Sitting of 5 May 1970

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
WELLAND AND NENE (EMPINGHAM RESERVOIR) AND MID NORTHAMPTONSHIRE WATER BILL.
Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
DONCASTER CORPORATION BILL[Lords]
Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL
Read the Third time and passed.
BARCLAYS BANK TRUST COMPANY BILL
As amended, Considered; to be read the Third time.

CUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
EAST SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
PRESTON CORPORATION BILL[Lords]
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
Read a Second time and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Housebuilding, Liverpool
    1. Mr. Ogdenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is satisfied with the number of homes under construction for both the public and private sectors in Liverpool; what action he is taking to increase the numbers and quality in the public sector; and if he will make a statement.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Reginald Freeson): We cannot be satisfied with the number of homes being built while people are in housing need and living in slums. The corporation is now considering its future housebuilding programme and improvements policy, and we shall certainly take the matter up with it if we find its proposals inadequate.
    Mr. Ogden: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Concerning the private sector, as the Ministry has given tremendous aid by way of rate and rent rebates, will my hon. Friend use his influence with the building societies to see whether we can have a reduction in mortgage interest after the reduction in the Bank Rate? Secondly, is my hon. Friend aware that the Liverpool Corporation seems to spend most of its time considering its housing programme instead of getting on with the job, under the powers that it has been given, of building houses and doing repairs?
    Mr. Freeson: On the first point, we are in touch continually with the Building Societies Association. This is the kind of point which is a matter for discussion with it. Concerning the building programme and the improvements policy of Liverpool Corporation, I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend makes. But we must await the proposals which the corporation will be putting forward at city council level. If it requires action and contact by us we will pursue the matter with the corporation.
    Mr. Alldritt: Will my hon. Friend tell us what steps he is taking, concerning quality, to ensure that, if possible, condensation is in future eliminated from new structures?
    Mr. Freeson: Generally speaking, on quality there has been a considerable increase in standards both in public authority housing and in private building in recent years. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government has recently completed the first half of a study on condensation and has issued documentation to local authorities advising them on the problem.

  Housing Subsidies
  2. Mr. Hooleyasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will consider introducing an effective interest rate of 2½per cent. on local authority borrowing for new housing limited to authorities which have the gravest slum clearance and housing need problems.
  Mr. Freeson: In present circumstances my right hon. Friend cannot contemplate even more generous housing subsidies. The basic subsidy for new building is now running at several times the level under the previous administration and amounting to about £3 per week for each dwelling completed.
  Mr. Hooley: While recognising the great contribution that this new subsidy system has made, under which Sheffield, for example, last year received more than £2 million in the housing revenue account, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he agrees that there is a case for extending the admirable precedent set by the educational priority areas and the urban programme of giving special aid to those great industrial cities which have inherited serious problems from former Tory and Liberal administrations?
  Mr. Freeson: My hon. Friend will appreciate that to some degree we have already started along this road because in 1966, for the first time, we established a list of housing priority areas where the greatest possible effort will be made, if need be restraining other authorities in their programmes, to get the resources in the right places. How we might in future more effectively assist the social
  172
  priority areas is a matter that we are still studying.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: As the hon. Gentleman has just said that he cannot do anything about this in present circumstances, will he tell us what circumstances would enable him to do something about it? In view of the fact that at the last General Election the Labour Party promised 3 per cent. mortgages, will the Government partly redeem that promise by doing something for the slum dwellers by getting the borrowing rate down?
  Mr. Freeson: With the greatest respect, the hon. Gentleman is confusing two issues. On slum clearance, this Government have increased the rate by about 25 per cent. since the last Government left office. On assistance to local authorities, we have under the 1967 Housing Subsidies Act, introduced an effective interest rate level of 4 per cent. for public authority housing. As for the future, we have a major housing finance review under way in the Department.

  Cost Yardstick Limits
  3. Mr. Costainasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what consultation he has had with the local authority associations about the alteration of the cost yardstick limits.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): Following discussions with representatives of the local authorities, the cost yardstick limits have been increased on average by a little over 5 per cent. for tenders accepted on or after 15th April.
  Mr. Costain: Does the Minister appreciate that we welcome this increase in the cost yardstick? Does he realise how much this has been due to the Government's taxation policy, particularly S.E.T.? Why has this been so long delayed? Does he not appreciate that this has been holding up the local house building programme?
  Mr. Greenwood: We have had arguments across the House about S.E.T. in the past and I have noted the hon. Gentleman's views. We could not have had discussions about revising the cost yardstick earlier. A great deal of firm information has to be collected before a decision is taken. I have agreed with the local authority associations to further

  173
  talks with them this year to review the progress made between now and then, but that does not necessarily imply an automatic increase later this year or early next year.
  Mr. Rossi: Is the right hon. Gentleman still receiving representations from local authorities that the cost yardstick procedures are causing delays in their getting on with their programmes?
  Mr. Greenwood: I did some time ago. I am not aware of any complaints being made recently, but if the hon. Gentleman has any cases in mind, I will look at them. This was largely a phenomenon of the early days of the cost yardstick. Most authorities now know the proper procedure and find that, if anything, it speeds up the procedure for their applications.
  Mr. Ogden: But is my right hon. Friend not aware that many Conservative- controlled authorities, including Liverpool, are using every possible excuse not to build houses or to look after the municipal houses they already have? Would he consider not persuasion or help or encouragement but at least a kick in the pants to some local authorities?
  Mr. Greenwood: That is a very tempting proposition, but I am not sure whether my general relations with local government would be eased if I took my hon. Friend's advice. I am sure he realises that last year I went to Liverpool and had lengthy talks with the housing department about the cost yardstick. I sanctioned a special increase in the cost yardstick in respect of that authority.

  Direct-Labour Departments (Repair and Maintenance Work)
  4. Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he takes to satisfy himself that the cost of repair and maintenance work carried out by local authority direct-labour departments is reasonably competitive with contractors' prices.
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Denis Howell): It is for local authorities to satisfy themselves on these matters, having regard to the nature of the work, the availability of suitable private contractors, and other factors.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Would it not be helpful to efficiency and economy, however, if the Minister recommended to local authorities that they might put out a representative section of maintenance and repair work to contractors?
  Mr. Howell: It might be useful in the case of direct labour to take prices by competitive tender. We accept that, but there are factors which suggest that, in many fields of activity, direct labour is not only more efficient but produces better quality.
  Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in Liverpool, where certain direct-labour work has been turned over to private enterprise contractors, the quality of the painting and other maintenance work has deteriorated rapidly? Is it not clear that we need the direct-labour departments to ensure that people get both good quality and a reasonable cost?
  Mr. Howell: I have no personal experience of Liverpool, but I know that, in Birmingham, there are more complaints about the quality of work on this sort of operation than almost anything else affecting tenants.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Rossi, Question No. 5.
  Mr. Rossi: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that, in the last year or so—[HON. MEMBERS "Order."]—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Rossi, Question No. 5.

  House Building Programme (Representations)
  5. Mr. Rossiasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what recent representations have been made to him about the effect of the credit squeeze on the housebuilding programme; and what reply he has sent.
  Mr. Greenwood: Representations have recently been made to me on behalf of the Federation of Master Builders and in reply my hon. Friend the Minister of State referred to the proposals made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Budget speech, and to the measures already announced in my statement in the House on 18th March.
  Mr. Rossi: Does the Minister think that those measures are sufficient? If he

  175
  is really interested in helping house builders to get on with the job, does he not think they should be given even greater help than has been given so far?
  Mr. Greenwood: The hon. Member should be a little careful about suggesting that I do not want local authorities to get on with the job. I do, very much. That is one reason that I made my proposals in my statement in the House on 18th March. As it is now only the first week of May, it is a little early to condemn proposals made as recently as the third week in March.
  Mrs. Renéee Short: Does my right hon. Friend recall that representations on this aspect of the housing problem and many others were made to him as long ago as 11th December, 1969, in a Report by a Sub-Committee of the Estimates Committee? Does he also recall that, although this request has been made, we have not yet had a reply from his Department to those recommendations? Will he see that we get it forthwith?
  Mr. Greenwood: My hon. Friend will know that the Report of the Committee is engraved on my heart. I am not sure what the position is about the reply which is being prepared to the suggestions made, but I will look into her question and see how quickly I can give her an answer which will be wholly satisfactory.

  Tenants (Save-as-you-Rent Schemes)
  6. Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government which local authorities and Government-aided housing associations are now sponsoring save-as-you-rent schemes for their tenants; and whether he will consult local authority and building society associations about this way of encouraging home ownership.
  Mr. Denis Howell: We are already examining the possibility of save-as-you-rent schemes as a way to help average wage-earners to become owner-occupiers. So far as I am aware, only the London Borough of Newham and the Family Housing Association sponsor such schemes for their tenants; but I will gladly consider any information my hon. Friend will send me on this.
  Mr. Lipton: Is my hon. Friend aware that his answer affords one further proof, if proof were needed, that the Labour
  176
  Government do more for owner-occupiers than any Tory Government have ever done? Would he note that the recent adoption of the save-as-you-rent scheme by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), whose absence today we regret, is a further example of blinding revelation of unoriginal thought on the Tory benches?
  Mr. Howell: The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) has apologised to us for his absence: he is ill, and I am sure that we all regret that. Our action in trying in many ways to stimulate home ownership for those who can afford it is well-known. It is true that there is nothing original about this proposition.

  Housing Loans (Interest Rates)
  7 and 8. Mr. Cleggasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) in how many housing authorities the rate of interest paid on loans for house-building is now in excess of 4 per cent.;
  (2) what is now the effective average rate of interest paid by local authorities on loans for house-building.
  65. Mr. Graham Pageasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what recent representations he has received from local authorities as to the cost of borrowing for their housing programmes.
  Mr. Freeson: I do not have the precise interest rates paid by individual authorities. A number of authorities have made representations to my right hon. Friend about the effect on their loan pool rates of financing old house-building debt at higher current rates of interest and of the representative rate of interest being fixed on the basis of the previous year's borrowing. This arrangement may, however, reduce this year's effective borrowing rate for new housing.
  Mr. Clegg: Are the higher interest rates over 4 per cent. suffered mostly by those authorities with the worse housing problems?
  Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman is making a mistake which seems to be common on the other side of the House. The effective borrowing rate for any local authority building houses is 4 per cent. on completion of the dwellings.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: Would my hon. Friend agree that the 4 per cent. loan to councils is the biggest boon for housing that this country has ever known? However, could he back-date it to the date of commencement of the building rather than completion, as this would make a considerable difference and prevent the excuses made by the Conservative Party that they are having to pay more than 4 per cent.?
  Mr. Freeson: As my hon. Friend knows, this point has been put by him and one or two other hon. Members to my right hon. Friend a number of times recently. My right hon. Friend has considered it, but it is not felt that this is possible. I welcome my hon. Friend's point in underlining what I have just said. I hope that it will be accepted clearly on the other side of the House that this is the position—there is an effective 4 per cent. borrowing rate. Indeed, for some local authorities, for example, Birmingham, one of the major housing authorities in the country, this year the effective borrowing rate will be even less than 4 per cent.
  Mr. Rossi: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that to suggest that the local authorities are getting a subsidy of anything above 4 per cent. interest is misleading, because there is an ever-widening gap between the representative rate and the actual rate and that some authorities today are having to borrow at 6 and 7 per cent.?
  Mr. Freeson: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is misleading the House and himself. He should not pay too much attention to the farrago of mistakes which his hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) published in The Times only last week in connection with this subject. The effective rate of interest is 4 per cent. The only gap in time is between one year and the immediately preceding year. As I have said, if interest rates vary in some cases, it can produce a lower rate; I have given one example this year.

  Housing Associations
  9. Mr. Rossiasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is satisfied that the amount of money available to the voluntary housing movement
  178
  is adequate to meet the programmes which they require to undertake; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Greenwood: The output of new dwellings by housing associations has increased and is likely to go on increasing. Starts in 1969 were 18 per cent. higher than in 1968. Housing associations are also playing an increasing role in the improvement and conversion of older houses, and are benefiting from the increased provisions made in the Housing Act, 1969.
  Mr. Rossi: Would not the Minister agree that the voluntary housing movement has a tremendously valuable part to play in the housing of this country and that it needs even greater help than it has received from the Government? Would he be prepared to offer that help?
  Mr. Greenwood: I think that the voluntary housing movement would be the first to admit that it has received more positive and generous help from this Government than from our predecessors. I am glad that the hon. Member referred to the importance of the movement. The important thing is that the houses it builds should be in addition to those supplied by local authorities, not instead of them.
  Mr. John Fraser: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the Housing Corporation would be able to do even more if it could have a pool of borrowing from building societies instead of having to get one building society to link up with each housing association scheme?
  Mr. Greenwood: We are examining the suggestion my hon. Friend has made. He will welcome the fact that in March we made available an additional £10 million to the Housing Corporation which should enable it to meet half the cost of new dwellings instead of simply a third.

  Elderly People (Municipal Dwellings)
  10. Mr. Lomasasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many municipal dwellings for elderly people were built from 1964 to 1969.
  Mr. Greenwood: Between 1964 and 1969 local and new town authorities in England and Wales built 224,000 one-bedroom dwellings, suitable for elderly people.
  Mr. Lomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in spite of all the economic problems we have had to face, those are very remarkable figures? Now that he has given the figures for 1964 to 1969, can he give the figures for 1959 to 1964?
  Mr. Greenwood: Yes, Sir. Over the five-year period from 1960 to 1964 the total was only 140,000. From 1965 onwards it was 191,000. That is an increase of over 50,000 in that period and an increase of rather more than one-third.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that when these homes for elderly people are built they will be let at rents which elderly people can afford?
  Mr. Greenwood: They are, of course, entitled to the subsidy and other financial help which the Government have given. If my hon. Friend has examples in mind where he thinks more could be done, I will certainly look at the possibility of helping him.

  Housing (Chronically Sick and Disabled)
  11. Mr. Arthur Davidsonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action is being taken by his Department to encourage housing provision for the chronically sick and disabled.
  Mr. Denis Howell: Under the Housing Subsidies Act, 1967, increased subsidy is payable where local authorities incur extra costs in providing specially designed housing for the chronically sick and disabled. My right hon. Friend is considering what formal advice can be circulated in the light of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill; but we have already made clear that we wish local authorities to search out the various housing needs of their areas more carefully and meet them by greater building activity and action on establishing improvement areas.
  Mr. Davidson: Is my hon. Friend aware that his answer will be greatly welcomed by the disabled? Can he speculate about how effective these provisions will be if Conservative councils persist in cutting down house-building programmes?
  Mr. Howell: Obviously it will be a matter of great distress if Conservative
  180
  councils insist on cutting down house-building programmes.
  Hon. Members: They do.
  Mr. Howell: It is a matter of great distress that they do so. It is even more distressing if this affects the special needs of handicapped people. This is something which I assure my hon. Friends the Government will keep under review.
  Mr. Marten: May I assure the Minister of State that Conservatives are just as much concerned about the disabled as is the Labour Party?
  Mr. Howell: I quite agree, but those authorities which are not building houses are not showing concern for anyone.

  New Houses (Average Price)
  12. Mr. Tom Boardmanasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is his latest estimate of the price of an average new house.
  Mr. Freeson: A provisional estimate of the average price of new private dwellings mortgaged with building societies in the first quarter of this year is £4,960.
  Mr. Boardman: Does not this confirm the opinion of the Building Societies Association that the average price of a house has increased by nearly 50 per cent. since 1964 and that the rate of increase is accelerating? Does not this mean that houses are now getting beyond the reach of the average wage-earner?
  Mr. Freeson: No, Sir. The rate of increase has been about 40 per cent. over the past five years. The rate of increase over the previous five years was 41 per cent.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: What proportion of this increase is due to higher standards of houses which are being built?
  Mr. Freeson: I cannot attribute a proportion concerning the private sector, but, taking as a guide-line the estimated increase in cost of public authority housing, it has risen by 8 per cent. due to the adoption of mandatory Parker-Morris standards. In so far as private building reaches somewhat in that direction, if not as far, one must attribute increase in costs to a proportion attributable to higher standards.

  New Towns (Housing Assets)
  13. Mr. Moonmanasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now publish an advance timetable on the transfer of housing assets for local authorities in new towns so that they may make the appropriate organisational arrangements and to recruit staff.
  Mr. Denis Howell: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 7th April.—[Vol. 799, c. 225.]
  Mr. Moonman: Will not my hon. Friend reconsider his earlier decision and not delay the transfer of assets from new town corporations to the council and so avoid the natural suspicions, uncertainties and anxieties which will arise among staff affected by the change? Will he try to give an answer before the Whitsun Recess?
  Mr. Howell: I was not quite sure what issue my hon. Friend was asking me to reconsider. We have undertaken to give this statement to the House during the summer. I could not say that it will be available before Whitsun, but we are anxious to make it available at the earliest possible moment.

  Public Swimming Pools
  14. Mr. Peter Archerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he is taking to introduce economy into the design and to reduce the high cost of public swimming pools.
  Mr. Denis Howell: In conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science it has been arranged for the Technical Unit for Sport to undertake a development project on the design of a swimming pool for Newquay Urban District Council. I am confident that this project will provide valuable information and will act as a guide to local authorities on what can be achieved for a limited sum of money.
  Mr. Archer: While I welcome this initiative, would my hon. Friend agree that if it transpired that a substantial saving can be made on design for something so complicated as a swimming pool it might also be used for other kinds of sporting amenity?
  Mr. Howell: Indeed. That is why we established the Technical Unit for Sport.
  182
  It is doing a study on the minimum size of sports halls and sports pavilions which most voluntary bodies would put on to a sports ground. We are anxious about design and cost.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: As the present design is so old-fashioned and not encouraging to swimmers, either young or old, will the Minister consult the Council for the Promotion of Education in Swimming, who are experts in this matter and can give him some proper advice?
  Mr. Howell: We should be delighted to receive advice from any source, not least from my hon. and learned Friend who has championed this cause over many years. We are anxious to build more swimming pools, but at an economic price which the community can afford.
  Mr. Marten: Has any research been done on cheaper heating of swimming pools?
  Mr. Howell: This ties up with the research being done at Newquay.

  Slum Clearance
  15. Mr. Lomasasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many slums were demolished from 1964 to 1969.
  Mr. Greenwood: 385,270 houses in England were demolished or closed as a result of slum clearance action in the period 1964–69.
  Mr. Lomas: Are not these again an example of how this Government really care about the whole question of housing? Can my right hon. Friend give the figures for 1959 to 1964? Can he also say what encouragement is being given to local authorities to speed up slum clearance programmes?
  Mr. Greenwood: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. The average for 1960 to 1963 in England was 58,000 a year. From 1964 to 1969 the average was 64,000. My hon. Friend will no doubt know that I have written to all local authorities asking them to let me know what are their plans for the next five years. For 1970–1973 the average should be 82,000 if local authorities keep to their programmes. I think my hon. Friend will remember that in the Housing Act passed last year we improved the

  183
  provisions for owner-occupiers in slum clearance areas and also the disbursement of well-maintained payments.
  Mr. Charles Morrison: Instead of indulging in self-satisfaction, is it not time the Minister took account of the fact that there are still about 5 million people living in condemned housing in this country, and that if the Government had lived up to their housing promises 1 million of them would now be rehoused?
  Mr. Greenwood: It is not self-satisfaction but simply dissatisfaction with what hon. Gentlemen opposite were able to achieve in their period in Government. The fact that slum clearance was running at so low a rate during that time was a disgrace of those years. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present in any of our debates on the Housing Act, 1969, but he will realise that one of the main reasons for introducing that legislation was to deal with slum clearance problems.
  Mr. Bagier: Does my right lion. Friend agree that the latest figures could be much better if he did not have to write to corporations like Sunderland asking them to increase the number of houses to be built for slum clearance?
  Mr. Greenwood: Yes, Sir. I am afraid that there are many local authorities in that category.
  Mr. Peyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman's forecast to be described as a promise or a pledge? Does it have the approval of the Prime Minister?
  Mr. Greenwood: That is a question I cannot answer, because my forecast is based on returns from Conservative local authorities.

  Local Authority Mortgages
  16. Mr. Costainasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will estimate the amount of money now required for local authority mortgages to have equivalent value of £179 million in 1964, taking into account increased costs.
  Mr. Freeson: About £250 million, Sir, as compared with about £155 million allocated for 1970. Building society lending this year is expected to reach £1,700 million which is about £650 million more than they lent in 1964.
  Mr. Costain: Does the Minister appreciate that the figure of £179 million was the amount of mortgages which the Conservative Government gave in 1964? Does not his answer show how hopelessly inadequate is the sum of £155 million the Government are now offering?
  Mr. Freeson: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman gets in touch with the Association of Municipal Corporations, because its representatives and representatives of other associations we have consulted do not take such a view.

  House-Building Programme
  17. Mr. John Wellsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is the latest available figure for the number of houses, started, under construction and completed during 1970.
  19. Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many homes were started and finished in the public and private sectors, respectively, in the first three months of 1970 compared with the numbers for the first three months of 1969, 1968 and 1967: and if, in the light of the Budget, he will now consider new measures to increase the numbers of houses started.
  Mr. Greenwood: With permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  I am confident that the measures announced by me on 18th March and by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement will greatly benefit the house-building industry.
  Mr. Wells: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a marked decline in new housing starts in recent years? Will he take further steps to get the building industry out of its present depression, which looks like continuing for many months?
  Mr. Greenwood: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will study the proposals I made on 18th March. Any figure for starts is bound to be disappointing, but this figure is substantially higher than hon. Gentlemen opposite achieved in 1963.
  Mr. Allaun: Have the discussions now taken place with the 20 worst offenders

  185
  among the local authorities cutting their housing programmes? What was the outcome, and will my right hon. Friend now consider taking compulsory measures which are available?
  Mr. Greenwood: My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and I have completed those discussions. We are now assessing the results, and we hope to draw from them conclusions as to the further steps which can be taken to increase the house-building programme. I am not sure that my hon. Friend's suggestion would have the immediate effect of stimulating house-building, but it is one with which I am very sympathetic.
  Mr. Prior: Is it not remarkable, considering all the bravado from the Front Benchħopposite this afternoon, that the Government will build 140,000 fewer houses this year than they promised in their election manifesto?
  Mr. Greenwood: This is going over old ground. I expect that the result this

  GREAT BRITAIN

  Started

  Completed

  Public

  Private

  Total

  Public

  Private

  Total

  1st quarter 1967

  …

  47,500

  59,694

  107,194

  46,454

  42,312

  88,766

  1st quarter 1968

  …

  40,015

  50,498

  90,513

  44,975

  52,616

  97,591

  1st quarter 1969

  …

  35,515

  35,380

  70,895

  40,884

  42,578

  83,462

  1st quarter 1970

  …

  29,018

  29,635

  58,653

  42,821

  37,136

  79,957

  Under construction Public at 31st March, 1970

  Public

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  232,719

  Private

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  177,981

  Total

  …

  …

  …

  …

  410,700

  18. Mr. Tom Boardmanasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is his latest estimate of the number of new houses to be started and completed during 1970.
  64. Mr. Christopher Wardasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many houses he now estimates will be built in 1970.
  77. Sir F. Bennettasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is his revised estimate now of the number of new dwellings to he built during 1970.
  80. Mr. Cordleasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what estimate he has now made of the number of houses likely to be completed in 1970.
  186
  year will be very much the same as it was last year, which is much better than in any year under a Tory Government except in 1964.
  Mr. Charles Morrison: is not it remarkable that when the Conservatives left office there were 434,000 houses under construction, whereas now there are only 411,000 under construction?
  Mr. Greenwood: The only thing which is remarkable about that is that the only successful year in the Conservative period of office was the General Election year of 1964.
  Mr. John Lee: Will my right hon. Friend seriously consider the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), bearing in mind that some local authorities, including Reading Corporation, flatly refuse to start any new houses at all?
  Mr. Greenwood: Yes, Sir.
  Following are the figures:
  Mr. Greenwood: The specific measures which I announced on 18th March coupled with the reductions in Bank Rate and the easing of bank lending will help house building, but the year's performance will depend on how quickly housing authorities, prospective purchasers, and house builders respond.
  Mr. Boardman: That reply does not give any estimate of the number of houses which are expected. Surely the Minister has some opinion on that. Will he confirm that the number of houses being built is very substantially less than those built in 1964 under the Conservatives. that there are at least 80,000 fewer starts being made this year—
  Mr. John Lee: Tory local authorities.
  Mr. Boardman: Yes, and many Tory local authorities have been forced to cut back their housing programme at the specific request of the Minister. How does the Minister reconcile this with the Prime Minister's pledge that a Labour Government would build no fewer than 500,000 houses a year by 1970?
  Mr. Greenwood: It is a little early to say what results will be achieved by the proposals announced only six weeks ago. In the meantime, perhaps the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would like to reflect on why it is that, for example. Thurrock can go ahead with a large house-building programme whereas Kingston-upon-Thames cannot and that Scunthorpe can, while Bradford cannot.
  Mr. Simon Mahon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not only the number of houses built that matters but that today more than ever it is the quality of those houses which counts, and that many of us feel we already have too many tower blocks on Merseyside?
  Mr. Greenwood: I have a good deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend has said. What he says about quality is absolutely right. It is no good simply increasing the numbers if that is done at the expense of quality. One of the things the present Government have done is to make Parker Morris standards mandatory since the beginning of last year.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Will the right hon. Gentleman refer to the last quarter's figures for starts? At 79,500 starts in the first quarter of this year were the lowest for years past. How does he reconcile that with the record number of bricks lying on the floor—1,100 million?
  Mr. Greenwood: The question of starts in the first quarter of the year has been dealt with in answer to a previous Question. I am very happy to repeat that the number started in the first quarter of this year was substantially higher than in the first quarter of 1963.
  Mr. John Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend institute a pilot study into some of these problems, particularly at Bexley, which, under the lack of inspiration of Conservative leadership, started no houses at all in 1969, presumably on the basis
  188
  that everyone is going to live on yachts on the Thames now?
  Mr. Greenwood: We are reviewing a number of programmes, or lack of them, of local authorities. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for pinpointing one authority whose programme, or lack of it, may merit further investigation.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL PLANNING

    West Midlands Economic Planning Council
    20. Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning if he will add members from parts of the West Midlands not at present represented on the West Midlands Economic Planning Council.
    The Minister of State (Mr. T. W. Urwin): While the members of economic planning councils are appointed as individuals having wide knowledge and experience of their regions rather than as representatives of particular interests or areas, we naturally try to ensure that the membership in total provides as broad a coverage of each region as possible. My right hon. Friend will shortly be making a few further appointments to the West Midlands Council and in doing so will bear my hon. Friend's point in mind.
    Mrs. Short: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I point out that the spread has not been very even in the appointment of this economic planning council? Is he aware that there is no person representing the County Borough of Wolverhampton on this body while there is a large number of representatives from Birmingham? Is he further aware that this does not endear the Maud proposals to members of Wolverhampton County Borough Council? Will he give an undertaking that in making appointments to fill all the places on the council lie will appoint representatives from Wolverhampton?
    Mr. Urwin: With so many local authorities it is difficult, if not impossible, to provide representation for them all—
    Mrs. Short: It is the only one that has been left out.
    Mr. Urwin: I would ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that the planning

    189
    council will give full consideration to the problems of the region, wherever they exist, in formulating regional strategy and in the advice given to the Government. As to the specific promise which my hon. Friend requests, I cannot go beyond what I have already said. Further appointments will shortly be made by my right hon. Friend which will take into consideration the representations made.

  Water Sources (Toxic Fluids)
  21. Mr. John Hallasked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning what estimate has been made of the quantity of potentially dangerous toxic fluids, not detectable by the routine tests now being carried out by water authorities, which are likely to be present in rivers or other water sources from which the water supplies are drawn.
  The Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning (Mr. Anthony Crosland): No estimate of the total quantity of such fluids in water sources would be meaningful. Methods of testing water are constantly being refined and improved, and there is no evidence to suggest that public water supplies are other than safe and wholesome. Nevertheless, we aim to widen the margin of safety through continued research, improved local administration and better controls over the sources of pollution.
  Mr. Hall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the evidence given to the Central Advisory Water Committee by the Institution of Water Engineers and the recent report by the Chief Medical Officer of Health of the Ministry of Health which indicates that a very large part of our water supplies are taken from sources polluted by chemicals not easily detectable? Does that not show that there is a very serious source of danger to public health? What action is the right hon. Gentleman taking to deal with this?
  Mr. Crosland: I have read both the evidence of the institution, and Sir George Godber's speech. The institution was not mentioning the subject to suggest that public water supplies are dangerously polluted. It was concerned to make the point, with which I agree, that there will be an increasing problem which in its view involves changes in the organisation
  190
  of the water industry. This question is now being looked at by the Central Advisory Water Committee.

  Development Areas (Aid)
  22. Mr, Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning, to what extent it is Her Majesty's Government's policy, in applying to enter the Common Market, to forgo their present powers to settle the terms of the aid given to Scotland, Wales, and other development areas and to conform to Common Market regional policy.
  Mr. Crosland: Our regional policies have much in common with those of the Six and we believe them to be fully compatible with membership of the Communities.
  Mr. Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the 14 permanent officials called the Commission, who actually run the Common Market under the Council of Ministers, have recently put forward proposals which would have the effect of depriving member countries of their power to order their internal affairs in this fashion, and which would deprive this country of the ability to carry out the sort of policy which the Government have been carrying out in the last few years? In these circumstances, will he make it a condition of entry to the Common Market that this Article 92 is not applicable to this country?
  Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. With respect, my hon. Friend is misinformed, unusually so, if I may say so. The ideas put forward by the Commission, which have not been approved yet, carry with them no implications that would cause us to alter our regional policies. Perhaps I could mention that the Commissioner most responsible for these matters, Herr Von Der Groeben, who came to this country a few months ago, said after examining our regional policies:
  " Those areas which have developed their own regional policies have nothing to fear from joining the Community … We are not concerned with interfering in individual regional policies."

  Pit Closures
  23. Mr. Milneasked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning if his Department will require

  191
  the economic planning councils in mining areas to examine the possibilities of securing the maximum advantage from the Government's financial assistance to delay pit closures.
  Mr. Urwin: Information about impending pit closures supplied by the N.C.B. is carefully considered, in consultation as necessary with the council concerned. The possible use of our powers under the Coal Industry Act, 1967, is taken fully into account.
  Mr. Milne: Is my hon. Friend aware that while this goes so far in dealing with the problem it does not go far enough, and that a large amount of money could have been used by the Northern Economic Planning Board in delaying pit closures and offsetting the effects of rising unemployment? Will he have talks with the board about this?
  Mr. Urwin: Frequent discussions take place with the planning councils and hoards on this subject. I would remind my hon. Friend that the Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries published last December has demonstrated how costly temporary deferment of pit closures can he in relation to the benefits obtained. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology has made clear that it would be appropriate to use the power only for limited periods so there could be no question of using it to postpone all proposed closures indiscriminately.

  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  Ql. Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister when he will next take the chair at the National Economic Development Council.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): On 3rd June, Sir.
  Mr. Marten: As the Prime Minister will no doubt be discussing unemployment at that meeting, can he tell the House whether, in view of the consistently high level of unemployment, the Labour Government are considering going back to the 1951 formula of Mr. Gaitskell, that 3 per cent. is the rate of unemployment for full employment?
  The Prime Minister: Remembering that particular controversy, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, most unusually for him, he has totally misquoted what Mr. Gaitskell said on that occasion. With regard to unemployment generally, I understand that the House will be debating it tomorrow.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: As my right hon. Friend will no doubt be discussing the recovery in our balance of payments, may I ask him whether he is aware that the whole country admires the enormous progress made in this direction? Does he think it would be a good idea to consider giving the Queen's Award for Industry to the retailer on the South Coast who sells more British and Commonwealth food to our Common Market visitors than any of his competitors?
  The Prime Minister: I referred to the last part of my hon. Friend's Question the other day. I did not realise that it was only one retailer. I thought they were all able to provide goods at much lower prices and, judging from what I have read in the newspapers covering this story, this goes far beyond those prices and commodities covered by Common Market policies. It extends to things which are not the subject of Common Market agricultural prices, where we are very much more than competitive. On the first part of my hon. Friend's Question, I am aware that the whole country rejoices in the success of the Government and the people in the matter of the balance of payments—
  Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Get on with it.
  The Prime Minister: —including no doubt the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport). Some members of the community are more articulate than others in expressing their pleasure.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND HOSPITAL SERVICES (COMMISSIONERS)
  Q2. Mr. Moonmanasked the Prime Minister if he will make a tatement on the progress of the consultations about the possibility of setting up commissioners for local government and for the hospital service.
  The Prime Minister: Consultations are now in progress with the local authority associations on the Government's proposals for a local government commissioner, and with professional and other interests on a health commissioner.
  Mr. Moonman: I am grateful for that reply, which is certainly welcome. Is my right hon. Friend also aware that there is clearly a crying need to deal with the problem of democratisation in both these institutions and that we hope he will make a further statement before the Summer Recess?
  The Prime Minister: The Government attach very great importance to the provision of some degree of machinery for investigating grievances on a local government basis and independently and also in the Health Service. It is right that these consultations should be taken a little further before any statement is made.
  Dr. Winstanley: Before reaching any final conclusion on these important matters, would it not be helpful to the Prime Minister to hear the views of Members on the working of the Parliamentary Commissioner? Is it not regrettable that, despite the fact that he has now been working for three years, none of his reports or the reports of his Select Committee have yet been fully debated in the House?
  The Prime Minister: This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but the rather cautious proposal introduced about the ombudsman. turned down by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, has already had some valuable results.

  GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES
  Q3. Sir Ian Orr-Ewingasked the Prime Minister why it has been necessary to expand the number of staff in the office of the Chief Information Adviser to Her Majesty's Government serving in the Cabinet Office from nil in 1969–70 to eight in 1970–71 at a cost to public funds of £24,200 per annum.
  The Prime Minister: I explained the initial staffing of this office in reply to a Question by the hon. Member on 18th
  194
  December, 1969. There has been no expansion beyond this.—[Vol. 793, c. 410.]
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Is the Prime Minister aware that since October, 1964, the taxpayers have had to pay for an extra 139 information officers in Government Departments? Does not this figure, with the extra eight in the Cabinet Office, reflect the Prime Minister's desire to manage the news in his own favour at someone else's expense?
  The Prime Minister: I am sorry to have to correct the hon. Gentleman's figure. The increase since 1964 is not 139, but a higher figure than that. Unfortunately, we do not have a precisely comparable figure for the increase in the information service under the Conservative Government. In those Departments for which figures are available, the figures are higher than the hon. Gentleman suggested. From 1964–69 the increase in the information service under the present Administration has been by 44 per cent. in information officers. In the four and a half years up to 1964 in the same Departments the increase was not 44 per cent., but 59 per cent.
  Mr. Henig: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is a considerable demand from the public for more information, and is not it odd that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are constantly pressing the Government to give information on all sorts of matters, often when it is difficult, are now apparently arguing that the public should be deprived of information which they want from Ministers?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I want to be fair to right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Indeed, I have offered to put Government resources at their disposal to make clear the cost of their programmes, provided they tell us and the country what their programmes are.
  Mr. Thorpe: Will the Prime Minister tell us why he claims credit for building on the basis of Tory extravagance? Is this what leads him to believe, in an unusual burst of immodesty on his part, that he is the lesser of two evils?
  The Prime Minister: I have indeed used that phrase, and I have not yet met anybody who disagreed with it. What I have succeeded in doing in five and a

  195
  half years, in addition to meeting the voracious demands for information from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, is to restrain the growth in the information service.

  GAMING
  Q4. Mr. Arthur Davidsonasked the Prime Minister if he will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the problems arising from gambling and gaming laws.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I am satisfied that the Gaming Board will continue to keep a tight control over gaming.
  Mr. Davidson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Gaming Act has been one of the most effective means of backing up the police? It has cut down the number of clubs and got rid of some of the undesirable elements, the racketeers and musclemen, who had come into the gaming world as the direct result of the naive legislation drawn up by the Conservative Government? Will he continue to give full support to the Gaming Board in its efforts to bring gaming into manageable proportions?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. When right hon. Gentlemen opposite seek to make law and order a football in party politics, they should take account of the fact that the Act of 1960, however well intentioned, was, as my hon. Friend said, very naive and led to the danger of a big importation—a brain drain in reverse—of Mafia types into this country. It is the action of this Government that has stopped it.
  Mr. Deedes: Leaving politics out of it, will the Prime Minister keep a close eye on the workings of the Gaming Board, bearing in mind that the principles of justice which we seek to apply in these matters ought to apply even to people who run gaming establishments?
  The Prime Minister: The principles of justice are laid down, in the Act introduced by this Administration, by Parliament, and these were matters of much debate and many amendments. It must always be for Parliament in drafting legislation to bear this in mind. But
  196
  the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree, leaving politics out of it, as I know he always does, like his right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary —[Interruption.] We put up with a lot from right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Leaving politics out of it—it is our politics that stopped the Mafia, not theirs.
  Mr. Paget: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I entirely agree with what he has said about the Act? Indeed, unlike my right hon. Friend, I voted against it. Is he also aware that the chairman of the board is finding his powers inadequate and urgently requires additional powers, and will my right hon. Friend reconsider looking into this matter?
  The Prime Minister: Certainly, Sir. If any powers are needed to make this control effective—and this is control not on the question of justice referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, but on the more seamy side of gaming—it will be for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to bring proposals before the House.
  Mr. Marten: Is the Prime Minister aware that it is because of the widespread feeling that a Mafia is operating that perfectly respectable casinos in perfectly respectable towns like Banbury have been closed down? Should not much more latitude be allowed to local authorities to decide whether casinos should continue?
  The Prime Minister: I am aware of representations on this question from a number of localities, in addition to that mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but these are matters to address to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and not to be taken up at this time.

  CABINET MINISTERS (SCOTLAND)
  Q5. Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that there are three Treasury Ministers in the Cabinet, he will include an additional Scottish Minister.
  Q7. Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Prime Minister if he will include an additional Scottish Minister in the Cabinet.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has now held this post longer than any of his predecessors, is a very effective representative in the Cabinet of Scotland and of Scottish interests.
  Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that none of us on this side of the House will be in the slightest degree alarmed by the answer which he has given? All of us in Scotland are highly gratified with the results achieved by my right hon. Friend in Scotland and for Scotland and regard the attempt by the Opposition to decry the fact that my right hon. Friend is not in the inner Cabinet as a sheer bit of nonsense?
  The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will appreciate that my right hon. Friend needs no second voice to further his work for Scotland inside the Cabinet and throughout the Government machine. If his predecessors had pressed the case of Scotland with similar vigour, he would not have inherited what he did.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: When is the Secretary of State to be given a first voice in the inner Cabinet? The Prime Minister has told us that the Secretary of State is summoned to the inner Cabinet, like the Minister without Portfolio, or the deputy chief bottle-washer at the Ministry of Public Building and Works, when the affairs of his Department are under consideration—
  Mr. Faulds: MacFauntleroy, sit down!
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will the Prime Minister say whether this reflects his opinion of his right hon. Friend's competence or of Scotland's interests?
  The Prime Minister: The longer the hon. Gentleman goes on the more he shows his total ignorance of the Government machine, and ignorance which he will have for a long time to come and which is likely to grow rather than diminish. My right hon. Friend is present on all occasions when anything affecting the interest of Scotland is discussed. Unlike his predecessors he pipes up for Scotland and fights for Scotland.
  Mr. Rankin: I accept what my right hon. Friend has said on this matter, but does not he realise that another matter
  198
  is inherent in this Question? Has not the time arrived when Scotland deserves one representative in the inner Cabinet all the time and one representative in the Cabinet itself?
  The Prime Minister: The phrase used by my hon. Friend is not known to the constitution of this country. As I have said, I assure my hon. Friend that, whenever any issues affecting Scotland are involved, my right hon. Friend is there. I wish that I could portray to the House the effectiveness of my right hon. Friend not only in meetings, but also outside individual meetings, in the pressures which he puts on all his colleagues to see that the interests of Scotland are safeguarded.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Would the Prime Minister give an idea of the range of subjects discussed by the inner Cabinet which do not affect Scotland? Would he agree that the exclusion of the Secretary of State for Scotland from the inner Cabinet is an unprecedented devaluation of the office and an insult to Scotland?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. I have already answered this question twice. What the hon. Gentleman will never know, nor will any of us, is the basis on which decisions were taken in the Conservative Government by cliques, not Cabinet committees.
  Mr. Maudling: Is the Prime Minister aware that his reply to my hon. Friend was a little obscure? Could he confirm that the reason the Secretary of State is not in the inner Cabinet is not his personal qualities, to which tribute has been rightly paid, but the fact that the Prime Minister does not consider that the Secretary of State for Scotland should be in the inner Cabinet?
  The Prime Minister: The concept of the inner Cabinet is not one known to the constitution. All decisions are taken by the Cabinet itself or by appropriate Cabinet: committees. My right hon. Friend is present on all matters affecting Scotland. En many other matters, as I have said, both in his internal administration within Scotland, which arouses the admiration of hon. Members opposite, even if they will not admit it publicly, and also in his work for Scotland, his work

  199
  transcends both in duration and in quality that of any of this Conservative predecessors.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: If there is no constitutional position of an inner Cabinet could the Prime Minister say what 11 Ministers and the Chief Whip were doing for a whole day at Chequers one Sunday without the Secretary of State for Scotland?
  The Prime Minister: It is not the practice to reveal these matters, any more than there was any revelation of the meeting of the Cabinet at Chequers to plan the election programme in 1963, nor was there any information, until it was given by Mr. Nutting, about secret conclaves in Chequers before the Suez operation, unknown to the Cabinet.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: While nobody doubts the real needs of Scotland or decries the excellent work of the Secretary of State, would the Prime Minister in recognising the employment needs of Scotland and the interests of industry, trade and commerce, reconsider his answer with regard to appointing separate Ministers for each of these Departments?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will he aware of the wide-ranging responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Scotland. He will also be aware that the same Secretary of State introduced the Highlands and Islands Development Board when right hon. Gentlemen opposite refused to do so and indeed threatened to vote against it. They will also know that, due to the activities of my right hon. Friend, emigration from Scotland has been sharply changed, as can be seen from the latest figures published by my right hon. Friend.

  QUESTIONS TO THE PRIME MINISTER
  Mr. Tom Boardman: On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, about the increasing practice of Questions put down for Oral Answer by the Prime Minister being transferred to other Ministers?
  At the beginning of last week I tabled for Oral Answer today to the Prime Minister a Question asking whether
  200
  " he will initiate an inquiry into the cause of the decline in the rate of house-building? "
  Yesterday, I received notification that this Question had been transferred to the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Erskine May, on gage 350, on the matter of transfer of Questions, says:
  " A question should be addressed to the Minister who is primarily responsible "—
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Boardman: Wait for it:
  " and misdirected questions are transferred by the clerks at the table on the notification of the departments concerned."
  The issue here is who has primary responsibility for inquiring into the decline in the rate of house-building. I suggest that it would be inappropriate for the Minister of Housing to take that responsibility. This is an issue on which the Prime Minister, on many occasions, has accepted personal responsibility. I need say no more than perhaps quote from his well-known speech, in which he assumed that responsibility—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] He said, when he pledged that Labour would build 500,000 houses—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not wander from his point of order to a point of political argument.
  Mr. Boardman: I recognise that, Mr. Speaker, but, according to Erskine May, the question is one of primary responsibility. This responsibility rests on the Prime Minister and I am entitled to pray in aid the words from his own speech so that there can be no doubt about that acceptance. I hope that you will bear with me if I quote the relevant passage— [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] The Prime Minister, referring to his pledge of 500,000 houses, said:
  " This is not a lightly given promise. It is a pledge. We shall achieve the 500,000 target and we shall not allow any developments, any circumstances, however adverse, to deflect us from our aim."
  In subsequent debates, when the Prime Minister has been challenged on this subject, he has prayed in aid devaluation. —[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] That could not be the primary responsibility of the present Minister of Housing. I would suggest, therefore, that the Question was not misdirected to the Prime Minister. Since there is a conflict in what the effects of devaluation may be,

  201
  I would say that immediately after that the Prime Minister, in a broadcast, referred to the priority programme—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is drifting from his point of order. He must not make a political speech.
  Mr. Boardman: I recognise that, Mr. Speaker, and I abide by your Ruling. But so that I can establish the primary responsibility for inquiring into the rate of house-building, and the fact that the Prime Minister is shedding responsibility by transferring his Questions, I believe it right to seek to put forward those occasions on which, in various ways, he has accepted that personal responsibility. If it be that having failed in his pledge he seeks to shift the responsibility on to the Minister of Housing—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is again drifting into a political speech.
  Mr. Boardman: I must, of course, again accept your Ruling, but I think that my point is made.
  If the Prime Minister, by transferring this Question, denies primary responsibility for the declining rate of house-building, I must accept that. But let him say so. I feel that this was a Question tabled to him for Oral Answer which he should have answered and not transferred to another Minister.
  Mr. Speaker: I am seized of the point of order which the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) has made. It is not unknown for an hon. Member to be dissatisfied with the transfer of a Question from one Minister to another. But I must rule against the hon. Gentleman. This is a repetition of a Ruling that the Chair has given many times this century. It has been ruled on numerous occasions by my predecessors, as well as by me, that the transfer of Questions from one Minister to another is not a matter for the Chair.
  According to page 349 of Erskine May, my responsibility in regard to Questions
  " … is limited to their compliance with the rules of the House."
  The basic rule is that there must be some degree of Ministerial responsibility for
  202
  the substance of a Question. But, once a Question has been accepted, the Ministers have the right to decide which one of them can most appropriately answer it.
  Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you care to reflect on whether we have heard a speech from the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West i Mr. Tom Boardman) in favour of a Ten-Minute Rule Bill, or a long harangue of parliamentary cheating?
  Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has expressed his opinion.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: Further to that point of order. This is a serious matter—
  Mr. Speaker: It is a serious matter, and it is a serious matter on which the Chair has ruled. Mr. Speaker has ruled categorically that the transfer of Questions by Ministers is not in any way a matter for the Chair or a matter for order. It is a matter for the Ministers themselves.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: My point is this, Sir. Back-bench hon. Members are having increasing difficulty in pinning anything on the Prime Minister [Laughter.] The Prime Minister is responsible for the overall conduct of his Government, I think. But it will be within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that I tabled a Question to the Prime Minister—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulty in the first part of his point of order. But the issue that he is raising now is identical with the one on which I have ruled. The transfer of Questions is a matter for the Ministers. It is not a matter of order, or a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Snow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With no disrespect to you, should not we be discussing Cambodia?
  Mr. Speaker: I had an idea that that was in the minds of most right hon. and hon. Members.
  Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: On a point of procedure, Mr. Speaker. We on these benches—and I speak for all on these benches—have found ourselves in a quandary this afternoon. Some time ago. my hon. Friend the Member for

  203
  Banbury (Mr. Marten) put down Question Ql. on the Order Paper—[Interruption.] Has that sunk into the oafs opposite? I worked out, as we all do on these occasions, a "humdinger" of a supplementary. Earlier this afternoon, I asked my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to let me get in my "humdinger" before he got his in, because he had one which was much bigger than mine.
  This is my point of procedure. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury asked his Question. In a blast of halitosis, the Prime Minister gave a short answer. My hon. Friend then asked a supplementary, which received another short answer. Then one of the uglier Members on the back benches opposite asked a supplementary, and the Prime Minister proceeded to give a long, flannelling answer.
  What are we to do in those circumstances?—[Interruption.] This is procedure—[Interruption.] Ugly brutes! My right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wanted to put a supplementary, as I did. My right hon. Friend wanted to give me the opening ball. However, Mr. Speaker, you did not call me, and, as a result, you did not call my right hon. Friend.
  My suggestion is that, in order not to do my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench out of their supplementaries, they should raise one or two fingers as the case may be to indicate that they wish to ask supplementary questions. I do not mind being done out of mine. I am always done out of mine. But I think that any one of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench ought to have a chance.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Again, I remind the House that we have one of the gravest debates ahead of us. All that the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) has done is call attention to the fact that, from time to time, right hon. and hon. Members on both sides do not get called for supplementaries which they think are most important and which the hon. and gallant gentleman thinks are "humdingers". That has happened throughout history.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING APPEALS (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND)
3.47 p.m.
Mr. N. R. Wylie: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal Part III (Appeals) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1969.
I know that a very important debate is about to take place, so I shall keep my remarks as short as possible in seeking the permission of the House to introduce my Bill. On the other hand, it concerns a matter about which we may be able to do something, whereas the debate that is to follow is rather questionable.
The Bill is concerned with certain provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1969, and raises issues which were debated at some length in the Scottish Standing Committee exactly a year ago today.
It would be appropriate if I explained shortly the background to the legislative provisions which I seek to excise from the Statute Book. In Scotland—[Interruption]. If I may have the attention of the House for a few minutes; I will be as brief as I can—if an application is made for planning permission, and if that application is refused by the planning authority, or if planning permission is given subject to conditions which are unacceptable to the applicant, there is, under present legislation, a right of appeal to the Secretary of State.
Except in very special circumstances, the Secretary of State then orders a public inquiry—and appoints a person called a reporter to hold it. After hearing the evidence and the submissions made on behalf of the various parties, the reporter reports to the Secretary of State and makes recommendations.
This procedure is rather different from the procedure, as I understand it, followed in England and Wales, because there the remit to an inquiry is made to a full-time salaried officer called an inspector and reliance is placed on him— [Interruption]—to make his recommendations. In Scotland, on the other hand, this matter is normally dealt with—
Mr. James Davidson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

205
Some of us are very interested in this Bill, but there is such a hubbub of conversation that we cannot hear what the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) is saying.
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson). The House insists that Ten-Minute Rule Bills be taken at this time and it must listen.
Mr. Wylie: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson), who supported my argument on this matter a year ago.
What normally happens in Scotland is that the matter is remitted to a reporter. who is sometimes a member of the Bar, sometimes a retired civil servant and sometimes, indeed, a solicitor. The appointments are made on an ad hoc basis. They are not made to salaried officials of the Secretary of State. The second feature of the system which I regard as important is that the final decision on a matter of this nature is reached by the Secretary of State himself when an appeal is made.
The system has over the years worked very well indeed from two points of view. First, it has worked well from the point of view of the member of the public who appeals against a decision of the local planning authority because the process by which the hearing is conducted is quasi-judicial and is one in which the public have confidence. Secondly, it has worked well from the point of view of public interest, because the decision of the Secretary of State is one which he makes in the public interest and it is essentially an administrative decision.
So here we have a system in which the public have confidence and in which the Secretary of State takes an administrative decision in the general interest. I believe that it has been possible to operate the system in Scotland—although I can well understand why it may not be possible to do so in England—for two primary reasons. One is that the number of appeals against planning decisions in Scotland is relatively small—no more than 300 or perhaps 400 a year—whereas in England and Wales the number runs to about 14,000.
The second and primary reason why the system has worked fairly well in Scotland over the years, particularly recently,
206
is because we have in Scotland a planning department under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State which brings all planning matters as it were under one roof. It is possible in this way to treat all planning considerations on application or appeal at one and the same time. We do not have to go from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, for example, to the Ministry of Transport, and so on, to get their views on different aspects of the problem. The system works very well indeed.
But Part III of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1969, sought to introduce an entirely novel proposition into our planning law. In the first place, it introduced what was for Scotland the entirely new concept of a full-time permanent inspectorate in place of the ad hoc appointments to which I have referred. Secondly, it will delegate, when the provisions of the Measure are activated, to the inspectorate, except in special cases, the ultimate decision of the matter instead of the Secretary of State himself taking the decisions. Both these proposals are to be deplored.
In the first place, the idea of introducing a permanent inspectorate is not appropriate to Scotland. We do not need it and I think that it is calculated to destroy the confidence which the public in Scotland have in the planning system. Secondly, and perhaps even more important, it deprives the Secretary of State of the right to take a decision on a planning matter himself. He is functus, as it were, after he has made a remit. On both grounds, these are propositions which should be opposed.
The only reason adduced for the changes was largely speculative. It was suggested by the Minister of State that there was going to be a vast increase in the number of appeals. But the Royal Commission on Local Government in Scotland strongly recommended that the Secretary of State should retain his jurisdiction because there was no likelihood, in its view, in the foreseeable future of planning appeals arising to the extent to which it would introduce a complication.
If I am given leave to introduce the Bill, I would like to expand it to stop the provisions in the 1969 Act which enable a local authority to decide an issue to which it is itself a party. It is wrong in principle that a party to litigation or an

207
inquiry should itself decide the outcome. I can think of nothing more calculated to destroy public confidence in our planning system than a proposition of that kind. For all these reasons, I ask leave of the House to introduce this short, but important Measure.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. W. R. Wylie, Mr. Gordon Campbell, Mr. Hector Monro, Mr. Ian MacArthur, Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith, and Mr. George Younger.

TOWN AND COUNTY PLANNING APPEALS (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND)
Bill to repeal Part III (Appeals) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1969, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 19th June and to be printed. [Bill 171.]

INDO-CHINA (EXTENSION OF WAR)
Mr. Speaker: Before the debate opens may I announce to the House that I have had 32 requests from right hon. and hon. Members to take part in this three-hour debate.
3.59 p.m.
Mr. Michael Foot: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
It is surely right that this House of Commons should discuss the latest developments in Cambodia and Vietnam, so I express my gratitude to you, Mr. Speaker, for the acceptance of my Motion yesterday, and to the support of members of the Government for the fact that we should have this debate.
The events there can have the gravest consequences for all of us. In my opinion, it is sheer despair for people to say that nothing that we can do or say can have much influence on such distant occurrences, and that, therefore, we should keep our mouths shut, and possibly keep our eyes closed as well. I believe that we should debate these matters, for I certainly do not accept the view that the voice of this country cannot have an effect upon these events throughout the world.
First, I refer to the legalities of the matter, not very extensively, but a bit more extensively perhaps than President Nixon did when he ordered the invasion of Cambodia.
Hon. Members: Which invasion?
Mr. Foot: I shall try to deal with such questions.
On the legalities of the matter—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the mention of the legalities of this matter should cause such instant offence on the other side of the House. On the legalities of the matter, no attempt has been made to justify the action which President Nixon ordered as being in accordance with international law. On this occasion even the country to be saved was not consulted. Nor is it a defence to say that others had violated the neutrality of Cambodia before. The fact that one country holds the view that others have violated the neutrality of the country does not entitle a third country to say that

209
it will take the law into its own hands. Indeed, that would be a recipe for international anarchy.
Her Majesty's Government hold the view—and I believe that all parties have hitherto held it—that in the Middle East violations by one side do not justify retaliations on the other side according to their own decisions. Therefore, that is not a defence of the action which has been taken by President Nixon, and I hope that it will not be made in this House.
Mr. R. T. Paget Mr. R. T. Paget(Northampton)rose—
Mr. Foot: I shall give way to my hon. and learned Friend for a second. In fairness to others who wish to take part in the debate, it is only right that I should speak as briefly as possible.
Mr. Paget: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. It is important to take the matter further when a question of law is raised and asserted in this way. International law is that a nation owes an obligation of neutrality. If it fails to perform that obligation of neutrality because it is unable to control its border areas, as is the case of Syria, and was the case of Cambodia, then, under international law, the victim of aggression from those areas which are out of the control of the neutral Government is entitled to take the action which the Americans have taken.
Mr. Foot: That is an interpretation of international law which would be a guarantee of international anarchy. My hon. and learned Friend is not a great authority on international law, either in the Far East or in Africa. Nor am I claiming to be so.
On this aspect of the matter, I stand by the statement made by the New York Times— [Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am sorry, but hon. Gentlemen opposite should listen to a matter of this importance without being so testy about it. The President of the United States took the action that he did in Cambodia without any consultations with other countries, without any authority under the Charter of the United Nations, and, indeed, as far as we can see, without any consultations with the Senate of the United States itself, such is the arrogance of the super-Powers now in dealing with the lesser
210
breeds, and on that ground alone it would be proper to raise this question.
If hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like to discuss the legal aspects of the matter, and whether international law has been bided by, let me turn to the practicalities. The danger of the action which the United States has taken in Cambodia is that it will extend and lengthen the war. It is said that it is merely to be a dash in and out, a short cleaning-up operation, that it will all be over in a very short time, and, therefore, it does not constitute an invasion at all.
Hon. Members: A matter of weeks, not months.
Mr. Foot: I know. Some may say that that is to happen, but I hardly believe that anybody observing this development in the Far East would accept that view. If sense is to be made out of the operation, it is much more probable that the American forces will have to plunge deeper and stay longer.
Hon. Members have shown that they do not accept my views on these matters. Perhaps they might weigh to some degree the view of Senator Mansfield— [An HON. MEMBER: "Who?"] The hon. Gentleman can, if he wishes, dismiss a prominent figure in the United States Congress, but I do not think that it is wise for the House to do so. He said:
" There is nothing in past experience in Indo-China to suggest that casualties can be reduced by enlarging the area of military operations. There is nothing in past experience to suggest that the way out of the Vietnamese conflict follows the road of a Second Indo-China war. Indeed, the road may well meander throughout all of South-East Asia, and end nobody knows where."
Hon. Gentlemen opposite, or others, may dismiss that judgment. But I suggest that it would be wiser for them to consider it at least, because it appears that, in this action in Cambodia, President Nixon, to put it no higher, has learned insufficiently from the actions of his two predecessors in that same theatre of war, the actions of President Johnson and of President Kennedy. The first false step which both of them made into the bog of Indo-China was made most gingerly, but they sank in so deeply very soon that they and the whole world have had the greatest difficulty in seeking to extricate themselves, so I think that that judgment should be considered.

