and bearings, especially where sections of the track are in need of replacement.
Without wishing to be alarmist in any way (I confess that I would rather travel by train than by air, all else being equal) I look forward to hearing the noble Lord's reply to my noble friend's Question. Needless to say, I hope that it will be reassuring. Nothing, short of a head-on collision, could be worse than an express train at speed running into a wagon derailed from the opposite line. I was interested when the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, referred to alternative routes. If the density of traffic over the Beatock section calls for high speed schedules, with the necessary drop coming down the bank from the other side, is this not a further reason for the Waverley line to have been kept open in order to relieve the pressure of the goods traffic on the main Carlisle/Carstairs route in order to enable the managers to reduce the schedules of goods trains over the bank?
8.10 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, in asking his Question the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, made a commendably brief speech, an example which has been followed both by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. I am afraid that I must take a little more time because, as each of those noble Lords indicated, the brevity of their speeches did not mask the seriousness of the subject that we are discussing.
The Question as framed by the noble Earl implies that the Government have

1467
power to direct British Railways to withdraw from service any type of goods wagon that is liable to be derailed at speed, or to reduce the speed of trains made up with such wagons. I must emphasise right away that the Government have no such power. Under the 1962 Transport Act, responsibility for the safety and efficiency of operation of the railways is the statutory responsibility of the British Railways Board, and the Government cannot, nor would they wish to, if they could, directly interfere with that responsibility. I think I should also, right at the start, put this matter in its proper perspective by pointing out that during 1968 the number of goods train derailments on plain track per million goods train miles on all lines, based on figures supplied by the British Railways Board, was only 2·97. So, while it is necessary and right that the noble Earl should draw attention to the number of accidents, one ought not to allow, either by admission or by inadvertence, the impression to get around that goods wagons are being involved in derailments all over the place.
Railway safety is, however, a matter about which my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport maintains close contact with the British Railways Board, through the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways. Over this problem of goods train derailments the Ministry, through the Railway Inspectorate, have been working in close co-operation with the Railways Board since the incidence of goods train derailments, and, in particular, those caused by short wheelbase wagons with old type suspensions, first began to assume significant proportions. The short wheelbase wagon first showed itself to be prone to derailment on plain track in 1960 when a series of derailments occurred in which such a wagon was the first to leave the rails at a speed of less than 60 m.p.h.—which at that time was the maximum permitted speed for any train that included short wheelbase 4-wheeled wagons.
This speed limit had obtained for many years, but with steam traction comparatively few goods trains in fact exceeded 45–50 m.p.h. for any considerable distance, and although derailments involving short wheelbase wagons had occurred from time to time, they were generally
1468
ascribed to the defective condition of the wagon itself or to the state of the track at the point of derailment. With the introduction of powerful diesel locomotives on express goods trains, the actual mileage covered at speeds over 45 m.p.h. increased considerably, and it became evident that certain types of 4-wheeled wagons of short wheelbase were (and I use this expression with some diffidence, seeing the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, sitting opposite) derailment-prone even when apparently in good order, and that when running at speed on plain track only a very slight track irregularity could be enough to derail a wagon.
The incidence of short wheelbase derailments first began to be significant in 1962, and in succeeding years the Chief Inspecting Officer has called attention, through the medium of his Annual Report on railway accidents, to the increase in goods train derailments of this particular kind. Throughout this period, also, there have been a series of discussions between the inspecting officers and officers of British Railways who were fully alive to its seriousness right from the first. During 1961 and 1962 the Board instituted a drive to improve the standard of maintenance of goods rolling stock, and withdrew from traffic one particular type of short wheelbase wagon, the pallet van, which had an especially bad derailment record. Quite early in these discussions the possible need for a reduction in the maximum speed permitted for short wheelbase wagons was being urgently considered, and early in 1963 a limit of 50 m.p.h. was placed on all trains that included them.
In 1963, also, the Board referred the problem to their Research Department at Derby, where a series of experiments was put in hand to test the running of short wheelbase wagons over track that included known irregularities. As a result of these tests, of the wealth of evidence that had been accumulating over the years, and of the continuing discussions with the inspecting officers, the British Railways Board early in 1966 took the highly restrictive step of reducing the speed limit for all trains that included wagons with a wheelbase of 10 feet or under to 45 m.p.h. It is at this figure that the speed limit for these wagons still stands. I can assure noble Lords that, in addition to making these reductions in

1469
the speed limit, the Board have, over a period, taken action in various ways to ensure that this speed limit is not broken.
