Sitting of 15 May 1970

Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT RATES (INCREASES)
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): I will, with permission, make a statement about supplementary benefits.
I have today laid before the House draft Regulations containing proposals for increases in supplementary benefits. These draft Regulations require the approval of both Houses of Parliament by affirmative Resolution. Subject to this approval, the effective date will, as last year, be the first Monday in November.
I propose that the rate for a single householder should be increased by 8s. a week and that for a married couple by 13s. a week, bringing the single rate up to £5 4s. and the married rate up to £8 10s.—plus, of course, rent. Suitable increases will be made in other rates. I will, with permission, circulate a full list of the proposals in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
These increases will more than restore the real value of the scales brought in last November.
The current Estimates provide a figure of £485 million for supplementary benefits this year. The proposed increases, which are as usual to be met from the Consolidated Fund, will add about £70 million in a full year. Some 2,700,000 recipients will benefit.
Mr. Dean: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome these proposed increases and were pressing for them in the House on Monday of this week? Would he care to tell the House why he has made the announcement today in view of the proposed starting date of November?
1668
Will he confirm that the prices explosion is hitting hard the most needy families, that half the increase given last November is already eaten away by rising prices, and that if prices go on rising at the present rate a married couple will be 12s. worse off by the coming November? Is he asking the House to accept that position as satisfactory?
What will be the effect on those who are wage-stopped, in particular the disabled, who do their utmost to earn their own living? Has he taken any action on the suggestion of the Supplementary Benefits Commission in 1967 that there should be a review of the disabled wage-stop?
Mr. Crossman: The hon. Gentleman asked me why I am doing it now. I am a little disappointed by that question. Last year I did it in June and was censured for being so late, and so I thought that this year I would bring it forward a little to get the applause of the Opposition.
I think that the hon. Gentleman got the figures of value rather wrong. As I reckon it, the cost of living has gone up 2·8 per cent. in the most recent figures since the rise last November and the increase which we have now made is 8·3 per cent. If he looks at the figures again, the hon. Member will find that his calculation is quite wrong when he says that there may be a 12 per cent. increase in the time allotted.
Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman is not dealing with the point. The point is the increase in the cost of living over the 12 months' interval. As the cost of living increase is now running at nearly 8 per cent., what will be the respective positions? Is it not true that prices generally are now rising between 7 and 8 per cent. while food prices are rising by more like 10 to 12 per cent.?
Mr. Crossman: I should like to keep to firm facts. From November to now there has been a 2·8 per cent. increase. I am not prepared to speculate and I simply say that in my view this will more than cover any increase which will occur before November this year.
Mr. Spriggs: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on making a statement

1669
which will be welcomed not only by the nation but by those in genuine need? How does the current expenditure on supplementary benefits compare with that in the last two years under the Tories?
Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those kind words. I happen to have the figures which will answer his question. The full figures are that in the last year under the Tories the figure was £217 million. In 1969–70 it was £470 million and I reckon that in this year it will be £555 million.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: What rise in the cost of living to next November has the right hon. Gentleman calculated in relation to this increase? Can he say what has happened since last Monday when he rejected my suggestion that he should take this action?
Mr. Crossman: I do not think that anything really has happened since Monday—[Laughter.]—except that, as often happens, a Minister then decides on the date when he will make the pronouncement, and I thought that today would be a suitable day to make it. I was not quite so convinced of it on Monday. It was a growing feeling in my mind during this happy week which we have all been through and I thought that it would be nice to end the week on a happy note.
As to the estimate that we have made, we calculate that in terms of the increase in the cost of living these improvements will more than cover the increase that we anticipate by November.
Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say what this increase means in real terms since October, 1964, and whether the Regulations will be debated before the Summer Recess?
Mr. Crossman: The advance in real terms since the Tories was 23 per cent., and that is fully restored—and more than fully restored—by this increase.
Mr. Lubbock: May I put a supplementary question which has not been written for me by the Secretary of State? Is he aware that the general cost of living increase is not of particular interest to the people receiving supplementary benefit? For the purposes of comparison, will he give the House the figure of the
1670
percentage increase in the cost of food since November, 1969? Further, does he not think that it is time an improvement was made in the 10s. long-term addition, which has remained constant for a very tog time?
Mr. Crossman: The hon. Member has asked a question for which, no doubt, he knew I had prepared but did not bother to tell me about it beforehand. I had prepared for it. With regard to the cost-of-living index, the hon. Member is well aware that my right hon. Friend the First Secretary has now organised a special cost-of-living index for old-age pensioners, and the difference over the last four months between the movement of the two indices is very small indeed.
As to the 10s. long-term addition, I considered doing this and dividing the increase between all the beneficiaries and the four-fifths who get the 10s. long-term addition. I thought that, on the whole, it would be a mistake to exclude those who do not get the long-term addition, who include the long-term unemployed and the sick. I felt it better to give it all round than to concentrate on the long-term recipients.
Mr. Gardner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the understandable comments from the benches opposite, this increase will be welcomed, particularly by elderly people? When he makes these adjustments, will he look particularly at two categories: those who are obliged to have special diets and who are finding life difficult, and those who live in older houses and have very heavy fuel bills and who do not heat themselves sufficiently in winter?
Mr. Crossman: As I think my hon. Friend may be aware if he has studied our new handbook on supplementary benefits which also deals with the problem of the wage-stop in connection with which we have handled certain matters to which the Opposition have referred—both diets and fuel are matters on which discretionary payments can be and are being made. All people who read the handbook should be encouraged and stimulated by it to ensure that applicants claim these benefits.
Mr. Maudling: I must press the Minister on the important question put by my right hon. Friend the Member

1671
for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). The right hon. Gentleman has repeatedly said that in his judgment and calculation these increases will more than restore the real value of the scales introduced last November. He cannot make that statement honestly unless he has worked out a figure for the increase in prices. He must, therefore, have in mind a figure for the increase in prices. Why will he not disclose it to the House?
Mr. Crossman: We can see a factor which is the amount of increase from November to the last figure in March; that is statistically factual and announced. Then one has to estimate how much one thinks it will rise and, on our estimate, this increase will more than cover it.
Mr. Roebuck: Is not this further bonus for pensioners another indication that the Government have been pursuing wise economic policies? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the country will want to congratulate the Government on making this increase to pensioners rather than cutting the higher rates of surtax, as advocated by the Opposition? With regard to the possibility of the erosion of this bonus, has my right hon. Friend made any calculation of what the effect on pensioners would be if, by some aberration, the party opposite were returned to office and introduced the iniquitous value-added tax?
Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those interesting political thoughts, but I do not have a brief on the value-added tax as it would affect pensioners. I have no doubt that the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) has it and can tell us. I would, however, comment on what my hon. Friend called the bonus for pensioners. I prefer to say that this is what they are entitled to. This is something which we have worked out. We give it not as a bonus but because we have kept a fine record in giving an increase in supplementary benefits every year, whereas under our predecessors there was often a gap of 20 or 25 months between increases in supplementary benefit. I believe that we should do this annually and uprate National Insurance biennially because pensioners like to know that we do it regularly.
Sir G. Nabarro: While I accept absolutely that the contemporary conditions of rip-roaring inflation demand that the poorest section of the community should be partially reimbursed by higher supplementary benefits, will the right hon. Gentleman now apply himself to the question of whether the earnings rule is to be revised on 1st November next and the existing limit of £7 10s. a week for a single person adjusted to a realistic scale of, say, £10 a week in line with contemporary values and figures of earnings?
Mr. Crossman: The hon. Member will appreciate that he is asking me a question not about supplementary benefit but about National Insurance, to which my statement does not relate. We are dealing here not with a National Insurance increase but with a supplementary benefit increase, which does not relate to people with earnings.
The hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that there should be reimbursement of pensioners only in what he calls times of roaring inflation. That is not my view. My view is that even quite small increases in the cost of living undermine the value of the pension and that nothing less than an absolutely regular system, such as we have now introduced for the first time, meets the needs of pensioners.
Mr. Sharpies: The right hon. Gentleman says that he has made an estimate of the rise in the cost of living up to 1st November. Will he tell the House what that estimate is?
Mr. Crossman: I have nothing to add to what I have said. We are confident—and we will see who is right—that when we come to 1st November we shall find that the real value of the pension has been maintained, if not increased.
Mr. Ogden: Has my right hon. Friend noted how hard it has been to please the Opposition during the past week? Will he note that his statement is welcome not only for itself but as another indication that the Government are determined to make sure that the benefits of our increased economic prosperity are shared not only by the strong and powerful but by the weak and needy?
Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The fact is that over these six years we have done this regularly. We did it in times of great economic difficulty. Now, when things are better, we maintain the same policy that we had in times of stress.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Does the right hon. Gentleman's statement this morning mean that the Prime Minister will be announcing a General Election at the weekend?
Mr. Crossman: That would be a deduction which it would be improper to draw from my statement.
Mr. Bidwell: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on being able to keep the basic old age pension 20 per cent. higher than was sustained under the Tories in real terms? After we get back following the General Election, will my right hon. Friend's Department consider making this an even higher percentage in real terms?
Mr. Crossman: Looking back over the period, I think that this success in maintaining the 20 per cent. real increase has been a real achievement. I was asked whether when we get back we can do better. This will depend on the readiness of the contributor to see that we raise contributions to pay for the pension. I believe contributors understand

Following are the details of the Proposed Supplementary Benefit Rates

Present weekly rate

Proposed weekly rate

Ordinary scale

£ s. d.

£ s. d.

(a) husband and wife

…

…

…

…

…

…

…

7 17 0

8 10 0

(b)person living alone or single householder

…

…

…

…

4 16 0

5 4 0

(c) any other person aged

(i) not less than 21 years

…

…

…

…

…

…

3 17 0

4 3 0

(ii) less than 21 but not less than 18 years

…

…

…

…

3 4 0

3 10 0

(iii) less than 18 but not less than 16 years

…

…

…

…

2 16 0

3 1 0

(iv) less than 16 but not less than 13 years

…

…

…

…

2 4 0

2 8 0

(v) less than 13 but not less than 11 years

…

…

…

…

2 1 0

2 4 0

(vi) less than 11 but not less than 5 years

…

…

…

…

1 13 0

1 16 0

(vii) less than 5 years

…

…

…

…

…

…

…

1 8 0

1 10 0

that, but it would be easier to do it after we have introduced our national superannuation scheme with a proper earnings-related contribution, with the burden fairly on the higher paid worker.
Mr. Worsley: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear whether this announcement means that the Government intend to do nothing for the low income families when the father is in work, since they are worse off as a result of rising prices?
Mr. Crossman: It does not mean that. This is an announcement dealing with supplementary benefit. It does not mean that we have closed our minds to the problem of family allowances. As the Minister of State made clear in a long altercation on Monday on the question of family allowances, which we are considering at the moment, we cannot make up our minds finally until we have studied in detail the results of the Family Expenditure Survey.
Mr. Farr: Is the reason that the Secretary of State refuses to disclose the estimate of the rising prices by next November that he believes it will be of the order of about 10 per cent.?
Mr. Crossman: On the contrary. If I thought that it was 10 per cent. I would be very unwise to have made a statement confident that we have given an increase which more than covers the increase of the cost of living.

Blind Scale

(a) husband and wife

(i)if one of them blind

…

…

…

…

…

…

…

9 2 0

9 15 0

(ii) if both of them blind

…

…

…

…

…

…

9 18 0

10 11 0

(b) any other blind person aged—

(i)not less than 21 years

…

…

…

…

…

…

6 1 0

6 9 0

(ii) less than 21 but not less than 18 years

…

…

…

…

4 4 0

4 10 0

(iii) less than 18 but not less than 16 years

…

…

…

…

3 12 0

3 17 0

(iv) less than 16 but not less than 13 years

…

…

…

…

2 4 0

2 8 0

(v) less than 13 but not less than 11 years

…

…

…

…

2 1 0

2 4 0

(vi) less than 11 but not less than 5 years

…

…

…

…

1 13 0

1 16 0

(vii) less than 5 years

…

…

…

…

…

…

…

1 8 0

1 10 0

Rent addition for non-householders

…

…

…

…

11 0

12 0

Notes (i) an allowance for rent is added to the above rates.

(ii) Both the existing and the proposed rates given above exclude the 10s. long-term addition which is added to the requirements of persons over pensionable age and to those of persons under pensionable age (other than the unemployed) who have received supplementary benefit for a period of two years.

RIDING ESTABLISHMENTS BILL [Lords]
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Clause 1

  PROVISIONAL LICENCES FOR RIDING ESTABLISHMENTS
  11.12 a.m.
  Mr. Speaker: I have not posted my selection of Amendments because I have selected all the Amendments in the name of the promoter of the Bill the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson).
  Mr. Carol Johnson: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 16, after ' not ', insert ' under this subsection '.
  I preface my few remarks on the Amendment by explaining that, through the courtesy of the Home Office, Parliamentary Counsel have cast their eagle eyes over the Bill as it emerged from Standing Committee and have suggested to me some Amendments which would improve the language and deal with one or two small anomalies. So that the Bill is in order in all respects before, as I hope, it reaches the Statute Book. I am deeply indebted to the Home Department for arranging for that advice to be available to me.
  Amendment No. 1 is a drafting Amendment. The proviso to Clause 1(2) limits the period for which a riding establishment may be kept under the authority of a provisional licence to six months in any period of twelve months. How
  1676
  ever, the limitation it imposes was not intended to affect the local authority's discretion to extend a licence deemed to be granted to the personal representatives of the deceased holder of a provisional licence by virtue of section 1(8) of the principal Act.
  This Amendment makes it clear that the proviso applies only to provisional licences granted under clause 1 of the Bill, and does not operate on extensions made under section 1(8) of the 1964 Act.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Carol Johnson: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in line 6, leave out ' in place of ' and insert ' for '.
  This Amendment can conveniently be taken with Amendment No. 3. The Amendments are straightforward drafting matters.
  Section 1(8) of the principal Act provides that when the holder of an annual licence dies, his personal representatives shall be deemed to have been granted a licence valid for one year from the date of death. The effect of the proviso to clause 1(3) of the Bill is to limit this period to three months when the deceased was the holder of a provisional licence. The substitution by the proviso of " three months " for " one year " in section 1(8) of the 1964 Act should be made in both places where those words appear, and this is achieved by this amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: No. 3, in page 2, line 7, after ' year " ', insert ' in each place where they occur '.
  No. 4, in page 2, line 7, after ' substituted ', insert the words '.—[Mr. Carol Johnson.]

Clause 2

  AMENDMENT OF SECTION 1 OF PRINCIPAL ACT
  11.15 a.m.
  Mr. Carol Johnson: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 34, leave out from ' conditions ' to ' in ' in line 35.
  With this Amendment it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 8.
  Amendment No. 5, which proposes to leave out the words " (hereinafter referred to as discretionary conditions ')", is consequential on Amendment No. 8. The redraft of Clause 2(2) proposed in that Amendment would remove the reference to discretionary conditions.
  On Amendment No. 8 I am advised that as at present drafted Clause 2(2) would prevent a person from appealing to a magistrates' court under Section 1(5) of the 1964 Act against any condition which is not a " discretionary condition ". The exclusion is not therefore limited to the conditions imposed by the new subsection (4A), as was the intention in drafting the Bill, but would extend to, for example, a condition imposed under paragraph (a) of the new subsection (4) that an experienced manager should be employed to run the riding establishment.
  This Amendment, together with Amendment No. 5, restores the licensee's rights of appeal, and allows a person to appeal against any condition attached to his licence except those set out in the new subsection (4A).
  The Amendment also has the effect of amending subsection (9) of section 1 of the 1964 Act to make it clear that contravention of any condition attached to the licence, whether by virtue of the new subsection (4A) or otherwise, constitutes an offence.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Carol Johnson: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 40, leave out from section ' to every '.
  It will be convenient to take also Amendment No. 7, since the two Amendments run together.
  The new subsection (4A) which is to be inserted in Section 1 of the principal Act by this Bill specifies a number of conditions which shall be applicable to
  1678
  every licence to keep a riding establishment. I am assured that the words
  " it shall be a condition of every licence granted under this Act that…"
  which appear in the first sentence of the new subsection (4A) do not make it clear whether the conditions are deemed to be applied to every licence, or whether the local authority is under a statutory duty to subject every licence to those conditions. Any such ambiguity needs to be removed, because by virtue of Section 1(9) of the principal Act contravention of a licence condition is an offence.
  I am also advised that it is not clear whether, when the Bill comes into operation on 1st January, 1971, the conditions will be applied to all licences in force at that time, as well as to any granted subsequently. I agree that it would not be right to alter the conditions of licences already in force and it is therefore necessary to make it clear that the additional conditions in paragraphs (a) to (e) of the new subsection (4A) shall apply only to licences granted on or after 1st January, 1971.
  The effect of these two Amendments is to alter the wording of the first sentence of the new subsectiton (4A) to make it clear that the conditions in paragraphs (a) to (e) shall apply automatically to all licences issued after 31st December, 1970.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: No. 7, in page 3, line 41, leave out that ' and insert:
  `after 31st December 1970 shall be subject to the following conditions (whether they are specified in the licence or not), namely—'.
  No. 8, in page 4, line 28, leave out from if ' to end of line 29, and insert:
  ' after the words " proposed to be granted "there were inserted the words " (not being one of the conditions set out in subsection (4A) of this section)" and subsection (9) of that section shall be read and have effect as if for the words from " subject " to " Act " there were substituted the words " to which a licence under this Act is subject (whether by virtue of subsection (4A) of this section or otherwise)" '.—[Mr. Carol Johnson.]
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA (AMENDMENT) BILL
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]

Clause 1

  APPLICATION OF HAGUE RULES AS AMENDED
  Question proposed, That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill.
  11.30 a.m.
  Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: This Clause is the nub of the Bill. I should like to say a few words about it, prefacing them with a word of thanks to the Minister of State, Board of Trade, and his advisers for their great help to me in preparing the Bill and not least in seeing its way through so far. They have been kindness and efficiency itself.
  Although at one time it looked as though we might lose the Bill, I am still hopeful, in spite of the times in which we live, that it will not be massacred, along with a lot of other innocents in the next few weeks, because the Bill blazes a trail by the United Kingdom for the ratification of the new Hague Rules related to the carriage of goods at sea. Clause 1 does just that.
  The old rules do not take account of the great container revolution which has occurred. It is essential for the maritime community to have revisions of those Rules and for those revisions to be carried through into statutory force in all the great maritime nations. By what we are doing today we are setting an example and blazing a trail in that regard. It is over two years since the noble Lord, Lord Diplock, managed to lead these nations at the conference in Brussels to agree—and it was not difficult—to tile revisions. The revisions are in the Schedule to the Bill which Clause 1 makes effective.
  The main proposal in the Clause and its annexures, Schedules and Protocol is that the limit of liability of carriers be raised from £100 to the equivalent in gold francs of about £270 per package. Higher but not lower limits can be negotiated between the parties. Moreover—and this is the important part of
  1680
  the Bill which must be passed unless the container business in a way is to be brought to a stop—packages inside a container could be enumerated separately on a bill of lading and would then count as separate packages for limits of liability. Hon. Members will appreciate the difficulty today where a container which may contain the most enormous and valuable assortments of goods is regarded as a single package for the purpose of limitation of liability—which is only £100—and therefore, the peril in which traders, shippers and ship owners find themselves. That is the urgency of the Bill and why the Clause is so important, and that is why I very much hope that the chopper—the Sword of Damocles—which looks as if it might descend upon our deliberations in the House and elsewhere will not hit this Bill.
  The necessary changes to the 1924 Act were so numerous that it seemed sensible and more convenient to those whose interests are affected by this legislation to repeal the 1924 Act and to introduce a completely new Bill. Thus, Clause 1, which is the nub and crux of the Bill, with its appendages, gives those who have to deal with this branch of the law a very convenient place and method in which to find out not merely what the new law is but all the law on the subject. I therefore hope that the Clause commends itself to the Committee.
  The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): As the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) said, this Clause is the nub of the Bill. In supporting what he said, I can indicate the Government's complete approval and support for the Bill. I welcome the hon. and learned Member's initiative in introducing the Bill. He has explained the background to the signature of the Protocol at Brussels two years ago, when it was agreed that the Protocol would not come into effect until at least 10 nations had ratified it. It takes time, as he indicated, for Governments to consult all their domestic interests, before appropriate legislation is introduced, and to complete the necessary process of legislation and ratification. As he reminded us, over two years have elapsed. The Government welcome the opportunity, if