211
Even more serious, in my opinion, are the diplomatic consequences for the discussions between great nations all over the world. It may be argued by some that the Soviet Union has an interest in perpetuating the war in Vietnam. Some may hold that view, but I certainly do not share it. I believe that there have been times, which were shown by some of their actions, when they took a different view of these matters from that taken by the Chinese Government. Perhaps that is not too daring a proposition for hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider. Perhaps they might be prepared to weigh that, because it appears to anybody who has tried to consider these matters seriously that there have been arguments, at least, in the Government in Hanoi, about whether they should negotiate, about whether they should send emissaries to peace conferences, and about which strategy they should employ.
I think that it would be very unwise for this House to underrate the significance of these arguments. I believe it to be the case, not only on the basis of Mr. Kosygin's statement yesterday, but on the common sense of the matter, that the action which the United States Government have taken has made it infinitely more difficult for the Soviet Government to use such influence as they have to try to persuade the Government of Hanoi to stay at the peace table and negotiate a settlement.
In other words, the action of the United States in Cambodia has played into the claws of the hawks all over the world —in Peking, in Moscow, in Hanoi, and no doubt on the benches opposite as well, among the various breeds of buzzards, harriers and kites we see on that side of the House. Their action, in my opinion, has gravely injured the possibility of securing a reasonable settlement there. I believe the possibility of getting a settlement, or of negotiation to reach a settlement, has been something that has been supported on all sides of the House; and I would have thought most people would understand and appreciate the diplomatic consequences of what has occurred, consequences which make the possibility of a peaceful settlement very much more difficult.
Now, what is this country to do about it? What action can we take to influence
212
the present situation? The claim on which I sought leave of the House yesterday to debate this matter was on the grounds that I thought action should be taken by Her Majesty's Government to influence it. First, the Government may say that they intend to seek to reactivate the machinery of the Geneva Conference, of the Control Commission, as no doubt they have been seeking to do over recent weeks; and there have been indications that there were discussions in New York and elsewhere on the possibility of that machinery being re-established.
I hope that the Government will continue to press those matters as strongly as they can. But for the reasons I have already indicated, I believe that the action taken in Cambodia. the reopening of some of the bombing of the North, makes it much more unlikely that that process can be successful. Certainly, the developments that have occurred make necessary much stronger action to express the views, I hope, of this country and of this House, on the action which the United States Government has taken.
I do not propose to retrace the whole of the argument which some of us on these benches have had with the Government about the Vietnamese war in recent years except in so far as I believe a reference to it is necessary in order to underline the case I wish to put here this afternoon. In my judgment, the error of Her Majesty's Government was their mistaken view of the nature of the Vietnamese civil war; and furthermore, their misunderstanding of the sharp, convulsive reflections which that civil war would have in the mirror of American society itself which, in some respects, however much hon. Gentleman may complain of my raising this debate, is the most important feature in our world today.
The whole situation in 1968 was transformed by events which have certainly not been foreseen by hon. Members opposite, nor, alas, by spokesmen for Her Majesty's Government, but were prophesied by many from this side of the House; the change in American opinion when Senator Eugene McCarthy made his statement and politics in America were transformed because there became, in the United States, a powerful peace party which is now brought again

213
to the centre of the political stage, not only of the United States but of the world. It is to the renewal and reinvigoration of those forces that we must look if we are to succeed in preventing the evil consequences of what occurred last week.
I listened on television yesterday to a prominent American Senator who said that great nations cannot be defeated in war and survive—a curious proposition, incidentally, for an American Senator to put to the people of this country, because great nations, sometimes the greatest nations, engaged in unjust and hopeless wars do have to admit defeat, and their greatness has been shown when they have been prepared to admit it. Sometimes they have been able to escape from such situations precisely because there have been people who have been prepared to oppose an unjust war, even when conducted by the leaders of their own country.
We in this country, particularly when we are arguing with the people of the United States, have a right to recall the part played by Chatham, Edmund Burke and Charles James Fox, who opposed a war waged by a great nation which did suffer defeat but survived its defeat because it was prepared to admit that the opposition to the war had justice on its side. This is the lesson to be learned.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths Mr. Eldon Griffiths(Bury St. Edmunds)rose—
Mr. Foot: This is the lesson to be learned from these events. Although opinion in the United States may have reached this conclusion for a variety of reasons, just as opinion throughout the world has reached this conclusion for a variety of reasons, the conclusion is all the stronger and more certain. The conclusion is that the military machine of the United States, all-powerful almost though it may be, cannot win a civil war in Indo-China. It can kill. It can destroy. It can defoliate. It can bomb. It can exterminate. It can spread horror and devastation. But it cannot win a victory.
Perhaps at this moment some of the poor people in Cambodia are recognising the wisdom of their leader, Prince Sihanouk, who strove so valiantly for so long to prevent his people from being scorched and devoured in the inferno which is occurring in their country.
214
People can hurl the word "appeaser" at Senator Eugene McCarthy, Senator Fulbright, Mr. Lippmann and all the others if they like, but nobody will believe them. This is the truth of the matter—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a serious debate. Running comment is not desirable.
Mr. Foot: The truth of the matter—and hon. Members opposite may hate the conclusion, but none the less it is true—is that the military machine of the United States can create a wilderness and desolation, but it can never win a victory; and the best friends of the Americans are those who join the growing host of brave Americans who themselves are telling the truth about this war. That is the truth that this House has to face, just as the Americans have to face it.
This is the truth which I say this country and a Labour Government should voice. I trust that they will do it clearly and unmistakably in this debate today and that our Labour Movement and Government will stand with those who wish to bring this hideous war to as swift an end as possible and restore peace to that part of the world.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Michael Stewart. [Interruption.]
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the Foreign Secretary. This is a grave debate. I hope that hon. Members will conduct themselves adequately today.
4.19 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has every right, as has everybody, to feel very gravely concerned about events in Indo-China.
I appreciate that many hon. Members wish to take part in this debate and I will, therefore, be as brief as possible. I intervene at this stage because I felt that the House would wish, at an early stage in the debate, to have a statement of the Government's view. My right hon. Friends and I, as we made plain yesterday when the request for the debate was made, believe it entirely right that the House should have an opportunity for an early debate on this very grave question.

215
We all recognise that recent events in Cambodia are tied up with the terrible conflict that has raged in Vietnam for so many years. Throughout that conflict it has been the view of Her Majesty's Government, repeatedly expressed, that neither side could achieve, or should seek to achieve, an outright military victory or a 100 per cent. military solution. We have made this clear repeatedly and have, therefore, said that what both sides, and the friends of both sides, should work for is an agreed and negotiated solution.
We believe that the instrument most ready to hand for this purpose would be a reviving of the Geneva conference. However, we have said that if, at any, time, any other form of instrument proved more acceptable, we would not be dogmatic about the exact Geneva formula. But we have said time and again that a search for a 100 per cent. military victory or solution by either side would fail and that we must work for a Geneva conference or whatever other instrument of negotiated solution might seem possible.
We have also said that, in our view, the bare essentials of such a negotiated solution were that Vietnam, both North and South, should be completely neutral, free of foreign bases or foreign troops and that the people of South Vietnam should have a chance to decide their own future. [Interruption.] The people of North Vietnam have a Communist Government. If I could see a way of establishing, as the Geneva agreements require, free elections there, I would welcome it.
What I have said are the bare essentials of a solution seem to me as being as near as one can get, in the light of present facts, to what was originally laid down in the Geneva agreements, and I hope that that commands general support.
The tragedy is that while this war has raged in Vietnam, it has for a long time spread to Laos and Cambodia. Considerable parts of the territories of those countries have been used by North Vietnamese and Vietcong forces for the purpose of helping them to improve their military position in Vietnam.
These events—this involvement of these two other countries—underlined the necessity to seek an agreed and negotiated solution. The hon. Member for the Isle
216
of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) suggested that the Government might issue a White Paper listing all the efforts that we have made. I am not quite sure that we shall want to do that, and I do not want to weary the House now with what is a familiar chronicle. However, I believe that everybody knows that time and again we have sought, partly by appeals to our fellow co-Chairman, Mr. Gromyko, to the Soviet Union, publicly and privately, to see if there was any way by which an agreed solution could be reached.
We were not successful. I say without offence that this was sometimes an occasion for a certain amount of merriment among hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is always fair for an Opposition to criticise the Government when they try to do something and are not successful. However, we were determined to make every effort to get an agreed solution, knowing how difficult that would be and how limited were the chances of success.
About two years ago a new chapter seemed to open. Mr. Johnson, the then President of the United States, made a major decision about the use of military power against the territory of North Vietnam. As a result of his decision, talks in Paris were able to open. More recently, President Nixon set out the policy of the progressive withdrawal of United States troops, and he has repeated what the United States has said before, namely, that as part of a final agreed settlement there would be a complete withdrawal of United States troops from Vietnam.
These developments, which stretched over two American Administrations and over the past two years, were welcomed by Her Majesty's Government. Indeed, they were in line with our own thinking, with the views that we had expressed to the Government of the United States and with the views that I think commanded support in all parts of the House.
But to all of these there was one important and, I think, unavoidable qualification, namely, that if the United States was to proceed with this policy, we must expect some degree of constructive response from Hanoi. At one point during the last two years to which I have been referring some of my hon. Friends, some of whom had often been critical of the view of Her Majesty's Government on

217
this matter, addressed an appeal to the authorities in Hanoi asking them to be, to put it in the broadest terms, forthcoming and constructive in the talks in Paris. I was very glad that that approach was made. I greatly regret that there was no response to it and the months have dragged by without success.
It is against this background that we must look at recent events in Cambodia. Whatever differences of opinion there may be, a very large number of hon. Members in all parts of the House must have felt great sympathy with the continued efforts of Prince Sihanouk to keep his small, peace-loving, kindly country at peace in this maelstrom of South-East Asia. This is certainly what I felt.
However, to do so he had to pay a terribly heavy price, which was a recognition that considerable parts of his territory would be used by Communist forces. This is not a partisan view. Prince Sihanouk himself made it very clear when, on 13th March, on leaving Paris to visit Moscow and Peking, he said:
" I intend to ask Moscow and Peking to advise their friends in Hanoi and in the Vietcong to put a brake on their interference in Cambodian domestic affairs."
Later, he said:
" I should like to affirm to my fellow countrymen that I will never tolerate either the infiltration of the Vietcong and Viet Minh or their interference in our affairs, because ours is sovereign country. Yesterday, I informed the friendly Soviet leaders of this matter."
This was the dreadful dilemma with which Prince Sihanouk was faced. Before anyone in the House criticises him, let us be fortunate that this country is not in the position that his was. I believe that, according to his best judgment, he tried to keep his country at peace. He was obliged to pay a price for this in allowing it to be more and more used as a base for Communist forces. This is a fact which we must now take into account, because the areas which United States forces have recently entered in Cambodia could not be regarded in any real sense as neutral. For a long time no Cambodian authority has operated in them. They have been used by the Communist forces for administration, command, control, supply and retraining.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale raised the question of the legalities of the matter. Neither he nor I are lawyers. I think that we must look at
218
this as a matter of common sense. if a country is supposed, and desires, to be neutral, and is unable, with the best will in the world, to prevent part of its territories being used by one side in a dispute to promote its own war, can one really say that the other side in that dispute is absolutely bound by neutrality that has ceased to have real effect? I ask hon. Members, whatever they may feel, to think over this. I do not put it forward as a lawyer's proposition. It seems to me to be the common sense of the matter.
Mr. Eric S. Heifer: Strange doctrine.
Mr. Stewart: At any rate, in the light of this, a simple condemnation of the action of the United States, and of the United States alone, could not be justified either in common sense or as a useful contribution to peace-making in this area.
We have to notice that more than a month ago, shortly after the fall of Prince Sihanouk and before the United States had taken any action, Communist forces in Cambodia advanced still further, occupying what was supposed to be neutral territory. This House did not at the time think it right to make any expression condemnatory of their action. I think that we were right. It would not have helped if we had. Having so refrained, I do not think that it would be sensible, logical, or, what matters most, constructive towards peace for us now to make a single pronouncement on the actions of the United States.
There remains one question of very great concern. The United States claims that in what it has recently done it is following the policy which President Nixon set forth. I do not propose to advance in the House detailed military explanations or justifications of policy. I do not think that it is for this House, which does not bear the responsibility of the conflict on either side, to do that. I merely mention that the United States claims that it is still pursuing the policy outlined by President Nixon. It is a fair question to ask—a question to which I think that the Government of the United States will address themselves—will this new action help or hinder that policy.
There are some in this House who would like me to make a resounding pronouncement condemning what the United

219
States has done—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] For the reasons that I have already given, I do not believe that this is justified in logic, common sense, or wisdom. I stand resolutely by what I said to the House when answering a Private Notice Question from the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home). I do not think that we have either the right or the duty to pronounce on the American action—
Mr. Heifer: Why not?
Mr. Stewart: —for the reason that their decision was taken in the light of advice and information which, in the nature of the case, cannot be available to us.
I have already set out the reasons why I think it would be unreasonable for this House, not having condemned earlier violations of Cambodian neutrality, to come up with pronouncements against this one. Neither do I think it right for this House to make a pronouncement—
Mr. Heffer Mr. Heffer rose—
Mr. E. Fernyhough (Jarrow)Mr. E. Fernyhough (Jarrow)rose—
Mr. Stewart: I must ask my hon. Friends to wait a moment.
Neither do I think it is right for this House to make a judgment either way on a military decision which belongs to the Power which is engaged in hostilities in that area.
I will give way, very briefly, to my hon. Friends who rose, but, following the example of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale, I should not wish to give way after that.
Mr. Heffer: My right hon. Friend is surely aware that this House debated the aggression in Czechoslovakia and, quite rightly, condemned that aggression. Is the argument that my right hon. Friend is putting forward not an excuse? If we can condemn the situation in Czechoslovakia, surely we can equally condemn American action in Cambodia—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an intervention, not a speech.
Mr. Heffer: I am being as brief as I can.
220
Is my right hon. Friend also aware that the Socialist International, only yesterday, made its position quite clear in opposition to the American policy?
Mr. Stewart: On the last point, we must all decide by individual judgment and conscience.
On the first point, if there had been areas in Czechoslovakia which, for a long time, had been occupied by N.A.T.O. forces and used for N.A.T.O. purposes, might we not all have taken a rather different view on the Soviet action in Czechoslovakia?
Mr. Fernyhough: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in circumstances such as these there is no reason why we should not offer advice to the Americans in the spirit that they offered it to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite in 1956, when they were engaged in equally stupid and indefensible actions in Suez? Could we not say to the Americans that we are offering this advice as friends in the way that they offered advice to the Conservative Government in 1956 regarding their actions in Suez?
Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend will realise that there is an important difference between the Suez situation and this one. At that time, the Government of this country chose to take armed action against another country, for which there was no international justification at all. We could not claim, as is the fact here, that certain parts of the territory were being used and had been used for years by another Power for military purposes hostile to us.
The House and my hon. Friends must understand this. This was a plain fact of the situation—that there had been for a long time grave infractions of Cambodian neutrality. This is a solid fact in the situation which does not apply to either of the analogies put forward by my hon. Friends—
Mr. Douglas Jay: Will my right hon. Friend give way—
Mr. Stewart: No, I will follow the example of my hon. Friend and conclude speedily.
I will go this far with my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough): it is right for us to draw the attention of the American Government

221
to anxieties in this country, indeed in the whole world, that the action which they have taken might have the result of hindering rather than helping the policy of withdrawal on which President Nixon had pronounced.
Mr. John Lee (Reading): You can say that again.
Mr. Stewart: I say it deliberately. I do not believe that it is right for us to pronounce this judgment. The United States Government are no doubt aware of the concern all over the world that their action might hinder rather than help the policy proclaimed by President Nixon. It seems to me that the task of this country is to assert and to continue the work for a policy of an agreed and negotiated solution, which has been ours from the start.
It was to that end that, last Friday, I invited the Soviet Ambassador to see me and gave him a message to convey to my colleague, Mr. Gromyko, urging again the reconvening of the Geneva conference. I believe that, violent though the conflict has been, and little as the prospect has seemed of establishing the rule of law, we should never forget that we hold this duty as co-Chairman. I have not yet received a reply, but I have seen, as the whole House has seen, reports of Mr. Kosygin's Press conference and the deep discouragement from there of any possibility of getting a conference on this matter.
I also saw the chargée d'affaires from the United States Embassy and made clear to him, as in the last few sentences I have made clear to the House. the anxieties which people in this country and elsewhere must feel about the actions which his Government felt it necessary to take. Earlier the Cambodian Government urged that the International Control Commission should be reactivated. If this could be done with life and reality, it would help. It was Her Majesty's Government who did their best to promote that request and to transmit it to other Governments. We had to do that by ourselves, because our fellow co-Chairman would not act with us.
We have also felt, throughout all this dispute, that it should be possible to bring this within the jurisdiction of the United
222
Nations. So far, the hostility of North Vietnam and others has prevented this—
Mr. Stanley Orme: What about the bombing?
Mr. Stewart: I believe that it would be right to try again to see when an approach could be made through the United Nations. But I say this. finally—
Mr. Andrew Faulds Mr. Andrew Faulds(Smethwick)rose—
Mr. Stewart: No, I will not give way—
Faulds: Would my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Faulds: Would my right hon. Friend give way on this point?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State is not giving way, so the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
Mr. Faulds: On this point—
Mr. Stewart: No.
Mr. Faulds: My right hon. Friend is extremely discourteous.
Mr. Stewart: I am trying to safeguard the interests of those hon. Members who want to speak in the debate—
Mr. Faulds: Disgraceful shadow of a Foreign Secretary—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) must contain himself.
Mr. Faulds: A Foreign Secretary of a Labour Government!
Mr. Stephen Hastings: On a point of order. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) refer to the Foreign Secretary as a "disgraceful shadow of a Foreign Secretary". Is this acceptable in the House?
Mr. Stewart: Further to that point of order. The remark made by my hon. Friend is no more offensive to me than many remarks which the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) himself has made, and I do not bother about them.

223
I hope that I have established to the House why I believe that an attempt by Her Majesty's Government to make solemn pronouncements of condemnation or of support for the American Government on this issue would be wrong—wrong in logic and basically wrong in that they would not help find a solution. Our duty is rather in line with what we have always done, to work, through whatever channels may be available, for that agreed and negotiated solution to which, in the end, the parties will have to come. Let us hope that there will not be so many more months and years passed and lives lost before the necessity for an agreed and negotiated solution is realised.
4.47 p.m.
Mr. Sandys: I warmly welcome the fair and realistic speech made by the Foreign Secretary. I am very glad that the Government have not allowed themselves to be bullied into a condemnation of American policy. It is quite right that Parliament should immediately consider the important new developments in South-East Asia. I am, therefore, glad that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) asked for this debate, although I disagree profoundly with the intemperate views which he has expressed.
Every peace-loving person, must, of course, he concerned about the enlargement of the area of conflict and the possibility of wider repercussions upon East-West relations. But, having expressed our concern about the gravity of the situation, it does not follow that we should be right in accusing the Americans of irresponsibility. It is obvious that President Nixon did not lightly reach his decision to send American troops into Cambodia.
Mr. Russell Kerr: It was not his decision; it was the Pentagon's decision.
Mr. Sandys: He was well aware of the violent protests in the United States and throughout the world which this would provoke and he knew that he was endangering his prospects of re-election. History will judge whether he was right or wrong. But it is clear that he took this momentous decision because he felt that it was his duty to do so, and for no other reason.
224
It has been said that he ought first to have consulted the Senate. That is a matter for constitutional experts in the United States to argue about. It seems to me that to ask a Government to announce in advance their intention to launch a military operation, the success of which depends upon surprise, is like asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consult Parliament about devaluation.
Throughout this tragic conflict there has been a tendency, as on so many issues, to apply double standards. There is a general outcry when American troops are sent into neutral Cambodia. Yet everyone seems to ignore the fact that the North Vietnamese for a long time past have established military bases and lines of communication in Cambodia, without the slightest regard for her neutral status.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said that a breach of neutrality by one country does not justify similar action by another. But it may make it inevitable. The Americans up till now have not reacted very vigorously over the presence of North Vietnamese forces in Cambodia—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—but with the planned reduction of their troops in South Vietnam they evidently felt that they could not any longer sit still and allow themselves to be encircled by forces operating from the safety of neutral territory.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale urged the need for a political settlement, but that is precisely what President Nixon and his predecessor have been striving to achieve. President Nixon has gone so far as to promise to withdraw American troops as soon as a settlement can be reached, which will allow the people of South Vietnam freely to determine their own destiny.
It was the Americans who took the initiative in opening negotiations. They have made it clear that they would like to find a political solution at the conference table and that they are prepared to make concessions to secure it. Unfortunately, as the Foreign Secretary said this afternoon, the response from the North Vietnamese has so far been entirely negative. It seems that they are determined to keep up the fight until the Americans go home, after which they hope to be able to subjugate South Vietnam by force.

225
It is said, and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale made a great deal of it this afternoon, that the American action runs the risk of provoking an escalation of the war and might lead to a deeper involvement of Russia and China. This is perfectly true: and I have no doubt that this possible danger was never absent from President Nixon's mind. One can always avoid trouble by always giving way. One can always avoid provoking others if one is prepared never to be provoked by anything they do against one. But where would the free world be if it yielded to every sabre-rattling demand from Moscow or Peking?
To dispatch American troops into Cambodia at this juncture was undoubtedly a crucial decision. But a decision not to do so would have been equally crucial. It is evident that President Nixon and his military advisers came to the conclusion—and I believe they were right —that, if they did not act in time, the continued defence of South Vietnam would become impossible.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman now give way?
Mr. Sandys: No. It is not in the interests of the House that in a short debate like this hon. Members should give way.
It is not only the future of South Vietnam which is at stake. If it is seen that America is unable or unwilling to fulfil her undertaking to protect the independence of South Vietnam, all the other countries in South-East Asia will doubt the value of her similar promises to them. Communist rebellions, organised and armed from outside, would be launched throughout the area; and law-abiding citizens, who have no sympathy with terrorists, would feel it wise to co-operate with people who may soon become their rulers.
Mrs. Anne Kerr: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the Americans are terrorists?
Mr. Sandys: Once it is thought that America is no more than a paper tiger, the lawful Governments in one country after another will be confronted with the same dangers as the Government of South Vietnam. It will not stop at Indo-China. Siam, Malaysia and Singapore, with
226
whom we have treaty obligations, will be threatened in the same way. Nor would the repercussions of an American collapse or capitulation in Vietnam be confined to South-East Asia. It would inevitably affect the credibility of America's military assurances to Australia, to New Zealand and to Europe.
For a quarter of a century Europe has been free from war. That has been primarily due to the strength and solidarity of N.A.T.O. If once it was thought that America could not, in all circumstances, be relied on to stand by her allies and see it through, the deterrent power of N.A.T.O. would be gravely weakened and the whole security of Western Europe would be endangered. President Nixon told us that this was a consideration he took into account in reaching his decision. We should be grateful to him for this.
In the present critical situation in the Far East, Britain's role is clear. It is not for us to sit in judgment on the Americans or to criticise them for a decision which was probably inevitable. As the Foreign Secretary said, we should concentrate on the one positive contribution which we can make. As co-Chairman, the right hon. Gentleman should continue to put all possible pressure on the Soviet Government to agree to reconvene the Geneva conference, without further hesitation. If the Russians are sincere in their fear of an escalation of the war, they have no possible excuse for refusing to co-operate in a new effort to reach peace by negotiation.
Meanwhile, we should show some understanding for the grave problems which face our American allies in their efforts to restore peace and preserve freedom in South-East Asia.
4.58 p.m.
Mr. Russell Johnston (Inverness): I shall be brief, because I realise that a great many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. I shall confine myself to speaking for under 10 minutes, subject to interruptions.
This is an emergency debate on Cambodia and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) is to be congratulated on making it possible. It is, nevertheless, basically a debate about the escalation of the war in Vietnam rather than on what is happening in Cambodia. It is an extremely serious debate against

227
a background in Cambodia of more blood, death and misery, a debate about the rights and wrongs of what America is doing in Vietnam and what the future of it is to be. It is also inevitably, as the Foreign Secretary said, a debate about what Britain should say about this, because, as I think he recognised, we can do remarkably little.
Truth, as we in this House have a unique capacity for recognising, is always the first casualty in war. If we consider what is said by the Americans and what is said by the N.L.F. in Vietnam, we realise how real that is and how emotions generated by war discourage objective analysis and clear and fair thinking.
In the view of Liberals, the Americans' commitment in Vietnam, well intentioned as it was—and I credit them as being well intentioned initially—arose from a basic flaw in their analysis of the nature of Communism in Asia and, indeed, of what can be achieved about it anyway. It never occurred to John Foster Dulles and others who followed him that Communism in the East contains much more of nationalism than Communism perhaps anywhere else. Nationalism is such a strong element in Communism in the East and influences its popularity so much that we cannot discount it.
I do not think, as some Conservatives appear to think, judging by their interruptions in the Foreign Secretary's speech, that we are faced with a choice between peace by appeasement and peace imposed. I think that the Americans must recognise that, long after they are gone—and go they must from Vietnam, either sooner or later—the Vietcong will still be there. Vietnam is, after all, the home of the Vietcong and South Vietnam is the home of most of them. They cannot, in the nature of things, be extirpated, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale himself said, unless the Americanes are prepared utterly to lay waste the country that they are pledged to defend.
It is for this reason, looking around the world, that we realise that the equivalents of the N.L.F., whether in Aden, India, Cyprus, or anywhere else, are in the end bound to succeed, and are bound to triumph over vastly superior power. This is not to say that it always means a better and fairer form of government for the individual. I am against Com-
228
munism. Its consequences, its behaviour and its motives are totally alien to the things that, as a Liberal, I believe in. I also recognise that when Britain withdrew her imperial presence, this did not necessarily lead to fairer government for the individual person in the places we were before. But we ourselves have had to face the fact that some time we have had to go. The Americans have to recognise that, whether they go today, tomorrow, or next year, or later, they have to go ultimately.
Military force can restrain for a period but it can never achieve an ultimately satisfactory solution. The Americans have fallen into a fatal error, understandably from my point of view. In opposing Communism, they have often put themselves in the position of propping up Right-wing autocracies which are certainly no better, and sometimes much worse, than Left-wing autocracies. Neither is acceptable to me. The problem for the democrat is how one distinguishes between autocracies of the Right and the Left and how one deals with them. I am a bridge rather than a boycott man, but that is another question.
What is incontrovertible is that, by her defence of the status quo in Vietnam and elsewhere, America puts herself, in the eyes of the people of the underprivileged world, in the position of defending a situation which condemns them again, it seems permanently, to a subservient role and prevents them making their own decisions. I am a great admirer of the United States and many of her people and many of the things she does, but she is trying to play Canute to the ineluctable tides of change in history. The dynamic of change will always in the end overcome the inertia of privilege.
The very important reality not yet mentioned in the debate is that China's space shot has resulted in a new strategic position in the Far East, in that she can reprise nuclear attack and, therefore, is potentially in a militarily conventional position in the Far East similar to that which America occupies in the Caribbean.
Radicals of many kinds are in the habit of boasting of their righteousness rather more for the good of their consciences than for constructiveness. The Foreign Secretary is conscious of that. I certainly think that, in Britain, our job

229
is not to ally ourselves uncritically with the forces of people whose behaviour is perhaps worse sometimes than the American behaviour. Our position rather is frankly to say to our American friends and brothers that we recognise their feelings of responsibility as the world policemen because we once tried to do it ourselves. We recognise what they want to achieve, but in the world as it is no one country, however good it may be, however right it may think itself, has the right or capacity—certainly not the capacity—to seek to do this sort of exercise.
We in this House have to say to our American friends, "We know that you are a more democratic country than any of the Communist countries and want to do the best you can for the world. But you are placing yourselves increasingly in a situation where you are defending that which is essentially undemocratic. You are defending and oppressing and forcing people into extreme positions, which in many cases they do not want to occupy, by what you are doing. Therefore, you are wrong."
We know that the N.L.F. were in Cambodia before the Americans, and were not there for a holiday, but that is not the point. The basic issue we face is not that at all, but wheher America stays in Vietnam or not. We in the Liberal Party believe that she is wrong to stay there, and that she must, as quickly as she can, seek to extricate herself.
Mr. Peter Bessell (Bodmin)Mr. Peter Bessell (Bodmin)rose—
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker Mr. Philip Noel-Baker(Derby, South)rose—
The Deputy SpeakerMr. Philip Noel-Baker.
Mr. Bessel: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) gave way to me.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understood the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) to have resumed his seat. Mr. Philip Noel-Baker.
Mr. Noel-Baker Mr. Noel-Baker rose—
Mr. Bessell Mr. Bessell rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I called Mr. Philip Noel-Baker.
Mr. Russell Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell).
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Inverness should have indicated to the Chair that he had given way. The Chair assumed that he had resumed his seat and called Mr. Philip Noel-Baker.
Mr. Bessell: May I interrupt my hon. Friend?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have called Mr. Philip Noel-Baker.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) was on his feet when the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) got up to interrupt. There was no doubt in the minds of those who saw the incident that he was giving way to a question from the hon. Member for Bodmin.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am in as good a position as anyone in the Chamber to see what happens. I have called Mr. Philip Noel-Baker.
Mr. Bessell: Further to that point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness has made it clear that he was giving way to me and there is no doubt in the minds of anyone in the Chamber that this was the case. In these circumstances, surely I may be allowed to make my intervention and my hon. Friend allowed to complete his speech.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is making it very difficult for the Chair, especially in what is already a rather truncated debate. I had decided that the hon. Member for Inverness had resumed his seat and I called Mr. Philip Noel-Baker. I cannot go back on that decision.
Mr. Bessell: My hon. Friend and Member for Inverness made it clear a moment ago that he had not resumed his seat, but had given way to me.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Inverness stated that after the Chair had decided that he had resumed

231
his seat. I can see the Chamber much better than other hon. Members. I am sorry, but I have made my decision.
Mr. Desmond Donnelly: Further to that point of order. With due respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is, I think, a misunderstanding which could easily be resolved in 30 seconds if you would allow the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) to finish his speech.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be quite wrong for any change to take place at this stage. No doubt the hon. Gentleman may get an opportunity later to put his point.
5.10 p.m.
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I have no objection to waiting for an hon. Member to answer a question, but I am obliged to follow your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I do so. I agree with the Foreign Secretary that it is impossible to make a sane evaluation of the situation in Cambodia today except against the background of the last 16 years of the history of Vietnam. Sixteen years ago, thanks to the work of Lord Avon and Mr. Khrushchev, who did admirable service with Chou En-lai, the French Colonial war was ended. The Geneva agreements were accepted by all the parties, including the United States.
Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos were to be disarmed and neutralised, elections were to be held, all foreign forces were to leave Indo-China, and an amnesty was assured to all who had fought against the French. It seemed that at long last an epoch of peace and prosperity was opening for those unhappy peoples to whom Western and Japanese imperialism had brought so much suffering for so many years. This was a great victory for those who wanted peace and international understanding. But we must remember that if Ho Chi Minh accepted the Geneva agreements it was because of the pressures and the assurances from Mr. Khrushchev and Chou En-lai.
The fair hopes of 1954 did not last very long. The ink was hardly dry on the agreements before the United States C.I.A. began its disruptive and nefarious work. It chose Diem to be the dictator of
232
South Vietnam; it gave him full support, military, financial, economic, while he destroyed the Geneva settlement. Already, in 1955, he said that there would be no elections. He knocked the very bottom out of the whole agreement. By that repudiation of solemn international agreements the whole work of Lord Avon in Geneva, was undermined. Diem withdrew the amnesty offered to the Viet Minh. He put them into prison, he shot them, he tortured them until at last, in despair, they organised the resistance which became the Vietnam civil war. For nine years the C.I.A. gave Diem its full support. After he was murdered, it turned out the civilian Prime Ministers who took his place and put in Marshal Thieu and Marshal Ky to run the corrupt military dictatorship which passes for a Government today.
Laos did well after 1954 for a period of years. The popular Prime Minister, Prince Souvana Phouma, kept his country united, neutral and at peace. In 1960, the C.I.A. drove him out and replaced him with the corrupt and incompetent General Phoumi Nosovam, whose only merit was his extreme Right-wing, not to say, Fascist, view of policy. Two years later, President Kennedy was obliged to put Prince Souvana Phouma back into power, but the damage was done. The situation has worsened progressively ever since.
The present Cambodian crisis began when the C.I.A. deposed the neutralist Prince Sihanouk six weeks ago. Prince Sihanouk may have defects, he may have made mistakes, but for many years he showed statesmanship of the highest order. Until six weeks ago, in spite of appalling pressures, he kept his country, as the Sunday Times said the other day, united and at peace. He tolerated the existence of Vietcong bases on the borders of his frontier with South Vietnam—bases on Cambodian soil, yes. Those bases may have been important, although the United States Army seems to find it very difficult to locate them now. Perhaps they were important. But on Prince Sihanouk's other frontier, in Thailand, the United States had 40.000 troops and great air bases, and they were bombing North and South Vietnam from those bases. On every raid they violated the neutral air space of Laos and Cambodia as they went.

233
Whatever may be thought of Prince Sihanouk's policy and views, however things appeared to him, the C.I.A. had no right at all to turn him out, to organise a coup and to put in a Right-wing militarist dictator, just as it had no right, under cover of President Nixon's plan to withdraw 150,000 troops within a year, on condition that the Vietcong and Hanoi should not make provocative concentrations—it had no right to prepare and execute the Charter-breaking invasion of Cambodia which has aroused world-wide condemnation, and which we are, I hope, condemning this afternoon.
I said "Charter-breaking invasion", and that is very important, for the central fact, the essential fact about this crisis is that Cambodia, like the United States, is an independent sovereign member of the United Nations. If President Nixon had a complaint against Cambodia, his only proper course was to take it to the United Nations. And the only proper course for our Government now—and here I go some distance with the Foreign Secretary, further than some of my hon. Friends—the only proper course for our Government now is to take this U.S. invasion of Cambodia to the United Nations, to join with other Governments in summoning a special Session of the General Assembly, as Chairman Kosygin summoned a special Session of the General Assembly after the six-day war in Sinai in 1967.
Hon. Members opposite may say that it is Utopian to think that the General Assembly could bring about any practical results. Nothing is so Utopian, nothing is so founded on illusion, as to think that we can drift from one crisis to another, allowing the United Nations to be set aside, discredited, rebuffed, and still avoid the final cataclysm of a third world war. That is Utopian; that is founded on illusion.
We are celebrating the 25th anniversary of the establishment of the United Nations. That does not conceal the fact that the United Nations today is in dire straits; that its Charter, the foundation of its authority and prestige, is fast becoming a scrap of paper. I remember that in May.. 1938, only 15 months before the war began, Sir Winston Churchill toured Britain for the League of Nations Union, demanding that our Government should lead the League in stopping Hitler. In 1944, he wrote to Robert Cecil:
234
" This war could easily have been prevented, if the League had been upheld by its members with loyalty and courage."
What the world needs today is not only the ending of the invasion of Cambodia; Cambodia is a small matter; it needs the ending of the Vietnam war, the ending of the anarchy which confronts us. It needs the application, at long last, of Lord Avon's Geneva agreements of 1954. It needs the abandonment of the militarist thinking and the militarist polices which still dominate and still curse the world.
Hon. Members may say that it would be a miracle if the General Assembly of the United Nations produced this result. Perhaps we need a miracle to save the world. But let us remember that world opinion is still an instrument of enormous power, and that no human institution can organise world opinion on a world-wide scale except the General Assembly.
Let us remember that 14 years ago President Eisenhower, Mr. Dulles, Mr. Lester Pearson and scores of other Foreign Ministers used the Assembly to get France and Britain out of Egypt. Let our Prime Minister and our Foreign Secretary use this instrument today to get a new start in world affairs.
Would it be anti-American to do to President Nixon what President Eisenhower did to us in 1956?
I remember the words used by Robert Kennedy, when he announced his candidature for the presidency of the United States in 1968:
" I have talked and listened to the young people of our nation and felt their anger about the war they are sent to fight and the world they are about to inherit. In private talks and in public, I have tried in vain to alter our course in Vietnam before it further saps our spirit and our manpower, further raises the risks of wider war, and further destroys the country and people it was meant to save. I cannot stand aside from the contest that will decide our nation's future."
Confronted with world anarchy, world hunger, war and the deadly arms race. Britain cannot stand aside today.
5.23 p.m.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I hope that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) will forgive me, and I am sure that the House will forgive me, if I do not follow him either through his history of the last 16 years in South-East Asia or into the aspirations, which he

235
realises to some of us seem visionary, of the concluding parts of his speech. For we have a very practical, precise and instant question before the House this afternoon.
It is not, however, as the form of the debate might perhaps suggest, whether this House should speak or hold its peace on the recent developments in Indo-China. It is not whether Her Majesty's Government should associate themselves with or disassociate themselves from the policies and the actions of the United States Administration. If there was ever a time when we still had that choice, that time has long gone past. What has been said in this House and by Her Majesty's Government for years has made it impossible for us to be silent now without being associated.
I turned up this morning an old speech I made over four years ago, when I said:
" As the Americans have ground deeper and deeper into the tragic morass of Vietnam. Britain's voice has been that of the obedient commentator. Each successive American act received prompt British endorsement. When they started bombing North Vietnam the Government said they agreed—when they stopped bombing North Vietnam the Government applauded them—when they started bombing North Vietnam again the Foreign Office could not wait to issue a statement saying that they understood and supported the decision. The Soviet Union could hardly have expected more favourable comment from its satrapies in Eastern Europe."
After what has been done by Her Majesty's Government in this matter over the past four years, there is no longer available to us the silence which does not mean consent. Silence now means consent and, whether we like it or not, we have to accept that the option of neutrality in word is no longer open to us.
Very often the actions of nations do not depend for their wisdom or their morality upon absolutes. We have to judge whether they be wise or right according to the circumstances and often, above all, according to their practicability. If it were possible for the United States by military action to secure to the people of South Vietnam independence, security, self-determination, self-government, almost every hon. Member of the House would be willing to bless, at any rate to accept —American military action in South-East Asia.
236
The central fact, the fact that we dare not blink, that we do an injustice to ourselves by pretending not to see, is that American military power cannot secure any specific political result in South-East Asia. It is beyond the capability even of the immense force of the United States to secure the kind of settlement, the kind of situation, which they and perhaps we would like to see in South-East Asia. This is a war in which the United States can win, if it wishes, every battle; but it is a war which the United States is bound to lose.
This depends not upon the changes and chances of military events nor upon whether that port is bombed and this supply centre is invaded and extinguished. It depends upon the underlying facts of the situation. From the very inception of United States intervention in South-East Asia, it was predictable that the United States could not win, that it could not succeed by military means in achieving its objects; and I mention, as the best proof that this was predictable, the fact that it was predicted.
My right hon. Friends who sit upon the Front Opposition bench will bear me out when I say that from the time when I first was entrusted to speak on affairs of defence on behalf of my party I advised them that there could be no ultimate military success for the United States in Vietnam and that, sooner or later, the outcome would be that the United States would have to disengage in circumstances of embarrassment not easy to distinguish from military defeat. This was a prediction made not only in private, but in public, too.
I will trouble the House with one further quotation, a self quotation. I do so only because of its curious relevance to what was said by the Secretary of State earlier this afternoon. I wrote this in August, 1966, nearly four years ago:
" If I had to guess how peace may one day come in Indo-China, I would imagine the process to commence not when a Geneva Conference assembled again under its co-chairmen after so many years, but when the United States began to withdraw the forces and, like the Snark, `softly', if not suddenly ', to 'vanish away '."
Everything that has happened during the last four years, every operation, has gone to reinforce the fact of the inability of the United States to secure her object,

237
or indeed our object, in South-East Asia by military force and the inevitability, sooner or later, of her quitting the field and withdrawing her forces.
If by a stroke here or there the situation could be altered, then we might say with the Secretary of State, "The President has good military advisers; he has advice and information which we cannot share in this House"; but our judgment does not depend on military advice, on a particular stroke, a particular battle, or a particular form of tactics. I have no doubt that the United States forces can eliminate the Vietcong base which has so long flourished—of course it has—in Cambodia. I do not doubt their power to do that any more than I doubt their power to succeed in any other individual military operation.
But when it is over, the underlying facts of the situation reassert themselves like the tide washing out footmarks in the sand. The ultimate fact reasserts itself: the Americans do not live there; everyone knows that their presence there, long or short, is destined to be temporary; everyone knows the realities which will prevail over them. This is the background against which we in this House must judge what we shall say to Her Majesty's Government and with what voice we wish the Government to speak.
There is nothing in friendship, there is nothing in alliance—and there is friendship and there is alliance, though not in Indo-China, between ourselves and the United States—which requires that we should encourage a friend or an ally in a course manifestly self-defeating, a course destined to end in ignominy and failure. It cannot be to the benefit of the United States, it cannot be to the benefit of this country—whatever view we take of the defence of the United Kingdom—it cannot be to the advantage of anyone in South-East Asia, that this continuing experiment to prove a result which was already knowable, predictable and predicted four or five years ago should go on any longer. The extension of the conflict, if one likes to describe it so, which has just taken place presents us with the necessity of deciding for ourselves what we shall say to our friend and to our ally.
I believe it is the view of many people in this country, and of many hon. Mem-
238
bers on both sides of the House— though, if that were not so, still I believe that wisdom and common sense require it—that we should say to our friends and allies: "At last, at length, enough!"
5.35 p.m.
Mr. Alan Lee Williams: I should like to say one or two words to the right hon. Member for Wolverhamton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who has made a characteristically brave speech, as one can see from the look of his hon. Friends sitting alongside him. But he based his speech on a false hypothesis. It has always been my understanding that the Americans, apart from a few American military advisers, have never considered that this war could be won. The real issue is the status and sovereignty of South Vietnam. This is the important major element in this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) made, as always, an eloquent speech, but it was somewhat partial. I am long used to the intolerance of some of my hon. Friends when another point of view is put forward. This was certainly noticeable when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke.
I wish to make one or two observations based partly on some personal experience and also on my own judgment. I was the only Member of this House to observe the elections in South Vietnam two years ago, which I regret. The elections were nothing like the Westminster pattern, but in South-East Asia they were in a sense unique. Although the elections showed that the contest was between individuals whose policies were not all that wide apart, it was nevertheless a step in the right direction—a genuine attempt to evolve some democratic institutions, in stark contrast to the situation in North Vietnam. It has never been my view that the ramshackle regime created by Ho Chi Minh is preferable to the ramshackle regime created by circumstances after the Geneva conference of 1954. We are not talking about a perfect situation. Neither Government is particularly attractive. They are both military regimes. But there is a chance in South Vietnam to do better. The real issue of this debate is not Cambodia. It is South Vietnam and its ability to survive.

239
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) on behalf of the Liberal Party—and I am sorry he is not here—argued the curious case that although Left-wing Governments may be more unpleasant than Right-wing Governments, somehow or other they ought to be able to survive. The issue is whether the people themselves should decide freely whether a Left-wing Government survives and not for Governments to be imposed upon them from the outside.
What we have seen over the last 20 years is a fight to impose government from the outside—
Mr. Stan Newens (Epping): By the Americans.
Mr. Williams: With the involvement of two great Powers the main issues to which I am trying to draw attention are sometimes lost sight of. There is considerable evidence that the infiltration of the Vietcong down the Ho Chi Minh line has been the way in which pressure has been kept up against the South. When I was in Vietnam during the elections, I met lots of intellectuals like some of my hon. Friends. They were very interested in doing some of the things we have been able to do in the past 50 years. A lot of them were extremely well read and were conversant with some of the books written by social democratic thinkers. They were not Fascists or reactionaries, but they are bitterly opposed to Communism. That is their right. It is our right. So it seems to me that this is the real crux of the argument.
The Vietcong do not speak for the whole of Vietnam, so it is important that the issue should be made crystal clear, although the action taken by the United States Government in Cambodia raises one's forebodings. As the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said, once this kind of involvement starts, it is extremely difficult to know where it will stop. But I am convinced that the Americans do not intend to widen the war. Their objective is only to protect the sovereignty of South Vietnam.
The Americans are not out to conquer North Vietnam. That has never been their aim. In the circumstances, we must try to be as objective as possible. I
240
know the passions that can be aroused on this subject. I saw some of the horror in Vietnam. I went into the demilitarised zone, as other hon. Members have done. I went down into Mekong Delta and saw some of the horror of the war. But to be in favour of the sovereignty of South Vietnam does not mean that I or anyone else who supports that proposition is in favour of horror and war.
The ability to achieve peace in this situation rests in many hands. Certainly the initiative for peace does not lie only with the Americans. One sees the lack of progress which has been made in the so-called peace talks in the last 18 months, during which not one word was uttered by some of my hon. Friends about the steady infiltration into the South, which was a de-stabilising factor. It is clear that responsibility for this war must rest more evenly than some of my hon. Friends think.
Mr. John Lee: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Williams: No, I will not give way.
The only hope is for a negotiated settlement. There can be no military victory.
Mr. Orme: Tell that to the Americans.
Mr. Williams: The Americans are fully aware of it. The only way that this ghastly, terrible war can be brought to an end is by achieving a negotiated settlement at the conference table in Paris.
5.34 p.m.
Mr. Julian Amery: We faced a very similar situation some eight years ago to the one that we face today. In 1962 the Communists looked like taking over Laos, and the Government of the day, in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and I both served, dispatched a sizeable contingent of the Royal Air Force to Thailand to help exercise pressure in favour of a peaceful settlement, which I am glad to say was achieved.
I was at the Air Ministry at the time, and I went out to Thailand to see our Air Force detachments on the spot, after which I went on to Saigon to speak with the South Vietnamese and the American authorities. It is because of that experience and subsequent visits to the area

241
that I venture to intervene in what necessarily must be a short debate.
I came back from my first visit with two clear ideas about the situation in South-East Asia, and subsequent impressions have reinforced my conclusions. The first concerned the consequences of a possible Communist victory in Vietnam. I found in Laos, in Cambodia, in Thailand, in Malaysia, in Singapore, in Australia and in New Zealand a clear consensus that if the Communists prevailed in Vietnam, still more if they prevailed in the rest of former Indo-China, they would prevail in the whole area.
I know that the domino theory is not very popular in this country today. But I have observed again and again that it is difficult to find any serious statesman anywhere in South-East Asia who does not share it. What is more, if one reads Communist literature on the subject, it is clear that both in China and in the Soviet Union they are domino men, too. They think that if there is a break-through in Vietnam and Cambodia, it will spread through the whole area.
The other conclusion to which I came concerned the great difficulty under which the Americans labour. The North Vietnamese and their backers have a clear and precise objective. It is to win the war and take over Saigon. That was not the American view at any stage, as the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Alan Lee Williams) made clear in what I thought was a remarkable speech. The Americans have never tried to win the war. It might have been easier for them if they had. I dare say that they could have gone to Hanoi during the Cultural Revolution without any major international complications. But that has not been their aim. They have worked for a settlement, and it is difficult to define a settlement clearly because it has to be arrived at round a conference table by give and take between both sides.
The Americans have fought with one hand tied behind their backs, and they have bent over backwards to try to get a settlement. I think that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) might at least have paid tribute to the efforts made by President Johnson and President Nixon in favour of a settlement by stopping the bombing, with-
242
drawing troops and undertaking to withdraw more troops. I do not think anyone can doubt that the Americans were sincere in their search for a settlement which would have kept South Vietnam out of Communist hands. They did not seek more than the maintenance of neutrality in Cambodia and Laos and a South Vietnam which was not dominated by the Communists.
Unfortunately, they were misunderstood by the Communist world, and perhaps we are all a little to blame for this. We make such great efforts to appease our enemies that they read our good will for weakness, and they become the victims of their own propaganda. Those who advocate appeasement, like Senator Fulbright and Senator Mansfield, are built up in the Communist Press and taken much more seriously than the forces that they represent in their own country. All the talk of war weariness and student demonstrations assumes a proportion on the other side of the Iron Curtain which we who live among it know is not true.
Mr. Michael Foot: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that President Nixon was elected on the promise to end the war? Does the right hon. Gentleman think he is doing it?
Mr. Amery: I said just now that I thought that President Nixon was bending over backwards to try to get a settlement. What the hon. Gentleman will also know is that the failure of the Communist Powers to respond to the American effort will stiffen American opinion in a way that they have not foreseen. We had a similar experience in this country. The Germans thought that we were a pushover when we surrendered at Munich and Prague. They did not expect us to fight for Danzig. The Communists may have a rude awakening.
There has been no Communist response of a positive kind. There has been a stepping up of the fighting in Vietnam and an increase of the fighting in Laos, and we have seen in the last few weeks the very sizeable build-up of Communist effort in Cambodia. This was not a consequence of the coup dďéetat in the Cambodian capital. It happened before that, as the Foreign Secretary rightly said. Indeed, Prince Sihanouk protested against it, and the reason he was kicked out was not because of the C.I.A., but because

243
his protestations directed to the Communists failed to bring about any diminution of Communist infiltration into his country.
What would be the implications of a Communist occupation of Cambodia? A glance at the map shows that Cambodia totally outflanks Vietnam, and that the tip of South Vietnam is 20 minutes' flying time from Singapore. What was President Nixon to do in the circumstances? If he left the Communists to establish themselves in Cambodia, Cambodian neutrality would be a thing of the past. If they were to dominate the whole country, including Port Sihanoukville, how could his plan to get Vietnamisation succeed? How could he withdraw the American Army without handing over South Vietnam to the Communists? He had no option but to try to restore Cambodian neutrality, which meant trying to break the Communists' growing hold on the country.
I may be told that the present Government in Phnom Penh are not so neutral. Neutralism and neutrality are not the same thing, as Switzerland, Sweden and Austria have proved. What is essential is that the Communist grip on the country should be broken if its neutrality is to be restored and if the Americans can hope to proceed with their plans for Vietnamisation and withdrawal.
I turn to our part in all this. We are directly concerned in this issue on two grounds. We have great interests in South-East Asia. Malaysia, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand are fellow members of the Commonwealth, and, as I said, it is only 20 minutes' flying time from Vietnam to Singapore. We also have a formal connection as co-Chairman of the Geneva conference, and I should like, if it does not cause them too much embarrassment, to pay tribute to the Government for the determined attitude which they have pursued from the beginning of their time in office in support of what I should like to call Sir Anthony Eden's settlement and the attempt to make it stick.
Under pressure from the Left wing of their party the Government sponsored the mission of the right hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies). They learned, as the right hon. Gentleman did, from
244
bitter experience the intransigence of Hanoi, and everything that has happened since has confirmed that intransigence. What have the Government of Hanoi done? They have extended the war. It is not the Americans who have extended it. It was not the Americans who stepped up infiltration into Cambodian areas. It is not the Americans who are marching on the Cambodian capital.
What should we do?
An Hon. Member: Stick to aviation.
Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman's remark is frivolous. If his party had stuck to my aviation policy there would be no complaint.
It seems clear that we should give our wholehearted moral support to the President of the United States in the action that he has undertaken. I have no doubt that it is politically justified. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has raised doubts about whether it is militarily justified. None of us can tell, but I do not accept his rather Marxist concept of the inevitability of defeat. I called it "Marxist"; perhaps I was wrong. It seems that there was an acho of his immigration views in what he said. He said that the Americans could not stay there because they did not belong there. I am not sure that this is a view of history which commends itself to me or to serious historians on either side of the House.
My second proposal is this. I know that the Government want to withdraw from South-East Asia, but they should say that until this crisis is resolved they will not try to stick to any timetable of withdrawal. It would be irresponsible, at a time when the clouds are gathering again over South-East Asia, and when the prospect looks very dark, for Britain to pull the rug out from under Malaysia, Singapore and Australia.
But there is a positive side, too, and that is what we can seek to achieve as co-Chairman of the Geneva conference. As the Foreign Secretary said, Mr. Kosygin was pretty discouraging yesterday, and the fact that Mr. Brezhnev is in Prague today—these are the gentlemen with whom we have to negotiate as coChairmen—shows that we shall get cooperation from the Soviet Union on this

245
issue only when they are convinced that their side cannot win. What we have to look for is a settlement in which neither side extends its sphere of influence.
I felt so much sympathy and respect for what the Foreign Secretary said that I hesitate to cross swords with him on any point, but there is one matter about which I am not altogether happy. He said "Let there be free elections in South Vietnam to see who can win", and when I asked "What about North Vietnam?" the right hon. Gentleman replied that that was already under Communist control. He seemed to accept that a robber can take a person's pocket-book and then discuss with him whether to take his wrist-watch.
I think that this debate is very important because the forecast of it in the Press has cast a certain shadow over our political life. Broadly speaking, since the end of the Second World War there has been a general consensus in successive Parliaments that we were on the side of the free world, but now there is emerging increasingly a group of hon. Members who either want the Communists to win in South-East Asia, or at any rate, do not mind if they do. I do not think that many hon. Members on either side of the House dispute that. Some hon. Members would rather see the Communists win or, if the American withdrawal results in this, they would not greatly mind.
Mr. John Lee: Accepting for the sake of argument that the right hon. Gentleman's thesis is correct—though, in fact, I reject it—how does he think that the cause of anti-Communism is served by a military operation which has the effect of driving the Russians and the Chinese into each other's arms when, from his point of view, the more they are on bad terms with each other the better?
Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman is a little esoteric. I do not see much sign of South-East Asia driving the two into each other's arms.
It is clear that the speeches and views advanced by a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite have the effect of wishing for a Communist victory, and in many cases are motivated by that wish. They are entitled to their views. This is a free country. I am not suggesting that they are Communist agents. They do it for
246
free. But we are entitled by the same token to draw our own conclusion, and they must not complain if, as a result, we label some of them crypto-Communists or fellow-travellers.
There are, of course, broad differences between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party, but it is my view that the differences which separate the bulk of our two parties are as nothing compared with the great divide which separates the free world from the Communist world. That is why I was glad to hear the Foreign Secretary speak in terms which dissociated the Government and the majority of the party opposite from the Left wing below the Gangway and showed that the teachings of Ernest Bevin have not been forgotten by the Labour movement.
6.0 p.m.
Mr. Richard Marsh: The last words of the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) were in keeping with much of his speech. He harked back to the great days of a very great man, Ernest Bevin. The basic theme of his speech was based on many of the assumptions of the 1940s and 1930s and even further back. His argument that the fact that a nation should not be on another nation's territory is not of itself an argument why it should leave is, for him, a perfectly logical proposition. It is a good old-fashioned imperialist proposition with which he agrees. That is his point of view.
What is disturbing to many of us is that the right hon. Gentleman can hold the views that he does and find himself in sympathy for and support of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. That is one of the things which have concerned many of us on this side. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was based upon the simple containment of Communism—one form of Communism, as though there were not others. It is the simple proposition that, somehow or other, one can maintain in South-East Asia in the 1960s and 1970s Right-wing Governments because they have the support of outside forces. There is no evidence that that is so. It has been tried for a long time now and, indeed, part of the price we have paid in that part of the world for pursuing that policy is that we have probably lost the opportunity of getting Governments which might well have been

247
less extreme because they would have been left of centre, particularly in Vietnam.
Now we are faced with Governments representing the most extreme forces. Governments must accept the simple fact that there are choices of Governments of the Left in South-East Asia, but there is no choice now in South-East Asia between Governments of the Left and Governments of the Right because the latter cannot continue to exist indefinitely.
The speech of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was more important than the speech of the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, for two reasons. It proved conclusively that the debate cannot be seen in terms of pro-Americanism and anti-Americanism, and neither can it be seen in terms of fellow-travellers and loyalists. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has been called many things, and I have added my share to the glossary, but the accusation of being an extreme Left-winger is not prominent among them. That accusation has not been levelled at me, either. But I found myself agreeing with his basic proposition on the whole sad story of Vietnam, which I agree with him is a war which could never have been won and shows no sign of being won.
I do not want to go into the merits of the Vietnam war, since that is not the argument in the debate. The right hon. Gentleman said that we have a very precise question to answer in this House, and I agree. That question is: what is our view of the American action in Cambodia? We have to have a view. I also agree with him that, at a time when even traditional neutrals have a view, the British Government cannot say that they do not have a view, that they believe that it is all very sad but that we must not come down on the left hand too far but must recognise the difficulties and not come down too far on the right hand.
Britain cannot hold that stance. Either we are opposed to this action or, by implication—and this is a perfectly defensible proposition to take up—we support it. It is impossible for a country to opt out of having any view at all. There are two arguments here. One is the merits of the American invasion of Cambodia and the other is whether the
248
British Government can, should or have expressed a view today. This point worries me most of all.
For years Her Majesty's Government have faced the problem, including when I had the honour to be a member, of what was their view in relation to the whole Vietnam question. Inevitably—and I give no secrets away—with a large number of people involved there are different points of view. I support solidly now and in retrospect the Government's policy on Vietnam then because the Government said, in effect, "When one has made all the calculations, it may be possible that we can make a contribution to peace, that we can exert an influence, that we can invoke the special relationship, that we can provide a bridge."
Those were meritorious ambitions, and the Government tried every possible way to achieve some participation in a settlement. Hon. Members opposite should think back and remember how many times the Government's sometimes unconventional efforts were greeted with derision and mirth by them, but I think the Government were right to try every conceivable way they could to achieve a settlement. But those efforts had only one thing in common: they did not work. We discovered that the special relationship did not exist in real terms. We discovered that, try and try as we could and should, we could not deliver. The Government were right to try, but at the end of the period we had not got anywhere. Now, when there is a new move, we have to accept that hiding our views or trimming them gets us nowhere and, therefore, there is no reason for not speaking openly and clearly what our views really are.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary expressed the difficulties, and it is an incredibly difficult position for a British Foreign Secretary to express views hostile to a long-time ally. But there can come a time when loyalty can become subservience, when the failure to express a point of view is of itself not an assistance to an ally but a negligence of one's duty to that ally. Countries all over the world are joined in argument on this development—not just Communist countries but good, middle-of-the-road Social Democratic leaders and even Right-wing countries. They are expressing a view.