As regards the present limit, I feel that I should point out that recent analyses of goods wagon derailments show that the reduction of the speed limit to 45 m.p.h. has already largely eliminated speed as a major factor in short wheelbase derailments. Of the 156 such derailments in 1968, there were only 3 in which a speed of between 35 and 45 m.p.h. was considered to be a contributing factor. This, I am informed, shows that the way ahead does not lie in any further reduction of a limit which is already highly restrictive from the operational point of view. Nevertheless, 156 out of a total of 215 derailments on plain track in 1968 were caused by short wheelbase wagons. And the incidence, at any rate up to the end of 1968, was still rising, the comparable figures for 1966 and 1967 being 83 out of a total of 144, and 107 out of a total of 169 respectively.
The core of the problem is, of course, that out of a British Railways' fleet of 4-wheeled wagons that totals just over 400,000, nearly 330,000 have short wheelbases. It is indeed the sheer numbers of short wheelbase wagons that makes them such a problem, the two types that caused most derailments in 1968 being the 16-ton mineral wagon, of which there are over 186,000, and the vanfit, of which are are nearly 50,000. Noble Lords have asked: what are the measures, short of the withdrawal of wagons from service (which would seriously reduce British Railways' capacity to handle their goods traffic) that have been, and are being, taken to reduce the proportion of short wheelbase wagons in the British Railways' goods wagon fleet? Let me give some answers.
Since 1962 no further short wheelbase wagons have been built, either by British Railways or by private owners. With very few exceptions, all new wagons built since then have been of 15 ft. wheelbase or above, and all the main classes of wagons built have been provided with suspensions of improved design. Most of these wagons are capable of running safely at speeds of at least 60 m.p.h. Since 1962, also, private
1470
owners have acquired some 10,000 new wagons, mainly tank wagons, all of which are of long wheelbase and are fitted with modern types of suspension. This has enabled British Railways to take positive action to eliminate most of the private-owner, short wheelbase wagons.
During the last four years over 1,300 bogie wagons have been introduced to meet freightliner requirements, which has enabled the fleet of short wheelbase covered goods vans and open wagons to be substantially reduced. Thus there has been a progressive reduction in the number of goods vans, but by the nature of the work on which they are used they incur the longest mileages at sustained speed. Similarly, the introduction of nearly 5,000 new, high-capacity, long wheelbase coal wagons for what I am told is described as "Merry-go-round" working between the collieries and the power stations has enabled British Railways to dispense with an appreciable number of short wheelbase mineral wagons.
As regards the immediate future, noble Lords should know that the size and type of some of the wagons needed for the carriage of the future types of goods traffic have only recently been decided. Studies to determine the likely amount of freight the Board can expect to carry over the -next two decades will take sonic time to reach fruition. The results will eventually govern the final pattern of the future British Railways' goods fleet. It is not just a question of a like-for-like substitution of wagons with modern suspension for those at present existing. In anticipation, however, of what the requirement would be for the future wagon fleet, British Railways initiated in 1965 the design and building of six prototype wagons of long wheelbase and with double link suspension for technical assessment. These have proved satisfactory when running at speeds up to 75 m.p.h. Following this, in mid-1968 my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport gave authority for the construction of 250 covered goods vans of this design to enable a commercial assessment to be carried out.
Finally, as regards replacement the the British Railways Board have told my right honourable friend that they will shortly be submitting to him a request for authority to build a number of new long wheelbase wagons in connection

1471
with the development of general freight traffic. Thus, within the financial limitations imposed on the Board action will be taken to replace the old short wheelbase wagon fleet as quickly as possible.
As to the immediate future, analyses of the plain track short wheelbase derailments in 1968 suggest that the main single factors are traction and braking shocks (some 31 per cent.) and mechanical failures (some 20 per cent.), with minor defects in the track some way behind (some 10 per cent.). These track defects, where they occurred on passenger lines, were insufficient to affect passenger trains but were enough to upset the balance of a short wheelbase wagon. Some 12 per cent. of short wheelbase derailments were attributed to multiple causes; that is, when minor deficiencies in wagon and track tolerances come together. The Board have been and are taking steps to overcome these three factors. Traction and braking shocks, particularly at slow speeds, when they have most often caused derailments, are the results of minor faults in driving techniques associated with the type of equipment, and measures for improvement in these fields are actively in hand.