  1681
  the Bill becomes law, with this crucial Clause and its related Schedule as part of it, to give an example and lead to other Governments and, if I may quote the hon. and learned Member, to blaze the trail.
  The Clause which sustains the Bill is simple and serviceable. The changes which the Bill introduces will bring the law more into line with the needs of modern sea transport. For example, the need for raising limits of liability set nearly 50 years ago is obvious. The hon. and learned Member also referred, quite rightly, but obliquely, to the container Clause. This illustrates strikingly the need for legislation to keep up with innovations. The other changes which partly stem from the Clause and partly from other Clauses are no less useful.
  I am glad that the hon. and learned Member so rightly emphasised that the Protocol stemmed from an initiative by the commercial interests concerned. It forms a balanced set of improvements which will benefit shipper, carrier and underwriter alike. I understand that all the parties concerned are happy about the Bill. The Government support the Bill. I am pleased to commend it to the House and I congratulate the hon. and learned Member on the progress which he has achieved so far.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 2 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

SELECTIVE EMPLOYMENT TAX AMENDMENT BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
11.40 a.m.
Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Although a short Measure, this represents an important amendment to the law. Selective Employment Tax was introduced in 1966 and partly repeated the payroll provisions which had been introduced by a Conservative Government, but which were never implemented.
When introducing this new form of taxation, S.E.T., the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it was needed to
" make a positive contribution to the long-run structural changes we need in order to achieve a healthy balance of payments ".—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 3rd May, 1966;Vol. 727, c. 1453.]
S.E.T. has been amended in various subsequent Finance Acts. Exemptions have been made in respect of public bodies and premiums have been provided for manufacturing industry. However, despite the original intentions of the Government—that is, that S.E.T. should be used to encourage, among other things, a transfer of labour from service to manufacturing industry—the purposes of this new form of taxation have been largely frustrated during the four years since its introduction.
Unemployment figures have remained persistently high, particularly in regions like Northern Ireland, where this month we have a stubborn 7 per cent, unemployment figure. My Bill, which is an additional amendment to the law—it is intended to add to, rather than to replace, the existing law—will enable S.E.T. to be used to help to reduce the unemployment figures, particularly in development areas and Northern Ireland.
One of the shocking features of our economy today is the waste of human resources in the development areas. All possible efforts should be made to bring these resources into use. If we could do this, we would benefit both the Exchequer and the nation as a whole. The Exchequer would gain a double benefit from such an improvement because, first, direct income from taxation would be increased, and, secondly, there

1683
would be a direct saving in unemployment pay.
In other words, the nation's bill for unemployment assistance and other social benefits—particularly expensive items in areas of high unemployment—would be greatly reduced. Not only would direct tax income be increased, but those who would become employed would contribute to, rather than be a charge on, the National Insurance Fund.
From the national point of view, there would be tremendous benefit. The resources brought into use would contribute to the gross national product, first by contributing directly to Britain's exports and, secondly, by contributing indirectly in that those not employed in export industries would presumably be employed in other industries, so leading to import saving. There would, therefore, be a great improvement in our external trade balance, an aspect with which we have been preoccupied since the war.
I lay particular emphasis on the human aspect of this for those who are at present unemployed and who face the misery and despair which comes from long-term unemployment would be filled with hope. In Northern Ireland 35,760 men, women, boys and girls, almost 7 per cent. of the insured population, are unemployed. When broken down, that figure reflects an even more alarming position.
In Northern Ireland as a whole the figures vary greatly. Whereas in Belfast the average figure of unemployed is 5 per cent., in Kilkeel—I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) in his place —it is 22·3 per cent. Even that does not reveal the whole picture. The 5 per cent. figure masks the fact that in Belfast 6 per cent. of males are unemployed, representing almost 11,000 on the insurance register in Belfast. At Kilkeel male unemployment is running at 26 per cent., which means that one man in four in that area is unemployed. In other towns like Newtownards, Omagh and Strabane the unemployment figures are also high.
No matter what the cost of my Bill —I have explained that the cost would be minimised by the contributions which people would make to our export trade and to the gross tax income—it has a wholly desirable aim and I hope that my arguments will weigh strongly with the Treasury.
1684
While it might be said that under existing legislation a rebate of S.E.T. is paid to manufacturing industry, it must be remembered that in the development areas one looks particularly to the service industries to take up the slack. It is to services like tourism that we must look if we are to employ our present unemployed resources.
There is no need to treat this aspect of the Measure disparagingly or to say that it would be a burden on the economy. On Second Reading of the Finance Bill it was pointed out that the service industries contribute substantially to the balance of payments. Indeed, without that contribution we would not have a substantial credit balance on the balance of payments. I therefore make no apology for admitting that my Bill would particularly assist those employed in the service industries in places like Northern Ireland, a subject on which I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry will speak later.
The main Clause provides that for every 1 per cent. by which the level of unemployment in a development area or in Northern Ireland rises above the national average, the payment into the Exchequer shall be reduced by 20 per cent. In Northern Ireland, where unemployment is running at 7 per cent., that would mean a complete 100 per cent. repayment. With such a sliding scale, the contribution to the Treasury—if the Bill is successful, as I am sure that it will be—would be gradually increased until it was the same throughout the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is not slow to want to make her full contribution to the national income, but particularly in the light of the failure of measures taken by respective Governments since the war to cure our unemployment problem I feel that this method should be tried.
I speak having keenly in mind the serious events which have taken place in Northern Ireland in the last 12 months. I firmly believe, as I understand do all my colleagues, that unemployment, and its accompanying misery, has been a large contributing factor to the unrest and the uprising we have seen here. If my proposals are adopted by the House, they may do something to bring to an end disturbances which, in themselves, drive industry away from Northern Ireland.

1685
I have seen in my constituency the results of a male unemployment figure of 6½ per cent. I have seen the frantic search for jobs, and the jealousies and fears which can result. I particularly emphasise that last aspect, because I believe that it is the fear of unemployment and the fear, too, of political unrest which is the main factor behind our unsettled state in Ulster. It is the fear that people have about what is to happen tomorrow; what is to happen next.
If the Government do not like the exact form of the wording, they might look at it themselves and then introduce their own Measure: it is the underlying idea that I stress. From the Treasury's point of view, from the point of view of balance of payments, and particularly from the human point of view, I commend this Bill and the idea behind it to the House.
11.54 a.m.
Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: As I wish to see the Bill make as rapid progress as possible, I shall not detain the House for long. I support much of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) and I congratulate him on his determination in bringing forward a Bill which he believes will do something, perhaps a great deal, to alleviate the unemployment from which we in Northern Ireland have for so long suffered. My hon. Friend, like myself, has a great problem of unemployment in his constituency, where is situated the great firm of Harland and Wolff.
As any hon. Member representing a Northern Ireland constituency inevitably must, I take particular interest in a Bill of this nature. Londonderry has an unemployment rate of 12·6 per cent., in the nearby town of Strabane the figure is 18·6 per cent., and similar percentages exist in many other areas, particularly on the western side of Ulster. The Northern Ireland Government have been grappling with the problem of the West for a very long time. It is not a question of neglecting the area, but of difficulty in persuading industrialists to come that far. As the Minister knows, inducements which are away ahead of those offered to industrialists in respect of other areas are offered by the north-western area.
1686
The selective employment tax has un-undoubtedly made a considerable difference to our situation. In a sense, we are a development area and, above everything else, we have wished to encourage the service industries. The tax has its criticis in the rest of the country but, in Northern Ireland, had it been the intention to make sure that people left service industries to go into manufacturing industry, the authors of the tax could claim some success. It is not, however, a success that any of us would wish to have.
The service industries are particularly important to us. I will not weary the House now with many figures, but the numbers employed in our distributive trades have shown a very heavy fall since the introduction of the tax. The same is true of other service industries. The tax has had a particularly serious effect on the tourist industry. In 1967, when Northern Ireland had well over 1 million tourists, and that trade was being much built up, the catering trade employed 10,099 people who could be said to be looking after the interests of the tourists, and 9,610 of them were permanent. Since 1968, despite the fact that the number of tourists has increased, the number employed to cater for their needs has fallen to 9,182, the important thing being that of that number only 7,530 are now permanent. Such a drop shows the very dramatic effect that selective employment tax must be said to have had, and for that reason alone my hon. Friend's proposals deserve serious consideration.
I beg the Minister to look very seriously at the Bill to see whether it could be improved. On the other hand, as my hon. Friend has said, if the Minister does not like certain provisions, let him bring forward proposals of his own. We are here dealing with a matter of very great importance. In Northern Ireland, the tax is a real chain around our necks and a real stumbling block to our development.
11.59 p.m.
The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. William Rodgers): I believe that on a previous occasion the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) referred in particular to the selective employment tax as a wholly bad tax. Were we discussing S.E.T. generally, I should find it necessary to contest that view. It is certainly true that it is a tax which lends

1687
itself less to rational discussion, even here, than do some other forms of taxation. Today, however, the hon. Member has not put forward a major case against S.E.T. but has made a very sympathetic plea on behalf of his constituents, and others in Northern Ireland in the development areas, who are out of work. I entirely share his concern, and. in that sense, I am very glad that he has had the opportunity of seeking a Second Reading for his Bill.
The hon. Member referred to the shocking waste of human resources: that is an old and familiar phrase, but no less effective for that reason. It is a shocking waste of human resources when men are out of work who would wish to work, and I appreciate the concern of the hon. Member and of his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) for the areas they have in mind, where the figure of unemployment is intolerably high.
As I think the hon. Member for Belfast, East, may recall, in the early days of this Government I had some responsibility for regional policy and, partly as a result of his urging, I went to Belfast. I flew in a Skyvan over Belfast Lough before it received its certificate of air worthiness. I was at that time very much struck by the problem with which the hon. Member has been dealing and the need to get to grips with it, but I think it was true of Northern Ireland and the development areas then than it would be a mistake to assume that in a relatively short period—although I do not suggest nothing had been done before—we could totally transform the situation in areas of high unemployment and structural weakness in the economy.
Some of my hon. Friends might have thought that it was a matter of incentives and waving a wand and all would come right, but that is not true, particularly in areas where industries are in decline and there is a serious rural problem. I hope that five years ago I did not seek to suggest that within a relatively short period the problems would be overcome. I think we set out on the right course and the whole House has shown over the five years or so deep concern about these problems and a full recognition of the complexity and difficulty of the situation. I do not exclude—the House has already learned this—a con-
1688
tinuing review of incentives in areas of high unemployment, given only two considerations.
The first is that they must continue to receive the very highest priority. A Government which switched on and off would be doing a great deal of damage, because continuous attention to development areas over a decade can make a great difference. Secondly, there should be a fair element of certainty. If those in the development areas do not know whether the incentives they enjoy today will be the same as those they enjoy tomorrow, we shall not get the prosperity for development for which we are looking.
I entirely share the hon. Member's concern. I think that broadly the House has recognised that the steps we have taken in the last five years have been the right ones. We have attached great priority to the problems of Northern Ireland and the development areas. I certainly do not exclude a change at any time if it can be demonstrated that this would make an essential difference to solving the problem. My case against the Bill, if I must put it that way, is not simply the loss to the Exchequer which would be involved of something like £50 million in Great Britain and £11 million to £12 million in Northern Ireland.
It is arguable that that is a sum of money which at any time we might have to make available additionally to Northern Ireland and the development areas. I should say, however, that there is insufficient evidence to believe that the sort of proposals made in the Bill would be the basis on which to deal with the problems which the hon. Member has described; or the best use of £50 million for Great Britain or £11 million to £12 million for Northern Ireland if these sums of money were available. I would not exclude that in our review of policy towards the development areas. This is something we shall be bearing in mind. I prefer to say to the hon. Member and to the hon. Member for Londonderry that of course this sort of factor and approach to the development areas will never be excluded from our consideration.
Whereas the Chancellor of the Exchequer decided that this was not the year to make changes in S.E.T.—which is a further reason for not being able

1689
to accept the limited proposals in this Bill—of course S.E.T., following Professor Reddaway's review and further reviews of the tax, will be looked at. When the time comes to consider its future, and any anomalies which may exist in it, the sort of arguments put forward by the hon. Member will certainly be fed in for consideration.
As the hon. Member knows, there is a considerable amount of discretion concerning S.E.T. in Northern Ireland. A loss of £11 million to £12 million would be a loss to the Northern Ireland Exchequer and therefore would not in a sense be available as it is for the purposes of the Northern Ireland Government. The Northern Ireland Government agreed to S.E.T. being levied by United Kingdom legislation, but retained the right to make their own refund arrangements. Even at present the effective rate of S.E.T. in Northern Ireland is lower than it is in Great Britain. It has been lower for a large part of the time since S.E.T. was introduced. The effective rate in September, 1966, was 12s. 6d. there when it was 25s. in Great Britain. The effective rate is now 43s. whereas in Great Britain it is 48s. So there is a real element of discretion given to the Northern Ireland Government. I am sure the hon. Member will consider whether the loss of revenue represented by the implementation of the Bill for the Northern Ireland Government would necessarily be the most acceptable way of using such sums were they available.
It is not clear that this would be the best way of spending the money. Secondly, the Northern Ireland Government have this discretion. Thirdly, the proposals would not be acceptable so long as the tax is collected through the National Insurance stamp. Since the introduction of the tax there have been administrative problems in making it as flexible as we should like it to be. Inevitably sometimes there has been clumsiness in the administration for that reason. Until this is remedied, as it will be in due course, it would be impossible to carry out the provisions set out by the hon. Member.
Fourthly, although of course it might be that the consequence of the Bill would be to help in the unemployment problem,
1690
it could work in a number of different ways. It could simply restore the level of profit. It might affect the price level and of course it might make more money available to be spent on goods from outside Northern Ireland. I should not like to say dogmatically that any one of these things would happen, but I put it to the hon. Member that even if the administrative problems could be overcome the Bill still might not achieve the the objectives he has in mind.
The hon. Member moved the Second Reading in a very moderate way. He said that the proposal was one which perhaps should be tried. The hon. Member for Londonderry said that he stressed the idea behind the Bill. I entirely share those sentiments. They are sentiments concerned with a great human problem. Very properly, close scrutiny should he given to all legislation, including tax legislation, in so far as it bears on this problem and its solution. But I hope that the hon. Member will not feel bound to press to a Division his Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill, because in such circumstances I should have to ask the House to reject it.
12.10 p.m.
Mr. McMaster: I ask the leave of the House to reply briefly to the debate. I welcome the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) and thank the Minister of State for answering in such a courteous and thoughtful manner.
I must admit that I am very disappointed with the last part of the Minister of State's speech. I said earlier that I was not wedded to the precise form of the Bill. However, I am wedded to the Bill's central idea. I sought to make this amendment in 1961, when the question of the payroll tax was originally debated. The then Tory Government saw fit to exclude Northern Ireland from the provisions of that Measure so that, if it had been made effective, it would not have applied in Northern Ireland.
I believe that this is the ideal way of assisting a development area. I stress that I do not restrict this concept to Northern Ireland. The Minister, in quoting a loss of £12 million to the Revenue, was speaking of a very small sum compared with the total tax levied. I do not accept, however, that this would be a

1691
loss to Northern Ireland's economy. This money is simply returned to people, particularly those who are employers in service industries in Northern Ireland. It enables employers, where there is some difference between the wages and salaries paid in Northern Ireland and the national average, to use part of the money to increase salaries and wages of their employees, to improve their capital facilities, and to extend their operations, all of which create more employment. This money is, in turn, spent by the employees in Northern Ireland, thus creating further employment. The same would apply, though to a lesser extent, in any development area.
Ulster has experienced particular trouble due to the run-down of traditional industries. The linen industry has run down. The shipbuilding industry has been rationalised. There have been difficulties in the aircraft industry in my constituency. More important, there has been the move from the land to the town.
This is one of the reasons why, try as hard as the Northern Ireland Government can, with the backing of the Imperial Parliament and Government at Westminster, they have been unable to alter the persistently high figure of unemployment to which the Minister referred. They have been unable to make any dent in it over the past 20 years. During the 1950s it rose to a peak of 11 per cent. or 12 per cent. It came down
to 7 per cent. and it has remained at that level for the last few years.
Ulster's difficulty is its distance from the markets. To overcome this difficulty and to overcome the cost, either we must provide some type of transport subsidy in Northern Ireland so that it can benefit fully from the fuller employment in Great Britain, or we must adopt a Measure such as this. This Measure would be a very valuable supplement to the industrial inducements which are already being offered by the Government and the attempts of the Northern Ireland Government, supported by the British Government, to build up the infrastructure.
This instrument would spread its effects throughout the country and benefit particularly areas such as seaside towns and the areas which I have already mentioned, by helping to build up service industries there where the most intractable problem in Ulster has been found.
It is for this reason that I must press the Bill to a Division. I repeat that I am not wedded to the wording and would have been quite prepared to accept any Amendments the Treasury had cared to suggest. I believe that this Measure should be accepted by the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 12, Noes 37.

Division No. 131.]

AYES

[12.14 p.m.

Bell, Ronald

Lane, David

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

Boyd-Carpentor, Rt. Hn. John

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Chichester-Clark, R.

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Clegg, Walter

Longden, Gilbert

Mr. Stanley McMaster and

Errington, Sir Eric

Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

Sir Ronald Russell.

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

NOES

Beaney, Alan

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Ogden, Eric

Bldwell, Sydney

Heffer, Eric S.

O'Halloran, Michael

Bishop, E. S.

Huckficld, Leslie

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Booth, Albert

Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

Boston, Terence

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Rees, Merlyn

Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

Lester, Miss Joan

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

Lipton, Marcus

Taverne, Dick

English, Michael

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Winnick, David

Ennals, David

McBride, Neil

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

MacDermot, Niall

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Gardner, Tony

Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

Mr. William Hamling and

Gregory, Arnold

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Mr. J. D. Concannon.

Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

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

1. National Health Service Contributions Act, 1970.

2. Proceedings Against Estates Act, 1970.

3. Guyana Republic Act, 1970.

4. General Rate Act, 1970.

5. Roads (Scotland) Act, 1970.

6. New Forest Act, 1970.

7. Tonga Act, 1970.

8. Road Traffic (Disqualification) Act, 1970.

9. Regent, Royal and Carlton Terrace Gardens, Edinburgh Order Confirmation Act, 1970.

10. Royal Bank of Scotland Order Confirmation Act, 1970.

11. Basingstoke Corporation Act, 1970.

12. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Act, 1970.

13. Warwickshire County Council Act, 1970.

14. Welland and Nene (Empingham Reservoir) and Mid-Northamptonshire Water Act, 1970.

15. Doncaster Corporation Act, 1970.

16. Newport Corporation Act, 1970.

17. Huddersfield Corporation Act, 1970.

18. Bolton Corporation Act, 1970.

19. Hampshire County Council Act, 1970.

20. Havering Corporation Act, 1970.

21. Leicestershire County Council Act, 1970.

22. Swansea Corporation Act, 1970.

23. Barclays Bank D.C.O. Act, 1970.

24. Wallasey Corporation Act, 1970.

25. Flintshire County Council Act, 1970.

RHODESIA INDEPENDENCE BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Queen's consent?
Mr. William Hamling: No, Sir.
Mr. Ronald Bell Mr. Ronald Bell(Buckinghamshire, South) rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Bell: I wish to defer the Second Reading—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is a requirement before the Second Reading of a Bill that the Queen's consent be available. It is not available. Therefore the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot move the Second Reading of his Bill.
Mr. Bell: I was trying to give you a day, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to indicate that I defer the Second Reading of this Bill till 5th June.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise.
Second Reading deferred till 5th June.