249
People in the United States, including Congressmen, the organs of communication and American people representing all sorts of factions in universities are arguing and expressing different points of view. It ill becomes any Labour Government in this situation to say that we alone are not to have a clearly-announced view on this issue, whatever that view may be.
It is legitimate to express a view in support or against but to say that we can express no view at all is to finish this debate, if it finishes in that way, without any clear decision one way or the other. It is defensible to support the Americans openly or to say that they are wrong. It is not defensible on a major issue to blur the edges one way or the other.
A strange doctrine has been enunciated by hon. Members opposite—
Mr. Paget: It is not strange.
Mr. Marsh: It is strange from my point of view but I understand from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that apparently it is a legally respectable doctrine that a nation has a duty to ensure that nothing happens within its borders which may be regarded as hostile by another nation which may be at issue with a third nation. If we take that into practice we ignore the realities of life. There are countries all round the world with installations of one sort or another on behalf of another major Power.
If we accept that the Russians have the right to act unilaterally against any independent country which happens to be carrying support for the West, we open up a dangerous proposition—indeed, we do so in relation to ourselves, as well. Whatever the legal phrases may be—I accept that they are legal, because I am no lawyer, thank goodness—I do not think that in terms of international practice the doctrine can really be maintained.
Mr. Paget: If we were at war with Russia, then Russia would be fully entitled to deal with any country which permitted us to maintain warlike installations on its territory. That is international law.
Mr. Marsh: I have said that I do not quarrel with my hon. and learned
250
Friend's definition of what the law is. All I say is that, in the modern world, if it is accepted that justification for intervention in a third territory is the fact that that territory contains things which are being used, there are gradations between hot war and cold war which, while one may argue about them in law, are thin definitions.
There is a rumour that possibly my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may wind up this debate today. I do not know whether that is so and whether there will be a further intervention. But I do hope that when this debate is finished we have, as I hope we shall have, a declaration that the Government regard the present American action in Cambodia as something with which they disagree or a declaration that they support that action, and that we can move away from this question of rather "phoney" neutrality—
Eldon Griffiths: Where does the right hon. Gentleman stand?
Mr. Marsh: There is no doubt about this. I am opposed to it. I am not saying that that is right. I am saying one should come down on one side or the other.
Finally, it has been said that it is wrong, virtually, for us to express a view in this particular argument because these are the big Powers themselves. It becomes increasingly more obvious that the present world is divided between the enormous power of the Soviet Union and that of the United States of America. That is a reality of life. But part of the price we pay for that division is that we have to be more vigilant. Small countries have to express their views more noisily because if we do not, just as silence among the citizens within a nation can allow tyranny to take place, so compromise by smaller nations in a world dominated by one or two Powers can produce tyranny within the world.
6.15 p.m.
Mr. John Biggs-Davison: The right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) said he was opposed to the American intervention in Cambodia. I am not, and now that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) has gone to Washington where he will be

251
seeing members of the American Administration, he will be able to tell them that Conservatives in this House and in this country sympathise with President Nixon in the very difficult decision that he made and admire the courage with which he made it.
We on this side welcome the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary, whatever his hon. Friends may think of it. We are disposed to support him, but I hope he has the full support of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. If it is true that the Prime Minister is coming here to wind up the debate this evening, can it be, perhaps, that he is to inform us of a lightning trip across the Atlantic in order to assuage the emotions of his hon. Friends below the Gangway? I do not know.
We are not called upon to underwrite this American military intervention. In reply to a Question of mine on Friday last, the Foreign Secretary told the House that he was not consulted. It is understandable that Her Majesty's Government were not consulted. We have heard a great deal about moral influence to be brought to bear on the Americans, but if one has no material power one has very little moral influence. If we are resolved to withdraw all our military forces from the Far East our influence in the Far East will be proportionately less, and if we lecture super-Powers without the military means of effective diplomacy we cut a somewhat pitiful and ridiculous figure.
Had there been a British military contingent in Vietnam we might have been in a position to talk to the Americans and he listened to with respect. I am one of those who has stated in public the private opinion that earlier it would have been well for some British soldiers to be serving alongside our Australian and New Zealand subjects. That is of the past, hut we should sometimes consider not only the Americans, but our Australian and New Zealand partners.
The "domino" theory in the Far East has been derided. In my view the Communist Powers believe in it. Certainly, the South-east Asia Powers and our Australian and New Zealand fellow subjects believe in it. For them, the Far East is the near North, and Cambodia is
252
but 75 minutes flying distance to Darwin. The Australians and New Zealanders are not in Cambodia, but Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia are theatres in a single war waged by Communist-controlled Tonkin with the object of bringing all Indo-China under the leadership and control of Hanoi; and South Vietnam is the main target, including as it does important human and material resources and the Mekong Delta.
When I was in Vietnam it was impressed on me that if South Vietnam fell, if the United States and South Vietnam's other allies withdrew without an adequate state of defence to replace them, it would be extremely difficult to prevent the whole of the South Asian mainland passing under the rule or domination of Peking. The late Ho Chi Minh laid down that each State in this particular area should liberate—his word —itself by a people's revolutionary war, and that Hanoi should give what help was necessary.
It has been said in this debate that the Vietnam war cannot be won and that the Americans never thought it could be. But was the Korean war won? No, but the southern part of Korea was prevented from passing under Communist control; and there is no reason, except in the minds of defeatists, why South Vietnam should not be secured from Communist occupation.
Hon. Members are eager to protest against the American intervention in Cambodia. Did they protest when North Vietnam occupied military sanctuaries, to use the jargon, all along the Cambodian frontier with South Vietnam, some of them several leagues inside Cambodian territory? Did they protest when North Vietnam began not only through subversion but through its own regular forces to invade South Vietnam, a sovereign State recognised by the Government of the United Kingdom and 81 other sovereign States?
Did they protest when the neutrality of Laos was violated? Did they protest when the demilitarised zone was invaded? Cambodia was invaded by the Communists just because Cambodia wanted to be neutral.
This has been an important debate, not because it will deflect the march of history but because it has revealed the

253
state of affairs within the Labour Party. Some hon. Members below the Gangway, like some of the protesters who go to Grosvenor Square, and places like that, tell us that they are concerned with peace in Vietnam. But it is becoming more and more clear to the House and the country that what they are really concerned for is victory for the Vietcong.
6.19 p.m.
Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) is a prominent member of the Suez group. Some of his particular colleagues have spoken this afternoon. I am not surprised to find them cheering on what some United States Senators have called "Mr. Nixon's war". What matters much more is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government.
In his contribution, the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) talked of the non-representative character of the people who are protesting in the United States. The first point of which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary ought to have taken note when he came to address us is that the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate, unanimously, have sent to the President a message in which they told him that he is conducting an unconstitutional, unauthorised, illegal war.
If the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, does not regard the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate as representative of American opinion I do not know what kind of body we have to quote to get his approval.
An Hon. Member: All fellow travellers.
Mr. Mendelson: Yes, they are all fellow travellers, led by Senator Fulbright, taking in most of the middle, and right wing of the two parties—all fellow travellers!
We see, in this situation, adventurism in high places. It is gravely disappointing that the Foreign Secretary found himself unable to denounce the adventurous character of this expansion of the war. This being so, my right hon. Friend must not be surprised when he finds many of his hon. Friends profoundly disappointed by his speech and unconvinced by the case which he pleaded.
In the debate, my right hon. Friend and others have sought to put all the
254
blame for the fruitlessness of the negotiations in Paris on to the North Vietnamese and the National Liberation Front. It is well known that one of the main reasons why there was no progress at the Paris talks was because President Johnson first, followed by President Nixon, were determined to keep in power the wholly unrepresentative military clique in Saigon.
The former presidential candidate, Mr. Dzu, in the South Vietnamese elections campaigned on a platform of seeking to find a way towards negotiations between South and North Vietnam. That was his official platform, and he got 28 per cent. of the total vote. However, two days after the elections he was put in prison, and he is there now. That happened because he advocated an opening that might have led to a peaceful solution. We have not heard of any efforts being made by the U.S. Administration to get him released.
There has not been, in this situation, a search for sanctuaries but a situation in which the United States President has agreed, with the C.I.A. and his military advisers, to destroy the neutral regime of Prince Sihanouk with the idea of putting in power another military clique, and the President is now sending in another large army to bail them out.
It is for this reason that the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee is adopting an unprecedented and tough line in its attitude towards its own President. It knows that this is no four or six-weeks' operation, but that this is an expansion of the war accompanied by a resumption of large-scale bombing.
I was astonished that my right hon. Friend could not make even a brief reference to, and protest against, this resumption of bombing. The United States Congress is greatly alarmed by the latest dangerous development, a development which is completely contrary to the arrangements that had been made by Mr. Harriman, who is on record as having said that only a major attack across the demilitarised zone could justify a resumption of bombing. However, bombing has been resumed and it is a further sign that the American President is prepared to expand the war.
I am told that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will reply to the debate. I welcome that news. He must

255
know, however, that there are many of his hon. Friends and many members of the Labour movement—indeed, there are many in this category who do not belong to any one party—who regard it as absolutely imperative that, at the conclusion of the debate, the Government should strongly disapprove of the expansion of the war into Cambodia.
It is earnestly hoped by all these people that Her Majesty's Government will align themselves with the expressed view of the Governments of France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, India, Sweden—the new Swedish Prime Minister has openly pronounced his condemnation of the expansion of the war into Cambodia—because it would be a failure in duty if a Labour Government did not today condemn the present state of affairs in that part of the world. [Laughter.] Do I hear hon. Gentlemen opposite—or certainly one who can be called a member of the Suez Group—laughing? After the Suez invasion the Leader of the Opposition told him to which political ilk he belonged. I do not have to repeat it.
I urge the Prime Minister to take clear note of the feeling and conviction of certainly hon. Members on this side of the House. I urge him to note carefully the views that have been expressed by many Prime Ministers of democratic countries. I urge him to join them today and to say that we condemn the invasion of Cambodia, that we are opposed to any resumption of the bombing and that we will ask for an approach to be made to see a coalition Government in Saigon. We must demand a halt to the invasion of Cambodia and call for new talks to occur in Paris on the basis of a cease-fire and a decision by the American Government not to continue the military operations in Cambodia.
6.26 p.m.
Mr. Reginald Maudling (Barnet): This debate has been brief but weighty. That is how it should have been. It is right that the Prime Minister should reply and my hon. Friends hope very much that he will add his full weight to the clear speech that was made by the Foreign Secretary. In doing so, he will have from my hon. Friends full support for the policy which was put forward by the Foreign Secretary.
256
I cannot, of course, speak for others on this aspect. My reaction to the news of the American move into Cambodia was one of deep sadness—to see, once again, pictures of clanking vehicles moving forward, of casualties, and of civilians moving back. It is with sadness that, after all these years, I see pictures of children who were born in Vietnam growing up knowing nothing but war. This is a story of sadness, and we must all feel sad about it.
That feeling came out in the speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). Although I did not agree with his conclusions, I admired his sincerity. The Foreign Secretary spoke with equal sincerity, and nobody will deny that he feels as strongly as anybody about these matters.
I believe it right, however, that the House should be guided not solely by the heart, but by the head as well; that we should decide clearly and as dispassionately as possible what the problems are that are raised by this American action and for whom in this country they are raised. Some people in Britain are totally opposed to America—to American policy and to the American way of life—for various reasons, and they are entitled to their view. For them, there is no problem. There are others who are not basically anti-American, but who have always been opposed to American policy and to an American presence in South-East Asia. For them, too, there is no great problem. This is merely, for them, confirmation of what they have been arguing for many months past.
However, for those of us who look on the United States as a great and friendly country and who have given broad general support to United States policy in South-East Asia—and among "us" I include Her Majesty's Government—there are problems to be considered and resolved.
There are, of course, bound to be doubts about the justification of the American action. There is, of course, bound to be sadness at the sight of a great people beginning to tear themselves apart. America is a country which has within it a great tide of idealism, and this underlay the original move into Vietnam. It is pathetic to see so much of that turning into gall and bitterness, as it now is.

257
Our job in this country and in Parliament is to try to understand that when a friend is in trouble, as the Americans are, his need of friendship and, above all, of understanding is at its greatest. It was not a war of conquest or of subjugation that led the Americans to enter Vietnam. They did so in the belief that it was America's duty to help other countries to avoid subjugation and to enable them to choose their own government. Maybe this was an arrogant belief, but it was certainly not an ignoble one.
It is all very well for Mr. Kosygin to talk about America's right to judge good or bad for others. That comes oddly from a man who presides over a Government who are sitting on freedom of choice in, for example, Czechoslovakia.
The declared policy of America has been to create a situation in South Vietnam in which people can choose for themselves. This was the point of the original American operation in Vietnam. Over the years of bloodshed, frustration and propaganda this original idealism has given way to bewilderment, cynicism and a devout wish to be free of the South-East Asia commitment.
How can anybody doubt that President Nixon, as a responsible President, fervently wants to see American forces withdrawn? His problem is how to do it. How can he withdraw his forces without casting away the fruits of all the efforts that America has made; that is, without abandoning South Vietnam to just the subjugation which, in the first place, America went in to avoid? This, surely, is the problem, and so, against that background, I come to the two charges—I think there are only two—levelled against the United States.
The first is that they have escalated the war into a new area. This charge seems to me to be sheer hypocrisy. It is turning truth on its head to say that America has taken the war into a new area. The United States has sent her troops into Cambodia to find and to fight and to destroy an enemy who was already there and already operating from there against American forces.
It is quite clear—and the Foreign Secretary gave confirmation of it this afternoon—and indisputable that this part of Cambodian territory has been used by the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese
258
for the purpose of attacks on American forces and killing of American soldiers. How can any possible construction of international law or of international justice or of international common sense say to the Americans that they have no right whatever to react to the action taken by North Vietnam?
Why should they alone be denied the right to hit back against an enemy already hitting them? Why should the Americans be expected to see American casualties mount at the hands of an enemy who could always enjoy an easy sanctuary a few miles away across a frontier which protects them from attack?
Mr. David Winnick: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how it is that there is so much opposition inside the United States, amongst American Senators, Democrats and Republicans, to the latest expansion of the war in Cambodia?
Mr. Maudling: I am not dealing with that at all. I am dealing with the action of the United States, and the point I am making is that the United States were not the only people who carried action into Cambodia. They went there for the purpose of protecting themselves against people already operating from there. This seems to me to be something which is wholly justified in law, in common sense, and in morality.
The second charge is that their action makes an honourable solution more remote. This, clearly, must be a matter of judgment. No one can say with certainty what the results of the action will be, but, as the Foreign Secretary rightly said, the United States themselves are probably better placed to make the judgment than we are. I do not for one moment agree, as some hon. Members seem to have suggested, that it would be better made in Hanoi or Moscow, or Peking for that matter. They do not determine their policies on the basis of propaganda. They determine their policies on the basis of reality, and they know the reality of the situation in those parts of Cambodia where the Vietcong and North Vietnamese forces have been operating.
Mr. John Mendelson: Invasion is not propaganda.
Mr. Maudling: Invasion is not propaganda, that is true, but the initial invasion

259
was by North Vietnam. That is the real point.
It is fair to say clearly that a negotiated settlement in the long run is the only possible solution, and the Government are clearly right to persevere in their attempts to bring about negotiation, but there has been, as the Foreign Secretary said, singularly little response to these attempts. There is no doubt at all either about the Americans' desire for negotiation. There has been very little response, either, to their attempts to get it.
There is no doubt about the Americans' desire to withdraw their forces, to withdraw their troops from Cambodia and Vietnam in the right circumstances and on the right terms. Of course, there cannot be any doubt at all. Why should they want to stay there and fight and spend their blood and treasure in a foreign land if they could come home? But they are determined not to come back till they are satisfied that the South Vietnamese can take over and protect themselves against the type of subjugation which the Americans originally went in to prevent.
This is surely the reality of the situation. Surely it is right to say that withdrawal in military terms is always a very difficult operation when one moves into a country, and mounts a temporary counter-offensive, to facilitate withdrawal on broad strategic terms with the intention to carry it out. Whatever the tactical considerations, there is no reason to doubt that in President Nixon's judgment this action is calculated to shorten and not to prolong the agony which has lain for years on South-East Asia, and an agony which is now growing in the United States itself. Surely we in this House should profoundly wish that he is right in his judgment, because if he is wrong, if the solution cannot be found, then the consequences, spreading probably far beyond the boundaries of Indo-China, will be serious for the whole of the Western world. For these reasons we on this side of the House support the thesis advanced by the Foreign Secretary this afternoon.
There is one further point I want to make, and only one major one, and that is the tragedy, it seems to me, that this House is so relatively impotent in the face of the awesome spectacle the world
260
is facing. In spite of what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said, there is, frankly, little reason to believe that our words will have much influence in Washington, or in Moscow, or in Hanoi, or in Peking. Perhaps I should say something which I have said before to the House. I believe that there is a very real and serious danger of a growing division between the United States and the Western world. I think that the danger of a return to mutual isolation is now very apparent indeed.
Of course, there have been faults on both sides. American policies at times no doubt have been insensitive, misguided. But Europe has made mistakes, too. The exclusiveness of the European community, the withdrawal—I do not want to go into the merits of that now—from east of Suez, foreshadowing, as the Prime Minister put it, leaving the Americans eyeball to eyeball with their enemies, will lead the Americans to feel that in facing their problems there they have no political support from no European country, to assist east of Suez.
That must affect American thinking, so it would not be surprising if American public opinion were to say, "If the Europeans want to return to their own continent, to shut the door on the world, to look after their own affairs, let them get on with it: we will look after our affairs." They will have their own difficulties. But this could come about. This is a very real danger. It underlines the danger of a division in the Western world, and we should do all we possibly can to avoid that danger materialising.
To sum up, our advice, if we may use the word, to the Government is to persist in the path outlined by the Foreign Secretary. It is right to express to the United States the grave and real public anxiety and sorrow at the tragedy which is taking place, but, above all, the Government must try to understand the American motive, American sufferings, American needs and American problems. Negotiation alone can lead to a right solution and a lasting solution, and America understands that, I am quite certain. We can play only a very small part in bringing about negotiation, but we must play this small part as far as we can, all the time, and in every single way.

261
Finally, I would commend some words spoken in this House by Sir Winston Churchill in May, 1955:
" Above all, never flinch, never weary, never despair."
6.29 p.m.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): This debate has shown the deep sense not only of concern but of tragedy in the latest events in South-East Asia, and it was that sense which led the Government yesterday to decide that, whatever Ruling you gave, Mr. Speaker, within your discretion, about an emergency debate, time must be found so that these anxieties could be expressed. The anxieties, the apprehensions, are felt not only in Britain but throughout the world. For this is a debate on a world scale which is taking place, and of which our debate today forms only a part.
I think that everyone recognises the awesome decision facing the President of the United States last week, and since that decision nowhere has discussion of these events proceeded with greater anguish than in the United States itself. We have to proceed from the fact that we are not and have not at any time been involved in the fighting. Because of that we have to recognise that we must be aware of the agonies of those who have.
It is for us in Britain, as so many hon. Members have done in many parts of the House, to examine the issues for the world and peace. We start from the point that we have a special responsibility through our position as one of the co-Chairmen under the Geneva agreements.
It is right briefly to remind the House of the line we have taken throughout the history of this bitter conflict. We have said many times in the House, and I have said in Washington and in Moscow, that there cannot be a military solution to this war; that the only lasting and honourable solution will be one reached by negotiation, one which allows the people of Vietnam to decide their own future and to live their own lives free from foreign intervention. It is still the view of Her Majesty's Government that terms will not be imposed by a military decision. It is because we have always believed this that we have from the outset sought by every means to bring the parties to the conference table.
262
I believe that in the events which led to the convening of the Paris conference and in the decision of President Johnson to stop the bombing of North Vietnam Her Majesty's Government played a very real part, although the decision had to be taken by the parties to the fighting. We have expressed our views publicly—still more privately—on all the issues at every twist and turn in this tragic war. It was done in my right hon. Friend's warning to the President of the United States and publicly five years ago about the use of gas, when he quoted the Declaration of Independence and its call for a decent respect for the proper opinions of mankind.
We stated our view, again controversially, in the welcome we gave to President Johnson's decision first to limit the bombing and then to stop it altogether. We stated our view on another occasion when we felt it our duty to reject the policy of bombing Hanoi and Haiphong. More recently, last November, we expressed our concern and our sense of where that responsibility lay, that more progress was not being made in the Paris talks.
The anxieties arising from the past few days relate to two main issues. The first is the formal extension of the fighting to Cambodia. I say "formal" because, as the former Head of State of Cambodia himself protested—and we were reminded of this today—the territorial integrity of Cambodia had already been breached systematically and over a period of time. No one will underrate the extent to which the danger had escalated before the President was called upon to make his decision last week.
The anxieties which I think are felt throughout the House, throughout this country and the world arise from this question of judgment to which we have to apply ourselves: whether what was clearly stated last week to be an intervention limited in scale and in time will prove to be so, or whether, in fact, in contrast to the President's declared intention, a new dimension will have been added not only to the area of the fighting, but to the scale of the fighting. That is the real basis of the anxieties which all of us feel today.
On the question of the first of these two issues, namely, the formal involvement of Cambodia in the fighting, hon.

263
Members will have noticed, it has been quoted in the House—a statement by the Federal German Government on Sunday in these terms:
" The Federal Government notes with concern that troop reductions initiated by the American Government in Vietnam have not yet resulted in a lessening of hostilities, but that operations by both sides have extended into Cambodia. Therefore, peace in the whole of Eastern Asia is threatened more than before ".
That was quoted yesterday in the House. That is what we all feel, and it is what is felt in many parts of the world, not least by many of America's closest friends.
The other issue which is a cause of deep anxiety is the recent bombing of North Vietnam. Over the weekend statements were made in Washington indicating that a possible change of policy was contemplated in that bombing might have to be resumed. I know with what concern we all read of accounts of the bombing incident which took place. The House will, however, have seen the statement made yesterday by the White House emphasising that there has been no resumption of the strategy of bombing North Vietnam and that the weekend raids did not mark a change in policy.
The world supported the courage of President Johnson when he stopped the bombing because I think we all felt that this was a necessary condition of agreement at the conference table, just as the world supported the far-sighted line taken by President Nixon in his speech last November when he announced his programme of substantial reductions in American combat troops in Vietnam leading to their total withdrawal. All of us endorsed both those decisions.
I think that no one with even the slightest knowledge of the depth of feeling on both sides in the United States would minimise the significance of that November decision; nor would he minimise the fact that it went such a long way to uniting the United States people. Nor will anyone who does not himself bear the responsibility for the safety, indeed for the lives, of American troops in action minimise for one moment the gravity, the agony, of the dilemma with which the President was faced last week.
The concern which it is the duty of all of us to express today must centre
264
around this question: whether these most recent decisions, whatever the intentions and whatever the hopes which surround them, will inevitably bring in their train a reversal of the policy so clearly stated by the President last November; for that policy I support, and I believe that the whole House supports it. I believe that we have the right to be reassured not only by his announcement of 20th April of further troop reductions, but by what he said to the American people last Thursday, namely, that the decision to enter Cambodia had been taken
" to protect our men who are in Vietnam and to guarantee the continued success of the withdrawal and Vietnamisation programmes".
He went on to say:
" We have made and will continue to make every possible effort to end this war through negotiation at the conference table rather than through more fighting on the battle field."
I think that the House would be right to take those words as a denial that there is any change in policy.
But it would be right, too, remembering the long history of this war and the long record of frustrated hopes about short cuts and quick solutions, to express concern whether a decision taken with the declared end of achieving peace more quickly may not sometimes set in train, both on the ground in the area concerned and more widely through world reaction, other events which are difficult to control.
I believe that our role in this debate is, first, to assert what we believe to be our duty: our duty as co-Chairman in seeking, against whatever the odds may be, the settlement of these issues round the conference table. My right hon. Friend's initiative in proposing to his fellow co-Chairman the convening of a conference broad enough and representative enough to be able to deal with all these issues, all these dangers, which the world is facing in Indo-China. And, if this failed, the willingness which the Government have declared to support action through the United Nations, despite all the frustrations of past attempts to raise the issue in the United Nations.
Hon. Members will have seen on the tape this evening—and I think that this is important—a report which says that U Thant
" said today that an international conference ' to cope with the old war in South Vietnam

265
and the new war in Cambodia ' was an indispensable step of the utmost urgency ".
This was U Thantťs
" first public statement on the situation following the … intervention in Cambodia ",
and in making it U Thant said that
" all who supported peace and justice should support a move to the conference table ".
That is the initiative that we took last Friday, and we look to all those whom we have approached and all those concerned, as U Thant said, with peace and justice to move with us to the conference table.
But, beyond that, I believe that the Government and this House have a duty to express their concern and to draw whatever lessons must be drawn from that concern—concern for the peoples of these areas of tragic and prolonged fighting in South-East Asia—and, without feeding the flames of the debate which is raging within America itself—and we have seen sad news of how far that debate has gone— we should express our concern about what is happening there. I think that the whole House will agree that the whole world—certainly Europe, West and East— needs a strong, healthy, and united America, and no actions or words of ours should make it harder to achieve that strength, that unity.
I have sought to express, in summing up this debate so far, the sense of concern and apprehension felt, I believe, by all right hon. and hon. Members of the House. That apprehension rests, I believe at any rate, not so much on whether any change of policy has taken place as on whether events have been set in train in the past few days which will make a change of policy inevitable; whether it will make inevitable a new, more intense, more embittered phase of fighting rather than, what we were told was hoped for, a limited extension of the area of fighting, limited in area and in time; and whether it could also lead—I have expressed our deep anxieties and concern about this—to the resumption of bombing as an instrument of military, or even political, policy.
No final decision can be made by the House on these matters, but they will continue to be a matter of apprehension and of anxiety. What we have to emphasise today is what needs immediately to be done. Whatever views have been ex-
266
pressed, I hope that we can at least agree about this.
First, that the House gives its full backing to the actions of the Government, in this new perspective of danger, aimed at convening a conference capable of ensuring that all these questions can be resolved round the conference table.
Second, that, as a matter of urgency, all the efforts of Her Majesty's Government, together with all those whom we can influence or persuade, should be directed to securing the withdrawal of all foreign troops from the soil of Cambodia.
Third, for the very same reason, and because it has been the policy of Her Majesty's Government, of the American Government, of the Soviet Government, and, I believe, of practically every Government throughout the world, the withdrawal of foreign troops and foreign intervention from Vietnam itself, as soon as we have secured the elements of a lasting and honourable settlement which assures to the people of Vietnam their own inalienable right to decide for themselves their own future—[Interruption.] I hope that there will be no dissent from that.
Fourth, that the Indo-Chinese territories, areas from which peace has been a stranger now for the whole of a quarter of a century since war ended in Europe, should have the right of peaceful development free from foreign interference. For this purpose they should have the right to declare their neutrality free of foreign interference, and to have that neutrality respected by international agreement.
Fifth, and in a wider sense, the whole House recognises the undeniable very much wider fact, which overlies all conflict in Asia, that the conflict of South-East Asia, and every manifestation of that conflict, cannot be decided on a world scale without the representation on a world scale, at the United Nations, of the Chinese Government and the Chinese people.
These five points, at the end of this debate, represent the basis on which Her Majesty's Government intend to work for a solution to this tragic problem. I ask the House to endorse them.
Question put, That this adjourn:—
The House divided: Ayes 68, Noes 278.

Division No. 117.]

AYES

[6.55 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Faulds, Andrew

Mikardo, Ian

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Fernyhough, E.

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Anderson, Donald

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Molloy, William

Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Norwood Christopher

Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Orme, Stanley

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Galpern, Sir Myer

Padley, Walter

Barnes, Michael

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Pardoe, John

Barnett, Joel

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Park, Trevor

Bidwell, Sydney

Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Heffer, Eric S.

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Hooson, Emlyn

Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

Brooks, Edwin

Huckfield, Leslie

Rankin, John

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

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

Ryan,John

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Sheldon, Robert

Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Silverman, Julius

Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)

Judd, Frank

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Kelley, Richard

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Vaffey)

Devlin, Miss Bernadette

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

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Driberg, Tom

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

Winnick, David

Dunn, James A.

Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

Edelman, Maurice

Lee, John (Reading)

Ellis, John

Macdonald, A. H.

TELLERS FOR THE YEAS:

English, Michael

Mackintosh, John P.

Mr. Albert Booth and

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Mendelson, John

Mr. Stan Newens.

NOES

Albu, Austen

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Hattersley, Roy

Alldritt, Walter

Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Lee)

Hazell, Bert

Allen, Scholefield

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Henig, Stanley

Armstrong, Ernest

Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

Hill, J. E. B.

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

Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

Hordern, Peter

Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Hornby, Richard

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Bell, Ronald

Doig, Peter

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Bence, Cyril

Donnelly, Desmond

Howie, W.

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Doughty, Charles

Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Bessell, Peter

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Binns, John

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

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Hynd, John

Bishop, E. S.

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

Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur

Blackburn, F.

Emery, Peter

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Janner, Sir Barnett

Body, Richard

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

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Bossom, Sir Clive

Eyre, Reginald

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Boston, Terence

Farr, John

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Bradley, Tom

Finch, Harold flintier Nigel

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Broughton Sir Alfred

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

Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

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

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

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

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

Foley, Maurice Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Buchan, Norman

Ford Ben

jopling, Michael

Burden, F. A.

Fortescue, Tim

Kenyon, Clifford

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Fowler, Gerry

King, Tom

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Freeson, Reginald

Lambton, Antony

Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

Ginsburg, David

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Carmichael, Neil

Glover, Sir Douglas

Lane, David

Cary, Sir Robert

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

Lawson, George

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Golding, John

Leadbitter, Ted

Channon, H. P. G.

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

Ledger, Ron

Chichester-Clark, R.

Gower, Raymond

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Clegg, Walter

Grant, Anthony

Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

Coe, Denis

Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert

Lestor, Miss Joan

Conlan, Bernard

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)

Cooke, Robert

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Grieve, Percy

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Cordle, John

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

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

Costain, A. P.

Gurden, Harold

Longden, Gilbert

Cronin, John

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Loughlin, Charles

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Hamling, William

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Currie, G. B. H.

Hannan, William

MacArthur, Ian

Dalyell, Tarn

Harper, Joseph

McBride, Nell

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

McCann, John

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Haseldine, Norman

MacColl, James

McGuire, Michael

Oswald, Thomas

Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

McKay, Mrs. Margaret

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

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross &Crom'ty)

Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Mackie, John

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Summers, Sir Spencer

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Paget, R. T.

Symonds, J. B.

Maclennan, Robert

Palmer, Arthur

Tapsell, Peter

McMaster, Stanley

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Taverme, Dick

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

McNamara, J. Kevin

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

MacPherson, Malcolm

Pentland, Norman

Thornton, Ernest

Maddan, Martin

Perry, Ernest C. (Battersea, S.)

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

Marion, Peter (Preston, S.)

Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

Urwin, T. W.

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Price, William (Rugby)

Varley, Eric G.

Mapp, Charles

Pym, Francis

Waddington, David

Marks, Kenneth

Randall, Harry

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Marquan I, David

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Walden, Brian (All Saints)

Mason, Ht. Hn. Roy

Rees, Merlyn

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Maude, Angus

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Wallace, George

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Ward, Dame Irene

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Watkins, David (Consett)

Mayhew, Christopher

Richard, Ivor

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon Radnor)

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Weatherill, Bernard

Millan, Bruce

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Weitzman, David

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

Wellbeloved, James

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

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

Whitaker, Ben

Monro, Hector

Robson Brown, Sir William

White, Mrs. Eirene

Montgomery, Fergus

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Whitlock, William

Moorman, Eric

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Wilkins, W. A.

More, Jasper

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W)

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Williams, A tan Lee (Hornchurch)

Morris Alfred {Wythenshawe)

Rowlands E.

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

Royle, Anthony

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Moyle, Ronald

Sandys, Rt. Hn D

Willis, Rt. Hn, George

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Fredrick

Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Murray, Albert

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Murton, Oscar

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

Woof, Robert

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Worsley, Marcus

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Wylie, N. R.

Oakes, Gordon

Silvester, Frederick

Oguen, Eric

Slater, Joseph

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

O'Halloran, Michael

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

Mr. J. D. Concannon and

O'Malley, Brian

Snow, Julian

Mr. R. F. H. Dobson.

Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  FINANCE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.7 p.m.
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  As the hour is somewhat later than we had expected, I hope to speak reasonably shortly.
  The Bill gives effect to the recent Budget proposals, and nothing which has happened or has been said since Budget day alters my right hon. Friend's Budget judgment. Discussion has on the whole centred on wages and salaries. My right hon. Friend dealt with this during his Budget speech and particularly in his Budget broadcast. He explained that the various reliefs given in the Budget took into account the likely pressure of demand during the year. He sees no reason to alter the views which he then expressed.
  As to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, which, unfortunately, I have not had the privilege of reading in full—I have had to rely on newspaper reports—I am happy to say that the day following his speech was on unusually good day for sterling in foreign exchange markets. I can only assume, therefore, that informed opinion abroad paid the same regard to the more imaginative parts of that speech as did informed opinion at home.
  The modest size of the Bill is explained by the reasons which I gave in my speech in the Budget debate, namely that, for the most part, taxes are working well. We naturally seek—and this is the occasion—to simplify the tax structure, to improve the administration, to remove any injustice which comes to light and, particularly, to smooth the path of industry. A number of provisions are, therefore, devoted to those ends. Nevertheless, within the broad Budget strategy, no substantial amendments are required this year, because the taxes are working, on the whole, well and efficiently. When I say "efficiently" I am relying on the definition to be found in the textbooks on mechanics, namely, the carrying out of a task with least friction.
  272
  It may at first sight sound a little difficult to reconcile that report of the way in which the taxes are working with the cases which have come to light where things have certainly gone wrong in dealing with the individual's tax affairs. The Parliamentary Commissioner found that there were 26 such cases last year. That by itself sounds a lot, but when this is put against the total number of people on the Inland Revenue's books—some 25 million—a better perspective is gained and one sees that the real situation is that the likelihood of a taxpayer's affairs being maladministered are one in a million.
  Of course, no one should regard such a figure with complacency, but the experience any one of us may have had in administration in the private sector would lead one to agree that one in a million constitutes a highly creditable performance.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Would the right hon. Gentleman like to make it two in a million, because I have had occasion to complain about both my coding notices? Both were wrong, although I did not put in a claim to the Ombudsman.
  Mr. Diamond: Of course, the hon. Member did not put in a claim to the Ombudsman because there was no reason for him to do so. I am drawing attention to cases of maladministration which has a definite meaning in our parliamentary language. I repeat that case of maladministration, this was where things have seriously gone wrong, were one in a million.
  Sir Douglas Glover: The right hon. Gentleman is not being quite fair. There have been 26 cases with the Ombudsman, but the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has been very helpful to one of my constituents. I must have had half a dozen cases in which the Treasury has admitted that it was wrong and has put the matter right. There must be far more than 26 cases.
  Mr. Diamond: I repeat what I said, although I am sure the hon. Member heard me say it, that in terms of maladministration the number of cases is one in a million. It is right that we should recognise that and that I should put the matter in perspective. That is the number of cases where they have been serious

  273
  mistakes so far as concerns administration by the Inland Revenue. I express my appreciation both of the Inland Revenue and of the Customs Department for the way in which they carry out a very heavy and onerous task which we in this House lay upon them.
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Diamond: I have given way twice and I have covered about half a page of my notes. Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to get on further. I am still on the same point.
  As the Commissioner's report made clear, and as others have underlined, these problems have arisen mainly as a result of pressure of work. I should, therefore, say that we have in this year's Finance Bill, as in previous ones, paid special regard to the likely impact of our proposals on the volume of work in the Inland Revenue and Customs Departments. Although this year we are taking on additional responsibilities to assist other Departments, such as, for example, the task of collecting a levy in connection with sub-contracting, arising out of a Bill the Second Reading of which the House passed without a Division only last week, nevertheless there is an overall saving, due mainly to the new surtax provisions. We estimate that there is a net saving of the work of about 300 staff. This should help materially towards dealing with the Revenue's staffing problems, to which the Estimates Committee has drawn attention.
  I turn to procedure, as to which there is a Motion on the Order Paper. The Bill is, of course, smaller than last year —indeed it is only about one third of the size of last year's Bill—but in character it contains, as one would expect, the same variety of topics some of which are of a general nature and, therefore, suitable for debate in the Chamber, others of a more detailed nature which would call for rather closer examination in Committee upstairs.
  As an example of the former, one can think immediately of the rates provided for in the Bill which have to be fixed each year. The fact that we are proposing no alteration in the rates does not mean that different people might not hold different views and want to discuss them.
  274
  Some might want the rates reduced; others, like the Opposition, might wish to argue for an increase in the rates so as to provide for the finance to meet additional defence expenditure.
  Whichever point of view is taken, these are matters of major interest and there may well be hon. Members other than those who wish to involve themselves in the detail of the financial provisions who might wish to put forward their constituents' points of view in the Chamber. It is right that they should have an opportunity of doing so.
  Mr. Speaker: With respect, we shall have the procedural Motion later, when it will be in order for one hon. Member to speak for it and one against briefly.
  Mr. Diamond: I hope that I was not doing more than indicate that there would be an opportunity for doing this later in our proceedings. As that point has been so well taken, I can now turn to the content of the Bill itself.
  This year's Bill is devoted to two things, to the provision of relief to the individual and assistance to industry. In both cases we have endeavoured to achieve our ends in the simplest possible way. As to the first, relief to the individual, all the provisions of Clause 14, which incorporate the reliefs, have been fully described by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Budget speech. They amount all told to very widespread relief, including the freeing of 2 million people from tax completely.
  I will say a few words about the method chosen of concentrating relief on those whose need is greatest, which method involved the withdrawal of reduced rate relief. This in itself is a considerable simplification of our tax procedures which will be of assistance to both employers and employees. But the fact of moving straight into the standard rate of tax instead of approaching it by two or three steps naturally gives rise to questions as to the deterrent effect of what one is proposing. I have looked into this matter many times and of course have reconsidered it in relation to the proposal to remove the reduced rate relief. We can, of course, discuss this matter in full detail when we discuss the relevant Clause in Committee, but I ought to say at this stage that I am satisfied that the advantages of what we

  275
  are doing, both in terms of giving the available relief on a just basis and in simplifying the structure of taxation, outweigh any possible disadvantage due to an alleged increased deterrent effect.
  I have to use the word "alleged" because all the inquiries and studies to which I have referred on previous occasions, and there are at least seven of them—some broad, some narrow, but all authoritative—have always reached the negative conclusion that there is no evidence to substantiate the allegation that the propensity to work harder is affected by the marginal rate of income tax. There is a positive conclusion which came out of one report, which appeals to my common sense and tallies precisely with the experience which I had time and time again in the early days of pay-as-you-earn, when I had to invite factory workers to work overtime and took note of those who responded and those who did not. This conclusion was, "Overtime was worked in response to financial needs irrespective of whether the rate of taxation was high or low".
  I recognise that that does not deal with the situation where there is no financial need. I recognise that different individuals no doubt react differently to a given set of circumstances. I recognise, also, that motivation is virtually impossible to determine with precision. So I do not wish to be dogmatic.
  But there is a fact—not a theory—which should be borne in mind in considering the effect of direct taxation. I mention it because it does not seem to be generally referred to. It is that, having regard to the way in which a wage earner's tax is computed, namely, that it depends on his total income, including overtime, bonuses, deductions for short-time working, and on his total personal circumstances and consequential personal allowances, including subsequent additions to the family, for example, for most wage earners the effective rate, and for many also the marginal rate, of income tax cannot possibly be ascertained during the course of the year.
  It just is not possible for an individual to determine precisely, even with an accountant sitting at his side, what the future will hold for him for the rest of the year in terms of remuneration, and possibly also in terms of allowances. The
  276
  theory, therefore, that a man can say, "I know how my tax will be affected if I work three hours' overtime tonight, and, therefore, I shall work only two hours' overtime" cannot be sustained.
  I recognise that such a man may be deterred not by the facts of the situation, but by his misconception of them. Indeed, one of the conclusions of the study carried out by the Radcliffe Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income read—
  " Our evidence suggests that if productivity is related to income tax in any way it can only be related to misconceptions about the system. … The present structure and what people now know about it do not have any significant effect on the productivity of industrial workers."
  What people do under a misconception, however, is an entirely different point; and that we are meeting as best we can by publicising information relating to both effective and marginal rates of taxation.
  Turning now to assistance to industry, the Bill contains one major and several minor proposals. The major one, which has already been fully described, is the increase in initial allowances for industrial buildings. As examples of the minor contributions, I mention the Clause on tobacco, which enables research on tobacco substitutes to go ahead; the Clause on hovercraft, which facilitates development of this British invention; and Clauses 5 and 34, which affect Customs duties on goods coming through airports and stamp duties on Stock Exchange transactions in such a way as to enable computerisation to take place.
  Then there is Clause 9, which extends the use of vehicle trade licences so as to correspond with the change in the use of the vehicles concerned and to assist in research and development; and Clause 29, which exempts certain company transactions from capital gains tax in circumstances where they would otherwise have been liable on a merger.
  In doing this, we are endeavouring to keep pace with developments in business practices, as I think that the Opposition would agree we have been anxious to do year by year. I have always taken the common-sense view that businesses should not be impeded by out-of-date tax provisions from taking the steps that they think would be most likely to lead to a successful result and would thereby produce

  277
  the greater profits for their own enjoyment and that of the Inland Revenue.
  Finally, there are provisions in Clause 20 and Schedule 4 for simplifying the arrangements governing the manner in which companies account for income tax on distributions and other payments they make. This should reduce the administrative burden, both on companies and on the Revenue.
  The tax which bears directly on companies is corporation tax. Although I imagine that we shall in Committee be discussing the burden of corporation tax, I thought it would be helpful if I set the discussion in context by describing very shortly how that burden has varied over the last decade.
  The conclusion to which I am leading is a very simple one, namely, that companies are paying no greater proportion of their income in tax now than they did 10 years ago. In 1960 the proportion of companies' gross income taken by tax was 25·1 per cent. The provisional figure for 1969 is 23·1 per cent. If tax on dividends is included, the 1969 figure was exactly 34 per cent. compared with 34·7 per cent. in 1960. I repeat—the conclusion is the same whether one talks of gross profits or of profits after depreciation—that companies are paying no greater proportion of their income in tax now than they did 10 years ago.
  I want now to refer to one matter which does not yet appear in the Finance Bill, namely, the taxation of mineral royalties. The Government have been considering the implication of recent developments in the exploitation of minerals for the tax liabilities of the mineral owner. At present, that liability can arise in one of two ways. The minerals may be sold for a fixed capital sum. Alternatively, where it is not possible to calculate in advance the amount payable, a lease is granted in return for royalties which are related to the quantities of minerals extracted. In that event, the royalties received are, and always have been, treated as income.
  The recent developments to which I referred are essentially twofold. First, new mineral deposits have been discovered, particularly in the development areas, which, because they lie so deep, could for practical purposes be exploited only on a royalty basis, which attracts
  278
  income tax and surtax where an individual owner is concerned. Second, modern methods of working are very much quicker, with the result that large amounts of royalty may be received over quite a short period of time, with a consequent sharp increase in the rate of surtax.
  My right hon. Friend has decided that this new situation, which faced landowners with the choice of either releasing their minerals for a negligible after-tax sum or holding on to them and so denying the country a significant contribution to our balance of payments, called for a review of the tax provisions.
  We therefore propose for the future the following treatment of mineral royalties. For the mineral operator who pays the royalty, there will be no change. The recipient of the royalty will, however, have his tax liability calculated on the basis of treating half the royalty as an income receipt, with the normal tax consequences, and the other half as if it were a receipt of capital. Where the granting of the mineral lease has not been subject to betterment levy, this latter half will be treated as a chargeable gain and will, therefore, normally be subject to capital gains tax at the 30 per cent. rate year by year as it is received. Where the levy applies, there will be rules to secure that the combined incidence of capital gains tax and levy on this half will normally be between 30 and 40 per cent. depending on the amount of the levy. There are several points of detail which we shall need to discuss with the interests concerned.
  Our consideration of this matter was not far enough advanced for my right hon. Friend to be able to refer to it in his Budget speech, and for full details I must ask the House to await the Clause which we shall be bringing forward for consideration in Committee; but the effect of the new arrangement in reducing the marginal rate of combined taxation where large mineral royalties are payable for a short time will be appreciable. Although this new tax treatment will apply to minerals generally, the main benefit of it will go to deep-mined minerals, where it is not normally possible for the deposits to be sold outright to the would-be operator as a capital transaction.
  In practice this means, I am glad to say, that the new tax treatment will be

  279
  of special benefit to the mineral deposits being discovered in development areas. It was because of this help to our development area policy, and the importance of mineral development in the national economy as a whole, that I thought it right to make today this statement in principle about our decisions.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Can the right hon. Gentleman say from when the new treatment will be applicable?
  Mr. Diamond: The answer is not straightforward, because there are leases already in existence. I would prefer the hon. Gentleman to wait until the details are published. I can promise him a favourable reply.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: What will be the cost this year and in a full year?
  Mr. Diamond: It is not possible to give an exact calculation of what the cost will be in a full year.
  Mr. Edward du Cann (Taunton): The right hon. Gentleman will know that many people have been waiting for this announcement and will study it with great interest. He was good enough to say that he would consult the interests concerned over a period. He will also know that many hon. Members have a deep and continuous interest in the matter. Would I be right in assuming that it could be discussed on the Floor of the House rather than in privacy upstairs?
  Mr. Diamond: It is a matter of considerable detail. The fact that something goes to a Committee stage upstairs does not of itself debar the right of subsequent discussion on the Floor of the House on Report, if that is the desire of Members and the wish of the Chair at the time.
  Perhaps I should add this to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) who was obviously asking about the cost in taxation. There is the other side, which he will not have failed to grasp immediately—the additional benefit accruing to the country, and to an extent to the Treasury and the Revenue, from the exploitation of minerals that would otherwise not be ex-
  280
  ploited. It is virtually impossible to say what lies deep under the ground, nor the speed with which it will be exploited, and to give a responsible answer.
  I have explained that matter in some detail because it is not in the Bill. Nor is there anything in the Bill dealing with negative income tax, a topic on which there has been much discussion recently. Negative income tax involves a method of approach which at first sight is very attractive. I was several years ago much attracted by the possibility, as it seemed to me, of combining a selective method of relieving poverty with great administrative savings and simplification. It goes without saying that the Government, naturally, examined the various alternatives which people have in mind when negative income tax is referred to, in the hope that it would be possible to make some improvement along these lines.
  The conclusion we reached is broadly the same as that reached by most others who have examined these proposals in depth, and there is nothing that has since happened to alter it, namely, that I do not believe that we will be able to move in this direction in the foreseeable future. The various schemes of negative income tax all suffer from one or more major defects, some of which were outlined in paragraph 108 of the White Paper, "National Superannuation and Social Insurance" (Cmnd. 3883), namely, the inability to respond quickly to individuals' new needs; complexity; the great cost of any effective scheme; and the substantial unresolved problems of incentives.
  To the extent that one seeks to avoid complexity, one comes up against in-equity: and inequity in dealing with the varying needs of individuals becomes, of course, much greater when one moves from tax allowances to cash payments, and on a much broader scale. So, regretfully, I have reached that conclusion. I should be very interested to hear the views of other hon. Members. I know that there are many who have given substantial attention to this topic.
  The Bill does, as usual, include other Clauses designed to improve the machinery of taxation, give relief and to follow up the consequences of other legislation. But most of the provisions in the Bill have now been, I think, sufficiently mentioned either by the Chancellor or by

  281
  myself, and as time is short I think that the remaining detail can appropriately be dealt with in Committee. I would sum up by saying that this is a relieving Bill, and that there is no Clause which should put up prices by as much as one penny.
  7.36 p.m.
  Mr. Terence L. Higgins: The debate this year is likely to be somewhat different from Second Reading debates on the Finance Bill in recent years, first, because it starts much later than normal, and, second, because despite the efforts of the Chief Secretary it is a very thin Finance Bill. In some ways it could almost be described as an angostura bitter and tobacco-substitute Finance Bill.
  But there is also a danger that the discussion will become more partisan than before, despite the lateness of the hour. In this respect we were grateful for the perhaps subdued way in which the Chief Secretary put forward his arguments. I found it preferable to the extraordinary speeches by the Prime Minister in the past few days, against the background of which this debate is taking place. One wonders how any Prime Minister can make a speech in which he says that Conservatives would increase unemployment the day before the figures come out showing that unemployment has reached a 22-year peak, or say that the Conservative Government would let prices rip on the day when the £ in our pockets, which he assured us glibly on the day of devaluation would not be devalued, had fallen in real purchasing power to 17s. 6d.
  I was sorry that the Chancellor omitted from his speech this year the hopes he had previously expressed that we should have full, detailed and open discussion of the Finance Bill. This was significantly missing. That being so, I hope to confine my remarks to fairly technical matters.
  But I cannot help commenting on the rather extraordinary proposal by the Prime Minister last weekend, when he offered to instruct the Chief Secretary to assist the Conservative Party in its tax proposals. He described the right hon. Gentleman in glowing terms as the greatest authority on public expenditure and taxation that any party could produce. I therefore feel bound to make one or two comments, and I assure the Chief Secretary that if he blushed then I hope that he will not do so now.
  282
  First, I recall the famous occasion with regard to the charge on corporation tax when my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) pointed out that the Chief Secretary had made what he described as a schoolboy howler. The details are recounted at great length in cols. 1149–51 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 7th June, 1967. I had resolved never to mention this again, but in view of the Prime Minister's glowing account I thought it right at least to bring it to his attention, and, I hope, to the attention of the Press, which has clearly forgotten about it. To do the Chief Secretary justice, he eventually—admittedly a year or more after the event —admitted that he had made a mistake. It was, indeed, a schoolboy howler.
  The second point comes up in the interesting debate on the vote on Account on 18th March 1968. Then we took the Government to task because the Supplementary Estimates were £440 million over the original Estimates. To take one passage from HANSARD during the debate on the Civil Defence Estimates, when I quoted from the Third Report from the Estimates Committee on the Spring Supplementary Estimates:
  " As your Committee stressed last year, the objective should be to ensure that the out-turn should be as near as possible to the original Budget Estimate. This year the Treasury estimate provisionally that there will be an increase of about £440 million."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1968; Vol. 761, c. 128.]
  This again is an indication of the efficiency of the Chief Secretary's arithmetic.
  Mr. Diamond: By how much did public expenditure go up compared with the Estimate?
  Mr. Higgins: I cannot remember the figure correctly but I think £1,107,000. But I may be wrong. The whole basis of the suggestion that the Prime Minister has made is that the Chief Secretary is the right man to forecast how changes of taxation are liable to take place. My point is that on that occasion the Chief Secretary and his Department were £440 million out. I do not feel that this is an occasion when we need the right hon. Gentleman's assistance.
  To turn to a more fundamental point, the Chief Secretary would be better employed in telling the Prime Minister how his sums have worked out. Let us take the Prime Minister's statement that he

  283
  could carry out his policies with no general increase in taxation over the life of the Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said during the Budget debate:
  " Let me tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he has to do in April, 1970, to fulfil the Prime Minister's prophecy. … He must cut purchase tax by £352 million. He must take 6d. off Income Tax, is. 9d. off petrol, £10 off road fund licences, 3d. off beer. 13s. I ld. off whisky, 3s. 6d. off port, 2s. 10d. off wine, Is. Id. off cigarettes, £11 million off Estate Duty, and £5 million off short-term Capital Gains Tax, and some £615 million off S.E.T."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1970; Vol. 781, c. 1047–9.]
  Given that this is so and that all that the Chancellor has really done, in the words of Samuel Brittan in the Financial Times is to offset the disproportionate growth of revenue from a progressive income tax in a world of rising incomes by selective concessions at the lower end of the incomes scale, and given that the whole of the Finance Bill must be put in the context of the Prime Minister's promise and the subsequent events, the Chief Secretary's undoubted talents—and he knows that we have great respect for him —would be better devoted to correcting the Prime Minister rather than offering advice to anyone else.
  The most important thing is that we must put this Bill against the general economic background. The Chief Secretary said that the Chancellor had dealt with the question of prices and incomes in his Budget speech. He did so, to the extent of about one sentence. We must look at this carefully if we are to appraise the actual place of this Finance Bill in our general economic affairs and examine what the principles underlying it are. It is a curious thing that in the debate so far very few speeches have asked why it is that the Government's fiscal and monetary policies, their policies of restraint, have failed to work.
  There must be a reason, and I believe that the answer is that people think that because the Government have imposed massive fiscal and monetary restraints and the balance of payments has improved, one is the result of the other; that is, the balance of payments has improved as a result of the Government's restraint policies. The truth is that the argument for restraint improving the balance of payments has always been
  284
  that if we take measures of restraint they will depress the level of demand and prevent prices rising and that this will make exports more competitive and release resources, so far as devaluation goes, and, therefore, the balance of payments will grow. That argument cannot be used if the middle item of the syllogism is that prices and incomes have continued to rise. In that case the balance of payments effect is largely the delayed effect of devaluation, but it does not have the result of keeping prices and incomes down. They clearly have been going up at a rapid rate.
  We have to ask: why have the Government's measures to keep prices and costs down failed? I suggested in the Budget debate that the key to this must lie with the public sector. To put it more technically, what we are saying is: what has happened to the Phillips curve, showing the relationship between unemployment and prices and incomes? It seems to have been behaving in a very odd way. The Chief Secretary has tended to learn from his mistakes, and there have been a great many of those. What happened was that we started from the position where the Government took tough fiscal measures but not sufficient monetary measures. Now they have taken both fiscal and monetary measures, but at the same time the Government as a whole have not taken steps to ensure that the public sector does not use its monopoly powers to increase prices, with the result that revenue is taken away through increased incomes. I referred to that in the Budget debate, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West. It is wide open to misrepresentation, and sure enough the Prime Minister sought to misrepresent what I and my right hon. Friend said then.
  It is still very important from an analytical point of view to be clear about what has happened. We are not suggesting for one moment that the right course of action is to have a situation in which the public sector is discriminated against. However, it is the public sector which has been taking the lead with increases in prices and wages. This has inevitably led to a situation when private industry, to retain its labour force, has to put up its wages, and it has often been possible for particular firms to pass increased costs on in the form of higher

  285
  prices despite the general economic situation.
  The Chancellor can go on adopting tougher fiscal and monetary measures, but if he lets the cat out of the bag on the other side then inevitably his measures will be frustrated. He knows perfectly well that this is what has been happening, and it is clear that he is not prepared to take the necessary action which is all that will make his other measures effective.
  No one on the other side of the House could accuse me of being in favour of a statutory prices and incomes policy. I have lost count of the number of debates when we have attacked that policy, from both sides of the House. But hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should consider whether if they do not include the third aspect of the problem which I have mentioned they will not go on increasing unemployment more and more, with prices and wages still rising. This will have a serious effect on the workers.
  It was extraordinary for the Prime Minister to suggest last weekend that we would have to choose whether to have deflation or roaring inflation when the present Government have both. The Chief Secretary spoke about the effect of eliminating graduated bonding on the income tax scale. He asserted, as on many occasions, that the disincentive effect was negligible or outweighed by other effects. He used the expression "a deterrent effect" and resorted to the extraordinary argument that people could not actually calculate their tax. He should not believe that if the attitude which people take to the tax burden is based on misconceptions, none the less those misconceptions do not have a significant effect.
  On the point which the Chief Secretary makes about people not knowing what their tax burden is, some of them will take the trouble to estimate when they actually come into tax, and therefore if there is a single step effect, there will be people in the group who will realise that they will have to pay tax whereas they did not previously. Although there may be a lag, the general attitutde towards overtime will be affected.
  An article in the Industry Week of 24th April says:
  "The psychological effect of paving that first lot of tax is out of all proportion to the
  286
  real value of the money lost. The workers really hate it! The difference between 23p and 32p may not look much to a manager on £3,000 per annum accustomed to paying heavy tax, but to the worker on say, £9 a week it looks a lot. So the effects will be: (a) It will be harder to get people to work overtime, if overtime pay is going to be suffering 32 per cent. tax; (b) it will be harder to get part-time workers to put in a few extra hours to meet seasonal pressures; (c) a rise which takes a worker into the tax zone will need to be about 12 per cent. larger if it is to compensate for the tax."
  The change which the Government have made has a retrograde effect on the overall pattern of the tax structure, and at the surtax stage we are developing a kinky tax system of the most extreme kind, which is also a retrograde step.
  Mr. Sheldon: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument about the disincentive effect of coming into and going out of taxation, but surely my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has widened the non-taxpaying area.
  Mr. Higgins: There are two points here. First, there is the whole question of whether they are the same people, or a similar number of people, who are going in and out of taxation as a result of inflation. The second point is that a grading system is likely to have a less dramatic effect on people's attitude to taxation than a system which has a sudden kink in it. This is not a difficult point to understand or to make, and it is one which is generally appreciated.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wan-stead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) will be dealing with the Clauses concerned with pensions. I have one point on the Clause dealing with decimalisation, which is something that people are concerned about. I have received from my hon. Friend the Member for Working (Mr. Onslow) a letter from a manufacturer who is trying to implement decimalisation well in advance, on 5th April, 1970. He says that he is disgusted at the unprepared state of the relevant public departments and boards, and that the local tax and social security offices were generally in the dark. He goes on to say:
  "Tax tables are not available in decimal currency thus making conversion, reconversion and re-reconversion necessary for each calculation. These tables will have to be ready soon, why not now? "

  287
  The Government might bear in mind that the time has come, or is overdue, for these points to be followed up.
  I take up the point made by the Chief Secretary in the Budget debate in answer to the claim which was made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West that this is a one-month Budget in the sense that the effect of the tax reductions will be cancelled out by inflation within that period. The Chief Secretary went to considerable lengths in cols. 43–5 on 20th April, 1970, to try to rebut the argument of my right hon. Friend.
  Essentially, the argument of my right hon. Friend was that the Government had reduced taxation by a certain amount, but that this would be cancelled out by the rise in prices within a very short period. The Chief Secretary embarked on a rather complicated argument, and attempted to rebut this on the ground that one had only to look at the figures in table 4 of the Red Book to see that this was untrue because, he asserted, the forecast in the Red Book was that consumption would go up in real terms during the coming year, although he did not specify the exact year, by 3·9 per cent. He said that this was a clear rebuttal of the view that real incomes would not rise. This is an extraordinarily naive argument, and I will try to persuade him of this.
  The Chief Secretary says that the facts are available from the published figures. That is untrue, because time and time again we have asked the Government to publish their forecast before the tax changes and their forecast after the tax changes. They have never done so, and they have not done so on this occasion. It is, therefore, not possible to ascertain, as the Chief Secretary said, what exact impact on consumption the Budget changes are likely to have. He says that instead of the figure being £700 million it has been raised to £900 million by the tax changes. This cannot be ascertained from the published figures. If both sets of forecasts could be published we could then see what are the facts. It is most unlikely that a change in taxation of the amount which the Chancellor has in mind, of £220 million roughly in a full year, will be reflected
  288
  in a £200 million increase in consumption, because it does not all go direct to consumption expenditure, and there are some very odd assumptions about the propensity to save if that is so. We hope that the Chief Secretary will make the figures available.
  The Chief Secretary's argument is that the Finance Bill will increase consumption by £200 million in real terms. If we look at this in greater detail we see that demand can still be choked off by rising prices, and that this is very likely to happen. Therefore—if I dare to use the expression—all else being equal, although the measures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer may increase demand by, say, £200 million, if prices rise this will choke off demand, so that the increase in real output which the Chief Secretary asserted would take place will be frustrated, because his forecast will not come to pass. It is always possible that the forecast may come to pass for quite different reasons, in particular the tremendous increase in demand which we believe will occur because of the wage inflation. But the Chief Secretary cannot sustain the argument which he made in his Budget speech for the reasons which I have given. I know this is a complicated matter, but if the Chief Secretary gives us advice we must examine his arguments closely.
  The Finance Bill is against a background of inflation which is increasing at a very rapid rate. Since October, 1964, we have had 14 Budgets and mini-Budgets, some of the mini-Budgets being larger than some of the Conservative main Budgets. This is the last Finance Bill which the Government are likely to bring in. Over the years we have been burdened by one new tax after another—corporation tax, long-term capital gains tax, S.E.T., the aggregation of minor's incomes, the disallowance of interest, and the rest. Therefore, although this is a thin Bill, it shows no real change in the Government's attitude. Their basic philosophy is still that one should bring in as much as possible in taxation from individuals and corporations, and that the Government shall decide who shall have the money back, whether it be individuals or corporations. This is a fundamental difference of approach between the two sides of the House of which the Government seem totally unaware.