Mechanical failures are in many cases the result of insufficient or faulty maintenance. Great emphasis is being placed on the need for better maintenance, and active steps for its improvement are also being taken. Derailments of short wheelbase wagons because of defective track have mainly been the result of slight twists in the track, which have been insufficient to affect wagons with suspensions of satisfactory design, much less passenger coaches. Standards of track maintenance on goods lines that run alongside passenger lines and where a derailment might affect a passenger train are being given special attention.
At this point I might mention the Ashchurch accident, to which the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, referred. He will forgive me if I do not follow him in this matter, but the inquiry into that starts to-morrow and it would be quite improper for me to make any comment about it. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, asked a number of questions. I think I have covered them, but I should like to say, on the question of withdrawal of wagons, that it is a matter for the
1472
Board in the first instance, in their investment projects, to decide whether to scrap or to replace; but when I mention that the cost of providing a new wagon is something of the order of £5,000 it will be seen that the task of replacing some 300,000 wagons is not the sort of thing which can be thrown at the British Railways Board all at once when they are faced with the requirement to operate in a system where deficit-financing is at an end. But I hope I have said enough to make it clear that the Board regard this as a strong claimant upon their investment projects. Does the noble Earl wish to say something?
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord has quite told us what the long-term plans of the Railways Board are as regards replacement and the withdrawal of these wagons. I think we are entitled to know that.
LORD HUGHES: I think I have covered that in general terms. I have indicated the sort of steps they have already taken; I have indicated the fact that there are 250 of the new type being constructed so that there is a proper commercial assessment; and I have also indicated the steps which the Board have taken to try to work out the kind of wagon which they are likely to need for the other traffic which they may expect to get. So the Board are doing as much as they can within their resources immediately. But they have to recognise the fact that the right solution is to fit this in, as the noble Earl has said, with proposals to meet the long-term situation.
Finally, I should like to assure noble Lords that my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport, through the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways, is keeping closely in touch with developments in this field. He is satisfied that, within the limits set by the availability of financial resources and the need to avoid building wagons before the future requirements can be determined, as satisfactory a programme as possible is being followed for the replacement of the worst short wheelbase wagons and for the maintenance of those that have got to remain in use and of the track on which they are to run.
I know that neither my right honourable friend nor the British Railways Board view the problem with complacency. I

1473
think it is proper and useful that the noble Earl should have asked this Question, because undoubtedly there is from time to time a large measure of public concern about an accident of this kind. I have spoken at some length because I think it is right, in the interests both of the general public and of the Railways Board, that as much as possible of this information should be put on public record.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM: VOTING PEERS
8.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government: Whether they will publish the reasons and calculations which led to the conclusion that 230 would be the right number of voting Peers in a reformed House; and whether they will publish the number of Cross-Bench Peers who fulfilled the proposed attendance qualification in the last five Sessions of Parliament. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, even at this late hour I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name. I know that this is the last Question to which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton will have to reply before the House rises. I am sorry, but it is not my fault that it should come on at such a late hour. But I do not think that the noble Lord will dispute that the proposals in the White Paper proposed the biggest constitutional change which we have had for 50 years. I am not seeking to debate to-night whether those proposals are good or bad. We have discussed them. What I am seeking is information—not as yet provided—so that we can see on what grounds some of the conclusions in that White Paper are based.
The procedure which has been followed in relation to this big constitutional change is very different from that which is normally followed. Industrial relations are very important. We had a White Paper which we discussed quite recently called, In Place of Strife. We discussed that White Paper with the advantage of having before us a Report of the Royal Commission presided over by my noble and learned friend Lord Donovan, which provided very valuable and informative back-
1474
ground. We also have Bills, and sometimes White Papers, which are produced as a result of Reports of other Commissions. We had this afternoon a Bill based largely on Reports of the Law Commission. Because the Reports of those Commissions are very factual, one can see when one reads them the precise reasoning which leads to a particular conclusion, whether that conclusion be accepted in the White Paper or not.
But in considering these White Paper proposals we have nothing of that kind—although, of course, a Constitutional Commission is being set up, ant one would have thought that the first thing to do would be to submit the question of the reform of this House to an impartial and highly qualified body, as no doubt that Constitutional Commission will be. It was, I think, because of the absence of such information as is normally available that there was such a commotion in another place about a document in the Library with respect to your Lordships' attendances. Rightly or wrongly, it seems to have been thought that that document would contain the key to some of the conclusions in the White Paper.