CLIENTS MONEY (ACCOUNTS) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No instruction.

SALE OF TICKETS (OFFENCES) (No. 2) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
12.25 p.m.
Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I think the House is aware of the very strong feeling in the country that we should as soon as possible come to terms with the problem of those who exploit the genuine supporter of soccer and rugby football, although I should make it clear that this Bill does not relate only to soccer and rugby football. It has been put to me by some very reputable ticket

1695
agents that if there is not to be a " scalping " of theatre and ballet tickets, on the New York scale, we badly need an enactment of this kind.
I am sure that the House as a whole has read of the exploitation of genuine sports and theatre fans. There have been examples recently of prices having been charged which are out of all proportion to the face value of the tickets. Mr. Denis Follows, the Secretary of the Football Association has been in touch with me and has said that this Bill has the fullest support of that Association. I have heard from Messrs. Keith Prowse and other reputable ticket agents who have said that they feel that this Bill is urgently necessary. I have heard, as no doubt have other hon. Members, from constituents saying that they are tired of being exploited by ticket black marketeers.
I know it will be appreciated that this is an all-party Measure. There are hon. Members on both sides of the House who feel that the time has come to deal with those people who are not in the least interested in sporting occasions, in the theatre or in the ballet, but whose interest is simply in making a very quick and, I would have said, wholly reprehensible profit out of the genuine fan and theatre and ballet goer.
I am certain that the soccer fan who is kept out of Wembley and the rugby football fan who is kept out of Twickenham feel that we should be legislating against those who make it impossible for the ordinary fan to see the big occasion as well as the small occasion.
I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

PROTECTION OF THE PERSON AND PROPERTY BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
An Hon. Member: Object.
12.28 p.m.
Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I thought I heard the word " Object " muttered somewhere, and I suspect that it came from the Government Front Bench. It surprises me very much indeed that any member of this Government should openly be opposed to a Measure of this kind involving law and order. I am really appalled that any member of the Government should behave in this way.
It is with some surprise that I find myself able to make a speech here this morning, and I shall not detain the House for very long. This Bill deals with one of the most abhorrent and bestial devices invented in the 20th century. I was taken to task on a previous occasion by someone who said that perhaps I had never heard of the hydrogen or the atom bomb. Perhaps I should have qualified my remark. I had not forgotten those things but I had thought of them as comparatively successful deterrents, whereas I do not see any deterrent value in the petrol bomb.
Those who use these weapons can cause with them indiscriminate hurt and damage, and one must say that they show an utter disregard for human life and property. Since the war, petrol bombs have been used in Paris, in Spain, and, recently, in the United States. Only a week or two ago, petrol bombs were thrown into the offices of Thames Television near Euston, and last week more such weapons were thrown at the American Embassy.
The Times of 27th April carried an interesting news item about a young man sentenced to imprisonment in January last year for setting fire to the Imperial War Museum, which somewhat euphemistically referred to him as a pacifist. He had thrown two petrol bombs, and he had made the news, because his poems, written in prison, were published, strangely enough, in a magazine called Anarchy. If my Bill is

1697
passed, those who throw petrol bombs and are convicted will have plenty of time to write poetry.
I have seen many petrol bombs thrown when I have been endeavouring to restrain people during riots in Northern Ireland. I have seen them thrown at the police, and I have seen the appalling effect which they can have—policemen literally set alight in Londonderry—and I have seen the agonies which injury from this type of weapon can inflict.
At a time when the British public were being brain-washed about the alleged brutality of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the men of that Constabulary were often standing for hours on end facing attack not just by stones and other missiles but by the very weapons of which I am now speaking. How wicked, it was said in certain organs and media of communication, when occasionally a policeman would throw back a small stone or even, sometimes, a larger one. This was said to be very wicked, but attitudes have now somewhat changed. When British troops in Northern Ireland —I readily pay tribute to their courage—have stones and even petrol bombs thrown at them, no one expresses the smallest surprise if occasionally they, too, throw a stone back. No one raises an eyebrow. I think that the British public have begun to realise what a serious menace this weapon could be when, or if, it comes in a large way to this country, just as they have come to realise how utterly unjustly denigrated were the Royal Ulster Constabulary who received their share of petrol bombs last year.
One of the problems to be dealt with is the ease with which petrol bombs can be made. I shall not attempt now to describe how they are made, but there are many varieties of them. The other day, I noticed that an Italian publisher who had published a book in which a description was given of how to make a petrol bomb was subsequently prosecuted, so I had better take care.
Some petrol bombs contain a special mixture of materials designed to spread the flame as widely as possible and to make the mixture stick that much better to whatever it hits. Others have contained stones—I have seen some of these —and other objects to make the bottles splinter more dangerously. Others—
1698
these were certainly thrown at the police in Londonderry last year—have been ingeniously equipped with hooks designed to attach the bombs to the clothing of the target.
The Bill would lay down stiffer maximum penalties for making or possessing a petrol bomb: on summary conviction, three months' imprisonment, £1,000 fine, or both; on conviction on indictment, five years' imprisonment, a fine, or both; or for using a petrol bomb, on conviction on indictment, 20 years' imprisonment, a fine, or both. That may seem Draconian to some, but there are many people in this country who have seen something of these weapons who will share my view that such penalties are fully merited.
The purpose of the Bill is obvious, and I need say little more about it now. I wish, so far as at all possible, to make it an offence of the highest order to throw these bombs. If the Bill is passed, it should prove a deterrent which will prevent the spread of this appalling weapon to any great extent in this country. Already, we are seeing something of it. Those who visited Northern Ireland in the past 18 months, who have seen the kind of appalling injury inflicted there, and who have seen the damage done to property, can have no doubt that, if there be anything which the House can do to prevent the spread of this atrocious mischief to this country as well, the House should do it.
12.36 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark), with his connection in Northern Ireland, is well aware he illustrated them in his speech —of some of the problems which arise in our violent society. The sort of happening which he described, however, is not confined to Northern Ireland. One has slighter examples of it in this country, though not nearly to the degree which, unfortunately, one finds in Northern Ireland. This form of violence is found elsewhere in the world, too. Happily, despite our concern about events of this kind, however, they are not typical of these Islands; they are far more typical of other parts of the world.
While recognising the problem, I shall advise the House that there is no need

1699
to have the powers provided for in the Bill to deal with it. We are satisfied that there are sufficient powers already. Section I of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1953, deals with the problem of weapons, and the Malicious Damage Act, 1861, covers the petrol bomb. Therefore, while agreeing with the hon. Gentleman in recognising the nature of the problem, we in the Home Office are content that the legislation which we already have is sufficient, and I recommend the House to oppose the Bill.
12.38 p.m.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: May I have the leave of the House to speak again?
The Minister did not give much detail justifying his argument that these provisions are unnecessary. I think that he gave a rather hurried response, and I can understand why. I suspect that he, like myself, was surprised that we ever got this far this morning. We have all found ourselves from time to time in the position of not having done quite the amount of work on a subject which we should wish to have done, and I take it that that was the hon. Gentleman's position, as it was my own.
Although I am still anxious to see a Bill of this kind upon our Statute Book, because I believe, sorrowfully, that the need for it may increase rather than diminish over the next few months, I ask the Minister to undertake—when he has a little more leisure, as he may soon—to look again at my Bill and, parallel with it, the existing provisions so far as they may deal with the problem of the petrol bomb. I ask him to do that and to let me know whether he is still satisfied. There is a Question down on the Order Paper about it and, no doubt, there will be others. No doubt there will be other occasions when the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to give me the assurances I want.
However, I do not wish any other hon. Member to lose his Bill this afternoon, and I therefore do not propose—I hope that this will be taken in the spirit in which it is meant—to divide the House.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: With your permission, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: It is an unusual day with some unusual permissions.
Mr. Rees: I should like to make it clear that the Home Office undoubtedly has a responsibility for Northern Ireland and we have no doubt that we have sufficient powers to deal with the problems there. There may be a marginal aspect and I should be pleased to draw it to the attention of the hon. Member, but I do not want anybody to be in any doubt.
Mr. Chichester-Clark Mr. Chichester-Clark rose—
Mr. Speaker: Even though the Chamber is almost empty we are not in Committee.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: The hon. Gentleman has shown that, as I suggested, he has not done all his homework. Had he done so, he would have discovered that the Bill does not deal with Northern Ireland. It deals with a problem which may well arise in this country, although I hope that it will not. I hope that, having heard what I have said, he will reconsider the situation.
Mr. Rees indicated assent.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: I understand he will, and I am obliged to him.
Question put and negatived.

REGULATION OF SELF-EMPLOYMENT IN THE BUILDING INDUSTRY BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Speaker: What day? No instruction.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS ACT 1963 (AMENDMENT) BILL
Read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

PROTECTION OF PENSION RIGHTS BILL
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [1st May].
Mr. Speaker: What day? No instruction.

GENERAL RATE ACT 1967 (AMENDMENT) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Speaker: What day? No instruction.

HALLMARKING BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Speaker: What day? No instruction.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [6th February].
Mr. Speaker: What day? No instruction.

COMMONWEALTH PREFERENCES
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride.]
12.42 p.m.
Sir Ronald Russell: The subject I wish to raise in this unexpectedly early Adjournment debate is the continuing effectiveness of Commonwealth preferences. May I say at the outset that I am grateful to the Joint Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, for coming to reply to the debate in the absence of his colleague from the Board of Trade who has had to go elsewhere.
The reason I wish to raise the subject is contained in paragraph 56 of the White Paper " British and the European Communities ", Cmnd. 4289. Dealing with what is likely to happen to Commonwealth preference in the event of this country not joining the Common Market, it says:
" But in order to make a true comparison of our situation inside and outside the Community some years hence, it is necessary to take into account the probability of continuing erosion of preferences in the Commonwealth and the possibility of new preferential trading arrangements between the Community and some of our trading partners. It is relevant in this connection that a number of Commonwealth countries in Africa have found
1702
it to their advantage in recent years to give tariff preferences, to our disadvantage, to the Six."
I maintain that that part of the paragraph is misleading.
I think that I am right in saying that only four African Commonwealth countries have so far sought, or have made, arrangements with the E.E.C.—Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and Nigeria. None has yet been ratified. I know that " four " taken literally is a number, but when No one says " a number of Commonwealth countries ", one usually means more than four, perhaps 10, or thereabouts. I cannot help feeling that the expression is somewhat misleading. However, although that is material, it is not the main point.
In order to clarify the position. I tabled a Question to the Board of Trade on 26th March asking:
" What will be the factors leading to the continuing erosion of Commonwealth preferences, referred to in paragraph 56 of Command Paper No. 4289. affecting our exports to Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Republic of South Africa, other than the effect of inflation in those countries on specific preferences."
Those countries are the leading importers of British products in the Commonwealth Preference Area and most important to our trade. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade replied:
" Mainly increased protection for domestic industry and bargains struck with our competitors in multilateral tariff negotiations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1970;Vol. 798, c. 553.]
Since then, I have gone into the position in some detail.
It is worth mentioning that the three Commonwealth countries and South Africa are most unlikely to be able to reach any arrangements with the E.E.C. for associate status, or anything like that. Last year, Australia took £321·2 million worth of our exports and re-exports; New Zealand £121·3 million; Canada, £308·6 million; South Africa, £290·8 million. Those figures are taken from the Overseas Trade Accounts of December, 1969. They give a total for the four territories of £1,041·9 million, which is more than half our exports to the Commonwealth Preference Area as a whole. In the Commonwealth Preference Area I am, of course, including South Africa and the Republic of Eire. Eire was our third largest customer last year, taking £339·5

1703
million worth of our exports and re-exports. That trade is clearly essential.
The United Kingdom-Australia Trade Agreement lays down that the margins of preference in the Australian tariff for British goods are protected by that agreement which guarantees the maintenance of certain minimum margins of preference. They are generally either 7½ per cent. or 10 per cent. They apply to both ad valorem and specific rates of duty. Even if the level of protection were increased on particular items, British exporters to the Australian market would, as a general rule, retain at least the minimum margin of preference applicable. Some preferences are very much above the minimum and even though the Australians took power to reduce them under the agreement, in fact they have not done so.
The agreement envisages the possibility of reductions in existing margins of preference. For example, where the difference between the British preferential tariff rate and the most favoured nation rate is greater than the guaranteed minimum margin of preference, the Tariff Board recommendation might result in a reduction in the margin of preference either by a reduction in the M.F.N. rate or an increase in the British preferential tariff rate if Britain were the major supplier.
The highest margin of preference which New Zealand is required to give us by our trade agreement is 10 per cent., but in practice some preferences are much higher. For instance, the tariff on cars entering New Zealand is only 6¼ per cent. on British cars and 45 per cent. on foreign cars, giving a margin of preference of 381 per cent. I am told that the National Development Conference in New Zealand last year as a basis of its policy recommended that the level of protection for the manufacturing sector should be such as to encourage competition, efficiency and reasonable prices to other sectors and to consumers, and should also have regard to the need to give the consumer choice and variety. It was recognised that the system of protection should be flexible, that import licensing should be replaced by tariffs as the main measure of protection of domestic industry and that this transition should be carried out in accordance with a clearly defined programme and within a reason-
1704
able time. Action to implement that recommendation has already been taken. But it is not likely to be on such a sweeping scale as to bring about a general erosion of Commonwealth preferences.
I understand that the South Africans have no plans for making tariff concessions to any of our competitors which would reduce the margin of preferences. The only country which goes against what I am suggesting is Canada, which has been on the course of trying to liberalise its trade policies for some time, but that means again that there is not much danger of increased protection against our exports.
The possibility of erosion due to bargains struck with our competitors in multilateral tariff negotiations seems highly unlikely, as I understand that any more negotiations of this kind would need a new round like the Kennedy Round and that is not on the horizon at the moment. It would depend on future United States trade legislation to begin with, and also the willingness of other countries, like the E.E.C. and Japan, which would have to take part actively.
Commonwealth preference has brought great benefits to most parts of the Commonwealth over many years, going back not only to 1932 but before that. At one time it was unilaterally granted by Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand to us without our giving any return and no one wants to see it abolished. The value of it has been reaffirmed at many Commonwealth conferences which have been held even since the G.A.T.T. was concluded in 1947, and I cannot see in those countries which are our main markets for exports—Canada, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia plus the Republic of Ireland—that such erosion is likely to take place. We have a free trade agreement with Eire and if we joined the Common Market together we would have to share preference with the E.E.C. In the event of our not joining, presumably Eire would not join either. I can see nothing in Eire's case likely to happen which would justify any statement that there would be an erosion of Commonwealth preferences.
I am sure that if we did not join the E.E.C. and could give a stimulus to Commonwealth trade which has been lacking over the years there would be a welcome

1705
for continuation of the system just as there has been in the past and I hope the impression which I think is created by the White Paper will be corrected.
12.55 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Evan Luard): We all recognise that the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Sit R. Russell) has been a champion of the Comonwealth trading system and its benefits through many a debate and over many years. It is in keeping with his strong feelings and his long-standing tenacity on the subject that at this time, before we adjourn, and when the whole question of our future relations with the Common Market is so topical, he should have raised this subject in the House. No one would deny what he has claimed—the importance of the Commonwealth preference system within our general trading relations over many years.
It is significant that the official analysis of our world trade figures always begins with the figures for the Commonwealth preference area. Even an agreement as influential in post-war commercial relations as the G.A.T.T. contains in its first article provision for the continuation of Commonwealth preference. Governments of both parties have attached the utmost importance to the value which not only we but our Commonwealth partners receive from the continuation of the system.
The hon. Gentleman has read into paragraph 56 of the White Paper a certain depreciation of the value of the Commonwealth preference system. He believes that it gives a misleading impression in exaggerating the probability of the future erosion of Commonwealth preferences. I will say later why I think that he is perhaps slightly misled in thinking that this is so.
An Adjournment debate is, of course, not the time to argue the more fundamental issues at stake in the event of a successful outcome to our application to join the E.E.C. and of any subsequent adjustments which may be made to our present trading arrangements with the Commonwealth. These structures are a delicate exchange of interests. They range much wider than exchanges of preferences, although such exchanges are,
1706
of course, part of them. But it may be useful to respond to the hon. Gentleman by pointing out certain developments which have been taking place and which will continue to take place not only within the Commonwealth but in our general trading relationships and which may have the effect of reducing the significance of these preferential arrangements.
It is not possible to put any satisfactory figure on the trade value of preferences in either direction. Between 1959 and 1969, our exports to the present Commonwealth rose from £1,256 million to £1,601 million, although as a percentage of our exports there was a fall from 35 per cent. to 22 per cent. Over the same period, our imports from the Commonwealth rose from £1,437 million to £1,933 million. Again there was a fall in percentage from 35 to 23 per cent. of our total imports. It is impossible to estimate how much of this still very substantial trade is attributable to the existence of Commonwealth preferences.
Many of the products we import from the Commonwealth are anyway duty-free, whatever their source, and obviously preference has no influence on that. Commonwealth manufacturers enjoy no advantage over non-Commonwealth supplies. This is a development which now has a value undreamed of at the time of the Ottawa Agreements. In the reverse direction, preferences which our exporters receive in some Commonwealth countries are extensive. But a number of factors influence the direction of trade in Commonwealth countries and are modifying the rather simple pre-war and immediate post-war pattern on which the preference system is based.
There is, above all, the growth of production in other Commonwealth countries, far beyond the capacity of Britain to absorb their exports, so that they are having to look for alternative markets, which are not protected by preferences. They have naturally built up their trade with other countries. Canada in particular has developed its long-standing trade with the United States. Australia and New Zealand have increased their trade with nations like Japan, which needs their wool and particularly Australia's coal and iron. As the hon. Gentleman knows, both those two countries are looking for other markets in Asia and the Americas.