  289
  The Government can best be described by a notice which was seen in a building near London commented on by the new American judge of the International Court. It read:
  " Between scepticism on the one hand and dogmatism on the other there is a middle way which is our way, open-minded certainty."
  It is true to say that the Government in all their proposals believe with open-minded certainty that what they say is right. My own view is that there is one thing for certain about this Government and indeed about this Finance Bill. It is that for this Government it is the end of the road. I do not doubt that the only real answer is a fundamental change in our approach to taxation problems. The sooner this happens the better.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: It has been the somewhat melancholy practice in recent Parliaments to accuse Governments in their final year before an election of using the Finance Bill to disburse electoral bribes. The hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) said that in his view this is the last Finance Bill before a Dissolution. But the Bill is a happy exception to the practice I mentioned in recent Parliaments. This year the Budget is everywhere seen to have had more to do with national needs than with electoral considerations.
  My brief intervention in this debate will not be concerned with the broader questions of financial policy. I wish to make one proposal for improving the Bill. My proposal is one for removing a social injustice that works to the disadvantage of some very severely disabled people. Under the Finance Act, 1964, the burden of excise duty was lifted from disabled persons who drive their own vehicles. This was a gesture of much value to many of the disabled. But persons who are too grievously disabled to drive themselves yet nevertheless own cars driven for them by their wives or husbands were left out of the benefit conferred by the Finance Act, 1964. Such people are frequently referred to as "disabled passengers"; that is to say persons who must always be passengers in their own cars. If they are to get about at all—and remarkably enough many of them do get about, even to work —they must pay the whole of their
  290
  mobility costs. But at the same time others who are much less severely disabled receive help with their transport.
  It will be said, with justice, that this problem raises serious administrative difficulty. It will be pointed out that any extension of the present exemptions from excise duty to vehicles in which the controls are perfectly normal and have not been converted for use by a disabled person would be extremely difficult to delimit. I have given the matter a great deal of attention, for, as the House knows, I have spent much time recently with hon. Members on both sides in pressing forward the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill. I do not believe, nor is it the view of those hon. Members with whom I have been working on my Private Member's Bill, that the administrative problem is insuperable. It will be my intention if and when this Finance Bill receives a Second Reading—and one must be careful not to speak with too much certainty about any Bill these days receiving a Second Reading—to move a new Clause under the heading:
  " Exemption from vehicle excise duty of vehicle used by husband or wife of disabled person ".
  The provisions will be as follows:
  " (1) Vehicle excise duty shall not be chargeable in respect of any vehicle included in the Fifth Schedule to the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1962 which is registered in the name of a registered disabled person or of that person's husband or wife, and which is for the time being used by that person's husband or wife.
  (2) Exemption under subsection (1) above shall not be allowable on more than one vehicle registered in the name of any of the above-mentioned persons."
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will greet this proposed new Clause with the maximum understanding and sympathy. I believe that the problems referred to in previous debates are met by the drafting I have suggested. We can, of course, confidently claim in this country to be well ahead of other countries in the provision of free vehicles to the disabled. But there is still a long way to go if we are to increase the mobility of those who are much too disabled to drive themselves. I cannot see why they should be treated less favourably than people with disablements which are not as severe and who, under present arrangements, are given cars to assist their

  291
  mobility. I think it was Robert Lowe who said in this House when speaking, as it were, as Minister of Education before there were Ministers of Education, that:
  " What is not efficient shall be cheap, and what is not cheap shall be efficient."
  He was taking part in an angry debate in the 1860s about payment by results for teachers. I would argue that much of our expenditure at present is neither cheap nor efficient. There are people who may think that if the House does not accede to my proposed new Clause it. will save a small amount of public money. That is not my view. There are supplementary pensioners today who would like to be taxpayers. There are people who are severely handicapped as individuals who feel that they have also social handicap imposed over and above their personal physical handicaps. We must, in my view, deal urgently with the problem of helping the blind man as well as the legless man to be as mobile as possible with his own family. It is simply a matter of social justice. We shall not only be acting with social decency but also spending money more effectively.
  I hope the House will realise that every organisation concerned with the mobility of disabled people attaches considerable importance to this new Clause. They would like S.E.T. to be lifted from registered disabled persons. They would like the category known as disabled mothers to be helped to become more mobile. The suggested new Clause is the least we can do in this Finance Bill to help some courageous people who want to become more active members of society.
  8.10 p.m.
  Mr. Edward du Cann: The hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) has made a single point clearly and well. I shall not be alone in saying that I hope he gets a clear and full reply this evening. All of us in our constituencies in dealing with correspondence and in meeting people are only too well aware that, however much the system may have improved in recent years, there can still be unhappiness about allocation of transport, and so on. I repeat that I wish the
  292
  hon. Gentleman success in what he is trying to do.
  If I may, I will follow his theme. There can be few hon. Members who neither respect nor like the Chancellor. After all, he has style and intellectual competence. But, holding those generous opinions, it is inevitable that one should find his Budget and this Finance Bill disappointing, particularly as they are both so lacking in imagination.
  I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is silent about this Finance Bill. He would not be the first father to be modest about his offspring. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) said, we all respect the Chief Secretary, but, if the right hon. Gentleman does not mind my saying so, he made an extraordinary speech this afternoon. I was not sure to which Finance Bill he was referring. It could not have been the one to which we are supposed to be giving a Second Reading today.
  The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the Budget judgment, and the Finance Bill is all about the Budget judgment. I do not make my main comments on the Budget judgment, because the £200 million figure is largely artificial. However, I want to make three brief comments on it, since the Chief Secretary constantly referred to it with some pride and pleasure during the Budget debates.
  My three comments are these. First, it is high time that the Treasury appreciated that every tax relief does not necessarily mean increased consumption to exactly that amount. Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing has pointed out, we have heard only a sentence or two about incomes increases. It would be honourable if Treasury Ministers admitted that the reason why there cannot be a general tax relief this year lies in the very substantial increases that there have been in some incomes. Thirdly, I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has not already made the point obliquely that the £200 million figure will be belied by events and the so-called buoyancy of revenue, which is just a euphemism for inflation and the wage explosion.
  I agree with the Chief Secretary that there are some good points in the Bill, and I agree those matters with pleasure.

  293
  I am especially pleased with Clause 6 which is concerned with angostura bitters. This is a matter for which I and other hon. Members have argued for a long time. However, by and large it was an empty Budget, and this is an empty Finance Bill.
  Picking up the theme of the hon. Member for Wythenshawe, I want to try to give some examples of the missed opportunities which I see. I do not agree with the general tone of the Chief Secretary's remarks, because I think that it is common ground in this House that our tax system is extremely complex. I would go further and argue that it is finicky in many particulars. Assuredly, there are many uncertainties in the law at present which impose a burden on the public and on the public's counsellors. What is more significant they bring the law increasingly into disrepute.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemingly began to acknowledge this in practical terms when he arranged that a number of surtax payers should be freed from liability to the tax. We know that the number of surtax payers has doubled in the last seven or eight years. That, again, is an example of inflation. It is good that the new arrangement will free almost a third of the total, bringing staff savings and a comparatively small cost in its train. There are other instances which are equally to be applauded. For example, 2 million people will be removed altogether from the payment of income tax. But what put them in if it was not the Government's self-imposed inflation?
  So far, so good, but these are mere pecks at the problem. What is disappointing is that man-sized bites have not been taken. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted the deficiencies of our tax system in clear terms last year. He is equipped by instinct and ability to undertake reforms. Instead, he has done virtually nothing.
  Let us take the example of income tax. I associate myself warmly with what the Chief Secretary said about the devotion of officials in the Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue. We all know that to be so. Nonetheless, the statement he made that there is only one complaint made through the Ombudsman in every million income tax cases shows
  294
  only the tip of the iceberg, and I am sure that he knows that as well as I do. I do not argue that it is the fault of officials. We all know that they are grossly over-burdened. However, the other day the Economist commented:
  " There is a high proportion of individual assessments which is incorrect."
  I have the honour to be a director of a company which has on its staff a number of highly-qualified tax advisers, as the Chief Secretary knows. I am told by their senior man that, of the assessments with which they deal, only one in 20 is correct. Many people do not receive repayments to which they are entitled. The policing of returns is elementary. No one knows how many potential taxpayers do not make and are not called upon to make returns of their income.
  It is a matter of the utmost regret that the Chancellor's brave words of yesteryear are followed by a failure to act this year on any significant scale. I realise that, in arguing for a simplification of our tax laws, I am naturally asking for a good deal. I do not under-estimate the difficulties. But it must be right for this House constantly to argue that our tax system should be better understood, as a consequence, should be more sympathetically viewed by the public than it is at present, and that it should be more effective and fair. Year after year in these Finance Bill debates we talk about simplification. In the event, we do very little. A start has to be made some time. If not this year, will it be next year or some time, or will it perhaps be never?
  I turn now to certain smaller but no less significant areas. I am sure that the House associates itself with the tribute paid by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the National Savings Movement. We all respect my very old friend Sir Miles Thomas, and we wish his successor well. However, everyone knows that national savings are in a parlous state and that in real terms they continue to decline. Were it not for the support of the surtax payer, they would present a picture which is very different from that which we see today.
  Would it have been so difficult in this Budget to have rationalised the concessions to the different savings media? Is there any more urgent task than that of increasing the total amount of national

  295
  savings by whatever means which may be used? Is it sensible to put shackles on the clearing banks while allowing the near-banks to lend as they please? Where is the logic in these matters?
  Was it really impossible in this Budget to simplify purchase tax rates? My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) has done more than anyone to argue for sense in purchase tax matters. Was it really impossible to simplify the capital gains tax? Was it really impossible to simplify further the stamp duties beyond the mere abolition of the duty on cheques? Again, I and others of my hon. Friends have argued for this in Budget after Budget. There are numerous other duties which yield less than stamp duties. All these pettifogging duties should go.
  The Chancellor, in the Chief Secretary, the Financial Secretary and the Minister of State, has most competent lieutenants —no one would deny that. Even now he could get some credit for doing something in simplification, such as setting up a Select Committee on Taxation, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) has suggested. What I cannot understand is why, when there is so much obvious competence in Ministers at the Treasury, they do not do more than they have.
  I take another subject on which the Chancellor has spoken in the past, including last year. This is the disincentive of high marginal rates. Can anyone deny that it is essential to act with resolution in an endeavour to reduce these high marginal rates to more realistic levels and to put them on a par with comparable nations? The cost, as we know, would not be great. Why should a successful or ambitious businessman be penalised for his efforts, and penalised only because he is British? These problems, and the consequences they bring in their train, do not vanish because they are not faced. Nor will they.
  I am not teasing the Government because we are in a pre-election period—I leave it to competent colleagues like my hon. Friends the Members for Worthing and Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin). I am not teasing the Government because we are in that period, but criticise them because of their failure
  296
  to act where the country knows that action is overdue. Such failure to act makes others besides myself question the Chancellor's Budget judgment—indeed, his judgment altogether—and also breeds increasingly cynicism among thinking people.
  Clause 16 raises another question and one which is perhaps of the greatest significance for the future. Is industrial investment adequate at this time? I venture to judge that it is not. Could it be greater? I venture to judge that it could. Should it be greater? There is no doubt that the answer is unhesitating, "Yes". Back in mid-March, the Chancellor said that of all the major factors in the economic situation, this is the one about which there is the most conflicting advice. The Budget showed that unhappy uncertainty. Last year showed a good increase in industrial investment, although less perhaps than expected, but one must have doubt about 1970, particularly in the context of the C.B.I. survey of investment intentions.
  I know that one can argue—as I fancy the Chief Secretary argued tonight—that minor cuts in Bank Rate, although Bank Rate and interest rates in general remain far too high, and no corporation tax increase and the new bank lending restraints, which are still nevertheless restraints, are together a negative encouragement to invest. We take the point, but per contra the substantial fall in share prices for which the Chancellor argued last year, led unhappily by gilt-edged, will make financing much more difficult in 1970 than it should be.
  It is not satisfactory, surely, that a company can raise money more easily and in larger amounts in the Eurodollar market than it can begin to in the United Kingdom. I am sure that the Chancellor and his colleagues agree that the United Kingdom needs the highest possible level of investment in productive industry. We shall win this competitive international battle for prosperity only by putting the maximum capacity at the workers' elbow.
  The Chief Secretary said that he had seen nothing which would cause the Chancellor to alter his Budget judgment. He should see it. The signs that appear to me are that this year there will be an important squeeze on company

  297
  liquidity. The signs are that investment is and will be lower than it should be, and it follows equally that it must be a criticism of the Chancellor that he did nothing to increase it.
  The Chancellor is getting credit for the Government's improved standing in the popular opinion polls. I suppose he deserves it as much as he did the credit for Britain's showing after his predecessor had been forced to devalue the £. I doubt whether the Bill will earn him much long-term credit. Nor should any Finance Bill which gives more benefit to the teenager than to the really poor.
  The Chancellor was concerned in his Budget speech to give the impression that the Budget might not be his last word. Perhaps that is as well. My mind goes back to the 1966 General Election campaign, in which I had some responsibility. I remember my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition stating that 9–5–1 was not a very satisfactory formula in the national interest—9 per cent. increase in incomes, 5 per cent. increase in prices and 1 per cent. increase in production.
  I recall how a distinguished newspaper correspondent said to me, "That is a bad argument, for there, surely, is the formula which will spell for the Labour Party electoral victory". So it might, but who was the real winner after that election? What is the situation now? A 10 per cent. increase in incomes, a 5 or 6 per cent. increase in prices and the cost of living and a 4 to 5 per cent. increase in consumption—larger even than in 1966. When the election comes, who again will be the real winner?
  Immediately after the Budget, I asked the opinion of a prominent friend of mine on the benches opposite. He told me, "The Chancellor has done well. I think that he has snatched defeat from disaster". I do not know about that, but this theoretically neutral Budget is a highly political affair and nothing else, because it does so little of what so badly needs doing. It is disappointing, but it is dangerous, too, because there is not a single item in it of real significance.
  One does not need to be a genius to prophesy that there will be by the end of next year another currency crisis in the world, or to reflect that the 14 Budgets
  298
  we have had from the Government are likely to be followed by another in 12 months. The Bill raises many questions which, unhappily, it does not answer. How many unemployed will there be this winter? If money incomes rise by 10 per cent. and money supply by only 4 or 5 per cent, someone must be squeezed.
  When I first came to this House, I asked an older and wiser Member how one could tell whether or not there would be a vote on any subject. He replied, "It is easy. Any Bill which gives money away will not be voted against". I suppose that that is just about true of this Measure, except, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing pointed out, what it does give away will soon be eaten up by inflation. I am sorry that we are not voting against the Bill. It is a poor little Bill. It is unworthy of its authors and in the long term it cannot but be bad for the country.
  8.28 p.m.
  Mr. Joel Barnett: I found the remarks of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) about the Bill giving something away rather odd. I had the feeling that we were taking out about £15,000 million, but I think we took the point the right hon. Gentleman was trying to make.
  The right hon. Gentleman had much to say about inflation. His hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), as always, was more honest with the House. As Agnew is to Nixon so, in the best possible way, is the hon. Gentleman to the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. kin Macleod). The hon. Gentleman was honest enough to say that in following an incomes policy he would put his squeeze directly on the public sector. The hon. Gentleman made it clear what he would do. His right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West, the Leader of the Opposition, and other Opposition Front Bench spokesmen are not prepared to be quite so open with us. It is therefore always pleasant to hear the hon. Member for Worthing giving us an honest view of how he would deal with the situation.
  Mr. Higgins: I think that that was a terribly unfair remark. Both during my Budget speech and today I stressed that it is a question of looking at each claim

  299
  on its merits, and one cannot have a situation in which the Government say that they do not have any responsibility. That would be absurd.
  Mr. Barnett: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that I was not being unkind to him. He knows that I hold him in great respect. I said what I did in the nicest possible way.
  I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not open the debate. I find it significant that my right hon. Friend decided that the Second Reading debate on this, his third, Finance Bill was not important enough for him to open. I find it significant because it shows either a lack of interest in tax problems generally, or that he has decided that nothing can be done about the major and fundamental tax problems which confront us. For those reasons I am sad that my right hon. Friend did not open today's debate.
  Mr. Diamond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I rise on a question of fact. It is nothing unusual for a Chancellor not to open the Second Reading debate on a Finance Bill. It is some time since a Chancellor on this side of the House has done so.
  Mr. Barnett: I do not dispute that this has happened on many occasions, but after six years of Labour Government I should have thought that it was important to do something about our tax system. When the right hon. Gentleman said that this was an empty Bill, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said that everything was working well and that there was the least possible amount of friction. The fact that no changes have been made does not mean that the tax situation is not serious. I say that it is very serious, because by this so-called empty Bill we are perpetuating our tax system, but I take exception to anyone saying that because it does not make many changes, and because it is a small Bill, it is not an important Measure.
  I want, now, to take up the point made in the House and elsewhere by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is said that there should be a major switch from direct to indirect taxation or, as the hon. Gentleman said
  300
  at the end of his speech, cuts in public expenditure. I want to examine whether this is really a practical proposition, at least for us on this side of the House, because I believe that the public are in danger of having a confidence trick perpetrated upon them if they are allowed to believe that there is some way in which one can make a major switch from direct to indirect taxation, and also cuts in public expenditure, which will somehow not hurt them at all; that it will all be done in a simple way, that we shall have a simple tax system, and everything will be fine.
  It is said that people prefer to pay indirect taxes rather than pay taxes direct. I challenge that. Who would prefer to do that? Certainly not the millions of people who pay no direct taxes at all. It is only those, and there are now a substantial number of them, who pay direct taxes at the standard rate, and I shall deal with this later.
  It is those people who would prefer to switch to indirect taxation, but if one took an opinion poll one would find that they prefer that only because they feel that they would not be hurt by such a switch. Once they found that they would be hurt very much I am not sure that they would still prefer to change the system. A reduction of is. in the standard rate of tax—a fairly substantial cut—would mean an extra 5d. a week for a married man, with two children, earning £20 a week. A man earning £100 a week would be affected considerably more. The difference to him would be about £1 12s. 8d. But the cost of that Is. reduction, which would amount to about £450 million, would be the equivalent of a 35 per cent. increase in all purchase tax rates. I wonder for how long the bulk of direct taxpayers would prefer such a switch.
  I think that the proposition advanced for making a change assumes that by some sleight of hand one can pull the wool over people's eyes, and this was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman in another context. Therefore, I certainly do not accept that this is something which people would prefer if they understood precisely what is intended. Neither do I accept that collection under a direct taxation system would be simpler, unless one were simply to splash

  301
  35 per cent. across the board on all purchase tax rates—an impossible thing for any Government to propose.
  Certainly if one were to propose an added-value tax along the lines of that operated in Europe that would not be easier to collect. It might do all kinds of other things related to incentives to exporters and so on; but no one has argued that an added-value tax is a simpler method of collecting than direct taxation. It would not be simpler for the staff of Customs and Inland Revenue; nor would it be simpler for businessmen, particularly small businessmen who would need to have a set of books very different from those they have at present.
  Then there is the argument that we need a switch to indirect taxation in order to provide an incentive to saving. Some useful points were made by the right hon. Gentleman about methods that the Government could have adopted to increase the amount of savings. We all know that there is much constant criticism of the Government for having done this or that, that National Savings have dropped and so on. But we all know that particular incentives are not going to increase real savings. We can have a particular new gimmick one year and get a switch of savings from one kind to another; but at the end of the day any real increase in overall saving, not just National Savings, would come only from increased growth in incomes when it is also possible for something to be done about consumption.
  To argue that the Government have done nothing, in this Bill or in the past, to encourage savings is really to look very superficially at the problem. In past debates I have said that even the Save-As-You-Earn scheme introduced last year is one to be welcomed as a small help in this direction. But that could have only a modest effect on the general level of savings, because who are we trying to reach for real savings as opposed to switched savings? If we switch to indirect taxation we shall not be able to get more from the millions of people not now paying income tax. Nor shall we get more savings from the millions to whom we shall give a modest reduction in direct taxation while asking them to pay anything but modest increases in prices due to increased indirect taxation. Therefore, it would be only the small number of
  302
  people earning above £5,000 a year who would really be given any incentive to save. These are the people we are discussing.
  I acknowledge that people in these income groups would probably be given some incentive to save by a reduction in taxation, but it is important to understand that if we are making a net switch from direct to indirect taxation of, let us assume, perhaps £200 million, really affecting those at the lower end of the scale—because if it is not a real switch it would have no meaning—at the expense of a reduction in consumption for those at the lower end, those at the higher end will have perhaps £200 million available for savings. I would not argue—and I would be interested to hear anyone who advocates it—that the whole of that £200 million could be saved. There are other factors such as estate duty involved, making those at the higher end of the scale reluctant to save too much, and making them consume rather than save.
  It is, therefore, impossible to measure this. While one would get some saving as a proportion of that £200 million it would be a very modest proportion; and it would and could be only at the expense of taking an equal sum away from the consumption of those at the lower end of the scale. This, therefore, is another argument against the idea of a major switch from direct to indirect taxation.
  It is then said that one could safeguard those at the lower end of the scale. I agree that one could safeguard a small number of them, through supplementary benefits and so on. But if one made a real switch, then, by the nature of things, substantial numbers of people at the lower end of the scale—I am thinking of those on, say, £20 a week, who would gain only 5d. from a Is. reduction in the standard rate of income tax—would be very much worse off. Thus, that argument does not stand up.
  One comes to the major argument which is always put forward, an argument which, it is claimed, answers all objections. It is that by making a big reduction in direct taxation one would provide a major incentive to increase production. Even if one made a major cut —if it was as large as Is. off the standard rate of income tax—for the average worker it would not be a major incentive

  303
  and it would not make him decide suddenly to work harder or longer, simply because it would affect him to such a small extent.
  I did not go along with the argument of the Chief Secretary. Indeed, I thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer contradicted him on the question of not having a reduced rate. However, I take the Chief Secretary's point that it may not necessarily have a disincentive effect and that to remove this progression could not be welcomed in a tax system. I thought that the Chief Secretary was trying to have it both ways when he said, first, that the removal of the reduced rate band would not have a disincentive effect and when he said, secondly, in relation to negative income tax, that the major argument against the negative proposal was the disincentive argument. He cannot have it both ways.
  I agreed with him on the major point, about the disincentive factor. The same point has been made by many people who have conducted genuine research into the disincentive question, one of which stands out. I refer to the P.E.P. broadsheet of January, 1969, which gave an analysis of the research done on this issue. It showed that even with a substantial cut—it referred to a "feasible alternative" and considered a cut of much more than the ls. off the standard rate to which I have referred—one could not expect more than perhaps a 1 per cent. increase in productivity.
  Such an increase in production would be useful, but it is important to consider the price and to realise that it would result only from a cut of substantially more than ls. off the standard rate. My reason for being uncertain on the negative income tax question arises because of the fact that, no matter how one juggles with the figures, at the end of the day, if one is to make a substantial switch, large sums of money will have to be switched to indirect taxation. If that is not done, one will be left with a negative income tax system. The only way to avoid such a state of affairs is at the same time to make a major switch to indirect taxation.
  I come to the major point that is always made about the disincentive effect of such a change on those at the higher end of the scale, by which I take those
  304
  earning above £6,000 a year. Up to that sort of level a married man has an effective rate of 31.8 per cent., whereas the marginal rate is 53 per cent. Above the £6,000 a year level one starts getting into the higher reaches of progressive taxation.
  Whereas, by comparison with most of our international competitors, our direct taxation rates, as a percentage of either income or of the g.n.p., are not higher than theirs, at the higher levels which I am considering they are higher. About 64,000 people in this country are earning above £5,000 a year.
  It is said these are the people who are most affected. They are affected in the following ways. One, they do not work as hard as they would like to. Two, they will not move or accept promotion. Three, they are emigrating in large numbers. Four, the entrepreneur and professional man will not be bothered to expand to any great extent. These are serious arguments and I think they are worth looking at, although, in my view, it is only a small percentage of the 64,000 people who are affected by these arguments, because I frankly find it difficult to accept the suggestion that people certainly would not work as hard.
  A young executive—shall we say, at £6,000 a year?—will be affected by the tax level while he still sees prospects of advancement. Of course there will be cases of such young executives not wanting to take advancement, but very often this is for quite different reasons. One may not move to another town or another country because he finds his family do not want him to. Certainly, that there will be some young executives who will be affected I do not deny; there clearly will be some; but it will be a very small number, in my view.
  My own view is that something should be done for that type of person in the way of share option schemes, but it will have to be done in the context of a much fairer Budget than any we have had. I was myself not in favour of doing anything about share option schemes while at the same time many workers at the lower end of the scale were still badly off in real terms, but certainly a share option scheme is something one should look at.
  Then there is the argument about emigration because of the levels of tax.

  305
  I thought that argument was dealt with once for all in the Jones Report on the brain drain, and it has been made clearer now by the numbers of our scientists and others who are returning from the United States to Britain because of opportunities no longer being available there and some opportunities being available here, indicating clearly that it is not the tax level which was forcing them to go in the first instance.
  So one comes finally to the entrepreneur and professional man. Clearly, in this sphere there is particular disincentive at the very highest level. But again I would like to qualify that substantially. Where we have a small private company making. perhaps, £200,000 a year profits, or likely to achieve that sort of level, the owner will not be deterred by levels of direct taxation because he may see a sale or flotation which will give him a capital gain. Therefore, levels of direct taxation will not really be a disincentive to that sort of man, although it is a disincentive after he has sold if he no longer has any incentive to work in that company, or sees nothing left for him, so that he may say it is not worth bothering to work any more because he cannot get anything out of it worth bothering about. This sort of person loses his drive and further ambition, but it is that rather than tax which affects him.
  So the man who is particularly affected in this category is the man a little lower down, making perhaps £20,000 a year, who could well go on if it were not for a particular level of tax. He is not big enough to float or sell, and he decides he will not go on just to earn a few thousand more a year. It is that type of man who will start taking it easier, and it could well be that it is that sort of man starting to take it easier that we should be missing unhappily, even though a small percentage of the 64,000 people.
  Mr. du Cann: I am following the hon. Gentleman's point, and the whole House is interested in it. Would he not agree, however, that there is another result of high marginal rates of tax which he has not mentioned, and that that is what is developing today, the increasingly unhealthy development of fringe benefits?
  Mr. Barnett: I accept that because of the direct taxation system we have a
  306
  high percentage of fringe benefits. Compared with the United States, where there are very few fringe benefits, there is a substantial difference in this country. But the chance of moving away from our direct tax system on a big enough scale to be able to do away with fringe benefits is very slight.
  I sum up the disincentive argument. The effects are tiny, but important, on a small number of people. It is difficult, if not impossible, to help a few while being fair without giving large sums to people who would not be affected by the disincentive argument. I should be prepared to abolish the highest levels of surtax and have an amalgamation of surtax and income tax, which I am surprised we have not done before. But I would do that at the same time as introducing a wealth tax and a gift tax, which the Opposition do not cheer in the same way. While introducing those two taxes, I would reduce estate duty, which might do something about increasing the incentive to save.
  The thing about which I really wanted the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do something is the level of personal income tax. This would have involved substantial changes such as the removal of the earned income relief and coming to a clear understanding of the tax charge on the average taxpayers. This would have involved in turn a substantial change in the scale of personal allowances and a big upheaval in the structure of the income tax system.
  It is a little sad that after six years in office the Government have not recast the personal taxation structure. I do not know whether that is because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has accepted the argument about the administrative difficulty of the Inland Revenue finding the staff. If that is so, I am sorry, because we have had some years in which to prepare and to make sure that that was not a reason for making such a change. The Government should not use the argument that they cannot change the tax system simply because the Inland Revenue. or whatever branch of the Civil Service may be involved, would be incapable of coping. If that is not the reason. it is just as sad, because it means that insufficient attention has been given to the need for a radical upheaval of the direct tax system.

  307
  I have never suggested, and I do not suggest now, that there is a magical formula. Unlike the Opposition, I do not believe that we can make major switches from direct to indirect taxation without being very unfair. But we can start with being honest and devising a system which is more readily understood. I hope that before long we shall have such a system from the Government.
  8.53 p.m.
  Sir Gerald Nabarro: The Chief Secretary to the Treasury concluded his speech by talking about "a relieving Budget". Were I not a Member of the House, I would refer to that as monstrous mendacity. Nothing has been relieved. On the contrary, we are all burdened more heavily than ever before by a rising scale of taxation, which will be evident as the months go by during this financial year.
  During the period of Labour government of six years, the total central Government revenue from all forms of taxation has almost doubled. Nobody has yet quoted in the debate the extent of the rise in taxation for which the Labour Government have been responsible. I propose to put it on the record. In their first year of office, 1964–65, they raised £7,431 million in taxation. Their estimate for this year, 1970–71, is £14,553 million—practically double. Those figures are incontrovertible: they derive from Treasury sources. They may involve a couple of tiny qualifications about the method of calculation, but margins of error as to perhaps 0·1 of 1 per cent. only. Substantially, Labour has doubled the taxation of the country in five years. Has the nation got doubled value for its money? Of course not.
  When I say that taxation will not be relieved by this Finance Bill, I remind the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor, who is never here and never pays the House the courtesy—it is no good the F.S.T. shaking his head in dissent; he is making one of his rare incursions into a financial debate—of listening to later speeches—the Chancellor loves listening to himself, but to none others—that rising prices of manufactured goods, which themselves attract indirect taxation in the process of price increases, then attract more indirect taxation.
  308
  I will give the Chief Secretary the best example to hand at the moment. If the right hon. Gentleman went away and looked up the records he would find that the principal contributor of revenue to purchase tax is the motor car. Out of £1,100 million raised through purchase tax, about £200 million comes from motor cars. Every time the prices of cars go up the Chancellor takes more revenue. The prices of cars have gone up right across the board about four times over the last 18 months, and not just marginally. They have gone up by £15, £20, £30 and £40 per car. Whenever the wholesale price goes up by perhaps £40 per motor car, of that £40 the Chancellor's grab—"grab" is the correct term—is 36⅔ per cent. That process will be enlivened and accelerated during the passage of this financial year as inflation hastens.
  Therefore, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer or his principal lieutenant to talk about relief is like a piddle from a full bladder, if the right hon. Gentleman understands the analogy. Let us be just. We all have bladders and we all do piddles, so perhaps we can understand the analogy. For the Chief Secretary to talk of relieving himself in this Budget is surely exactly what I described at the outset as being monstrous mendacity. Prices will rise ever upwards during this year.
  I want to draw attention to an even more damning indictment of Labour rule during the last six years in the context of taxation by pointing to the percentage of the gross national product taken by Labour in taxes since 1964–65.
  In 1964, central Government taxation took 24·5 per cent.; in 1969, it took 34·1 per cent. In 1964, National Insurance contributions took 4·9 per cent.; in 1969, they took 5·8 per cent. In 1964, the local authority rates took 3·7 per cent.; in 1969, they took 4·4 per cent.
  The total taken in 1964, as a percentage of gross national product at factor cost, was 33·1 per cent. and in 1969 44·3 per cent. So Labour has put up the percentage of gross national product taken by taxation by no less than one-third in six years. Indeed, that is the epitome of the election peroration I shall use on every platform in a few months' time. It is that the Labour Party is the party of

  309
  increased and increasing taxation. The Tory Party is the party of reduced and reducing taxation. Let that be learnt throughout the nation as a first precept of true electioneering and be studied closely by all the new electors on the roll.
  I turn to the second feature of the Budget. I condemn it absolutely and this Finance Bill which implements it, because there is nothing in it to reduce high unemployment which we shall debate tomorrow. On 13th April last there were 616,000 unemployed, including 89,500, or 4 per cent. in Scotland—a record in all the years since 1940 for April returns. There is nothing to prevent the precipitate rise in prices we have experienced in the last 12 months. And there is nothing whatever to prevent prices continuing to rise at the same rate throughout the year in prospect.
  Third, there is nothing to promote additional exports or to reduce imports or to further a policy—or a non-policy perhaps would be a better description—of import substitution.
  Fourth, there are no production incentives in this Bill. Fifth, there is nothing in the Bill for 94 per cent. of pensioners. There is a modicum of help for the 6 per cent. paying income tax, but 94 per cent. of pensioners do not pay income tax.
  Sixth, and last, there is nothing to relieve—I am sorry to use the Chief Secretary's word again—the inordinately high interest rates which afflict all those who take on hire purchase or seek loans for the purchase of houses or capital equipment.
  I turn to indict the Government in perhaps a novel fashion. I would remind my own Front Bench that the Government, through a principal agency, namely, the Post Office Giro, are now offering loans at an interest rate of 1½ per cent. per month, or 18 per cent. per annum. That is what the Government itself regard as a norm for lending money through that principal agency. I call those usurious rates. If a private enterprise lending establishment had charged 18 per cent., what would the Fabians and Socialists opposite have dubbed them?—gnomes of Zurich if they were bankers, Shylocks if they were small traders. Yet here are the Government. through the Giro, charging 18 per cent.—an unpardonable rate for lending money. I promise that the
  310
  Treasury will hear more about this matter from me in the next few months.
  I turn to the much-vaunted income tax reliefs. I thought my constituents had got the matter right. One gentleman from Malvern wrote me thus:
  " Every tax-paying voter in the country has read the banner headlines proclaiming increases in personal allowances. But not one in 10,000 seems to have been made aware that the 6s. rate has been replaced by the flat rate. The result is that most people to whom I have spoken on the subject simply will not believe that married couples are only approximately £7 10s. a year better off while the single ones have a small increase in taxation."
  He has got it right. That is what people have not yet realised-3s. 0½d. a week is what this Budget is worth to married couples all over the country. I have a word for it, nugatory—trifling, if you like. I spent my £7 17s. 6d. on a good "blow out" on Budget night.
  I went to the research department of the Library here to have some figures prepared for me in preparation for this speech on income tax matters. I asked the lady there how she fared and she said gloomily, "My tax has been increased." I said, "I don't believe you." She said, "My tax has been increased by 7s. 6d. a year." Not all people are thanking the Chancellor. They have to pay all the extra increases in indirect taxes. They receive no extra benefit from income tax relief. The trifling reduction for married couples will have no influence whatever on the price of goods in the shops. I condemn absolutely what the Chancellor has done with the application of any money he could afford for tax relief.
  Let me put the tax relief in proper perspective [Interruption]. I am not sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether I am making a speech or one is being made from below the Bar of the House. I will put this in correct perspective. The total of tax relief is £220 million and the increase in taxation under Labour Governments is about £3,300 million per annum—repeat, per annum. One-fifteenth part of £1 is ls. 4d. So that on every extra—repeat extra—£1 on taxes levied by Labour since 1964, the Chancellor, in this Budget, has given back ls. 4d. The swag in the Chancellor's bag is 18s. 8d. [Laughter.] Stop laughing. The swag is 18s. 8d. and the relief, the piddle, is 1 s. 4d. That is how serious the position is. The country will hear about it

  311
  from me, if not from the Leader of the Opposition.
  I do not need the Chief Secretary from Gloucester to work out my sums for me. My mental arithmetic is twice as good and twice as fast without a computer. I hesitate to estimate what the result would be with a computer. Probably the first cousin of the Government computer at East Kilbride, if hon. Members understand what I mean, which churns out more mistakes than right answers. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland does not know that the principal income tax computer is at East Kilbride and that the main complaint north of the Border is that more mistakes have been made in the computation of P.A.Y.E. since they went on to the computer at East Kilbride than when they were done at local income tax offices. The hon. Gentleman should go there to smarten up the computer.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): We did observe the circus tour that the hon. Member made in Scotland when those remarks were made. I think that they were made more by the hon. Member than anyone in Scotland.
  Sir G. Nabarro: That seemed to be a rather irrelevant intervention—characteristic of feebleness.
  Let us now talk about the pensioners. I could not get the Minister of State, Treasury, to give way to me on 15th April. He is not one of those people like the Chief Secretary, who frequently gives way. The Minister of State said this:
  " This Budget gives the best tax relief where it was needed—to the old-age pensioners …" —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1970; Vol. 799, c. 1415.]
  Oh, indeed. Let us have a look at the old-age pensioners and have the truth of the situation dragged out. The number of people drawing State pensions at the last count was 7,015,000; that is the last figure available to researchers in the Library. Of that total, 5·7 per cent., or 400,000, were paying income tax and will benefit by the Chancellor's provisions in the Bill. Therefore, 94·3 per cent. of pensioners are no better off and 5·7 per cent. are slightly better off. That is the degree of the exaggeration from the Treasury Bench of which the
  312
  Minister of State was guilty. I do not wonder that he would not give way to me on 15th April. He knew that I was going to shoot him. I shall return to this point in Committee.
  I shall address myself now to the question of tobacco—an unusual topic, but an important one in a Finance Bill. I will give the House the relevant figures so that they can be put in the correct perspective. The Chancellor raises from tobacco duty approximately £1,125 million. Of that figure approximately £985 million is in respect of tobacco in cigarettes. This is a massive sum.
  Smoking cigarettes is very bad for the health. I endeavoured to take through the House a Bill entitled Cigarettes (Health Hazards) Bill, designed to secure the bold and lurid labelling of every cigarette packet with a health warning. But the responsible Minister—the Secretary of State for Social Services—blocked the Bill. He would not like a Tory to have the credit of taking it through, though it is backed by four doctors who are Members of the House and an equal number of Labour and Tory Members.
  The real reason the Secretary of State blocked it is that the Treasury advised him to do so: it is afraid of losing revenue; it is afraid of suffering a loss of revenue from the £985 million. The Treasury is afraid that, if people are warned of the dangers of lung cancer by lurid health warnings being displayed on cigarette packets, sales of cigarettes will fall off and the Chancellor's revenue will also fall off. That is the Secretary of State's reason for blocking the Bill.
  Clause 4 of the Finance Bill deals with something rather new—synthetic tobacco. We are within sight of inventing a substitution for tobacco leaf to put in cigarettes which will amelioriate—I put it no higher than that—the health hazards from smoking cigarettes. To expedite the processes of research, Clause 4 at this stage postulates—I hope that it will become law—first, that this synthetic material may be manufactured; second, that when it is used for research purposes the tobacco duty will not be applied to the synthetic material; third, that if and when the synthetic material is used for production cigarettes—cigarettes that are not for research purposes—it will attract the same duty as an ordinary cigarette

  313
  made out of tobacco leaf. That principle is wholly wrong, and I shall endeavour to alter it later.
  I have found out exactly what tobacco does in terms of our balance of payments. During the four years before devaluation of sterling, our average imports of tobacco were £85 million per annum. That is the average in four years 1964–67 inclusive. During the two years 1968 and 1969 the average import was £110·5 million a year. Not only, therefore, have tobacco imports increased by the expected margin arising from devaluation, but they have also increased by a further equivalent sum due to increased consumption of tobacco in this country, so that the overall increase of tobacco consumption during 1968 and 1969 is at the rate of 30 per cent. compared with the average of the four years before devaluation in 1968.
  These are very serious figures. It is manifestly in the national interest to try to diminish the volume of imports of tobacco, especially as—and this is not a party political point—I remind the Chief Secretary that out of the £110·5 million of tobacco imports in 1969, £59½ million came from the United States of America and were paid for substantially in dollars. The balance of £50 million came from many foreign countries, and to a very small extent from Commonwealth countries, due to the elimination, I am sad to say, of Rhodesian leaf. But the total of £110 million, I should have thought, is an import figure that we would all be anxious to diminish.
  I suggest to the Chief Secretary that what we should do is this. We should amend Clause 4 at a later stage to provide not only for relief from duty of synthetic tobacco on the application of that synthetic material to research purposes, but also of synthetic tobacco used for production purposes, knowing that the latter would be a direct substitution of pure tobacco leaf imported most largely from the United States of America.
  With those few words I wish to conclude, and say to the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) that I will deal with him in Committee as usual on Clauses 11 and 12, respectively, income tax and surtax. As before, I shall seek to reduce the standard rate of
  314
  income tax from 8s. 3d. in the £ to 7s. 6d. in the £ and the top rate of surtax to a maximum of 7s. 6d. in the £, so that no direct taxpayer, however great his earnings, will ever pay more than 15s. in the £, will never pay more than £3 out of £4, always retaining £1 out of the last £4 he earns, somewhat worse than the United States of America, where the richest earner pays 70 cents. out of the last dollar he earns and retains 30 cents. Those are true incentives at which we ought to aim.
  I remind the hon. Gentleman that I am not a fly-by-night, changing my ground every year to a different aspect of taxation and becoming more and more righteous and "pro-Nabarro" in my fiscal outlook, as the right hon. Gentleman does year by year as the General Election approaches. Mine is an utterly consistent theme. This will be the fourth consecutive year that I shall have moved the reduction of the standard rate of income tax accompanied by the reduction of surtax rates which I regard as utterly indispensable to the restoration of incentives throughout industry, trade and commerce.
  This is a loathsome Bill, a horrible, bad, smelly joke of a Bill. If I had my way I would join my righ hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) in the Lobby in voting against the Bill. All that it does is to give back ls. 4d. of the taxpayers' money out of every extra £1 of taxes which the Labour Governments since 1964 have taken. I allow the Chancellor, by my silence and my failure to vote, to keep 18s. 8d. of my money in the form of swag. If my right hon. Friend decides to change his mind and would like to tell with me, let Taunton and South Worcestershire be the fiscal purities in this House; and I should be delighted to accompany him into the Lobby.
  9.22 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon (Ashton-under-Lyne): In a speech some tame last year the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) said what a good comedian he would have been had he not entered this House. Since then I have found that this was the key to an understanding of him, and I have enjoyed his performances ever since, not least that of today, when he excelled himself.
  Sir G. NabarroThank you very much, dear boy.
  Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman made one point which I want to take up, and that related to the tobacco duty and, in particular, Clause 4 of the Bill. I agree that there will be considerable repercussions as a result of experiments being conducted into the production of a synthetic tobacco. I was connected with this some time last year when I made representations to the Financial Secretary asking him to introduce a differential tax between cigarette tobacco and other tobacco. I was turned down by my right hon. Friend, although I would point out that there is nothing inherently administratively difficult in differentiating between these different tobaccos.
  At this stage it is important to give massive encouragement to synthetic tobacco if it is found to be less injurious to health than the natural variety. We know that the investigations will need to be complex and long, and it is not for any of us to say with certainty, although indications are promising, that the health hazards of tobacco are at an end. Assuming that it satisfies the requirements of health, it will be the duty of the Chancellor progressively to forgo the large revenue which he obtains from the tobacco duties.
  This is not a matter peculiarly affecting tobacco. We are seeing it in other kinds of raw materials. We have seen it in synthetic textiles, to which we gave great encouragement by way of the application, at a high level, of import duty. We saw it again in connection with the growth and development of synthetic rubber, and it is obviously a pattern that will be repeated to our immense benefit. It may be that our historic role as a massive importer of many of these raw materials will be modified.
  If my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is unable to accept a differential tax between ordinary tobacco and synthetic tobacco, which is accepted to be perfectly feasible, he must provide financial encouragement so that the work on tobacco substitutes for cigarettes, pipe tobacco and other kinds of tobacco can go ahead for the benefit of the health of the people and also of our balance of payments.
  316
  I refer briefly to the Budget judgment of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He called it a cautious Budget. He said:
  " I have deliberately proceeded with caution."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April 1970: Vol. 799, c. 1253.]
  It is not a misquotation or a misattribution to say that this is the cautious Budget that many of us have thought it to be.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated the three essential requirements that he foresees for the economy over the next year, two of which I am concerned with. One was the growth of total demand within the productive potential, and the other was the improved and sustained growth of industrial investment. This is what the Budget strategy largely consisted of. The total demand is to be kept within the rate of expansion of the productive potential. That means capital investment. The second demand was for improved industrial investment. There are no new proposals for industrial investment, and industrial investment has been much below what we wish to see. So the growth of productive potential will be limited, and, therefore, the growth of total demand will be limited.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer also said that he wished
  " to guide the economy into steadily increasing growth."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April, 1970; Vol. 799, c. 1213.]
  He stated subsequently that to get the growth we must increase the productive potential, and to do that we must increase industrial investment, about which there were no fresh proposals. The commitment to steadily increasing growth, therefore, had no foundation, either in the Budget or in the Finance Bill. To get this steadily increasing growth when there are no new proposals to this end, we must assume that the strategy is to avoid massive "stops" and "goes", and to keep the economy on an even keel in the hope that it is so poised that it will of itself generate the steadily increasing growth to which my right hon. Friend referred.
  I can see nothing else that will give us increasing growth over the next year, or even the year after. This is the opposite of the planning that I wish to see. It is a reversion to the policy of holding the ring while the economic forces within the community work themselves through.

  317
  We are now in a position to go further than that. With the balance of payments surplus, and the inventiveness and capacity of our people, who are inferior to none, we can assume that our economy is, at least, as good as that prevailing in other parts of Europe.
  The weakness of all this discussion is that we can never make the alternative decisions on which the House should decide. We have in this House a peculiar situation, in which we divorce taxation and expenditure. Thus, while the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South wants to reduce taxation, many other hon. Members want to increase expenditure. We shall never get a proper assessment until these two items are discussed together, until we discuss increases in expenditure and accept the consequences in increased taxation.
  So far are we from that fairly elementary principle that we are not even given the choice between different kinds of taxation. If the language of priorities is what this House is all about, we do not even have the presentation of choice, because that demands the adequate examination of alternatives. This House is no assembly in which to discuss the adequate examination of alternatives. They are not even put before us so that we can discuss whether one way of raising money is better than another. The House can never make this examination, which is absolutely essential to the Finance Bill and taxation. The powers of debate are valuable but limited ends in the modern world. What we need is the power of preparation and examination of alternatives.
  If that were all it would be bad enough, but it is even worse. The Treasury nowadays does not even need to defend its proposals adequately. We never have a real debate with the Treasury. We have not had the real debate about why the income tax system has been allowed to remain unreformed, and with no precision within the different income levels. So the increasingly powerful Treasury is not forced to defend its arguments save in debate, and this is no defence.
  But it is even worse than that. With the changes in Government Departments, we had the theory of "creative tension". Whatever criticism could be made of this —I was a critic also—it meant that at the higher levels of debate the Treasury
  318
  was open to question within the Cabinet. There were other Ministries with equal economic interest which could challenge it. There was the Board of Trade, which, with a powerful economic interest, could defend arguments it thought important and suggest other methods by which the Treasury might move. But, with the elimination of the Department of Economic Affairs and the diminution of the Board of Trade's importance, even that restraint has gone.
  So the Treasury has no need today to argue its case before any powerful body in the land. This is a most serious consequence. What we should do is set up a Select Committee on economic affairs. This House was devised to do this, but changes in operation have meant that it cannot. The House must devise a new kind of instrument, so that the Treasury can be faced with an argument and can even have a dialogue with somebody. It can have no dialogue at all at the moment. It is useless to think that this kind of discussion can go on inside the Treasury alone. We all know of the kind of self-criticism which is being experimented with in the Soviet Union and the failure of that kind of system to provide the adequate debate which, by their very nature, democratic countries are able to have.
  Today our chief economic Department, the Treasury, is not required to defend itself, is not required to have a debate, and is not even required to have a dialogue with any body of importance. It is this which needs to be changed and to be challenged. If we wish to ask the Treasury why it is that we have the Budget judgment, the Budget strategy and a lack of change in our income tax system after all these years, we cannot put the questions and receive answers in the way that a Select Committee could, with advantage not only to itself but to the Treasury.
  I have felt unhappy about these changes in the income tax structure. We have been tinkering with it over the past year or two, but, far from improving it, we have been making it worse each time. My right hon. Friend is quite right to try to help those at the bottom of the scale. With our present structure, the difficulty is that we have to operate in such a way that when a person comes into the taxed

  319
  category he immediately starts at the rate of 32 per cent. There was no other alternative available to my right hon. Friend in order to achieve what he wanted.
  There are other methods of creating tax structures which are not of enormous complexity. One could even provide simplification. One could have a tax as a varying percentage of income, for example. But we do not even know whether these kinds of proposal have been examined by the Treasury. We want someone who can appear before a Select Committee and be asked what investigations have been carried out and what conclusions have been reached as to the practicability of other methods. At the moment there is no way for us to find the answers.
  There are other methods. If we were to change the structure, not only could we get the shape of the curve any way that we liked. We would also get a result which would be of enormous advantage to Chancellors of the Exchequer in that the structure could be modified in any way required to take account of the changing circumstances of people and the differences in the amounts of money that the Chancellor wanted to raise, while also taking into account questions of fairness, lack of complexity, and so on. There are these methods. Some are simple, some are more complicated. Some are difficult to understand, some are easier to understand.
  Those of us who have given some thought to these matters felt that we have a contribution to make, but we may be wrong. These are vast problems. The difficulty is that the Treasury has not been obliged to face the kind of forum where it could be questioned sufficiently about its efforts in this direction as well as in others.
  The hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) repeated a number of comments made by others about the level of inflation. What we must all get clear in our minds is that the rate of inflation in this country is matched in other countries. We must understand the reasons for it: I notice that the hon. Gentleman appears not to agree, so perhaps I might refer to one or two figures.
  320
  I usually regard as comparable countries those which are in direct competition with us. Mine is not a list which has been specially selected for this purpose. Other hon. Members might make different lists, but I suggest that the countries involved would probably be much the same. They are the United States, Germany, Japan, Italy and France, and Canada is probably marginal for inclusion.
  In these countries the levels of inflation have risen from 3 per cent. in 1966 to 5 per cent. in 1969. If one takes the level of wage increases this year as being between 8 and 9 per cent. and the increases in productivity at about 3 per cent., we are left with much the same figure, 5 per cent. or 6 per cent., perhaps a shade more. We are thus not much out of line with what is going on in the rest of the world. The situation is international because all these countries face the same kind of problems.
  In the post-war years a generation has come into the factories and offices who have never known the fear of unemployment of the pre-war years. They thus behave in a way rather different from that of their fathers. They regard it as the responsibility of the State to provide them with continuous full employment. Because they do so, and because they are prepared to cast their votes for those parties which accept that responsibility,ipso facto it does become a responsibility of the State. A democratic State is responsive in this way. So wage increases, at least in part, become in general the responsibility of Governments to a greater extent than before. Whereas employers might have stood firm, as Governments become more and more involved in economic operations they tend to give way to wage demands a little more readily than some of the employers of the past.
  This in itself is a built-in inflation factor. It is therefore not surprising that the countries with which we can make direct comparisons are inflating at roughly the same kind of level as ourselves. There are, of course, variations, but over all, year by year, this kind of inflation is common to all these countries.
  What we are seeing is not even steady inflation but something a little worse than that. We are seeing an acceleration

  321
  of the rate of inflation, and it is happening in all these countries because, as workers and trade unions get more sophisticated, they begin to anticipate inflation. When they make their demands, they do so on the basis of a built-in feeling about the rate of inflation likely to occur in the year following. What could be yet another twist in the spiral is that they may come to anticipate an increasing inflation, expecting that next year's will be greater than this year's and so on. Fortunately, that situation has not arrived in this country yet but it would be a great optimist who believed that it could never happen.
  Faced with such a situation, in which we may be only at the beginning of a spiral which I hope we shall not see, it becomes even more important to plan our defences. The only possible answer is some kind of prices and incomes policy. I have been against a rigid prices and incomes policy, and I laid my views on the line in 1966. I believed that the kind of slow start which my right hon. Friend the Member for Beim (Mr. George Brown) made—building on experience year by year so that we could get this kind of sharing—was the right way. Progress in this sort of thing can be measured only in decades and not years. Given such a start, then we might well have been somewhere along the road by now.
  These are matters on which we have to proceed very slowly indeed. It is a pity that we have wasted a number of years but, looking at it in the time-scale of this method of control, it is not too late even now to make this modest, cautious beginning.
  The Budget was too cautious for the present time. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows, many of us have been prodding him to remind him of his expansionist past. I hope that at some time we shall remind him successfully.
  9.45 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: I was particularly glad to hear the earlier part of the speech of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). His constituents share with mine an important weekly newspaper, and I am glad to think that both sets of readers will read his eloquent regret at the absence of any reform of the tax
  322
  structure and, equally, his regret at the absence of dialogue between the House and the Treasury.
  Earlier, the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett), whose constituents share another weekly newspaper with mine, did such a magnificent demolition job on the opening and extraordinarily bland speech of the Chief Secretary that there is only one corner of the right hon. Gentleman's remaining structure which I should like to demolish so that everything is razed to the ground, to the level established by the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton.
  The Chief Secretary, whom I sought to interrupt, but who hoped that I would be able to make my point later in the debate, was so complacent as to declare at the Dispatch Box that the Inland Revenue is working efficiently and that the chances of maladministration are only about one in a million. This is to imply that maladministration works only one way, and that the Revenue is efficient if only a relatively small number of taxpayers discover serious maladministration in their own tax affairs.
  While admitting that, taking instance by instance, the direct suffering of a taxpayer through being charged too much is the worst of all possible offences, I cannot admit the implication of the right hon. Gentleman's speech that it is all right if the Revenue lets a great many taxpayers get by with less than this House has decided they ought to pay, not because I rejoice in the Government raking in the shekels, but for the obvious fact that now that so many taxpayers are allowed to get off with less than their proper obligations others have to pay more in the following year, because if the revenue is less than it should have been there is an inevitable tendency to put up rates in the following year.
  If the Chief Secretary had allowed me to interrupt him he could not have denied that he has seen, and not, apparently, taken any great exception to, the Fifth Report of the Estimates Committee in the Session 1968–69, which said, in paragraph 24:
  " In recent years, especially since 1965, the volume and complexity of the work done by fully trained inspectors have greatly increased. At the same time there has been a failure to produce, either by direct recruitment of graduates or promotion within the branch, enough such inspectors to keep up

  323
  their numbers … The result has been that they are no longer able to do all the work that ought to be done at their level. In the words of the Chief Inspector of Taxes, they ' have to make a much more highly selective choice of the issues to pursue and fight than (he) would wish them to '."
  How in the light of an impartial, independent statement like that, the Chief Secretary is able to stand at the Dispatch Box and try to tell the country, through the House, that the whole system is working efficiently, I should not be able to understand had I not on many previous occasions listened to the complacencies of the right hon. Gentleman.
  It is necessary that something should be said to correct the impression which is still given to the country, through numerous newspaper reports, that the Finance Bill is the main vehicle for giving effect to the Chancellor's Budget proposals.
  That has been less and less the case in recent years and, certainly, the Bill we have before us carries out only a minor part of the Chancellor's proposals. In particular—and I have no complaint about this for I do not see how it could be otherwise—the Finance Bill contains no reference to the central part of the Budget strategy, namely, strict control of the money supply on the basis that the Chancellor himself spelt out in his speech. Nor does the Bill make any provision whereby the country or this House or, indeed, anybody outside the Treasury, can know whether that strict control is being applied.
  It is because of the fog of ignorance as to whether the Chancellor is diligently pursuing his avowed intentions that there is so much doubt, criticism and in some unfortunate cases excessive alarm being voiced in the country today. To take, if I may, the case of one outstanding example of excessive alarm, I had the misfortune, as one of the deputy chairmen of the Wider Share Ownership Council, a position I share with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), to sift through what the Economist this weekend has called the over-alarmist views of Lord Shawcross. His speech contradicted itself so many times that there is no need for anybody to issue any contradictions from outside.
  I say simply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby that I
  324
  have made known to my colleagues in the Wider Share Ownership movement how much I deplore that particular outburst and hope that steps are being taken to see that that kind of thing does not occur again at that particular type of meeting. But unless, before this debate closes tonight, the House can be reassured by the Minister of State that the Bank of England is selling enough Government stock to maintain the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of strict control over the money supply, and unless that is spelled out, doubts and queries will continue to resound and obviously will get louder, because this is the central weapon which the Chancellor chose—and not many people quarrelled with him—to deal at any rate with the most excessive part of the present and expected wage claims during the rest of the year.
  To Liberals, the most deplorable feature of the Bill is the utter lack of any attempt to reform the tax structure. In so far as there are any simplifications at all, they are merely to the clerical side of the most elementary parts of tax calculation. If Conservative Governments had started the computerisation of the revenue at the time it should have been started, even those minor clerical refinements would not have been necessary. This Government will leave the taxpayer even less able to understand why he is being charged his particular tax bill than he was five years ago when the Government came to power.
  It does not seem to occur to Ministers on the Treasury Bench that the very same features of our complex tax system which deter people from entering the service of the Inland Revenue, equally appal the ordinary taxpayer who is the victim of the process, and particularly the elderly taxpayer who very often is subject, if he has a pension and is doing a couple of part-time jobs, to the most fiendish series of calculations and demands, many of which show that the issuing tax office itself does not understand the taxpayer's circumstances.
  I concluded my remarks in the Budget debate by describing it as a "watch and pray" Budget and I said that we would have to pray very hard before the summer was out. The difficulties I had in mind have come upon us even earlier than I supposed possible, and unless the

  325
  Minister of State is able to give some reassurance about the operation of money supply control many people will say that the Government are past praying for.
  9.56 p.m.
  Mr. A. H. Macdonald: The hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) used the phrase "open-minded sincerity", implying, I thought, that that was a bad thing. I cannot think why. It is obvious that any Government will advance their proposals tolerably confident that they are right. At any rate, it would be odd for a Government to put forward proposals which they thought were wrong. I therefore cannot imagine why the hon. Gentleman used that phrase in a critical spirit.
  However, the hon. Gentleman was correct later when he referred to the great gulf which exists between the two sides. I do not hesitate to support the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor in thinking it right that we should take sums by way of taxation and use them for expenditure on public services.
  Several hon. Members, notably the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) and my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett), in disagreeing with many aspects of the Measure, combined in regretting that so little was being done in the Bill. They both described it as a Bill of wasted opportunities.
  It is, in a sense, for this reason that I am inclined to welcome the Bill—precisely because it does very little. In previous Finance Bill debates I have advanced the theme that we should be extremely cautious before making tax alterations. Indeed, I have made this point in every such debate since I had the honour of being elected. Now the Chancellor is doing what I told him to do. I do not suppose that he is doing it because he paid note to what I said; but that does not stop me from claiming credit for what he has done.
  We should be cautious before rushing too readily into tax alterations. The Chief Secretary said that it is common ground that we should do all we can to smooth the path of industry. I have felt for some time that what is a hindrance to industry and commerce is not exactly a high level of taxation so much as a fluctuating and uncertain level.
  326
  In a competitive commercial atmosphere, long-term planning is more than ever essential, but it is difficult because there are a number of variables—interest rates, wage rates and, obviously, sales —which must be prophesised as best they can be. I have, therefore, always felt it undesirable that we should wilfully add to those variables by making alterations in the tax structure, particularly since I suspect that in many ways such tax alterations have little more than a marginal effect.
  I am thinking not only of substantial tax alterations but of what I regard as tinkering alterations. Some have come forward this year, and I regret them. They are often introduced because a loophole or anomaly has been noted, and they are introduced, with perfect justification, to modify faults that have been discovered. I am reminded of the knights of old who for excellent reasons put one piece of armour on after another and so added to the total burden which they had to carry that it was so cumbersome that if they were poked off their horses they had to stay lying on the ground.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the General Rate Bill and to the Roads (Scotland) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Dobson.]