Now we have before us, published in answer to an Order of this House, the Return of your Lordships' attendances in the last five Sessions. I should have thought that for anyone familiar with this House that was a useful document, though for others, unfamiliar with this House, it was likely to be a most misleading one, and possibly one that would lead to false conclusions. It gives a record of attendances, but, of course, it does not in any way disclose how long in a day any one of those Peers has in fact attended. When one looks through the list of some of the highest attenders—I would except the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, who I am glad to see has the record number of attendances, and who in some Sessions scored the maximum and has always just beaten me—one notices (or at least I noticed) one curious thing. It is that so many of these regular attenders, within the terms of the White Paper, were regular attenders whom we do not see here fairly late in the day and who (I say this with the greatest of respect to them), for one reason or another do not and have not played a very active part in our proceedings.
But that qualification of regular attendance seems to have had a very significant part to play in the determination of what I consider to be one of the most important questions in relation to the reform of this House—that is: "What size should it be?" I would hope—and I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will tell us—that when the Government reached the conclusion they did about the size of the House, questions of composition were disregarded and that what was considered was: What was the right size for this House if it was to go on to conduct its proper functions? Surely that is the first question that should be considered.
Am I not right in thinking that some of these other bodies which have considered the reform of this House have recommended a House of the order of 300 Members? For myself, I say straight away that I doubt very much whether a membership of 230 is large enough for this House properly to discharge all its functions including its functions on Private Bills, bearing in mind that to be a regular attender one has to attend only for some part of two days out of three. Taking into account the considerations of illness or Leave of Absence, I must say that I am very inclined to doubt whether 230 is the right number. But if it is the right number, if investigation has been made and consideration given, and if the process of reasoning and the calculations lead to that conclusion, surely we of this House, and the Members of another House, ought to be informed of that process of reasoning and of those calculations. So far they have not been so informed. And it was in an endeavour to obtain those reasons and calculations which have led the Government to that conclusion, that I put down this Question.
I should find it difficult to believe that the Government had not approached the matter in that way; but the White Paper itself seems to indicate a slightly different approach—though I may have drawn the wrong inferences from it. If one turns to paragraph 46, one sees first of all that it says:
"…the Government considers that in the first instance a reasonable size would be between 200 and 250 (excluding law lords and bishops)".
1476
We are given no ground for that conclusion; we are given no indication of the reasoning that has led to it. As I say, we have had nothing like a Royal Commission Report which we can examine to see whether that really is likely to be the right figure.
Then the White Paper goes on to say:
"At the outset the voting House would consist principally of those present created peers who were able to attend regularly—there were about 150 during the session for 1967–68…"
So you start off with a basic figure of regular attenders without regard (because there is no record of it) to the duration of each attendance. And then it is recommended—although the Paper says "the Government contemplates"—
"that about 80 new life peers would be needed for this purpose in the first instance".
That is how the figure of 230 is arrived at as the proper size for this House.
If I have drawn the right conclusion from the White Paper, you start off with the number of regular attenders and add 80. I cannot, however, believe that that was all that was done in determining the right figure. There must I feel have been some consideration of what really was the number which was required for this House to function permanently. Was it not considered before that the right number was of the order of 300? Of course, if it is the number of 300 that is required, the extent of the Prime Minister's patronage will go up from 80 to 150. That would alter the whole picture. So I submit to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that it really is vital, if consideration was given to what was the proper size of this House in the future, disregarding its composition, that we should know the facts and the figures which led to that conclusion. If it be the case—reluctant as I am to believe it—that all that was done was to find the number of regular attenders of first creation, and then add the number of 80, that seems to me an entirely arbitrary figure. If that was all that was done, I ask that the Government should "come clean" and tell us so.
My Lords, it is not without interest to notice that if you leave out Peers of first creation the number of regular attenders, if you include all Peers, in the Session 1967–68 was 291; and I think this House

1477
functioned very efficiently with that number. I do not want to prolong this debate by one word more than is necessary, but I think it is right that I should say that I personally attach very great importance to this question. I do not know what took place at the talks between the leaders of the Parties, or what stage the negotiations had reached before they were broken off in a moment of petulance. I do not know what materials were put before that body; that is all covered with a cloak of secrecy. I think it would be a very good thing if all the documents which were before that body, and those who attended those meetings, were made public; and I hope that that can be done. I see no reason why they should not be. What is the need for secrecy about those discussions? Then, my Lords, we shall be able to see, if not the whole of the picture, at least a considerable part of the picture. I think we ought to know the facts precisely, long before a Bill comes before this House, so that we may have ample opportunity to consider exactly why it is that the Government have concluded that about 230 should be the right number.