1707
The position as regards the developing Commonwealth countries is a special one. In many of them we enjoy preferences, but much as they might like to import more in total, the amount of their imports and the sources from which they buy depends very much on the aid they receive and the terms on which it is offered; that is, whether it is untied, tied or in kind.
In Australia, Canada and New Zealand and also in South Africa, although this problem does not arise, it is unreal to concentrate simply on margins of preference. Access depends on the level of tariffs and on other restraints of trade. Some preferential rates of import duties are still so high as to be a plain deterrent to Brtish exports. British companies may consider it better to establish local subsidiaries or even to face the more modest rates charged in other countries where we have no preference and compete on equal terms with other suppliers. Some Commonwealth countries, particularly certain developing countries whose economic problems impel them to restrict imports, operate import licensing which impairs the value of our preferences.
There are several reasons why our margins of preference have been eroded and why this process can be expected to continue. The rounds of tariff negotiations within the G.A.T.T. have had this effect, partly because this happens automatically when the " most favoured nation " rate is reduced on goods for which the preferential rate is nil, and partly because certain offers entailed the elimination of our preferences.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that there was not likely to be another general round of this kind in the near future. I am not sure that he is correct. However, even if that should be the case and such a round does not occur within the next year or two, it is clear that there will eventually be multilateral rounds of the kind that have occurred in the past and that these will continue to have an effect on the value of Commonwealth preferences.
Another factor is that, in adapting their tariffs to give the protection which they regard as necessary for domestic production, some countries have raised their rates of duty, at the same time often reducing our margins of preference. Two
1708
Commonwealth countries, Malaysia and Singapore, have abolished the preferential rates of duty on nearly all their imports from Britain.
Another development which has a bearing on Commonwealth preference is the establishment of regional trading groups such as the United States-Canada Automotive Pact, the Caribbean Free Trade Area and the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade area. All these have exemplified this process of the erosion of preferences.
Some Commonwealth countries have entered into free trade groups, such as the European Free Trade Association, of which Britain is a member. These too reduce the value of preferences to non-members of those associations. The Commonwealth preference relationship with the Irish Republic has been largely superseded by the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement.
Then there are tariff arrangements such as those which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. For example, Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania have entered into an Association Agreement which entails giving certain preferences to the E.E.C. at the expense of Britain. Britain gives benefits to some Commonwealth countries outside the tariff preference system, and this includes products like sugar—under the International Sugar Agreement—bananas, cigars and rum. There are, therefore, a number of developments of this kind which have the effect of reducing the value of preferences.
There is increasing discussion of a generalised preference system, and this will have a strong bearing on the arrangements now made under the various preference systems, particularly within the Commonwealth and Community systems. There is a great deal of discussion about the replacement of these various systems by a generalised system for all developing countries. If this develops, and there is considerable support for it, it will have a big effect on the value of existing Commonwealth preference arrangements.
What of the future? The figures I gave earlier will not change overnight should we go into the E.E.C. Of course, they will redispose themselves as the transitional period for our adaptation to Community tariffs and systems proceeds. This is not the occasion to speculate on

1709
that adaptation, its extent, or its implementation. But even at the end of the period we shall still have major trading business with the Comonwealth countries and they with us. This of itself will establish a new and important relationship for the enlarged Community, and the Commonwealth will have as much to gain from increased trade with the Community as we may have.
Indeed, even without our entry, important new relationships may be established between the Community and developing Members of the Commonwealth as a result of the proposals for a generalised preference scheme in U.N.C.T.A.D. A unanimous resolution was passed at the Second United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in 1968 supporting the establishment of a non-reciprocal, non-discriminatory generalised preference scheme.
Since then the donor countries have been seeking to work out in O.E.C.D. an acceptable scheme; and last November illustrative submissions and lists of products which the donor countries had tabled were sent to U.N.C.T.A.D. to facilitate discussion. Work is continuing in O.E.C.D. A satisfactory scheme will give developing Commonwealth countries preferences in other countries in exchange for agreeing to share their preferences here. Throughout the discussions in O.E.C.D. we have stipulated that the developing Commonwealth countries should secure sufficient new advantages in other markets to compensate them for sharing their preferences in the United Kingdom. We have also made it clear that we must obtain the consent of those Commonwealth Preference Area countries with whom we have trade agreements before we can grant generalised preferences on products on which they have contractual rights to preferences in our market.
I submit that this is not a time to strike a gloomy note, either about the future of Commonwealth preferences in general or about the value of trade by the Commonwealth countries, either with this country or elsewhere. I have given some reasons why they may gain in
1710
other markets anything that they might finally lose in our market.
I also wish to make it clear that we have throughout, in approaching our negotiations with the Common Market, insisted on the need for satisfactory arrangements for certain Commonwealth countries. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in the earlier White Paper on this subject, reproducing the speech which my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) made in 1967, there are a number of paragraphs, notably paragraphs 32 to 39, setting out the special arrangements that we wish to make for the Commonwealth countries, some of them relating to particular products, such as sugar and butter, and some relating to the position of the Commonwealth generally; expressing, for example, the hope that we may be able to reach an agreement similar to the Yaounde Convention Commonwealth countries.
The Commonwealth trading link could be said to be rooted not merely in the Preference Area but in the fact that each one of its members is heavily dependent on international trade, not merely with each other but with the whole world trading community. We have a deep interest in ensuring the highest levels of all our partners' prosperity. If the prosperity of individual members is enhanced by trading outside the preferential system, then each of us has in turn a more prosperous customer to do business with. At the end of the day this may prove an even more buoyant impulse for our exports to the Commonwealth in the coming decade and their exports to us than tariff margins fixed against the industrial trading backgrounds of four or more decades ago, a system which, in any case, must now be superseded by something more relevant to the needs of every member of the Commonwealth.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past One o'clock till Monday 1st June, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 11th May.

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  HOSPITAL SERVICE
  HOSPITAL SERVICE
  STATE PAYMENTS
  STATE PAYMENTS
  PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICIAL STAFF
  PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICIAL STAFF
  CIVIL SERVANTS
  CIVIL SERVANTS
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Tinned and Packaged Soups
  Tinned and Packaged Soups
  Farms, East Sussex
  Farms, East Sussex
  Sheep Rearing (Northern Ireland)
  Sheep Rearing (Northern Ireland)
  Skimmed Milk Powder
  Skimmed Milk Powder
  Horticulture
  Horticulture
  Glasshouse Industry
  Glasshouse Industry
  Chicken Carcases and Eggs (Viruses)
  Chicken Carcases and Eggs (Viruses)
  Milk (Average Price)
  Milk (Average Price)
  Marek's Disease
  Marek's Disease
  Warble Fly
  Warble Fly
  Feedingstuffs, Northern Ireland (Cost)
  Feedingstuffs, Northern Ireland (Cost)
  Farms, Cornwall (Assistance)
  Farms, Cornwall (Assistance)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Chairmen of Public Boards (Salary Increases)
  Chairmen of Public Boards (Salary Increases)
DEFENCE
  Royal Navy Education Examination
  Royal Navy Education Examination
  Death Penalty
  Death Penalty
  Barbed Wire (Loans)
  Barbed Wire (Loans)
  Defence Establishments Wales (Cost)
  Defence Establishments Wales (Cost)
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Arms Security Checks
  Arms Security Checks
  Houses, Londonderry (Sale)
  Houses, Londonderry (Sale)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Education Services (Salaries)
  Education Services (Salaries)
  School Transport, Pembroke
  School Transport, Pembroke
  Primary Classes, Tees-side
  Primary Classes, Tees-side
  University Entrance (Qualifications)
  University Entrance (Qualifications)
  Northmead School, Guildford
  Northmead School, Guildford
  Immigrant Education Liaison Officers
  Immigrant Education Liaison Officers
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Examination Papers (Computerised Correcting)
  Examination Papers (Computerised Correcting)
  Evening Institute Students
  Evening Institute Students
  Graduate Teachers (Salaries)
  Graduate Teachers (Salaries)
  Higher Education Students
  Higher Education Students
  University, Cornwall
  University, Cornwall
  Arts Council Aid, Cornwall
  Arts Council Aid, Cornwall
  Export Marketing Studies (Grants)
  Export Marketing Studies (Grants)
  Demonstrations (Students' Grants)
  Demonstrations (Students' Grants)
  Schools, Portsmouth (Building Development Costs)
  Schools, Portsmouth (Building Development Costs)
  New Schools
  New Schools
  Primary School Classes, Warwick
  Primary School Classes, Warwick
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Uganda (British Businesses)
  Uganda (British Businesses)
  Moroccan Minister for Foreign Affairs (Discussions)
  Moroccan Minister for Foreign Affairs (Discussions)
  British Council Libraries
  British Council Libraries
  Sudan (Relations)
  Sudan (Relations)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Ministers (Police Passes)
  Ministers (Police Passes)
  Diplomatic Missions (Traffic Offences)
  Diplomatic Missions (Traffic Offences)
  Stolen Cars (Police Squads)
  Stolen Cars (Police Squads)
  Police Fraud Squads
  Police Fraud Squads
  Police (Graduates)
  Police (Graduates)
  Police Advisory Board
  Police Advisory Board
  Police Recruits (Educational Attainments)
  Police Recruits (Educational Attainments)
  Immigrant Leaders (Consultation)
  Immigrant Leaders (Consultation)
  Police (Community Relations Training)
  Police (Community Relations Training)
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Police (Houses of Parliament)
  Police (Houses of Parliament)
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Offensive Material (Distribution)
  Offensive Material (Distribution)
  Hollesley Bay Colony Borstal
  Hollesley Bay Colony Borstal
  Immigrant Children (Urban Programme Holiday Courses)
  Immigrant Children (Urban Programme Holiday Courses)
  Northern Ireland (British Standard Time)
  Northern Ireland (British Standard Time)
  Electrical Appliances (Colour Code)
  Electrical Appliances (Colour Code)
  Petrol Bombs
  Petrol Bombs
HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Greater London Development Plan (Inquiry)
  Greater London Development Plan (Inquiry)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled People (Brighton)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled People (Brighton)
  Rate Rebates
  Rate Rebates
  Grants, Huddersfield
  Grants, Huddersfield
  Colliery Shale Heaps (Rating)
  Colliery Shale Heaps (Rating)
  Tub Closets, Huddersfield
  Tub Closets, Huddersfield
  Flats (Rating Valuation)
  Flats (Rating Valuation)
  Ground Rents
  Ground Rents
  Town Centre Maps
  Town Centre Maps
  Smokeless Fuel Plant, Rossington
  Smokeless Fuel Plant, Rossington
  Mineral Hereditaments (Rating)
  Mineral Hereditaments (Rating)
  Tidal Flooding Defence, London
  Tidal Flooding Defence, London
  Indoor Swimming Pool, Harrow
  Indoor Swimming Pool, Harrow
  River Ouse, Skelton
  River Ouse, Skelton
  Housing Improvement Grants, Nuneaton and Bedworth
  Housing Improvement Grants, Nuneaton and Bedworth
  Housing Subsidies
  Housing Subsidies
  Rents
  Rents
  Land Commission
  Land Commission
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Housing, Reading
  Housing, Reading
  Fire Defence systems (Rating Valution)
  Fire Defence systems (Rating Valution)
  Local Government Reorganisation, Devon and Cornwall
  Local Government Reorganisation, Devon and Cornwall
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  QUESTIONS TO THE PRIME MINISTER
  QUESTIONS TO THE PRIME MINISTER
CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (MEMBERS' FACILITIES)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (MEMBERS' FACILITIES)
  PARLIAMENT SQUARE (TRAFFIC CONTROL)
  PARLIAMENT SQUARE (TRAFFIC CONTROL)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Old People's Accommodation (Television Licences)
  Old People's Accommodation (Television Licences)
  National Giro
  National Giro
  Television Licences (Refunds)
  Television Licences (Refunds)
  Pirate Radio Station
  Pirate Radio Station
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Ministers' Official Residences
  Ministers' Official Residences
  Official Cars (Radio Telephones)
  Official Cars (Radio Telephones)
  Police, Palace of Westminster (Toilet Facilities)
  Police, Palace of Westminster (Toilet Facilities)
  Forbes Committee
  Forbes Committee
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Government Offices, Horseferry Road—Marsham Street
  Government Offices, Horseferry Road—Marsham Street
SCOTLAND
  Highlands and Islands (Industrial Derating)
  Highlands and Islands (Industrial Derating)
  Hospitals, South Ayrshire (Ward Maids)
  Hospitals, South Ayrshire (Ward Maids)
  Island Hospital Patients (Air Transport)
  Island Hospital Patients (Air Transport)
  Marine and Aeolian Erosion (Barra)
  Marine and Aeolian Erosion (Barra)
  Western Isles (Derelict Sites)
  Western Isles (Derelict Sites)
  Croft Buildings (Grants and Loans)
  Croft Buildings (Grants and Loans)
  Lobster Landings (Western Isles)
  Lobster Landings (Western Isles)
  Eriskay, Berneray and Vatersay (Vehicle Ferries)
  Eriskay, Berneray and Vatersay (Vehicle Ferries)
  Herring Landings (Stornoway)
  Herring Landings (Stornoway)
  Road Works (Western Isles)
  Road Works (Western Isles)
  Isle of Barra (Hotel)
  Isle of Barra (Hotel)
  City Areas (Rate Reductions)
  City Areas (Rate Reductions)
  Kingston Bridge, Glasgow
  Kingston Bridge, Glasgow
  Darnley Street, Glasgow
  Darnley Street, Glasgow
  Shields Road Bridge, Glasgow
  Shields Road Bridge, Glasgow
  Pedestrian Crossings
  Pedestrian Crossings
  Health Services and Public Health Act, 1968
  Health Services and Public Health Act, 1968
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Nursery Schools
  Nursery Schools
  Adult Education
  Adult Education
SOCIAL. SERVICES
  Brighton Health Department (Doctors)
  Brighton Health Department (Doctors)
  Supplementary Benefits
  Supplementary Benefits
  Old-Age Pensioners
  Old-Age Pensioners
  Retirement Pensions and Social Security Benefits
  Retirement Pensions and Social Security Benefits
  Sickness Benefit and Retirement Pension
  Sickness Benefit and Retirement Pension
  Pensioners, Sheffield (Supplementary Benefit)
  Pensioners, Sheffield (Supplementary Benefit)
  Council Rents (Supplementary Benefit)
  Council Rents (Supplementary Benefit)
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Widows (Pensions)
  Widows (Pensions)
  National Superannuation (Employee's Contribution)
  National Superannuation (Employee's Contribution)
  Cosmetic Arms
  Cosmetic Arms
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Hospital Building (Expenditure)
  Hospital Building (Expenditure)
  Parkinson's Disease (L-Dopa)
  Parkinson's Disease (L-Dopa)
  Drugs (Expenditure)
  Drugs (Expenditure)
  Central Middlesex and Willesden General Hospitals (Transport for Visitors)
  Central Middlesex and Willesden General Hospitals (Transport for Visitors)
  Drugs (Expenditure)
  Drugs (Expenditure)
  Hospital Capital Expenditure, Liverpool and Wirral Peninsula
  Hospital Capital Expenditure, Liverpool and Wirral Peninsula
  Nurses and Doctors (Salaries)
  Nurses and Doctors (Salaries)
  Family Planning Advice
  Family Planning Advice
  Balderton Mental Hospital, Nottinghamshire (Children)
  Balderton Mental Hospital, Nottinghamshire (Children)
  Hospitals, Huddersfield (Nurses)
  Hospitals, Huddersfield (Nurses)
TECHNOLOGY
  Power Stations
  Power Stations
  Natural Gas (Accidents)
  Natural Gas (Accidents)
  Nuclear-Powered Merchant Ship
  Nuclear-Powered Merchant Ship
BOARD OF TRADE
  Air Service, Wales (Short Take-off Aircraft)
  Air Service, Wales (Short Take-off Aircraft)
  South Africa (Trade)
  South Africa (Trade)
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Patents (Committee's Report)
  Patents (Committee's Report)
  B.O.A.C. Excursion Trips (Guest House Accommodation)
  B.O.A.C. Excursion Trips (Guest House Accommodation)
  Aircraft (Emergency Instructions)
  Aircraft (Emergency Instructions)
TRANSPORT
  Headlamps (Dazzle)
  Headlamps (Dazzle)
  A5, Tamworth
  A5, Tamworth
  National Bus Company
  National Bus Company
  Road Improvements, Southern Hampshire
  Road Improvements, Southern Hampshire
  Roads Programme
  Roads Programme
  M27, Portsmouth-Southampton
  M27, Portsmouth-Southampton
  A5, Tamworth
  A5, Tamworth
  Roads (Sanitary Installations)
  Roads (Sanitary Installations)
  Blind Persons' Guide Dogs (Bus Fares)
  Blind Persons' Guide Dogs (Bus Fares)
  Harwich Harbour Conservancy Board
  Harwich Harbour Conservancy Board
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  London Airports (Communications)
  London Airports (Communications)
  A38, Saltash-Lanivet, and A30, Exeter-Bodmin
  A38, Saltash-Lanivet, and A30, Exeter-Bodmin
  Road Bridge, Gunnislake
  Road Bridge, Gunnislake
  Exeter-Plymouth Motorway
  Exeter-Plymouth Motorway
  Bristol-Exeter Motorway
  Bristol-Exeter Motorway
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Overseas Private Investment
  Overseas Private Investment
  Unlicensed Vehicles
  Unlicensed Vehicles
  Houses (Capital Gains Tax)
  Houses (Capital Gains Tax)
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Taxation (Collection Cost)
  Taxation (Collection Cost)
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  £ Sterling
  £ Sterling
  United Kingdom Coins (Specimen Sets)
  United Kingdom Coins (Specimen Sets)
  Bank of England (Unclaimed Funds)
  Bank of England (Unclaimed Funds)
  Surtax
  Surtax
  Grants, Loans and Subsidies
  Grants, Loans and Subsidies
  Retirement Pensioners (Taxation)
  Retirement Pensioners (Taxation)
  Nurses (Taxation)
  Nurses (Taxation)
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
  Child Allowances
  Child Allowances
WALES
  District Nurses
  District Nurses
  Rural Community Councils
  Rural Community Councils
  Rate Rebates
  Rate Rebates
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Housing Improvement Officers
  Housing Improvement Officers
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Housing Subsidies, Conway
  Housing Subsidies, Conway
  Local Authority Home Loans
  Local Authority Home Loans
  Local Authorities, Conway (Subsidies)
  Local Authorities, Conway (Subsidies)

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.

BEAGLE AIRCRAFT COMPANYE
11.5 a.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a further statement on the Beagle Aircraft Company.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY (LORD DELACOURT-SMITH): My Lords, activities at the Rearsby factory have now ceased, but the Receiver and Liquidator is maintaining the sub-contract work at Shore-ham, which employs about 250 of the original 500 staff at that location. Discussions are continuing between the Receiver and a number of parties who have expressed an interest in acquiring all or part of the company's assets, but it is too early to say what the final outcome will be. I am glad to say that agreement was reached with the employee representatives in March on an enhanced redundancy pay settlement, and payments have now been made to all redundant staff on this basis.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that full reply, may I ask him whether he can say what protection or consideration is being given by the Government to the design leadership of some of the projects within the old company?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: As I indicated, my Lords, discussions are continuing between the Receiver and Liquidator, on the one hand, and a number of parties, on the other, who are interested in being able to carry on some part or parts of the Beagle operations and in continuing these types of aircraft in
830
production. But as I have said, the discussions have not yet reached a point at which any further statement can be made.
LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend this supplementary question? Does his statement mean that this very good light aircraft has some future? Does his statement also mean that the Government, who have an investment in the company, are interested in the discussions now going on?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, the Government are being kept informed of the discussions by the Receiver and Liquidator, but so far no specific proposals have been put to us. In respect of the Bulldog aircraft. The Receiver is in touch with the Swedish authorities and with those companies which have expressed an interest in these contracts; and we shall consider sympathetically any proposals which are put to us. Special arrangements have also been made with the Receiver to ensure an adequate supply of spares for the R.A.F. Basset aircraft.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, would the Minister agree that if the Government could consider offers for viable parts of the Company, which I understand have been made from a number of quarters, this would in fact assist in the continuation of work?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I am not quite sure what is meant by "the continuation of work". If indeed another company makes a purchase of some of the assets of the Beagle Company, the way in which that company chooses to make use of those assets and the location at which they make use of them is, of course, a matter for the company making the purchase.
LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE: My Lords, does this mean that as there are overseas companies negotiating for these assets this aircraft will be produced overseas, or will it be produced in this country?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I do not think I can add anything to what I have said already on this point.

RAIL COACHES: FACILITIES FOR DISABLED PASSENGERS
LORD SEGAL: 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, in order to facilitate the mobility of persons who are disabled, they will urge British Rail to consider the installation of self-opening and self-closing doors in rail coaches with central corridors.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, R.A.F. (LORD WINTER-BOTTOM): My Lords, I will certainly draw the noble Lord's suggestion to the attention of the Railways Board, though it may be that there would be considerable practical difficulties.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that very limited reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that these automatic doors have been fitted in hundreds of supermarket stores all over this country and that they are used in many main-line expresses in Japan, with highly successful results? Why should British Rail have lagged behind in this respect?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the automatic opening by photo electric cell, which, as the noble Lord has said, operates in some supermarkets, is likely to be extremely expensive. This is something upon which the Railways Board, which has to operate as a commercial undertaking, must reach a decision itself.
LORD SEGAL: But, my Lords, these doors can be afforded in Japan. Does it mean that we are quite unable to afford them in this country?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I have nothing to add to what I have said.
LORD MOYLE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that British Rail give very favourable consideration to crippled people, even to the point of diverting trains to avoid the necessity for these passengers to cross bridges?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his helpful intervention.

SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT RATES
11.11 a.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to repeat a Statement about supplementary benefits which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The Statement is as follows:
"I have today laid before the House draft Regulations containing proposals for increases in supplementary benefits. These draft Regulations require the approval of both Houses of Parliament by Affirmative Resolution. Subject to this approval, the effective date will, as last year, be the first Monday in November.
"I propose that the rate for a single householder should be increased by 8s. a week and that for a married couple by 13s. a week, bringing the single rate up to £5 4s. and the married rate up to £8 10s.—plus, of course, rent. Suitable increases will be made in other rates. I will, with permission, circulate a full list of the proposals in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
"These increases will more than restore the real value of the scales brought in last November.
"The current Estimates provide a figure of £485 million for supplementary benefits this year. The proposed increases, which are as usual to be met from the Consolidated Fund, will add about £70 million in a full year. Some 2,700,000 recipients will benefit."

Following are the details of the Proposed Supplementary Benefit Rates:

Present weekly rate

Proposed weekly rate

Ordinary scale

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

(a) husband and wife

…

…

…

…

7

17

0

8

10

0

(b) person living alone or single householder

…

…

…

…

4

16

0

5

4

0

(c) any other person aged

(i) not less than 21 years

…

…

…

…

3

17

0

4

3

0

(ii) less than 21 but not less than 18 years

…

…

…

…

3

4

0

3

10

0

(iii) less than 18 but not less than 16 years

…

…

…

…

2

16

0

3

1

0

(iv) less than 16 but not less than 13 years

…

…

…

…

2

4

0

2

8

0

(v) less than 13 but not less than 11 years

…

…

…

…

2

1

0

2

4

0

(vi) less than 11 but not less than 5 years

…

…

…

…

1

13

0

1

16

0

(vii) less than 5 years

…

…

…

…

1

8

0

1

10

0

Blind scale

(a) husband and wife

(i) if one of them blind

…

…

…

…

9

2

0

9

15

0

(ii) if both of them blind

…

…

…

…

9

18

0

10

11

0

(b) any other blind person aged—

(i) not less than 21 years

…

…

…

…

6

1

0

6

9

0

(ii) less than 21 but not less than 18 years

…

…

…

…

4

4

0

4

10

0

(iii) less than 18 but not less than 16 years

…

…

…

…

3

12

0

3

17

0

(iv) less than 16 but not less than 13 years

…

…

…

…

2

4

0

2

8

0

(v) less than 13 but not less than 11 years

…

…

…

…

2

1

0

2

4

0

(vi) less than 11 but not less than 5 years

…

…

…

…

1

13

0

1

16

0

(vii) less than 5 years

…

…

…

…

1

8

0

1

10

0

Rent addition for non-householders

…

…

…

…

11

0

12

0

Notes (i) an allowance for rent is added to the above rates.
(ii) Both the existing and the proposed rates given above exclude the 10s.long-term addition which is added to the requirements of persons over pensionable age and under pensionable age (other than the unemployed) who have received supplementary benefit for a period of two years.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I thank the noble Baroness for repeating that Statement? It has always been the case that those who receive supplementary benefits have not been allowed to fall behind and that the rates have been brought up to date from time to time to keep pace with rises in the cost of living in between the increases in the rates of National Insurance benefit. May I ask the noble Baroness two questions? First, is it not a measure of the rapid increase in the cost of living when only last November the rates were increased and now, just six months later, an announcement is being made about another increase? Is it not a fact, as reported in the Press yesterday, that the rise in the cost of living in the first three months of this year compared with the same period last year was 9½ per cent.? Is it not a fact therefore that the need for these increases simply emphasises the very rapid rise in the cost of living—and, of course, a rise in the cost of living that is likely to go on; so that by November the increase now being proposed will almost certainly not be adequate?
The second question is this. Can the noble Baroness tell us when it has happened
834
in the past that this very short interval has occurred between the one increase and the next? Has this ever happened before? Perhaps I may add a third question. Is it necessary to make an announcement now, so far ahead, of an increase: in November? It is very unusual, surely, for an increase in supplementary benefit, as opposed to a National Insurance rise, for an announcement to be made so far ahead.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, if I may, I will reply to the noble Lord's second question first. The interval will, of course, be 12 months; it is from last November to next November. On the last point, I understand that the Department has felt the need of a greater time span to deal with the necessary machinery; in other words, they have learned from one year to another that it is better to have a longer period of time. I do not accept the noble Lord's point that price increases are necessarily going to follow by November. What the Government are concerned to do is to make sure that the people at the lowest end of the scale are not at risk. Therefore increases are really to meet any

835
possible changes in prices. But I would remind the noble Lord that at the moment the economy is in a very healthy state.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this proposed increase will be greatly welcomed by those on fixed incomes?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, while I entirely agree with the noble Lord that this increase will be welcomed, is the noble Baroness aware that, despite all the endeavours and protestations of the Government, they have not been able to hold the cost of living? Will she not therefore accept that this increase, which I understand brings the levels of rates up to the present increase in the cost of living, will be inadequate by November; or will the Government undertake and guarantee that there will be no further increase by November?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I think I can assure the noble Lord (I could not quite gather whether he was for or against this increase) that the Government have by their record always shown that they are very concerned about this group in the community, and that if there should be any possible risk they would deal with it. I do not want to widen this discussion into an economic debate, but I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that the picture is not quite so black as he would have us believe. Perhaps it is due to a "Friday morning" feeling.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Baroness said she did not gather whether I was for or against the increase. I thought I made it quite clear that it has always been the practice that these rates are stepped up gradually to meet the cost of living. We welcome this necessary step. All I am concerned with is to point out why the need has arisen, and the timing of the announcement.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that people on fixed incomes have no organised body to negotiate for them and that it is a magnanimous step which the Government are taking on their behalf?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. Indeed, if these
836
people did organise they could rival student power. There is no doubt that this is a compassionate Government.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if they are as compassionate as all that, why do they not bring forward the date for making this increase, instead of making it in November?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, the noble Lord would then say that this was just an Election trick.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, while not wishing to widen this into an economic debate, may I ask, having served in the Department, and having in the past had responsibility for doing what the noble Baroness is doing today, if she can make it clear whether these increases (the purposes of which are entirely understood and are supported by everyone) do no more than just make good the loss of purchasing power through the rise in the cost of living between the last increase and today? If not, what exactly is the difference?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I think I made that point before: that the increase is to take account of any possible change, but not only that. I actually used the phrase, "more than restore the real value", and I think that that is really what we have in mind.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that these increases are to correspond with the general wage increase and the general increase in income of all the people who are capable of earning; that this is just a compensation to see that the standard of living of this lower income group of people is brought into accord with the general increase in the standard of living that the present Government have brought about?
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware——
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, this is an important section of the community that we are discussing. Regarding the time factor to which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn has referred, no one knows better than he does that there are administrative difficulties and that there has to be some delay

837
between the announcement and the time of the operation.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend.

TONGA BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS BILL
11.22 a.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: 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.—(The Earl of Longford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord JESSEL in the Chair.]
Clause 17 [Use of invalid carriages on highways]:
LORD CRAWSHAW LORD CRAWSHAW moved Amendment No. 43:
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause:
Entitlement to vehicles other than invalid carriages
". Section 33 of the Health Service and Public Health Act 1968 shall be amended by inserting after subsection (1) the following sub0 section—
(1A) Persons disabled for any reason other than as a result of service in the armed forces of the Crown during the 1914 world war and after 2nd September, 1939, shall have the like entitlement to vehicles other than invalid carriages as persons entitled to vehicles as a result of the said service."
The noble Lord said: In putting down this Amendment I wish to raise a live issue which is being discussed by lively people outside Parliament. If this point was not discussed in another place, I think it valuable to discuss it in this Committee. I am looking for a more flexible attitude from the Government on this subject. I concede (and I back this from what I read in the Which? report of August, 1969), that the new P5 invalid
838
tricycle is a great improvement on its predecessor. It has a more powerful engine, although it is foreign; it has automatic transmission, and I agree that it suits many disabled people better than a car. I hope that this point will allay the fears, which I understand the Government have, that there will be a flood of applications if cars are to be offered all round instead of tricycles, or indeed, if the option is given of paying the extra between the cost of a tricycle and a car.
I do not wish to prejudice the position of the ex-Service disabled, all of whom now can have a car whether or not they were injured in battle; but some good things in the scientific and the social world have come out of war, and I feel that it would be a fine thing if the position that the British Legion and others have won could be shared by all. I am sure that this would not be resented by the Service disabled. I have driven some 200,000 miles in an adapted motorcar and I should not like to think of the condition in which I might be now if I had done that mileage in a three-wheel vehicle.
As I say, there is wide support and interest in this Amendment, Mr. Neil Marten, in another place, and the noble Lord, Lord Segal, are very interested, as are the public and the Press, the racing driver, Mr. Graham Hill, and many others. I should like to touch on the social aspect of the Amendment because I feel that the loneliness and sometimes the helplessness of a driver in a three-wheel vehicle is all too apparent. There is a tendency for people to treat such vehicles and their drivers as being a freak on the road. Mr. Graham Hill told me that when he drove one he felt, in racing parlance, like a mobile chicane, with traffic trying to dodge round the outside of him and he unable to keep up. If one is driving a car there is the feeling that one may be of use to other people and I think that that has a strong phsychological effect. I also feel that as the family of a disabled person suffer a good deal, there is no reason why other members of the family should not make use of a car. I went into the safety aspect on an earlier occasion during the Committee stage, and I do not want to dwell on that again. I explained then that there was a basic lack of safety about a three-wheel vehicle.
I know that the vexed question, as always, is that of cost, and I want to start with a substantial credit. If this Amendment should be accepted, I believe that it would give a substantial increase in mobility to disabled people. It would help them to lead a normal life, from which it follows that there would be greater opportunities for employment. At present no less than 11 per cent. of disabled people are unemployed. The cost of this unemployment includes, of course, the loss of potential production and the consequent contribution to the national wealth; it includes unemployment payments and the loss to the Revenue of income tax on earnings. There is also the loss of the investment in a person's education; and there is the cost in respect of those who have to be kept in a home, which could easily amount to some £50 a week. All this I believe, adds up to a large sum of several hundred thousand pounds a year.
There is also the question of the overall cost of the car and the tricycle. I agree—and I congratulate the Government upon it—that in the last five years the amount spent on cars and tricycles has doubled. But the number of vehicles has risen by only 42 per cent. because rising costs have taken care of the remainder. In the last ten years 45 per cent. more has been spent on tricycles, but only 20 per cent. more on cars, so cars are not responsible for the increased costs up to now. I believe that only 224 have been issued in the last five years. That leads me on to the comparative costs per unit, or per vehicle. According to the Ministry's own figures, at present it costs £22 10s. a year more to provide a car than a tricycle. When the P5 is supplied, being a more sophisticated vehicle it will cost more, and so the gap will be narrower.
Following discussions which Mr. Graham Hill and I have had with one of our major motor manufacturers, I understand that an 1100 cc. car, doing 48,000 miles over an eight-year period, would cost £298 5s. per annum, if the full retail price without purchase tax were paid. That includes capital depreciation, fuel, servicing, maintenance, spare parts, Road Fund tax, insurance and garaging. I imagine that the Government could negotiate a considerable reduction
840
on that figure. I should be interested to know whether the Government have any comparative figures for a three-wheeler over that period. The mileage in that period would almost cover the life span of two three-wheeler vehicles. My reaction to these figures was that they were not unreasonable, and when they are set against the credits of the social and practical advantages of a motor car, I feel that there is a good case. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I certainly wish to support strongly the Amendment, and the arguments put with such expert knowledge by the noble Lord. But perhaps it will be helpful to the Committee if, as the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, I say a few words about the present situation and how I see it. Of course, I commit nobody except myself, but I think that I should commit myself.
It would be idle not to face the fact that we are very close to a General Election. Even if I were in the Government, I probably should not know for certain or not whether there was going to be an Election in June, but every reader of the newspapers this morning will assume, I think, that there is going to be a General Election in June or thereabouts. We are sensible people; we are anxious to help the disabled, and we have to take this possibility into our calculations. If nothing particular had been done about this Bill, it would simply have been lost, because the Report stage would have been due during the period of this hypothetical Election. I must therefore express my gratitude to the Government for helping to facilitate its passage and agreeing to give time next Wednesday afternoon. In that sense, it will not be the fault of the Government—and I am sure it will not be the fault of anybody else—if this Bill does not go from this House to another place after next Wednesday. The Government have co-operated, and one naturally assumes that such an excellent Government would co-operate—although I have no reason to say that another Government would not. But those who represent the disabled here are grateful, and we must show a spirit of co-operation in return.
I will not specify, but I feel that we should not behave and fight on as though nothing had happened. There must be some adjustment in our attitude, although

841
I am not suggesting that there should be unconditional surrender. Therefore let moderation and prudence be our watchwords, and at the same time let us continue to thresh out any points that still have to be gone into. I am not suggesting that there should be some perfunctory dismissal of the Bill, because there are a number of matters to be gone into thoroughly but I think it right to mention these points.
It may well be—and I should always hope to be connected with it; if I am spared—that there will be another Bill later on supplementing, correcting and improving this one. Nothing that I say today is intended to suggest that if any concessions are made in order to get this Bill through that will be the end of the story. This Bill is the beginning of the real national help towards the disabled. I thought it right to say how I see the matter. I am not empowered to pledge anybody else, but that is how the matter seems to me.
LORD SEGAL: I should like to ask the Government not to be daunted by the question of the extra cost involved. I feel that there is an important principle in this particular clause. If the Government would accept it in principle, and then carefully investigate each application made, I think they would earn the gratitude of many thousands of invalid persons, who would even get a psychological boost from the fact that perhaps the most deserving sufferers could be at the head of the queue where the benefits of this particular clause are involved.
LORD ALPORT: Surely this is a matter for decision between the parties concerned and the Government Department concerned, rather than for legislation. I should have thought (I shall be corrected if I am wrong), in view of what the noble Earl in charge of the Bill has said, that even though this was not included in the legislation before the House there is no reason why the object should not be achieved as soon as possible when the Government are prepared to commit themselves to the financial expenditure involved.
LORD SANDFORD: Before the noble Baroness answers this Amendment, as one who has from the first moment with which he was concerned with this Bill,
842
before it came to us from the Commons, urged despatch, and restraint in moving further Amendments, I should like very much to support the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in what he has said. The whole Bill is now imperilled by the possibility of an early Election, and it seems quite clear to me that every Amendment moved against the better judgment of the Government imperils it still more. I have no Amendment down myself, so I can say this quite freely; but I believe that it is very true.
11.37 a.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (BARONESS SEROTA): I should like to thank the noble Earl responsible for the Bill for making his position clear this morning, although I must confess that I am not entirely sure now what his position is. No-one wants unconditional surrender, but I can only add my voice to that of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who has told the Committee that every day that passes imperils the Bill, and every Amendment moved from now on certainly imperils the Bill. I can assure the Committee that the Government will continue, as they have done so far, both in another place and in this House, to do everything possible to assist the smooth and swift passage of the Bill through to the Royal Assent. To my mind, it would be a tragedy if at this late stage, regardless of events that may be impending, we were to lose the immense amount of work that has been done in both Houses on this Bill.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: If the noble Baroness is concluding that part of her reply, I should like to ask her a question. Surely the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, do not mean that to move an Amendment is imperilling the Bill. I am sure that they cannot really mean that, although it is what they both said. Surely they do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, has in some way imperilled the Bill by moving an Amendment. I think we must get that clear.
LORD SANDFORD: If the noble Earl will forgive me, the words that I used, and the words that I stick to, were that "every Amendment moved against the

843
better judgment of the Government will imperil the Bill".
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am sorry to break in again, but how can we tell what the "better judgment" of the Government is until they have expressed it? There are a number of Amendments still to be moved. Surely nobody is going to rule them out before they have even been moved. I must make that plain.
BARONESS SEROTA: My concern here is purely time, and time is passing even this morning. I will therefore address my remarks at this moment to the Amendment that is before the Committee. I do not wish, again for the sake of time, to repeat the information that I gave on the first day of the Committee stage about the general consideration which the Government are giving over the whole range of policy in relation to vehicles for the disabled. This is a point on which the noble Lord, Lord Segal, has just touched. When we discussed this earlier I made it clear that the Government were reviewing their policy and, as the noble Lord, Lord Alport, so rightly reminded the Committee, it is not a question for legislation, but one of administration. We have all the powers we need.
The Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, has moved means, in effect, that he is asking the Government to agree in legislation to extend the "nominated driver" principle to National Health Service patients. At the moment, war pensioners' vehicles are provided not under the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, but under Royal Warrant. War pensioners have a preference; it is a preference which all of the Committee would agree signalises public recognition of the contribution made by ex-Service personnel to the defence of their country. The noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, kindly congratulated the Government on doubling their expenditure on the vehicle service in the past five years. I can only say to the House, as I said on the last day that we sat in Committee when we discussed the extension of the vehicle service in this direction, that it will involve many millions of pounds, and an expenditure which we cannot now
844
properly estimate and which is at the moment beyond our resources. This is the present situation, and I can do no more than re-state it.
There can be no doubt that to offer to persons other than war pensioners exactly the same treatment as war pensioners now receive would increase the cost of the service to a major degree. Again I repeat, we do not lack the power; it is not a matter for legislation. In saying that I do not mean to suggest that every Member of your Lordships' House does not fully understand and sympathise with the feelings of the disabled people who are treated differently from those who have been incapacitated in the service of the Armed Forces of the Crown. Similar distinctions also apply in other areas of social provisions which have been introduced to signify the very special public recognition we give to people who have made their contribution to the service of their country in this way. No noble Lord would wish to diminish in any way the gratitude that we all feel to them.
I am sorry that I cannot advise the Committee to accept the noble Lord's Amendment. I have made it clear, I hope, that it is not a matter for legislation; it is a question of resources. I also hope I have made it clear in my previous remarks that in the major review of the vehicle service that we are now undertaking we are looking at every category concerned; we are looking at the question of the possible use of cars, although cars are not suitable for all disabled persons. In view of the repercussions which I have indicated, I cannot advise the Committee to accept this Amendment.
LORD O'HAGAN: May I ask the noble Baroness whether, in the review, the Government will be committed to provide for each category of disabled the vehicle which is most suitable to them?
BARONESS SEROTA: The whole purpose of the vehicle service is to provide vehicles most suited to the individual need of the disabled person. I am not quite clear what the noble Lord has in mind in asking me that question.
LORD CRAWSHAW: I should like to thank the Minister for her reply. I

845
sometimes feel that the Government are slightly overestimating the extra costs involved. Even if the 26,000-odd disabled drivers who now drive tricylcles all opted for a motor car at the extra £28 10s. 0d. a year, this would amount only to a figure of something like £800,000 a year. I feel that this would be money well spent. In view of what the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said about the passage of this Bill, and of the statement that I had yesterday from Mr. Alfred Morris, who told me that he was trying to amend the Finance Bill to achieve what I want, and also realising what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said about the ability to achieve the effect of this Amendment without further legislation, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Annual report on research and development work]:
11.45 a.m.
LORD RAGLAN LORD RAGLAN moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 7, line 28, after ("shall") insert ("have in the Department of Health and Social Security a Division for chronically sick and disabled persons and")
The noble Lord said: It will be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak not only to this Amendment but to the next one, which hangs with it, and also to the other four Amendments in my name on the Marshalled List to leave out Clauses 20 to 23. It is necessary for me to do this in presenting my arguments on these two Amendments, and it will also save your Lordships' time, which I hope will please you.
These two Amendments would make Clause 18 read like this:
"The Secretary of State shall have in the Department of Health and Social Security a division for chronically sick and disabled persons and as respects each year lay before Parliament a report on the health, welfare, education, pensions and benefits of chronically sick and disabled persons and on the progress made during that year on research and development work"—
and so on.
These two Amendments and those on Clauses 20 to 23 arise out of a point made by both my noble friend Lord Segal and myself on Second Reading. Your Lordships will see that the four
846
clauses whose deletion I am moving are outstanding in that they are the only clauses in the Bill which mention any disability by name. A number of your Lordships are interested in, or associated with, various charities that raise money to help the disabled. There are, I have been told (I cannot remember by whom) over 200 voluntary societies concerned with helping people with particular disabilities. If it were not for the voluntary societies and if everything had been left to the Government the plight of the disabled would be very bad. The voluntary societies do marvellous, devoted work, and very economically, too.
Speaking from my own experience, I would say that most voluntary societies would like Government recognition of the work that they are doing, perhaps in the form of Ministry observers on their boards and Government money to help particular projects. When the Government are willing to provide money towards a project, it is a happy event and a great achievement. It means that the charity is recognised and trusted by sober Ministry medical opinion. The Ministries have not only the best advice—or should have the best advice—but the greatest care for the money that they allot, because it is the taxpayers' money. An even greater achievement is to find that the specific disability about which one is concerned is incorporated in the Statute, thereby gaining for itself significance and enormous weight of moral influence, together with the pecuniary advantage which Parliament, in its wisdom and authority, can give.
Either Clauses 20 to 23 are intended to achieve something and will do so, or they are not and will not. If they are not then it is obviously not worth having them in the Bill; they are rather vague. If they achieve something for those with the disabilities mentioned, I for one shall be very glad. I am thinking, too, and have thought before during the Committee stage of this Bill, of all those disabilities which are not mentioned in the Bill. I am Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Institute for Research into Mental Retardation. This is a creation of the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children. One might describe the functions of the National Society as being that of alleviation, while the Institute for Research was