  FINANCE BILL
  Question again proposed,That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Mr. Macdonald: The best of British luck to those Amendments when we get to them.
  Mr. Michael Alison: And to the knights of old?
  Mr. Macdonald: I have often thought that we make a mistake if we come forward too readily with proposals to plug loopholes or remedy anomalies, though for the best of reasons, taking them in isolation in each case, when the accumulated effect is the harassment of industry

  327
  and difficulty in understanding the tax structure. I know that these things have to be dealt with, but I would rather see one thundering bumper Finance Bill once in five years for such purposes, and leave the anomalies to some such occasion. I also note and support what the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Richard Wainwright) said when he referred to the evidence of the Estimates Committee about the difficulties which the Inland Revenue is facing. I accept that evidence, and it seems to me that it is an added reason why we should be cautious before we make alterations too readily.
  If it is in order to refer to the actual Bill itself—for not everybody has—I think Clause 1 is a perfect example of the kind of thing I am criticising. That is the Clause which provides a certain amount of tax relief when there is a hedging bet. Of course, there are obvious questions which arise. What difference will this make to the Revenue, and why are we not discussing a real bet rather than a hedging bet—if I have understood the Clause correctly? However, that is not the point I want to make.
  The reform proposed in the Clause is a quite obvious one. I have always understood that the reason why it was not brought in right from the beginning was an administrative one. Evidently, something has happened. Either the administrative difficulty has been overcome or else somebody in the Treasury has decided that justice must prevail over administrative difficulty.
  Therefore, what I should really like to know is not why this reform is being brought in but why it is being brought in now. What is the significant thing which has happened now that makes it possible to bring in this reform which was apparently not possible at the time when the tax was introduced? If we could do it at all why was it not done at the beginning? Why are we tinkering with it at this stage? I make this point about that Clause because this reform is one of which I happen to approve. If the arguments I am advancing are valid at all then I think they must be valid in all cases, and are not just extra arguments, so to speak, which I can throw in if I want to oppose some alteration of which I disapprove ayway.
  328
  We can see the same thing in Clause 2, which proposes an alteration in the gaming licence duty. I do not propose to go through the whole Bill in this way, but in this case I know why this alteration was not proposed when the gaming duty was first brought in. It was because we were then waiting for the Gaming Act. The Finance Act, 1966, which introduced the gaming licensing duty, established it on the basis of rateable value, which was an odd thing to do because the connection between the rateable value of casinos and the amount of money staked was an entirely random one. However, we were waiting for the Gaming Bill to be introduced when that system was brought in. Now the opportunity has come, and instead of sweeping it all away we have tinkered with it and merely modified it and, in a sense, made it more complicated by introducing a principle which I can only call the principle of leverage.
  The question which comes to my mind concerns not so much the effect of these changes on the Revenue, although naturally I should like to know about them, nor why these proposals come forward, but' why these particular and rather bizarre proposals come forward at this time. Is there any necessity for messing about in this way? I hope that in Committee we shall be able to explore these matters in more detail than we do usually. I should like to know whether these alterations, however desirable they may be in theory, and whatever arguments may be advanced in support of them, are worth the trouble. I should like to be told that in some detail, and I hope that that will be possible this year.
  In previous years, when the Finance Bill has been a bulky document, the prevailing theme in Committee has been to get the Bill through. The question whether we got it right was apparently of secondary importance. Perhaps this year we shall be able to discuss the Clauses in question in detail and have the opportunity to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) referred of having a dialogue with the Treasury Ministers and getting them to explain their policies in more detail than they do usually.
  The arguments which I am advancing are not arguments against the tinkering

  329
  Amendments. I hope that they are arguments in favour of lessening the frequency of tinkering Amendments. If there were a five-year embargo, as I have suggested, on minor alterations, there might be more incentive, when the magic year came round, for us to take a great deal more trouble to make sure that we got the matter right without subsequent alterations being necessary.
  That is the main point which I wished to make. There is, however, a further point on which I touch briefly. Clause 16 proposes an increase in initial allowances. It is no part of my function to criticise that proposal; on the contrary. But the implications of the Clause deserve a little thought. Although I could not agree with a great deal of what the right hon. Member for Taunton said, he was on a good point when he referred to the difficulty in which the National Savings Movement finds itself. His remarks need to be considered very seriously.
  I cannot avoid feeling that the implication behind Clause 16 is that the investment which we greatly need is, in the Government's view, to come mainly from internal savings. If that is so, does it mean that the Government have abandoned the National Savings Movement and any idea of savings being raised from outside? Are we to assume that in future all savings necessary for industry will be generated within industry itself? Is that the implication of the Clause, coupled with the fact that the National Savings Movement is in difficulty and, therefore, other savings are in decline? Perhaps I am reading too much into the Clause, but I hope that the Government will not assume that all the savings that we require, whether through public or private enterprise, are to be found by internally-generated savings.
  10.10 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker (Acton): I find this Finance Bill disappointing from a political point of view and alarming from an economic point of view.
  Regarding my political disappointment, hon. Members may recall that before the Budget Statement there was considerable speculation about how much the Chancellor would reflate the economy—whether it would be £200 million, £300 million or £400 million. In the event he selected £200 million.
  330
  The initial reaction to the Budget seemed to be that the Chancellor had been rather statesmanlike instead of playing the party politician. It appears from the opinion polls that the public have liked this. I hope that what is known on this side as "Macleod's iron law of Budgets" will operate—namely, that the initial reaction to the Budget is always reversed within three months. Indeed, I believe that it will be reversed more quickly, because I am beginning to get correspondence from constituents who realise that they get very little or no benefit from the Finance Bill, and in some cases have to pay more tax. It would require a financial genius of remarkable stature to discover a more secretive, obscure and private way of giving away £200 million. One could acquit the Chancellor of any political motive in doing it.
  Great play has been made by the Chancellor, and by the Chief Secretary in his opening speech today, of the two million taxpayers who will be dropped out of the tax net. But those two million taxpayers are the yo-yo of the Inland Revenue. When the Chancellor can think of nothing else to put in his Budget, I feel sure that the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury says "Bring out the yo-yo", and the yo-yo is the two million who drop down, bounce back, and are pushed down again. I believe that a regular feature of every Budget will be the yo-yo, so the Chancellor can put his hand on his heart and say, "I have dropped them down again; I have dropped two million out of the net."
  But this is what the Chancellor said a year ago. He said that he was going to drop 1·1million taxpayers. But we found that the number of taxpayers who were brought into the net last year had increased by 1 million. So this group is again going through the yo-yo procedure. The Government can take precious little credit for that.
  I find the Bill economically alarming because, with the domestic surplus last year at £598 million and the estimate for the current year at £224 million, the Government basically cannot make any substantial reduction in taxation. When can they make a substantial reduction in taxation? The argument at the end of the 1950s and the beginning of the 1960s used to be that we could never reduce

  331
  taxation because there was a large domestic deficit. But now there is a large domestic surplus.
  I think that the mechanics of our tax collecting system in relation to economic control have got substantially out of gear. Indeed, the most important statements in the Budget are not in the Bill. The most important statements in the Budget were what targets the Chancellor set for the money supply and the domestic credit expansion for the current year. We might in future see a Budget which merely consists of these two figures being given. I dare say that the Chancellor will drag it out for two hours or so, but the nub of the Budget was those two key figures.
  I should say in parentheses that those two figures have already been exceeded by what has happened through the Government's promotion of lending through the Giro and also the system announced today by Barclays Bank. In effect, we have seen the demotion of the Budget as the central economic lever of the financial year. Indeed, to some extent we have seen the demotion of the Chancellor as the person who can uniquely control that lever.
  I believe that the Chancellor at the moment is a fugitive from economic management. By doing nothing in the Budget and nothing in the Finance Bill, he has acknowledged that other forces in society are in control. He cannot reflate the economy because Vic Feather, Clive Jenkins, Jack Jones, and Hugh Scanlon have decided to reflate the economy, and because every militant trade unionist and every non-militant trade unionist and every trade union negotiator has decided to reflate the economy.
  These forces are not subject to any control from this House. They are what used to be called in mediaeval England "over-mighty subjects". The kings of mediaeval England realised that, in dealing with them, one had to do one of two things—decrease their powers or increase one's own. That is something which the Government have shirked. As a result, we have considerable inflation and, as the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said, it is accelerating inflation. That is the really worrying factor: it is going up at a rate which
  332
  none of us has ever seen before and which very few of us can really understand.
  The Chancellor recognised this in his Budget speech, when he said, rather lightly and passing over it very quickly:
  " Everyone concerned with wage settlements should understand that, if we are to achieve the reasonable stability of prices which is necessary for a sound economy and a healthy social framework. incomes cannot for long continue to rise at their recent rate"—{OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April, 1970; Vol. 799, c. 1225.]
  The Chief Secretary made this point at the end of his speech today, in saying that the Budget does not add a penny to the inflationary spiral.
  But in the same week as the Budget, the Chief Secretary will recall, there was a bill for £40 million from the Government for an increased health stamp contribution and a bill for £65 million from the Government for increased telephone charges. Once again, the public sector is the pace maker in this regard.
  This is a disappointing Budget, because a great opportunity has been lost. It always used to be said that, when one does not have to do much in a Budget, that is a great opportunity to start simplifying or reforming the tax system. But the Bill does not simplify the system—it makes it immeasurably more complicated. There are 20 pages in the Bill on occupational pensions for a start. The change in surtax is not a simplification but a considerable complication.
  The Chief Secretary may recall the speeches which he used to make in 1963 and 1964, saying that, when Labour came in, they would be a great reforming Government and that the two Measures which they would undertake above all were law reform, under Lord Gardiner, and taxation reform. In both these areas, their record has been dismal. There has been very little in the way of law reform and virtually nothing in the way of tax reform—indeed, an immense complication of the tax system.
  The time for tinkering with reform of our tax system is past. The economic affairs of the country cannot be put right by taking 6d. off the standard rate or rounding down purchase tax rates. Something much more fundamental is needed. What we have at the moment is an immensely complicated structure. One goes

  333
  into that building, one pays one's taxes and one passes through. As one comes out at the back, one collects something from the State through the social security system. The first step in reforming our tax system must be bringing the two doors of the body politic closer together by bringing together the tax collecting procedures and the cash distributing procedures.
  The claw-back measures for family allowances introduced two years ago seemed to be a step in the right direction. I only hope that more steps are made in this direction. We should be more frank and perhaps slightly more explicit on this side of the House as to what we would do. We are not ashamed of our proposals because they involve an entirely new approach, a fundamental restructuring and reshaping of our tax system, not only moving it more away from direct to indirect taxation, but everything that is involved in social security payments as well. We cannot reform the tax system without reforming the social security system at the same time.
  This is the task of the 'seventies and it will have to be faced by our Government. It will throw up exciting possibilities for restructuring our whole fiscal, economic and financial set-up. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) is in the House, because he will have heard the many suggestions from hon. Members on this side of how this can be done. That is what the country wants to hear and what the Opposition are prepared to tell it.
  10.21 p.m.
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I apologise to hon. Members who have borne the heat and burden of the night when I have not been able to be present in the Chamber. As the hour is late I shall make very few observations.
  I wanted to speak on this Finance Bill because I think that it represents the culmination—I certainly hope it does—of a process which has been in evidence since the days of Gladstone. That is the increasing dryness and emptiness of the Finance Bill. All politics is an aspect of the relationship between the one and the many. Where the financial relationship of the individual with the State is
  334
  concerned, there is no reason why it should be accompanied by the trappings of legalistic incomprehensibility and a total absence of fresh thinking. But that is the case with this Bill. To read it fills one with a sense of emptiness and almost of despair. There is so much which could have been done and so little which has, in fact, been attempted.
  I feel that this is a Budget which was dictated largely by the administrative convenience of the Inland Revenue department. All the innovations in it are bred from a need to simplify the processes before the machine breaks down. That approach is not the making of a happy relationship between the individual and the community. The object of the Budget should be the consummation of a union between the individual and the community, or at any rate an exchange of Easter cards. Instead, the Budget is something to which people look with anxiety and fear and from which they obtain less and less comfort and satisfaction.
  The other force which has dictated the style of the Budget is the preoccupation of the I.M.F. with making tidy balances of payments between its members, one fears to the exclusion of serious considerations about the long-term interest of the world economy. It is not edifying to see one country after another, under the influence of the International Monetary Fund, attempting to build up surpluses by drawing resources from its neighbours. In the West we should try to create the greatest wealth we can in the world. We should not simply pursue the building up of surpluses for prestige or for some Election advantage.
  One might have hoped that the Budget would be based on a theme so that one could see running through it the Government's sincerity in some objective, whatever it may be, right or wrong. Whether hon. Members on this side might have liked that or not, it would have been a better Budget if it had an objective which was clear and could be defined. The objective which suggests itself is the one which arises from the change in the cost of living.
  The Government have admitted that there was a 5 per cent. rise in the cost of living in the last financial year. I do not like the cost of living to be expressed in terms of percentages because all of

  335
  us have to live. It would be better if it were expressed in terms of so many shillings on the basic income. Let us look at what that might mean. Putting it at its lowest, if the cost of living increase over the last year was 5s. per person that would mean 10s. per week for a married couple, £1 a week for an average family with two children, and 30s. a week for a married couple with four mouths besides their own to feed. For people at the lower end of the income scale these are extremely serious changes.
  I have often tried to point out that the services we provide to people who are poor are mainly available to those who have no income at all or who for one reason or another are temporarily out of employment or perhaps in retirement. We have not got to grips with the problem of people who have a regular income but who do not find it enough to keep them abreast of what society feels is a basic minimum standard of life.
  We must tackle this problem by a drastic reform of the social services, or by a drastic reform of the tax system, or, as several hon. Members have said tonight, and as many people besides myself have felt for a long time, by a complete reconstruction of the cash relationship between the individual and the State. It is no good regarding the Budget as a one-way movement of cash from the individual to the community without realising that ultimately money circulates through the community as the blood circulates through the body. We cannot consider movement in the one direction without considering movement in the other.
  What does this Budget do about child poverty, a problem which is preoccupying hon. Members on both sides of the House—child poverty where it affects a man who is in work but cannot earn more? The Government have shown themselves completely barren of ideas in this respect. Having, as it appears, £200 million to give away, they have given it primarily to single people and to married couples without children. This is an extraordinary priority to have chosen. It arises from the administrative difficulties of the Inland Revenue rather than from anything else.
  336
  I listened with great interest to the Chief Secretary's remarks about negative income tax. "Negative income tax" is an unpleasant phrase. I try to avoid using it, because the system which is designated "negative income tax" is neither negative nor a tax. I have always been convinced, since it first began to be recommended, that it was administratively completely unworkable and was merely an interesting laboratory exercise. However, the Chief Secretary has put his mind to it seriously, and we must take his objections to it seriously too.
  Although negative income tax is not an ideal solution to the cash relationship between the one and the many, it is one which has received a great deal of attention lately. I noted, before I had to leave the Chamber, the four points the Chief Secretary mentioned as being insuperable difficulties in the way of a negative income tax system or something of the kind.
  As I understood them, they were, first, its inability to respond quickly to new needs. Our present tax system, under the creaking old war-time Pay-As-You-Earn system which has survived into the seventies, can change week by week in relation to a man's earnings. It cannot be too difficult to devise a system which changes even from week to week in relation to other circumstances as well. That system may not yet have been devised, but to say that it is impossible to devise it is like the attitude of people who have given up trying to improve the efficiency of their companies and are unconsciously waiting for a take-over. I think that the Chief Secretary is waiting for a take-over in regard to his responsibilities in this respect, sincerely though he spoke.
  Then the Chief Secretary mentioned the complexity of any system which might be devised. I think he balanced it with inequity. There has to be either complexity or inequity. Our relationship as a community of 50 million living together is bound to be a complex one. We should not seek any quick or super-simple solution; that would be like trying to put all truth into one sentence, and it is not possible.
  If we accept that a change of the kind I recommend may be needed to be brought in over 10 or even 20 years, one can at least make a start. Where one

  337
  makes a start is in the obvious places. Once the public and the machinery have become accustomed to the new ideas, one will also become accustomed to degrees of complexity which would seem overwhelming if they were introduced all at one stroke.
  It is not necessarily inequitable to make changes in line with public opinion. It is necessary to devise machinery that will follow public opinion and not dictate to it simply because the machine appears to demand a particular course of action. We must allow the new relationship to develop gradually, using the machine as its servant. The matter deserves fuller study.
  The right hon. Gentleman talked about the great cost. There is no net cost at all if a system can be devised in which everybody is left with the same spending power as he has now. This is not impossible. Bat if we introduce such a change we hope that it will also lead to an improvement in the conditions of the people whom society wishes to help. There is no reason why it should not. If we are willing to give £200 million to help the poorest people it might be said that to introduce the system costs £200 million, but the £200 million is already there to give, so there is no extra cost, provided we see that the people who gain are the people we wish to gain. We have then already made the expense a moral commitment of society.
  Finally, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned incentives, a matter that we could argue at much greater length. It is most appropriate to ask about incentives in connection with our existing system. Although it may be true that the great majority of wage earners pay marginal income tax of 6s. 5d. in the £, it did not need Professor Prest's interesting document to show that the true marginal tax rates the individual consciously or unconsciously suffers in his relationship with the community at large are often much higher than that. It is, indeed, our obsolete social security and tax systems that are having this disincentive effect.
  There is no reason why anyone should pay a very exceptional marginal tax rate in the future provided we can get rid of the anomaly left over from William Pitt, that the great majority of taxpayers
  338
  pay no tax at all on the initial tranches of their income—in fact, no taxpayers do. That means that to raise any substantial sum through income tax it is obligatory for the State to set marginal rates at points which have undoubted disincentive effects.
  I did not mean to speak too long on this subject. There are one or two other things that I hope will be discussed in Committee in connection with occupational pensions. We welcome the tidying-up of the complexities that have grown up since the 1952 Act. However, one or two points must be made in the middle of our general welcome for what the Government are trying to do here. Their concept of the proper treatment for death in service has already been badly received. It is obviously one of those things that must be reconsidered. Every wise Chancellor includes in his Budget one point on which he has already decided to give way when pressure mounts. Perhaps this is such a point, because it is certainly one that needs to be revised.
  The other point is the tragic omission of any reference to the self-employed, those pitiful gipsies who have been gradually alienated and driven out of our society because we force them to feel that they do not really fit in, they no longer belong. The 1956 Act was an attempt to provide the self-employed with a way of providing pensions for themselves which would not be out of line with the sort of pensions people provide for themselves in normal employment.
  We had the figures not long ago. The total amount subscribed since the passing of that Act to self-employed people's occupational pensions is only about £200 million, whereas in case of people in employment, who work for another man, the figures have risen in the private sector to over £7,000 million. Those figures alone must be shouting out that something needs to be done about the 1956 Act to make self-employed pensions more attractive. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to consider this later.
  To summarise briefly, it seems to me that this dry and unloving Budget is the Budget of a party that has run out of ideas and exhausted its compassion.
  10.35 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I shall be brief, as the hour is late and as the debate has been brief, having regard to the debate earlier today.
  It is a slightly wry thought that the House should have been packed for three hours this afternoon discussing a matter which, important though it undoubtedly is, does not basically and directly affect the people of this country as this Finance Bill emphatically does. We have had a rather empty House for this debate.
  I am sorry that there were not more hon. Members present to hear the Chief Secretary make his remark about the tax system working so smoothly and so well, saying that there was only one case in a million of maladministration, to use his own word. I find that a frightening complacency and can only believe that since the right hon. Gentleman's translation to the Treasury he has had no direct experience of the tax system as a consumer. I imagine that someone else must do his tax returns, because his statement simply does not match the experience of every person with whom I have talked about this.
  Let me make it clear where the blame lies. It lies not with the hard-working, often grossly overworked officials in the Inland Revenue, but fairly and squarely with right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who, by their ill-judged tax reforms and complications, have thrown such enormous burdens upon the machinery. My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) and other hon. Members have called for a great simplification of the tax system. The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) seemed to discount this and said that this tended to be tinkering, and he welcomed the Bill with its very few changes.
  The right answer is that one can satisfy my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member by saying that there is no doubt whatever that what needs to be done to our tax system is to have a radical structural simplification—then leave the damned thing alone for a number of years. This is what we really need. That this will be the policy of my party is now clear. It is a policy to which we have devoted several years of intensive study. [Interruption.] I am glad to have the attention
  340
  of the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett), because I think that he may find himself supporting us. It is the sort of work that can properly only be done by a party in opposition, which has the opportunity to study the thing in sufficient detail.
  There are two points I want to deal with before coming to the main part of the debate. The first concerns the interesting announcement which the Chief Secretary made about mineral royalties. We welcome this alleviation. We will await the new Clause for the details and I hope that the Government will feel able to put it down as early as possible. We must know tonight from what date the new arrangements are to operate. I appreciate that in dealing with existing contracts and leases there are bound to be complications. This is really the parallel of the Chancellor making an announcement in his Budget Statement, when he is extremely punctilious to make perfectly clear the date from which any tax change will operate. I hope that the Minister of State can give more information about this.
  The other point has to do with what the Chief Secretary said about the Bill dealing with injustices in the system. I mentioned an injustice when I spoke in the Budget debate. I mentioned the injustice done to wholesalers by their subjection to S.E.T. when they are in competition with industrialists who do their own wholesaling and who are exempt from the tax. It is the most glaring anomaly and injustice, to which the Reddaway Report drew attention. I have led a deputation to the Minister of State, but no reply was given by the Financial Secretary, the Minister of State, or the Chancellor to the criticism I made in the debate about the omission of any remedy for this anomaly. The Minister of State owes the House and the trade an explanation of why it has not been possible to relieve wholesalers of this anomaly.
  The Chief Secretary dwelt at some length on the reliefs granted in the Bill, amounting in a full year to £220 million and this year to about £179 million. One should recognise what this is relief on. The estimated yield for taxation for 1970–71, eliminating the repayment of import deposits and allowing only for the net yield of S.E.T., is £14,653 million.

  341
  Compared with the previous year, calculated on the same basis, which was £13,183 million, that is an increase of £1,470 million, or 11·1 per cent. This is after allowing for the reliefs given in the Budget.
  The figure for income tax and surtax alone is even more striking. It is up from £5,155 million in 1969–70 to £5,930 million in the current year, an increase of £775 million, or 15 per cent. in the anticipated yield from income tax and surtax this year. I am glad to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer has joined us. I am grateful for his message. How does he reach the estimated increase of 15 per cent. in the yield of income tax and surtax, even after his reductions of £150 million a year applying to that figure, when he has a 3½ per cent. growth of G.N.P. and a 3·9 per cent. growth in consumer expenditure? How come the 15 per cent. increase in the yield of personal direct taxation? Surely, the only answer can be soaring inflation. We know that with a progressive system inflation produces a buoyant revenue. I hope that the Minister of State will deal with this, because it is very important. The Government must come clean on this.
  The estimates in the Red Book postulate a severe inflation, and we need to know the rate of inflation which the Government have assumed in that 15 per cent. increase in the yield of direct personal taxation. Perhaps the most glaring gap in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's strategy was that he gave no indication of the rate of inflation he expected in the year ahead.
  Mr. John M. Temple: Would not it be a generous offer to suggest to the Prime Minister that he might have the help of the Conservative Research Department in working out the rate of increase in inflation?
  Mr. Jenkin: I dare say it would be a generous offer, but the Prime Minister would find it an embarrassing gift.
  The yield of all taxation is 11·1 per cent. up on last year. During the six years since right hon. Gentlemen opposite have been in charge of our affairs. the tax yield has gone up from £7,431 million to £14,653 million. It has virtually doubled in six years. For every
  342
  £ people were paying in tax in 1964–65 they now have the dubious pleasure of paying £1 19s. 5d. Part of this is the natural buoyancy of the revenue.
  Mr. hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) said that increases by Socialist Chancellors of the Exchequer. even after this year's Budget, amount to over £3,000 million. The figure of £3,064 million was given in a Parliamentary Answer. Direct taxes accounted for £800 million. indirect taxation for about £1,600 million and selective employment tax for about £600 million—all this after allowing for the reductions this year. This is from a party which put in its 1964 election manifesto:
  " The general effect of our tax changes will be to stimulate enterprise, not penalise it."
  The real answer is that the party opposite does not believe in stimulating enterprise. As the Chief Secretary has made clear again and again, he does not know or understand the meaning of the word "incentive".
  The objectives of the Labour Party are entirely different, and I support that by quoting again my favourite passage from a speech of the Chief Secretary in the House during the Committee stage of the 1967 Finance Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "This Government believe in intervention by the State and taxation is better described as the level of intervention—[HON. MEMBERS: ' Oh.] Oh, yes. Taxation does not disappear into thin air. It is collected and is spent on a whole variety of social, economic and military services.… We believe that most of the things which the individual wants are best and most economically satisfied by the community. …."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th June, 1967; Vol. 747, cc. 958–9.]
  If I may say so, those few words from the Chief Secretary, by now engraved on my heart, are the quintessence of Socialist philosophy.
  I accept that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite genuinely believe it. The hon. Member for Chislehurst is indicating his vigorous assent. I accept that that is why they have steadily, remorselessly and deliberately raised the level of taxation. Again, I quote the figures referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire. South: 32 per cent. of the gross national product in 1964; 44 per cent. in 1969–70. I accept, too, that that is why the public sector as a whole

  343
  has risen from 42 per cent. in 1964 to over 51 per cent. in 1970.
  What sticks in my gullet and in those of my right hon. and hon. Friends is that the Prime Minister told the nation in 1964 that his programme could be carried out without any general increase in taxation. It is high time that the Labour Party came clean about what it intends to do in the future. Do right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite aim to reduce taxation, or do they, in the words of the Chief Secretary,
  "… believe that most of the things which the individual wants are best and most economically satisfied by the community …"?
  It is now abundantly clear that they cannot have it both ways.
  The truth is that the Labour Party has always been and always will be the party of high taxation. By 1964, millions of our citizens had forgotten this, and refused to heed our warnings of the result of electing the Labour Party. They have had to learn the hard way, and they will not be fooled again.
  Right hon. and lion. Gentlemen opposite put forward many reasons for the soaring increase in taxation that we have experienced. It is said, for example, to be part of a deliberate policy for the redistribution of wealth. However, there is a double fallacy in that argument. and I shall attempt to explain it.
  First, there is no evidence that there has been any acceleration in the redistribution of wealth since 1964, despite the enormous increase in taxation. If I am asked for evidence of that, I turn to two obscure tables at the end of the very valuable volume of Inland Revenue Statistics for 1970. There is given there the estimated wealth of individuals between 1960 and 1968. It is made clear in the notes that the figures have to be accepted with a good deal of caution.
  The basis on which they are compiled is open to some degree of error. They are based on the estates of deceased people and "blown up" by using the mortality rates. They may not be fully representative of the population as a whole. But they are put forward as giving a guide, and the Department has gone on to attempt to measure the changes in the degree of inequality in the wealth of our citizens. It uses a mathematical device
  344
  with which some hon. Members will be familiar, the Gini co-efficient of concentration. I will not attempt to explain that, but I will read two short sentences from the Inland Revenue's explanation. On page 209, it states:
  " It provides a simple measure of the degree of inequality in the distribution of wealth. If all the wealth were owned by one individual the co-efficient would be 100 per cent.; if the wealth were all equally shared it would be 0 per cent. The larger the co-efficient the greater the degree of inequality."
  What the figures show, using the Gini coefficient of concentration is that in the last four years of the Conservative Government the decline from inequality was from 76 to 72 per cent.; in the four years 1964–68 the trend continued at an identical rate. It went down from 72 to 68 per cent. In other words, there is no evidence that the penal rates of taxation, the additional burden of taxation which has been imposed by this Government, have had any effect on the rate of reducing the inequalities of wealth. It would be futile to imagine that they ever would have such effect.
  What the figures also show is that the growth in net personal wealth was a great deal faster under the Tories than under Labour, and very much faster indeed if adjustments are made for changes in the value of money. I will quote one or two more figures taken from the table at the back of the statistics volume. Total net personal wealth in 1960 is put at £51·6 billion, rising to £71·8 billion by 1964, an increase of £20·2 billion in those four years—39 per cent. up at current prices and 21 per cent. up if allowance is made for changes in the value of money. In the Labour years, however, the increase was from £71·8 billion in 1964 to £88 billion in 1968, a rise in four years of only £16·2 billion—22·5 per cent. up at current prices, as compared with the 39 per cent. of the four Tory years, and an increase of under 5 per cent. at constant prices because the rate of inflation was somewhat faster.
  Therefore, not only do we say that this high rate of taxation has had no effect in changing the rate of reducing inequality, but has brought about a drastic cut in the real growth of personal wealth. It demonstrates, as nothing else probably could, the truth of what we have said—that the way to reduce inequality is by

  345
  levelling up and not by levelling down. The best way to achieve redistribution of wealth is not to tax wealth heavily, but to create a situation where people can acquire wealth.
  The encouragement of savings, of home ownership and of investment all do far more to reduce inequality than penal taxation of the rich. Looking at the figures for savings, one can see the real fall—a fall which the Budget and the Bill do nothing whatever to remedy. As recent Parliamentary Answers have shown, there are devastating figures in the annual average increase in personal savings per head at constant prices. In 1946–51, which were Socialist years, savings were minus 19·9 per cent. per annum; in 1951–64, which were Tory years, they were plus 17·4 per cent. per annum. In 1964–69, again Socialist years, they were again minus 0·1 per cent. per annum.
  A number of hon. Members opposite demanded in the Budget debate, that the Government should make a tougher attack on the wealthy, but it is futile for the Government to do so. The National Plan rightly said that the more rapid the rise in the ratio of savings to disposable income the lower would be the taxation required. The converse is also true. The lower the level of taxation, the greater the propensity to save. That is why the Conservatives place such high priority on reducing the levels of direct taxation, for it is savings which generate personal wealth, and it is creation of new personal wealth which is a vastly more worth while objective for any Government to pursue than the rather sterile redistribution of existing wealth.
  I am sure that in their hearts many hon. Gentlemen opposite know this to be true, but the policies which they support lead always in precisely the opposite direction.
  I turn next to one specific matter mentioned in the Bill, and the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) about occupational pension schemes. We welcome the provisions for putting different kinds of pension schemes under the same general rules. We welcome the tidying-up which the Bill contains, but we deplore those provisions which cut down the maximum allowable pension which an occupational pension
  346
  scheme can make to take account of the Crossman scheme. We shall probe these Clauses, and I am delighted to be able to tell the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), who is an expert in these matters, will be by our side to help us.
  I have three points which perhaps the Minister of State will be able to answer. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South, I very much regret that the opportunity has not been taken in the Bill to bring up to date the Sections of the 1956 Finance Act which deal with the self-employed. The House will remember that the Millard Tucker Report, which was issued before that Act, recommended that some pension provision should be made for the self-employed. It recommended that they should be allowed to set aside out of their gross income before tax sums by way of provision for retirement, and a new right to spread their incomes earned over their working lives over the whole of their lives, but limits were imposed. The maximum was 10 per cent., with an upper limit of £750, and no provision was made for commutation to provide a small capital sum on retirement. Fourteen years later these provisions remain exactly as they were in 1956, and they are crying out for a change.
  The usual percentage in employment must be about 15 per cent. Some more generous schemes go to 20 per cent. of the employee's wage or salary as the contribution to a scheme, but for the self-employed the limit is 10 per cent., and that is inadequate. Employees are not subject to any upper limit at all, but the self-employed have this figure of £750 as the maximum tax-free contribution that they can make.
  Why is there no commutation? Civil servants get their lump sums on retirement. Employees in pension schemes get lump sums. The Inland Revenue said in paragraph 21 of its White Paper on Occupational Pension Schemes:
  " The Chancellor has considered whether to set an absolute limit of amount on tax-free lump sums, so that where a lump sum, although within the formula described above, exceeds the limit the recipient would be charged to tax on the excess, but has decided not to introduce such a charge in connection with the current revision of the rules for occupational schemes."
  Yet the self-employed have no right to commute any part of their retirement

  347
  benefits under the 1956 Act. It is a great pity that the self-employed are not covered by the Bill, and it may be that we shall seek opportunities to try to put this right.
  In a number of cases the Bill is markedly less favourable than the White Paper. Perhaps I might quote one example, and that is the treatment of widows when the pensioner has died. Paragraph 26 of the White Paper says:
  " A widow's pension may be paid equal to two-thirds of the maximum pension … which would be approvable for the husband ",
  whereas paragraph 4 of the Fifth Schedule to the Bill says:
  " The annual amount of any pension payable to the widow of an employee who dies after retirement must not exceed one-half of the employee's pension."
  Has there been a change of mind, or will there be a discretion which will allow the payment of widow's pension up to two-thirds? This is a matter of some importance to many people.
  Finally, there is the question of the deductibility of contributions to the Crossman scheme. The Chancellor will remember that the White Paper left this open. It said that this would be reconsidered for the future, but there is an obvious anomaly if contributions to an occupational pension scheme are to be deductible but contributions to the State scheme are not. The basic rule which is adhered to throughout the White Paper and Chapter II of the Bill is that one exempts the building up of pension schemes, but taxes the benefit.
  This was expressly approved by the Millard Tucker Report, whereas the Crossman scheme is in contravention of it. We are told that it will be reviewed later. I hope that during our debates on the Finance Bill we will have a clear answer on this issue and will be told what is the Government's intention about it. In a way, however, this is an academic exercise because it is part of the Crossman scheme, which will be repealed by the next Parliament.
  Hon. Members have found it difficult to say much about the Bill. While I do not believe that a Finance Bill need be exciting legislation, it should offer some hope, some encouragement and some inspiration, certainly more so than this rather tepid Measure.
  348
  The Government's policy would have been more credible had the major threats facing the nation been faced in the Chancellor's Budget statement. They are outside the terms of the Bill, although everybody knows what they are. It is well known that we are embarking on a runaway cost and price inflation which will wipe out, within a few weeks, any tax advantage given by the Bill.
  More serious, this inflation represents the gravest possible threat to the future stability and solvency of the economy. Despite that, nothing is being done, simply because the Government hope to surf to electoral victory on a tidal wave of wage increases far in excess of what the Chancellor knows can be afforded. And the Government want to do this before they are swamped by the tidal wave of price increases which will follow, as sure as night follows day.
  The Chancellor has sought a reputation for financial integrity, but his supine inaction in the face of this soaring inflation will condemn him utterly.
  11.2 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. William Rodgers): Lest this genial hour finally give way to weariness, I shall resist the temptation to follow the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) through the more philosophic and partisan parts of his speech. Nor will I attempt to answer all his detailed questions. [Interruption.] I said "all" of them. If the House is prepared to hear me till, say, midnight, I shall be happy to answer them all, but in my judgment that is not what hon. Members most desire.
  In 1968, the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) claimed in a similar debate that two days should have been provided, and. winding up for the Opposition, he spoke for 31 minutes. In 1969, the right hon. Gentleman said that Second Reading debates on the Finance Bill were often dull and that they were occasions with which we might well dispense. Then, he spoke for 15 minutes. In the debate this year the right hon. Member has contracted out altogether. Despite the excellent speeches that have been made today, I have some sympathy with his developing position.

  349
  Although it seems that this debate is a conventional necessity, I have listened with the greatest interest to the various speeches and suggestions that have been made, and I assure the House that we will take account of them. I am left feeling that I more fully understand than I did before the debate some of the views that have been put forward; for example, the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) about a Select Committee on Economic Affairs, even if I will not comment further on that matter tonight.
  I was also interested in the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) that there should be one big Finance Bill every five years. He might like to amend that by deleting the work "big". The House might be content to have merely one such Measure that often. We have, therefore, had a gentle and, on the whole, constructive debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett), supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, spoke particularly about the need for a radical upheaval in the tax system. I was glad that my hon. Friends made it clear that they were expecting us to take note of their remarks and bring forward proposals before long. I can make no promise, but I can say that we shall certainly be thinking of these matters, and when we present next year's Finance Bill my hon. Friends can judge whether they have been listened to adequately or not.
  I must say this also to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann). He was fertile in suggestions. I am grateful to him. We shall take full account of them, and he will see the result in due course.
  I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) in so far as he talked about prices and incomes, because I thought it an interesting refinement of the attitude of the Opposition to this question. In the Budget debate on 15th April the hon. Gentleman referred to the need for considering when in economic terms giving an increase is justified, but the system had failed, he believed,
  350
  " because the Government have failed to take a tough line in the public sector…"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1970; Vol. 799, c. 1506.]
  He then went on to refer to the need to
  " take a firm line in the public sector."
  The third time he said:
  " It is in the public sector that we need to take a firm line.…"-[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1970; Vol. 799, c. 1507.]
  Then, this evening, in the main part of his speech, the hon. Gentleman said that we should not discriminate against the public sector. Then, in an intervention later, he said that we should look at each case on its merits. I think that that is a distinctive softening of the attitude of the Opposition as we have heard it. I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said. I welcome it, but I must say that in making it more explicit he has confused even further what the Opposition would in practice choose to do if they were given the chance.
  Mr. Higgins: I said before that we must deal with each case on its merits.
  Mr. Rodgers: I looked at the hon. Member's speech, and, as I said, he mentioned on two occasions the need to take a firm line and on the third occasion he mentioned a tough line. I thought that tonight he modified that speech and I had rather hoped for his sake that he might have done so.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) had some fair and reasonable remarks to make about the handicapped and went on to say he would put down an Amendment on this question. As he knows, and as he fairly mentioned this evening, there are real problems of definition involved here. We wish very much that they should be solved and, of course, we shall scrutinise carefully any Amendment my hon. Friend puts down, because if we can overcome the administrative problems, we, like him, would like to do whatever we can for those who find themselves in these exceedingly difficult circumstances. I thought he summed it up very well when he said it is not only a question of physical handicap, but of social handicap, too.
  The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) had something to

  351
  say about, among other things, tobacco substitutes. As he implied, this is something which we, no doubt, can pursue to the general profit in Committee.
  As for old-age pensioners, I think that he made a mistake in referring to the speech I made on 15th April, because I made none. He also made a mistake when he claimed that only 400,000 people with retirement pensions paid tax. I think that he would see, on reflection. that there are many people who have income in addition to their pension. The facts are that about 1·6 million people on retirement pension have sufficient other income to pay tax.
  Sir G. Nabarro: On the two points on which the hon. Gentleman imputes a mistake to me, first, I definitely said the Minister, Treasury—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is the Minister."]—on 15th April. I am sorry: the Financial Secretary; I quoted the correct column, at all events. Second. the figure I quoted of 400.000 came from the Inland Revenue this afternoon to the research librarian of the House and so to me. I have no doubt at all that the figure is correct. Of course, I did not mean maximum incomes. What the Chancellor said in his Budget Statement was that 400,000 people would be relieved by the increase in the allowance for elderly people. That was the figure I employed this evening: 5·7 per cent. of State retirement pensioners—confirmed by the Inland Revenue this afternoon. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his remark that I made a mistake.
  Mr. Rodgers: I have no need to withdraw. I am not disputing the figure of 400.000, as the hon. Gentleman described it. The point that I was making, and. I think, made clearly, was that whereas this figure is correct, there are many more people in receipt of retirement pensions who, because of additional income, in fact pay tax.
  The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Richard Wainwright) fairly asked whether anything had occurred since the Budget which would give cause for alarm. I think that he had in mind, in particular. the growth of domestic credit. He will remember that my right hon. Friend. opening the debate, said that nothing had happened since the Budget debate which affected the Chancellor's
  352
  Budget judgment. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing has happened in this sphere which need cause concern.
  The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford asked about minerals and S.E.T. Concerning minerals, I regret that I cannot go farther than my right hon. Friend went this afternoon. There are real problems about the date. We shall. as soon as we possibly can, put the in formation before the House. I think that it was right and, in the view of the House, correct for my right hon. Friend to indicate our broad intention in this sphere.
  The hon. Gentleman's second main question was about S.E.T. I am sure that he did not intend to say that there had been no reference to it in the course of the Budget debate. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor, in his speech, dealt with S.E.T. and referred to the possibility of anomalies, but he said that this year it seemed better not to take action.
  There are a number of further matters upon which I should like to speak. I should particularly like to deal with savings, a subject touched on not only by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford, but also by the right hon. Member for Taunton and I could speak happily on the Finance Bill for another hour. It is an excellent Bill, which I am sure commends itself to the House. I do not believe that the House will now dissent from that view.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Ordered,
  That the following provisions, namely—

  (a) Clauses 11, 12, 13, 14 and 35, and

  (b) any new Clause first appearing on the Order Paper not later than Friday 8th May, and relating wholly or mainly to corporation tax, or amending Chapter II of Part I of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 (personal reliefs), or relating to the tax treatment of savings schemes,

  be committed to a Committee of the whole House:
  That the remainder of the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee:
  That, when the provisions of the Bill considered respectively by the Committee of the whole House and by the Standing Committee have been reported to the House, the Bill be proceeded with as if the Bill had been reported as a whole to the House from the Standing Committee.—[Mr. Diamond.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  GENERAL RATE BILL
  Lords Amendment Considered.
  Clause 1
  ASCERTAINMENT OF GROSS VALUE OF DWELLING-HOUSE
  Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 2, line 9, after "and" insert:
  " without prejudice to any right under section 69 of this Act to make a proposal for the alteration of the valuation list so far as it relates to any particular hereditament ".
  11.13 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Denis Howell): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  As the House will know, during the passage of the Bill hon. Members in Committee in this House and in another place expressed the hope that in the new proposals which the Government were putting forward which would cover the activities of the Inland Revenue there would be nothing in their operation which would detrimentally affect a particular hereditament.
  It proved possible, during the passage of the Bill in another place, to find a form of words, which I had not found possible when the Bill was upstairs, which seems to meet the fears expressed as reasonably as they can be met and placed in legislation.
  I am happy, therefore, to accept the Lords Amendment in the knowledge that this will give some satisfaction to hon. Members on both sides who raised this point with me upstairs and were anxious to proceed a little more definitely than I was able to indicate at that time.
  Mr. John M. Temple: I am sure that the House is grateful to the Minister of State for his explanation of this comparatively small Amendment, which will give great solace to the ratepayers when, after the 1973 revaluation, they have to appeal before the valuation court. More people may, in fact, be affected by this small Amendment than by the whole of the Finance Bill which the House has just discussed.
  354
  I would pay a tribute to my noble Friend, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, who was very persistent in another place, moving two Amendments in Committee and then this Amendment on Report, which the Government graciously accepted.
  There are almost bound to be anomalies when the 1973 revaluation is published, and there might be errors by the staff of the Indand Revenue, so it is important that ratepayers should be given confidence. It will probably be the only time that these people, most of whom probably do not even pay Income Tax, will go before the valuation court. This is the third Amendment of assistance to ratepayers, as a result of our deliberations on the Bill. I said on Second Reading that our endeavours would be to provide a "belt and braces" for ratepayers and I am thankful that, through no fewer than three Amendments which the Government have accepted, ratepayers will have more chance in the court—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We are discussing only this one at the moment.
  Mr. Temple: Yes, Sir. I was gratuitously giving the Government even more credit: perhaps I was overdoing my generosity!
  We were told about the great urgency of the Bill. It has taken six months, through no fault of this House: there was certainly no delay in Committee. Can the Minister of State assure us that the work of the Inland Revenue has not been held up by this protracted consideration?
  Ratepayers should be grateful for the fairer and squarer deal which the Amendment will surely make possible for them, on the occasions when they appeal, which we hope will not be too frequent. We trust that the 1973 revaluation will go through smoothly.
  Mr. Denis Howell: I appreciate the constructive role of hon. Members on both sides during the debates on the Bill, The fact that we were able to concede three Amendments, which I cannot talk about, shows that we were all trying to get the law right in the interests of the ratepayers.

  355
  On the point about which the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. John M. Temple) was good enough to give me notice—although the Bill has taken longer to get through than we expected, Inland Revenue officers tell me that they needed every day of those six months to do their preparation and forward planning. This is not to say that they were anticipating legislation before it was passed, but they were using their intelligent anticipation of the likely outcome. They have been able to make good use of the time available to them. It has not adversely affected their work. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the House can accept that explanation.
  Question put and agreed to.

  ROADS (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  Clause 9
  FURTHER POWERS OF HIGHWAY AUTHORI TIES TO CONSTRUCT HIGHWAYS OVER OR UNDER NAVIGABLE WATERS.
  Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 6, line 17, at end insert—
  "() Any work authorised to be done by a scheme made by a highway authority under this section shall, for the purposes of section 7 of the Telegraph Act 1878 (provisions as to work which involves alteration in telegraphic line), be deemed to be work proposed to be done in the execution of an undertaking authorised by an Act of Parliament and the highway authority carrying out the work shall be deemed to be the undertakers."
  11.20 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This Amendment was made in another place to meet a request made by the Post Office after the Report stage had been completed in this House. Where such a bridge or tunnel forms part of a motorway, the Post Office already has similar protection under section 20 of the Special Roads Act, 1949. Clause 9 gives all highway authorities powers which are very similar to those possessed by special road authorities. Indeed, Clause 9 is modelled on the statutory provisions relating to the construction of bridges or tunnels as part of special roads.
  The Amendment gives the Post Office protection under Section 7 of the Telegraph Act, 1878, where a scheme is made by a highway authority for the provision of a bridge over or a tunnel under navigable waters. We are, therefore, trying to give the same protection in regard to this matter as exists in regard to special roads. We are very grateful to the Post Office for pointing this out to us. The matter had escaped the attention of all hon. Members. We are glad to make this rectification.
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I am interested to hear that, in the preparation of a Bill like this, consultations with an important

  357
  body like the Post Office can in the early stages apparently go by default.
  We welcome the Amendment, which makes a necessary importation into the Bill. How did the Bill manage to reach this stage without consultation with the Post Office?
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: We consult all the authorities and ask them for comments from time to time. We do that at all stages of the Bill's passage. We are glad that the Post Office pointed out this omission. Otherwise, we should have had to find a place for this provision in another Bill. We are nearly perfect, but not completely so.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 18
  REMOVAL OF ACCIDENTAL OBSTRUCTIONS FROM ROADS
  Lords Amendment No. 3:In page 11, line 37, leave out "in the removal of the object".
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  Mr. Speaker: I suggest that the House should discuss also Lords Amendments Nos. 4 and 5.
  Dr. Mabon: The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) was good enough to point out in Committee the Difference between Clause 18(1) and Clause 18(3) and also subsection (2). We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman far his helpful suggestion.
  Subsection (2) enables the highway authority to fence and light an obstruction, pending its removal, but there was no power in the subsection to recover the cost of fencing and lighting. It seems to us that the three Amendments taken together meet the point that there ought not to be different treatment of these cases. They ought to be on the same basis. Authorities can recover expenses either from the owner of the object causing the obstruction or from the proceeds of disposal of the object.
  358
  The first Amendment extends the power of recovery to all expenses incurred by the highway authority under the Clause and not only to removal expenses. The second Amendment is consequential. The Clause enables a highway authority to sell an unclaimed object and use the proceeds for expenses. Amendment No. 5 ensures that these expenses may include lighting and fencing.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 19
  DANGEROUS VEGETATION AND FENCES NEAR ROADS
  Lords Amendment No. 6: In page 13, line 3, at end insert—
  "() The highway authority may make such contribution as they think fit towards any expenses reasonably incurred by a person in carrying out necessary work in pursuance of subsection (1) or (2) of this section."
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This Amendment would enable highway authorities, at their discretion, to contribute towards the costs incurred by owners and occupiers in carrying out remedial works on dangerous trees, hedges, walls, etc. under the Clause—that is, when required to do so by the highway authority. The Clause already enables the highway authority to waive recovery of expenses which it incurs in carrying out such works in an emergency or in default of action by the owner or occupier.
  The Amendment to some extent meets the representations which we have received since the Bill has been discussed in Parliament—representations from the Scottish Landowners' Federation and the National Farmers' Union. We have not been able to go all the way with these representations.
  It is fair to say that the Landowners' Federation would have liked us to put the whole financial responsibility on highway authorities, but this appears to us to be inequitable. Those who have had experience about arguments over retaining walls, and so on, know that they have

  359
  long been a source of controversy. I shall not go into all these matters now, because I believe that these Amendments meet, to some extent, the represenations of the Federation and the N.F.U., and I hope that they will be agreeable to all concerned.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for this Amendment, because it meets in part the point that I raised in Committee. I did so purely in relation to retaining walls and the problems where traffic conditions have changed. The Minister then leading for the Government pointed out that a highway authority had a discretion not to recover costs.
  The Amendment goes very much further, in that it allows a highway authority to contribute positively towards doing this. On behalf of my hon. Friends, I welcome the Amendment, which meets the point that I raised in Committee.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment No. 7: In page 13, line 8, leave out subsection (6), and insert—
  " (6) As soon as may be after the necessity for work under this section arises on a tree which is subject to a tree preservation order made under section 26(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1947 and before any such work is commenced, the highway authority shall give notice of the proposed work to the local planning authority within the meaning of section 2 of the said Act of 1947:
  Provided that if in the opinion of the highway authority there is imminent danger from the tree falling on the road, they may dispense with the giving of such notice."
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  Subsection (6) as originally drafted permitted a tree which was subject to a tree preservation order to be felled or lopped if it created a danger or obstruction for road users. The Amendment would require the highway authority to give notice to the local planning authority before work has begun to lop or fell such a tree. If, however, the highway authority considers that there is imminent danger from the tree falling on the road, it need not give notice. The obligation to give notice is laid on the highway authority and not on any person whom it orders to do the lopping or felling.
  360
  I shall not go into a full explanation of Section 26 of the 1947 Act, in defence of the Amendment, except to say that we are grateful to those in another place who made this suggestion.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 21
  DEPOSIT OF MUD OR LIQUID FROM VEHICLES ON ROADS
  Lords Amendment No. 8: In page 13, line 36, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
  " (1) A person who, being in charge of a vehicle on a road, allows such quantity of mud, clay, lime, farmyard manure, or other material from the vehicle, or from anything carried on the vehicle, to drop or be deposited on the carriageway of the road so as to create, or be likely to create, a danger or substantial inconvenience to persons using the road and who fails to remove the material as soon as is reasonably practicable thereafter, and in any event before the next occurring sunset, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £20."
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we can take Lords Amendment No. 9.
  Dr. Mabon: This was popularly known in Committee and elsewhere as the "mud" Amendment. I pay tribute to all those hon. Members who served on the Committee for the constructive suggestions they made in the debates we had on this Clause. It is true that at the end of the day the Commons were unable to come to a definite view on the right wording, and that we are taking this from another place, but this is really the work of hon. Members of this House.
  These Amendments fulfil an undertaking given in this House that an Amendment would be tabled to make the Clause more flexible in operation and to overcome the difficulties foreseen by agricultural interests. The amended Clause makes it an offence to allow mud, and so on, from vehicles to drop on to the road and to fail to remove it within a reasonable time. The second Amendment ensures that the offence covers anything towed or pushed by a vehicle and any equipment, such as a harrow, which

  361
  might not come within the normal definition of a vehicle. The Clause as originally drafted made it an offence to take a vehicle on the road without taking all reasonably practicable steps to remove mud, and so on. from the vehicle.
  Apart from the disquiet expressed by hon. Members in this House we had a number of representations about the difficulty involved in cleaning a vehicle in certain circumstances. The National Farmers' Union has been most helpful on this, and I am grateful to it. We have borrowed a Fife bylaw, with one modification. It is a byelaw that works and is acceptable to those who have to operate it.
  The amended subsection (1) also refers to "substantial inconvenience" to persons using the road. References to inconvenience were criticised in the House but on Report my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Adam Hunter) made a strong plea for the retention of the word "inconvenience". He mentioned a development scheme being carried out over a period of some years which has resulted in mud, clay and other materials being deposited on the roads, footpaths, and so on. We have, therefore, decided that there is a case for retaining a reference to inconvenience, but qualified with the word "substantial".
  I will willingly answer any points on this important Clause, even though we have called it the mud Clause, but I think that we have arrived at a sensible solution with the Fife byelaw suggested in this place by a former Solicitor-General. I hope, therefore, that it is acceptable to everybody.
  11.30 p.m.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am glad to speak on the Lords Amendment, because, as the Minister has said, this Clause probably attracted more time in Committee and on Report in this House than almost any other Clause of the Bill. I should like, first, to express considerable interest in the Clause as it affects my constituency because, as the Minister of State knows—and I see that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture also knows, since he lives in my constituency—we have a particular type of very red soil in the Mearns
  362
  which would mean that farmers and contractors in Kincardineshire are much more liable to come under prosecution as a result of the Clause—and I see the Joint Parliamentary Secretary nodding—than are those from almost any other area in the United Kingdom. I am sure that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has practical experience of carrying that red soil on to the roads. Therefore, from a constituency view, apart from the wider interest, I am particularly concerned that we should get the right answer.
  I certainly welcome the practical approach of the Government, and I pay tribute to the Minister of State for having been so flexible and open to suggestions on the Clause. I welcome, too, the fact that the Amendment is based on a practical byelaw of a county in Scotland which has had experience in administering it. At the same time, as the Minister of State has acknowledged, one must recognise that the Amendment is largely based also on suggestions put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), to whom the House owes a great debt for his assistance in clarifying our minds on this matter in our earlier debates.
  My only other comment relates to what the Minister has said about "substantial inconvenience ". On Report, we had a great debate on what constituted an inconvenience. We discussed ladies crossing muddy roads wearing shoes which did not completely cover the feet. I remember that Mr. Speaker entered into that debate with an intervention.
  From what the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Adam Hunter) said in our earlier debate, I appreciate the need to use the word "inconvenience". What slightly worries me is its qualification by "substantial", because on Report, on an earlier Clause, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Pentlands was chided by the Minister for using the word "material", which is much the same as "substantial", in qualifying something. Therefore, I am rather surprised that the Minister comes forward with an expression like "substantial inconvenience", which might prove difficult of definition in the courts. However, for lack of anything else, I

  363
  suppose that we must accept it, but I hope that the Minister will recall—and, perhaps, read—the words of advice he gave to my hon. and learned Friend.
  I hope that this important Clause will be sensibly interpreted, and in practical terms, both by the police, who will be responsible for making any charges under it, and also by the procurator-fiscals in Scotland, who will be responsible for proceedings under it. The Minister of State has acknowledged that responsible and constructive attitude of the National Farmers' Union and others in Scotland. I am certain that there is anxiety that the Clause should be sensibly interpreted and, at the same time, that those who may be responsible for depositing mud on roads will be careful about it.
  Therefore, in the sense that we have had co-operation in the House in the formation of the Clause, there is hope also of common sense outside and co-operation between those who may deposit mud and the authorities who are responsible for administering the Clause. Only in that way, following the great deal of debate and thought that we have given to the Clause, can we make sure that in the event it is worth while.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 24
  OBSTRUCTIONS AND EXCAVATIONS IN ROADS WITHOUT CONSENT.)
  Lords Amendment No.11: In page 15, line 40, at end insert—
  "; and that person shall maintain an excavation filled in by him in pursuance of this subsection for such period, not exceeding 6 months from the completion of the filling in. as may be specified by the highway authority."
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this Amendment it may be convenient to discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 12. 13 and 14.
  Dr. Mabon: Those are consequential on Lords Amendment No. 11.
  364
  The purpose of the Amendment is to provide over Scotland for a maintenance period of six months rather than to have discrepancies as, for example, in Glasgow, which made the point to us, of three months. We are simply making this Scottish rather than local.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.
  Lords Amendment No.15: In page 16, line 19, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
  " (7) This section and subsections (1), (2) and (3) of the next following section shall not apply—
  (a) in any circumstances where any of the following enactments applies—
  (i) section 29 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1903 (penalty on unauthorised occupation of street),
  (ii) section 8 of the Building (Scotland) Act 1959 (occupation of parts of road for deposit of building materials),
  (iii) section 19 of the Civic Amenities Act 1967 (penalty for unauthorised dumping of motor vehicles etc.),
  (iv) section 22 or 23 of this Act, or
  (b) to any works to which the street works code as contained in the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 applies."
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  Although this Amendment looks rather formidable it is, in fact, only drafting.
  Question put and agreed to.
  New Clause "A"
  POWER TO OBTAIN ROAD-MAKING MATERIALS
  Lords Amendment No. 16: In page 21, line 45, at end insert new Clause "A"—
  " A.—(1) The highway authority may enter any land to search for, dig and carry away materials for the purpose of making or repairing a highway and may carry such materials through the land of any person.
  (2) Before carrying out any operations under this section, the highway authority shall serve notice of their intention on the owner and the occupier of the land concerned together with a description of the proposed operations and of the right to object thereto within 28 days after the service of the notice.
  (3) Where the highway authority is a local highway authority and within the said period of 28 days the owner or the occupier objects

  365
  to the proposed operations, and that objection is not withdrawn, the local highway authority shall not proceed to execute the operations without consent aftermentioned but may refer the matter for the determination of the Secretary of State who may grant consent to the proposed operations either unconditionally or subject to such terms and conditions as he thinks just, or who may withhold his consent, and the decision of the Secretary of State on the matter shall be final.
  (4) The highway authority shall pay compensation to the owner or occupier of the land for any damage done thereto by reason of the exercise of their powers under this section and for the value of materials carried away by them.
  (5) Where an excavation is made by the highway authority in the exercise of their powers under this section, the authority shall—
  (a) while the work is in progress, and thereafter so long as the excavation remains open, keep the excavation sufficiently fenced to prevent accidents to persons or animals,
  (b) as soon as is reasonably practicable after the completion of the work, fill up the excavation or slope it down and fence it off, if the owner or occupier so requires, and thereafter keep it so fenced,
  (c) so far as is reasonably practicable, when filling up the excavation, make good and level the ground."
  Dr. Dickson Malbon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it may be convenient also to discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 17, 18, 22 and 24.
  Dr. Mabon: I must confess that this may be the most formidable task facing me at this stage of the Bill. In another place there was a discussion about three important items. Amendment No. 22 repeals Section 80 of the General Turnpike Act, 1831, which appears as Schedule C in the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act, 1878. Section 80 of the 1831 Act empowers highway authorities to obtain material for making and repairing roads. Our new Clause A re-enacts the main substance of Section 80 of the 1831 Act, but in wording more in keeping with modern drafting practice and embodying safeguards which we now regard as normal in authorising the exercise of such powers.
  The third thing which we seek to do is to make consequential adjustments in the Bill itself and in previous Acts. It
  366
  could be argued that we should not have done this at this stage and that we should have awaited a consolidation Bill. After listening to the debate in another place, my right hon. Friend decided that it would be far wiser if we took on this general task of making these substantial rewritings, for that is what it is, and of modernising a law which has served us well but which is written in terminology which is not as up to date as we should like for it to be understood both by the general public and those concerned with the operation of the Bill.
  If there are any specific points of elucidation about which I can help, and which will help to secure the agreement of the House to the Amendments, I shall be happy to explain.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I cannot claim to have followed this provision back to the Turnpike Act, 1831, but I have taken the trouble, in anticipation of this matter being discussed at a late hour, to read the debates on the subject in another place. The fact that the Government have been persuaded about this important matter and believe it to be worth making this change at this late stage indicates the value of debates in another place in helping us to improve legislation.
  Having read the debate in another place, I do not intend to go into the details now, but there is one general comment which I should like to make. When important consolidation of a modernisation Measure like this comes forward at a late hour, when the whole Bill is largely the modernisation of previous legislation, one's mind immediately boggles at the thought of what else the Government might have missed out which ought to have been included. One quickly draws back, because otherwise one might be here till kingdom come if one tried to modernise all the legislation that goes back over nearly two centuries.
  The Opposition welcome the Clause because it appears to help in certain circumstances particularly owners of land and others who find a road going through their property and become liable to having road materials excavated. But 1 should like elucidation on a small point. Subsection (5)(b) states:
  " as soon as is reasonably practicable after the completion of the work, fill up the excavation

  367
  or slope it down and fence it off, if the owner or occupier so requires, and thereafter keep it so fenced."
  This is important. I have seen it where there have been road works, particularly in country areas, and local materials have been used.
  In Scotland, as elsewhere, we are concerned with tourist attractions and keeping the countryside beautiful, and at no time is this more important than in Conservation Year. Therefore, we want to avoid at all costs scars appearing in the countryside as a result of such measures.
  I welcome the subsection and hope that, in practice, it will be strictly adhered to, so that where quarries and other excavations become necessary there will be good landscaping and tidying up afterwards. After all, tourism is one of the main industries of Scotland. In modernising our roads, do not let us lose sight of other considerations such as tourism.
  11.44 p.m.
  Dr. Dickson Mahon: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for those remarks.
  The three main defects of the previous provisions are that for purposes of notice to proprietors and compensation they distinguish between enclosed and unenclosed land, they authorise the taking of materials in certain cases without notice to proprietors, and the provisions for compensation are very odd indeed, being related to whether material taken from land is eventually used within three miles of the place where it was taken.
  Subsection (5) of the new Clause requires the highway authority to fence excavations while work is going on and, when it is completed, either to fence excavations or fill them in and make good the ground surface. I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman said about that. In the General Turnpike Act there are rather similar requirements in relation to unenclosed land, but there is no reference to enclosed land. That is why we thought we would make this revision and put it into modern terminology.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to [Several with Special Entry.]