My Lords, I would agree that it is not a very firm conclusion, because the White Paper goes on to say:
"The voting House would therefore consist at first of about 230 peers: provided that non-voting peers were also prepared to attend in reasonable numbers and where appropriate to serve on committees, this number should be sufficient for the business of the House, at least for the remainder of this parliament."
What grounds are there for reaching that conclusion? I must say that it seems to me very odd that you should say that this House could function properly for the remainder of this Parliament if nonvoting Peers were prepared to serve on Committees on which, it follows, they would have no vote. So much for the first part of my Question. The second part—
LORD SHACKLETON: Oh, my God!
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: The noble Lord says, "Oh, my God!" I am sorry to inflict this on him now. I would rather have inflicted it on him at an earlier stage of our proceedings to-day. This is really a much more important matter than bacon curing and matters of that sort. The noble Lord's interjection,
1478
I am afraid, rather encourages me to press the second part of my Question more firmly than I had intended.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount needs no encouragement.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, indeed I do, and, what is more, I can tell the noble Lord that I usually respond to it. But, my Lords, despite the temptation, I will deal with the second part of my Question—perhaps the noble Lord had not observed that it has two parts—quite shortly. It is this. It is said that if you have 230 Peers, then 30 Cross-Benchers will suffice. So far as I can see, the number of Cross-Benchers of first creation, or Life Peers, who attended in the 1967–68 Session was, in fact, fewer than 30. I do not want to go into what will be the test to be applied before anyone is made a Cross-Bencher in future, what examination papers they will be required to answer; but it seems to me that as we have been given the figures for five Sessions of attendances at your Lordships' House, the figures for one Session for Cross-Benchers—which is what appears in the White Paper—are really insufficient. Therefore, all I am asking for is that those figures should be extended to cover the same period as the Return which has now been published pursuant to the Order of this House.
8.42 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I shall not be a moment, particularly at this late hour, but the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, talked about two days in three as an attendance measure. I would remind the House that so far as Scottish Peers are concerned it is one day in three in which Scottish business is being considered, as of to-day.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord says "two days in three". Surely, to be a regular attendant—I think I said it—you have to attend one day in three.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount said two.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, if I did, I said it wrongly.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, that was what tempted me to rise—I think it was

1479
a slip of the tongue. I rose only to point that out and to draw attention to some of the matters which the noble and learned Viscount has mentioned in his speech in regard to the attendances of Peers. Because I think I am right in saying, from the point of view of those of us who come from great distances (I do not say only Scottish Peers; there are English Peers from the North and West of England, and so on), that the problem of attending here is a matter of very much greater importance, in terms of service to your Lordships' House and the sacrifices that they make, than for people who live just round the corner. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will bear that in mind. As a matter of interest I worked out my own attendances. I support what the noble and learned Viscount has said, that the bare figures have to be taken very much in perspective; not only in respect of the amount of time which the attenders spend in this House and the contribution which they make to the business of this House, but also the distance from which they have to come; and the fact that, because of engagements in distant places, they cannot fulfil all the attendances that they would like.
8.48 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I clearly did an injustice to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. I might have known that the short nature of the second part of the Question would lead to only a very short speech, and I apologise. I recognise the solemnity of his approach, which did not entirely succeed in concealing the naughtiness of his intention. I regard the noble and learned Viscount with growing affection, all the more since he has sat on those Benches opposite, and I regard him as a formidable and careful debater. But on the last occasion we covered quite a lot of the subjects which he has mentioned.
I have always understood that the debate on an Unstarred Question should be rather narrow, but—and I know that there is much more that the noble and learned Viscount could have produced—we heard about the Prime Minister's patronage and the great constitutional change; and I agree with him on that point. He talked about the process of reasoning. On the last occasion I said
1480
that I thought he needed a further tutorial; that he failed to pass his examinations; and I am sorry to say that he does not seem to have done very much in the meanwhile. If only he had read the White Paper properly it would have helped—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, if I may intervene for a moment, may I say that I am asking for information? I have read the White Paper more than once—it may be because of the way in which it is written—but this Question is directed to obtaining that tuition for which I am asking the noble Lord.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am very willing to provide it. It will not be a tutorial; I am afraid it will be a lecture, but I see a number of noble Lords here ready to listen. I must ask the noble Viscount, when he has had my lecture, to again read the White Paper, because there he will find some of the reasoning, and I think he might even understand some of the limitations that apply to amateur "statisticating". I acclaim the noble Viscount's skill in playing round in an area that could give rise to difficulties, but he may be aware that in another place in the consideration of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill there has been a debate which is somewhat germane to the noble Viscount's Question. Indeed, I am almost inclined to think that there is some connection between the two.