847
set up to find causation and prevention of mental handicaps. We are always looking for help and for money and we find it extremely difficult to get. I heard the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells on Second Reading say:
"… one cannot help being anxious about what is, perhaps, the most vulnerable of the permanently disabled who are, of course, those who are seriously mentally subnormal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT; 9/4/70, col. 262.]
I am bound to agree with him, and yet, in our view, among the chronically sick and disabled there is not a mention of the mentally handicapped.
I obviously do not know what my noble friend the Minister will say later on to the Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Longford, No. 53, mentioning the mentally handicapped—that is to say, if my noble friend is going to move it. Although I have my name to that Amendment, it seems to me that there are dangers in having too much detail in the Bill, and that we should not be too specific, as has been recognised in drawing up the Bill. But for some reason this principle has been abandoned when it comes to Clause 23. That at once raised in my mind the question of fair shares for all. For instance, I should greatly value Government help, with the weight of Statute behind it, towards setting up a really first-class institute for mental retardation in this country, but I do not know where it would end if we all started writing our particular wants into the Bill. I think Clause 24, at the end of the Bill, is quite wide enough and strong enough to cover most circumstances.
However, since the House of Commons have passed these four clauses, and as they are already in the Bill, I am told—and I am willing to believe it—that it would be a pity to take them out. Yet if we are going to be as specific as that, it seems to me that some kind of equal opportunity should be given to other interests to make representations to obtain special facilities, Government attention, and so on. I have seen it suggested that there should be a Ministry for the disabled. I do not know whether that would ever be necessary, but there is certainly at the moment too often a question as to which Department one should make representations to. My
848
honourable friend Mr. Morris tells me that in preparing the Bill he had to deal with no fewer than 11 different Departments.
If your Lordships can hardly believe that, I would say that they are the Department of Health and Social Security, the Department of Education and Science, the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the Department of Employment and Productivity, the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications, the Ministry of Power, the Board of Trade, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office; and the Law Officers are of course by implication included as well. No wonder, therefore, that it is Mr. Morris's belief that perhaps the main reason why there has never before been a Bill of this nature is that no one has been prepared to face the slog necessary to tramp round these Departments and assemble the Bill, in the face of all this daunting Departmental diffuseness.
Besides this, the Bill will raise questions and problems for local authorities and they will certainly need information. I do not know of whom they are to ask their questions. There will be the matter—there always is, as there was in the Bill the Second Reading of which my noble friend Lady Serota moved yesterday—of keeping the less well-equipped and less willing local authorities up to scratch. I am wondering who is going to see to that. Members of Parliament will have constituency problems in connection with this Bill. Your Lordships will, I expect, have had experience of being shuffled from one Department to another in pursuit of an inquiry or trying to make representations. It can sometimes be a very long job. It is not the fault of the civil servants; each one has his job to do. But I do not think it should be necessary for someone who has a problem in connection with this Bill, or with any cause connected with the disabled, to go round to upwards of a dozen Ministries to find the answer to his question.
So I am suggesting that there should be some co-ordinatory Government centre for dealing with the problems of the disabled, to which we can all go and which will cope with not only all the matters contained in the Bill but all those matters which will be provided

849
for under Clause 24. Of course, it is not for me to tell my right honourable friend the Secretary of State his administrative business but I should have thought that some such division would greatly help him in formulating and operating the provisions of Clause 24. It would help to oil the wheels of Government and navigate corridors, provide information, give sympathetic attention to our problems and generally help to push what we are trying to do. In so far as it is possible, it would see to the fair allocation of resources to all categories of the disabled.
Finally, may I point out, in support of these two Amendments, that it has recently been thought necessary to put into the hands of one Ministry everything pertaining to the pollution of the environment; and, setting all sentimentality aside, I can hardly think that the cause of the disabled is less important. I do not expect my Amendment to be accepted, because it is probably faulty in drafting and in any event it may not be the best of several ideas towards achieving the objectives I have described. But I hope I shall receive from my noble friend the Minister an assurance that the Government are aware of the problems I have raised and will take some steps towards setting up a central co-ordinating governmental body of this kind. I beg to move.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: May I ask the noble Lord the Chairman—I am not even sure that this is in Order—whether it is assumed we are debating five or six Amendments now, or only two?
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD JESSEL): Only one.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: May I follow up that question by asking the noble Lord the Chairman whether it would be in Order, as I imagine it would be, to reply to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, which in fact covered, as the noble Lord, Lord Fraser, suggested, about five Amendments? I imagine that, as the noble Lord in trying to help the Committee has covered all this ground, we also may cover it.
LORD SEGAL: I do not know whether the noble Earl is aware that the second
850
sponsor of the Amendment has signified his desire to speak. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, might be heard at this stage.
LORD O'HAGAN: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, in Amendments Nos. 44 and 45. They seem to me common sense, and as he has outlined a good many reasons in support of them, I will say no more.
11.58 a.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Perhaps he will forgive me for trying to speak before him. The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, I know, was trying to help the Committee, and probably has helped the Committee, by covering all this ground. But in fact his argument falls into two quite distinct sections held together by a fairly slender link in the argument that, if we are going to specify certain activities which need special help, then there ought to be particularly good machinery at headquarters for allocating resources. This, if I may say so, was the fairly slender connection between the two parts of his argument. I very much hope, indeed with some confidence, that he will not press his Amendments to Clauses Nos. 20, 21, 22 and 23.
LORD RAGLAN: If it will put the noble Earl's mind at rest, may I say that, with the permission of the Committee, I shall not move them.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Then I will waste as little time as possible in replying to the arguments the noble Lord began to use, because the truth is that these provisions were hammered out very carefully in the House of Commons after much discussion. These particular kinds of disablement were given a priority as a result of all those discussions, and I think it would be the greatest mistake in the world to try to undo that work. It would certainly finish off the Bill.
May we then turn to the Amendment to Clause 18. I do not intend to take up time, because the Government must give us their guidance. There are various ways in which one could co-ordinate the treatment of the disabled. It passed through my mind that one Minister alone should not have the responsibility for that. I am not in favour of what is called a "Minister for the Disabled", but I think: the present Minister of

851
Health and the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, and her successors should have a special responsibility, defined in some way, for the disabled. I certainly would not personally press the Government hard on this Amendment, but I should like to know what they wish to say about it.
BARONESS SEROTA: To save the time of the Committee, and in view of the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, has spoken over the range of his Amendments, perhaps it would help if I were to address myself to his two Amendments to Clause 18 and leave my noble friend Lady Phillips to speak on the others.
May I preface my remarks by saying that I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Earl in his view on the proposition that I know is favoured in certain quarters, that we should have a separate Minister for the disabled. To my mind the needs of the disabled are as wide as life itself. We do not wish in any way to segregate them from the rest of society. On the contrary, what we want to do above all is to enable them to live to the limits of their potential as normal members of society, and that is why my colleagues and I worked together on this Bill across the range of services that should be provided to help and support the disabled in their daily lives. That has been the approach of this Government throughout this Bill and although, as the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, has said, it means that a large number of Departments are involved, that is equally true for all citizens. That is the way in which the Government work. I can assure the noble Earl that I certainly take my responsibilities as Minister of State for Health, which cover a considerable range of the welfare needs of the disabled, very seriously indeed, and certainly in the Department for which I speak I can say fairly that the needs of the disabled will not be overlooked and that they will always have the special attention they require.
However, when we turn to Amendment No. 44, I confess that I find it difficult to advise the Committee to accept an Amendment which would have the effect of telling the Secretary of State how to run his Department. Moreover, it would mean that the functions of the particular division could
852
be changed only by an amending Act of Parliament if change were felt to be necessary; and at this stage I do not think noble Lords would wish me to enlarge on the kind of difficulties that this Amendment would present. At the moment, the Department is divided on a functional basis and quite obviously one would see a difference in the division dealing, for example, with sickness benefits from that dealing with chiropody services, and I do not think that any noble Lord would suggest that those two things should be done together.
It is when we come to Amendment No. 45 that we are prepared to consider whether we can assist in terms of bringing together knowledge and information over the range of need. The effect of Amendment No. 45, if I may now speak to it, would be to extend the special annual report on the progress of research and development in equipment for chronically disabled persons which was carried into the Bill in another place. A particular section of the special report which has been agreed in the Bill would have to cover the whole range of the services provided for the chronically sick and disabled by the Department of Health and Social Security and also the services provided by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
All aspects of the responsibilities of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services are already covered in the annual report of his Department, and I would not advise the Committee to include this Amendment in the Bill because it would require a special report, standing in its own right, for the chronically sick and disabled. If we were to do that, why should we not similarly provide a report on the services for the blind, the services for unmarried mothers, the under-fives, and the elderly? Personally, I would stick to the principle of non-segregation, but what I think we could consider—and this might help my noble friend—is that when we come to present and publish the annual report we should, within the range of the Department's services, bring together the services which are provided for the chronically sick and disabled into one section of our report. This may help people to refer to developments and to watch the progress of developments over

853
the whole range from year to year. With that assurance that we will look at the position in those terms, I would ask the noble Lord not to press the Amendment.
LORD PLATT: May I ask a question on procedure? I think I missed something that was said by the noble Lord, Raglan. Do I understand that he is not going to move the deletion of Clauses 20 to 23, and that we shall have no opportunity of discussing them?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: If I may say so, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, really covered the points that he would have made in suggesting the deletion of the clauses. Therefore, with the permission of the Committee if I now give the reply to the Amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Segal, that will cover some of the same points and it might assist the noble Lord, Lord Platt, if he wishes to intervene.
LORD RAGLAN: May I also point out to the noble Lord, Lord Platt, that he can always speak on any matter pertaining to the clause on the Question That the clause shall stand part of the Bill?
I am most happy with the reply made by my noble friend Lady Serota. I said that it was not my job to teach my right honourable friend the Minister his administrative business. Of course I hoped for more than my noble friend gave me, but I am grateful for what I have got. I shall study what she has said, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.9 p.m.
BARONESS DARCY (DE KNAYTH)BARONESS DARCY (DE KNAYTH) moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 7, line 31, leave out from ("equipment") to ("and") in line 32 and insert ("that might increase the range of activities and independence or well-being of disabled persons")
The noble Baroness said: If the Committee is agreeable, I should like to speak on Amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 48 together because they are all closely related. In moving Amendment No. 46, I am seeking to broaden the scope of the clause. I have been given to understand—and I hope I have understood correctly—that the Government are prepared to accept my Amendments. In view of this,
854
and hoping to assist the passage of the Bill, I shall be brief.
Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 seek to allow the inclusion of "spin off" developments in the proposed annual report; namely, the results of research and development in one field for one purpose which have been taken up and proved useful in an entirely different field. I believe that in the past the disabled have benefited as much from these byproduct developments as from aids designed specifically for the disabled. For example, the golf ball typewriter and continuous stationery have helped many disabled people to write again.
More recently, NASA research for the astronaut's space flight programme has produced various inventions which will benefit the disabled enormously. I believe that if an all-electric car is developed in the future (and if it is it will have been developed for the mass market for the able-bodied and not specifically for the disabled), many more disabled people will be able to drive it, including those who are now too disabled to drive existing cars, people like Paul Bates, who drives a converted milk float with only three fingers and thumb of one hand, and those thalidomide children with powered arms who I mentioned at an earlier stage, and who, when they outgrow their Emma trolley, will be forced to become disabled passengers.
The purpose of Amendment No. 48 is to stress the importance of doing all we can to provide maximum mobility for disabled people. I feel very strongly that every effort must be made to use technology to benefit all the disabled in our society—the blind, the accident victims and so on—and to help them to become as independent and active as possible. But particularly for the thalidomide children, when they grow up, as well as for those now too disabled to drive existing cars, I ask your Lordships to agree to these Amendments. I feel that we must ensure that this annual report includes not only information on research and development specifically aimed at helping the disabled, but also information on research and development undertaken anywhere for whatever purpose, the outcome of which might help them. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: In supporting this Amendment, may I briefly give one

855
example of a spin-off development which has been a help to disabled people. It is not only Members of your Lordships' mobile bench who have to sit for long periods in a confined position; it is also the crews of space ships. I am told that a type of cushion has been developed which is very useful to them which would be very useful to us.
BARONESS SEROTA: It seems that the Committee wishes the Government to speak on every Amendment. I can only say that the noble Baroness is quite correct in saying that the Government are perfectly happy that these Amendments go into the Bill.
BARONESS DARCY (DE KNAYTH): I should like to thank the Minister very much for her reply.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS DARCY (DE KNAYTH): I beg to move Amendment No. 47:
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 33, leave out ("designed to") and insert ("that might").—(Baroness Darcy (de Knayth).)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS DARCY (DE KNAYTH): I beg to move Amendment No. 48.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 33, after ("the") insert ("indoor and outdoor").—(Baroness Darcy (de Knayth).)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 18, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: May I say a word before we leave this clause, which I think is an extremely important one. I am slightly worried by the last part which we have just amended and which will now read;
"…and in particular such equipment as might improve the indoor and outdoor mobility of such persons."
I hope that this report will not concentrate only on ways in which the mobility of the disabled can be improved. There are disabled who are virtually immobile, and for these people I think we must all feel particularly sorry. I hope that in inserting these last few words in this clause we shall not forget that the totally immobile appreciate such things as devices which automatically turn over
856
pages of books, many of which, I believe, at the moment are very unsafe. I hope that the report will cover all these aspects, and that the insertion of these last few words will not cause the report to concentrate almost exclusively on ways of making the disabled more mobile.
LORD GRAY: Am I right in understanding that the term "wellbeing", which has just been inserted by one of the Amendments will specifically cover equipment of a purely safety nature?
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Institute of hearing research]:
On Question, Whether Clause 20 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD PLATT: I would have supported the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, in his proposal to delete this and certain other clauses, for the reasons that he has already given us when he was speaking to Amendments Nos. 44 and 45—namely, that for the first time this clause mentions certain types of disablement. That seems a pity. Clause 20 instructs the Medical Research Council of the need for hearing research. Having been a member of the Medical Research Council for many years, I do not think they need an instruction of this kind. Moreover, it brings in a generality. If we are going to instruct the Council on the need for research into hearing, why are we not instructing them on the need for research into a thousand other things? I think it is a bad clause, and I would not have voted in favour of it.
LORD RAGLAN: I fully agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Platt, has said. I think it is a bad clause. I would ask the Government what they hope to obtain by this clause. It is extremely vague. Are they going to set up with it an institute for hearing research? Why cannot I, as a member of the Institute for Research into Mental Retardation, have a clause to myself? I think that the Government owe the Committee some explanation as to what this clause is intended to do.
LORD SEGAL: While I would support the noble Lords, Lord Platt and Lord Raglan, in principle in their objection to

857
the inclusion of these clauses, I feel very strongly that, as a matter of expediency and in order to get this Bill passed through with the minimum of delay, we should not seek to alter the Bill by a wholesale deletion of these clauses. I have gone very carefully through all the prolonged debates on the Bill in another place. I realise how strongly affected individuals, affected parties and organisations feel about these particular clauses, but on balance, in order to accelerate the passage of this Bill to the Statute Book, I am in favour of retaining the clauses.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: As one who as the years go on suffers increasingly from deafness, I must say that I sincerely hope Clause 20 will remain in the Bill. As the noble Lord said, there are a hundred and one matters that require research and could well justify the setting up of a special institute. Nevertheless, deafness is a very common complaint, hardness of hearing is a very common deficiency, shared by millions of people, and my own very sincere hope is that this clause will remain.
LORD PLATT: May I say something more about that? There is a great deal of active research going on at the present time into deafness, both by the National Hospital, Queen's Square, and by the Ferrens Institute, Middlesex Hospital.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: While my noble colleague says that, I am sure that as a Parliamentarian he will agree that it takes a very long time to get a Bill of this kind drafted and before Parliament. As I see it, the importance of these clauses is that they focus the attention of society on these particular people. If the clauses are deleted these people will once more be forgotten. Therefore, as a politician I attach great importance to this and I would ask the Committee to leave these clauses in.
BARONESS SEROTA: As the noble Lord, Lord Segal, quite rightly pointed out, this clause was inserted in the Bill after a great deal of discussion and debate in another place; and, leaving aside the question of the important principles which the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, raised, about the selection of particular handicaps, I would advise the Committee
858
for that reason to leave it in. There is a further reason which I think the Committee would be advised to consider: namely, that this clause as at present drafted would impose on the Secretary of State the duty of collating and presenting evidence to the Medical Research Council on the need for an institution of hearing research. That is the effect of the clause.
I do not wish to delay the Committee at this stage with an account of the developments in this field. The Government fully accept the importance of research into hearing and deafness; and as the noble Lord, Lord Platt, is well aware, the Medical Research Council already widely support a considerable programme and have recently upgraded one of their research teams to the status of a research unit. But both my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who also, of course, has a close interest and responsibility here, feel that this clause, having been inserted in the Bill, should go forward into law. We feel that it would advance the cause of knowledge in this field, and we would advise the Committee not to delete it.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: I should like briefly to ask the Committee to leave Clauses 20 and 21 in the Bill. I do so for several reasons. The first is the delay that will be involved if the clauses are taken out, and go to and fro. Secondly, as regards Clause 21, nobody knows how many blind deaf children there are. There is a register of the blind but it is not complete, and it would be a good thing to know the total number. Nor does anybody know how they are being cared for, except for a small number who are being extremely well cared for at a school of the Royal National Institute for the Blind. There may be many others, and I feel that we ought to know.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: If there were any question of the Amendments to delete these clauses being pressed, I should certainly argue strongly against that course. But I understood from the noble Lord that in fact he is not proposing that. In those circumstances I hope