  AGRICULTURE (PLOUGHING GRANTS)
  11.45 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): I beg to move,
  That the Ploughing Grants Scheme 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 21st April, be approved.
  It might be convenient, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if we discussed, at the same time, the corresponding Scottish scheme, which is the subject of the second Motion:
  That the Ploughing Grants (Scotland) Scheme 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 21st April, be approved.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Sydney Irving): If that is to the convenience of the House, so be it.
  Mr. Mackie: These schemes provide grant for ploughing grassland which is at least 12 years old, where the cost of the operations necessary to bring it into a satisfactory state for cropping is substantially above normal. By helping farmers to improve the condition of suitable land this grant encourages the effective use of agricultural resources and helps to offset the yearly drain of agricultural land to urban and industrial development.
  The provisions of the schemes are virtually unchanged from previous years, but I should perhaps remind the House that the streamlining of capital grants will affect this grant. As hon. Members are aware from proceedings on the Agriculture Bill, the ploughing grant will be replaced by a grant under the farm capital grant scheme when it is introduced. The Ploughing Grants Scheme will then be closed to new applicants.
  The House may wish to have the latest figures of expenditure. In the financial year just ended £382,000 was spent, of which £323,000 was for England and Wales, £12,000 for Northern Ireland and £47,000 for Scotland. This was paid in respect of 32,000 acres ploughed. We estimate that the amount of grant paid will be slightly higher in the current financial year.
  I commend these schemes for the approval of the House.
  11.46 p.m.
  Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine (Rye): On the last occasion when such a scheme came before the House the Minister was asked why the figure of £12 was appropriate in 1969 whereas it was £10 in 1952. There was no satisfactory answer to that question last year, so I give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to answer it this time.
  Last year, the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said that the cost had not risen as much as we might have expected. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman will say today, but he will not overlook that there has been, according to the Price Review, a large net increase in costs this year—a total of £60 million. Even since the Review there has been a large increase in costs. For example, the cost of a tractor has gone up by £150 since the Review was announced. Therefore, if in 1952 the right figure was £10 it is time the hon. Gentleman told us why £12 is the correct figure today.
  Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the way in which the conditions are laid down? He mentioned that two of the conditions are that the land must have been under grass since 1958 and the expenditure substantially heavier than normal. Are there not one or two other things he should also bear in mind when these grants are being administered?
  In any area farmers will know that there are certain pieces of land which might qualify under the two conditions we have both mentioned, but that it is land which it is not economic to plough, because it is well known that it will not provide an adequate result.
  Second, should not the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that land should not be ploughed which is known not to be properly drained? There are examples where land has been ploughed and as a result of bad drainage very little has resulted from the work.
  Third, I would like the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that although we all agree that new leys, if the land is put down to grass again, are much more productive than old pastures, many people have found that old pastures have certain merits. They can be of use in many ways. For example, when some herds affected by infertility have been put back
  370
  on the old grass the difficulties that the veterinary surgeons were unable to isolate have disappeared.
  On at least the past two occasions when the schemes have been brought before the House the Minister has been asked to let us know whether chemical preparation of the land was covered by the definition of ploughing. There has ben no answer so far. Perhaps after three years' contemplation the Minister would make it clear either that it is or is not covered.
  The last thing I ask him to consider is whether he is doing enough by the scheme. The Minister said that the schemes this year covered 32,000 acres. Last year, it was said, in the House, to cover 45,000 acres and a week later when it got to the other place, 5,000 acres had disappeared. It is now 32,000 acres and the urban requirements come to about 50,000 acres a year, with that these schemes do not cover those requirements. Doubtless, the idea is to enable new land outside traditional farming areas to be brought under cultivation. The Minister will recall that as recently as March the Economic Planning Council for Agriculture said that the expansion of arable acreage envisaged by the Economic Development Council had not yet begun. It went on to say that the arable objectives would not be achieved unless there was a pronounced upturn in the next three years. These schemes however show a diminishing number of acres.
  If the total requirement in the selective expansion programme is to be achieved, according to the figures of the E.D.C. there is a deficiency in each of the years between now and 1972 of 413,000 acres and a total deficiency on cereals of 643,000 acres. The 32,000 acres does not seem a very significant addition when these figures are borne in mind, along with the fact that the cereal acreage has been declining since 1967. With these points in mind, I commend the scheme to the House.
  11.53 p.m.
  Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie (Ross and Cromarty): I welcome these schemes. It must be clear now that the land being ploughed after having been rested for such a considerable time cannot be of the best quality. Going through the countryside I notice that much of this

  371
  land needs draining, and it will be a waste of money and energy to give a ploughing grant unless conditions are laid down dealing with drainage and the application of the necessary lime and phosphorus. This land will not carry grass for long unless it is put into an initial state of fertility. I am not clear about the conditions attaching to the grants and I would be grateful if the Minister would explain them.
  11.54 p.m.
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I support what has already been said and would like to be sure that the Minister is satisfied that the grant will always be given in circumstance justifying it. There is a temptation when a grant is available for one purpose not to carry out the preparatory operations such as drainage. Often to plough up an old sward which has often provided a certain amount of drainage merely compacts the ground and makes drainage even worse. Equally important, is the regeneration and improvement of pastures. It is not necessarily the mechanical action of ploughing which is the best method here.
  In rougher areas operations such as discing and direct reseeding, for which grants are available, are often much more effective. Because the ploughing grant of so much per acre looks simple, often the farmer goes for that method rather than for perhaps better methods which are eligible for assistance. Are the farmers made fully aware of the other types of assistance which are available for more suitable operations which may be in the best interests of husbandry?
  11.55 p.m.
  Sir John Gilmour: Most of my points have already been covered. This scheme has been going for some time, but are we certain that it is keeping up with the times? It is rather depressing that whereas, in 1938 we were 38 per cent. sufficient in lamb and mutton, we are now down to 36 per cent. It may be true that the deficiency in our sheep stocks comes from the lowlands, and that the hill ground, where ploughing up and the renewing of pastures plays an important part in our livestock husbandry, is keeping pace. But unless
  372
  we are certain what we are aiming at by continuing the payment of £12—and what my hon. Friend said about its inadequacies with present-day costs needs reinforcing—we shall be spending this £12 less effectively than we might.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) last month put down two Questions about Scotland, the replies to which showed that in 1969 the applications for ploughing grants in England were 4.266 and in Scotland 521. On a strict arithmetic calculation, this might appear to be a fair proportion. but the proportion of hill and upland area in Scotland is much higher than in England, and the 521 applications for Scotland is somewhat disappointing.
  There is in Scotland a much higher proportion of difficult land to plough than in England. and it seems that Scotland is not getting as much as it should. This may be the fault of the farmers, or of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland in not telling people what is available.
  The Minister stressed this year and last year that the purpose of the Scheme is to help farmers to bring into cultivation land which might otherwise remain uncultivated. In the Outer Islands bulb growing is developing, and land not previously cultivated is being brought into cultivation. Will the grant apply to this? The land has been uncultivated for hundreds of years.
  11.59 p.m.
  Mr. Mackie: The hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) asked whether the increase in the grant from £10 in 1952 to £12 today was sufficient. As he knows, there has been a tremendous increase in efficiency over the years with machinery and the chemical treatment of the sward, and all this has made ploughing easier. It is a little difficult to estimate the 30.000 or 40,000 acre target; sometimes the target is reached. and sometimes not. It is obvious that farmers have taken advantage of it and that they find it profitable to take the £12.
  The use of chemicals to kill sward forms part of the operation and comes in for grant with the rest because it represents a proportion of the cost.
  I was not sure about the first point raised by the hon. Member for Rye, but

  373
  if a farmer owns land which is not good enough, I cannot imagine him spending money on it. It will cost considerably more than £12 an acre, and presumably he will not go ahead.
  The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) asked whether the land would be properly drained. There are various schemes for land. If a lot of draining is required and it is hill land, the best course for the farmer would be to take advantage of the Hill Land Improvement Scheme which attracts a 70 per cent. grant. I am sure that, if our officers saw that some land was very wet and required draining, the ploughing grant would not be given.
  I was then asked whether it is expected that new leys will give the same results as old ones. We all know that many farmers have land that they would not dream of ploughing. But the productivity of a new ley is such that one has to consider whether it will give better results than an old one. However, new leys will help to balance the 50,000 acres that we lose every year, and it is up to farmers to judge how much they will take on.
  The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty mentioned drainage. Of course, it is ridiculous to plough land without draining it. But in his area, most of the land which would come under the scheme would be dealt with under the Hill Land Improvement Scheme.
  The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) referred to chemicals and other methods of doing the job. There are other methods, of course, but most of the land will ultimately require to be ploughed. However, the use of chemicals to kill sward makes ploughing easier, and it all comes into the cost.
  The hon. Member for Rye raised the question of cereals and asked whether
  374
  this scheme would add anything to arable production. Most of this land would be reseeded. Very little of it would come into cereal production.
  The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) asked whether this would help keep up hill stocks. Lowland stocks are going down, but hill stocks are going up, and I presume that this grant is helping a little in that direction.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked about the proportion of land in England compared with Scotland. As he said, I know the terrain in Scotland, and quite a lot of it is improved by the direct seeding and harrowing of hill land. Certainly, the land is different, and there is more of this type which would react to definite ploughing. But there are other methods in Scotland which bring quite a lot of improvement to the land.
  I think that I have covered most of the points raised by hon. Members. No doubt, when we bring forward a similar scheme next year, the hon. Member for Rye will ask various points which I have not applied myself to tonight. So, if I have not covered everything this year, he will have another opportunity next year.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Ploughing Grants Scheme 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 21st April, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the Ploughing Grants (Scotland) Scheme 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 21st April, be approved.—[Mr. Mackie.]
  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved,That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Armstrong.].
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Twelve o'clock.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL PLANNING
  Clean-air Policy (Smokeless Fuel Supplies)
  Clean-air Policy (Smokeless Fuel Supplies)
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Ombudsman
  Local Government Ombudsman
  Derelict Land Reclamation
  Derelict Land Reclamation
  Pollution
  Pollution
  Advisory Council on Noise
  Advisory Council on Noise
  Colliery Waste (Road-building material)
  Colliery Waste (Road-building material)
HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Local Authority Housing (Owner-Occupation)
  Local Authority Housing (Owner-Occupation)
  Building Regulations
  Building Regulations
  Cotswold Water Board (Water Rate)
  Cotswold Water Board (Water Rate)
  Housing Programme
  Housing Programme
  Smoke Control Areas
  Smoke Control Areas
  General Improvement Areas
  General Improvement Areas
  Housing (Construction Period)
  Housing (Construction Period)
  Brent (Housing Programme)
  Brent (Housing Programme)
  Overcrowded Inner London Boroughs (Rehousing)
  Overcrowded Inner London Boroughs (Rehousing)
  Building Land, London
  Building Land, London
  Surrey Docks Site (Residential Development)
  Surrey Docks Site (Residential Development)
  Children (Play Provision)
  Children (Play Provision)
  Housing Improvements
  Housing Improvements
  Havering (Housing Programme)
  Havering (Housing Programme)
  Ealing (Housing Programme)
  Ealing (Housing Programme)
  Local Authority Support Grant
  Local Authority Support Grant
  Planning Inquiries
  Planning Inquiries
  Haringey (Housing Programme)
  Haringey (Housing Programme)
  Slum Clearance Programme
  Slum Clearance Programme
  Empty Houses (Survey)
  Empty Houses (Survey)
  Hounslow (Housing Programme)
  Hounslow (Housing Programme)
  Voluntary Housing Movement
  Voluntary Housing Movement
  New Towns (Housing Programmes)
  New Towns (Housing Programmes)
  Greater London Council (Housing Programme)
  Greater London Council (Housing Programme)
  House Prices
  House Prices
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  Centrally-Heated Houses (Rating)
  Centrally-Heated Houses (Rating)
  Political Leaflets (Circularisation)
  Political Leaflets (Circularisation)
  Tower Blocks (Strengthening)
  Tower Blocks (Strengthening)
  Indoor Ice Skating
  Indoor Ice Skating
  Indoor Swimming Pools
  Indoor Swimming Pools
  Old-Age Pensioners (Rate Rebate)
  Old-Age Pensioners (Rate Rebate)
  Flooded Property (Rates)
  Flooded Property (Rates)
  Holiday-use Property (Improvement Grants)
  Holiday-use Property (Improvement Grants)
  Wash Barrage
  Wash Barrage
  Rate Support Grant, Wandsworth
  Rate Support Grant, Wandsworth
  Land Commission (Chairman)
  Land Commission (Chairman)
  Rugby Football, Wales (Facilities)
  Rugby Football, Wales (Facilities)
  Local Authorities (Direct Labour Building)
  Local Authorities (Direct Labour Building)
  Local Authorities (Sewerage Schemes)
  Local Authorities (Sewerage Schemes)
  Litter
  Litter
  Housing, Stockport
  Housing, Stockport
  Local Authority Building Land
  Local Authority Building Land
  Fly Ash, Ferrybridge Power Station
  Fly Ash, Ferrybridge Power Station
  Council Rents (Decimalisation)
  Council Rents (Decimalisation)
  Nature Conservation at the Coast (Report)
  Nature Conservation at the Coast (Report)
  Chalkhill Estate, Brent (Loan)
  Chalkhill Estate, Brent (Loan)
  Brighton (House Purchase Finance)
  Brighton (House Purchase Finance)
  Tall Flats (Pitch Fibre Pipes)
  Tall Flats (Pitch Fibre Pipes)
  Sports Centres (Grants)
  Sports Centres (Grants)
  Birkenhead and Bebington (Council Housing)
  Birkenhead and Bebington (Council Housing)
  Council Houses, Merseyside (Evictions)
  Council Houses, Merseyside (Evictions)
  Ice Rinks (Rate Contribution)
  Ice Rinks (Rate Contribution)
  Historic Buildings
  Historic Buildings
  Noise Reduction
  Noise Reduction
  Conservation Areas
  Conservation Areas
  Water Resources, Wales and the Midlands
  Water Resources, Wales and the Midlands
  Housing Loans, Birmingham (Interest Rate)
  Housing Loans, Birmingham (Interest Rate)
  Controlled Property (Rents)
  Controlled Property (Rents)
  Housing Finance (Royal Commission)
  Housing Finance (Royal Commission)
  New Housing Construction
  New Housing Construction
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Fixed Price Contracts
  Fixed Price Contracts
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Joint Stock Banks (Personal Loan Schemes)
  Joint Stock Banks (Personal Loan Schemes)
  Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas
  Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas
  Brewery Companies (Excise Duties and Taxation)
  Brewery Companies (Excise Duties and Taxation)
  War Loan
  War Loan
  Weekly Wages
  Weekly Wages
  Income Tax (Budget Proposals)
  Income Tax (Budget Proposals)
  Purchase Tax Certificates
  Purchase Tax Certificates
  Fermanagh Border (Concession Roads)
  Fermanagh Border (Concession Roads)
  Surtax
  Surtax
  Motor Industry
  Motor Industry
  The Task Ahead (Economic Assessment)
  The Task Ahead (Economic Assessment)
TRANSPORT
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  M18 Construction (Colliery Shale)
  M18 Construction (Colliery Shale)
  Fire Engines (Right-of-Way)
  Fire Engines (Right-of-Way)
  Cross-Channel Link
  Cross-Channel Link
  Fire Hydrants (Parking)
  Fire Hydrants (Parking)
  Road Safety Centres
  Road Safety Centres
  Parking Regulations
  Parking Regulations
  Road Fund Licences
  Road Fund Licences
  Victoria Road, Bolton (Accidents)
  Victoria Road, Bolton (Accidents)
  M62 Motorway (Vehicle Testing)
  M62 Motorway (Vehicle Testing)
  Heavy Duty Lorry Drivers (Qualification)
  Heavy Duty Lorry Drivers (Qualification)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Manchester Ship Canal (Explosion)
  Manchester Ship Canal (Explosion)
  Airstrip, Usk
  Airstrip, Usk
  Romanian Tomatoes and Cucumbers
  Romanian Tomatoes and Cucumbers
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Development Areas
  Development Areas
  Wage and Salary Settlements
  Wage and Salary Settlements
  Company, Perivale (Industrial Dispute)
  Company, Perivale (Industrial Dispute)
  Redundancy Payments
  Redundancy Payments
  Training Grants Scheme (Scotland)
  Training Grants Scheme (Scotland)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Farm Amalgamation Schemes (Northern Ireland)
  Farm Amalgamation Schemes (Northern Ireland)
  RENT ACT
  RENT ACT
  MINISTER OF TRANSPORT
  MINISTER OF TRANSPORT
  TOWER BLOCKS (STRENGTHENING)
  TOWER BLOCKS (STRENGTHENING)
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  CABINET MINISTERS (SCOTLAND)
  CABINET MINISTERS (SCOTLAND)
  MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (SPEECH)
  MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (SPEECH)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND HOSPITAL SERVICE (COMMISSIONERS)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND HOSPITAL SERVICE (COMMISSIONERS)
  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
  APPELLANTS (QUASHING OF CONVICTIONS)
  APPELLANTS (QUASHING OF CONVICTIONS)
  JUDGES' REMUNERATION
  JUDGES' REMUNERATION
  SOLICITORS (CONVEYANCING FEES)
  SOLICITORS (CONVEYANCING FEES)
  IMMIGRANTS (ILLEGAL MARRIAGES)
  IMMIGRANTS (ILLEGAL MARRIAGES)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
DEFENCE
  Gloucestershire Regiment (Farewell Parade)
  Gloucestershire Regiment (Farewell Parade)
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ulster Defence Regiment
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Stockport
  Stockport
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Biological Weapons (Toxins)
  Biological Weapons (Toxins)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  West Midlands Police Force
  West Midlands Police Force
SCOTLAND
  Population Statistics
  Population Statistics
  Rates
  Rates
  Forestry Commission (Land Purchases)
  Forestry Commission (Land Purchases)
  Swimming Pools
  Swimming Pools
  Crime (Ayrshire)
  Crime (Ayrshire)
  Ayrshire Police Force (Expenditure)
  Ayrshire Police Force (Expenditure)
  Hospitals Ayrshire (Maternity Services)
  Hospitals Ayrshire (Maternity Services)
  Radiation Deaths
  Radiation Deaths
  Home Dialysis Facilities
  Home Dialysis Facilities
  High Blantyre School, Hamilton
  High Blantyre School, Hamilton
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Student Residences and Hostels
  Student Residences and Hostels
  Council Houses (Building Costs)
  Council Houses (Building Costs)
  Farm Holdings (Banff)
  Farm Holdings (Banff)
  Motor Taxation and Roads Expenditure
  Motor Taxation and Roads Expenditure
TECHNOLOGY
  Textile Industry (Depreciation Allowance)
  Textile Industry (Depreciation Allowance)
  Beagle Aircraft Company
  Beagle Aircraft Company
  Press Officers
  Press Officers
WALES
  Severn Estuary (Land Reclamation)
  Severn Estuary (Land Reclamation)
  Car Licences
  Car Licences

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

B.B.C. SERVICES
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: 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 assurances have been given that the B.B.C. will reconsider the alterations in their services at the end of June, that is, after three months of operation.]
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DA VIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I said in the debate on Broadcasting Policy on February 25 that the B.B.C. would review their programmes in the light of public reaction to the first few months of their plan. The B.B.C. tell us that this is the position and that they have already made changes as a result of representations.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask her to remind the B.B.C. that not only are we concerned about the content of radio, we are deeply concerned about the content of television as well.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: Yes, indeed my Lords. The B.B.C. are very much aware of public interest throughout the country in both radio sound broadcasting and television. This great public interest is one of the best safeguards for our whole programme in this regard.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, if I may intervene, I should like to point out to my noble friend that asking the Minister to "remind" somebody is not a question.

HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES
2.38 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the total expenditure on schemes of harbour development of a capital nature, excluding works of routine maintenance and repair, during the years 1965 to 1969, both inclusive, in all harbours or groups of harbours (other than British Transport Docks Board harbours) in which more than 5 million tons of goods were handled in any period falling between June 30, 1966, and July 1, 1968, and what was the estimated cost of such work on schemes begun during the period 1965 to 1969 and remaining at December 31, 1969, to be completed.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, R.A.F. (LORD WINTER-BOTTOM): My Lords, total capital expenditure on development schemes at these ports amounted to some £120 million over the five-year period 1965 to 1969. Information about the estimated cost of outstanding work on schemes unfinished at the end of 1969 is not separately available.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him how much of the expenditure of £120 million was, in the view of the Government, a misdirection of resources?
LORD WLNTERBOTTOM: A misdirection of resources, my Lords? Did I hear the noble Lord correctly? In the view of the Government these resources were correctly directed.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, in that case would the noble Lord be prepared to say, either now or in the debate on Thursday, in what respect resources have been misdirected, as stated by the Government in paragraph 6 of the White Paper?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is pre-empting points that he is to make on Thursday.

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT: PROPOSED AMENDMENT
LORD DER WENT: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have considered amending the Consumer Protection Act 1961 to include "passing over" provisions to enable local authorities to prosecute, as the actual offenders, importers and manufacturers who have distributed goods in respect of which the sale by retailers constitutes an offence against the Act, thus creating provisions similar to those contained in Section 16 and 23 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (BARONESS SEROTA): My Lords, enforcement authorities already have power to prosecute importers' or manufacturers who sell goods which do not comply with regulations made under the Consumer Protection Act. But my right honourable friend the Home Secretary agrees that enforcement authorities are sometimes hampered by the absence of provisions such as those referred to by the noble Lord, and he has noted the point for amending legislation when a suitable opportunity occurs.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I thank the noble Baroness for what is a moderately satisfactory reply? Is she aware that in the case of certain retailers it is virtually impossible, as the Consumer Protection Act now stands, for a local authority to prosecute the manufacturer? Am I right in thinking that the noble Baroness gave me a qualified blessing for this amendment? If so, and if I were to introduce a Private Member's Bill in order to try to hurry the matter up, might I have the Government's blessing for it?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right: my right honourable friend accepts that under this legislation there are certain practical difficulties for local authorities which one need not go into at this stage. With regard to his second point, the Session is fairly well advanced for the introduction of a
112
Bill, and although I cannot enter into any commitment for the Government for the next Session I think my right honourable friend would look favourably at a Private Member's Bill on these lines.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that I take that as a blessing.

AIRCRAFT NOISE
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what expenditure the Ministry of Technology has committed to sponsoring research and development in the field of aircraft noise.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY (LORD DELACOURT-SMITH): My Lords, there has been a rapid growth in this work over the last few years, rising from about £250,000 in 1965–66 to a current level of about £1½ million annually. In value terms, about one fifth of the work is carried out in Ministry Establishments, notably the National Gas Turbine Establishment at Pyestock. The remainder is carried out under contract by industry and the universities. The aircraft industry is also spending about £100,000 of its own money annually.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for his Answer. Can he give us a little more information on precisely what research work is being carried out by the Ministry of Technology, aimed at reducing aircraft noise?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: Yes, my Lords. The Ministry's work covers both airframe and engine noise, the investigation of the effects on people and buildings, the establishment of operational procedures to reduce noise—this is in collaboration with the Board of Trade—sonic bang work and basic research. We have established with industry advanced facilities for the study of noise problems, and further facilities are under consideration. The first major fruits of this work will be seen in the new technology engines, of which the RB.211 is the best known.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, does the noble Lord not consider that aircraft flying low enough over London to interfere with children's kites, as reported in the Press, must be creating a nuisance of noise?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I should think that, if this is indeed happening, they are creating a nuisance to the people and to the kites.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, could the noble Lord say a little more about the success the establishments inquiring into this matter have had? He told us that the RB.211 is going to be quieter as a result of it. But what about all the other noise that those of us who live near airports have to put up with from aircraft? At the moment the noise is more noticeable than the success.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, the figures and facts that I gave related to research which is now being done and which, as I said, has been increasing over the last few years. Aircraft with the new, quiet engines will be in service in increasing numbers in the next few years. But the effect at any one airport of course will depend upon the patterns of the utilisation of aircraft at that locality.
LORD IRONSIDE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the Advisory Council on Noise are considering any of these questions of aircraft noise?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: Not without notice, my Lords.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us whether any of this research will be applicable to supersonic aircraft, and whether there is any hope that, as a result of this research, the noise of supersonic aircraft may be reduced?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: Yes, my Lords. We have a continuing programme of research into the likely effects of sonic booms and we have access to the results of work which has been dons on this subject on the Continent and in the United States. We shall be taking advantage of the Concorde test flights to add to our knowledge in this field. In addition to the work that is being undertaken at Farnborough, we have placed
114
a number of contracts with the Institute of Sound and Vibration Research at the University of Southampton, and at other universities, for work on particular aspects of the sonic boom.
LORD BROUGHAM AND VAUX: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether there have been any complaints regarding the Concorde flights at the moment down the West coast of England?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: No, my Lords. The use of the full test route down the West coast has not yet begun.

CAMBODIA
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given Private Notice—namely,
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on their attitude towards President Nixon's decision to send troops into Cambodia.
LORDSHACKLETON: My Lords, the Government's attitude to the present situation will be explained by my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the Prime Minister in the course of a debate which is shortly to be held in another place. I hope the noble Earl and the House will agree that we should await the outcome of that debate.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord the Leader of the House for that extremely courteous reply, and appreciating that we should know a great deal more by this evening, may I ask whether he does not agree that President Nixon's decision will be prejudicial to the ending of war in the area and may embarrass America's friends and Allies, as well as her opponents? Will he not therefore also agree that it is most urgent that both Houses of Parliament in this country be given a chance to debate South-East Asian affairs? Will the noble Lord take steps to ensure that the House of Lords be given time for such debate?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think my first reply indicated that I was not in a position to comment on the first part of the noble Earl's supplementary

115
question. The possibility of a debate in your Lordships' House is one which is always open to us. My own view is that I think we shall all want to study not only what is said in another place but also events as they may unfold.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that we ought to be careful in this matter? I was in Vietnam last year and, apart from the rights and wrongs of the matter, the American soldiers do not know who their friends are because of the infiltration from the Cambodian and Laos borders.
LORD SHACKLETON: Again, my Lords, I note my noble friend's remark.

WHITEHAVEN HARBOUR BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
GLOUCESTER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

INDECENT ADVERTISEMENTS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Indecent Advertisements Act 1889. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read Ia.—(Baroness Birk.)
On Question, Bill read Ia, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Shackleton, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Marquess of Lansdowne to advance his Unstarred Question from Thursday the 7th to Wednesday the 6th of May.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY BILL [H.L.]
2.49 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. Perhaps in moving this Third Reading I might take the opportunity of making a reference to two points which were raised at the Committee stage about the proposed title of British Nuclear Fuels Limited. My noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones suggested that the word "fuel" was being used in this context in a rather extraordinary way, because fuel is something combustible whereas what we describe as "nuclear fuel" undergoes the different process of fission. Literally, of course, if one refers to the Oxford English Dictionary or to other standard dictionaries, my noble friend is correct, but in this connection the term has already acquired a wide and perhaps one might say an accepted usage, as also in this context has the term "burn up" as a measurement of the extent to which the fissionable material in a fuel element has undergone fission. In any case, the term "fuel" has two distinct merits: first, it aptly connotes that nuclear "fuel" elements are produced for the same purpose as coal and oil—the fossil fuels—to provide heat and power, and secondly it makes clear that we are referring to a peaceful application of nuclear power, and possibly the use of a wider term, such as "resource" as my noble friend suggested, would cast some obscurity over this. I think for these reasons it would be desirable for us to retain the term "fuel".
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, referred to a somewhat different point. He drew attention to the coincidence between the initials of the proposed fuel company and those of the British Nuclear Forum. The latter is of course an organisation with which my Department is in close working touch, and it is an organisation which we expect will continue to play a useful role in the restructured nuclear industry. Therefore it is clear that the coincidence of initials, to which the noble Lord referred, could be a continuing situation. However, before we decided upon the term "British Nuclear Fuels

117
Limited" a number of alternatives were examined. Some of those which were most suitable were found already to be in use and appearing on the Companies Register. Finally, the name of British Nuclear Fuels Limited, seemed to be the most apt and attractive of those available, despite the coincidence of the initials. But it would be best, if at all possible, to avoid this source of confusion, and I promised the noble Lord that we would look at this point in the light of the observations that he made at the Committee stage. We are indeed still examining it. We are looking at the possibilities in consultation with the Atomic Energy Authority. Perhaps I may add that if the title, "British Nuclear Fuels Limited" is in the event to be retained, the company would certainly endeavour to use some abbreviation other than B.N.F. and so minimise any possible confusion.
Before I conclude, there is one correction which I ought to make to the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, to which the attention of your Lordships ought to be drawn. In the final paragraph of the Memorandum the first sentence states that the Bill will not result in any increase in the staff of any Government Department. One of the effects of the Bill is to subject the two companies to the licensing requirements and inspection provisions of the Nuclear Installations Act. The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate of the Ministry of Technology will therefore acquire responsibility for inspecting the companies, and will require a small increase in staff for this purpose. As a result of that there will be some increase in the administrative expenses of the Ministry of Technology in carrying out its function—a function which it already has and discharges under the Nuclear Installations Act. It is not yet possible to make any reliable estimate of the amount of the increase or of the number of staff, but it is expected that in both cases the figure will be a small one. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Delacourt-Smith.)
2.57 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, for giving the House these additional explanations. I do not
118
want to enter into a semantics debate. It may be that the word "fuel" is not correct in this case but it has come to be used in this sense. I think the noble Lord made a good point when he suggested chat this company would be known as B.N.F.L. so that it would not be confused with the other B.N.F. mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wade.
I should like to take this opportunity of saying that we on this side of the House welcome this Bill generally. I do not want the noble Lord, Lord Dehicourt-Smith, to think that I have been unreasonable over Clause 11, regarding shareholding in the two companies, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, I simply did not see any reason why the old subsection (3) should remain in the Bill. As I said both on Second Reading and in Committee, it may be that the Government and the A.E.A. should, at the outset, be the majority shareholders in the companies, but in particular we do not see why this should necessarily be written into the Bill as being desirable "at all times", which were the words used in the subsection. It is not that we on this side of the House are being dogmatic or doctrinaire; we merely want to do the right thing in this particular case.
I recognise that the fuel company will manufacture materials which form the constituent of nuclear explosives, but none the less the noble Lord admitted that there were companies in other countries undertaking various stages of the fuel cycle, especially the manufacturing of nuclear fuel elements, even if none was exactly in the position of our own proposed fuel company.
Again I would emphasise that it seems pointless if the ultimate result of the creation of these two companies is merely to transfer work from one form of public authority to another form of public authority—to use the noble Lord's own words. I think the subsection was unnecessary in the case of both companies and especially, I would judge, in the case of the isotope company. I should have thought that no security consideration was involved there. I cannot of course say what will happen in another place, but I would not myself think it necessary to put that subsection back into the Bill. We shall have to wait to see whether the Government have second thoughts on this

119
matter or whether by judicious drafting they can meet our point.
I might also add, in regard to Clause 19, that I was very glad indeed to hear the noble Lord say that the conditions proposed under the new pensions schemes, taken as a whole, would not be less favourable than those obtaining in the A.E.A. It was good of the noble Lord to give this assurance, which should go some way to meet the views of those employees of the A.E.A. who have complained about being automatically transferred to the new companies.
Again, my Lords, I should like to say that we welcome this Bill. Let us form the two companies as soon as possible so that the fuel company can play its full part in the proposed European consortium. I should also like to thank the noble Lord for having written to me on the point about delay, which I stressed on Second Reading; that we had been responsible for the delay in forming the European consortium because we had not formed our own company. The noble Lord admits that the negotiations were held up in the late summer and autumn of last year while certain outstanding difficulties were considered by each country, but he assures me that it was not the United Kingdom which was wholly responsible for this. I will not go into any other details, but no doubt this point will be discussed further in another place.
3 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, has dealt with his usual courtesy and efficiency with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, who is so well scientifically qualified himself, about the expression "fuel" in this context. I intervene solely because the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, is unfortunately not in his place at the moment. Lord Wynne-Jones did me the honour of asking me some time ago what I thought of his point. I thought it was well worth raising, but I ventured to ask him whether he realised what a big task he had set out on if he wished to stop scientists and technicians from talking nonsense, and I gave him an example, which I venture to repeat to the House, in the hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will
120
give his attention to it, should it come within his sphere, and perhaps do something about it.
Scarcely a day passes without a reference in the Press, or even, I think, in Ministerial statements, to "ballistic missiles", Can anybody think of a missile which is not ballistic? The word "ballistic" means pertaining to throwing of missiles, and a "missile" means something thrown. A "ballistic missile" seems to me to mean precisely nothing more than "missile". It is pure surplusage. It suggests that there is some sort of missile which is not ballistic. I have so much sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, who answers for a Department with many functions of the old Board of Trade for which many years ago I had the pleasure of answering, that I hope he will use his good offices to prevent a phrase of this sort from coming into any legislation for which he is responsible. I give him notice that, should that not be the case, he would certainly be called upon to explain it.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I think I have only two comments on the remarks which noble Lords have been kind enough to make on this Third Reading. The noble Earl made a reference to the correspondence which had arisen from his criticism of delays in the settlement of matters as part of the tripartite agreement. The situation is that prior to the announcement of the agreement there was, it is true, some delay in settlement of some aspects of it, but, as I pointed out, this delay did not arise by any means solely through Her Majesty's Government. It was a question of legitimate differences of opinion which took some time to resolve. It is often the case that when such differences of opinion arise they may give rise to delays which appear to be unreasonable to one party or other which finds it hard to accept that the other party cannot agree to its point of view. I must make it clear that Her Majesty's Government cannot accept that at any stage in these complex negotiations, either before or after announcement of the agreement, there has been any unreasonable delay for which Her Majesty's Government could be criticised.
I am a little at a loss to know how to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Conesford,

121
because I am sure he would be the first to agree that the observations which he has made could lead to a long and interesting debate. Indeed, he might one day think it an appropriate subject for a Motion for Papers. May I make two observations? On the original point which the noble Lord raised, I am sure he would agree that it is a feature of the English language that it is in a perpetual state of development and that words come, in the course of time, by legitimate usage, to extend and sometimes transform their meaning. I think equally he would agree that it is not unknown for phrases to arise which in themselves have an element of redundancy. I am not sure that I would altogether accept that he has fairly singled out "ballistic missile" as one. But there have been many people far greater than I who have devoted themselves effectively to trying to prune down the sometimes excessive use which we make of adjectives, even when they are not necessary, and I have no doubt that that admirable work will be done and that the noble Lord will always be foremost in it.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.*
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Delacourt-Smith.)
On Question, Bill passed.

EQUAL PAY (No. 2) BILL
3.5 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill gives to women, for the first time, the right to the same terms and conditions of employment as men and, by so doing, removes a longstanding injustice. I feel I am privileged to-day to take part in what is in the nature of an historic occasion. In an age when machine power has largely displaced the need for muscle power, women can compete on equal terms with men in most fields of employment. Yet outside a few white-collar occupations women are still looked upon as second-class labour, and paid accordingly. Other countries
* See col. 164
have made efforts to end this injustice by special legislation and other means. In particular, the member States of the European Economic Community are bound by the Treaty of Rome to observe the equal pay principle, and a great many other countries have ratified the International Labour Convention on equal remuneration. The Bill will put this country to the fore among those which are trying to make equal pay a reality, and will enable us in due course to ratify the International Labour Convention. The concept of equal pay for women commands a wide measure of support throughout the country. Employers are ready to concede the justice of it and trade unions want it on behalf of their women members. The Government believe that the time is now ripe to give this concept the force of law. The Bill that I am presenting to you to-day, my Lords, provides a comprehensive legal framework 'that will enable both sides of industry to make the necessary adjustments in an orderly way.
Before I turn to the detailed provisions of the Bill I should like to say something about its general approach. In the past, the main debate has centred on whether legislation should provide for equal pay for work of equal value, or equal pay for the same work. The latter definition is clearly too narrow. On the other hand, the Bill has been criticised because it does not rely solely upon the I.L.O. definition of equal pay for work of equal value. The Government have carefully considered the possibility of legislating in these terms, but have rejected it on practical grounds. In order to assess the value of women's work it would be necessary to evaluate the jobs not only of all women, but also of all men in the working population, as only in this way could the relative value of men's and women's work be satisfactorily established. Such an operation would be quite impracticable, if only because there are insufficient trained staff available to do the evaluation. But even if it were possible, it would not be desirable because it could have the incidental effect of upsetting pay differentials between men, and it is no part of the Government's purpose to do this. The Government have therefore sought an approach which is more practicable and will ensure that as many women as possible get equal pay.
My Lords, the Bill which I am commending to you is designed to eradicate discrimination in pay in specific identifiable situations, by prescribing equally specific remedies. A woman seeking to establish her right to equal pay will be able to take advantage of two specific sets of circumstances. She will be able to claim equal pay under the Bill where she is doing work which is the same as or broadly similar to that done by men, or where her work, though different from that done by men, has been found to be equivalent to that done by men as a result of a job evaluation exercise. In addition to her right to equal pay in those two situations, a woman will be able to benefit from the Bill's third main provision, which removes discrimination on grounds of sex in collective agreements, wages regulation orders, and employers' pay structures. Dealing as it does with these three main areas of inequality, the Bill provides women with a measure of protection against discrimination which goes beyond anything in the law of other major countries.
Let me now outline how the Bill sets out to achieve these objectives. Clause 1 deals with discrimination in so far as it affects the situation of an individual woman. It provides that where men and women are employed on the same or broadly similar work or where they are employed on work which, although different, has been rated as equivalent as a result of a job evaluation exercise, they are to receive equal treatment. This right to equal treatment is to include not only the equalisation of pay but of all terms and conditions provided for in a person's contract of employment. The Bill thus provides for equality in such things as holidays and sick pay, and even the right of access to promotion and training opportunities, where these arise out of the contract of employment. The area in which a woman may draw comparisons with men is normally limited to the establishment in which a woman works, but is widened to cover more than one establishment if such establishments are owned by the same employer and have common terms and conditions of employment.
Clause 2 provides for the enforcement of the requirements of the first clause. Any dispute arising under the same work or job evaluation provisions can be taken
124
to the already existing industrial tribunals, either by the woman concerned or by her employer. Powers are also provided in this clause for the Secretary of State to take a case to the tribunal, if she feels that the woman concerned has a good reason why she cannot take the case herself. The industrial tribunals which were set up in 1965 have provided a speedy and easily accessible method of settling questions in the employment field. They already deal with disputes in regard to such matters as redundancy payments, the selective employment tax and industrial training levies. They have built up a considerable expertise in matters affecting employment and are therefore eminently suitable to deal with questions about equal pay. The tribunals will be able to hear cases up to six months after a woman has left her employment, and will be able to award arrears of pay, subject to a maximum of two years. The tribunals will also be empowered to award damages where there has been failure on the part of an employer to provide a woman during a past period with some type of payment in kind, such as the free use of a house or the right to use a company car. Such damages, my Lords, will be only in respect of the actual loss suffered by the woman.
Under the provisions of Clause 1 it will be for a woman to make a case to the tribunal to show that she is entitled to receive equal treatment by virtue of doing the same or broadly similar work or work rated as equivalent to that of men. However, once a woman has established such a case, Clause 2 provides that the onus of proof is then on the employer to show that any difference in treatment between the woman and the men concerned is due to a "genuine material difference" between their cases, and not to discrimination on grounds of sex. Employers will thus be able to continue to distinguish between a man and a woman on genuine grounds such as seniority, merit, level of output and so on, provided that they also distinguish between a man and a man in the same circumstances.
Clause 3 provides for the removal of discrimination on grounds of sex in collective agreements and employers' pay structures. This clause has effect in two ways. It provides that where a collective agreement contains, after December 29,

125
1975, separate men's and women's rates for any class of work or worker, the woman's rate will have to be raised to the level of the men's rate. And where an agreement or pay structure contains a rate applying specifically to women only, then that rate must be raised to the level of the lowest men's rate in the agreement. The Industrial Court is given the duty of dealing with disputes about collective agreements and pay structures. Any party to an agreement or the Secretary of State, may refer a case to the Industrial Court. Any amendments made by the Court to terms and conditions laid down in a collective agreement will become part of the individual contracts of employment of the workers concerned. Similar provision to that in regard to collective agreements is made in Clauses 4 and 5 in regard to wages regulation orders and agricultural wages orders.
Clause 6 defines certain exceptions to the requirement of equal treatment. Where there are laws governing women's employment, employers will not be required to give equal treatment to the extent that the law lays down special conditions for the employment of women. Clause 6 also excludes retirement pensions from the requirement of equal treatment for men and women. There are considerable difficulties in the way of defining the principle of equal treatment in this field. Where women are covered at present by an employer's pension scheme, their treatment usually differs from that of men, often in a way which favours women. This is because women usually retire at a lower age than men, and yet on average they live longer. However, when this matter was discussed recently in another place, it was apparent that there was a wide measure of support for a proposal to include some provision in regard to pensions in the Bill. The Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity has undertaken to consider this possibility, and if she decides that an amendment to the Bill is desirable and is feasible, it will be introduced in this House.
Clause 9 lays down that the Act will come into force on December 29, 1975, and empowers the Secretary of State to provide by order, subject to the approval of Parliament, for the partial implementation of equal pay by December 31, 1973. The Secretary of State
126
would be able to exercise this power if she considered that progress towards equal pay was taking place too slowly. The purpose of such an order would be to require employers by the end of 1973 to raise the pay of any women who will be entitled to equal pay in full at the end of 1975, to not less than 90 per cent. of the men's rates to which they will become entitled. The Bill is extended to Crown servants by the last sections of Clauses 1 and to the Services by Clause 7, and to the police by Clause 8.
That brings me to the end of the detailed provisions of the Bill. I should like, in conclusion, to make these additional points. The Bill has been criticised on a number of general economic grounds. It has been said that equal pay will give rise to unemployment among women because employers will prefer, when there is no financial advantage in employing women, to employ men. I do not see why this should be generally true. Depending on the nature of the job, it may sometimes be advantageous to employ men and sometimes women. In any case, women form one-third of the working population and any significant general displacement of women by men is out of the question. There will, no doubt, be some redundancies among women in specific cases, but in an expanding economy their labour will be absorbed elsewhere. It is not the experience of other countries which have introduced equal pay that it has resulted overall in less employment for women. On the other hand, we hope that the introduction of equal pay will stimulate employers to make more efficient use of their female labour, and the resultant saving in costs should go a long way towards paying for the increase in women's pay. It has also been suggested that many women will work for fewer hours if, following equal pay, they can earn as much as they did before in a shorter working week. This may be so in some cases, but it should be balanced by the fact that higher pay for women will encourage many who do not work at present to seek employment and persuade others who might otherwise have given up employment to remain at work.
My Lords, this Bill is a substantial step forward on the road to full equality of rights for women. It marks the end of a long-standing injustice. I commend

127
it to this House in the belief that it will command a wide measure of support on all sides. I conclude by paying tribute to those in this House, in another place and outside who have argued for many years past for the right of women to equal pay. It is the purpose of this Bill to make that right a reality. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Phillips.)
3.20 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, a merciful Providence has arranged that women and men are not equal, but it should be no part of the case to-day of any speaker, I should have thought, to try to discover differences for which I think we ought all to be thankful; differences indeed which are sometimes to be found happily confounded. Your Lordships may remember Disraeli's opinion that "owing to fogs and their social system, the British people require grave statesmen". Yet we have here in this House many noble Baronesses who prove quite often that a mixture of talent with gravity is more to the liking of the House, and this is particularly true of the clear explanation we have had, both clause by clause and also in opinion at the beginning and at the end, from the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, of this Bill, which I think is a Bill of deceptive slimness.
It is possible to exaggerate the claims of women over the centuries, but certainly for many years a view obtained that a woman's place was in the home. It is incredible to recall that as late as 1891 the Court of Appeal should have ruled, in Regina v. Jackson, that a husband cannot legally detain his wife in his house. Two years before this Ibsen's play, The Doll's House, had opened in London to crowded and excited audiences. It has been said that when the wife in that play, Nora, finally left her husband and slammed the door shut behind her the echo of that action was surely felt throughout society. My Lords, that may be. Three years earlier, the T.U.C. had passed a resolution on equal pay for equal work, but in fact two world wars were needed to compel recognition of the natural justice of this claim. A Royal Commission was set up by the
128
late Herbert Morrison and reported in 1946. In 1955 the Conservative Government introduced equal pay for the Non-Industrial Civil Service, for non-manual local authority workers and for teachers—measures which were to take final and full effect in 1961. Now to-day the Government introduce this Bill, not just for equal pay but, as the Long Title says:
"to prevent discrimination, as regards terms and conditions of employment, between men and women."
Your Lordships will agree, I think, that it would be wrong to duck the basic problem, the definition of what the Bill seeks to achieve. The noble Baroness has told us that the Government have rejected the Treaty of Rome definition as inadequate and consider the definition of the International Labour Organisation as too indefinite. So it is that the Bill, in Clause 1, defines "like work" as work "of the same or a broadly similar nature" or which has, "been given an equal value" by job evaluation. If either of these two definitions is satisfied, then the jobs must be treated equally in terms and conditions of employment.
In all fairness, I should add that this was a conclusion on which the Royal Commission of 1946 had reservations. But that Report was published a quarter of a century ago, and much has intervened. In the last decade, 46,000 more university places have been found for girls. The university authorities may have found these formative years somewhat bracing, but we on this side of the House are proud to have played our part by establishing seven of these new universities before the Conservatives left office in 1964. We believe that it would be tragic not to recognise this step forward.
Increased automation in the home; the loneliness, so often, of modern town life; the spread of adult education, and to-day, with ever-rising costs, plain financial need—all these things have increased the desire of women to work; and the demand, particularly from teaching, hospitals, banks, textiles and food concerns, remains formidable. These are a few reasons why I hope that the simple principle of the Bill may prove acceptable to your Lordships. It is essential, however, that the Bill should be understood and accepted by both sides of industry,

129
and there are parts which, despite the noble Baroness's explanation, remain vague or obscure.
Clause 1(2) lays down that a contract of employment shall extend equal treatment to men and women "in the same employment", and this is to include "associated" employers with common terms and conditions of employment. We all know that many employers are bound by national agreements to pay similar basic rates but that in fact their employees take home different amounts of money. Many is the job which carries a differential because the job happens to be in the London area. Those of your Lordships who live in East Anglia will appreciate this point, in that the financial benefits of the development areas very often allow in those areas terms of employment which cannot be found in the East Anglian region. Yet East Anglia, so often thought of as the land of cold winds and low incomes, seems to offer indefinable values which people increasingly desire, so that this region has outstripped all others in population growth.
I would say to the noble Baroness that the House will want to know what are "common terms and conditions of employment", and we shall certainly probe for a more accurate definition of "associated employer". As drafted, this subsection could make demands which companies operating branches in the more remote areas might find they could not face, and might strain a perfectly reasonable pay differential which has grown up for a variety of reasons, and produce a situation with which industrial relations found they could not cope. It is easy to criticise the wide terms of the Government's definition, "work of the same or a broadly similar nature", but I submit that, after improvement in another place, this definition is just about as right as we are likely to get it, providing a broad framework for negotiation and, when necessary, leaving freedom for the judgment of the tribunal.
However, my Lords, the definition of job evaluation in Clause 1(5) is, I think, still open to question. The two main advantages of this comparatively new idea are vital to the future prosperity of our country. First, by calculating the value of the job and not of the person concerned these schemes can bring
130
rational agreement on wage and salary structures, and can avoid the damage of leapfrogging pay claims. Secondly, the more complicated analytical schemes really do afford opportunities to re-assess jobs; and for our country, short of raw materials and dependent for our prosperity on utilising every scientific advance, this surely is vital. But the Bill advises the evaluation of jobs
"in terms of the demand made on a worker under various headings (for instance effort, skill, decision)."
The Prices and Incomes Board Report, No. 83, on this subject makes it clear that this will be a most unusual form of job evaluation—calculating only in demands on the person—and that Report shows that normally many other demands are taken into account: responsibility, man-management, judgment, and experience, to name only a few. How the Bill can talk about giving an equal value to jobs if this would have been so if different values had not been set for the work of men and women, when the Government's own Report makes it perfectly clear that in job evaluation this should never be done, is something which remains a mystery to me. And though this subsection has already been improved in another place, it would be of the greatest assistance if any of your Lordships with knowledge of this field could advise on this subsection at the next stage of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 5 describe the methods of enforcement, and deal with collective agreements and wages orders, about which perhaps I might say a little more, with your Lordships' help, in Committee. But at this stage may I just submit two thoughts to your Lordships? There is no provision to prevent frivolous claims, and we on this side of the House do not believe that the Minister should have a statutory right to become involved on one side in a dispute. With nearly 9 million women at work to-day, it may be that at first the tribunals will be overwhelmed. It should also be noticed that under Clause 2(6) the onus of proof is to be placed on the employer. This may well be right, but it would foment trouble if a series of frivolous cases were brought for reasons other than the justice of equal treatment.
While the Bill specifically empowers the Secretary of State to refer a case for

131
a woman who shrinks from doing so, it is extraordinary that no mention is made of other representations before a tribunal. If there is no chance of representation by an organisation, a trade union or a colleague, there may be need for Ministerial assistance, but in another place that suggestion was resisted. I ask the noble Baroness whether she will look again at these points. The Bill will need to be read and understood by both sides of industry, and if people see only one right of representation written in they will assume that it is the only one which exists.
Despite several improvements, the Bill is not entirely easy to understand. I wonder whether a reading of lines 20 to 31 on page 5 would readily convey the meaning that the words are only a long-stop to ensure that any collective agreement not covered by the Bill must have its lowest women's rate equal to the lowest men's rate. The form of Clause 1(1)(b) is something which I suppose is familiar in both Houses of Parliament, but for the public to be told that in this Bill women should be treated as men and men should be treated as women is logic which could be open to unfortunate misunderstanding.
There is a major omission from the Bill. It may be called the Equal Pay Bill, but it is almost completely silent about equality of opportunity. The most obvious practical step which could have been taken is the amendment of Part VI of the Factories Act 1961, which, among other things, by forbidding night work effectively prevents women from taking a full part in three-shift, 24-hour operations. On Second Reading in another place, the Minister, Mrs. Castle, said:
"There are some unions which still argue very strongly that the restrictions should be retained, and I know employers who are against night work for women on social grounds."—[OFFICAL REPORT, Commons, 9/2/70, col. 922.]
Certainly, the need to strike a balance remains, but a year's exemption which the Minister can grant is insufficient to a firm laying out millions of pounds on a new factory. Men's reactions to a continuation of this special treatment is also a factor which I do not think should be underestimated, and we should consider whether women in, for example, nursing, who have no regard to what night hours
132
they have to work or the weights they should lift, will not see the continuation of this part of the Factories Act as a bar to women at work.
For many occupations are, in truth, still the preserves of men. The noble Baroness told us that there can be equality of opportunity if training, for instance, is covered by a contract of employment; but for many women that is really cold comfort. Women may not enter the Stock Exchange. Ten days ago the quota system for women candidates to medical schools was criticised in this House by my noble friend Lady Brooke. According to Cmnd. 4245, there are only seven women members of public boards. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has been, and I expect still is, a member of the National Union of Teachers. That is a union which is remarkable for its predominance of women members; but on an executive committee of 44 only three are women. I feel sure that I carry right reverend Prelates with me in this argument, and I trust that your Lordships will agree to write some provision into the Bill to ensure that equality of opportunity shall go hand in hand with equal pay.
On this matter the Donovan Report was quite specific. Paragraph 349 declared that the removal of the restrictions on women from training and skilled work were in the long run even more important than equal pay. And paragraph 354, while recognising the difficulties of which early marriage is the most obvious, concluded that the obstacles are reinforced by prejudice among men, which fosters,
"the unwarranted assumption that nothing can be done."
I think this opportunity should be seized to alter that assumption.
I submit that certain responsibilities must be accepted if this Bill is to succeed. For the Government, a closer study of the costs will be needed. At the moment, estimates range from a 3½ per cent. to a 6½ per cent. increase in the national wages bill, which is a difference of some £600 million. But the Prices and Incomes Board reminded us that job evaluation is something which is invariably accompanied by increased costs. We have been told that Clause 9 of the Bill provides for an order to raise women's pay rates to 90 per cent. of men's by the end of 1973, if the Minister sees fit; and

133
subsection (2) requires equal pay to be back-dated to a maximum of two years.
Most important of all is the cost of the differential which will have to be made up to some women if they are to catch up and if this Bill is to work. The decade 1955 to 1965 saw annual wage increases of 3 to 8 per cent. My goodness! my Lords, those pale into insignificance with the wage increases which are being given to-day. Benefits under this Bill will be dissipated, so some of us believe, while taxation continues to discriminate against the married woman. Furthermore, if the Government are going to close their minds to widening the wording of the Bill to include equal opportunities, that may increase the demarcation between the employment of men and the employment of women; and, though equally paid, women may still receive their money in low-paid employment.
I suggest that to employers, unions and individuals will fall the responsibility for fair dealing and control: fairness in refusing to evade or wrongly avail oneself of the Bill; control because we are only human, and prejudice will continue to play its part. But, as the noble Baroness has herself said, better opportunities for women in work could more than pay the account for this Bill, and within the next five years all of us together have an opportunity of ensuring the Bill's success. If this were the hallmark of all industrial relations, then our products would have little to fear in the years that lie ahead.
3.37 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like briefly to join in welcoming this Bill as being one further stage towards what might be called the emancipation of women, or bringing women up to the same level of men from the point of view of employment. It is an interesting point that the professions have accepted equal pay for quite a long time, and doctors, lawyers, accountants and civil servants have equal pay. When one comes down to some of the less well-paid occupations, I believe that workers on London Transport and people like that are paid the same whether they are men or women.
I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, on the question of opportunity for women to get better jobs than they get now. This does not quite arise
134
in the Bill, but I think it is very important. I am thinking of such people as scientists, technologists, technicians and draftsmen. I do not want to go deeply into numbers, but the difference in numbers between men and women is extraordinary. I will give one example. There are 104,000 male draftsmen employed in industry, but there are only 1,000 women draftsmen. That would seem to be a job which a woman could do just as well as a man, but lack of training and lack of opportunity mean that they do not get jobs of that kind. In the same way, I saw in a survey made by P.E.P. that in the case of jobs worth £2,000 a year there is a differential of 20 to 1, while in the case of jobs worth £5,000 a year the differential is 50 to 1. That seems to show there is something wrong with the opportunities for women to go into those jobs.
I should now like to come to the schools. I think that from an early age a girl should be trained to apply for these better jobs. The other day, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has already reminded us, we talked about the number of women who can become doctors. I think the biggest proportion of women medical students is about 25 per cent. of the total entry, and one of the reasons for that, it would appear, is because of the difficulty of girls getting into medical schools. Their teachers do not teach them that sort of thing. It is so very easy to say, '"Of course, nobody applies to come", but they are not going to apply if they are not taught to apply. That is one thing which I think could be done very much more now; girls could be trained to apply for these jobs. I am quite certain that if more applied they would be accepted and would be found to be as good as men, and that would be a very good thing both for industry and for the women involved. At the present time, there is a rather poor attempt being made to make more training places available for women by turning some of the male colleges into co-educational colleges. That may be a good thing from many points of view, but it does not make more places for training. One would rather see new colleges for women being built than more places being made available for women in male colleges by cutting down the number of men who go there. That does not seem to me to be the right way to proceed at all.