I am sure that the House, and especially the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, would agree with me that in these circumstances it would not be in accordance with our usual practice to enter deeply into a matter which is at present under consideration in another place, and that we should await the time when the Bill comes to this House, when we shall be required, and indeed shall wish, to give it our full attention. Some while ago we devoted three days of debate to the White Paper and we shall have a further opportunity.
The noble Viscount referred to the concern in another place that a certain document should be made available to them. It would appear that some people may have thought that this would be the explanation of everything. That is an illusion which many of us are apt to fall into until we become more experienced. I

1481
would remind the House of the practice, which is set out in Erskine May, on page 451 of the 17th Edition:
"The rule that allusions to debate in the other House of the current session are out of order prevents fruitless arguments between members of two distinct bodies who are unable to reply to each other, and guards against recrimination and offensive language in the absence of the party assailed: but it is mainly founded upon the understanding that the debates of the Upper House are not known, and that the House can take no notice of them."
Erskine May goes on to say:
"The daily publication of debates in Parliament offers a strong temptation to disregard this rule."
Even the noble and learned and strong-minded Viscount has succumbed to this temptation.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord may think that, but I do not think that he is right in thinking it at all. I did not refer to any discussion in the debate; I referred to a document. The noble Lord referred to that document in moving for the return that was ordered. I did not go beyond that. The noble Lord is trying to deal with a serious matter in a most facetious fashion.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, it is clear that the noble Viscount did not need much tempting. He entered into sin willingly and quickly. The whole question has arisen out of demands in another place, but it raises difficulties in this House, and the question really is how far I should go at this stage into matters which are constantly before another place. I am in a difficulty in this regard and I only hope that the noble Viscount will appreciate that in attempting to give an answer I shall give as much as it is possible for me to give at this stage.
I will deal precisely with the noble Viscount's arguments. There is one misconception which I think must be corrected. I am not sure whether the noble Viscount entirely suffers from this misconception, because I am sure he has studied the Paper fairly closely. The terms of the White Paper do not imply, as the Question does, that in the Government's view 230 would always be the right number of voting Peers in a reformed House, for all the reasons which the noble Viscount himself gave—because of the inevitable uncertainties of projecting past practice into the future.
1482
That is not what the White Paper says. What we said was that, in the first instance, a reasonable size would be between 200 and 250, excluding Law Lords and Bishops. The White Paper recognises that it is not possible to fix for all time a figure which would be, as the noble Viscount puts it, "the right number". What the Government propose is that the voting House should consist initially of some 230 Peers, not counting Bishops and Law Lords, and that thereafter a larger number might be found necessary as the work of the House developed and expanded in the future. This subject was discussed exhaustively in the Inter-Party Conference, and the conclusion was that 230 was (I use my words carefully) a viable initial figure.
The Government's aim has been to create a House of sufficient size to fulfil the duties which are to be placed upon it or which it chooses to undertake both as a debating Chamber of distinction and authority, which I believe your Lordships' House to be, one which will play a developing part in the Parliamentary task of scrutinising the activities of the Executive—this has always been an important part of the work of a reformed House and is clearly crucial in regard to the numbers—and also as a legislative Chamber which, while not rivalling the Commons, will complement it and relieve it of as much work as is practicable, both in initiating legislation and in scrutinising that which has been passed by the Commons. I think we can fairly say that we do a pretty good job in this House, and I would say to the noble Viscount that I am conscious of how much he contributes to this. An example has been the Foreign Compensation Bill. I did not follow the ins and outs of the Bill and I am not in a position to judge, but I am sure that he must feel that he achieved quite a lot.
In relation to the qualification period, the proposed initial number takes into account the frequency with which noble Lords attend this House and also the figures for average daily attendance in the last five Sessions. The noble Viscount has drawn our attention to the fact that the return of attendance over the last five Sessions is available, and from if your Lordships will see that there has been an increase from 151 in 1963–64 to

1483
194 in 1964–65, to 191 in the following year, to 199 in the next and finally to 225 in the Session of 1967–68. A further factor, of which the House will be aware and which is referred to in paragraph 46 of the White Paper, is that at the outset the voting House will consist principally of those existing created Peers who will find themselves able to attend regularly. As shown in the table on page 5 of the White Paper, there were 153 of these in the last Session up to the 1st August. I need to point this out because the White Paper was written when figures did not give the complete Session—in fact, as I say, they went up to August; but there is no significant difference.