859
that, now that these various views have been aired, that will end the matter.
On Question, Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Special educational treatment for children suffering from autism, etc.]:
12.23 p.m.
LORD SEGAL LORD SEGAL moved Amendment No. 48A:
Page 9, line 34, leave out ("early childhood psychosis") and insert ("mental retardation").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 48A and ask that No. 48B standing in my name be also considered. I am not quite sure whether some apology might be called for for raising the matter at this late stage; nevertheless I feel that these two Amendments are extremely important. Their purpose is simply to widen the scope of this Bill and to make its wording more precise. I think it is most important that the words "early childhood psychosis" be dropped from this Bill and replaced by the words I have suggested. Many of us realise that as it now stands that is one of the loosely worded phrases in this Bill.
We are all agreed that autism requires special treatment in some form or another. But when does early childhood psychosis end, and when does late childhood psychosis begin? Is late childhood psychosis to be denied all forms of special treatment? When, too, does adult psychosis begin? What does psychosis itself really mean? There are many borderline cases of psychosis as distinct from the severe types. It is a term which, for the purposes of precise definition, might well in the Bill be avoided altogether. On the other hand, "mental retardation" is a very precise term, universally agreed to cover all forms of mental subnormality and mental handicap. It would include all the cases of mental illness referred to by my noble friend Lord Longford and his co-sponsors in their Amendment to Clause 24, Amendment No. 53.
It may surprise noble Lords, as it certainly surprised me, to know that this phrase "other forms of early childhood psychosis" was inserted into Clause 22 in another place on March 20 without a
860
single word of comment or criticism. Subjects like autism and dyslexia were fully discussed, but this phrase was passed over entirely. It is a bad phrase, totally inadequate and liable to all kinds of misinterpretation. I submit strongly that it should be dropped entirely in favour of the words I have suggested in my Amendment. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I recognise the great expertness of the noble Lord, Lord Segal. Not only is he a professional expert but he has done wonderful humanitarian work as Chairman of the National Society for the Mentally Handicapped. At this stage I personally should like to hear a Government speaker who is equipped with equally expert knowledge. I feel myself incapable of offering a comment of that order of expertness. So if it is convenient for the Committee and for the Minister, I think that we ought to hear what the Government spokesman has to say.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I am touched that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, should think that I have expert knowledge. Certainly it is not on the same level as that of the noble Lord, Lord Segal. I speak purely from the educational angle to which this clause particularly refers. The Government appreciate the concern for the education of mentally retarded children shown by various noble Lords in the earlier stages of the debate. Clause 22 of the Bill—and this is also true of Clauses 21 and 23—focuses particular attention on a limited class of handicapped child which presents particular educational difficulties. In a very true sense, the education of all handicapped children presents particular difficulty, but the promoters of the Bill selected these classes because the difficulties of education are specific and the problems of communication between the teacher and child are grave. I do not think that the Government would contest that view.
But when we come to mentally retarded children—the phrase used by the noble Lord—we are not dealing with clearly defined minority groups but with the identified majority of all handicapped children. Of course, that makes them not a matter of less but of more concern. But because of the size of these groups it is not possible to draw special attention to them without actively distracting

861
attention from the other groups not specifically mentioned. I take the term "mentally retarded children" to refer to two main groups, one of which is the educationally subnormal, which is already the responsibility of local education authorities. The other, the mentally handicapped, will be taken over educationally by local education authorities from the hospital and the local health authorities, under the provisions of the Bill which we have just been discussing in your Lordships' House, the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
The provision of educational places for the educationally subnormal children has increased very rapidly in recent years, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has encouraged local education authorities to provide new schools for these children as a matter of priority. That policy continues to operate and steps are being taken to expand the general programme of building special schools. I do not think it could be held that the Government have neglected to do everything possible for these children, and in fact local education authorities are providing a compassionate and improving service. As for the mentally handicapped, the Government's concern, which is shared by all involved in the education of handicapped children, is shown by the steps now being taken, and legislation introduced, to see that the education of these children becomes part of the more general educational service provided for handicapped children.
In the Government's view the Amendment is unnecessary, and it would defeat the object of the promoters of the Bill to introduce this clause and the related clause. Noble Lords can be assured that very active steps have been, and will be, taken to promote the education of the children to whom this Amendment refers. Accordingly, I ask noble Lords not to accept this Amendment.
LORD RAGLAN: Could my noble friend, the Minister, tell me—I do not think she has answered the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Segal—the definition of "early childhood psychosis"? What does that phrase mean? Has my noble friend any information on that point?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: It is hardly fair to expect me to answer what is
862
virtually, in the way the noble Lord put it, a medical question. This particular clause relates to education, and it says that it is to be restricted to children suffering "from autism or other forms of early childhood psychosis." That is a comparatively narrow group.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I would say, with respect to the noble Baroness, that I think the Government ought to answer that question, either now or at the Report stage. I do not think that the Government, with all the expert knowledge available to them, can put themselves in the position of saying that they do not know what this phrase means. I was impressed by the noble Baronesss's argument, and if I had any share in it would not wish to press this Amendment to a Division. However, I think that at the next stage we ought to be given an answer to the question of what this particular phrase means. Admittedly I am the promoter of the Bill in this House, but it is a Bill which, I am sure, in this respect was drafted with the help of the Government.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I should not like it to go on record that I said I did not know what the phrase meant. I tried to point out that, as I understood it, the noble Lord was using it medically, but in this particular connection it is being interpreted in relation to educational facilities, which is different.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I accept that. I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Baroness.
LORD SEGAL: I should like to thank my noble friend for her full and sympathetic explanation. I would, if I may, demur about her remark that these two Amendments were distracting attention from the other two groups specifically mentioned; it is quite the contrary. They were directed simply at the phrase "early childhood psychosis", while fully admitting the need for special education for children suffering from autism, dyslexia, and other conditions actually mentioned in the Bill. There is no question of in any sense diverting attention from the needs of these other groups. The whole purpose of these Amendments was to state that I am not particularly happy at the loose wording of this phrase "early childhood psychosis".

863
Although, naturally enough, I do not wish to press this Amendment at this stage, I would earnestly ask that reconsideration be given to the further possibility of rephrasing these three words in a more suitable form.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I think my noble friend feels that there may be some purists in the medical profession, and others, who will find it difficult to define precisely what this phrase means. He feels that if the net is cast more widely and if we talk about "mental retardation" no group of children will get overlooked. I understood from my noble friend Lady Phillips that there would be no possibility of this, and that these particular children would have the most specialised treatment. Therefore I am inclined to be persuaded by my noble friend that that is so.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I do not want to prolong this discussion, but, as I understand it, the phrase "mentally retarded children" is not a precise definition either.
LORD SEGAL: If I may allowed to say so, it is much more precisely worded than "childhood psychosis". At the same time, in withdrawing this Amendment I feel I ought to pay some acknowledgment to the noble Baroness's Department for the sympathy, the consideration and the broadminded approach they have made to these problems, and express the hopes that we rest in the future progress of her Department in dealing with these very difficult matters. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.36 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 9, line 38, after ("education") insert ("by trained staff")
The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment in a spirit of inquiry. I just wish to be reassured, on behalf of the other noble Lords who have put their names to this Amendment, that the words I seek to have introduced into this clause are in fact unnecessary. We have already heard about the children who are dealt with under this clause, and it is very important that children in these unusual categories should have staff to deal with
864
them who are trained and capable of dealing with them. I hope I can be told that my Amendment is unnecessary.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: If I take the noble Lord's point, he in fact wants some information. The present position is that regular teachers at special schools have to be qualified teachers, either having undertaken a course of teacher training or possessing some other approved qualification. The children therefore will be in the hands of trained teachers, many of whom, in the course of their training, have taken classes or options in special education. If the noble Lord has in mind some further qualifications for teaching autistic children, as is the case now in teaching the deaf or blind, there are several reasons why, at the moment, this would not be a desirable development. In the first place, there is no consensus of informed opinion on the educational methods and techniques which are likely to be most helpful to these children, and it would not be possible therefore to devise courses of training which could gain general acceptance. In this respect, the problems of educating autistic children are not at all parallel to those of educating the deaf or the blind.
But apart from the immediate situation, we should be unwilling to approve any development which would lead to a fragmentation of special education, and teachers being divided up into small blocks, each with a special or rather narrowly defined skill and interest. It is particularly true as regards the education of autistic children who tend, by the very nature of their disability, to be cut off from other children, and even perhaps from their own parents, that it would not be right to impose by legislation similar isolation from their fellows and the teachers responsible for the education of these children. I hope the noble Lord will appreciate the point that the teachers who at the moment handle these children are qualified teachers.
LORD O'HAGAN: I thank the noble Baroness for that extremely thorough explanation of the situation, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 9, line 39, at end insert—("( ) In the application of this section to Scotland for any

865
reference to a local education authority there shall be substituted a reference to an education authority within the meaning of section 145 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962.")
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hughes. This is a drafting Amendment consequential on the application of the clause to Scotland.
The term "education authority" is the term used in the Education (Scotland) Act for what is known under the English Education Act as "a local education authority". I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 [Special educational treatment for children suffering from chronic dyslexia]:
BARONESS PHILLIPS: This is a consequential drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 10, at end insert—("( ) In the application of this section to Scotland for any reference to a local education authority there shall be substituted a reference to an education authority within the meaning of section 145 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962".).—(Baroness Phillips.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 23, as amended, shall be agreed to?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I have one very small point on this clause. My attention has been called to it by at least one very eminent person and it is my duty to raise it. Although I have not given notice of the question, perhaps the noble Baroness will look into it between now and Report stage. If one looks at Clause 23, one sees that at the side of the page there is a reference to "chronic dyslexia", but in the text of the clause itself there is a reference to "acute dyslexia." May I ask the noble Baroness to try to straighten that out one way or the other before the next stage?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Yes, I shall be glad to do that.
LORD SEGAL: I cannot help feeling that the words at the side of this clause are a misprint, and that what was originally intended was acute dyslexia and not chronic dyslexia. It is such a difficult
866
condition, requiring such prolonged treatment, that it would hardly be practicable to retain the term "chronic dyslexia".
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I take the point. This Bill is certainly not described as the Acutely Sick and Disabled Persons Bill.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK moved Amendment No. 52:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
Provision of further education provision for disabled
". It shall be the duty of every local authority to make such further education provision for the disabled as will assist them in obtaining employment."
The noble Lord said: It may be helpful if, in rising to move this Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lady Elliot and myself, I explain to the Committee what is the present position regarding the further education of the disabled. It is governed by Section 47 of the Education Act 1944, and Ministry of Education Circular No. 312 of September 11, 1956. These make it clear that local authorities have permissive or discretionary powers to provide further education for disabled people by means other than education at county colleges, as appear to be expedient in meeting the needs of their area. The circular goes on to say that the main responsibility of local education authorities towards patients in hospitals is to secure the provision of courses of definite educational value for those who are able to profit by them. It then deals with the types of provision—that is to say, correspondence courses, informal lectures, discussion groups of more formal classes, and the supply of textbooks to supplement the resources of hospitals and libraries, and the attendance of walking cases at nearby technical colleges or schools of art. It deals at some length with fees and financial arrangements. It deals with disablement cases in Her Majesty's Forces.
The circular also refers to certain voluntary bodies, notably the British Council for the Rehabilitation of the Disabled—and here I must declare a personal interest. It states that they have recently been active in this field of educational provision. For example, the preparatory training bureau of the British

867
Council for Rehabilitation ascertains the educational needs of the patients in hospitals and sanatoria, and in return for the payment by a local education authority of the cost of the facilities provided, and a percentage surcharge for administrative expenses, arranges suitable courses of study.
A number of local education authorities, including London, make use of this service, and when they do so any reasonable expenditure incurred is recognised for the purpose of grant. To give an example of what I mean, a man who is no longer capable of being employed as, say, a bricklayer can still be trained for an alternative profession, such as an accountant, and thus continue to contribute to society instead of being a drain and a disappointment to himself. This proposed new clause seeks to make such provision mandatory upon local authorities. As we know, some local authorities are good, but some are less good. I should like to express the hope that when the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, replies she will not have to tell the Committee that financial objections are overriding here. But if she does have to do so, that will go some way to prove that the present system of permissive powers is not working entirely satisfactorily. These people are entitled to every assistance in obtaining employment that we can give them. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am very glad that the noble Lord has moved this Amendment. I know that it is one to which the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, attaches a great deal of importance, but she is unable to be with us to-day. If I had to make any general criticism of this Bill, for which I have a very honourable responsibility here, it would be that it does not pay as much attention to employment as, ideally, one would have wished. So I hope that in a future Bill employment will be developed more fully than has been possible here. For that reason, in particular, I express warm support for what the noble Lord has said.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Sadly, of course, I have to use the argument which the noble Lord suggested I might well have to use. I am sorry, but if the provision of these courses were made mandatory on local education authorities,
868
and they had the additional duty of providing them, it would involve additional cost for which provision has not been made in the Financial Resolution attached to the Bill. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will draw some comfort from the fact that his very reasoned case will be on record, and that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and, indeed, the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity are very concerned about this aspect. So his point will, to some degree at any rate, have been met.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said. Since I am most anxious that nothing should be done to jeopardise the smooth passage of this Bill into law, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 [Power to define certain expressions]:
12.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD THE EARL OF LONGFORD moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 10, line 11, at beginning insert—
("( ) In this Act the expressions "chronic illness" and "disability" include chronic mental disability and the expressions "chronically sick" and "disabled" have a corresponding meaning.")
The noble Earl said: To many of us—perhaps more than will speak to it to-day—both inside and outside this House, this Amendment is of great importance. If it is accepted, it will make plain that the mentally handicapped in particular, and certain other groups, are well and truly covered by this Bill. On Second Reading, in reply to a question of mine, the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, said:
"The noble Earl asked me for a clarification of the position under the Bill of people suffering from mental illness or handicap. I can certainly assure him that they are covered by every clause where a problem involving mental handicap could arise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9/4/70, col. 260.]
She mentioned Clauses 1 and 2; and, naturally, I accept completely her expert answer.
But I am saying that it is extraordinarily difficult for anybody, for any mother or father of a mentally handicapped person, and for the ordinary

869
Member of the House of Lords, to discover exactly how this comes about. If you start at the end at the definition clause, you have to work back to the first clause of this Bill. Then you have to work over to the 1948 Act. So it is relatively plain sailing, because at least you are referred all the way by a signpost. But at that point there is a break and there is no clue on the face of it, to the Act—which is in fact the Act of 1959—that provides this coverage. So much is that so that I can say, without disclosing any conversations I have had with officials, that in the answer given by the noble Baroness on Second Reading there was no reference to the Act of 1959; and I know that she is very faithful in supplying us with any information open to her. So it is not at all an easy matter to find the reason why that answer was given.
We are not trying here to extend the scope of the Bill. We are trying to make sure that those who are covered, or who are related to those who are covered, know their rights under the Bill. The main purpose is to make sure that people take advantage of what it is intended they should be offered under the Bill. What is also not unimportant is the whole question of giving encouragement to the mentally handicapped, and I am sure that we all share that purpose. I know that the noble Baroness will at least be able to say that she takes our point seriously, but I wonder whether she can give us any encouragement. I beg to move.
LORD SEGAL: I should like to support very strongly the plea made by my noble friend Lord Longford. Although we had the assurances of the noble Baroness during the Second Reading, I think the subject is of such importance, and covers such a numerous and significant section of our community, that it is not enough that these words should be understood by implication. I feel that a strong case can be made for their actual insertion into the Bill, and I do not see how the Government can put forward any possible explanation why this Amendment should not be accepted.
BARONESS SEROTA: I know that this particular matter has concerned the noble Earl responsible for the Bill for some time. We discussed it on Second Reading, when I gave a general assurance
870
which I can confirm to the Committee; we have also corresponded about it, and he has also discussed it with officials. Nevertheless, such is his concern that he still feels the need to move this Amendment to-day. If it were carried into the Bill it would mean that we should be creating a number of problems about which I should like to tell the Committee.
The Amendment, which apparently, as I am advised, is intended to appear as subsection (1) so that the existing Clause 24 would be subsection (2) does no more than interpret the terms used in the clause to ensure that the mentally disordered are covered. I submit that this is unnecessary in relation to Clauses 1, 2 and 15, since all these refer back to Section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 which, by section 8(2) of the Mental Health Act 1959, must all in fact include mentally disordered. It is our view that it is unnecessary, and indeed inappropriate to Clause 14, which is comprehensive of all groups, subject to an Amendment which we considered at an earlier stage of the Committee but which was not carried into the Bill. We do not think it would be particularly applicable, for example, to those clauses relating to access or to vehicles, or to research and development of equipment. It would, as I said at the outset, create certain technical problems of consolidation and, above all, it would result in requiring the Secretary of State, when he makes regulations, to include mental handicap whether or not it was particularly applicable.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: May I ask a question at this point? It could be confined to the necessary clauses, could it not?
BARONESS SEROTA: That is not the effect of the particular Amendment which my noble friend has put down. This is what I am trying to explain. I was about to say that I share with the noble Earl, and with the noble Lord, Lord Segal, their concern about the needs of the mentally handicapped. Indeed, as I pointed out at Second Reading, both my right honourable friend and I have in recent months done our best to focus public attention on their needs and also to improve the standard of services provided for them. I can certainly give the noble Earl this assurance, which I hope he will accept. Rather than carry this particular Amendment, which is full of

871
technical difficulties into the Bill, I will undertake to see that in the circular that we send out following the passage of the Bill (which I hope will very soon become a Statute) we will make clear what is intended here, where the needs of the mentally handicapped are covered and where they should be covered in future.
I hope that, with that assurance, which I give without reservation, the noble Earl will feel able to agree to withdraw the Amendment, which would cause all sorts of technical problems. I am no expert on how to draft legislation; none of us, including the mothers of our mentally handicapped children, finds it easy to understand legislation. This point I accept. It is really for the Secretary of State, when sending out circulars after the Bill has been passed, to make clear what are the intentions of the legislation. I can assure the noble Earl that we do not intend in any way to overlook the needs of the mentally handicapped.
LORD AIREDALE: I would point out that anyone can go to the Stationery Office and buy a copy of an Act of Parliament, but one cannot buy there a copy of the Ministry circular, which is addressed only to certain bodies and individuals.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I appreciate the tone of the reply of the noble Baroness. I am sure that she and her officials have worked hard to see if they can do something to meet this. I still find their position unreasonable; but in this world one often finds unreasonable things happening. I must ask now whether the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, will agree with me (the other sponsors are not in their place) if I do not press this Amendment further this morning. The noble Lord nods his head. I feel sure from what the noble Baroness has said that not only in the circular but in any other publicity, this will be brought up. I take that for granted—the noble Baroness again nods her head. I reserve the position that may occur when another Bill comes forward; for this is certainly something that I hope to see altered on another occasion. For the moment I shall be content with half a
872
loaf. I thank the noble Baroness and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
House resumed; Bill reported, with Amendments.

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

National Health Service Contributions Act,

Proceedings Against Estates Act,

Guyana Republic Act,

General Rate Act,

Roads (Scotland) Act,

New Forest Act,

Tonga Act,

Road Traffic (Disqualification) Act,

Regent, Royal and Carlton Terrace Gardens, Edinburgh Order Confirmation Act,

Royal Bank of Scotland Order Confirmation Act,

Basingstoke Corporation Act,

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Act,

Warwickshire County Council Act,

Welland and Nene (Empingham Reservoir) and Mid-Northamptonshire Water Act,

Doncaster Corporation Act,

Newport Corporation Act,

Huddersfield Corporation Act,

Bolton Corporation Act,

Hampshire County Council Act,

Havering Corporation Act,

Leicestershire County Council Act,

Swansea Corporation Act,

Barclays Bank D.C.O. Act,

Wallasey Corporation Act,

Flintshire County Council Act.

FILMS BILL
12.58 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason for disagreeing to one of Lords Amendments of the Films Bill be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reason be now considered—(Baroness Phillips.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[The reference is to Bill (64) as first printed for the Lords. The Commons Reason is printed in italics]

LORDS AMENDMENT
After Clause 14 insert the following new clause:
Applicant for registration of film to give certain statutory undertaking
". Section 9 of the Films Act 1960 shall be amended by adding at the end the words:—
' (8) The applicant for the registration of a film shall at the same time as he makes an application under this section furnish to the Board of Trade a statutory undertaking to the effect that he has either given or offered or offered to sell at cost price to the National Film Archive of the British Film Institute a positive print of the film.'"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the Amendment raises questions which are considered irrelevant to the purposes of the Bill.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed. Noble Lords will have read the debate which took place in another place and will have noted that there was general agreement to the principle underlying the Amendment moved in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Willis. However, the Government are unable to accept the Amendment, for two main reasons. First, this Bill, which deals with the support which the Government give to the commercial side of the films industry, is not the proper place for measures dealing with the deposit of films in the Archive. In addition, there are defects in the Amendment itself which render it unworkable. These matters were very fully debated in another place, and I will not weary the House by going into the details now.
874
Secondly, acceptance of the Amendment would involve extra demands on public funds, which the Government cannot contemplate at the present time. Assurances have been given in another place—and I should like to repeat them now—that positive action is being taken by the right honourable lady the Minister of State for the Arts to explore further the practical issues, with particular reference to the possibility that costs should be shared by the film industry, the television industry and the British Film Institute. Having received these assurances, may I ask the House to accept my Motion? I beg to move that this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, with which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment with which the Commons have disagreed.—(Baroness Phillips.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should have thought that the original mover of this Amendment might have been here to give his thanks to the noble Baroness, but as he is not, on behalf of the whole House I should like to thank her for the statement she has made and the consideration that has been given to this matter. I think that at any rate the spirit of what we were trying to do has been achieved: and with that I would not demur from the Commons decision in this matter.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEGAL AID (EXTENSION OF PROCEEDINGS) REGULATIONS 1970
1.0 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Legal Aid (Extension of Proceedings) Order 1970, laid before the House on May 4, be approved. The sole effect of this Order is to apply the legal aid provisions of the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949 to the Lands Tribunal, at an estimated cost of £150,000 a year. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will shortly be laying a similar Order applying legal aid to the Scottish Land Court and to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, at an estimated cost of £10,000 to £15,000 a year.