135
The Bill puts right certain anomalies, but there are just one or two things that I should like to mention, if I may, which I think deter quite a number of women from going to work who would otherwise do so now. As the noble Baroness said, women make up about one-third of the labour force. There was a time when, before family planning and such like things came in, it was not possible for women to go to work because they were bearing children from the age of 20 to the age of 40. But that does not occur so much as it did; and what one would like to see as a form of encouragement—it has been talked about a great deal for many years—is a woman taxed separately from her husband, so that she is able to keep the money she gets.
One would also like to see a sufficiency of day-nursery places and nursery schools for the children of women who wish to work though they have small children. One would also like to see a third thing, that is, some form of tax relief for domestic help for women engaged in really important jobs, like, if I may mention it to the noble Baroness, the profession of teaching. I think they should get some form of tax relief to enable them to employ domestic help while they are teaching. I know that these are possibly not things that we should talk about in this House—we cannot deal with finance—but it is very difficult to deal with a subject like this without making some reference to it.
My Lords, to come to the Bill, I have not a great deal more to say above what has been said already. Personally, I would prefer the definition in I.L.O. Convention No. 100 of 1951,
"Equal pay for work of equal value".
I should like to see that Convention ratified by us soon, because I think the only other country which has not yet ratified it is Holland. In Clause 2, I think I should prefer conciliation to reference to an industrial tribunal in the case of dispute. A more friendly and easy way of coping with a dispute would seem to be for the Department of Employment and Productivity to send one of their conciliation officers to a factory or to an office where there is a dispute, and to decide it there; and, supposing that were to fail, it could then go to arbitration.
136
There is one other thing that I do not quite understand. What is going to be the position as regards pensions?—because at the present time a woman receives her retirement pension at 60 and a man at 65. That I think goes back to 1940, under a war-time Bill dealing with widows' pensions. If we are going to give women equal opportunity and equal pay, I wonder whether men and women should not get their retirement pensions at the same age; because at the present time women live a good deal longer than men, and if they are going to be housewives, which a great many are for most of their lives, they are going to be working quite hard until finally they cannot cope with doing any more. I am not at all sure whether it is really fair, right or proper that they should get their pension five years before men get theirs.
There are, I think, one or two dangers in the Bill, which have been referred to briefly. One is that, supposing there is equal pay, you may find firms preferring to install expensive machinery rather than to pay women the higher wage, and in consequence there might be unemployment among women. In the same way, some people may take advantage, I think quite unfairly, by saying that women have a higher sick rate than men, and that therefore, if they are going to have to pay women the same wages as men, they would rather employ more men than women. I am merely pointing out what I believe to be dangers; I am not saying that I agree with them at all. On the other hand, to make the picture a little more encouraging, suppose that women can break into what are at the present time jobs for men only. That may break the monopoly of the men, and the general wage structure may come down to a rather more normal figure than it is in some of the men-only jobs at present. So I think that should counterbalance what I have said about the other points. My Lords, there is nothing further I want to say about the Bill. I wish it a very speedy passage through this House.
3.47 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend that this is an historic occasion; and, indeed, for that reason I hope to touch on part of the history of this measure. On looking at this House, the only thing I regret is not seeing the Bishops' Bench

137
full, so that they—and they probably realise that they are the last people in the country to recognise equality of opportunity—may learn from, or have the benefit of listening to, some of the observations that have already been made or which will be made on the denial of equal opportunity to women. I was impressed last week, when we were discussing a sex issue, to find that the Bishops' Bench was absolutely full. I hope the right reverend Prelate's colleagues do not find this too dull a subject.
The interesting thing about this measure, which is of such great importance, is that it is receiving rather a cool reception from the women workers of the country. The fact is that,
"Hope deferred maketh the heart sick".
During this century—in fact, since 1880, when the T.U.C. supported the recommendation—millions of words have been spoken and millions of words have been written on equal pay by Governments of all Parties. They have convened committees; they have convened a Royal Commission, and women stood and waited hopefully. How stupid they were! Because very soon after they learnt that these committees and the Royal Commission were not preparatory to action but to temporise, in order to hold the pay pass against women. And I very much doubt whether this Bill, which my noble friend agrees is only another step forward—because, after all, it does not include the Rome recommendations—would be before us to-day were it not that a woman Minister, and a forceful and determined one at that, is the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity. For there was little evidence that any of her male predecessors had this cause at heart. In fact, they adopted a rather cynical attitude, I thought—and I spoke to most of them—and there was this curious feeling that the country would never be ready for it and would never be able to afford it.
But, even more important, I believe, is the fact that during the last few years the industrial woman worker has become more restive and militant. I recognised this in Trafalgar Square last year when women from the Midlands and the North joined Londoners in demonstrating for equal pay. It was evident again on that historic occasion when the striking women machinists from Ford's—relatively un-supported
138
by men, although there were one or two male trade unionists—came to Friends' House to put their case. It may seem immodest to say so, but I am very pleased that I had the privilege to address both those meetings. The noble Lord who spoke for the other side mentioned the fact that the professional women were given equal pay in 1955. Perhaps he is too young to recall that it was not the justice of her case which gave the professional woman equal pay in 1955; it was because, her patience exhausted, she demonstrated in the streets, where she was joined by all the women Members of Parliament from the other place. We got into the streets for them and demonstrated; and only when the Government of the day recognised that we women were feeling very strongly about it did they give way and give the teachers and the civil servants equal pay.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way? I introduced a Bill for equal pay for teachers. I was not in the least put out by the demonstrations—indeed, there was only one. I had no difficulty in my Cabinet whatever. All the members agreed. We had determined some years before to do this when we got the opportunity. I think the noble Baroness is exaggerating.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Not a bit of it, my Lords. I have no doubt that the noble Viscount finds great comfort in so thinking; but people like the honourable Member for Tyneside, Dame Irene Ward (and I with her) collected carriages from all the stables in London to point out that this was an anachronism. We drove around London, had great meetings and demonstrated; and only then did the right honourable gentleman eventually say that perhaps the time had come to introduce a Bill. I must confess that women would not have stooped to such methods unless their patience had been exhausted.
My Lords, from this I think it will be gathered that this Equal Pay Bill has not been born quickly and gracefully but has been extracted from the body politic with the maximum of strain and stress for women. For this reason, having regard to the opposition, it would be absolutely foolish to-day to believe that this short Bill, limited as it is, alone can

139
provide an effective antidote to the entrenched custom and prejudice which have been the powerful enemies of equality of pay and opportunity for women. I should like to tell the noble Lord who spoke of the various qualities of the two sexes that I have never supported the proposition that men and women are equal—because I have never attended a man in labour. It is quite absurd for people to say that men and women are equal. They are physiologically different and emotionally different. To say they are equal is quite nonsense. It is more realistic to recognise that men and women are different and then to respect and to legislate for those differences.
But it seems that in industry these differences are exploited; for example, the nimble feminine fingers in the factory. I think I have mentioned before that the great Ernest Bevin in war time used to say that if men had the nimble fingers that the women had to produce the armaments and pieces of machinery, they would demand a bonus. As I have said, the feminine differences, whether shown by the nimble fingers of the woman factory worker or by the ministrations of a nurse in a hospital ward, are always exploited as a source of cheap labour.
What I regret about this Bill is that women will have to wait for another six years before they receive equal pay. They have been the drudges of industry for too long. I know that my noble friend on my left is sympathetic to equal pay; but the T.U.C., who have been far from blameless in the past, are now, with new leaders, a new approach and in new times, anxious to help women escape from further exploitation. I understand that the T.U.C. argue that it is practicable to reduce this six-year period to one of two years. If that is completely unacceptable to the Government, why cannot they follow the lead of the Common Market countries which adopt a three-year period for the implementation of equal pay? Having listened to the noble Lord who led for the Opposition, I feel deeply that there is a risk that by delaying its implementation for nearly six years the Act may be amended to the detriment of women. My advice to Barbara—if I may address her in that way here—is to strike while the iron is
140
hot. Over a period of six years, male prejudice in all the political Parties will have no difficulty in rallying its forces and raising its ugly head once more. I believe that just the hint of a trade recession could provide an excuse; and I speak from all the experience gained over the years when our great enemy has been prejudice.
I understand that the cost of introducing equal pay in the industries concerned will range from 0 per cent. to 18 per cent. In engineering, for example, the figure is only 2 per cent.; whereas in retail distribution it is 13 per cent. and in clothing 18 per cent. This is the measure of the exploitation of the shop assistant and the garment worker. And the employers who make the loudest protests are those who have made a fortune out of the sweated labour of women. No doubt those industrial sharks—and I speak strongly—will try to evade the Act in every possible way.
There is one further matter which occurs to me. I shall not ask my noble friend for an answer now; but I should like a letter on this subject for I feel it is important. One method of evasion will be to provide more work in a woman's home by introducing machinery. I am told that in many working class areas these days people are kept awake by machinery which has been introduced into the next door house. What protection is to be afforded to the woman home worker when these methods become widespread? Will she be paid at the same rate as the factory worker?
The United Nations Association has stated that this Bill would lead to a hardening of current categorisation of women's work and may make it even more difficult for women to get jobs. That has been said before; but I do not attach too much importance to it. I believe that there should be no difficulty in meeting the costs of equal pay if we make use of the people available in industry regardless of sex. This Bill, by making women's labour more expensive, will make employers consider more critically how they are employed, and gradually the old acceptance of what is man's work and what is women's work will fade into a more realistic assessment of human capabilities. That is what we are aiming at: for human beings to be enabled to fulfil themselves. We

141
should not allow sex to determine the future, or the contribution, of a human being.
Recently, when I spoke about discrimination practised against women medical students, I sought to make the point that the bar to equal opportunity presents a more formidable obstacle than inequality of pay. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, mentioned a few figures but I wish to put these four on record. In 1967 apprenticeships in science and technology for males numbered 9,630; for females the figure was 110. For draughtsmen it was 17,450 for males; for females, 350. For skilled craft workers the figure was 271,650 for males and 5,430 for females. In view of this blatant discrimination, may I ask my noble friend whether we may assume that the training and day-release facilities will now be the same for the boy and the girl? The argument that women are less reliable and are not prepared to take their job seriously is completely refuted if we examine the figures for absenteeism. The figures are highest in the docks and mining where men are employed exclusively. I thought this question of opportunity was emphasised by Miss Nancy Seear in an article published in The Times Business News of April 27. She wrote:
"No waste of manpower in this country begins to rival the waste of womanpower … In a country living on its wits, with half the wits in female heads, the under-utilisation of the potential earning power of women is a frivolous extravagance."
My Lords, I wish to say something about night work. I listened to the noble Lord opposite who spoke about this matter and I hope that I shall convert him—perhaps he has not given very serious attention to the subject. I am very concerned over the suggestion that women should be called on to do night shifts as a condition of equal pay. Women have a natural commitment to bring up the family, and that is the most important service which they provide for the community and one which should not be underestimated. We read pieces in the papers about the man helping in the home and with the washing-up and so on, and we are proud and pleased to think that the nicest husbands do this. But, as I have said, it is the woman who has a natural commitment to bringing up the
142
family. It is she who feels instinctively, biologically, that she should be there to help. I believe that a woman's maternal functions are of national importance. I believe they merit a reward, rather than a handicap, and that women with dependent children should receive the rate for the job for day work without being offered any alternative. I emphasise that—they should not be offered an alternative, because many women might be subjected to pressure at home; they might be subjected to pressure from all directions, and be prepared to do night work because that would bring in more money. I support the trade unionists who understand this; who understand the pressures which might be brought on the rather worn-out woman in the home, where she does so much work, and who know that she might be pressed to do night work.
Finally, I should like to ask two questions. As 65 countries have signified their support for the International Labour Convention, why has Britain failed to do so? Is it because we are introducing a measure which does not fulfil the Rome recommendation? I did not understand that; I was under the impression that a measure of this kind would justify us in signifying our support for the International Labour Convention. I should also like to know why the Government have not given equal pay to their industrial women civil servants, where there is a clear definition of job and the Government have direct responsibility. Surely these women have not to wait for another six years when the Government gave equal pay to their teachers and to their civil servants in 1955.
The noble Lord opposite mentioned the cost of this Bill to the Government and the employers. That should be the least of their objections, because this is the amount by which women workers have subsidised successive Governments and industries for many years. Therefore surely the cost must be regarded as in the nature of unpaid wages. For years, or at least since 1880, let us say, women have been receiving a wage which is smaller that the rate for the job; therefore how can we, in equity, say we cannot pay what, after all, are unpaid wages? I think the Government are extremely fortunate that the women are not demonstrating for the payment of equal pay to

143
be retrospective. If they had asked for that, it would have been very difficult, as I think my noble friend would agree. Therefore I hope that, since at long last the justice of their claim has been recognised, justice for them will not be delayed.
4.7 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, after all that has been said so far, there is perhaps little fresh to be added to this debate. I rise simply to welcome this Bill. In essence, I think that it is about equality and justice and the respect of human beings one for another. The difficulties which may arise from the Bill have already been underlined. It is of course true that in England for a very long period of time we have paid lip service to the principle of equal pay, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, reminded us, it has taken a long time for it to reach the Statute Book. Now we hope that this concept is finally going into the Statute Book and that will be an enormous step forward.
I share the concern of those who have spoken on the question of discrimination in the actual appointment to jobs. There sex discrimination is probably seen at its worst. I think it is fairly certain that if young people of the same age applied for the same job, preference would be given to a man rather than a woman. The reason for this is, I believe, something which we ought seriously to consider. While we deplore, it, this kind of discrimination goes back to the very beginning of history. I hope very much that one result of this Bill will be that, having got the principle of equal pay established, we shall be able to give real thought to what are the reasons for the kind of prejudices and attitudes against it which men so easily adopt. If the Bill does nothing more than clear the air, that will represent an enormous step forward.
I take the point, already made by two speakers, that in this whole realm the Church has a great deal to put in order. I wish that my brother Bishops were here to-day in full force because I suppose I am the worst person to have to take part in this debate. I have been for nine years the Chairman of the Churches Council for the Women's Ministry. I have fought for equal pay for women workers in the
144
Church and this has now been established but, of course, there has not been full opportunity. We are in the absurd position within the Church that everybody agrees that there is no earthly reason why there should not be equal opportunity but nobody is ready to do anything about it. I hope that this may yet take place, but I am bound to say that one of the facts which we find in the life of the Church is that parishes—and here I suppose one can only blame the men—always opt for a young curate rather than for a woman worker. This discrimination, which has no kind of reason behind it, worries me.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I interrupt the right reverend Prelate on that point? That was what was said about women doctors. It was said that nobody wanted a woman doctor. You have to present the woman to people to see whether they want her. You cannot assume that they are not wanted.
THE LORD BISHOP OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I take the noble Baroness's point. But in fact this has happened. Our trouble is that women are not being presented to parishes, because the men will not let them get near them. The opportunity for women to become vicars of parishes and to become Bishops and even Archbishops is a question which perhaps does not come into the scope of this debate.
I warmly welcome this Bill. I hope that the fears expressed about its effectiveness in operation will prove groundless. But I believe that it will be if, and only if, we go on to really try to understand the reasons for the attitudes and prejudices, which as I say go back to the beginnings of history, that we shall be able to make a move forward in making sure that not only will there be equal pay for equal work but also equal opportunity all the way along the line.
4.12 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for the very clear way in which she went through each clause of this Bill. I found it a great help, as I am sure other speakers have done, too. I should like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, how very much I enjoyed his speech. I thought it was excellent, and

145
I look forward to hearing him again in Committee.
I have always felt that the obtaining of real economic equality would be even harder than was the obtaining of political equality—in other words, the vote. The latter is easier to define: women have the vote or they have not. Financial equality is much more difficult, I almost said, to define, but possibly that is not correct. By financial equality I mean this. Any job, from the highest to the lowest, in any category or profession carries so much money per week per month per year. The sex, colour or race of the person doing the job and whether or not that person has dependants seem to me to be quite other matters. To my mind, none of them has any effect on what the job is worth and should not be taken into account in job evaluation. Obviously if this were accepted women would have economic equality as the vote gives them political equality. Obviously this is what the First Secretary is trying to achieve. It will have to be achieved if men and women are to be treated the same financially. And so we have this Equal Pay (No. 2) Bill.
I think that every fair-minded person will wish to congratulate the Government and the right honourable lady for at last dealing with this fundamental human right. To-day the 9 million women at work in the United Kingdom form one-third of the total labour force of this country—a fact that was remarked upon by both the Minister in opening and the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. That is quite a lot of people. Many years ago, in January, 1947, I wrote a pamphlet entitled, What is She Worth? Perhaps I may inflict the last sentence on the House:
"The point at issue is the problem of translating the political equality of the vote—gained after the First World War—into social and economic equality, which must be the next stage."
This problem has always seemed to develop in the wrong way. If we go back into the past, we see that women have made greater strides towards joint citizenship in time of war than they have in time of peace. Surely in time of peace their progress towards a full and equal share in the life and work and guidance of the community should be incomparably greater than it is in periods of destruction.
146
Well, I would accept that 1947 is a long time ago. What strides have we made since then? I do not know whether the Minister will have sufficient time to give me any comments on the figures I am now going to offer. If she has not, I shall understand. But my figures for the end of 1968 show that in industry more than half of Britain's working women earned less than 5s. an hour, and that only about 4 per cent. could expect to earn as much as 10s. an hour. I thought this was statistical evidence that women were second-class citizens, that they were under-privileged and underpaid. At the end of 1968, there were 1,865,000 women working in industries whose minimum rates made a distinction between men and women and were less than £8 a week. On average, women earned only three-quarters as much as men. Of nearly 4 million women covered by industrial agreements, only 175,000 had equal pay.
I submit that one does not have to be a rampant feminist to say that on these figures—1968 and not 1947 figures—obviously there was a massive waste of ability and qualifications. In 1968 there was an almost complete lack of retraining facilities for women in those industries which were short of skilled labour. T thought that this was both stupid and an outrage. I thought it was stupid because the country suffered, and I thought it an outrage because it was an insult to half the community. I am wondering whether the Minister will be able to have any better figures when she winds up, because I hope that we have made considerable progress since 1968.
I have been talking about political equality and financial equality. When this Bill becomes law, with the support, I hope, of Members from all sides of both Houses of Parliament, will this financial equality have been achieved? No, it will not. But I think that it will be the beginning of the end stage. And an essential beginning—why only a beginning however essential? Last week a business colleague said to me, "You will never devise legislation to deal with this problem. Far too many 'fiddles' are possible and people who do not wish to carry out the principle will find a way around any legislation." My Lords, I feel that there is a good deal of truth in

147
that. I imagine that one can never draft laws to cover every possible "fiddle" that ingenious minds can devise. But if we in Parliament pass this Bill into law, all of us, in Parliament and outside, who believe in it must tackle what I think is the most difficult job of all, and one at which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, hinted; namely, the changing of climate, the reorientation of public opinion.
I should like to spend a few minutes on this aspect and a Second Reading debate would seem to be the right time to do so. I am going back to the war years, and to 1942. In 1942, in the House of Commons, it was announced that a Committee of Inquiry had been set up to inquire into conditions in the Women's Auxiliary Services; that is, the women's services. We women had been worried about these conditions for some time. We had assumed, not unreasonably, I submit, that women would be included in such a Committee. But not a bit of it! The Committee consisted of four men. One Member of Parliament rose in the House and said:
"Does my right honourable friend think it would be a good idea if we had an all-women Committee to inquire into the conditions in the men's services?".
My Lords, it would have been no more ridiculous.
Obviously there were two possible reasons for this. Either it was assumed that women were not competent to sit on such a Committee or it never occurred to authority to think that they might do so. And I find the second reason the more disturbing of the two. But we did not have to make a fuss; this Committee of four men never even met. It was killed by ridicule and the common sense of the public, who just laughed at the silliest thing they had ever heard of. My Lords, ridicule succeeded where logic had failed.
I should like to take a second example. I come now to fire-watching, air raids and civil defence, when men and women were taking equal risks everywhere; when bombs were falling everywhere as we who lived in the South East corner of England well knew. But in this country women were assessed at seven-tenths or two-thirds the value of men. I always thought that this was a most peculiar assumption. We wondered at the time whether authority felt that smaller bomb
148
splinters chose women and therefore the compensation should be less. But it took three and a half years of war to get this changed. It was only when the public realised how nonsensical it all was that the Government had to move and we all got the same compensation. However, the Government were careful to point out that as this Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme applied only to injuries associated with the war there was for this reason an essential difference between it and any permanent scheme of compensation—just in case we women got ideas that we were further on than in fact we were. The climate of authority was not going to change fundamentally if it could help it. But we now knew how to change this climate: by getting the public to realise that something was just ridiculous. I think this is the right way, but it takes a very long time.
What about politics, in either House? I think the same applies in your Lordships' House but, speaking of another place, once a woman is a Member of Parliament she is accepted as such in the House and deals with the same problems. But the Press ring up to ask for the woman's point of view or the woman's angles on most major issues of the day. The public expect her to deal with women's problems as well as, presumably, with male problems instead of, in their minds, expecting her to deal with all problems. In fact even in Parliament it is felt that we must have a woman on the Committee. Not always because the woman is too good to leave off but because she is a woman. I would submit that that is the right decision for the wrong reason. I do not believe that we shall get the right decision for the right reason until at least one-third of our Members of Parliament are women. Really not until women Members of Parliament have ceased to be an oddity. Why should they be oddities? Why should women bank managers be oddities? Why should women managing directors be oddities? Why should women Cabinet Ministers be oddities? Simply because there are so few of them. Simply because it is news when one is appointed.
I hope women will agree with me that when we cease to be news, in this trivial sense, we shall have come a long way—and it will be a very long way. Never

149
mind 1947. Twenty years later, in the autumn of 1967, a woman had to go to the High Court to establish her right to stand for election to the Council of the British Institute of Management. She won her case but was not elected. To-day we have women in senior posts in industry but very few at the top. To-day the two bastions that I always cite (I apologise to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, who is not now in his place, but I know he will not take affront at this)—namely, the Church of England and the Stock Exchange—are yielding a little ground, but only gradually, and fighting every inch of the way.
To-day in industry certain jobs—the better-paid ones—are closed to women, not because men do them better but because this has been the case in the past. This is one barrier that we have to break down; the barrier of old-fashioned concept based on prejudice. At the end of last week, on April 30, I noted an example of where new ground had been broken. Both The Times Business Section and the Financial Times carried the announcement that a woman, Dr. Vera Furness, had been appointed General Manager of Courtauld's 1,400-strong research division. According to the Press, this is the first time that a woman has held such a job in British industry. And I do not see why being a consultant to Courtauld's should prevent my using that example.
A second barrier is the one that has already been mentioned; the barrier that denies women equal entrance to universities, medical schools, and business associations—in other words, denies them equal opportunity to train and equip themselves according to their ability. I believe that gradually, but only gradually, and grudgingly, this climate of opinion will be changed. And I believe that this can best be done by the power of example—which takes a long time. And brings me back to politics.
This Government have demonstrated that women Ministers are successful. No Prime Minister before has ever shown such faith in women at the top. I remember the remarks that were made when the present First Secretary went to the Ministry of Transport, and I am sure your Lordships remember them, too. But I remember also before she left that Ministry, many comments from people far removed
150
from me in politics. In general these were to the effect: "Well, I do not like her politics but she has done a first-class job." These remarks came from men and women alike.
I believe, in the context of what I am trying to put forward to-day, that when another woman is made Minister of Transport the public will not think it strange to have a woman there—simply because of the contribution made by a previous woman Minister. And that goes for the other women in this Government. They are the proof, the visible proof, the example now accepted in Parliament and outside. Women Ministers are not oddities; they are not news in the trivial sense; they are paid the compliment of being just Ministers. And if we take the women Peers in this House, those of us who have come from another place, I think we should all say that at first in our constituencies we had to overcome this prejudice against women. Equally I think we would say also that as the years went by, and as I hope and believe, we did a useful job. this prejudice disappeared. We were the Member. I like to believe that we did not thereby lose any of our femininity—I do not think we did. And so, my Lords, we need this Bill as the first step in our end stage. We need the example of women in jobs at all levels. We need the help of Press, television and radio. Together all of us must change public opinion.
4.30 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, may I add my welcome to this Bill to those which have already been given. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, referred to the "deceptive slimness" of the Bill. Perhaps one of the pities is that there are more women who are trying to achieve a deceptive slimness than who are even interested in equal pay to-day. If we get bogged down in discussing definitions we shall get into a battle of semantics. The Bill lays down a framework in which one can develop the whole economic pattern. But what is far more important is that it lays down a framework for what will be possible in changing the social pattern and attitudes of people. My noble friend Lady Burton mentioned the small number of women executives in industry; and indeed there are more women in medicine than in law or accountancy. We all agree that the entry for women into medicine

151
is made far too hard and there are far too few women in medicine. In the Civil Service there are still only 8 per cent. in the administrative grades, and less than 5 per cent. of women are managers. The Government cannot be absolved from blame in this series of inequalities, because in 1968 out of a total of 7,008 people at Government training centres only around 20 were women.
One of the important matters we have to consider is the whole pattern of women's lives. When we are talking about equality of opportunity—on which I think all the noble Lords who have spoken have touched, and on which I agree with all that has been said—I feel we have to go farther back into the whole structure of our educational system and the emphasis which is put on different subjects for girls and different subjects for boys. Sons and daughters get brought up in the home with certain preconceptions about their own role in society. Although that is now breaking down in some families, it is taken for granted that it is the boy who has the career and the girl who spends her life as a wife and mother, and on whom it is not worth while to spend too much time or money on education. On the other hand, it is not the job of the boy to help in the home. It is not surprising that these children grow up into young men and women, then middle-aged and old men and women, with all the prejudices and inbuilt feelings and conceptions which come out in the working of our society.
While there are many things on which one has to fight very hard, there are some situations where if you keep on banging people on the head you may stun them but you do not always get what you want. Many men would argue passionately—and sincerely, from their own point of view—that they are not in the least prejudiced against employing women, or indeed working with them. Then they will bring out a whole list of what appear on the surface absolutely rational reasons as to why this should not be so. They say either that the woman does not get on with the people round her, or that she will always be taking time off from her job. I remember once an editor grumbling about a woman who could not come in that day because one of her children was not well.
152
Although the woman had some work at home that she could deal with the editor complained and said: "These married women with children!". I said to him that I had heard him say to a male colleague whose father was ill: "For goodness sake, go straight off! Go back to your father; he should come first on an occasion like this." He had not seen the lack of logic in this attitude until it was put to him. I do not say that he agreed with it, but these are some of the attitudes that we are trying to change.
I believe that to-day there is a change among young people. Young men are far more ready to accept that their wives should be working if they wish to work—even if it is not absolutely economically necessary for them to do so. I do not think we have yet accepted sufficiently the tremendous importance of the contribution of the married woman to industry, production and the professions of this country, and the importance of helping her in so many ways to enable her to carry out part-time work. If her domestic circumstances mean that she can do only part-time work (and this is often so while her children are growing up) it follows that she needs to be able to undertake a course of training that is also part-time. When one starts looking into this matter, as I have done, one finds that the numbers of part-time courses for married women to re-train, or take up training, are very few and far between. It is in this area that one needs to bring a great deal of persuasion and pressure to bear. Out of a labour force of women which amounts to around 9 million, to-day 56 per cent. are married. In 1951 it was 44 per cent. In 1981 it is estimated that it will be 66 per cent.
I agree with much that has been said, particularly by my noble friend Lady Summerskill. The noble Baroness must be feeling delighted that this Bill, even with its limitations, is before us to-day, because she has carried out so much work in the past to help to bring this about. When she mentioned the point that pay should be based on the job itself rather than on who does it, I felt that there were one or two things that could be done without having a nondiscrimination Bill or even a nondiscrimination clause in this Bill. We

153
could do away with these "men only" advertisements, and indeed advertisements of the sort one sees in The Times such as "Women's Appointments". If, on the one hand, a man does not want to apply, he does not have to do so, and if a woman wants to apply she should do so. Recently I heard of a woman engineer who replied to an advertisement and signed her letter "E. G. Smith". When she went for her interview, the men holding the interview looked at her with alarm. They were very embarrassed and said that they were very sorry because they did not know that she was a lady and they employed only men. She replied, "I am not a lady; I am an engineer". And she got the job. That is a true story. She was successful because she managed to get past the barricade, and, once they realised her qualifications they accepted her.
Another side to this is something which it would be quite wrong for women to overlook, and that is that many women neither support other women who are striving for equal pay and equal opportunity, nor accept that taking a job usually requires a great deal of discipline, which is often of a different nature from that of running a home. If a woman undertakes a job she has to be prepared to give of her best to it. It is for this reason the transition from part-time work for the woman whose family needs her part of the time, until they are grown up, is a transition both for her and for industry. One comes up against a great deal of conservatism. The immediate reaction of many employers—both men and women—is that this will not work. Nevertheless, where this has been undertaken—some of the banks do it and other firms have undertaken it—it is found to work very well. Even in, say, secretarial work there are a few employers who say they have a scheme whereby they have two secretaries who interchange; one takes one week and the other the next, but if one is away for any reason then the other takes her place. The employer does not care so long as the arrangement works properly and they keep in touch with each other.
I feel that a great many things could quite easily be done resulting in both increased production and productivity with a great deal less waste of what really
154
is our only source for expansion of labour power in this country—that is, women. Some interesting figures were brought out by the Applied Economics Research Unit in Cambridge, under Professor Stokes, which gave a comparison between percentages of people, both men and women, in four different classes of work, comparing the situation in 1960 with a projection of what will be required in the year 2000. In the professional and technical division, in 1960 8 per cent. of the working population were employed; in the year 2000, 20 per cent. will be needed. In management, the figure is 10 per cent. for 1960; for the year 2000, 10 per cent. In clerical work, the proportion is 12 per cent. in 1960, which drops to 9 per cent. for the year 2000. The biggest drop is in manual work, where the figure was 70 per cent. in 1960 and is estimated at 61 per cent. in the year 2000.
At the moment, the year 2000 seems a long way off, but if one considers that the girl leaving school at 15 now will probably be returning to work, as a mother of grown-up children in that year, we see that it is not too early to start preparing even for this. After all, we are in many other branches of technology taking this rather longer view. I think that these very interesting figures will mean that an enormously increased number of people will be required for professional and technical work. Unless girls are given this opportunity, it is not the women who will suffer but the whole of our society. Furthermore, as we become more and more automated it surely means that as the amount of manual work required is reduced, and there is less need to depend on sheer physical strength, the lower-paid men will be in a very difficult position because they can be undercut, if the present situation continues and if equal pay does not come about in a much wider concept, by the cheap labour of women. I personally am not so concerned, as I said, with the definition as with the acceptance of it and its being worked out.
I also should like to see the length of period shortened, as my noble friend Lady Summerskill said. But if we look at the other side, it does not mean that firms cannot bring in equal pay very much earlier if they wish to do so. And one hopes that they will be pressed to do so and that, if other firms in their

155
area do so, they will then follow suit. I do not think that this particular Bill is by any means the end of the road: it is only the beginning. And if it is seen not only in its economic context but also in its social and human context, then I believe that it will really be a landmark in our history.
4.45 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I want to add just one word in this debate, since I have listened with enormous interest to all that has been said. I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness who introduced this Bill very much indeed. I should like also to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill. No one has worked harder, and no one has done more for equal pay than she has; and, indeed, also the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry. But I think this is a great day for Lady Summerskill, and I should like to be one of the many people all over the country, in fact all over the world, who say, "If it hadn't been for Lady Summerskill we should not have got as far as we have; we shouldn't have got this Bill." This Bill will be a great landmark, and I think the Government must be congratulated on bringing it in. Of course, many things still remain to come. The time factor is a slow one. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has said, that could be speeded up by anybody who wants to bring these particular reforms in more swiftly.
When Lady Burton was speaking about the war years my mind went back to a committee which the then Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill, appointed and of which Lady Summerskill and I were both members. It was a committee which came out of the experience of four men. I think there were four men; but there were at least seven or eight women, and the chairman was Miss Violet Markham. We made an inquiry into the conditions in the women's services and produced a report. It was the first time I had actually taken part in work of this kind, and I look back upon it as a great experience. We were able to make a great classification of the magnificent work being done by the women's services.
I also remember very clearly—and this is a far more recent experience—that
156
when I was the first Chairman of the Consumer Council I used to go quite often to address meetings organised by chambers of commerce or groups of industries—the boot and shoe industry, let us say, or the textile industry, and so on. I always found myself the only woman addressing a gathering of anything from a hundred to five hundred men. I remember going on one occasion to a huge conference in Blackpool—I cannot remember the organisation concerned, but I know that a number of distinguished trade unionists and leaders of industry were present. At least 2,000 people were there, and I was the only woman. I suppose that many people there were in the higher echelons of industry, and certainly no other woman was present. I well remember coming across one woman at a meeting and being exceedingly surprised. If I ever went to a gathering of consumers, however, then all those present were women, and one would have thought that men did not consume at all.
I hope that this Bill will be supported and that we shall see a big revolution coming in the employment of women. I agree so much with Lady Burton when she said that we must change public opinion. In politics, I believe that it is still very difficult for women in any political Party, whether Labour, Conservative or Liberal, to be adopted in constituencies. There is still a strong prejudice in favour of men, however good the women are. I hope we shall be able to break down that situation, too.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, said, I hope we shall find in the years to come that there will be women in top management, in just the same way as men are in top management. My only contribution in this respect, as I speak here this evening, is that I think I am the only woman who is chairman of an agricultural auction market. When I became chairman, following upon my husband, a great many people said, "Oh, it is not a job for a woman". I said I did not agree, and the board over whom I preside, all men, were quite prepared to accept me. That is my own contribution in a profession: I am the only woman, I think, who is chairman of an agricultural auction market. My Lords, I do not want to delay the debate. I should like to close by adding my congratulations

157
to those who have spoken, and to the Government for producing the Bill. I hope very much that it will be as effective as we all hope it will be in the future.
4.49 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, we have a woman Minister in charge of this debate; more than half of the speakers have been women, and I think it would be a pity if it went out to the world that this debate in your Lordships' House had been dominated by women and that the voice of men had not been equally heard. So I now endeavour to redress the balance. I think there is a lot to be said in favour of women, but I shall not take very long to say it; I intend to be brief. As Henry VIII is reputed to have said to one of his women, "I shan't keep you very long"! But I want to congratulate the Government on the courage they have shown in bringing forward this Bill, which although accepted more or less without objection in the two Houses of Parliament, leads to a certain amount of gossip and discussion and controversy outside. There are many people in all walks of life who say, "Yes, let us have women as equals but I do not want them to be equal with me." It will be necessary to overcome a great deal of public opposition before this measure can be fully accepted.
During the past years of our generation I think that women have been their own worst enemies. They have not joined trade unions, or demanded adequate pay, in adequate numbers. Many of them have not wanted to embark upon a lifetime's career; they have always regarded their occupation as a second line and their main ambition is to be married. Many of them, therefore, have chosen inferior jobs, not requiring an enormous amount of skill (I except, of course, the professional women), and many of them have been quite content to take part-time jobs. Unnecessarily, therefore, in many circles they have been looked upon as second-class citizens in industry. I feel that because of this, despite the provisions made in the Bill, many employers will endeavour to make out a case that their women workers are not employed on tasks equal to those of the men and will therefore seek to get a second grade wage established for the women. I sincerely hope that more of these women will join their trade unions so that they may have
158
competent advocacy to put forward their case for equality.
One or two of the women speakers who have dominated this debate have spoken about the quite unnecessary differentiation between men and women. It is a great news item when you can say "Woman Minister", "Woman J.P.", "Woman Barrister", "Woman Doctor", and so on. Despite my lifetime in newspapers and the attraction which a heading to a story can have if it has a sex angle in it, I have never subscribed to the point of view that a woman is any different from a man. Of course I know there are little differences, and long may they continue. But in my newspaper days when I was news editor of one of the national dailies, I had a team of reporters. About half of them were men and the other half were women, and I never differentiated between whether a particular reporter I wanted for a particular job wore a skirt or trousers—they were reporters. When I was called upon to nominate certain reporters for the job of war correspondent during the war I nominated as many women as I did men. One of those women was the first war correspondent in any of the Allied Forces to cross the bridge across the Rhine. So there is really, in what one might call the professional and skilful occupations, no need to differentiate at all between men and women.
I feel that there may be some objection among the general public to this Bill on the following point—and it has been hinted at by one of my noble friends. The general public will say, "If employers are to pay women the same wages as they pay men, then they will sack a lot of the women." This may happen in a few isolated cases but I do not think it will be a general objection to this Bill. There are only half a million or so regular, long-term unemployed people in this country. There are 9 million women employed in industry in this country. The number of people employed in industry and in services is likely to increase, despite automation, because of the increasing size of the population, and I do not think that women have anything to fear so long as they can prove that they are capable of doing the same kind of job as men. In many capacities they have already proved that.

159
I know it will be said that although employers are required to give equal pay to women they are not required to give equal opportunities for promotion and for appointments to the higher positions. That point has already been mentioned by one or two of my noble friends. I think it behoves the women of the rising generation to attend very seriously indeed to their education. Those at universities and technical colleges should perhaps approach more closely the technical and physical sciences rather than the social sciences which so many of the women students are approaching at the moment. My Lords, I have no really serious doubt that this Bill can be successful and I wish it, with every success, an early passage to the Statute Book.
4.56 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, may I say at once that I have greatly enjoyed this Second Reading debate—not always a situation in which a Minister finds herself. I should like at once, with all humility, to congratulate my noble friends Lady Burton, Lady Birk, Lady Elliot of Harwood and Lady Summerskill, and of course Lord Belstead, on their splendid contributions. I felt all the time that they were saying the things that so many of us have tried to say for such a long time, and I congratulate them on taking this opportunity of getting these words once more recorded so that we hope they will get to the appropriate quarter.
I of course accept the proposition made by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that women are not equal. I long ago realised that I was not equal in a number of things. I am not as beautiful as many other people, or as witty or as clever. But life is like that. I do not think anybody has ever postulated the theory that women want to be equal with men. That would seem to be completely fallacious. What we have been saying for many years is that the innate abilities of women differ from those of men but that the employment prospects should be governed only by real differences and not by imagined prejudices. I think my noble friends this afternoon have rather underlined this when they have spoken about the difficulties of opportunity and the fact that women are still excluded from
160
a number of spheres. However, I think we must sound a note of hope.
Surely women are penetrating more and more the inner circles. I must say at once that when I came to your Lordships' House I expected to find great prejudice. I thought that here was an area where males had had their libraries and their smoking rooms to themselves for many generations and would dislike women intensely, instead of which I have received the most egalitarian treatment. In fact I have been treated as a woman and an equal; and I think that perhaps this is all we have ever wanted.
Nevertheless, there is little doubt that the equality of opportunity still has to be dealt with. Nobody would dispute that. The right reverend Prelate sounded a note which several of my noble friends have taken up; namely, that we have to contend with inborn attitudes and prejudices, and these can be cured only by example, on the one hand, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, pointed out, and on the other, as the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, pointed out, by constant action, whether militant or otherwise, often on the part of the women themselves but certainly on the part of the women who are affected by this.
I think we have all suffered from being the "statutory woman" on a committee or even, as I recall, on a B.B.C. programme called "Any Questions?" where they usually have one woman and three men. There is of course an implied compliment there, which I noticed the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, picksed up in her own television appearance when she suggested that it took two men to interview one woman successfully. I think perhaps we can take it this way until we can secure an adjustment of the balance of equality. I would say at once that there is no doubt, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, said, that retraining facilities for the woman wishing to return to work must be looked at. With her I agree that not only do we waste a colossal amount of talent but we shall need every one of these people if we are to be able to keep the labour force fully manned.
There is no doubt that attitudes are changing and that we no longer find the same exclusions, either in industry or

161
commerce. In the professions, I remember going through the battles of equal pay when I was teaching, and I always thought it very ironic that I did not recall any man teacher saying to me, "You poor woman; go and sit down and let me take playground duty, or look after the children at lunch time". As I recall, we pulled our weight 100 per cent., even taking on school journeys; and there was no question that this was a demand for equal pay for completely equal work.
I think it will be very easy to make heavy weather of this point about equal work. I believe that there are areas where there is no doubt that it is equal work and where equal pay can be readily introduced. I would say at once to those noble Lords who have suggested that this has taken a long time, that this is true. But there is Clause 9, which gives the Secretary of State power to intervene if she feels that there is too slow progress towards equal treatment for men and women. This seems to me a very useful clause, which I am quite sure the Secretary of State will invoke. We must agree at once that the fact that there is a woman Minister is of course a contributing factor to the introduction of this Bill. I liked Lady Summerskill's suggestion that it was extracted from the body politic. I am glad it was a Caesarian and not an abortion, or perhaps we should not have had this Bill at this point of time. I will look into her point about the home worker and give her a reply, because I think she is on to something which I know from my own experience is an increasing practice.
So far as the question of training is concerned, while the Bill does not provide equal opportunity of employment, which does not come within the scope of the Bill—though I think this debate will do a great deal of good—it does provide for the equalisation of promotion and training opportunities to the extent that these are being provided for in the workers' contracts of employment. That will not entirely meet the case, but I think it will meet one point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead.
The noble Lord also raised the point about contract and conditions on Clause 1(2). I might perhaps give an answer on this. Women cannot compare themselves with men in another establishment (I think I made this point earlier)
162
unless both establishments are under the same employer and they have common terms and conditions of employment. Common terms means in this connection that the workers are doing the same job in both establishments and are paid the same; so that if men in establishment A are paid £15 and men in establishment B are paid £20 the establishments do not have common terms, and the women in establishment A cannot compare themselves with those in establishment B. In other words, they will not get the best of all worlds in this connection. There is no question, under the subsection, of the men in establishment A, getting £15, being raised to the level of the men's wages in establishment B, which is £20.
The Secretary of State has power to take cases to the industrial tribunal in circumstances where women may be inhibited from doing so. I think the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will appreciate that these cases may arise where a woman may feel it may be very much to her detriment if she takes a case to the tribunal. There is nothing to stop employers and unions and other people taking cases to the tribunal, or representing the women in front of the tribunal. This is common practice and there is no need to provide for it in the Bill. It will be useful to the noble Lord to know that this is on the Record in my reply.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, also raised the point of the situation where the employer and the woman are agreed that the woman is working in the same or equivalent work to the man, but the employer is paying the man more than the woman, and he admits it. Then the onus is on the employer to show that the distinction is for something different in the work, in output or some other aspect of it. As to Clause 6(1), the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was that there will be strong differences of opinion as to whether or not the legal restrictions on women's employment should be lifted. The Secretary of State believes that these differences should be explored in discussion with both sides of (industry, and she is in fact already initiating discussions in this connection.
On the question of job evaluation, a subject on which several noble Lords touched, I would say that it is impossible to evaluate one job in terms of another unless this is done on the basis of the

163
demand that each job makes on a typical worker. I think the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, suggested that this was introducing a new principle. That demand can be assessed under various headings—skill, experience and effort are mentioned in the Bill as examples, but other headings, such as degrees of responsibility, which the noble Lord mentioned, are not excluded. I hope that answers his question. I should not like to attempt to reply to some of the excellent points raised which are outside the scope of the Bill. Equality of opportunity has, of course, had great pride of place, and rightly so. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, said, rightly, that the figures of wages reveal quite appalling discrepancies. I am sorry I am unable to tell her that the current figures are very different, but I hope that if we have a debate of this kind within another year the figures will be very different. It is, after all, one of the things the Bill is all about.
I am not quite sure whether I am now breaching a point of protocol, but I should like to thank the Minister of State for this Department for allowing a woman to introduce this Bill. As I understand it, it could and should have been the responsibility of my noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith, but he has allowed me the privilege of moving the Second Reading of the Bill, and I am grateful to him. I am happy that one noble Lord paid a tribute to the Prime Minister who, whether one accepts his politics or not—and I should not expect noble Lords opposite to do that—has given more than any other living Prime Minister opportunities to women to show that they can take the higher posts in Government. I think that should be recorded as a tribute. My Lords, this is an historic day. When we discussed the Disabled Persons Bill last week I felt that that was a charter for the disabled and chronically sick. This Bill is a charter for women, the lower paid women. It will put right many inequalities and injustices, and those who fought for it will, I feel, recognise the passing of this Motion to-day as a great and memorable achievement.
On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY BILL [H.L.]
5.8 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the proceedings of this day in respect of the passing of the Bill be vacated. I must offer an apology to your Lordships for moving this Motion, but it is necessary for a privilege Amendment to be made to the Bill before it is sent to the Commons. A privilege Amendment should have been moved after the Third Reading this afternoon but by inadvertence this was not done, and in order, therefore, to put the matter right it is necessary for me to move that the passing of the Bill be vacated so that I may then, if it is your Lordships' pleasure, move the privilege Amendment in the usual way. I beg to move.
Moved, That the proceedings on passing of the Bill be vacated.—(Lord Delacourt-Smith).
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord is usually so efficient and so courteous that I do not think any of your Lordships would wish to blame him for what has happened. Moreover, having listened to my noble friend Lord Bessborough, we all want the Bill, and we do not want to make any trouble about it; so I suppose we must pretend that the noble Lord's finger had not left the Bill before the other proceedings this afternoon. All I would ask him is whether he can assure me that a Motion, That the proceedings of the day be vacated, is one that has some precedent. I have sat in this House for a great many years and I have never previously heard of such a Motion. I am just wondering whether it has been invented in order to get round the difficulties of to-day.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that this Motion is not without precedent. Perhaps I might add that my noble friend the Captain of the Gentlemen at Arms observed to me that it is not everyone who has the privilege of moving such a Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I beg to move that the privilege Amendment be agreed to.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, the Amendment (privilege) agreed to.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Delacourt-Smith).
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

AGRICULTURE BILL
5.10 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord Royle in the Chair.]
Clause 91 [Supplementary provision and interpretation and extent of Part V]:
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD HUGHES)THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD HUGHES) moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 82, line 34, at end insert ("and nothing in the said section 88 shall authorise any infringement of the exclusive privilege conferred on the Post Office by section 24(1) of the Post Office Act 1969 (telecommunication systems).")
The noble Lord said: The purpose behind Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 is to ensure that when river or local authorities are operating flood warning systems and use radio or telephone communications, the monopoly of the Post Office should be preserved. I beg to move Amendment No. 29.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 91, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 92 [Provision of flood warning systems]:
LORD HUGHES: Amendment No. 30 is a similar Amendment for the Scottish flood warning systems. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 38, leave out paragraph (ii) and insert—
166
("(ii) Nothing in this subsection shall authorise any infringement of the exclusive privilege conferred on the Post Office by section 24(1) of the Post Office Act 1967 (telecommunication systems).")—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 84, line 20, leave out ("the same meanings respectively as in") and insert ("subject to section 93(3) of this Act) the meanings assigned to them by section I of")
The noble Lord said: Although the second of the next two Amendments, Nos. 31 and 32, is fairly lengthy it is a purely drafting Amendment arising out of the Government's consideration of a subsequent Amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Haig. I should like to say that we are indebted to him for having drawn this point to our attention. Clause 93 provides generally that local authorities may combine in the exercise of their powers under Part VI of the Bill to provide and operate a flood warning system. The intention of Clause 93(2) as drafted was, first, to apply the general powers relating to voluntary combination of local authorities under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947, to combinations of local authorities for the purposes of a flood warning system; and, secondly, to ensure that where local authorities have combined for the purpose of providing and operating a flood warning system any reference to a "local authority" in Part VI of the Bill shall be construed as including a reference to a combination of local authorities.
I am advised that the method of doing this in Clause 93(2) as drafted is not in fact satisfactory for these purposes. The Amendments which I am now speaking to will achieve what we had intended and what the noble Earl, Lord Haig, wants in relation to his Amendment, and they will lead to a more ready understanding of Part VI of the Bill as it applies to the combinations of local authorities. The Amendment to the definition of "local authority" in Clause 92(2)(b) paves the way to the Amendment to Clause 93 and is in line with the definition of "local authority" in the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961. I beg to move Amendment No. 31.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of these Amendments, and also for his

167
references to my noble friend Lord Haig. I was not quite clear whether or not what he said implied that he wished to accept the Amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Haig.
LORD HUGHES: No. These Amendments accomplish the purpose which the noble Earl wanted to achieve by his Amendment No. 33, which we would invite him not to move.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am grateful for that explanation. What the noble Lord now proposes to do, therefore, fulfils the purpose of Amendments Nos. 33 to 36 which are to be moved to Clause 94?
LORD HUGHES: No. Amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 36 are on a slightly different point. The Government do not wish to accept these Amendments, but they arc not in fact covered by what I am doing. Amendment No. 33 will fall because Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 accomplish its purpose. But Amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 36 will still have to be spoken to.
On Question, Amendment agreed to. Clause 92 as amended, agreed to.
Clause 93 [Combinations of local authorities]:
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 32.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 28, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) Subsection (2) to (4) of section 119 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947 (which relates to voluntary combinations of local authorities) shall apply in relation to any such combination as is mentioned in the foregoing subsection as they apply in relation to the combinations mentioned in subsection (1) of the said section 119, and in the said section (2) to (4) as so applying any reference to a function of a local authority shall be construed as including a reference to any power or duty of the local authority so far as relating to the flood warning system with which the combination is concerned.
(31 In relation to a case where local authorities have combined under this section any reference in this Part of this Act to a local authority shall (unless the context otherwise requires) be construed as including a reference to the combination of local authorities, and "area" shall be construed accordingly.")—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 93, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 94 [Arrangements with other bodies]:
EARL HAIG EARL HAIG had given Notice of his intention to move an Amendment (No. 33):
Page 84, line 39, after ("authority") insert ("or combination of local authorities").
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: T beg to move Amendment No. 33 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Haig. First, I should express his apologies to the Committee that, by reason of an urgent engagement in Edinburgh, he is prevented from being with us to-day. Secondly, may I ask that in debating Amendment No. 33 we should also discuss Amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 36?
LORD HUGHES: If the noble Lord will permit me, just before he entered the Chamber I had pointed out that the Amendments which have just been accepted accomplish the purpose of Amendment No. 33 which should not in fact be moved; but that Amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 36 cover a different point and should be spoken to.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for explaining that to me, and I must apologise for not being here to start with to hear his wise words. Therefore I do not move Amendment No. 33.
5.20 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 84, line 40, after ("with") insert ("a river purification authority or")
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 34, I should like also to discuss Amendments Nos. 35 and 36. As has already been said, this Part of the Bill deals with the provision of flood warnings in Scotland. The point of Amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 36 is to bring into Clause 94 at the appropriate points mention of river purification authorities as among the bodies that may be consulted by the local authorities in this connection.
River purification authorities, which have responsibility for river management in Scotland in this capacity, have already installed a number of gauging weirs for measurement purposes, and these are, as it were, the basic material for putting up

169
flood warning devices. The noble Earl, Lord Haig, has called my attention to the fact that the River Tweed, for instance, has no less than 20 such gauging stations. Of course, they would not all be useful because many of them are in the lower reaches where you would not need more than one or two, but normally a gauging weir would be a suitable point for fixing flood warnings which would give warning to some central point when water levels rose to a dangerous level and action needed to be taken.
I should think it would be normal that local authorities would consult and work jointly with river purification authorities in installing these schemes. It would seem to me that this would be the natural thing for them to do, so I hope that what I am asking for in these three Amendments is no more than what would be done in practice anyway; and because it would be the normal practice it would seem to be wise to include the name of these authorities in the Bill. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: The clause as drafted enables local authorities to make arrangements with any other person for apparatus owned by that person to be incorporated in a flood warning system provided by the authorities. In this connection "person" is defined in the Interpretation Act as including all sorts of bodies, corporate bodies and others, and would include a river purification authority. For that reason I cannot advise your Lordships to accept the Amendment because, by singling out the river purification authority in this connection, it would immediately cast doubt on the power to make arrangements with others who have similar systems.
For instance, water boards, Electricity Boards, the Secretary of State himself, and landowners all have systems which can be brought into use in this way; and no-one perhaps more so in the North of Scotland than the Hydro-Electric Board. Therefore, it did seem to us that perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Haig, was rather misled by this reference to "person" to think that it excluded river purification authorities as such. On the other hand, it may not be that at all, because when the Bill was in another place the Scottish Office received many representations from Members of Parliament on the same subject. I think the river purification
170
authorities may have made the assumption that because the reference was to "person" it would exclude co-operation with themselves, and they invited quite a number of Members of Parliament to put this point to the Secretary of State.
I am therefore glad to be able to assure the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, that it is fully recognised that river purification authorities have a very wide knowledge and experience of rainfall and river gauging which can be usefully drawn upon, and it has been envisaged all along that local authorities wishing to install flood warning systems will co-operate fully and closely with the river purification interests. Indeed, the Government referred, in another place, to the special role which it was hoped the river purification authorities would play; but, because there are a number of other statutory bodies which also have a very direct interest in river gauging work, it would be inadvisable to attempt to specify the particular bodies with whom a local authority may enter into arrangements. As has been said so often in so many different cases, as soon as one starts to specify within a general position, one casts doubts on the right to consult those who are not in fact so specified. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl, Lord Nugent, will feel able, on behalf of his noble friend, to agree that what is being asked for is in fact accomplished, and that he will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for dealing so comprehensively with the point which I raised on behalf of my noble friend Lord Haig? It may be that my noble friend was misled as to the meaning of "person", but the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will not be surprised when I say that I was not. I felt there was some point in this Amendment because the river purification authority is the specific authority responsible for the management of rivers, in so far as such responsibility exists in Scotland, and of course the answer which the noble Lord gave me is a familiar one when Government Departments are unwilling to see their Bills amended. However, I feel that I have already been rather bold in trespassing so far over the Border into Scottish affairs, and I am certainly not disposed to press something from this

171
position in the South of England. In these circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to say that we have no resentment. In fact, he did it so well that momentarily I confused him with his noble friend and called him an Earl.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 94 agreed to.
Clauses 95 to 98 agreed to.
5.28 p.m.
LORD CRAWSHAW LORD CRAWSHAW moved Amendment No. 36A:
After Clause 98, insert the following new clause:
Compensation for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land
".Where any interest in land is compulsorily acquired or is sold by agreement to a party possessing compulsory purchase powers and

(a) the land is used for the purposes of agriculture within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 and is so used by way of a trade or business;

(b) the person carrying on the trade or business is displaced from the land;

(c) where apart from this section the compensation would be assessed on the agricultural value of the land;

compensation shall be paid by the acquiring party at a level which takes full account of the cost of equivalent reinstatement."
The noble Lord said: I put down this Amendment because, although I knew that it had been fairly well discussed in the other place, even after reading their proceedings there were certain doubts in my mind, and I am hoping that the Government will be able to clear up these doubts and perhaps give me some assurance on one or two points. Compared with acquisitions in other fields, farmers do have special problems which I shall hope to explain. I might add at this stage that the National Farmers' Union is in full support of this Amendment. If the effect of this Amendment is to make compulsory acquisition harder I welcome that, for too often good, fertile, clean land is grabbed when, with more thought and imagination, marginal or waste land could well be used. After all, land is part of a farmer's business, and it always grieves me to think of the time and money spent on it and then to see it
172
submerged underneath a heap of concrete or other buildings.
I can start on one point of common ground, because I think everybody agrees that where land is taken for the benefit of the community as a whole, the owner or occupier, or tenant, of that land, should not suffer. I think everybody agrees with this principle. What I want to ask is whether the existing law ensures that this happens. At present, the compensation is paid at the existing or market value at the date of acquisition, and I concede that this is an improvement from the former position. But, to my mind, it still does not reflect the cost of reinstatement of that farmer. Land is an integral part of a business, and it does not need much imagination to realise the effect on the business when a man is dispossessed. But to my mind that is not taken into account at present, for losses start at, and I believe should be compensated from, the moment when it is widely known that a farm is, so to speak, doomed. What is known as planning blight sets in. Such things as Government improvement grants are immediately withdrawn; no new electricity supply will be given; no new fixed equipment will be put in, and a farmer's own expenditure will not be reflected in the compensation paid; labour drifts away, and this causes heavy expenditure to the farmer who has to engage contractors, and so on.
From then follows the changeover period to a new farm, if indeed a farmer can find one. He will have to compete at auction with adjacent farmers, who know that by acquiring a neighbouring farm they will be able to gain from economies of scale and spread their overheads more widely. They will therefore be willing and able to pay an inflated price. I can speak about the present anxiety in Rutland, where 4,000 acres are liable to be submerged for the Emping-ham reservoir. It is a large proportion of that county, and we may well find 20 or more farmers, with compensation already agreed and in their pockets, competing for a shortage of acres, a situation that will automatically inflate the price.
When the farmer finds his new farm there is a three-year period of acclimatisation—because that is about the time it takes for a farmer to find out what his new farm is like and to learn how