It will be necessary—and this has been made quite clear—for additional Life Peers to be created to give the working or voting House the appropriate size and balance between the political Parties, and the vast majority of these new Life Peers would be drawn from existing Peers by succession, who of course include many of the most active and experienced Members of your Lordships' House. The Government, however, have been anxious that the number of initial creations should be no larger than the work to be performed and the Party balance requires. I rather think that our desire in this matter to restrict the number initially is consistent with what I believe to be the views of the Party opposite. It is always possible to create new Peers, but there is no easy way of un-creating Peers. And one of the major parts of our programme and our proposals is that once a Peer is created, subject to a retiring age, his rights are there for life.
On the other hand, the Party breakdown of created Peers, given in the table on page 5 of the White Paper, makes it clear that a considerable number of conversions is inevitable if we are to have a voting House with the proposed balance between the Parties, referred to in paragraph 48 of the White Paper. To take the most obvious example, the Party of the noble Viscount has only 38 created Peers who attended over one-third of the sittings of the last Session. The White Paper also states, in column 46, that much would depend on the number of non-voting Peers who attended debates in the House or served on Com-
1484
mittees, and on the frequency with which they did so; and this we cannot possibly estimate in advance. But the Government consider that, provided that speaking Peers, non-voting Peers, are prepared to attend in reasonable numbers, and to serve on Committees when appropriate, the initial figure—and I stress this again—of 230 would be enough for the business of the House, at least for the remainder of this Parliament.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: The noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, but he said that he stresses this again. All I am asking him—and I did quote that 230 was the initial figure—is to disclose the reasons which led to the conclusion that this was a viable figure.
LORD SHACKLETON: Perhaps the noble Viscount will allow me to go on. I do not think that I shall possibly be able to satisfy him, but we shall have further opportunities. The Government consider—and we cannot tell this—that 230 will be about the right number for the remainder of this Parliament. It is quite possible that this initial number of voting Peers may need to be increased. It may prove to be the wrong number, especially in a subsequent Parliament, if the work develops in the way contemplated, for example, in Appendix 2 of the White Paper, which is called, "Possible changes in functions and procedure".
I doubt very much whether I can hope to bring precision of the kind which the noble Viscount is seeking, and which the White Paper makes clear it is unable to provide. But we are looking into the future. We should all like to have a crystal ball, and perhaps the noble and learned Viscount would have a better one than I have. But this was a considered set of proposals from a number of very experienced people, and I have given some of the calculations that influenced our decision.
As regards the second part of the noble Viscount's Question, 52 Peers not in receipt of a Party Whip attended more than one-third of the Sittings during the 1967–68 Session, up to August 1; and this number is equally divided between Peers of first creation and Peers by succession. I admit that in saying this I am merely re-stating what is published on page 5 of the White Paper. Figures for the

1485
previous four Sessions can be provided only with the co-operation of the other political Parties, because if we define Cross-Benchers as those not in receipt of a Party Whip—which is the definition that we use in the White Paper—it is necessary, if we are to make the necessary breakdown, to have the complete list of those in receipt of a Party Whip for the last five years. The Government do not possess this information in the detail which publication would require. Nor, in my view, would it have any statistical certainty for what we are seeking to demonstrate.
One of the most striking features which emerged from our work on the proposed reform was the change in the work and attendance in the House during the last four Sessions. This again introduced another element of change. It is reflected in the Attendance Return to which I have already referred. The introduction of Life Peers, the Peerage Act 1963, the introduction of women into the House, the payment of expenses, the Leave of Absence scheme and the creations of Peers in the present Parliament have resulted in great changes, of which all of us are aware and which are reflected in the life and work of the House as we see it to-day.