875
While I hope that this Order will be welcomed in the House, it is only the first of a number of steps in this field which the Government are about to take; and as I have, for as long as I can remember, had a strong personal concern in this particular subject, I should be grateful if the House would allow me a few moments to remind your Lordships of the provision which we make for poor people.
My Lords, it has always seemed to me that it is absolutely useless to go on and on passing Acts of Parliament giving poor people legal rights if they cannot afford to enforce or defend them. For most of such people, they may as well throw their legal rights in the wastepaper basket, for all the good they do them. There was of course a time when our only provision was an action in formâ pauperis, and while there were not many such actions there have been one or two outstanding legal cases which have come up for decision in your Lordships' House in an action in formâ pauperis. But to qualify for this the pauper had to take an oath that if he was sold up to-morrow he would be found not to be worth more than £5 in the world. That was subsequently extended to £25, but never, I think, beyond that. By the time the last war broke out, we had got only as far as what is called a "poor person's action". "Pauper" was not thought a very nice word; so such actions were called poor persons' actions, and to qualify for them you had to have an income of no more than £2 a week—this was in 1939—or, in exceptional cases, £4 a week, and capital (which included your furniture) worth not more than £50 or, in exceptional circumstances, £100. If you so qualified, you then had your action done for nothing; otherwise, you got no help at all.
I say "done for nothing", but these actions were done by barristers and solicitors, and it was not only a case of their doing it for nothing: if a young member of the Bar—possibly himself having a good deal of difficulty in making both ends meet—had a two-day poor person's case at, say, Derby Assizes, he had to pay his own train fare and his own hotel bill. But, contrary to what may be thought in some quarters, I think
876
it is fair to say that lawyers in this country have always done their best to help poor litigants. In addition to that form of legal aid, there were in London and in a very few large provincial towns "poor man's lawyers", about half of whom were provided by the political Parties and the other half by Church and charitable bodies. One went along there in the evenings to give legal advice—free, of course.
When the war broke out, there simply were not the lawyers to do the cases, and I remember calling a conference about this. I do not know why I did it, because I was only an ordinary junior barrister; but, as I say, I have always felt a very special concern in this field. I called a conference of representatives of all the poor man's lawyers' associations to see what was to be done and whether we could not devise some much better scheme than this extraordinary scheme under which whether you got £1 a week more or less was the dividing line between whether you got an action done for nothing or whether you got no help at all. But there were so many different views that no conclusion came out of that.
Then I went off myself; and I remember that I was just leaving my Chambers for the last time and had in fact got to the door when I remembered something. I went back, and I sat down and wrote a long letter to the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Simon, begging him to do something about legal aid and advice. While I was away, he appointed the Rushcliffe Committee. Now some Committees, as we know, are good, some are bad, some are indifferent. But the Rushcliffe Committee's Report was, of course, a magnificent Report. The Committee recommended sweeping away the existing system altogether and replacing it with a system under which, within certain income limits of course, you could apply for legal aid; your income would be assessed by what was then the National Assistance Board (now the Supplementary Benefits Commission) to see whether you fell within the scheme; and, if so, what your contribution was to be—because everybody had to pay what he could afford to pay, and it could be paid by instalments. The State would make up the rest, although, of course, if the action was won the costs would in fact be paid by the other side.

877
Then there were committees of barristers and solicitors, working voluntarily, who would decide whether a man had a reasonable case: and it is some indication of the care which they took of the taxpayers' money that in actions brought under this procedure in the Queen's Bench Division, mainly for damages for injuries either on the road or in factories, their success rate has always been about 85 per cent.—a much higher rate than any solicitor could claim. My Lords, this procedure was to apply in the High Court, in the county court, in domestic proceedings before the magistrates' courts and in every tribunal before which there was a right of legal representation. Then at all the local legal aid offices of the Law Society there were to be salaried solicitors giving people legal advice for what they could afford, from half-a-crown, in the case of old-age pensioners, upwards.
The Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949 provided for all this, and when it received the Royal Assent on July 31, 1949, I thought what a splendid Government this was. They had had both the wisdom and the courage to give independence to India, Burma and Ceylon; they had created the National Health Service; and now never again would anybody be deprived of legal advice or of the means to enforce their rights. That was on July 31. Then came September 18—devaluation and the economic measures which had to follow from that; and the Lord Chancellor was told, "Of course, you cannot actually put this into force now".
My Lords, in the following year he was allowed to put it into force so far as the High Court was concerned. We then had to worry Conservative Governments for ten years before it was applied to the county courts, and another four years before it was applied to domestic proceedings in magistrates' courts. It has never been applied to any tribunal; and the salaried solicitors never existed. Instead, so far as advice is concerned, we had what I might call a mini-advice service which anybody who knows anything about it has agreed for some years now is wholly inadequate to the need for it.
I have naturally been concerned with the position because, in addition to all that, the basic figures both of the mini-advice
878
scheme and of the Legal Aid Scheme itself have not been up-rated for years to allow for the fall in the value of money. Fortunately there is in the Legal Aid and Advice Act provision for a Statutory Advisory Committee, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, is the distinguished Chairman, and I am immensely indebted, as all my predecessors have been, to the Advice Committee for all the care and trouble they have taken. There is an Annual Report by the Law Society, which is generally responsible for the administration of legal aid and advice, and when that Report is made the Advisor)' Committee also report upon it.
Over two years ago I said to the Advisory Committee, "There is no money available at the moment, but we are getting the economy right; and when we can afford it, will you look at all the deficiencies in the system? Do you think it ought to be applied to tribunals; and, if so, which tribunals? Will you kindly make yourself familiar with what all the different tribunals do, and with the need, or otherwise, for legal representation? Will you consult the Council on Tribunals, and will you consider the basic figures and the need to up-rate them, and whether we should not have a proper scheme for legal advice?" The inadequacies of what I have called the mini-advice scheme have been commented on by Conservative lawyers in a pamphlet called Rough Justice, and by the Society of Labour Lawyers, in a pamphlet called, Justice for all. The Law Society also has been working to try to devise a better system.
My Lords, the Advisory Committee have taken a great deal of trouble to look at all the tribunals to see whether any of them, and if so which, were tribunals before which the Committee thought there ought to be legal aid; and they have said that there is in their view, a paramount need for legal aid before the Lands Tribunal. They say in their Report:
"One tribunal, the Lands Tribunal, is far more akin to an ordinary court of law than it is to other tribunals. It has various functions in connection with the acquisition of land, compulsory purchase, discharge of restrictive covenants, appeals from valuation courts and, recently conferred, functions under the Land Commission Act and the Leasehold Reform Act."

879
They point out that the Lands Tribunal is one tribunal from which appeal goes straight to the Court of Appeal, and they say:
"Many, and perhaps all, its functions might equally be performed by the Chancery Division or the county court. Had that been the case, legal aid would already have been available in proceedings before it. All those whom we consulted agreed on the desirability of making legal aid available in proceedings before the Lands Tribunal and we accept their view."
The Committee also point out that the Lands Tribunal does not permit non-lawyers to appear before them as advocates but only as expert witnesses. The steps, accordingly, which the Government are taking are, first, to lay this Order to apply legal aid to the Lands Tribunal; and, as I have said, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will do the same for Scotland.
Then the Advisory Committee have recommended that with regard to what I have called the mini-advice scheme the basic figures ought to be up-rated, at a cost in England and Wales of £300,000 a year, and of some £25,000 for Scotland. Thirdly, the basic legal aid figures have not been up-rated for ten years. There are of course two basic figures. There is an income beyond which the Act does not apply at all; that is, where there is an income, after making certain allowances and deductions of £700 a year. There is also a bottom limit, because although it is intended that everybody should pay what he can, it has of course always been recognised that the very poor obviously cannot contribute at all; and the figure there is £250 a year—£5 a week. That means virtually, I suppose, people on supplementary benefits.
The result of not up-rating the figures has been, as to the top limit, that every year there have been people who could have got legal aid last year but cannot now do so; and at the bottom end, while no one has been deprived of legal aid, it has meant calling on people for contributions when, obviously, they cannot afford to make them. So the second thing the Government intend to do is to up-rate those figures to date to restore the previous figures—in effect to allow for the fall in the value of money; and this will cost £1,126,000 a year in England and about £100,000 in Scotland.
880
The first thing that I mentioned, apart from the Lands Tribunal—namely, up rating the basic figures for the mini-advice scheme—can be done, and will be done, by the Negative Resolution procedure; the Order will be made and will be law unless anyone objects to it. To up-rate the legal aid figures for actions means another Affirmative Order and I hope to be able to lay that in the course of next week.
There remains the much better system of legal advice for the future which the Advisory Committee have recommended, which is known in the profession as "the £25 scheme". It is based, I think, on all the different proposals which different people have made, but under it anyone within the financial limit will be able to walk into a solicitor's office and, in effect, get £25 worth of work from him without more ado. But for that legislation will be necessary, and I am afraid that no time can be found for it in this Session. I have, as I have made plain, been concerned throughout my Chancellorship that we have not been able to deal with this problem before, and I am very glad that at long last, both in relation to legal aid and to legal advice, we have been able to do it. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Legal Aid (Extension of Proceedings) Regulations 1970, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
1.18 p.m.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, for explaining what it has been possible to do so far as legal advice is concerned and in connection with the Committee of which I am Chairman. I should like here to pay tribute to the very hard working and extremely expert members of my Committee and our general secretary, Mr. Thesiger; we have had quite a hard year's work. One must be thankful for small mercies, and we are glad that the suggestion we made about representation in front of the Lands Tribunal will go through. We went through all the tribunals in existence. Many of them had claims, but we felt that the Lands Tribunal was the one which was most difficult for the ordinary layman to approach and understand. I wish that the great brain of our Lord Chancellor could be directed towards the clarification of laws

881
for the ordinary human being. We know that the Jaw is sometimes considered "an ass", but it is also very incomprehensible, and it makes the case of the ordinary person who tries to understand the law extremely difficult.
We are glad to see that the financial limits have been raised. They have fallen very far behind. I must not anticipate our Report for this year, which I think will be in the hands of the printers shortly and in which we make certain recommendations which we hope will be helpful in that respect. What we are most disappointed about at present is that the £25 scheme has not been brought into effect. We think that that would have a very wide result on the whole situation. It would enable people to come and get advice early, which might in itself be an economy, it would help lawyers to establish new centres in what are at present desert places, and I think that in genera] it would be a tremendous help to the whole legal system. Perhaps in the next twelve months, if the economy allows, whichever Government may be in charge, this recommendation of ours will take first priority. We have always in mind that civil legal aid seems to lag rather behind criminal legal aid in the way of financial assistance. In our year's Report, which will be coming out shortly, we have divided the two sides, and I hope the public will notice the difference. May I thank the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, for the kind words he said about our Committee. We look forward to another year's hard work.
1.21 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, as Chairman of the Council of Tribunals I should like to say how much the Council welcomes this extension of legal aid. We have always felt that we should welcome any measure that was likely to be of assistance to applicants and appellants. In the Council's Annual Report for 1967 we stressed the need for both experiment and research in the field of assistance relating to tribunals, and I should like to pay tribute to the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee and to the Chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet. I should like her to know how much the representatives of the Council enjoyed the discussion that they were able to have with members of her Committee. Anyone who knows the
882
noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who has heard him speak on these matters, or has been privileged to hear him to-day, knows how closely these matters lie to his heart. We realise that one major difficulty is the problem of finance. Equally, every one of us realises that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor does not delay when it is possible to take any action. To-day is an example of this, and we should like to express our appreciation to him for what he has done and to say that we hope he will for a long time continue as Lord Chancellor.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am sure that a lengthy intervention at this hour will be very unpopular, but I cannot let this opportunity go by without saying a few words. I think I am the only person present in the Chamber who was very actively concerned with the first Act in 1949, to which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has referred. I was at that time in a very interesting, if rather hard-worked, position of being an aide-de-camp to the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Jowitt. He was much concerned with this scheme, and we all were disappointed when the economic situation prevented its being put into operation in the way in which Parliament had intended.
We had had a song in our hearts, and the noble and learned Lord has described how enthusiastic he felt about the position. I can well imagine, as the noble Baroness who has just resumed her seat has said, with what feeling the noble and learned Lord has moved this Motion to-day. I have known him for a very long time, long before the war, when this was an ideal which we had and which then seemed a long way off. It is splendid that the realisation has come. I know how much he has been concerned with this, from right back in the early 'thirties—and even possibly earlier. Therefore, I should like to congratulate him on making such substantial progress so near to the end of this Parliament. He has held out to us a promise of even more substantial progress in the future.
I do not want to say anything about the advice side of this matter, but I should like to say a word or two about bringing in the Tribunals. From many points of view, the most pressing side of the financial difficulties which arose was that legal

883
aid before tribunals was cut out. This is just a start. I should not have thought that the Land Tribunal was the most important, but no doubt the matter has been gone into, and I am quite ready to accept that it is. There is no question at all that many people are much concerned with the administrative edicts which are put out, and which affect very large areas of the less educated and poorer sections of the population.
I have recently had the opportunity of reading a lecture given by one of the leading constitutional lawyers of the Commonwealth of Australia, who has been spending a year over here, and has been making a special study of administrative tribunals—that is, the inquiry courts which are held by different Ministries into many problems. He was quite appalled at the amount of injustice which he saw done because the people who were brought before these tribunals were so tongue-tied and nervous that they were not able to open their mouths. It was a very moving lecture. When I read it I saw that this Motion was on the Order Paper, and I thought that my friend in Canberra would be very pleased, as I am quite sure that he will.
This will be the "opening round" in making legal assistance before these inquiry tribunals available to a very much larger number of unfortunate people. From many points of view this is more important than the arrangements which exist for giving legal aid in the ordinary courts. In some of the cases that I have seen, sitting as a chairman of quarter sessions for many years, I should have dispensed with some of the legal aid which was given to obvious scoundrels, if that money could have been better spent on people who had real rights, which were adjudicated upon as the result of inquiries held by various Ministries. I am quite sure that this is a red-letter day in the history of legal aid, and I will conclude my remarks by again congratulating the noble and learned Lord on having managed to bring this Regulation before us during the present Parliament.
12.28 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I shall intervene for only a moment for the purpose of expressing to the noble and
884
learned Lord on the Woolsack my own appreciation of the lucid a4nd interesting account which he has given us of the growth of legal aid from the days of the actions in formâ pauperis, which I recall very well, through the poor person's action to legal aid, as it is under the present arrangement. I am sure we shall all welcome the extensions to the scheme which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is proposing to carry out.
I was very glad that he paid a handsome tribute to Lord Rushcliffe, who was one of my predecessors as Chairman of the National Assistance Board. In that capacity I saw something of his administrative ability, and he was a great administrator; a man who was always prepared to accept a point of view which was novel, and to try new fields. Looking back over the years, one has seen legal aid grow from nothing into something. There are one or two names which stand out in my recollection. Mr. D. N. Pritt will be recalled very well by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He was a man who in the days when there was no legal aid in the county courts ran an organisation called the Bentham Society, of whose committee I was an original member. It was run entirely by Mr. Pritt, and I think largely paid for by him. It managed, at least in London, to provide a service which the official legal aid service was not able to provide. I once more thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for the interest that he takes in this subject and for the lucid and interesting account that he gave to us this morning.
1.31 p.m.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, who unfortunately is unable to be present in your Lordships' House to-day, I should first like to refer to this short Order itself. The Lands Tribunal has earned for itself a very proper reputation as a tribunal which is as near as may be a court of law: the extension of legal aid to parties who appear before it seems to us on these Benches due recognition of that fact. But this Order also recognises the present position where the Lands Tribunal has an important, if specialised, jurisdiction which can affect any citizen in England and Wales. Rates, compensation (such

885
as for compulsory purchase) leasehold enfranchisement and betterment levy are all matters which can raise difficult questions of law, and it is right that no one should have his rights prejudiced for lack of proper representation. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord about the position of a surveyor who is called as an expert witness. We believe that this could be done under the legal aid scheme. It is all very well to have legal representation, but professional evidence is usually essential for the proper presentation of a case before the Tribunal, and this aspect of the matter is not of great significance to the successful operation of this extension of legal aid.
On the more general matter to which the noble and learned Lord has referred, I would join in welcoming his statement. He has held out a promise of further measures to come, but in the meantime we should entirely approve of what he has said. It would, however, probably be more appropriate for me not to enter into the details of this matter but to leave one of my noble friends to discuss the scope and application of legal aid on a much wider scale as and when the opportunity promised by the Lord Chancellor arises.
1.34 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion. Before I complete it, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Napier and Ettrick, that if a person gets legal aid, and wants the services of a surveyor, he will be treated as an expert witness and will therefore be paid out of the legal aid funds. I share Lady Emmet's disappointment that we cannot start the £25 scheme in this Session. The reason is that it will require legislation, and I am afraid that it simply cannot be done this Session. I omitted to say that the new scheme, which will altogether take the place of the mini-advice scheme, will cost, in England and Wales,£1½million in the first year, rising to £2,300,000 in four years. The quantum of those amounts is really the measure of our present position.
I am grateful for what my noble friend Lady Burton has said. I am sure that we are right in at least applying legal
886
aid to proceedings before the Lands Tribunal, who, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Napier and Ettrick, said, deal with complex matters—value and rating. We now have two laws for rating, one for the rich and one for the poor: those who can go to the Lands Tribunal and those who cannot. And your Lordships will remember recent legislation on leasehold enfranchisement. The sort of person that we had mainly in mind was the man who has a small house in a valley in Wales which has been occupied, perhaps, by his family for four generations, and he is just coming to the end of a ninety-nine-years lease at a low ground rent. I am told that in that part of the country the people whom we meant to benefit have not benefited as much as we should wish, because they are more or less bound to pay whatever sum the landlord demands as they cannot afford to go to the Lands Tribunal, which is the Tribunal appointed to deal with those disputes. I know that this extension of legal aid will give satisfaction in that part of the country.
I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. I deal mainly with civil legal aid, and am only concerned with criminal legal aid in the magistrates' courts. Like the noble Lord, I sometimes feel that we do too much in the field of criminal legal aid, and that the aid could be better employed in extending civil legal aid. I should also like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, in the tribute that he paid to Mr. Pritt. I was myself an old member of the Bentham Society; I know how much Mr. Pritt did in that field.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion. I am only sorry that in the economic situation we could not deal with this matter before, but I had thought that a time would come. I am doubly indebted to the Advisory Committee who have done what may sound simple, though it has meant a great deal of work because a lot of complicated detail is involved. I hope next week to be able to lay two Orders altering the basic figures, and if we are returned, and the next Session has not by then started, we shall I hope be able to tackle the £25 scheme.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY AIR (AMENDMENT) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [H.L.]
  RIDING ESTABLISHMENTS BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.
  SPEED LIMIT IN ROYAL PARKS
  SPEED LIMIT IN ROYAL PARKS