173
to manage it. For instance, a man moving from a sandy soil to a clay soil will find completely different conditions and will have a good deal of difficulty in adjusting himself. Although, as I said, we all agree that the dispossessed farmer should not suffer, the Minister of Housing and Local Government said on February 27 that land should be priced purely and simply on its value in the open market. But that will not reflect the cost of a farmer's extra expenses needed to reinstate himself as before.
For this reason, I should like to see farmers compensated in the same way as displaced traders, who are at present paid up to three years for loss of profits, with compensation for disturbance and loss of good will. I should like to see us follow the principle of the judgment in the case of West Midlands Baptist Trust Association Incorporated v. Birmingham City Corporation, where there was a compulsory order providing for the acquisition of a church and the court held that the compensation should be determined at the cost of reinstatement. That is all I want to see in this Bill. I beg to move.
LORD BELSTEAD: May I say a word in support of my noble friend before the Minister replies, because I should like to ask a couple of questions? I think we have all followed with interest the points made by my noble friend, and possibly there is common ground in the Committee that if someone is dispossessed for the good of the community then the community ought to ensure that the person dispossessed should not suffer. I think my noble friend has given us good examples of land being increasingly needed.
He reminded us of a reservoir in his part of the country, but there are also the ever-open jaws of the motorways, and behind lurks the Ministry of Transport Green Paper. Many of us who are keen on transport support that Green Paper, but if we lived on the line of one of those new motorways we should not be quite so happy. There is also the Roskill Commission, which is sitting at the moment, and ready to gobble up a very great amount of land. I speak with particular feeling, having lived just outside a town which was to have been doubled in size, although that did not happen. Also, we know for a fact that 50,000 acres are taken out of agricultural use each year.
174
May I draw your Lordships' attention to another possibility, which I do not think my noble friend mentioned, but which I have seen happen at first hand? If there is mass dispossession for something like a new town, suddenly a flood of applicants for land is released on to the market, and this is bound to be reflected in local prices. I suggest that the case for a change seems to be cast iron, although I must say that I do not quite know whether I like the precise terms of the Amendment.
It seems that the Amendment does not differentiate between freeholders and tenants, and it implies that the basis of valuation as the open market value—a definition which I understand is derived from the Act of 1919—is wrong. But I am not quite sure that the words,
"compensation … at a level which takes full account of the cost of equivalent reinstatement",
put something concrete in its place. Can the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, tell us what is the exact situation if a tenant is dispossessed? I apologise for my ignorance, but I have read the Report of the proceedings in another place and I am still not quite sure.
In the case of freeholders who are dispossessed, I thought the date of valuation was the date of the notice to treat, but my noble friend has said that it is the date of acquisition. I wonder which is correct. Whichever is correct, though interest on the final price is payable from the relevant date, I most certainly support my noble friend in saying that that is poor compensation for rises in land values during protracted negotiations. We know that in the last 15 years the rise in land values has been about 10 per cent. per annum, and that can mean a lot to someone when negotiations are protracted. Finally, would not the noble Lord agree that if some payment could be made during negotiations before the final price was decided, that might allow some dispossessed farmers to get on and seek for land as soon as they know that they are going to have to leave?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I should like to support this Amendment, but may I make one point which has not so far been raised? When a farmer is dispossessed of his farm, presumably for the good of the

175
community, he has to sell all his stock; and it may well be, if he has to wait a year or 18 months, or even two years, before he can find a new farm, that the value of the cattle and sheep is much higher than when he was dispossessed. Therefore it is only fair for the Government to compensate the farmer fully up to the cost of re-stocking the farm. I do not suggest that they should compensate him to an extent where he is able to buy more stock than he had previously, but I think that the Government ought to compensate him for any rise in the value of stock when he has to re-stock.
LORD HENLEY: I have the greatest sympathy with this Amendment, but I wonder whether this is really the time and place for it. This is a very complicated subject. In fact, a detailed examination of the law relating to compensation for compulsory acquisition, together with recommendations for amendments, has been made by the Chartered Land Societies' committee; and various other professional bodies, too, are at work on the same thing. The field covers more than agriculture; and it covers many different aspects of agriculture which the noble Lord's Amendment does not cover. Indeed, his noble friend Lord Belstead has struck at one of the weak points already. So although, as I say, I have the greatest sympathy with this Amendment, and although I know the agricultural community feel very strongly that they are not getting enough compensation and that something should be done about it, I am sure it cannot be done in this way in this Bill. I know that this Bill is a miscellaneous provisions Bill and that it has an enormous number of different aspects to it, but we really cannot add one more aspect of so complicated a nature, and I hope the noble Lord will not seek to press the Amendment because I should hate not to be able to support him.
LORD BESWICK: I go all the way with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on one point; namely, that this is a complicated matter, and I am not sure that I am going to be able to give an absolutely satisfactory answer to the different points which have been raised. First of all, however, taking the Amendment that we are considering, I have to say that it is not clear what the effect of it
176
would be, and several noble Lords have pointed out that it is not a water-tight Amendment. It is not clear partly because the words in subsection (c), for example, do not appear to have any significance by reference to existing legislation, and the circumstances in which the clause would operate are thus uncertain; and partly because the instruction to "take full account of the cost of equivalent reinstatement" appears to mean something other than actually paying the cost of equivalent reinstatement. I am not quite sure what is meant there. What is the difference between "taking full account of the cost of equivalent reinstatement" and paying for equivalent reinstatement? The drafting of this Amendment, therefore, is not sound, and I suggest that the noble Lord would not be wise to press it on that account, if on no other.
But there is a feeling here which I recognise, and it may be that I can say something about that. I appreciate that there are some people who feel that the farmers do not get the full amount needed to enable them to set up again as farmers in another part of the country. First of all, may I point out to the noble Lord that the effect at the moment, without this Amendment, is that the farmer gets what his land is worth, just as if he had decided of his own choice to move elsewhere and had put his farm up for sale voluntarily. A number of noble Lords—the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, himself—pointed out that there were other expenses involved in uprooting oneself from a farm and having to move and establish oneself in another farm. That is true; but there is provision here for disturbance and for removal costs, and these payments for consequential losses are on top of the market price for the land. For example, the noble Viscount spoke about the sale of stock. There is provision, of course, for taking into account the forced sale of live or dead stock. That would come under the category of the disturbance payments. Where circumstances justify it, there can be compensation for loss of profit; so again I think the present position covers the various special considerations which apply to a farmer.
I was asked about the position where a farmer going out to bid for another

177
farm had to bid against adjacent farmers, and it was suggested that an adjacent farmer would be prepared to bid a little higher because he could efficiently and economically take over the farm. But this possibility of bids by adjacent farmers would be taken into account by the valuer when he came to assess the market value of the farm which was being taken from the farmer. One cannot have this both ways. If there is a possibility of the adjacent farmers putting up the market value of a farm, then this is taken into account when assessing the market value of the farm which is being compulsorily acquired. I was asked by the noble Viscount about the possibility of an interim payment during negotiations, and I am able to assure him that in cases of hardship the possibility of advance payment is there now; indeed, up to 90 per cent.
The noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, asked about the application of the case of West Midlands Baptist Trust Association v. Birmingham Corporation, as a result of which the assessment of compensation is now made by reference to a date much closer to that at which the occupier will be looking for new premises. This is the position; this applies now. I can assure the noble Lord that what was found in that case is applied when the assessment of compensation is now made. The noble Lord asked me about planning blight. If land is designated for compulsory acquisition at some time in the future and the farmer is able to show that he cannot sell it except at a depreciated price, he can require the public authority concerned to buy it at its full, undepreciated price.
I think that answers all the different points that were put to me, and on the basis of those assurances the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, may feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD CRAWSHAW: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I think certain of the difficulties arise from my inability, at any rate, to reconcile the statement of the Minister of Housing and Local Government on February 27, when he said that land should be priced or valued purely and simply on its value in the open market, and the judgment in the case of West Midlands Baptist Trust Association v. Birmingham Corporation.
178
There seems to be a difference here, and I have not really found the answer to it. I would also make the point that in these cases a farmer is not moving of his own choice. I think that is different from the example which the noble Lord quoted of a farmer moving of his own free will. But in view of the doubts expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, about the time and place for this, while reserving my right to bring it up again at another time, for the moment, although this is a problem which is much in the forefront of the minds of many people concerned with farming, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 99 [Agricultural tied cottages]:
5.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 87, line 14, leave out head (ii) and insert—
("(ii) that the efficient management of any agricultural land or the efficient carrying on of any agricultural operations would be seriously prejudiced unless the premises are available for occupation by a person employed or to be employed by the owner; or").
The noble Earl said: It has been suggested to me that it might be for the convenience of the Committee if we were to discuss together all three Amendments (Nos. 37, 38 and 39) on Clause 99. If that course were agreeable we should still have to take decisions separately on these three Amendments, because they cover two quite distinct points. Amendments Nos. 38 and 39, in the names of my noble friends Lord Massereene and Ferrard and Lord Crawshaw, and my noble friend Lord Balerno, are concerned with the length of time for which a farm servant has been in employment and occupancy of his house before the termination of his employment. This is an Amendment which was recommended after great care and consideration by the National Farmers' Union of Scotland. My noble friends who are moving Nos. 38 and 39 will no doubt put forward the case in their favour and I hope that their arguments will be considered favourably by the Government.
The first Amendment, No. 37, is in my name and in that of my noble friends Lord Nugent and Lord Belstead. It is concerned with a different point: how to

179
reconcile possible hardship which may arise from the vacation of an agricultural service tenancy house with the needs of efficient agriculture. This is a question which affects the whole of Great Britain in one way or another. Although there is much less feeling about it in Scotland than in England, I think that it affects Scotland basically to a greater extent. In England, or at least in South and Central England, one very often finds in country districts a large number of rural villages all fairly close together, perhaps not more than a mile or a mile and a half apart, and none of the farms is very far from the villages. Sometimes they are even concentrated all round them. So it is not very difficult for a good many agricultural workers to live in these rural villages which are not specifically attached to any farms. Possibly the only farm worker who may have to reside on the farm is the stockman who has sometimes to look after animals during the night.
In Scotland and, of course, in other parts of England, especially in the North, it is very different. Not only in the remote areas, in the Highlands, on the Borders or in the upland districts, but in East and Central Scotland and in the Lowlands too where heavy arable cultivation is practised, one may often find six or seven miles of road with six or seven large farms each of them a mile apart, each having perhaps six, eight, or ten farm workers' houses attached to it. There may be no other human dwelling on that stretch of road at all; although it is not a remote area but a heavily cultivated arable area. The nearest village or small town may be seven or eight miles away from some of these arable farms so that it is not always very convenient, even in these days of quick transport, for most of the farm workers to live off the farms. I am told that a great deal of the heat, controversy and emotion associated with service tenancy houses in farming is centred in Norfolk—for some reason which I have not really studied and do not understand. But I do not think we ought to legislate on an important matter like the agriculture of the whole of the United Kingdom on measures which are dictated by the peculiarities of East Anglia. I do not think the question is quite the same elsewhere; and certainly not in Scotland.
There are advantages in living in a service tenancy house and there are disadvantages. The advantages are that the rent is usually much lower the house is sometimes better than a council house (sometimes not so good, but quite often these days better and more commodious) and, in addition, there are tax advantages because the occupier does not pay tax on the value of his house or on his perquisites. Furthermore, some agricultural workers find it more convenient to be near their work. But there are also disadvantages. The disadvantages are that when employment terminates, whether at the instance of the employer or of the employee, the house has to be vacated and the worker has to move elsewhere. This does not only happen in agriculture. There are lots of other occupations in which service tenancy houses are required; for example, school teaching. In some country districts, school teachers must leave the service tenancy house, which belongs to the education authority, if and when they are dismissed. I do not think there would be any question of allowing the school teacher to stay on in the house, even for six months, with nobody to teach the children in the school. When there is a condition of that sort which is dictated by social, industrial or agricultural requirements then one must consider how to reconcile economic efficiency with the avoidance of hardship.
We all thought that a fairly good attempt to do that had been made in the Rent Act of 1965 which is specifically changed by Clause 99 of this Bill. In the 1965 Act it is provided that if an order for possession is granted to what is called the "owner" of a service tenancy house—he may, of course, be a tenant farmer—then the court may suspend that order if they think that course is justified and reasonable. In considering how to exercise its power the court is directed by the Act of 1965 to consider several points, one of which is in Section 33(5)(b) which reads:
"whether the efficient management of any agricultural land or the efficient carrying on of any agricultural operations would be seriously prejudiced unless the premises were available for occupation by a person employed or to be employed by the owner; "—
which means the farmer.
In this Bill that is deliberately changed. What this Bill proposes is that if the

181
order for possession is given within less than six months of the termination of employment, which it probably would be, then for the rest of the six months—it does not go further than that—the court shall suspend the execution of the order unless it is satisfied of four conditions, one of which replaces this condition in the 1965 Act. The new wording in this Bill is:
"… unless the court is satisfied … that it is not reasonably practicable for the owner of the premises "—
which again means the farmer—
"to carry on an agricultural business in which he is engaged unless the premises are available for occupation by a person employed or to be employed by him."
Whether or not he is acquainted with the law, anyone with any experience of the way in which Acts of Parliament are interpreted by the courts (sometimes with great difficulty) will realise that it is a serious matter to say that the fanner shall not be able to recover possession of a service tenancy house which he needs; not because it will prejudice the efficient carrying on of his business but because it is not reasonably practicable. He has to prove that it is not reasonably practicable to carry on an agricultural business at all. Of course that could be, and no doubt would be, interpreted in a great many ways; but what is the point of changing these words unless it is deliberately intended to contemplate a lowering of the standards of agricultural efficiency for the sake of prolonging the occupation of a service tenancy house by an employee who had terminated his employment?
There are many other Amendments to Clause 99 which have been suggested or proposed. But my noble friends and I did not want to sponsor any of them because we want to agree to all that can reasonably be agreed to in order to reduce to the absolute minimum any hardship which may be incurred by a service tenancy employee who, in spite of his contract that the house goes with his job, may still find it difficult to get other employment; or who for any other reason may suffer as a result of the termination of his employment and the tenancy of a house. But I put to the Government, and to your Lordships, that it is definitely a mistake in the national interest that we should here contemplate
182
a reduction in our agricultural standards of efficiency.
There is a definition in the 1965 Rent Act which, I think, is satisfactory. It says:
"Whether the efficient management of any agricultural land or the efficient carrying on of any agricultural operations would be seriously prejudiced …"
I do not pretend that any form of words is always certain to be interpreted in the right way, but I think those words are clear and sensible enough; and if, instead of saying it is going to interfere with agricultural efficiency, you have to show that it will make it impracticable to carry on farming at all (which seems to me to be the meaning of this new definition) that is a change which could have very damaging effects.
I am not suggesting that in most parts of the country there are numerous cases in which it is necessary to claim repossession of a tenancy, or that that is very widespread. I am told that it is something which happens on an intensive scale only in Norfolk. But it does happen elsewhere, too, and if this provision is allowed to become part of our law it seems to me that we are allowing ourselves to contemplate the lowering of our agricultural standards at a time when it is so desirable in the national interest that they should be raised. I do not think that is right, whether it is done on a small scale or a large scale.
The Government have already been asked to show whether there is any general reason to think that the provision in the 1965 Act, which we want to maintain, is not working well and fairly. It is difficult to give evidence on that. According to the figure given in another place, there have been only 17 evictions since 1965. I am not sure whether that means physical evictions; and it is very difficult to know how many of the orders for possession given by the courts which did not involve eviction created real hardship. We have done our best to find out how many there were in England and in Scotland; but we cannot get any evidence to show that the 1965 Act—which was an improvement from the point of view of the tenant on previous conditions—has worked unfairly or has caused undue or avoidable hardship. I am putting it now to the Government

183
that it is a very dangerous thing for the future of our farming that we should allow a provision to be made which breaks a contract even though the breaking of it would mean—I will not say less prosperity for the farmer because that is a personal matter, but less agricultural production for the country.
6.8 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: I am wondering whether the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, is not making too heavy weather of the question of changing these two paragraphs. I agree that the former reference to "efficient management" was probably preferable to "reasonably practicable", but I do not think it is going to make all that difference to the agriculture industry as a whole. I said during the Second Reading debate (I do not want to make a Second Reading speech again to-day, although I think the noble Earl has done so) that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food resisted great pressure to take the agricultural service house out of the general context of service houses. I said then that the agricultural service cottage represented only one-seventh of the whole issue, and the Minister was under pressure to deal with it separately; as if all the other industries where there are service tenancies did not exist. The Minister did not do so, but in a circumstance where there is great emotive feeling he has made a compromise which seems to me a very reasonable one.
I sympathise with the farmers who will find it marginally more difficult to obtain possession and I entirely agree with the noble Earl that the old Act worked perfectly well and there were almost no cases of hardship. I entirely agree that there were few cases of eviction. Nevertheless, it is an emotive issue. I think that the Minister did well to make this compromise and it would be a pity if we looked a gift horse in the mouth. We might have had something so much worse. I hope that the noble Earl and his friends will not see fit to press this issue, because I should feel most unwilling not to support them; yet, for the reasons I have given, I do not feel that the Amendment is worthy of my support.
LORD BALERNO: I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Dundee for
184
putting these three Amendments together. I think it is easier to talk to my own Amendment in conjunction with No. 37. There are two points I wish to make. The first is that with the spread of industry into the countryside there is an increasing attraction for farm workers to leave agriculture and go into industry without leaving the place where they reside, and the pressure on tied houses is certain to build up in some areas in the near future. That is an important point, and we shall get into considerable difficulties about it if we do not watch out. The point my Amendment deals with is the probability that someone will take a job on a farm with a tied cottage in order to get a job in an adjacent factory, and so the Amendment provides that a person must have been in the employment of the farmer for six months before he can qualify for the benefits of a tied cottage.
My noble friend Lord Dundee said that the 1965 Act was working satisfactorily and I think that that is generally agreed. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, I think that the onus is on the Government to show the real need for a change. I do not think that we should just change for purely Party political reasons. The position of a modern farmer in relation to the housing of his workers is getting increasingly complicated and expensive. Some forty years ago I had about twenty tied cottages for employees and that position has remained for many years. Up to the present time, I have never had any major difficulties about the removal of employees, in spite of the fact that it has been extremely difficult to get local government housing in our own district and that we have a large paper mill in close proximity.
I would ask the noble Lord who is going to reply how many cases of eviction from agricultural tied cottages there have been in Scotland during the last five years since the passing of the 1965 Act. If we are to get efficient and highly skilled labour, as we must have for our modern livestock enterprises, we must give them good quarters in which to live, and what is happening now throughout the country is that two, and in many cases three, cottages are being put together into one house and renovated. That takes between £2,000 and £3,000, because if we are hoping to get really good men we have

185
to give them not only "mod. cons." but also central heating and other things like that. That is our objective: to have every one of our cottages provided with central heating. Therefore the ability of a farmer to be free to give houses to his workers is important. That is why I support the Amendment of my noble friend, which is a much clearer statement of what is required than the original statement in the Bill.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: I cannot see that the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, has much to worry about, because if anybody takes a job with a tied cottage with a view to going into a factory, his maximum time in that cottage is six months. I think that the noble Lord's argument is far-fetched. The clause as it stands, without any alteration, is a complete protection to farmers at the end of six months. What we are arguing about is the period from one month up to six months. The noble Lord is right in saying that what every farmer fears is that his workers may go to work in the local shoe factory and he will not be able to get his cows milked. But I cannot see what the fuss is about. I think it will be much better to leave the clause as it is. It gives a very small leverage on the side of the worker who is being badly treated. It is a rare case, but I see no objection to giving him that. It takes nothing away from the farmer who wants to get rid of a man. If it is a dairying job, Clause 2 covers it; if it is an animal job, it is covered at spring time and at harvest, but possibly not at Christmas. I think the Government would be foolish to make any change here. My own view is like that of the noble Lord, Lord Henley—that it would be quite unnecessary to give way on this point. There are more important things to be discussed later.
6.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I cannot agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken. I agree with my noble friend Lord Dundee that it would be better to take these three Amendments together, and I am quite happy to speak to my Amendment now. My Amendment is somewhat akin to that of Lord Balerno's Amendment, the only difference being that I have taken heed of what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said on Second Reading. I
186
suggested on Second Reading that it would be fairer to the farmer if the employee had to be in the farmer's employment for six months before this clause could apply. The noble Lord then said that there might be reasons outside the farm-worker's control, and he may have to give in his notice before six months. That, of course, is quite true. But in my Amendment I have provided that if there are circumstances
"such as illness of the occupier or his family, which in the opinion of the court make the foregoing condition unreasonable"
these should be taken into consideration.
I cannot think of any other reason, apart from illness or bereavement, that would make a farm-worker want to leave his employment in under six months, unless he was going to a better paid job, possibly in a factory. In those circumstances, it would be unfair to the small farmer. As I said on Second Reading, if the small farmer employs only one agricultural worker, he would then lose the whole of his labour force. He has two options before him: he either has to hire a contractor, and contractors are unreliable and expensive, or he must employ somebody who does not require accommodation, and that is difficult.
The 1965 Act is working very well. I understand that the local authority associations and workers' unions have said that there have been hardly any evictions. My experience of the 1965 Act is that if a worker will not go, it usually takes ten months to a year to get him out. It is always one's wish to find him alternative housing, and if one cannot find it the local authority is under an obligation to do so, but (it depends, of course, on the employer's local authority) they are inclined to drag their feet; and if it is a kind employer, it is my experience that they will drag their feet for ever. I have had three of these cases. I had one man who took a job as an agricultural worker. He threw the job up within three days and got work driving a lorry, earning, I think, with overtime £27 a week. That is all very well, but it was hard luck for me, because on that farm I was employing only two men, and he represented half of my labour force. I had to get in contractors and, as I say, they are unreliable. So I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson.

187
I think that my Amendment protects the worker, and I see no objection to it. Without any doubt, as my noble friend Lord Dundee said, if employees are to get an extra six months' grace it will damage the efficiency of agriculture. It will mean that 18 months go by while you apply to the court—and you will probably not apply before three months; you always give the man a good chance—and allow for a probable appeal; and the case may then again go to court, with another appeal, and drag on and on. Under the 1965 Act the court has full power to extend the time that the man can remain in the house.
I would press the Government strongly to put something down on Report stage that will protect at any rate the small farmer. It does not matter so much if a man is employing 12, 15 or 20 men; if he loses one man, who remains in his house for a couple of years, I do not suppose that that farmer would be too worried. But it is extremely difficult for the small farmer employing only one or two men, and I would press the Government to think over this problem seriously.
LORD FORBES: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Dundee on this Amendment. I wonder whether the Government have given full consideration to the position of dairy farmers. Do the Government realise that the cowman, when he finishes milking the cows, say, at half-past five in the evening, does not go away and not appear again until the cows have to be milked next morning. That cowman has to go back to look at his stock, probably before he goes to bed, and he may have to get up in the night to see to a cow calving. Normally you would have the house where this cowman lives adjacent to the steading. What would be the position if the house were occupied by a commercial traveller and the cowman who was supposed to be looking after the cows was living five miles away? He could not just walk into the steading and see what was going on. That is not farming.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: One could think of a number of cases of that nature, but it seems to me to be slightly exaggerated. I think that the noble Lord,
188
Lord Henley, had the position right. We had a good discussion on this point on Second Reading, and we are now on the Committee stage. It seems to me that, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, pointed out, the Government have taken a reasonable step. We are not discussing anything of a very long or permanent nature; as my noble friend Lord Donaldson said, it is only a matter of three months or six months. As I say, we have had a good deal of discussion on this subject and the Government have taken a reasonable attitude about it. I hardly think it is a matter that ought to be pressed by the Opposition.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: May I ask the Government why they do not practise what they preach? In nationalised industries there are plenty of tied cottages, but the Government do not make a clause like this apply to them. Why should this be applied only to private employers in agriculture and not to nationalised industries?
LORD BURTON: I should like to support my noble friend on this Amendment. I cannot understand the altitude of noble Lords opposite, who seem to feel so strongly about this subject. In these days when a farm worker, say, a cowman, is in great demand, no man has any difficulty in getting a job with a house. Although my noble friend, Lord Dundee, has said that the position may be rather different in the urbanised areas in England, the position in the rural areas is not acute. The implementation of the Bill as it now stands might well cause greater hardship than it seeks to dispose of. It is not only of the farmer who will be without a cattleman, or something like that, that I am thinking, but also of the incoming worker. The Government do not seem to be considering the man who is coming into the job and who may be kept waiting by this ridiculous aspect of the Bill to protect probably a bad worker.
If something was put into the Bill to protect a worker in the case of illness, or a widow or family in the case of bereavement, I am sure my noble friend would drop the objection. The Bill as it stands merely protects the lazy, the man who does not want to work, or the bad character looking for a house for nothing.

189
I have about 100 employees and over a twenty-year period I have only twice had difficulties. In both cases the men were bad characters who were only with me for a short time. One of them dragged on for over nine months before I could get him out, and it caused considerable difficulty and inconvenience. I cannot see why noble Lords opposite are so emphatic about this matter.
LORD WALSTON: I hope the Government will resist this Amendment. It is never easy to please everybody in this matter of tied cottages, but one has to hold the balance between hardship to the farmer and hardship to the worker. Of course it is bad luck on the farmer— especially the farmer who has only one or two men—if he is left with one of his two cottages, or his only cottage, occupied by somebody who does not work for him. That is cruel, I agree. But it is also extremely bad luck on the farm worker and on his family if he is debarred from looking for a better job, or taking a better job that is offered to him, so that he can give a better start in life to his children and a higher standard of living to his family, because he will lose his house if he takes that better job. You have to balance up those rival claims: hardship to the farmer and hardship to the farm worker.
I do not think that this happens very often in actual practice. I am sure that what happens far more often than eviction is that the farm worker who wants to go somewhere else, possibly to work for another farmer where the boss is a better man, where the opportunities for overtime or promotion are greater, where he would have a more interesting job, or who wants to get a job driving a lorry or working in nearby industry, does not allow himself even to contemplate it because he is afraid of losing his house. That is something at the back of the minds of many farmworkers, even with the protection that they have at the present time.
I remember many years ago an old foreman on my own farm. He had been there ever since he was a boy, starting work at the age of 14. When he was between the ages of 65 or 70 I suggested to him, in what I hoped was a somewhat gentle and friendly way, that perhaps the pace of modern fanning was rather too hot for him and he would be more comfortable
190
if he retired on a pension. He swallowed and said: "Very good, sir. Do you want me to leave next week? And do you want me to give up my cottage at the same time?" It suddenly occurred to me that here was this man who had worked on the same farm for over fifty years, but who had never had security and had always felt that at some time an arbitrary boss could come along and turn him out of the house in which he had lived for fifty years. He had never had the freedom to go and look for something different and to make life better for himself. That is the type of story which we must remember whenever we are talking about tied cottages. It is not the actual statistics of evictions that the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, asked for, that matters; it is the number of people who are denied the freedom to choose the job they want because they happen to live in somebody else's house. Any protection that can be given to those people must have the support of all of us.
I agree at the same time that we must take a realistic view of the problems of farmers. Here we have a reasonable compromise. There are always a certain number of bad farm-workers who will deliberately take a job in order to get a cottage, and make use of the security that gives them to get a better job. I think the numbers are minimal. There are bad fanners who will deliberately penalise and keep a farm-worker under because he is living in a tied cottage and the farmers know that they have a stranglehold on the workers. Those numbers are minimal also, and I do not think we need consider such people. We must take this on the conflicting claims of both sides, and the claim of the individual farmworker warrants at least a 12 months' period.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Why will not the Government apply this to their own tied cottages? They do not apply it to their own tied cottages. What the noble Lord is really saying is that farmers should provide free cottages for workers to go to other jobs.
LORD WALSTON: I wish the noble Viscount—strong memory, bad memory, many things to think about, or few things to think about—would say things which come out of his mind and out of his

191
mouth, but not put words into my mouth which I have not said.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: I am not clear what the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has said. I think he said there was a restriction on farmworkers' families, if they happened to be adults and so on, looking for another job. This is not so. I think the noble Lord said that, or gave that impression. If a farmworker has a large family there is no restriction on the children looking for work, obtaining work, getting cheap housing and a big family income. There is no restriction whatsoever.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: We have heard a great deal about the hardships on the worker and the hardships on the farmer. I wish some people would consider the hardships on the animals who are not fed at the proper time because the house, which was available for the man who feeds them, is no longer available and he has to travel long distances. That applies not only to dairy farming, but also to stock where, in my part of the country, stock have to be kept under cover for six months of the year, and have to be fed during the whole of that time. I wish noble Lords opposite would think of that.
6.36 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: We are dealing with a matter in which there is a conflict of interests. It would appear that there are some noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Henley, my noble friend Lord Walston—who are able to overcome their own selfish interest and consider the interests——
LORD STRATHCLYDE: May I ask the noble Lord if he will give way for just one moment? Would he be good enough to ask the noble Lord to whom he has referred how many cottages he has, and how many men he employs, and then consider the small man who has only one or two men to do the work on the farm? It really is appalling to hear the kind of speech that we have had from the noble Lord opposite. I am ashamed to listen to it.
LORD BESWICK: If I have brought in a more personal note I am sorry, but I brought it in in relation to two noble
192
Lords whose speeches impressed me, and impressed many other noble Lords in this House. Because I say that they were regarding this from the point of view of someone other than their own particular positions, I was not intending to say—and I did not say—that all those who have taken the contrary view are necessarily selfish. Certain arguments have been put forward and certain Amendments have been suggested. In one case particularly I think the Amendment is a reasonable one, and I shall endeavour to answer it in a reasonable way. I do not think that the agitation shown by the noble Lord is justified. I suggest that we should try to look at this in a more dispassionate manner.
The fact of the matter is that since the changes proposed in this Bill were announced representations have been made by a number of different organisations. We have had representations from the National Farmers' Union, from the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers, from the Scottish Landowners' Federation and from the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers. There are these different points of view which have been expressed by these different organisations. It is not surprising that in the case of the Scottish Landowners' Federation and the N.F.U. they object to this six-months provision that is put into the Bill. It is not surprising, either, that there are branches of the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers who would like us to implement what they consider to be a pledge given to them for complete protection; in other words, no eviction unless alternative accommodation is available. But, after all, it is not an unreasonable thing. I understand as well as noble Lords opposite the position of the farmers and, of course, of the animals. But here are some human beings who are saying, "Before you put me out into the street, I should have another home to go to." That is something fundamental to ask for and this point has been put forward with some force.
There were, as we know, many farm workers who came up to the House and lobbied against the proposals that we are putting here because they do not think they are going far enough. But the Government have taken what they believe to be, in all the circumstances,

193
a reasonable and a fair stand. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, used the word "compromise". I think that was the expression which my noble friend Lord Walston suggested, too. I am putting it to noble Lords that, although this satisfies neither the one side nor the other, taking a responsible view in all the circumstances the Government are putting forward a compromise which ought to be accepted.
One or two points of some detail have been raised. In particular, as I say, I was impressed by the Amendment put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard. He has an Amendment which, on the face of it, would seem to be as reasonble as any of them. If I am not accepting it, it is not because I consider him to be taking up a selfish posture. I believe that he is mistaken in believing that it is necessary to have the kind of Amendment he has put down in order to ensure fairness to both sides. The noble Viscount says that there may be those who would take a farm job for the sake of the cottage that goes with that job. But surely anyone who is prepared to go as far as that, who is prepared to uproot himself and take a job, knowing that he is going to move into another job later on, is likely, I put to the noble Viscount, to be prepared to stay for six months in order to qualify for the protection that he would get even if the noble Viscount's Amendment were accepted. I do not think the noble Viscount is dealing with the possibility of abuse. I do not think he is dealing with the kind of case he seeks to deal with, the case of the man who deliberately is abusing the protection which the law provides, or intends to provide.
On the other hand, there may be a case where a man takes a job, and with it a house, yet for reasons which are quite proper, quite reasonable and quite acceptable, gets the sack. If the noble Viscount's Amendment was accepted, that man would not have protection. I put it to the noble Viscount that with his Amendment he would not be catching the bad cases but would be likely to put at risk those who had a genuine reason for wishing to move, or indeed for quite genuine reasons lost their job at the behest of the farmer
194
The noble Viscount seeks to provide even further protection by pointing out that there shall be regard to the circumstances of the farmworker's family. But of course, in such a case we already have protection in the clause as it stands, because a court would specifically have to have regard to the comparative hardship as between the sitting tenant and the incoming worker. I hope, therefore, that in all the circumstances the noble Viscount will feel that the qualifications in the clause take into account, and the court when having regard to those qualifications would take into account, the kind of considerations he has set out in his Amendment.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I am concerned with the rogues. They are very few and far between, I know, but they do appear. I have experienced this. I had a man come into the house in the way I described. But I had another man come in, and I think he gave the job up in five days. He burnt all the wood in the house, all the shelves; he filled the gas meter with pieces of gramophone record, and the Gas Board thought that I had done it. The noble Lord has no idea what one has to put up with.
LORD BESWICK: The noble Viscount seems to be in difficulties all round. He would be well advised to go and see his local Member of Parliament. I am sure there are other ways of helping him, rather than by amending the Bill in this way.
I was asked about the number of evictions in Scotland. As a matter of fact, the figures, if any, are not readily available. I can, however, tell the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that the position in Norfolk is not quite so bad as he thought. Of the 18 cases of actual eviction, physical eviction, since 1965, there were some 6 in the whole of East Anglia. Norfolk has not therefore the monopoly of the problem, such as it is—I say here again, advisedly, "such as it is". But the point is not how many are evicted; the point is how many are living with the fear that they could be evicted. That is what we are trying to deal with.
It has been suggested that we must have regard to the man coming in for the efficient working of the farm. But

195
if we want to have a good man coming in, if we want to have a good choice, if we want to have the possibility of proper recruitment into this industry, then one of the best things we can do, surely, is to see that when men come in to work in the industry and take a service tenancy of this kind they have at any rate the minimum protection which is laid down in this Bill. I feel that, if it is a matter of the efficiency of the industry, we are doing something which in the longer term will be in the best interests of efficiency.
LORD ROWALLAN: I am sorry to interrupt, but unfortunately if one has a bad man on the job, and cannot get a good one in, it is a very short time before the cows are giving half, or less than a half, of their potential, and one may lose a large number of them, costing thousands of pounds. It is a serious matter.
LORD BESWICK: I am not trying to ride off the possibility of a serious case. I am suggesting that if the noble Lord has a case such as that, if he looks at the second of the four qualifications he will find that he is covered. On the other hand, the noble Lord has said there are these bad people. The noble Lord, Lord Burton, seemed to indicate that farmworkers were likely to have a larger proportion of difficult people than in other industries. I do not believe that that is true. But, if it is the case, then for goodness' sake! let us improve the conditions of the farmworkers on the land. And one of the ways in which we can improve them is by giving them this extra protection.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, who gave a very good description of the worker's extra comfort (I think that was the word he used), from modernisation of the cottages, and putting one, two or even three, he said, into one, with heating and all the rest of it, that that is fine—that is absolutely fine. But how much better is it if the family know that at any rate they cannot be turned out within six months, unless it be that there is a special case of the type which the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, indicated! And then the courts would have regard to that.
LORD ROWALLAN: Too late!
LORD BESWICK: If it is as urgent as that, if it is a question of two or three days, or a week or two, then, as the noble Viscount told us, the present position is equally bad and we are not worsening it by the proposed Amendment. This reminds me to tell the noble Viscount that this period of six months is not in addition to the time taken to have court proceedings. I can give him some figures to show this, but it is not an additional six months period.
I put it to the Committee that, although I realise that there are problems, and although I realise that we must have regard to the very real difficulties that face especially the dairy farmer, I believe the Government have adopted a position which is reasonable and fair, and which is a compromise in an area which has given rise to so much bitter controversy over the years. I think we should be well advised to accept the Bill as it now stands and to reject the Amendment.
6.52 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for trying to introduce this reasonable note and asking us to accept a compromise. But I think it is fair to remind him that when his colleagues in another place were putting the 1965 Act on the Statute Book, in the words of the Attorney General, the criterion in our Amendment was put on the Statute Book in a most considered manner, with the Attorney General specifically saying he considered that the Government had achieved the right balance with those words; and this was carefully debated in Committee. That is the reason why noble Lords on this side of the Committee are doubtful whether it is wise to accept a compromise in order to get agreement: because, having made a settlement, as it was thought, to settle everything in 1965, noble Lords now come along and ask us to go one step further. The advice coming from the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, in that respect does not quite square up with the previous experience, especially when the spokesman for the National Union of Agricultural Workers in another place made it absolutely plain that so far as he was concerned it was not the end of the road and that he was going to ask for much more.

197
Noble Lords really must face the facts of this situation. Farmers would be absolutely delighted if local authorities built sufficient houses so that they could get rid of all their tied houses; they have to carry them simply because there is no other way of housing the farm workers. It is true that to-day there are some 200,000 farm workers in council houses—thank goodness there are!—and there are only 100,000 farm houses left. But if farmers could be relieved of the lot of them, believe me, they would be absolutely delighted.
I do make this point to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick: that it is not wise advice to say "accept this compromise", because if we do we shall be asked in two or three years' time to accept another one. The practical point here does not concern the big farmer with a number of cottages. He can manage for several months, possibly, with one cottage less. Often I have done it on my own farm, and other noble Lords will have done it. I would always be perfectly willing to let a man have six months, or even longer, to make sure that he got out in comfortable circumstances. The man we are talking about is the farmer with a single farmworker—usually a dairy farmer—and he is absolutely "sunk" if he loses his cottage for six months.
In the terms of the criterion of Clause 99(2)(a)(ii), this is now so loosely worded that the court could take the view, "Well, the farmer could carry on if he could get a relief dairyman to milk his cows for him". The criterion has been significantly weakened from what it was in terms of the efficient production of the farm in the 1965 Act. This is the point
to which we are objecting, because we know that it will seriously affect especially the small farmer with a single farmworker. For this reason we must ask noble Lords to look at this more closely.
Let us, however, remove the emotive atmosphere. All of us engaged in farming are perfectly well aware that the problem is not to get fellows to go out of the farm cottages but to get them to go in. With 20,000 or 30,000 farm workers going out into industry every year, the boot is entirely on the other foot to-day. As my noble friend Lord Balerno said, any wise farmer is taking endless trouble nowadays to make his farm cottages as comfortable and attractive as possible, to let them all without any rent at all—indeed to do anything he can to keep his men. So the bargaining position is entirely with the farmworkers. It is not a case of hard-hearted, all-powerful farmers pressing the farm workers: it really is quite the other way round.
We are simply arguing now on the technical point that we think it unwise to make further concessions, at the expense of the efficiency of the farm, in order to please the National Union of Agricultural Workers because we are quite sure that they will simply ask for another one. For that reason, my advice to the Committee is that they should accept this Amendment as being thoroughly reasonable.
6.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 37) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 43.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lansdowne, M.

Albemarle, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Latymer, L.

Balerno, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Barnby, L.

Daventry, V.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Belstead, L.

Derwent, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Berkeley, Bs.

Dundee, E.

Milverton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Monk Bretton, L.

Bethell, L.

Falkland, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Bledisloe, V.

Forbes, L.

Boston, L.

Fortescue, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Bourne, L.

Glendevon, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Poltimore, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Gray, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gridley, L.

Rockley, L.

Burton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rowallan, L.

Carrington, L.

Hastings, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Conesford, L.

Hertford, M.

St. Helens, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Swaythling, L.

Sherfield, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Teynham, L.

Somers, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Vivian, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Henley, L.

Serota, Bs.

Beswick, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller]

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Birk, Bs.

Hughes, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Blyton, L.

Jacques, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Boothby, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Lindgren, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Champion, L.

McLeavy, L.

Walston, L.

Crook, L.

Maelor, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Williamson, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Moyle, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Platt, L.

Henderson, L.

Popplewell, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 99, as amended, agreed to.
7.4 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 39A:
After Clause 99, insert the following new Clause—
Additional case in which court must order possession where dwelling-house subject to regulated tenancy
(".After Case 13 of Part II of Schedule 3 to the Rent Act 1968 there shall be added the following:—
Case 14
Where the dwellinghouse was at any time occupied by a person responsible (whether as owner, tenant or agent of another) for the control of the farming of the agricultural unit of which the dwellinghouse forms a part and

(a) not later than the commencement of the tenancy the tenant was given notice in writing that possession might be recovered under this case, and

(b) the court is satisfied either that the dwellinghouse is required for occupation by a person employed or to be employed by the landlord in agriculture, or that the dwellinghouse is required for a person responsible or to be responsible (whether as owner, tenant or agent of another) for the control of the farming of the agricultural unit of which the dwellinghouse forms a part:

and for the purposes of this Case "employed" and "agriculture" have the same meanings as in the Agricultural Wages Act 1948, and "agricultural unit" has the same meaning as in the Agriculture Act 1947.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the new clause standing in my name. This clause concerns a limited point with regard to the recovery of an agricultural
200
farmhouse which has been let off to a private tenant and is wanted back by the farmer for occupancy by a farmworker or farm manager. The 1968 Rent Act provides machinery for a farmer to recover possession of a farm worker's dwelling-house which has been let off to a private tenant and is wanted back by the farmer for occupancy by a farmworker for the working of the farm. But the 1968 Act stopped short of extending this same machinery for recovery to farmhouses, except in the case of an amalgamation of farms as in Case 13 of the 1968 Act. This means, as the law now stands, that there will sometimes be cases where a farmer needs to recover possession of a farmhouse let off to a private tenant and cannot do so, to the detriment of the farm or holding. My new clause would provide the machinery for the farmer to recover possession of the farmhouse when he so needs it, subject to his following the correct procedure and safeguards as in the case of farmworkers' dwellinghouses. The specific safeguard is that the farmer, when letting the farmhouse to the tenant in the first place, must give notice at the beginning of the tenancy that repossession of the farmhouse might be wanted at some time in the future, if he is to qualify for the relief of this machinery.
This qualification of course means that the relief which would be given for recovery of farmhouses would only apply in the future; that is to say, where the farmhouses are already let off this new clause could not affect those tenancies. But in the future when for some reason the farmer has a spare farmhouse and lets it off, and it is not in connection with

201
amalgamation, and he gives notice when he creates the tenancy that he may want it in the future, he would be allowed to use this machinery in the 1968 Act. Obviously it will not affect a very great many cases, but it could be important in this farming industry, where changes are so rapid now, and for all we know there may be more farmhouses becoming vacant in the future. I would think it is a small improvement which I do not think could be emotive or cause difficulty, and I hope very much that the Government will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
LORD HENLEY: May I add a few words in support of this Amendment. It seems to me that sometimes, particularly in the areas in the West, farmhouses built in the old-fashioned days are much too large, and the farmers want to let them off. That is quite useful from the tourists' point of view, but sometimes farmers are reluctant to let them because they fear they will never get them back. I think this Amendment goes some way to making better use of the old, large farmhouses than is made at present.
LORD BESWICK: This Amendment would widen very considerably the provisions of Case 13 of the 1968 Rent Act under which a farmhouse can be let on a regulated tenancy subject to a right of repossession in certain special circumstances. I must say frankly that I think the proposed Case 14 is too wide. Case 13 makes an exception from the general security of tenure provided by the Rent Acts; and this could be justified only in special cases and with proper safeguards. Accordingly, Case 13 is restricted to farmhouses rendered surplus by approved amalgamations. It does not allow possession to be recovered from the ex-farmer, an ex-employee or their widows. It requires the right of repossession to be exercised within a limited period. And finally the house must be required to house a farm worker. None of these conditions would apply under the proposed Case 14, which would simply render Case 13 superfluous. The farmhouse rendered surplus by amalgamation is a special case.
I must say that although the noble Lord moved his Amendment most persuasively, I am a little surprised that he puts forward this proposal to allow repossession
202
from the ex-farmer or his widow, because in the debate on the 1967 Bill the noble Lord then said:
"The new clause … makes special provision for the retiring farmer or his widow to continue to live in the spare farmhouse if they wish to do so. I quite accept that it is both humane and sensible, and the proper thing to do. In fact, unless such was done there probably would not be an amalgamation at all, so it is an entirely sensible thing to do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7/3/67, col. 1405.]
That is what he said then, and I really do not see what has happened since that time to persuade the noble Lord to change his mind.
Moreover, the proposal here is to sweep away the time limits within which the right of repossession may be exercised. It is reasonable that the owner should have a period of years in which to make up his mind whether he is going to need the house. But it is not reasonable that he should be able to exercise that right indefinitely. After a period of years an occupant will tend to settle down and regard the house as his for as long as he needs it. He may be getting on in years or his circumstances may have changed. I really do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has taken this category of case into account. Surely, it would be wrong for the occupant to remain indefinitely subject to immediate eviction. The time must come, I am putting to noble Lords, when the house should be treated like any other rural dwelling which is not let to farm workers.
Lastly, the proposal we have before us would allow possession to be recovered so that the house could be sold with vacant possession to an incoming farmer. This would be a greater breach in the security of tenure provided by the Rent Acts than we could justify on agricultural grounds. The general principle is that people who pay the rent for a regulated tenancy should have the corresponding security. We have made exceptions to this rule for the benefit of agricultural landlords in well defined cases. Tied cottages are one, and farmhouses rendered surplus by amalgamation are another. These are cases that can be defined and justified with due safeguards. The proposed Case 14 would bring in a great variety of cases, though they might be few in number.
This matter has been debated at length on previous occasions. Indeed, noble

203
Lords opposite put forward a similar proposal during consideration of the Rent Bill of 1965. We then put forward proposals of our own which became the present law. These proposals were worked out after lengthy discussion both in Parliament and with the interests concerned. They represent a fair and balanced solution to what is a difficult issue. If there are farmers who have the surplus houses to which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, referred, surely the right course for those people who are fortunate to have more houses than they need is to make up their minds what they want to do with them. They can sell; they can let the houses at a low rent; or, of course, the house can be let to a worker, thus releasing a cottage straight away which could be let on a Case 12 basis.
I suggest, therefore, that the new clause is not only unsuitable in its present form, but also unnecessary, and frankly I can-not see how any provision of this kind could be drawn up which would not create as many problems as it would solve. I am recommending that we do not accept the proposed new clause.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I must thank the noble Lord for that reply, but I am bound to say that it seems a little unbending. I think he was less than fair to me on the question of amalgamations. I think that, subject to superior legal opinion, Case 13 would govern Case 14 if Case 14 was put into the Act: that is to say, that Case 13 which now governs amalgamations would continue to stand. In other words, the position of the ex-farmer and the widow would continue to be protected.
I was surprised that the noble Lord should interpret my Case 14 as superseding Case 13. It did not seem to me entirely fair that he should quote back at me my support for that particular case. Naturally, there is no intention whatsoever to weaken the position of the ex-farmer or the widow, because I specifically made the point in commending my Amendment to the Committee that this does not deal with the case of amalgamations. This arises only where for some reason the farmer has a farmhouse going spare outside the case of amalgamation. Either the noble Lord's brief was not entirely fair, or his argument was not.
204
With regard to the other point that the noble Lord made, that the owner should not have the right indefinitely to recover, this is arguable. Maybe a term should be put to it. But I cannot accept that he considers it to be a solution that the farmer can either sell off the farmhouse or let it to a farm worker. If he sells it off it is lost to farming for good. I do not think that this is necessarily going to be in the interests of agriculture.
However, the noble Lord has cast doubts on the technical soundness of this Amendment. I personally am persuaded that there is a good point here; and all the debates I have read about this matter in another place have convinced me that there is a good point, albeit a small one. I believe that we can perfectly well cater for the position now covered in Case 13, of the ex-farmer and the widow. But I should like to make absolutely sure that this new clause is correctly drafted so that it limits the application to the very narrow field to which I want it to apply; then, if the Committee will allow me to withdraw it now, I should like to put it down on the Report stage. I hope that the noble Lord and his advisers will give this a fair consideration, because I really believe that this Amendment could be made without any damage to anybody but with advantage to the farming industry. In the light of the noble Lord's reply I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 100 agreed to.
7.18 p.m.
LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK moved Amendment No. 40:
After Clause 100, insert the following new clause:
National Agricultural Advisory Service
".The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food may, instead of maintaining the National Agricultural Advisory Service provided for by section 1(1) of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944, give effect to the purposes for which that Service was established (which relate to the provision of advice and instruction on agricultural matters) through such other organisation as he may consider appropriate; and accordingly, the said section 1(1) shall be amended by substituting, for the words ' shall, as from the appointed day, establish and maintain a National Agricultural Advisory Service', the words ' shall make provision through such organisation as he considers appropriate'."
The noble Lord said: It will be recalled that in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I gave notice that I should be introducing this provision. It is designed to facilitate the proposals announced by the Minister of Agriculture on April 9 for the unification of the Ministry's professional, scientific and technical service. The basis of these proposals is the management consultants' recommendations that unification would make possible a more efficient and more economic service to the farmers. My understanding was that the case commanded approval when it was put on Second Reading, and I therefore leave it at that, although of course if there are questions I shall be glad to answer them. I beg to move.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I am not very much wiser from what the noble Lord has told us about this new clause, and I was rather hoping that he would give us some explanation of what is really contemplated in the Ministry of Agriculture. Those noble Lords who are here now are interested in this subject, and I should therefore be grateful if the noble Lord, if he is in a position to do so, would give a few words of explanation about just what changes are contemplated.
LORD BESWICK: I am sorry; I thought I was meeting the convenience of the House in keeping my remarks short. The existing services, the National Agricultural Advisory Service, the Agricultural Land Service, the Veterinary Services and the Drainage and Water Supply Service, are the services affected. As noble Lords know, they have earned an excellent reputation for their high standard of service to the farming community, and the efficiency of the industry owes a great deal to them. But, given the change that is taking place in the industry, we decided, on the basis of the advice tendered to us by the consultants, that the organisation of these services ought to change to meet the changing needs of farming.
In particular, we have the changes in farming techniques which make farming to-day increasingly capital intensive. For this reason, farmers cannot afford to consider investment or husbandry problems in isolation. No aspect of the work of the professional and technical services
206
in the advisory or grant field can satisfactorily be tackled except in the context of the development policy of the farm as a whole. Only through a unified service, it is suggested, can we ensure that individual problems—whether on drainage, buildings or husbandry—are examined from this "whole farm" point of view, or that the full range of expertise within the Department can be placed quickly and economically at the farmer's disposal. In addition, by removing unnecessary demarcations between the separate services, unification will enable the number of officials separately visiting farms to be reduced, and requests for advice and applications for grants to be dealt with more promptly.
I should say, however, that one feature will not be changed; the Minister has already given firm assurances, which I now repeat, that it will continue to be the duty of officers engaged in advisory work to give farmers impartial advice. The Minister is therefore proposing, subject to consultation with those concerned, to unify the technical services. The names of the separate services will need to be replaced by a new name for the service as a whole. The name of the "N.A.A.S." is, however, enshrined in Section 1 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944. There is no comparable legislative provision involving the names of the other services affected by the proposals for unification. The sole purpose of the amending clause I am now introducing is to remove the name "National Agricultural Advisory Service", without in any way changing the obligation upon the Minister to continue to provide the advisory service. I apologise again to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, for trying to curtail my remarks in the beginning. I hope that, with this extension of what is involved, he will feel more able to support my Amendment. Again, I beg to move the Amendment.
LORD BALERNO: It is with some hesitation that I venture to interfere in this English and Welsh matter, but I should like to know whether this Amendment would make it possible for the Ministry of Agriculture to move its advisory services more into line with what we in Scotland have adopted, where the advisory services, though paid for by the Government, are channelled through the

207
colleges of agriculture and the university departments.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, went out of his way to stress the impartiality of the National Agricultural Advisory Service. Perhaps one sees things differently from the other side of the Border, but I think there have been occasions when the advice given by the advisers of N.A.A.S. in England has been curiously in consonance with what happens to be the ideas of the Government of the day, whereas in Scotland we have had greater independence in our agricultural advice. My purpose in intervening here is really to point out to the Government of England that they seem to have given themselves an opportunity to improve their agricultural advisory services, and I would strongly advise them to take advantage of it.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for giving us these few words of explanation; and also for having endeavoured to study our convenience? I quite understand what he was doing, but I think the noble Lords who remain in the Chamber are here for their intrinsic interest, rather than apprehension of other events that might follow, and therefore their time is well spent.
Personally, I feel a very great interest in what is proposed. In years gone by I have been closely associated with these various services, and I recognise that the change which is now contemplated is a very big one, and will mean very great changes indeed for these technical services. I know them well; I have known their chief officers, and many of their other officers, for many years, and I have a great affection for them. Therefore, being a conservative by nature (with a small "c") I am slightly reluctant to see this change being made. However, I am bound to recognise the cogency of the reason in moving towards a unification of technical services. I entirely accept the noble Lord's point that capital expenditure on the farm to-day, Where more and more capital is required, must be looked at for the farm as a whole, and therefore there is this technical need to unify the services. Provided that it can be done in a happy and harmonious way, so that the many officers concerned
208
are happy in their new relationship in the new structure, I should be the last person to criticise it. In fact, I should like to be the first to commend it, to express my very best wishes to those concerned, and the hope that the new unified service will win for itself as fine a reputation in the future as the single services have had in the past.
It is quite true, as my noble friend Lord Balerno says, that occasionally there have been allegations that there was not impartiality, and that the Scottish structure, based on the universities and colleges, has the appearance of being more independent of Government, and therefore more impartial. However, as I well know, from both inside and outside, the technical advice given by all these specialised services has always been not only highly expert, but also completely impartial. There is no doubt about that at all. Therefore I can assure my noble friend that he need not be anxious for us in England and Wales; we feel that we are very well served. I would conclude by again thanking the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for giving us this word of explanation; and in thanking these admirable technical officers for their great services of the past, I give them my best wishes for their services in the future under a new name.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: I should like to give my support, and that of noble Lords on these Benches, to this Motion.
LORD BESWICK: I should like to say from this side that I appreciate v/hat the noble Lord has said about the services which have been given by N.A.A.S. and the other technical services. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, that it is not proposed to move to the Scottish system, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, says, that does not mean that there will be any loss of the impartiality for which the services have been noted in the past. I am glad to think that the new services, the details of which have still to be worked out (consultations are going on), will have the good wishes of both sides of the House.
Clause 101 agreed to.
LORD BESWICK: I wonder whether, before the next Amendment is put, I may

209
put another proposition to the Committee. We have made extremely good progress and we are now coming to a completely different part of the Bill, so far as the subject matter is concerned, although the Amendments are all within Part VII. So I suggest, if it has the general agreement of the Committee, that the House do now resume.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I agree with the noble Lord's proposal that the House should now resume. I think that this would be a convenient moment, as we have reached a natural break. There are some major matters of completely different interest coming in the last part, and I agree with the noble Lord that they could be better dealt with at the beginning of a new day.
LORD BALERNO: Can the noble Lord give us any idea of when the House will again sit in Committee on this Bill?
LORD BESWICK: The proposal has been put, and it has been put down in the documents that have been circulated and discussed through the usual channels, that we should take this Bill again next Monday. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: House resumed accordingly.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FOOT PATHS AND OPEN SPACES) (SCOTLAND) BILL
7.31 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a small and, I hope your Lordships will agree, a very useful Bill. It aims at solving a practical problem which is causing difficulty in modern developments, particularly housing developments, where pedestrians are segregated from vehicular traffic. Lay-outs designed to achieve this segregation are becoming increasingly preferred by local planning authorities. In physical terms, it means that footpaths in the developments are often quite separate from carriageways. There is no problem where such developments are carried out by local authorities, but where they
210
are undertaken by private developers, which include New Town corporations and Scottish special housing associations as well as private companies, there may be some difficulties. That is because some local authorities have no clear powers to take over or maintain the segregated footpaths, and responsibility for further maintenance must remain with the developers.
In practice, this is not a satisfactory state of affairs because, for example, the private developer may have only a temporary interest in the development and may move on to further projects, or may even have gone bankrupt which, in the light of recent experience of the Scottish building industry, is quite a reasonable possibility. Alternatively, it may fall to individual frontagers to maintain the footpaths, which can be quite a burden for them. The Bill would therefore give permissive powers to county councils and town councils to take over and maintain segregated footpaths in housing or commercial developments. It would also enable them to construct footpaths, thus filling another gap in their powers. In conferring these powers, the Bill would meet the wishes of the local authorities themselves, as expressed through the Association of County Councils; and a number of individual authorities, such as the Renfrewshire County Council, the Dunbartonshire County Council and the Stirlingshire County Council, have expressed interest in supporting this Bill.
The Bill also deals with an associated problem; that is, the lack of clearly defined powers for local authorities to take over and maintain small open spaces which are frequently provided as part of landscaping in modern developments. The Bill would give permissive powers to county councils and town councils to take over and maintain such open spaces. The purposes of the Bill are clearly desirable and practical. I hope that your Lordships' House, at this late hour, will have no hesitation in giving it a Second Reading. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Taylor of Gryfe.)
7.35 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for the lucid way in which he has explained

211
this little Bill. I think it has everything to recommend it and, although I have tried to find holes to pick in it, I have found none. The powers already exist in a few cases, and in the Kingdom to the South, in England and Wales, these powers have nearly always been held by local authorities. I have known one or two private developments where the footpaths have not been alongside the road, and they have deteriorated into rather unpleasant places on which to walk. Ladies in high heels have caught their feet and anyone walking in the evenings was apt to take a nasty toss. This Bill will help to eradicate that problem by giving the councils power to take over privately-owned spaces. I do not think any private developer can have anything but gratitude that local government is given power to do this, which is all for the public good. With those few words, I beg to support the Bill.
7.37 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for the excellent manner in which he has introduced this Bill. For 16 years I served on a local authority in Scotland and we came up against this problem of who was going to look after the footpaths. In our case, the county council were quite clear that they would not touch the footpaths with a barge pole, and anything which had to be done fell upon the district council who had very little reserves and very little power for raising money to cover such needs. We managed to create some footpaths, but it was done with the maximum difficulty and tribulation. This Bill puts the expense upon the county council who can much better afford it, and clears up the rather murky situation which the noble Lord mentioned. Therefore I welcome the Bill.
With some hesitation I should like to make one further point on Clause 5, the interpretation clause. That gives the definition of "carriageway", but I do not see where that word appears in the Bill. I may have given the Bill too cursory an examination, but if the word
212
"carriageway" does not appear in the Bill it seems to me that it does not need to appear in the interpretation clause.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to those of noble Lords opposite to my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe for bringing this very useful Bill before your Lordships. The form in which it has reached us seems so eminently suitable that I hope it not only receives a Second Reading but that it passes through your Lordships' House in future stages and emerges exactly as it is at the present moment.
7.38 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: My Lords, I thank your Lordships for the friendly reception given to this rather simple but important Bill. I appreciate the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, who knows from his experience in a local authority how desirable this legislation is. I am afraid I am unable to deal with his particular point regarding the definition of "carriageway" in the interpretation clause but not in the body of the Bill, but the Bill itself clearly explains that what is covered by the proposed legislation is not paths alongside roadways but segregated paths in areas which are closed to vehicular traffic. In these circumstances, I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, will accept this explanation.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TEESSIDE CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Order made on February 26 last discharged, and Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
SWANSEA CORPORATION BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
  HOUSING AND HOUSEHOLDS
  HOUSING AND HOUSEHOLDS