The White Paper gives the most recent statistics, and it is on these that we should concentrate, since they provide the most accurate basis for any study of the work of the present House. In considering the size of the reformed House, I would warn noble Lords against simple extrapolation from patterns of attendance which exist at present, since these have been established in very different circumstances from those which will exist in the future. For the future, we shall have the Committee proposed in paragraph 71 of the White Paper to review the composition of the reformed House, and they will have, in their terms of reference, the particular duty of considering the size of the voting House against the actual performance of the House.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him to reply to one point put by my noble friend to which he has not referred; and that is whether the deliberations which took place in
1486
the inter-Party Committee, which were broken off, can be published, as they would be helpful? My noble friend raised that point and it has not been answered. There is another point, and if I am wrong in putting it here no doubt the noble Lord will tell me, but when we were having some exchanges about the publication of attendances in your Lordships' House my noble friend Lord Carrington raised the question of similar information being supplied about another place. I supported him in that. On that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said that he would have this matter looked into. I do not know whether this is the right moment to ask him whether he has done that. If not, perhaps he will tell me. But otherwise perhaps he can tell me how the matter stands.
THE EARL, OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I wonder whether, before the noble Lord finishes, he will also tell us, in view of what he has already said, his opinion on the question of discussing in this House the future of this House before the Bill comes here, if it comes here. Could he give an undertaking now to the House that the House will be given ample time to discuss the Bill during Committee stage; that we shall not be asked to sit right the way through August or be asked to sit all through nights a ad so on, but will be given ample time to discuss the matter; and that if necessary the Bill will be carried over to next Session?
9.10 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I suppose that my affection for the noble Lord the Leader of the House would prompt me to be extremely brief in any event, but he did not really appeal to me as he might have done when he created the word "statisticating". If anything was calculated to lose the sympathy which I normally feel for him that invention would have done so. I intervene not for the purpose of saying that but to say that I entirely agree with him in what he said about Erskine May and what he based upon it. My only quarrel with him about that is that he used it as a method of rebuke to my noble and learned friend who had not offended in that way at all. He had not made any use whatsoever of the

1487
proceedings in another place to discuss this.
But what I would ask the noble Lord to bear in mind is this. He says that we could not be given further information at this stage. If that is so, I think we shall clearly have to have the information at some other stage. But whether he will like that any better, I very much doubt. The information already given in this White Paper was given to meet a request from another place. I entirely agreed with the reasoning that, as the other place was apparently asking for information that was available, as a matter of courtesy and good manners we should certainly give it. But, my Lords, it was given in order to oblige another place. Is there any real reason why information should not be given to oblige this House? There is nothing absurd in that demand.
If it is said that anything we want to know cannot be given until the House of Commons has finished with its deliberations on the present Bill, I must warn the noble Lord that that may very much delay proceedings in this House. If we have to wait until the introduction of the Bill in this House before we can get information which some of us may think essential it may not have quite the effect that the Leader of the House either desires or expects.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I really am put in a very considerable difficulty. If one of my noble friends had been speaking or was answering this Question, I really should have had to suggest that this was turning into a most irregular debate.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD SHACKLETON: I am saying this quite seriously, my Lords. I will still do my best since we have become so irregular, but it is in my experience very unusual for a debate to continue on an Unstarred Question after the Government spokesman has spoken. It can be done, but it is very unusual.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: It depends on the answer.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, I was careful to say "before the noble Lord sits down".
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I fully accept that the noble Lord employed an acceptable and correct device. The debate is already going enormously wide in that we are having threats from noble Lords. It is not unknown for answers to be given—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? If we are being very pedantic at this late hour, is the noble Lord speaking with the leave of the House?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I entirely agree—the noble and learned Viscount is perfectly correct. Indeed I wrote down the words, "leave of the House" before I rose. If the House will give me leave I will reply.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Please.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, this is the sort of muddle we get into on these occasions. I have rarely known a Government spokesman to speak twice in reply to an Unstarred Question, and I doubt very much whether anything I can say will satisfy the evident intentions of certain noble Lords in this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, was correct—and the noble and learned Viscount, as I expected, was extremely circumspect—but the fact is that at this moment we are discussing something which is becoming rather like the mirror image of a debate in another place at a time when legislation is before the other House, and I say quite seriously that if we go along this path we shall find ourselves in difficulties. This is not in any way to question the rights of noble Lords to question the Government on any matter coming before the House, and I look forward to the sort of questions we shall have at the time when the Bill arrives here. But I really do not think that I can go any further, beyond saying that as I used the word "statisticating" I thought happily we should have a response from the noble Lord, Lord Conesford.

BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL
Reported, without amendment.
BARCLAYS BANK BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
  CIVIL PROCEDURE AND COUNCIL OF EUROPE CONVENTIONS
  CIVIL PROCEDURE AND COUNCIL OF EUROPE CONVENTIONS